Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[T. A. Gardner]

1. Soon et al. (2023). Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access)
2. Connolly et al. (2023). Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Still in press, but pre-print available here)
3. Katata, Connolly and O’Neill (2023). Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0122.1. (Open access)

https://www.ceres-science.com/post/...esearch-into-the-sun-s-role-in-climate-change

I read the abstracts but the articles are a lot to wade through and will take time to read. In essence, everything presented argues that we simply don't know enough about planetary climate to make assertions about the causes of warming with a high degree of certainty. It would be insanely foolish to listen to the IPCC on this subject as letter linked in post 87 suggests because the IPCC is primarily--as their own statements suggest--concerned with driving government policy on climate change forward.

For a reasonable person skeptical of the government and Left's push for policies on climate, this just further adds fuel to an existing fire that argues we should be demanding the brakes be slammed on on upending societies and economies in the name of "climate change." We simply don't know enough about it to justify the social and economic carnage proposed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It's interesting the second article you listed has many of the same authors as the first article and uses the same science. There is nothing new between the two. The only differences seems to be who is the lead author and that the second article by Connelly as the lead attempt to rebut criticism of earlier work, C2021.

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Here again, the result is that the only true fit to the data is to include natural and anthropogenic forcings meaning that man-made global warming exists. The only question is what percent is man contributing.

This article in no way completely undermines the consensus on man-made global warming. It confirms it and just question the percentage contributed by man.

This is where you make a mistake, at least in part. Man-made climate change is the issue at hand, and it is critical to know what percentage it contributes. If the percentage is small, then the problem is small and not worth upending societies and economies to fix it. If it is large, then those costs need to be weighed and action taken.

Right now, the government consensus is the latter because that increases the power of government. I am highly skeptical that's the case as it is government making a self-serving claim based on what amounts to questionable science. That is, we don't know enough about global climate to be upending society and economics over it, particularly on a very short timeframe (a decade or two).

I also see that with past results and predictions, that those calling the loudest for change have been far more wrong than right. That doesn't give me any confidence that what they call for now is justifiable. What undermines Gorebal Warming, as I call it, is that. Those calling for massive change can't predict the climate or weather a month from now, let alone decades into the future. Their calls should be taken with a large bag of salt.

 

[Concart]

One of the big hitters is John Clauser and another is Richard Lindzen. Clauser received a Nobel for his work on quantum entanglement, which a disbelieving Einstein referred to as "spooky action at a distance". Entanglement is probably one of the most difficult concepts to understand. Scientific minnows like that fat fraud Michael Mann have no chance getting their heads around it. McMoonshi'ite has no chance either, I doubt if he's even heard of it. Suffice to say, quantum computers most definitely exist and will completely revolutionise the world of computing.

So wait, you couldn't even see the basic logical fallacy in these articles, and YOU are going to 'get your head around' quantum entanglement?

That might be the funniest thing I've ever seen posted here. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The dam is finally cracking."

Award-winning journalist Alex Newman breaks down how the "man-made global warming" narrative is finally crumbling.

"Three new peer-reviewed papers, published in major prestigious scientific journals... completely undermine the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808827322448900193

View attachment 27591

If you cannot question it, it’s not science? Only a person completely illiterate in science would make such an ignorant and stupid comment. Talk about a whopper of a strawman argument! LOL

 

[Concart]

If you cannot question it, it’s not science? Only a person completely illiterate in science would make such an ignorant and stupid comment. Talk about a whopper of a strawman argument! LOL

I love it when they say 'this is a fact, and no one can refute it'. Except that someone always refutes it, meaning that the poster was, of course, illogical and wrong.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is where you make a mistake, at least in part. Man-made climate change is the issue at hand, and it is critical to know what percentage it contributes. If the percentage is small, then the problem is small and not worth upending societies and economies to fix it. If it is large, then those costs need to be weighed and action taken.

Right now, the government consensus is the latter because that increases the power of government. I am highly skeptical that's the case as it is government making a self-serving claim based on what amounts to questionable science. That is, we don't know enough about global climate to be upending society and economics over it, particularly on a very short timeframe (a decade or two).

I also see that with past results and predictions, that those calling the loudest for change have been far more wrong than right. That doesn't give me any confidence that what they call for now is justifiable. What undermines Gorebal Warming, as I call it, is that. Those calling for massive change can't predict the climate or weather a month from now, let alone decades into the future. Their calls should be taken with a large bag of salt.

This is where you make a mistake. If the percentage is small but growing then it will only get worse. Look at the charts in the articles and you will see the largest increase has been in the last 50 years when the natural forcings have not been the largest contributor.
The percent from the last 150 years may be lower than current attempts to calculate it but even these articles show that the anthropogenic forcings are increasing over time and will continue to increase unless we reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

The funny thing is, the models accepted by the IPCC have been more accurate than Soon and Lindzen. And yet here you are saying we should ignore those that are the least accurate not realizing that it is the people you want to follow that are the most wrong.

 

[moon]

I read the abstracts but the articles are a lot to wade through and will take time to read. In essence, everything presented argues that we simply don't know enough about planetary climate to make assertions about the causes of warming with a high degree of certainty. It would be insanely foolish to listen to the IPCC on this subject as letter linked in post 87 suggests because the IPCC is primarily--as their own statements suggest--concerned with driving government policy on climate change forward.

For a reasonable person skeptical of the government and Left's push for policies on climate, this just further adds fuel to an existing fire that argues we should be demanding the brakes be slammed on on upending societies and economies in the name of "climate change." We simply don't know enough about it to justify the social and economic carnage proposed.

Sensible people err on the side of caution. You don't actually give a fuck.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sensible people err on the side of caution. You don't actually give a fuck.

I err on the side of proven results. The IPCC has been largely wrong on their predictions for the last 30 + years. The same sort of scientists that are leading the Gorebal Warming charge are the ones that demanded we end CFC use because of the hole in the ozone layer at the S. Pole. Well, we did at great cost and the goddamned hole is still there, just as big, and the CFC's are gone and the hole was supposed to be too.

Seems they got that one wrong. In fact, they get a lot of stuff wrong, and I certainly don't see some existential crisis that needs solving this very moment. Aside from that, those screaming for zero carbon the loudest are also usually those that want specific, impractical solutions to the problem forced on the public regardless of cost.

For what we've squandered on wind and solar we could have gotten 10 times better results going nuclear with natural gas back up and been done with that issue, for example. But those that are leading the Greentard charge want political and economic power first, solutions second.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is where you make a mistake. If the percentage is small but growing then it will only get worse. Look at the charts in the articles and you will see the largest increase has been in the last 50 years when the natural forcings have not been the largest contributor.
The percent from the last 150 years may be lower than current attempts to calculate it but even these articles show that the anthropogenic forcings are increasing over time and will continue to increase unless we reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

The funny thing is, the models accepted by the IPCC have been more accurate than Soon and Lindzen. And yet here you are saying we should ignore those that are the least accurate not realizing that it is the people you want to follow that are the most wrong.

I see the IPCC as the same sort of "experts" as Fauci was on Chinese Disease. Neither knows their ass from their elbow, and I see no particular reason to take anything they spout at face value. They used up their good will long ago.

 

[IBDaMann]

Here are the three papers in question.

1. Soon et al. (2023). Climate. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access)
2. Connolly et al. (2023). Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Still in press, but pre-print available here)
3. Katata, Connolly and O’Neill (2023). Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0122.1. (Open access)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but all of these papers are bogus.

The Global Warming religion assumes that Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow increasing, without any scientific reason for believing such, and without ever demanding to see any valid datasets (this part requires mathematical competency) against which regression analysis may be performed and scrutinized.

No human has ever established that Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is even changing to any discernible extent. All we have are believers and worshipers who insist that Earth's temperature change has been "observed" and that the bad news has been "witnessed.". These believers and worshipers argue amongst themselves whether this dogmatically believed temperature change is "catastrophic" or not, and whether the inherently evil humanity is the cause.

All three of these papers assume, without establishing, the dogmatically insisted temperature change, and not one provides an unambiguous working definition of the global climate.

From a science perspective, all three papers are summarily discarded. If a paper is going to "analyze" something, it first must establish it's existence, and it absolutely must unambiguously define all it's terms. These papers do not and are immediately rejected.

 

[IBDaMann]

I see the IPCC as the same sort of "experts" as Fauci was on Chinese Disease.

The IPCC is exactly the same set of "experts" on Climate Change as the Vatican is on Catholicism.

 

[IBDaMann]

Poor sad angry little man impotently beating his dead horse again.

I love memes that are tailor-made for the stupid and the gullible. They help the stupid and the gullible self-identity.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I see the IPCC as the same sort of "experts" as Fauci was on Chinese Disease. Neither knows their ass from their elbow, and I see no particular reason to take anything they spout at face value. They used up their good will long ago.

Then why are you taking the word of Soon and Lindzen since they accept much of what the IPCC says?
They accept it because the evidence is there and any arguments to the contrary fail to match the evidence.

 

[IBDaMann]

You're a craven dumbass.
Your statements'
"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

You are the one who needs to explain why Sweden is not best described as being north of the UK and explain what you mean by "paleoclimatology" as well as in what form it supposedly exists.

All I see is you chanting (and denying geography) without offering any explations. This is the second time I have asked.

 

[IBDaMann]

They accept it because the evidence is there and any arguments to the contrary fail to match the evidence.

There is no "evidence" for anything that you or they have unambiguously defined.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but all of these papers are bogus.

The Global Warming religion assumes that Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow increasing, without any scientific reason for believing such, and without ever demanding to see any valid datasets (this part requires mathematical competency) against which regression analysis may be performed and scrutinized.

No human has ever established that Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is even changing to any discernible extent. All we have are believers and worshipers who insist that Earth's temperature change has been "observed" and that the bad news has been "witnessed.". These believers and worshipers argue amongst themselves whether this dogmatically believed temperature change is "catastrophic" or not, and whether the inherently evil humanity is the cause.

All three of these papers assume, without establishing, the dogmatically insisted temperature change, and not one provides an unambiguous working definition of the global climate.

From a science perspective, all three papers are summarily discarded. If a paper is going to "analyze" something, it first must establish it's existence, and it absolutely must unambiguously define all it's terms. These papers do not and are immediately rejected.

If the globe's average temperature has not changed can you explain why the average time for ice in is later in the year and ice out is earlier in the year in the lakes of the entire northern hemisphere? Did the calendar change instead of the average temperature? Did the temperature at which water freezes change?

The problem with your argument IBDaMann is that we can see the changes without needing to measure the temperature.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Then why are you taking the word of Soon and Lindzen since they accept much of what the IPCC says?
They accept it because the evidence is there and any arguments to the contrary fail to match the evidence.

I'm not. I'm skeptical anyone in that bunch really knows what they are talking about. But I find skepticism and alternate views on the subject important and refreshing in the face of the Left screaming shit like:

The science is settled!
The debate is over!
97% of scientists agree!

All the while, trying their hardest to silence any questioning or opposition to their position. That doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Into the Night]

You are a ridiculous waste of time who's not worth the bother of trading insults with, which is the only thing you ever do.

You go around claiming that you "spank" everybody (a slang term that's been out of use for years, BTW) when in fact, you've never come close to winning an argument with anybody.

You're a loser.

Deal with it.

He already won. You have been reduced to useless insults. You have no counterargument.

 

[moon]

You are the one who needs to explain why Sweden is not best described as being north of the UK and explain what you mean by "paleoclimatology" as well as in what form it supposedly exists.

All I see is you chanting (and denying geography) without offering any explations. This is the second time I have asked.

Ah- you're another attention-seeking masochist.

Begone.
I'm attention-seeking masochist intolerant.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm not. I'm skeptical anyone in that bunch really knows what they are talking about. But I find skepticism and alternate views on the subject important and refreshing in the face of the Left screaming shit like:

The science is settled!
The debate is over!
97% of scientists agree!

All the while, trying their hardest to silence any questioning or opposition to their position. That doesn't pass the smell test.

The science can be settled
The earth is round
We are seeing warming over the last 100 years. (No skeptic can deny this and be credible.)
Both of those things exist and no one can refute them with any science or facts. The only argument seems to be to simply say, "it isn't settled."

The exact why of the warming of the earth isn't settled to exact percentages but there is little question that can be raised as to possible causes. Burying your head in the sand by claiming, "It isn't settled." isn't science. Your problem seems to be that when scientists disagree with the skeptics and point out the problems with their arguments, you think that is trying to silence questioning. It is a simple case of pointing out they have no valid arguments supported by facts or science.