Arnold Schwarzenegger: Climate change is not science fiction

Cop21-paris

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Arnold Schwarzenegger has joined an unprecedented group of politicians, celebrities and faith leaders gathered at the summit of conscience meeting Paris, who have demanded immediate action on climate change.

According to the Guardian (quoting Schwarzenegger);

“I’ve starred in a lot of science fiction movies and, let me tell you something, climate change is not science fiction, this is a battle in the real world, it is impacting us right now.

“I believe the science is in. The debate is over and the time for action is now,” he told an invited audience of intellectuals and spiritual leaders from all faiths. “This is bigger than any movie, this is the challenge of our time. And it is our responsibility to leave this world a better place than we found it, but right now we are failing future generations.”

“This year alone we will dump 40bn tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere. The World Health Organization says that air pollution causes over 7 million premature deaths every year and all over the world we can see flooding, monster storms, droughts and wild-fires that are completely out of control.”

I’m an Arnie fan, but this doesn’t mean I’ll defer my reason to Schwarzenegger’s authority as a climate expert. I don’t doubt Schwarzenegger is sincere, but the grouping now gathered in Paris, whether individual members know it or not, in my opinion represents part of an unprecedented attempt to shackle the global economy, to provide rent seeking renewable corporatists with an open opportunity to enslave and plunder the poor, by driving up the price of food and energy. To drive up prices to the point that some poor people will begin to starve to death.

If there was a climate emergency, the appropriate response would be to decarbonise the economy with nuclear reactors, not to push for renewables which even top Google engineers admit simply don’t work. Since nobody can demonstrate any global warming whatsoever since 1997, without overcooking the numbers, there clearly isn’t a problem urgent enough to justify inflicting unspeakable horror and starvation on the most vulnerable people of the world.

If you want to exercise your conscience Arnold Schwarzenegger, do some more research. Do what Bill McKibben recently did, take a short drive down the road to Chico, CA, and listen to another side to the story. Anthony might or might not persuade you – but at least you will have made an effort, to hear both sides of the story. Don’t blindly place your credibility and good faith into the hands of people who, in my opinion, knowingly or unknowingly represent the interests of unscrupulous rent seeking corporatists.

138 thoughts on “Arnold Schwarzenegger: Climate change is not science fiction

  1. As there’s little real science in the IPCC’s output, then the
    term Science can be omitted, leaving just
    Fiction.
    That seems reasonable.

    • Firstly Arnie needs to understand the difference between atmospheric gas pollution and CO2, Big hint Arnie, before you talk in public about Science, you actually need to have listened during your middle AND grade school science class….

      • Arnie just wants to be back in the spotlight. Fading fame must be mighty uncomfortable for him.

      • We did have one for a while, as he was being divorced and taking care of “things” with a broom & dustpan by sweeping his bad behavior under the rug. Amazing performance and now please Arnold, just go away.

  2. 1. This year alone we will dump 40bn tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere.
    2. The World Health Organization says that air pollution causes over 7 million premature deaths every year.
    3. All over the world we can see flooding, monster storms, droughts and wild-fires that are completely out of control.

    First of all, carbon?
    Use the proper name.
    It is Carbon dioxide, a colorless, tasteless, trace gas essential for life on this planet.
    And what does 1 have to do with 2 and 3?

    They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel….

    • Totally. Since Di Caprio has failed as the spokesman they have now put Arnie into bat and he speaks from the script he has been given and even tries to move the pea.

      Carbon Dioxide is not pollution dear Governator.

      • The sad thing is that he has prostituted himself with two of the latest hot button memes, weather weirding and public health. These are both nonsense but are very effective with low information citizens.

        It’s blame, shame and fear all the way down. Should they be ashamed of these tactics? They should be, but sociopathically, aren’t.

        The social pathology is deep and getting deeper. The economic pathology is wide and getting wider.

        Call the cattle home, across the sands of Dee.
        ================

    • Item 2 – heard a pretty good discussion on this one – they are talking about how particulate matter in the air. That has been pretty well documented likely has little if anything to do with global warming except for the soot on ice and glaciers and aerosols reflecting sunlight away from the earth. Oh, wait. But still, volcanoes clearly put more into the air than we do.

      Nevertheless, we should continue to clean up the air as we have been doing for 40 plus years. My dad died in part due to farmer’s lung. Anyone who has baled hay or tilled a field knows how much dust they may have in their lungs. So do coal miners and there was a time black lung was a major issue. I have ridden horse back through the US deserts and coughed up red dust for days. We are now aware of the risks and we can choose or not choose to avail ourselves of protection from particulate matter – including in the cab of a farm tractor.

      The WHO is talking about limiting PM 10 and 2.5. Thing is, the western world is already pretty much in compliance with the standards except near sources of some of this particulate matter from industry and near highways and bus routes in high density areas of cities. I can’t argue with the goal of getting the developed world to be there too, but it won’t happen as long as they are in energy poverty burning charcoal inside their homes for cooking.

      I think the number of deaths they attribute seems a little large as there are many contributing factors. But unlike the “Climate Change” that I believe is mostly natural, we can clean up our portion of the particulate matter. But old mother nature still has the upper hand in many places.

      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

      • Most of the deaths are from burning dung and wood in poorly ventilated homes for cooking and heating. The increased us of fossil fuels to provide energy and increase prosperity would eliminate the cause of most of these deaths, and the increased longevity and productivity would vastly increase the economic positive from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide social benefits that far outweigh their exaggerated social costs.

      • majormike1, you seem to ignore the fact that burning fossil fuels in poorly ventilated homes is no different than burning dung or wood in them. It’s not the fuel that kills, it’s the lack of proper ventilation that is the cause.

      • Joel, I hope you are being sarcastic, because Mike is talking about supplying electricty generated by burning fossil fuels in power stations, not a litre of kerosene in a pressure cooker.

      • Ray Boorman….. Mike was not talking about supplying electricity, he said: “Most of the deaths are from burning dung and wood in poorly ventilated homes” which is what I was responding to.
        ..
        ..
        rogerknights …..Smoke, or no smoke, burning anything in a poorly ventilated area is very very dangerous.

    • Hey Other_Andy! You say:
      “First of all, carbon? Use the proper name. It is Carbon dioxide.”

      That is one of the things that bugs the heck out of me! Generally speaking, if anyone refers to CO2 as “carbon” I know that they are scientific idiots. If they absolutely refuse to call it “carbon-dioxide” then instead of “carbon” they ought to call it “oxygen”. After all, CO2 (by mass) is only 27% carbon, but 73% oxygen! I guess that long heart rending speeches about “oxygen pollution” just don’t have the proper emotional punch.

    • 1. This year alone we will dump 40bn tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere.

      Why not use the percentage of the atmosphere instead of the tons? The bigger number sounds scarier.

      (Oh. And, Arnold, unless the carbon is hooked with with oxygen or other elements that would make it a part of a molecule of gas, the first calm day or rain will take it back to Ol’ Ma Gaia anyway.)

  3. We keep hearing this ” the debate is over ” mantra. Anyone here remember a debate?

    • They debated whether to go full bat sh%t crazy, or merely extremely alarmist. The alarmists lost.

  4. “I’ve starred in a lot of science fiction movies” He may very well be overqualified in the fiction side, but certainly not so in the science side! I also think the term science fiction is an oxymoron unless it is associated with AGW.

  5. never was the sharpest kinfe in the drawer..remember waaay back when he was still in the bodybuilding game n dating ms shriver..we laughed a lot at arnie for president..well using his socialclimbing ability he did make gubernator..;-) but then fouled his own nest.
    he really ought to stfu and stick to movies..
    guess this is just another script really another BAD one.

  6. I wonder if this idiot will admit to any responsibility for the Californian drought, which could have been mitigated if the powers that be – possibly even the Governor of the time – had encouraged the thought of constructing more dams to contain the seasonal rain?

  7. He’s right.
    As presented in the media, it’s Metaphysics.
    One should forgive make believers (actors) for confusing reality with the real thing.

    • Obama seems to be taking another president’s advice waaay too far (“If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it”).

  8. Ahnuld claims to be a Republican as well. He doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of words.

    • He’s a RINO… and one without cojones when faced with a Democratic legislature. Mr. “Cave-In”

  9. Stop your subject is not science. CC is a topic of science. CC is real but not due to gases.
    he CREATOR has not made gases for GHE to warm the earth. They are great coolant of one of many cooling systems of the nature. Gases are freely moving molecules. So, they can’t form ‘green house’. Only solid materials can be fixed to make four walls. Solid transparent materials like plastics and glasses are used to make green houses, so that the sunlight goes though to heat inside the green houses. So GHG idea is metaphorical, ridiculous, fake, imaginary, spurious and greatest fraud in the history of science. Gases are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission all the time and man has no control over the process. Therefore, don’t blame gases for GHE.

    We can reduce the use of fossil fuel to almost zero percent for electricity by making correction in the hydropower engineering.

    (Details in the following post include- Part I about climate science with explanation of the cause of Climate Change and Part II – solution to Power Crisis ).

    devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com

  10. CNN interviewed Jerry Brown last nite Australia time and began by linking the Californian drought with CAGW. can’t find it online, however:

    21 July: CNN: Delia Gallagher: Pope: We cannot separate ourselves from the environment
    California Gov. Jerry Brown quoted the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will,” to encourage mayors to not be, “in any way confident or complacent,” in the fight for change…
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/21/world/pope-francis-climate-trafficking-conference/

  11. ABC7/AP bring up the drought & claim to know what “climate change supporters” are asking!

    21 July: ABC7: Adrienne Bankert: Gov. Jerry Brown blasts climate-change naysayers at Vatican symposium
    Ahead of the meeting with the pontiff, Brown, who previously studied to be a catholic priest before entering politics, quoted from the Bible to make a case for moving away from the use of fossil fuels.
    “God is not mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that he shall also reap and what Saint Paul said in reference to God, we can also say about God’s creation. We have heard what we are doing to that creation. What a trillion tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses will do,” Brown said.
    It’s not the first time the governor quoted Bible verses in his speeches – but it might have been the first time he used the word “bamboozled” to describe those who believe climate change is not sound science.
    “Right in the middle of this problem, we have fierce opposition and blind inertia and that opposition is well financed. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into propaganda, in falsifying the scientific record, bamboozling people of every country, television stations, political parties, think tanks, PHDs, university personnel,” Brown said…
    Brown said taxpayers will not be paying for his trip to Rome.
    ***For all of the green changes in the golden state, California also has been under the worst drought conditions of anywhere in the country.
    Climate change supporters ask – what else but global warming could be the cause of such severe weather?…
    The climax of Tuesday’s inaugural session was an afternoon audience with Pope Francis, who has become a hero to the environmental movement and has used his moral authority and enormous popularity to focus world attention on climate change and its effects on the poor.
    The Associated Press contributed to this report.
    http://abc7.com/news/gov-brown-blasts-climate-change-naysayers-at-vatican-symposium/868994/

  12. “I’ve starred in a lot of science fiction movies and, let me tell you something, climate change is not science fiction….”

    No, it most certainly is not. At best, the anthropogenic global warming contention is fantasy; in fact, it’s fraud.

    To quote Robert A.Heinlein – one of the writers who can be said to have defined the field of science fiction –

    “Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate — and often very tightly reasoned — speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy.” (1981)

    • Perhaps we ought to be talking about fictional science rather than science fiction. Arnie A. apparently doesn’t have time to read the vast amount of fictional science presented by the IPCC. Fictional science presents selected facts. mishandled data, and unfounded hypotheses in the form of a published paper or a purported science article in the popular press or blog that draws the desired conclusions out of thin air. When ever you see “may” or “not inconsistent with” you know you are reading or seeing fictional science.

  13. climate change is not science fiction,
    However, the notion that climate change has anything to do with burning fossil fuels is.

  14. Anthony might or might not persuade you – but at least you will have made an effort, to hear both sides of the story.

    And that sword cuts all ways. We need the other side. It is important to remember that. I nearly always learn more in discussion with those with whom I don’t agree.

    Also bear in mind that our paper on surface stations involves a feedback mechanism, itself: that of Heat Sink Effect (HSE). And as in Willis’ example, it is a trend amplifier, it does not create a trend (unless local conditions change significantly, in which case we simply drop the station anyway).

    Therefore we agree that global warming (“A” or not, “C” or not) is not only a reality, but absolutely required for our hypothesis to be tested (and it tests very well indeed). The question is, as usual is not of of those “how” things, but a “how much” things. Most alarmists think that skeptics insist that either it is not warming or that warming is 110% natural. But the responsible skeptics I have seen in the journals universally concede that humans can and do have some effect the climate. But by how much?

  15. When the Great Dork cannot even mentally distinguish the difference between emitting an odourless, colourless, harmless gas and smoke , NOx and particulate emissions in the third world then you can ignore everything else he says. Perhaps he should have just jumped to his feet and crooned “Ah’ll be Baack” like he usually does.

    • One day he may be able to say of CAGW ‘he caught a train’, or even
      ‘I let him go”.

  16. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak and commented:
    I’m an Arnie fan, but this doesn’t mean I’ll defer my reason to Schwarzenegger’s authority as a climate expert. I don’t doubt Schwarzenegger is sincere, but the grouping now gathered in Paris, whether individual members know it or not, in my opinion represents part of an unprecedented attempt to shackle the global economy, to provide rent seeking renewable corporatists with an open opportunity to enslave and plunder the poor, by driving up the price of food and energy. To drive up prices to the point that some poor people will begin to starve to death.

  17. I figure the climate is much like the weather. Climate is in a constant state of flux and will be whether we humans exist or not. These alarmists are nothing but fear mongering opportunists, using a natural event and blaming man kind for the change to support their own livelihood…. no different than say, religious leaders. This has been turned into a religion.

  18. This is all pretty rich from a man with the carbon footprint of a small African country. Apart from actively promoting the development of the Humvee for civilian use his other cars are a Bugatti Veyron, Bentley, Ferrari 360 Spider, a Porsche 911 Turbo, a Dodge Challenger, and a Mercedes SLS. No Chevy Volt for Arnie. He also has his own Gulfstream III private jet but of course you must not catch a charter flight for your annual holidays or go anywhere except by bus or bicycle.

    Is there anything more vain and hypocritical than a Hollywood environmentalist ?

  19. But thinking that all the roids you took would not have made a difference in how things turned out is NOT fiction? Seriously. Here is a guy who’s amazing rise to the top was aided by steroids, and he would have never been that great. ( he still may have won, but on a non steroidal playing field, he would not have been the extreme outlier he was, and likely not garnered the attention that launched his career. its easily a 20-40 lb advantage for him, it allows you to work harder and recover quicker) And then he says it was a “mistake” A mistake my bicep.. He is a smart man, but he knows darn well that winning a show without drugs and winning it with them are 2 different things. I get on stage and have to try to shred opponents to win, by that I mean so cut at 5-9 170 that guys 20-40 lbs heavier than me dont look as cut. If they are, I get blown off the stage, and it has happened. Not fun being 0-37 before you won even a state show. , What is very surprising though is his trashing of foundational facts. If equated with lifting, the climate fight is the old free weights vs machine argument. It takes big powerful movements to create big powerful muscles. Most of the guys you see out there did the big power movements to grow sqauts, powercleans, alot of heavy free weight work. Arnold railed against machine work when he was winning. His squat routines were legendary. Franco Columbo, same way. The foundational evidence is the actual data now, the modeling the machines And even though that modeling has been dead wrong, you still see it being pushed. Its like the guy getting a gym membership thinking 3 days a week with a trainer on machines, many of whom got that way lifting heavy weights, will make him look like that trainer. Nonsense But you know something, maybe there is something in him that likes the easier way out. I hold nothing against him for using steroids, it was a calculated decision and it clearly helped him, Though I have not taken them, and my competition weight was never over 175, even now if I go in masters, its down to 165 and I never was 7x Mr Olympia either, and can not even dream of that level ( even with drugs) But then to piss down our back and tell us its raining ( it was a mistake to take them???) is basically what he is up to now with this stand to try to keep him relevant. And by the way, I always wondered how Bush 1 could have possibly appointed him the head of the presidents council on physical fitness. So what do you tell kids with that.. take roids and you can be like Arnold? Do us a favor Arnold, deal with reality. What you did was great, but dont tell us the aids you had were a mistake. And while your at it, why dont you actually challenge yourself to look at foundational facts on climate the way you did when you were training. You dont need roids to do that, just a lick of common sense

    • One other thing. I make no judgement on what a person does and does not do as far as his personal life I think if I was a cop for instance , with the way things are today, I would darn sure get as strong as I could physically to make sure I can protect myself. And while everyone sits there ( I get a kick out of sports writers, like none of them never smoked something illegal or taken something to help get rid of writers block, or study for a test) that go after the 240 lb back that got caught, cause he was trying to level a playing field against 4 300 lb defensive line man that want to face plant him) and criticizes guys.. MY BEEF IS NOT THAT HE TOOK THEM.. BUT THAT HE TELLS US IT WAS A MISTAKE. and the link I tried to show is that he will say things he knows not to be true, I cant believe he believes that, and that he is really violating something he should have learned in the gym about big foundational methods. So his stance to me is like arguing the sun the oceans stochastic events and the design of the system are overcome by the weather equal of a yoga mat. But as far as what he did, fine, just dont tell us it was a mistake. It does I think reveal the same kind of attitude that would have him buy into all this, in spite of what he should know.

  20. Hey Arnold,

    Let’s make a deal: I’ll start believing what you’re spouting when you start living like you actually believe it too.

    If you really believe that CO2 is killing the planet, shouldn’t you be walking everywhere, living in one of those trendy “tiny” houses, eschewing private (or even commercial) aviation, etc?

    Hmm. I wonder how much carbon is created in the production, marketing and delivery of one of those 400 million dollar movies that pay your bills? Why do we need such lavish entertainment in the face of the end of the world as we know it?

    Yea…I’m not buying that you really believe the tripe your spouting, because if you really believed that modern life is killing the planet you wouldn’t just be railing at everyone else in the world to clean up their act, you’d be cleaning up your own.

    If you’re not willing to give up your own lavish, jet-setting lifestyle, energy sucking mansions, and profligate consumerism, I’m thinking you don’t really believe it’s that big of deal after all now do you?

    • I just tell people I’m green. I must be – my carbon footprint is a fraction of Arnies, and Leo’s and Al’s.

  21. Unfortunately the MSM is pounding [every] airwave with this message. Our side of the argument is not getting a look in

  22. I make sense of all this by estimating the brain-to-ego ratio of people who take a position on hypothetical catastrophes and, in my opinion, the brain factor is not that variable among members of our species who have managed to survive to maturity.

  23. My local weather bureau recently revamped its website and led me into the global warming blog, ran by the senior scientific officer, where he rants on about “climate deniers…bleating”, not ‘climate change deniers’, but ‘climate deniers’, a Freudian slip for sure. I took no time at all in pointing out to the local newspaper that the only “climate deniers” we’re the scientific officers of our weather bureau, who deny repeatedly that it is nothing more sinister than climate.

  24. Thanks indeed to E.W. for bringing this motley crew to our attention.

    The link to the so-called “summit of conscience” is buttock-clenchingly vile.
    It shows happy faces of fifty-one (51) so-called personalities who support their trendy, green nonsense. If only they knew; CONSCIENCE cannot be communal.

    Their heading should read … “CON-science !” – Be a Parasite and Join the Gravy Train – we’ll show you how to milk the tax-payers with the help of the EPA.

    They also show four “organisers”, they are:-
    ARC / Bayard – for the youth / Conseil Economique Social et Environnemental / R20 – Regions of Climate Action.

    Partners are:-
    Auberge Advoniat (Paris) / Fondation Prince Albert II de Monaco / Fondation Iris / ihemer / Revue Ultreia / Semaines sociales de france / Village des Pruniers (Plum Village).

    Press partners are:-
    France Inter / La Croix / UbrainTV.

    I just can’t wait to see the special, hard-hitting antidote when it, the special film by CMofBr., comes out later this year. I just hope he gets the funding for it: perhaps we could all chip in what we can afford and help to make it a real firecracker of a film. Any thoughts E.W. ?

  25. Arnie’s science fiction experience is not from the film industry. It’s from his time as California’s Guv.

    • Arnie the same [Governor] of California that blocked hundreds of irrigation [reservoirs] and a fresh water pipeline projects and now in periodic [drought] California is [rationing] water.

  26. When I go to the gym I can’t escape Arnie and a bunch of meerkats trying to sell me insurance for fossil-fuel automobiles.
    Where’s Kristanna Loken when you need her?

  27. How did Arnie and his friends get from his home in sunny California to Paris to make his pronouncement that we should all use less jet fuel.

  28. Singers want to be actors, actors want to be politicians, politicians want to be supreme overlord.

    Was Arnie ever a singer?

  29. Let people like Arnie make all the fuss they want, it will in no short order come back to haunt them, the coming decade on top of nearly two decades of no warming, will be like egg on face.

    The somnolent sun in his fading decades will show him as a fool, actors and body builders do not always equate to wisdom or scientific acumen. Arnie grow up and smell the roses.

  30. Anthony isn’t the other side of the story, merely a G rated version of it. Fiction it all remains. The atmosphere and our Oceans smooth the extremes of temperature between night and day, they do not make the mean temperature any hotter.

    • Thanks for that. Saw the Arnie thing on Facebook the other day. Just posted Mr. Minister. I love that show. It’s funny because it is so true. My “political” friends agree.

  31. Skynet has won. Fact checkers are now extinct. They were crushed by machine-like message management tactics.

  32. “This year alone we will dump 40bn tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere.”

    This from a man who used a private jet to commute daily from his home in Los Angeles to Sacramento. Do as I say, not as I do.

  33. ‘unprecedented attempt ‘ becasue there is real fear that time is running out , not for the planet nor the climate and especially not for the people . But for those who looked to ride CAGW to personal wealth, professionals positions and ideological dominance .

    The bad news , it will by no means will ‘the cause ‘ die quick UN bodies like the IPCC has zombie like qualities, lots of people will still be employed in climate ‘science’ and the greens will go nowhere but perhaps to another cause.

    The good news that in reality at Paris although the production of BS mountains is likley to hit new heights, those countries that have democracies show no sees of signing up and commenting electoral suicide, those that do not have already said their doing nothing and others offer nothing but empty buckets their hopping to fill with others cash , the chances of which are poor at best .

    Idiot ideas , wasted cash and world class BS , will been seen, but anything with real meaning and therefore impact , no .

  34. Hey stop knocking Arnie
    He’s a leading authority,
    A scientist of note,
    He’s part of the majority
    Who talk of science fiction
    And pretend it’s science fact,
    But we all know that Arnie
    Can put on an act!

    • Pppprrffffllll. No he can’t. Come on. He’s worse than Glen Campbell in “True Grit”. The only time Arnie is even a wee bit talented is when he gets to PRETEND he is acting, like in “Kindergarten Cop”. But acting he cannot do. He is the epitome of a village idiot and only folks in Calilala land could have voted that village idiot into office.

      That said, I cannot think of a better spokes person than Arnie. Keep feeding him “roids and broids” and he will be the sole reason for the AGW downfall.

  35. What is best in life? Drive the facts before you. Hear the lamentations of the skeptics.
    ================

  36. Arnold, Be sure to fly to Paris and preach to the weepy-eyed choir. You will be using a private jet, yes? Doubtful you’ll fly coach…or even business. Add to the crescendo of hype hype hype hype in support of wealth redistribution, you overly rich, some might call ‘greedy’ buffoon. And please, get a new speechwriter. The one you use is a plagiarist.

  37. When the elite lefties set the example, then only do we see they believe their own zealotry. But since that is not the case, they are all fraud mongers, sucking the wealth from others to their gain in power.

  38. Marketing 101

    If you have a high value product => sell the value
    If you have a low value product, but with some distinct features => sell the features
    If you have a sub-standard product across the board => get a celebrity endorsement

  39. The problem with a spokesperson when it especially comes to climate non-science, they never know what it is in climate change that is real.

    If anybody has seen 2012 I would be worried if he had said, “the warming is nothing unusual and I expect it to ease in the near future.”

    [Tampering] with data adjustments to lower recent strong El Ninos and warm current periods is not climate change. Global warming at dangerous rates to cause human chaos is the old global warming and the new climate change and have any of the spokespersons got the balls to say this.

  40. Says the man who lived all his life in the US and struggles to form a sentence in English.

  41. In reply to:

    PiperPaul
    July 22, 2015 at 7:14 am
    Politicians and global warming:

    The silly television program which you have provided a link to, asserts that the measured planetary temperature change is worst that the IPCC models.

    That is an untruth, a lie.

    This is a puzzling graph. How many paradoxes are required to change a scientific theory? There are dozens of paradoxes and known incorrect calculations which disprove CAGW. Only one paradox is required to invalidate a theory.

    In the case of CAGW, the theory has become a kind of religion (explaining how it is false, accepting papers that disprove CAGW, can lead to job loss and/or the label of denier) and is hence sacrosanct, unchangeable, until there is in your face abrupt cooling.

    As most people are aware, it is a fact that there is cyclic high latitude warming, in all cases followed by cooling in the paleo record (both hemispheres). The cycle warming and cooling correlates with solar cycle changes.

    The trillion dollar question (developing countries are lining up to promise to spend trillions of dollars on green scams that don’t work and the planet is about to abruptly cool) is how solar cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover to cause the cyclic warming and cooling.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    Stay tuned we will soon have live observations (planetary cooling) which will help answer that question.

    The solar cycle has been interrupted which is different than a slowdown in the solar cycle. The sun will have multiple spotless days this year and next year there will be long periods without sunspots.

    Roughly 10 years ago solar physicists found that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots was decaying linearly.

    As sunspots are formed from magnetic flux tubes that form deep within the sun at the narrow interface between the solar convection zone and the solar radiative zone (the narrow interface between the two solar zones is called the tachocline), the reduce field strength of newly forming sunspots on the surface of the sun means that the magnetic flux tubes that are formed at the tachocline have less and less field strength.

    Eugene Parker calculated twenty or so years ago, that the magnetic flux tubes require a field strength of 20,000 to 30,000 Gauss when they leave the tachocline, to avoid being torn apart by the turbulence in the convection zone. The magnetic flux tubes expand as they float up through the convection zone which reduces their field strength so that the field strength of newly formed sun spots on the surface of the sun have a field strength of between 1500 Gauss and 5000 Gauss.

    Comment:
    There are no sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a field strength less than 1500 Gauss which supports the assertion that the magnetic flux tubes are torn apart in the convection zone if they have less than an certain minimum field strength and supports the assertion the magnetic flux tubes are created at the tachocline rather than in the solar convection zone. The magnetic flux tubes are buoyant, so there is no mechanism to hold them in the convection zone. They must and do float up through the convection zone. If the magnetic flux tubes were formed in the convection zone there would sunspots that had a field strength that is less than 1500 gauss. As Eugene Parker noted as there is no mechanism to hold a magnetic field tube in the convection zone, there is insufficient time for a convection zone amplification mechanism to create high magnetic field strength flux tubes in the convection zone (could not achieve even achieve 1500 Gauss). It is for these reasons the standard solar dynamo model has the magnetic flux tubes formed in the tachocline.

    As the field strength of the magnetic flux tubes decayed a portion of the flux tubes were torn apart, so what formed on the surface of the sun was a group of tiny sunspots which the solar physicists call pores, rather than large long lasting normal sunspots. It has possible as there is daily solar summary to watch as the large sunspots were gradually replaced with groups of tiny sunspots. Later in the process, were we are at now, there were no sunspots only a large region of higher magnetic flux on the surface of the sun to show were the ripped apart magnetic flux tubes emerged.

    The solar large scale magnetic field is formed from the residue magnetic field flux from newly formed sunspots. As there is a continual removal of magnetic flux from the surface of the sun by the solar wind and by coronal holes, there needs to a continual supply of new sunspots or the solar large scale magnetic field will drop to zero or close to zero.

    If the solar large scale magnetic field drops to zero, there is currently no mechanism to restart the cycle (A minimum large scale magnetic field strength is required to penetrate into the sun.) It is assumed the solar large scale magnetic field does not and cannot drop to essentially zero. Don’ worry the solar cycle does restart how the sun restarts the cycle and how the restart of the cycle affects the earth is interesting, a big deal. Let’s wait for the first in your face cooling which should generate some interest in the topic of what the heck is going on.

    Additional evidence (in addition to the observational fact that sunspots have been shrinking in size for the last 5 years or so and are now disappearing) for an interruption to the solar cycle rather than a slowdown in the solar cycle is this graph of the solar large scale polar field strength with time. If you look closely you will see the solar northern large scale magnetic field strength is oscillating around zero. The solar southern hemisphere is roughly a year behind the solar northern hemisphere.

    • William Astley July 22, 2015 at 11:02 am

      The silly television program which you have provided a link to, asserts that the measured planetary temperature change is worst that the IPCC models.

      Are you sure that’s what the silly television program said? You didn’t watch more than the first minute, did you. Watch the whole clip and then part two.

  42. I always loved the story he told (I believe on the Mike Douglas show… though I could be mistaken) of one of his first jobs in the U.S. He worked with a bricklayer who would inspect chimneys. If there was no repair needed, he would push the chimney over and create an instant job. I think he’s doing the same thing here.

  43. Annie is a lousy actor. And Annie is clearly ignorant. I now like him even less than I did 1/2 hour ago.

    • Annie? Did I miss something? Has Arnold come out as a woman, like Caitlyn Jenner, and changed his name to “Annie”?

  44. RE: Arnold Schwarzenegger has joined an unprecedented group of politicians, celebrities and faith leaders …

    Let’s be honest here, do ANY of these people have any scientific degree that shows they have researched the subject and know what they are talking about?

  45. Well, duh, climate change is well known to have occurred ever since there was climate.
    Who are climate deniers if not those who apparently believe that climate should not be changing and we should wreck economies to attempt to stop it from doing what it has always done?

  46. “To drive up prices to the point that some poor people will begin to starve to death.”

    They have already driven energy prices up to the point that poor people have been freezing to death.

  47. ‘The World Health Organization says that air pollution causes over 7 million premature deaths every year and all over the world we can see flooding, monster storms, droughts and wild-fires that are completely out of control.’
    ____

    completely out of control.
    ____

    Arnold Schwarzenegger is an actor. Actor, bodybuilder and politician: not a brainbuilder.
    ____

    the World Health Organization built on steroids: must be a movie – completely opportunistic and out of control.

    Hans

  48. One of my favourite Arni movies is Total Recall. Arni is fighting against the establishment on Mars who is imposing a tax on “air”. Oh what an irony!

  49. Why do Actors try their best to make great movies for me Joe public to go and see and like, Then start the politics and social engineering gig? As soon as I experience an actor doing the Climate change BS I lose interest in any movie or project they have been involved with. Staritng with Arni the list is Soooo long. My advise to Movie stars and actors – JUST SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  50. 3 times:

    1 actor

    2 bodybuilder

    3 politician

    thats the celtic druids wand.
    ___

    ‘celtic’ ‘druids’ is tautologic; conceded.
    ____

    read in WUWT ’bout the 3 times – here’s explanation.

    The white, red, black women;

    the young; innocent
    the fertile, mature
    the old, wise, helpful

    that’s celtic, indogerman.

    and has direct access to the heart.

  51. Schwarzenegger is right: climate change is not science fiction. However, I’m unware of anyone who asserts it to be science fiction. That there are people who assert it to be science fiction is the basis for a strawman argument. Schwarzenegger has made himself a disseminator of this argument.

  52. It surely is significant that the biggest and most vocal supporters of the climate change movement are those whose whole life is based on and only significant skill is in making what is only a figment of a vivid imagination appear to be reality. That they are joined by people whose who life is centred around faith in an unprovable entity makes the case even more questionable to those of us whose life skills demand that theory translate into working real life products.

    Per Strandberg… you say ….Yes, climate change is not science fiction but dangerous human caused global warming is.
    This like many statements is only a partial truth. If you define climate change as deviation from the norm beyond the average deviation of a significant period then the climate has not actually changed. The belief that it has changed significantly is based entirely on taking the norm based on an extremely primitive analysis of the pattern of normality.
    Even using the methods developed in the seventeen hundreds by Fourier to determine the norm there is no more change than usual. Using the most advanced methods of signal analysis used in a very specialised and secure military project that just because the climate data happened to already be in the right format was used as a test the deviation is far smaller than even that would suggest. The so called warming is nothing exceptional. Incidentally the result was verified to a standard we could only dream of climate scientists bothering with or indeed being capable of.

  53. To quote Homer Simpson: “Hollywood actors – is there anything they don’t know?”

  54. Politicians and faith leaders lol…what do they all have in common? They specialize in manipulating public thought…keep that in mind as this is unfolds.

  55. Reblogged this on kingbum78's Blog and commented:
    Keep this in mind readers….What do politicians and faith leaders have in common? They specialize manipulating public thought…So why would there be a massive gathering of them in Paris? It’s to discuss a brainwashing campaign not science

Comments are closed.