Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
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.
I'm feeling today that this was too harsh. In a spirit of Christmas good cheer, I want to apologize. I'm really not that intimately familiar with the computation of global average temperatures by NOAA and NASA. If I'm willing to dismiss the Dust Bowl as a cherry picked anomaly, why am I so sure that today's polar warming and ice melt isn't just another local phenomenon? Fires in Australia, same thing?

I promise I'll spend some time and get completely familiar with the skeptic view on this.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
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:

...
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.
We're dealing here with the issue of Political Intersectionality (beyond its more narrow definition), as also witnessed by your alignment on this issue with the NeoFascist and AntiEinsteinian Claude Badley.

This is quite funny that you would rag on me for my intersectionality while you and Claude are in are in bed with George Soros. So don't throw baseless rocks and stones if you don't expect the same in return. Or are you saying that there is a basis to be worried about?

In any case, I'm going to side with my Boomers on this one.
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.
Well, apparently you also believe that the several orders of magnitude greater money provided to the shit pseudo-scientists (whores) that report to the geopolitical globalist agenda of the UN's IPCC and their unproven hypothesis of H2O cloud amplification, have greater merit than the real scientists who get summarily defunded and forced to retire thanks to the likes of Al Gore and the whore science funding mechanism of Western academia and government.
Instead we listen to fake whoror [sic] stories about polar bears and arctic seals who are in actuality very happy, except for some unlucky ones who are cherry-picked from all the hoards of polar bears merrily running around.

The direct predecessors of these psuedo-scientists were telling us in the 1970's that the next Milankovich Ice Age was immanent .... but they got the timing and other aspects wrong, so then we come to the equally fake Global Warming scare, where they conveniently seize upon poor little CO2, a key plant nutrient, as the apocalyptic scapegoat. And we can clearly see, that as the central pillar of AGW that there is no correlation whatsoever between CO2 levels and temperature. The sensitivity has been criminally overestimated by probably a factor of 10.

This has caused a rash of hysterical, do-gooding (n)eoLiberal assholes to go flying around the globe in private jets preaching to tribal peoples to please maintain their harsh, primitive caveman lifestyles, for the sake of all life on Earth, but to especially help the nice assholes to maintain their luxury lives. This is Neocolonialism 2.0 .... and ironically we now know that raising developing peoples out of such poverty means that the global population will soon plateau and even diminish because of this.
Still waiting for this information, as I'd like to have the opportunity to address this.
You could simply watch that video and see that NASA altered their temperature graphs, or are you actually saying that this is wrong? (No, you have already admitted that this was a reinterpretation of the data, as if the real scientists originally couldn't interpret and plot graphs properly.)

As time permits, I'll go back and watch it for you again, but now I will also school you on just how fucked up the measurement of global surface temperature always was, and that now it is even worse in the post Boomer era. (I actually already covered some of this embarrasing shit.)
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.
Well, how much are you and Claude getting from George Soros?

And, please stop misrepresenting my positions. I have already stated, like many AGW catastrophe 'skeptics', that I don't know if oil is abiotic or not, and that, in any case, we should always be appropriately frugal with the use of such resources. Also, that where appropriate (including economically) that so-called green technologies are good.

It would be better for all of us if the debate focused on the science and not on all the fake scare stories and grant driven predictions.
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."
Yes, that is the same thing. Be careful what you quote.

What that (doing the Impossible for Breakfast) means is pulling whatever a priori conclusion the IPCC political masters want out of their whore asses ... or get fired.

As you've correctly noted before, the intersectionality of all this also places me uncomfortably in line with Donald Trump, and we can use this to help predict that Trump et al. will take a great fall, and along with it, that the AGW Skeptic positions and lives will be apocalyptically terminated (as provocateur Claude Badley and ilk enthusiastically encourages). But, this does not mean that they will be wrong, just DEAD. Thx, they say.

Back in the day, the pseudo-scientists said that Global Cooling would cause weather extremes (beyond the normal range of variability) and it did not, and now their descendants have been saying that Global Warming would identically cause the same weather extremes, and it has not.

While there is no explanatory correlation with CO2, there is a tight historical correlation with solar activity and cosmic rays. The latter which vary greatly in intensity over long scales of time. And in the immediate, the only realist laboratory of the Earth will be tested, as the Sun is now entering a minimum, and after all the last decades of plateau, it is now cooling.

It used to snow where I live once every 3 years, now it is snowing for the second time in one month, and it will likely snow again next week. This after a very unusually cool summer, and the whole country is experiencing record cold temps. Of course, you will say this is from warming and CO2, because this is your new religion for the new age, the scary Beast that will motivate the forming of its new order, including Blyth's global economy.

That said, I am not one to say that there is no reason to be afraid of climate change. No, there is every reason to be afraid of it, as Brian Fagan pointed out. And when we have only just moved into the years of the latest Mini Ice Age, will our fragile (advanced) societies be able to withstand the cold, whether you want to say it is from Global Warming or not?

When the Trump Administration wont show us their documents and their witnesses there is something wrong. But this doesn't preclude that there is an even bigger problem than with them. The same goes when we can't see the Alarmist data sets, albeit some of us Boomers can get the broad outlines from their cherry picked time scales and more.

The "ensembles" of bull shit data can and do deliver whatever range of predictions that the IPCC politicos desire. And those predictions failed miserable, such that a reasonable person would first consider that the data, if not the iterative algorithms, and presumptions were suspect. But no, the whole craven industry decided to double down ala Trump. As If the a priori political agenda wasn't bad enough, people now have to justify their criminal careers and all the taxpayer money made off with. and all the trillions of tons of CO2 it placed in the atmosphere running the supercomputers to create their sham spaghetti models.

There are a whole lot of problems in the world that should be getting attention, and every last joule devoted to CO2 itself is depriving us from attending to them by the same amount. But, somebody will benefit from this globalist scam, and it will not just be about Koch and friends money.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
These first two videos discuss the mechanism of how Sun activity modulates the affect of cosmic rays upon cloud formation. The formation of which is the central fake CO2 amplification pillar of the AGW alarmists. It is instead this aspect of the Earth's energy budget which is criminally ignored so that they can blame humanity, not so incidentally as was blamed in the Bible for the building of Nimrod's Tower.



One of the early climate modelers explains the practical problems with computer climate modeling. And all of this presumes that there is any decent data sets to work with. And as I mentioned before, the very first climate modeler stated that such models cannot properly be used for the purposes being made of them. They are only useful in a much more limited context.


The following discusses how rapid climate changes can occur in the context of the slow changing Milankovich Cycles, given the insane complexity of the climate system, which the whore warming alarmists have criminally oxidized down to CO2. It even mentions the recent findings of how the planets' impact the Sun's activity.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I promise I'll spend some time and get completely familiar with the skeptic view on this.
I read the transcript in full, and watched key parts of the video "It's the Data, Stupid" from post #112 in this thread. The talk is by Richard Alan Keen.

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/globalist-warming-denial-the-green-new-deal.1536/post-13378

At about 22:00, Keen shows a graph indicating that the USHCN (US Historical Climate Network) data has been adjusted upwards by about 0.6 C since 1940, which is similar to the magnitude of estimates of total climate change during that same period. But, Keen had just finished explaining that there are very good reasons why raw temperature data needs to be corrected for changing conditions local to the weather stations, such as new equipment or construction in the immediate area. Keen is insinuating that the corrections have been deliberately manipulated to cook the data, but this assumes bad faith on the part of the scientists involved. A rebuttal to this concern is found here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.
Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

Having said that, and even with the assumption of good faith, this issue does raise questions about the "error bars" that need to be drawn around the results of the computations. That's Questions, not Presumed Answers.

Keen also discusses the issue that weather stations are sparse in many areas, especially open oceans, compared to a relatively dense population of stations in the developed world. He presents this as if it's an impossible problem, but there are statistical ways to deal with this. The weight of weather stations in remote locations would be increased according to the surface area they are serving as a proxy for, but reduced according to the reliability of the data from the station. I think the net result would inevitably be that the results would be biased to emphasis the areas with dense weather data available, but not nearly so much as one might guess just by looking at the relative density of stations.

Another approach to reducing the bias towards temperature data from developed land area, would be to cut back on the number of stations used from densely populated areas. The method would be to choose the most reliable data from the best, most stable weather stations, and omit the data from unreliable sources. Keen points out that this is going on at about 26:00 in, and blames it on "laziness" (with the obvious insinuation that it's bad faith) but then he goes on to provide the correct explanation, that unreliable weather stations are being pruned from the dataset.

After that point in the video, Keen is pretty much done with addressing global average data, and goes on to cherry pick some local information that goes against the narrative. Everybody agrees that local variability is greater than the average MMGW trend we've experienced so far, so this is all pretty much irrelevant to the question.

From 42:00 to the end of the video, Keen is complaining about bias in the IPCC process, and "censorship" of skeptic views of MMGW. The complaints about the IPCC seem unreasonable to me, because I feel it's fully justified that the organization and contents of the final IPCC reports should be managed by persons at the top of the hierarchy there. Keen hasn't demonstrated that the process that generates those conclusions in the first place, is necessarily biased. Indeed as I've argued elsewhere, I think the IPCC bias (if any) is probably to understate the problem, rather than overstate it. This is because the IPCC is just as much subject to the same pressures from petroleum interests and other major carbon emitters, as they are to pressures from Soros type do-gooders.

As to censorship of skeptics: is it really so easy to squelch the Koch interests with their billions? There seems to be no end to this content on YouTube and elsewhere, and no end to the conferences and publications from these folks. Nobody is keeping Keen from saying whatever he wants.

The only problem is, they can't get the material into reputable peer reviewed journals, because it's not serious science.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
You could simply watch that video and see that NASA altered their temperature graphs, or are you actually saying that this is wrong?
Having now watched the Heller/Goddard video to the end, and reviewed some of the claims: I can now say I'm more convinced than ever, that the man is simply a dishonest scoundrel.

For example:

(1) Starting at about 16:11, Heller/Goddard gives a short quote from James Hansen taken entirely out of context. Then he uses it to insinuate the opposite of what Hansen was actually saying at the time.

Heller/Goddard snippet:

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.
in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

Full context:

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.
How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far.... [Hansen et al summarize evidence of increasing global temperatures, but no similar trend in the US]...
... in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country....
Is this a temporary fluke, a chaotic regional climate fluctuation?....
... we can venture two "predictions" on "whither U.S. climate". First, regarding U.S. temperature, we have argued (Hansen et al., 1999a) that the next decade will be warmer than the 1990s, rivaling if not exceeding the 1930s. The basis for that prediction is the expectation of continued greenhouse warming and probable slackening of regional ocean cooling. Second, regarding precipitation and drought, even without analysis of regional patterns of change, we can offer the probabilistic statement that the frequencies of both extremes, heavy precipitation and floods on the one hand and droughts and forest fires on the other, will increase with increasing global temperature. The rationale for this (Hansen et al., 1991) is that increased surface heating increases evaporation, and this increases the intensity of both precipitation and drought conditions where and when they occur.


(2) NASA did not "alter" their temperature graphs. The raw temperature data remains the same as it always has. Over time, they re-evaluated the correction factors that should be applied to the raw data to compensate for changing conditions local to the weather stations, such as new equipment or construction in the immediate area, as I discussed above.

Keen at least was honest enough to describe the situation accurately, although he refuses to acknowledge that said updates were made in good faith. Heller/Goddard sweeps the issue under the rug entirely, and simply claims that NASA is lying.

(3) For the period from 1940 to 1970, it was indeed long suspected that global temperatures were headed downwards. This was generally attributed to the effect of sulfate aerosols causing global dimming, as discussed at this article:

https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm

So now, after a re-evaluation of the applicable correction factors, it's believed that the effect was less pronounced than scientists said at the time. On a global average basis, it's believed that temperatures were more or less stable for this period, with the effects of CO2 roughly evenly balanced by effects of sulfate aerosols. After about 1970, aggressive efforts were made to install scrubbers in coal fired power plants, resulting in a dramatic reduction in aerosols, and corresponding increase in global warming.

Again, Heller/Goddard simply sweeps all this under the rug, and pretends that the re-evaluation is evidence that scientists are lying.

(4) An alleged statement by Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK in 2004, is held up to ridicule at about 37:30. According to Heller/Goddard, King said we'd all be moving to Antarctica soon. But, did Heller/Goddard check to see what King actually said? Of course not. Here's the accurate quote:

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/davidkingviews.htm

Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It is estimated that it was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of this century.
Again, the claim that King was predicting that the world except Antarctica would become uninhabitable, is a wild extrapolation. What does "rather inhabitable" mean? (I assume he meant "rather uninhabitable", but the qualifier is important.) After hitting 1,000 ppm at the end of the century, how long does it take the temperature to stabilize? What other conditions might be different now, vs. 55 million years ago? Is CO2 the only factor effecting climate? King isn't saying whether it is, or whether it isn't. As the above linked website concludes: King's statement "appears to have been meant to draw attention to the seriousness of the problem by analogy to the past, rather than a precise prediction of the future consequences of climate change."

To summarize: Heller/Goddard is trying to convince me that the scientists from NASA, NOAA, IPCC and so forth, are dishonest. He doesn't produce any real evidence to that effect, but plenty of evidence that he himself is acting out of bad faith, and with an intent to deceive his audience.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Well, how much are you and Claude getting from George Soros?
I can't speak for Claude. But I can assure you I don't get a penny from Soros, to the best of my knowledge. (I admit I have a lot of pennies, who knows where they've all been.)

Also, that where appropriate (including economically) that so-called green technologies are good.
But you wouldn't transition to green technologies if there's an economic cost associated with it.

["It's Impossible" vs. "I can Do the Impossible!"] Yes, that is the same thing.
No, it's not. There you go again, assuming that all money is dirty, and that anyone who gets funding from anywhere is automatically discredited simply by having a paid job.

The snippet out of context said that modeling was impossible. The full quote said that the scientist was optimistic that meaningful results could be obtained using new, sophisticated modeling techniques. Earlier models were basically linear rather than chaotic, which led to reasonable doubts about their reliability.

Nobody questions that climate outcomes are effected by many variables, some of which are utterly unpredictable. Even the simplest models are useful for estimating what might happen to the climate as a result of added CO2, with all other factors held constant.

And as I mentioned before, the very first climate modeler stated that such models cannot properly be used for the purposes being made of them.
You can't bring yourself to consider that the models might have improved since the very first climate modeler? Look at the progress in supercomputer teraflops since that time.

Well, apparently you also believe that the several orders of magnitude greater money provided to the shit pseudo-scientists (whores) that report to the geopolitical globalist agenda of the UN's IPCC and their unproven hypothesis of H2O cloud amplification, have greater merit than the real scientists who get summarily defunded and forced to retire thanks to the likes of Al Gore and the whore science funding mechanism of Western academia and government.
I dispute that the IPCC has orders of magnitude more money than the Koch Brothers and other billionaire industrialists.

MMGW was not some big money propaganda invention. In the beginning, MMGW was discovered by David Keeling and Roger Revelle at UCSD, one of my alma maters. Starting from nothing, they've won most of the world over to their point of view. (Tyndall and Arrhenius had earlier developed the basic science, but from a purely theoretical aspect, without empirical evidence or serious evaluation of negative effects.)

... given the insane complexity of the climate system, which the whore warming alarmists have criminally oxidized down to CO2.
This quote only shows your bias. Nobody has "oxidized" the climate system down to CO2.

These first two videos discuss the mechanism of how Sun activity modulates the affect of cosmic rays upon cloud formation. The formation of which is the central fake CO2 amplification pillar of the AGW alarmists.
Here you're oversimplifying the feedback mechanisms that MMGW "alarmists" are concerned about. It's not just clouds, but also ice cover and albedo, loss of CO2 sequestration in the disturbed biosphere, methane hydrate release from the arctic, and much more. Guy McPherson came up with a list of 69 positive feedback effects, some of which admittedly are overlapping.

That said, I am not one to say that there is no reason to be afraid of climate change. No, there is every reason to be afraid of it, as Brian Fagan pointed out.
Indeed. The scientific message seems to be that the climate system is highly unstable, and any perturbation could result in wild excursions. Right now the odds seem to be in favor of a warming trend (or at least that's true IMO, and I'm agreeing with mainstream scientists) but there's no way to rule out the opposite possibility, that an ice age could be the planet's next excursion. And this could happen either as a result of the anthropogenic spike in CO2, or for some other reason.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The way that the 'Science' system should work, is that funding should not be funneled only to scientists who agree to the IPCC's overtly stated a priori agenda, which you define as being 'mainstream' - which by default leaving skeptics to assume various pejorative attributions, forced to retire, or take the orders of magnitude smaller crumbs from such as the Kochs.

The problem with USA surface data is that the adjustments to the data are all made in one direction, the wrong direction, when taking into account that more and more official temperature stations are being urbanized. This is the so-called Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These stations should be adjusted down, not up. And more and more yet rural stations are discounted from the data base, their data being recorded as 'E'.

There is no advanced computer or software for such that can compensate for bad data and bad, unproven assumptions about forcing linkages. One first needs to prove such linkages and mechanisms before they can properly use them in a model. Else one is engaging in such as circular logic, fudging either the data, the algorithms, or both to claim their fake proof.

Instead, why not just admit that there is much stronger correlation to H2O amplification with cosmic rays and solar activity than there is to CO2? Just because "correlation is not causation" is not a good reason to accept the bad correlation over the much better one. CERN has also shown that ionization of the atmosphere (as cosmic rays do) indeed leads to the formation of cloud formation particulates (CNs).

Do you not admit that all of the trillions of dollars in alarmist confirming only grants, projects, carbon trading markets, etc. provide a reason to panic poor little Swedish girls and such? Why is it that big corporations, including banks, that make government money off all these are so good versus those which make government money off of contrived wars? Some of which work both sides of the fence?

[And furthermore... the following moved from "Fixing Democracy" thread, where it was seriously OT...]

Fortunately, Jerry has agreed now that the misguided trillions of dollars corruptly misspent on the gory false basis that CO2 is the apocalyptic Beast of the Air, should instead be spent on preventing the Beasts of the Cosmos (cosmic rays, asteroids, comets, etc.) from creating new global catastrophes that would indeed cause governments to cease and give pause to grant the rise of such autocratic governance.

Instead, we can see that even the faked, Heated hysteria of Climate Alarmism has successfully overridden even the otherwise paralyzing checks and balances described in the article. Panic and Fear are the lifeblood of such religions.

Let's all salute Jerry for returning to the folds of Cool dispassionate Reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
the misguided trillions of dollars
Misguided trillions? Here's what I can find about the actual numbers.

According to this article: The OMB reported that the federal gov't spent $154 billion on climate change activities since 1993. But, the GAO evaluated that claim and found that only 6% was going to programs that were really earmarked to deal with climate change, as opposed to vaguely related items like the US nuclear energy program. So, climate change spending was $9 billion in 16 years. Not so many orders of magnitude more than what the Koch brothers have at their fingertips.

And, as discussed here: the costs of climate related disasters are climbing fast, dwarfing research budgets. And, research dollars are being cut back drastically by the Trump administration.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The problem with USA surface data is that the adjustments to the data are all made in one direction, the wrong direction, when taking into account that more and more official temperature stations are being urbanized. This is the so-called Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These stations should be adjusted down, not up. And more and more yet rural stations are discounted from the data base, their data being recorded as 'E'.
If that's the actual problem, then it would be a good reason to doubt the data. But, Keen and Heller/Goddard haven't presented any evidence to that effect. All they've done is waved their hands, stated a possible problem, and then jumped to the conclusion that the data is being cooked.

Climate scientists have known about the Urban Heat Island Effect for a long time, and you can be sure they've been trying to correct for it since many decades ago. So maybe what's happening here is that they had been overcorrecting and overcompensating the data, and careful re-evaluation has led to a reduction of the estimates of downward adjustment. And maybe those rural stations that are being discounted from the database, are being removed because they're no longer so rural as they used to be. Keen and Heller/Goddard haven't proven otherwise.

In the 911 research world, when credible scientists had trouble getting their papers into peer reviewed journals, they set up their own journal and their own peer review system. And the results of that were questionable, to be sure, and especially in the Pentagon Plane arena. But that's what they did. And eventually the barriers to publication in more traditional journals started to break down.

In Biblical studies, the Dutch Radical critics didn't seem to have any trouble getting published. But nowadays, it's impossible to get that type of material past the academic censors, for the most part. Robert M. Price keeps trying to fix the situation by starting his own journal, the Journal of Higher Criticism. Peer review for quality control is a benefit to almost any article IMHO, if it's not used for improper purposes such as to impose a false consensus.

So if Koch Industries and Heartland Institute have any scientific credibility, why don't they start their own journal? Why don't they do the hard work of re-analyzing the raw temperature data, showing errors (if any) in the dominant paradigm's evaluation of the correction factors, and creating a credible alternative view? I say it's because it's easier to hand-wave and complain, than it is to buckle down and provide real analysis.

Instead, why not just admit that there is much stronger correlation to H2O amplification with cosmic rays and solar activity than there is to CO2? Just because "correlation is not causation" is not a good reason to accept the bad correlation over the much better one. CERN has also shown that ionization of the atmosphere (as cosmic rays do) indeed leads to the formation of cloud formation particulates (CNs).
I won't admit it because I haven't watched your videos yet. I hope to find the time soon. But in the meanwhile, let me remind you that I already addressed this briefly in post #224 of this thread. Posting more Svensmark videos does not constitute a rebuttal of the many scientific studies cited in the linked Wikipedia article. Also see this little article by Ari Jokimaki, and another favorite source of mine, the Desmog Blog.
 
Last edited:

Suchender

Active Member
648
Bonn 2001
A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance. That teetering edifice that is the Kyoto Protocol gets some emergency repair work.....
Montreal 2005
".....With time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action....”
Bali 2007
World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change......
Poznan Poland, 2008
The world will “suicide” if it cannot strike a strong climate pact soon, Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery has warned...... Humanity is approaching the last chance to prevent catastrophic climate change, according to WWF’s analysis of the latest climate science.
Copenhagen 2009 (the real last chance, we really mean it this time!)
The world faces a final opportunity to agree an adequate global response to climate change at a U.N.-led meeting in Copenhagen in December, the European Union’s environment chief said on Friday...... Climate change is “simply the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family”, Mr. Ban Ki-moon said....
Cancun 2010
Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate chief, believes a disappointing outcome would “put the whole process in danger”......
Durban 2011
Rev. Dr. Olav Fyske Tveit, who leads the World Council of Churches, says the upcoming climate conference in South Africa is mankind’s ‘last opportunity’ to address climate change......
Doha 2012
Tomorrow: the earth’s last chance with climate change? Tomorrow, the whole world talks about irreversible global warming as this year’s international climate change summit begins......
Warsaw 2013
Is the Warsaw Climate Change Conference a last-chance summit?..... Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC in a press release dated 8th November : “We have the money and technology, the knowledge and the new economic models to get the job done in time,” she confirmed before describing the next two years as “a critical period to act faster on climate.”
Lima 2014
Last chance: Change needed for climate negotiations in Lima 2014..... "....By the time we get to next year’s meeting in Lima, we urgently need to have political will, real commitments, and a clear path to a comprehensive and fair agreement in Paris 2015, where a new global agreement on climate change has to be signed.”
Paris 2015
...... The UN meeting in December is “the last chance” to avert dangerous climate change, according to the Earth League....

Back in the 1990s was said that we had already reached a tipping point. The northern tundra was now melting and would release greenhouse gasses that would cause runaway global warming. 30 years later, we still have yet another last chance !
 

Suchender

Active Member
Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the whole ‘climate change debate’ is the way that the (non-sceptical) public consciousness has been captured by two very simple, easy-to-understand and certain ‘scientific facts’:
  1. Climate change has (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) occurred because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions (and it has occurred only because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions – nature had nothing to do with it)
  2. Climate change catastrophe will (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) result if we do not drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/22/climate-alarmism-the-mother-of-all-availability-cascades/

...........Its rising popularity triggers a chain reaction within the social network: individuals adopt the new insight that we are experiencing a man-made climate change crisis because other people within their social network have adopted it, and on face value it sounds plausible (after all, we have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas and so it must cause global warming). The reason for this increased use and popularity of the ‘man-made climate change crisis’ idea involves both the ‘availability’ of this idea in the media (it’s hard to go through a day without someone on the radio, on TV or in a newspaper mentioning it as though it is simply a ‘fact’ in one form or another), and the need of individuals to conform with this idea, regardless of whether they in fact fully believe it.
Their need for social acceptance and political correctness, coupled with the apparent sophistication of the new insight, overwhelm their critical thinking. Imitation and conformity, rather than critical analysis and independent thinking, are at the heart of a meme. The public concern then puts pressure on political policymakers to make policies to address the public concern. The public then see confirmation that their concern over the man-made climate change crisis must be valid – after all, the politicians are enacting policies to address it. It is a self-reinforcing loop of irrationality based on a very poor understanding of what the science actually says – in fact even a very poor understanding of what the scientific authorities actually say.....
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
We need a bit more fun in this discussion !
It's geting boring !
Heaven forbid! How could anyone not be absolutely fascinated by this thread with its 252 posts and counting!

30 years later, we still have yet another last chance !
Maybe it's because at each step in the way, the human race managed to do just enough to avert catastrophe! Look at all the conservation that's taken place, and all the development of promising alternative technologies. Petroleum consumption has almost flatlined in developed countries.

Or maybe it's been too late since 1990, or maybe even 1847, and nothing has changed! That's what Guy McPherson thinks.

https://guymcpherson.com/extinction_foretold_extinction_ignored/

The warnings I will mention in this short essay were hardly the first ones about climate catastrophe likely to result from burning fossil fuels. A little time with your favorite online search engine will take you to George Perkins Marsh sounding the alarm in 1847, Svente Arrhenius’s relevant journal article in 1896, and young versions of Al Gore, Carl Sagan, and James Hansen testifying before the United States Congress in the 1980s. There is more, of course, all ignored for a few dollars in a few pockets.
The projected rate of climate change based on IPCC-style gradualism outstrips the adaptive response of vertebrates by a factor of 10,000 times. Closer to home Homo sapiens, mammals cannot evolve fast enough to escape the current extinction crisis. Humans are vertebrate mammals. To believe that our species can avoid extinction, even as non-human vertebrates and non-human mammals disappear, is classic human hubris wrapped in a warm blanket of myth-based human supremacy.
Iain Aitken said:
  1. Climate change has (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) occurred because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions (and it has occurred only because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions – nature had nothing to do with it)
  2. Climate change catastrophe will (with absolute certainty, because the science is settled) result if we do not drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Aitken goes on to say: "both these ‘scientific facts’, as stated, are (with absolute certainty) scientific hogwash...". In other words, Aitkin has put up a straw man argument, claiming that the public collectively believes these things even though scientists don't.

If most humans believed these 'scientific facts', then we would be making much more progress towards solving the problem. Sadly, 'most' humans aren't acting on this information, and especially not those in positions of power.

But what is the "scientific consensus"? Let's try this:
  1. Climate change has probably occurred because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions (and it has occurred predominantly because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, although natural processes are also a factor.)
  2. Climate change catastrophe might result if we do not drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
When it comes to hedging their bets, what do scientists mean by words like "probably", "predominantly" and "might"? I'm sure that opinions differ from one scientist to another, but most think that probably means at least P<.05 (highly significant), predominantly means greater than 50%, and might means (at the very least) that according to the precautionary principle, humanity ought to take this seriously.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Transcript of the video is available here:

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/climategate-hide-the-decline-backgrounder/

The presentation discusses the divergence between tree-ring data developed by Keith Briffa, vs. temperature data from weather stations and other sources. While most evidence points towards a "hockey stick" graph depicting recent dramatic increase in average global temperatures, Briffa's tree ring data points the opposite direction.

As discussed here:

https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm

Briffa himself proposed in 2004 that the cause of the divergence is falling atmospheric ozone linked to increased UV-B radiation. Global dimming is another possible cause.

It's certainly jumping to conclusions, to assume that the tree ring data is correct and that the temperature data is wrong. Briffa himself didn't think so. The video indicates that "Briffa was furious" but that is not the case: he was puzzled, and later concluded that it was his own data that was mistaken.
 

Suchender

Active Member
While most evidence points towards a "hockey stick" graph....... It's certainly jumping to conclusions, to assume that the tree ring data is correct and that the temperature data is wrong.
But the main point was the alegedly missing 30 years of data at IPCC, not Briffa ! :oops:
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It's 33 years of missing data, to be exact. The famous "hockey stick" graph shows several data series plotted on the same scale. The lines are color coded for source. All the lines on the graph show a generally similar trend, except the green one that suddenly turns downward after about 1960. It's that green line that got "hidden" or disappeared from the graph, to "hide the decline". The green line is Briffa's tree ring data.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
David Dubyne starts off this video with footage from Nikola Tesla Laboratory in Zagreb. He's referring to the Nikola Tesla Technical Museum. Their website (google translated) gives an accurate account of Tesla's contribution to electromagnetic theory, and does not mention any miraculous claims of free energy generation.

http://tmnt.hr/hr-hr/nikolatesla

Visitors from the stands follow the extremely attractive experiments on the rotating magnetic field, Tesla's high-frequency currents and wireless transmission of electromagnetic vibrations, the ship with remote control, Tesla's turbine model and more, actively participating in some of them. The walls depict childhood, schooling, life and work in America and the decorations and honors of Nikola Tesla.
The department has Tesla's E. Durelf & Lefeuen transformer from 1895 and replicas of his inventions made according to Tesla's original designs and patent applications, in most cases the methods and materials from the time he lived.
Multimedia content is available to visitors until experiments are performed.
Trial demonstrations for individual visitors are held:
Tuesday - Friday: 3:30 pm
Saturday and Sunday: 11:30 p.m. ...
Nikola Tesla (Smiljan, 1856 - New York, 1943)
He is one of the greatest scientists and inventors in the history of human technological development. His patents and theoretical work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries created the conditions for the electrification of the world by a polyphase alternating current system, and his work in the field of high-frequency currents and wireless transmission of electromagnetic waves developed radio engineering and telecommunications. Tesla also invented the first teleautomatic machines - remote controlled machines (1894, 1898)
Nikola Tesla applied for a patent office in the US for 112 patents, another 125 in 25 countries. Tesla in honor is one of the devices that produce high frequency currents called the Tesla Transformer. In 1917, he received the Edison Medal, the largest award from the American Institute of Electrical Engeneers. In honor of the great inventor since 1960, the unit in the SI system for magnetic induction is called Tesla. In 1975, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) established the Nikola Tesla Award, which is given to deserving individuals in the field of electricity.
As we've discussed before, Ocazio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is not a panacea, and technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels have very real limitations. But, I haven't seen any evidence that this Tesla "free energy" paradigm, is anything but a fact-free cargo cult.

The video goes on to discuss various severe winter storm events, relating them to a "grand solar minimum". Dubyne predicts a "mini ice age" in the near future.

Global warming "alarmists" tend to agree that MMGW is accompanied by freakish winter storm events caused by a breakdown of the polar jet stream. Statistical proof of this concept has been hard to come by.

All of this underscores the risk of relying too heavily on anecdotal cherry-picked evidence, whether it's David Dubyne or Ben Davidson predicting an ice age, or whether it's MMGW enthusiasts focusing on wildfires in Australia.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Data from meteorologist Nick Humphrey. I have warned above about cherry-picking, and Humphrey indulges in this to some extent. But he does a good job of showing long-term averages, as well as that so much of the local data supports the hypothesis of a long-term warming trend.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/december-2019-33007221

December 2019 Global Climate Report
This is the December 2019 Global Climate Report. Here is the format:
1. Global Climate
2. Arctic Climate
[3. Tropical Cyclone Activity]
4. Other Extremes
-----
1. Global Climate
December 2019 is statistically tied with 2015 as the warmest December on record globally. Notable warm anomalies covered much of the Arctic, as well as Eastern Europe, the western half of Russia, Australia, and parts of the Arctic. It is the warmest December on record for continental Europe. 2019 overall is the 2nd warmest on record globally and continues the trend of every year being a "top 5 warmest year" in the various global temperature datasets since 2014.
[go to Patreon to see these graphs, which couldn't be copied here for some reason...]
Sea surface temperatures globally for 2019 are the 2nd warmest on record.

2. The Arctic
The Arctic north of 70N latitude experienced its 9th warmest December on record. The Arctic had Top 10 warmest months in most of 2019; all but January and February. 2019 is the 2nd warmest year on record for the Arctic, north of the Arctic Circle.



December 2019 Arctic sea ice extent is statistically tied for the 5th lowest on record for the month. 2019 Arctic sea ice extent and volume as a whole is the 2nd lowest on record.





Special note about the Antarctic...sea ice there is also the 2nd lowest on record in 2019. The long-term trend is growth, but these recent years show a significant decline.



Other Notable Extremes:
Fires in Australia have continued to be absolutely devastating. 2019 is the hottest and driest year on record for the continentwith over one billion animals killed by the flamesand at least 25 people killed. They continue into early January, creating destructive and lethal weather conditionsand massive amounts of smoke polluting cities and spreading to New Zealand and turning the surface of glaciers brown.

2019 is also the warmest year on record in the US state of Alaska, Taiwan, Japan, and parts of New Zealand. 2010-2019 is the warmest decade on record for India, and the 2018-19 meteorological winter is the warmest on record for Ireland.
---Meteorologist Nick Humphrey
 
Last edited:
Top