'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[DrEvil]

@BelSav:

Nobody knows how gravity works or what cancer really is, so I have my doubts about their computer models predicting the next millennium of the earth's climate.

Your associate is an idiot.

1. Demonstrates the current percentage of CO2 due mostly by human activities/breathing;
2. Demonstrate the current percentage of CO2 due to non-human factors (which will be much higher in percentage);
3. Make a compelling case that the human contribution to current CO2 levels is a clear and dominant factor in climate fluctuations, without relying on models.

Heard about this thing called climate science? What do you think they spend their time doing? You can look these things up for yourself. Here's a start (they even start out with observed changes, so no need to worry about the dreaded models, which you still haven't demonstrated are wrong * ):
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/down ... Report.pdf

* Simply stating that something is wrong over and over like a mantra doesn't make it so. That's the logic of a small child.

[Grizzly]

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, fact checks the fact checkers on the non-existent "climate crisis":

"[The climate catastrophe] is totally fabricated in the first place. The climate's been changing ever since the Earth was created, and it continues to change. Nothing that is happening in this global climate today is anywhere near out of the ordinary. This is a relatively benign time of climate and weather."

https://nitter.net/wideawake_media/status/1651161624110137344#m

But whatever...

[Belligerent Savant]

@BelSav:

Nobody knows how gravity works or what cancer really is, so I have my doubts about their computer models predicting the next millennium of the earth's climate.

Your associate is an idiot.

1. Demonstrates the current percentage of CO2 due mostly by human activities/breathing;
2. Demonstrate the current percentage of CO2 due to non-human factors (which will be much higher in percentage);
3. Make a compelling case that the human contribution to current CO2 levels is a clear and dominant factor in climate fluctuations, without relying on models.

Heard about this thing called climate science? What do you think they spend their time doing? You can look these things up for yourself. Here's a start (they even start out with observed changes, so no need to worry about the dreaded models, which you still haven't demonstrated are wrong * ):
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/down ... Report.pdf

* Simply stating that something is wrong over and over like a mantra doesn't make it so. That's the logic of a small child.

Despite your presumptions otherwise, you're no arbiter for determining idiocy.

As far as the flawed models:

Many others -- scientists, researchers, etc -- have demonstrated compelling reasons why the models are flawed. That you seem blissfully unaware of these positions, or feign ignorance of them, speaks only to your insular and obtuse intake.

You can refer to their data -- I needn't curate it for you here.

But by all means, continue to double down. My objective here is not to 'change your mind' or pursuade you, of course. I've zero interest in such things.

[Grizzly]

RFK Jr. red-pilled on climate agenda?! RFK Jr. declares climate ‘being exploited by the WEF & Bill Gates’ in ‘the same way that COVID was exploited’ – ‘Top-down totalitarian controls on society’

https://www.climatedepot.com/2023/04/26/rfk-jr-red-pilled-on-climate-agenda-rfk-declares-climate-being-exploited-by-the-wef-bill-gates-in-the-same-way-that-covid-was-exploited-top-down-totalitarian-controls-on-society/

[Belligerent Savant]

.
An example of a scientist that counters the 'climate alarm' models:

Excerpt:

Dr John Christy, distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has been a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate for decades. Christy, a self-proclaimed “climate nerd”, developed an unwavering desire to understand weather and climate at the tender age of 10, and remains as devoted to understanding the climate system to this day. By using data sets built from scratch, Christy, with other scientists including NASA scientist Roy Spencer, have been testing the theories generated by climate models to see how well they hold up to reality. Their findings? On average, the latest models for the deep layer of the atmosphere are warming about twice too fast, presenting a deeply flawed and unrealistic representation of the actual climate. In this long-form interview, Christy – who receives no funding from the fossil fuel industry – provides data-substantiated clarity on a host of issues, further refuting the climate crisis narrative. – Nadya Swart

...

Excerpts from the interview with Dr John Christy

Dr John Christy on the degree to which climate model forecasts differ from his observational data:

Generally it’s about a factor of two. At times it’s been more. But the latest models, on average, the models for the deep layer of the atmosphere are warming about twice too fast. And that’s a real problem, I think, when now we’re looking at over 40 years [that] we can test these models with and they’re already that far off. We should not use them to tell us what’s going to happen in the future, since they haven’t even gotten us to the right place in the last 40 years.

...

https://www.biznews.com/energy/2022/12/ ... EYxRWVfNQ..

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

In a 2009 written testimony to the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, he wrote: "From my analysis, the actions being considered to 'stop global warming' will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming."[12]

In 2014, Christy and his UAH colleague Richard McNider wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, arguing that climate models projected temperatures consistently higher than real-world satellite and balloon data. The authors also pointed to past instances where scientific consensus turned out to be incorrect.[13]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

[DrEvil]

@BelSav:

Nobody knows how gravity works or what cancer really is, so I have my doubts about their computer models predicting the next millennium of the earth's climate.

Your associate is an idiot.

1. Demonstrates the current percentage of CO2 due mostly by human activities/breathing;
2. Demonstrate the current percentage of CO2 due to non-human factors (which will be much higher in percentage);
3. Make a compelling case that the human contribution to current CO2 levels is a clear and dominant factor in climate fluctuations, without relying on models.

Heard about this thing called climate science? What do you think they spend their time doing? You can look these things up for yourself. Here's a start (they even start out with observed changes, so no need to worry about the dreaded models, which you still haven't demonstrated are wrong * ):
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/down ... Report.pdf

* Simply stating that something is wrong over and over like a mantra doesn't make it so. That's the logic of a small child.

Despite your presumptions otherwise, you're no arbiter for determining idiocy.

We know how gravity works and have a pretty good grasp on what causes cancer, and no one cares or claims to know exactly what will happen a thousand years from now. When your associate manages to get three out of three wrong in a single sentence odds are he's an idiot. That you fail to recognize that is not surprising.

As far as the flawed models:

Many others -- scientists, researchers, etc -- have demonstrated compelling reasons why the models are flawed. That you seem blissfully unaware of these positions, or feign ignorance of them, speaks only to your insular and obtuse intake.

You can refer to their data -- I needn't curate it for you here.

So you can't produce any evidence to back that claim? Gotcha. I take it you still haven't looked at the study showing the models to be accurate? If you have any issues with it I'd love to hear them.

But by all means, continue to double down. My objective here is not to 'change your mind' or pursuade you, of course. I've zero interest in such things.

Doesn't matter how many times I correct your errors, misunderstandings and mistakes, or point out your obvious ignorance on things a fifth grader should know, you just keep on repeating the same nonsense over and over while refusing to look at any of the evidence I present. Not sure who's doubling down here.

[Grizzly]

Why do you debate with these "folks"*, BS? It just seems a waste of time. You have more moxy than I. At one time I thought debate here was fruitful and learned, but since Covid maybe even before, the current clique on here are tireless windbags. Whom probably only keep this board open to refute anything productive or informative. As Harvey say's They know who the are.

* yes, I am using that word w/tongue in cheek.They know who the are

[Joe Hillshoist]

.

Re: current CO2 levels:
Is there a clear calculus/assessment that does the following:

1. Demonstrates the current percentage of CO2 due mostly by human activities/breathing;
2. Demonstrate the current percentage of CO2 due to non-human factors (which will be much higher in percentage);
3. Make a compelling case that the human contribution to current CO2 levels is a clear and dominant factor in climate fluctuations, without relying on models.

Jesus .... 15 years ago posters were doing this on this site. Wintler2 is one whose name I remember who posted that stuff regularly. repeatedly cos people didn't read it the time before when he posted it. or the time before that. or the time before that. etc etc

4. As an added exercise: out of the CO2 emitted by humans: what is the percentage emitted by everyday/commoner activities vs emissions by the ultra-wealthy (such as yearly private Jet emissions, etc) and also emissions by large-scale multinational corporations?

What's an everyday commoner? If you're not on the street ion the US then you're most probably in the world's elite economically.

How much of the worlds corporate carbon footprint exists to satisfy bourgeoisie western consumers?

[DrEvil]

^^I really don't get BS's habit of separating out industry/corporations as something entirely separate from regular people. Does he think they exclusively work for and supply the 1%?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Why do you debate with these "folks"*, BS? It just seems a waste of time. You have more moxy than I. At one time I thought debate here was fruitful and learned, but since Covid maybe even before, the current clique on here are tireless windbags. Whom probably only keep this board open to refute anything productive or informative. As Harvey say's They know who the are.

* yes, I am using that word w/tongue in cheek.They know who the are

Yes, once upon a time it was "fruitful and learned" but those people are long gone.

Something about tireless windbags. The bullshit in this thread could power a small town. The earliest global warming posts in this place talk about the propaganda/mind control fossil fuel companies employed and now nearly two decades later BS is repeating that propaganda and you're supporting him.

At no point has BS provided any real world experience and he can't make his arguments in his own words. So he has no experience to draw on and he doesn't understand what he's talking about enough to describe it to other people in a conversation.

In the 25 years I've been fighting bushfires the number of of days of dangerous fire weather has increased significantly. The period we issue fire permits for starts at the end of winter now and sometimes in the middle of winter. In that time the worst fires in Australian history have happened and the amount of out of control fire around the world has increased by hundreds of percent while burnable habitat has decreased.

Its got to the point where Russia is on fire every year. SIberia FFS. That was unheard of once upon a time.

The only evidence available for extra heat that stacks and has for decades is CO2 emissions. The suns output has changed over that time and some of the worst events happened at the suns lowest input. There is no evidence for consistent increases in heat from the earths core, heat increases seem to be local and associated with geologic hot spot activity.

Somewhere on one of the old global warming thread on here is data from a satellite reading IR heat emissions from earth and they are noticeably lower in the range that CO2 absorbs and in the range it emits. CO2 is known to be emitted from burning fossil fuels.

Either of you can go find that data and debunk and so i challenge you to.

If you can then maybe you're worth listening to.

Otherwise you're just parroting the bullshit the people who own the WEF, IMF and all the other instruments of Western global capitalism want you to parrot.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
I have no interest in taking up your (or anyone else's) "challenge", Joe -- the data with compelling counters to the currently dominant narratives are out there (and growing). You can perform your own due diligence, or not. I've no interest in "proving" anything here. The reality of current circumstances can never be adequately defended or described here within the limitations of a largely plaintext discussion forum.

My interest here is in raising considerations and talking points; of course I also welcome and participate in debate and rigorous discussion. But at least specific to this topic, I notice far more offense, or scoffing at the mere notion that status quo narratives are questioned (when dogma is challenged) rather than an interest in striving for objective truth (however elusive it may be), even when -- or particularly when -- they counter dominant narratives.

[I anticipate a potential retort will claim that the counters/alternative positions I've presented here don't meet their interpretations of 'sound science', and while I will readily acknowledge that some of the content shared here may be more compelling than others -- as is the case broadly, regardless of position -- there will be those that will hold on to their dogmatic positions regardless of the merits of any counters presented. This is why continued 'back and forth' here in this thread has already surpassed diminishing returns...]

As I mentioned many times here already, time has a tendency to reveal truths, once the waves (barrage) of blatant propaganda subside or objectives shift.

In the meantime, below are a couple interesting developments/breadcrumbs. Notable as well for the source of this info as much as the info itself.

A Texas region containing four of the world's largest wind farms showed an increase in land surface temperature over nine years that researchers have connected to local meteorological effects of the turbines.

...

The land surface temperature around the west-central Texas wind farms warmed at a rate of 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade during the study period relative to nearby regions without wind farms, an effect most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer air from higher altitudes at night, said lead author Liming Zhou at the University of Albany, State University of New York.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/728/texas ... mperature/

AND:

New pre-print challenges the statistical methods of climate "event attribution"

"attributing a return period to a specific observation should in general be avoided"

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4385979

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/statu ... 44992?s=20

Selection Bias in Extreme Event Attribution Studies

22 Pages
Posted: 12 Mar 2023 Last revised: 5 Apr 2023

Anthony C. Davison
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Date Written: February 1, 2023

Abstract
Selection bias may arise when data have been chosen in a way that is not accounted for in subsequent analysis. Such bias can arise in climate event attribution studies, which are often performed rapidly after a devastating "trigger event", whose occurrence can be regarded as a form of stopping rule. Intuition suggests that including the trigger event in a fit in which it is the final observation will bias its importance downwards, and that excluding it will have the opposite effect, but in either case the effect of the stopping rule should be taken into account. The resulting timing bias has recently been discussed in the statistical literature (Barlow et al., 2020), and here we investigate the implications for climate event attribution. Simulations in the univariate setting show substantially lower relative bias and root mean squared error for estimation of the 200-year return level when the timing bias is accounted for. In the bivariate setting, simulations show that not accounting for the stopping rule can lead to both over- and under-estimation of return levels, but bias can be reduced by more appropriate analysis. We also discuss biases arising when an extreme event occurs in one of several related time series but this is not accounted for in data analysis, and show that the estimated return period for the "trigger event" based on a dataset that contains this event can be biased and very uncertain and thus should be avoided. The ideas are illustrated by analysis of rainfall data from Venezuela and temperature data from India.

Again, mere samplings.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.
I have no interest in taking up your (or anyone else's) "challenge", Joe -- the data with compelling counters to the currently dominant narratives are out there (and growing). You can perform your own due diligence, or not. I've no interest in "proving" anything here. The reality of current circumstances can never be adequately defended or described here within the limitations of a largely plaintext discussion forum.

My interest here is in raising considerations and talking points; of course I also welcome and participate in debate and rigorous discussion. But at least specific to this topic, I notice far more offense, or scoffing at the mere notion that status quo narratives are questioned (when dogma is challenged) rather than an interest in striving for objective truth (however elusive it may be), even when -- or particularly when -- they counter dominant narratives.

[I anticipate a potential retort will claim that the counters/alternative positions I've presented here don't meet their interpretations of 'sound science', and while I will readily acknowledge that some of the content shared here may be more compelling than others -- as is the case broadly, regardless of position -- there will be those that will hold on to their dogmatic positions regardless of the merits of any counters presented. This is why continued 'back and forth' here in this thread has already surpassed diminishing returns...]

As I mentioned many times here already, time has a tendency to reveal truths, once the waves (barrage) of blatant propaganda subside or objectives shift.

In the meantime, below are a couple interesting developments/breadcrumbs. Notable as well for the source of this info as much as the info itself.

A Texas region containing four of the world's largest wind farms showed an increase in land surface temperature over nine years that researchers have connected to local meteorological effects of the turbines.

...

The land surface temperature around the west-central Texas wind farms warmed at a rate of 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade during the study period relative to nearby regions without wind farms, an effect most likely caused by the turbulence in turbine wakes acting like fans to pull down warmer air from higher altitudes at night, said lead author Liming Zhou at the University of Albany, State University of New York.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/728/texas ... mperature/

AND:

New pre-print challenges the statistical methods of climate "event attribution"

"attributing a return period to a specific observation should in general be avoided"

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4385979

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/statu ... 44992?s=20

Selection Bias in Extreme Event Attribution Studies

22 Pages
Posted: 12 Mar 2023 Last revised: 5 Apr 2023

Anthony C. Davison
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Date Written: February 1, 2023

Abstract
Selection bias may arise when data have been chosen in a way that is not accounted for in subsequent analysis. Such bias can arise in climate event attribution studies, which are often performed rapidly after a devastating "trigger event", whose occurrence can be regarded as a form of stopping rule. Intuition suggests that including the trigger event in a fit in which it is the final observation will bias its importance downwards, and that excluding it will have the opposite effect, but in either case the effect of the stopping rule should be taken into account. The resulting timing bias has recently been discussed in the statistical literature (Barlow et al., 2020), and here we investigate the implications for climate event attribution. Simulations in the univariate setting show substantially lower relative bias and root mean squared error for estimation of the 200-year return level when the timing bias is accounted for. In the bivariate setting, simulations show that not accounting for the stopping rule can lead to both over- and under-estimation of return levels, but bias can be reduced by more appropriate analysis. We also discuss biases arising when an extreme event occurs in one of several related time series but this is not accounted for in data analysis, and show that the estimated return period for the "trigger event" based on a dataset that contains this event can be biased and very uncertain and thus should be avoided. The ideas are illustrated by analysis of rainfall data from Venezuela and temperature data from India.

Again, mere samplings.

Very mere.

What does a study that reinforces the idea of recency bias have to do with a whole bunch of events over decades indicating a changing pattern in the climate?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

You may need to revisit your presumptions, or re-assess your intake. Or not, of course.


A few more noteworthy findings, all but one from 2023, I believe.

@Kenneth72712993

New study:

Scientists set out to verify there is a current human-induced "climate crisis" using 200 years of Greece climate data.

Instead they find decreasing extremes.

"The current period can be characterized as normal without notable climatic events".

https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/sta ... 84928?s=20

In Search of Climate Crisis in Greece Using Hydrological Data

Department of Agriculture, University of Patras, 30200 Messolonghi, Greece
*
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091711
Received: 9 April 2023 / Revised: 24 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 27 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)

Abstract
In the context of implementing the European Flood Directive in Greece, a large set of rainfall data was compiled with the principal aim of constructing rainfall intensity–timescale–return period relationships for the entire country. This set included ground rainfall data as well as non-conventional data from reanalyses and satellites. Given the European declaration of climate emergency, along with the establishment of a ministry of climate crisis in Greece, this dataset was also investigated from a climatic perspective using the longest of the data records to assess whether or not they support the climate crisis doctrine. Monte Carlo simulations, along with stationary Hurst–Kolmogorov (HK) stochastic dynamics, were also employed to compare data with theoretical expectations. Rainfall extremes are proven to conform with the statistical expectations under stationarity. The only notable climatic events found are the clustering (reflecting HK dynamics) of water abundance in the 1960s and dry years around 1990, followed by a recovery from drought conditions in recent years.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/15/9/1711

9000 years ago:

Treeline evidence also points to 3°C warmer Alps.

Birch forests lined Zhokhov Island. Today it's treeless tundra with year-round sea ice. The closest birch are 600 km south.

Forests even grew along the coasts of the Arctic Ocean when it was 2.5-7.0°C warmer.

https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/sta ... 11936?s=20

New study:

Solar variability's past and recent climate impacts are highly uncertain.

But CO2 "cannot have...been the primary driver of climate changes".

A NH temp reconstruction (0-1999 AD) shows nearly all 1600s-present warming occurred before 1950.

https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/sta ... 94848?s=20

[Belligerent Savant]

.
One other notable piece.


https://eos.org/science-updates/new-per ... ic-sea-ice

New Perspectives on the Enigma of Expanding Antarctic Sea Ice

...

The increase in Antarctic sea ice extent stands in stark contrast to conditions in the Arctic, where sea ice extent has declined significantly—by about 2 million square kilometers, or about 20%, over the past 40 years. Much of the observed loss of Arctic sea ice, which is in general agreement with expectations from climate models, has been attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

The trend in Antarctic sea ice, meanwhile, has confounded scientists—most climate models indicate that Antarctic sea ice extent should have decreased over the past several decades. Here we discuss results from three recent independent studies that all applied a “nudging” technique to the same climate model to study the influences of different processes on Antarctic sea ice extent.

...

The inability of climate models to simulate satellite-observed Antarctic sea ice trends adds uncertainty to our projections of how this sea ice will change through the 21st century.

NOTE:
EOS.org is published by AGU (American Geophysical Union), which very much supports and promotes "net zero" and anthropogenic climate change, etc. Keep this in mind as context when reading the above excerpt; naturally, they're not going to explore other scenarios that may explain the above observations, or challenge current dogma on the topic.

For reference, below is a list of key sponsors/partners of the AGU:

[stickdog99]

Great Barrier Reef in record coral cover but 97% of Australians don’t know it