Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Parasites are real, fart induced global warming isn't.

"Scientists say a recent methane-related conspiracy theory was "a wake-up call" for the industry, reminding them they need to communicate better and more directly with the public.Over the last few months, Bovaer, a cattle feed additive that is proven to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas, has been at the centre of a swirl of misinformation, drawing in Reform UK, the dairy industry and even the billionaire Bill Gates."

www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/11/conspiracy-theory-on-methane-cutting-cow-feed-bovaera-wake-up-call-say-scientists

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

peacenlove said..
Here's the Inconvenient Truth:

Warning: full of top "scientists" and reasonable people talking calmly about reality

Good one P&L. Retired scientists not needing to be funded! " Ask a bank robber why he robs banks? " " Because that's where the money is"

I recall, our 2IC excitedly skipping up and down the corridors, poking his head in offices urging each of us to find a Climate Change connection to whatever we were doing. ( the govt. had just announced a bucket of research money)

Research into solar variations not getting supported because CO2 was causing it all? I can believe it.

Not sure about the big govt motive towards the end, but the first 3/4 was worth watching.

And yet big government is exactly what we seem to be getting in the name of Net Zero nonsense.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

peacenlove said..

And as far as computer modelling for "climate change" goes, most of the past claims based upon modelling have been proven wrong over time. like the hysterical claim published in the BBC in 2007/8 about the arctic summer sea ice being gone by 2012.

As for Wikipedia, their homepage confirms that it is not a reliable source of information.

These types of dead-set certain responses support my opinion that those who accept almost without question, the globalists claim about "anthropogenic climate change" exhibit behaviours akin to cult members.

Hardly what I would call hysterical."Then came the 2007 summer that saw Arctic sea ice shrink to the smallest extent ever recorded, down to 4.2 million sq km from 7.8 million sq km in 1980. By the end of last year, one research group was forecasting ice-free summers by 2013. "I think we're going to beat last year's record melt, though I'd love to be wrong," said Dr Stroeve."news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707.stm

Sure. I recall plenty of hysterical people after such claims. Some would bolt themselves to street features and paint themselves "emergency-blood" red.

That claim, published in the BBC, was based on dodgy computer models full of bias and errors, and turned out to be totally false in the fullness of time.

How about "Global Boiling" rhetoric?

Is that a hysterical claim according to you Remery, or is it totally sane sounding?

Select to expand quote

Rango said..
Observed evidence points to future greening.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32017317/

Mother Earth is an amazing being. Truly divine.

CO2 is plant food.

Carbon based life needs carbon.

Carbon in earth is basically life.

A "war on carbon", "Net Zero", is essentially a restriction and artificial curtailing of life.

Essentially, the BLOB doesn't want us to thrive in freedom. It wants to manipulate us through taxes, regulations, red tape, rules, legal restrictions and if we fail to comply with their dictates, attack us with law fare. This artificial narrative and control creates a false scarcity, and it is this false scarcity that enriches those who are in control of this artificial narrative.

Select to expand quote

GasHazard said..This is industry propaganda. Do you really believe anyone would go to the trouble of producing this without a monetary motive? You'd be better informed by following the scientific consensus and ignoring this sort of stuff.

peacenlove said..
Here's the Inconvenient Truth:

Warning: full of top "scientists" and reasonable people talking calmly about reality

Interesting how some people think there's always gotta be a monetary motive.

"Propaganda". Quite an assertion there. You've included a Nobel Prize winning physicist in that assertion. So, onus probandi actori incumbit, namely "he who asserts must prove".

"Scientific consensus". That sounds like Orwellian Doublespeak. Scientific Consensus only exists in a given point in time. Scientists have over time, largely agreed (consensus) all sorts of things that turned out to be unfounded, such as the belief that skull size or skin colour was a determinant of intelligence.

Quote from ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/scientific-consensus/:

"Throughout history, scientific consensus has held many theories to be true that have later proven to be incredibly false."

Again Gashazard: e maximonus probandi actori incumbit, namely "he who asserts must prove."

"Net Zero" isn't industry propaganda? So would you assert that there's no incentive from the public policy or access to public money for the wind farm or solar farm industries, say just in Australia? No incentive for so called "climate friendly" industry whatsoever? No vested interests? No propaganda?

In the video, Will Happer, claims that "no science is ever settled" as though that throwaway line is sufficient to discredit climate science's findings?

A more accurate statement about science is that theories can be shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, enough scientific evidence can establish very high confidence in a theory (e.g., 99.99% confidence). As observations and experiments give us more data that agree with a theory, the confidence of that theory increases.

And if Will Happer wishes to point out where the current evidence does not support the current theory?
Well, he should bring some good science to support his claims. He needs to show how current evidence supports his position more strongly than it does that which he is attacking.

Well that's true isn't it. Science is an evolving phenomenon of mankind's mind. Science is not the thing itself we are observing, but our thoughts about what it is we are observing.

Reality on the other hand, largely happens independent of our observations and thoughts.

Likewise, no true 100% consensus can be reached in science, as this is an oxymoronic concept.

100% consensus is the hallmark of a cult. That's why he refers to the Climate Change Cult as a scam.

Claim: The global atmosphere is not warming up as fast as the climate models say it should be.

Actually, since the 70s, we've had climate modelling and predictions that have closely matched observed temperatures.
Have they been exact? No.
Have they got better at predicting and modelling over the decades? Yes

Although there is not a perfect match, the models are still helpful in predicting future temperature changes.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Claim: The global atmosphere is not warming up as fast as the climate models say it should be.

Actually, since the 70s, we've had climate modelling and predictions that have closely matched observed temperatures.
Have they been exact? No.
Have they got better at predicting and modelling over the decades? Yes

Although there is not a perfect match, the models are still helpful in predicting future temperature changes.

Because the urban heat island effect is included, amongst other errors in the climate modelling.

Models are helpful but are largely, proven wrong over time.

Models don't prove anything to do with the CC Cult's hypothesis, even though they are regularly cited as such.

Soon et al proved that once the urban heat island effect error was removed from the data, climate models largely agreed with observations again - which is that there's no looming climate catastrophe..

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
100% consensus is the hallmark of a cult. That's why he refers to the Climate Change Cult as a scam.

And that's why scientists continue to study and investigate. Because they know that they can never be 100% confident in their position, they can be verrrrry close to 100% but always aware that their own study can turn up evidence that will prove there previous position incorrect.

So, saying that climate science has 100% consensus is just a straw man so that people can dismiss the credibility without actually having to address the evidence.

It's easier to say climate scientists are scammers rather than try figure out a better way of explaining the evidence and presenting that to the world.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

peacenlove said..
100% consensus is the hallmark of a cult. That's why he refers to the Climate Change Cult as a scam.

And that's why scientists continue to study and investigate. Because they know that they can never be 100% confident in their position, they can be verrrrry close to 100% but always aware that their own study can turn up evidence that will prove there previous position incorrect.

So, saying that climate science has 100% consensus is just a straw man so that people can dismiss the credibility without actually having to address the evidence.

It's easier to say climate scientists are scammers rather than try figure out a better way of explaining the evidence and presenting that to the world.

I just did that for you. Urban heat island effect is a major error factor in the models.

They are nowhere near 100% correct. Not even close.

Astrophysicist Soon et al demonstrated this eloquently, but i suppose these researchers are also just "strawmen", whatever that nonsense is supposed to be.

www.ceres-science.com/post/video-the-urban-heat-island

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

D3 said..
Claim: The global atmosphere is not warming up as fast as the climate models say it should be.

Actually, since the 70s, we've had climate modelling and predictions that have closely matched observed temperatures.
Have they been exact? No.
Have they got better at predicting and modelling over the decades? Yes

Although there is not a perfect match, the models are still helpful in predicting future temperature changes.

Because the urban heat island effect is included, amongst other errors in the climate modelling.

Models are helpful but are largely, proven wrong over time.

Models don't prove anything to do with the CC Cult's hypothesis, even though they are regularly cited as such.

Please do point to which recent models have been proven wrong?

Please also show where they don't take into account Urban Heat Islands (UHIs)?

As explained by the IPCC:
, "The urban heat island phenomenon is well-known and understood. For instance, temperature measurements from thermometers located in cities are corrected for this effect when global warming trends are calculated."[2] However, even prior to corrections, the IPCC argued that the uncorrected urbanization influences contribute no more than 10% to the centennial global land averaged temperature trends.

This evidence shows that scientists are already aware of the minimal bias from UHI effects and account for this when studying global temperature trends.

How do I now reconcile the claims in the video when there is evidence that claim is incorrect?

Please point out which models are right!? I'm not aware of any that remotely reflect reality over decadal periods.

Soon et al demonstrates with rigorous research here:

www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179

and discussion for basic education of the science:

www.ceres-science.com/post/video-the-urban-heat-island

The research also addresses the variance in solar radiation and irradiation and volcanic activity, that are both lacking in detail in IPCC style models.

Select to expand quote

Models that were used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report can be evaluated by comparing their approximately 20-year predictions with what actually happened. In this figure, the multi-model ensemble and the average of all the models are plotted alongside the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Index (GISTEMP). Climate drivers were known for the 'hindcast' period (before 2000) and forecast for the period beyond. The temperatures (in degrees Fahrenheit on the left and degrees Celsius on the right) are plotted with respect to a 1980-1999 baseline.
Gavin Schmidt

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

Models that were used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report can be evaluated by comparing their approximately 20-year predictions with what actually happened. In this figure, the multi-model ensemble and the average of all the models are plotted alongside the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Index (GISTEMP). Climate drivers were known for the 'hindcast' period (before 2000) and forecast for the period beyond. The temperatures (in degrees Fahrenheit on the left and degrees Celsius on the right) are plotted with respect to a 1980-1999 baseline.
Gavin Schmidt

Well yeah, if both the models and the observations include the urban heat island effect inputs in surface temperature, they are going to appear to marry up, but when we remove the severe bias from UHI there's almost no observable warming at all.

Which is precisely the problem uncovered by and demonstrated by Dr Soon et al.

Note also that in the 1970's on your graphs, we were emerging from the tail end of a decadal cooling period. Pause and think about that for a moment.

Emerging from a what?

So the Soon paper attempts to show that TSI is responsible for the increase in temperatures rather than greenhouse gas emissions, right?

If the sun was driving the warming, we'd see it in the stratospheric temperatures (which are cooling in line with expectations from the impact of CO2, not warming due to the supposed increase in solar activity).

If the land data was contaminated by urban heating effects, we wouldn't see similar warming in the ocean.

If the surface temperature data sets were corrupted, why do they line up with the satellite data from the independe AIRS and MSU instruments?



Like I said, if you want to prove your theory is more accurate representation of reality, you need to do good science to back it up.
I'm sure there is a proper review of this paper that would give more precise details as to where it falls short.


I was initially curious, if this paper was supposed to upset current theory and prove the climate change cult scam, why was it published in an off topic journal?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

From the tail end of a few decades of cooling.as I said.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

About three. Between about 1940-1975. Black line "observations".

You should always quote the source of your citations.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
If the sun was driving the warming, we'd see it in the stratospheric temperatures (which are cooling in line with expectations from the impact of CO2, not warming due to the supposed increase in solar activity).

If the land data was contaminated by urban heating effects, we wouldn't see similar warming in the ocean.

If the surface temperature data sets were corrupted, why do they line up with the satellite data from the independe AIRS and MSU instruments?

Like I said, if you want to prove your theory is more accurate representation of reality, you need to do good science to back it up.
I'm sure there is a proper review of this paper that would give more precise details as to where it falls short.


I was initially curious, if this paper was supposed to upset current theory and prove the climate change cult scam, why was it published in an off topic journal?

Oh Dr Soon's team has produced some great science. Dr Soon is a top Astro-physicist and his numerous colleagues would probably laugh at your assertions.

Well "he who asserts must prove" that the report falls short.

It's published in an independent journal because the research is, astonishingly, truly independent, unlike the majority of so-called Climate Research done at the IPCC.

www.mdpi.com/about

Tell me, do you accept that the heat island effect is very real?

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

About three. Between about 1940-1975. Black line "observations".

You should always quote the source of your citations.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

So if you're willing to call those 3 troughs in observed temperatures between 1940 and 1965 (where the world "cooled" by less than half a degree over multiple decades) "decadal cooling"?

What do you call the observed temperature increase since then?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
So the Soon paper attempts to show that TSI is responsible for the increase in temperatures rather than greenhouse gas emissions, right?

Not really. He demonstrates that the urban heat island effect is mostly to blame for the apparent surface temperature increases, where old town thermometers that were once outside towns are now amongst heavily urbanised hard spaces, together with the lack of reasonable inputs for solar irradiance and volcanic activity.

When he removes the city and urban thermometer readings since records began and used only rural thermometers, surprise surprise, there's barely any land surface warming at all.

This marries with Spencers satellite readings.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

About three. Between about 1940-1975. Black line "observations".

You should always quote the source of your citations.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

So if you're willing to call those 3 troughs in observed temperatures between 1940 and 1965 "decadal cooling"?

What do you call the observed temperature increase since then?

Your'e doing your best to avoid the main problem with Urban Heat Island Effect aren't you?

Absolutely there's a cooling trend on your un-cited graph. That's why in the 1970's the was crazy talk of a looming new "Ice Age".

Here NASA discussed the possible causes: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

"I think the cooling that Earth experienced through the middle of the twentieth century was due in part to natural variability"

and medium.com/climate-conscious/midcentury-global-cooling-fa77822cca69

"The global temperature was declining from 1940-1975 (Figure 1); this is a fact. The drop was slight, about 0.1?C over the 35 year period, and was sandwiched between two warming periods."

No biggie, just a side note that you've latched onto to avoid the big issue with UHI effect.

So, starting with principles . . Do you accept that the urban heat island effect is real?

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

About three. Between about 1940-1975. Black line "observations".

You should always quote the source of your citations.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

So if you're willing to call those 3 troughs in observed temperatures between 1940 and 1965 "decadal cooling"?

What do you call the observed temperature increase since then?

Your'e doing your best to avoid the main problem with Urban Heat Island Effect aren't you?

Absolutely there's a cooling trend on your un-cited graph. That's why in the 1970's the was talk of a looming new "Ice Age".

Here NASA discussed the possible causes: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

"I think the cooling that Earth experienced through the middle of the twentieth century was due in part to natural variability"

So you'll accept that increases and decreases of less than half a degree are due in part to natural variability.

I don't think anyone will doubt that.
Are you then saying that the increase since then has been a "natural" rebound from that cooling?

Please do enlighten me as to what you claim I'm ignoring about UHI effect on modelling?

Select to expand quote

D3 said..So you'll accept that increases and decreases of less than half a degree are due in part to natural variability.
I don't think anyone will doubt that. Are you then saying that the increase since then has been a "natural" rebound from that cooling? Please do enlighten me as to what you claim I'm ignoring about UHI effect on modelling?

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

About three. Between about 1940-1975. Black line "observations".

You should always quote the source of your citations.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

So if you're willing to call those 3 troughs in observed temperatures between 1940 and 1965 "decadal cooling"?

What do you call the observed temperature increase since then?

Your'e doing your best to avoid the main problem with Urban Heat Island Effect aren't you?

Absolutely there's a cooling trend on your un-cited graph. That's why in the 1970's the was talk of a looming new "Ice Age".

Here NASA discussed the possible causes: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

"I think the cooling that Earth experienced through the middle of the twentieth century was due in part to natural variability"

You appear to be ignoring or avoiding the fact that the Urban Heat Island effect is real and that its inclusion in the climate modelling and surface temperature records puts significant upward bias on average temperatures.

When these biases are removed such as in Dr Soon's team's work, there is virtually no surface warming observable above natural variability. Quote from Dr Soon's paper abstract:

"A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850-2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century. Two different temperature estimates were considered-a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with most current estimates) and a rural-only estimate. The rural and urban blend indicates a long-term warming of 0.89 ?C/century since 1850, while the rural-only indicates 0.55 ?C/century. This contradicts a common assumption that current thermometer-based global temperature indices are relatively unaffected by urban warming biases. Three main climatic drivers were considered, following the approaches adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6): two natural forcings (solar and volcanic) and the composite "all anthropogenic forcings combined" time series recommended by IPCC AR6. The volcanic time series was that recommended by IPCC AR6. Two alternative solar forcing datasets were contrasted. One was the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) time series that was recommended by IPCC AR6. The other TSI time series was apparently overlooked by IPCC AR6. It was found that altering the temperature estimate and/or the choice of solar forcing dataset resulted in very different conclusions as to the primary drivers of the observed warming. Our analysis focused on the Northern Hemispheric land component of global surface temperatures since this is the most data-rich component. It reveals that important challenges remain for the broader detection and attribution problem of global warming: (1) urbanization bias remains a substantial problem for the global land temperature data; (2) it is still unclear which (if any) of the many TSI time series in the literature are accurate estimates of past TSI; (3) the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination. Suggestions for how these scientific challenges might be resolved are offered."

. . .and we have agreed that about 0.5deg C is nothing more alarming than natural variability - right?

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

D3 said..So you'll accept that increases and decreases of less than half a degree are due in part to natural variability.
I don't think anyone will doubt that. Are you then saying that the increase since then has been a "natural" rebound from that cooling? Please do enlighten me as to what you claim I'm ignoring about UHI effect on modelling?

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

peacenlove said..

D3 said..

D3 said..
Emerging from a what?

Decadal cooling where?

About three. Between about 1940-1975. Black line "observations".

You should always quote the source of your citations.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

So if you're willing to call those 3 troughs in observed temperatures between 1940 and 1965 "decadal cooling"?

What do you call the observed temperature increase since then?

Your'e doing your best to avoid the main problem with Urban Heat Island Effect aren't you?

Absolutely there's a cooling trend on your un-cited graph. That's why in the 1970's the was talk of a looming new "Ice Age".

Here NASA discussed the possible causes: earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

"I think the cooling that Earth experienced through the middle of the twentieth century was due in part to natural variability"

You appear to be ignoring or avoiding the fact that the Urban Heat Island effect is real and that its inclusion in the climate modelling and surface temperature records puts significant upward bias on average temperatures.

When these biases are removed such as in Dr Soon's team's work, there is virtually no surface warming observable above natural variability.

Just back to the natural variability you just accepted as true.

Soon et al. Or Connolly et al. Are claiming that all the rest of the climates scientists are either ignoring or not sufficiently accounting for UHI impacts on recorded temperatures.

Thay base this on their analysis of urban and rural vs rural only weather station records.

As I mentioned before, their reasoning doesn't match up with the observed increase in ocean temperatures over the same period.

Hard for UHIs to affect the ocean, right?

So I had a look at their paper. Why on earth did they ignor 2/3 of the northern hemisphere landmass when assessing UHI impacts on observed temperatures?

Could they not find the data? Or did they think that 1/3 would be sufficient to account for the rest of the hemisphere?

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

I see, time for a huge diversion to ocean temperatures.

You're not answering my question. Do you accept that the urban heat island effect is real?

Yes.

As mentioned in numerous comments.

I even quoted the IPCC stating they have been accounting for it.

Here's another of my comments about it.