What Do We Call Media Fraudsters And Hucksters?

 Guest Post by Karl Denniger
Time to increase my long pitchforks, torches, lamposts and boiled rope trade, I suspect.

The words are hurled around like epithets.

People who reject the findings of climate science are dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers.” Those who accept the science are attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas. ” The latter term, evoking the Sandinista revolutionaries of Nicaragua, is perhaps meant to suggest that the science is part of some socialist plot.

In the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time. Recently, though, the issue has taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures and counting.

The petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead.

Yes, and the so-called “climate denier” label is intended to evoke The Holocaust, which is an outrageous and intentional appeal to a factually-known act of mass-murder that left a few million skeletons behind as evidence.

The problem with so-called “climate science” is that it’s not science at all; it’s hucksterism and fraud.  Let’s look at a few (and only a few!) of the problems that the so-called “climate change” people peddle.

1. It was called “global warming”, but when the warming stopped and failed to verify against the claims of their computer models for 15 years running they changed their name.  That’s fraud.

2. Only something like 3% of the surface of the earth has a temperature probe covering a place in the immediate vicinity.  That’s a lack of data.

3. There has been zero control, intentionally, for the change in the surface of the earth immediately surrounding said temperature probes.  Specifically, over time as development has continued people do things like put blacktop roads and parking lots near said probes, which raises the local temperature (due to the sun heating the material, not atmospheric composition.)  This impact must be adjusted out, preferably by adding more probes in other, non-developed places, but it isn’t — intentionally.

4. The CO2 “balance” allegedly from human activity intentionally ignores sub-sea volcanic production of CO2.  There are an enormous number of these, by the way, and yet there is no so-called greenhouse-gas model that attempts to place upper and lower boundaries on their emissions.  It is entirely possible, by the way, that due to this (and the error bands for above-ground volcanic release) man-made CO2 emissions are immaterial — whether CO2 is involved in climate change or not!

5. The entire premise of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” flows back to experiments over a hundred years ago.  Unfortunately the premise for same may have been flawed as the scientist involved did not understand the difference between opacity and absorption spectra; that simply wasn’t understood at the time.

6. The largest “greenhouse gas” in terms of actual absorption spectra is in fact di-hydrogen monoxide.  In fact nearly all of the absorption of solar heat that takes place in the atmosphere does so by di-hydrogen monoxide simply because all the other gasses involved are trace gases by comparison.

7. Oceanic sequestering of carbon is in fact a chemical buffering reaction.  Chemical buffering reactions are, as their name implies, buffers.  Their equilibrium point shifts with temperature (and often other things, such as pH.)  This is important because the amount of carbon contained in such compounds is enormous (many times that in the atmosphere itself) and this in turn implies that the atmospheric CO2 released or absorbed by same is a consequence of temperature, not a cause.

8. There are many (in fact, it is essentially universal among the climate screamer crowd) claims that temperature and CO2 levels are “highest” ever peddled around; this is clearly false and intentionally ignores earth’s history.  The last couple of thousand years, or even the last hundred thousand years is immaterial in terms of this rock’s geology (and environment.)  The intentional and willful refusal to consider the history of the planet beyond a few thousand years in the past found in the “climate change” screamers is exactly identical to those who claim that evolution “didn’t happen” and “God created” by claiming that the world is only 5,000 years old.  Further, and perhaps most-damning to their argument is the fact that in geologic terms we’re still warming after the most-recent ice age — when you’d expect the planet to get warmer.  Obviously the previous ice ages did not feature Al Gore and President Obama flying around in jet aircraft spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere nor did this one until very recently.

9. There is near-universal “acceptance” of the claim that higher CO2 levels are bad.  But greater CO2 levels are factually known to increase the growth rate of plants.  Plants, of course, both provide food directly to humans and also provide food to animals that humans like to eat.  Increased food productivity is good, not bad.

10. The CO2 load (by emissions) of a person in America is much higher than that of one in Mexico — or other “less-developed” nations.  If CO2 is such a terrible problem where are the calls for an immediate cessation of human migration from undeveloped to developed nations, along with deportation of all such persons who have previous migrated, as such an act is equivalent to the intentional destruction of the planet?

11. There have been multiple examples found of data being “adjusted” and all said adjustments have been one-way — upward.  This is statistically impossible; anyone with even a modicum of statistical training understands that statistically speaking adjustments to data should cluster around the mean with a few outlying points.  When all of the adjustments are in one direction it is a virtual certainty that the intention of said adjustment is to deceive.

12. When said “adjustments” are removed from the data the so-called “precipitous warming” of the last half of the 20th century entirely disappears.

13. 10 years ago the global scaremongers told us that global warming was going to cause more and nastier hurricanes that would decimate the United States coastline.  Wilma, which hit Florida in October, was the last serious hurricane impact on the state; in point of fact the hurricane incidence has precipitously declined since 2005 in terms of impacts on the United States.

Oh, yeah, this is the short list.  I could probably come up with 100 bullet points if I was willing to spend more than 20 minutes or so on the subject.

In short exactly who is the “denier”?  When you look at the facts surrounding this alleged “warming” what you find is cooked data, intentional refusal to consider time frames beyond the immediate past in geologic terms, the slander of those who point out the deceptions, omissions and outright lies of those pressing the agenda along with rank hypocrisy (Obama and Gore flying around in jets spewing monstrous amounts of CO2 into the air while claiming it’s a “serious problem”.)

Indeed, it would appear that those who “believe” in so-called “global warming” (or “climate change” if you prefer) are in fact displaying the same sort of “magical thinking”, along with abject fraud, that “decorates” the claims of those who state that “God Created” and that it is not evolution that is responsible for the diversity and progress of various plants and animals upon this rock.

Here’s looking at you Justin Gillis.

13
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
TE
TE

What we call them is “experts” and “trustworthy” and we bestow millions upon them and buy all the same clothing they wear and follow them on Instagram and Twitter.

That is what we do.

“We” are idiots and Karl is an expert at pointing that out.

Sadly, facts, logic and us “deniers” won’t be able to stop it. We will, however, get to enjoy the freezing temperatures and diminished food supply right along with the idiots supporting our upcoming pain.

Frustrated Friday has expanded to seven days a week.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

I’m not convinced that atmospheric change is a “hoax”. Too many well-respected climatologists are ringing alarm bells over things like methane bubbling up from melting tundra and dying coral in our oceans. And while it’s true plants like CO2 too much of it in the atmosphere can make breathing difficult.
Trying to put those who believe atmospheric change is happening in the same crowd as creationists is quite a stretch!

Drowning in Parasitism
Drowning in Parasitism
B
B

It seems that 97% of the experts (Climatologists) believe that global warmimg aka Climate Change is real and caused by man. Probably more than 50% of citizens (U.S.) do not beleive it to be true (They also believe in angels, the literal interpretation of the Bible and question evolution) It is also known that some scientists are paid to print articles that call global warming into question. The last time I researched it, there had been NO articles in scientific peer reviewed journals that have refuted global warming. Being that the premise of global warming is so obviously incorrect, why would this be so?
Who is one to beleive, The overwhelming number of Climatologists with Phds in the subject or Karl Denninger (an economist) and Rush Limbaugh (a windbag). I think that is a legitimate question.

Anonymous
Anonymous

“Too many well-respected climatologists are ringing alarm bells” – Westcoaster

Science is not popular consensus. Sorry.

And “well respected” by whom, exactly? Other alarm-bell-ringing climatologists? Yeah, well that means diddly shit…

And “dying coral”? Really?

To which I reply: “So what?”

In point of fact, the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia has been killed off in it’s entirety – and regrown in it’s entirety – multiple times over, long before our ancestors climbed out of the trees… furthermore, 99.99% of everything that has ever been alive, is now dead…

I hear the tide is coming in.. perhaps if you go down to the beach and tell it to not come in, it might listen…

Billy
Billy

That last one was me…

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

Warning to all science deniers: ‘Destroying God’s Creation is a sin’ The Pope

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/planet-earth-is-the-titanic-climate-change-the-iceberg-2015-02-13?link=mw_home_kiosk

Bea Lever
Bea Lever

Thank the Lawd you are back….it has been my turn in the barrel. Anyway, glad you are well.

gungho
gungho

Trillions of becquerels of fukushima radiation pouring into the sea, and folks are worried about co2. Idiots.

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

@gungho: I upvoted you because you’re absolutely right. Fuckushima is the story none of the MSM will cover and we’re being irradiated 24/7. It’s NOT getting any better.

starfcker
starfcker

Let’s do some math. I like math. It makes me smart. Carbon dioxide (c02) is .04 of earths atmosphere. For all you non-brainiacs, that’s four hundreths of one percent. So if the atmosphere were a jar of marbles, and the jar held 10,000 marbles, and all the marbles that were not c02 were blue, and the c02 marbles were red, you would have 9,996 blue marbles, and 4 red ones. If c02 levels rose 25%, (and no one is predicting that, or even close) you would have 5. Yawn

SSS

“The last time I researched it, there had been NO articles in scientific peer reviewed journals that have refuted global warming.”
—-B

Follow the money, B. Nearly 100% of government grants involving tens of millions of dollars to conduct research on climate science goes to the Warmer crowd. And those are the people who get articles published the scientific peer-reviewed journals.

The “peers” in those journals are those who have also benefitted from government research grants for climate science. It’s a small, tight-knit group – and you’re not in it.

Bea Lever
Bea Lever

SSS- I upped you because you are correct. Bea

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading