Top 10 Global Warming Myths

[HankD]

It is a myth, a very destructive myth that there is no climate change.

There is and always has been climate change.

The dispute is over TREND and CAUSE.

The issue of Climate Change has been infected with the disease of politico so it is now difficult to discern the truth from distortions, exaggeration, hysterics, etc...

There is another theory of cause and trend in the dispute - Internal Solar Activity and Subsequent Bombardment of Particles upon Earth's Upper atmosphere

Both the Sun and the Earth are sources of heat that power an interconnected set of dynamic systems (lithosphere, hydrosphere & cryosphere, atmosphere, biosphere).

Within the Sun, heat is transferred by radiation and convection, which involves circulation of hydrogen ions. Within the Earth heat is transferred by conduction and convection, which involves circulation of silicates in the mantle and the crust, and by the circulation of iron in the liquid outer core. On the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere, heat emanating largely from the Sun is transferred by convection, which involving the circulation of water and carbon. Both the Sun and the Earth and their atmospheres are layered. Both systems evolve and change.

Sun-Earth Interaction

No sooner mention that reality and a bevy of opposing articles come forth.
Then vice versa, ad naseum...

Personally, I believe our sun is aging normally and the main source of climate change is due to the significant internal changes within the sun and the relationship of our interconnected atmospheres.

I also have no doubt that human activity (burning fossil fuels) impacts the total picture.

HankD

 

[carpro]

Ummm...that should have been what was planned to begin with before making claims and asking the world to live by them. Releasing so called facts and data after it was discovered they withheld it makes the data suspicious at best. Sorry I don't trust them.

Good idea.

Far too much money at stake.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The telegraph did not reference the actual concerning lines but here is a climate skeptic page that gives a long list.

Climategate: hide the decline – codified

The phrase that the Telegraph article appears to be concerned about is the repeated phrase of artificially correcting the decline or some words to that effect.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

65. Professor Jones has published on this issue on several occasions, including a 1998 Nature paper92 and subsequent papers.93 He contested the view that he was trying to hide the decline in the sense that he was trying to pretend that these data did not exist and thereby exaggerate global warming: “We do not accept it was hidden because it was discussed in a paper[94] the year before and we have discussed it in every paper we have written on tree rings and climate”.95 Rather, what was meant by “hide the decline” was remove the effects of data known to be problematic in the sense that the data were known to be misleading. UEA made it clear in its written submission that: CRU never sought to disguise this specific type of tree-ring “decline or divergence”. On the contrary, CRU has published a number of pioneering articles that illustrate, suggest reasons for, and discuss the implications of this interesting phenomenon.96

66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.

Jones himself discusses this as well

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Q - Let's talk about the e-mails now: In the e-mails you refer to a "trick" which your critics say suggests you conspired to trick the public? You also mentioned "hiding the decline" (in temperatures). Why did you say these things?

This remark has nothing to do with any "decline" in observed instrumental temperatures. The remark referred to a well-known observation, in a particular set of tree-ring data, that I had used in a figure to represent large-scale summer temperature changes over the last 600 years.

The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

This "divergence" is well known in the tree-ring literature and "trick" did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather "a convenient way of achieving something", in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

I was justified in curtailing the tree-ring reconstruction in the mid-20th Century because these particular data were not valid after that time - an issue which was later directly discussed in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report.

The misinterpretation of the remark stems from its being quoted out of context. The 1999 WMO report wanted just the three curves, without the split between the proxy part of the reconstruction and the last few years of instrumental data that brought the series up to the end of 1999. Only one of the three curves was based solely on tree-ring data.

The e-mail was sent to a few colleagues pointing out their data was being used in the WMO Annual Statement in 1999. I was pointing out to them how the lines were physically drawn. This e-mail was not written for a general audience. If it had been I would have explained what I had done in much more detail.

 

[Revmitchell]

I want to thank ChrisTheSaved and RevMitch for bringing this topic up again for me. Being lazy I would not have researched the fallout of this this whole email hack that happened in 2009. But I find it terrible that there are so many good folks who are being mislead by easily refutable falsehoods and that motivates me to find the truth and expose the lies.



I'll have a quick look but based on past experience with your "sources" it won't take long to refute.

I know you think in your mind you have refuted these things but you haven't.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I know you think in your mind you have refuted these things but you haven't.

Edit: Sorry I misread you there initially. You are welcome to that opinion. I'll let the information speak for itself.

Some folks will never see differently because of their preconceived ideas, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am not interested in convincing those folks. I am interested in making sure that misinformation and outright lies do not go unchecked so that those who are able to critically consider evidence will do so with the correct information.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am interested in making sure that misinformation and outright lies do not go unchecked so that those who are able to critically consider evidence will do so with the correct information.

Hehe yes well you do that.

 

[Revmitchell]

This man made global warming myth is a wealth redistribution scheme. Nothing more, nothing less.