If it is OK to condemn people for their beliefs, I condemn this author and anyone else who believes that there is a climate catastrophe and that it is our fault. Fundamentalist religion and hokey pokey is rampant among the Marxists.

I hope they can work out who is causing all this climate mayhem. For example Paris 42.6C, global sea level rise 3.6 mm a year. The only thing for sure is that it can't be our fault.

In the 1930s there was a sect which met on the south head of Sydney Harbour to await the end of the world predicted to end at midnight on the night they assembled, They all had to go home next morning.
I suggest this author go to Tomaree Headland at Port Stephens to wait for his predicted disaster. When he climbs down when his disaster does not happen he will be right in his element-- a home for the mentally challenged at the base of the headland.

There are some troglodytes for who, climate change will never ever be real, save when the rising oceans reclaim their waterfront mansions.

Then predictably they will say to a generic troglodyte, why were we told and why didn't someone do something!?

Rainforests apart from being carbon sinks also used to function along with natural wetlands, as natural firebreaks!

And as the ravages of exponentially increasing climate change caused desertification, these areas dry out and become tinder for the next firestorm!

Those folk who don't believe climate change is real and that we are causing it number only about 4-5% of us. But are vociferous in their endlessly repeated public denials, like the demented old fools with money and unearned privileges, most of them probably are!?

Confined livestock can in some cases have the methane burps curtailed by the addition of a particular species of seaweed to their food stock.

Apart from that, if their manure is collected and fed through double tank biodigesters, The methane produced, can be collected and stored in bladders, then scrubbed to remove a minor CO2 component, the methane fed into ceramic fuel cells to produce virtually free power and endlessly free hot water, the other byproducts are carbon-rich soil improver and nutrient-loaded reusable water.

As the carbon-rich moisture retaining product is added to our soils, the carbon content is geosequestered for centuries! Add in dung beetles to help bury it deep and the soil is even more improved! Add the reusable water via underground tapes and almost any crop can be grown almost anywhere including arid desert regions

There are a great many things we can do! And none of them needs to harm the environment or tank our economies, just the very opposite!

All that prevents is self-consumed, demented old fools with power and money!
Alan B.

Of course climate change is a real fraud, Alan B, promoted by frauds like Michael Mann, and supported by fools like you, who are so ignorant that they do not acknowledge that there is no science to show any human effect on climate
If your support is not based on ignorance, then it is based on dishonesty. There is no science to support it.

I wonder if this bloke could make change for a $5 bus ticket, from a $10 note, with out asking someone in the math department to work it out for him.

He certainly can't make any sense of this scam.

The fossil fuel industry is a 3 trillion dollars a year and rising, industry!
Climate science with all the so-called grants probably hard pushed to make one-tenth of that!? So, who has the greatest financial imperative to go down the BS route?

Moreover, those scientists employed by the fossil fuel industry are reportedly telling their master one thing and like big tobacco and asbestos, the general public another! And given that's so? Lying through their back teeth for their employers!?

And only those few remaining ancient airheads are swallowing all the fossil fuel industry's BS! And now only number some 4% of us!?

And as always when hard-pressed to mount a cogent argument, just hit the bullyboy, abuse button! And typical of old farts with more money than brains! Just trying to protect a personal patch! In typically, an, I'm all right Jack, advocacy!
Alan B.

We are wasting our time on all these troglodytes Alan. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Fortunately, the new generation will reach voting age before the next election and then we might see some very radical changes in government policy. We need a bit more than Snowy 2. We need more engineers and less accountants and lawyer in our parliaments.
David

The Greta effect is just that an effect. Its Hype, Marketing, Self-promotion of an idea (which still remains a theory now as it was when first proposed by Plass back in 1956). It may give you an elitist, warm feeling to be led by the " Jesus-like" Reincarnation (yes ...CNN prime time host 2 weeks ago). Climate change cultism is just that, its no more than a smoke and mirrors scheme, a Ponsey scheme for some, and the best modern-day example of the "Emperors New Suite of Clothes". Love this stuff if you must, but rather than falling for hype, spend some time reading the science (not IPCC reports and climate models predictions). That's hard work, so most will fall back onto the story they want to here... Man is bad, Mother Earth is good, Gai will kill us all in the end... whatever, a they say these days! The Nobel circus has given peace medals to some of he world's 'best' terrorists, a President-elect before he was elected... so why not a child puppet who climate change cultists and the media adore!

The assertion by Mann of a scientific basis for human effect on climate change caused Dr. Tim Ball to remark that Mann belonged in the State pen. Mann sued for defamation, then stalled the case for many months, by refusal to comply with court orders to produce documents.
. “Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php
Mann's dishonesty revealed tht he had no case.
Supporters of the climate fraud have no case.

Yes, David and right on the money! Sad commentary when the airheads, (demented old farts) and coal-fired advocates need to resort to mistruth and bogus links, probably straight out of St Petersburg? To mount something that vaguely resembles cogent argument!?.

Greta has another job to do and that is, get those young folk enrolled as soon as they're old enough to vote and demand of our representatives their position and plans pertaining to climate change and just get it done even as the 'ancient bludgers' (the world owes us a living, cretins) scream their disaffection all the way to their end!

And ensure they are held to account as indeed today' s puppet pollies must be, with their careers truncated midway!

Moreover, after a new broom and a sweep clean, parliamentary pensions must be also truncate to represent the value these folks have provided as our employees representing us! Instead of as now, powerful vested interest?

https://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20528&page=0
There is science to support the anthropogenic climate change thesis. Here’s one example: https://tinyurl.com/y488rvrs.

Dear poor garry in Liffey, you miss the point . There are thousands of so called research like that. Good work, but while they find trends, and excuse the capitals, THEY AIN"T GOT THE CASUSAL LINK. If you want the best correlation for temp rise over last 200 years, look at it against the cost of US postal stamp. almost perfect correlation, but no causation, unless the heavy breathing of licking a stamp produces excessive carbon dioxide!If you want to learn something new old chap, check out G N Plass, Tellus vol.8,pp140-154, Stockolm 1956. It I believe was the "theory" which is yet to be proved.

Just watch the development of the Helsinki and Kobe findings and see
if they are confirmed by others.In the meantime ask why have the IPCC
models not included the effect of clouds in their models ?

Good on ya Bazz, you know at least one flaw in the super expensive climate models...

There are many. I used to worry about them back in 1992 when I was in the 1st lane for a "great career" and AO's as far as I can see! BUT STUPID/Honest me left in 1992 to the real world to solve real problems for citizens of Sydney and the environment, Now I just do things to get better environment, water and basic services to Australians who don't have the luxury of a Tap of drinking water and a waste service to take the crap away and treat it safely before return to the environment Great would be better looking at more important issue.

Climate change is the holy grails, the ultimate nexus for getting money locked into the economy. so.. her puppeteers will continue to hide behind her until she looses street value.

must be promotion time at Alan's uni. How could any thinking person believe in the rot he has written.

how sad, insults, sarcasm, ... go doo some actual science reading "mate", AND COME BACK WITH AN ANSWER YOU HAVE, NOT WHAT YOU GOT FROM YOUR TREASURE CHEST of science propaganda that supports your view of the world. Go in peace and get a life looking after the planet... plant some trees, put in a rain tank, reuse rather than recycle...….

We can't do anything about Climate change but we could do a lot to curb pollution.
Anyone interested ?

Garry, I have only read the summary, but there seems to be nothing that
is different in the AGW theory that also exists in the Helenski/Kobe
theory after all the temperature has been rising steadily for the last
hundred years or so.
Any argument raised on behalf of AGW can be applied to Helenski/Kobe.

Now obviously I do not "know" the truth but I have always ben a skeptic.
It all seemed too packed up and a ribbon tied on it to the extent we
are prepared to spend $Trillions on it while some very eminent scientists don't believe in AGW.
H/K seems to explain the Roman and Medieval warm periods and the
maunder minimum and perhaps our present warm period, all spaced 600
years and 300 years apart.

I have just found a write up on this theory by Hendrik Svenmark which
has been published in Nature.
This article is at; https://tinyurl.com/yya8pzm5

Full journal reference
H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark, Increased
ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei,
Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02082-2

The paper is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

From a quick look it appears that this paper published back in 2017
does not refer to the affect of sunspots.
It maybe that the Helsinki/Kobe work made that connection in more detail.
The correlation with history may well be strong enough to chnage
many minds.

Alison Jane [Thursday, 3 October 2019 1:05:50 PM]:

I understand that correlations don’t necessarily imply the presence of causal links. However, I think that correlations may suggest the possible presence of a causal relationship.

I’m also thinking that it is possible to assess the ‘strength’ of a correlation.

I wonder whether you would accept – given a high correlative strength – that such a correlation might validly be used for concluding a causal link?

Like all cultist , you are always right.. so rock on in your world of denial

Garry, the correlation on its own is not enough, I agree.
The generation of clouds by Cosmic rays I think has been conclusively
demonstrated in a cloud chamber some thousands of times.
That the sun cycles and that sunspots disturb and enforces the magnetic
field is also well known.

Allison was your comment directed at Garry or me or both.
I thought that the co2 followers had stopped using denial words as
it made them appear very narrow minded closed minded.

I was only throwing the word denier back to a deluded true believer. Got be treat this topic with some humour old chaps!!

Thanks for your responses, Bazz.

My initial entry onto this comment thread was to challenge/counter Leo’s assertion that “There is no science to support it [i.e. a “human effect on climate”]

It seems clear to me that there is science which supports Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). You have also presented science which supports an alternative theory (Cosmic Rays – Clouds). I’m sure there is also science which rejects ACC.

Jennifer Marohasy recently wrote: “Science is a method, science is never settled. We must therefore always be open-minded, tolerant and ready to be proven wrong.”

[Jennifer Marohasy: ‘How to Evaluate the Evidence of Contrarians – Scientifically’.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/09/how-to-evaluate-the-evidence-of-contrarians-scientifically/]

Yes, VK3AUU. More vacuous and baseless remarks. Ut no science, because you have none to justify the blatant climate raud, and your fraud promoter, Michael Mann has confirmed his dishonesty by the failure of his ridiculous court case. There is no science to show human caused climate change.
Correlation does not prove causation to a scientist, only to a fraud promoter who ignores science, such as Alan B.

Dear Alison Jane,

Can I ask what physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?

Alison, from what I have read the IPCC models do not take account of
cloud cover on temperature.
The effect of lower cloud cover was allocated to co2.
Hence according to Hk/Kobe the co2 effect was very
small. 0.01 deg C or was it 0.001 C, I forgot which.
There has always been an argument about the sensitivity of co2 on
temperature and that could be the solution.

What impact have the holes in the ozone layer from the countless rockets ? Do they let extra Sun heat through ? Should we stop space exploration & stop using the Internet ?
Greta's been very quiet on the impact of technology which the Millennials can't live without.

Just watching the Insiders right now I couldn't help being utterly dismayed at the ignorant mentality of the panel, especially when they talked about Climate change protesters.
Do we really have to tolerate such indoctrinated mutts forcing their limited sense views onto our young at taxpayers expense ?

Quote:
Drought Minister David Littleproud said he “totally” accepts climate
change is leading to droughts and disrupted rainfalls.

He is suggesting that drought will become worse and turn into desert.
Does he suggest that we abandon any drought measures and all farmers
leave the land now.
This must be conclusion of his beliefs.
But he doesn't. Why, does he believe things will return to normal ?
Well he has to because that is the opinion of cabinet.

Here we see the problem of the government laid bare.
This drought, or the next one might be permanent.
If he is right then we may as well just suicide and be done with it.

For the last 40 or 50 years we have been told how our world is
chocking on CO2, the gas that is the staff of life.
All sorts of dire predictions have been made, none of which came true.

Alan B surprised me with his blanket defense of AGW.
Alan, you have been bashing our ear-- no eyes about thorium and
science for ages but you do not look askance at some of the ridiculous
claims about sea levels etc. Face it, it is just not happening !

Its Sunday, its a long weekend, go out and get some Vitamin D from the Sun, walk the dog, cat, pig, mouse, grasshopper.... whatever. No amount of factual information will convince anyone in this debate. Hopefully, common-sense will prevail before we are either fried by the Sun when it moves to becoming a red dwarf or we all are bankrupted, impoverished and taxed to within an inch of our lifes... and then the Indians and Chinese will take over the world... led by the Martian army, led by Emperor MUSK when he returns from Mars. LoL

Dear Alison Jane,

I thought I had asked my question politely and kept is pretty simple to boot. Do you really have no answer? Perhaps you missed it in all the kerfuffle. I will put it to you again.

Can I ask what physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?

Alan B, It Is no doubt the fact that you are older than the supporters of the truth about the the assertions of the anti-climate fraud, that you produce such rubbish in your posts.
Added to your main disability of verbal diarrhoea, it is no wonder you produce nothing sensible.
What is the basis of your assertions about their age? More of your made up nonsense, no doubt.

go read a set of textbooks, study... physics, chemistry and biology, the three main sciences.... that is you challenge... but then you probably want answers now.. well go do some study about co2 and you shall learn. go in peace

Dear Alison Jane,

I have done some study and I have learnt, which is why I have put the question to you because you seem to want to refute that effort.

Again can I ask what physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?

Individual, I have not seen anything that suggests the ozone hole
affects AGW. The holes mainly being over the poles is a smaller area.
A climate scientist has been quoted; "AGW is not causing droughts !"
As far as the internet is concerned, it does use electricity so there
will be co2 generated. Who cares ?

I am not in a position to argue on scientific work on the earths
temperature. The new hypothesis I have found encourages me because it
means we can stop arguing about CO2 and save a lot of money.
It would mean that the warming we have experienced is a natural cycle.
It means that in a hundred years the cooling will be noticeable.

Reflux represents that he has done some study, then demonstrates his ignorance of how to conduct himself in a scientific discussion by setting down a pile of garbled rubbish which he purports to be a question.
It is neither in form or content a question, but a mere attempt to state a baseless opinion, and serves only to demonstrate the stupidity of Reflux’s attempt to participate in the forum.
Alison jane should not lower herself to acknowledge such nonsense as a question or otherwise. If Reflux cannot conduct himself in a reasonable manner, he should be ignored

Reflux wants to know what part of the properties of co2 should he should ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?
P there has been no such assertion. The baseless assertion was that human generated co2 affected temperature.
The leading climate scientist Rbert Carter showed that this was a scientifically bseless assertion. .Reflux will remember this, because he posted a baseless lie that Professor Carter had admitted he was wrong..

As I pointed out, at that time,” Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handlind a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear into the crevices..
Reflux needs to ignore his baseless concept of the science, and understand that there is no science to show any human effect on climate.
Answer the question Reflux, as to how, when and by whom, Robert Carter’s flawless science was shown to be “ proven falsehoods”

Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handling a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear, and neglect to answer, since an honest answer would incriminate him.There are, in fact, no "falsehoods"

The reason that co2 has not had the effect expected is according to
the Turku and Kobie Uni scientists is that the IPCC models did not use cloud data.
So the surplus affect was allocated to CO2 rather than cloud shading
and reflection or lack of it depending on the point in the cycle.
If they are correct then the effect of man made co2 is negligible.

Bazz: A relationship between clouds and global warming is interesting. I'd like to see one or two links to scholarly articles - preferably with one taking a counter view. Do you have any such articles that I could read up on this? (I mean 'journal type' articles, not newspaper/magazine/blog sort of stuff) - Garry.

Gary here is something I wrote earlier. One of the links contains a link to the peer reviewed paper.
GLOBAL WARMING ? BUT IS IT CO2 ?
There has been a week of panic by schoolgirls literaly hysterical about CO2 induced global warming. The claim is made that the science is irrafutable. Many well known scientists in the weather field are not so convinced and are banned from access to once respected web sites.

The earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from space. The cosmic rays react with water vapour tThe Svenmark affect, by the scientist Mark Svenmark.
While all this has been going on, the ground under them has shifted. A not so unknown theory has been given a boost by scientists at a Finish University and at a Japanese university the presentation of papers on the effect of the sun, sunspots, cosmic rays and clouds. Their work does not deny that the earth has warmed, but they deny the part attributed to CO2.

The sun has a cycle of variation of radiation levels. The sunspot activity follows an eleven year cycle and the intensity of the plasma expelled towards the earth varies over a longer cycle of maximum and minium. These particals & plasma intensify the earths magnetic fields so that over the years the strength of these fields follows a long cycle of about 600 years.
Cont

continued;
The earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from space. The cosmic rays react with water vapour to form low clouds. However if the earths magnetic field is strong enough the cosmic rays are diverted away from forming clouds. When low clouds form the earth is shaded and heat is reflected from the top of the clouds back into space.

It is the variation in the magnetic field over the complex cycle that causes the variation in cosmic rays and as a result the cloud cover that causes the earth to warm and cool. The result of these variations is a natural cycle of the earth warming and cooling over a cycle of 600 years.

Why is CO2 not a major factor in the warming ? The IPCC models did not take into account the effect of cloud cover or lack of cloud cover. At times of low cloud cover the resulting warming was assumed to be caused the greenhouse effect..

A 1986 analysis of Alpine glaciers concluded that the period AD 100-400 period was significantly warmer than the periods that immediately preceded and followed. Artifacts recovered from the retreating Schnidejoch glacier have been taken as evidence for the Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.
Cont

Continued;
During these periods the cloud cover would be comparitavly light and the earth was warmer.
In the medievil period around 900 1000 ad the earth was warm and the Vikings settled in Greenland and lived there successfully for some hundreds of years. Then as the earth cooled the living became harder until finally the people left Greenland.

In the 18th century which was a cool time the Thames froze every year and the winter festival was held on the ice. Today 300 years later wine grapes are again being grown in the UK and
the Thames never freezes.

The scientists who developed this hypothisis believe that the highest temperature is now around 1990. Perhaps it is +- 50 years. If this hypothesis is correct the next minimum will arrive in in about 300 years time.

Want to know more ? Here are some links to the authors articles and information on
Hendrik Svenmark who was the originator of the whole idea in 2012.
http://tinyurl.com/yya8pzm5
http://tinyurl.com/y5lee6uv
http://tinyurl.com/y4w8nzzu
http://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5

I must resize this. Yes, I am a waffler !

Wait....

Climate change is now being blamed for refugees fleeing their homes?

Let's all play a game. It's called pair one truth with one lie. If you know it's a game then it's fun. If you don't know it's a game them it's a con job.

Now think of the game that climate change is said to be influencing. Taking known issues and causes and then saying, "oh by the way that's climite change too."

True causes people might consider supporting.

-reducing pollution: air pollution, water pollution, landfills. (Because taking care of the world is important, not because it's the end of the world coming)
-rising sea levels?
-protecting forests, fighting deforestation. (For the trees, or for the animals in the forests. Or maybe realize that it's hypocritical to tell poorer countries to not use their land and their resources, when richer countries have protected little or none of their own. Either way not global warming).
-animal rights, the farm industry, and having better conditions for the animals, (not about methane gas or Global warming)
-refugees fleeing their homes DO TO WAR, INSTABILITY, AND LACK OF FOOD (not global warming)

These are all said to contribute to global warming. Or with refugees apparently a direct result of global warming. (O_o). Seriously how many lies and frauds have to be pointed out before climate change is tossed in the garbage bin? Take every cause you want to support and put your time and money into that. But first you need to take it out of the climite change scams.

Thanks for the links, Bazz:

I had looked up and had tried to read the Helsinki-Kobe papers when you first mentioned them. I am not a scientist, and much of what is contained in those papers is beyond me. I get the overall picture of fewer clouds resulting in the planet heating up and Svensmark’s ‘íncreased ionisation...’ breakthrough etc. I’m not so clear as to what the Kobe team are saying … it seems that they are associating galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) with a past reversal/weakening of the earth’s magnetic fields and that they are noting a cooling of the climate occurring at the same time, the evidence for this last bit seems to be in the record of dust deposits in the Chinese Loess Plateau. I think it is suggested that the accumulated dust is evidence of increased cloud at that time.

I’ve got a bit of a wry smile as I type this. There was fellow commenter, Alison Jane and her “Dear poor garry in Liffey...” admonishing me as if I didn’t distinguish between correlation and causation. She called me a ‘denier’ and a ‘deluded true believer’. Maybe she was being kind, just taking it easy on me. You see, Bazz, my ‘wry smile’ point is that the Kobe part of the equation seems based on correlation, and off the back of that, the Kobe team seem to imply a causal connection. And isn’t this much the same with Svensmark’s thesis?

I’m not trying to support my own human-caused-climate-change belief by attacking differing views. No, I am interested in the relationship between cloud and climate, just as I am interested in that between carbon dioxide and climate change. I’ve viewed the five links you’ve supplied – they weren’t the journal papers that I wanted, however, within them there were links to the originating papers. I read those (as much of them as I could understand). I did not find among your links any papers presenting rebuttals of the Helsinki-Kobe hypotheses. I wondered whether that was because there were simply none?
/…

.../
I did note however, in the first blog article for which you provided a link, that Anthony Watts (the author) did briefly present a counter view. He quoted ‘prominent solar physicist’ Dr. Leif Svalgaard who had this to say about Svensmark’s paper:

“Think about this: TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.”

GCR: Galactic Cosmic Rays
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance

Incidentally, I see in the abstract of the ‘Kobe’paper, the initial statement that

“The strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole field controls galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux [...]”

I struggle to understand the meaning of the abstract’s opening sentence. Is it suggested that the incoming flow of GCRs to the earth’s atmosphere is controlled/limited by the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field? And if so, what controls/influences changes to our magnetic field? I’ve wandered into Wiki (‘Earth’s Magnetic Field’) to find an answer and found something else … the strength of our magnetic field has decayed by 10% over the last 150 years since Gauss first measured it. But in writing this, I see another paper ‘Gyre-driven decay of the Earth’s magnetic dipole’ which seems to suggest that it is the ‘bipolar’ form of the magnetic field which is weakening.
/...

.../
Dr Pangloss (Voltaire: ‘Candide’) got a mention in one of the related articles that you linked me to, Bazz. It had to do with the proposition that we live in the best of all possible worlds (a theological proposition). (And in the article referred to as being in one of your links, I think we were being encouraged to set aside our climate hysteria and go out and smell the daisies). However, Candide, Voltaire’s hero, rejects Pangloss’s recurrent optimism: ‘Il faut cultiver notre jardin’ he says finally. Put aside your philosophic ‘best of all possible world’ debates … ‘I must go out and tend my garden’. I suppose Candide was saying that there has to be an end to talk, that in his case he had to get out and tend his orange grove while leaving the debate to those who would – like Pangloss – only debate. ‘Faith without works’? Perhaps Alison Jane was right … she advised going out to walk the dog etc. And I’m just a few moments from getting out to plant some spinach. I suppose that I’m equating Pangloss with ‘deniers’ which I agree could be unfair. That’s my bias and I am trying to operate in spite of it.

Titles of the original papers within your links*:

1. Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
2. Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth
3. i) No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change
ii) Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition

*the fourth link was a reprise of what was entailed in your third link and the relevant paper is already linked there, above.

Well Gary, I am no scientist either but I suggest that this hypothesis
may well hold the answer as it answers a number of questions about
hot and cold times in history.
Re the earths magnetic field, the effect of sunspots on it is well
known by people involved in HF radio.
There has only been one denial (whoops there is that word) article
written but it has only been published since July.

It will be interesting to watch. I saw the hypoyhesis mentioned on
TV today.

AlanB. You have failed to justify your assertion of”old men with money and power."
Understandable, from an old man. Like yourself, with no money, no power, and afflicted with verbal diarrhoea.You are incapable of any sense, but continue to inflict your nonsense on the thread,

Gary; As the Turku Uni findings were only published in July this year
it will probably take a while before the conventional proponents of
human caused global warming all get to hear of it and build up a
rejection pressure.
Here is another reference to the theory, but not to Turku or Kobe.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/10/towards-a-new-theory-of-climate-with-a-new-book/

As JM seems to be a favorite target that might get the discussion going.
If the discussion becomes a controversy imagine the steam generated
in parliament. If it turns out to be the answer, think of the $Tillion
that has been wasted on a wrong turning.
All the government regulations that will have to be repealed.
All the UN decisions and CO2 conference junkets that were pointless.

Because of all embedded decisions and expected loss of face, I think
the Sun/cosmic ray/cloud theory will be rejected out of hand.
Further to what I previously wrote there was another cycle in the
whole theory; the Milankovitch cycles.
So, sun/sunspots/cosmic rays/clouds/Milankovitch cycles so a lot of
computer programming needed for that ! Hi !

Despite the complete lack of science to support the assertions of the promoters of the AGW fraud, and the demonstration of the invalidity of the asserted “science” of the fraudulent Michael Mann, the fraud promoters,as suggested by Bazz, should have another opportunity to present their pitiful assertions,before general acceptance that they are fraudulent, beyond doubt.
It would be appropriate for Michael Mann to be prosecuted for fraud as an outcome of his baseless case against Ball.

Oh for goodness sake, stop contemplating your navels.

1. Climate change is natural and real
2. Climate change driven by carbon dioxide emissions is NOT uncontested, is NOT accepted bay 97% of the worlds climate scientists ( except those 1500 IPCC elites)
3. the statistical link between C02 and Temp is as strong as that as the cost of a US standard postal stamp and temp.. Cause as postulated by Plass back in his 1956 theory has not been proven.

Forget this distraction and focus on real issues like population, resources, land degradation, deforestation, water quality, sanitation... basic stuff, not climate fantasies of Hollywood. Which the climate cultists bon voyage on their nit-picking and step back from their intentional emotional jibes. Relax, step back and breath.. its a good planet to live on, despite all the inhumane things governments do in the name of their " cult-driven" actions.