The problem is not the truth this author holds dear, but the sick social system we are forced to endure.

Could he not address this critical subject in 153 different languages and dialects applicable to the entire inhabitants of this sickly Country, so we can all be educated equally?

And could he consider for a precious moment, that when he complains about men competing in women’s sport, or perverted men freely using women’s public facilities without any consideration of harm, he is the “odd” man out.

Or, that when he complains bitterly of the atrocities perpetrated on innocent Israelis on Oct 7th’23, he is totally on the wrong side of history by such a view, contrary to the accepted norm of the sick society, which state that Terrorists are not genocidal maniacs at all, but resistance fighters needing our sympathy and taxpayer support of billions of dollars, poured into their cause by all in the West that support the insane notion of climate change?

I’m sorry to tell you, but there is no hope of arguing for a sensible position on any subject in this our sick society.
Maybe take a holiday to Tasmania, sit in an apple tree eating apples, and watch the beautiful sunsets; that’s the same sunset setting over our once beautiful Country previously known as Australia now Austral-Ass.

Straight off the bat, the author is wrong - apparently confusing climate consensus with the infamous Oregon Petition.

The consensus refers to climate scientists, not just “scientists” in general. No one’s asking botanists or engineers whether they think human activity is warming the planet. The agreement comes from people who actually study the climate for a living - atmospheric scientists, geophysicists, climatologists, etc. Pretending the consensus includes physicists and podiatrists - and then dismissing it because of that - is either deeply dishonest or wildly uninformed.

From there, the article just gets worse with tired old eye-rollers like “the climate always changes” - as if that somehow proves this time it’s not us, or that it’s not a problem. That’s like saying forest fires have always happened, so who cares if someone’s running around with a can of petrol.

He also trots out polar bears and 1930s heat records like they’re gotchas. But polar bear numbers rose due to hunting restrictions, not a stable climate, and cherry-picking one hot year from nearly a century ago doesn’t erase the fact that the last decade has been the hottest on record globally. Climate is about long-term trends, not convenient exceptions. But Harris never bothers with the big picture - because it completely undermines his entire argument.

Then we get the classic “it’s only 1.1 degrees warmer” argument, which completely ignores how average temperature changes hide far more extreme local effects - heatwaves, floods, disappearing ice, rising seas. Small shifts in averages can mean massive shifts in outcomes. He also leans on this idea that adapting is cheaper than acting, but never engages with the scale of “adapting” to displaced populations, destroyed crops, and collapsing coastal cities. Spoiler: it's not.

And of course, no piece like this would be complete without quoting Michael Crichton on science - because no consensus can withstand the uninformed opinion of one celebrity.

There's no need for a part 2 - Harris hasn’t debunked anything. He’s just recycling denialist talking points, tossing in some smug rhetoric, and hoping readers mistake contrarianism for insight.

WTF?

Is this bloke still at it?

I thought he might have been dumped in the "please ignore" bin along with others like Ian Plimer whose ideas people have debunked so many times one wonders why Plimer bothers anymore.

The author, when the Science cannot be argued against, dismisses it as being irrelevant with statements such as "so what" and "well Duh".

Yet when the Science makes arguments about possible future outcomes they are "spurious claims".

He trivialises Scientific consensus as a "show of hands".

The author states: "The message of history is simple adapt to climate change or die!" as if this is some revelation. In his own words: "Well Duh".

So when human endeavour invests in research and technology with renewable energy forms our author describes initiatives, such as The City of Ottawa's Climate Change Master Plan, as " doomed to failure".

It appears that for the author it has been a long and winding mind journey for him to understand the concept of adaption to climate change.

His position seems to have shifted from renewable energy as doomed to fail to "Hey, I just got it!...adapt to climate change or die!"

There is nothing wrong with the climate: the fault lies with the gutless, stupid politicians, starting with Scott Morrison, who have put us under the slavery of Net Zero and the consequential massive rises in electricity prices, and the drop in living standards.

Sorry. It goes back further than Morrison to John Howard, who kicked off the requirement for a percentage of unreliable energy in the mix.

No wonder the big users of our coal like Communist China look at "handsome boy" Albanese and most of our other politicians with contempt.

All Dutton had to do to be a winner was to pledge to get out of the Paris Agreement; but he has proven to be as stupid as the rest of them.

The only Western politician in the world who gets it is Donald Trump.

There is a consensus that temperature have risen since the 1850s. There is a consensus that man pumping more CO2e into the system since the 1940s has played some indeterminant roll in that rise. That's the extent of the so-called consensus.
There is no consensus that the warming has been solely caused by man. There is no consensus that the warming has been detrimental to man. There is no consensus as to what will happen in the future. There is no consensus as to whether future warming will be dangerous. There is no consensus as to what to do if it is determined that it would be dangerous to civilisation.

We are told that the current warming is unprecedented and that we must upend society to combat the assumed problems that might occur in the lifetimes of our grandkid's grandkids. But we know to a reasonable degree of exactitude that temperatures since the outset of the Holocene have been higher than at present for at least 25% of the time. That is, 3000 of the past 12000 years than have been hotter than at present. Yet corals survived, polar bears survived. Rainforests flourished. Humankind flourished. Average maximums in Brisbane are 5C higher than Melbourne and 2C higher than Sydney yet people, particularly retirees flock north seeking the heat. Yet we fret over 1 degree warming or threatened 2 degree warming by 2100AD.

I must have read a different article to JD.

JD writes: "confusing climate consensus with the infamous Oregon Petition."

But the Oregon Petition isn't mentioned. (Perhaps its was implied!!)

"heatwaves, floods, disappearing ice, rising seas. Small shifts in averages can mean massive shifts in outcomes. "

There's no much point addressing the gish gallop of supposed problems. But to take just one, "The IPCC states there is low confidence in detecting global-scale trends in flood frequency or magnitude due to climate change." Still every flood, in our land of "flooding rains" is attributed to the ubiquitous 'climate change'

mhaze,

Read the first paragraph of the article again, while bearing in mind that the Oregon Petition has thousands of signatures from people who aren't even scientists.

Moving on: listing four examples in a single sentence to support one point isn’t a Gish Gallop - it’s called explanation. If that feels overwhelming, the problem isn’t the structure of the sentence.

As for your selective quote from the IPCC: yes, they express low confidence in detecting global-scale flood trends - largely because flood data is inconsistent across regions and influenced by land use. But that same report states there's medium confidence that climate change has increased heavy rainfall in many parts of the world. And more intense rainfall + poor planning = more destructive floods - regardless of what the global frequency graph says.

You’ve seriously understated it the extent of the consensus. There’s strong consensus that human activity is the dominant driver of warming since the mid-20th century. Not “a role” - the main driver. That’s in every major assessment from the IPCC, NASA, CSIRO, BOM, NOAA, and even the U.S. military. Not one of them says the human contribution is “indeterminate.”

No one is claiming warming is “solely” caused by humans - that’s a strawman. But you don’t need sole causation for responsibility. Smoking isn’t the only cause of cancer either - but it’s the one you act on.

The Holocene we've already been through in quite some detail. Yes, parts of it were warmer regionally, but those were caused by different orbital conditions, not rapid CO2 spikes. What matters now is the rate of change and the fact that our infrastructure, agriculture, and coastal cities are built around the relatively stable climate of the past few thousand years - not the early Holocene.

And comparing Brisbane to Melbourne isn’t the mic drop you think it is. It’s the rate and global scale of disruption - not whether retirees like sunshine.

Global Warming
Just What Is It ?
I am one of those who thinks the current argument is too narrowly aimed.
The articled to which we have been referred is the common belief.
It is believed by I believe a vast majority of people. That is not a good recommendation.
I cannot myself scientifically show the common belief to be incorrect but the alternative scientific opinion has substantial scientific opinion. As we have seen recently in the Ridd case opinions contrary to accepted scientific opinion can be very dangerous professionally
.

So what has been going on ? The earth’s temperature has been rising certainly from just about the start of the Industrial Revolution when the burning of coal commenced for the smelting of iron. There does not seem to be much argument on that point. That however is not proof.

There is a point of view, summed up by a take off of US President Clinton;

“IT IS THE SUN STUPID !”

Well that will put the cat among the pigeons.
Just what is that about ? History has shown a sequence of historical climate events which look very similar to what we have seen at present. The following list gives some time points to that statement.
1. Some timber artifacts found in the (forgotten) Glacier dated to BC 1000 very roughly indicate a temperature rise during their growth time.
2. The Roman warming period was documented around AD 0 +- some hundreds of years.
In that period Roman agriculture was active with many slaves employed.
At this time Roman troops were stationed on the Scottish Borders. They were settled there for many years and formed small towns. One of their major crops were grapes as the Romans were very fond of their wine. Not a cold country product.

Bezza continued
3. There is some belief that the collapse of the Roman era was made very much worse as the cold period of the dark ages caused a reduction of agricultural output that made the attacks of the Arab Pirates and Arab slave traders on sea trade forced trade onto more expensive land routes.

4. By the year 900 AD the earth had warmed considerably and this period is known as the Medieval Warm period. It was on this year that the Vikings decided to settle in Greenland. Some suggest that name was an estate agents suggestion.
However the Vikings lived there very successfully and it was an exploration base for Nth America, until the cold period set in around 1400, and the livings became too hard. So they left.
The remains of their villages and churches are there to be seen.

5. The coldest point is believed to be around 1800 and is known as the Maunder Minimum.
This name was given to this period because the scientist Maunder who had been counting sun spots noted a major decrease in the yearly count probably as low as zero.
For a very long time an Ice Festival had been held on the Thames in London.
The Thames was no longer freezing over so the Festival was abandoned in 1814.

6. It was noted in the middle of the 20th century that earth seemed to be getting warmer, as indeed it was, a search for the cause was undertaken. It was noted that the temperature had been rising since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and a major increase in coal burning around 1800
When it was realised that an increase in CO2 might cause warming of the atmosphere;
Eureka ! was the traditional scientific exclamation signalling the discovery of an explanation.
It was just too easy for some scientists.

Continued, more or less;
It seems that these cycles may have been going for many thousands of years.
The first known was the Minowan, the second the Egyption, the next Roman, the Medieval and then the current one.
They seem to vary between about 600 and 1000 years.

So as the last minimum was close to 1800 the next maximum may come
about 2100 or as late as 2300.
There is or was a group of scientists in Finland and Japan who have
made a thorough study of these cycles.
I will dig up their further information.

"Read the first paragraph of the article again, while bearing in mind that the Oregon Petition has thousands of signatures from people who aren't even scientists."

So when you said the author was confused about the Oregon Petition you just made it up. Not even trying to use the 'implied it' defence this time. Well that's some improvement I guess.

"As for your selective quote from the IPCC"

Yes we've noticed that every piece of evidence you don't like and can't refute is 'selective' or cherry-picked'. The IPCC said it. They wrote a whole section on it. The fact it there is no evidence that floods are worse now that any time in the past (well except for that time with Gilgamesh). You just asserting otherwise doesn't obviate the facts.

"You’ve seriously understated it the extent of the consensus."

I already said there was a consensus. Just not a consensus about the things you claim are in consensus. There is absolutely no consensus about the future course of the climate or the policies concerning the future.

"The Holocene we've already been through in quite some detail. Yes, parts of it were warmer regionally, but those were caused by different orbital conditions, not rapid CO2 spikes."

Rubbish. I've shown in the past, several dozen papers showing that there was world-wide warming higher than current temperatures and higher than temperatures forecast for the next century. You're now just making this up.

" What matters now is the rate of change".

There is no evidence that the rate of change in temperatures over the past 170 years is any different to previous periods of change. This rate of change assertion, and that's all it is, is just something the alarmists say when presented with the facts that these high temperatures aren't unprecedented.

"relatively stable climate of the past few thousand years - not the early Holocene."

Bezza has done a good job of debunking that bit of waffle.

mhaze,

You're working hard to avoid the actual argument, and it shows.

On The Oregon Petition:
I didn’t say Harris mentioned it. I said he used the same reasoning that undermines the Petition - dismissing a consensus because it includes people outside the core specialty. You can nitpick phrasing if you like, but the logic stands.

On floods and the IPCC:
No one denies the IPCC notes low confidence in global flood trends - I acknowledged that. But you keep ignoring the rest: the same reports show medium confidence that heavy rainfall events have increased in many regions, which absolutely does raise flood risk. That’s not “evidence I don’t like” - it’s context you keep cutting out.

On the consensus:
You claim to accept consensus on warming and human contribution - then try to downplay both. The scientific consensus is that humans are the dominant driver of recent warming. That’s not disputed by NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM, the IPCC, or any major scientific body. Pretending it’s limited to “some CO2 might be involved” is just wrong.

On the Holocene and past warmth:
Your “dozens of papers” claim sounds impressive - but curiously, never survives scrutiny. Most of those papers (when checked) refer to regional temperature reconstructions, not global averages, and none show warming as rapid as we’re seeing now. That’s the part you never engage with - the rate.

On the rate of change:
There IS evidence. We’ve reconstructed past climate using proxies like ice cores, tree rings, and sediment records. The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013; Neukom et al., 2019). But go ahead - call it “alarmism” when you’ve got nothing to counter it.

On Bezza's “debunking”:
If you think Bezza's *localised* warm-period anecdotes outweigh multi-decadal, multi-proxy global temperature reconstructions, I can’t help you. But don’t mistake a long post for a strong argument.

"On The Oregon Petition: I didn’t say Harris mentioned it."

No. You implied it!! (grin).

"which absolutely does raise flood risk."

Raising flood risk doesn't equal more floods. They specifically say there's little evidence that there are more floods. But if you don't want it to be true...

Consensus: Where you go wrong is to confuse consensus about the past with consensus about the future. There is consensus that CO2e played some part in the recent warming. And I support that. There's no consensus about the future or future policies. But you, and most alarmists, ignore that.

"Your “dozens of papers” claim sounds impressive - but curiously, never survives scrutiny."

The times when I showed all the evidence for prior warming all occurred prior to your joining the group....unless you are indeed SR. But just saying they didn't survive scrutiny is just another of your unresearched and unsupported assertions. Say it and hope its true.

"The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013; Neukom et al., 2019). "

Well that's factually incorrect. Just plain wrong. Marcott 2013 specifically addressed that issue and plainly and openly said the paleolithic data for the Holocene wasn't sufficiently detailed to make any claims that the current warming rate is unprecedented.

"If you think Bezza's *localised* warm-period anecdotes"

You're way out of date JD. It used to be the claim of alarmists that things like the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period etc were all localised. So rolly-trolly scientists went out and showed that these same warming period were indeed global. You're ten years behind the times.

mhaze,

I take you it now understand the comparison I was making with the Oregon Petition. I was pointing to the irony.

Floods vs. flood risk:
Yes, the IPCC says there's low confidence in global flood frequency. That doesn’t contradict what I said - which was about flood risk increasing due to more intense rainfall events in many regions (medium confidence, IPCC AR6). Increased rainfall = higher risk = greater potential for damage. You can keep ignoring that if it helps, but it won’t make it go away.

On consensus:
There is consensus that CO₂ is the dominant driver of recent warming - not just “some part.” As for the future, you’re dodging. There’s widespread agreement on future risks if emissions continue, and every major scientific body supports mitigation based on that evidence. You're mistaking "not total certainty" for "no consensus."

On your “dozens of papers”:
You keep referencing things “before I joined” - convenient. If those papers were so compelling, feel free to re-post a few. You won’t, because they don’t say what you claim. They’re almost always regional reconstructions, out-of-date proxies, or long-addressed anomalies.

On Marcott et al.:
You're misrepresenting the study. Marcott et al. DID say their resolution prevents precise rate comparisons over short timescales - not that no comparison could be made. Their findings still show the current trajectory is well outside the Holocene norm. And Neukom et al. (2019) explicitly concludes that "the warmest multi-century period of the past two millennia occurred during the 20th century." We've been through all this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10434

On global warm periods:
The idea that past warm periods were globally synchronous is still debated, and the evidence is mixed. Even if some warming occurred across regions, the drivers were natural and much slower than what we’re seeing now. Today’s spike is tied directly to anthropogenic emissions - not orbital variation or solar cycles.

So no, I'm not ten years behind. You’re just recycling decade-old talking points that still don’t survive scrutiny.

Hhhmmm, as a non scientist I am sitting here reading all about your
worries on what is happening in the next 30 or 50 years with co2 when
we are sitting in the middle of a 1000 approx year cycle.
Ho Hum !

"I take you it now understand the comparison I was making with the Oregon Petition. I was pointing to the irony."

Oh. It was originally 'true', then it was 'implied'. Now its 'irony'. Any other euphemisms for wrong?.

_________________________________________________________--

"Yes, the IPCC says there's low confidence in global flood frequency. "

Good...we got there.

_________________________________________________________________

"There is consensus that CO2; is the dominant driver of recent warming - not just “some part.” ".

Dominant means less than 100%. ie some part. They all have differing ideas about the portion caused by CO2e and natural variability.

" and every major scientific body supports mitigation based on that evidence."

Nup.

"You're mistaking "not total certainty" for "no consensus.""
You're mistaking headlines with agreement.

_____________________________________________________________

Marcott 2013...after releasing the paper he held a Q&A...

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper."

If you understood that , its saying that you can't opine of whether the rate of recent warming is unprecedented.

Checkmate.

"your worries on what is happening in the next 30 or 50 years with co2"

Actually they're worried about what'll happen late this century ie what'll happen to the grandkids of our grandkids!!

Or more exactly they're worried about the politics of today and using faux concern about our grandkid's grandkids for politic advantage and/or financial gain.

Well, mhaze, someone's clearly rattled!. Let’s take it from the top, shall we?

Oregon Petition:
Your attempt to twist my Oregon Petition point into some shifting “euphemism for wrong” misses the mark entirely. It wasn’t “true” or “implied” - it was a deliberate comparison of logic. I never claimed Harris mentioned it - I pointed out the irony that he dismisses consensus for including the “wrong” experts while many sceptics hold up the Oregon Petition, which includes non-scientists. That’s not a misstep. It’s a mirror.

Floods:
You’re still dodging the distinction. The IPCC notes low confidence in global flood frequency - true - but also notes medium confidence in increased heavy rainfall in many regions. That raises flood risk, which is what I said. Cutting out context doesn’t make you right.

Consensus:
“Dominant” doesn’t mean 100% - it means main cause, which is what the consensus says. Quibbling over wording doesn’t change the fact that climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that human emissions are driving recent warming.

Scientific bodies:
You said “nup,” but NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, the Royal Society, and dozens of others say otherwise. Are they all in on the hoax?

Marcott et al.:
That Q&A doesn't say “we can’t know anything about past rates.” It says their study alone can’t resolve sub-century spikes. That’s why I mentioned Neukom et al. (2019) - which shows the current warming is unmatched in the last 2,000 years. You ignored that.

“Grandkids of our grandkids”:
So now it’s about motives? That’s not a scientific rebuttal - it’s a pivot to politics. When you run out of evidence, you question the scientists’ intentions. That’s not checkmate. That’s retreat.

You keep declaring victory while dodging context, evidence, and anything post-2010. If your best argument is still “nup,” a Q&A quote, and an eye-roll about the future, then we’re not debating climate science anymore - we’re debating your attention span.

Try again.

I will not speak about this "climate change", nor should anyone who values their life and freedom, lest we end up like Navalni and his Russian-opposition colleagues, or taken away in the middle of the night by men in white cloaks pumping our bodies with tranquillisers.
(this by the way can happen whether one speaks for or against that idea, because one never knows who will come to power next)

Yet there is one thing we can all agree on, whatever our views on that specific controversy: HUMANS ARE TROUBLE-MAKERS!

Whether it is this or that trouble that humans cause, the notion that we can fix it while still maintaining such high population numbers, is arrogant and ridiculous, often just an excuse to continue letting our genitals loose and the blind genes happy. The blanket is just too short, no matter which way you pull it.

Therefore:

As Mhaze said:

«Actually they're worried about what'll happen late this century ie what'll happen to the grandkids of our grandkids!!»

So no worries - just don't have kids and if you already have, try to discourage them from having grandkids - then all environmental problems are solved, and most inter-human ones too!

Climate action is a religion, net zero is not science. But few countries are more determined than Labor-Greens Australia, to sacrifice themselves at the UN altar, as US/China/India laugh their heads off at us.

Canberra Greens, federal election flyer, from Woke Isabel and Woke Christina, what's their top priority? Fix footpaths? More cops? Nah, it's <Net Zero Emissions By 2035, Following The Climate Science>

John says that the warming cycles were local and not global.
I remember that there was an argument about that and was resolved when
some evidence was found in Indonesia, if memory serves me.
Anyway in a cycle many hundreds of years long it would seem very likely
that the heat would spread around and around.
If the heat was generated by whatever external mechanism it would be
world wide.
If the co2 theory is correct then it will be hot for 100s of years and
then get cold around 2600.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/01/what-if-there-is-no-climate-emergency-2/
The Maunder minimum was the very low count of sunspots in the 18th century.
As I have interpreted the theory there are multiple cycles all going
on at the same time.
There is a cycle of variation in the suns radiation.
There is the 11 year cycle of the sunspots.
There are the change of the orbits of the earth, both distance from
sun and the rotation of the earths ellipse around the sun.
The change in sunspot intensity from maximum to minimum is modified by
the suns variation in radiation. In other words the sunspot cycle
is modulated by the sun cycle, and then modulated by the orbit changes.
The sunspot activity generates a magnetic field around the earth and
modifies the existing field.
The upshot is the magnetic field around the earth varies with sunspot
variation all modulated by all those cycles.
to be continued

continues;
Then the cosmic rays are diverted away when the magnetic field is
strong but when it is weak they react with water vapour and form more
clouds than when the field is weak.
The clouds reflect back into space heat from the sun and shade the earth.
This variation in reflection and shading causes cycles of warming and
cooling of the earth over a period about 600 to 900 years.
Hence the 18th century was cold and the 10th and 11th centuries were warm.
This my understanding of what those teams have hypothesised.
I suspect this period from the Maunder Minimum to now has been seen
as Global Warming caused by co2. The Hypothesis suggests that co2
has only a very small affect on earth temperature. 0.01 deg C I think.
This theory explains the Roman warming, the Medieval warming and the Maunder Minimum.

Then the cosmic rays are diverted away when the magnetic field is
strong but when it is weak they react with water vapour and form more
clouds than when the field is strong.

The authors say that the IPCC models do not take into account the
effect of clouds. Because of that they let their effect on earth's
temperature be allocated to CO2.
I suspect that was not done deliberately but simply because it was there.

It is early days yet as it was only published 2 1/2 months ago.
It is extraordinary that a site like Conversation will block anyone
whose scientific opinion they do not like.
So people who use that site will not hear about this particular
theory. I guess that is the idea.

Whoops, this part had a mistake it should read;
form more
clouds than when the field is strong.

Bezza,

Appreciate you laying that all out - but the theory you're referencing isn’t new, nor is it ignored because it's dangerous to “The Conversation.” It’s been examined, critiqued, and largely dismissed by the scientific community for two key reasons:

1. It doesn’t hold up against observed data.
Cosmic ray/cloud cover hypotheses have been explored - including by the CLOUD experiment at CERN. While some minor correlations were found under controlled conditions, they don’t scale to explain observed global warming. More importantly, cloud changes don’t match the pattern of warming we’ve seen - particularly at night, in the troposphere, and over oceans - where greenhouse gases have clear, measurable effects.

2. CO2’s effect is well-established and nowhere near 0.01 degree.

That figure is completely fabricated. The actual radiative forcing of CO2 is calculable from first principles, and its effect has been measured from space. Current warming patterns match the expected signature of greenhouse gas forcing - not solar cycles, not magnetic field fluctuations, and certainly not imaginary “blocked cosmic rays.”

As for your “clouds aren’t in the models” claim - that’s incorrect. Clouds are included, and always have been. They’re one of the largest sources of uncertainty, yes, but not omission. Pretending models just ignore them entirely is misinformation - or more likely, someone misread a technical paper and Watts Up With That ran with it.

Finally, this isn’t about silencing dissent. It’s about standards of evidence. If a claim can’t make it through peer review, explain the data better, or survive replication - it doesn’t get elevated. That’s not suppression. That’s science doing its job.

You're welcome to follow emerging theories - but if you’re relying on blogs that misrepresent basic atmospheric physics, it’s no surprise you're being misled.

I originally posted that there were any number of papers showing that temperatures were higher in the recent past than now and that I posted links to dozens of those papers on OLO over the years.

JD pompously then asserts..."Your “dozens of papers” claim sounds impressive - but curiously, never survives scrutiny. Most of those papers (when checked)..."

"When checked".

Except JD never had checked. He had no way of knowing if they "survived scrutiny" because, as he admitted a couple of days later, he had no idea which paper I'd linked to. So his original claim was mere assertion that he hoped I wouldn't challenge.

And JD thinks he should be taken seriously.

Then hilariously he asserts (assertion is pretty much all JD has) that..." The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions". One of those papers he says is Marcott13. But bad news for poor old JD. I'm very familiarly with Marcott13 (it was one of those dozens of papers) and knew that JD's assertions were straight up wrong. So I quote from Marcott himself saying that reconstructions can't show that warming is faster now in the past.

JD's response...quick change the subject.

And JD thinks he should be taken seriously.

Bezza.

I think what you're referring to here is the "Cosmic Ray" theory of cloud cover as first proposed by Henrik Svensmark. The theory goes like this...

* The solar system is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from our galaxy and beyond.

*These rays are instrumental in the creation of aerosols which in turn cause clouds. More cosmic rays mean more clouds and vis a versa.

* Clouds are instrumental in the earth's temperature since they either hold temperatures in or reflect sunlight away before it has a chance to warm the planet. More clouds means less warming and vis a versa.

*Over the short-term the level of cosmic rays coming into the solar system is relatively constant. But cosmic rays can and are turned away by solar winds, the level of which varies over solar cycles. More solar winds means less cosmic rays hitting earth which means less clouds which means more warming...and vis a versa.

So Svensmark theory is that the level of solar winds which correlates to the level of sunspots determines the level cloud cover and therefore is a major factor in the changes in earth's temperature.

Experiments continue to try to determine the validity of Svensmark's theories. Needless to say the we're-all-gunna-die crowd are doing all they can to discredit the theory because that's what they call science in the climate world.

Others have extended the theory into the deep past. We know that as the solar system travels around the galactic centre it passes through areas of higher cosmic ray activity. There is some suggestion that these periods might coincide with Ice Ages. But very early days in that theory.

Mhaze,

Cloud formation is an interesting subject in itself, with some clouds warming and others cooling. I suspect that the volatile sulphur compounds released by living organisms probably have a much larger influence on cloud formation than cosmic rays. I'd like to see ocean fertilisation tested as a means of generating rainfall via this mechanism, but I suspect that even the suggestion would send the climate catastrophists into a psychotic frenzy, foaming mouths and all.

That's is quite the rewrite, mhaze.

You originally claimed you’d posted “dozens of papers” showing past warming was higher than today. But when challenged to reshare them, you didn’t. You invoked memory, not evidence - and still haven’t linked a single one. If those papers were so decisive, why the hesitation?

I said those claims “never survive scrutiny” because they never do. Not just from you - in general. Many of these papers (when actually checked) are:

- Regional reconstructions presented as global
- Outdated or based on low-resolution proxies
- Misrepresented by blogs before being read
- Or outright contradicted by broader multi-proxy syntheses

And yes - I cited Marcott et al. as part of that broader picture, along with Neukom et al. (2019), which you still haven’t addressed.

Marcott’s team was clear: their reconstruction smooths short-term rates due to proxy resolution - meaning their study alone can’t capture rapid decadal change. That’s not a “gotcha.” That’s why we don’t rely on one paper. It’s why I cited another - which you’ve now dodged across multiple replies.

As for "changing the subject": quoting a different study on the same point is not deflection - it’s reinforcement. It’s called evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously, start producing some. Because right now, the only thing you've posted more reliably than assertions… is your opinion of me.

And so JD's mere assertions continue....

So, mhaze… still no links? No rebuttal to Neukom? No clarification of your “dozens of papers”? Just waving the word “assertion” and hoping no one notices the silence behind it?

mhaze,

You’ve laid out Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory like it’s an overlooked gem - but it’s been tested, reviewed, and largely discarded for one reason: it doesn’t match reality.

Cosmic rays and clouds:
Yes, cosmic rays can help form aerosols in a lab - but that’s not the same as large-scale cloud formation. The CLOUD experiment at CERN showed that the particles formed are too small to become cloud condensation nuclei unless specific vapours are present. In the real world, the effect is too minor and inconsistent to matter.
http://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cloud-experiment-shines-light-cloud-formation
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature10343

“More clouds = less warming” is wrong
Clouds aren’t a simple thermostat. Low clouds cool, high clouds warm, and night-time clouds trap heat. There’s no consistent global trend showing clouds - let alone cosmic rays - are driving the warming we’re seeing. If they were, we’d expect a completely different spatial and temporal pattern.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds

Cosmic rays haven’t changed enough
Even if the mechanism worked, cosmic ray levels haven’t declined in a way that matches modern warming. Studies show no consistent correlation between cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, do match the pattern - regionally, seasonally, and in the vertical profile of the atmosphere.
http://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

CO2 causes more than 0.01°C - by orders of magnitude.
That figure isn’t just wrong, it’s laughably wrong. CO2’s effect is calculated from physical laws and confirmed by satellite measurements, field data, and lab experiments. Claiming 0.01°C is like arguing the Earth is flat but warmer at the edges.

Models include clouds
This tired myth needs to go. Clouds are in the models. Always have been. They’re a challenge, yes - not an oversight.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-3
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2451/how-nasa-is-solving-the-climate-models-cloud-problem

Rejection isn’t suppression.
Svensmark’s theory wasn’t censored - it was tested, found wanting, and moved on from. That’s not conspiracy. That’s science.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001/meta

If this theory’s your best alternative to AGW, it explains a lot more than you probably intended.

" No clarification of your “dozens of papers”?"

Why do I need to offer links. You've already decided they don't stand scrutiny which in your strange world-view is a valid way to operate.

As to Neukom, I'll consider spending time to explain why you got it just as wrong s you got Marcott13 after you've admitted you got Marcott13 completely arse-about. Otherwise it doesn't seem worth my while to further educate you.

"You’ve laid out Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory like it’s an overlooked gem"

No I was just adding my understanding of the theory to what Bezza had written rather than going faux dalek which seems to be your favourite MO.

Yes I see that yu've gone and dug up all the attacks on the theory. But its just a theory and needs further testing. Just rejecting it because it leaves out CO2 isn't science.

"Even if the mechanism worked, cosmic ray levels haven’t declined in a way that matches modern warming."

You misunderstand the theory which is probably a problem in trying to debunk it, although I suspect that merely getting it completely wrong won't be an impediment to you making further assertions.
The theory isn't about the level of cosmic rays but the level of solar wind that deflects the rays. The theory accepts that over the short-term the level of cosmic rays is essentially unchanged.

"This tired myth needs to go."
Oh good. Lucky I didn't mention it then. More verballing?

"Clouds are in the models. Always have been. "

Nup. Early models didn't have clouds because the computing power wasn't sufficient to dynamically model them. Later they added an unchanging cloud cover and found that their forecasted warming declined. Then they added a more dynamic cloud modelling and forecasted warming declined. But cloud modelling remains in its infancy and much more work is being done.

"If this theory’s your best alternative to AGW,"

I don't need an alternative to AGW. I've already said I accept AGW as a fact. But I just don't think of it as the bogey-man you obviously do.

I haven’t “decided,” mhaze.

//Why do I need to offer links. You've already decided they don't stand scrutiny…//

I’ve asked. Repeatedly. You’ve claimed for years to have “dozens of papers” showing past warming greater than today. When challenged, you offer nothing. My point is simple: they either don’t exist, or they don’t say what you think they do.

//I’ll consider spending time to explain why you got [Neukom] wrong... after you’ve admitted you got Marcott13 completely arse-about.//

No, I cited Marcott with its resolution limitations clearly stated - which is exactly why I also referenced Neukom et al. You’ve ignored Neukom entirely while demanding I “admit” something I never claimed about Marcott. That’s not correction - it’s misdirection.

//No I was just adding my understanding of the theory to what Bezza had written…//

That “understanding” matched Svensmark’s claims exactly - and those claims have been tested and found wanting. The CLOUD experiment at CERN showed the effect is too weak to drive large-scale cloud changes, and solar activity trends don’t align with modern warming. If the mechanism worked, it would show up in the data. It doesn’t.

//Nup. Early models didn't have clouds…//

False. Clouds have been included in models since the 1970s, albeit with simplified physics due to computing limits. What you’re describing is early modelling, not exclusion - and even then, no version of cloud feedback has reversed the conclusion that greenhouse gases are driving the warming.

And no, pointing out the “clouds are excluded” myth isn’t verballing - it’s addressing the clear implication of your argument, even if you avoided stating it outright. Imply, imply, then deny.

//I’ve already said I accept AGW…//

After all this? If that’s your position, fine - but don’t pretend the last ten posts weren’t spent casting doubt, misdirection, and smirking denialism.

Your entire approach to climate change is a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy: push fringe theories, downplay CO2, undermine models, and cherry-pick uncertainty - then retreat to the safety of “I accept AGW” the moment it gets uncomfortable.

"My point is simple: they either don’t exist, "

But they must exist since you've already said you'd ascertained that they don't "stand scrutiny". You need to work on getting your lies straight.

"I cited Marcott with its resolution limitations clearly stated"

Here's what you wrote when introducing Marcott to the discussion....
The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions (e.g. Marcott et al., 2013; Neukom et al., 2019)."

No clear or even unclear statement about "resolution limitations" there that I can discern. It was only after I'd pointed out Marcott's discussions about the lack of clarity in the paleo record that you suddenly realised your monumental error and then wanted to stop talking about Marcott all together. That's fine. But if you think I'm going to continue to have a discussion with someone so ill-informed and so prepared to lie about what they said only a day or two earlier...well nup.

mhaze,

You’re again confusing scientific clarification with retreat.

I referenced Marcott to illustrate the long-term context of current warming. When you raised the question of short-term resolution, I acknowledged it immediately - because it’s a known and stated limitation of the study, not a “monumental error.” That’s called discussion, not concession.

You’re fixating on my initial phrasing because you don’t want to engage with the actual point - that’s why you’ve still dodged Neukom et al., a higher-resolution, multi-proxy reconstruction that directly addresses the rates of recent warming.

As for the “dozens of papers” - you still haven’t produced a single one. If they exist, you’d have posted them. Instead, you’re arguing about word choices because you can’t argue the evidence.

At this point, it’s obvious: you’re more invested in policing phrasing than addressing the science. That tells the story better than I ever could.

"If they exist,"

Of coarse they exist. You said so yourself when you declared that they'd been found to not "stand scrutiny".

You see, JD, you've been hoist on your own verb petard. You declared that the papers didn't stand scrutiny so that you could win a point, (or SEEM to win it) and have now spent a week trying to find a way to pretend otherwise.

Good fun, eh?

mhaze,

No - pointing out that claims like the ones you allude to have been thoroughly debunked before isn’t the same as admitting you’ve produced them now.

You haven't. You still haven’t.

And pretending this is all a debate about my wording, rather than your refusal to provide a single source for your own claim, only highlights it.

You said you had “dozens of papers.” You were asked - repeatedly - to post them. You didn’t. That’s the whole story.

All this noise is just covering the silence where your evidence should be.