Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

None of that waffle changes the very strong correlation between recent global temperature rises and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity.
Reducing the burning of fossil fuels by using the sun's energy more directly will therefore reduce the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 and the rate of increase in global temperature

 

Do your homework.

 

So what is your evidence that the coral bleaching wasn't caused by increased sea temperatures and was caused by Santa using H202

 

So, almost imperceptible.

 

But not to the algae in the coral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching

 

Then why is the temperature increasing before the CO2 levels rise?

Once again, you evade and refuse to actually confront anything you do not like.

 

Uh, that is not how science works. That is not how science works at all.

One can not prove a negative, that is logic 101. I say that most murders are caused by you.

Now it us up to you to prove that you did not cause most of the murders.

Sorry, I can no longer take you seriously at all, as you obviously have no idea of how science actually works, especially the scientific method.

Here, you might want to watch this, it will explain to you the basics.



Making a claim and demanding others disprove it is a complete and utter failure. Always, every single time. I can claim that my dog barks at the door because of global warming, and demand you prove that is not the cause.

 

I'm not a climatologist and I have no reason not to believe that the recent temperature rises are not caused by the increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

 

You make a claim about increased ocean temperature have no data to show that the ocean temperature has increased.

 

The average global temperature rise in the last 40 years is 0.01 deg C per year. And you claim this is representative of the Great Barrier Reef and that the coral on the Great Barrier Reef is being "bleached" by this increase in temperature. The seasonal temperature variation is orders of magnitude greater. And how do you then explain why corals within in miles of each other are "bleached" and not bleached. So again you have nothing to explain why the "bleaching" is and is not occurring within miles on the Great Barrier Reef.

 

But you have a PhD and as such surely understand the scientific method.

 

That's your issue, not mine, and I have no reason not to believe that the recent global warming is not caused by the increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity and the increased burning of fossil fuels.

 

Do your homework

 

The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis has been disproven by the scientific method. That is necessary and sufficient reason to not believe the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis. As a scientist with a PhD you surely understand that.

 

I have. The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis has been disproven by the Antarctic temperature data from the last 200 years.

 

I'm not a climatologist and I have no reason not to believe that the recent temperature rises are not caused by the increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity. And it's your issue if you want to believe that Santa bleached the coral using H202 and painted the rocks green on the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

That's your issue if you want to believe that Santa bleached the coral using H202 and painted the rocks green on the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

Bye Bye.

I've no reason not to believe that the recent temperature rises are not caused by the increased atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

And it's your issue if you want to believe that Santa bleached the coral using H202 and painted the rocks green on the Antarctic Peninsula, and that America won the war against Vietnam?

 

That's a laughable conspiracy theory. Your position has degenerated to denial.

 

The alarmists increasingly rely on falsehoods to support their propaganda line.
Facebook Censorship due to a Science Feedback “Fact Check”

By Andy May

Facebook’s censorship is totally out of hand, and their “independent and nonpartisan fact checks” are anything but. Now they are censoring “Climate: The Movie.” The supposed “fact checks” provided by Science Feedback and Climate Feedback (they are two branches of the same organization) have been shown many times to be both partisan and ideologically driven. The “fact check” of Steve Koonin’s bestselling book Unsettled done by Climate Feedback was blisteringly criticized by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in a lead editorial by the WSJ editorial staff.

The editorial includes the following:

“Mr. Koonin, whose careful book draws extensively on existing scholarship, may respond on the merits in a different forum. Suffice it to say here that many of the ‘fact check’ claims relied on by Facebook don’t contradict the underlying material, but instead argue with its perceived implications.

The fact-check attacks Mr. Koonin’s book for saying the “net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” Minimal is in the eyes of the beholder, but the U.S. National Climate Assessment predicted America’s climate costs in 2090 at about $500 billion per year—a fraction of the recent Covid stimulus in an economy that could be four times as large.

The fact-check on the statement that ‘global crop yields are rising, not falling’ retorts that ‘while global crop yields are rising, this does not constitute evidence that climate change is not adversely affecting agriculture.’ OK, but that’s an argument, not a fact-check. …

Climate Feedback’s comment on a line from the review about ‘the number and severity of droughts’ does not identify any falsehood, but instead claims, “it doesn’t really make sense to make blanket statements regarding overall global drought trends.’ Maybe it doesn’t make sense for Facebook to restrict the reach of legitimate scientific argument and competing interpretations of data.”

WSJ, May 7, 2021.
Steve Koonin’s rebuttals of the Climate Feedback post are here and here. I’ve also written about the erroneous Climate Feedback post here.

In other words, fact checks should check facts, not a difference of opinion between two scientists. “Fact checks” today are too often thinly disguised and very biased editorials, often confusing very left-wing interpretations of ambiguous data with facts. Then these supposedly “independent and nonpartisan fact checks” are used by Facebook, and sometimes by Linkedin, as excuses to censor legitimate and well-documented posts and movies. Documentation and references of the facts and interpretations presented in Climate: The Movie can be found here.

Further reading on the blatant bias and misinformation found the Science Feedback and Climate Feedback websites: . . .

 

This is what Koonin wrote about crop yields:

Despite the yield improvements over the past decades, the SRCCL makes the following claim: .

. . climate change between 1981 and 2010 has decreased global mean yields of maize, wheat, and soybeans by 4.1, 1.8 and 4.5%, respectively, relative to preindustrial climate, even when CO2 fertilisation and agronomic adjustments are considered. Uncertainties (90% probability interval) in the yield impacts are–8.5 to + 0.5% for maize,–7.5 to + 4.3% for wheat, and–8.4 to–0.5% for soybeans. For rice, no significant impacts were detected. This study suggests that climate change has modulated recent yields on the global scale and led to production losses, and that adaptations to date have not been sufficient to offset the negative impacts of climate change, particularly at lower latitudes. 18

In other words, although the actual wheat yield went up by about 100 percent from 1981 to 2010, it would have gone up even more (104 percent) if there hadn’t been any human-caused changes in the climate. Similarly, the maize yield would have gone up by 77 percent, instead of by 70 percent.

Unfortunately, it’s far from simple to judge how, and by how much, yields have been affected by human-caused changes in the climate. You need to know both what the climate would have been absent human influences and how agriculture was affected by those differences.

In other words, we’d need to do a counterfactual analysis, one that can never be tested against observations.

Aside from the acknowledged limitations of the methodology and the climate and crop models used to make those estimates above, 19 the impacts they came up with are pretty small—comparable to the precision with which yields are measured in the first place (data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization20 have a sampling precision of no better than 3 percent, among other uncertainties).”

— Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin
https://a.co/1Hnb7xA

 

As I said, your belief is based not on science at all but on faith. That makes it a religion.

 

It would be refreshing to see one denier actually cite part of the text of the IPCC AR-6 document and attempt to refute it. That's SCIENCE. That represents the embodyment of the scientific community of the entire world.