This is the latest January temperature record produced by satellites accurately taking global measurements on a 24 hour basis. It shows barely any deviation last month (0.03°C) from the 1991-2020 average as shown by the blue line. The 13 month red line average reveals movement of just over 0.1°C. Furthermore, the satellite record is now revealing no global warming for seven years and three months.
The data is compiled by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, who was kicked off Google Adsense recently for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s monthly satellite update page by removing all Google-suppled advertising. Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well-established scientific consensus”.
Dr Spencer has been compiling satellite temperature data for 43 years and has received awards for his work from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. He is currently working with NASA on the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on the Aqua satellite.
Satellite data shows less warming than surface measurements, which are prone to the bias caused by urban heat distortions. In the U.K., many of the recent “records” arise from city-based recorders. In July 2019, a U.K. record hot day of 38.7°C was produced in the middle of Cambridge, a city that has grown by 40,000 people over the last 40 years. The U.K. Met Office seems particularly keen on promoting its thermometer readings at Heathrow airport, a massive industrial estate with acres of concrete and tarmac and constantly moving jet aircraft. Needless to say, the surface measurements are the record of choice for media and political thermogeddonites.
However, not all surface measurements accord with the well-established scientific consensus. The recent news that the South Pole had its coldest six month winter since records began was largely ignored by mainstream media. In the world of green political activism, all surface temperature measurements are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Away from the surface distortions, satellites take constant measurements as they circle the globe. The seven-year standstill is graphically shown by further work from the University of Alabama, below.
Over a seven year period the trend is zero. Over 100 years the extrapolated trend is +0.01°C. Margin of error stuff of course, but probably nothing much to worry about. If temperature keep on rising at this rate, we will hit the 2°C ceiling rise set by the Paris climate conference around the year 3000. Back of an envelope calculation, we should hit the Net Zero 1.5°C target in about 400 years’ time.
This complex modelling of course assumes that global temperatures never fall again – a first for Planet Earth.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Before this pandemic, I’d seriously never questioned climate change. I pretty much believed what the experts told us, probably because I was too idle to look into it in any kind of depth.
This pandemic has made me question everything, it has completely eroded my trust in public institutions, scientists, governments etc. It has also made me realise the modern left are basically evil (and I am as left-wing as they come).
So with the climate change thing, I am starting from scratch with an open mind. Happy to listen to what more knowledgeable folk on here have to say on this issue.
Actually, what you said applies to me as well. However, every time I come back to global warming i come to the same conclusions as before. I seldom comment on this issue, just everything else, because it creates a very unpleasant atmosphere.
Cue 30 downticks for my post below.
We are in the middle of a war, the elite together with their Leftist useful idiots, are intent on tearing down our civilisation and replacing it with corporate feudalism where we own nothing and the elite own everything.
Please forgive us if our resitance to this dystopian agenda creates an ‘unpleasant atmosphere’.
I think you are confused..
Why would leftists be championing corporate success. That’s the pro-business view of the righties….
And yet, when the evidence suggests otherwise, someone with a scientific mind would go back and review the basic assumptions.
Maybe large corporations and socialist governments have more interests in common than you think.
“Why would leftists be championing corporate success. That’s the pro-business view of the righties….”
Wow, someone just stepped out of his time machine to comment here! Perhaps look around a bit, before you travel back to the 1970s?
Because corporate forces have captured the environmental movement for their own benefit, and many on the so-called ‘left’ haven’t noticed. cornubian isn’t confused at all.
I’d say it’s the other way around. The corporations are being forced to meet international standards around diversity, equity, environmental standards, otherwise they lose investment. It’s the ESG standards.
“Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance is an evaluation of a firm’s collective conscientiousness for social and environmental factors.”
I’m not convinced that’s all it is. That may be a factor for senior management but not the owners; Blackrock, Vanguard etc. They are closely tied to central banks and they control governments.
ESG is a total scam – please ask yourself if investment firms:
A coach and horses can be driven through this rubbish; if ESG was a litmus test of the “worth” of a business/corporation ask yourself this – how and why do Amazon/Microsoft populate many investment funds? Why do Meta/Alphabet exist in some funds given their criminal association with Big Pharma seen “recently.
One question investment firms don’t like answering is how do you filter Pharmaceutical or “green” energy businesses?
The devil is totally with the detail and the detail is made deliberately dense…
Confused? No – just as susceptible to irrational bending of reality and confirmation bias as any Covid fanatic – and just as bereft of logic.
It’s called fascism. The left’s concept of political leaders profiting handsomely from partnerships with selected industrialists to enrich themselves, whilst reducing their citizens to poverty.
Because there’s an unholy alliance between the woke corporations and the radical Left who just want power and to control everyone.
The Left are not the ones championing the working classes any more, or free speech, or personal rights, except for supposed minorities in an effort to put people against one another. It’s why former classic liberals have more in common with classic conservatives.
The Left aren’t championing corporate success as such. Small businesses are being destroyed, with only the very big corporations untouched and getting more powerful (e.g. big tech)
It’s probably more akin to fascism than old-fashioned communism/socialism, not forgetting that the so-called far right, the fascists, were socialists/collectivists.
Then again, the socialists/communists never championed ordinary people except as a means to an end, i.e. power for those in charge, none for everyone else. That’s why they’re so annoyed at the trucker movement in Canada. The working class and ordinary people are uniting…against the lunatic Left “Liberal” Trudeau.
Left / right just labels. It doesn’t matter where authoritarianism comes from the outcome is the same. Deprivation and misery for all but a few. The motivation is the same; power, control and wealth. How many dictators and party elite do you know living frugally like peasants?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA – best laugh I have had all week.
Ever heard of a bloke named Soros?
Don’t listen to anyone, understand the science and the data and work it out for yourself.
when people come to their own conclusions it’s clear to see.
case in point is that this planet had a CO2 saturated atmosphere until plants converted that to oxygen rich and biomass (soil), plants consume CO2 when they photosynthesis sunlight to energy and expel oxygen.
a slight increase in CO2 supports more plant life.
that carbon emitted by “fossil fuels” is returning to the atmosphere where it was extracted from, millions of years ago by plants.
the other point is that the global temperature has always changed, we’ve only been capable of directly measuring temperature for the last few hundred years, with older measurements not being very accurate. ice cores give an indication of previous historical temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. But we know this planet has undergone ice ages where ice covered most of the planet. Areas like New York where covered in ice up to a mile thick. Just google “ice age how far south” you’ll find stuff like this.
Hmmm.
All very well, but the human race should be interested in the trend and effects around now when we are using earth as a place to live.
“There were ice ages” is hardly an argument for making it a worse environment to live in.
Why do you assume warmer is worse?
Rational is opposed to marginally higher CO2 * a slight bounce back from the Little Ice Age as it will be easier for poor people to feed themselves.
The Minoan, Roman & Medieval Climate Optimums where life became easier are anathema to the zealots.
Unless those poor people live in an increasingly arid zone, or one that will be under water.
two thirds of the planet has water on the surface
a hotter planet would therefore obviously (to anyone but an idiot) more water in the atmosphere and therefore MORE rain.
Uggh.. another cliche.
The loon seems deliberately unaware the Sahara margins are greening according to Satellite photography.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Like the (largely flat) Maldives which, according to climate change experts in the 1980s, would be swallowed by the sea by 2018? I have to say, those invisible sea defences are brilliant.
https://www.tropicalsky.co.uk/indian-ocean-holidays/maldives
Still waiting for the disappearance of islands that we were told 20 years ago would be gone by now; don’t know of a single one that has.
And whilst glaciers come and go since time immemorial, snow continues to fall – as a witness to the supposed disappearance of snow touted since the early 1980’s to my certain knowledge, try telling that to the families of the many residents of European ski resorts who saw devastating avalanches in 1999 ( Austrian from my personal knowledge) ….
The IPCC reliably informs the world that what warming there is will be largely restricted to the hemispheres, leaving equatorial regions largely untouched.
They also inform the world that they cannot identify any significant increase in ‘extreme weather’.
They also inform the world that sea levels are not rising any faster than as has been historically observed.
They also inform the world that what warming occurs in the hemispheres will be largely restricted to winter and overnight temperatures, which might contribute to reducing the horrendous number of deaths from hypothermia endured in the NH.
Meanwhile, NASA informs the world that the planet has enjoyed virgin greening of 14%, 70% of which is directly attributed to increased atmospheric CO2.
That’s two continents the size of mainland USA worth of new vegetation.
The world has endured 50 years of hysterical climate claims ranging from a new Ice Age to “fewer than 50 days to save the planet” (Gordon Brown) none of which have materialised.
Meanwhile, the illustration attached displays no direct relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.
NASA satellite photography show an increasing greening of arid areas in China and India snce 2000. How to explain that unless it’s actually due to the increased CO2 coming from the industrial activities in the area. Also, why are CO2 generators devices used in commercial greenhouses to foster plant growth? Figure it out – unless you’ve been totally taken in by Climategate, Al Gore, BBC etc etc.
Where is under water? Which island predicted to be submerged by now actually is?
is it going to be drier or wetter? What climate change predictions made 10, 20, 30 years ago have come true? What is the ideal global temperature?
if the climate on Earth has always changed, always will, how precisely do you think we can stop any change for the foreseeable future, and don’t you think it’s the height of arrogance to believe we have that kind of power?
Ain’t it tough being a blinkered AGW CC apparatchik?
I hope you don’t bet on the horses…. the bookies must love seeing you in their shops…. Take a look at recent satellite photos of ( big clue – formerly ) arid regions and see what the slight increase in CO2 over the last several decades – what do you see?
Because he’s an idiot troll who likes to harm people.
Tony Heller said it best, the want to freeze people to save them from climate models
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ys2Hfp51ro
Precisely. The world and life on it have always flourished when temperatures have been higher and vv. There is an old joke though, it goes:
Q. What is green and eats brains?
A. Environmentalism.
And that explains a lot of the virtue signalling faux morality that afflicts much of today’s society.
If you question the new religion you will be cancelled.
Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Whilst the climate scare is just that, concern for the planet is something else. We are capable of causing damage to it, whether that’s with the ozone layer, the seas, pollution, micro-plastics and the destruction of the tropical rain forests and the subsequent loss of animal and olant species. These are real issue and the climate con is a diversion away from more important matters. That’s what gets me mad.
Precisely!! And me too – mad as hell.
Trolls don’t like warmth.
What is the ideal “global temperature”?
COVID response is not about health, and CO2-panics are not about (the ludicrous idea of) climate stability.
When the Titanic sank in 1912 the US Congress tasked the coast guard with keeping an eye on the sea ice in the North Atlantic. Next came the first world war and then the acquisition of Alaska from the Soviets.
NOAA : Hiding Critical Arctic Sea Ice Data – YouTube
Mission creep give a fair record of Arctic sea ice dating back from the mid 1920s
I’d say the trend there more to do with the Atlantic Multidecadal oscillation (AMO), not much to do with carbon dioxide.
amo.png (1024×768) (meteomodel.pl)
According to analysis of the previous 17 ice age events we are ~1200 years away from the next ice age, far closer to the next ice age than when the last ended.
co2 dropped from ~9000 parts per million 500 million years ago to 180 parts per million 2 million years ago.
Today we are 400 parts per million.
We are discussing tiny amounts.
no and low atmospheric CO2 is bad for plants and therefore bad for higher ups in the food chain.
keeping the same concentration of atmospheric CO2 for ever and ever is also nonsense.
How is the climate warming up a worse environment? How many crops can you grow under a foot of snow and ice?
Carbon dioxide is not a driver of global temperature, it follows temperature changes, as more or less is absorbed by the oceans, i.e. Cooler oceans retain more dissolved carbon dioxide, warmer ones release it. Carbon dioxide is plant food, and it’s been acknowledged that the Earth has become more green as a result v of more CO2 in the atmosphere. If it drops below 150ppm, plants die, and everything dies. At the end of the last ice age, it’s estimated CO2 dropped to 180ppm, just 30ppm above plant death.
The measures we’re trying to take to keep CO2 levels down cause more environmental damage than if we didn’t, e.g. poisonous chemicals in batteries, unreachable solar panels and wind turbines blades.
If you’re concerned about environmental damage, I’m with you. But this isn’t solving that.
“I’d vote for you”
Until recently CO2 was at dangerously low levels, certainly if it had continued going lower it would have made all, (flora and fauna), life pretty difficult. Not particularly high at the moment and well below the level found in most buildings where humans seem to manage just fine.
My thoughts exactly…I will never look at anything the same again. I have always been wary because several years ago the BBC…yes the BBC….said the science on climate change was ‘settled’ and they wouldn’t allow any opposing views as it was just giving a voice to climate ‘nutters’…..well we know what that meant in the terms of the pandemic don’t we?
I will need to start following climate sceptics now!!
Don’t ‘follow us’, we are not a cult, we are individuals who have taken the time to look at the arguments countering hysterical claims of global catastrophe.
Absolutely!
It’s interesting to wonder why UK spring plants are sprouting a full month earlier than a few decades ago, if nothing has changed in our average temperature. Dr Roy Spencer is a qualified scientist – but he also doesn’t believe in evolution. He believes God will sort it all out.
so back to sprouting the same time as they did in the 1940’s then.
colour me unimpressed.
Possibly – but don’t confuse regional climate variations with GLOBAL climate change.
There’s plenty of evidence which suggests the UK enjoyed a warm, benign climate in 10th to 12th centuries but this was replaced by a much harsher climate during the little ice age. (1300-1850 approx). This was a period which featured frequent crop failure and famine right across Europe. See, for example the Great Famine 1315-17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931317
It is interesting that people make assertions about climate based on personal observation and anecdote. Do you have any scientific evidence for that statement?
From my personal view out of my window in Cheshire I see snowdrops in bud, not in flower. I seem to recall that February has generally been the start of the snowdrop season here, sometimes earlier and sometimes later.
I don’t see what his religious beliefs have to do with it.
Well, if religious beliefs (unsupported by anything beyond stories) allow someone to reject the theory of evolution, then judgement as a scientist is somewhat questionable.
Poor Ad Hominum attack.
Much more worrying, is a scientist who claims “the science is settled”
beware of the sealion
Do not engage.
Rational isn’t.
Indeed! I thought the new atheists had entirely abandoned their bedrooms a couple of years ago, but there are clearly a few left.
Classic logical fallacy. A is wrong therefore B is wrong.
?
Pet Irrational sealion is wrong about everything, all the time! They must read the grauniad to be this malinformed and gullible..
Ok, I’ll spell it out for you if I must.
It is perfectly possible for a person to have religious beliefs and be scientifically accurate.
I can give you some notable examples. Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilee.
It is also possible for someone to be wrong about something and right about something else. Hopefully no examples needed.
Darwin.
I don’t know whether you have noticed that scientists do have differences of opinion, and as you so clearly put it, evolution is a theory. Scientific theories have currency only until an alternative theory is propounded and accepted.
Anyone who accepts evolution (aka the survival of the fittest) must also accept that what man does to the planet, and its fauna and flora, is all part of the evolutionary process. If it ends up in man’s extinction then that is also a nutural evolutionary process, ditto if it wipes out some butterfly or indeed a virus. If someone wants to ascribe that to their god it changes nothing in practical terms, it just satisfies their need for an explanation.
“…the theory of evolution…”? Do you mean the Darwinian theory, neo-Darwinian or what? The mathematical improbability/impossibility of Darwin’s theory has been demonstrated since the 1960s.
NB You should listen to a few lectures by Dr. James Tour before you try to defend what you don’t understand.
Evolution is a real duffer, it isn’t even science, more speculation and wishful thinking for atheists than anything else.
When has Spencer ever rejected the theory of evolution?
Darwin believed in God.
beware of the sealion
Do not engage.
Rational isn’t.
I don’t keep written records or a gardening diary, but I live in the country (now being filled up with greenfield housing) and have a good-sized garden. This year, things are early, but it is certainly not the case that the same applies every year. There have been many years in the three decades I have lived in this spot, where things have been a month or so late. In some years, such as the 2018 Beast from the East, we had arctic weather at the end of February and into March, but decent fruit and other crops, which, had they been in growth, would not have been so.
The weather changes from year to year, and I think we’ve always had spells of certain types of weather (The Little Ice Age, for example) that persisted for a while and then changed to another pattern. As a youngster, the talk was always about the impending age of cold weather. As with anything so changeable, the historical stats and graphs are not always an accurate forecast of things to come, and like other data which we have been bombarded with for two years, can easily be misrepresented or reinterpreted, to suit particular agendas.
Interesting that the comming ice age scare of the 1970’s was also blamed on rising Co2, until the thermometers put a dint in it, now the satelites are putting a dint in the warming propaganda, they just censor the data.
SO you are arguing that rising temperatures are proof that temperature isn’t rising!!!
so you can’t read!!!
Do you think ‘rational’ is a pseudonym of Cathy Newman? He sounds as dumb and uses the same strawman arguments that made Jordan Peterson laugh.
No way, Cathy Newman attended University.
‘rational’ wouldn’t pass the entrance exam.
“Rising temperatures”, according to Spencers satellite observations fall well within the margins of error of scientific observations.
You might note that Spencers observations are below some of those detected in the late 1980’s.
The data that gets released to the press is “modelled” i.e. temperatures are adjusted lower in the past and raised nearer today in order to lie.
Great comment! 20 thumbs up from me!
I have kept a weather diary for years – it’s quite surprising how little I remember about variations/events without this aide memoir. Last spring, here in the south west, was unseasonably cold, with frosts on most nights in April and on well into May. Plants were pretty slow to emerge and I was grateful for my greenhouse. No two years are the same.
Like another poster on here, I used to believe a lot of what I was told, now I believe nothing. Covid rubbish, climate change rubbish – I have had plenty of time to read and research over the past couple of years. My eyes have been opened and my life will never be the same as I now feel rather embittered by all the lies.
Like you I once believed the BBC and other MSM propaganda, but thanks to sites such as the Sceptic variations and others I am able to research the accurate data and be enlightened to the truth. Why is it that our government and other politicians worldwide with all the resources they have cannot do the same?
Speaking of agendas, have you noticed how the vegetarians have appended theirs to the climate change narrative? We now have to stop eating meat in order to save the planet.
I would argue that it’s not so much about eating meat per se, but the amount of it. Until relatively recently many societies considered meat a treat and it was eaten infrequently; most of what people ate was plant-based, and they were healthier for it. Now we have people basically living on burgers and fries, which is both bad for health and has caused immense damage to habitats worldwide to make way for cattle, pigs and their feed.
I’ve been keeping a nature diary since 2010 and I’ve seen zero evidence of warming on the Northants/Rutland/Leicestershire borders.
Brace yourself. Someone any minute now is going to tell you that you should ignore you anecdotal personal experience and consider only what the climate scientists tell you.
Because as we all know scientists are pure souls, selflessly looking to expand human knowledge. Their own personal interests never factor into their work and they are utterly incorruptible.
A nature diary is a scientific endeavour.
Global and local temperatures vary over time. 1000 years ago vineyards flourished in the UK. In medieval times the Thames would often freeze over. How many people know that Camels once lived inj the Artic?
Only one thing is certain, these temperature/climate variations are not driven by CO2.
The Thames froze over at Windsor in 1947 and it als did some few years before that, although I wasn’t alive then.
Yep, the evidence of increasing temperatures is very clear.
The issue is not so much that temperatures are rising, because that’s a pattern that we’ve seen for thousands of years. The issue is that it’s being blamed on humanity. Do we blame the rapid exit from the ice age some 10,000 years ago on diesel engines too?
And the second issue, from what I can see, is that there’s an intentional drive to create the eco-disaster narrative. Which I’m sure even a person such as yourself can see the issue when this narrative gets coupled with digital IDs and passports? Do we really want governments controlling our “green footprint” on a personal level, based on yet more flaky data without allowing for debate?
you would, you’re immensely stupid.
But not the reason for the increase.
Really?
And the biosphere loves the warmer weather.
Probably for the same reason that vineyards were cultivated in Britain during the Roman occupation.
As far north as LIncoln.
what absolute tosh.
Play the man not the ball eh Fingal?
Where do you think the good Doctor got his Dr……? Theological Studies?
Idiot.
Attack the man when you can’t attack what he does.
Pathetic.
Attack what he says. That is what he does..
but he also doesn’t believe in evolution. He believes God will sort it all out.
Are they? Certainly not last Spring, which was exceedingly late. During the 20th century, there were several periods of 30-40 years when temperatures fluctuated up and down. In the ’70’s the press stories were of impending mini-Ice Age. Then the narrative switched to global warming. Since the turn of the century, there has been little to no warming at all. Hence, the narrative swap, from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’, with every local climate extreme, being cited as evidence of man-made ‘Climate Change’.
CO2 is a trace element, which helps all plants grow. And it serves to green the planet. Yes really. As even NASA attest:-
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Due to the cycle of Solar Minimums, and the imminent arrival of a Grand Solar Minimum (once every 350 years and really kicking in by 2030), the prospect of rapid onset global cooling is real.
There is a genuine possibility of calamitous cooling in as little as 10 years. There is zero prospect of calamitous warming at any time in the next century.
Have a look at just this weeks climate extremes. All to do with extremely unusual cooling:-
https://electroverse.net/
And another channel that cuts through the alarmism, with measured commentary:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_QatUHUgU
The ‘climate crisis’ is really about creating an unnecessary energy crisis.
Analyse the causes of this year energy price hikes. Nothing to do with warming.
The whole carbon-reduction thing with carbon credits and carbon taxes is just a complete scam for the purposes of yet more wealth transfer.
When you see the UN and the WEF heading up the alarmism, then that should be your trigger for suspicion and scepticism.
Where has Spencer ever said he doesn’t believe in evolution?
Newton, Einstein, and, of course Darwin himself all believed in a higher order and found no contradiction in that belief with science.
The main thing to realise is that as with the pandemic there are wing nuts on all side.
In any reasonably complex system suffering from harmonic stress there is a period where things appear to become stable right before the system rips itself to shreds.
Hopefully this isn’t one of those cases, but we need more data that is free from ideology and belief to see what is happening. Regrettably that isn’t something that science appears to be able to provide any more.
Try this.
https://www.weather-research.com/weather-and-climate
Satellite evidence of the warming, or otherwise, of the uncontaminated troposphere is as about as reliable and unambiguous as observational science can get.
Your attitude is correct and is an example to others. It’s simple-keep an open mind to everything, whether it be climate change, virus or what dog food you choose. Make your own mind up and don’t let pre-formed prejudices rule your decisions. As humans, we let prejudice rule our lives. What “team” we support, what political party, how we regard others, we make these judgments all the time.
Allow for another’s opinion, keep an open mind to everything, and keep asking the questions!
It ain’t easy and I certainly fail on many occasions, but you have to keep at it.
But above all, don’t look at the evidence properly….
Tell us, what was the global temperature yesterday?
Define “properly”.
Climate change is real. If it was not, the UK would still be under a kilometre of ice and we could walk to France. What is false is the linking of CO2 emissions to climate change.
This is a political conspiracy by a psychotic corporate elite intent on destroying Western civilisation.
The Davos/Bilderberg/Chatham House/Club of Rome plotters sell their form of communism under a variety of different brands: Agenda 2030 sustainability/Great Reset/Build Back Better etc.
Whatever badge is used, the end result is the same – they will own everything and we will own nothing.
Feudalism not communism, but you can see communism as a kind of bureaucratic feudalism.
Very timely article for me: I was driving my 7 and 9 year old to school and noticed the hazel catkins are out. This circuitously led to me trying to debunk and deindoctrinate with the simple principals –
Science can never be settled.
It’s a massive red flag when anyone claims this.
My boys grasped the Idea that if in the medieval times the authorities claimed ” the science is settled, no more can be known” we wouldn’t be driving in our car and playing on smartphones, it’s obviously a silly thing to say.
Then the usual Newton Einstein 300 year change etc ..
It’s a never ending task to keep up with the indoctrination, especially when they HAVE TO reproduce it for science exams as FACT.
Sigh….
Open minds are rare, but none the less welcome for that.
Don’t confused denial as “open minded”
Or dogmatic adherence to one set of facts as rationality.
Whenever I hear the word ‘denial’ I know I’m in the presence of a member of some cult or other.
Define “denial”.
Glad to have you onboard,the covid and co2 scams are linked . This is the best UK site: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
I’m so pleased that you posted this, my earnest hope is that people such as yourself could see the parallels between covid agenda and climate agenda.
Because the obvious inconsistencies, lies and heavy handed censorship occurs within a short timeframe, it is easy to spot. But these exact same processes, initiated by the same people and agencies, for exactly the same end goal, hopefully can enable many many other people to question the validity of the anthropomorphic climate change scam.
With climate change, the temperature on the boiling frog was, by necessity because these things take decades to see, turned up very slowly. With covid, the stove was turned straight to Max, and a lot more frogs noticed this.
Welcome to a fellow temperature intolerant frog.
“I’m so pleased that you posted this, my earnest hope is that people such as yourself could see the parallels between covid agenda and climate agenda.”
Yep… they both have deniers or conspiracy nuts, who make no sense.
HOW DARE YOU!!!
Don’t you know it’s an emergency!!!!
The problem for you is that Roy Spencer is on record as agreeing that CO2 has had an effect on global temperatures and the emissions from man over the last 150 years have added to that effect. He is not a ‘denier’.
However he and many other scientists like him put that into perspective and in particular look at the ability of the CO2 molecule to irradiate energy across a very narrow spectrum. The physics points to a lessening effect, the band becomes ‘full up’. A doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm has far less effect than from 200ppm to 400ppm.
Of course the ‘fudge factor’ contained in all but one of the IPCC climate models does not exist in reality. Increases of CO2 do not trigger increasing irradiation from water vapour . Without this fudge factor the models struggle to get over 1C increases, which lines up with actual outcome.
Faced with the uncomfortable truth that their models are GIGO, the climate brigade have turned to promoting every slightest weather event as ‘extreme’ and a clear sign of ‘an emergency’.
As many have commented, ‘covid’ has allowed people to peep under the covers at the forces imposing this stuff on us. It leads to the same financial requirement to reinvent resource constrained capitalism, and the necessary totalitarian controls imposed to allow it to succeed.
Take your silly comments to WUWT and see how long you survive there.
We were told the ‘vaccines’ were “safe and effective”. That was proven incorrect and therefore a conspiracy theory you indulged in.
We were told “two weeks to flatten the curve”. That was proven incorrect and therefore a conspiracy you indulged in.
We were told that lockdowns worked. That was proven incorrect and therefore a conspiracy theory you indulged in.
We were told that masks worked to stop the transmission of the virus. That was proven incorrect and therefore a conspiracy theory you indulged in.
We are told that children not at risk from covid need to be ‘vaccinated’. That is proving incorrect and therefore a conspiracy theory you indulged in.
Few covid sceptics indulged in any of these conspiracy theories.
Good man! Get yourself a copy of Roy Spencer’s ‘Global Warming Skepticism for Busy Peope’. Just 130 pages, easily digestible, all you need to know, available on Kindle.
Same here. I knew Covid was a scam from the start as I had prior knowledge and interest in that field, but I had never questioned the Climate Change narrative and, while always libertarian, was a left-leaning libertarian.
I now despise the left with a passion and have lost all trust in and respect for all public institutions.
“….while always libertarian, was a left-leaning libertarian.”
A Conservative then……
It’s hard being as left-wing as they come when pretty much all shades of the modern Left have enthusiastically collaborated with the class enemy. The Left has shilled for the pharmaceutical industry, cheer-led mass unemployment, defended anti-human social restrictions and slandered the global anti-fascist resistance movement as being itself fascist, when it has deigned to acknowledge it at all. What have the trade unions, the Labour Party, the Morning Star, the People’s Assembly and the Socialist Workers Party said by way of support for the NHS100k activists, the Canadian truckers or the dockworkers of Trieste? Nothing.
The ‘official’ Left has made itself irrelevant and deserves its place in the dustbin of history but if you still have an appetite for Left politics or at least want to be reassured that not every comrade has scabbed on humanity, you might be interested in Left Lockdown Sceptics. Beginning life as a website, they have developed into an activist organisation and are holding a public meeting under the title ‘Take back our lives! Reimagining the left in 2022’ on Saturday 12th February in London.
LLS…….How interesting.
For once someone on the left actually thinking about what’s going on.
A bit confused but nevertheless welcome.
here you go pal….
The most successful skeptical climate site on the planet, run by the indomitable Anthony Watts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
It is an excellent site. Also, unlike those that promote the green agenda, he allows robust debate and argument.
Me too (ironically). The standard left on most spectrums for Blar-rights to faux Marxist left have become nothing but a prop to the current sources of power. Their facile :follow the science: nonsense now excludes biology and their desire to achieve change through catastrophe means they support zero covid and zero carbon as strategies for “mobilisation”. Meanwhile the real working class are delivering their shopping and selling them everything from craft beer to chemotherapy. On climate they have colluded in the annihilation of the living stands of the majority while pandering to the entitled, spoiled and unproductive youth, and self interested global tech and finance elites. However when I look at the entitled chancers who spearhead Toryism and the vindictive anti social policies of some Libertarians I realise that increasingly we need to stop believing a “movement” will represent us. Even the unions have been absolutely complicit in the Covid fear using it opportunistically, to support the ruling political elites. For my former friends and colleagues I am now right wing but I suppose it’s because scepticism is the real politics of opposition.
“……anti social policies of some Libertarians”
That’s interesting. What anti social ‘policies’ do ‘some’ Libertarians promote?
Which “some” would they be?
I gave your post a thumbs up because it deserves it, but as a Libertarian I must point out that ‘we’, (not that there really is a we- that’s the point really), I am not remotely vindictive- on the contrary I tolerate more than a little abuse from people simply for not agreeing with whatever the current ‘thing’ is without bitterness or anger. As for anti-social, I have no idea what I do that fits this description.
I’m a cynic and always have been (makes me a bore at parties). But I think you are in the camp of many. It doesn’t help the GW side that costs to heat our homes and energy for business has skyrocketed despite being told there would be only little sacrifices.
Has the globe sales since 1870 and the start of the industrial revolution? Yes. Much of that has to do with how cold the prior 300 years were in comparison with prior 9000, and especially prior 400 years. At the margin do we add to this? Sure, or at least we add to the heat cycle. But not one climate model has accurately hit the last 30 years nor are they backwards accurate. Models are nothing more than guesses based on what you the modeler thinks are major factors (I’ve done some in industry and, amazing the answers I could produce). We’ve just spent 2 years of seeing “experts” show us models to force change human behaviour. Their lack of accuracy hopefully will wake up people to the fact science is never settled and models are not reality.
All that ‘cheap’ electricity from wind turbines we all subsidise by £10Bn every year………..
I don’t hear anyone in the HoC raising this as an issue that needs to be addressed before we do anything else.
It does make me laugh when energy companies tell me that they can supply ‘cheap, green electricity’. When I ask how it gets really interesting…
I could have typed the same, and would have been entirely truthful.
All the “pandemic” was modelled into existence in order to push policies that greatly enriched certain people.
Why do you consider the whole of grant funded science to be any different?
In this era of search engines being in reality disguised censorship engines I do wonder if some “science” is being suppressed.
https://youtu.be/vnmzOeG_N64?t=308
A New Fraud Algorithm From NOAA
I’ve been tracking NOAA temperature data tampering for a long time, and it has gotten much worse over the past five years. The US is cooling and NOAA is trying to cover it up by altering the data.
Tony Heller
“I used to think this was the biggest scientific fraud in history until this year”
If somebody’s in a hurry, just the lack of cost-benefit analysis, or the ignoring of unfavourable cost-benefit analyses, should be evidence enough that climate change policy is a scam, just as it was with COVID. Ditto for the use of modelling to provide dire predictions, and the censorship of opposing views.
Then if you have slightly more time to dig, you can look at how the “climate emergency” is constructed by the media selectively feeding the public with out of context reports of bad weather that isn’t actually exceptional by historical standards. If there was a compelling case for action, they would present that instead; they wouldn’t waste everybody’s time with misleading weather coverage.
We’re at the beginning of a thirty year Grand Solar Minimum – why don’t the climate scientists talk about that? It will mean colder than usual temperatures and certainly a fall not a rise. What I find weird is the gaslighting when they say, for example, September 2021 was the hottest on record and as a uk resident I’m thinking ‘Where?’ We’ve had a pretty universally unimpressive 12 months with a pretty crap summer and that’s my lived experience and that of everyone I know. Of course it may have been very hot in some places but that’s always the case. They mentioned Turkey as having temperatures out of the normal range but my Turkish students say that 40 degrees (in one paper’s headline news story) happens somewhere in Turkey every year.
Why is everything targeted at the “left”.
I thought it was all the fault of the government, or big business…
Are people confused?
No, you are confused. You think government and big business isn’t “the left”.
Just ignore.
For other benefit, not our pet sealion troll.
Big Business is left facing because
its easier to bribe a single bureaucrat to spend taxpayer’s money on them, than to convince all their customers of the values of their product
The bureaucrat can regulate into existence competition destroying hurdles to deter potential competitors with regulatory costs
The government subsidises patents and other IP and taxes work, as big business is mainly about IP they are made wealthier by this effective state subsidy.
The government can also subsidise immigration and thus greatly lower the incomes of existing workers, which is great for exporters
In short big business has a large interest in lobbying state interference in the economy (leftism) at taxpayer expense.
Are you seriously suggesting that ‘the left’ isn’t in charge? Surely you don’t think our woke jellyfish of a PM is right wing?
For years we have been told that there was a climate emergency requiring drastic changes to our way of life. Despite constant repetition these warnings failed to gain traction with the public. Something more frightening, and more immediate, was needed, and by accident or design along came covid.
Within two years international air travel was virtually decimated and soon may be so reduced that only the elite can afford it. Covid fearmongering has achieved more in terms of enforced lifestyle changes in two years than climate fearmongering has achieved in 30. If only people could wake up to the fact that both climate and covid narratives are essentially fraudulent we might begin to address more fundamental issues around the way so called democracy has been rigged in favour of an elite who put their own greed and ambition ahead of the needs of their countries and why the good honest people we need in politics do not (with very few exceptions) put themselves forward for election.
‘Happy to listen to what more knowledgeable folk on here have to say on this issue.’
I can recommend listening to Tony Heller, he is very good at exposing the climate fraud.
For example –
Climate Crisis Of 1911https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqusLrKo59s&pbjreload=102
Tony has hundreds of bite size presentations debunking the lies from numerous different view points.
I’ve always been a natural skeptic, but my skepticism went to another level when I became a big supporter of Ron Paul’s presidential bids. I now think every government and media Narrative is bogus and dangerous.
Once you start questioning A or B, you are soon also questioning C, D, E … and Z.
Trends In Scientific Fraud (odysee.com)
Forest fire burn acreage since the mid 1920s in the USA
Biden Ministry Of Truth (odysee.com)
For me, it was the other way around, ie, having seen the dishonesty, censorship, silencing of anyone disagreeing with the official narrative in the global warming/climate change/emergency/catastrophe/crisis/add-your-own frightening-description debate, what happened with covid came as little surprise.
It seemed to be more or less the same people pushing the narrative, originating in th transnational global community, i.e. from the UN down. It’s a socialist project, designed to destroy capitalism and capitalist countries, which they’ve admitted.
Climate change is nothing to do with the environment. They’ve said so. It’s how the global leadership redistributes the world’s wealth, mostly to them, it seems.
The following two books are great on the subject –
The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with ‘climate change’ turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?by Christopher Booker
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us Allby Michael Shellenberger
Also worth reading is ‘Scared to Death’, which covers AGW as well as many other scares and how they were used. It should be essential reading for everyone.
The lecture below is excellent. In short, even if you think that we can should try and change the weather (I don’t), then the Blob’s plan simply won’t work from an engineering perspective.
I am similar. I thought climate change was a bit iffy but best to err on the side of caution. Now I think it’s another scam. I too don’t believe anything institutions, government or media push at me. If they’re pushing it, then it’s a lie. All working towards an authoritarian global collectivism.
It won’t be better and those convinced they know what’s best for us and that convince themselves they are good will begin to show their true tyrannical natures. Just take a look around. It’s all ready showing; Australia, Austria, France and Canada to name a few.
This is my country, my democracy, my freedom. Our leaders are there to serve us, not us them. If they win they will turn the globe into a dystopian world akin to the Soviet Union. Productivity and innovation will plummet to be followed by deprivation.
Dr Patrick Moore (one of the original, now disillusioned, founders of Greenpeace) has written a very readable and informative book:
”Fake Invisible Catastrophes And Threats Of Doom”.
He most definitely IS knowledgeable!
Your inclination is not relevant AFAIAC; I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the modern left, equally true of many career politicians – with few exceptions they are agenda driven, control freak mad and intellectually illiterate.
Why such people ignore the necessary presence of a certain level of CO2 for human existence to continue is something “they” cannot answer and be “sincere according to truth” in the same sentence. I cannot conceive that any thinking person is not actuated to support sustainable use of finite resources, development of clean energy, protect properly the environment – fauna and flora; but just like the severely compromised response to the existence of SARS COV2, if the “settled science” is demonstrably false, their “case” disintegrates and soon disappears, no matter how egregious is their continued bullshit. It is such a waste of valuable human energy that could be far better employed surely?
For me, sadly, the need to understand exactly the AGWCC lobby use and abuse data and information is as key as trying to understand the “science” which is as far from being settled as I am from the Moon; to that end I recommend:
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT <comment-reply@wordpress.com>;
Real Climate Science <noreply+feedproxy@google.com>
Global Warming Foundation
There are many others but these have showed me the counter data/arguments, demonstrated the mendacity of sources such as the BBC, demonstrated the partial use of data to underline their skewed agenda – they also give many links elsewhere.
Talk about cherry picking data!
I totally condemn Google’s censorship and Roy Spencer’s demonetisation, but I don’t believe he is being honest. He would have had a great career selling mRNA quackzines.
How is he being dishonest? The data is what it is and scientists try to interpret and understand it. As more data becomes available better interpretations develop.
I think you would struggle to find satellite data from 1850, but you can certainly get data from stations on Earth that have been operating over the centuries. Maybe we could even look at ice cores, or read a bit of history eg the Romans grew vines in the area of Yorkshire 2,000 years ago because the weather was what? Cold and they wanted a challenge? Or hot, and the vines grew well in the hot environment?
To be honest, I thought the same. I see a gentle upward trend.
CLEARLY, from 1979 to 2000 most of the data points are below the line, From 2000 to 2015 around the line and from 2015 onwards above the line.
Who knows how reliable the data is though. Given how dishonest scientists are I’m not sure I can trust how they measure and compile their data to come up with that one single figure that represents the temperature of the entire planet.
Key data takeaway. The temperature change from the end of the last ice age and the beginning of the Holocene was less than 2C.
That ushered in a period of unprecedented climate stability which permitted the development of agriculture. Putting that stability at risk imperils us all because we rely on food from agriculture. Having said that, i don’t have a clue what to do. Electric cars and windmills are useless – they don’t reduce carbon dioxide levels by even one part per million.
A further key takeaway, rising global temperatures result in oceans releasing dissolved carbon dioxide. You don’t have to worry about it, because we can’t do anything about it.
Nothing we can do in the next 10 generations will reduce atmospheric CO2, since it stays gaseous for 100’s of years before being reabsorbed.
The damage already done is here to stay, but that isn’t a reason to make it worse.
What damage?
I can see how CO2 has damaged rational’s rationality, but in his case the CO2 comes from being triple-masked and re-breathing his own exhalations.
I suspect that rationality was only ever an illusion.
Where is the empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm?
Berkeley Earth undertook an empirical study and it failed miserably. It’s the only study of its kind to be undertaken so far.
Here’s an interesting dichotomy:
We have been told for over 40 years that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of climate change – Indeed, it’s “Settled Science”.
In which case, why did Berkeley Earth feel the need to spend millions to demonstrate the concept if it was already proven beyond doubt?
Scientific papers show that increased CO2 greens the planet.
Industrial horticulturists pump CO2 into their vast greenhouses.
CO2 increases crop yields.
The climate has always had natural variability and cycles.
More people die of the cold than the warmth.
The same global elites are behind the Climate Change scam AND the Covid scam.
That should alert your scepticism.
Temperature change at what temporal resolution? There have been a number of attempts to scare people by splicing on 20th century temperature data to a much longer but lower-frequency temperature series inferred from proxies, to make it look as though recent temperature change is “unprecedented” whereas actually it may just be higher resolution data.
What’s better for agriculture. Heat or cold?
Easy answer:
You can irrigate your way to producing food in arid areas, the ancient Egyptians did it.
You can’t irrigate frozen fields with frozen water.
Your two points seem reasonable. The thing that strikes me is that we do not (and probably cannot) understand the climate, just like we don’t understand the immune system and viruses. Weather is chaotic and fiendishly complex and is dominated by the hydrogen reactor in the sky. There are complex overlaying cycles that interfere with each other and run over inconveniently long periods. It is all guesswork that has been intentionally skewed for a political aim.
Personally, I worry about pollution of the land, rivers and oceans, chopping down of rainforests, concreting over the planet, over-population resulting in lower quality of life, and exhaustion of resources so that every single human can own a couple of tons of new car every few years. I could not care less about CO2, it is an irrelevance.
I agree. I also think we should be looking to end our reliance on some of the nastiest regimes on the planet to fuel our cars, but not at the expense of yet more exploitation and suffering for Africa.
We could always use fracking as the US was doing before they elected a socialist to reduce this reliance, and of course eventually EVs will become viable- but it will be driven by market forces and not pie-in-the-sky government mandates.
So you are “green”, except for climate change?
Interesting.
Sensible, I would say.
And rational, unlike the one who calls himself or herself by that name.
Frack me, I gave rational an uptick! Not had your morning Victory Coffee yet?
(PS it seems posts with naughty words get autodeleted now).
thank you.
Many of those opposed to climate change policy consider themselves environmentalists. The kind of tyranny that would be brought in by governments enabled by a “climate emergency” would likely be disastrous for the environment.
“……over-population resulting in lower quality of life”
What’s the perfect population?
As importantly, what’s the perfect age demographic for the perfect population?
It’s an observed phenomenon that the more prosperous people are, the less they reproduce.
The wealthy west has a largely declining population whilst the poverty stricken developing world is increasing, yet they don’t have infrastructure comparable to the wealthy west.
I wouldn’t worry about exhaustion of resources or over population. The eco types have been banging that drum for over 50 years and have been proven decisively wrong. See ‘The Rational Optimist’ amongst other works for more details than I can fit here, but essentially we get better at manging resources and feeding ourselves. According to the 60s & 70s eco-warriors, we should have run out of everything and starved to death long ago.
You see, that there is a slight upward trend makes me think that the data is reliable. There really is not much to see here. And, as ebygum says, if the BBC tells me “the science is settled” it immediately makes me suspicious after the last two years.
True.
But I have a friend who operates a pro weather station for 50 years. And he comes up with similar numbers without cherry picking.
You are right. There has been an upward trend for some time now. It started at the end of the little ice age, that is how all that ice melted and why skating on the Thames is a thing of the past.
However, I defy you to show an anthropogenic component in it.
Agreed. I too see a “gentle upward trend”. I would be denying the evidence of my own eyes if I said I didn’t. But i also agree that this is not necessarily linked in any way to human activity, and I’m inclined to think not.
If there was any link to carbon emissions, this graph would be off the scale post 1850.
Why?
This why.
See any commonality?
Of course there is a clear upward trend – if there wasnt the UK would still be under a kilometre of ice.
The only thing new is activists blaming this rise in temperature on carbon emissions. There is no correlation whatsoever between atmospheric CO2 and climate change.
Apart from the fact that both show rising trends. That is correlation..
You provide the information to disprove your own statement.
Now I imagine you think the bumpiness of the temperature plot is your proof. But it is not.
Correlation is not causation. The rise in CO2 trails the rise in temperature. What is it that you wish us to do? Freeze? Starve? Live in mud huts? All three?
Roy Spencer is labelled “a denier”, there are many more distinguihed scientists labelled as such, and their observations and opinions blocked by the MSM.
The reason?
The Global green economy is estimated to be worth TR $7,870,000,000,000 funded by Global corporations and billionaire speculators, it’s big money, they put their shirts on it and “you” will pay.
Chucking a few million at funding quack scientists and cranks to peddle their unscientific junk all over the airwaves who scream denier at any member of the scientific community who dares step out of line is a small investment for these Sharks.
But as we are all about to find out when Net Zero cuts in very soon, its a scam to fleece the people, a massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
Our only hope against this criminal activity is mass civil disbedience, revolutions occur only when the people start to suffer, these measures will absoloutley ensure that situation happens.
I only wish it was a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor; I think you will find it is the other way round, rather like the past 24 months.
Speaking of robbing the poor, can some genius explain to me why is it when a power supply company boasts they are 100% unreliable – sorry I mean ‘renuable’ – then blame the 40% increase in price announced yesterday, being due to the escalating price of gas.
If the price of sunlight and wind is the same as last year why the price rise?
Boris are you there?
It is not funded by the big bu**ers, it is our money that they have accumulated.
You seem to be disagreeing with yourself.
Global corporations and billionaire speculators are conducting a scam for a “massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor”
Are you sure that’s what you think?
The poster made a typo.
Even if you accept the theory that CO2 drives the climate, can someone please tell me how mankind’s 3.5% contribution to the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is somehow more powerful than the naturally occurring 96.5%?
Does the sun’s geo-electric/magnetic activity not feature at all…?
Also, would it really be the end of the world if us ‘up north’ were as warm as them ‘darn sarf’….? I quite fancy living in a place with the temperature of the Loire Valley!
My wife was born in Bangalore, India. Her parents brought her here in 1962. She was 7 years old. If I said she bellyaches in my ear every winter about how cold it is in God’s own county that would be a bit of an understatement.
You need to consider what stops us all from freezing at night when we are turned away from the sun. The earth’s atmosphere retains much of the hat received during the day and a key gas in this is CO2 (along with H2O). So, CO2 is a good thing – like water. But you can have too much of a good thing – you can drown in life giving water.
And natural processes are being drowned out by human activity. Natural processes remove about 3% of current anthropogenic emissions from the atmosphere by such mechanism as rock weathering and the carbon cycle.
We don’t freeze at night because populated areas in general generate warmth. Spend a few nights in the deep desert (as I have), and you’ll see what I mean.
Surely it is clouds or lack of them that determine night time temperature. In the tropics it is humid and warm no significant temperature drop at night; in the deserts it is dry and cloudless, hot in the day freezing at night; in the U.K. clear skies in winter result in frost, cloudy skies less likely to be frosty.
There is good research that the effects of the sun on galactic cosmic rays and their subsequent impact on the upper atmosphere, where they initiate cloud formation, are a key driver for global climate. CERN is researching the phenomenon.
Clue: does anyone remember the Wilson cloud chamber as a mechanism for detecting sub-atomic particles from their advanced physics lessons – same effect – used to research, for example, cosmic rays?
Rock weathering! Are you suggesting that it is significant in human timescales? It is green growth wot duz it.
As for CO2 effects, I suggest you research saturation effects on CO2 and its ability to “insulate”.
It isn’t more powerful, but a small change in CO2 makes a big difference.
Just like a small change in centre of gravity can make you fall over.
How small a change and how big a difference?
Some evidence for your statement?
Absolutely.
The sun is the major contributer to the earths temperature.
And Climate ‘Science’ makes the rather surprising assuption that solar energy input is constant over time. Witout this assumption, none of their models can ‘work’.
There is plenty of evidence that solar input fluctuates in various short (tens of years) to long (tens of millions of years) cycles.
Not Green: Offshore Wind ‘Industry’ Destroying Fishing Grounds, Birds & Marine Life
https://stopthesethings.com/2022/02/04/not-green-offshore-wind-industry-destroying-fishing-grounds-birds-marine-life/
by stopthesethings
We need far more people at all our events here
if we want the tyranny to end for good
Saturday 5th February 2pm
Windsor Great Dog Walk for Freedom
behind one simple sign
“Covid Rules Are Barking”
All Canines and Humans welcome
Even if you don’t own a dog please come along
meet Alexander Park (near Bandstand) Barry Rd/Goswell Rd
Windsor SL4 1QY
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Anthropomorphic climate change is a malevolant contrivance that starts with the Club of Rome’s “Limit’s to Growth” in 1973. The original starting gun for the contemporary “Great reset” start’s with that report in 73. Kissinger’s “Useless eater’s” are in greater danger than ever before, the time to rid ourselves of big government and meglomaniac technocrats is now!
“Two thing’s are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe”
Albert Einstein.
The opening graph shows a 0.5 degrees C increase since 1979 if you smooth out all the peaks and troughs in the rolling average. It might not be the best graph to use to defeat the climate change argument.
The climate change argument is not that global temperature are rising (no sensible person denies that) but that it is caused entirely by human activity and that it is running out of control. However we don’t seem to see hockey sticks any more.
When it’s a question of instrumentation, I always wonder about comparing (in this instance) temperatures recorded over a number of decades. The reason for this is that most instrumentation undergoes re-calibration on a ‘seldom if ever’ basis. Even then, the accuracy of that calibration depends on human factors (how much the calibrator drank the night before, or whether his wife just left him). Add to that technology, which must be more accurate nowadays than it used to be, and the modern proliferation of data sources (which must have grown over time) and I wonder whether any of these long-term comparisons are worth a light (low energy consumption or not).
That leads me to be sceptical of both sides in most arguments on climate change.
(I should add that some of that scepticism arrives from changes of emphasis, such as ‘global warming’ becoming ‘climate change’ to suit the purposes of one side or other.)
And there’s also the effect of increasing urbanisation to take into account apparently, extending ambient city warmth to instruments situated in areas that were previously cooler because less built up.
Human use of power is indisputably rising, and ultimatey all power use results in heating the environment.
Human beings are also good at converting food into heat, typically 60W per person, I think. So that’s over 10 terawatt-hours just from people every day.
You seem to be arguing climate change is real..
of course clime change is real, it never stopped changing, throughout geological time.
Climate will never stop changing.
It sure is real – and has been for several billion years.
Just zero evidence that man made CO2 has anything much to do with it.
Never denied it – just look at the posts I have made on this thread alone. The bit I don’t believe is that climate change is real and caused by human CO2 emissions.
I am a true believer in the heat island effect. I see evidence every time I drive into a city or even small town from the countryside on my car thermometer, and it is confirmed when I look at the siting of modern temperature stations, airports being some of the extremes.
You don’t say?
So you think it’s all down to drifts in thermometer accuracy, do you?
An of course, they must have been under reading in earlier times…..
Yet the boiling point of water is still 100C, at STP.
And you imagine thermometers are used in satellites to measure tropospheric temperatures?
What do they do, drop it down on a piece of string?
I’m as sceptical about climate change as I am about Covid, both have the same goals. The power hungry and wealthy recruit governments to implement the plans to make them more powerful and richer and poor people much poorer. Nothing they do is altruistic, both make them billions
I think you will find that climate change scientists are not billionaires.
They have been fighting to be heard for decades, when the corporate establishment has been fighting to counter them. Look at the oil lobby for instance.
Stop swallowing the garbage that you read on these sites and have a think.
Where does he mention climate change scientists?
“They [climate scientists] have been fighting to be heard for decades”
Indeed they have, and many of them have been cancelled over the years.
Meanwhile the climate frauds have had the podium for over 50 years pushing nonsense about catastrophic change.
Or do you imagine Greta is a scientist?
‘Fighting to be heard’? Are you serious? When do we ever hear anything else? Their views are constantly forced on us whilst anyone with an opposing view is ‘cancelled’, as it is known these days. Why shouldn’t anyone counter them if they disagree with them? If they are so sure they are right, why do they constantly seek to silence objectors? Why not just engage and prove them wrong? I keep hearing about ‘big oil’, etc., but that pales into insignificance next to ‘big government’. As for the garbage on these sites, what about pretty much every media outlet constantly trying to terrify us with the AGW storyline, which is clearly being ‘swallowed’ by most people. What harm can a few sceptical websites do in the face of that?
Scarey average global temp graphs depend entirely on start date.
Who decides what the “perfect” average global temp is? (sponsored by the globalists) What is it?
Why are fractions of a degree rise/fall over decades, or indeed centuries, important when the DAILY swing in temp from the warmest parts to the coldest parts tens of degrees.
Looking at the data the most obvious conclusion is that the “global” warming is not global
at all. Instead, it is strongest at night, in the winter in Siberia, and
Canada. I’m pretty sure the poor people in Murmansk are not complaining
about that.
This picture tells you all you need to know about the climate change propaganda
To be honest, it’s just nice to have an open debate about something other than the scamdemic. I think the daily sceptic readers can take an interesting view on many of the ‘settled’ science of today. If only Aristotle had ‘settled’ his science we could have dispensed with cars and planes and space travel and lived in the centre of our own arrogant universe.
We now live in some sort of Parallel Universe, where every supposed Truth or “Fact” is, in reality, either a downright Lie, Distortion or “Mispoken”.
No matter what the printed musical score says, every little Tin Drummer and Trumpet Blower feels entitled to emit the cacophony of his or her choice.
Again, TN, BN. “Trust Nobody, Believe Nothing”.
And just as Orwell predicted, truth is rewritten and no one can remember further back than a decade. We are quite close to a Ministry of Truth in the form of Google.
While I am in no way alarmed by ‘climate change’, this article is slightly misleading.
1/ There are natural fluctuations in the record which are mainly due to the ENSO cycle. The cycle is currently in La Nina phase which means sea surface temperatures will be cooler than normal.
2/ The anomaly baseline has been updated to the more recent 1991-2020 period which does mean recent readings will appear less dramatic. Note the longer GISS & Hadley records use 1961-90 baselines.
The UAH satellite linear trend is about 0.14 deg per decade over the the past 42 years which means there has been almost 0.6 degree of warming. Quite significant.
Sorry?
0.6ºC of a global temperature fluctuation over 42 years is supposed to be significant?
I suppose it is when you consider growing crop production and extreme poverty dropping like a stone over that period.
It also seems it’s contributed to the planet enjoying virgin greening over 35 years of satellite observations.
The IPCC seems to think it’s not bad either as it tells us there is low confidence of increased extreme weather events.
You might want to inform us all just what negative effects that 0.6ºC has had on the planet.
With Covid and with climate there seems to be some strange and disturbing trends and tendencies at work. There seems to be a drive to move us into a life of authoritarian, techno, bureaucratic, communitarian, collectivism. Mark Drakeford was openly talking about this the other day. The trouble is, who decides what is in the common good? Covid and the climate have given the tyrants issues on which the ‘common good’ can be flagged up as so self evident that it cannot be debated and the rules and dictats must be followed are we will all be doomed.
It seems to me that climate is a highly complex subject way beyond my pay grade as a retired agriculturalist but what I would say is that this whole issue is missing any sort of open minded, free thinking debate. Analysis of the meaning of the data in this article should be openly and freely debated not subject to censorship.
‘But you never ask questions, when God’s on your side’
What is being censored, exactly?
To quote the article;
The data is compiled by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, who was kicked off Google Adsense recently for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s monthly satellite update page by removing all Google-suppled advertising. Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well-established scientific consensus”.
He fell asleep during that paragraph.
This article says there has been no global warming for 7 years, and the article below says there was no global warming for the 19 years before that. Make of this what you will.
Well if you look for articles like this you will find them.
https://www.weather-research.com/weather-and-climate
Rational, look at this material and get back to us.
If you don’t look for things science collapses.
The UK has one of the most moderate climates on the planet and the UK has some of the most extreme climate zealots.
What makes someone a zealot?
a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to force other people have them too: a fanatically committed person.
you mean like the sort of person who’d be a sealion toll?
So basically, using doom-laden terms such as “emergency”, “crisis”, and “catastrophe”, suffixed to the word “climate”, as practiced by the media, politicians, and eco activists, is an example of the following terms:
– grifting
– exaggerating
– lying
– doom-saying
And essentially: pure wankerism.
To be fair, it does look like an upward trend over 40 years of about 0.5 degrees. So at that rate we would reach 1.5 degrees in another 80 years assuming CO2 is the driver and it increases at the same rate that it has done. On the other hand there is some margin of error in all that and a few cold years could change the picture considerably.
If one looks at 80-90 years of Met Office data for rural sites like Shawbury and Ross on Wye, there’s about a one deg K warming. Most of it has occurred since 1960. Not much added tarmac here, unlike Heathrow or Cambridge.
In short, there seem to be valid points from both sides. With COVID, by contrast, one side is just lying.
Somewhere on the planet has sen zero K warming. That’s what averages are for.
How many cold years in your opinion?
This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something we can all do by taking our socks and shoes off.
Assuming increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing the planet to warm:
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostock Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Manua Loa)
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take ~25,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for ~25,000 years.
One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!
Furthermore, the Manua Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 but cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.
Hardly surprising. Mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Manua Loa graph.
Mankind’s emissions are independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so should be obvious.
Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Manua Loa data. Unsurprisingly.
In which case, the warming the planet has experienced is down to naturally occurring atmospheric CO2, all 97% of it.
That’s entirely ignoring the effect of the most powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas, water vapour which is ~96% of all greenhouse gases.
Temperature seems to have a clear upward trend.
The argument of little change from a cherry-picked reference is somewhat pathetic.
An upward trend does not prove any particular cause. This has been the great fallacy over claims of a climate “crisis”: even if temperatures are edging upwards (not everywhere and not consistently), that does not prove the case that it is all due to human-generated CO2. But climate zealots joyfully seize on every piece of evidence of warming as if they are all additional proof of that claim. They are no such thing. Every year I get more grey hairs; and with every grey hair, the world gets a little warmer. If that relationship can be shown to be precise and consistent, maybe we should start believing that it is all down to my hair?
The upward trend does show that the article is misleading.
Now many people on here do actual admit that the upward trend is there. They may next understand that some of the opinions they are being fed are therefor incorrect.
Again, the same logical fallacy. A is wrong, therefore B is wrong.
So you agree, the article is wrong.
About what?
There is always an upward trend in global temperatures, until there is always a downward trend in global temperatures.
The graph starts at 1979 because that is the eariest satellite data they have. You can only use the data available to you and then use it to try and predict future temperature rises or falls. For instance this graph indicates a 0.4 degree rise ove approximately 40 years meaning that the 1.5c temp rise picked out of thin air (pun intended) will not occurr for the next 150 years.
Of course there could well be other explanations for climate change than easlily taxable CO2.
See here from 2014.
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-sun-natural-climate.html
I think thermometers were around before 1979…
There were no thermometers measuring the global lower atmosphere before 1979.
Here is a chart including information back to 1880
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
you think they had thermometers accurate to 1/1000 of a degree in 1880
LOL
Why would that level of accuracy be required?
because the “hottest temp record” for any given area in a newspaper headline is often only 1/1000th of a degree warmer than it was in the 1940’s.
even your link claims an accuracy of .05 degrees on the graph from 1880, that 5/100th degrees accuracy.
LOL just LOL
You think all that data is accurate?
From your link.
The data reflect how much warmer or cooler each region was compared to a base period of 1951-1980. (The global mean surface air temperature for that period was 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.)
The temperature of the lower atmosphere is not the same as the surface air temperature.
I will say again one last time the graph starts at 1979 because that is when satellites started measuring the Global lower atmosphere.
Balloons.
The article is about the fact that a professor who is studying and publishing this data is being cancelled. The data is of course open to interpretation but there is a clear trend in the media of preventing any data which might be used to question the narrative from even being published.
I’ve got a science degree and what’s going on here isn’t science. It’s a cult. Cults are things many of us have become much more familiar with over the past 23 months.
But he isn’t cancelled… they just don’t want to sell advertising on the back of his stuff.
Read things properly…..
Why don’t they want to sell advertising on his content?
Because they don’t want to support his misinformation and enrich him.
Well that’s quite sweet. You must be quite an innocent soul, thinking Google care about misinformation and making sure only honest and accurate people make money.
They care about perception of the google brand.
That’s the nature of business.
They key point is that not selling advertising is not the same as censorship.
NASA is promoting misinformation?
Well, there’s an admission………
LOL. Cherry picked.
Being it’s the only satellite record of any consequence on the planet, it can hardly be described as a ‘cherry’.
It also correlates well with balloon data, which is also the only meaningful terrestrial, lower atmospheric temperature data the world has. Undoubtedly you would call that cherry picked as well.
I don’t understand how the science can be “settled” on a subject which is by its very nature constantly changing, to such an extent that nobody has ever been able to predict with any accuracy what it will be doing in the next day, week or year. The only thing that I would agree is “settled” on this matter is the determination to ignore all developing evidence and to stick with your prejudice. In much the same way that once you have poured concrete and let it “settle”, it ain’t gonna move until it is hit by an earthquake. But that does not necessarily mean it has been laid in the right way in the right place.
The science is settled. Just like it was settled in Galileo’s time that the sun revolves around the earth. I know that particular example was actually religion Vs science, but that is essentially what we have now with “The science” Vs science.
For the last 20 years I have been a Global Warming sceptic arguing with people on The Guardian and BBC that it is junk science, some of it natural and even if we are effecting the climate it is far from catastrophic.
The same global elites are behind the Climate Change scam and the Covid scam.
Roy Spencer has always been a voice of reason.
While there may be copious arguments for and against the ‘green agenda’…..isn’t the big point here that, in this case Google, think they are the arbiters of what is right and wrong, what is true and false? And who should be allowed to speak and be listened to? just like the ‘misinformation’ supposedly being spread about Covid there are people who have serious academic credentials who are effectively being stopped from speaking? This is the real problem…..
Google him and see what happens….
“The recent news that the South Pole had its coldest six month winter since records began was largely ignored by mainstream media.”
which is neither here nor there because weather is not climate
One data point in one location.
What’s the significance?
One of many data points across the Antarctic……..
BUT that is ONLY applied to anything opposing the AGW insanity!!!
Like others, I never really questioned or looked into anything climate related before 3 years ago. I sort of figured that humans might be causing issues on a micro level, anecdotally spotting grim chimneys coughing out shit into the atmosphere. I had the basic knowledge that volcanos did more ‘damage’ in one eruption than humans ever had, or words to that effect, but I still assumed what ‘they’ were saying was correct and that Johnny Polar Bear was drowning.
Now though, any trust I had in “The Schientists” having a level head about it all has gone out of the window. Even a quick sceptical glance gives me reason to question it. More so when you realise that the scientific method has been discarded in the same way as the pandemic malarkey. No, it’s declared to be settled, and that’s that.
Personally, I can’t help but find the entire thing arrogant of the left especially; that humanity would have such a mark on the environment, especially when you look at any climate tracking graphs of even 1000 years, let alone 10,000 years. It’s a pattern that has existed since our rock started rolling around our star.
Also, I’ve seen a few cultists throw around “well don’t you WANT to live in a nice environment?” as if I’ve personally made the choice to set fire to houses, throw needles in the gutter and shit on next-door’s lawn. Of course I understand the desire to keep the community tidy, to bin what we can responsibly and not have low-lying smog from coal burners. But that doesn’t equate to me also blindly believing data from the likes of Google. Ergo, the scepticism.
Climate change freaks will have you believe that in spite of all the massive effects that non-human related factors, such as solar flares or the wobbling of the planet have, it is the relatively small effect of human activity that is the tipping point.
It’s part of the current social trend of human self loathing.
Exactly that Stewart. Bunch of seawards.
Kudos for calling Google truth suppressors.
Google “daily sceptic”
The chart shows that, overall, the past 7 years have been slightly warmer than the 1980’s. Nothing to report here from a temperature point of view. Obviously we may have an issue with google deciding what we can see. That can be solved by using Mojeek.com.
I see that Unballanced has been involved in presenting Climate change info to Johnson.
Says all you need to know!
The IPCC make SPI-M look like Nostradamus. If you want to waste a few months have a look at the early and current MAGICC emulator software that forms the basis of many IPCC reports. It’s bilge. Then look at some of the papers from Hadley, LANL and NCAR based on this piffle.
Dr Spencer is not the first and wont be the last to be censored by Google. See here.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/03/17/greenpeace-and-google-disappear-dr-patrick-moore/
Greenpeace and Google disappear Dr. Patrick Moore
on Greenpeace and Google disappear Dr. Patrick Moore
Dr Patrick Moore broke with Greenpeace, the organization he co-founded, when Greenpeace’s mission morphed from promoting environmentalism to promoting Socialism.
Dr. Moore is a vocal critic of the propaganda techniques used by the global warming movement and recently said on television that, “the whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science.”
Read this link to see why.
https://cairnsnews.org/2020/01/13/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-says-we-need-much-more-co2-in-the-atmosphere/
But he isn’t censored, is he….
From here.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorship
a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or supportcertainideas:
I see it as censorship. You of course will disagree. Those reading can make up thier own minds.
His book is eminently readable and informative:
”Fake Invisible Catastrophes And Threats Of Doom”
Something very odd here….The folks here seem to be objecting to the “cancellation” of Dr. Roy Spencer.
Yet you can google him and get results…. why is this???
Now go back and read what was said in the article.. It actually said
“who was kicked off Google Adsense recently for publishing “unreliable and harmful claims”. The move demonetised Dr. Spencer’s monthly satellite update page by removing all Google-suppled advertising. Google says it will ban all sites that are sceptical of “well-established scientific consensus”.
That means that Google is not prepared to sell advertising on sites that post this stuff.
To sell that advertising would be to profit from and recommend the content.
No, you are right. But denying someone the funding (via ads) to support the site is damaging. But what is more, the algorithm when you search “climate data” has made it far more laborious to find. While other media channels have censored those who question the current accepted wisdom (science never stops testing hypothesis so, why stop on this one), Google hasn’t. In part because it’s hard to censor the internet. But making it easy to find? That is another story. But you are right, he is not censored nor is he a global warming denier (which I am not either).
I used the term censored, not cancelled, because as you rightly say Google are trying to prevent his work from being widley veiwed.
From here.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorship
a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas:
Go and google him. See if he is blocked
Blocking is not the only form of censorhip.
Alphabet agency spin off go ogle is a censorship engine.
That is absolutely hilarious.
The suggestion that Google is not prepared to sell advertising on content because it violates some scientific or moral standards is probably one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time.
Anyone hit with Google ads for herbal supplements knows their fealty to science is very selective.
I’m not saying they are consistent. But that is the situation….
Go and google him and see what happens.
A Google search isn’t going to tell me whether he has been censored or not. I don’t have an historical record of what he publishes. I have no clue either about how Google selects the information it publishes, which information it chooses to give preference to and which to omit or downgrade. And neither do you.
What I’m pretty sure about is that what Google publishes or not, what it puts ads on or not, is not decided by scientific or moral integrity.
Well you will find a link to his own site.
So?
It’s their policy. Demonetisation is not exactly new.
For producing reliable scientific information?
He works with NASA, have they been demonetised?
Hi Mr Cluster B Personality Disorder,
Have a look through the attached gif and read through a list of your and easily observable dysfunctional personality traits.
…Which amounts to totally unacceptable censorship in other words.
(If, on the other hand, Google Adsense kicked off all unreliable and harmful climate alarmism stuff, that would go a long way to to nullifying the ‘crisis’!)
It’s a NASA satellite Spencer collates the data for. Has Google demonetised NASA?
No.
It’s selective targeting of an individual to force him to shut his website.
Putting graphs to one side. Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is, how can we enrich our lives without destroying the environment we rely on? Don’t expect any answers from government, they are rubber stampers, not thinkers.
Speak for yourself. I don’t think I’m destroying anything.
There was a cost to you typing this message.
Everything costs something.
Who said anything about cost? In your mind cost = destruction? Or are you just twisting words around to make an argument?
He’s having an epileptic fit and his head wand is making random sentences up.
I was a kid in the 70s, and remember watching a number of programs about the coming ice age. Scared me desperately (I hated cold even then). Images of half the globe’s farmland covered by ice will hit you in stomach in a few ways.
Then just as I was heading to uni some NASA scientist appears before the US Congress talking “global warming will kill us all.” In a decade the scare had flipped. Perhaps because the answer to cooling is more CO2, more industry. And yes, the 90s were warmer than the 70s. Thankfully! Crop yields exploded, human advancement revved up, and heating costs crashed.
But we all know the truth: temperature movements in 2 decade chunks is statistical noise. That when you look back over 150 years yes there was warming, but only to bring us back to the norms of medieval period, before “the little ice age.” That earth’s temperature in geological time is,essentially, flat for the past 10,000 years. All of this has more to do with control than any real crisis. It’s funny how it became a big issue when all the communists lost and had to find a new tool for their policies.
What must change is the conspiracy (which it is in the classical sense of the word) to stop debate on the facts of global temperatures. Dr. Spencer doesn’t disagree with the fact of warming since industrial Revolution. He does disagree, because the facts tell him so, that it is accelerating or outside geological norms. But his facts scare people. Sort of like the facts about Covid and vaccine efficacy scare some people. Facts don’t have sides, and more information is always better.
We got here because politicians and others sold us on cutting CO2 as a cost-free green idea. Now we know it’s not cost free and it isn’t very green. Aside from the American dollars being made off of it.
The ice sheet in Antarctica has been found to be growing. For any Reality Denier reading this, that means the mass of ice at the South Pole is getting bigger. It’s getting larger. It’s increasing. In fact, since measurements began, the Antarctic ice sheet has recently broken a record for maximum extent – the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre has confirmed that Antarctic sea ice reached a record extent.
A nursery school explanation for said Reality Denier:
The major scare tactic the climate liars use to drive home their doomsday warning about Climate Change is rising sea levels which will flood all coastal and low-lying areas. Thus, the enlarging ice cap at the South Pole is a big problem.
Carbonbrief.org was, though, on hand to solve this. This is the academic route Carbonbrief.org took to win back any apostates that this increasing ice cap might create:
First, they admit that:
Then a caveat:
They then list six things we should know about climate change and Antarctic ice:
Can you believe the cretins claim that even though the ice cap is growing, the surrounding and underlying ocean and seas are actually heating up? Yeah right, throw an ice cube into a kettle and switch it on, and watch the ice cube increase in size!
Then in an arrogant word-salad of an article worthy of a cocaine-fuelled Liz Truss, they practically claim this growing ice cap is an illusion created by the wind. Yes, Boris Johnson’s Aeolus is playing tricks down there.
So, disregarding the indisputable evidence provided by the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre of the bigger than ever ice cap at the South Pole, Carbonbrief.org insists the world is still losing ice.
On the one hand it’s all very laughable to see adults put forward such shameless tripe. It’s not so laughable, though, when you take into account that it was these same types of adults that spun lie after shameless lie over the last two years to promote toxic “vaccines”.
The millions of people poisoned and injured by the gene serums, and the hundreds of thousands killed by them, would not find Carbonbrief.org’s lies and word-salads laughable.
As a rule of thumb, it’s a good idea to distrust anyone who tells you there is a problem that is being caused by everyone and they have a solution which involves everyone doing what they say.
Same site will yield the following.
The Longer Term ViewAlthough we have measured changing temperatures and carbon dioxide levels at short timescales (since the 1700s), surely this could just reflect natural variability over short timescales? In order to understand our climate, it is very important to look at the long-term view.
Figure 3. 2000 year temperature variations. Robert A. Rhode, Global Warming Art Project. Wikimedia Commons.
In many places, atmospheric temperatures are now warmer than they have been throughout the Holocene. Figure 3 shows that the temperature of the last 200 years is much higher than it was when Romans were making wine in southern England. However, what is really concerning is the rate of change. Temperatures have risen far more sharply in the last century than they have at any point in the last 2000 years.
This conclusion is reached again and again, and a paper by Mann et al. (2008) in PNAS show that the Earth’s temperature is anomalous in a long-term time context. Mann et al. used stacked records from a variety of sources to create a global graph of temperature change. This famous ‘hockey stick’ graph (Figure 4) clearly demonstrates the rapid rate of change since the industrial revolution, with temperature rise sharply accelerating over the last 150 years.
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/
From here.
https://climate.news/2019-08-26-climate-change-hoax-collapses-as-michael-mann-bogus-hockey-stick-graph.html
Climate change hoax collapses as Michael Mann’s bogus “hockey stick” graph defamation lawsuit dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia
You don’t take a hint, do you? Nutcases never do though.
a a HOKUM stick graph that shows you’ll swallow any lie.
Mann has been shown to be a liar in court.
I can’t believe anyone is still pushing Mann’s hockey stick graph. Many years ago when I asked Ben Santer why he didn’t use Mann’s graph to help him explain to the lay public what he thought was happening to the Earth’s climate and why, he went very quite and we never spoke of it again. If even Ben Santer has consigned the graph to history, you ought to do the same.
It’s a model. So a projection dependent on input. It also bears no relation to real world data. Even Schmidt admitted this…
https://www.qwant.com/?client=brz-brave&q=%22gavinn+schmidt%22+and+models+and++%22too+hot%22&t=web
Not that policy will change to reflect this
The bit of water thats warming is above volcanoes.
The water also gets warm where the penguin’s take a leak.
One of the core theses of “Climate change” was that BOTH poles would warm (wrong) and that there would be a huge hot spot in the Troposphere (wrong). Not to mention the end of snow from some years aback
If you would like to educate yourself on the whole ‘climate emergency’, this is an excellent site.
https://www.weather-research.com/weather-and-climate
in here you will fine the real data and analysis, carefully deployed to completely debunk all the alarmist strands and fantasies.
enjoy.
carefully deployed to completely debunk all the alarmist strands and fantasies.
Says it all really.
the common denominator in Covid and Climate is control and money..for the 1%
I thought it was all due to the lefties?
Do you want it to be?
Hi rational with a new name,
The lefties are just useful idiots, not the ultimate beneficiaries.
Rent-seeking.
I am another of those people whose views have changed due to the many climate change skeptics who have been commenting on the plandemic.
There is clearly a debate to be had about whether the climate is changing. However, in terms of what, if anything, we could or should, do about said climate change, this depends crucially on whether it is due to the burning of fossil fuels i.e. an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and methane.
I know next to nothing about how the so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is claimed to work. However, Pfizer’s chicanery with clinical trial data – their claim that the covid vaccine was 95% effective (relative effect) when the absolute effectiveness was a next-to-meaningless 0.7% – led me to wonder whether anyone has measured the effect on atmospheric temperature of raising CO2 from around 280 ppm (when fossil fuel burning began) to 415 ppm today. An increase from 280 to 415 ppm is a relative increase of 48% but an absolute increase of only 0.0135%. So, how did increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 0.0135%, since fossil fuel burning began, change the climate, especially when the starting point was CO2 comprising only 0.0280% of the atmosphere
So far, I have failed to find any convincing experimental, scientific proof of this effect. I have seen an experiment at Harvard Uni where they replace the air in a glass jar with pure CO2 but that’s not at all realistic.
Ironically, I know 3 meteorologists who work at the Met Office and none of them is aware of the kind of evidence I am seeking.
Soon I expect we will have exposed most if not all of the lies on which the plandemic has been built. Perhaps it is now time to turn our truth-seeking energies to the next hobgoblin – climate change.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
“in terms of what, if anything, we could or should, do about said climate change”
if you accept that global warming brings change but not catastrophic change (as the science seems to suggest – its only the activists/BBC that talk about the planet burning) – then it is really a choice between mitigation/adaptation/ignoring
We could just accept a couple of degrees. UK would be a bit nicer, some places would be wetter, some drier. I’m not sure I’m that bothered either way. Non fossil fuel energy is coming – sooner or later – it will tend to get cheaper over time. Do we rush it out or just take it in our stride?
20 years ago they were telling us terrible things would be happening within 20 years because of global warming. The Maldives disappearing under rising seas, famines and mass displacement of peoples in poorer countries, artic sea ice gone in the summer.
None of that has come to pass. In fact, the world is pretty much the same, perhaps a bit better, except for the next catastrophe the authoritarians have wanted to shove down our throats in the form of a killer virus that kills virtually no one.
That quote says it all.
It’s like the models were immensely wrong…
That sounds familiar
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. All that shows is that there is a vast amount of other gasses up there. What matters is the absolute amount of CO2 which has increased from about 2430 Gigatons in 1960 to about 3200 Gigatons today. This increase is almost certainly almost due to burning of fossil fuels (isotope analysis plus it matches best estimates of what we have generated)
When I was at school in the 80s and 90s the teachers (and outside of school scientists and the media) were constantly telling us that burning fossil fuels was causing global warming as it was called back then. They extolled us that basically our modern way of life was bad for the planet and unless we immediately ended our personal freedom and prosperity in just a few years we would all be burning alive as the earth turned into a hot fiery version of hell (OK I exaggerate slightly but that is the gist of what we were told). The problem is though in the 30 or 40 years since these doom laden predictions I have not noticed any significant change in the climate. Yes some summers are warmer than others and some winters are harsher than others but there does not seem to have been a significant change in the climate and certainly not the catastrophe predicted. Strangely, the same people today as still telling us that in just a few years time the earth will be finished unless we surrender our freedom, prosperity and embrace communism. Strange that.
And there’s significantly more fossil fuel being burned now versus then as the Chinks ramp up their economy and build more coal power stations
That’s the farce of it all. Even if we in the UK went back to living in the stone age it would not make one jot of difference.
When I try to explain that to people, the anger and aggression fired at me that I dare to question “peer reviewed science” is palpable
The default answer now from any woke about anything is “show me a peer reviewed paper to back up your argument”
Yet the same people do not ask to see a peer reviewed paper to back up the need for lockdown. As an aside, if you questioned whether lockdown was the right policy you were usually met with a similar sort of aggressive response.
That’s very true! Usually it’s “of course they work” and if you try and counter it with what about Sweden etc, “that’s different it’s not as densely populated”
Wokes cannot argue, reason or think for themselves basically.
Yes and sadly they see make up a significant majority of the population. Ironically these people are usually the first to moan as well when they realise their energy bills are going through the roof, taxes are going to have to rise and they can’t afford to go on holiday.
The holiday on the Jet aircraft with massive carbon footprint after they’ve spent months chastising someone who drives a large car?
exactly.
But smithey said they could not afford to go on holiday….
So “Wokes” are poor people? in your opinion?
Are they also lefties? Possibly billionaires? Possibly scientists?
It’s important to have a name for your enemy…. but there are so many enemies….
Not at all. Most of the wokes are actually from the middle and upper classes. Most poor people I know exhibit far more common sense than many wealthy people. What I was alluding to was the fact that many people advocating lockdown and punitive polices as a response to climate change are more than happy for their polices to cause misery and harm to other people but less so when it affects them. The Downing Street parties are a prime example of this.
But you said they couldn’t afford to go on holiday.
You are now saying they are wealthy. surely they can afford their holiday?
But not all of them are wealthy, some are poor. Also, the inevitable green charges on air fares will result in many people, including the moderately wealthy not been able to afford to fly. My point though is a wider one in that people do not question government policy on either the response to Covid or climate change and mindlessly parrot whatever they are told without considering the direct consequences it will have on their lives.
Don’t get involved. This is another 77 trainee. Please ignore.
I see rational has reappeared from some shit hole. Please can everybody just ignore. And rayc if it is the anti version.
Thank you.
That’s right…. don’t try to justify your views, when challenged.
And what’s all this about cancellation and censorship….
If climate change is caused by human activity then the number of humans needs to be reduced. What we need is a damn good pandemic!
Perhaps we should manufacture a virus in a lab and send it to China. That would be a good start
Followed by a top class “vaccination” campaign.
This pause in global warming is reminiscent of the famous Pause itself, the 10-year failure of global temperatures to rise at all in the lead-up to the last big-time climate scare revival in 2008.
In 2008, a survey of 10,257 scientists showed that 97% of them supported the theory of man-made global warming. The news was trumpeted by the Guardian, the Washington Post, the BBC. The survey was the work of a masters student called Clark at the university of Illinois. Her initial list of 10,257 contacted names consisted almost entirely of people not qualified in the relevant area. After elimination, it was from the affirmative responses of just 75 out of 77 original respondents that Clark’s figure of 97% came.
When hearing any claim that ‘99% of world scientists support the theory of man-made global warming’, bear in mind that the sample employed will always boil down like this to a tiny subset of relevantly qualified respondents, many of whom, when they received the phone call, would have been trembling in fear of losing their jobs or research funding if they uttered a non-compliant peep in their answers.
I knew a biology professor who said the same thing i.e. people that don’t support the narrative don’t get research grants.
Sorry, this appears to be an attempt to mislead. First of all, you have cherry-picked one data point to compare to long term average. This is just absurd and meaningless.
Secondly, why is the baseline for the chart the 30-year average? This gives the impression that temperatures in the 80s were somehow below normal. Clearly an attempt to suggest the rise over 30 years was lower than it was.
When you draw a trend line from 1979 to 2022 there is a increase of ~0.5 degrees not 0.03
This site has produced some good articles on the corona pandemic over the months but if it is to become another climate change denial outlet I may have to leave it alone.
Draw a longer trend. Say 1000 years. These are geologic time processes.
The ’70s was an era of especially low temperatures, resulting in a lot of speculation and warnings about a coming ice age (which really would be disastrous).
Can’t we just heat the planet up by a couple of degrees as necessary?
Climate modellers and pandemic modellers are cut from the same cloth. Just look at the op-eds in Scientific American written by climate modeller and recipient of the The MacArthur Fellows Program, Dr. Ben Santer in 2020:
‘How covid-19 is like climate change’ March 17 2020;
‘The things we lost in the pandemic’ May 19 2020;
‘Ignoring Science during a pandemic is poor leadership’ May 22 2020;
‘Counterfactual experiments are crucial but easy to misunderstand’; July 10 2020;
‘Science and scientific expertise are more important than ever’. Aug 5 2020.
Climate change happens and I doubt few on here would deny that but it has sod all to do with mankind.
If you feel out of place here best to clear off because climategate is going to be worse than the Scamdemic.
The satellite data are useful but not definitive. They measure the lower troposphere not the surface and they are actually subject to more “adjustments” than the surface data. There is a wider spread between the different satellite analyses than between the leading analyses of the surface data. Nevertheless Roy Spencer’s analysis does show rising temperature over the kind of 30 year timescale that makes sense for climate analysis. (see attached diagram from UAH website). Roy Spencer accepts this and that increasing anthropogenic GHGs are the main cause. He is only sceptical about the amount of warming and its effects. (I think it was wrong of Google to demonetise him and do not doubt his integrity or expertise).
The recent “pause” arises because of the very strong El Nino in 2015/16 followed by two strong El Ninjas. These are the sort of short term effects that hide the longer term trend.
The last few sentences of the Carbon Brief article summarise it nicely:
Ultimately, surface thermometers and satellites measure different things. They are both imperfect ways of measuring a single aspect of climate change – although, as a direct and longstanding metric, the surface data record does seem to have more utility.
But taking a wider view of how climate change manifests itself shows how, like any good diagnosis, an insight into as many different elements as possible offers the best understanding.
The long-term trend started at the end of the little ice age. Ocean circulation changes are not the noise; they are most likely the signal, that is, the cause of the warming. CO2 is more likely to be the noise. People assume that the earth-ocean-atmosphere system is in some sort of equilibrium and it needs a driver to cause change. Not so.
Sure. But the radiosonde balloons mirror the satellite results.
Depends what you mean by “mirror”. Their record tends to go up and down at the same time as the satellite records. The question is how much, which determines the trend. There are several analyses of the radiosonde data but the one that seems to come up most is RATPAC-A and this shows a global warming trend of +0.18 C per decade. This is similar to the leading surface temperature records and greater than the satellite records.
“Their record tends to go up and down at the same time as the satellite records.”
No, they fluctuate according to upper atmospheric temperatures. The data largely correlates with satellite data.
“….but the one that seems to come up most is RATPAC-A”
Because it shows up most it must be right? Is that your logic?
“….and this shows a global warming trend of +0.18 C per decade.”
From Spencers website:
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.13 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”
What’s a ‘leading surface temperature record”?
It’s not actually surface temperature data that’s the problem, it’s the data tampering; suppressing temperatures in the past to make the present look a lot warmer relative to the past than it actually is.
It’s also the dishonesty, claiming that a warmer planet would be a worse place to live, which entirely contradicts the evidence for every warm period of human history when the most human progress was made.
It’s also dishonest to torture data to present a single trace gas as the culprit when there is not one single empirical study that demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm.
Anyone daft enough to believe that a gas, which represents ~3% of all greenhouse gasses, can overcome the most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapour at ~95% of all greenhouse gasses, deserves all they get.
Just don’t expect to drag the rest of us into your paranoia.
Roy Spencer is an actual climate scientist. Old school: gathers data about a complex system. The new breed (Mann et al) – surfing on massive grants thrown at them by politicians – play with simplified models on their super computers, making sure they produce the results their political patrons want to see.
Ferguson and his modelling team at Imperial also have worked on climate models. I’ll leave it there.
The BBC have always used “forecasts” to lie. Climate is yet another control mechanism for control and taxation.
Anyone remember this beauty back in 2007? (ref)
What does that graph actually show?
… that there has been a moderate, continuing rise in temperature since 1979.
Does it say anything about wider or specific anthropogenic environmental influences? – No
Does it confirm a panic scenario? – No
Get the hobby horses back in the stable.
“… that there has been a moderate, continuing rise in temperature since 1979.” following the 1940s to 70s cooling. Which I remember – growing up in Cheshire in the 50s and early 60s we had snow most winters, not to mention 1963. This has largely been covered up, or blamed on aerosols. Natural variability… was it Briffa who said “It if turns out to be natrual variability, they’ll kill us.” I agree with him
On a lighter note, did anyone watch The Apprentice last night? (Spoiler alert)
A computer game had to be created. One team decided to raise awareness about global warming “because the ice caps are melting”, and made their game all about rescuing animals in the ARTIC with a game called ‘ARTIC SURVIVOR’ (sounds more like a Canadian trucker). These are people presumably educated to degree level who cannot even spell Arctic, and were also unaware that penguins didn’t live there. If upcoming generations are so stupid, I hold out little hope for them mounting any meaningful and logical scientific response to the alleged ‘threat’ of global warming.
That’s because the penguins flew away
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNEuIZ0Vwmg
To escape the Polar Bears…….
Clive James had this climate change malarkey sussed – he wrote a wonderful essay:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/07/Clive-James.pdf
Part 1 of 2
A few years ago, Google made a big fuss of refusing to cooperate and work with agencies associated with the US military, claiming that they could not take the risk that their expertise, intellectual input and technology would be used in warfare.
Shortly after making this pious announcement, Google began working with companies in China. There’s a law in China that obliges every native Chinese company to share all its data, research and intellectual property with the Chinese government – that is, the CCP’s military has access to it.
Google, of course, knew about this law before setting up operations in China. So, while refusing to develop technology alongside Western militaries, Google was very willing to aid the Chinese military to advance their technology.
Google, Facebook and Western experts played a big role in China’s development of facial recognition technology, spyware and in the setting up of the Chinese Social Credit biomedical-identity card system.
Western Big Tech used China to bypass Western privacy laws to develop digital systems that are capable of tracking citizen’s every move 24/7.
Big Tech has all this technology ready and waiting for roll-out in the West. The Vaccine Passports, or rather, the Bio-Medical Social Credit identity cards are the first stage in this roll-out in the West.
When the Vaccine Passports are accepted by a population, that’s the end of freedom for the citizens. There will be no going back. In China, every move a citizen makes is monitored. Everywhere they go, they are tracked, everything they buy is recorded, their diet is tracked. Every word they speak on a phone is recorded. All TV and electronic devices in China can be remotely controlled, cameras and microphones switched on and off by the CCP at will.
China today is such that it would be absolutely impossible to organise an uprising or rebellion in any part of the country. The monitoring of the citizens is so bad that if a member of the CCP needs a liver or heart transplant, they can troll through the records to find a citizen with a healthy diet and drag him or her in to take whatever organ they want. This is happening.
The plandemic and “vaccines” were about only two things, depopulation (getting rid of useless eaters) and the Biomedical Social Credit identity cards.
There are only two options for people in the West, either they relentlessly pursue all the people responsible for the atrocious crimes of the last two years, or they can sit back and be led by their noses into total slavery.
Part 2 of 2
This is where I must stop drinking gin and tonic for breakfast!
Google are evil. Have nothing to do with them.
If you go and live in the woods expect some fires and your possessions singed occasionally I live in a wood UK..
Check out Dr Willie Soon:-
https://youtu.be/1zrejG-WI3U?t=280
Top man, leading research on solar activity and its effect on solar energy output.
Talks a lot of sense.
Brilliant. I have been following Dr Roy Spencer’s global temperature series for years (published on whatsupwiththat) and it is so good to see raw data rather than the cherry picked variety. And years ago I formed the conclusion, so what is the problem? Of course there may be other problems caused by the use of fossil fuels, and the atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising (albeit only to 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume) but this only seems to have a positive effect in greening an area of the earth approximately equal to North America, as I recall. Meanwhile, other environmental degradation and resource depletion takes place in pursuit of renewable energy, often in undeveloped areas of the world, is taking place while the resistance to fossil fuel use is seriously impeding development in such places.
Nasa appear to agree with you.
From here.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study FindsFrom a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Until 2010 NASA said “It’s the sun, stoopid”. Hid this page but not the link to it…
https://web.archive.org/web/20100416015231/https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/
Scientists there have much more recently stated clearly that the models are useless
http://principia-scientific.org/top-nasa-climate-modeler-admits-predictions-mathematically-impossible/
https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/29/nasa-we-cant-model-clouds-so-climate-models-are-100-times-less-accurate-than-needed-for-projections/
Two things alerted me to this fraud some 15 years ago, having been a default warmer – 1. The language used to describe sceptics, particularly Moonbat saying they were as bad as “Holocaust deniers”. You what? I thought…
and
2 The phrase “The science” being used (as per Covid) meaning not science but a belief system of a cult.
If you are interested in how the weather has shown up in past times, here’s some history of ‘freak events’ in the uk 1700 -1849.
https://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/geography/weather.html
The weather has always been more than capable of changing !
We have data going back well before the satellites were launched.
There is plenty of data showing that it was warmer back in the 1930s with the dust bowlera etc
A “useful idiot” when she is off-duty:-
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/the-real-greta-you-can-shove-your-climate-crisis-up-your-arse_39BH1Lf1tFFLaBs.html
I bet Greta had all her childhood vaccines.
Trying to reply to the oldest comment and whilst my avatar comes up there is no message form.
Sort it out folks
Er, I see an upwards trend there. Not a steep one, but upwards. There have been pauses, but… still upwards.
That’s not a convincing counter-argument to climate alarmist.
I’d prefer a tactic of shrugging and saying “I don’t care, and I’ll vote for whoever keeps lights and heat affordable.”
Try these, 5 particularly;
1. No legitimate evidence shows extreme weather increasing or sea level rise accelerating.
2. No legitimate survey of climate scientists shows anything close to the fabled 97% consensus.
3. All apocalyptic climate predictions by academics have failed.
4. Climate models used to generate alarm have no skill when checked against reliable tropospheric temperatures.
5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable and dangerous and cause disproportionate harm to the weakest with affordable energy beyond the reach of those who would benefit the most.
And no correlation between CO2 and the Earth’s temperature.
Thanks for these stories. The Daily Skeptic certainly correctly identified the next big component of the government control measures (fighting climate change).
Watch those “vaccine passports” and see how they morph into “social credit” aps to battle this alleged existential crisis. The same technology will also facilitate the move to a “digital currency” which is a euphemism for banning cash. When cash is banned, it’s game over for the rest of our lives.
I’ve been saying this since mid 2020.
It appears that Google are unaware that “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.
The next big scamedemic…..climate change.
Reports like this are are proving the lie. However they achieve nothing if the people doing the work cannot get access to a platform for public discussion and get the message out.
This is our big challenge, a very urgent one. Unless we break through soon it will be too late. Our infrastructure and our lives will be irrevocably changed and worsened for ever.
Control and impoverishment will be the order of the day.
Dr Patrick Moore: ”Fake Invisible Catastrophes And Threats Of Doom”.
Very informative.
We can’t blame just the left wing when Boris Johnson is promoting this climate change stuff as controlled by his wife (who voted for her) because he is incapable of an independant decision based on the accurate scientific data. This accurate data is being surpressed by the mainstreem media such as Sky news and the BBC because it doesn’t suit their agenda. It has become clear that Boris and his cohort in government are to the left of new labour as poromoted by Tony Blair and either they need to be booted out of the Tory party, or those who don’t agree with their brand of leftist toryism and there are I believe enough of them, should depart en masse and start a proper conservative party that real conservatives can vote for, because currently there isn’t one
Believe it or not, there are some near me who actually call this wretched government ‘far right’. It shows how little understanding there is generally about what being right wing actually means. I’ve had arguments with teenagers who compare Donald Trump to Hitler because apparently, they are both far right. Trying to disabuse them of this notion just results in a tirade of insults- yet not one of them has checked their facts after I suggested doing so.