Global Warming - Discussion-Rant

[golftdibrad1]

[golftdibrad1]

I am sure many of you are aware of this speech but I have never heard of it until now. Its excellent, and should be read. It's the approximate 20 year anniversary within a few months.

Crichton was way ahead of his time back in 2003 and saw all this coming when my little smooth brain was busy re-applying to college.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/26/ ... n-lecture/

It does not paint Sagon, who I personally admire, in a very favorable light.

some highlights: (emphasis mine)

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

snip

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was “responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults,” and that it “impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people.” In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second-hand smoke as a Group-A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. *snip*

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don’t want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you’ll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we’ve given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We’ve told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

snip

No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world— increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.

This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.


Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the model-makers is breathtaking

all of this should sound very familiar re: covid, food pyramid, transvestite issues, and of course global warming crisis and the so called energy transition.

[golftdibrad1]

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the- ... eat-deaths

Shit like this is everywhere you look at AGW 'science'

For the smooth brains, same data, different scales at the bottom.

[golftdibrad1]

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=249354

Spicy take here, not wrong tho. a six fucking sigma change in antarctic sea ice is a unfathomable amount of energy to absorb to state change ice to water. It simply cannot be human caused.

[golftdibrad1]

retractions you wont see in the NYT

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/kitt ... he-climate

[golftdibrad1]

[golftdibrad1]

[golftdibrad1]

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-cli ... -published

childish? a little. hilarious? Also yes.

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.

By Patrick T Brown

September 5, 2023


So why does the press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause? Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious journals: it fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it.

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

snip

So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)

In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did. But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.

even though this guy is still a 'believer' its definitely worth reading. He is basically making a case to un-sound the alarm.

[golftdibrad1]

Messenger aside, if climate change is by definition a global problem, how again does it disproportionately affect black communities again?

This is utter garbage.

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... years.html

• Leaked United Nations report reveals the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years
  Politicians have raised concerns about the final draft
  Fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

but Big Brain Bradley, your not and EXPERT they said.

well fuckers, the experts are saying things like

.... the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 – and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes.

leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

take your climate change shit, put it in your ass, and get fucked.

[golftdibrad1]

lots of inconvenient facts from Dr Moore.

[dubshow]

angry big brain yells at cloud. and pays his taxes.

[golftdibrad1]

https://www.freedom-research.org/p/prof ... arkova-and

Professor Valentina Zharkova and the Little Ice Age Which Has Already Started
Astrophysicist Professor Valentina Zharkova explains that instead of CO2, it is the Sun that drives the climate change and because of its decreasing activity we should be ready for a colder period.

However, her research has focused on the Sun and she can confirm that, unlike CO2, the Sun plays a major role in Earth's climate change. So much so, in fact, that Zharkova's research suggests that we have entered a colder period, or essentially a little ice age, in the next 30 years, as the sun's activity weakens in the context of global warming.

In other words, there is not a question of Zharkova - or any other scientist who is justifiably skeptical about the omnipotent power of the CO2 molecule to warm the air - denying climate change. On the contrary, climate change and the cooling or warming of temperatures are very real, she asserts. For example, Zharkova points out that in Scotland, where she has lived for many years, the weather was much warmer 2,000 years ago. "The Romans were growing grapes and making wine in Scotland at that time, for example," she says.

However, between 1645 and 1715, for example, the period known as the Maunder Minimum, when the Sun's activity weakened particularly sharply, the weather in Europe became much colder. Britain's major rivers – such as the Thames and Tyne – could be skated on, and the Dutch canals regularly froze over. Alpine glaciers widened and absorbed large areas of arable land, and the ice mass expanded strongly southwards from the Arctic. Temperatures across the planet were much lower – in Europe and North America, for example, up to 5 to 7º C colder in places. This is a huge change.


Zharkova estimates using some previous research that on average - which of course means much larger changes from region to region - the Earth's temperature will fall by 1 degree Celsius over the next 30 years, and not rise, as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns us.

She explains that such abrupt changes depend on the cycles of solar activity. When the Sun is less active, its decreasing magnetic field causes a decrease in irradiance. Less solar radiation means less heat. According to Zharkova, such a change occurs every 350-400 years (grand solar cycle or GSC), and she says we entered one of the Grand Solar Minima (GSM) separating GSCs in 2020. This GSM will continue until 2053 after which in cycle 28 the solar activity will return to normal.

The sun's output and Earth's relative position in orbit are more influential to the surface temperature than a trace gas in the atmosphere? Shocking conclusion!