Working at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in the 1960s Syukuro Manabe started creating scientific models to predict climate changes.

Some of the predictions that match current observable trends are:

The overall magnitude of observed global warming due to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Stratospheric cooling due to carbon dioxide-driven warming at lower altitudes.

Changes in the Artic referred to as “Arctic amplification”.

The Land-ocean contrast which predicts a decoupling of the rate of temperature increase of the land and the ocean.

The Delayed Southern Ocean warming.

Hopefully, if predictions made by climate models developed 50 years ago reflect current data then predictions from more sophisticated models deserve considerable consideration

There is not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plant fertilisation (Prof. Ian Plimer). You are getting desperate using a 93 year old Japanese gentleman, whom nobody has heard of, and whose ‘findings’ have never been used to prop up modern myths about the cause of perfectly natural climate change.

Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. There is not a single piece of evidence that it does.

Of course there will be some warming as we come out of a long ice age.

But, if you search on Google long enough, you will find all sorts of weird stuff to suit your individual obsessions, and spread them as facts.

Wtf?

yet again ttbn quotes Plimer. His often outrageous comments made on platforms such as youtube have been debunked many times even here on OLO.

As George Monbiot said many years ago: "This professor of denial can't even answer his own questions on climate change... His book Heaven and Earth, which purports to destroy the science of climate change, contains page after page of schoolboy errors and pseudoscientific gobble-degook".

Plimer challenged Monbiot to a debate. When Monbiot agreed Plimer then refused.

Syukuro Manabe has a Noble Prize in Physics.

Exactly right, WTF.

Manabe’s work is one of the most powerful rebuttals to the claim that climate science is all “hype” or unreliable guesswork. His 1967 model was primitive by today’s standards - basic radiative-convective equations run on early computers - but the core physics were sound.

And that’s the point.

The success of early models like Manabe’s lies in their ability to isolate and simulate key climate mechanisms:

- CO2-induced surface warming
- Stratospheric cooling
- Greater warming over land than oceans
- Arctic amplification
- Delayed Southern Ocean response

These weren’t vague predictions - they were quantitative, mechanism-based, and falsifiable. And they held up.

For anyone still clinging to “the models are always wrong” as a talking point, Manabe’s legacy is a hard one to wave away. If a slide-rule-era model captured this much correctly, what does that say about today’s high-resolution, data-assimilating, ensemble-based climate models?

Some predictions from newer models may still contain uncertainty (especially around regional feedbacks), but the broad strokes are clear - and they’re being painted exactly as forecast decades ago.

The science was never about crystal balls. It was about understanding physical laws and watching them unfold.

You could fill a greenhouse with the irony there, ttbn.

You dismiss a Nobel Prize-winning physicist as an obscure nobody while citing IaN pLiMeR - whose claims have been dismantled by actual geologists, physicists, and climate scientists across the spectrum.

Plimer isn’t even working in climate science. His arguments aren’t just outdated, they’re riddled with factual errors, selective quotes, and misrepresentations of basic physics.

//Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. There is not a single piece of evidence that it does.//

And yet:

- It’s been empirically shown in lab experiments to absorb infrared radiation.
- Satellite data shows less longwave radiation escaping at CO2 absorption frequencies.
- Ice core data and isotope analysis confirm the correlation and mechanism.
- The stratospheric cooling observed aligns exactly with CO2-driven warming predictions (something greenhouse theory uniquely accounts for.)

As for "plant fertilisation," that’s another red herring.

Yes, CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under controlled conditions - but in the real world, benefits are limited by water, nutrient availability, and heat stress. It’s like giving a starving man vitamins and calling it a feast.

You wave away Manabe’s legacy, but his model predicted not just warming - but where and how it would manifest: more over land than ocean, more at higher latitudes, stratospheric cooling, Arctic amplification… all now observed.

That’s the kind of long-term, predictive success real science aspires to.

It’s no wonder climate denial is increasingly left to decades-old arguments from the likes of Plimer and pasty, neckbeard YouTube conspiracy cranks with usernames like xxx_pussydestroyer69 and FauciHatesFreedom420.

You don't 'science,' do you?

"As for "plant fertilisation," that’s another red herring."

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort,.... "

Oh dear.

Congratulations mhaze!

For a while there I thought you were too entranced in the denier camp that factual data would not be enough to shift your viewpoint but I see that's changed.

This greening due to increases in carbon dioxide levels and the extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu.

Perhaps you can weigh in here on OLO when other posters make denialist comments and try to set them straight about these "fundamental changes" due to increasing carbon dioxide.

The journal Nature Climate Change is reporting with data sourced from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Analysis of NASA data has allowed them to write numerous articles about climate change.

As NASA clearly states under their banner "Evidence": There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

Welcome mhaze

Well spotted, mhaze.

It’s refreshing to see you finally acknowledge that rising CO2 levels do have measurable effects on the climate system - like the “significant greening” observed via satellite data. That very study (Zhu et al. 2016) notes, as you quoted, that 70% of the greening trend is attributable to rising CO2 levels.

But since we’re now accepting peer-reviewed science from Nature Climate Change and institutions like NASA and NOAA, I’m sure you’ll also be happy to accept their other conclusions, such as:

“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.” - NASA

And:

“The greening is not necessarily a good thing. It doesn’t negate climate change. It may sound like an overall positive, but it’s not.” - Ranga Myneni, study co-author

After all, the same dataset that shows the greening also shows where and why climate patterns are shifting - and that increased greening in some areas comes at the cost of ecosystem disruption, water depletion, and increased vulnerability to drought and fire.

It’s not the “gotcha” you seem to think it is, mhaze, it’s part of the same science you’ve spent years rejecting.

Still, glad to have you aboard.

The next step is simply following the evidence all the way through instead of cherry-picking the bits that feel nice.

Oh good. We've gone from greening not happening to its happening and its bad, to its happening therefore all the other things claimed about climate is happening.

Logic takes a holiday.

No mhaze, let’s not pretend this is some wild reversal.

What I said was:

“As for ‘plant fertilisation,’ that’s another red herring. Yes, CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under controlled conditions - but in the real world, benefits are limited by water, nutrient availability, and heat stress.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656#371964

WTF then brought up the Zhu et al. study which confirms that greening is occurring, but also explains (as does NASA, NOAA, and the study’s authors themselves) that this doesn’t contradict climate change. It’s one of the many effects of rising CO2, and comes with trade-offs and risks.

That’s not “logic taking a holiday.” That’s what we call nuance. You should try it sometime.

Also, since you now accept Zhu et al. (Nature Climate Change, 2016) as credible, will you also be accepting their broader conclusions about the climate system?

Or are we still cherry-picking?

Because rejecting a Nobel laureate while embracing one line from a paper you clearly didn’t finish reading... well, that is what logic on holiday looks like.

Burning stubble from the previous harvest puts enough carbon in the ground for the next generation of cropping. Climate change is well and truly out of hand for something that could have been avoided by folowing the early science we are now 45 years of denial to late.
With a gigantic ice shelf drifting towards AU we could be in big strife this sheet of ice has the mass to create its own climate.
That alone can make it very dificult to keep up the supply of grain to make our daily bread.

"WTF then brought up the Zhu et al. study which confirms that greening is occurring"

No. I bought up the Zhu study to demonstrate your errors. So is greening of the planet a red herring or not? JD now sys its not but don't ever suggest he's reversed course!!

And not just greening but also fertilisation of edible crops which is helping fed a growing population.

The greening of the planet neither proves nor disproves warming. But what it does show is that CO2 emissions aren't always the bogey-man that the alarmists claim. Its always been said by realists that warming is potentially good for mankind, recognising that previous warm periods have coincided with periods of enhanced civilisation growth. The greening of the planet is merely an example of how warming and emissions aren't all doom and gloom.

Thanks for confirming my point, mhaze.

You quoted the Zhu study to try and "prove" CO2 is good. What you left out is that the same paper warns of ecosystem disruption, changing carbon and water cycles, and long-term risks. That’s the part you conveniently skipped.

//So is greening of the planet a red herring or not?//

Yes. As a rebuttal to anthropogenic climate change, it absolutely is.

You’re using it as if it somehow disproves or downplays the problem. That’s the red herring. No one said greening isn’t happening. I said the "CO2 is plant food = therefore climate change is good" argument is simplistic and misleading.

And it is.

Greening and fertilisation effects are part of the climate system’s response to CO2, not a blanket benefit.

- Crops do grow faster in high CO2 - if they’re not constrained by water, nutrients, or heatwaves.
- Some weeds benefit more than food crops.
- Higher CO2 can lower the nutrient density of key staples like rice and wheat.
- And greening in some regions correlates with desertification in others.

You’re cherry-picking one short-term upside and ignoring the long-term system-level trade-offs - like someone saying, "Alcohol gives me confidence!" while ignoring the liver damage.

And as for "previous warm periods being good for civilisation" - you mean like the Medieval Warm Period, which was regional, or the Holocene Climatic Optimum, which had different forcing mechanisms entirely? Not great comparisons for a global, rapid, anthropogenic change.

I’m not the one reversing course, mhaze. I’ve been consistent. You’re just discovering that "not all bad" doesn’t mean "no problem." You’re conflating some benefit with no risk. That's not realism. That’s wishful thinking dressed up as contrarianism.

You're not very good at following lines of discussion, are you?

Speaking of climate trends, I think I know now why mhaze is now on-board with science:
___

Poirot wrote:"Hows about we invite you, mhaze, to list the things that would convince you that your denialism is misplaced? "

Well I wrote in a previous thread the following. As I recall you assiduously avoided the issue which is where I first realised that your belief is more religious than scientific.

My list is:
* we had rapid warming of approx 1c over the next decade or two
* we saw evidence that the postulated positive feedbacks are indeed positive and exist outside the models and that they overwhelm negative feedbacks
* we saw evidence that models are able to simulate cloud movement/formation and still predict a warming
* we saw evidence that models were able to replicate past climate changes

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5631#157270
___

Well, good news (or bad), mhaze. We’re there!

Unless, of course, you’ve got a new list? I'm guessing you do since denialism adapts to new findings using motivated reasoning.

Funny how it never admits it was wrong. It just quietly redraws the battlelines and pretends they were there all along.

"You’re just discovering that "not all bad" doesn’t mean "no problem." "

Except I didn't say, I've never said, "no problem". Just making up more false quotes from me. Will you ever get embarrassed enough to stop doing that?

CO2 causes some warming. That's potentially bad. But the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere isn't all bad. You always pretend to understand nuance. But always fail to demonstrate it.

WTF?

Yes mhaze I did make reference to your source material.

But there is much more in it then just greening.

I think that most high school Biology students (back in my time anyway) would have learned about Blackman's Law Of Limiting Factors. So greening due to an increase in CO2 would be of no surprise, even an expectation, to many with a post Year 10 education.

NASA acknowledges this: "carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth — nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect."

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” Once again - limiting factors at play.

I hope your new found embracing of NASA research and analysis leads to you taking some of the denialists on OLO to task.

Now let's couple your material with my original post.

Clearly, unsophisticated (by todays standards) yet well formulated climate models (now over 50 years old) predicted many of the patterns and trends we now see in climate observations.

The 2016 analysis from Zhu you mention builds on known science and verifies what Scientists expected to see - a greening effect from rising carbon dioxide levels.

Add to this 2016 analysis, newer analysis published in Nature Climate Change this year include titles:

Unexpected decline in the ocean carbon sink under record-high sea surface temperatures in 2023.

Seasonal stabilization effects slowed the greening of the Northern Hemisphere over the last two decades.

Global greening drives significant soil moisture loss.

Future increase in compound soil drought-heat extremes exacerbated by vegetation greening.

You guys are hilarious.

JD tries to poo-poo the greening effects of CO2.

I point out that indeed greening is both happening and well known to those who are blinded by the CAGW mantra.

And then you all release the daleks...exterminate, exterminate.

I specifically didn't say the greening data affects the warming data. I specifically didn't say that the dangers of warming are negated by the greening. I specifically didn't say there were no dangers from the warming. Yet you're all piling on trying to disprove something I didn't say.

I don't deny warming or that warming carries some problems But I don't buy the CAGW mantra and think that whatever problems warming brings will be easily resolved by those it most affects...the grandkids of our grandkids.

mhaze,

You’ve slipped into the usual routine here: claim you’ve been misquoted, and then quietly concede the very points you used to deny.

To recap:

- You did frame greening as a rebuttal. That’s why you introduced Zhu et al. in the first place.

- When I called it a red herring, I wasn’t denying greening. I was pointing out that it doesn’t undermine the case for anthropogenic warming. That’s still true.

- Now, after being pressed, you say "I never claimed warming is no problem" and "I didn’t say greening negates warming." But that’s precisely the rhetorical sleight-of-hand: you raise greening as though it offsets the dangers, then backpedal when challenged.

You call this "nuance," but it’s not. Nuance means weighing evidence in proportion, not cherry-picking the one superficially positive datapoint and downplaying the rest.

Nuance isn’t cherry-picking the one upside. It’s taking the whole thing together. Yes, greening is happening. But it’s limited by resources, it comes with downsides, and the same paper you waved around makes that clear.

And your fallback that "the grandkids of our grandkids will sort it out" isn’t nuance either. It’s just punting the responsibility forward while ignoring the scientific reality that some changes - melting ice sheets, disrupted ocean currents, lost biodiversity - are irreversible on human timescales.

So no, I’m not embarrassed. What’s embarrassing is pretending that waving vaguely at "future generations will cope" is a serious argument.

That’s not logic. That’s faith.

You see JD, that's your problem. You see everything as black and white (with a heap of green thrown in!!).

All I did was point out that greening is happening and that its a good aspect to the CO2 fertilisation. Nothing more.

But you're so invested in the whole CO2-is-evil mantra that even suggesting it might have some positives is triggering for you.

"Now, after being pressed, you say "I never claimed warming is no problem" "

Now when pressed?? I've been saying that for 30 years. But somehow JD thinks he's finally gotten me to own up. Quite the swelled head.

" reality that some changes - melting ice sheets, disrupted ocean currents, lost biodiversity - are irreversible on human timescales."

That's true... if those changes ever occur. If they don't, we've mortgaged our kids future to a failed hypothesis. (It now occurs that JD's monumental ability to misunderstand will mean he reads that as saying the hypothesis has already failed. It hasn't...yet. But if those things he's terrified of don't occur then it will become a failed hypothesis.)

""future generations will cope" is a serious argument. That’s not logic. That’s faith."

No, its deduction born from the facts. If you believe the IPCC (and all good alarmists are required to) then the generation that lives around 2200AD when the faecal matter is supposed to hit the cooling device, will be four times richer than we are today. Four times better able to afford mitigation. Multiple times better technology. That's neither logic not faith. Its just following the evidence.

Oh no. This isn't go down well.

"Global sea levels have not continued to rise at the rates predicted by many scientists — and there is no evidence that climate change has contributed to any such acceleration, a new first-of-its-kind study has claimed.

The research found that the average sea level rise in 2020 was only around 1.5mm per year, or 6 inches per century, according to the paper’s authors,..."

http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641

Somehow I think that the follow-the-science crowd won't be following THIS science.

To much co2 can work against us. carbon is a measured amount and not more is better.
To much water IS A gigantic problem, climate change is causing some varieties to become unviable to grow. A huge change is taking place all over. No one can tell us the final outcome or if there even is one. every year is different from the last making planning a gamble and not being sure which way to go, or give it up altogether. We put our selves at risk every year with several hundred thousand of bank money just to plant a crop let alone buy new equipment or make the old one last another year.
Whatever our decision is to do it or walk away.

Not quite, mhaze.

//All I did was point out that greening is happening and that its a good aspect to the CO2 fertilisation. Nothing more.//

You framed it as if acknowledging greening undermines climate concern - “Oh good. We've gone from greening not happening to its happening and its bad, to its happening therefore all the other things claimed about climate is happening.” That’s not “nothing more” - that’s a rhetorical swing.

//Now when pressed?? I've been saying that for 30 years.//

If so, then why posture as if greening was a trump card? No one here denied CO₂ fertilisation. WTF cited Blackman’s Law. NASA acknowledges it. The issue is scale, limits, and trade-offs - things you left out.

//That's true... if those changes ever occur.//

They are occurring. Ice sheet mass loss? Documented. Ocean current slowdown? Documented. Biodiversity loss? Documented. Pretending these are still “ifs” isn’t deduction - it’s wishful thinking.

//If you believe the IPCC … then the generation that lives around 2200AD … will be four times richer than we are today. Four times better able to afford mitigation. Multiple times better technology.//

That’s not evidence - that’s an economic forecast, layered on top of climate projections. Betting the planet on “they’ll be richer later” is not deduction. It’s gambling with someone else’s stake.

//Global sea levels have not continued to rise at the rates predicted by many scientists - and there is no evidence that climate change has contributed to any such acceleration, a new first-of-its-kind study has claimed.//

One paper in MDPI - a journal notorious for publishing low-quality, lightly reviewed contrarian work - doesn’t overturn decades of satellite and tide gauge data. IPCC AR6 (2021) shows clear acceleration: from 1.3 mm/yr (1901-1971) to 3.7 mm/yr (2006-2018). That’s multiple independent datasets, not a cherry-picked outlier.

If you want to argue nuance, engage with the mainstream data and trade-offs. But stop waving isolated upsides or fringe studies as if they erase the broader evidence.

Now THAT is black and white thinking. You only add nuance when someone calls you out - all while ignoring mine:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656#371964

WTF?

hmaze, the important word here is acceleration.

Your source material adds this: "In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise".

Now I know that in the past I have schooled you in how statistics work and as you now seem keen to add to your knowledge base I'll remind you of this.

Acceleration is an increase in the rate of change overtime. So this means that sea water levels can continue to rise but not at an increasing rate.

And this is what the study was about - acceleration, specifically in localised areas.

I did find this interesting: "Geological drivers are most frequently the probable cause of high rates of sea level change or of acceleration. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment or GIA is the process where the earth mantle is recovering from the presence of an iceshelf that has since disappeared. The effect is rising land at the former ice sheet location and dropping land in the surroundings".

Part of the conclusion states: "Empirically derived long-term rates of sea level rise in 2020 were in majority found to be in excess of the contemporary projected rates of rise. The current generation of projections can therefore be considered conservative. Lower rates were found only in locations where geological processes were suspected to heavily influence the sea level signal".

Hope this help in your quest,

No JD. You originally poo-poohed the green claim made by tbbc. I just offered some evidence that it was real. Whereupon you and WTF went into whirling dervish mode which culminated in claims that the greening wasn't a net good and that since the science behind greening is true that means all other claims from NASA are true....or something.

"If so, then why posture as if greening was a trump card? "

Well I didn't. that's just your usual misunderstanding of the plain written word.

"They are occurring. Ice sheet mass loss? Documented. Ocean current slowdown? Documented. Biodiversity loss? Documented. Pretending these are still “ifs” isn’t deduction - it’s wishful thinking"

False. False....and false.

"that’s an economic forecast, layered on top of climate projections. "

Oh dear. This is a massive misunderstanding of the process. I taught SR about this way back when, but don't intend to go through it all with you. But the scenarios about future warming are based on projected scenarios about future emissions which are in turn based on projected scenarios of future economic activity. It all flows from the scenarios of future economic activity. The scenarios that project high future emissions also project high future economic activity.

"Somehow I think that the follow-the-science crowd won't be following THIS science."
Right on cue ... "One paper in MDPI - a journal notorious for publishing low-quality, lightly reviewed contrarian work".

Before you get all bitter and twisted over this, I'm not holding this paper up as a game-changer. Its just a bit more of the puzzle.

But people interested in resolving the puzzle wouldn't reject it based on fatuous standards.

WTF,

"the important word here is acceleration. "

Yes it is. And the claim has been that the rate is or will accelerate. Because the current rate isn't enough to justify the wild scare-mongering that revolves around this. So acceleration has always been the main game and this paper calls it into question.

"Now I know that in the past I have schooled you in how statistics work "

Pretty funny WTF. I actually have statistics in my degree and spent a goodly part of my life working on computer programmes providing statistics to the international shipping industry. So your schooling will probably be beneath me.

"Glacial Isostatic Adjustment or GIA is the process where the earth mantle is recovering from the presence of an iceshelf that has since disappeared. "

This isn't new. I've talked about this process on these pages many time before although the term I'm more used to is Continental Rebound. Indeed, I first became aware of it in a book by the great Tasmanian John Daly back in the mid-1990s

"So this means that sea water levels can continue to rise but not at an increasing rate."

Yeah, like they have been for the past twelve millennia or so.

I didn’t "poo-poo" greening, mhaze.

I called out its misuse as a simplistic rebuttal to climate change concerns - exactly how ttbn deployed it.

Again, what I actually wrote was:

"Yes, CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under controlled conditions – but in the real world, benefits are limited by water, nutrient availability, and heat stress."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656#371964

That’s not denial, it’s context. Which you’ve again skipped past.

You now say: "Well I didn't. that's just your usual misunderstanding of the plain written word."

And yet you brought greening up as if it undermines the idea that CO2 is a problem. Either it supported your position, or it didn’t. If not, then what was your point?

For the slow:

- Greening is happening.
- It has some short-term benefits, particularly for photosynthesis.
- But it also comes with well-documented downsides - ecosystem disruption, nutrient dilution in crops, altered carbon/water cycles, and increased vulnerability to drought and fire.

That’s not a "whirling dervish" move, it’s just the part of the science you’re ignoring.

//False. False....and false.//

Actually - true, true... and true:

- Ice sheet mass loss: Tracked by NASA and ESA’s GRACE satellites in both Greenland and Antarctica.

- Ocean current slowdown: AMOC weakening is evident in multiple studies (e.g. Caesar et al. 2018) and flagged in IPCC AR6.

- Biodiversity loss: UN IPBES (2019) warns that ~1 million species face extinction - many due to climate stressors.

//...scenarios that project high future emissions also project high future economic activity.//

Correct.

But those same models factor in rising costs from climate disruption. That’s the point, you can’t ignore one side of the ledger.

//I’m not holding this paper up as a game-changer...//

Then why post it with "Right on cue..." followed by digs about "fatuous standards"?

You keep presenting fragments as if they challenge the broader picture. But the fragments are already part of the broader picture.

You’re not resolving a puzzle. You’re scattering the pieces, then pointing to a single green tile and claiming the whole puzzle must be a tree.

"And yet you brought greening up as if it undermines the idea that CO2 is a problem. Either it supported your position, or it didn’t. If not, then what was your point?"

No. You said it was a red herring. I set you right. You've been trying to wriggle out of that ever since.

"Biodiversity loss: UN IPBES (2019) warns that ~1 million species face extinction - many due to climate stressors."

So no documented biodiversity loss as you erroneously claimed. Just fear-mongering. A favourite question I ask those who fret over the extinction meme,... name 10 species that went extinct last year, or in any year this century.

"Then why post it with "Right on cue..." "

Because I said you'd try to find a way to ignore it and you did so with alacrity. Very pavlovian,

Oh no....

"BHP scraps renewable energy projects, casting doubt on emissions targets" http://tiny.cc/0pas001

I guess the subsidies weren't high enough!

Oh,,, and release the daleks.

No wriggling required, mhaze.

//No. You said it was a red herring. I set you right. You've been trying to wriggle out of that ever since.//

I said using greening to downplay climate risk is a red herring. I’ve been consistent on that. You’re "correcting" a claim I didn’t make.

Should we bring some dispassionate referees into it?

//So no documented biodiversity loss as you erroneously claimed.//

That’s not how this works. Biodiversity loss includes declining populations, shrinking habitats, collapsing ecosystems - all of which are well documented.

//Just fear-mongering. A favourite question I ask... name 10 species that went extinct last year...//

Asking people to recite annual extinction trivia doesn’t refute global biodiversity decline. That’s like denying cancer because no one you know died from it yesterday.

//Because I said you'd try to find a way to ignore it and you did so with alacrity. Very pavlovian.//

Your prediction was right only because your source was predictably weak. MDPI has a well-known reputation for lax review standards. Dismissing it isn’t Pavlovian, it’s called having standards.

//Oh no.... BHP scraps renewable energy projects... I guess the subsidies weren't high enough!//

Funny, but the article doesn’t mention subsidies. It says BHP cut internal spending, and was criticised for walking away from climate commitments. That’s not a win for your argument, it’s your side dragging its feet and others calling it out.

//And release the daleks.//

Cute.

But a sci-fi punchline doesn’t change the fact that even BHP says 70% of its power is already renewable, and that it cut emissions from electricity use by 80% since 2020.