The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Coal]

"A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.

I seriously doubt that, but I guess I'll find out.

 

[Kondoru]

Climate change has been a problem for our species for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Coal]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03...re-feature-anomaly-vs-real-world-temperature/

 

[Ogdred Weary]

That report also warns that permanent arctic sea ice would be gone by now.
It isn't.

Putting a date on things like that is always foolish, though the scientists reporting are probably under pressure to do give specific dates or time frames. Nature and natural processes do not work to a schedule or timeframe convenient to humans. There's an overall downward trend the speed of the summer melt is increasing and the winter recovery is slowing and decreasing, there might be a slight upward trend occasionally but we are moving towards an ice free Arctic, my guess is sooner rather than later - ice melt is an exponential process.

When the Arctic is ice free people will do doubt find ways to say it isn't or that just you wait, it'll be back next year! Or: we don't need the ice anyway, or there was never any ice there or there is loads of ice there but Bill Gates/The Illuminati/Satan/"They" are covering it up with holograms or something.

 

[hunck]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03...re-feature-anomaly-vs-real-world-temperature/

View attachment 64267
View attachment 64268

Both graphs are from the same source but he doesn’t say who he’s talking about when he says ‘as presented by the media’ Which media? Where?

I’ll just add that wattsupwiththat is a blog run by a radio weathercaster & non-scientist.

He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.

He also appers to be on the payroll of the Heartland Institute.

 

[Coal]

Both graphs are from the same source but he doesn’t say who he’s talking about when he says ‘as presented by the media’ Which media? Where?

I’ll just add that wattsupwiththat is a blog run by a radio weathercaster & non-scientist.



He also appers to be on the payroll of the Heartland Institute.

The most often cited global temperature anomaly graph is from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), showing yearly average temperatures since 1880, as seen in Figure 1 below.

 

[hunck]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03...re-feature-anomaly-vs-real-world-temperature/

View attachment 64267
View attachment 64268

I should look at these things more closely - I’ve only just noticed the temperature scale is different on these graphs. They both show the same thing but a 2 degree increase is very small on a scale of 0 - 120. He’s not arguing about the data, just presenting it differently in order to diminish it.

I couldn’t be arsed to read much of his article so am not sure exactly his point - it seems to be along the lines of ‘people aren’t noticing it so nothing to worry about’, but some of the comments to it are worth a look - a man posts a graph demonstrating the national debt has barely risen by using an unhelpful scale.

He’s a radio weather announcer. I’ll be pointing that out whenever he’s linked or quoted as he often seems to be. OK, he’s got an opinion but I really wouldn’t be going to him for actual science

 

[Coal]

I should look at these things more closely - I’ve only just noticed the temperature scale is different on these graphs. They both show the same thing but a 2 degree increase is very small on a scale of 0 - 120. He’s not arguing about the data, just presenting it differently in order to diminish it.

That's kinda the point.

He’s a radio weather announcer. I’ll be pointing that out whenever he’s linked or quoted as he often seems to be. OK, he’s got an opinion but I really wouldn’t be going to him for actual science

Kinda ad hom.

 

[kamalktk]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03...re-feature-anomaly-vs-real-world-temperature/


View attachment 64268

Really should have done that graph starting at 0 Kelvin for maximum misleading-ness.

 

[RaM]

With all the weather modification by government and private enterprise as well
as experimentation by the military world wide aimed at weaponizing as well as
likely using it against other nations, and this as been going on since at least the
end of WW11, no one as the slightest clue as to what the weather really is like
if left to it's own devises.
There have always been suspicion's that this disaster in 1952 was such a experiment
gone wrong, or right depending on your outlook.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences

 

[hunck]

Kinda ad hom.

Not really. Kinda factual.

 

[Cochise]

I seriously doubt that, but I guess I'll find out.

I'd go beyond doubting it to describing it as total bollocks. I don't personally believe in anthropogenic climate change, but even if such a thing existed there is no possible way it would happen that fast.

In any case since all the largest consumers of fossil fuels have no intention of stopping it's pissing in the wind. And maybe the fact that they, possessed of many equally intelligent people to us (the Western Europe / US Trembling Classes) are 'not bothered' should tell us something.

I reiterate that in my opinion, looking at the much longer term vectors available from tree growth indexes and the like, the problem we have is that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere which is leading to the spread of deserts and slowed growth of the vegetable life which is the fundamental underpinning of mammalian life on this plant.

And idiots demolishing rain forests.

 

[MrRING]

Apparently global warming is robbing surfers of the surf:
https://heatmap.news/climate/can-surfing-survive-the-rising-seas

Put simply, surfing is made possible by the interplay of water and wind. Waves form as energy from gusts passes through water and underwater obstacles (shallower ocean floor, coral reefs, even a man-made jetty) trip them up, allowing the top of a wave to crest as the water below the surface slows down. Whether it’s surfable, however, depends on everything from the break’s geography to how high the tide is on any given day.

Models of future wave conditions indicate sea level rise could change the shape of waves that generations of surfers have relied on. A2017 analysis of 105 California surf spots found that 34% are at risk of “drowning” by 2100, meaning the wave will break too close to shore or not at all. Just 5% of the state’s surf spots are expected to improve, the study found.

Erosion, which will alter the shape of coastlines, is partly to blame. But surfing’s precarity also results from the larger volume of water inherent to sea level rise. Many breaks perform best at low or medium tide; but in most places, sea level rise will push high tide higher while rendering low tide unrecognizable.

Accordingly, head of the Surfrider Foundation’s coast and climate initiative Stefanie Sekich said, “millions of people … will have their surf breaks drowned before their eyes.” Sekich herself has already seen a treasured and unnamed pocket break near San Diego swallowed up by erosion.

 

[Ogdred Weary]

With all the weather modification by government and private enterprise as well
as experimentation by the military world wide aimed at weaponizing as well as
likely using it against other nations, and this as been going on since at least the
end of WW11, no one as the slightest clue as to what the weather really is like
if left to it's own devises.
There have always been suspicion's that this disaster in 1952 was such a experiment
gone wrong, or right depending on your outlook.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences

So some things that have been done intentionally have affected the climate but somethings we've been doing unintentionally (burning fossil fuels) for the past two and a bit centuries don't count?

I'm glad the Earth and atmosphere can tell the difference between deliberate and accidental actions.

 

[RaM]

Not that they don't count just how much they are doing and how
much that is being done intentionally or by experiments is being
blamed on or hidden behind them.

 

[Coal]

Not really. Kinda factual.

Well, both. But is a weatherman a better guide than a pushy Scandinavian teenager, to quote a random example?

 

[hunck]

Well, both. But is a weatherman a better guide than a pushy Scandinavian teenager, to quote a random example?

Well, not. Unless you think weatherman is an insult. I simply stated a fact.

Just imagine the response were I to post ‘a pushy Scandinavian teenager’s' opinions here.

He’s a weather announcer with opinions. He has been funded by the Heartland Institute - whether he still is I don’t know - it wouldn’t surprise me. It’s your prerogative to agree with him - I’m just questioning his expertise.

 

[MrRING]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/20/world/ipcc-synthesis-report-climate-intl/index.html

‘The climate time-bomb is ticking’: The world is running out of time to avoid catastrophe, new UN report warns
By Laura Paddison, CNN
The world is rapidly approaching catastrophic levels of heating with international climate goals set to slip out of reach unless immediate and radical action is taken, according to a new UN-backed report.

“The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a statement to mark the launch of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s synthesis report on Monday. “Humanity is on thin ice – and that ice is melting fast,” he added.

The report draws on the findings of hundreds of scientists to provide a comprehensive assessment of how the climate crisis is unfolding.

The science is not new – the report pulls together what the IPCC has already set out in a cluster of other reports over the last few years – but it paints a very stark picture of where the world is heading.

“This report is the most dire and troubling assessment yet of the spiraling climate impacts we all face if systemic changes are not made now,” Sara Shaw, program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, said in a statement.

The impacts of planet-warming pollution are already more severe than expected and we are hurtling towards increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences, the report says.

While the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels is still possible, the report noted, the pathway to achieving it is rapidly closing as global production of planet-heating pollution continues to increase – emissions grew by nearly 1% last year.

Concentrations of carbon pollution in the atmosphere are at their highest level for more than two million years and the rate of temperature rise over the last half a century is the highest in 2,000 years.

The impacts of the climate crisis continue to fall hardest on poorer, vulnerable countries that have done least to cause it.

 

[Robbrent]

As any prophet will tell you, it's not good to put dates next to your perditions, nature moves at it's own speed and this is all grist to the skeptical mill , I know why they do it they want people to take drastic action now before it's to late.

I am not skeptical about climate change, and even if it's not a thing I think it's much better to move to more sustainable forms of energy generation, I mean who would be afraid of that? You would be if your whole economy relied on the sale of oil and gas

 

[Coal]

Well, not. Unless you think weatherman is an insult. I simply stated a fact.

Just imagine the response were I to post ‘a pushy Scandinavian teenager’s' opinions here.

He’s a weather announcer with opinions. He has been funded by the Heartland Institute - whether he still is I don’t know - it wouldn’t surprise me. It’s your prerogative to agree with him - I’m just questioning his expertise.

Better perhaps to question the data? That he's a weatherman does not invalidate the point about scaling graphs to make them more/less alarming (using public access data and excel) and he's quite correct to point out how graphs are being scaled to suggest things are far worse than they might arguably actually be. It's a very common way of misrepresenting data and the graph he produced is no worse or better that the one he damns.

Still, if there was a clear properly delineated set of equations that indisputably linked CO2 with climate change, perhaps neither of us would have to waste our respective time.

I've been in this since 2005 and no-one at all in that whole time has been able to provide this to me. Even then, whenever I was asked to debate this, no-one would get on the podium if I insisted on this first point being unassailably supported out of the blocks. Even a wind turbine business owner didn't want to argue this point (and let's be clear, I can generally follow this level of maths and when I'm stuck I have friends who can do it better).

Kind of surprised there isn't a whole page with this on many of the pro-CO2 sites. I do see graphics that are about GCSE level geography standard, a lot of appeals to authority, many of which are specious and a lot of 'assuming it's true, so do what we tell you'.

You however, are free so correct my assumption I'm being bull-shined by alarmists. Write out the maths for me, yourself, no wild goose chase paper links, provide the assumptions made, point me at the data and I'll work it through. If it's correct, I'll share it world-wide and we can all stop debating it based on a clear unequivocal set of connections and correlations, which agree perfectly well with real world measurements, that cannot be disputed.

I'll even send it to Mr. Watt and dare him to publish it.

 

[hunck]

Better perhaps to question the data? That he's a weatherman does not invalidate the point about scaling graphs to make them more/less alarming (using public access data and excel) and he's quite correct to point out how graphs are being scaled to suggest things are far worse than they might arguably actually be. It's a very common way of misrepresenting data and the graph he produced is no worse or better that the one he damns.

Still, if there was a clear properly delineated set of equations that indisputably linked CO2 with climate change, perhaps neither of us would have to waste our respective time.

I've been in this since 2005 and no-one at all in that whole time has been able to provide this to me. Even then, whenever I was asked to debate this, no-one would get on the podium if I insisted on this first point being unassailably supported out of the blocks. Even a wind turbine business owner didn't want to argue this point (and let's be clear, I can generally follow this level of maths and when I'm stuck I have friends who can do it better).

Kind of surprised there isn't a whole page with this on many of the pro-CO2 sites. I do see graphics that are about GCSE level geography standard, a lot of appeals to authority, many of which are specious and a lot of 'assuming it's true, so do what we tell you'.

You however, are free so correct my assumption I'm being bull-shined by alarmists. Write out the maths for me, yourself, no wild goose chase paper links, provide the assumptions made, point me at the data and I'll work it through. If it's correct, I'll share it world-wide and we can all stop debating it based on a clear unequivocal set of connections and correlations, which agree perfectly well with real world measurements, that cannot be disputed.

I'll even send it to Mr. Watt and dare him to publish it.

Expecting me to provide indisputable maths showing CO2 is definitely causing climate change is I’d suggest asking a bit much.

I’m not a scientist, still less a scientist studying climate. I listen to organisations such as NASA & many others who do. My inclination is to take the consensus/majority view from these study groups, which seems to be that human activity/ burning fossil fuels are contributing. Are they all wrong? Maybe, I’m happy to admit I don’t have the scientific knowledge to prove one way or the other.

The result being though that I take these organisations findings/opinion over someone like Mr Watts who doesn’t seem to be disputing an average global temperature increase but presumably doesn’t think it’s anything to do with human CO2 influence. If his view turns out to be correct & there’s nothing to worry about, kudos to him [and you]. We’ll all be happy if that’s the case.

As in all these things, only time will tell.

I don’t think there is absolute proof to convince those who don’t believe AGW.

Do you accept that global warming appears to be happening? If so what’s the cause?

 

[Trevp666]

Our earths orbit is, the same as all the other planets, gradually moving away from the sun, but the sun is increasingly getting hotter and hotter as it fuses together ever lighter and lighter atoms as it ages.
Maybe the earth is not moving away from the sun faster than the sun is getting hotter?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...n-and-so-are-all-the-planets/?sh=320f65206f7d
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...the-problem-is-getting-worse/?sh=596d10e72748

 

[Tunn11]

There is also the precession of the equinoxes, solar cycles which are not properly understood and may never be if the sun turns out to be an irregular variable as many stars are, ocean salinity driving the currents like the Gulf stream, vulcanism,variability of the Earth's magnetic field, etc.

In my view the climate is changing and downright stupid to pollute if we can avoid it but how much of that change is down to pollution and whether we can halt the changes is uncertain.

I remember a programme years ago where they said that the climate was all over the place before the onset of an ice age and for (geologically) short periods maybe even a decade or less the temperature rose, fell, stabilised then turned cold.

We have very precise data for a very short period, geologically, to tie that in with less precise data is IMO fraught with potential for error.
Couple this with the political opportunity - "Don't complain about what this is costing you, we have to do it to save the planet." - And who knows where we are.

Incidentally "saving the planet" always annoys me, the planet will still be here and probably most other life forms on it would be happier if we weren't. (OK the cats would need to train new staff but other than that )

 

[Trevp666]

What makes me suspicious of the whole shebang is the people that tell us that the sea levels are rising and the planet is warming/cooling, the glaciers are melting, etc etc are the ones who get exceedingly richer and richer and buy properties 'on the beachfront'.

IMO if I was concerned about about (eg) a volcano being about to erupt, I would not buy a house on the adjacent land.

 

[hunck]

Our earths orbit is, the same as all the other planets, gradually moving away from the sun, but the sun is increasingly getting hotter and hotter as it fuses together ever lighter and lighter atoms as it ages.
Maybe the earth is not moving away from the sun faster than the sun is getting hotter?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...n-and-so-are-all-the-planets/?sh=320f65206f7d
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...the-problem-is-getting-worse/?sh=596d10e72748

NASA doesn’t agree with your maybe that the sun is currently getting hotter appreciably.

That article is about the sun’s life over billions of years.

What makes me suspicious of the whole shebang is the people that tell us that the sea levels are rising and the planet is warming/cooling, the glaciers are melting, etc etc are the ones who get exceedingly richer and richer and buy properties 'on the beachfront'.

IMO if I was concerned about about (eg) a volcano being about to erupt, I would not buy a house on the adjacent land.

Suspicion is the operative word. Who are all these people getting 'exceedingly richer & richer' from the global warming swindle & 'buying properties on the beachfront' - can you name one?

Plenty of people around the world live on or near volcanos, even live ones, the reason being eruptions result in very fertile soil.

 

[Trevp666]

Who are all these people getting 'exceedingly richer & richer' from the global warming swindle & 'buying properties on the beachfront' - can you name one?

I'll have a stab at it.

Jane Fonda, Meryl Streep, Prince Harry, Joaquin Phoenix, Barack Obama, Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough, Leonardo DiCaprio......

Jane Fonda’s stunning contemporary home in Beverly Hills overlooking a canyon and Pacific Ocean
https://toptenrealestatedeals.com/weekly-ten-best-home-deals/home/jane-fondas-stunning-contemporary

Meryl Streep has a collection of properties many of which have sea views.
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.co...look-at-all-the-houses-owned-by-meryl-streep/

Prince Harry has an extensive property portfolio besides the current Montecito mansion.
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesand...ngton-palace-windsor-california-b1047291.html

Joaquin Phoenix has properties in Hollywood, along with a new place in Dubai.
https://www.luxurytopics.com/living/luxury-villas/joaquin-phoenix-buys-new-home
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...-Phoenix-sister-Summer-purchase-house-LA.html

Barack Obama was berated by Thunberg for his properties.
https://genesiustimes.com/obama-sla...m-his-new-15-million-marthas-vineyard-estate/
https://genesiustimes.com/thunberg-...property-at-the-start-of-the-mass-extinction/

Greta herself, (real name Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg) at only 20, is worth over $2million. Not bad money if you can get it.
Not much is generally known of her home address but that it is in Stockholm, most likely her parents house, but they are already fairly wealthy so expect it to be near water, as much of Stockholm is.
https://caknowledge.com/greta-thunberg-net-worth/

David Attenborough lives in the exceedingly posh Richmond-on-Thames, and even bought the pub next door so that he could prevent developers buying it, and he incorporated it into his own property.
His family home was Hayden Hall House, in Bushey, Hertfordshire, which was acquired by the Attenborough family in the 1870s and put up for sale in 2017.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/propert...-David-foils-developers--buying-pub-door.html

Leonardo DiCaprio, in addition to his Hollywood Hills compound and other properties, also has lavish homes in Beverly Hills, Malibu, Palm Springs, Los Feliz and New York City, and he's long owned a vacant island off the coast of Belize. In addition to that he owns the impressive 315ft yacht, "Vava II" which features a helipad, swimming pool, gym and cinema across its six decks.
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/inside-leonardo-dicaprios-real-estate-portfolio
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...essive 315ft Vava II,St Barts in January 2022)

 

[Trevp666]

eruptions result in very fertile soil.

and also very dead people.

 

[Spookdaddy]

...David Attenborough lives in the exceedingly posh Richmond-on-Thames, and even bought the pub next door so that he could prevent developers buying it, and he incorporated it into his own property...

If Richmond on Thames is now beachfront property then things are much worse than anybody's telling us.

 

[Trevp666]

Oh....I forgot Emma Thompson.
(Well, I expect I forgot many, but got bored doing a list of bleedin hypocrites)

Dame Emma admitted she is 'hypocritical by flying' around the world whilst simultaneously protesting against climate change.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...g-world-whilst-protesting-climate-change.html

Ms Thompson herself owns a £3million house in London, a Scottish holiday home and another property in Venice, Italy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...es-thanks-Liz-Trusss-disastrous-stint-PM.html

 

[Trevp666]

If Richmond on Thames is now beachfront property then things are much worse than anybody's telling us.

Actually the Thames is still in it's tidal range up at Richmond, in fact much further, as far as Teddington.
And the shoreline of the Thames has many beach areas along it's length, so it's not such a crazy idea.
I guess the traditional definition of 'beachfront' doesn't really apply, but it's pretty damn close.
Much closer than here in Flitwick.