moonbattery logo

Sep 11 2016

Top Five Climate Change Myths Debunked

You are required to believe the following, lest you be denounced as a “science denier” and marginalized (if not imprisoned) by leftist authoritarians:

1. The earth is warming.
2. Humans are the primary cause.
3. It will have catastrophic results.
4. Only the government can competently fix it.

Note that each one of these mandatory suppositions is more dubious than the one before. That is why dissent has to be suppressed so vigorously.

Moving from the doubtful to the provably false, let us present Steven Crowder's Top Five Climate Change Myths:

1. 97% of scientists agree on climate change.
2. The ice sheets are melting.
3. The polar bears are dying off.
4. Our current climate models have been accurate.
5. National or international government is the only entity capable of solving imminent climate change catastrophe.

Watch Crowder debunk them:

Yet again we see that “climate change” has nothing to do with science. It is pure politics.

On a tip from Jester.

17 Responses to “Top Five Climate Change Myths Debunked”

  1. StephaneDumas says:

    Speaking of climate change, I spotted that article on Infowars about the North Dakota pipeline and started a new term called “Climate Justice Warriors”.

  2. Bodhisattva says:

    Of all the first 5 claims, there is a POSSIBILITY that the Earth is warming – though it is also possible it is cooling or staying approximately the same.

    We can’t know for a couple reasons:

    Too many past temperature records have been too often fraudulently falsified.

    We simply don’t have the ability or the network to accurately measure the temperature of the earth once, let alone more than once in order to make comparisons. All claims they’ve done so involve estimates – estimates fraudulently inflated by those committed to proving the world is warming catastrophically and humans are causing it.

    The other claims are all bogus so I won’t address them, other than with this: With MORE CO2 the rate of warming DECLINED, suggesting if there IS a cause and effect, more CO2 causes cooling, not warming, strange as that may sound, given the known properties of CO2 relative to IR energy, albeit over very small frequency bands. But there is actually an explanation revealing itself in some recent papers I’ve been reading. Anyway, here’s the initial finding:

    … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

    SOURCE: (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

    (note one of the authors of this next published, peer-reviewed scientific study is none other than Michael Mann, the ‘father’ of the now debunked “hockey schtick”.)

    It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

    And this: The world is actually getting GREENER, including DESERTS. Warmer temperatures and more CO2 are IMPROVING the biosphere, not killing it: Actual publication at Wiley
    Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments Authors Randall J. Donohue
    A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

  3. Bodhisattva says:

    The latest spin tactics on Hillary’s obviously failing health:

    Clinton has pneumonia, was dehydrated and overheated

    Dr. Lisa R. Bardack released a statement via the campaign revealing the diagnosis on Sunday evening, hours after the Democratic presidential nominee was seen stumbling on video after exiting a 9/11 memorial event early.

    Bardack said Clinton had an examination at her home in Chappaqua after the incident. The doctor said the incident Sunday was a result of dehydration and overheating and that the candidate is “re-hydrated and recovering nicely.”

    Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies that gained attention last Monday, when she had a coughing fit at the start of a campaign event. Bardack said she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.

  4. Bodhisattva says:

    The left’s spin on it and my response:

    The doctors told me it was pneumonia, but I knew what it was! A VICTIM OF THE MODERN AGE! Poor, poor girl!

    Seriously, that’s a line from a movie, not my opinion.

  5. Occam's Stubble says:

    When it comes to climate change, the left is all about the science but when it comes to GMOs, they’re all “Yea, brethren, eat ye not of the devil’s vile concoction. It is an abomination to Gaia.”

  6. Occam's Stubble says:

    Ninety percent of the world’s ice is contained in Antarctica. The average temperature there is -37C. Therefore, in order to melt all that ice, the Earth’s average temperature would need to increase by around 50C. The most dire climate models state that without intervention, we’re looking at an increase of 2C per century. Thus it will take 25 centuries of inaction to flood the coasts. At that point of course we won’t care BECAUSE WE’LL BE LONG DEAD BEFORE THE EARTH’S TEMP INCREASES BY 50C.

  7. God Emperor Trump says:

    don’t forget the millions of dead African babies as a result of left’s environmental policies 🙁

  8. God Emperor Trump says:

    heretic! burn the witch! death to climate deniers!

    /sarcasm off

  9. Ericakvargas2 says:

    Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ri416f:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash656DigitalConceptGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ri416f:….,……

  10. perlguy says:

    Tried to share directly from Moonbattery, Facebook blocked it. “This message contains content that has been blocked by our security systems.”…. (like, conservative content?!)

  11. Otis says:


    I’ve read several recent articles about the failure of ethanol and how it’s worse for the planet than fossil fuels. Yet the EPA wants to increase from 10 to 20% ethanol.

    We can discuss it til we’re blue in the face, but tyranny rolls on when it’s not confronted.

  12. Opinionated_Vogon says:

    Democrats always, always, double down on failure. See socialism. See minimum wage. See Social Security. See Obamacare.

  13. MPH says:

    Yep. They always claim that we just need to do it again, only HARDER!

  14. MPH says: has the results of the surveys of USA ground stations. Those that are well sited show a temperature decrease trend. The bulk of the increase trend is actually due to urban encroachment on temperature sites. The best sites are in open fields, with no nearby structures or roads. They give the most accurate readings. This site has examples of sites that now have 10 ton A/C units blowing on them, and my favorite is the one that is in the middle of an asphalt parking lot (think that may artificially raise the reading? You’re a denier, and should be jailed).

    When NOAA gets notified that a site is now badly sited (category 1 sites are the best, 5 the worst), they adjust the temperature record for the site all the way back to when the site opened, rather than try to determine when the change occurred (in many cases, when the change occurred is obvious in the temperature record itself). The author of this site testified to Congress about this. Only 20% of the USA’s surface stations are well sited, the rest produce crap for readings. This man even experimented with a change recently allowed for sites. They used to require that the shelters be white washed, with the formula for the white wash being specified. Recently, white latex was allowed instead. So he took to identically calibrated sensors, put them in shelters, one white washed and one painted with white latex. The white latex shelter produced temperatures nearly one degree higher than the white washed one. Hmmm, so I guess global warming is “man made”.

    The there’s the article about how “greenhouse gasses” work. First, they don’t work like a greenhouse, which stops convective cooling to produce higher temperatures. They absorb infrared energy to warm the atmosphere. So, if the atmosphere were totally transparent to infra red, what would the mean global annual temperature be? 0 degrees Fahrenheit. What is it actually? 58 dF. The article then broke down this increase per gas. The vast majority of the warming is caused by water vapor. Only 0.28 dF is due to human influence.

    It went on to explain why CO2 isn’t much of an issue. The vast majority of the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed by water vapor. That part of the infra red spectrum is already in saturation. Adding more water vapor won’t increase warming any further, and adding CO2 will have almost no effect because of the commonality of the two gasses absorption spectrums.

    But for me, the main reason I can’t get excited over all this has to do with the following (I’ve actually stumped a climate scientist with this one, in person). About 1,000 years ago, during the medieval warm period, the planet was so warm that olives and figs grew as far North as the baltic coast of Germany. There are city and church records that detail this (had to know what was growing and how much to make sure taxes and tithes were paid). We still aren’t warm enough to do that now in many of the places that were doing it then. Sea levels back then weren’t dozens of meters higher than now, as we’re being warned about. If we’re still not as warm as 1,000 years ago based on crop growth records (along with first/last frost/snow records), and the predicted catastrophes didn’t happen then, exactly why should I be concerned about what is happening now?

  15. […] Top five climate change myths debunked […]

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy