'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

Ivor Cummins
@FatEmperor
·
Listen carefully, very carefully. This is the most important climate change clip you will ever watch - and only 4mins long. Watch and judge yourself. ABSORB the graph shown. THINK on it. USE your brain.

Everything else I will explain over the coming months.

https://twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1 ... 23712?s=20

I encourage anyone with a curious mind on this topic to watch the ~4min video clip above, including the last comment made at the tail-end of the clip.

[Joe Hillshoist]

So I watched that clip and I don't agree with what that guy is saying at all

For a start he claims it was the coolest point in the last 10K years but only shows us 8K years of data. The graph stops at a warm peak. Why has he cut out the rest of that data. They have 120K years of it. 8000 years ago was the warmest period in nearly 4000 years. I get what he's saying about the so called "poor nature of the experiment" but the entire earth is that. There's no control earth to compare... That is a pointless factoid. That coldest point in the last however many years is still significantly warmer than 11700 years ago.

Its not the only thing tho. The graph he shows actually provides evidence to suggest AGW is real despite his objection about when we started modern meteorology.

But I'll leave you to figure out why and get back to me.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
How does it show decisively that AGW is real? The portion of the graph displayed goes back 10K years and displays fluctuations in temperature/climate, over time, well before human industry ever came into the picture.

The video clip also indicates, at around the ~3 min mark,

...the natural, pronounced alteration of warm and cold periods back in time has also been confirmed elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. Carbon14 dating of organic matter from peat bogs and tree rings confirms the pattern.

That aside, the problem here (for those that continue to subscribe to AGW as a primary factor in weather changes over time -- and the notion that 'solutions' currently proposed by BIG Govt/Corps are going to solve this reported 'crisis', in large part by curtailing fundamental human rights) is that the above video clip is just ONE data point.

The prior page included additional studies and data points -- and these are, again, just samplings. You can knock down the above video clip as unsatisfactory (based on your own assessment) but it doesn't address the many other compelling points raised on this issue that are counter to the dominant narratives.

[stickdog99]

I'll happily support any measures that actually serve to reduce human carbon and nitrogen emissions in any overall manner that don't result in further centralization of power, wealth and control over the masses nor further restrict the rights of the average individual compared to the rights of the elites who are driving the WEF's Net Zero/15 minute cities/CBDCs/total biosecurity awareness/"You will own nothing and be happy" agenda.

You know, just as soon as gourmet foods, private jets, yachts, and military use of fossil fuels are outlawed for everyone, the rights of travel are equalized for everyone, and none of the elites currently trying to ram these restrictions down all of our throats with the help of their well-meaning army of jackboot ecobiofascists are allowed to offset any of their own "planet choking" emissions with their overflowing treasure chests of CBDCs.

It's just amazing to me how many people are willing to welcome dystopian authoritarian regulations clearly designed to restrict their own rights and quality of life compared to those of elites if only the cause is marketed to them as somehow virtuous. It's millennialism at its most co-opted since perhaps the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I mean, how can any of our problems have anything to do with the top 0.01% when so many of the bottom 99% of us simply refuse to repent?

Any comments? I mean, even after COVID-19, are you just going to blindly follow whatever the WEF mandates on you to flatten the curve of the evil scourges of carbon-19 and nitrogen-19?

[DrEvil]

I've never supported the WEF agenda. They're not interested in dealing with climate change beyond whatever small nuisance it might become to them, they're out to rebrand neo-liberal capitalism, same way they do every time there's the tiniest amount of public pressure on their systematic looting.

If you had paid any attention to what I've said you would already know that, but as usual you don't, you just imagine I agree completely with whatever the bogeyman is saying at the moment and go from there.

If you want concrete suggestions:

- Progressive taxation with a 90% tax on anything above, say, 10 or 20 million and 99% above 50 mill. There shouldn't be any billionaires.
- Inheritance tax and wealth tax on the rich.
- Billionaires who threaten to leave the country should get a free ride to the nearest airport.
- If corporations are people they should be treated like people. Forfeiture, death penalty, personal liability for the top people.
- End subsidies for fossil fuels and set an end date for new exploration licenses. Ideally yesterday.
- Get everyone to agree to tell anyone who says "investor-state dispute settlement" to go jump off a cliff.
- Carbon tax with a progressive Alaska-style rebate, ideally set up so that low-income households end up making money on it and comfortably middle class and up end up paying for it.
- Higher tax on red meat that increases over time. Subsidies for the farmers and ranchers affected to help them adjust. No tax on fruits and vegetables. If possible a distance tax. Locally made should be cheaper.
- Massive roll-out of renewables: solar on every roof, offshore wind, geothermal, batteries in every garage and large scale energy storage for baseline supply (pumped water, batteries, stacking bricks, heating sand, whatever), plus some nuclear/gas in reserve.
- Subsidies to insulate houses.
- Subsidies on solar panel installation and EVs (free access to toll roads, no road tax, can use bus and taxi lanes, free parking, etc. Phase out the benefits when EV uptake reaches critical mass).
- Mandated recycling of solar panels, batteries, turbine blades, etc. Subsidize and invest heavily in recycling. At some point it should become illegal to sell these things unless you have recycling ready to go for all of it. If one of the panels on your roof breaks there should be an easy way to deliver it for recycling nearby.

That's just off the top of my head.

[Joe Hillshoist]

.
How does it show decisively that AGW is real? The portion of the graph displayed goes back 10K years and displays fluctuations in temperature/climate, over time, well before human industry ever came into the picture.

And yet if you read the graph properly instead of being brainwashed how to interpret it you'll see that it clearly shows AGW is a thing.

You're asking me how....

Fuck man for most of this thread I've been telling you to sus shit out for yourself and interpret data using your own brain not by using the framework someone else gives for you.

The rate of temperature rise at the end of the graph is significantly faster than any period beforehand. The graph is nearly vertical at that point, like a bloody rocket taking off.

It sticks out like dogs balls.

[DrEvil]

Here's a more recent take from Jørgen Peder Steffensen:

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2017 ... ying-nice/

He's comparing our releases of greenhouse gases to the banks selling subprime mortgages before the 2008 crash. That's not a good thing in case anyone was wondering.

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKR3e0fhiKQ

[Belligerent Savant]

I imagine there'll be a rube or two that may claim that the carbon offsets that Gates purchased neutralizes all this excess, eh?
If we were truly in a climate "crisis", why do so many uber-wealthy self-proclaimed climate activists (or former politicians) still fly private jet planes regularly and continue to purchase and/or maintain properties right along coastlines?

@goddeketal

Did you know that Bill Gates' primary residence in Seattle boasts 7 bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, a 60-foot pool with an underwater music system, a 2,500-square-foot gym, a 1,000-square-foot dining room, six kitchens, and a trampoline room with a 20-foot ceiling? And let's not forget the 2,100-square-foot library, a home theater that seats up to 20 guests, and a massive 300-square-foot reception hall with room for 200 guests. And there's also a spacious guesthouse, a garage that fits 23 cars, and an artificial stream stocked with fish.

Depending on the source, its value is estimated at $127 to $170 million. But wait, there's more! Gates also owns homes in Del Mar, California at sea level ($43 million), Indian Wells, California ($12.5 million), Wellington, Florida ($8.7 million), and a ranch in Wyoming ($8.9 million).

A fun little tidbit about his Florida property: In 2016, he paid $13.5 million for the neighboring house. Rumor has it he's also bought four other properties on the same street, making him the sole resident of the entire block.

While Bill doesn't own a mega-yacht, he regularly charters them for his vacations. He also has a penchant for spending big on luxury cars, and let's not forget his four private jets. In interviews, he's mentioned that purchasing private jets is his "guilty pleasure."

Now, isn't it ironic that one of the main proponents of reducing our carbon footprint lives like this? With such an expansive estate and luxurious lifestyle, we can't help but wonder how much his own carbon footprint is ballooning.

If the people who are urging us to reduce our carbon footprints are living lives of excess, how can we trust their motivations and the validity of their claims about man-made climate change?

https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1 ... 65090?s=20

Private planes are up to 14 times more polluting, per passenger, than commercial planes and 50 times more polluting than trains, according to a report by Transport & Environment, a European clean transport campaign organisation.
Jan 26, 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ganisation.

@Kenneth72712993

New study:

Since the 1970s 90% of the warming has been driven by the increase in shortwave forcing (due to cloud decline).

Warming leads, drives the CO2 increase: 83 ppm/1°C.

The contribution to warming from human CO2 has been 0.03°C since 1980.

https://twitter.com/Kenneth72712993/sta ... 95681?s=20

@ChrisMartzWX
·
Academia is like our bureaucracy; there needs to be a cleaning of house.

Many institutions are filled with political hacks hiding behind a scientist’s mask.

Science revolves around discussion and debate of ideas. Censoring opposition is constructing narrative, not science.

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

The biggest issue with the @IPCC_CH is that its mission is to identify the negative impacts of climate change, ignoring benefits of a stable, warmer climate with slightly higher CO2. Thus, confirmation bias is essentially built into its mission. #climate

https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/sta ... 03971?s=20

Amsterdam, 9 May 2023

* IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
* IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
* IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
* Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010

The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.
The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.
The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analysed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC.

In every chapter the Clintel report documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report than in the WG1 report. Given the political relevance of what is known as “Loss and Damage” (at the yearly COP meetings, countries currently negotiate donations to a Loss and Damage fund) one would expect a thorough review of the relevant literature. However, Clintel shows that the IPCC has totally failed in this respect. For example, a review article on the subject, published in 2020, showed that 52 out of 53 peer reviewed papers dealing with “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase in harms that could be attributed to climate change. The IPCC highlighted the single paper that claimed an increase in losses. That paper is – unsurprisingly – flawed, but its cherry picking by the IPCC suggests they found its conclusions irresistible.

Climate-related deaths
“We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN-boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at the mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published that important information in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC, again, chose to ignore it.
The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change and hype anything bad.

Erasing climate history
The Working Group 1 report is not free from bias and misleading conclusions either. The report documents problems in every chapter. The IPCC has tried to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum (or Holocene Climate Optimum), a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. It has introduced a new hockey stick graph, which is the result of cherry-picked proxies. And it has ignored temperature reconstructions that show more variability in the past, such as the well-documented Little Ice Age.

The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades. Clintel has shown this claim is flawed, because the IPCC ignores decadal variability in sea level. We also show that its sea-level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and improbable jump upward in 2020.

Climate sensitivity
Canadian economist Ross McKitrick has pointed out that all global climate models used by the IPCC show too much warming in the troposphere, both globally and in the tropics (where models predict a ‘hotspot’). This probably indicates some fundamental problems in the way that these models simulate the climate system.

A ’spectacular’ result of the IPCC AR6 report was the rise of the lower bound for the climate sensitivity likely range from 1.5°C to 2.5°C, therefore claiming that low values for climate sensitivity are now unlikely. The Clintel report shows this rise is not justified. The Clintel report suggests that observed warming and other evidence indicates that the true figure is more likely to be below 2°C than above 2.5°C. This also means that the best estimate for climate sensitivity, which the IPCC says is 3°C, is not justified.

On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest emissions scenario, so-called RCP8.5 (or now SSP5-8.5). In recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is implausible and should not be used for policy purposes. Deep inside the WG1 report, the IPCC acknowledges that this scenario has a ‘low likelihood’ but this very important remark was not highlighted in the Summary for Policymakers, so these important audiences are unaware of the issue. RCP8.5 is the scenario most often referred to in the IPCC report.

IAC Review
Back in 2010, errors in the WG2 report of the Fourth Assessment led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC). This review recommended, amongst other things, that “[h]aving author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” This important recommendation is still being ignored by the IPCC. Worse, we document that Roger Pielke Jr, a scientist with considerable expertise in these areas, is regarded as a kind of ‘Voldemort’ by the IPCC, and they deliberately avoid mentioning his work or even his name. This leads to biased conclusions.

Reform
We are sorry to conclude that the IPCC has done a poor job of assessing the scientific literature. All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies and most of the media blindly trust its claims. The Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC shows that this trust is not justified.
In our view the IPCC should be reformed, and should include a broader range of views. Inviting scientists with different views, such as Roger Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick, to participate more actively in the process is a necessary first step. If, for some reason, such inclusion of different views is unacceptable, the IPCC should be dismantled.

Our own conclusions about climate – based on the same underlying literature – are far less bleak. Due to increasing wealth and advancing technology, humanity is largely immune to climate change and can easily cope with it. Global warming is far less dangerous to humanity than the IPCC tells us.

The report can be downloaded here.

The press release (in English) can be downloaded here in pdf.
Dutch press release here.
Hungarian press release here.

https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-b ... cc-report/

[I anticipate that claims will be made that since most members of clintel.org are not "climate scientists" that their commentary should be largely ignored. Of course they are welcome to make these claims. The reader is encouraged to discern for themselves]

[Joe Hillshoist]

If the people who are urging us to reduce our carbon footprints are living lives of excess, how can we trust their motivations and the validity of their claims about man-made climate change?

Of course we shouldn't trust those individuals, especially that one.

But Climate Change isn't his claim. It was being studied when he was still in primary school. This author wants its readers to think that these claims originate with these hypocritical rich cunts instead of pointing out the obvious truth that these hypocritical rich cunts are using these claims to get away with whatever they can the way they do with everything.

Have you ever wondered why someone wants you to think that way?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

Skrable, Kenneth; Chabot, George; French, Clayton1
Author Information

Health Physics 122(2):p 291-305, February 2022. | DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485

...
Abstract

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics ... ty,.2.aspx

[Joe Hillshoist]

Can you post a full copy of that report?

[Belligerent Savant]

The link to the full report is above. There is also the following recent study that I already posted in a prior comment above that is more recent, from April 2023:

@Kenneth72712993

New study:

Since the 1970s 90% of the warming has been driven by the increase in shortwave forcing (due to cloud decline).

Warming leads, drives the CO2 increase: 83 ppm/1°C.

The contribution to warming from human CO2 has been 0.03°C since 1980.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf

Full report in pdf is here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf

Screenshot of a portion of the first page:



Also, since it's related to climate change, cross-posting the below here as well. It's a bit salty but I imagine Joe can take it as well as he dishes it.

I am fully prepared to be 100% wrong about my take on this. And will own it fully if it turns out to be the case.

But the passage of time is only strengthening the position that "climate alarm", and "humans are the primary cause for global climate change" are at least grievous errors by well-intentioned scientists or, as presented by a number of entities/govts, scams in furtherance of agendas/aims that are quite clearly to the detriment of commoners everywhere.

I get annoyed about this cos Bill Gates is involved in stuff that stops poor people in non western countries from using traditional fuels like wood under the banner of climate change action, buying up land in those places to prevent those people accessing the land for renewable resources like food and wood and all you first world problem cunts are worried about is not being able to drive your cars into town cos of climate change action.

And maybe you, Harvey, are more switched on to that stuff than most but bel sav certainly isn't.

CORRECT: I'm absolutely not "switched on" to that. If you believe Bill Gates is in any way undertaking actions to benefit the poor or 3rd world nations you are deeply misled and more naive than I initially presumed.

Whatever 'benefit' may be in play by Gates' (or his foundation's) actions would be happenstance [or, perhaps not happenstance but part of a misdirection of actual aims] and nowhere near a 'priority' as far as objectives.

You (and many others, in some cases understandably) continue to believe the many lies Re: climate change.

The reality is "fossil fuels" are very cheap compared to the "alternatives" being pushed by the very wealthy (there will never be 'future returns' or 'lower costs' after wide adoption: many continue to be duped with these salesmen tricks).

The REALITY is that "fossil fuels" are HOW SO MANY 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES and relatively POOR people can have access to many modern benefits.

Ironic, that so many believe the vaporware/trinkets/scams being sold to them by the very wealthy as 'solutions' to 'climate alarm' will actually benefit the poor/middle-classes, when it will do precisely the opposite.

Even more ironic is that Joe scoffs at those like me for living in a "1st world", implying I'm some form of an elitist, while carrying water for the likes of fucking GATES.

But of course, you're fully captured by this long-running propaganda that man-made C02 is the primary driver of weather fluctuations.

And, as such, you see me as some variation of a FOOL for my evolving positions on the topic of climate. So Be It.

Let's see where we are in 5 yrs. 10yrs. 15yrs. RI may be long gone. But the reality of the situation will eventually bear itself out. ALREADY, RIGHT NOW, the "climate alarm" narrative is beginning to fall apart. A growing count of prior believers are now beginning to question, though perhaps quietly.

(Ah, but in 5-10 yrs it'll be "too late", goes the climate ALARMIST. Just as they proclaimed calamity was surely to occur in the 90s. No, 2000. No wait, it was then revised to 2015. Or was it 2025? A crappy world for most may well arrive in the coming years, but it won't be due to the weather.)

So much of what passes for accepted 'facts' and 'truth' in our modern era is far removed from either.

This, by no means, suggests I (or anyone like me) have the "right" answers. This is never about being "right" about all the particulars.

For me, it's always been about sniffing out the LIES and BULLSHIT, and recognizing them as such.

Since I've posted my first comment here in RI, overall my record is quite good at identifying the BS.

You do you, I'll do me.

[DrEvil]

.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

Skrable, Kenneth; Chabot, George; French, Clayton1
Author Information

Health Physics 122(2):p 291-305, February 2022. | DOI: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001485

...
Abstract

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

https://journals.lww.com/health-physics ... ty,.2.aspx

Here is a detailed critique of this paper:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.word ... omment.pdf

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Yes, there will be critiques of papers. But that study is far from the only one with counters to current climate "alarm" dogma, as this thread [particularly the last few pages] demonstrate.

Here's another one:

New study:

Clouds are "fundamental" to climate and have a "profound effect on the global radiation budget".

Cloud-albedo-induced colder temps fuel more SH storms/stronger winds vs. the NH.

This contradicts the claim warming elicits more storm activity.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 0410.1.xml

Another:

New study:

The ocean's heat capacity is 1000x larger than air's.

An ocean heat flux of 0.005 W/m²/yr can thus warm air temps 2°C/century.

Uncertainty in estimating latent heat flux, relative humidity is 5-6 W/m², 1,100x larger than global warming terms.
https://mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/3/560

Again: most scientists agree that climate patterns fluctuate over time. Where there is disagreement is: how drastic and immediate will this change be, does it merit any alarm (particularly since the 'drastic climate action is required now' game has been ongoing for more than 40yrs), and perhaps the one point that's currently particularly contentious: to what extent do human activities play a primary/principle role in such weather fluctuations?

(2nd/3rd order issues are the merits of "green" claims for these alternative sources of energy, their costs -- especially to commoners -- and impact to quality of life, especially to 3rd worlds, and the extent such measures will also involve drastic restriction of fundamental rights, free movement, & basic comforts of commoners)

[Joe Hillshoist]

The link to the full report is above. There is also the following recent study that I already posted in a prior comment above that is more recent, from April 2023:

No it links to the abstract only. I have to subscribe to something or buy the paper if I want to see the data.

@Kenneth72712993

New study:

Since the 1970s 90% of the warming has been driven by the increase in shortwave forcing (due to cloud decline).

Warming leads, drives the CO2 increase: 83 ppm/1°C.

The contribution to warming from human CO2 has been 0.03°C since 1980.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf

Full report in pdf is here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf

Screenshot of a portion of the first page:



Also, since it's related to climate change, cross-posting the below here as well. It's a bit salty but I imagine Joe can take it as well as he dishes it.

I am fully prepared to be 100% wrong about my take on this. And will own it fully if it turns out to be the case.

But the passage of time is only strengthening the position that "climate alarm", and "humans are the primary cause for global climate change" are at least grievous errors by well-intentioned scientists or, as presented by a number of entities/govts, scams in furtherance of agendas/aims that are quite clearly to the detriment of commoners everywhere.

Did you read that paper?

I get annoyed about this cos Bill Gates is involved in stuff that stops poor people in non western countries from using traditional fuels like wood under the banner of climate change action, buying up land in those places to prevent those people accessing the land for renewable resources like food and wood and all you first world problem cunts are worried about is not being able to drive your cars into town cos of climate change action.

And maybe you, Harvey, are more switched on to that stuff than most but bel sav certainly isn't.


CORRECT: I'm absolutely not "switched on" to that. If you believe Bill Gates is in any way undertaking actions to benefit the poor or 3rd world nations you are deeply misled and more naive than I initially presumed.

Whatever 'benefit' may be in play by Gates' (or his foundation's) actions would be happenstance [or, perhaps not happenstance but part of a misdirection of actual aims] and nowhere near a 'priority' as far as objectives.

You (and many others, in some cases understandably) continue to believe the many lies Re: climate change.

The reality is "fossil fuels" are very cheap compared to the "alternatives" being pushed by the very wealthy (there will never be 'future returns' or 'lower costs' after wide adoption: many continue to be duped with these salesmen tricks).

The REALITY is that "fossil fuels" are HOW SO MANY 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES and relatively POOR people can have access to many modern benefits.

Ironic, that so many believe the vaporware/trinkets/scams being sold to them by the very wealthy as 'solutions' to 'climate alarm' will actually benefit the poor/middle-classes, when it will do precisely the opposite.

Even more ironic is that Joe scoffs at those like me for living in a "1st world", implying I'm some form of an elitist, while carrying water for the likes of fucking GATES.

But of course, you're fully captured by this long-running propaganda that man-made C02 is the primary driver of weather fluctuations.

And, as such, you see me as some variation of a FOOL for my evolving positions on the topic of climate. So Be It.

Let's see where we are in 5 yrs. 10yrs. 15yrs. RI may be long gone. But the reality of the situation will eventually bear itself out. ALREADY, RIGHT NOW, the "climate alarm" narrative is beginning to fall apart. A growing count of prior believers are now beginning to question, though perhaps quietly.

(Ah, but in 5-10 yrs it'll be "too late", goes the climate ALARMIST. Just as they proclaimed calamity was surely to occur in the 90s. No, 2000. No wait, it was then revised to 2015. Or was it 2025? A crappy world for most may well arrive in the coming years, but it won't be due to the weather.)

So much of what passes for accepted 'facts' and 'truth' in our modern era is far removed from either.

This, by no means, suggests I (or anyone like me) have the "right" answers. This is never about being "right" about all the particulars.

For me, it's always been about sniffing out the LIES and BULLSHIT, and recognizing them as such.

Since I've posted my first comment here in RI, overall my record is quite good at identifying the BS.

You do you, I'll do me.

LOL.

Australia has lost between 5 and 10 thousand homes to climate disasters since 2019.