Projects that forecast dire effects from the current warming receive Government funds, but no funds for answers about the causes of previous warming cycles that occurred before the Industrial Revolution 1760 – 1840.
By Ronald Stein
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Irvine, California
While the chart below suggests substantial warming since the 1600’s, humans cannot be blamed for any significant amount of warming until after about 1950, which is when atmospheric CO2 concentrations began to increase markedly.
So, how is it that the warming from about 1700 to 1950 was natural, but the warming before 1700 is not?
Discovery of the “whys” for previous warming cycles, like what occurred during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods are unlikely to qualify for government funded research, so the easier route to funding is to enhance the seriousness of the need to prevent the ‘current’ warming cycle and its potential threat to humanity, the same humanity that endured previous warming cycles.
Almost all climate-change research is funded by government. That means you the taxpayer. Government has been on the global warming bandwagon from the beginning. If young climate researchers today want to build their careers, their chances of getting government funding for their proposals is directly proportional to how seriously they portray the threat of global warming. If their research project themes are skeptical of human-caused climate change, their chance of getting funded are great reduced.
In his 1961 Farewell Address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the trend toward Government-sponsored science. When politicians have the ultimate say over who gets money for what reason, you can suspect that political motivations and desired policy outcomes will inevitably result in biased research. Additionally, Eisenhower pointed out that scientists eager to keep the funds flowing might take control of public policy to benefit their own careers.
Unfortunately, very little of research funding goes toward understanding natural causes of climate change, like what occurred in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and the warming from about 1700 to 1950 all of which occurred before the Industrial Revolution. Interestingly, that warming was natural during those periods, but warming since 1950 is not?
Why don’t more papers tackle the thorny issue of determining how much warming is natural versus anthropogenic? In contrast to the CO2-based theory natural climate change is largely not understood, unpredictable, and so researchers do not look there for causes of warming which may be the driving force for government funds to research solution for the doomsday forecasting.
Global Warming is the ultimate cash cow for climate researchers. The bigger the perceived problem, the more money agencies like NASA, NOAA, DOE, EPA, and NSF can get.
The modern-day blaming of weather events on human-caused climate change in the news reports, at a minimum, intellectually lazy, and is probably mor aptly described as journalistic malpractice and fearmongering. Admittedly, some in the science community have enabled this feeding frenzy.
The Press will not report on DATA or FACTS that counter the emotions as they are deemed as deniers of that emotion driving the public.
The news media are only interested in covering predictions of doom, which further amplifies the emotional bias. How could thinking people NOT be skeptical when it comes to the outlandish claims, we receive from the news media? Why then, does it seem to so many like our weather is getting worse? It is partly because alarmism pervades the news on an almost daily basis.
Poverty kills and forcing people to use more expensive energy will worsen poverty. Poverty, not global warming, remains biggest challenge.
Yes, fossil fuels are probably a finite source. But as they become scarcer, their price will rise, and other sources of energy will become economically competitive. Innovation will lead to new energy technologies. Because everything humans due requires energy, energy demand WILL lead to an energy supply.
Interestingly, regarding energy literacy on renewables and fossil fuels, it is not that we are stupid, we are too emotional. One of the principles of branding is that people do not buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it. We make most of our decisions based on feelings and emotions, NOT data and facts.
The WHY in this equation is simple, as it equates to getting off fossil fuels to reduce emissions at any cost. Emotions takes it from there, and any data or facts to the contrary are categorized as deniers to the emotional decisions in play. Elected and appointed officials, and special interest groups, feed off the WHY for government funding, to reduce emissions at any cost, for votes and money.
Nothing seems to have changed since Former President Eisenhower pointed out 60 years ago that scientists eager to keep the government funds flowing might take control of public policy to benefit their own careers.
Ronald Stein, P.E.
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure
http://www.energyliteracy.net/
Climate scammers have erased all prior warm and cold periods. Every period and civilization prior to the onset of the Industrial Revolution began, the Earth’s climate was a Garden of Eden of tranquility. Our sins of CO2 emissions have cast humanity out of Eden. We must repent and send unprecedented amounts of wealth to the UN for our redemption and to return climate to Garden of Eden period.
Ye verily.
So it is.
So it shall be done.
Amen, Brother Joel! Amen!
Flattening the curves makes it a whole lot easier to tune the model, methinks.
So true. Climate Alarmism is the religion for a secular age.
I recommend the book The Doomsday Myth, which chronicles failure of predictions of resource shortages even when backed by government force.
An example is rubber:
Conservation, creativity (innovation), enterprise put the lie to ‘sustainability’. Even the infamous Malthus was realizing that in his old age, though his writings are a bit variable, seemingly not wanting to ‘walk back’ too quickly.
The news media is never ever interested in covering the results of past predictions. Strange, because when clairvoyancy actually happens , its called “news”.
Why oh why does the graph of NH temperature 2000 yr reconstruction look so different than what is posted on NOAA.
Why oh why does the Ljungqvist plot above have uncertainty band of +/- 0.2 while the 18 lines in the NOAA plot are in a +/- 0.5 degrees.
NOAA in their compilation has effectively obscured the Roman and Medieval warm periods. This is possibly an example of CAGW being the ultimate cash cow and influencing supposed scientific bureaucracies to internal funding motives. It makes it difficult to ferret out good from bad science.
The graph you cite from NOAA includes Ljungqvist’s reconstruction (Lj10cps line). All of the reconstructions are on a different baseline from the one in the post (1881-1990 versus 1961-1990).
The only major difference is that they’ve plotted modern instrumental data atop the reconstructions, which shows that the height of the MWP is not warmer than today, even in Ljungqvist’s reconstruction.
Yes, I noticed Ljungqvist’s (I wish I had a name like that!) reconstruction was one of the 18 lines on the NOAA plot. Visually according to this NOAA plot, it appears temp was apx stable 2000->600 yrs ago, then slight cooling for 500 years then sharp temp increase. No Roman or Medieval warm periods but does indicate some consensus of LIA. Does the WUWT community take Ljungqvist’s construction most valid or one of many valid views?
Ljungqvist’s reconstruction is a favorite among skeptics, but I think people don’t realize how closely aligned it is with the preponderance of other reconstructions. Not sure if knowing that would change minds or not.
Why would multiple people guessing change my mind?
Closer to REALITY than mannian farce reconstruction
Think we need to change your tag to DAILY-FAIL !!
I tend to view ALL proxies with great skepticism. Most don’t respond to the forces they are purported to respond to (or they don’t respond uniformly as presented). And most have very poor temporal resolution (even worse after they get smoothed to hell and back), which wouldn’t even show a rise in temp over 100 years.
You know Manns “hide the decline” ? 😀
Thermometer data and proxy data are not compatible.
That doesn’t seem to prevent the author ignoring that and claiming with unbridled certainty earlier periods were warmer, when the balance of probabilities show that is very unlikely.
The balance of probabilities confirmed earlier periods were warmer, until the Church of CACA declared such real science anathema.
But facts are stubborn.
“confirmed earlier periods were warmer”
Warmer than the modern period as measured by thermometers? How? Using proxies I suppose, but above you say that is “fraudulent”.
He said the use of the proxies was fraudulent. Not that the proxies themselves are fraudulent.
Not surprised that you don’t know the difference.
“Warmer than the modern period as measured by thermometers? How? Using proxies I suppose, but above you say that is “fraudulent”.”
My take is that we really don’t know. The likelihood is that those epochs were warmer, but I don’t see them as certainties, not based on proxies, anyway.
“Warmer than the modern period as measured by thermometers? How?”
We don’t need proxies for our latest “just as warm as” comparison of temperatures today with those in the past.
All regional surface temperature charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. And those temperature readings were taken by human beings as part of their job, and they had no political bias when doing their recordings.
Here’s the regional US surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999):
You can clearly see that in the US it was warmer in the 1930’s than it is today.
The chart only goes through 1999, but the year 1998, which is on this chart, shows to be 0.5C cooler than 1934, and the year 2016, the so-called “hottest year evah!” is statisticlly tied with 1998 for the hottest year since the 1930’s, so that makes 1934 hotter than 2016, too, and the US is therefore in a temperature downtrend, not a temperature uptrend. The same holds true for the rest of the world.
It’s not necessary to go farther back in history than the Early Twentieth Century to demonstrate that CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s climate, because there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere today, than in the 1930’s, yet it is cooler today than in the 1930’s.
All that CO2 and no increase in temperatures. CO2 doesn’t look very scary from here.
FACTS are FACTS.. get over it loy-dodo.
Trees under glacier etc.
Too much for your tiny non-functional mind to comprehend. ???
FACTS show that IT WAS WARMER. !!
And of course there is ZERO-EVIDENCE that the current SLIGHT warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years has anything at all to do with human released CO2, is there. !
According to drac, facts only become facts when they have been approved by someone with the proper level of education.
We have thousands of proxies as well as historical records, that show the earlier warm periods were warmer than the modern warm period.
No probabilities needed, just the facts that you choose to ignore.
DELIBERATE IGNORANCE…
…. is loy-dodo’s ONLY choice in life.
My understanding is that it has never been in question whether some parts of the earth at some point during the period of the MWP saw temperatures comparable to those today, the question has been whether there was ever a globally coherent warm period (spatially and temporally) that was comparable to today. The answer to the second question seems to be no.
SORRY, why do you INSIST on being WRONG, ALWAYS
MWP was Global, GET OVER IT. !!
And none of your childish and petty non-evidence means ANYTHING.
Second DAILY-FAIL !!
There are proofs it was globally, nnot that you are interested in 😀
I believe that the MWP had expression at many places all over the world, that does not mean it had globally coherent expression all over the world. What is your proof to the contrary?
Everyone accepts that about 21,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age. There were ice sheets across much of North America, Scandinavia, UK and a large part of Arctic Russia. There were no ice sheets in the Middle East, India, South Asia, much of China, Central America, Australasia and most of South America.
Using your logic you would have to deny that the last Ice Age happened.
Dang! Missed Africa off the list of places without ice sheets.
Kilimadscharo ? 😀
As actually it doesn’t warm at all places on the world the same amount or even cool at several places, there is no global warming at all. Will you tell me that ?
The modern warming period of the past ~150 years has shown nearly global coherence according to the Nature paper I cited above.
Antarctic cools, Arctic may warm…
No, “global warming” means Earth’s averageannual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe. NOAA
Your assumption is wrong
Over the period 1982 to 2011, however, a cooling trend was recorded in surface waters in some parts of the Southern Ocean around the Antarctic continent, specifically in the area south of 55 degrees latitude. This cooling was strongest in the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean, where the ocean surface cooled by around 0.1°C per decade, and the weakest in the Indian and parts of the Atlantic sectors.
Going against the trend: Cooling in the Southern Ocean
Figure 4 from the above cited paper provides a clear illustration of what is meant by “globally coherent” cold or warm period:
Clearly the modern warming is a unique event over the past 2000 years.
Thousands of studies.
There is no globally coherent expression of modern warming either. A single line on any graph is no proof of global anything.
Your understanding is informed by those who are pushing an agenda.
There are thousands of proxies from all over the world that show the entire earth was warmer during that period. Sure it didn’t start and stop on the same date everywhere, but with the exceptions of the end points, the rest of the period was warmer than today by at least 0.5C.
There is proxy evidence that the MWP had expression over many areas of the globe, but not necessary at the same time or to the same magnitude of the modern warming. The globe as a whole, based on the best available global proxy evidence, was never warmer than today during the past 2 millennia (see Neukom et al., cited earlier).
Not true in the slightest. The best that can be claimed is that 100’s of years of warming didn’t start and end on exactly the same year all over the earth. On the other hand, all of the proxies that cover the entire MWP have strong overlaps at the center of the MWP.
Insisting on your position will not strengthen it. You need to specifically address the argument made by Neukom, et al.
Swiss glaciers less than current, Temperatures in Alps warmer during MWP…
… and MUCH warmer over 10,000 years
Iceland much warmer in MWP.
German peat bog
China peat bog
Earlier eras WERE A LOT WARMER. There is a mountain of historical and physical evidence for this.
“A LOT WARMER”…than the present day, providing you don’t include present day temperatures. It is “fraudulent” to use present day temperatures to show the present day was warmer.
“Major Major never sees anyone in his office while he’s in his office.”
Present day temperatures are NOT higher than in the past. See Fred250’s exhaustive graphs showing the manipulation of historical temperature records to warm the present and cool the past. You might like to explain why tree lines are lower than they were in previous eras. Ditto agriculture in Greenland, etc, etc.
Real FACTS mean NOTHING to loy-dod.
And he has NOTHING to counter them with but baseless anti-science prattle
Making a GOOSE of yourself, yet again loy-dodo.
ZERO-EVIDENCE, empty comments
Pertaining to absolutely NOTHING… your only choice.
Loydo sure does get his panties in a twist when his frauds get exposed.
Glaciers exist now that did not exist before the LIA.
Trees under retreating glaciers,
MWP WAS warmer than today, get over it. !
And certainly current temps are LOWER than what they have been for most of the last 10,000 years
We live in a GLOBALLY COOLER period of the Holocene.
Poor daily-fail.. data is your enema. !
Without the tree-rings, upside-down or otherwise,
Tree rings are altered by MANY other things, and are NOT useful as temperature proxies.
Extremely biased opinion piece written by someone who obviously is unqualified to write about it.
Studying natural climate change, which the writer of this opinion thinks is not funded, is something scientists do all the time. Have a look at the lists at notrickszone blog, scientists who study natural climate change are dishonestly tagged by deniers there as disproving climate change (they don’t..) . While all they do is help us understand past natural climate changes, which in turn help us understand modern climate change too.
If you didn’t live in your echo chamber of misinformation and misinterpretation of what the actual scientists do you would be able to see that this entire article is rubbish.
How many of the people reading this have actually bothered to read actual science and not just pieces by uneducated and unqualified people here in WUWT??
If you are paid to spread misinformation, there is no salvation for you. But any readers who are not and are real skeptics should always check for the sources. Read the texts for yourselves and make up your minds on your own and not getting fed whatever opinion unqualified and extremely biased (potentially with other interests too) people have.
Have no illusions, people writing at WUWT are unqualified indeed… Actual scientists publish in peer-review literature, it is only charlatans or con-artists that try to beg/con you into donating money to them with such rubbish articles… Don’t be so gullible
I am a well-educated layman, but I am not a scientist. I don’t have the technical ability to be an expert in every facet of climate change; I doubt that anyone does. Reading the peer-reviewed papers would seldom help me, as from experience they tend to be written in turgid prose that is intended to obfuscate rather than elucidate.
But I can read articles by people like Willis Eschenbach about his temperature regulatory theory and consider the opposing viewpoints that are presented in the comments, and draw some conclusions I feel confident in. I can read his posts on modeling, and in light of my own reading of the IPCC documents, which contain the clear admission that clouds have the greatest effect on temperature, and their effects are only guessed at in the models, I can conclude that he is right on that score and others.
Nic Lewis and Judy Curry have material reprinted here offering hypothesis and opinions that are soberly stated and well-researched. Their writings are careful not to claim too much, so I tend to trust what they claim. Some, like David Middleton, write more in a cowboy style, but he writes with enthusiasm and he backs his posts up with charts and data that he references and that I can evaluate. Something you haven’t done.
And following each of the aforementioned articles, I read the comments and learn much more. Not from the yahoos who use it as an opportunity to send a shout out to Donald Trump, but people like Commiebob and Rust Istvan who offer thoughtful additions and commentary.
The idea that the only source of knowledge is in peer-reviewed journal entries, when so many have been shown to be approved by incestuous groups of self-congratulatory academics, is farcical.
I get your point of not being well-educated enough to understand peer-reviewed papers. But don’t you see the danger of reading only blogs by deniers? First of all, why would you think they are better educated than you? Second of all, what about their bias? Peer-reviewed papers are written by experts in the respective fields, and even though the bulk of the text might be unreachable for most, the summaries of the papers are usually approachable by anyone. It is much better to get informed by those than denier websites.
I find very interesting how scientific papers don’t jump to conclusions about what they want to prove, e.g. prove or disprove AGW. while I wish I had a penny every time I heard a denier that they found proof for disproving AGW (they didn’t) or that cooling is coming (it hasn’t and it isn’t) or about the grand solar minimum (there isn’t one now). These are ideas perpetuated by con artists in denier blogs! They literally fool you to keep you coming back and having their websites surviving. Think about it! This is their business! scientists on the other hand don’t have a specific topic, there are so many thing s we don’t know, that they would always have something to research even if AGW was proven wrong… even though deniers tell you otherwise.
I think you are failing to recognize the biases that scientists have. They write for peer-reviewed journals, but they are also susceptible to peer pressure, just like all of us. They tend to think in herds, like the many scientists that made fun of the continental drift theory, until it became widely accepted. They also need to feed their families, and right now most of the grants and funding come out of left-leaning organizations, like universities or the Rockefeller Foundation, which have a stated purpose of fighting climate change. Scientists know who is buttering their bread, and their research is going to reflect that.
It’s not that scientists are dishonest, or that there is a conspiracy. It’s that the easiest path, which most of us humans tend to choose, right now leads to ascribing the world’s problems to climate change. That’s where the money and social approval is. It takes courage and independent thinking to inquire skeptically, and that is why I read this website. I get plenty of alternative views from NPR, the Atlantic, and CNN. They provide a good balance. I’d urge you to balance your views by stopping by this website more often to read and reflect.
you write in a denier blog, the definition of a biased place, and you argue that scientists are biased?
Ok the ones writing the paper let’s amuse you and say are biased by all the reasons you listed. What about the reviewers? They don’t get payed to do it, so why support something they might know to be wrong? They have no reason to be biased…
Furthermore, it is science not opinion pieces, like here, they need to provide evidence which others can replicate. It is absurd to think the scientists are more likely to be biased than a denier blog.
I also disagree to the idea of the two options of the coin.
There is science done in peer review and then there are opinions.
For the science one has to go to peer review publications alone.
Having a peer reviewed paper opposite to an opinion piece is absurd.
The opinion piece doesn’t have to do research or go through any check.
The quality is simply too low to be compared with the peer-reviewed publication.
As for the funding. Scientists would be getting funding irrespective of AGW. There are so many fields of study even for climate that don’t have to do with AGW, they still work and they would work anyway because there are so many things that we still need to understand about the world.
Do you think denier blogs would exist if their main narrative was not alive (which they do their best to barely keep alive)? If people understood the science behind AGW, do you think there would be anyone coming here in WUWT? They rely on you for donations for being here to create traffic.
More mindless BLATHER from dracfool.
Totally DEVOID OF ANYTHING RESEMBLING ACTUAL SCIENCE
Come on, blathering prattler…
What do we “deny” that you can provide real scientific proof for?
Start with the basics, monkey-brain
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
cue…. yet more empty blather from dracfool.. !!
What is the optimum concentration level of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere?
How is this connected to anything I posted here?
Why are you all unable to focus on one point?
So you can’t answer a very pertinent question.
That you don’t how pertinent is it, is quite revealing.
Your mistake is thinking that drac actually knows anything. In his mind the experts have spoken and everyone else just needs to shut up and go away.
He has no interest in and probably no ability to think for himself.
With every additional post he demonstrates how true your assessment is.
Ähh, question, what exactly is y o u r point ?
As near as I can tell his point seems to be that everything written in what he terms a “denier blog”, must be false, therefore can be ignored.
Yes, I think that’s his point.
We should probably expect an increase in alarmists visiting and speaking out as Biden’s Climate Change narrative gets going and emboldens some of the alarmist who might not otherwise speak up.
The alarmists think they are on a roll. Possibly they are politically, but, as we all know, they are completely out to lunch when it comes to science and evidence.
The alarmists will show up for a while, learn the errors of their ways, and will disappear back to where they came from.
There may be some financial incentive provided by well-heeled leftists.
Quite simply, you’re expected to give a peer reviewed answer and not propaganda
We’re just poor, ignorant deniers who can’t focus.
“All?” How about being a little more objective?
Ask Michel Mann about peer review and the reviewers. Or ask Schellnhuber about author friendly review by self selected reviewers.
Why are you still posting to WUWT?
Hypocrite.
it’s fun how easily you get triggered!!! also the lack of critical thinking cracks me up every time
Projection time now…
ROFLMAO
You are just another waste of space, dracfool.
A SCIENTIFIC NON-ENTITY !!
A very strange person this drac is—demands that people jump to and obey his every whim or he calls them bad names.
drac accusing others of lacking the ability to think critically?
Now that thar is funny.
I would encourage you to do a little research of your own on the subject of scientific error and confirmation bias. Start with John Ioannidis’ peer-reviewed article Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 It’s important to take everything you read with a grain of salt, and keep an open mind and open eyes.
You use the term denier to describe me and others, which is both undescriptive and inaccurate. It’s also likely to close minds to what you are trying to say, although perhaps you don’t mind that, and prefer to use it to distinguish yourself from the dangerous freethinkers here at WatttsUpWithThat. That’s unfortunate, for while some here like to scream back at Nick Stokes, Loydo and Griff in ALL CAPS, many of us appreciate their willingness to engage, and learn from the measured responses to their comments. You would have more effect by engaging, not insulting, those you are trying to educate.
Personally, after years of solving problem sets and writing journal and conference papers, I find his assertion that I am uneducated offensive
You disagree with those who agree with drac, therefore you are uneducated.
can you give a link to a paper of yours?
Don’t tell me your name is monte carlo…
This gets downvoted too?
He claims he is a scientist and I ask him to see his work.
Someone explain the logic in downvoting this…
right… which logic…
What’s getting downvoted is your extremely bigoted opinion regarding what a scientist is.
Translation: “WHAAAAAAAA!! MOMMMIEEEE!!”
that is your answer to my request to show us your paper??
hilarious…..
No one believed that you are educated, no harm done. Let your mommy calm you down…
Your attitude stinks
The quotation marks confused him.
“Someone explain the logic in downvoting this”
I think it is your condescending attitude, more than anything, Drachir.
Earlier drac tried to claim that only those with Phd’s in physics can be scientists. (BTW, that would eliminate at least 90% of those who claim to be climate scientists.)
Now he’s claiming that you can’t be a scientist unless you have paper in one of the journals that he considers to be authentic. (Which would be only those journals that refuse to accept any paper that is critical of the climate warming scam.)
Request DENIED.
and what a proud denier you are….
Hilarious….
drac you deny basic facts and logic.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=wvlr
Here’s my law review article.
you make a valid point. Ioannidis’ paper about the 5σ in medicine is not applicable to other fields, but it makes some interesting criticisms. Some people might exploit the peer review process, so it doesn’t mean that something gets published then it is true. But science has a way to settle these things with time. Meaningful research gets cited and replicated, worthless/biased research dies out or in extreme cases when huge flaws are pointed out the paper gets retracted (see the infamous paper by Zharkova from 2019). I would trust more expert scientists over people without any formal education on the field. If the ones not working as scientists have valid arguments, then why do they waste them in places that the scientists will never look for, ie. WUWT? Writing in WUWT has no impact on science, it only impacts the opinions of people that are not scientists. So besides the part of helping/getting help to understand the science in a simple way, I don’t see what the point of such blogs are. But this has to be done in an unbiased way, which is not the case.
As for my point here. I understand that I stand no chance in changing people’s opinions about AGW. I thought to try to ease my way into making people think why the articles here are biased.
Asking people to do what they already preach they do, but don’t. For instance I am bored of people telling me they have read a paper and then caught having no idea what that paper states.
However, with the responses I got from various people, it was obvious to me that I don’t want to waste my time arguing if the Earth is round or not.
I am disappointed by how tribal these blogs tend to be, but it makes me not want to waste any more of my time here.
I did indulge myself in a bit of making fun of certain responders, but I won’t overdo that either.
More mindless blather from dracfool.
Not one single bit of actual science.
Drachir: “I would trust more expert scientists over people without any formal education on the field.”
Me, I would want to hear what each had to say before deciding if they were worthy of being heard.
Drachir: “If the ones not working as scientists have valid arguments, then why do they waste them in places that the scientists will never look for, ie. WUWT? Writing in WUWT has no impact on science, it only impacts the opinions of people that are not scientists.”
It looks to me like Drachir is just here to try to discredit WUWT. He’s here to lecture and denigrate, not to learn.
We must be over the alarmist target, people. They are coming after us. But never fear, the alarmists don’t have any ammunition.
Actually, there are working and retired scientists who do read WUWT, and sometimes comment. The reason that contrary articles are published here is that there is a documented bias against being accepted in journals for which it is more important financially to maintain a reputation than it is to seek out truth. They are not risk takers.
I want to thank you for your messages. I won’t be checking this thread anymore. It was pleasant to see that at least one person was willing to have a more civil conversation, even if we disagree about it.
.
And it certainly WAS NOT YOU. !
Ugly, rude and IGNORANT from your very first post.
And you STILL haven’t produced any science AT ALL.
But Fred, you don’t understand. drac considers himself to be a morally and intellectually superior being. He’s entitled to insult lesser mortals.
Poor drac, he’s upset that the people he goes around insulting, get upset.
And pejorative! Which is, I think, the real reason for using the term.
First you declare this place a denier blog, then you declare that nothing written here can be true.
So much self importance, so little justification.
While you are more eloquent then Loydo and griff, mentally you are no different from them.
You decide right and wrong based on who is saying it.
prove me wrong that this is not a biased website.
show me an article from WUWT about a paper that shows AGW is true.
Your deficiency in logic is showing again.
So you can’t do this “prove me wrong that this is not a biased website.
show me an article from WUWT about a paper that shows AGW is true.”
that proves that WUWT is a biased place that won’t post anything that goes against to their narrative..
now play the deflect or ignore card
What is your proof that CO2 is the global climate control knob?
YAWN
Empty blather..
You don’t even know what “science” is, do you petal !!
It is forgotten here by the likes of MarkW and Fred that Mr Watts himself accepts that man (burning of fossil fuels) is contributing to the modern day warming as are DR’s Spencer and Curry. They just don’t believe the end result will be as bad as is being forecast by the IPCC. Which is why it always makes me laugh that when MarkW and Fred call us trolls they are the ones whose opinions are the extreme ones. In fact it is virtually impossible to find a (sane) climate scientist who does not accept the modern warming is at least in part due to our behaviour. If I am wrong, give us a few names?
I don’t know about Mr Watts, but the rest seems accurate to me.
I don’t know any sane climate scientist that claims modern warming has nothing to do with us, at least in part, either.
Ned Nikolov is the only name that comes to mind, but he is not a climate scientist.
What is a climate scientist?
YAWN, more mindless EMPTY blather fro dracfool.
ZERO CONTENT
Once again, Simon has to lie about what others believe in order to give himself some relevance. If you would care to actually read, you will find that I have always put the climate sensitivity to CO2 in the 0.3C to 0.7C range.
The simpleton tries to engage.
Falls flat on his face in his own BS !
STILL WAITING for some EVIDENCE from the simpleton. !
There is a possiblity that CO2 adds net warmth to the Earth’s atmosphere. I don’t think many here deny that entirely, although there are other theories about what we are seeing.
The question is how much warmth does CO2 add? It doesn’t add enough to be measurable at the present time. So not much considering the amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere.
And it was as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today yet CO2 concentrations were much lower then than they are today, so it appears that CO2 has added no warmth to the atmosphere since the Early Twentieth Century.
There may be AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) to some degree or another, but there is definitely no evidence that AGW will turn into CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
A strong weather system is *not* CAGW.
Spend a few minutes researching past articles. Articles in support of the AGW scam show up from time to time.
tell that to yourself every day, you might believe it at some point…
Hilarious…
In other words, drac has no intention of actually studying the subject. He already knows what the truth is and won’t risk learning anything else.
Still waiting for some ACTUAL SCIENCE from dracfool
This mindless blathering of his is BORING !!!
There are no papers that show that catastrophic AGW is true.
HOwever there have been a lot of papers that argue that position. Even Nick Stokes has had papers published here.
The fact that you refuse to look just goes to show how uninterested you are in learning what you don’t want to know.
How would you go about showing AGW (I assume you mean CAGW) is true?
It sounds like you have it all figured out, Drachir.
Thanks for all the instructions.
“And thanks for all the fish.”
Drachir: Exit stage left.
That is an implicit ad hominem. You are suggesting that what you are calling “peer review,” which is actually a form of ‘gate keeping’ to protect the reputation of the journals, is what make an article worthy of being called science. Actually, the real peer view takes place after publication. I may be read more widely by actual peers if published in journals commonly read by specialists in the field, but ‘peer review’ is not what makes it “science.” It is the argument made, and the evidence supporting it, that is important.
How typical, only those who agree with the consensus can be considered experts.
Everyone else is instantly converted to an uniformed denier, who must be ignored.
BTW, I’m still waiting for you to actually refute a single thing written here, or any of the other “denier” blogs.
I refute a claim made by one MarkW that modern cars with catalytic converters produce air cleaner than the ambient air. I also refute Marks statement that the average global temperature is higher for the last 10,000 years than it is today. I refute Fred’s statements that there is no evidence at all for CO2 producing warming.
No, you made some ignorant UNSUPPORTED anti-science statements
Sorry, but mindless conjecture is NOT EVIDENCE.
Nor are anti-science based models.
YOU HAVE REFUTED NOTHING !
Still waiting, simpleton….. for more BS from you.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Yawn!!!!
Remain an empty mindless sock, simpleton
Not that you have any other choice
Science just isn’t your thing , is it, simple slimon. !
I see that Simon still takes the position that disagreeing with someone is refutation.
“But don’t you see the danger of reading only blogs by deniers?”
Name-calling right off the bat. Can you define what anyone here denies?
He’s been asked that several times.
But has been TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing anything he can actually provide scientific evidence for
Do we need to “deny” Mills and Boon stories ???
Because that is about all they have.
“Can you define what anyone here denies”
OK here we go….
Many deny that the temperature of the planet is increasing.
And of those who do accept we are getting warmer, many deny it has anything to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
And of those who do believe we are warming and it is the result of burning FF’s, many deny there will be any harmful affects on humanity or other ecosystems going forward.
That about sorts it I think.
Poor simpleton
Planet temp has increased AT EL NINO events, NOT BETWEEN.
It is still much cooler than it has been for most of the last 10,000
There is NO EVIDENCE of any warming from human released atmospheric CO2
There is NO EVIDENCE that the increased CO2 and the slight warming has been ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL to ALL LIFE ON EARTH
You live in a mindless little anti-science FANTASY simpleton.
You are DEVOID of any scientific evidence what so ever.
Try again, mindless muppet…
… or just keep up your scientifically empty and baseless mantra regurgitations
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
The question was what we deny, that you can PRODUCE SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR.
So your comments are EMPTY as always.
Mills and Boon … is NOT scientific proof.
Once again, Simon has to lie about what others say and believe.
Then again, it’s not like Simon has ever bothered to engage his brain.
Nobody here denies that the Earth has warmed.
Some deny that CO2 is capable of being a greenhouse gas. Others just rightly point out that the signal for CO2, if it exists, can’t be found in the noisy climate signal that we have.
As to harmful affects, where are they? Yes climate models make all kinds of scary predictions, but then every other prediction made by climate models have failed.
You are the one who denies that in the recent past, when the earth was as much as 5C warmer than today, none of the bad things you predict, happened.
Going with the facts is not denial.
“Nobody here denies that the Earth has warmed.”
Ummmm….You do. You say the temperatures today are lower than the average for the last 10,000 years. In my book that is you saying it is not particularly warm. Ohh and Fred does. But he denies everything. He even denies being a denier. But that’s dear old Fred.
Forgive me for not noting that you had changed the time scale.
The evidence that the vast majority of the Holocene was much warmer than today is non-equivocal. Only a few die hard deniers still try to refute it.
I thought you were doing the standard lie that we deny that there has been warming over the last 100 to 200 years.
As to Fred, he puts up data to back up his claims. None of which you have refuted, or even attempted to.
It really is sad to watch you prance around, actually believing yourself to be superior.
“As to Fred, he puts up data to back up his claims. None of which you have refuted, or even attempted to.”
Yes, sir. Fred produces evidence for his claims, and the alarmists have no reply, so we get silence. The alarmists hope noone notices how quiet they are when it comes to producing evidence of claims they make.
Tom
I don’t reply to Fred because he goes beyond what I consider reasonable debate. He regularly uses childish adhom attacks and as a result I have decided he is not deserving of a response. Look below for a few examples
….Sorry you are so mentally enfeebled
…Why illustrate YOUR ABJECT IGNORANCE in every post you make ???
….You really are an nth class MORON, slimon.
….. What a simple-minded cretin you really are.
Why the moderators allow such language that is clearly breaks site rules is beyond me.
ast
You don’t reply, because you KNOW you can’t
You know that you CANNOT ANSWER even simple questions
You ARE mentally ineffective, and you KNOW IT.
You are TOTALLY IGNORANT, you keep proving that.
You ARE a moron, unable to substantiate anything you say…… a scientifically empty pot of mindless ooze.
And now you show that you are a pathetic whinging little slug on top of all that ignorance and lack of self worth.
.
Simon is one of those progressives who likes to pretend that he is superior to those he deigns to respond to.
I just think it is beneath us all to use such immature putdowns to support an argument. I certainly wont stoop to that level and WUWT never allowed such behaviour. Why would anyone think the points he makes are worthy of consideration when he lowers himself to hurl such vile abuse?
OMG you are PATHETIC.
You come here TROLLING mindlessly, then expect to be treated with kid gloves…
Get a backbone, don’t be a WORM all your life.
I have said NOTHING to you that isn’t the plain and absolute truth.
Look in the mirror, if you can stomach it..
That is a KNOWN FACT.
Sorry you are so mentally enfeebled that FACTS cannot be allowed. !
Seems the ONLY DENIER HERE IS YOU
You are a manic, ignorant CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER
I have said multiple times that there has been slight warming since the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years
That is an UNDENIABLE FACT.
It is also a FACT that the current temperature a lower than what it has been form MOST of the last 10,000 years
Why do you DENY THESE FACTS, simpleton slimon?
.
IT’S NOT.
Its still very much at a COOLER period of the Holocene
This is what ALL FACTS and ALL DATA tells us.
Why illustrate YOUR ABJECT IGNORANCE in every post you make ???
I state the proven FACTS, and you are such an ignorant simpleton, that you call it “denial” WOW !!!
You really are an nth class MORON, slimon. !!
.
Again.. ZERO EVIDENCE that this will be a the case.
Warmer has ALWAYS been a time of human and biosphere expansion and fertility.
Cold, like the recent LIA, has always been a time of hardship for humankind and for nature
I give you PROVABLE FACTS…. and you say its denial.
What a simple-minded cretin you really are.
Define “many.”
Since when does questioning amount to denying?
That would be true about good scientific papers. Unfortunately, all too often, the climatology papers that come to the attention of the MSM clearly have an agenda. On the 30th anniversary of Jim Hansen’s prediction, I did a detailed analysis of his claims and demonstrated that a naive linear extrapolation of historical records (using his own data) did a better job of predicting the future than Hansen’s modeled scenarios. Yet, everyone still insisted that the kings clothes were stunning.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
Many who post and comment here have enjoyed successful careers as professional scientists, engineers, doctors and in other STEM fields.
Many of the others have degrees in STEM disciplines, while having worked in other professions and jobs outside those fields.
I dare say numerous commenters here are more qualified to assess the merits or lack thereof of this post than are you,
Mr. John, you don’t know me, so making such an assumption as to whether I am qualified or not is baseless and only shows your bias.
I highly doubt that a serious scientist would waste their time on this website.
Can you give me any examples? You are not, otherwise you would have said so.
I did ask some scientists about WUWT and literally every single one laughed about it. They consider it a waste of time to even see the titles! think about it.
Scientists are payed to do research and they would have a job even if AGW was wrong because science is needed in our society. WUWT? it’s existence lies in trying to disprove AGW!!! and they rely on you to survive, by creating traffic in their website or by donations… they are simply fooling you.
What a load of empty, science-free blather. !!
Failed Arts student ?
Must be a disciple of Zhou Bai-Den, who “listens to the scientists.”
who do you listen to monte carlo (funny name… the irony with it is killing me)?
That you don’t understand the inference is also revealing.
that you think I didn’t get it to not answer my question is very revealing…
you don’t listen to the scientists, who do you listen to?…
To other scientist than you 😀
I for one, listen to everyone, then I examine the data. Only then do I make up my mind.
As opposed to drac who just listens to one side of the debate and then declares himself to be educated.
debate…. LMAO….
it still crackles me to think you consider there is a debate about this… the debate is about the mitigation not the cause… get up to speed…
Still the scientifically EMPTY blather. !
This one may be the dumbest of the lot—he thinks that if he can’t find something with Google Scholar, it doesn’t exist.
Step one, only read stuff you agree with.
Step two, declare that since you have never read anything you disagree with, such things don’t exist.
And to think, drac actually considers himself to be a scientist.
Yet there is ZERO EVIDENCE he has ever been anywhere near any actual science.
1) Who are these alleged “scientists“? Names please.
2) What is your concrete evidence that people who read WUWT are technically uneducated?
1) even if I give you names, this would be anecdotal. What you can do to prove me wrong would be to show me something posted here by actual scientists that support the position of WUWT. You might find some, but it would be interesting to discuss this.
2) The fact that people can’t understand the the lie of the article here, as I explained above, then we have different definitions for what is real. I hope you understand that if we can’t agree on something so simple any further discussion is going to be pointless
Learn some basic logic, your ignorance is revealed.
Dude, you’re incoherent and illogical. You butted in here with just propaganda
Once again, drac just declares that the article is a lie. But he can’t even begin to prove it. He just expects us to take his word for it. After all, he’s educated and we aren’t.
Looks like the level of a FAILED Arts student. !
Drachir: “The fact that people can’t understand the the lie of the article here, as I explained above, then we have different definitions for what is real.”
Very true.
Drachir: “I hope you understand that if we can’t agree on something so simple any further discussion is going to be pointless”
You’re leaving then?
drac isn’t feeling the level of worship he believes himself to be entitled to, so he’s heading back to his basement.
I’m getting that impression, too.
Yet you have no problem declaring that nobody who writes here is qualified.
So we can add hypocrite to your many other mental shortcomings.
I know many “serious” scientists who post here. The definition of serious is not “agrees with drac”.
Who were these so called scientists and how long have they been making a living off the global warming gravy train?
Finally, I love how drac is so proud of the fact that instead of thinking for himself, he asks others what he is supposed to believe.
What an obedient little troll.
you can start by naming a scientist that has posted here…
Jim Gorman
Pat Frank
How many more do you need, hypocrite?
Do you care to share links to google scholar?
I can’t find climate research papers from those authors, but the names are not unique.
More ZERO-SCIENCE from dracfool
DYOHW.
denier: “I have all the evidence”
real people: “shoe them to us”
denier: “do your own research/homework”
…
ahhh if only you could lay down for us what is inside your brain….
Request DENIED.
Oh dear, the abyss of actual science from dracfool continues…
Unabated unsubstantiated anti-science nonsense is his meme.
Still waiting for some empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
dracfool, still has absolutely nothing.
“DYOHW.”
Code for “you got me how do I get out of this?”
Simon => Code for ULTIMATELY DUMB and IGNORANT
They’re all so predictable.
Oh lookie–Simon the Shill to the rescue!
In his leaky barbed wire boat without a paddle.
Such a simpleton !!
You should do a google scholar search on: Moeller. See what he has to say about CO2.
So, if you don’t recognize the names, you dismiss them as not valid!
Jim Steele
Roy Spencer
Judith Curry
How about Nick Stokes, who also addresses your claim about bias?
Can you give me any examples?
Roy Spencer, Pat Frank, Nick Stokes, and myself. That qualifies as “any.”
You are PETTY, and you are WRONG !
There are people posting here who have many times the scientific understand than you will ever have.
Stick to your AGW DELUSIONS, muppet.
Mr. Fred, you don’t know me, so making such an assumption as to whether I am qualified or not is baseless and only shows your bias.
I highly doubt that a serious scientist would waste their time on this website.
Can you give me any examples? You are not, otherwise you would have said so.
I did ask some scientists about WUWT and literally every single one laughed about it. They consider it a waste of time to even see the titles! think about it.
Scientists are payed to do research and they would have a job even if AGW was wrong because science is needed in our society. WUWT? it’s existence lies in trying to disprove AGW!!! and they rely on you to survive, by creating traffic in their website or by donations… they are simply fooling you.
You call AGW delusions, but have you noticed that this idea survives literally only within climate denier blogs and organizations like prageru, friends of science etc?
There are no real scientists (monckton is not a scientist…) that can argue AGW is not happening.
And this is why these websites cherry pick and misrepresent the actual scientific papers expecting you not to read them! If you read them you would understand the hypocrisy and the lies the denier websites have been feeding you all this time
blah, blah blah
What a load of moronically empty , mindless prattle !!!
NOT ONE TINY BIT OF SCIENCE
Totally EMPTY.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
…you don’t know me, so making such an assumption as to whether I am qualified or not is baseless and only shows your bias.
The way you write shows your bias, and shows you are not qualified.
Not to accept for reasons based on science that CO2 is not the main climate driver is no reason to name these persons denier. The real scientist would listen and look to the presented arguments, everyone not interested to discuss both sides of view aren’t scientist but activists.
Exactly right, he is just regurgitating talking points fed to him by someone else.
is it a talking point that this article lied about no scientists doing research about natural climate change? sure…
I guess this is one of your talking points to deflect away…
Still posting to WUWT, hypocrite?
The article made no such claim.
Feel free to produce a paper , that you have read entirely, and actually understood that discusses ONLY NATURAL climate change without the fall-back on the CO2 farce.
It would DESTROY your tiny little mind. !
If I take the advice from the scientists to ignore such propaganda sites it will be also partly to the inability of the people in this blog to discuss on a single topic. I raised one point, that is that the author of this article lies about research being done about natural climate change..
I know this for a fact, since I’ve read the papers myself and I’ve talked to actual scientists doing such work. You be my guest and read this blog and believe whatever lie they feeds you…
Last thing, there are no 2 sides in science… There is just science… Anyone bringing up the 2 sides shows that they don’t know what science is… Don’t believe me? Go to a university (when possible) and ask scientists there and see what answers you’ll get about it.
Don’t fool yourself. 😀
You know what “2 sides of actual climate science ” mean, human driver or natural driver. or maybe a subset of both.
try to see if scientists argue about this.. not in blogs, in actual papers… It will destroy your world theory…
It is painfully obvious that you have no desire for a rational debate or discussion.
Papers than you are INCAPABLE of producing
Let’s try yet again, shall we, you poor science-free, attention-seeking muppet
Start with the basics……..
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Drachir, you are wasting your time engaging with Fred or Mark, they are not here for an honest debate. They’re strategy is to spam troll any comment they find threatening to their denial. My suggestion is to reply once or twice stating the facts, back it up with a graph/quote and a link and then then let them make fools of themselves with their puerile insults.
Poor loy-dodo,
Has NEVER been able to produce any actual SCIENCE or EVIDENCE for any of his puerile little comments
You remain a SCIENTIFIC WASTELAND, loy-dodo.
You cannot debate SCIENCE
BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE. !
On the rare occasion you do attempt to produce something, it invariably back-fires and slaps you in the face with your own BS.
I’m waiting for drac to present any facts. So far all he has done is declare that nobody here is a scientist so we’re all wrong.
As for Loydo, ignoring data that doesn’t coincide with what you are paid to believe is the only strategy you have ever mastered.
“Drachir, you are wasting your time engaging with Fred or Mark,”
You call that “engaging”?
The only thing you have brought up is your claim that the article is a lie, and everyone here is either uneducated, deluded or both.
You haven’t presented a single piece of supporting evidence, just told us that only those scientists that you agree with are real scientists and that unless we start believing them we will be dismissed by them.
That ignorant statement shows you know nothing about the history of science. What’s more, there are usually two sides until the science matures and there is a consensus on the acceptable paradigm. But, that is an unstable position as paradigms have been overturned often. Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance.
Evidence?
I have never seen any real scientist arguing humans are not affecting climate.
My proof. This is the list of scientists that argue AGW is not happening:
1)
quite empty..
All you have to do is show me some that say the opposite and then we can discuss about whether they are real scientists or whether what they say makes any sense. Moncton is not a scientist.
What you have seen or not seen is irrelevant.
You made the claim, YOU back it up.
Moncton is not a scientist.
Poof ?
For his work on the climate, Lord Monckton, who was Nerenberg Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario in 2013, has been presented with numerous honors, including the Meese-Noble Award for Freedom, the Valiant-for-Truth Award of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, the Santhigiri Ashram Award, and the Intelligence Medal of the Army of Colombia.Lord Monckton has authored numerous papers on the climate issue for the layman, as well as for leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. He established in a paper for the World Federation of Scientists that CO2 has a social benefit, not a social cost. He was also a co-author of the paper that showed the claim of “97% scientific consensus” about climate change to be false (the true figure is 0.35).His latest paper, currently in draft, exposes a substantial error in the computer models of climate that has led to wild official exaggerations of the high-end estimate of future manmade global warming. His recent publications on the climate question include:
Does Monckton have a phd in physics? or even bsc in physics? give me a link to a peer reviewed publication by monckton about climate, if he hasn’t got any in a non-predatory journal he is no scientist.
Giving a talk does not mean he was a lecturer…
https://caims.ca/news/2012-nerenberg-lecture/
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2012/11/monckton-spoke-at-u-western-ontario.html
See what I’m talking about? When people keep spreading lies of con artists some people will get fooled.
Do you?
Do I go and preach that I have proof that I researched?
I don’t need a degree for discussing science, I need a degree to refute it or create it though.
I don’t care if none of you have a degree for instance, we can still discuss it. but we just can’t refute it…
Another evasive non-answer to a direct question.
And its PATENTLY OBVIOUS that you have NEVER been anywhere near a science degree or anything remotely similar.
(No, I don’t mean a “social” science degree.) !
You CAN’T DISCUSS science
YOU DON’T HAVE ANY !!!
Did Newton?
Did Galileo?
The vast majority of scientists that have ever lived wouldn’t qualify as scientists according to drac. I guess we have to through out all of the basic science texts.
Of course not, and you might as well add Einstein to the list, He did a lot while working in the patent office.
Now he’s demanding that I post my CV.
you just claimed that Einstein either did not have a phd or never published a paper (the way you wrote it it is unclear…)
I won’t ruin it for you, google it…
I will just stay here laughing at your ignorance…. And you claim to be educated scientist… my %$#… you are
Reading comprehension was never taught at whatever school drac attended.
Only people with Phd’s in physics are scientists?
I guess Newton, Galileo, etc weren’t real scientists, so we should ignore anything they discovered as well.
Non-predatory journal?? You mean like Nature and Science?
By the way, your reverse name is a fail, Kenneth Richard…
The real Kenneth Richard is a sceptic 😀
who is this Kenneth Richard you are referring to?
Do you mean Rick Cina from notrickszone? another denier blog?
Poor dracfool
Any blog that presents ACTUAL SCIENCE, is now a “denier” blog
So funny
Intravenous KKA?
Carries the continual KKA drip-feed in his pseudo-man-bag.
You are making a MONUMENTAL FOOL of yourself, dracfool !!
Poor dracfool.
Lord Monckton has SEVERAL MAGNITUDES more understanding of maths and science that you will EVER be capable of.
.
Yep… YOU certainly have been FOOLED by the AGW CON-ARTISTS
No surprise though, seeing your total lack of rational thought processes or scientific comprehension..
It really is easy to empty that list when you declare a priori that everyone who disagrees with you is not a scientist.
I also love the way drac refuses to actually debate anything Sir Monckton presents, because Sir Monckton is not a “scientist”.
Define “real scientist” !
Apparently it’s someone who has all the right degrees.
You make numerous assertions without providing any science or evidence yourself! That gives your comment the feel of an ad hominem attack and leads me to think you probably espouse a communist ideology!
What part of Communism do you find most laudable; the deaths of millions through murder and starvation, the virtual slavery of the vast majority of the population, or the totalitarian rule of every example mankind has seen so far? If I am incorrect, please state your opposition; otherwise we have to assume you are just another pro-slavery fascist with a wide streak of the racism and imperialism rampant in the climate alarm industry!
the connection between climate change and communism is a stupid conspiracy theory espoused by denier blogs… You prove me right once again, you are stuck in your echo chamber of conspiracy theories and propaganda.
Funny you should say that. I know several acquaintances (I can’t call them friends) who moved smoothly from hard Left/Communism to environmental activism after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Do you understand that this is a scientific issue? You try to politicize it because the mitigation needs political action. However, this is irrelevant to the science behind it. If we were discussing mitigation then you have the right to bring the different ideologies and argue with which one you agree or not. But the scientific results don’t change based on your political alignment, science is neutral in these things.
Is it that you hate communism so much that you have connected it to climate change that you simply reject the science behind it? Do you realize how absurd that is?
Yes, and when asked for actual science..
YOU HAVE NONE. !!
And you obviously haven’t bothered listening to your AGW cult commanders, where they explicitly say that the aim is to bring down western culture.
You really are just another SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT waste-of-space mincing and yapping poodle, aren’t you.
Are you prepared to discuss the UN global climate models?
conspiracy theories have nothing to do with science… So no I don’t care about conspiracy theories.
So the UN IPCC global climate models are conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with science; interesting viewpoint, thanks.
Anything you don’t want to believe is a conspiracy, so it must be ignored.
Nice bit of circular logic you got going there.
Just like your claim that anyone who disagrees with the scientists you agree with is a denier and deniers must be ignored.
Ask Rahmsdorf about conspiracy theories, it’s a speciality of his thoughts..
hahahahahahahaha the fact that this comment gets so many downvotes is amazing…
We don’t even agree that conspiracy theories have nothing to do with science…
Ramstorf is climate scientist (really ?) and follows / spreads conspiracy theories in climate scince.
Your comment was a MORONIC comment…
…. of course it got voted down.
Its not a “theory” when the evidence stares you right in the face
You really are in WILLFUL DENIAL of your own cult’s religion and aims, aren’t you dracfool.
What science? There isn’t any in Climate “Science”. It is purely a Marxist/Globalist power grab in a thin “sciencey” disguise. See the quotes from Edenhofer and Figueres.
Come on wasted-of-space, dracfool.
What do we “deny” that you can produce real scientific evidence for?
So far a yapping chihuahua knows more about science than you do !!
You’re a marxist
The fact that most of those who are leaders in the movement are from the far left and many of them are quite open about their desire to use AGW to destroy capitalism.
scientists are from the far left? scientists want to destroy capitalism?
and then you think this is not conspiracy theory…
Ask Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf, Edenhofer f.e.
Reason of climate change is global capitalism, so for saving the climate, eliminate capitalism.
The Climate Challenge and the Great Transformation
Still EMPTY of any actual SCIENCE
poor dracfool, attention seeking muppet !!
Once again, drac has to change what I actually said in order to support his already disproven position. About what I’ve come to expect warmunists.
Just a small edit of your comment to give it validity, Drachir –
no, actual scientists publish in peer-review literature.
Here you have charlatans who are unable to perform proper scientific research (not even the review of the field for the introduction…) and post rubbish to you.
You prove them right that you are not skeptical at all and don’t bother to check the actual science but only the biased interpretation of these charlatans here…
YAWN
You don’t even know what “peer review” is do you
I doubt you have ever been near any reral science in all your pitiful existence
Let’s see some of your petty zero-evidence science, dracfool.
start with the basics.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Or is all we get going to be more mindless EMPTY blathering. !
Who taught you to repeat this idiotic talking point?
I’ve always found it fascinating how those who know nothing about science and how peer review works, always declare that only those who publish in the proper peer reviewed journals qualify as scientists.
what do you define as a scientist?
asking questions to understand what the others mean is downvoted here too… yes you are truth seekers and critical thinkers…. LMAO…
Still noting remotely resembling any science from dracfool.
So SADLY PATHETIC.
If CO2 is not The Control Knob for Earth’s climate, the CAGW Jenga tower collapses into a heap.
drac gets all bent out of shape when his bigotry gets downvoted.
A scientist is anyone who does science, using the scientific method.
Is this something everyone can do without education?
Do you feel confident that you will understand a scientific paper in any topic and that you can do research on it without spending the years to study it?
Yes, anyone can do science, regardless of education.
If you would open your mind and examine the great scientists of the past, few of them had the type of education that you declare is a requirement for being a scientist.
Would I have trouble with some of the technical terms in many scientific papers. Yes. But I could look them up and move on. All that is required is a willingness to learn and to leave your mind open.
Two requirements that you are proud of rejecting.
.
You seem to think you can !!
… and with ZERO signs of ANY scientific education at all… poor dracfool.
I see drac actually believes that education only happens at properly accredited universities.
Then again, if he believed otherwise, he’d have to admit that he has been wasting his parents money.
I would consider the essence of being a scientist is their attitude. They have a curiosity about how things work and explore their observations to develop hypotheses that can be tested. I’d consider Willis Eschenbach to be a scientist, even though he lacks the formal degrees that you would approve of. Insisting on a certain level of education is a form of ad hominem.
Horrified, am I.
What you are proposing is that Ronald Stein P.E. (Professional Engineer) is not ‘qualified’ to comment on a link back to Dr Roy Spencer (a reknowned climatologist) who is utilizing a graphic from Dr FC Ljundqvist’s (Professor of History and Geology) 2010 peer-reviewed paper.
Your strawman tactic of criticizing the source of information, rather than commenting on the veracity of the information presented, is just more of the monotonous drivel that sycophants of alleged man-made global warming consistently adore utilizing, and speaks more to your own disregard for critical thought than the gullibility of the people that post and/or comment on this site.
The person who wrote that article claims there are no studies of natural climate changes. Go to google scholar and search for “natural climate change”, you will get almost 4 million hits, sure some will also include anthropogenic parts, but not all.
This is proof enough that the person writing the article here tries to fool you.
Scientists don’t get funded just to support AGW, they are funded to do research and understand our climate. Part of that is to understand the natural mechanisms and there are many publications about that. So the person writing here claiming that there are no such studies is either completely ignorant of the topic, hence completely unqualified to write about it, or extremely biased and lying into your face, hence completely unqualified to write about it again!
prove me wrong.
More EVIDENCE -FREE garbage for the dracfool
How do you manage to type SO MUCH empty non-content garbage??
What is the uncertainty versus time of the output of the global climate models?
I’m sure drac doesn’t know. However “real” scientists have told him that it doesn’t matter, therefore anyone who says it does is just a denier.
This “denier” ad hominem is all he has.
I suspect that in the places he usually haunts, declaring someone a “denier” is usually enough to end the conversation.
He really isn’t smart enough to figure out why it doesn’t work the same way here.
No, he’s not. And when asked to be specific about his conspiracy theory accusations, he runs away.
Once again, drac has to lie about what others have said.
Sure evidence that even drac knows that he can’t refute what was actually written.
“The person who wrote that article claims there are no studies of natural climate changes.”
Again, your words speak for themselves. You wax poetic about the source of the information and intentionally avoid legitimate discussion about the actual data presented. When you counter with real data, I will be inclined to give your perspective more credence. My own view is you appear to be more inclined towards hijacking the thread than actually discussing climate.
Quite simply, Drac,
…..if YOU can’t argue with actual science.. You are just a meaningless brain-washed twit.
Let’s try, see if you can present actual science for the most basic fundaMENTAL of the AGW religion.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation
Will you be a complete and utter FAILURE like all other AGW troll wannabes?
so for me to prove you that a guy who claimed there are no studies about natural climate change is unqualified to write about science I need to prove to you that AGW is correct? denier logic…
you start by believing AGW is wrong, so anyone who says AGW is wrong is correct for you… This is rubbish
The discussion on AGW will have to stay for another time.
The person who wrote that article claims there are no studies of natural climate changes. Go to google scholar and search for “natural climate change”, you will get almost 4 million hits, sure some will also include anthropogenic parts, but not all.
This is proof enough that the person writing the article here tries to fool you.
Scientists don’t get funded just to support AGW, they are funded to do research and understand our climate. Part of that is to understand the natural mechanisms and there are many publications about that. So the person writing here claiming that there are no such studies is either completely ignorant of the topic, hence completely unqualified to write about it, or extremely biased and lying into your face, hence completely unqualified to write about it again!
prove me wrong.
Fred asked you for evidence. No surprise, you haven’t got any.
Now push off.
So the amount of papers found in google scholar when searching for natural climate change is not a proof that scientists have been researching about natural causes of climate change besides the anthropogenic one? Do I need to go find you and do the search and read it for you?
YAWN, its YOUR fantasy, little child
How about YOU produce the evidence.
Numbers do not equal proof.
numbers of papers do not equal proof to their existence?… hm is this denier logic? the number of grapes in my plate is no proof of their existence???… I think you have something there… oh wait no..
You keep yapping about demanding people prove negatives, and now claim my logic is deficient.
See the problem?
the stupidity… I am not asking you to prove a negative.. I know (and I know that you know since you googled it) there are plenty of papers about natural climate changes, that is a fact. A fact that contradicts the article here. Denying that is your problem and I won’t waste my time trying to make you see how irrational you sound denying it. I might have some more fun here though
Are you high on something?
I’ve “Googled” absolutely nothing.
And yes, despite your backpeddling denial here, you have demanded negatives be proven again and again.
I’m not asking you to prove you have intelligence… get over it… We know the answer…
I see drac is still convinced he’s the smartest kid on any block.
Despite his many failures towards demonstrating the same.
YAWN, Yet another yapping chihuahua style comment from dracfool
Science .. doesn’t even get a look in.
Any REAL paper on NATURAL climate changes would PROVE that the current slight warming is almost all TOTALLY NATURAL (a bit of Urban warming at best)
As you are well aware by now, there is NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2, so the whole putrid and stinking anti-science AGW edifice comes collapsing down on itself.
“One hundred experiments cannot prove me right. One experiment can prove me wrong.”
– Albert Einstein.
You really are clueless about the scientific method.
ok let’s say a “skeptic” goes and performs an ill-devised experiment that to them it proves the earth is flat. Is that enough for you to say that all previous studies have to be thrown to garbage, because this one experiment done by a non-scientist or expert showed the Earth is flat?
Let’s suppose drac said something that was both intelligent and relevant. Would that prove that he was right in his beliefs regarding global warming?
YAWN
STILL NO SCIENCE
Not even an attempt
LOSER. !!
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
As you repeat endless, is “Google” really relvant in climate questions, or are the algorytms in a certain way biased ?
so the fact that you get 4 million hits for natural climate change shows bias and not that there are many studies about it? how? explain…
We’re still waiting for your evidence that atmospheric CO2 controls temperature, rather than vice versa.
Fred and I can show you an absolute ton of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary.
you realize I didn’t say about that. But it’s the classic card deniers play. I argue something, you ignore it and ask me to prove GHE. I give you some scientific papers that support it and then you deflect in another way. It is fun how textbook you all are…
Feldman et al. 2015 is that enough?
Open your eyes, you have been lied to, and have believed the lies.
By now, I know I am far more educated than you. My education allows me to understand the topic, you on the other hand have political beliefs and conspiracy theories to worry about. Be sure to wear your tin foil hat! Oh and buy a faraday cage for your router!
ROFLMAO
Your education shows a DISTINCT LACK OF EDUCATION
and absolutely ZERO SCIENCE. !!
You are SCIENTIFIC NON-ENTITY !!
Ouch, this hurts.
Deeply.
What are my “conspiracy theories”?
you got the last sentence? maybe I slightly underestimated you… Though I doubt it… Can you show us what you understood by it?
Another avoidance of a direct, simple question.
And out comes the elitist bigot yet again.
drac actually believes that spending year at a university has prepared him to be an expert on every subject.
He also believes that anyone who hasn’t spent years in a university simply isn’t capable of understanding complex subjects.
Which is why we need educated people like himself to run the world and to tell all the uneducated people how to live their lives.
I doubt he is capable of deciphering a CMoB paper (probably has never even tried to read one end-to-end).
deciphering…. LMAO
Is it encrypted so that only deniers can make sense of it???…
You made me laugh again!
As we all know, the reason why drac refuses to read any of Lord Monckton’s papers is that he doesn’t understand them.
.
ROFLMAO..
FANTASY LANE.. Mills and Boon style !!
If drac could ever get rid of the ego, he might end up learning something.
Though I doubt he has any desire to do either. He already knows everything he wants to know.
Feldman had to CREATE a negative temperature gradient to measure a tiny pittance of nothing.
NOTHING in his paper about warming.
Seem SCIENCE IS NOT YOUR THING
You are TOTALLY DEVOID OF IT
Just empty Blather.
Feldman et al
ROFLMAO
You have just PROVEN you have absolutely ZERO understanding of actual science.
Do you know “how” he measured the CO2 radiation? He had to CREATE a negative temperature gradient using super-cooled sensors.
You do know the mean free path of that radiation is some 10m at surface atmosphere, don’t you?
The ONLY thing he did was show there was more CO2 in the atmosphere (a good thing)
No mention of “warming” just a tiny increase in a VERY COLD radiation band.
Seems your understanding of science and physics is BASICALLY NIL !!
Feldman et al
ROFLMAO
You have just PROVEN you have absolutely ZERO understanding of actual science.
Do you know “how” he measured the CO2 radiation?
He had to CREATE a negative temperature gradient using super-cooled sensors.
You do know the mean free path of that radiation is some 10m at surface atmosphere, don’t you?
The ONLY thing he did was show there was more CO2 in the atmosphere (a good thing)
No mention of “warming” just a tiny increase in a VERY COLD radiation band.
Seems your understanding of science and physics is BASICALLY NIL !!
Now dracfool, let’s see your “scientific” explanation on how a tiny change in a radiation frequency that requires a super-cooled sensor to even detect it, causes warming
We all need a laugh
….. and it is bound to be at your expense. !! 🙂
Please at least TRY to produce something resembling science this time !!
ROFLMAO
two simple questions
and all I get from you is NOTHING BUT EMPTY EVIDENCE-FREE BLATHER
STOP making an arrant FOOL of yourself. !!
As I suspected.
you are a A COMPLETE AND UTTER FAILURE !
Logic isn’t your strong suit.
said the person believing in conspiracy theories… oh the irony is big in you….
What conspiracy theories?
yawn.. STILL NO SCIENCE
HILARIOUS.
drac seems to believe that declaring something a “conspiracy theory” is some kind of magical incantation that can cause unhelpful data to disappear.
Also a replacement for actual scientific evidence
… of which he has NONE.
Just a whole of Billy Madison style bluster.
Unqualified Troll. Nothing more needs to be said.
You make assumption about me without knowing me. You prove that you are unqualified to judge things..
I make a point that the writer of this article lies to you about papers studying natural climate changes. Did you bother to look for it before coming here and insulting me?
Or is it enough for you that the author proposes that AGW is wrong, so you don’t care if he lies or knows nothing of the topic, since you already knew AGW is wrong and now you know it more… Do you see the stupidity of this?
More mindless ZERO-SCIENCE prattle.
Failed Arts student, by the sound of it !!
Certainly TOTALLY EMPTY on actual science
Would you like to try again ?? Its so funny watching your antics 😉
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
You’ve made yourself known you fool!
If you were qualified, you would be able to actually refute the points you disagree with instead of declaring that since this is a denier site, you don’t need to refute anything.
You have been asked many times to support the claims that you have made. So far your only response has been to declare that you don’t need to, and to insult anyone who dares to disagree with you.
critical thinking is one that is missing from this website. I’m here to have some fun with you. I know I won’t make any of you think critically for a second, but boy it is fun to see the swarm of minions saying the same talking points and denying reality even things right in front of our eyes…
enjoy my presence while it will last, then I’ll go do meaningful things and enjoy my life while you waste it in this echo chamber of a biased blog
Yet here you are, wasting your time.
trust me, I had a good laugh
Big mirror as you watch YOUR clown act ??
ROFLMAO.
and STILL NO SCIENCE to back up its blathering.
Deliberate and COWARDLY EVASION of anything remotely resembling science
A LOW-END muppet , at best !!
According to drac, critical thinking is defined as unquestioningly agreeing with what he tells us to believe.
.
Yes, we do see the UTTER STUPIDITY in ALL your comments
Certainly, no evidence related to actual science.
You assume much.
I don’t assume, I know.
Go to google scholar and search for “natural climate change”, you will get almost 4 million hits, sure some will also include anthropogenic parts, but not all.
This is proof enough that the person writing the article here tries to fool you.
Scientists don’t get funded just to support AGW, they are funded to do research and understand our climate. Part of that is to understand the natural mechanisms and there are many publications about that. So the person writing here claiming that there are no such studies is either completely ignorant of the topic, hence completely unqualified to write about it, or extremely biased and lying into your face, hence completely unqualified to write about it again!
Tell me where I am wrong here
I did as you asked. The first ten papers I read, although mentioning that natural climate change exists also insist that CO2 is currently the main driver. Several were also based on models only, which are designed to use CO2 as main driver. NONE of them attempted to show that all the warming is due solely to natural climate change.
Contrary to your straw man argument, they all bent a knee to CO2 being the main culprit in current warming. I found none that concluded current warming is only due to natural climate change.
wait… I never said that scientists argue there are only natural climate changes… I haven’t seen any real scientist argue that. It is basic physics that CO2 affects climate. But there is a lot of research on all the other factors besides CO2, contrary to what the person who wrote the article here argues. That is my point which you should have realized I am right when you did your search.
I am not making a straw man argument, I am destroying the main point of the article here, that there is no science done for natural climate changes.
Irrespective of what you think about AGW, we should be able to have a discussion without lies. This article here is lying about research on natural climate changes. Don’t you think this needs to be straightened out? Or is it fine to lie if it supports the website’s/your narrative?
YAWN !
So much blather
So little actual content !!
And certainly ZERO science.
Seem you are devoid of understanding of any actual real physics as well as.
You do know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you !!
Keep displaying your ignorance and brain-washing.
Be that empty sock.
Your LIES and MISINFORMATION certainly need straightening out.
Feldman et al 2015, definite proof that you deniers will avoid or misrepresent. bye bye troll
So why are you still here reading and posting to WUWT?
I suspect it’s a class assignment.
WRONG
Feldman showed NOTHING
He had to create a negative temperature gradient to message anything
PHYSIC is not your strong suit is it muppet
He mentioned NOTHING about warming, because the temperature actually went DOWN at one site and had ZERO EFFECT on the La-Nina to El-Nino period he measured over at the other.
Good thing he didn’t measure for longer, hey.. Back down to where temps started.
SCIENCE is not your thing is it , dracfool..
Your remain EVIDENCE-FREE.
I was ignoring you all this time, but I can’t miss the opportunity to say how much you made me laugh thinking you posted something smart and calling me not good in physics, when you just demonstrated that either you have no idea what spectra are or you didn’t read the paper by Feldman et al. 2015.
of course Feldman is not the only one
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5
Hilarious! dance troll, keep on dancing for me.
ROFMLAO
You really do love to highlight your ignorance of science don’t you, dracfool
Its all based on climate MODELS
And UN-VALIDATED ones at that
Interesting that someone pretending to be a “scientist” doesn’t know anything about science, and thinks model simulations are actual proof
Sorry dracfool, models are NEVER scientific evidence, ESPECIALLY not climate models.
You are EXPOSED AS A GULLIBLE and IGNORANT JACKASS..
Well done dracfool
Come on mindless muppet.
I want to see your explanation of how radiation, that requires a super-cooled sensor to even detect tiny amounts of it…
… causes warming.
This will be HILARIOUS !!! 🙂
WRONG !
and showing your TOTAL LACK OF SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING !!
.
Do you know “how” he measured the CO2 radiation?
He had to CREATE a negative temperature gradient using super-cooled sensors.
You do know the mean free path of that radiation is some 10m at surface atmosphere, don’t you?
No mention of “warming” at all in his paper…
Good thing too, because look what happened to the temperature
The ONLY thing he did was show there was more CO2 in the atmosphere (a good thing)
Just a tiny increase in a VERY COLD radiation band detectable ONLY with super-cooled sensors.
That is NOT GOING TO WARM ANYTHING.
Seems your understanding of science and physics is BASICALLY NIL !!
oh you expert fred (very last post to you, after that you are completely ignored, I won’t feed this troll anymore), with your superior intelligence and education, how is it possible that you haven’t written a reply paper to destroy Feldman et al. 2015? Or simply writing to the editor to have the paper retracted for all the mistakes they did….
Ah right, because you don’t know what you are talking about and you couldn’t even write a paper if you wanted to, let alone get a solid paper retracted…
Dance little troll, dance!
squirmy little ZERO-SCIENCE worm.
You are really starting to display your IGNORANCE of science
You have just shown that you know NOTHING about Feldman’s paper AT ALL.
It does not even discuss “warming” and shows little indication of understanding what they are actually measuring.
Its HILARIOUS. 🙂
Please keep going..
Now, those two questions , you have FAILED UTTERLY to answer.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
How do you manage so many scientifically VACUOUS posts.
You can only be a “science communicator” ex arts student
Very limited physics, maths etc
There is obviously very little actual science education in your background.
You appear to be basically INCAPABLE of any rational scientific understanding.
.
Yes, that is patently obvious !!
Your FAILED arts attempt, just doesn’t cut it, does it !
You are just mindlessly repeating climate catastrophists’ talking points.
Mindless repeating does seem to be drac’s strong suit.
In drac’s world, mindlessly repeating what one is told to believe, is an education.
When caught in a lie, drac backpedals with the best of them.
We have finally found something that he actually is good at.
and yet when I answer your irrelevant question, you accuse me of backpedaling while you try to mud the waters and insult me instead of addressing my point… yes my dear denier trolls, keep on dancing while everyone sees you have no credibility to discuss science..
It is YOU who is the denier.
That’s right, play the mirror card now to deflect and ignore my answer..
I wait for the next post that you accuse me for not responding..
Oh you are so textbook denier…
Ad hominem.
Again, you are are totally INCAPABLE of saying what we DENY that you have actual scientific proof for.
You are a SCIENTIFIC NON-ENTITY
Bereft of anything but BLIND BRAIN-WASHED ANTI-SCIENCE mantra.
You actually considering a mindless insult as “answering my question”?
Then again, you have yet to show that you have the ability to do anything more complicated.
ROFLMAO
In all your rambling anti-science diatribe.. (Billy Madison style)
…. you are yet to produce one bit of science that you actual are capable of understanding
Its HILARIOUS TO WATCH 🙂
Again, mindless muppet.
What do we deny that you can produce real scientific evidence for?
You are using a “word” but you are CLUELESS what it means
Stick to Mills and Boon science
Its all you have.
So funny , watching dracfool blunder around like a chook without a head.
Cackling mindlessly. present NOTHING but an empty mess .
Where is your evidence that posters to WUWT lack any technical education?
Hint: Google Scholar is not evidence.
As usual, everything drac “knows” is untrue.
Scientists do not get funded to do research. Scientists make proposals about what they want to research, then if the funding agencies like the proposals, they get funded.
Every time drac tries to prove how knowledgeable he is, he ends up proving that he doesn’t know anything.
really? so when someone becomes professor in a university he signs a contract what he will find for the rest of his life? Or when they hire phds, postdocs are they told what to find too? You seem to be completely unaware of scientific freedom on what to do research on, which tells me that you have nothing to do with science. Which was obvious from your writing, but this put the final nail in the coffin..
Also do you think your argument is good for your point against me?
There are many studies about natural climate change, someone funded them… right?
Oh look , still ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE
SAD and PATHETIC. !!!
And once again, when caught in a lie, drac changes the subject.
.
And yet you STILL haven’t produced one
HILARIOUS ! 🙂
Even the monkeys are laughing at you.
Poor dracfool, seems to be totally OBLIVIOUS to REALITY.
Never been anywhere NEAR a university, is my guess.
All just attention-seeking bluster and fake bravado.
Its quite comical ! 🙂
Doubt the poor cretin has ever been near any real scientist.
There is very little sign of any rational scientific thought..
I can’t detect any evidence of rational thought, period.
Studying natural climate change, which the writer of this opinion thinks is not funded, is something scientists do all the time.
Just wrong in the beginning, the scientific journals you may think about don’t publish paper about natural climate change but about human induced climate change. That’s the assumption CO2 is the one and only climate driver, at least the most powerfull.
Paper about “natural climate change” only, without CO2 as reason, but clouds, sun, solar magnetism, earth magnetism, UV radiation have problems to be published because of as much bias as possible.
So stop maundering about “natural climate change” – you have no clue about.
See how much they have manipulated you?
There is literally no scientist arguing that humans caused climate change 15 million years back, there were no humans.
There is literally no scientist arguing CO2 can’t have an effect on climate…
There are plenty of studies on past climate when humans had no effect! Just google it. I had an argument with you about it in another post here, where they studied only natural changes, and the denier who wrote that article considered it proof that humans don’t cause climate change… See the bias? On one hand you argue scientists don’t study natural climate changes (lie, just search it in google scholar) and on the other hand when they do you argue that proves humans don’t cause climate change, which is also wrong argument… notrickszones list are a huge testament to this, basically no paper in their lists disproves AGW, but whenever they find a paper studying only natural effects and not anthropogenic they jump in to use it as a disproof of AGW…
prove me wrong…
YAWN
Dracfool is still TOTALLY ABSENT of anything even resembling actual science
BORING !!
In case you are wondering why people ignore you is the lack of intellect from your side, the insults and the seer amount of stupidity of yours.
My little troll, you can continue spamming the place, you won’t get any response from me, unless you manage to produce a coherent and meaningful sentence.
You should realize that you are proof that climate denial is only for the most idiotic people and in the end it is a lost cause….
Another baseless assertion.
Poor dracfool
You keep PROVING ME CORRECT
No science
No Evidence
an empty abyss of scientific reasoning
RUN AND HIDE, little worm
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
.
Still waiting for your “coherent and meaningful sentence“.
Seems YOU HAVE NONE!
So sad that your level of science is SO LOW that you cannot even attempt to answer two simple questions..
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
.
Again the use of that word that YOU CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE.
Is it just brain-washed ignorance that drives you ?
See how much they have manipulated you?
I read all tetxt my self, both sides.
There is literally no scientist arguing that humans caused climate change 15 million years back, there were no humans.
I don’t argue that too, empty argument at least.
There is literally no scientist arguing CO2 can’t have an effect on climate…
No problem on my side, but the question is not and was never “if” but “how much” 😀
And is the interpretation of forcings and feedbacks correct or not.
You may see that your argumentation runs into a brick wall.
.
And from your abortive non-attempts at producing actual evidence, ..
its seems that there are NO SCIENTISTS able to prove that CO2 does actually cause warming.
One thing that stuck out immediately, not even an attempt to actually refute anything written.
Just ad-hominem attacks on anyone who dares to disagree and repeated claims that only those who believe he does, count as scientists.
Our trolls don’t even try to think for themselves anymore.
I thought people can check things like this easily…
Go to google scholar and search for “natural climate change”, you will get almost 4 million hits, sure some will also include anthropogenic parts, but not all.
This is proof enough that the person writing the article here tries to fool you.
Scientists don’t get funded just to support AGW, they are funded to do research and understand our climate. Part of that is to understand the natural mechanisms and there are many publications about that. So the person writing here claiming that there are no such studies is either completely ignorant of the topic, hence completely unqualified to write about it, or extremely biased and lying into your face, hence completely unqualified to write about it again!
prove me wrong.
STILL NOTHING from dracfool.
How do you manage such scientifically empty posts time after time after time !!
How many more times will you be posting the exact same nonsense?
YOU made the assertion that people here are uneducated, it is up to YOU to provide the evidence for this baseless claim.
Posting a different response would require that drac first actually read the writings of a denier, something that is beneath him.
Secondly it would require drac to spend time thinking. He’s not paid to think.
1) Lie about what the original claim was
2) Lie about what the data shows
3) Lie about how funding works for scientists
4) Rather than actually supporting his claims, demand that others prove him wrong.
4a) Of course drac gets to determine what is evidence and what isn’t evidence. Only evidence that he agrees with and scientists that he likes can be used in any attempt to prove him wrong.
if you wanted to have a discussion you could have explained why any of the above 5 points are valid. You decided not to.. so.. following your case I will just say the opposite of what you wrote. Is this how you discuss here in denier blogs?
Poor scientifically EMPTY dracfool !
We discuss with SCIENCE
YOU HAVE NONE !
So now you want to deny what you have written?
An appeal to be skeptical “Read the texts for yourselves…”
Is going to give a massive down-vote here Drachir. Skepticism is optional here.
EVIDENCE isn’t an option from Loy-dodo, is it
Just BLIND GULLIBLE IGNORANT “BELIEF”.
There is NOTHING to be skeptical about…..
One does not need to be skeptical of Grimm Bros fairy-tales, or in your case Mills and Boon…
…. .. which is all you seem to have to offer.
Let’s try again shall we, just so everyone can LAUGH AT YOUR INCOMPETENCE.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Andy from Dubbo. Have you noticed that no matter how many comments you make there is never a “Reply to fred250”? That is 33 comments that have put a full stop on every discussion they’ve entered. I think commenters have found the best way to deal with your rants and factless assertions; ignore them
Who’s this Andy dude?
Very few trolls can deal with data that refutes what they are paid to believe.
Poor little gee
Still chasing your old flame.. so SAD. ! and PATHETIC. so SICK !!!
Yep those two questions that he used to use stop you and your pathetic AGW cultists every time, don’t they.
Ignore what YOU CANNOT ANSWER….. that’s the way 😉
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Loydo’s ability to see only what it is paid to see is getting stronger.
Paid NOTHING and sees NOTHING.
A blind, ignorant monkey ….
I see that… deniers are many things, skeptical they are not…
as they proved here, the article has blatant lies, and not only they don’t question them they downvote the one that askes them to read for themselves and not let others think for themselves… the irony…
Still ZERO SCIENCE from Dracfool
Come on little monkey,
What do we “DENY” that you can provide actual scientific proof for
We are waiting
Still no evidence of even the most basic farce of the AGW Mills and Boon soap opera.
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
What is the uncertainty of temperature versus time of Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart?
After having read all your posts here I must admit, I saw not one with at least one argument, you only twind around like a blind worm.
You repeat that we don’t know you, that’s right, but sorry, the way you started here shows, it doesn’t worth to know you. What I realised by your presentation here is worse as I may have thought is possible, bye
😀
oh no please don’t go… and you hadn’t presented any argument yet…
I was having so much fun reading how you tried to make it look that monckton is a scientist, even though he has no degree in physics and has never published any peer reviewed paper about climate…
To be climate scientists a degree in physics is no obligation, you may have a degree in Maths, Statistics, in Biology, in Geology, in Geography (that’s where climate is teached), Petrophysics and many other disciplines.
That’s one at least.
A review
by a scientist 😀
I beg to differ… if it is that you argue about physics you need a physics degree..
geography? seriously? you think climate is taught in geography, what do they do in physics then?
And then monckton has none of the above… Last time I checked journalism is not considered science and hence he has no background related to climate. Can we agree on that or facts don’t go well with you here?
“That’s one at least”? That is the only one, in a questionable journal, but kudos that he managed to publish a paper that due to its bias has been and will be largely ignored by anyone since it is not contributing anything useful…
Please entertain me with another one if you know there are more..
again you need someone else’s opinion to understand that it is trash? so you need the “review” which is nothing more than a denier’s opinion on the “paper”?
why then not take this opposite opinion? (see that I didn’t misrepresent it as a review 😉 )
https://www.realskeptic.com/2015/06/02/moncktons-fundamentally-flawed-simple-climate-model/
did you take “both sides of the coin” for this “paper” too? Or do you ask me to read the papers and read deniers’ opinions so that denial stays alive?
geography? seriously? you think climate is taught in geography, what do they do in physics then?
Climatology – WikipediaThis modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences
Jan Esper, Head of Unit
Department of Geography, Gutenberg University, Mainz
Research Interests
TeachingSummer 2020
Source
My sons prof while studying Geography.
Monckton is about to write a second paper as he declared some weeks ago.
That is the only one, in a questionable journal,
The Asian “Nature”, yeah, doubious for you 😀
Short once more – you are clueless. 😀
physical geography, ok you have a point there.
Let’s see his second paper when/if he manages to publish it. Is that all? only one paper then?
The journal was called Chinese Science Bulletin nothing to do with nature, it run from 1996 to 2016 when it stopped publishing.
You might care to address this part now:
“Please entertain me with another one if you know there are more..
again you need someone else’s opinion to understand that it is trash? so you need the “review” which is nothing more than a denier’s opinion on the “paper”?
why then not take this opposite opinion? (see that I didn’t misrepresent it as a review https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.0.1/svg/1f609.svg )
https://www.realskeptic.com/2015/06/02/moncktons-fundamentally-flawed-simple-climate-model/
did you take “both sides of the coin” for this “paper” too? Or do you ask me to read the papers and read deniers’ opinions so that denial stays alive?”
As long as you keep calling people here “deniers” you will never be taken seriously.
Very strongly suspect you care not.
Poor muppet can’t even answer simple questions
like
What do we DENY that he has real scientific evidence for.?
nd he can’t even put forward any science for the most basic farce of the whole AGW cult religion, warming by atmospheric CO2
You watch him duck and weave , YET AGAIN.. Its HILARIOUS. 🙂
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?
Plus he has this weird hangup about judging who is a “scientist”, but then runs away when asked for his definition of the word.
drac seems to have this belief in magic incantations.
Scientist, peer review, conspiracy theory, denier. Any of these terms are supposed to end all debate and prove drac’s mental superiority to all of us lesser beings.
drac does not appear to have any interest in us taking him seriously.
He is after worshippers.
Moncktons answer to the BS
Nothing more to say.
Let’s see his second paper when/if he manages to publish it. Is that all? only one paper then?
Better one good than 100 BS papers 😀
drac’s tests sure are flexible. As soon as one is met, he invents another one.
YAWN !
dracfool and his ZERO SCIENCE continues
Its NOTHING but an ATTENTION SEEKING, scientifically empty comedy act.
An article by a SCIENCE-FREE “communicator” who wouldn’t know science if it bit her on the but !!
.. ROFLMAO
Ah yes, the elitist opinion that only those who have the right degrees from the right universities have any right to an opinion.
Ah so according to you….
Gavin Schmidt is NOT a climate scientist.
Kevin Trenberth is NOT a climate scientist
Michael Mann is NOT a climate scientist
Nearly all climate modeller ARE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. (very few have any actual real “physics” in their education)
You really have fallen face first into your own ignorance and BS, haven’t you, poor cretin !!
And YOU are still and science-free zone.
An empty minded yapping chihuahua would have more scientific acumen that you have !
Anyone else notice a similarity between drac and Brian Jackson.
Both have massive egos.
Both present no facts, just expect everyone else to accept the word of those they declare to be experts.
Both seem to have a huge amount of time to waste insulting people who don’t agree with them.
Shortly after Brian disappears, drac shows up with an obviously fake name.
Where is your detailed evidence that any of it is “rubbish?” Stating an opinion does not make it so.
An assumption at best, but clearly an unsupported opinion. Do you really think that stating your opinions without supporting evidence will change anyone’s opinion? If so, then your ego is even larger than Mann’s!
What I want to know (asking as rhetorical question; knowing full well there will be no answers forthcoming from the current “scientific” establishment) is how did all of these poor creatures like polar bears, walrus, seals and others that really are endangered, survive those past warm periods? If animal X (fill in the blank) is in decline today due to human caused climate change, then how come it didn’t go extinct when the climate was even warmer than today? Why do we still have polar bears, which have survived many ice ages and warm periods in their 250K+ years as a separate species? And finally, why are we still here? If mild warming is so catastrophic, how did pre-industrial and pre-agricultural humanity survive?
You’ll never get a cogent reply from Warmunists to that question, simply because it is unanswerable.
past climate changes were slow enough for species to adapt, now we are doing it within 100 years. Though WE are causing extinctions not only due to are influence on climate, but also with our lifestyle, deforestation causing habitat loss is a big factor for instance. Cities also are not ideal for most animals, though some thrive in them.
I don’t think anyone expects humans to go extinct because of climate change, but it can cause serious problems. Imagine if the tropics become uninhabitable due to hot temperatures, we are talking about massive migration waves, the likes of which we have not seen yet. Or if droughts are increased, there might be food shortage etc etc.
Working group 2 of IPCC details these in a very nice way, you might want to give them a look
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Doom porn.
oh the level of intellect in your response.
I realize you might not understand sarcasm, so to make it clear, your response was very unintelligent..
Poor dracfool,
STILL NOTHING except moronic regurgitation.
Just BRAIN-HOSED anti-science NONSENSE.
Remain SCIENCE-FREE , little child.
How do you know what the rate of change was? The temporal resolution of the proxies is not sufficient to tell. However, we do know that the rate of temperature change at the end of the last Ice Age during the Younger Dryas was very much more rapid than any changes recently.
I doubt drac will ever respond to this post.
That would require actual thought.
no I won’t, because this is a very chaotic thread and you have proved that since you think science is connected to conspiracy theories there is no point to try to say anything else to you.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/The%20Younger%20Dryas
OK, taking it slow:
1) You: “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a proven fact.”
2) Not stated but strongly implied: “Modern CAGW is caused by carbon dioxide increases from burning hydrocarbon fuels.”
3) Me: “What is the optimum concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere?”
4) You: No coherent technical answer, but “Anyone who does not believe (1) is a denier troll.”
because you are NOTHING but a scientifically incapable jackass. !!
And once again, instead of actually responding to the data, drac decides to lie about what others have said.
And to think, he actually considers himself to be the educated one.
Plus he is blind to the fact that people here have quite a wide range of views regarding global climate, and don’t attack each other over differences, yet lumps all into his “climate denier conspiracy theorist” bucket.
That seems to be a common characteristic amongst the CAGW crowd.
Didn’t you tell earlier (below) actual CC is to fast to adapt, natural CC was a slow one, and I gave you the hint to Dansgaard–Oeschger Events?
And now you come along and cant about fast CC 😀
Honk
Thank you so much, Drac! Your link illustrates nicely my point just how abrupt and sudden the Younger Dryas was compared with any climate change today.
Now care to explain why Polar Bears failed to become extinct during warm periods in the past?
Stick to Mills and Boon, clown
Its about your scientific level !!
Haven’t read such a science-free load of BS for quite a while.
past climate changes were slow enough for species to adapt, now we are doing it within 100 years.
Seems your knowledge about natural climate change tends to zero, proven by the cited text of your comment.
You ever heard / read about Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles ?
No ?
Start to study climate history and natural climate change. You may start here.
Btw, my impression is, you are a real science denier 😀
I go so far to add, that every (climate) scientist telling us, the actual warming of some tenth of a degree is unprecedented is a liar.
Imagine if the tropics become uninhabitable due to hot temperatures
Will they ? 😀
I see that our self declared expert on everything dealing with climate doesn’t know about the problems with the resolution of proxies.
He is absolutely clueless about any question about climate.
I am not the one considering monckton to be a scientist… but sure, I am the clueless…
Why does it matter?
How did CMoB put a burr under your saddle?
CMoB is famous, and drac isn’t.
Since according to him, he is one of the most educated people on the planet, that is just unacceptable.
Lord Monckton has several magnitude the scientific understanding than you will ever have or be capable of. !!
Don’t be so, so jealous.
Monckton is more of a scientist than you will ever be.
All you are capable of doing is regurgitating the stuff you believe you were taught. The ability to actually understand the stuff you spout is apparently beyond your feeble abilities.
Poor dracfool
CAN’T ARGUE about SCIENCE
Can’t counter Lord Monckton’s maths and physics..
An utterly pointless waste of space..
A SCIENCE-FREE zone !
“past climate changes were slow enough for species to adapt, now we are doing it within 100 years”
Now we are doing what?
Using an IPCC assessment as a means to shore up your perspective has a significant downside: the IPCC allows authors to “peer-review” their own material which flies in the very face of the process of peer-review. Furthermore, the IPCC is NOT a scientific organization, it is a political construct and the publications created by the IPCC are political in purpose. For this and other reasons (absurd predictions), the IPCC has been largely discredited in terms of relevant climate science. It is now viewed as primarily a political mechanism, a view that has also been expressed by past lead authors of these assessments.
(Dr John Christy-No Consensus on IPCC’s Level of Ignorance)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
Maybe 1,000 year solar cycles could possibly explain the graph?
shoehorn
correct on a 1000 year cycle, but more likely a combination of solar and volcanic.
They expect another explosion in Iceland soon.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/03/04/the-1000-year-eddy-cycle/
“ the same humanity that endured previous warming cycles “, endured? I would say we prospered.
Nicely organized article, but with all due respect, the grammatical and spelling errors detract greatly from the credibility of the scientific facts presented. Please be careful! I was going to forward this article to several alarmists, but I know in advance that they will destroy this post for the grammatical errors!
As general question, is south hemisphere, more stable in terms of it’s average temperature?
Or similar question, does a hemisphere lead or follow the other?
SH is 81% ocean, plus freshwater ice upon Antarctica. NH is only 61% ocean, with a lot of shallow continental shelf.
So-called “global warming” isn’t. Arctic has allegedly warmed the most, but “data” from that region are mainly made up. North Temperate Zone is supposedly the next most “warmed” area, followed by Northern and Southern Tropics, then South Temperate Zone. As for the Antarctic, no warming at all has been observed at the South Pole since record keeping began in 1958, and West Antarctica is a volcanic arc, part of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
Some scientists have argued that more CO2, ie plant food, in our air actually cools Antarctica, contrary to the GHE hypothesis. This reverse GHE has also been suggested for the hottest part of the moist tropics.
Actually, the warming is coming from the north and slowly expanding to the south.
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/01/26/am-i-a-climate-denier-denialist/
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/03/04/the-1000-year-eddy-cycle/
https://www.dw.com/en/iceland-bracing-for-volcanic-eruption-after-many-quakes/a-56893744
Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Radiametric calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 based came up with a value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 not including feedbacks of 1.2 degrees C. However these calculations neglected to include the fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which will lower the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 dropping the climate sensitivity of CO2 to less than .06 degrees C. Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR radiation than is CO2 and on average there is 50 times more H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere than is CO2. So H2O must be the primary so called greenhouse gas. The idea is that CO2 warming causes more H2O to enter the Earth’s atmosphere which causes even more warming which causes even more H2O to enter the Earth’s atmosphere and so on. But this logic ignores the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy by the heat of vaporization. The overall cooling effects of H2O are evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. So instead of enhancing any possible CO2 warming H2O must cause it to diminish and tend toward zero.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse house effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, the Earth’s atmosphere or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The insulating effects of the atmosphere is entirely a convective greenhouse effect which is a function of pressure and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Any possible radiant effects are corrected by convection. Because the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero is why no one has been able to measure it. Fundamentally gases that are good absorbers are also good radiators and in terms of radiation do not trap heat energy. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well. The only way that adding CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere could cause warming is if the adding of CO2 caused an increase in surface pressure overcoming the effect of added CO2 lowering the dry lapse rate. To date, no one has provided any evidence that the surface pressure is increasing because of the generation of CO2 so CO2 cannot possible be causing any warming. This is all a matter of science.
True.Empirically, I could not confirm an effect from CO2.
It is just getting warmer because nature wants it
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2021/03/04/the-1000-year-eddy-cycle/
WOW, someone that actually understands how the atmosphere works.
Well done William 🙂
Interesting article