RE: Greta Thunberg Soros supported and very likely funded as well
Of course the Earth's climate is a million times more complex than a greenhouse. Yes, human activity accounts for a tiny part of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but here's a good analogy: Let's say you start with a glass of water that's half full. Then you add a teaspoon of water to represent the CO2 released by nature through the decay of organic matter. And then remove a teaspoon of water to represent the CO2 absorbed by oceans, trees, etc. You can repeat this many times and the water level will stay roughly unchanged. But then say you start adding a drop more than a teaspoon, and start removing a drop less than a teaspoon. The drops (+ and -) correspond to how much human activity adds CO2 to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, and reduces the CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere due to the cutting down of trees. The water leveI will rise slowly until eventually the glass overflows. It adds up.
The sun's energy (insolation), volcanoes, and greenhouse gases are the main factors in forcing climate changes. It's not just one or the other. All three are constantly in play, changing and interacting over time. It's just a question of how much of each factor is involved. For example, if the Earth's orbit moves it further from the sun, the loss of insolation might force a climate change, resulting in an ice age. CO2 levels and volcanic activity, even if very high, have little effect because the loss of insolation is overpowering.
The current warming period is marked by low insolation and volcanic activity, but with atmospheric CO2 rising to levels unseen in 1000's of years. This CO2 retains some of the sun's heat radiating off the Earth's surface and so it affects global surface temps. AGW started around 1950 and it's been rising steadily since then. In the 1980's, AGW had risen high enough to affect the Earth's climate, a process that's continuing to worsen. That's why the term "climate change" came into vogue. It's a different meaning, but it's often used interchangeably with AGW.
https://climatedeniersfavouritegraphs.wordpress.com/
This video will get you headed down the path to seeing the un-redacted data.
Cheers
I have viewed this video before and left some comments on it. It's one of many disinformation videos, imo. I include GWPF, Tony Heller, Sky News Australia, Heartland Institute, Independent Institute, Friends of Science, among many others, in that group. Some are in the pockets of the fossil fuel interests.
The actual data is usually accurate, but the conclusions drawn from the data are misleading and even absurd. Tony creates disinformation and propaganda through lies of omission and logical fallacies. Here's an example from video, "My Gift to the Climate Alarmists." The video shows (6:45) a chart of the number of 90+ deg days at Waverly, Ohio from about 1900 to present. First of all, climate change pertains to the average surface temps of the entire globe, not just one city, region, or even country. So right off the bat, this whole section is local weather and is not relevant to human-induced climate change. Second, human-induced climate change was insignificant until about 1950. So it's relevant in the period from 1950 to present. Any climate changes, severe weather events, natural disasters, etc that occurred before 1950 were naturally caused and not relevant. But, Tony claims that climate scientists were trying to hide the heat waves of the 1920-1940 period in the US because temps were higher than present day. No one was trying to hide anything. Even though temps were higher than today, they were naturally caused, were local weather, and occurred before 1950, so they were irrelevant in three ways.
Again, human-induced climate change affects the entire globe from 1950 to present, and warming surface temps are disrupting the jet stream and ocean currents, which is leading to erratic and abnormal weather in different parts of the world. For example, it's causing record warm temps in the Arctic, record winters in the Eastern US, record drought in Africa, record wildfires in Australia, record rains in the Midwest US, and record typhoons in the Pacific region. The key word here is "record" or "abnormal." Of course, weather events, natural disasters, etc are still occurring naturally as well.
If everything about climate science is true(it isn't, its all based on projections with flawed input data) then there wouldn't need to be a "Union of Concerned Scientists" is the first thing I am going to say.
The truth is the truth and is reproduceable. Models that have flawed data inputs isn't truth, anyone can change the inputs and make the output be what they want.
You know what was big during my growing up? The "global ice age that was coming" despite, then it was "Y2K!!!!" then "Global Warming!!!!" now it is "Climate Change".
There are plenty of things I have read that disprove what is going on but it all has to be taken together.
Here is just one simple one https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
@truthforce writing