Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Alas you have proved nothing. And none of your continual attacking the messenger changes the strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity.

 

BWAHAHAHHAHHAA!!

Sure you did.

Contentless tripe, as usual from you.

 

False.

I don't do that. It's a fabrication on your part.

Which does not exist.

Already disproved.

 

Just more attacking the messenger, and contentless tripe from you as usual, with zero evidence to support your false claims.

 

Only in your dreams, only in your dreams.

 

This is not even possible.

Climatology touches every science. Nobody could figure out what all the various sciences would need to show in order to match a desired outcome.

And, every country in the world is involved here. The idea that a conspiracy could overwhelm the countries of the world is ridiculous. Nobody cedes that much power to science.

 

I made no comment about deforestation or other potential causes of global warming, just that increased CO2 cannot be a significant factor. Increased solar activity is most likely the major but not the only cause of warming over the last 200y, and there are various internal cycles involved, which sometimes warm and sometimes cool. It's crucial to specify the time period in question, as different factors are more important on different time scales.

That's a strawman, like calling climate realists "climate change deniers." No informed person denies that global surface temperature has risen significantly since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years.

The retroactive alterations to the official climate records of government agencies (not peer-reviewed publications) have mainly been to remove the three-decade cooling trend of the 1940s-70s, as it disproves the claim that temperature tracks CO2, and to exaggerate warming over the last century and especially the last two decades.

There are lots of possibilities.

 

It has been done more effectively and over a longer period in economics.

There is no need. A few official temperature records, research grant policies, and peer-reviewed journals are quite sufficient.

Wrong. Look at what has been done in economics.

 

You assume countries joint the climatism cult solely for altruistic reasons. Not true at all. Notice that, almost without exception, every accord, agreement, pact in someway takes huge sums from first world countries and drops right in the middle of third worlders. What sane third world leader would turn down free money? On the other end of the spectrum accords and agreement entangle with a nation's existence and economy. Notice, again almost without exception the constraints on first worlders influences and hinders its government operation. Either it's committed to spending enormous sums of money to attain the various goals and targets the agreements set, or they force countries to make decisions which impede or distort the country's economy.

And yet will all the accords and agreements changes to climate are exceedingly rare. After over a quarter century 2023 was the "hottest" on record (overlooking for know the idiocy that that number actually represents.

 

None of that changes the strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity. And I prefer to accept the results and conclusions from professional scientists about the causes of recent global warming and climate change and not someone who only studied science at school 50 years ago and who claims to know some farmers.

 

I already proved that strong correlation does not exist. It's no better than the correlation with global production of thermometers. Temperature and CO2 moved in opposite directions for three decades. That is far from being a strong correlation.

No, that is also a bald falsehood, as I already proved. The only way to remove the correlation between solar activity and temperature is to delete all measures of solar activity other than TSI, which is known not to vary enough to make a significant difference to climate. So any time you see TSI used as an index to characterize how solar activity affects climate, you know for certain that the person making the claim is a liar, not a scientist.

No, you want to cherry-pick which scientists you choose to accept. Unlike the "scientists" who push the CO2 climate narrative, I don't ask you to trust me. I just identify the facts and their logical implications and invite you to think. You decline my invitation. I get it.

 

This is the crux of the matter. It's a big world. One area may see increased agricultural yields, another may experience incessant droughts, with parched land (i.e. Colorado River area of the Southwest US). Another may be flooded-out all together, leading to large numbers of refugees, and political instability. Already, we see how most countries are more and more anti-immigration. Starvation and refugees around the world is not a healthy geo-political climate.

 

None of that changes the strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity. and zero correlation with changes in solar activity. And I prefer to accept the results and conclusions from professional scientists about the causes of recent global warming and climate change and not someone who only studied science at school 50 years ago and who claims to know some farmers.

 

Thankfully, warming and increased CO2 are allowing higher yields all over the planet so we don’t have to worry about starvation.

Some folks deny warming, some the causes, some the results. But warming continues and food production potential increases no matter what science anyone denies.

You would think folks would be happy crops are benefiting from climate change. Seems odd people would prefer LESS food over more food. Years and years of conditioning can really mess up priorities I guess.

 

No one denies global warming. We are coming out of an ice age. What most deny is the belief that but for the activities of man, the cycle of ice ages would magically stop.

 

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” Maurice Strong

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Senator Timothy Wirth

“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” Richard Benedick

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald:

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Mikhail Gorbachev

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” President Jacques Chirac

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,
We redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy,
the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated.
Ottmar Edenhofer

To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stephen Schneider

 

Javier Vinos is a smart guy.

How we know that the sun changes the Climate. Part I: The past
Posted on April 18, 2024 by curryja


by Javier Vinós

Part I of a three part series.

Continue reading →

. . . There are two pieces of good news. The first is that solar activity cannot rise above the 20th century maximum. It is not like CO₂, which can keep going up. The Sun’s activity can stay high or go down, but it cannot go up, so the warming should not accelerate and should not be dangerous.

In 2016, I developed a model to predict solar activity in the 21st century. At the time, some scientists believed that solar activity would continue to decline until a new grand solar minimum and mini-ice age. But my model predicts that solar activity in the 21st century will be similar to that of the 20th century. It also predicted that the current solar cycle, the 25th, would have more activity than the previous one, and it was right.

The second piece of good news is that if much of the 20th century warming is due to the Sun, then there is no climate emergency. Believing that all climate change is due to our emissions is one of those errors that sometimes occur in science, like believing that the Earth is the center of the solar system, that interplanetary space is full of ether, or that stomach ulcers are caused by stress, not bacteria.

 

It identifies the fact that there is no such strong correlation. You simply made it up. Mindlessly repeating the same false claims over and over again after having seen them proved false over and over again is not a good look for you.

That is merely another false claim you repeat over and over again after having seen it proved false over and over again. Not a good look.

Here's a clear layman's explanation of why your claim is uniformed -- i.e., disinformed -- garbage:
https://judithcurry.com/2024/04/18/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/

And here's a more technical one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1580

And another:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

And another:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...solar_radiative_forcing_over_the_20th_century

Repeating contentless ad hominem tripe over and over again is also not a good look for you.

Just sayin'.

 

Repeating unproven hypotheses about the cause of the recent increases of global temperatures and climate changes within my children's and grandchildren's lifespans over and over again is not a good look for you.

And I prefer to accept the results and conclusions from professional scientists about the causes of recent global warming and climate change and not someone who only attended some science classes at school 50 years ago and who claims to know some farmers.

 

Without human activity causing increases of atmospheric CO2, the rate of recent global warming wouldn't be so rapid within my life time.

 

False. From the link in #1167:
Since low solar activity causes cooling, it stands to reason that high activity must cause warming. Solar activity in the 20th century was very high, in the top 10% of the last 11,000 years.

If we count the number of sunspots in each solar cycle over the last 300 years and divide by the length of each cycle, we can see how much solar activity has deviated from the average. Since the Maunder Minimum, during the Little Ice Age, solar activity has been increasing and was well above average between 1933 and 1996, a period of six cycles of increased solar activity that formed the 20th century solar maximum.



Although we cannot know how much of the 20th century warming is due to this modern solar maximum, there is no denying that it is a significant part, because as we have seen, the Sun has been the cause of much of the major climate change over the past 11,000 years.

 

What is your evidence to support your "False" claim?

 

Please see #1171.

 

So what is your evidence that human activity has not increased global warming by increasing atmospheric CO2 within my lifetime?

 

But that claim is typical of deceitful anti-fossil-fuel nonscience because it says nothing about how much more rapid the warming is because of CO2 emissions. If CO2 has only increased the rate of warming by 1%, that makes your statement technically true, but completely removes any rationale for reducing CO2 emissions. You might as well hang a sign on it that says, "Propaganda, not science."