• 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?

Historic temperatures from ice cores etc (4 min video):

1683973194700.png

(X axis is thousand years)

Takeaway: Meteorological measurements started at lowest point in at least the last 8 years so impossible to say how much of current uptick is man-made (if any).
 
Historic temperatures from ice cores
I watched a whole 45 minute documentary about the 'ice core dudes' only a couple of weeks ago. You'd expect it to be dull but it was absolutely fascinating stuff.
They go down a heck of a long way, not just hundreds of feet, but kilometres! IIRC it was over 3 kilometres deep where they were getting samples from, and they were still going deeper. And that was just one of dozens of holes they had sampled from.
One of the samples they did in the northern polar regions (I think it was Greenland) had twigs and leaves stuff in it.
 
This seems like the most relevant thread for this news article

Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge​


https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230513-meteorologists-targeted-in-climate-misinfo-surge
--------------------------------------
Once trusted faces on the news, meteorologists now brave threats, insults and slander online from conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers who accuse them of faking or even fixing the weather.

Users on Twitter and other social media falsely accused Spain's weather agency of engineering a drought, Australia's of doctoring its thermometers and France's of exaggerating global warming through misplaced weather stations.

"The coronavirus is no longer a trend. Conspiracy theorists and deniers who used to talk about that are now spreading disinformation about climate change," Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, told AFP.

"These scientific bodies are seen as part of the establishment, so anything they say may get disputed on social networks.

"They are providing evidence against what the climate deniers claim, so the latter try to discredit them."
 
This seems like the most relevant thread for this news article

Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge​


https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230513-meteorologists-targeted-in-climate-misinfo-surge
--------------------------------------
Once trusted faces on the news, meteorologists now brave threats, insults and slander online from conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers who accuse them of faking or even fixing the weather.

Users on Twitter and other social media falsely accused Spain's weather agency of engineering a drought, Australia's of doctoring its thermometers and France's of exaggerating global warming through misplaced weather stations.

"The coronavirus is no longer a trend. Conspiracy theorists and deniers who used to talk about that are now spreading disinformation about climate change," Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, told AFP.

"These scientific bodies are seen as part of the establishment, so anything they say may get disputed on social networks.

"They are providing evidence against what the climate deniers claim, so the latter try to discredit them."

Truly, there is no limit to human stupidity.
 
This seems like the most relevant thread for this news article

Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge​


https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230513-meteorologists-targeted-in-climate-misinfo-surge
--------------------------------------
Once trusted faces on the news, meteorologists now brave threats, insults and slander online from conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers who accuse them of faking or even fixing the weather.

Users on Twitter and other social media falsely accused Spain's weather agency of engineering a drought, Australia's of doctoring its thermometers and France's of exaggerating global warming through misplaced weather stations.

"The coronavirus is no longer a trend. Conspiracy theorists and deniers who used to talk about that are now spreading disinformation about climate change," Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, told AFP.

"These scientific bodies are seen as part of the establishment, so anything they say may get disputed on social networks.

"They are providing evidence against what the climate deniers claim, so the latter try to discredit them."
When people are called 'xxxxx' deniers, you know the establishment have lost the argument and are just resorting to propaganda.

Note - this does not apply to the original usage of 'Holocaust Deniers' - although even there some of the alleged deniers were just trying to establish exactly what did go on. It helps no-one if the injured parties exaggerate or distort - it only gives ammo to those who try to pretend it never happened. Just because there were far fewer gypsies or Jehovah's Witnesses available to be exterminated in the first place does not make their tragedy any the less. This is one of the few cases where percentages are as important as actual numbers.
 
Well, I've been promised global warming and it's still flippin' cold. In May. Threatened with a possible frost tonight. I've sold all my winter coats based on these promises, who do I sue?
That's because it is Not Global Warming, it is Climate Change. Some places get colder, some hotter, winds get more violent, etc.
 
That's because it is Not Global Warming, it is Climate Change. Some places get colder, some hotter, winds get more violent, etc.
Climate change is a perfectly normal process. It's constant, it never ceases, and has never ceased for millions of years.

The 'normal' temperature of this planet is actually considerable hotter than now, we are on our way out of the last ice age (and might still sink back again). Similarly CO2 is at unusually low, levels, not excessively high. But people who can only think in terms of decades will never understand changes that occur over geological time scales,.

The idea that humans are behind climate change is just the result of hubris, egomania, a belief we run the planet. We don't, and the planet would hardly miss us if we weren't here. Look up the great extinctions.
 
But I'd argue the 'just in case' idea.
Climate change is affecting many societies and nations. Just because it has happened before, or is a natural process, it doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to change our society's habits.
Sure, it might be argued that "it's not as bad as the doom-sayers declare" or "these people say stop ecological damage but they are hypocrites!" or even "We're doomed so why bother?"
But 'doing the right thing' is good, even if it's not necessary or impactful.
After all, the idea that climate change doesn't exist/is not important to the Earth might be true but if we live on this planet, isn't it a good thing to try to live in a better way that makes our existence on the planet better?
 
But I'd argue the 'just in case' idea.
Climate change is affecting many societies and nations. Just because it has happened before, or is a natural process, it doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to change our society's habits.
Sure, it might be argued that "it's not as bad as the doom-sayers declare" or "these people say stop ecological damage but they are hypocrites!" or even "We're doomed so why bother?"
But 'doing the right thing' is good, even if it's not necessary or impactful.
After all, the idea that climate change doesn't exist/is not important to the Earth might be true but if we live on this planet, isn't it a good thing to try to live in a better way that makes our existence on the planet better?
I don't disagree that we could be more careful, but actually, we aren't. Electric cars are an ecological disaster, for a start. The complete inability to slow the destruction of the rainforests and the numerous species that depend on them is another case in point.

The whole 'Swindle' is about more profit for the ultra-rich and more control of us serfs, not the benefit of the planet.
 
Whether what is happening to the global climate is man made or not is a moot point, even small changes can have severe effects - look in the uptick in wildfires recent years. It doesn't take too much of a reduction in rain, or increase in rain or the same amount of rain but falling in different seasons to have significant effects on farmer's yields.
 
Whether what is happening to the global climate is man made or not is a moot point, even small changes can have severe effects - look in the uptick in wildfires recent years. It doesn't take too much of a reduction in rain, or increase in rain or the same amount of rain but falling in different seasons to have significant effects on farmer's yields.
The climate WILL change. It is currently unstable, between the end of the last ice age and the next period of 'normality'. The three thousand years it's been more or less static (Little ice age from Tudor to Victorian times notwithstanding) are but three clicks of the second hand on the planetary clock.

It's us that will have to adapt.
 
Maybe that should be altered to read. . . 'it's anything that lives that must aim to try to keep on living, that will have no choice but to find ways to try to adapt to the conditions that may present themselves to us?'
Yes, I agree with your amendment :)

There are many types of life on the planet that have lived through multiple previous episodes of "climate change" - that is, the normal cycles of the planet - we have to learn to be one of those or perish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
Yes, I agree with your amendment :)

There are many types of life on the planet that have lived through multiple previous episodes of "climate change" - that is, the normal cycles of the planet - we have to learn to be one of those or perish.
Trouble is, that everything depends on everything else to adapt at the same time, and that might not be possible as timing, and adaption will be the key to survival!
 
Trouble is, that everything depends on everything else to adapt at the same time, and that might not be possible as timing, and adaption will be the key to survival!
Well, no. Look at the Great Extinctions, where at least twice most of the then dominant life forms have been wiped out (Trilobites? Dinosaurs?)

The planet survived, and life regenerated. We are not essential or even significant to the planet. Life will go on.

I do hope - though don't necessarily believe - we are not the only planet that has generated intelligent life.
 
Well, no. Look at the Great Extinctions, where at least twice most of the then dominant life forms have been wiped out (Trilobites? Dinosaurs?)

The planet survived, and life regenerated. We are not essential or even significant to the planet. Life will go on.

I do hope - though don't necessarily believe - we are not the only planet that has generated intelligent life.
Yes, but weren't they wiped out, or were in natural decline anyway, because of either their size, or the unavoidable changes in their environment? Trilobites - by the eventual lack of oxygen in the seas; and Dinosaurs - because they were in natural decline anyway, and then the asteroid wipe-out. So, they never got the chance for any natural time adaptions.
 
Last edited:
IMO none of us would be aware of, or even notice, anything other than the natural cycle of the seasons, if it wasn't for the TV, newspapers, and internet, telling us that 'man-made climate change' is a thing constantly.
I know how to prevent 'man-made climate change' - just stop watching TV, reading newspapers, and going on the internet.
 
IMO none of us would be aware of, or even notice, anything other than the natural cycle of the seasons, if it wasn't for the TV, newspapers, and internet, telling us that 'man-made climate change' is a thing constantly.
I know how to prevent 'man-made climate change' - just stop watching TV, reading newspapers, and going on the internet.
Farmer's might not agree about that though 'Trev!' Their normal farming (growing) practices, (as heard on the radio this morning) are apparently being reported as being out of sync?
I can see where your coming from alright, but when reports come from the people who are on the sharp end, then it must have truth there somewhere?
 
Last edited:
'reported'.
Anyhoo, out of sync with what? And which farmers?
I'm sure a lot of UK farmers would be more than happy for our climate here to be a touch warmer, and wetter, as it would increase the area of productivity into more northern parts. Remember that when the Romans were in charge here they were growing grapes to quite northern parts, and that was only comparatively recently.
 
'reported'.
Anyhoo, out of sync with what? And which farmers?
I'm sure a lot of UK farmers would be more than happy for our climate here to be a touch warmer, and wetter, as it would increase the area of productivity into more northern parts. Remember that when the Romans were in charge here they were growing grapes to quite northern parts, and that was only comparatively recently.
I live in an area where the Romans grew grapes. Farmers aren't happy when they put seeds in the ground and every last one is eaten by slugs that had gotten out of control and eaten the lot!
It was very wet, and now it's hot and dry, and apparently it has also presented growers with problems when it comes to turning the ground over.
 

About those "hottest days ever"


Earlier this week, depending on where you live, you may have noticed a bit of a heat wave during your 4th of July celebrations. But as Bege pointed out on Thursday, simply noting that it was a hot day in July wasn’t good enough for the climate cult members in the legacy media. They dredged up “experts” to declare that Tuesday and Wednesday were the “hottest days on record” if not the “hottest days ever.”

It was such a peculiar story that others began digging into the details to see if there was any merit to the idea or if it was all malarkey. At the Wall Street Journal, Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute dug even deeper. As you might have expected even without burying yourself in reams of scientific studies, those claims were largely meaningless and, frankly, “preposterous.” We’re talking about fractions of a degree and measurements that vary wildly depending on the location being measured.

Milloy punches one hole after another in the entire parade of hysteria...


Milloy also takes a dive into the problems of the instrumentation being used. That’s a topic we’ve covered here before. The vast majority of the thermometers being used by NOAA are improperly installed and produce corrupted readings that skew almost entirely to the side of producing warmer records. And the satellite temperature measurements relied on for many of their readings are spotty at times.

It’s also worth asking if these people ever grow tired of being wrong. Going back to the 90s, we were repeatedly warned that if we didn’t take away everyone’s cars immediately, all of the polar sea ice would be gone in five, seven, or ten years. Those clocks have all run out and the arctic ice pack is actually growing, despite the climate alarmists’ best efforts to explain the phenomenon away. The Antarctic pack is breaking up in places, but there’s still a lot of ice.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/07/08/about-those-hottest-days-ever-n563208

maximus otter
 
Today is the hottest day since yesterday, were all gonna die.
:omr:
 
I always think it unfortunate that the numbering of the year changes in winter. This means you get "The coldest day of the winter" As opposed to the hottest day of 20XX. It then becomes easy for lazy reporting to come up with it was 0.0001 degree hotter in summer 20XX than 20XZ.
 

About those "hottest days ever"


Earlier this week, depending on where you live, you may have noticed a bit of a heat wave during your 4th of July celebrations. But as Bege pointed out on Thursday, simply noting that it was a hot day in July wasn’t good enough for the climate cult members in the legacy media. They dredged up “experts” to declare that Tuesday and Wednesday were the “hottest days on record” if not the “hottest days ever.”

It was such a peculiar story that others began digging into the details to see if there was any merit to the idea or if it was all malarkey. At the Wall Street Journal, Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute dug even deeper. As you might have expected even without burying yourself in reams of scientific studies, those claims were largely meaningless and, frankly, “preposterous.” We’re talking about fractions of a degree and measurements that vary wildly depending on the location being measured.

Milloy punches one hole after another in the entire parade of hysteria...


Milloy also takes a dive into the problems of the instrumentation being used. That’s a topic we’ve covered here before. The vast majority of the thermometers being used by NOAA are improperly installed and produce corrupted readings that skew almost entirely to the side of producing warmer records. And the satellite temperature measurements relied on for many of their readings are spotty at times.

It’s also worth asking if these people ever grow tired of being wrong. Going back to the 90s, we were repeatedly warned that if we didn’t take away everyone’s cars immediately, all of the polar sea ice would be gone in five, seven, or ten years. Those clocks have all run out and the arctic ice pack is actually growing, despite the climate alarmists’ best efforts to explain the phenomenon away. The Antarctic pack is breaking up in places, but there’s still a lot of ice.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/07/08/about-those-hottest-days-ever-n563208

maximus otter
You are quoting Artic Sea ice data from 2018.
Much has happened since then. These things tend to saw tooth in terms of yearly ups and downs and a three year trend can easily be unrepresentative.
Look here for data by the same people who collected the 2018 data: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
Arctic_sea_ice_age_1985-2022_v2.jpeg



Arctic Sea Ice Volume: Note the general trend despite peaks and troughs.
SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png


You are being selective with your data.

Not only that, you are quoting from it an obviously biased source with an agenda.

"HotAir.com provides news analysis and commentary from a conservative perspective."

It promotes an anti-choice, pro-gun stance that is not what one might call fair and balanced.

Edited for poor spelling.
 
Last edited:
Most, but not all, of climate change denier data is bullshit from tainted sources. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is real.

However that doesn't mean we should swallow the environmentalist's message wholesale. They are against nuclear power; I am for it.

Nuclear power is essentially carbon neutral and could reduce AGW to trivial levels. It turns out that fission power alone would be enough to supply our planet with ample energy for the next 200 million years, but only if breeder reactor technology can be utilised to produce fissile material from uranium 238 and thorium. Add to this the probability that some sort of fusion power will be developed, and that cheap and local renewable power can be used where it is beneficial (which is most of the tropics), and we should be able to get through the AGW crisis in the long run.
https://channellingthestrongforce.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-nuclear-power-sustainable.html
We need to either convince environmentalists that nuclear power is not the enemy, or stop listening to them on the subject.
 
I think the main objection to nuclear power is one of perspective.
I mean, it's radiation innit?
We hear about all the accidents and contamination (quite rightly), but we never get to hear about the fail safes.
Oh, and waste disposal is a major concern too.

The biggest issue I have is the drive to make reactors, and energy generation stations, cheaper. Cost-cutting seems to be one of the largest factors in many incidents.
 
Oh, and waste disposal is a major concern too.
This is another situation where environmental concerns are over-emphasised. Nuclear waste products can be processed in breeders to produce more nuclear fuel, extending their capacity for generation by three orders of magnitude; even the low-level wastes can be used as sources of power in radioisotope thermoelectric generators. These devices power most of NASA's spaceprobes to the outer solar system. Burying this stuff is not the best strategy.
The biggest issue I have is the drive to make reactors, and energy generation stations, cheaper.
Most 20th century designs were experimental, and filled with potential dangers. A mature nuclear power industry would be much safer than other systems. It already is safer than anything except solar.
5-Bar-chart-%E2%80%93-What-is-the-safest-form-of-energy-2048x1103.png
 
I tend to agree on the nuclear issue.

In the past, reactors were built for a dual purpose, to make power and to make materials for weapons.

The new generation of molten salt/thorium cycle reactors are exclusively for power and are fundamentally different offering far safer, less waste routes to low carbon energy. Also, what waste is produced can be recycled into new fuel for a large portion, in a contained cycle.

I think, in the near term, as in towards 2050, large scale motlen salt/thorium reactors as the base for national grids, combined with renewable energy sources, banalnced by grid-level battery/kinetic, storage is the way forward as we developed the carbon capture and extraction technologies to fix what we have already so catastrophically f*cked up.
 
Back
Top