Globalist Warming Denial & the Green New Deal

Richard Stanley

Administrator
As I know from sad personal experience(s), the insiders at Google and their (old and new money) friends, similar to Al Gore, are heavily invested in alternative energy, and thus there is a powerful financial and political interest in promoting their numerous ventures.

That said, I think that such as so-called 'fossil fuel' and other extractive resources should be reevaluated in how we treat them as a society. For instance, why should such as the British and Dutch royals (and their cronies) have gotten such outsized stakes in oil companies (and opium companies, and ...). They did so because of our various cultural systems allowed favored individuals to have birth rights that most have been entrained to support over themselves and their peers.

If oil cannot be proven to be both abiotic and sufficiently plentiful in that regard, we should be wise in how we provide stewardship to its use allowing for future generations.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Could it be that environmentalists and "green organizations" oppose fossil fuels extraction and mines with such an obvious exaggeration just to make money? I am exploring this possibility, trying to set aside, for the time being, the idea that they are conspiring to bring us back to medieval times.

Attacking oil companies and mining industry as if they were guilty of an impending ecological catastrophe is their way to make a lot of money? Receiving funds for research (universities) and their own sustenance as organizations considered useful to the world?

Sorry to say something that to many may look obvious, but I have been for so long in the conspiracy craze of genocide as motivation behind everything, that it appears something kind of new to me.

As I know from sad personal experience(s), the insiders at Google and their (old and new money) friends, similar to Al Gore, are heavily invested in alternative energy, and thus there is a powerful financial and political interest in promoting their numerous ventures.
If their motivation for investing in alternative energy is only to make money, why are they not investing in oil companies instead? Could it be that they have found something more profitable, provided they are able to force people and governments to use these alternative sources instead, or at least increase their use?

Could it be that oil companies stakes don't give a particularly high return because it's a consolidated business? That would make investing in alternative sources of energy more profitable, if they are able to give an advantage to those sources which don't naturally have, by distorting data and campaigning on MMGW to knock down oil production...
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Bull shit, this is your cargo cult bias speaking, defaming the reputations of serious people.
Well, let's name some names. Where is even one of these "serious people" who outright denies that temperatures and CO2 levels are both rising, and that there's a causal connection between the two -- and who is not also an industrial or oil industry shill. Just one.

NASA’s fourth source proving a “scientific consensus” is an abstract-counting exercise by a wacky Australian blogger named John Cook. Cook makes no effort to disguise his bias: His blog, misleadingly called “Skeptical Science,” is mostly a collection of talking points for environmental activists and attacks on realists. He’s also the author of a book titled Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. When he’s not writing about global warming, he’s a professional cartoonist (PopularTechnology.net, 2012)
Now this is what I call defamation. When was this written? Cook got his PhD in 2016 and is now an assistant professor at George Mason University. The "Skeptical Science" blog is known for diligently reporting results of peer reviewed research. He did start the blog website before he got his PhD, but after doing some graduate work in solar physics, and while he was doing database programming. See:

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/skeptical-science-founder-john-cook/

Do I have to go through and discredit the rest of this post, or is it enough to use one item to show the bias?

Furthermore, the following explanation by eminent physicist, Freeman Dysan, discusses, among other things, why computer modeling is shit for predictions, but rather only a good tool for gaining understanding.
At 1:39 in the video, the narrators are saying that Dyson acknowledges that CO2 and temperatures are both up. And at 3:19, Dyson himself says: "First of all, there is manmade climate change. I mean that it's a question how much and is it good or bad and there are all sorts of questions. The fact that it exists is not a question. Certainly there is some effect of humans on climate and we have to try to find out what it is."

Dyson goes on to explain that he thinks that human-driven climate change is all for the better. But he doesn't seem to belong in Claude Badley's list of targets for his firing squad.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, let's name some names. Where is even one of these "serious people" who outright denies that temperatures and CO2 levels are both rising, and that there's a causal connection between the two -- and who is not also an industrial or oil industry shill. Just one.
Get the framing and facts correct and then ask the question again.

Where do you keep coming up with this claim?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Where do you keep coming up with this claim?
Because every single time you or Emma post some article or video that outright denies that temperatures and CO2 levels are both rising, and that there's a causal connection between the two: I've been able to show that the presenter is a shill for some CO2-belching industrial interest. Every Single Time.

Get the framing and facts correct and then ask the question again.
CO2

Starting with CO2, where you last said:

So, the graph shows that I'm correct, and verifies the claim that we've already seen the brunt of predicted CO2 warming (which is not linear).
The graph showed that your initial statement was both technically correct and highly misleading. And the graph doesn't say anything about prediction, or whether the brunt of anything has already been seen. I understand that an exponential increase in CO2 leads to a linear increase in temperature. The exponential increase of greenhouse gas could possibly continue well into the future, augmented by release of huge arctic methane deposits.

But in terms of the question I was asking, it seems that we're both in agreement that CO2 is increasing.

How do we know that? Neither you nor I have been taking ice core data, or gathering atmospheric samples at Mauna Loa or other locations, or measuring isotopic ratios. Here's how we know it's true: (1) it's verified by multiple independent researchers of various political persuasions, writing in peer reviewed scientific journals, and I could easily provide references. (2) For anyone with a basic scientific education, it's an obvious common sense fact that with industrial civilization burning 12,000 megatonnes oil equivalent of fossil fuel every year, all that carbon has to go somewhere. And having driven in Los Angeles recently, it's obvious to me that people are burning a lot of fuel.

With the standards around here, I don't understand why nobody says that this is Illuminati bullshit. No matter how much evidence there is, and no matter how obvious the conclusion, somebody here will say it's all lies from the Catholic church.

Temperature rise

So shall we move on to temperature data? Since I've just established John Cook's bona fides, there's no need for me to repeat the work he's done. See his page of evidence that global temperatures are rising:

https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

TL;DR summary: The most widely used and cited source for global surface temperature measurements is the Global Historical Climatology Network, which is data from thousands of surface temperature monitoring stations all over the world collected by NASA. The data is publicly available. Based on the data, various algorithms & corrections can be applied to produce global average temperature reconstructions. The data have been crunched independently by NASA, University of East Anglia CRU, and NOAA, and their reconstructions are similar. The algorithms & code used are also publicly available. Various independent researchers have taken the same data, applied different correction algorithms to fix alleged errors in the data, and arrived at similar conclusions also.

An independent confirmation of this weather station data, is provided by satellite observations. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been monitoring temperatures in the lower troposphere, and come up with data that's highly correlated to the weather station info.

Finally, researchers from NOAA, University of South Carolina, and University of Bern (Switzerland) studied temperature-sensitive proxy data from 173 independent datasets, and again their results confirmed the weather station data.

It's possible to nitpick around the edges of these vast datasets, as Richard Allan Keen did in the patronizingly titled "It's the Data, Stupid" video. But it's quite another thing to successfully argue that it's all basically wrong.

Attribution

Finally, we have the attribution problem. Is the rise in global temperature, caused by the increase in CO2? It's been mentioned above that this is the most difficult aspect to analyze well, and that there are very few scientists qualified to publish in this area. But the basic issues seem straightforward to me.

We have this increase in CO2, and a highly correlated increase in temperature. Is there anything else that could be causing these changes in the atmosphere & the climate, besides human industrial activity? It's necessary to go through all the other possible causes such as volcanoes, comets, asteroids, solar variations, supernovas, earthquakes, quicksand, and locusts.

Maybe by some wild coincidence, one of those factors is causing both CO2 and global temperatures to go berzerk, while all mankind's simultaneous fossil fuel burning activities have got nothing to do with it.

But guess what? It turns out there is nothing going on in the realm of volcanoes, comets, asteroids, solar variations, supernovas, earthquakes, quicksand, or locusts, during the period from 1850 to the present, that seems remotely likely to be the true cause of either CO2 rise or temperature change. Even though it's conceivable that such causes could cause climate change, and indeed that they have caused climate change in the paleolithic historical record.

Get the framing and facts correct and then ask the question again.
The above is the framing and the facts. Where is a bona fide scientist who disagrees with this basic narrative, and who is not a shill for CO2 belching industries?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Jerry, please don't insult me by saying that I or anyone else is claiming that CO2 levels aren't rising. You just wasted a lot of time to claim that CO2 is rising. Why would you do that? Besides having been a long term Malthusian, you're too emotionally invested in romantically saving the Earth, actually saving the IMPOSSIBLE status quo of the dynamic Earth, that you're clearly not being objective. Rising CO2 isn't the argument, but instead you're trying to win your cargo cult's argument by deflecting and claiming that your opponents are making false arguments on the fundamentals.

More than typically, the bad practices of the geopolitical climate scientists is indicate of people acting in bad faith, and you are accepting their BS on Faith. Stop hyperventilating, take some slow deep breaths and calm down, and if you need to use a paper bag and briefly grab some extra CO2 (stealing some from the nice plants around you). Read the extensive contrarian conclusions of thousands of real scientists first, rather than blindly siding with the MSM, corporate world, the corrupt UN, the Vatican and other elite globalist entities. THIS is why the peeps are more than suspicious of Liberals today.

You're so far gone that you actually fell for my mockery of the fascist. Really, you think that I think supernovas and quicksand release CO2 into Earth's atmosphere? Well, you are right that locusts do.

As I've long said, I don't mind Globalism, but only if it is done from the bottom up, not via the elites whom the climate Nazis have fallen under the elites' apocalyptic spell, just as the original Nazis did with Hitler.

Your framing is bad. CO2 is rising as to be expected, but the temperature correlation is not as strong as the geopolitical Trojan whore climate scientists claim. Besides which they have fudged the measurements and the computer modeling. So you have zero basis to make your outrageous claims.

I'm now convinced that this issue is today's Trojan Horse, and Trump's association with MMGW denialism is cleverly intended to give the Globalists a huge boost with Trump's inevitable Yuuge collapse sooner or later.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Jerry, please don't insult me by saying that I or anyone else is claiming that CO2 levels aren't rising. You just wasted a lot of time to claim that CO2 is rising. Why would you do that?
My point was that the data on CO2 rising, comes from exactly the same sources as the data that temperatures are rising. Namely, the geopolitical climate scientists whose temperature data you're so eager to discredit.

And furthermore, you yourself disputed the significance of the CO2 data, by making the trivializing comparison to the tiny CO2 rise that was probably caused by human activities in preindustrial times.

Stop hyperventilating, take some slow deep breaths and calm down, and if you need to use a paper bag and briefly grab some extra CO2 (stealing some from the nice plants around you).
You're the one who is cursing and making statements that are self-mockeries.

Read the extensive contrarian conclusions of thousands of real scientists first,
I have read extensively on both sides. In my opinion, those "thousands of real scientists" are fraudulent shills. The "geopolitical Trojan whore climate scientists" have their problems too, but not nearly to the same extent.

Thousands?? Emma above posted a link to a statement by 500 alleged scientists saying that "there is no climate emergency". But, if you read their statement carefully, it doesn't deny the basic narrative about MMGW. They're questioning whether the magnitude of the temperature change is as great as claimed in the IPCC report. They're questioning whether the alarmist predictions are correct. They're questioning whether cutting back fossil fuel use is an appropriate response in all cases, and especially when it comes to alleviating poverty and disease. All those questions are perfectly reasonable, and well within the scope of appropriate scientific discussion.

But while you're denying that anything is going on, and those 500 scientists are urging business as usual -- the best, most objective and highly qualified scientists are worried sick that the climate could go into a runaway catastrophe caused by melting Arctic permafrost.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
But while you're denying that anything is going on,
I am NOT saying that. I'm saying that the geopolitical whore climate scientists are not acting on a good faith basis, and that we must suspect that there is a hidden agenda in their wanting us to accept the dubiously extrapolated levels of Correllation are indeed Causation.

I think you're trying to say here, that you actually think Claude Badley is a fascist? That you're genuinely worried that he is going to carry out his modest proposal to massacre Australian global warming denier politicians?
Any person who claims to be a fan of Francisco Franco, after claiming to be a fascist, defends fascism, is a fascist.

"When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time." ― Maya Angelou​
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'm saying that the geopolitical whore climate scientists are not acting on a good faith basis, and that we must suspect that there is a hidden agenda in their wanting us to accept the dubiously extrapolated levels of Correllation are indeed Causation.
The agenda isn't hidden at all. They are pushing for rapid adoption of renewable energy sources, within a context that the global economy is going to continue expanding. And, that the same elites will continue in their elite positions, with no change to the neo-colonialist, neo-feudal structure of the world system.

If there is bad faith on climate scientists' part, do you believe that this extends to a deliberate intent to falsify or distort the basic temperature data?

How is it that you're continuing to question the basic causal analysis? CO2 is both a greenhouse gas in its own right, and it contributes to increasing levels of water vapor as a positive feedback effect. What is it that's in bad faith about that simple and straightforward statement of cause and effect?

Any person who claims to be a fan of Francisco Franco, after claiming to be a fascist, defends fascism, is a fascist.
Claude's commentary on Franco is at this link:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/weaponizing-sexndrugsnrock-roll.2508

Claude said: "There are NO instances of successful fascism." Which is not exactly what a Franco groupie would say. And, that he feels his political proposals deserve a new name, and should not be condemned with the same rhetorical brush as historical fascism.

Claude is just a purring warm fuzzy, and nothing to be scared of.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
How is it that you're continuing to question the basic causal analysis? CO2 is both a greenhouse gas in its own right, and it contributes to increasing levels of water vapor as a positive feedback effect. What is it that's in bad faith about that simple and straightforward statement of cause and effect?
That we agree on one causal relationship doesn't mean that we agree on the extent. What you and the geopolitical whore climate scientists are doing is turning a very complex analog dynamic into a binary proposition.
Claude said: "There are NO instances of successful fascism." Which is not exactly what a Franco groupie would say. And, that he feels his political proposals deserve a new name, and should not be condemned with the same rhetorical brush as historical fascism.
In addition to that, he has stated that he is dead set against liberal precepts, against democracy (however nuanced), makes repeated obsessive, childish Catholic-esque moral argumentation. Like Joe, who refuses to provide the reference point(s) for an undegraded Culture, I would say all this qualifies. He has tripped my threshold.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Because every single time you or Emma post some article or video that outright denies that temperatures and CO2 levels are both rising, and that there's a causal connection between the two:
That's not what I have posted. When my name is mentioned I would like that what is attributed to me is accurate.

To interested readers I again suggest the good book by Ralph Alexander https://www.academia.edu/40379492/Global_warming_false_alarm_-_Ralph_B._Alexander where he explains the distortions operated by UN experts to prove there is a connection between C02 levels and temperature.

For those interested in peer reviewed studies who question the MMGW I again report a collection searched on the Internet by somebody on Skepticalscience.com:

https://skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html

I'm now convinced that this issue is today's Trojan Horse, and Trump's association with MMGW denialism is cleverly intended to give the Globalists a huge boost with Trump's inevitable Yuuge collapse sooner or later.
It's quite probable that the widespread amount of incorrect statements to disprove MMGW is a trap set by MMGW supporters to subtract any credibility to MMGW skeptics, so I recomment not to fall in it and search for accurate and objective disproving arguments, like Ralph B. Alexander recommends:

"Human nature being what it is, not all skeptics are paragons of scientific virtue either. I’ve come across Internet blogs in which authors bend the truth in defense of the skeptical cause, though such distortion is completely unnecessary even from a political viewpoint, with ample evidence to support the case against C02 as we’ve seen."
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
To interested readers I again suggest the good book by Ralph Alexander https://www.academia.edu/40379492/Global_warming_false_alarm_-_Ralph_B._Alexander where he explains the distortions operated by UN experts to prove there is a connection between C02 levels and temperature.
I'm sorry Emma, but I can't see any difference between what I said about you and your position, vs. what you've actually posted. I believe you've admitted that CO2 levels are rising (and I'm sorry if I what I wrote implied any confusion about that); but haven't you consistently denied that temperatures are rising, as well as asserting that if they are indeed rising, it's not because of CO2?

About the book: Ralph B. Alexander is a business marketing consultant with a background in surface coatings. He has no visible qualifications as a climate scientist, not any more than I do. It seems that his position in the book is to admit that CO2 is rising, admit that temperature is rising, but deny that there's any causal link between the two. Here's a quote from his introduction:

Global warming may be real, but there’s hardly a shred of good scientific evidence that it has very much to do with the amount of CO2 we’re producing, or even that temperatures have risen as much as warmists say.

For those interested in peer reviewed studies who question the MMGW I again report a collection searched on the Internet by somebody on Skepticalscience.com:
The item from John Cook's "Skeptical Science" site is part one of a three-part series. Powell searched for peer reviewed journal articles rejecting the MMGW thesis, by identifying ~115 prominent skeptics who claim to be scientists, and then searching for their papers. He found 59 papers by using this approach. By comparison, John Cook's 2013 literature survey identified 3,896 papers that endorsed MMGW theory, and 78 papers that rejected it. So this is in tune with the summary statistic that 97% of the relevant scientific literature, endorses the MMGW theory.

But where I said that you literally can't find these peer reviewed papers, I was indulging in hyperbole. Yes, there are a few of these papers.

In part 2 of the article series, Powell shares what he learned by reading these papers.

https://skepticalscience.com/Powell-projectPart2.html

Some conclusions emerge from reading this set of abstracts, and in some cases the entire paper, which can be done in an hour or two.

  1. 70% of those listed [as prominent skeptics = JR] have no scientific publications that deny or cast substantial doubt on global warming. This list includes such outspoken and media-promoted skeptics as Joe Bastardi, Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, Christopher Monckton, Jo Nova, Ian Plimer, Matt Ridley, and S. Fred Singer. Why don't they write up their argument and submit it to a scientific journal?
  2. None of the papers provides the “killer argument,” the one devastating fact that would falsify human-caused global warming. The best they can do is claim that sensitivity is low, which they have been unable to substantiate and which much evidence contradicts. If as the skeptics claim, human-caused global warming is wrong, why can’t they show it is wrong?
  3. None of the papers explains the observed, concomitant rise in fossil fuel emissions, atmospheric CO2, and global temperatures. Attempts in some papers to blame the the sun are falsified because as temperature has risen, solar activity has remained about the same, or even declined.
  4. The skeptics have no better theory, or indeed any theory, to explain all of the observational evidence of man-made global warming.
  5. Many papers, particularly the earlier ones, suggest improvements in the IPCC’s procedures, in the way temperature data are collected, etc. They imply that once those improvements have been made, the case for human-caused global warming might be weakened. Instead that case has grown stronger.
  6. A true scientific skeptic must be prepared to change his or her mind as new evidence comes in. But as far as I am able to tell from these papers, in spite of the continuing rise in global temperature; heat records; extreme weather of all sorts; melting glaciers, ice caps, and sea ice; sea level rise; migrating species, and the like, no skeptic who wrote in the first half of the 1990s has since accepted human-caused global warming. To be a climate skeptic is to remain a skeptic. ...
And, part 3:

https://skepticalscience.com/case-against-AGW-part3.html

We have now sorted the papers by argument and by year. The list sorted by argument has links to the rebuttals, allowing these conclusions:
  1. The principal claim of each of these arguments has been thoroughly rebutted in the scientific literature, as summarized on SkS here.
  2. Some of the arguments that rank highly by popularity are conspicuous by their absence among the skeptic papers ranked by SkS. None argues that (1) climate’s changed before, (4) there is no consensus, (8) animals and plants can adapt, (9) it hasn’t warmed since 1998, (10) ice age predicted in the 70s, (11) Antarctica is gaining ice, or (12) CO2 lags temperature. Global warming skeptics continue to make these arguments at every opportunity, but demonstrably it is not possible to back up any of them with evidence that will pass peer-review. Until there is such evidence, there is no reason anyone should pay attention to these unsupported and misleading claims. ....
The answer to the question of this series is resounding no: there is no case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature.
[Claude] has tripped my threshold.
Considering that I haven't yet figured out what he's advocating for, I hereby dub his political philosophy "Fuzzism".
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What you and the geopolitical whore climate scientists are doing is turning a very complex analog dynamic into a binary proposition.
There's some truth to the idea that the IPCC is trying to create a "consensus" around a fairly narrow set of propositions. It seems to me that they're painting a set of "goldilocks" scenarios. In the high-CO2 scenarios, they're projecting that economic growth and fossil fuel use will keep growing exponentially until 2100, which would be Exxon's dream. And then they go on to show that this problem is an exact fit for the proposed solution of renewables and a controlled economy. I might even argue that all the billions of government dollars going into climate research, are for the purpose of bribing scientists to keep quiet about the true extent of the problem. And to keep them from talking about more radical solutions, like rejecting neo-feudal capitalism.

But what I actually want to argue, though, is that our crystal ball is very cloudy. Perhaps global warming will remain a manageable problem, a minor enough issue that people will still be arguing whether it even exists, 100 years from now. But then again maybe we're turning the planet into another Venus.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Catastrophic temperatures increases in model projections vs the reality

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
2 Feb 2016
Testimony of John R. Christy

University of Alabama in Huntsville.

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society.

It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding (1) the temperature datasets used to study climate, (2) our basic understanding of climate change and (3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate. I
have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I address (1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and (2) the unfortunate direction research in this area has taken.

I shall begin with a discussion that was precipitated by an increasingly active campaign of negative assertions made against the observations, i.e. the data, of upper air temperatures. Figure 1 in particular has drawn considerable attention from those who view the climate system as undergoing a rapid, human-caused transformation into a climate to which people would have great difficulty adapting. This simple chart tells the story that the average model projection, on which their fears (or hopes?) are based, does
poorly for the fundamental temperature metric that is allegedly the most responsive to extra greenhouse gases - the bulk atmospheric temperature of the layer from the surface to 50,000ft.

The chart indicates that the theory of how climate changes occur, and the associated impact of extra greenhouse gases, is not understood well enough to even reproduce the past climate [much more in section (2)]. Indeed, the models clearly overcook the atmosphere. The issue for congress here is that such demonstrably deficient model projections are being used to make policy.

586

Because this result challenges the current theory of greenhouse warming in relatively straightforward fashion, there have been several well-funded attacks on those of us who build and use such datasets and on the datasets themselves. As a climate scientist I’ve found myself, along withfellow like-minded colleagues, tossed into a world more closely associated with character assassination and misdirection, found in Washington politics for example, rather than objective, dispassionate discourse commonly assumed for the scientific endeavor. Investigations of us by congress and the media are spurred by the idea that anyone who disagrees with the climate establishment’s view of dangerous climate change must be on the payroll of scurrilous organizations or otherwise mentally deficient. Also thrust into this milieu is promotional material, i.e., propaganda, attempting to discredit these data (and researchers) with claims that amount to nothing.

Several of these allegations against the data appeared a few weeks ago in the form of a well-made video. I shall address the main assertions with the following material, which in similar form has appeared in the peer-reviewed literature through the years:

https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy Testimony_0.pdf
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
This is a well-known political circus of Republican climate skepticism.

Dr. Christy is listed in Powell's database as one of the best-known skeptic scientists. He's affiliated with the Koch Bros' Heartland Institute and Independent Institute. Greenpeace nailed William Happer for taking funds under the table from Koch affiliated sources, but nothing has been proven about Christy. So as far as my statement that all these skeptics are on the payroll for CO2 belching industries, Christy might be an exception. But then again, maybe not.

The main problem with Christy's graph above, is that the "Observations" plots include upper troposphere data. While the lower atmosphere gets warmer because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat, the upper atmosphere gets colder for exactly the same reason. So the data doesn't challenge the models at all.

Christy's testimony and his graph were not peer reviewed. So it's only fair that I point out this (not peer reviewed) reply by John Abraham, professor of thermal and fluid sciences at University of St. Thomas, writing in The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates

What Christy and Spencer focus on is the temperatures measured far above the Earth’s surface in the troposphere and the stratosphere. Generally, over the past few decades these two scientists have claimed the troposphere temperatures are not rising very rapidly. This argument has been picked up to deny the reality of human caused climate change – but it has been found to be wrong.
What kinds of errors have been made? Well first, let’s understand how these two researchers measure atmospheric temperatures. They are not using thermometers, rather they are using microwave signals from the atmosphere to deduce temperatures. The microwave sensors are on satellites which rapidly circle the planet.
Some of the problems they have struggled with relate to satellite altitudes (they slowly fall over their lifetimes, and this orbital decay biases the readings); satellite drift (their orbits shift east-west a small amount causing an error); they errantly include stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites. It’s pretty deep stuff, but I have written about the errors multiple times here, and here for people who want a deeper dive into the details.
 
Dear Emma,
Alexander's claims that amounts to saying it's due to solar variation is obsolete.
Here is a scientist that exposes MMGW that looks good and serious. His book available to read and download here:

https://www.academia.edu/40379492/Global_warming_false_alarm_-_Ralph_B._Alexander
Even his own figure 6.2 on p. 103 shows the global temperature rise from MMGW (man-made global warming), the blunting about 2005-2013 being due to solar cooling but now being overwhelmed by increasing CO2 induced warming. In Australia we have the worst drought ever in the inland of northern New South Wales, and a general drought over inland Australia. This is because the ocean is warming and it requires more heat on the land to bring the moist air in off the ocean.

Large scale MMGW began in 1977 when Greenland Ice Sheet run off diluted the Atlantic Conveyor, ending the substantial production of Deep Ocean Water and the increased production of Intermediate Ocean Water instead - with immediate effects on British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest and on the western third of Australia.

The list of "peer-reviewed" papers from 2011 is already obsolete as such papers were clinging to the hope that solar cooling would reverse the MMGW trend. I.e. it did not.

The arguments denying MMGW are an attempt to fudge the issue by claiming that the cause is unknown, so denying the need for any action except business as usual - a death sentence.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
But as MMGW is true...
I would also like to express a remark that has been in my mind for a while which I never hear being said:

it's not a wise idea to discard studies funded (totally or partially) by oil companies a priori, that is just because they are funded by oil companies.

Why? Because if MMGW is not true, oil companies are just right to fund studies to defend their interests. Wouldn't you do it? I would. If MMGW is not true, they are doing a service to us to prove it's not true. But certainly, a bit of caution is also wise, because they might distort facts to prove in any manner they are innocent.
:oops::oops::oops:... the oil companies are merely lying by utilizing well-paid shills. The end result will be greater disaster than would have been without such shills.

The only remaining part of the climate debate over MMGW is whether all of it is CO2 or whether much of it is actually methane (CH4) hich is lighter and rises higher in the atmosphere than water clouds do. If this latter is the case then if we reduce CH4 release (e.g. by stopping fracking) we may be able to reduce the MMGW harm since CH4 (unlike CO2) decays in about 10 years.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Except for the vital point made elsewhere that Al Gore was a shill for Big Biz, the evidence for MMGW is solid - and I have seen it every day for 40 years as temperatures increase and rainfall drops in south-west WA and more recently in southern inland farming areas in Australia where most crops are grown.
There's some truth to the idea that the IPCC is trying to create a "consensus" around a fairly narrow set of propositions. It seems to me that they're painting a set of "goldilocks" scenarios. In the high-CO2 scenarios, they're projecting that economic growth and fossil fuel use will keep growing exponentially until 2100, which would be Exxon's dream. And then they go on to show that this problem is an exact fit for the proposed solution of renewables and a controlled economy. I might even argue that all the billions of government dollars going into climate research, are for the purpose of bribing scientists to keep quiet about the true extent of the problem. And to keep them from talking about more radical solutions, like rejecting neo-feudal capitalism.
That's right in that the scientists have to confine themselves to climate predictions over economic ones - due mainly to specialization, climate scientists rarely also being economists, and vice versa.
But what I actually want to argue, though, is that our crystal ball is very cloudy. Perhaps global warming will remain a manageable problem, a minor enough issue that people will still be arguing whether it even exists, 100 years from now. But then again maybe we're turning the planet into another Venus.
Unfortunately the latter is eventuating. When I exited the car rental at LA airport in July it was raining - a summer event almost unheard of in Perth, and in LA which has a similar Mediterranean climate.

Falling rainfall in mid-latitude areas like Australia is disastrous. Rising rainfalls e.g. in the Philippines is also a disaster due to erosion and floods.
The real issue though is the drop in crop yields from MMGW and the resultant rising food prices. We will need major technological investments to bring water to these drought-stricken areas, and to reverse the CO2 rise by increasing forests and ocean fertility!

Yours faithfully
Claude (Badleyto Muscle-Inney)
 
Dear Emma,

Also glad to hear you are no longer a HAARPocrat. (And presumably NEVER a Carpocrat - but that would be anachronistic of me).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Top