Climate Change Does Too Exist!, Rebuttal

This article is a prime example of how global warming/climate change can exist in one’s mind and not in reality. The one key thing to remember is there wouldn’t be a debate at all if GW/CC were a reality. The evidence would be so undeniable that everyone would agree due to it coming from concrete proof. However, this isn’t the case with GW/CC as the debate has been going on for decades.

As I said, most meteorologists do not agree with the scheme of GW/CC primarily because of their overall knowledge of the mechanics of the atmosphere. More than likely, this is why the United Nations climate based organizations who promote this rubbish do not employ many true meteorologists and the ones they do employ have an extremist environmentalist background in their resume.

Getting down to the truth of the matter, the author states that many more tornadoes have occurred in the US more recently than in decades of the past.

Of course, more tornadoes have been observed in recent years, due to population increases as I said. However, since Doppler radar came into use on a wide scale in the 1980s we have observed more tornadoes than ever before, simply due to advanced technology in being able to detect them. Now tornadoes can be observe don Doppler radar that in years past would not have been detected at all.

Next, we need to address the Polar ice melt. First of all, using anything Michael Mann has to say can be discarded as gibberish from the start. This man is well educated in various genres but has no formal education in meteorology. He is an expert in computer models and all the manipulation that goes along with it. Since the “hockey stick” lie was exposed, no one should believe a word this man says. His track record is filled with lies and manipulation of data. Mann also proves the point that just because someone is well educated in one genre doesn’t make them an expert in another.

Yes, the polar ice is melting. Its summer, it always decreases during summer. Again, we have manipulated satellite imagery designed to show a desired outcome.

A prime example of climate cycles is at the following link

Here, Arctic ice is observed over the course of years. What it does show is expansion and retraction of ice in cycles. Nothing more or less and it shows no massive melt off.

I refer to my article, “My Predictions for 2012” for explanation of any unusually high ice melt being due to this year’s unusually high solar activity, not GW/CC.

Yes, most of the central areas of the US, including Kansas and Iowa receive about 15 inches of precipitation annually on the low scale to around 35 on the high end. To say the natural vegetation in areas receiving less than 20 inches of precipitation annually is scrub brush country would be a true fact.

It is all in how the precipitation falls in an area also. An area receiving 12inches of rainfall annually, in the form of steady rain lasting for hours when it does rain along with usual high humidity levels yearly will be green most of the time. Such is the case in a place like San Diego, California. Yet, an area that receives the same amount of rainfall, but in the form of thunderstorms during a short season will have desert vegetation, as is the case in a place like No gales, Arizona.

As I have said many times, GW/CC is based on conjecture and doesn’t add up when confronted with actual weather and climate records and truthful geophysical evidence.

11 thoughts on “Climate Change Does Too Exist!, Rebuttal

  1. Stalemate
    Only a dogged few scientists and others still debate this, Tony. The vast majority of opinion, proof, and observation shows drastic climate change does exist. It would not be a debate at all if they (and you) would simply bow to proof and logic. In my mind? I think it is only in your mind but the entire point is ludicrous because of course all we have is our minds. I do believe this is a stalemate. Best wishes–

  2. Re; dmondeo
    What you have presented me with is more satellite imagery which proves nothing, except the promotion of the agenda.

    1. This is not a fight why the hostile stance?
      Please do not use my name in this fashion this is not a fight.
      You are entitled to have your opinion. I have no agenda but to learn the truth.
      Please edit your subject in the post above and remove my name tag then I will remove this post.

  3. GW/CC
    Mr. Elliot, your argument would be bolstered by your presenting the evidence in support. For instance, I’ve seen no research report supporting the allegation that “most meteorologists do not agree with the scheme of GW/CC”. The evidence is clear, and there is no legitimate debate, except from those unfamiliar with the details of the research. So true, we value our personal psychological preferences more than conflicting evidence. True objectivity is an illusive ideal, yet required.

  4. Re; GW/CC
    Only around 17% of meteorologists agree with the scheme. I’d give you links but, I’m not going to do everyone’s investigations for them.

  5. GW/CC
    Predictably evasive move. Having seen the results of your investigations, I prefer to do my own research, thank you.
    Perhaps we can agree that this exchange is going nowhere.
    Please, declare yourself “winner”, and have a good day.

  6. Re;This is not a fight why the hostile stance?
    If you perceive my answer as “hostile” I assume you consider all opposing views as such. Since I only presented an opposing comment having nothing remotely hostile in it, I can now more fully understand why you believe in this garbage.

    1. Re; Re;This is not a fight why the hostile stance?
      Sorry but I take you using the subject title Re;dmondeo as a personal attack.
      Seeing as no comment was made with dmondeo as the subject I saw no other reason for you to use it and found it hostile toward me personally!
      You cannot truly comment on what I believe because you know nothing of my personal beliefs. I did not and do not find your opposing opinion hostile. I did not oppose your argument in my post I only posted a link to info nothing more. Diplomacy and courtesy is needed here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Most recent posts by Tony Elliott

All posts by Tony Elliott