Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Solar scientists argue that it is the Sun (and also its various relationships to the Earth) that is the primary driver:
As we've discussed before: before the industrial revolution, and even before the rise of human civilization, the climate was always changing. Fossil fuel consumption was not a factor in those climate change processes, so something else must have been the driving factor. Solar insolation changes, volcanic activity, meteor impacts, and dust storms caused by low CO2 may all have been contributing causes at one time or another. In some cases CO2 levels could lead the process, in other cases CO2 levels might lag other changes.

None of this has anything to do with the question of whether industrial civilization and its high rate of fossil fuel consumption, could currently be driving an episode of abrupt climate change.

Ruptly said:
'Mini Ice Age' could hit Earth
What an odd little clip. The narrator seems completely oblivious to the industrial CO2 and MMGW issue, treating solar insolation as if it were the only variable in play. And the cinematography at 0:12 and 1:02 indicates that this producer has something besides climate science on his mind.

Here's the press release for the original Russian study that inspired the video, with another glamor shot of Dr. Popova.

https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

Dr Helen Popova responds cautiously, while speaking about the human influence on climate.
“There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity. The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. People first appeared on the Earth about 60 thousand years ago. However, even if human activities influence the climate, we can say, that the Sun with the new minimum gives humanity more time or a second chance to reduce their industrial emissions and to prepare, when the Sun will return to normal activity”, Dr Helen Popova summarised.

So Popova thinks that the solar minimum might more or less cancel out the effects of MMGW, which she disputes anyhow on the basis that there's "no strong evidence".
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Another astrophysicist shows why the Sun is the primary driver of Earth climate.


The most important question, which the above formulation seems to avoid, is: how bad are things likely to get in the near future, or the next 100 years?
I'd say the most important question is whether we'll survive the next 3 decades or so, thanks to the Sun going to sleep and freezing us to death. We'll have to build a big wall to keep those Canadians out. And the Mexicans will have to build a big wall to keep us out. They'll probably have Trump make us pay for it.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Jerry, do you think this graph (from Svensmark and Marsh) claiming a correlation, at least, between solar cycle modulated cosmic rays to low earth cloud levels is fake science? If it is not fake science, how does this compare to the association between CO2 and such clouds?

Why are all these solar scientists saying that the IPCC is cherry picking data to claim that the Sun is essentially invariable as far as they are (not) concerned?

From the prior video at 6:00 minutes:

646
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Jerry, do you think this graph (from Svensmark and Marsh) claiming a correlation, at least, between solar cycle modulated cosmic rays to low earth cloud levels is fake science?
I don't know, but a quick check at Wishy-Washy Pedia reveals that mainstream and IPCC climate scientists are well aware of Svensmark's work and they aren't buying it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_and_controversy

I also found myself wondering about the correlation between climate and solar activity shown in a graph at about 4:40 in the above video. Actually the graph shows a correlation between isotopes C-14 and O-18. The legend says that C-14 is a solar activity proxy, and O-18 is a climate proxy. This generally seems to be true, but there's a lot else going on.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So if Tokomak fusion scientists have a financial interest in falsely debunking relatively cold fusion, could IPCC scientists have a similar problem?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following talk definitively demonstrates the gross corruption of the climate temperature data by NASA, in different manners, including redrawing their own graphs. Yet the alarmists will still deny.

 
Very poor argument...
The following talk definitively demonstrates the gross corruption of the climate temperature data by NASA, in different manners, including redrawing their own graphs. Yet the alarmists will still deny.
...as he quotes selectively, using the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s to prove that it is no warmer now, while ignoring the 21st century's increasing global temperature rise. In Australia today we have just had the hottest average temperature on record - all the more reason for alarm as the Sydney fire season has already been going for nearly 3 months.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The following talk definitively demonstrates the gross corruption of the climate temperature data by NASA, in different manners, including redrawing their own graphs.
So we're back to this, eh? No temperature change at all?

Didn't you just get finished telling us that the climate is always changing, and the reason is solar insolation? Or cosmic rays? Or asteroid impacts?

NASA scientists are "Redrawing their own graphs"? You mean they're analyzing their own data? And there's something that's supposed to be wrong with this?

RIchard, I believe you've sunk to a new low if you're relying on Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard. Check out his website! Or anyhow it looks like it's his website? https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com ...

he quotes selectively,
Yes indeed. I scanned through the first fifteen minutes of the transcript. This guy is just cherry-picking data to contrive his point.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I was wondering if y'all deniers would play the cherry-picking card, and you did. And then you closed your Orwellian anti-science minds. Obviously, neither of you watched the whole presentation. As Heller stated, you'd think that prior generations were not capable of reading their thermometers. The irony is that the current alarmist paradigm is based upon multiple levels of cherry-picking. Else you'd think that these people were also incapable drawing accurate graphs either.
"Redrawing their own graphs"? You mean they're analyzing their own data? And there's something that's supposed to be wrong with this?
Redrawing their agency's prior published graphs. WTF????? "Analyzing" is not the word for this political corruption. I guess there is nothing wrong with doing that if there is some Jesuitic end that justifies the complete political corruption of Science by doing so, but I don't think so.
So we're back to this, eh? No temperature change at all?
How do you extrapolate to this? The temperature changes all the time. I never agreed that the cherry-picked, Gory IPCC data is anywhere near accurate.

When you don't like the underlying data, you lie about the data, and then trash and have Al Gore et al. defund serious respected scientists and engineers that disagree. THIS is what has become of your (politicized) Science today.

Repent from thy cargo culture.

P.S. In all fairness to Al Gore, it is amazing how the timing and manner of the deliberate misinterpretation of temperature data, and its resulting graphs, evoke the graphs of the diverging stagnant incomes of workers compared to the GDP, beginning with the Reagan Administration. The two Neoliberals merely served the same masters.
 
Last edited:
Coincidence and correlation do not necessarily...
P.S. In all fairness to Al Gore, it is amazing how the timing and manner of the deliberate misinterpretation of temperature data, and its resulting graphs, evoke the graphs of the diverging stagnant incomes of workers compared to the GDP, beginning with the Reagan Administration. The two Neoliberals merely served the same masters.
...imply a cause. However the rising sea levels and the disappearance of Arctic thick ice with continuous shrinking of the late summer ice extent certainly demonstrate the effect of man made global warming.

Now for sure Al Gore had his own capitalistic agenda here - but this is not to deny the reality of human activity in global warming.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Obviously, neither of you watched the whole presentation
That's right. If a person strikes me as a charlatan in the first 15 minutes, why would I give him more of my time?

[No temperature change at all] How do you extrapolate to this?
Heller/Goddard said so, right at the 15 second mark. "I completely agree with Fred that there probably has been little or no warming since the 1940's." And he's not saying that it's getting colder, either.

Redrawing their agency's prior published graphs. WTF????? "Analyzing" is not the word for this political corruption.
What's the time stamp on the video where Heller makes this specific claim? Just before 15 minutes in, Heller/Goddard is complaining that two graphs are different, as if there's some mystery why they should be, when the labels on the graphs themselves clearly indicate that they're drawn from different data sets. That's when I got fed up with him.

I never agreed that the cherry-picked, Gory IPCC data is anywhere near accurate.
Yes, but even most of the petroleum industry funded Heartland hacks that you've been watching agree that the data is OK. If you think the data is wrong, then as Claude points out, you have to explain why so many proxy indicators are going ballistic.
 
We thus have two different issues.

1) Has the Earth warmed at all since the average before 1950? (Remember here that global warming began in earnest only in 1977)

2) Having agreed that the Earth has warmed - what are the causes?
a) CO2 greenhouse effect from human fossil fuel burning.
b) CH4 greenhouse effect from fossil fuel extraction (that from cows is nonsensical given that other wild animals, more abundant in the past, would have produced similar amounts).
c) Solar effects. However the Sun's magnetic activity has diminished in recent years so should have resulted in global cooling.
d) Global dimming - the diminution of sunlight by sulfur compounds emitted by fossil fuels, the presence of such compounds causing cooling of the earth beneath. This has counteracted the effect of global warming in may countries with high-sulfur coal e.g. Czech Republic.

It seems Richard's argument at this point is to deny 1).

yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It seems Richard's argument at this point is to deny 1).
Richard and I are both recovering Libertarians and we were, at one time, Cato Foundation groupies ourselves. We've now seen through the errors of that movement for the most part. But for some reason, Richard can't bring himself to believe that the Koch Brothers might be wrong about the climate.

Thus we see him following the typical Heartland Institute pattern of argumentation: (1) The climate isn't getting warmer. (2) If it is getting warmer, it's because of solar effects, or cosmic rays, or something that humans have no influence over. (3) The greenhouse gas effect owing to CO2 and CH4 is trivial, and those gases couldn't be the cause of warming. (4) CO2 is highly beneficial and we need more of it. (5) If the climate is getting warmer, it's a good thing.

The inconsistency of these various lines of argument doesn't seem to bother the Heartland Institute folks at all, as long as the conclusion is that there's no need to worry as we burn every drop of petroleum and lump of coal that we can extract from the planet.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have no idea what the Koch brothers believe(d) about the climate, nor do I care about them or your consensus political science. (The (d) is for the dead one.) Thank you for admitting you haven't given one second of time to examining the counterfactuals, instead hysterically worshipping a half-baked hypothesis as the Satan of your global cargo cult.

No doubt though you'll think it a Convenient Truth that combating Anthropogenic Global Warming will form the driver for the new order's 4th Economic Engine, as economist Mark Blyth puts it in apocalyptic terms. He explains below that modern Western Capitalism (since the late 19th century) has gone through 3 phases, which he likens each to respective generations of computer hardware and software. And now we are the cusp of the 4th.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
There is a lonely million dollar prize out there awaiting to be claimed if you can solve the math problem that will help address the following problem:

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2. page 774​

At least the 'scientists' involved with the IPCC, at that time, were trying to be honest about such, as opposed to the a priori political agenda imposed on the effort.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I have no idea what the Koch brothers believe(d) about the climate, nor do I care about them
[original statement lightly edited to conform with site policy -- JR]

An odd blind spot, considering that Charles Koch and the late David Koch enjoy(ed) a combined net worth estimated at $117 Billion, and a small but very estimable fraction of that has gone into funding of MMGW skepticism. From Wishy Washy Pedia as of today's date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

According to investigative reporter Jane Mayer[28] and the environmental NGO Greenpeace, the Koch brothers have played an active role in opposing climate change legislation. Anthropogenic climate change skeptic Willie Soon received $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[29][30] Organizations that the Koch brothers help fund, such as Americans for Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the CO2 Coalition and the Manhattan Institute, have been active in questioning global warming.[31]
So you may not care about them -- but they seem to care about us, and the public in general, as well as our elected officials, and what we collectively think. And isn't it curious that out of all the videos and other information you've posted in support of MMGW skepticism, such a large proportion turns out to have Koch money behind it.

Thank you for admitting you haven't given one second of time to examining the counterfactuals,
No, what I admitted is to spending enough time to go through 15 minutes of the transcript of the Heller/Goddard video. In that amount of time, I concluded that the man is a charlatan, for the reasons I explained. Capeesh? I've been studying this issue for years, and heard and read plenty of material on both sides of the debate, thank you very much.

[Re: NASA graphs re-drawn] What's the time stamp on the video where Heller makes this specific claim?
Still waiting for this information, as I'd like to have the opportunity to address this.

combating Anthropogenic Global Warming will form the driver for the new order's 4th Economic Engine
Let's hope so. And even if climate change wasn't an issue at all, shouldn't the issue of fossil fuel depletion and exhaustion be motivation enough for a transition to renewable sources? That is, unless you also believe cornucopian theories of virtually infinite abiotic carbohydrate supplies, readily accessible to us on the surface. The reality is, of course, that increasingly extraordinary means are being used to maintain adequate supplies of liquid fuels.

The video from Mark Blyth lost me at the 0:19 second mark, where he says he's fully in the pay of George Soros, and the pay is not that good.

IPCC said:
"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2. page 774
The complete IPCC report is available for download here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf

And here's what the author really said:

In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.

Not exactly the same thing, eh? "We IPCC Scientists can Do the Impossible for Breakfast, just as long as you give us enough grant money."
 
Last edited:

Suchender

Member
How the sun affects temperatures on Earth
The interesting part of the explanation about the influence on Earth temperatures start at 17 minutes in the video.
She sais we are entering a time with much lower temperatures.... :-(
.
.
The sun is going through a stage known as a solar or Maunder Minimum. This is where the solar activity that ignites solar flares or sun spots has decreased. It’s a normal cycle and one that has been linked to the mini ice age that lasted more than 50 years starting in the mid-1600s. According to space weather since 2015, the number of days without a recordable sun spot has been rising year over year. NOAA, NASA and others all appear to agree the sun is entering a solar minimum phase. What it means is open to interpretation because as Professor William Happer pointed out when I asked him about the growing number of people and agencies that suggest a solar minimum could lead to a cooling off period, he directed me the Danish proverb: “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” It has been suggested that mathematics can establish patterns and back them up with empirical evidence to support a prediction. We reached out to Professor of Mathematics Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University, one of the first people to raise awareness of the decrease in solar activity, for a Conversation That Matters about the sun, its reduced activity and her reading of the impact it will have on temperatures on earth.
 
Top