Special to Climate Depot
FACT CHECKING THE FACT-CHECKERS
By Dr. Ian Plimer, Emeritus Professor – The University of Melbourne, Australia
The article claims, “Neither Plimer nor the social media user responded when USA TODAY asked which “six great ice ages” they were referencing.”
That is a lie. USA TODAY did not contact me despite the fact that I am easily contactable.
USA TODAY’s fact checks state that “Human greenhouse gas emissions, not El Niño, drive climate change”. Nowhere have I claimed El Niño drives climate change, and it has never been shown that human emissions drive global warming. If it could be shown, then it would also have to be shown that the modern warming is completely different from previous warming. This has not been done.
USA TODAY’s fact checks state that “Greenhouse gases, not Milankovitch cycles, drives modern global warming”. This is contrary to data on the Earth’s orbit, solar activity and plate tectonics. Furthermore, it was never been shown that greenhouse gases drive climate change.
USA TODAY’s fact checks state that “Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.” If one molecule of plant food in 83,333 molecules in the atmosphere is a significant amount, then I’m a monkey’s uncle. It would also have to be shown that the molecules of plant food of natural origin do not drive global warming.
USA TODAY’s rating of a talk I gave was “Partly false” regarding six major ice ages, and then played semantic games as to whether an ice age or a glaciation within an ice age could be considered an ice age.
The key points of my talk were not addressed. These were:
(a) Ice ages and glaciations were initiated when the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was far higher than today (e.g. Huronian, Cryogenian, Permo-Carboniferous) hence, atmospheric carbon dioxide could not drive global warming.
(b) Increases in atmospheric temperature are followed by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is the opposite of the climate activist mantra that suggests an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global warming.
(c) For decades, I have asked climate activists to give me half a dozen scientific papers that show unequivocally that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. This has not been done.
It appears that fact-checking resorted to lies and omissions of pertinent information. Ideologically-blessed activist fact checkers with no scientific training give little confidence.
Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer,
The University of Melbourne,
Australia
Media’s ‘fact-checking resorted to lies & omissions’
And even that is not enough.
“””Climate politics is more complex and urgent than ever – is the IPCC still fit for purpose?”””
Cue the anxiety…
“””One way forward for the IPCC would be simply to make minor reforms that adapt to the current political reality. It may, for example, claim a stronger commitment to including social sciences”””
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/05/climate-politics-ipcc-emergency
Pseudoscience rools.
In that article I got as far as “In its 35 years, the UN body has become the most authoritative global source of knowledge on climate breakdown.”
Climate breakdown? That’s where I stopped reading.
Quite right, too
I’m into my eighth decade on this planet and I’ve encountered many more hot summers than what we’re seeing now. These climate cultists and group-thinking zombies are pushing so much nonsense it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic and damaging to our children who are buying into this idiocy, thinking the world is going to end, and are depressed and without hope for their futures. That in itself is criminal.
Also octagenerian, seen lots of hot summers in Australia (and some cold winters in northern Canada).
Geoff S
Here’s an idea: perhaps people in the West have forgotten what a hot Summer is really like because they spend most of their time in air-conditioned houses, workplaces, and cars.
Where’s Greta and her “follow the science” harangue when you need it?
She’s an older spinster now
If these activist “journalists” at USA TODAY and elsewhere believe there is a climate crisis from human-emitted CO2, then I suggest that the USA TODAY and other mainstream media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, the AP and others) be the first to be taken off grid to fight the “climate crisis”. They make the least meaningful contributions to the U.S. economy, and they can learn to run their operations off on solar panels on their roofs. I wish them luck when the sun isn’t shining.
Ms. Petersen’s “fact checker” sources appear to be only a handful of people whom she apparently believes she can trust. I will hazard a guess and suggest she probably has a list of scientists with whom she is told to confer when writing a “hit piece,” and her employer probably restricts her to that list.
I don’t know if the USA TODAY received a philanthropic payment from some wealthy billionaire like the AP did to launch a journalistic campaign of climate alarmism and attacks on those like Pilmer. If they did, it obviously explains what is actually going on here. Money talks.
I agree, it’s funny that those who scream hysterically and wet the bed over climate alarmism, are the biggest CO2 emitters with private jets, beach front homes that use more electricity per month than an entire Indonesian city and not a useless battery car in sight
I like geologists. They have a tremendous understanding of the vast changes that the Earth has gone through in billions of years. I suspect few geologists are terrified of the supposed “climate emergency”. I subscribe to several geology YouTube channels.
Generally true. But maybe you can help me out. There is one geologist I remember that is a rabid warmest and very persuasive unfortunately . I can ‘t remember his name. He specializes professionally in space rocks ( asteroids fragments etc) but spent a summer as a grad student workin on ice cores. Loves to give CAGW lectures, was in the air force. Uses classical persuasion techniques ( builds his credibility in opening) but always stop short on the details in the 2nd half of the lectures.
I have been trying to locate his old vids, but can’t find em or remember his name, frustrating , he believes we have been altering the climate ever since man switched from hunter gatherer to agriculture! Gray hair and mustache very personable fellow good public speaker… which makes it worse.
The last you tube vid I saw of him was like 2011 .
Sorry, I don’t know who that geologist is. If he specialized in historical geology or maybe stratigraphy he might have a different opinion. I’ll look on YouTube. The ones I watch don’t seem to broach the subject of climate but when you’re aware of mountains coming and going- oceans coming and going- ice ages coming and going- continents sliding around and crashing into each other- you don’t fret over a few degrees temperature. I should ask them. I wish I had majored in geology rather than forestry. I like walking in the forests but forestry is very political, dominated by useless bureaucracies, oppressed by enviros and endless arguments. It’s good exercise but not intellectually stimulating as the study of the Earth over vast time periods.
Where was he located, tall, short, skinny?
“”I like geologists””
They can’t rush things
I think I read that continents move about as fast as your fingernails grow.
It’s mm/ yr
centimetres
I don’t believe they move that fast.
What you believe is not important. What is measured is. THis is science based forum, I thought. Check what science knows before telling us what you believe? ? The mid-Atlantic ridge separates about 2cm pa. The more lively Pacific plate is heading for subduction under the north-east corner of the Australian plate at 24 cm pa. No seafloor is more than 200 million years old -because it is recycled into the mantle at that point to become new seafloor somewhere else, later. Geology 101. Easy to find out with some basic reading pre high school level.. Best not to believe anything that you have not checked yourself, because most people simply tell you what they believe and never make the effort to know or understand what they give their opinions on. etc.
> I don’t believe they move that fast
Rather than espousing unfounded beliefs, Wuy not just get a bit of data from an authoritative source:
According to USGS:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html
These average rates of plate separations can range widely. The Arctic Ridge has the slowest rate (less than 2.5 cm/yr), and the East Pacific Rise near Easter Island, in the South Pacific about 3,400 km west of Chile, has the fastest rate (more than 15 cm/yr)
Bl**dy “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.” strikes again to prevent sa simple typo edit 🙂
Why, not Wuy
And Wegener went against the consensus with his theory regarding continental drift
Here is link for a place you can actually walk between two plates. It says the plates are separating at about 2.5 cm per year.
https://guidetoiceland.is/connect-with-locals/jorunnsg/ingvellir-national-park
The modal rate of lateral movement is about 2.5cm per year, with it sometimes being much faster. For perspective, even the modal lateral rate of plate movement is about 10X faster than sea level rise. Yet, nobody gets excited about plate motion — except when several years worth of movement happens all at once, during an earthquake.
As a geologist I would agree with you about the rate. Interestingly it’s roughly the same rate that the Moon is moving away from us. Geologists had known this for decades before the Moon landings from studying coral growth rates over geological time. However, the retroreflectors left by the Apollo missions confirmed the rate.
Ian Plimer has written many excellent books on the climate nonsense…Heaven+Earth is the classic but they’re all good reads.
Is the Moon moving away from the Earth, or is the Earth moving away from the Moon? Earth is moving away from the Sun at a rate of about 1.5cm per year, a bit less than half the rate that the Earth and Moon are diverging.
They’re both moving away from their common barycentre!
JZ,
As a Geochemist, I worked with many successful Geologists, many of whom were doing exploration for more mioneral resources.
When looking for new mines, there is an absolute measure of success. Either you find a viable new mine (success) or you do not (fail). This clear accountability makes geologists stand out. They do not have to be indirect, to claim that for example, I am successful because in 2 cases I found bodies that were within 3 standard deviations of being a viable mine” or “I found several viable mines but my definition of viable was not the same as used by extremists who insisted on profitability as well.” (You get the picture?)
There is little scope for exploration geologists to make excuses. In climate research, for contrast, a great deal of paper is wasted on reports that are not much more than making excuses for why predictions of catastrophe and the like have not worked out.
Many Geologists are thus held to a higher standard of performance in science. The science is hard. For example, the development of models of the size, shape and disposition of discrete magnetic bodies from surface measurements of perturbations of the natural magnetic field has a fascinating history involving a number of very capable and rigorous scientists – some before the days of the computer. That might be part of the reason why so many object to non-rigorous, soft science without simple accountability for poor quality.
Geoff S
Thanks, Geoff for giving us mineral exploration geologists a pat on the back, but we have earned it. Our science can be very cruel, to those with the wrong dataset or paradigm as we then fail to locate an elusive orebody. Models can be very useful, but each new deposit has its own quirks and so the process evolves, one factor out of place can ruin a good theory and your ability to earn a living. We have had to be successful enough to retain employment; and have industry/academic credibility to get a paper published.
However, with climate science practice, it is often the case that observations have to fit the AGW theory, or they are thrown away or adjusted till they do fit, refer Hanson’s NOAA and the BoM’s temperature re-analyses. This is not ethical, or proper science as far as we are concerned; and those who use GCMs as evidence to support their climate narrative are equally culpable. To actually consider CO2 as any kind of pollutant is to denigrate the understanding of science and put at risk all life on Earth. Thus, those scientists and politicians pushing the AGW hypothesis are not only unethical, but also immoral in that they are advocating through policies like Net Zero, the deaths of many innocent humans by either starvation or lack of sufficient energy to survive. You may consider these views extreme, but they are only the direct result of anti-scientific environmental driven climate mitigation policies being pushed by the IPCC, EU and deluded climate emergency activists.
What we need is less ideology/hysteria and better physical and chemical science from climatologists, with a real appreciation of natural climate variations caused by Earth’s dynamics, the sun, ocean currents and the hydrological cycle.
Quote “Greenhouse gases, not Milankovitch cycles, drives modern global warming”
True and not true.
Greenhouse gasses:
True and not true. As Plimer says, there is little evidence that CO2 is driving most of modern warming. The only evidence is Tropical Tropospheric Temperatures (TTTs), which are the very foundation of greenhouse warming. It is the TTTs that drive surface warming, through Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR).
However, the work by Dr John Christy indicates that TTT greenhouse warming, is only 1/3 or 1/4 of IPCC estimates, so is not really a problem. See his The Tropical Skies, which is available as a free download. It was written for politicians, so is VERY simple to understand.
.
Milankovitch cycles:
True and not true. Since eccentricity is very low at present, standard milankovitch cycles are very weak. The precessional cycle, which normally dominates these cycles, is at a minimum. This is why the Holocene interglacial has been so extended – just as it was 400 ky ago, and for the same reason.
Because of this, there was no deep northern hemisphere Great Winter (milankovitch minimum) to drive us into an new ice age. This is why ‘normal’ interglacials are so short (just 6 ky), because the next Great Winter can easily drive the world into glacial conditions.
Because the next Great Winter after Holocene warming was so mild, the Holocene interglacial continued riding the Obliquity Summer cycle, which can extend to 12 ky or more (about 1/3 of the full 41 ky obliquity cycle. The same as happened to 400 ky ago.
But the Obliquity Summer is ending in the next 1 ky, and so we stand at the precipice of continued cooling and a new ice age. However, eccentricity is still low, and so the looming Great Winter is again very, very mild. So it is uncertain if there will be sufficient cooling to force a new ice age.
Even if there was significant cooling, we could easily spray the northern ice sheets with carbon dust, and stop the ice age in its tracks. I wrote a paper with the late Fred Singer and Donald Rapp on this subject, but it did not get to publication.
.
.
Note that it is only ever northern hemisphere Great Summers that produce interglacial warming and cooling. This is prima face evidence that a global feedback like CO2 is not controlling ice ages. Instead, the primary regional feedback is dust on northern ice sheets, which can be three orders of magnitude greater than the diffuse CO2 feedback. The dust comes from CO2 deserts in the Gobi region, due to low CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which is why every interglacial is preceded by 10 ky of dust.
Temperature may appear correlated to CO2, but it is also very precisely correlated to log-inv dust. And ice-sheet dust-albedo is a far more powerful feedback agent than CO2.
See paper ‘Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo’, on Science Direct.
Ralph
Please delete this older version.
It would not let me edit this version.
R
Please reply to the newer version below.
Please delete this version.
There are no delete or edit buttons for me.
R
You have to be logged on to edit. When you select the “Remember me” option when logging in, the system only remembers you for a couple of weeks, then you have to log in again.
I was logged in.
Not only was edit not working, but there is no delete button either.
Can you delete this old version?
To readers – please reply on the new version below.
Ralph
I tried to edit something yesterday.
Everything looked fine until I tried to save the change.
I got a message in the upper right of the screen saying something like “You are commenting to quickly”.
As far as I can tell, comments are currently both uneditable and undeletable.
I have informed CTM about your problem.
The edit function has been on the blink for over a week.
Even when you can access it, the edit function hasn’t worked for over a week.
I am by no means any kind of scientist, but I can detect bs occasionally, and this particular quote of yours rings my alarms.
Being weak now implies it was strong before, and you can’t write its overall effect off by claiming it is too weak now. It’s about as clever as noting that the bottom of a wheel, being in contact with the road, is actually moving forward at a speed of 0 (and the flange below it on a railroad wheel is actually moving backwards) while the top of the wheel is moving forward at twice the axle’s and vehicle’s nominal speed, thus claiming the speed of the wheel is insignificant.
Please REPLY ON THE VERSION BELOW, NOT THIS ONE.
I will replicate this question on the new version.
R
No thank you. Your edits to the quoted paragraph are insignificant.
Since you cannot read simple instructions, I have copied your reply onto the new version of this post, below.
R
It would perhaps be better if you were to write simple comments that could be understood in the first place.
It took me a while to find a photo of our heroine, and required the use of a VPN to pretend I am not in a region where EU privacy laws prevent me seeing it. Your caricature is not wildly wrong!
That said, caricaturing the participants in this particular scuffle probably won’t reflect well on anyone.
Quote “Greenhouse gases, not Milankovitch cycles, drives modern global warming”
.
Greenhouse gasses:
True and not true. As Plimer says, there is little evidence that CO2 is driving most of modern warming. The only evidence is Tropical Tropospheric Temperatures (TTTs), which are the very foundation of greenhouse warming. It is TTTs that drive surface warming, through Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR), thus TTTs are the only true indicator and measure of greenhouse warming.
However, the work by Dr John Christy indicates that TTT greenhouse warming is only 1/3 or 1/4 of IPCC estimates, so is not really a problem. See his ‘The Tropical Skies’, which is available as a free pdf download. It was written for politicians, so is VERY simple to understand.
.
Milankovitch cycles:
True and not true. Since orbital eccentricity is very low at present, standard milankovitch cycles are very weak. The precessional cycle, which normally dominates these cycles, is at a minimum. This is why the Holocene interglacial has been so extended – just as it was during the MIS-11 interglacial 400 ky ago, and for the same reason.
Because of this, there was no deep northern hemisphere Great Winter (milankovitch minimum) 8 ky ago, to drive us into an new ice age. This is why ‘normal’ interglacials are so short (just 6 ky or so), because the next Great Winter can easily drive the world into glacial conditions. (Note: the precessional cycle for Seasonal Great Years is only 22 ky long, not 26 ky long.)
Because the Great Winter 8 ky ago was so mild, the Holocene interglacial continued riding the Obliquity Summer cycle, which can extend to 12 ky or more (about 1/3 of the full 41 ky obliquity cycle). The same as happened to the MIS-11 interglacial 400 ky ago.
But this Obliquity Summer is ending in the next 1 ky, and so we stand at the precipice of continued cooling and a new ice age. However, eccentricity is still low, and so the looming Great Winter is again very, very mild. So it is uncertain if there will be sufficient cooling to force a new ice age.
Even if there was significant cooling, we could easily spray the northern ice sheets with carbon dust, and stop the next ice age in its tracks. I wrote a paper with the late Fred Singer and Donald Rapp on this subject, but it did not get to publication.
.
.
Note that it is only ever northern hemisphere Great Summers that produce interglacial warming and cooling. This is prima face evidence that a global feedback like CO2 is not controlling ice ages. The feedback agent is obviously regional, and based in the northern hemisphere. Instead, the primary regional feedback is actually dust on northern ice sheets, which can be three orders of magnitude more powerful than the diffuse CO2 feedback. The dust comes from CO2 deserts in the Gobi region, due to low CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which is why every interglacial is preceded by 10 ky of dust. The dust has been isotopically traced to the Taklamakan and Gobi.
Global temperatures may appear correlated to CO2, but they are also very precisely correlated to log-inv dust. And ice-sheet dust-albedo is a far more powerful feedback agent than CO2.
See paper ‘Modulation of Ice Ages by Dust and Albedo’, on Science Direct.
Ralph
Scarecrow says:
I am by no means any kind of scientist, but I can detect bs occasionally, and this particular quote of yours rings my alarms.
Being weak now implies it was strong before, and you can’t write its overall effect off by claiming it is too weak now. It’s about as clever as noting that the bottom of a wheel, being in contact with the road, is actually moving forward at a speed of 0 (and the flange below it on a railroad wheel is actually moving backwards) while the top of the wheel is moving forward at twice the axle’s and vehicle’s nominal speed, thus claiming the speed of the wheel is insignificant.
End of comment.
.
Answer:
The milankovitch cycle is demonstrably weaker now, in comparison to the previous three interglacials.
The two weak interglacials are MIS-11, which only reached 500 instead of 440. And the Holocene, which only reached 480 instead of 440 (measurements in W/m2)
Ralph
This is a plot of Great Summers (Milankovitch Cycle) vs temperature.
As can be seen, the strength of the Holocene and MIS-11 Great Summers, is much weaker than the intervening Great Summers (and their accompanying interglacials).
Note that not every Great Summer produces an interglacial – a fact that CO2 feedbacks cannot explain. Interglacials only occur when CO2 reaches a nadir.
Thus it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming. And this is true, because it is low CO2 that causes CO2 deserts and therefore dust.
Ralph
This is the old view. It is false so even the alarmists are pushing a different claim. The current claim is that warming is due to raising the emissions height (which is also false) and widening of the absorption range for CO2 (which is true).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
The problem is there is no downwelling IR flux. Over 99% of the energy that reaches the surface comes from within a few meters of the surface. Almost all of the TTT energy which is directed downward is reabsorbed long before it reaches the surface.
Story tip!!
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
Meet Cassandra
https://youtu.be/Syyj0lrWQdc?si=OxiUJi2AgNRaCGU9
I think the story is important as it has been published on a non-climate blog by Bari Weiss who was always trapped in the climate cognitive dissonance, so this is significant.
We are perhaps misunderstanding. To “check” something or someone can mean to stop them in their tracks. Fact-checking has become an exercise in preventing the spread of facts that spoil the narrative of CAGW.
Mention fact-checking and people will tend to go against it – as intended
Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer, The University of Melbourne, Australia
_____________________________________________________________________
emeritus; adjective;
(of the former holder of an office, especially a college professor)
having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor.
In other words he is free to say what he wants.
Current professors? Not so much.
And that’s a problem.
It goes all the way down greasy pole
I generally like geologist.
When I worked on Yucca Mt I got to fact check their work. I found myself behind a closed door with 5 phd geologist after I refused to sign the shit they made up.
Got to love wild leaps of logic. I did not question the amount of water that would drip on spent fuel but they leaped to the conclusion that hydrogen produced was not a problem without doing a calculation.
My point is that being an expert in one area does not mean you have not forgot your high school chemistry.
Based on the recent geological history, I maintain that it is a wild leap of logic to predict what temperature would be without the influence of man.
“…what temperature would be without the influence of man.” As in poorly sited temperature gauges around cities and airports?
From the article: “(c) For decades, I have asked climate activists to give me half a dozen scientific papers that show unequivocally that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. This has not been done.”
I would settle for one definitive study.
No climate study shows such a thing. Not one. If there was one, the climate alarmists would be beating us over the head with it. Instead, they go silent when asked for evidence of a connection between CO2 and temperatures and weather. That’s because they don’t have any evidence.
They could prove me wrong right here by presenting some evidence, but they won’t, because they can’t. It is always thus. It’s really kind of pathetic.
Climate Alarmists must go through some really strange mental gymnastics to hold their alarmist climate beliefs in the face of ridicule for them not being able to produce any evidence for their claims. They get ridiculed for not being able to back up their claims, they know they can’t back up their claims and are unable to fight back, yet they still believe.
Humans have the ability to reject any information that does not conform with their internal worldview, and that’s what is happening here with climate alarmists. They are seeing what they want/expect to see, not what is really there. It’s delusional.
They get ridiculed for not being able to back up their claims, they know they
can’t back up their claims and are unable to fight back, yet they still believe.
____________________________________________________________________________
Believe? Wrong word, to quote Solzhenitsyn, “Yet they still lie.”
Zealots of all stripes share the quality of being very good at rationalizing their irrational beliefs.
Totally agree Tom, they either need to provide the evidence or admit a failed theory..
As a retired geologist and former colleague of Ian Plimer, I have spent the last few years compiling evidence to refute the AGW hypothesis.
Seeing as you are an IPA contributor, are you interested in helping me get a climate science sceptic review manuscript accepted and or published via the IPA.
You can contact me on bobclose40@yahoo.com.au
Cheers.
USA TODAY’s fact checks state that “Greenhouse gases, not Milankovitch cycles, drives modern global warming”.
I’ve had this discussion with warmest before. They don’t accept that changes in temperatures indicated in ice cores precede changes in CO2 levels, even though all the data points to that conclusion. They can’t explain the cyclical nature of glaciations. The best they can suggest is that, yeah, maybe Milankovitch cycles are just strong enough to magically trigger some minor change in CO2 levels which, in turn, magically leads to massive glacial eras.
That leads me to the Milankovitch cycles themselves. I’ve always wondered if the the changes in solar flux during the Northern Hemisphere summer was actually enough to really “do it all”. I still think that the current interglacial will end when post-glacial rebound will cause the Baltic Sea gets cut off from the Atlantic and becomes a lake, and something similar happens around the Hudson Bay. But that’s just my speculation.
Ever notice that the main GHG, water vapor, is never mentioned in the media as such. That’s a big omission.
How to explain papers like this if CO2 is the driver of recent warming
New Study: Up To 87% Of Modern Warming Can Be Explained By Variations In Solar Activity (notrickszone.com)
Marc, ” key points of my talk were not addressed. These were:
(a) Ice ages and glaciations were initiated when the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was far higher than today (e.g. Huronian, Cryogenian, Permo-Carboniferous) hence, atmospheric carbon dioxide could not drive global warming.
Reminds me of Algore and his CO2 vs Temp chart of the Ice Core Records.
here are 8 steps showing Algor & his magical Temperature / CO2 Chart is bunk.
<i>Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.
1- Climate change is the norm. Never in the 800,000-year ice core record is climate not changing.
2- Four Temperature Peaks in the last 400,000 years were all above today’s temperatures and occurred at lower CO2 levels.
<b>3- Every ice-age began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent ice ages.</b>
4- The current record high level of 400 parts per million(ppm) CO2, a full 33% above any previous level on the chart, has failed to carry temperatures to a record high.
5- For any cause and effect relationship, the cause MUST lead the effect. CO2 does not lead Temperature, it follows it by 800 to 1,500 years. The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking.
6- There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.
<b>7- There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.</b>
8- The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing infrared (IR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.</i>
https://iowaclimate.org/2017/01/04/al-gores-ice-core-co2-temperature-chart/
Better get ready for an Ice Age glaciation, because according to Big Al, the last 4 times CO2 was high, they start.
USA Today is one of the worst sources of climate lies and disinformation. They are contemptible and should vanish off the face of the Earth.
Cuba had a large and fast drop in food production around 1990, of more than 30%. It has wavered around 20-30% less since, until 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Cuba#/media/File:Agricultural_output_Pakistan.svg
I’m guessing it’s harder to grow stuff without cheap fuel and fertilizer from the USSR.
That is the heading to a video based on this from PBS,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/droughts-rising-seas-threaten-cubas-agriculture-amid-a-struggling-economy
Which is more propaganda than science.
The Caribbean has a wet and a dry season. It buckets down, then it dries out. A lot of variability in rainfall so a trend of 10% more when it does and 10% less in the dry is meaningless. You grow at the end of the wet. You harvest in the dry.And when the drought index merely reflects the high temperature input, it truly is meaningless.
But the killer is the 7cm of local sea level rise in 50 years destroying agriculture in Cuba.
It will not get fact checked because there are poorly peer-reviewed papers out there to cite.