The Sun-Climate Effect

Meanwhile here in Australia
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11...to-grow-algae-for-biofuel-bundaberg/103083672
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/hydrogen
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/green-ammonia/
Exxon has always acted like an arse over this and instead of diversifying like some of the other fossil fuel companies have it has just doubled down on denialism

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/figh...sis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/

 

Then why not cut and paste instead of insisting I buy his book?

 

That's not WEF.

 

Why not read a book instead of constantly seeking confirmation bias on the internet?

I am however surprised that you haven’t read Nordhaus’s “Climate Casino” and aren’t familiar with the IPCC’s fourth assessment.

 

Serious people make serious decisions.

 

Fossil fuels have enabled modern civilization -- and most of the world's population -- to exist. Only evil, anti-science, anti-civilization, anti-human scum would even advocate reducing production of fossil fuels -- and the WEF does do that -- let alone try to stop it altogether.

 

So does pretty much everyone else that anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers falsely and dishonestly call "denialists," "climate change deniers," etc.

False. All climate realists dispute the IPCC's hysterical, apocalyptic nonscience.

No. Like many other climate realists, he is listed as a pro forma "contributor" to the IPCC's reports, but what he actually says is ignored and excluded from the reports.

 

Lots of unsavory interests benefit from Western governments' policies based on anti-fossil-fuel nonscience, not least the climate "scientists" who reap career advancement, grant money, higher professional status, public acclaim, etc. for lying about their subject.

 

Exactly.

Tol left the IPCC because of the climate catastrophe hysteria they were pedaling.

 

And even when exposed (Michael Mann) there are no consequences. The global warming climate catastrophe hysteria narrative is nothing more than a manufactured crisis being exploited for political gain.

 

But after hundreds of posts, still nobody knows what it is.

You certainly don't. I keep asking you to explain it in your own words, and you keep finding excuses to not do so.

You don't understand the stuff you post. You just parrot. That's my point, and I've proven it over and over.

 

That's warming _after_ the LIA was completely over. After the LIA was totally over and temps were back to normal, temps shot up another 1.0C, and they're still climbing with no end in sight. That means anyone claiming "The current fast warming is a recovery from the LIA" is just plain wrong.

Again, completely wrong.

The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands have no natural explanations. They are smoking guns for the human origin of the current warming.

What's more, you don't understand the scientific method.

The theory that explains the observed evidence in the simplest manner will be taken as the correct theory. AGW theory does that, perfectly, so it is the accepted theory.

If you want to dethrone that theory, you have to come up with something else that explains all of the data even better. Your side hasn't even tried. You have no theory at all. Your side simply refuses to do any science.

And no, "It's natural!" is not the "default theory". There is no "default theory". "It's natural!" is invoking magic fairy dust as a cause, and that's not science.

Those who can talk about the science, do.

Those who can't, they offer crank political conspiracy theories as a way of deflecting from the science.

 

Like to link to where Mann was found guilty of anything?

 

Already explained, and presented in detail. Your own failure to address the material has nothing to do with anyone else.

 

Smoking guns and consensus are not scientific proof.

And application of the scientific method to disprove the Enhanced CO2 Effect hypothesis dies not require the proof of another hypothesis.

 

Read the book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”.

 

It has taken a long time to get his data and undertake the deconstruction of his claims that is detailed in another thread. His erstwhile defenders may be embarrassed.

 

Ah, the usual "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" responses from the deniers. Very convincing. But if it's all you have, it's all you have.

 

Plus:


“This is an explanation that would appear wholly inadequate in most other areas of science. The hard fact is that tree rings and temperature records are diverging in the modern era, the one period when both can be directly observed. The only reasonable conclusion that can be taken away from this observation is that these tree rings are not capable of detecting warming trends. Instead, Briffa had simply assumed that the divergence didn’t happen in earlier periods and that the lack of a trend in tree rings in the past meant that there were no warm periods either. What is more, despite the fact that this hypothesis cannot even be tested, Briffa’s thinking is widely accepted among paleoclimatologists.”

— The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford
https://a.co/4HyQX81

 

I doubt it given the quality of his opposition

 

Yeah! Not an academic treatise is anyway shape or form and it was originally published in 2010 - how does the update deal with the multiple research papers replicating the hockey stick that have been published since 1998?

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

 

realclimate is perhaps the most consistently dishonest anti-fossil-fuel hysteria site on the Internet. Mann's hockey stick has never been replicated with independent data, but it has been conclusively refuted. It was known to be a lie from the start, because he removed the data from his own proxies that showed little warming in the 20th century, and substituted uncorrected instrument data for it.

 

It's absolutely a rigorous analysis of Mann's dishonest deception. Tree rings cannot be used to determine temperature data. The Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods are absolutely real. Any paper that claims that they never happened are incorrect.

 

That's "hiding the decline" which is the title of another book. The IPCC removed the hockey stick curve cartoon from it's logo as a result of that dishonesty.

 

Except for the grift money involved and the exploitation of a false hockey stick by the Chinese Communist Party.