• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Hmm; CO2 levels in previous interglacials have been high, but only as high as 310ppm. We are up to 400+ppm now. The last time CO2 was this high was back in the Tertiary, before the ice ages started.

Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png


The long term trend for CO2 is downward, and glacial periods will get colder and closer together - but not yet, until the current interglacial is finished.

If we intend to live on Earth for millions of years into the deep future we'll probably need to do some serious terraforming on our own planet; compared to that, this current global climate crisis will seem like child's play.
 
Last edited:
The BBC's own weather site records the actual temperatures in Rome, Athens and Alicante (from which one of their reporters was predicting death & destruction) as at 0945/Fri/21.7.23, i.e. five minutes ago:

Alicante-weather-Fortean.jpg


Athens-weather-Fortean.jpg


Rome-weather-Fortean.jpg



So: The places where we pay good money go on holiday because it's hot, are hot.

Investigate for yourselves.

maximus otter
 
The climate scaremongers: Heatwave hysteria

[TL/DR? It's all cobblers.]

"The New York Intelligencer magazine called it the ‘Worldwide Heatwave’, which according to the UN has ‘engulfed the Northern Hemisphere’.

It was of course nothing of the sort, simply the usual mix of hot and cold weather we see every year.

How hot was Europe last week?

MUCH of the media coverage of the European heatwave appears to have been based more on forecast temperatures, interspersed with ‘record-breaking’ headlines, rather than factual reporting of what happened.

A hysterical article in the Telegraph on July 18 typified this. The Telegraph made several claims which were not borne out by events. For instance:

1) They claimed that 41.8C in Rome was a record. However in 2005 temperatures there hit 42C.

2) They said temperatures in Sicily might reach 48C. They got to 45C, well below the record of 48.8C.

3) They said temperatures in Madrid and Rome could reach ‘mid to high 40s’ – in the event, Madrid got to 39C and Rome to 41C.

4) They stated: ‘In drought-stricken Spain, temperatures were set to reach highs of 44C in Catalonia’, yet temperatures in Barcelona, the region’s capital, did not get above 30C. Temperatures in the city peak in the mid-30s most years.

Let’s be clear – it was hot last week across much of southern Europe, exceptionally so in places. But I have found no evidence that the heatwave was in any way unprecedented, never mind the inferno implied.

Meanwhile, let’s not forget that most of Europe has been much cooler than usual recently..."

[And lots more interesting info.]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-heatwave-hysteria/

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
The climate scaremongers: Heatwave hysteria

[TL/DR? It's all cobblers.]

"The New York Intelligencer magazine called it the ‘Worldwide Heatwave’, which according to the UN has ‘engulfed the Northern Hemisphere’.

It was of course nothing of the sort, simply the usual mix of hot and cold weather we see every year.

How hot was Europe last week?

MUCH of the media coverage of the European heatwave appears to have been based more on forecast temperatures, interspersed with ‘record-breaking’ headlines, rather than factual reporting of what happened.

A hysterical article in the Telegraph on July 18 typified this. The Telegraph made several claims which were not borne out by events. For instance:

1) They claimed that 41.8C in Rome was a record. However in 2005 temperatures there hit 42C.

2) They said temperatures in Sicily might reach 48C. They got to 45C, well below the record of 48.8C.

3) They said temperatures in Madrid and Rome could reach ‘mid to high 40s’ – in the event, Madrid got to 39C and Rome to 41C.

4) They stated: ‘In drought-stricken Spain, temperatures were set to reach highs of 44C in Catalonia’, yet temperatures in Barcelona, the region’s capital, did not get above 30C. Temperatures in the city peak in the mid-30s most years.

Let’s be clear – it was hot last week across much of southern Europe, exceptionally so in places. But I have found no evidence that the heatwave was in any way unprecedented, never mind the inferno implied.

Meanwhile, let’s not forget that most of Europe has been much cooler than usual recently..."

[And lots more interesting info.]

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-heatwave-hysteria/

maximus otter
Click to expand...

Yet another blog with an agenda - this one run by two women - Kathryn Gyngell and former barrister Laura Perrins. Some prefer to go to these sort of sources for their climate information rather than the people who actually study these things.

This is what desmog says, along with much more.

The Conservative Woman (CW) is a conservative blog established in 2014 as a “counter-cultural offensive against the forces of Leftism, feminism and modernism.”

The CW aims to challenge what it describes as “the left-liberal cultural zeitgeist” and the “anti-family, authoritarian identity politics and ‘equality and diversity’ ideology” that its editors say have “swept through the country’s institutions.”

The CW opposes what it calls “climate quackery,” and regularly publishes work by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the UK’s principal climate science denial organisation.

Gyngell is a Trustee and Director of the GWPF, and the CW publishes regular articles by GWPF figures

The CW is also closely linked to the anti-BBC and climate science denying group, News-watch, and the Westminster-based PR Firm, Media Intelligence Partners
Click to expand...
I’m adding it to the list along with

Katie Hopkins
Wattsupwiththat
Daily sceptic
Orderorder/guidofawkes
Notalotofpeopleknowthat
Hotair
Realclimatescience
Conservativewoman

There’ll be more, sure as eggs is eggs.
 
Listened to an episode of The Life Scientific today on R4, with a geoarchaeologist.
In general it was very interesting but relating to climate change, he said he'd favour calling it 'carbon change'. The levels of carbons on the planet have varied in the very distant past but he suspects that the latest variation is at an increase in speed, with human activity being the different factor.
 

Greek police arrest dozens for arson as EU’s largest-ever wildfires rage​


Greek authorities have arrested dozens of people on arson-related charges as deadly wildfires – the largest ever recorded in the European Union – rage across the country.

Wildfires in Mount Parnitha, north of the Greek capital Athens, are still out of control Friday, with more forest destroyed overnight.

The burned body of a man was found on a rural road near Dadia national park, near the border with Turkey, state media AMNA reported Friday. Earlier this week, 18 people were found dead near a village in northern Greece.

Greek police have made 79 arson-related arrests, Greek government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis told public broadcaster EPT Friday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/25/europe/greece-wildfires-arson-arrests-intl/index.html

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:

Greek police arrest dozens for arson as EU’s largest-ever wildfires rage​


Greek authorities have arrested dozens of people on arson-related charges as deadly wildfires – the largest ever recorded in the European Union – rage across the country.

Wildfires in Mount Parnitha, north of the Greek capital Athens, are still out of control Friday, with more forest destroyed overnight.

The burned body of a man was found on a rural road near Dadia national park, near the border with Turkey, state media AMNA reported Friday. Earlier this week, 18 people were found dead near a village in northern Greece.

Greek police have made 79 arson-related arrests, Greek government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis told public broadcaster EPT Friday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/25/europe/greece-wildfires-arson-arrests-intl/index.html

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting by posting this that because the ignition source might have been artificial, the extent and the severity of the fires was not related to the prevailing conditions?
 
I watched a video last night, which I now can't find, that had quite a few very qualified people speaking who all said that changes to carbon levels follow temperature changes and that the lag is about 800 years.
 
kesavaross said:
I watched a video last night, which I now can't find, that had quite a few very qualified people speaking who all said that changes to carbon levels follow temperature changes and that the lag is about 800 years.
Click to expand...
It may be because CO2 and methane are locked away in ice at the poles and in the permafrost layers in some countries.
A warming climate can cause thawing and then a consequent rise in CO2 and methane.
 
Ascalon said:
Are you suggesting by posting this that because the ignition source might have been artificial, the extent and the severity of the fires was not related to the prevailing conditions?
Click to expand...
It may also have a lot to do with the available manpower which is insufficient due to the sheer numbers of wildfires.
 
Ascalon said:
Are you suggesting by posting this that because the ignition source might have been artificial, the extent and the severity of the fires was not related to the prevailing conditions?
Click to expand...
Yes he is - clearly because some people are arsonists, it means global warming isn’t happening. The one naturally follows the other. I hope that puts your mind at rest.
 

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published​

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.


I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.

Here’s how it works.

The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative...

This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.

Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers.

I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
It's a bit of a story of how much pressure there is on scientists to get regular publication in order to make a living, doing what they're trained to do.
"They've not had anything published for a while - they must be losing it."
 
It works in the media as well. Didn't the late Dr David Bellamy disappear from his role as a popular science presenter on the BBC because he voiced doubts on what was then global warming?
 
Ascalon said:
While this is indeed a worrying trend, it also does not alter the fundamental findings behind the vast majority of the data, and their conclusions.
Click to expand...
But it does alter trust in the percentage of data in favour of human effect on climate change. That could also be cumulative if these papers are then cited in other papers.

Far better to say it's 70% certain than try and pretend it's 99%.
 
Tunn11 said:
But it does alter trust in the percentage of data in favour of human effect on climate change. That could also be cumulative if these papers are then cited in other papers.

Far better to say it's 70% certain than try and pretend it's 99%.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point, but I'd hazard a guess and say it is much closer to 99.999% certain than 99.999999%.
 
Ascalon said:
That's a fair point, but I'd hazard a guess and say it is much closer to 99.999% certain than 99.999999%.
Click to expand...
You may well be right but my problem is that I'm not being given an accurate unbiased assessment (for whatever reason the bias exists, money, desire to be published or just a "fashionable idea")

That's damaging to either side of the debate whether it's climate change, creationism, flat Earthers or anything else.
 
Tunn11 said:
You may well be right but my problem is that I'm not being given an accurate unbiased assessment (for whatever reason the bias exists, money, desire to be published or just a "fashionable idea")

That's damaging to either side of the debate whether it's climate change, creationism, flat Earthers or anything else.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. It does not matter how correct your case is, if it is mistated, it undermines its veracity.
 
maximus otter said:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published​

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.


I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.

Here’s how it works.

The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative...

This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.

Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers.

I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

maximus otter
Click to expand...
He wasn't the only researcher on this published paper. Wonder how the others feel about it?
 
maximus otter said:

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published​

I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work.


I am a climate scientist. And while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over many parts of the world, it isn’t close to the only factor that deserves our sole focus.

The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.

Here’s how it works.

The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative...

This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.

Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers.

I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

maximus otter
Click to expand...
A video I saw recently had an interview with a climate scientist (probably now a former climate scientist) who mentioned that researchers are given a list of projects that are up for sponsorship. They are told what the research should be about, and if they apply, they are then told what should be the desired outcome of the research (i.e., what conclusions they should make).
This is not science. Science should be totally objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top