As if the world need more information to conclude that global climate change is a farce, we learn more truth.
And I learned the hard way, when people tell the truth, sometimes things don’t go your way.
I was fired for telling the truth about the lying skank Kavanaugh accusers. Nevertheless, we learned that I was correct as the stories of all Kavanaugh accusers fell apart. And Susan Crockford suffers my fate.
Crockford is the zoologist who proved that polar bears were not dying out because of climate change. And her university canned her recently. After 15 years as an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Victoria, Crockford’s application for renewing her contract has been rejected without comment by the university.
Trending: Experts Explain Nancy’s Epic Downfall
For years climate change larcenists claimed global climate farce was killing off the polar bear population in the arctic. However, Crockford proved otherwise.
Her book “Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change” explains why polar bears are thriving despite the recent decline of Arctic sea ice. She isn’t even denying global climate change, per se. She just proves that polar bears are not diminishing because of it. Nor are they diminishing at all.
This woman is a professional zoologist, so what does she know?!
Leftists would rather live with a lie than admit they’ve blown this climate change farce way out of proportion.
They’re so busy hiding the truth, they’ve forgotten what the truth is. In fact, Facebook punished me for publishing this story a few months back:
When the government no longer pays for bogus money-grabbing data, the truth comes out.
As Zero Hedge reported,
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which ‘climate change’ is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint.
Scientists in Finland found “practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change” after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
I know, I know. The Finnish are in cahoots with President Trump who is in cahoots with the RUSSIANS!
Except that Japanese collaborated the results. The article continues,
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this “umbrella effect” (an entirely natural occurrence) could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.
How did these scientists get things so wrong?
Outside of being paid to do so, the data is manipulated. Here’s how:
The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds. And when cosmic rays decrease, so do clouds. Thus climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect.”
In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.
“Only a small part.” So if Armageddon occurs, it won’t be because of man’s impact on weather, but instead just the natural death of the planet.
Is this just speculation by the “climate deniers”?
Not according to this section in one of the studies conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
Paraphrasing Barack Obama: “Global climate change is not a fraud. This is a matter of settled science”.
Yet, anytime someone comes forward with scientific data, it isn’t evaluated. No one thoroughly investigates. Instead, it is ignored on the basis that it doesn’t fit the liberal narrative.
After publishing the truth backed by the proof, Facebook threw me in jail for posting “dishonest” things. We were told we didn’t have enough research. But we’re not writing research papers. We are here to dissect the daily news and weigh in with our opinions.
Then, FB put The BlackSphere on reduced distribution. To this day, we’re still suffering from Facebook’s censorship. But no amount of shadow banning us will change whats going on. Or in the case of climate change, what’s NOT going on.
**Editor’s Note: If you question the worthiness of a Zero Hedge source, consider these scholarly articles: