So anyone who disagrees with your assertions are now "sock puppets". Really? Here's a few parting thoughts - if a Nobel Prize winning scientist is ineligible to express an opinion on anthropogenic climate change, how about the Climate Council's Prof Tim Flannery (a mammalogist and palaeontologist) who told us we were in for perpetual droughts and "even the rain that falls will never fill our rivers and dams" just a couple of years before the disastrous floods in 2011, let alone the numerous floods since then and regular overflows from Sydney's Warragamba Dam https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/warragamba_dam_wall_raise_on_hold_thanks_to_green_bureaucrats_and_activists
Climate change? Yeah right Tim flip a coin, floods or droughts you can't lose.
As for computer modelling, many os us are still aware of "Climategate" - the flurry of "Hide the decline" emails emanating from East Anglia University when they realised actual temperatures weren't playing the game the computers predicted, as exposed by James Delingpole
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The-IPA-on-Climategate-from-CCTF2010-Davidson-and-Moran.pdf
You have also used the term "ocean acidification" which displays a lack of scientific knowledge as it is a misnomer used to help scare the gullible:
"A good way to excite people is to tell them that something is becoming more ‘acid,’ as ‘the oceans are undergoing acidification and this is a potential environmental catastrophe.’
https://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2010/08/24/ocean-acidification-is-a-misnomer/
"The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading proponent of the doom of global warming, states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open oceans, so the oceans remain alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid. (1) Since the pH of the oceans is higher than neutral (pH = 7), this means the oceans are alkaline..."
And the Great Barrier Reef records record coral cover for the third year in a row" .. From Australian scientist Joanne Nova
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/
You also continually refer to the authenticity of "peer reviewed" articles but if you search for faulty or fake peer reviews you will find numerous examples including this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18202

Mikko2,

No, a sock puppet is not identified by whether they agree with me. Commenters can be identified as likely sock puppets when they are new and make a sudden appearance with exactly the same tone, position and writing style of someone who is struggling in a debate.

To answer your latest points:

While Nobel Prize winners are respected, their expertise isn’t always in climate science. Climate change requires specific knowledge in atmospheric science and oceanography. Tim Flannery’s background in palaeontology provides insights based on historical data. His comments on droughts and floods are based on climate models, which account for various scenarios. Climate change can lead to both droughts and floods, depending on the region and timing; these predictions are informed estimates.

Regarding “Climategate,” multiple investigations cleared the scientists involved, showing that the phrase “hide the decline” referred to specific data handling, not global temperature manipulation. The overall consensus in climate science remains that human activity significantly impacts recent climate changes.

Ocean acidification describes the drop in ocean pH levels due to CO2 absorption. While the oceans are still alkaline, this change negatively affects marine life, especially organisms like corals and shellfish. The term “acidification” accurately highlights the shifts in ocean chemistry and potential ecological impacts.

As for the Great Barrier Reef, reports of increased coral cover are encouraging but don’t negate ongoing threats like mass bleaching and warming waters. These issues cause long-term damage, and short-term recoveries shouldn’t be seen as a complete reversal. The reef's health is influenced by local conservation efforts and broader climate trends.

Finally, regarding peer review: it’s crucial for maintaining scientific quality, though it’s not perfect. Faulty reviews are rare and usually identified over time. Peer review allows scientists to scrutinise and validate findings, which is essential for science's self-correcting nature. Looking at the consensus in peer-reviewed research rather than isolated studies provides a more comprehensive understanding.

In discussions about climate change, it’s important to consider the scientific consensus, supported by extensive research and data analysis. Scepticism should be informed by evidence and expert opinion, no junk conspiracy sites. It's just denialism, otherwise.

John Daysh – I am no sock Puppet and I don’t spend all my time on facebook or other sites – once you start losing the argument, your side always attacks with name calling. I “may” have been more involved with following FACTUAL information on Nuclear than Mikko2 – who knows – I don’t?
It would be interesting to know why you are so hung up on renewables and against nuclear. Do you even know that France has been coping with Nuclear for energy for 75 years? I would say nuclear will cause much less destruction to our beautiful countryside than your horrible wind turbines and solar which are going to cause much more of a problem with their disposal.
Have you seen how the modern day Nuclear systems work? It would be MOST DIFFICULT for any waste to escape if you knew anything about the way they operate these days. Check out the links I have sent to you - it is all there. You have no excuse to poo hoo Nuclear. I am probably a lot more aged than you but even I can see the great benefits of Nuclear for Energy (we are not talking about Nuclear Bombs in case you are on the wrong train).
“Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening.”
”McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Farnortherner,

Referring to an online identity as a "sock puppet" isn't name-calling. Look it up. Now that you mention it, though, the insults have only been coming from those responding to me.

I am not hung up on renewables, nor am I against nuclear power. Had you read my comments without getting emotional, you would have realised that all I've been doing is providing nuance to the debate where it's missing. This forum is a right-wing echo chamber; had it been a left-wing echo chamber, I would be accused of being pro-nuclear.

As for the rest of your comments, I have answered them all numerous times on this forum already, but will do so again now.

France has successfully used nuclear energy for decades, significantly reducing carbon emissions and ensuring a stable energy supply. Modern nuclear systems have advanced safety measures, making waste escape unlikely, crucial for combating climate change.

While nuclear plants have a smaller physical footprint compared to wind farms and solar panels, each energy source's environmental impact must be assessed holistically:

-Land use: Wind and solar installations require more land but can coexist with agriculture and other uses.

-Disposal: Disposal of wind turbine blades and solar panels is an emerging issue, with recycling advancements underway. However, nuclear waste disposal remains a significant challenge due to its long-lived radioactivity, necessitating secure storage for thousands of years.

-Accidents/disasters: Modern nuclear plants are safe, but potential nuclear accidents (e.g., Fukushima, Chernobyl) can cause severe, long-term environmental contamination.

Advancements in nuclear technology, such as Generation IV reactors and small modular reactors, promise higher safety and better waste management. However, public concerns about nuclear safety and waste disposal persist.

The claim that many climate scientists do not agree on global warming is false. The overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real and primarily driven by humans.

Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are vital for diversifying our energy mix and reducing fossil fuel reliance. They have lower operational risks, can be deployed more quickly than nuclear plants, and ongoing technological advancements continue to improve their efficiency and reduce environmental impact.

By the way, Farnortherner, I read the document you linked to and it was appallingly inaccurate and biased.

Firstly, it suggested that all health effects from nuclear accidents are caused by fear. While psychological impacts are real, extensive studies show that radiation from events like Chernobyl has resulted in increased rates of thyroid cancer and other health issues. It also mentions that Ukraine relied heavily on nuclear power and planned more plants post-Chernobyl, but this doesn't dismiss the significant long-term health and environmental consequences of the disaster, despite improvements in safety.

Another claim involves a NOAA graph used by antinuclear activists, allegedly to misrepresent radiation levels. While misinformation does occur, concerns about Fukushima’s radiation were valid, with independent research confirming ocean contamination affecting marine life and human health. Additionally, the mention of thyroid tissue samples from Chernobyl survivors, which show distinct genetic damage, actually supports the argument about long-term effects of radiation exposure, countering the document’s minimisation.

The claim that sickness near the Ranger Uranium Mine was due solely to bacterial contamination is true for that case, but not universally. Other areas near uranium mines have shown elevated radiation levels with related health problems. While the point about improved safety in modern nuclear plants is valid, it overlooks ongoing risks like waste disposal and decommissioning challenges.

The comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima aims to show differences in response and design, but both incidents have caused severe, lasting health and environmental impacts, contrary to the document’s downplaying of these events.

Overall, while acknowledging safety improvements in nuclear technology, the document significantly underestimates the health risks and environmental consequences of nuclear accidents. It’s important to evaluate both the progress in nuclear energy and the associated risks critically.

You'll have to do a lot better than that, I'm afraid. Try demonstrating some information literacy and link me to some scholarly, peer-revied literature instead of the half-baked, cherry-picked musings of paranoid quacks. In fact, given that most of the data is heavily weighted against your position, I should ask YOU why you are so hung up on nuclear and are against renewables.

Thanks for my morning laugh, John D. For your information I've never met Farnortherner but anyone living in the far north can see why they would be against renewables causing huge environmental destruction in pristine forests and mountain ranges that will never be restored after their short life renders them dangerous landfill. Even the huge concrete bases will be there long after the nation finally catches up with the rest of the world and realises renewables can't supply reliable baseload power.
And Re your:"Try demonstrating some information literacy and link me to some scholarly, peer-revied literature instead of the half-baked, cherry-picked musings of paranoid quacks."
Three words for you JD - Pot, Kettle, Black.
Sites like your quoted Skeptical Science? Another good laugh, it's a pathetic joke.
As for sock puppets, I've posted links to the original article on several social media and online news sites, so if some people come in late after wading through your lengthy repetitive pro- renewables claims, it's more evidence that there are open-minded people who recognise the truth.