The new Climate Consensus is just a junk keyword survey.
Climate change is a branch of science that’s immature, complex, and has error bars a hundred miles wide. If 99% of scientists say the same thing, it’s a cult, not a science. The climate is not man-made but the irrelevant consensus surely is.
By studying words in industry publications, Mark Lynas thinks he’s discovered a scientific truth. Instead he has just shown that skeptics get purged from peer review. It’s official now, 99% of peer reviewed articles have to say they believe in order to get published.
He thought he was doing climate science but instead he studied sociology. If Mark Lynas proved anything it’s that he doesn’t know what science is, and only unskeptical papers pass peer review. It’s a sad sad statement about the state of the scientific-industry.
Hypothetically, if we cared at all about unscientific opinion-polling of climate scientists, we’d just opinion-poll them. He could run up a survey and email it out. It’d still be a fallacy, but at least it would tell us what scientists thought. Instead, Mark Lynas and co have taken a long roundabout route to poll them by proxy. It’s the oddly hard-work-way to get an answer to a profoundly unscientific question that shouldn’t be asked in the first place. Science is not a democracy. No one votes for the Laws of Physics. They just are, and always were, whether or not the government funded the grant, the scientist wrote that up in an abstract, and some editor approved.
Fifty shades of nonsense
So Lynas et al, took 88,125 papers and randomly picked 3,000 of them, because they didn’t know enough climate science to pick out the 100 papers that matter instead. Having picked out 3,000 random papers they hunted for keywords in the abstracts to “find” skeptical papers. But there are human hands all over this gonzo chain of cause and effect. In the glorious age of Climate Witchcraft good scientists want to hide their opinions because they don’t want to be excommunicated, hounded, ignored, and never given a government grant again. Who wants a RICO? And if a scientist hid their skepticism in subclauses, tables, graphs or the 90% of the paper that isn’t the abstract, the dumb-word finder isn’t going to find them. Indeed the authors could hide their opinions just with novel keywords and the computer would miss that too.
So if Governments only gave grants to find a crisis, they’d create a market for crisis science and crisis journals. And if counter opinions were sacked, exiled, mocked and ignored, and their papers were delayed, rejected, or just edited to bury awkward results, how exactly would a keyword survey of their abstracts prove anything about upper tropospheric moist adiabatic lapse rates? At best, it’s only telling us about moist bureaucratic grant rates.
Most of these papers were not even about “attribution” or cause and effect, they were about the impacts of climate change which means the scientists who wonder if future spotted froglets will sit on smaller lilypads, or eat more striped dragonflys in 2060. These are Pollenologists who study whether flowers will bloom earlier, or petals will fall off faster in a warmer world. These are biologists and psychologists who never got past first year physics and who never looked under the bonnet of a climate model.
The researchers know that but insist that the opinion of Frog psychologists tells us something about radiative physics on the third rock from the sun because, yeah, it “Seems unlikely” that biologists given golden gravy would still publish on spotted frogs if they were skeptical of models they never looked at.
For example, a majority of the papers we categorized as being about ‘impacts’ of climate change did not state a position on whether the phenomenon they were studying— the changing climate—was human-caused. It seems highly unlikely that if researchers felt sceptical about the reality of ACC they would publish numerous studies of its impacts without ever raising the question of attribution. In other words, given that most 4a (‘no position’) ratings do not either explicitly or implicitly differ from the consensus view of GHG emissions as the principal driver of climate change it does not follow in our view that these analyses should be a priori excluded from the consensus.
What seems highly unlikely is the idea that skeptical scientists would still want to work at most universities where they will get treated like dirt.
And what skeptical scientist would want to publish in IOP Science when it publishes junk like this?
Lynas is just adopting the role of the media in the Circle of Science (below). His role is to use a mountain of papers that teach us nothing-much about the real world. Through a magical process of crystal word hunting he can find the secret signal showing that CO2 controls the climate.
The Circle of Science. The Government pays money to produce the papers it wants and the media uses the paper to scare more money out of the public.
If climate scientists knew how the climate worked they wouldn’t need junk keyword surveys, they’d just predict the climate instead. We’d all know they knew what they were talking about because they wouldn’t keep making mistakes like telling us the Antarctic would warm twice as fast as the equator, that the hot spot existed, that storms would get worse, that the pause wasn’t real, the snow wouldn’t fall, and the droughts wouldn’t end.
And they wouldn’t keep cooling the past, deleting their emails, their data and their prophecies of doom.
h/t Raven, Simon.
GRRREFERENCE
Lynas et al (2021) Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 114005. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966/pdf
Who funds the climate scientists? Governments, big business and the main proponents of the CAGW myth. So, the climate change scientists are just the puppets of the puppets. Go to the source of the problem, namely the source of funds. As they say, follow the money.
380
It is not only the climate “science”. The Wall Street Journal had this little gem on Friday: “Members of the FDA advisory board supported Moderna’s booster dose [19:0] even though the evidence for it was from a small study and had mixed results.”
There is nothing like a scientific consensus. 19:0! Medicine is a modern climatology. They are at 100% now.
250
They saw what happened to the dissenters, they got sacked.
161
Peter Ridd. Paul Oosterhuis.
80
Yup. Follow the money….
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/02/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne/
30
Casting auspices was mandatory in ancient societies.
“In ancient Rome, the appointment and inauguration of any magistrate, decisions made within the people’s assembly and the advancement of any campaign always required a positive auspicium. Unlike in Greece where oracles played the role of messenger of the gods, in Rome it was through birds that Jupiter’s will was interpreted. Auspices showed Romans what they were to do, or not to do; giving no explanation for the decision made except that it was the will of the gods. It would be difficult to execute any public act without consulting the auspices.”
Then came rational science, fact based science. It seems like only yesterday before Climate Scientology ruled the media. And Carbon Dioxide pollution, the great discovery of the 20th century.
It’s a new world where scientists are intimidated, their words are mined for hidden meaning and science ignorant journalists are the new oracles. And now they all say we need another miracle because renewable energy is a crock.
340
This survey is propaganda. Not just to convince you to behave like a sheep i.e. safety in numbers, but also to not listen to even one good argument against it. Then it becomes self fulfilling. A stronger consensus.
320
Written by Lynas a twit by any reasoning and with absolute indulgence in the cause. Adviser to the President of Maldives on environmental matters I believe.
120
The satellite measured world temperature of March 1980 is identical to the reading of March 2021 within 0.001C. Who cares what happened in between? 40 years after the first satellite measurements almost all points are within +/-0.5C, to all intents and purposes constant temperature. And where are the drowned cities? Where is the collapse of agriculture? Where are the Climate refugees?
I am surprised Rational scientists are allowed to live let alone stay employed. Best wishes to John Christy and Roy Spencer. Shots have been fired into their offices. Facts must never interfere with the Climate myth. There is just too much money riding on carbon dioxide pollution, more than in all of human history.
530
If there is temperature variation on earth caused by the sun, there should be corresponding variation on the lunar surface. While the variations may not be linear, the two curves should follow a similar track.
50
Not so. It is the variation of the cloud cover that causes the variation of energy reaching the earth. If Svensmark is correct(and I think he is), the changes in cloud are caused by changes in the sun’s magnetic field.
Since the moon has no clouds, the same mechanism cannot apply.
250
Thank you for your thoughtful response. But it leaves me with more questions than answers. I would not expect lunar and earth temperatures to be linear due to clouds and other variables. But I would expect some correlation. The article talked about measuring earth’s temperature many years apart and you talk about cloud cover effecting temperature. Which makes we wonder, was the first measurement taken after a prolonged cloudy period (lower temp) and the second after a prolonged cloudless period (higher/lower magnetic solar periods) or the opposite? If the surface of the moon is monitored for temperature (I assume it is) then we should see an increase or decrease in temperature with solar activity, I would assume. My point is the moon would be a good control to determine if variations in earth’s surface temperature are man caused or solar.
30
Wet Mountains, total solar irradiance (TSI) at the surface of the moon is the same as TSI at the earth’s top of atmosphere (TOA).
Insolation at the earth’s surface (surface solar radiation, absorbed solar radiation – SSR, ASR) is modulated by cloudiness, aerosols etc.
The fluctuation of SSR/ASR is far greater than change in the misnamed TSI solar “constant”.
Therefore moon surface temperature and earth surface temperature comparison is meaningless.
The moon’s temperature is extreme: 127 degrees Celsius day, -173 night. A small change in the solar “constant” would have an indiscernible effect on that temperature range.
Also, SSR forcing at the earth’s surface is orders of magnitude greater than theoretical CO2 forcing. Even the IPCC notes screeds on this in their Observations: Atmosphere chapters of Assessment Reports.
And see #4.2.1 downthread re:
‘2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions’
40
You clearly know more about the subject than I. Thank you for taking your time to educate me.
40
The noon’s nighttime temp of -173C indicates to me that there is a continuous source of heat other than from the sun. yes -173C is very cold but outer space is even colder, Simple thermodynamics tells us that with a difference in temp there is a flow of heat. Where do you think the heat is coming from?
20
James >”Where do you think the heat is coming from?”
6. Weber, R. C.; Lin, P.-Y.; Garnero, E. J.; Williams, Q.; Lognonne, P. (2011). “Seismic Detection of the Lunar Core” (PDF)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon#cite_note-Weber2010-6
“Characteristic estimates of the anhydrous solidi of possible lunar mantle materials at lowermost mantle pressures typically lie above ~1650 K (22–24). Therefore, the solidi temperatures imply that the sulfur content within the lunar outer core is ~6 weight % or less (Fig. 4). If significant water is present at depth in the deep Moon, then solidus temperatures would be lowered in the partially molten zone…”
So, as per the Wiki estimate – “The temperature in the core is probably about 1600–1700 K (1330–1430 °C).[6]”
That energy cannot be completely insulated so must go somewhere.
10
Richard; Thanks for replying to my comment on moon temperatures. I think most of the heat is coming from the moons core. Your idea on the cause of the heat does not hold water (pun intended). The important thing is that you recognize that there is a flow of heat from the moon. Mars also has a range of temperatures that suggests a similar flow of heat. Also Venus. Temp meas show a range of temps from the surface to the upper atmos that suggest a flow of heat. As for the Earth, I know from personal observation that the earth increases in temp by about 15 degrees per 1000 ft of decent. Also, the 8000 ft deep gold mines in South Africa are in rock that is about 140 degrees F.
31
Richard; Heat from the earth was considered by the HGW people about 50+ years ago. They claimed that it would have minimal impact on atmospheric temps. There were no computations made. It was a dead issue after that.
00
TdeF >”The satellite measured world temperature of March 1980 is identical to the reading of March 2021 within 0.001C. Who cares what happened in between?”
Exactly.
Also, without a hemispheric breakdown the “global” mean is meaningless. At the risk of getting booted for repetition here’s what’s been happening in the Southern Hemisphere while everyone’s been gaslit by GMST “anomalies”:
Southern Hemisphere Cooling
Monthly Mean Southern Hemisphere
Last decade, Absolute (K)
https://psl.noaa.gov/tmp/ncl8dBtyTXYgq.tmpqq.png
Trend -0.0236025 per year (-0.24/decade)
From:
Web-based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tool: Monthly/Seasonal Time-Series
https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/testdap/timeseries.pl
The ocean dominates the Southern Hemisphere i.e. the first place to look for cooling.
The manufactured “consensus” is now overcome-by-events in the real world.
50
I’m guessing Lynas et al studiously avoided these and papers similar:
‘2001-2019 Warming Driven By Increases In Absorbed Solar Radiation, Not Human Emissions’
A solid ignoring by Lynas et al I’m sure. Although they do say this:
My mission now is to find “supplementary table 1″….
40
>”My mission now is to find “supplementary table 1″….
Keywords indicating scepticism
Supplementary Table 1
From “Supplementary information”:
‘Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature’
Lynas, Houlton and Perry (2021)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Last entry 2017 so obviously, and as I surmised, the three papers previous Loeb et al.(2021), Dübal and Vahrenholt (2021), and Ollila (2021) are absent.
Next up, what do they have for “Sun is driving modern climate change” among “all 31 sceptical papers we found” ?
What a hoot this paper is!
50
>”Last entry 2017 so obviously…”
Filters out this blockbuster:
R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/21/6/131.
Article:
‘How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate’
“A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.”
https://medium.com/@ceres-science/how-much-has-the-sun-influenced-northern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-an-ongoing-debate-121c5b1f2825
70
>Next up, what do they have for “Sun is driving modern climate change”
11 or 12 papers out of 31 just guessing by titles. Their latest entry in that category was 2015 (see below).
Upthread there’s 4 papers in 2021 alone just off the top of my head i.e. by no means an exhaustive search – just the first that came to memory.
My count above includes the last in category:
‘Solar activity, cosmic rays, and earth temperature reconstructions for the past two millennia. Part 1. Analysis of temperature reconstructions’
Dergachev, V. A. (2015)
Obviously “the past two millennia” is not “modern climate change” but where are the papers addressing CO2 vs Temperature “the past two millennia”?
90
Apparently, according to Lynas et al, the extraordinarily prolific solar author Abdusamatov has only ever published one paper:
‘Bicentennial decrease of the solar constant leads to the Earth’s unbalanced heat budget and deep climate cooling’
Abdusamatov (2012)
References here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S088459131202002X
8 are Abdussamatov papers.
He published 2 parallel papers in 2012:
[1] Bicentennial decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance leads to unbalanced thermal budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
Applied Physics Research 2012
[2] Bicentennial decrease of the solar constant leads to the Earth’s unbalanced heat budget and deep climate cooling
Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies 2012
Then in 2013:
[3] Grand minimum of the total solar irradiance leads to the little ice age
J Geol Geosci 2013
From
https://m.scirp.org/papers/JEMAA/1539
Did Lynas et al pick up his papers published in Russian (see link) – no.
So just with one author alone Lynas et al are not even in the ball park.
40
Here’s one paper Lynas et al definitely would NOT have wanted on their list (and it isn’t):
‘A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’ A. I. Shapiro, W. Schmutz, E. Rozanov, M. Schoell, M. Haberreiter, A. V. Shapiro, S. Nyeki
A&A, 529 (2011) A67
Published online: 2011-04-04
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201016173
Full text
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2011/05/aa16173-10/aa16173-10.html
4. Results and discussion
“The difference between the current and the reconstructed TSI during the Maunder minimum is about 6 ± 3 W/m2 (equivalent to a solar forcing of ΔFP − M ~ 1.0 ± 0.5 W/m2)”
[For comparison, theoretical 21st Century CO2 forcing is about 0.3 W/m2/decade – 0 mid 20th Century.]
# # #
I queried Mike Lockwood on this paper since he and co-authors discarded it in favour of least-case solar scenarios in their paper:
Jones G. S., Lockwood M. & Stott P. A. What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes? J. Geophys. Res. 117, D05103 (2012)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011JD017013
Reply (quote):
That is not to say I have no respect for Mike Lockwood – I do, and have followed his solo solar-centric efforts. It’s just that like Kevin Trenberth who I’ve also corresponded with, when he’s in the company of CO2-centric colleagues he’s less scientist, more activist.
Put more bluntly – Jones, Lockwood & Stott (2012) is totally bogus and was already invalid when they authored it (see Figures 5 and 6).
50
Lynas et al might also consider:
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-physical-science/
Chapter 3. Solar Forcing of Climate
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf
Maybe a couple of references common to Lynas’ 31 papers but numerous they managed to miss.
Also, where’s recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues?
‘Global Cooling Straight Ahead, Says Solar Physicist’
https://www.technocracy.news/global-cooling-straight-ahead-says-solar-physicist/
Valentina V. Zharkova
Publications (268)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentina-Zharkova
20
>”Monthly Mean Southern Hemisphere
Last decade, Absolute (K)
https://psl.noaa.gov/tmp/ncl8dBtyTXYgq.tmpqq.png”
Apologies. Just realized this link to a png image does not resolve.
Easy to replicate using the Intercomparison Tool linked again below (which does work). The settings for the graph are:
Dataset 1: NCEP/NCAR/R1
Which variable for D1: 2m Air Temp
Start Year 2010 End Year 2021
Time Averaging: None
First Month Season Jan Last Month Dec
Variable statistic: Mean
Grid Point/Region 1*:
Lowest lat: -90 Highest lat: 0
Land/Ocean Mask options: All
Output Type: Timeseries
Plot Type: Line
Running Mean Smoothing: No
Create Plot
Intercomparison Tool
https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/testdap/timeseries.pl
10
Richard,
You’re a serial commentator here. But from 4.2, the 1st ref. returns “Oops”. The 2nd Ref is good but all of the temp plots return about 2.7 degrees K increasing temp per century. Is that right? If so, that’s bloody fast global heating.
30
Peter >…from 4.2, the 1st ref. returns “Oops”.
Yes, I apologized for this just above at #4.2.2:
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/climate-purity-alarm-goes-ding-99-of-scientists-believe-because-the-others-got-sacked/#comment-2482404
Firstly, thanks for following this through – there’s a lot going on here. The “global” GMST “anomaly” time series datasets that we are used to (eg HadCRUT, GISTEMP, NCEI etc) completely obliterate the hemispheric annual summer-winter cycle of warming-cooling. Using absolute values (K) reveals this cycle.
I’m in permanent moderation (‘nuther story – no prob) so you will have missed that update unless you get an email feed of comments.
I’ve provided the settings at #4.2.2 with which to reproduce the last decade of the Southern Hemisphere – “Trend -0.0236025 per year (-0.24/decade)”
>”The 2nd Ref is good but all of the temp plots return about 2.7 degrees K increasing temp per century. Is that right?”
Yes except what you have is the entire 1979 – 2021 dataset for the Northern Hemisphere (0 – 90) which returns a trend of 0.0273688 K per year (2.7 K/Century). I’m only focused on the latest decade of the Southern Hemisphere (0 – -90) 2010 – 2021.
Again, see #4.2.2 for the settings I used.
>”If so, that’s bloody fast global heating”
Remember, that is a linear trend for Northern Hemisphere 1979 – 2021. A linear trend is an extremely blunt instrument especially for global temperature time series where a curve is more appropriate. Even more appropriate is the residual curve and secular trend found by Singular Spectral Analysis (SSA), example here:
‘Application of the singular spectrum analysis technique to study the recent hiatus on the global surface temperature record’
Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160239/
However, a linear trend is all we are provided with by the WRIT Monthly Timeseries Tool.
30
Peter, I also recommend a look at the following blog (Bryan, a recently retired meteorologist and environmental engineer with a long-time interest in all earth sciences and astronomy):
Climate Concerns
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com
There are 2 posts relevant, oldest and most relevant first:
Global Daily Temperatures Since 1948
Posted on March 2, 2019 | 1 comment
I finally completed downloading gridded daily average global surface air temperatures based on initial condition output for the Sigma 0.995 level from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and National Center for Atmospheric Research Reanalysis 1 (NCAR R1) cooperative effort. This output is still being updated daily about 2 days behind the current day and extends back to 1948.
And latest,
Reanalysis Comparison Update
Posted on March 12, 2021 | 1 comment
This post provides a quick comparison update of two different reanalysis daily global mean surface air temperature anomaly (GMSATA) time series for 2014 through 2021 March 11.
# # #
A couple of graphs have not resolved (on my browser) but the rest are ok. Note that in the first post the data only goes to 2019 so it’s missing some influential data esp. in the SH.
Also note that this is daily data i.e. a massive undertaking.
I think you will find this highly illuminating.
20
“The researchers know that but insist that the opinion of Frog psychologists tells us something about radiative physics on the third rock from the sun because, yeah, it “Seems unlikely” that biologists given golden gravy would still publish on spotted frogs if they were skeptical of models they never looked at.”
Plus 10
50
The circle of science graphic is even better!
Thanks
20
Junk science produces Junk…Who Knew?
140
It has become just another mass hysteria, driven by the destructive, anti-capitalism, anti-western democracies, anti-conservative forces which are winning because the largest component of the media is the leftist component. They ceased to keep the bastards honest decades ago.
200
No.it’s not. It’s a part of Leftist political ideology.
330
And they explicitly exclude meteorologists as knowing anything about climate. Now that takes real chutzpah, audacity. Ask a climate scientist if they are meteorologists by profession. They have no training or qualifications in meteorology. Climate is quite different from the weather, apparently. I would have thought it was just the weather over time, but I’m not an Climate Scientist like Tim Flannery or Al Gore or David Rabbitborough.
Rather druids, oracles, environmental journalists, economic journalists and Climate Science is a magnetic profession for unemployable scientists from completely unrelated professions like our infamously and eternally wrong Australian Professor Flim Flannery, wombatologist who graduated in English, not science. So Flannery is qualified as a science fiction writer, joining L. Ron Hubbard in notoriety if not in extreme wealth. L. Ron Hubbard also claimed academic prowess with a PhD in Nuclear Physics, except no one believed that. And Professor Flannery was also paid well for knowing nothing at all about meteorology or any other real science, mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, geology, computing etc.
240
This post is the best example of circular logic I’ve seen in a long while. It’s like says that because only heliocentric astrometric papers are published, you have to ‘believe’ in the heliocentric model.
Balderdash sums it up as well
228
Nah, we know that the starship Enterprise circles Uranus looking for Klingons but the science of man made climate-change is bunkum unlike the Heliocentric model.
150
I would have thought once was enough.
70
Explain your thesis.
60
Its also called begging the question. How exactly can 100% of scientists agree on anything, let alone the disadvantages of a benign trace gas. Alarm bells should be ringing Mr Fitzroy.
160
“Balderdash sums it up as well”
Yep, the paper by Lynas could only be described that way.
Complete and utter balderdash.. totally irrelevant, and totally devoid of any actual real science !
The sort of thing PF would just “believe”, unthinkingly.
70
First the Left stopped the teaching of real science, history and ethics.
Then they corrupted the Scientific Method and falsely said science is a) about “consensus” and b) certain Leftist political opinions such as anthropogenic global warming is a matter of incontestable scientific fact.
In truth, if it can’t be questioned then by definition it’s not science.
370
New headline I’d like to see: 99% of climate scientists’ predictions about the climate 10 years ahead were wrong.
230
Why stop at 99%? If you cannot predict a single variable correctly over 40 years, why expand it? There has been no warming. That’s 100%.
130
There are many instances of”
99% of climate scientists’ predictions 10 years ago about the climate now are wrong”
20
Personally I find the whole thing a very interesting anthropological observation, into how a new religion rises and surpasses an old one.
110
It will be interesting if the god turns out to be false – if the masses eventually wake up to a climate trending downward in temperature leading to mass starvation. Mass delusions driven by the church of the 4th estate.
100
If the ‘gods’ turn out to be false, the pitchforks and torches will go after ALL scientists. Does anyone really think the sheeple can distinguish between a real scientist and those stealing the funding for the Religion?
Scientists from other fields should be insisting the AGW stop the BS and start with the Science. Because they will ALL have angry mobs coming for them.
50
Its nought to do with the gods, the scientific high priests have gone outside their realm and are spreading false rumour about the end of the world.
10
Vee haff vays off making you agree….
https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/square-peg-round-hole-gif.gif
60
“No one votes for the Laws of Physics. They just are, and always were, whether or not the government funded the grant, the scientist wrote that up in an abstract, and some editor approved.”
In just two short sentences, such a powerful and undeniable statement of fact. Papers could be written based on those sentences, if only they would get published.
110
What % of scientists believed Isaac Newton was right about Gravity in 1914?
I know, not really a parallel as a competing hypothesis had yet to be published (1915), and a falsifying test had yet to be conducted (1918), but demonstrative of normal science creating a consensus (around the available evidence) only to see it broken, over-turned, transformed …
The key issue, of course, is that the ‘available evidence and tests (models???)’ are constrained to a set that ‘confirm,’ the hypothesis rather than refute it. Refutational studies are labelled heretical and deemed inadmissible.
Excluded, ignored, silenced.
130
Isaac Newton died in 1727.
36
Simon if 99% of scientists agreed that Newton did his experiment in 1914 you wouldn’t doubt the consensus I suppose ?
120
That sound you hear above you is the point of ExWarmist’s post going way over your head… 😀
60
Indeed, Mark.
30
The theory of gravity is rather easy to prove if you hold a brick in the air over your unprotected toes and let the brick go , there is no experiment that proves the theory of CAGW .
150
Hi Robert,
The key is the admission of refutational studies, as follows,
[For Example] If Man Made Global Warming is True, then the world will witness 0.1 degree increases in surface temperature per decade from 2000 to 2030…
In the form of If A, then B. The contrapositive is also true, if not B, then Not A.
I.e. If accurately drawn measures of temperature rise fail to reach the defined ‘B,’ then Man Made Global Warming is false (falsified).
I suspect such refutational studies never make it past grant review, never receive funding, and are never executed. I also suspect that budding climate scientists rigorously avoid such studies lest their careers be destroyed.
Contrawise to the above, I can define a hypothesis and conduct ‘confirmation,’ studies until the proverbial cows come home.
For example, say I propose that ‘All cats are black,’ by definition, anything fluffy (or hairless) that likes to sleep a lot, hunt mice and small birds, meows, and occasionally submits to human stroking that isn’t black – I can dismiss as not a cat. I can conduct all sorts of studies that assume my hypothesis is true, I can search parks and alleyways, and every time I discover a ‘black cat,’ I can note it down in my report that ‘all cats are indeed black.’
Rinse and repeat, never study the refutational case, never disprove the hypothesis.
Science stops and superstition begins on the boundary of the refutational criteria.
40
Another example is the Tectonic Plate theory aspects of which are still not fully understood. Plate tectonics evolved from Wegener’s continental drift theory for which there was no “proof” as such and which was ridiculed at the time.
Wegener first presented his idea of continental drift in 1912, but it was widely ridiculed and soon, mostly, forgotten.
Only decades later, in the 1960s, did the idea of continental drift resurface. That’s when technologies adapted from warfare made it possible to more
It took over 50 years for Wegener’s theory to be accepted so perhaps, in due course, those ridiculing human impact on the climate will be shown to be as wrong as those ridiculing Wegener. But on the other hand, perhaps not. However best not be overly dismissive of CAGW as you might get egg on your face in the fullness of time
49
Theories come and go, how did earth get its water and big moon to make it habitable?
The temperature control knob is ENSO and not CO2. As a consequence the world is cooling because the PDO is returning to negative, which normally sees an increase in La Nina activity. The first decade of this century is a clear illustration of what to expect going forward.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2021_v6.jpg
60
ENSO is a mechanism for transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere. it can explain the simultaneous warming of ocean and atmosphere over the past 50 years.
22
Yep, and its the only warming in the last 40 years.
https://i.postimg.cc/MK5vb4VS/UAH-ERBS_no_trend.jpg
Thanks for finally understanding that there is no human fingerprints of the slight step-wise warming in the satellite era.
CO2 cannot and does not warm the oceans, only the large increase in solar energy over the latter half of last century, and the decrease in cloud over the tropical oceans could do that.
https://i.postimg.cc/FFDD8LWc/Solar_Proxy_paleo_BE.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/mDDNXwGS/cloud.jpg
With maybe some help from increase ocean seismic activity.
https://i.postimg.cc/rsrmj4Jr/Seismic_vs_temperature.jpg
40
‘ENSO is a mechanism for transfer of heat between ocean and atmosphere.’
That is true, but in our deliberations we should take into account that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a major player. During a positive PDO it seems that El Nino reigns supreme, while in its negative phase we should expect to see clusters of La Nina which will keep world temperatures down.
Natural variability rules and CO2 has no part to play.
To settle this matter we need to see a temperature chart without ENSO and then the extra heat in the system, caused by a buildup in CO2, should be plainly visible.
20
el gordo >”To settle this matter we need to see a temperature chart without ENSO and then the extra heat in the system, caused by a buildup in CO2, should be plainly visible”
Better still, ENSO removed by 5 year smoothing (as per Christy’s graphs) vs CO2-forced climate models. We know how that turns out.
Actually this is the only comparison that can be made (apples-to-apples) because climate models don’t do ENSO, or PDO/AMO either.
PDO+AMO is a 60 yr oscillation around the secular trend, see:
‘Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96’
Expanding upon the last post, the “sunspot integral” (accumulated departure in sunspots v. the monthly mean of 41.2 for the observational period of sunspots 1610-2009) shows good correlation with the temperature record. Excellent correlation (R²=.96!) with temperature is obtained by adding to the sunspot integral the most significant ocean oscillations (the PDO-Pacific Decadal Oscillation + AMO- Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation*3). Various other combinations and permutations of these factors compared to the temperature record have been posted at: 1 2 3 4 5 6, although I have not located others with a correlation coefficient of this magnitude. Contrast the R² of .96 from this simple model (near a perfect correlation coefficient (R²) of 1) vs. the poor correlation (R²=.44) of CO2 levels vs. temperature.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
20
Roy Spencer also did the hard yards and came up with a good result through OHC back to the Renaissance.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/1525-2020-model-Tsfc-and-0-2000m.jpg
20
Only if it’s being thrown by the rabid mob. CAGW has failed every test and continually relies on altering data and STILL gets things wrong!
100
“in due course, those ridiculing human impact on the climate will be shown to be as wrong as those ridiculing Wegener.”
LOL,
Wrong again.
The next couple of decades will prove just how empty and science-free the CO2 warming conjecture really is.
Science shows that conjecture to be evidence free and contrary to basic physics.
40
If you’re going to quote me, quote what I actually wrote which was:
“so perhaps, in due course, those ridiculing human impact on the climate will be shown to be as wrong as those ridiculing Wegener. The perhaps at the commencement of that phrase shows caution on my part, caution that you blatantly disregard. Why am I not surprised?
That you have to resort to deliberate distortion speaks volumes
04
“so perhaps,”
so baseless conjecture.. OK. !
10
Ian, using weasel words like “perhaps” does you no credit at all.
When you have dug yourself into a hole by motivated speculation as you have, stop digging.
40
Weasel words my foot. I’m not at all sure if in, a decade or so CAGW be proven,one way or the other. I am not conceited enough to claim either that humans cause climate change or that they do not. Any layman who does so is remarkably lacking in intellect as was shown by the ridicule heaped on Wagner. If in the fullness of time CAGW is pinned on humans, climate doubters are going to look remarkably stupid. Similarly if it isn’t the case climate scientists who are so sure it is will be utterly discredited and their reputations ruined.
25
Apologridicule was not heaped on Wagner as far as I know but on Wegener
12
‘If in the fullness of time CAGW is pinned on humans …’
No worries, 99% believe as you do.
50
“‘If in the fullness of time CAGW is pinned on humans …’
No worries, 99% believe as you do.”
Actually I don’t believe humans cause CAGW but I don’t believe they don’t either I just don’t know and I don’t pontificate ‘coz it ain’t my area of science and I’m no expert unlike the many who comment here with their definitive views.
24
‘coz it ain’t my area of science …’
That is precisely the problem, other disciplines respect the integrity and knowledge of climate scientists. It won’t wash, we can no longer close our minds and leave the running to higher authority.
Within the climate sciences there are different groups looking at particular things in detail and none of them are going to break ranks even if they have doubts about the veracity of global warming.
50
El Gordo
“other disciplines respect the integrity and knowledge of climate scientists”.
Climate Science degrees are missing in the basics of physics, chemistry, astronomy, atmospheric physics, modeling and application of statistics.
There’s No Integrity in climate degrees.
Think Belief System Assimilation.
There are two examples on this blog, of former CAGW believers who eventually saw the true science and are now critical of cagw meme.
50
Agreed, there is no such thing as a climate science degree, they appear to be opportunists from associated disciplines, but very few people know that, particularly the well educated professionals.
40
Like Gee Aye you claim to be a scientist, but neither of you exhibit the capacity to Explore.
That is a serious omission, not emission, from any scientists tool kit.
Closed minds are a dangerous modern fad.
41
I studied Geology in the late 1960s. Continental drift was taught as a new theory, not yet proven. Nowadays, primary school children get taught it as fact. This just goes to show the evolving nature of science. However with AGW there doesn’t seem to be evolution, just name changes to capitalise on the main objective – the transfer of wealth.
60
I’m general, I find that any theory they allow to be continually tested is one they aren’t afraid of revising if needed; while any theory they forbid you to test is one they are terrified of losing.
130
Who is doing this forbidding you speak of?
114
The scientific collective who want to remain relevant in the field of their choice, ridiculing any scientist who disagrees with the paradigm. This is not an organised conspiracy, its enlightened self interest driving AGW in the search for grant money.
All of those scientific high priests who have taken the bribe will be humiliated by the end of this decade, because of natural climate change.
150
Yes. That about sums it up.
80
What El G wrote does not address this at all
17
Yeah, Gee A, it does.
Within science as a whole there are pathological subcultures of scientism whose adherents react irrationally and sometimes illegally whenever anyone questions their assumptions. Question their assumptions or perform experiments that show those assumptions are wrong, and you risk your career, or worse…
https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/25/skeptical-climatologist-dr-john-christy-believes-7-gunshots-targeted-his-office-floor-during-march-for-science/
In fields like climate science and the various forms Darwinism, the fanaticism is most pronounced.
That’s how I read EG’s comment, that while it isn’t a written rule that the heretics be expunged or for what, all the believers know the rules. If you try to advance the science, and are prevented by ideologues, that’s religion not science. I think he addressed it perfectly.
70
So no answer as to who forbids. No one is stopping scrutiny of research.
05
JCU forbid Peter Ridd questioning the veracity of GBR science and they were terrified of losing the case.
50
Tephrochronologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre was fired because her data didn’t comport with established theory.
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j44
(quite a few others listed there, as well, and they actually span all the sciences.)
Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez Denied Tenure for not conforming with peers.
https://idthefuture.com/132/
40
Einstein debunks “consensus science”.
180
Comparing yourselves to Einstein is ironic for those who know a history of science. He was a genius responsible for at least three paradigm shifts. But, he really struggled with the implications of the Copenhagen Interpretation and spent decades looking for a unified theory which probably doesn’t exist. Science left him behind and his later years as a distinguished scholar at Princeton were mostly unproductive.
112
No one is comparing themself to Einstein, who was just stating a general principle using himself as the specific case.
50
Here’s the best proof we have and that’s the DATA over a long period of time. Willis Eschenbach tried and couldn’t find their Climate Emergency and Dr John Christy put their claims to the test and found ZIP.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
https://www.netzerowatch.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/
Then add Prof Humlum’s annual reports to the GWPF and you understand that we’ve been sold a pup and today people live in the very best of times. Their lives are much healthier and wealthier and life expectancy is increasing year by year and currently is 73 years. YET for the last 200,000 years the small population of Humans had a life expectancy UNDER 40 years.
But since the start of the IND REV life expectancy has rapidly increased all over the world ( 6.8 billion more people than 1800) and we have the added benefit of more health and wealth. As has been stated before FOSSIL fuels didn’t take a safe world and make it more dangerous but they did take a very dangerous world and make it safe. Today deaths from all extreme weather events have dropped by at least 95% ,see Goklany, Christy, Lomborg, Koonin, Shellenberger, etc. Population in 1920 about 1.8 bn and today population of 7.8 billion. When will they WAKE UP?
180
And before CO2 made warming is even relevant, man made CO2 has to make sense. The population in 1900 was 1.0Bn. So in 121 years the world population has increased by 7x. CO2 has increased only by 50% and shows absolutely zero impact from human activity.
And for this idea to make sense they have to say that man released CO2, from human breath, animals, factories, engines is a special type of CO2 which stays in the air forever. The official figure from the IPCC is 80 years for CO2 to half exchange with the oceans but considering that CO2 is 13x more soluble than oxygen, the scientists of the IPCC must wonder how fish breathe and what happens to their CO2?
70
I know what you are saying, but has CO2 really increased by 50%? At 300 ppm its pretty well 0. 400ppm is effectively a little bit more than zero. Hence, still really 0. It’s more accurate to say that it has increased by a factor of 1 in 10000.
50
The criticism of Einstein sounds very much like how the Left behave today in respect to their support of the political idea of “anthropogenic global warming” and the idea that atmospheric “carbon” (sic) causes global warming. From Wikipedia:
101
Thanks David,
Hmm, where have I seen that before? Oh wait, right here on this blog.
51
I love the way the pushers of CO2 driven global warming wrap their crazy ideas in pseudo scientific words like anthropogenic. L. Ron Hubbard did the same thing with Dianetics and his E-Meter, his electropsychometer. The new climate alarmists wrapped themselves in the verbage of ecology and pollution. And front page on the Australian today are so many articles including
Rio Tinto vows $10Bn carbon cutback.
Businesses becoming enviromental police
Should we stick with the Big Polluters? (With a photo of a smokestack billowing steam)
Big Business steps up for Carbon Cuts as deal nears.
Climate gamble pivots on Labor sucker punch
If we listened to Climate Maximalists we’d be broke.
and the prominent Glasgow Climate Bandwagon careering out of control by Peta Credilin.
Obviously Climate is the biggest problem in the world, but where is there an actual problem except a freezing winter coming?
The open threat by China to invade Taiwan and cause WWIII after launching a viral weapon on the rest of the world is back page stuff.
100
In January each year, the Earth has the sun directly over the most ocean and it is the month the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere above absorb most heat. In July the sun is directly over the least amount of ocean and it is the time the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere above absorb the least heat. Satellites at the top of the atmosphere now allow us to determine how much heat is stored:
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=CERES_NETFLUX_M
I find it more than interesting that the ocean surface is at its coolest in January and warmest in July. Completely reversed to the heat absorbed.
100
Thanks Rick,
Fascianting.
I am still reading your Global Oceans & Land Masses – Solar Collectors & Cooling Arrays
30
From your link, Rick:
“Some places absorb more energy than they give off back to space, so they have an energy surplus. Other places lose more energy to space than they absorb, so they have an energy deficit.”
That’s so unfair when some locations are keeping more energy for themselves, when others are deprived of their rightful share. I propose we pass new leftislation to correct this imbalance. We could call it “No Location Left Behind.”
And we could easily fund it by increasing the financial surplus of the “1%” of the world (who would obviously use it more efficiently than anyone else), while increasing the financial deficit of the other 99%. It’s only fair.
80
What’s more, white Trump voters tend to live in those energy-stealing locations. It’s further proof, as if any were needed, of toxic white cis-gendered male privilege. Time for Louise Milligan to investigate.
40
Wouldn’t it be more black and brown people getting the most energy? Not only are they more ‘absorbent’ 😀 but they live in equatorial countries en masse! 😀
40
How about “All Locations Matter” and then we could provide subsidies to the poorer locations – ALMS for the poor? 😀
50
Careful who you say that to. You don’t want to be accused of having a bad latitude. 😁
40
Given that most “climate scientists” have no qualifications in the field and may not even be scientists, many are sociologists or politicians, the following quote is relevant.
110
Trofim Lysenko and friends.
70
But how do you know that you are right and the experts in the field are wrong? This requires a tremendous amount of hubris.
117
We know by looking at the facts and evidence that exist , so far 100% debunked theory without any actual evidence .
90
Name one modelled outcome that came true.
80
It ain’t hubris.
The problem with academia on this emotive issue, if they don’t mention AGW they won’t get a grant. Many a good paper I have read and in the conclusion there is always a sentence stipulating that humans are warming the planet, even if it contradicts what their research shows.
The Ridd saga is a microcosm of the genre, a scientist is gagged, bullied and sacked for not accepting the scientific paradigm. The people of the world need to be told that the GBR is healthy and not having a near death experience.
110
What you are alleging then is some massive global conspiracy in funding organisations applied globally and uniformly. It just ain’t so. Almost everyone who researches or studies the natural world can see the effect of anthropogenic global warming around them. The fingerprints are visible to those who look. This is where the > 99% consensus comes from.
017
‘It just ain’t so.’
Yes it is, they all have mortgages to pay.
120
“the effect of anthropogenic global warming around them.”
Where? ?
And you have to prove its from increased atmospheric CO2, not some other cause like urbanisation, and deforestation for planting crops etc.
Or have you just “been told” its all around you, and just “believed“.
Or are you just going to ignore natural climate variability and “pretend” the highly beneficial warming in the last 200 years is all due to “man’s nasty fossil fuels”
If you actually open your eyes and wake up, you will see the reality all around you….
that reality is the massive benefits of a fossil fuel powered-world.
You could not live without it.
110
Simon >”Almost everyone who researches or studies the natural world can see the effect of anthropogenic global warming around them. The fingerprints are visible to those who look.”
Or not.
‘Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?‘
H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024
It gets worse because as NOAA’s global 50 year trend analysis shows, any anthropogenic sea level fingerprint has to emerge not from present day sea levels but from the 50 year trends back when theoretical CO2 forcing was weakest (1940s to 1970s below)
For example:
Variation of 50-Year Mean Sea Level Trends 680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.shtml?stnid=680-140
For chuckles click on
500-041
Mumbai/Bombay,
India
60
To which I issue my standard challenge to believers.
Pick the locality where you live, tell us what the climate was 30 years ago (or another period of your choosing), tell us what the climate is now highlighting any changes.
Go on. Be the first to attempt to provide actual data. You know you want to!
90
Sorry Simon you’re wrong AGAIN. Just look at the Eschenbach and Christy links above and the REAL world DATA and other evidence I’ve supplied.
Data and evidence wins the argument every time unless your’re more interested in their deceptive POLITICAL science agenda?
You could also watch Dr Rosling’s 200 countries over 200 years video, including his 200,000 data points and even you should START to UNDERSTAND.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
90
Sorry not 200 K data points but 120 K D.Ps in Dr Rosling’s BBC video.
40
Thanks for that YouTube link. I’d completely forgotten about it. Nice to be able to bookmark it again.
Only one flaw, though, his lip service to “green technology,” which has never been shown to provide benefit to the masses. Just goes to show, you can fool anyone, at least some of the time. Otherwise, terrific.
10
You’re quoting from the 0.5% of dissenting opinion. Try reading what the other side thinks as well. Preferably from peer-reviewed scientific literature in genuine journals rather than YouTube videos.
113
We are still waiting for your actual real science that shows warming by atmospheric CO2.
You now have 3000 papers you can start hunting in….
… it must be somewhere apart from as a belief, conjecture or model input.
We can wait… and wait .. and wait…
90
Simon Dr Rosling’s DATA is the REAL WORLD DATA or can you prove me wrong?
I know Lomborg, Koonin, Goklany, Shellenberger, Christy, Pielke,Rosling, McKitrick, McIntyre, Lindzen, Happer etc + the UN all use the same DATA.
The UN don’t dispute it and Shellenberger was an IPCC expert reviewer for AR 6.
So prove me WRONG or start to WAKE UP.
60
The onus of proof is on yourselves because you are the ones disputing the > 99% scientific consensus. I’m merely quoting from the scientific literature.
07
“merely quoting from the scientific literature.”
Well, where is this “scientific literature” that proves warming by atmospheric CO2
Haven’t seen it yet.
So far, you are batting well in the negative.
So many swings and complete misses. !
And if you really think this little propaganda consensus paper is actually “science”
That explains your whole approach to scientific reality.
Trying to run away from presenting proof… why are we not surprised. 😉
40
Simon >”The onus of proof is on yourselves because you are the ones disputing the > 99% scientific consensus. I’m merely quoting from the scientific literature.”
Fine, and so am I. Go upthread here (#4.2.1 and down):
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/climate-purity-alarm-goes-ding-99-of-scientists-believe-because-the-others-got-sacked/#comment-2482241
Plenty to show Lynas et al’s 0.1% is a load of rubbish. And that’s just a cursory look.
Lynas et al’s list of “31 sceptical papers we found in our dataset” is laughable
40
AGW has been disproven for decades, Simon.
As to the 97% (Oreskes – 2004, Cook – 2013), they have been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97
As to the 99%, if 97% is a very grossly overstated estimate of those who see AGW as a threat, where did the 99% come from? I’ll tell you. They made it up, just like they made up all the other nonsense about “AGW”, “climate change”, whatever.
The onus of proof is on those who cry “WOLF” to produce the wolf, not on the rest of us to produce the non-wolf that isn’t there.
40
Simon >”Try reading what the other side thinks as well. Preferably from peer-reviewed scientific literature in genuine journals”
Fine. Here’s Lynas et al’s paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
From the Supplementary data, can you present say 3 papers that physically prove a human fingerprint in ocean heat?
I select ocean heat because the IPCCs 2013 statement – “about 93% of the increase in Earth’s energy inventory in the period from 1971 to 2010 has induced warming of the oceans” – is relatively non-contentious (and not by me) and land rivers lakes atmosphere (1%) and ice is negligible.
It’s the attribution of ocean heat that is contentious, so I’d like to see your physical proof of human “induced warming” in the ocean from Lynas et al papers on “the other side”?
50
Given that Ocean Heat Content rise over the last 60 is such a tiny number compared to past variability, there is zero probability of finding any human fingerprint.
See that little red squiggle at the end… that’s apparently “human caused” 😉
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/two_millennia_annotated.png
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/rosenthal-2013-figure-2c-annotated.png
70
Richard Feynman, an educator and a Nobel prize-winner in physics stated that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts“. He was referring to consensus science, the modern type of political science which determines policies through the weight of expert consensus. It is not empirical science. Real science subjects itself to scrutiny
Find a rationale to debunk Feynman’s observations – I dare you
60
Actually, you’re quite incorrect. If a small group controls the data and also access to almost all the funding, there is no need for any overweening conspiracy. The priests of AGW control the inputs, the priests’ mates in publishing control the papers being output and the MSM publishes only supportive articles.
Your Church of AGW bunch have weaponised peer review – cross them and lose your career and to cross them you also have to reverse engineer their data to show how fake it is.
You have an odd definition of ‘researches’ – playing climate computer models is NOT research and in actual fact, those who DO research in the real world seem to regularly come to the conclusion that AGW is a cult of fanatics with ulterior motives against the western world.
Have you not noticed how none of your fanatic friends are attacking China for wanting to increase their coal plants and power generation? The dirtiest polluter in the world has NO plans to kowtow to your church of AGW yet your rabid mob are silent, going instead after countries who are already reducing their CO2 production or which produce tiny amounts of your dreaded poison gas.
You know, places where they won’t get shot for daring to critique the ruling junta. Brave lot you world-savers!
80
That fact that no actual scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 exists, should give you a basic clue.
Blind, unthinking, irrational, mantra belief.. is not science.
50
Good question. But quite simple. Not all experts in the field agree. They just don’t, fact, I don’t care if some report says they do, they don’t and I know that.
So when it comes to the hard tech science, all anyone has is an opinion on who is right. You think you know but you don’t really, because the layman doesn’t have the science skills to see who is right between Roy Spencer and his debate opponent. You always has only an opinion of which scientist is correct (and that goes for everybody)
So I tend to step back from the tech debate and look at the bigger picture of facts that we certainly do know from earth’s history, and work out a management plan from there. I’d rather do that than roll the dice on a theory of the future and put all my eggs in that basket (which is what western politicians are doing).
20
“But how do you know that you are right and the experts in the field are wrong? This requires a tremendous amount of hubris.”
So, you think of science as a religion.
i guess that makes al gore god, mann the son of god, the IPCC the church and climate scientists the priests.
and those who question them, apostates or heretics.
30
I’m never sure you should call it climate “science” anyway. It’s climate data analysis at best. No great empirical studies or trials have ever been completed that simulates the complexity of the earth’s ocean/atmosphere interface, alters one trace gas concentration and then measures the effects. It’s basically all modelling, theory, conjecture and politics now. Even sub atomic physicists who propose ever smaller particles in atoms go and build dirty great Hadron colliders (eg CERN) and experiment to prove their theories. They do science trying to prove their theories. Nothing equivalent ever happens in climate “science”. Oh, sorry I forgot Bill Nye. That experiment he does where he puts a flame to a model globe to prove AGW? That’s science isn’t it?
110
The sceptic’s sad departure from reality continues.
Instead of actually providing evidence like real scientists do, they throw mud and attack the scientific method because it highlights their shoddy attempts at playing Galileo.
09
Do you honestly believe its possible to form a consensus?
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.’ (Cornell)
The thing is comrade, CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
120
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99%”
‘Virtually certain’ because it’s made-up BS on their computer screen. 😀
40
We have an accepted consensus on everything from evolution to aeronautics, if you don’t like it the burden of proof is with you. So, comrade, please submit your CO2 evidence to the real world.
15
Its a big picture item and clouds are not modelled successfully, but see if you can get your head around this recent essay by Andy May.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/sep/a2.php
30
“please submit your CO2 evidence to the real world.”
We are all waiting for you to do so.
Baseless rhetoric is not science.. please try again
Evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2…
Come on…. Support your local AGW fantasy !
30
See my reply to Simon above and please START to WAKE UP.
Dr Rosling’s BBC video should be your quick 5 minute path to START to understand the REAL world.
Leave your fairy stories and your fantasy world behind.
51
“The sceptic’s sad departure from reality continues.”
Perhaps you would like to put forward some actual scientific evidence.
Start at the very basics.. warming by atmospheric CO2.
Not models, not conjecture.. actual scientific evidence.
We can wait.
“Reality” is not something that exists in the AGW meme.
60
Clarence, Here is not the space to walk you through the decades of evidence that 99.9 % of climate scientists agree upon, obviously the facts don’t matter.
The ball is your court and you have no racquet.
26
Bzzzt. You lose.
60
So, you can’t produce any evidence..
Why not just say so.
40
“obviously the facts don’t matter.”
But they do.. very much so..
We are waiting for your provable scientific facts.
Not models, not baseless conjectures.
But we know you will not be able to produce any.
That is why it is such fun watching you avoid the issue. 🙂
40
OMG is correct, we have to bring down the scientific paradigm.
Have you seen a temperature graph minus ENSO? There is bound to be some unaccountable warming, is it caused by CO2, solar forcing, or some kind of internal dynamic?
10
First of all, you present your empirical evidence that anthro CO2 drives the global climate.
We’ll wait….
20
here we go again.
in informal logic an argument from authority is one of the “fallacies of relevance”
it can be rendered plausible or acceptable on certain conditions (See Douglas Walton).
ie.
E is an expert in domain D.
E asserts that A is known to be true.
A is within D.
Therefore, A is taken to be (plausibly) true.
and (implicit premises or critical questions), such as:
(1) E is a credible expert.
(2) Is A a genuine area of knowledge?
(3) What did E assert that implies A?
(4) Is A is within the expertise of E?
(5) Is there is a consensus of experts?
(6) Is the evidence or factual basis of the opinion given.
Here climate science, because it is essentially speculative, does not satisfy (2)
As it does not satisfy (2), it cannot satisfy (5).
QED.
Here endeth the lesson for today.
40
V
Your killer evidence/logic is wasted here.
Asserting that CS is just speculative, as though it were a given, is a fallacy itself. Back to square one .
Just submit a paper and you’ll be famous.
16
it’s not a fallacy, it’s a fact (ad rem).
Countless failed predictions = speculation (‘theory or conjecture without firm evidence”)
Climate models based on a theory of catastrophic feedback mechanisms = speculation (‘theory or conjecture without firm evidence”)
60
You submit a paper that contains empirical evidence that anthro CO2 drives the global climate and you’ll be more than famous.
We’ll leave you to get on with it. Give us a shout when you’re done.
30
Oh, and needless to say, a headcount of positive opinions without resort to an experts qualifications, field of expertise etc. is completely fallacious.
it is an attempt to awe people into submission, which is one of the classical examples of the argument from authority as a fallacy of relevance.
70
Again V, if your evidence will float, just submit it, that’s what scientists do . Why the blah blah in the men’s shed ?.
05
AGW is your fairy tale.
Its up to you to support it with some actual scientific evidence.
You say 99% of climate science “believes” in it.
… then why is it so, so difficult for you to present any actual scientific evidence of the very basis of the AGW farce.. ie warming by atmospheric CO2.
Here is your chance… just submit it… or…
.. continue to dodge and weave.
40
Where’s your evidence? You keep harping on about evidence yet you have failed to present any evidence that CAGW is a real thing.
30
Anyone think there could be some bias going on?
The paper is from the Alliance for Science, a shill org for Gates.
“The Cornell Alliance for Science (CAS) is a public relations campaign funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to train fellows around the world, especially in Africa, to promote and defend genetically engineered crops and agrichemicals in their home countries.
The group based at Cornell uses its academic-sounding name and affiliation with an Ivy League Institution to try to gain credibility, but CAS has a long history of spreading inaccurate and misleading information.”
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/cornell-alliance-for-science-is-campaign-for-agrichemical-industry/
81
They killed God and replaced it with Science. Seemed logical at the time. What could go wrong ? Read Faust.
60
A great heading;
“scientists “believe” because the others got sacked”.
Just ask Murray Salby, Bob Carter and Peter Ridd.
There are many analytical perspectives which can be applied to the CO2 induced climate change and global warming story, but each one can give the truth about The Reality and collectively they are undeniable.
Will Janoschka was an expert in the behaviour of component gases in the atmosphere; his business was to be aware of the transition points of those gases with respect to electronic messaging around the world.
He rubbished the IPCCCCC science by stating that between 30 metres and 11,000 metres, CO2 was a gas which operated strictly according to standard gas laws i.e. P.V = nR.T.
Heat was not trapped and indeed above 11,000 metres CO2 could act as a GHG and discharge any PW-IR at 243°K down the temperature gradient to deep space hovering and waiting at about 1.3°K. All donations gratefully accepted.
Others of us apply full process analysis to the Earth, Space, Solar interaction to see the many flaws and incorrect assumptions made by unqualified “thousands of scientists™ ” who push the CAGW drama.
Quantitative analysis shows clearly that human origin CO2 is a complete irrelevance even if the CAGW story had legs. Mary F wrote about this years ago.
The hundred plus year old “science” attributed to Svant Arrhenius did quote a statement that was true; he did say that CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
What has been overlooked, deliberately?, was the fact that he later accepted that there was no atmospheric “heating” of the atmosphere by that gas.
It’s also funny that since Arrhenius’ captured quote the understanding of atmospheric science has made people like Selby, Carter, Ridd and many others, much more aware of the truth of the CO2 induced global warming and death by incineration due to CO2 story.
Why are modern qualified scientists ignored and stomped on?
Surely money isn’t involved?
So, it’s scientifically obvious to qualified people that CAGW is not based on science: it is a very deliberate deception and the whole background of this thirty year imposition on the trusting taxpayers should make us think;
Would they devise and crush us with another wooden horse, maybe something less obvious than a big horse, maybe a virus would work better; they’re invisible.
110
… and hundreds of experts in the behaviour of component gases in the atmosphere disagree with WJ. Go figure.
110
btw… what is 30m? Above sea level? Above the ground? If it is above the ground or sea level I know someone who operates an analytical chemistry lab in Canberra (well above 30m sea level) on an 8th floor (40m above the ground) and the IR signature of CO2 is the same as observed in every other lab, including one I am affiliated with that is on a ground floor.
Go figure.
09
What’s 30 metres.
First question, did your IR levels get tested away from your very tall heat absorbing concrete-brick structures; would also be interesting to test for PW-IR at ground level, i.e. Maybe 100mm agl.
As to the 30 metres, it’s a figure that was picked up on the net. I have assumed that it relates to the settling in that takes place at ground level.
I’m not up on the absorption temperatures relating to CO2 around ground temperatures varying between 0°C and say 45°C. It may be that CO2 doesn’t pick up anywhere in that range.
Inbound UV hits the ground, is used, absorbed by dirt, concrete, tar and biological matter; greens and grubs
Whats left over is picked up by air as it is compressed against the the ground via conduction. As to the capacity of CO2 to take on any remnant PW-IR I haven’t bothered to check, maybe it just conducts like everything else?
Whatever, it seems that the settling in of the atmosphere is accomplished in the first 30 metres mentioned.
Clarence t may be able to do a better job on this.
Each day the Sun gives us our daily ration of energy and at the end of each day that ration is equilibrated and I’m confident that the concept of CO2 greenhouse gases causing atmospheric heating is a misconception.
70
Honestly I don’t want to hear from shouty Andy and his made up dilemmas.
I still don’t understand the 30 metres. What if it is a steep (or even shallow come to think of it) hill? Do you measure it perpendicular to the slope because straight up would mean less than 30 metres from a point higher up the slope.
IR spectroscopy is unaffected by location. It fires IR at stuff and detects radiation emitted from that stuff. If CO2 is in the path of the LASER it will be detected (annoyingly – water and CO2 scrubbed air is needed for clean operation). It makes no difference where you place it and, contrary to some misinformation that is out there, works with a detector at room temperature.
08
Take a break GI. Seriously, just take a break.
80
“I still don’t understand the 30 metres”
Nor would we expect you to.
The mean free path of radiation from CO2 in the lower atmosphere is 10-30m.
Do try to at least keep up with basic science.
50
Depends if those labs are research canabis gro ops
That 30 meter figure seems to be a vegetation canopy, micro climate thing
20
So out in the open or in a lab is the same. As a matter of fact one of the labs does analyse cannabis and various drugs.
08
That’s quite O.K. as long as there’s no testing of the product.
30
Drug labs are not all “drug” labs
14
Vertical gardening is big and research into cannabis is no different. There is even talk of turning abandoned Calgary Alberta executive office towers into vertical gardens for ‘cash crops’
https://gardenseason.com/vertical-vegetable-garden/
I wouldn’t know about Co2 concentrations in offices 30 m AGL but it is a complex topic.
Cannabis grow operations are reputed to be a major resource hog for electricity heating a perhaps boosting ? CO2 levels
You just need a PM who will legalize recreational cannabis. Ontario now has more cannabis stores than liquor and beer store combined!
40
” the IR signature of CO2 is the same as observed in every other lab, including one I am affiliated with that is on a ground floor”.
Is that to say that everywhere tested gives the same reading. If that’s the case what it means is that the local air is at equilibrium with the surroundings and the height at which I previously said was 30 metres would then be at ground zero.
As you indicate, there are many variables like altitude, slope of ground, composition of plant/bio environment.
The 30 metre figure is rough guide and simply tells us that it’s not 300 or 3,000 m.
60
Obviously I was not speaking of exactitude as variables exist, but yes when a CO2 molecule absorbs and emits IR the signature detected is the same wherever and whenever the test is done.
15
Yes,
Orbitals, s,p,d,f energy levels are a prelude to identifying absorption temperatures.
So you’re just picking up the presence of CO2.
50
Atmospheric CO2 is detected by the instrument by hitting it with IR which it absorbs and re-emits in every direction. That was the point. It happens, unrestrained by altitude. It is exactly the same whether the source of the IR is a LASER or the earth. The CO2 in the air does the same thing wherever it is since the instrument produces the same results at any altitude.
24
Wrong again.
CO2 is detected by the absorption.
Do you know what the Wein’s temperature of CO2 wavelength radiation is?
Do you know the mean free path of CO2 frequency radiation is in the lower atmosphere?
Do you know that the only way you can measure it at the surface is with super-cooled sensors, ie by creating a negative temperature gradient.
Basic physics alludes you still, doesn’t it.
Let’s try a basic lesson for you.
1) radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. ie it is a product of a thermal gradient.
2) gravity provides a thermal gradient as part of containment.
3) radiative heat transfer, if significant, reduces the thermal gradient by cooling the warmer body and heating the cooler.
4) if radiative heat transfer is insufficient to modify the gradient it remains a ‘product’.
There is no evidence that the tropospheric thermal gradient is modified in any way, globally averaged, by long wave radiation.
The lower troposphere is in exact energy balance with 7.5km, despite the bulk of long wave opacity ‘heat trapping rubbish’ being below. (proven directly by the Connelly father/son duo using 2 million sets of balloon data)
CO2 does not actually re-emit until 11km or so altitude.
https://i.postimg.cc/W1RTd8Vy/Stratospheric-cooling.jpg
In the lower atmosphere, it absorbs a tiny thin sliver of surface radiation, then passes it on to the 99.96% remainder of the atmosphere, where it is treated like any other energy, disposed of through the atmospheric radiative window.
This is proven fact, by measurement. We see that as the atmospheric CO2 absorption increases in the CO2 wavelength , there is an increase in radiation out in the much wider, and more energetic atmospheric window.
https://i.postimg.cc/50scywD8/radiative-change-2.jpg
We also see that OLR (out going longwave radiation) responds only the the solar forced atmospheric temperature.
https://i.postimg.cc/76VcwYzV/OLR-increase.jpg
We also see that the solar proxies tell us exactly where the slight warming over the last few decades has come from. Solar scientists call it a grand solar maximum.
https://i.postimg.cc/FFDD8LWc/Solar_Proxy_paleo_BE.jpg
We also see that the only warming has come at El Ninos, release of ocean energy, with there being a basic zero trend between.
https://i.postimg.cc/DyckQYzC/UAH-ERBS_no_trend.jpg
Not even the most scientifically illiterate “climate scientist” pretends that CO2 causes or contributes to El Nino events.
50
Thanks Clarence,
“CO2 is detected by the absorption”.
I might have to frame that and take a while to absorb it all.
It’s good to see a better explanation for what happens to that ground origin PW-IR that causes so much worry for the CAGW believers.
🙂
30
All those emission spectra papers dating back to the 1930s will now be withdrawn.
02
“All those emission spectra papers dating back to the 1930s will now be withdrawn.”
You do know that you can’t measure the radiation spectrum of CO2 without a supercooled sensors, Don’t you ?
You actually have to create the conditions to measure it.
Sorry if the physics and science is beyond your comprehension ability.
It is also noted that you have presented none of these “spectra” papers. 😉
20
Gee Aye,
I am certainly more qualified in modelling than those pushing today’s models in CAGW and CV19.
What’s most incredible about the atmospheric CO2 models is that they do not include the essential connection that is claimed to exist.
In none of these models is the prime mechanism of CO2 absorbing PW-IR at ground level and later, at altitude, spitting out “photons” 360 degrees, half back to Earth, ever detailed or used.
The models consist of a mass of disconnected pseudo science that in No way is able to show that increased human origin CO2 can “heat” the atmosphere.
All they do is provide a smokescreen to hide behind while the mischief is being attended to.
The essence of any model is to take a known relationship and clarify its operation in a complex system that is hiding the truth.
Modeling is primarily about isolating numerous inconsequential effects of a complex system to highlight the relationship being examined.
KK
90
!
I think you have missed reading a lot of papers.
111
I read the appropriate papers at least thrice every day and that reading tells me the I’m still healthy.
40
See what another professor says:
Go Bob.
https://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/#comment-415841
40
What am I supposed to see there?
07
Further to that. I don’t think that blockbuster ever eventuated.
07
I must confess that Will didn’t outline that initial settling in at ground level but he was sure that there was no unusual retention of energy in the atmosphere.
Fifty years ago I could have calculated the energy content of CO2, both species, at ground level and compared it with that of the remaining atmospheric gases. That would have clearly demonstrated that even IF the IPCCCCC concept was real, it was nevertheless quantitatively irrelevant in the system.
Gee Aye, you are obviously highly qualified in areas of biology that most people couldn’t begin to understand, but it’s essential when analyzing any complex system in nature that we work from a full overview of the linked components.
Unfortunately too many climate scientists just say “CO2, bad” and go rattling on with their latest revealed dream and show no real understanding of science.
60
Like you said, “Will stated”, is the science behind this.
Your description of climate scientists is nothing more than a caricature. Those scientists that say “CO2 bad” are not the ones who did the detailed work to describe the complexities of global climate, they are the ones who used the outcomes in other work.
Nothing stopping you doing today what you claim to have been able to do 50 years ago.
010
Before putting too much effort into that it would be best to get an overview;
MaryFJohnston
August 5, 2011 at 6:43 am
DirkH @10
Exactly.
This “revelation” is simply confirmation of the real science.
When you quantify the “Green House” ( IF I CAN USE THAT TERM) effects we have a major winner in Water, followed by Natural produced CO2 and way behind both in magnitude, Human Related CO2 struggling to make any visible impression on the system.
CCS and Carbon Abatement, Carbon Footprint, Responsible Energy and other catchphrases of the Church of AGW may now be consigned to the sin bin where they belong.
_______
Mary F was ahead of her time, not too many great grandmothers with her perspective.
She did a much more detailed analysis which could be the start of a proper thermodynamic assessment.
60
How far sideways are you taking this?
16
Here’s a bit more detail that gives more numerical perspective.
https://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/#comment-416601
70
c. and d. are (and you know this) transient values- The 100ppm or so that has accumulated in the atmosphere are the result of the human derived CO2.
I have no idea what you- I mean Mary- means by “need to control”. Also, you seem to have forgotten about equilibria.
15
3 or 4 % of the current 400 ppm is either 12 or 16 ppm.
Natural origin CO2 388 or 384 ppm.
Our devilish contribution: 12 or 16 ppm.
And then there’s that monster greenhouse gas that operates at essentially the same frequencies as CO2, water.
Greenhouse “potential”;
Atmospheric water 96% of PW-IR absorption.
Then natural origin CO2 about 3% of available Pw-IR
Then last but most horrific, Human Origin CO2 soaking up 0.12% of ground origin PW-IR and later spitting it back to Earth after the Sun has closed for business for the day: theoretically.
We must always remember that the most dangerous greenhouse gas is water.
We need a campaign to precipitate all water from the atmosphere.
41
Incorrect. 3 or 4% is the amount in the atmosphere that was directly produced by human activities at the time of measurement, and is not the cumulative affect of that production. You have made an error there my friend.
05
I repeat… equilibria
04
Some people find the facts really hard, don’t they, Keith. 😉
Really quite comical 🙂
Yes, you are correct…
Humans have contributed some 12-15% of the highly beneficial increase in atmospheric CO2. That is what the actual science tells us (refer to Ed Berry etc)
The AGWers can’t say the oceans are warming and land surfaces are warming (from solar and cloud effects), without accepting that both will increase natural CO2 release, especially after a really cold period where the natural carbon cycle was slowed down.
Science… it is what it is… some just don’t “get it”, and probably never will.
30
You talk about equilabia but forget about the equilibrium between the atmospheric CO2 and that dissolved in the ocean.
Since 98% of free CO2 is in the oceans and only 2% in the atmosphere that oceanic CO2 will dominate and control the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Human Origin CO2 doesn’t accumulate much at all and it has a half life in the atmosphere of a maximum of seven years. Some studies have suggested that it’s recycled within four years.
40
Will was obviously qualified in the areas that impinged on transmission of radio waves over long distances, and knowing of gas composition of the upper atmosphere would have guided the choice of frequencies to us.
That said, he didn’t seem to be too interested in thermodynamics of the atmosphere and saw things through the interference lens.
50
So he knows about something and make claims and statements. I’m loving the science.
05
“I’m loving the science.”
Keep listening, maybe you will learn some. 🙂
30
Gee Aye 3 – 4% is 3 – 4% of just 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere, we are talking minuscule meaningless fractions for the human effort .
50
Climate science has become the world’s greatest scam
It’s no longer about science but a misdirection for the real UN agenda of power, control and destruction of western civilisation for the benefit of the elites and in controlled China
100
AGAIN just for our silly blog donkeys.
Here’s the REAL world co2 emissions DATA since 1970.
Note China and other developing countries + India now emit at least 65% of global emissions.
And the USA + EU collectively emit no more co2 than they did in 1970 and less than 1990.
And the CSIRO tell us that the ENTIRE SH is a co2 NET SINK. Why don’t these fools understand the REAL world countries’ co2 emissions over the last 50 years?
50
Sorry here’s the co2 emissions link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png
30
It’s always prudent to get a second opinion…
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
I wonder how many of those scientists that Lynus was able to not select for his study, or, alternatively, how many he lists as agreeing with him.
30
Another top article from Lomborg in the Glasgow Herald and as usual he provides the proper DATA to support his claims.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19612103.bjorn-lomborg-blaming-deadly-floods-wildfires-climate-change-convenient-politicians/?ref=rss
30
‘This doesn’t negate that climate change is a real problem that we should fix smartly.’
Hmmm … lukewarmer.
30
El + gordo
I so agree with your comment. There are so many Lukewarmers who carry the can for the sceptics movement on climate change. I think sceptics should concede nothing. We know for a fact that climate temperatures fell from the 1930s to the 1970s to such an extent that there was a rush of claims that the next ice age was coming and it has taken homogenisation of data to change that fact not CO2. The correlation between CO2 is so non linear that one questions there is any correlation at all. Other than in lab does there seem to be any relationship and coming from a biotech background I have learnt to become cynical about assuming preclinical data translates into the real world.
It always disappoints me when people say there has been . 5 of a degree of warming over the last 50 years I always think . How do you know? I suspect the change is within the margin of error. And what is a global temperature ? When 80% of the world is water how do we know we have enough data points to say with certainty what is the global temperature. It’s really just a made up concept anyway. I think it would be a useful exercise if someone could go back and work out what the margin of error is and whether that exceeds the claimed increase in warming .
70
‘ … temperatures fell from the 1930s to the 1970s …’
The cooling began around 1947 through to the great climate shift of 1976, we can see clearly the negative PDO fingerprint.
10
You can see it here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation#/media/File:PDO1000yr.svg
My problem to unravel, why was the PDO so negative during the MWP and positive throughout the LIA? It may have something to do with the AMO.
10
The NAO was positive during the MWP and negative throughout the LIA.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1166349
10
In a marketing sense I always am totally dubious about anything that purports to be 99% anything. I always wonder what happened to the 1%. If you say 99% fat free why didn’t they formulate that 1% out of the formulation. If someone says 99% agree all I want to know is who is that one scientist ? What has he got to say? If they don’t highlight that one scientist why not? The story isn’t about the 99 papers that say the same thing. To quote Greta , Bla, bla , bla. I want to know who is this guy? What did he say? And Why?
And if they can’t quote his name straight away it’s just total rubbish, which we already knew.
I need to know not why it is so high but why it’s not 100%. In the world of Team Junk science the science is only as good as the weakest link. I want to know how did this one guy get through the system. Heads must roll!
The crazy thing is they could’ve said 101% of scientists . It makes as much sense as 99.
40
Many more stories from the MSM and let’s hope their Glasgow delusional clown show is a disaster.
Fossil fuels will reign supreme for many decades and of course the weather will do as it pleases.
China, Russia etc must be laughing their heads off as the western countries AGAIN make fools of themselves.
https://mailchi.mp/7b5f2c280584/nations-to-accelerate-oil-coal-and-gas-production-over-the-next-decade-un-discovers-184434?e=dcbe0ef09b
40
The intentional headline grabber is 88,125 studies. But it’s not 99.9% of 88,125. It’s not even 99.9% of 3,000, which is the sample size, since over 200 were not climate related.
And it ends up being only 19 that had explicit endorsement of what could be construed as attribution.
The MSM will run headlines with 88,000 and 99,9% without ever discussing the internals, that is how many made an explicit statement that most warming is caused by CO2.
But then, getting the headlines is what they wanted all along and why the paper was written in the first place.
Being a skeptic today with all the evidence that the catastrophic warming is just hype is being in the right place at the right time.
40
The Great Climate Messiah Al Gore, runs up power bills to the tune of $20,000 a month in his Mansions. Nothing beats leading by example! I wish I could get mine under $2M a day?? 🤣😂😂
30
The illumination of the answer to the CO2 truth is in this great outline done by Clarence.
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/climate-purity-alarm-goes-ding-99-of-scientists-believe-because-the-others-got-sacked/#comment-2482539
Thanks again.
10
[…] Continue reading: https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/climate-purity-alarm-goes-ding-99-of-scientists-believe-because-th… […]
10
When I was young in the 1950s I passed up a career in journalism because by then print media were briskly collapsing in the advance of television. The advance, now digitized, is finished. Only one combined voice remains, much more compliant than a lot of ink-fingered little beggars who won’t do as they are told.
30
[…] Climate purity alarm goes ding! 99% of scientists “believe” because the others got sacked […]
00
[…] Climate purity alarm goes ding! 99% of scientists “believe” because the others got sacke… […]
00
[…] But all they have actually demonstrated is that in the field of climate change, sceptical voices have simply been purged out of existence. […]
10