GLOBAL COOLING! No, wait... GLOBAL WARMING!! Ah, um... CLIMATE CHANGE!!! Just be afraid & give us more power!

in informationwar •  2 months ago

You may remember (I don't, I wasn't alive) a time when the media and "scientists" were raging about global cooling (Newsweek & Time Magazine), which then later became global warming, and has now morphed int Climate Change. This is a logical fallacy called special pleading, also referred to as moving the goalposts. When your argument can't hold up against counterpoints, you shift your argument until it eventually becomes unfalsifiable... Since the climate is ALWAYS changing, you would have to be an idiot to argue against Climate Change.


Image Source


Before I get started

I want to preface this whole article by saying that I do believe that the human race is doing many things that are extremely stupid, and are causing damage to our own life support systems. However, unlike the Climate Change narrative, I do not believe:

  • That "climate science" is in any way scientific. Grants & Sponsorships decide which research happens, and the same narrative is produced no matter the results (as demonstrated below)
  • CO2 emissions are having a negative effect on the planet (as demonstrated below)
  • The Earth's change in temperature is majorly impacted by human factors
  • The centralization & extension of political power is EVER the answer

I'm going to just walk us both through some of the major arguments & talking points brought up around this topic, and show how the media & governments have consistently pushed the same narrative regardless of the scientific results.


What got me started on this

I was recently having a conversation with my younger sister and our mother's husband about science in the modern world, "Climate Change", and how these are major control mechanisms of a small number of humans who are pushing their wills on the world (Agenda 21/Agenda 2030, "Carbon Taxes", depopulation, and absolute control over humanity). Since I was making references to some things that I hadn't memorized, I went back to find the videos by @corbettreport that I had found most useful on the topic: What Is The Average Global Temperature? & Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

Notice something fishy there?

As I started hopping around checking out other videos on this topic and finding more resources, I noticed that every video has this same banner from Wikipedia, for their Global Warming article. Gee, that preview of the article sure makes it sound like this is the sort of thing where the results are in and nobody has any evidence to the contrary, huh?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this same banner has been placed on all of these videos that don't fit the NWO agenda to use climate change as the problem in their biggest ever Problem-Reaction-Solution scheme. Coming back around to that, the graph on-screen when I took that screenshot is a representation of how select governmental agencies are playing with the numbers to fit an ideology & an agenda.


They're changing the historical figures

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” ~George Orwell

The main focus of the two @corbettreport videos I mentioned before was simply the "adjusting" or "correcting" of historical climate data that has been going on for a couple decades now. By slightly fudging the old numbers down a bit, the trends seem much more severe than they actually are. Like I said, he did an AMAZING job laying this out through these two videos (around 45 minutes total), and each one contains the complete show notes (as always) with the research to back up the claims. Rather than attempting to condense this stuff down too much more, I'm going to include the videos here:


(Show Notes)


Remember ClimateGate?

Climategate was that moment, almost a decade ago, when the undeniable evidence that much of "Climate Science" had been a complete fraud, was released to the public thanks to a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act). Conveniently, folks who defend the idea of Climate Change generally seem to forget this ever happened.

The following is from the introduction of a report called The Climategate Emails, by John Costella, in which he presents (unedited & raw) some of the most important emails of the leaks. You can find the full leak (60 MB+ of emails) here on Wikileaks

Climategate began on 19 November 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution has played a central role in the “climate change” debate. Its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were responsible for analysing and collating the various measurements of temperature from around the globe and that, going back for many years, collectively underpinned the central scientific argument that mankind’s liberation of “greenhouse” gases—particularly carbon dioxide—was leading to a relentless, unprecedented and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet.

...

Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating arguably the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent scientists; abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fence around themselves and their fellow activists, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most people find it impossible to believe that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of a few years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.

...

An increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the “climate science” community was a façade—and that the vitriolic attacks upon the sensible arguments of mathematicians, statisticians, and indeed of scientists using plain common sense were not the product of scientific rigour at all, but merely attempts at self-protection at any cost. At this point the veil began to lift on what has arguably become one of the greatest scientific frauds in the history of mankind.

This is one of the darker periods in the history of science. Those who love science,
and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is
here, and cannot be avoided.



Image Source


Let's talk CO2

You have probably noticed that most Climate Change talking points focus on CO2 (which is often referred to as simply "carbon", but carbon exists in MANY other forms, and in MASSIVE concentrations on this planet (in things like the bodies of every mammal)). Part of the reason for this vagueness is because everyone has heard of the dangers of carbon monoxide, and if you just say carbon many won't realize that what's being talked about is carbon dioxide, which has nowhere near the same effect.

There is also this implication that somehow CO2 is bad for the planet... Forgetting somehow that every single plant (what we ALL require to survive) live on CO2. This video shows what an effect higher CO2 levels can have on plant growth (the lower level they used is still higher than the average for the planet today).

As you can see in the video (and as common sense would tell you), plants will thrive with more CO2 in the air, which leads to larger crops, shorter time to harvest, etc. In reality, the low CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past millennia have led to massive plant die-offs.

The decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘carbon dioxide–starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than are C3 plants.

Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution, published by The Royal Society, 1998

We've actually already started to see the positive effects of higher CO2 concentration in the air, including greening of deserts:

...it illustrates that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 induce plant water saving and that consequent available soil water increases are a likely driver of the observed greening phenomena. Our results support recent modeling work showing higher vegetation WUE and higher maximum vegetation cover under CO2 enrichment in warm and dry environments

Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening, published by Nature, 2016 (Lu, X. et al. Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening. Sci. Rep. 6, 20716; doi: 10.1038/srep20716 (2016))

Just for added effect, here is another video focused entirely on atmospheric CO2, the historical numbers, and the correlation to temperatures.


But 97% of scientists agree!

One of the biggest arguments that AGW (anthropogenic global warming) alarmists use to defend their stance (and usually the only statistic they ever have to offer) is their claim that 97% of climate scientists agree on this issue. This defense is referred to as "scientific consensus", and there are two main problems with this...

First of all, consensus has NOTHING to do with science. It literally does not matter if all but one human on the planet agree to something, if the SCIENCE (replicable experiments) does not align with what those people agree on, then those billions of people are wrong. Consensus or agreement has nothing to do with the scientific method, and in actuality scientific advancements almost always go against the consensus.

Secondly, and much more importantly for this particular argument, is that the 97% consensus is completely untrue, based on a fraudulent "study" (no research was done, actual studies were skimmed and categorized (most incorrectly)). Just like all the ClimateGate leaks, this is absolutely public knowledge, and the scam was covered by EVERY news source about 5 years ago when the story broke: Forbes, Wall Street Journal, National Review.

John Cook (owner of Skeptical Science [a 100% propaganda website]) is the one who released the paper which introduced this 97% number. They went through over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers, worked some magic, and their final claim was "Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus"... Sounds pretty definitive huh?

They also mention right at the beginning of their paper:

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

Ok, so at the very most, there is can be no more than a 33.6% consensus based on their research... a pretty big difference from 97%. It gets even better though, they weren't just selected studies that specifically say that they support and deny AGW (or to what extent), their team was actually making their own interpretations & assumptions (Cook had set the whole thing up as a sort of game). Even with an unbiased, honest team, this is not science by any measure of the imagination... and that's certainly not what was had here.


Image Source

Popular Technology were the first to really examine this so-called consensus, and here are some quotes from scientists whose research was listed as part of that 97% consensus:

Craig D. Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Nicola Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission”... “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”... “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates… They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006”

Nir Shaviv: “Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”... “I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,"

Nils-Axel Mörner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

Willie Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct"... “I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works”

Well, since it's publicly available that the "97% consensus" is a fabrication, why do so many people still believe it?

Interesting, isn't it? This "study" was completely debunked years ago, and yet you still hear the 97% claim being thrown around by most alarmists. Why is that, were they not paying attention when the announcements were made, when Obama apologized for his tweeting of that non-fact? Let's check out NASA's website and see how they apologize for the deceit, shall we?

Well that's not promising... Maybe there were other, non-fraudulent studies done that somehow came to the same consensus?

You'll recognize this graph as the one that has been "revised" multiple times, always making the past cooler so the trend seems to be towards warming. (Scroll back up to They're changing the historical figures if you don't know what I'm talking about)

Let's take a look at the section of text that I highlighted, where they explain the consensus:

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"

Ok, there are some trustworthy-sounding things in here: "multiple studies", "peer-reviewed scientific journals", "...actively publishing climate scientists". However, if you think about it, this wishy-washy language sure sounds a lot like the Cook "study". Let's scroll down and check their resources; as you can see right where my mouse cursor is in that last screenshot, this statement is labeled as reference #1...

Anyone surprised?


To Be Continued...

Please dig through these documents & videos, challenge my findings, let's have a conversation here... I'm stopping for now, and will be back after the weekend with part 2, where I'll focus more on the main factors of atmospheric pollution, why they are ignored by the Climate Change movement, the effects of geo-engineering policies on the climate, some of the main talking heads and where their personal financial investments show that they cannot possibly be considered remotely unbiased, and the larger-scale centralization & globalization agenda that the Climate Change movement is used as a tool to advance.



Image Source



TSU

If you enjoyed this, you may enjoy some of these highlights of my blog:

"Greatest Hits/Table of Contents" of my first 2 years on Steemit

You've Created Your Steemit Account and You're Ready to Get Started... What Now? [New Steemians Start-Up Guide]

The 8 Pillars of @TribeSteemUp: Clarification, Refinement, and Re-Casting the Spell

The Status, Vision, and Needs of Real Life: The Role-Playing Game

Be Empowered Official Announcement & Website Launch - 3 Days of Steem-Powered, Holistic Empowerment



KCK

BipCot

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Thanks Kenny. When I get into this discussions and people bring up the consensus, I always ask if they've read the consensus studies, and which one they found most convincing. I've got all kinds of answers, but I don't remember ever hearing a simple "yes".

When I had a look at Cook (2016) I noticed that he even misrepresented the findings of his own paper (2013).

The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that ‘human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century’

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Apparently there's no need to make a distinction between whether humans are a cause, and humans are the dominant cause.

So Cook is really questionable. A lot of newspapers used to cite Doran and Zimmerman, which seemed to have a very questionable methodology where they surveyed over a thousand scientists, then threw out all but 77 of the surveys. So it's hard to say that they weren't just counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

Then, even if we do assume they got it right... the consensus is just that humans have an effect on the climate, but in the media it's portrayed as a consensus on catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

The whole thing stinks.

The other thing people love to say is, better safe than sorry, which I call the Pascal's wager of climate change. If there's even a small chance that it's right, better to prepare for it. Or worse, they say if we're not absolutely sure that it's not going to happen, we need to prepare for it... Coincidentally, that was almost the same line Ben Affleck used in Batman vs Superman that made us all realise that we were watching a stinker.

Awesome post, Kenny! One thing that really amazes me is when on discussion of this topic, so many people (I'm speaking from personal experience) will use the term "believe".

"Do you believe in climate change?" It's simply a belief based on information people have passively digested from various media sources. They don't put any time or attention into logically analyzing anything.

Also, I heard someone I know use the term "climate disruption", which made me laugh out loud hysterically. Have you heard that term?

Thanks for this post. It illustrated in dept what I have always felt hence why I would never get into a debate with the nonsense spread by climate change activist.

YES !! THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING !! "As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm" - Probably the only words I utter towards a global warmer :D

From a philosophical perspective, I see the Hegelian dialectic been played out here again while maintaining the corporate status quo ..

On a more sarcastic note, shall the government & corporation be taxing our exhale as we build up carbon dioxide?

Thoughts of the moment provoked but what I read above , had to share ...:P

Look forward to next post!

Overall, my takeaway is...

  1. "Climate Change" is a non sequitur and impartial statement to control human patterns of behavior. CIA tactic used over and over again. Like "Conspiracy Theory". Bland terms to control the population response to them.
  2. CO2 not bad for planet. Too much CO2 or too much Oxygen or too much Hydrogen bad for balance of atmosphere and life. Too little does the same. Healthy balance means all parts of biosphere operate in equitable energy exchange and create perfect habitats for the life within the container.
  3. Forever humans will be subject to bench pressing logic until they are crushed by the weight...

My response and a small discourse:
Desertification of planet is real and measurable and results from several things, mostly if not all man made...
a. damming rivers, piping water, and human consumption patterns of water create rapid decrease in available water for the trees. Trees exoevaporate water which creates cloud cover, which creates rain. Trees cannot do this when they have no root water supply. So trees die, clouds do not form, rain does not fall, soil dries and biotic life within dies under the sun. Sun parching waterless soil...turns to hard cracked earth... turns to sand. Deserts.
b. Release of freeon and other very potent CO2 emitters do create an effect upon the ozone, which when depleted intensifies the radiation from the sun, which then creates a rapid acceleration of desertification.
c. Cities do not absorb the radiation from the sun as the earth does, but rather it is reflected. The vast metropoles developing around the planet create hubs of reflected rays that create greater effect upon the upper atmospheric condition.
d. Manipulation of farming practices... Monsanto/bayer creates topsoil depletion. Topsoil Depletion leads to acceleration of the desertification.

Great Article...

One last thing is the Electro-Magnetic radiation effects produced with systems like HAARP. BE-aWARE the ionosphere manipulation!

Infinite Blessings!

·

1 & 2 I think you nailed it, #3 I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

a-d are going to be in part 2, when I go over the actual things humans are doing to damage the environment (basically none of which are ever addressed by "environmentalists")

Thanks brother!

·
·

Have you ever seen the movie "The Man From Earth"?
There is a statement made about benchpressing logic.
It goes hand in hand woth Universal Truth and Individual perception based Truth.
Logic is the ordering of thought (creating order of the thoughts)
There is Universal Logic, which inevitably and always disintegrates or eats itself and individual perception based Logic.
One leads out of pholosophy, one tends the philosophers gardens.
When we benchpress Logic, it means this...

We push (put attention) upon wrapping and organizing thoughts around a thing, and when it doesn't work we will continue to perform this action, rather than alter our method of approach on fundamental levels.
Understanding things from the perspective of more than ones individual self is a practice that exceeds logic and dives directly into experiential awareness.

When the Earth has no more trees, humans will look around and attempt to inderstand logically what happened and why they are dying. As hunger kicks in, more will see through the eyes of direct experience. When death kicks in all will see beyond individualized logic and the Universal Truth and Universal Logic will settle in upon their minds... the organism that is us needs not confirmation or reputation, only observation and appreciation.

It is the difference between fighting something and watching something until it crumbles under itself.

One person looks at their self and says I am the product of evolution.
Another says I am the product of God.
Another says I am the product of God, created as I am through evolution.
Another says, God is evolution.
Another says, if i am a part of evolution, and evolution is God, thus it could not be as it is if I were not... then I am God.
Another says, if evolution is God, then everything in existence is God.
Another says that if that is True, then my parents are God and I am a product of God.

Infinite Blessings Family!

Yeah, it's always been a big joke. The most common defense I hear climate change advocates using is; "the science is done", we need to do something! Carbon tax! I say that only an idiot sticks up his hand to be taxed some more. A tax never solved anything.

When I click on the Time Magazine link regarding global cooling:
Screenshot - 16_08.png

·

Works just fine for me. It's just an image of that article.

·
·

Just tried to archive it:

·
·
·

And as the comment above shows, it didn't work. It worked in July though:

·
·
·
·

That's really weird because that link works for me on both laptop & phone. What country are you in?

·
·
·
·
·

Germany, but I'm using a VPN (Czech Republic). What I find weird is that archive.org seems to have the same problem - maybe it's using a VPN too?

·
·
·
·
·
·

Could be. I just re-hosted the image and fixed the link in the article.

Good information global

Posted using Partiko Android

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by kennyskitchen from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.

As I am not a scientist I think my ideas have little value, but I would think humans are at least partially guilty for climate change, I have seen places get hotter just by paving a highway that runs through them, why wouldn't all the emissions have an effect on climate? In any case these pollutants are bad, even if it doesn't impact the planet with climate change. Now what really makes me wonder is, if say climate change or a spherical earth are just fake "facts" that are developed to trick people, just what is in it for the people who make these things up. You know I don't think the really powerful people who control most economic activity on this planet gain anything by promoting an idea that basically says that what they have been doing (Remember these guys are supposed to own most of the industrial outputs of most countries) is bad. I don't think they would do that. So is it the scientists and researchers who promote the false ideas? They are probably the ones who gain money for their research programs, like NASA. What do you think is behind theses supposedly false agendas?

That's a comprehensive peace of writing, I'm really impressed with the level of detail and research put in. I'm going to have to read through it again in the morning to leave a bigger comment, too much for me to take in late at night in one sitting!

c0ff33commentaimage.png
#thealliance #witness

this really excellent post ! thanks for good info bro ! Please tell me how to get meaningful votes! I write good articles but do not give a fair interaction !!
You can visit my account and tell me where the problem is, brother!

I was going to write a blog on this subject myself, but you have made such a good job that it puts my draft effort to shame. I must have a ramble through your blog as it seems we have like minds.

Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

isnt it ironic that in this time of access to information and data no one can say for sure what climate change is, will be, or is caused by,, if anything. Part of the reason for this is because the science is very complicated, and much of it poorly understood. They dynamics and mechanics of a global weather system with so many potential affecters and positive inputs and feedbacks, combined with the amount of disinformation both sides means its nigh on impossible for any one to say what is really going on. How can we find the truth when we have No idea which facts we are relying on are made up, and which are an honest true representation of the current situation. Personally I don't trust any data that I see on this subject, on either side of the argument because people are lying everywhere!

With that in mind, plus the very real and obvious effects of air pollution using coal and oil which cause millions of deaths per year worldwide.. are enough for me to ere on the side of caution.. . that is to say that i advise we all get onto clean energy very quickly, and become self sufficient and decentralised. Sooner or later it is going to happen, so we may as well mitigate our risks and start obtaining clean energy and heck, stop pumping out the amount of CO2 that we do can't be a bad thing can it!

When you cant trust anyone, how do you find the truth?

·

I'd say it's not ironic, but strategically & systematically planned. As I showed above, many of the claims used to support the climate change movement are known, without a doubt, to be fraud... yet agencies like NASA still publish and spread them as though they were the truth.

In my next portion of this, I'll be covering the actual pollutions that negatively affect the planet in a major way (glyphosate, PCBs, methane from animal farming, CFCs, geoengineering sprays, etc), all of which are vastly more destructive than CO2.

The problem with the "clean energy" movement is that there are currently no clean energy options widely available. Solar is as bad or worse than petroleum, wind is only available in some places and wildly expensive, etc. The answer is not to rape the planet in a cleaner way, but to cut energy use drastically.

Ending war will knock out a huge portion of human waste, ending the corporate control over food will knock out another huge portion, and people taking responsibility to cut their own use gets us to an extremely manageable level.

·
·

yes i believe you! and for that reason i don't even try to find the truth.. both sides of the story are tainted with lies and we have no way to tell what is what anymore.. so i believe nothing .. and focus instead on our need to reduce our consumption and waste for many reasons.. when that is done we can easily live on solar which i do consider much better than petrolium if for no other reason than air pollution which kills millions each year.. my house is using about 20 watts right now.. and am all for reducing our footprint and being self sufficient!

Great points, Kenny! Thank you for doing such a great job explaining what is happening and how such non-scientific methods are being deployed.

Yes, it is about political and economic power-grabbing, not science for so many of these people. Let's embrace science, not "beliefs" and what is going on today. Thank you very much for the good work you did on this.

Are you guys all serious? Every single one of these arguments and claims has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.skepticalscience.com

·

Every single one of these arguments and claims has been thoroughly debunked.

First off, that doesn't even make any sense. The ClimateGate leaked emails were debunked? The fact that Cook's "study" was dishonest & fraudulent was debunked? The fact that CO2 is required for life was debunked? The fact that the historical temperature data is regularly altered was debunked?

Every one of those things is true, publicly available information...

I guess coming in and just saying "debunked" could be considered some kind of argument, but certainly not a logical or well-argued one. If you want to go through and show me your evidence we can talk, otherwise you've basically said nothing.

·
·

I'm talking about the actual science you're purporting. I mean if we start at the very basics do you agree with the principles behind the greenhouse gas effect?

·
·
·

Can you share here what "the principles behind the greenhouse gas effect" are in your understanding? I don't want to agree or disagree with something without being sure we're using the same terms with the same meanings.