Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Laird,

I think the point is that lots of scientists are speaking out about the various aspects of the supposed climate emergency. I posted one such video about one page back. Or here, for example is a geophysicist questioning the idea that habitats such as the Great Barrier Reef is being damagaed.

https://mailchi.mp/thegwpf/invitati...isty-house-of-lords-8-may-175229?e=63dcba451c

He will be speaking at the House of Lords, and I would like to go, but I live a long way from London, and I would also have to spend the night in London - so the trip sounds a bit too expensive.

Doesn't that 99% of scientists sound a bit suspicious. As I remember Alex has the details about how this figure was cobbled together. The problem is when the MSM refuses to investigate the issue critically, it makes those of us who deny the CCC sound like extremists.

There is an analogy with the way the MSM treats the subject of ψ. You yourself have probably encountered the frustration of trying to explain concepts like NDEs, ESP, etc to others. They just don't get it because the media don't cover those subjects except in a superficial sort of way.

David
 
Vortex, to elaborate on my last post: Ignaz Semmelweis was a physician who studied in the field in question. He could reasonably be presented as an expert or at least as somebody qualified to have an opinion. I am trying to decipher whether the video producer to whom LoneShaman directed us could be characterised in the same terms. Otherwise, why would I listen to him? For every Ignaz Semmelweis, there are a thousand Ignorant Semi-wises to whom it is foolish to direct my attention.
c’mon folks... we can’t let ‘semi-wises’ go without some sort of comment. I feel a bit queasy. Is this sort of pun worth a ban for a few days? I’ve seen bans for less.
 
Hi LoneShaman,

I won't respond in detail to your post, because, frankly, given that I lack expertise in this area, it is too time-consuming to research your claims in detail, and try to independently assess their truth. Instead, I will mostly respond by way of others who seem to know much more than either of us.

The projections and models from those who would be included in so called consensus have proven to be false.
Oh? That's not what the scientists who responded to the letter/petition you shared maintain - see the link below.

1.The author of the videos is Ben Davidson, he runs the Observatoryproject.com, Suspicious Observers, SpaceWeather.com, Quakewatch.com, MagneticReversal.org and probably more. In this case he is just reporting, this is not a theory as he says, this has already happened. I have been following his work for some time, he is quite astute.
Doctor Keith Strong has a three-part series on YouTube from back in 2014 taking apart the misrepresentations (some apparently deliberate/knowing) in some earlier videos of Ben's from around that time. Based on this series, I don't consider Ben to be at all reliable. Keith is a solar physicist, which seems to qualify him to critique Ben at least on the issue of solar forcing. Ben apparently has little to no (climate) science training.

Part one is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED -- 15 MAY 2014 and it addresses Ben's misrepresentations on carbon dioxide:


Part two is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED -- PART 2: SUNSTROKE -- 18 June 2014 and it addresses Ben's misrepresentations on solar forcing:


Note in particular at 2:19 that with respect to Ben's claim that "climate models have turned a blind eye to the sun", Keith demonstrates that all five IPCC reviews to that date had mentioned solar forcing multiple times, increasing over time.

So, it seems that Ben's claims on solar forcing date back to at least 2014, and that they are misleading and even outright false. It thus seems highly unlikely that his claim that climate models have been lacking certain types of (solar/cosmic) inputs, which when added eliminate human forcing, is true. To repeat: can you find anybody else who is making this claim, other than those who are simply repeating Ben? In other words, can this be independently verified? It should be big news if it is true.

Part three is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED III: CONSISTENT INCONSISTENCIES -- 7 JULY 2014 and it addresses Ben's inconsistencies and misrepresentations:


recently 500 scientist petitioned the UN stating there is no climate emergency.
Except that very few of them had any related qualification, and many weren't even scientists. This petition is comprehensively taken apart here:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...s-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

Amber Kerr said:
While reviewing the claims related to agriculture, I noted that only 26 out of the 506 signatories (5%) were professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science. I suspect that the vast majority of signatories had little direct knowledge or understanding of this part of the petition that they signed. This made me curious to delve more deeply into the makeup of the signatory list.

[...]

I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.

The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%).

I also noticed a peculiar omission in the list of signatories: women. Among the 506 names, only 24 were female names (with another 15 that were initials-only or unisex). That means that about 95% of the signers were men. Even for male-heavy fields such as geology and engineering, this is a staggering imbalance. I suspect that the imbalance may have been heightened by the fact that the signers skewed heavily toward the older generation – for example, there were 79 emeritus professors on the list (16% of the total).
 
Last edited:
c’mon folks... we can’t let ‘semi-wises’ go without some sort of comment. I feel a bit queasy. Is this sort of pun worth a ban for a few days? I’ve seen bans for less.
Did you nearly ralph, malf? Did you feel like a spew? Oh, what a to-do! Did I make you nauseous, gorgeous? Oh! So many forgers!
 
I think for the nauseous-gorgeous-forgers combo, if you're not mopping up a little vomit right now, then that Stoicism is serving you very well. Stick with it.
 
I think the point is that lots of scientists are speaking out about the various aspects of the supposed climate emergency.
I haven't seen anything that convinces me that the basic science has been called into serious question.

But I would like you to respond to my post at #795. I pointed out that I have seen no evidence for the claim you have made multiple times on this forum, the claim along the lines that you made a page or two back in this thread - that "we got a group of people on the forum that were really about disrupting debate and concealing the truth". I asked you to please provide evidence or stop making this claim, which in my view is baseless.

The least you could do is respond, even if you don't have the integrity to take one of the two options.
 
But I would like you to respond to my post at #795. I pointed out that I have seen no evidence for the claim you have made multiple times on this forum, the claim along the lines that you made a page or two back in this thread - that "we got a group of people on the forum that were really about disrupting debate and concealing the truth". I asked you to please provide evidence or stop making this claim, which in my view is baseless.
Well I haven't done my totally unpaid work as moderator here while generating some sort of evidential trail. Throwing someone off here is not a legal act, it is a decision that I make with authority given to me by Alex, the owner of the site. I do it to help us all. What happened happened, and it is why I am cautious if someone wants to discuss CC on this forum - even as a proponent. Because we have a different way to filter applicants to join, we can probably withstand this now.

I don't use the problems that CC activists caused in the past as some sort of evidence against the concept of CC - just read some of my links if you want some real evidence against CC - there are idiots of all complexion on the internet and they stand only for themselves.

David
 
Well I haven't done my totally unpaid work as moderator here while generating some sort of evidential trail.
I don't think that there is any evidence to leave a trail in the first place. I think you're exaggerating from prejudices against innocent members and from that single case of a guy who had a meltdown due to the pressure of a highly polarised and contentious thread, in which, I have to say, moderation sided against him. So, again, I ask you to either provide evidence or stop making the claim: better yet, retract it.
 
I don't think that there is any evidence to leave a trail in the first place.
If you want to take this further, I suggest you contact Alex. I do not like being wrongly accused of being dishonest.

As I explained before, I don't consider the existence of internet crazies to be evidence against the cause they support, so I have no 'reason' to mention this problem, other than to avoid it repeating.

You and several other CCC supporters were invited on to my PM about this issue. The fact is, there was very little discussion of the material I presented.

David
 
If you want to take this further, I suggest you contact Alex.
I see no need to recur to another man's judgement. I'm simply asking you, man to man, to act with integrity. Evidence or retraction. It's pretty simple.

I do not like being wrongly accused of being dishonest.
You have been given plenty of opportunity to prove yourself honest. Show us the evidence.

I have no 'reason' to mention this problem, other than to avoid it repeating.
I doubt that that's true, and it certainly serves your purposes to slur us members who accept the existence of a serious problem with human contributions to global warming.

You and several other CCC supporters were invited on to my PM about this issue.
Oh, you mean the private thread to which you "accidentally" invited me. A slip of the finger? I'm not really interested in trying to figure out why the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that at the core, this is basic, settled science - though no doubt there are complexities beyond you and me - yet that you in your private domain are able to conjure up figures and resources and arguments that "prove" these researchers false all whilst taking into account the complexities of the situation. If it were public, I might have bothered. But, to put it simply, nothing you've shared has convinced me that a minority of conspiracy-busters have busted a conspiracy of thousands of climate scientists. I think we should be focussed on solutions, not denial.

Neither denial of the existence of a serious climate problem, nor denial that all of the members of this site who have argued that same case on this forum have done so sincerely, intelligently, and with good intentions.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
...seems that Ben's claims on solar forcing date back to at least 2014, and that they are misleading and even outright false. It thus seems highly unlikely that his claim that climate models have been lacking certain types of (solar/cosmic) inputs, which when added eliminate human forcing, is true. To repeat: can you find anybody else who is making this claim, other than those who are simply repeating Ben?
it doesn't seem that way to me... I may not have dug into this as deeply as you guys but I've been hearing for years that the ipcc and the climate fakers who brought us climategate 1 2 and 3 have systemically ignored the sun.

so I did a quick google search... again very quick and dirty so I'm very open to be proven wrong... but I started (as I usually do) with dr. judith curry a climatologist from georgia tech because she seems to have a balanced approach to the science. here goes:

====
Are we headed for a new solar minimum?
Posted on June 27, 2016 by curryja | 314 Comments
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
===
so this is from 2016 and she's clearly pointing out this problem regarding ignoring solar factors.

===
ENSO predictions based on solar activity
Posted on September 1, 2019 by curryja | 174 Comments
by Javier
By knowing or estimating where in the solar cycle we are we can get an estimate of the chances of a particular outcome even years ahead.

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the main source of interannual tropical climate variability with an important effect on global temperature and precipitation. Paleoclimatic evidence supports a relationship between ENSO and solar forcing. Moy et al. (2002) attribute the long-term increasing trend in ENSO frequency to orbitally induced changes in insolation (figure 1). The ENSO proxy record described by Moy et al. (2002) displays a millennial-scale oscillation that in the middle Holocene shifts its variance from a 1000-1500-yr period to a 2000-2500-yr period (Moy et al. 2002, their figure 1c). Both frequencies correspond to known solar periodicities, the Eddy and Bray solar cycles. As it has been shown previously (see “Centennial to millennial solar cycles“) the 1000-yr Eddy solar cycle became weaker at the Mid-Holocene Transition regaining strength in the last 2000 years. This 14C-deduced solar behavior corresponds to the ENSO behavior described by Moy et al. (2002).

Figure 1. a) Inverted global average temperature anomaly reconstruction (black line, right scale) from the 73 proxies used by Marcott et al. 2013. The temperature scale has been rescaled to produce a difference of 1.2 °C between the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO) and the Little Ice Age, supported on a consilience of glaciological, biological and marine sedimentary evidence that supports a 1-1.5 °C difference. b) Inverted obliquity (purple line, left scale). c) ENSO frequency (black, left scale) measure as the number of strong El Niño events in a 100-yr sliding window, from Moy et al. 2002. ENSO activity was very low during the HCO and has been increasing as the planet cooled during the Neoglacial, following changes in insolation caused by orbital changes in precession and obliquity.

===
here's a more recent and much more technical article ( way over my head) but the general gist of it seems advocate for a reexamination of solar forces and how they haven't been adequately considered in the some of the fake climate models.
 
Hi LoneShaman,

I won't respond in detail to your post, because, frankly, given that I lack expertise in this area, it is too time-consuming to research your claims in detail, and try to independently assess their truth. Instead, I will mostly respond by way of others who seem to know much more than either of us.



Oh? That's not what the scientists who responded to the letter/petition you shared maintain - see the link below.



Doctor Keith Strong has a three-part series on YouTube from back in 2014 taking apart the misrepresentations (some apparently deliberate/knowing) in some earlier videos of Ben's from around that time. Based on this series, I don't consider Ben to be at all reliable. Keith is a solar physicist, which seems to qualify him to critique Ben at least on the issue of solar forcing. Ben apparently has little to no (climate) science training.

Part one is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED -- 15 MAY 2014 and it addresses Ben's misrepresentations on carbon dioxide:


Part two is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED -- PART 2: SUNSTROKE -- 18 June 2014 and it addresses Ben's misrepresentations on solar forcing:


Note in particular at 2:19 that with respect to Ben's claim that "climate models have turned a blind eye to the sun", Keith demonstrates that all five IPCC reviews to that date had mentioned solar forcing multiple times, increasing over time.

So, it seems that Ben's claims on solar forcing date back to at least 2014, and that they are misleading and even outright false. It thus seems highly unlikely that his claim that climate models have been lacking certain types of (solar/cosmic) inputs, which when added eliminate human forcing, is true. To repeat: can you find anybody else who is making this claim, other than those who are simply repeating Ben? In other words, can this be independently verified? It should be big news if it is true.

Part three is titled BEN DAVIDSON EXPOSED III: CONSISTENT INCONSISTENCIES -- 7 JULY 2014 and it addresses Ben's inconsistencies and misrepresentations:




Except that very few of them had any related qualification, and many weren't even scientists. This petition is comprehensively taken apart here:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...s-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
I appreciate you presenting the other side of the argument concerning Ben Davidson and The petition, However it does not address the content and main point of the videos. As I said it is not based on Ben's analysis, so going after Ben is missing the issue completely. it is about the 700 plus papers that the videos are based on. Showing the shift in climate science at the highest levels. Not a shift concerning Ben Davidson or Keith Strong, this is larger than that.

Solar particles and cosmic rays will be allowed into the climate models for the first time. Meaning the models have been incomplete and therefore not accurate. We can actually see this is true. Secondly I always get suspicious of the claims that if you are not a climate scientist then you have no valuable input to add and should be ignored. I think this is quite arrogant and it has been used for years and not just in climate science. It is basically a logical fallacy. There are many physicists pointing out the various flaws, and ultimately what we are dealing with is physics. Being a climate science is a specialty a compartmentalization. By definition they will not know of factors that are indeed having an influence into their defined area of study simple because they are not aware of them. The electromagnetic interaction between the Sun and Earth being just one example of this as well as solar physics and space weather generally. The inclusion of these factors has also been outside of the sphere of climate scientists. It is outsiders who often present a catalyst for changes within science.

Here is a list of some of the Journals where these papers have come from.

- The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
- Advances in Space Research
- Earth and Planetary Science Letters
- Space Weather (AGU)
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Quaternary International
- Solar Physics (Springer)

There is no part of the climate that has not been affected by this shift. So for years of saying the science is settled and the debate is over Is revealed to be nonsense. This has happened, it is not a conspiracy or any one man's pet theory.

I think the major claim is since the release of these data sets there has not been any studies that are able to show human influence, none.
This is a big claim. I think that is worth investigating. Is this true?

I think you should also look at the video David posted earlier as well, you'll see the amount of data manipulation that has come from so called climate scientists. It is very easy to follow and also shows how the models have not held up. This is crucial, if the models are not accurate, climate scientists while insisting they are the only authorities to be listened to shoot themselves in the foot with demonstrable lack of credibility.

I'm am not saying they are all phonies of course, but we have to acknowledge there has been some unscrupulous shenanigans going on.
For balance we need there to be some real scientific debate and not just character assassination.
 
Last edited:
Secondly I always get suspicious of the claims that if you are not a climate scientist then you have no valuable input to add and should be ignored. I think this is quite arrogant and it has been used for years and not just in climate science. It is basically a logical fallacy.
Well said LS, indeed it is a formal logical fallacy of soundness in argument. Two species of this error

Contending that science is the propriety of scientists only The Meta-Ethical Praxis of Science
Contending that a stakeholder's relative stupidity disqualifies them from having a voice Abuse of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
 
There are some very pertinent question asked here of a former IPCC reviewer.
I think one of the obvious conclusions after listening to that video (and others) is why exactly most of the media present this issue as a done deal - "the science is settled", when it obviously isn't. I think the whole Climate Catastrophe nonsense could be punctured immediately if the media resumed their traditional role of being sceptical and questioning.

Above all, science is not about counting heads. It is about letting even a tiny minority argue their case among others. It would be the job of the media to tease out exactly why the various scientists disagree so badly.

David
 
Last edited:
As I said it is not based on Ben's analysis, so going after Ben is missing the issue completely. it is about the 700 plus papers that the videos are based on.
In other words, it is based on Ben's analysis - of the papers the videos are based on. But is he representing their content and implications accurately? Who else is representing them in the same way? Even Michael Larkin, who tends towards climate skepticism, doesn't seem to be aware of anybody else.

I think the major claim is since the release of these data sets there has not been any studies that are able to show human influence, none.
This is a big claim. I think that is worth investigating. Is this true?
It is a big claim. And if it is true, you would think that the climate skeptic blogosphere would be awash with it. Is it? Michael doesn't seem to think so.
 
I did a quick google search... again very quick and dirty so I'm very open to be proven wrong...
I'm not an expert and won't try to argue the science, but the guy making this big claim doesn't seem reliable based on Keith Strong's critique. I'd need to see independent reporting on it to even be bothered looking into it further.
 
Well said LS, indeed it is a formal logical fallacy of soundness in argument. Two species of this error

Contending that science is the propriety of scientists only The Meta-Ethical Praxis of Science
Contending that a stakeholder's relative stupidity disqualifies them from having a voice Abuse of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
What is ironic, is that science was once founded by hobbyists and enthusiasts defiant of formal authority. Absence of formal authority was characteristic not only of its earliest stage, but even of its golden age. It is only recently that the formal credentials became a mark of a "true scientist" (the good summary of this change is presented in the Henry Bauer's three-stage history of science model).

And nowadays, a person without a formal education and degree has three advantages before the persons who have them:

- absence of intense, years-long indoctrination into the academic orthodoxy;

- absence of versted interests, pressing incentives and informal social demands, common and characteristic for membership in the official scientific intitutions;

- absence of the elitist entitlement and arrogance, and accompanying relative mental blindness, that are systematically socially instilled in the mebers of the elite (scientific ones, too).
 
In other words, it is based on Ben's analysis - of the papers the videos are based on. But is he representing their content and implications accurately? Who else is representing them in the same way? Even Michael Larkin, who tends towards climate skepticism, doesn't seem to be aware of anybody else.
Slow down there, all good questions. The gist of the video is that this new aspect is going to be included, or rather has been included. That there seems to be a shift in academia on the subject accumulating to being accepted.


It is a big claim. And if it is true, you would think that the climate skeptic blogosphere would be awash with it. Is it? Michael doesn't seem to think so.
I think the blogosphere and general pop science, political media side reflects nothing like that of the actual sate of things inside those academic circles. Best way to go would be to check out those journals and see. Find some of the papers in question maybe...Contact Ben maybe for more info. Or just wait and see. That's my plan.

At least there is a lifespan on all this, I'm sure it will be well into the beginning years of Sols slumber.
 
Here we go, an older video on the subject. So yes it's a thing.
Cosmic Rays, Solar Forcing and 20th Century Climate Change The 20th Century has seen a notable temperature rise, generally attributed to the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic gases, and a future "business as usual" policy is generally believed to be catastrophic. However, significant evidence indicates that the sun plays a major role in climate change. We will review the evidence which proves the existence and quantifies the physical mechanism linking between solar activity and climate—galactic cosmic ray ionization of the atmosphere and its effect on cloud cover. We will also discuss the experiment carried out to pinpoint the exact mechanism. We will see that once the link is taken into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century global warming is obtained. In it, climate sensitivity is low and future climate change is benign.
 
Top