Is climate change happening? Of course, climate change has always been happening, long before the industrial revolution. Earth has gone through multiple cycles of extreme climate change and so have other planets, like Mars, for example. But the question today is, how much does human activity influence modern day climate change? The general public has been primed to believe that climate change is predominantly the result of human activity, and that we are headed towards a complete climate catastrophe within the next couple of decades.
It all started with the Club of Rome under the auspices of Rockefeller and his minion Maurice Strong who took control of the UN responsibility for Climate Change and his first act was to enforce that no UN reports or UN organisations reports mentioned let alone considered anything other than it being human caused….!
Yes, I have been very skeptical about "climate change". People who believe it say that "the science is irrifutible". Which is kind of a whitewash in my opinion.
sadly, too much attention Is given to anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions. The focus upon that in the climate controversy is a 'refractory moment" -- taking a single slice of the problem and exaggerating to be the whole enchilada of the problem. What is being ignored in this discussion is the enormous, cataclysmic destruction of the environment and planet's geology due to runaway progress. To deny this other human impact as being somehow separate and unrelated to the climate change every person reading the Pulse is experiencing, is ignorance at best. Here in the Berkshires, every year I observe seasonal changes in the forest, insects and animals. No doubt their wisdom to adapt to climate changes is far superior to our own.
a lot of misinformation in this article... the 31,000 petition signers were not all scientists... and the large majority of signers did not have expertise in any field related to atmospheric science
It is important to note that while climate change has always been happening, human activity is accelerating its effects. The scientific consensus is that human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary driver of current climate change, and that this change poses significant risks to our planet, including rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, and loss of biodiversity.
The article in question suggests that the public has been misled into believing that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, and that there is not a scientific consensus on this issue. However, this assertion is not supported by the scientific community.
While there are some scientists who disagree with the consensus view, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving current climate change. The oft-cited figure of 97% consensus comes from studies that have analyzed scientific publications on climate change and found that a vast majority of them support the consensus view.
It is also worth noting that the article's claim that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is the sole authority of the global warming agenda is not accurate. While the fund has supported climate-related initiatives, it is one of many organizations and individuals working to address climate change.
In short, while there may be some debate among scientists about the precise mechanisms and effects of climate change, the scientific consensus is clear: human activity is the primary driver of current climate change, and urgent action is needed to mitigate its effects.
Here's a link to an article on NASA's website that discusses the survey and the scientific consensus on climate change:
The article provides an overview of the survey results and the evidence supporting the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities are the primary cause of climate change. It also includes links to additional resources and research on the topic, if you're interested in learning more.
Ah….no. No human impact whatsoever. Period. Only a fool would believe that…(or a paid one at that ). Case in point from above —- “ The article provides an overview of the survey results and the evidence supporting the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities are the primary cause of climate change”. And so we see how money influences so called experts. From the agency of “No Actual Straight Answers’. NASA. The only way to put it in perspective, would be to say “ A colony of ants in a domed football stadium causes issues with the indoor temperature of the stadium.” It’s just ludicrous, to say the least. If you want to know about the climate, look at the sun and it’s influence on our weather, the one thing the IPCC refuses to include in its reports.
THANK YOU for this great post. I was just thinking that I might want to track down where the "97% climate scientists agree" came from. This is a great article to share with others in my very liberal area. 🙏❤️
I have a PhD in Climatology, I don't believe CO2 from humans has anything to do with the how climate changes, like many other climatologists, physicists and meteorologists who also don't believe it I choose to study other things, and thus I have never published a paper with the words “global warming” or “global climate change”. Apart from that 'slight' issue with using those studies to call a consensus, a consensus in science is always a bad idea anyway.... you know, like the consensus on flat earth, that doctors didn't need to wash their hands before delivering babies or that all vaccines are safe and effective.
Doran & Zimmerman (2009) [Eos Transactions. 90: 22–23] was the first 97% figure published, equally as weak an argument/methodology for claiming a consensus as the rest, but that made Cook's 2013 paper the third in a row with exactly the same number, right after which Obama started parroting the number.
What you don't ever see shown is that Stenhouse et al. (2014) [Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. July: 1029–1040] gathered the opinions of the American Meteorological Societies members and found only 52% of those who bothered to respond believed that climate change is influenced mostly by humans.
You can also go to http://www.petitionproject.org and find +9000 PhDs, +7000 Masters and +13000 other science graduates (those were the figures when I last looked a few years ago) who don't believe it.
I care so deeply about the earth. It is wild how the climate change narrative is a 'trojan horse' for hijacking folks' freedom while not addressing the real care the planet needs. The climate change narrative is super dangerous. But so is dismissing the need to take care of the planet's land, waters, creatures, etc. Thank you for this sensitive and informed article.
Yup! A well reasoned and accurate report! Well done. AGW is a dishonest fraud upon the populace.
If one goes to www.electroverse.co (it is co. not .com) one can get the up to date facts on the matter and the exposé of who and how the mug public are being led astray by dishonest political actors.
There was a moment in my life, where I was really consumed by this climate agenda. I've always felt a deep connection and sense of respect towards the earth. When Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth documentary came out, I felt like finally the environmental crisis was coming to the forefront of our collective consciousness, there was a sense of satisfaction but now, sadly it feels like it was all hijacked for material gain.
Me too. 10 years ago my son even wrote a long email to my wife and I saying he loved and appreciated us, and knew we all weren't going to live very long because of climate change. 😥 He isn't as influenced by the narrative these days. I was never super afraid of climate change, but was sad for the earth. The Earth is a miracle of biology and abundance, and our bodies are of the Earth.
I knew the climate science was very complex and I didn't understand it, but I grew up liberal and am in a liberal area, so I really didn't have other influences around me. But I do understand biological sciences because of my education, and I could see the covid science being simplified to the point of deception. Now I can see the same thing is happening with the climate science.
Indeed Lea, I feel the same way, there's no doubt that our planet is in dire need of change on the environmental front, with regard to deforestation, pollution etc, but all these political initiatives never seem to focus on that stuff.
I find it appalling that human ignorance and arrogance believes we are the cause of climate change. The changes in climate have been going on for millennia in a cycle of warm periods and ice ages. I strongly believe that the only this driving this is money and human greed.
Indeed, although I do think we have indeed have had a negative impact, the question for me is how big that impact has been, and I believe the impact doesn't stem from our CO2 output, but rather deforestation, ocean pollution, the degradation of our planet in general etc....Again, perhaps this doesn't have a climactic impact but I agree with all your points regarding cycles etc.
Obviously we have lots of room for improvement where pollution is involved but the greenhouse gas scare in my opinion is nothing more than a scam to impoverish people while the elites rake in the profits. As we speak there is solid evidence that the world is actually becoming greener around the edges of our deserts. This is most likely a result of a slight increase in CO2. This is a technique greenhouses use to increase plant growth. They actually use CO2 generators in their greenhouses. If you fly over British Columbia in a small plane you will see that the whole area is green with trees so why are they curtailing logging in an area where there really is no ecological threat? The biggest threat to the environment right now is probably rare earth mining to supply the EV industry. This is conveniently left out of mainstream news. Add to that the obvious shortfalls in electrical energy which our infrastructure will never catch up to and fossil fuels begin to look like the only logical solution. Every ten years are so since the seventies they have been telling us we are looking at an ecological disaster in ten years. How long are people going to listen to this crap before they wake up?
Thank you for your analysis and research. The CO2 and end of the world magic thinking always leaves out the biggest magic maker. The sun! For the experts, and political rules,it doesn’t exist and has no influence in our climate. It’s just a light bulb in the sky. Which they have absolutely no power over!!!!
It all started with the Club of Rome under the auspices of Rockefeller and his minion Maurice Strong who took control of the UN responsibility for Climate Change and his first act was to enforce that no UN reports or UN organisations reports mentioned let alone considered anything other than it being human caused….!
Yes, I have been very skeptical about "climate change". People who believe it say that "the science is irrifutible". Which is kind of a whitewash in my opinion.
sadly, too much attention Is given to anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions. The focus upon that in the climate controversy is a 'refractory moment" -- taking a single slice of the problem and exaggerating to be the whole enchilada of the problem. What is being ignored in this discussion is the enormous, cataclysmic destruction of the environment and planet's geology due to runaway progress. To deny this other human impact as being somehow separate and unrelated to the climate change every person reading the Pulse is experiencing, is ignorance at best. Here in the Berkshires, every year I observe seasonal changes in the forest, insects and animals. No doubt their wisdom to adapt to climate changes is far superior to our own.
a lot of misinformation in this article... the 31,000 petition signers were not all scientists... and the large majority of signers did not have expertise in any field related to atmospheric science
It is important to note that while climate change has always been happening, human activity is accelerating its effects. The scientific consensus is that human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary driver of current climate change, and that this change poses significant risks to our planet, including rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, and loss of biodiversity.
The article in question suggests that the public has been misled into believing that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, and that there is not a scientific consensus on this issue. However, this assertion is not supported by the scientific community.
While there are some scientists who disagree with the consensus view, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving current climate change. The oft-cited figure of 97% consensus comes from studies that have analyzed scientific publications on climate change and found that a vast majority of them support the consensus view.
It is also worth noting that the article's claim that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is the sole authority of the global warming agenda is not accurate. While the fund has supported climate-related initiatives, it is one of many organizations and individuals working to address climate change.
In short, while there may be some debate among scientists about the precise mechanisms and effects of climate change, the scientific consensus is clear: human activity is the primary driver of current climate change, and urgent action is needed to mitigate its effects.
Here's a link to an article on NASA's website that discusses the survey and the scientific consensus on climate change:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The article provides an overview of the survey results and the evidence supporting the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities are the primary cause of climate change. It also includes links to additional resources and research on the topic, if you're interested in learning more.
Ah….no. No human impact whatsoever. Period. Only a fool would believe that…(or a paid one at that ). Case in point from above —- “ The article provides an overview of the survey results and the evidence supporting the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities are the primary cause of climate change”. And so we see how money influences so called experts. From the agency of “No Actual Straight Answers’. NASA. The only way to put it in perspective, would be to say “ A colony of ants in a domed football stadium causes issues with the indoor temperature of the stadium.” It’s just ludicrous, to say the least. If you want to know about the climate, look at the sun and it’s influence on our weather, the one thing the IPCC refuses to include in its reports.
THANK YOU for this great post. I was just thinking that I might want to track down where the "97% climate scientists agree" came from. This is a great article to share with others in my very liberal area. 🙏❤️
A few years ago I read a paper that revealed that many of the names of the so-called '97%' weren't scientists at all.
It's manufactured consensus. That's all it is.
I have a PhD in Climatology, I don't believe CO2 from humans has anything to do with the how climate changes, like many other climatologists, physicists and meteorologists who also don't believe it I choose to study other things, and thus I have never published a paper with the words “global warming” or “global climate change”. Apart from that 'slight' issue with using those studies to call a consensus, a consensus in science is always a bad idea anyway.... you know, like the consensus on flat earth, that doctors didn't need to wash their hands before delivering babies or that all vaccines are safe and effective.
I forgot to add...
Doran & Zimmerman (2009) [Eos Transactions. 90: 22–23] was the first 97% figure published, equally as weak an argument/methodology for claiming a consensus as the rest, but that made Cook's 2013 paper the third in a row with exactly the same number, right after which Obama started parroting the number.
What you don't ever see shown is that Stenhouse et al. (2014) [Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. July: 1029–1040] gathered the opinions of the American Meteorological Societies members and found only 52% of those who bothered to respond believed that climate change is influenced mostly by humans.
You can also go to http://www.petitionproject.org and find +9000 PhDs, +7000 Masters and +13000 other science graduates (those were the figures when I last looked a few years ago) who don't believe it.
I care so deeply about the earth. It is wild how the climate change narrative is a 'trojan horse' for hijacking folks' freedom while not addressing the real care the planet needs. The climate change narrative is super dangerous. But so is dismissing the need to take care of the planet's land, waters, creatures, etc. Thank you for this sensitive and informed article.
This is the exact same way I feel...Thank you for reading!
Yup! A well reasoned and accurate report! Well done. AGW is a dishonest fraud upon the populace.
If one goes to www.electroverse.co (it is co. not .com) one can get the up to date facts on the matter and the exposé of who and how the mug public are being led astray by dishonest political actors.
Thanks for the compliment Roger!
There is no climate emergence say the experts not funded by the WEF.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
Thanks for sharing this, going to check it out.
There was a moment in my life, where I was really consumed by this climate agenda. I've always felt a deep connection and sense of respect towards the earth. When Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth documentary came out, I felt like finally the environmental crisis was coming to the forefront of our collective consciousness, there was a sense of satisfaction but now, sadly it feels like it was all hijacked for material gain.
Me too. 10 years ago my son even wrote a long email to my wife and I saying he loved and appreciated us, and knew we all weren't going to live very long because of climate change. 😥 He isn't as influenced by the narrative these days. I was never super afraid of climate change, but was sad for the earth. The Earth is a miracle of biology and abundance, and our bodies are of the Earth.
I knew the climate science was very complex and I didn't understand it, but I grew up liberal and am in a liberal area, so I really didn't have other influences around me. But I do understand biological sciences because of my education, and I could see the covid science being simplified to the point of deception. Now I can see the same thing is happening with the climate science.
Indeed Lea, I feel the same way, there's no doubt that our planet is in dire need of change on the environmental front, with regard to deforestation, pollution etc, but all these political initiatives never seem to focus on that stuff.
There is no climate emergence say the experts not funded by the WEF.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
Your quote of Richard Lindzen uses "siezed" instead of ceased.
Wow great catch there! Thanks for pointing that out. Updated.
I find it appalling that human ignorance and arrogance believes we are the cause of climate change. The changes in climate have been going on for millennia in a cycle of warm periods and ice ages. I strongly believe that the only this driving this is money and human greed.
Indeed, although I do think we have indeed have had a negative impact, the question for me is how big that impact has been, and I believe the impact doesn't stem from our CO2 output, but rather deforestation, ocean pollution, the degradation of our planet in general etc....Again, perhaps this doesn't have a climactic impact but I agree with all your points regarding cycles etc.
Obviously we have lots of room for improvement where pollution is involved but the greenhouse gas scare in my opinion is nothing more than a scam to impoverish people while the elites rake in the profits. As we speak there is solid evidence that the world is actually becoming greener around the edges of our deserts. This is most likely a result of a slight increase in CO2. This is a technique greenhouses use to increase plant growth. They actually use CO2 generators in their greenhouses. If you fly over British Columbia in a small plane you will see that the whole area is green with trees so why are they curtailing logging in an area where there really is no ecological threat? The biggest threat to the environment right now is probably rare earth mining to supply the EV industry. This is conveniently left out of mainstream news. Add to that the obvious shortfalls in electrical energy which our infrastructure will never catch up to and fossil fuels begin to look like the only logical solution. Every ten years are so since the seventies they have been telling us we are looking at an ecological disaster in ten years. How long are people going to listen to this crap before they wake up?
There is no climate emergence say the experts not funded by the WEF.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WCD-version-06272215121.pdf
Thank you for your analysis and research. The CO2 and end of the world magic thinking always leaves out the biggest magic maker. The sun! For the experts, and political rules,it doesn’t exist and has no influence in our climate. It’s just a light bulb in the sky. Which they have absolutely no power over!!!!