Climate Change, definitions and refutation of the fairy tale.

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

When I was a kid, OPEC imposed an oil embargo which ground the U.S. economy to a halt. People waited in line for hours to get gasoline.  Japanese car sales exploded, because Americans finally wanted fuel efficient cars.  
 

We had oil scarcities again in the 80’s and 90’s. Then we went to war to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 
 

“It’s because liberals won’t let us drill enough!” they said.  Finally; under Biden, we produced more petroleum than we consume.  And what happened? Putin invaded Ukraine, petroleum supplies in Europe became scarce, OPEC again drastically raised prices… and American oil was exported, causing gasoline prices in America to sharply increase.  
 

Now… IMAGINE for a moment… what if 65-75% of our electricity came from renewable sources? Saudi Arabia can’t increase the cost of wind, can they? And Exxon can’t export electricity to Europe.  So we, in America, become truly energy independent and we don’t get any more energy shortages. Seems like the kind of America conservatives would want, if their party wasn’t bribed to the hilt by the $8 Trillion petroleum industry.  

Well you would be, what is commonly known as...wrong.

So much so that Brandon is draining the US strategic reserves.

Based on what?

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

It's all one gross lie.!

Oh BTW: Strike one...

Edited July 13 by Nationalist

[reason10]

On 7/12/2024 at 10:51 AM, impartialobserver said:

Ok, will give you this one. QCEW dates to 1935 and Soros is from 1930.. But he financed it at 5 years old.. quite the comedian. Still.. I can tell that you have absolutely no idea what QCEW is... You think it is a magazine or a blog... damn, you can't make this stuff up

I looked it up.

Soros was a NAZI sympathizer and he finances the DEmoNazi party today.  He financed BLM (BURN LOOT MURDER.)

 

On 7/12/2024 at 2:46 PM, impartialobserver said:

He is just a garden variety internet forum troll. He is actually pretty tame in comparison to those on the last forum I was on.. liberalforum.net

Actually I have FACTS and you children do not.

And !diots who lose arguments ALWAYS trot out that "troll" thing.

And you wonder why everyone laughs at you goose steppers.

[robosmith]

On 7/13/2024 at 12:05 PM, Nationalist said:

Well you would be, what is commonly known as...wrong.

So much so that Brandon is draining the US strategic reserves.

Based on what?

"AHHH!!! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!!!"

^It's all one gross lie.!

 

You accidentally told the TRUTH finally.

The sales of SPR started in 2018 legislated in 2015. AKA, NOT BIDEN.

You need to get YOUR FACTS straight.

History of SPR Releases

Quote

FY 2020 MANDATED SALES 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 directs the Secretary of Energy to draw down and sell a total of 10 million barrels of SPR crude oil in the years 2020 and 2021.  Of this amount, DOE is selling up to 5 million barrels in FY 2020.  Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 requires the Secretary of Energy to draw down and sell a total of 58 million barrels of crude oil from the SPR, over 8 consecutive FYs, commencing in FY 2018. Of this amount, DOE is selling 5 million barrels in FY 2020.  A total of 9.85 million barrels of crude oil was delivered in October and November 2019, raising a total of $566.6 million in revenue for the U.S. Treasury, for an average of nearly $57.52 per barrel.

Only 2 more years of drawdowns which BEGAN in 2018.

[robosmith]

On 7/11/2024 at 10:17 AM, reason10 said:

A bunch of left wing computer nerds looking at flawed computer models, GETTING PAID BY GEORGE SOROS does not rise to the level of research.

The phrase "Climate Change" has replaced Global Warming, because the  earth did NOT warm when Algore said it would. Florida is not under water.

I already defined ACTUAL CLIMATE CHANGE. So for you've done NOTHING to refute the facts.

And 

 

Your expertise in climate science is NONEXISTENT and therefore YOUR definitions MEAN NOTHING.

BTW, you should check out the flooding in Miami.

 

In Florida, sea level rise is already exacerbating saltwater intrusion and impacting groundwater supplies. Sea level rise is impacting gravity-flow drainage infrastructure, which is leading to more frequent and severe high tide (or “nuisance”) flooding.

 

Sea Level Rise - Florida Climate Center

Florida Climate Center

[Goddess]

I mentioned before that I am trying to broaden my understanding of this topic.

Wondering if there are thoughts from others about this article:  Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases - ScienceDirect

My understanding of what it's saying - 

The warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, and that limit has already been reached, decades ago.  That carbon dioxide emissions have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures and that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause Earth to warm up infinitely. 

Like a sponge, it can only hold so much, meaning carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore, as the saturation point was reached a long time ago.  The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as [CO2’s overall] concentration increases. Once the overall limit has been reached, adding more CO2 has no more impact.

This understanding of saturation levels seems to agree with other studies:

The Global Patterns of Instantaneous CO2 Forcing at the Top of the Atmosphere and the Surface in: Journal of Climate Volume 36 Issue 18 (2023) (ametsoc.org)

Saturation of the infrared absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere | International Journal of Modern Physics B (worldscientific.com)

View of SATURATION OF THE ABSORPTION OF THERMAL RADIATION BY ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE (pollub.pl)

 

it makes me wonder how every single weather pattern now is attributed to "climate change", which seems (suspiciously) to me to be a catch-all phrase that encompasses BOTH global cooling & warming - since the threat seems to waffle between those two outcomes.

Too much snow?  Climate change.

Not enough snow?  Climate change.

Too much rain?  Climate change.

Not enough rain?  Climate change.

Are climate disasters increasing?  I'm not sure they are:

Climate-Fact-Check-2022_v793.pdf (cei.org)

 

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I mentioned before that I am trying to broaden my understanding of this topic.

Wondering if there are thoughts from others about this article:  Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases - ScienceDirect

My understanding of what it's saying - 

The warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, and that limit has already been reached, decades ago.  That carbon dioxide emissions have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures and that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause Earth to warm up infinitely. 

Like a sponge, it can only hold so much, meaning carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore, as the saturation point was reached a long time ago.  The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as [CO2’s overall] concentration increases. Once the overall limit has been reached, adding more CO2 has no more impact.

This understanding of saturation levels seems to agree with other studies:

The Global Patterns of Instantaneous CO2 Forcing at the Top of the Atmosphere and the Surface in: Journal of Climate Volume 36 Issue 18 (2023) (ametsoc.org)

Saturation of the infrared absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere | International Journal of Modern Physics B (worldscientific.com)

View of SATURATION OF THE ABSORPTION OF THERMAL RADIATION BY ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE (pollub.pl)

 

It's interesting and i haven't had a chance to fully read it all but it sounds like they're specifically talking about certain radiation, and not necessary all radiation. And further if i understand it properly it basically allows x amount after y saturation. 

That would suggest that simply lowering co2 would not make a difference, you'd have to lower it beyond a certain point but also it doesn't rule out co2 or other green house gasses having a thermal conductive or insulative property other than strictly radiation.  As you know i'm sure heat is transferred by radiation, conduction and  convection. 

Still worth reading further, i hadn't heard that before. 

Quote

 

it makes me wonder how every single weather pattern now is attributed to "climate change", which seems (suspiciously) to me to be a catch-all phrase that encompasses BOTH global cooling & warming - since the threat seems to waffle between those two outcomes.

Too much snow?  Climate change.

Not enough snow?  Climate change.

Too much rain?  Climate change.

Not enough rain?  Climate change.

Are climate disasters increasing?  I'm not sure they are:

Climate-Fact-Check-2022_v793.pdf (cei.org)

 

Well of course.  I mean climate change is the boogeyman of the day seeing as we're not allowed to burn witches anymore  

There is little doubt the climate is changing - it always has and it always will. It's believable to me personally that mankind is playing a role in that. 

The real question would be is it a crisis or is it something we, like every living thing in history, have to learn to adapt to or perish and that's it. 

[robosmith]

On 7/13/2024 at 10:41 AM, Nationalist said:

Lol...strike one!

"It feels like the people in the way are the ones who don't want to do anything."

No. Most...by far...can read. We don't replace "could" with "crisis" because that would be what? That's right...it would be a lie.

We can also read that indeed the average global climate changes. We even would encourage and invest in different energy solutions. But NOT at the expense of inflation!

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/net-zero-cost-3-5-trillion-a-year/

$3,500,000,000.00/year globally Mike. Now just who do you figure is gonna pay for that Mike? African nations? China? Israel maybe? No...we are in this slimey western world we've created. Oh goodie!

https://globalnews.ca/news/8508541/canada-green-transition-inflation/

We all just came out of a supposed pandemic that trashed everyone's economy. This greenie imposition is just downright mean spirited.!

Do you know that McKinsey has a really bad reputation as research made to order by the payer?

Quote

Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

Do you know that McKinsey has a really bad reputation as research made to order by the payer?

 

So what you're saying is you get your education from late night comedy shows. 

Explains a lot actually. 

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's believable to me personally that mankind is playing a role in that. 

Yes, urban heat domes and all that.

Thank for the thoughtful reply. 🙂

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I mentioned before that I am trying to broaden my understanding of this topic.

Wondering if there are thoughts from others about this article:  Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases - ScienceDirect

My understanding of what it's saying - 

The warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is naturally limited, and that limit has already been reached, decades ago.  That carbon dioxide emissions have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures and that carbon dioxide doesn’t cause Earth to warm up infinitely. 

Like a sponge, it can only hold so much, meaning carbon dioxide cannot increase temperatures anymore, as the saturation point was reached a long time ago.  The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as [CO2’s overall] concentration increases. Once the overall limit has been reached, adding more CO2 has no more impact.

Thank you for taking the time to make the discussion scientific.

I see (at least) two curiosities regarding this research. 

Most obvious is Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2 and the temperature is 870F.

The difference between Venus and Earth is basically distance from the sun. It is believed that long ago, Venus had an atmosphere much like Earth, but CO2 cooked Venus.

Quote

Venus's average surface temperature is 870°F (465°C), which is much higher than Earth's because of its thick atmosphere, which is 96.5% carbon dioxide (CO2) and 3.5% nitrogen. CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat from the sun that would otherwise escape into space. This process, combined with Venus's proximity to the sun, creates a strong greenhouse effect that makes Venus the hottest planet in our solar system. 

 The  other thing is the relationship between CO2 and temperature on Earth. Both are still going up decades after the saturation supposedly occurred.

If carbon dioxide hits a new high every year, why isn’t every year hotter than the last?

 

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thank you for taking the time to make the discussion scientific.

I see (at least) two curiosities regarding this research. 

Most obvious is Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2 and the temperature is 870F.

The difference between Venus and Earth is basically distance from the sun. It is believed that long ago, Venus had an atmosphere much like Earth, but CO2 cooked Venus.

 The  other thing is the relationship between CO2 and temperature on Earth. Both are still going up decades after the saturation supposedly occurred.

If carbon dioxide hits a new high every year, why isn’t every year hotter than the last?

 

well that's not actually very accurate. 

Venus's heat problem isn't it's co2 - it's that it's atmosphere is thick. about 100 times thicker than earth's. That allows it to trap heat much more efficiently.  Combined with being closer to the sun as well as it's different rotation and 'day' issues it's much better at keeping heat in. 

If earth had a similar co2 content but somehow still had the atmospheric density we have now earth would not be that hot or anywhere close to it. It's like a thick sweater keeps in heat better than a thin tshirt no matter what they're made of. 

And the data in that bar chart has been seriously questioned many times. The sources are questionable, and it's been pointed out that other time periods have undergone cooling or warming without carbon so that suggests that while carbon may be going up at the same time that's not evidence that it's because of carbon.  Commonality is NOT causality as every actual science buff knows  

 

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well that's not actually very accurate. 

Venus's heat problem isn't it's co2 - it's that it's atmosphere is thick. about 100 times thicker than earth's. That allows it to trap heat much more efficiently.  Combined with being closer to the sun as well as it's different rotation and 'day' issues it's much better at keeping heat in. 

 When the size and gravity are the same, the ONLY thing that makes an atmosphere "thicker" is the gases involved.

Since Venus is 96% CO2, that is what makes it "thick."

Quote

AI Overview

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is denser than Earth's atmosphere, with a density of around 1.98 kg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure, which is about 1.53 times denser than air. This means that CO2 bubbles will fall to the ground when released into the air. However, some CO2 can still make its way into the upper atmosphere. 

 

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If earth had a similar co2 content but somehow still had the atmospheric density we have now earth would not be that hot or anywhere close to it. It's like a thick sweater keeps in heat better than a thin tshirt no matter what they're made of. 

If Earth had as much CO2 as Venus, the atmosphere would be just as thick.

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And the data in that bar chart has been seriously questioned many times. The sources are questionable,

Prove it. The NOAA doesn't lie like you do.

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

and it's been pointed out that other time periods have undergone cooling or warming without carbon so that suggests that while carbon may be going up at the same time that's not evidence that it's because of carbon.  Commonality is NOT causality as every actual science buff knows  

Unless other factors can be definitively identified, IT IS the CO2 for the last 100 years.

In the distant past, (450M years) there was ALSO CO2 increases due to coal seams being ignited by volcanic activity.

Ever heard of the Russian Steppes?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

 When the size and gravity are the same, the ONLY thing that makes an atmosphere "thicker" is the gases involved.Since Venus is 96% CO2, that is what makes it "thick."

The size and gravity are similar, not the same. And your link agrees with me, it's the thickness  and it proves that's not due to co2.  The atmosphere is over 100 TIMES thicker. According to your link, which agrees with me on the thickness, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is denser than Earth's atmosphere, with a density of around 1.98 kg/m3 at standard temperature and pressure, which is about 1.53 times denser than air. "

So, Carbon is 1.53 times denser than air - but the atmosphere is over 100 TIMES denser. 

Which is about how dense you'd have to be to read those two stats and post here saying it's because it was co2  

Swing and a miss but thanks for posting a link that proves me right  

Quote

If Earth had as much CO2 as Venus, the atmosphere would be just as thick.

Nope.  If we had the same volume of air and it was all co2, we would be 1.53 times thicker than now. Not 100. 

Quote

Prove it. The NOAA doesn't lie like you do.

LOLOL - wait a minute - did you think the NOAA was the only source of data for that??  Did you even read it? Do you read ANY of your cites?!?

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Unless other factors can be definitively identified, IT IS the CO2 for the last 100 years.

That's not how science works. 

You can't just say "oh two things went up at the same time so therefore one causes the other.".  It would be just as fair to say based on that chart rising temperatures cause a rise in CO2, and that's the actual relationship.  Correlation is not causation. 

So we know nowt hat your venus explanation isn't valid, and your chart is not evidence. So you'll have to put something on the table to make your case that's a little more substantial. 

[Goddess]

It's stuff like this that's frustrating.  Why can't they just be honest?

Why would they delete actual historical data and replace it with "models"?  I'm getting really annoyed with the use of "models" to enact policy.  It was disastrous during covid and it looks to me that it is proving disastrous with climate change.  We're pouring billions of dollars into something based on "models".

Garbage In, Garbage Out

I happened on it when googling Canada weather patterns history, but it's from 2019.

Liberals play fast and loose with climate data, fabricating past weather patterns | True North (tnc.news)

 

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Environment Canada purposefully erased 100 years of historical weather readings and replaced it with “modeled historic data” to produce dramatic weather diagrams and maps for their climate change website.

 

According to Environment Canada’s spokesperson, Samantha Bayard, all of the data before 1949 was omitted in the graphs, despite having access to weather measurements which go all the way back to 1850. 

The deleted data was then replaced with fabricated models which simulated past climate data, despite the existence of historical readings. 

“The historical data is not observed historical data. It is modeled historic data,” said Bayard.

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's stuff like this that's frustrating.  Why can't they just be honest?

 

Here's how that works.

They tend to start off with an answer that they convince themselves is right. Before they even look into it they decide that climate change is the problem and man is the source of climate change.

Then they use the answer as they're starting point, and try and work their way back to a question that supports their answer. They try to piece together information that will lead to the correct answer until they arrive at a question.

This is not an uncommon human trait. In fact Douglas Adams made fun of it in one of his dirk gently books where he talks of a company that got rich by inventing software that allowed you to put in the answer you want and it would work its way back to the question for you. So if you were a government military and you wanted congress to buy you a hundred f-35s, you would put that in and it would generate a complicated reason that explained that the only possible course of action was to buy those planes.

Problem with starting with an answer and working your way back to a question is that inevitably you will find little logic gaps and information breaks where there isn't a bridge between you and the next logical backward step. People tend to fill those gaps in with false information, conjured information, or bad logic that allows them to bridge that gap.

Unless you have received training and how to think logically and how to reason properly this is a common trap people fall into. Scientists are no exception.

And that's why they can't tell the truth. At some point to create a question that will lead to the answer they've already decided is correct they will have to massage or alter the numbers in some way to bridge the gaps between where they want to start from and where they want to end

 

You don't have this problem if you start with a question and work your way forward in the first place. Which is why people tend to question this crap

 

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Unless you have received training and how to think logically and how to reason properly this is a common trap people fall into. Scientists are no exception.

I think scientists know how to think logically and reason properly.

The problem is that they are just as easy to buy as politicians are.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm wondering why all the people who believe in conspiracy theory think it's so easy to bribe hundreds or thousands of people? 

Would you take a bribe? Honest question

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think scientists know how to think logically and reason properly.

The problem is that they are just as easy to buy as politicians are.

Amusingly you'd think that's true ... but it's actually not. 

They 're well trained as to what is acceptable in the methods of collecting data and they're fairly proficient at creating 'tests' for their hypothesis following accepted guidelines.  But you would be absolutely stunned how many are horrible at logic and reason.

Here's an old joke that highlights the point.

a scientist wants to find out more about flea Anatomy

He trains a flea to jump every time he is commanded to. He says jump and the flea jumps.

He pulls one of the legs off of the fleet and commands it to jump. It's a little awkward but it gets on its remaining legs and jumps

He pulls off another leg and commands the fleet to jump. He does this until there is just one leg remaining.

He pulls off the last leg and commands the fleet to jump. The flea just lays there. "Jump!" he says, "JUMP".  It does nothing.

That day he records in his journal, "I have discovered today that pulling all the legs off of a flea causes it to go deaf"

Edited July 17 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

They 're well trained as to what is acceptable in the methods of collecting data and they're fairly proficient at creating 'tests' for their hypothesis following accepted guidelines.  But you would be absolutely stunned how many are horrible at logic and reason.

That's why their hypotheses are subject to peer review and further testing not just their logic and reason.

Your old joke is the reason why.

So is this;

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

I think scientists know how to think logically and reason properly.

The problem is that they are just as easy to buy as politicians are.

How do you test a hypothesis that says politicians are as easy to buy as scientists? What methods and guidelines did you follow to produce this conclusion? Who reviewed them?

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

It's stuff like this that's frustrating.  Why can't they just be honest?

Why would they delete actual historical data and replace it with "models"?  I'm getting really annoyed with the use of "models" to enact policy.  It was disastrous during covid and it looks to me that it is proving disastrous with climate change.  We're pouring billions of dollars into something based on "models".

Garbage In, Garbage Out

I happened on it when googling Canada weather patterns history, but it's from 2019.

Liberals play fast and loose with climate data, fabricating past weather patterns | True North (tnc.news)

 

According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Environment Canada purposefully erased 100 years of historical weather readings and replaced it with “modeled historic data” to produce dramatic weather diagrams and maps for their climate change website.

 

According to Environment Canada’s spokesperson, Samantha Bayard, all of the data before 1949 was omitted in the graphs, despite having access to weather measurements which go all the way back to 1850. 

The deleted data was then replaced with fabricated models which simulated past climate data, despite the existence of historical readings. 

“The historical data is not observed historical data. It is modeled historic data,” said Bayard.

^This entire post's sources reak of partisanship: "Liberals play fast and loose," "fabricated models."

Is tnc.news the FOS LIES of Canada?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's why their hypotheses are subject to peer review and further testing not just their logic and reason.

nope. Peer review is mostly about methodology and frankly as was proven fairly recently it doesn't even stand up to that often. Remember when three scientists published their 'findings' for peer review, only they were completely fake and utterly nonsensical but they supported popular social themes of the day, and they passed peer review and were published? Even though they were deliberately full of holes?

Bias still plays a strong role and so does the desire to get ahead - even if the researcher isn't bias the people who hand out the money often are and they know that.  What the big grants? Better say what they want to hear. IF that's for climate change great if it's against that's fine too. 

Scientists Worry About Backlash Against Climate Change Research : The Two-Way : NPR

Quote

Your old joke is the reason why.

Not much has changed.

 

Quote

How do you test a hypothesis that says politicians are as easy to buy as scientists? What methods and guidelines did you follow to produce this conclusion? Who reviewed them?

Buy a couple of each and see what the price was  

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

 

Is tnc.news the FOS LIES of Canada?

Yes, most definitely. These are the digital equivalents of the scandal sheets and partisan party organs of the 19th century. 

They were cheap outfits designed to run fake news. Sound familiar? 

What happened was people eventually got sick of them, and it wasn't profitable to run them anymore. Centrist newspapers took over, and thrived as they could command a broader and larger audience. 

The populist revolt we're seeing is looking more and more leftist everyday. They have union leaders speaking at the RNC, asking for legislation and reform? 

It's understandable, in that liberal center-left parties have become dominated by academics and professionals, including Tech. 

 

[Goddess]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

How do you test a hypothesis that says politicians are as easy to buy as scientists? What methods and guidelines did you follow to produce this conclusion? Who reviewed them?

You check who is funding them and the level of censorship in the scientific discussion.

Duh.

Can either you or @Michael Hardner explain why you believe in censorship of scientific discussion?

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Peer review is mostly about methodology and frankly as was proven fairly recently it doesn't even stand up to that often.

Very true.

Peer-review is not the pinnacle of science.

Reproducibility is.

[Goddess]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, most definitely. These are the digital equivalents of the scandal sheets and partisan party organs of the 19th century. 

They were cheap outfits designed to run fake news. Sound familiar? 

What happened was people eventually got sick of them, and it wasn't profitable to run them anymore. Centrist newspapers took over, and thrived as they could command a broader and larger audience. 

The populist revolt we're seeing is looking more and more leftist everyday. They have union leaders speaking at the RNC, asking for legislation and reform? 

It's understandable, in that liberal center-left parties have become dominated by academics and professionals, including Tech. 

 

Denigrate the source when you can't refute the findings?

This is being done waaaaaaaay too much lately.

Is the information false?  Did they NOT throw out real data in favour of "models"?

[Nationalist]

Yet nobody can show a "peer reviewed" scientific study that concludes the world has a climate "crisis".

Game over.