Well, I'll be ! There has been a discussion going on for sometime
that the IPCC's projections on AGW have not taken into account the
cloud coverage generated by galactic radiation.
Scientists in Finland and Japan have published papers on the subject
and there is additionally been an Australian paper that insists that
any increase is completely natural.

From what I have very recently read this discussion has been going on
for sometime among those in the know. The general public has not been
let in on the secret and it has only recently burst into area like
where people like us come across it.
The general public has been kept quite in the dark, and I wonder if
it has been kept away from politicians.

The whole mess seems to be the old computer failure of GIGO !
Garbage In Garbage Out !

Google this; Turku Uni Kobe Uni No Global Warming

Dear Bazz,

If there is no global warming then why has the mean temperature of the planet increased about 1 deg C above the pre-industrial mean temperature and has been rising exponentially since the 1950s? How do these studies you have just mentioned explain that in the absence of anthropogenic global warming? Something is causing the planet to get hotter so if it's not anthropogenic global warming then what is it?

Looks like a cut and paste will suffice.

Dear Bazz,

You breathlessly announced,

“Now obviously findings like these will cause an uproar as it
undermines an enormous amount of investment and political positions.
Stanby for for fireworks.”

Oh for crying out loud, the thing was posted on arvix.org which is virtually open to anyone and it is not peer reviewed.

In fact I want my 15 minutes back.

Even the normally sympathetic crew at wattsupwiththat are sceptical.

“Now I may have missed some detail in reading the paper but I did not see the slightest reference to where this “cloud cover” data actually came from. Let alone any discussion of its global coverage and uncertainty. If you are going to claim a change of 1% you need some damned accurate data to start with.
Are they using humidity as a proxy all the way through ? Until I see some proper attribution of this data I’m duly skeptical of their graphs and claims.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/new-paper-no-experimental-evidence-for-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change/

Nothing to see here folks.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Are you telling us that it's just Bazz throwing up a red herring?

But I still want to hear his explanation for why the planet has been getting hotter so quickly over the last two centuries in the absence of anthropogenic global warming.

There are quite a few sites debunking 'man made' warming. But, never fear, the professional liars-for-grants and climate change shonks will come up with more lies to fool our foolish politicians. Global warming was changed to climate change when it didn't warm. I'm looking forward to their next name for the non-event.

to think man can dictate climate is as arrogant as those who try and say that something from nothing is scientific. One big expensive joke that has lined the pockets of soothsayers, pseudo scientist and rent seekers.

Dear ttbn,

You and Hasbeen and others in your camp might be happy 'knowing' that anthropogenic global warming is just one big lie but one thing that is shaping up to be real is that the Murray-Darling Basin is gradually becoming one big dust bowl similar to what happened to parts of the US during the 1930s. I suppose you will want to blame climate change liars for that too!

Great fun as always, see the anti mob using expert opinion, expert in anything but the subject,believe their nonsense
Too think the UN EU everybody including NASA have been conning us all along
Look over your shoulder, see that flash? it was the point of no return people are no longer fooled they know man made climate change is real

the Murray-Darling Basin is gradually becoming one big dust bowl similar to what happened to parts of the US during the 1930s.
Mr Opinion,
The first is due to Cotton farming & the second was obviously overfarming however, we must curb pollution & population if we want to be true to ourselves !

"to think man can dictate climate is as arrogant..."

runner,

Man must be the master of his or her own environment.

If you live in the desert get an air-conditioner;
And if you live in the snow buy a heater;
(And some trackies, socks and ugg boots)

- Many years ago we humans used fires and animal furs -

And if you need power to run these things in the 21st century, get a solar panel (or 10)

Man must be master of his environment, not a slave to it.
'Climate Change' is a global decree that we're all 'slaves' to the environment, when in reality we all must always strive to be the masters of our own environments wherever (and whenever) they be.
It was true a thousand years ago and it will still be true in another thousand.

ArmChair critic runner is not your average denyer
He is that type of Christian [in his mind if not reality] that thinks only God can change anything
It is in fact the we do not need to bother theory
Such a theory would see humanity die waiting for a fix
Science has something to say about that too,but it is unlikely runner cares

Dear individual,

I assume from your statement that you agree with me that the Murray-Darling Basin is becoming a dust bowl owing to anthropogenic factors and environmental degradation.

Runner, why is it arrogant to think man cannot influence the climate?

Either man is part of nature, part of the environment. Trees changed the global environment, and climate, by converting carbon dioxide to oxygen. Do we think this is arrogant of trees? Bacteria and fungi change the soil, corals build land. Life everywhere changed the earth. So why not man, given our numbers and technology.

Perhaps you believe that man is not part of nature but a special creation? Then man's effect on the environment, including the climate, is just a side-effect of man following God's instruction to fill the earth and subdue it. Of course, given that man is imperfect, sometimes he messes things up. But even so, why would it be arrogant for man to carry out God's will?

Mr Opinion,
Wow, big words. If they mean man-assisted then yes, I agree !

Mr Opinion I can only assume you are trying to tell us that the US dust bowl was due to all the SUVs driving around the plains at the time.

I know I shouldn't bother, but I must ask if you have heard of the little ice age. That was when they held Ice Fairs on the frozen Thames river each winter. It was one of the coldest times in the last 10,000 years. This was sun spot related, as will be the cool period we are also entering now. We are still warming back to average from that, or were until it started cooling again.

Of course there were the medieval warm period & the roman warm period, caused no doubt by the exhausts of all the horses of those knights in shining armour, & the chariot horses of the Romans & Egyptians.

I have seen pictures of the horse races held in the dry bed of the Darling at the time of federation, guess that drought was caused by all the coal we weren't burning in power houses back then.

Of course the 28 year drought just before the old Captain Cook sailed Endeavour up the east coast must have been caused by those damn aboriginals driving their SUVs around the place, & burning so much coal.

If you want to discuss this stuff, do try to get a little background first, some of us have done quite a bit of reading & thinking before forming our considered opinion.

Cossomby,
I am another that think that it is very arrogant of those that believe man can change the world climate. Why, we cannot even make it rain when we want, despite countless money being spent on efforts.

It is those that are afflicted with the climate warming religion that believe that man is some special creation that has the ability to change the world. Occasionally mother nature shows us that we are not in charge and she has far superior powers and influence. This can be a quick demo like an earthquake, storm, tornado or maybe a spectacular volcano. But we can be constantly reminded because of continental drift and our lack of influence over wind and tides.

Sorry old boy, but you and Belly should take more note of the natural happenings around you.

Of course the climate changes, Greenland proves that, but the changes are determined by mother nature, not mankind.

The wheels fell off the little red wagon of global warming long ago and the kids in England still know what snow is.

Probably not strictly on topic - apart from the "childlike science" - but this from Jennifer Marohasay this morning was interesting:

"Indeed, all our science is primitive and childlike when measured against the reality of the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef — that has existed for 10,000 years despite floods, droughts and climate change."

The current Great Barrier Reef exists because of climate change, not in spite of it. It started growing in its current form and position about 8000 years ago as the sea level rose after the ice sheets of the last glaciation melted. It reached its current form about 4000 years ago. However it is built on the remains of ancient reefs 10s to 100s of thousands of years old. These grew when the sea level on the continental shelf was the right height, and temperature was suitable, and died when the water became too deep or retreated and left the reef exposed, or when water temperature got too hot or too cold. The reefs changed continually over time, and will change again depending on sea level and temperature.

Dear HenryL,

Interesting. Do you believe the hole in the ozone layer was natural or man made?

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock. Good to see you still manning the barricades. So I have asked you a few times but have still not gotten an answer. What physical property of CO2 should I ignore so that the math can say we don't have a warming planet?

Henry L. Re 'we cannot make it rain when we want' and 'those that are afflicted with the climate warming religion that believe that man is some special creation that has the ability to change the world. Occasionally mother nature shows us that we are not in charge and she has far superior powers and influence.'

I agree - we cannot make it rain when we want, and we are not in charge. But we are, as part of the environment, able to have a big effect albeit often in the form of unintended consequences. The same thing applies to the trees and plants that transformed the atmosphere to an oxygen rich one that allowed land animals to evolve. They cannot make it rain when they want, they were not in charge but they make a big change (to our benefit), unintentionally.

But that doesn't mean that humans don't change the world. Leaving climate aside, humans are a major geomorphic force. We intentionally move mountains, dig holes, dam and divert rivers; unintentionally though agriculture we change soils, and raise dust that travels globally and deposits elsewhere (often in the ocean)). We are mother nature's left hand.

There has been some quantification of just how much earth humans have moved. See
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041103234736.htmhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/238658252_On_the_history_of_human_as_geomorphic_agents
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm
https://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/36315.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_erosion (Human activities have increased by 10–50 times the rate at which erosion is occurring globally.

In 2016 I went to the International Conference on Aeolian Research in Mildura, Vic. It's not directly my field but the research was mind-blowing with respect to the amount of dust that humans generate through land clearance and agriculture. The major researchers in this field are us, and the Chinese (as you can see from the photo in the link below) - we both attempt to farm arid, windy lands. http://aeolianresearch.com/meetings.html

I enjoy it!
The ramblings of the anti climate changers, in an effort to convince themselves and us science knows nothing they get truly lost
Tell us who made the mid ocean rubbish dump,that we are not hurting the environment with our rubbish
Then explain why such an uncaring human race could not be damaging the ozone layers, remember the tobacco industry its, bought and paid for false opinions, in the name of its own self interests
Then tell me no such thing is taking place in climate change

Hi Belly,

Are you saying that mid-ocean pollution is causing global warming ? And that the tobacco industry is the main cause of one or the other, or both ?

On tobacco, Fernand Braudel, the greatest French historian, remarked in Vol. I of his monumental work on economy and society in the Middle Ages and beyond, that when Europeans tigged to the wonders of tobacco, they started growing it there. English peasant farmers took it up with gusto.

Can you grow tobacco in England these days ?

Mind you, during the Medieval Warming Period, when crops could be grown in Greenland, grapes were being grown in Scotland. I'll drink to that !

Cheers,

Joe

Cossomby,

There has been some quantification of just how much earth humans have moved. See
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041103234736.htmhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/238658252_On_the_history_of_human_as_geomorphic_agents
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm
http://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/36315.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_erosion (Human activities have increased by 10–50 times the rate at which erosion is occurring globa

You take the 's' away from 'http' and they come up; it's an OLO thing!!

Is Mise,
Add to this the imbalancing of the Planet with huge dams & moving iron ore & the recipe' is complete.
I find it somewhat ironically amusing because when I first brought this up several decades ago & was ridiculed for it !

" Do you believe the hole in the ozone layer was natural or man made?"

Wrong tense. Not was...is. The hole still exists and hasn't changed much since mid 1990's. Although natural fluctuations might cause it to shrink back to levels seen mid-century.

"If there is no global warming then why has the mean temperature of the planet increased about 1 deg C above the pre-industrial mean temperature and has been rising exponentially since the 1950s?"

1. There is global warming. The issue is how much is caused by man and how much by natural variations. A lot of the increase from pre-industrial times occurred before CO2 levels got high enough to cause any change. Therefore it was natural and was merely the earth returning to more normal levels following the Little Ice Age. Currently temperatures haven't reached those that applied around 1000AD or during the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period.

2. I'm not sure if you know what 'exponential' means. Temperatures definitely haven't increased exponentially since 1950, or any other time for that matter.

Yet another thread has started on this subject
It avoids the truth at all costs
Highlighting wrong things said, and turning other things into something altogether different
All in my view no reason to ignore the science exists
Still it gives some pleasure so let's continue telling the world black is white

" Do you believe the hole in the ozone layer was natural or man made?"
That hole is made bigger at every satellite launch so the environmentalists can download even more pop music.

Opinion; As I said, the articles say that the temperature change is
natural and only has a very small human input.
They added the cloud data and it seems that what is happening has been
going on "forever".
Now I have not read the papers, only the abstracts.
No doubt we will hear expert opinion soon.
Nevertheless it does seem to be a media secret.
In view of the enormous amounts of money being spent on CO2 reduction
and renewable energy I would have thought it would by now be the centre
of considerable dispute. If anywhere near true it would have really
significant pysphiatric effects on some people.
Some will find even the idea to be totally unaceptable.
Even to the extent we should advertise Lifelines phone number.

How many of you are scientists? If one is not a scientist then how can one debate the science when one doesn't know science? Hasbeen and ttbn are two prime examples of this.

Mr Opinion good question
In Fact It is the very heart of this debate
Well aware many do not believe in the science,even our host
But if they have it right, if we who believe are victims of a con?
We must understand one side is, and never stop questioning why, and on whose behalf is that side is serving
Divided we fight but in the end we desperately need something to unite us

"Tell us who made the mid ocean rubbish dump,that we are not hurting the environment with our rubbish"

Asians did it.
So stop saying we did.

Australia has had modern rubbish collection services for nearly all residents for decades, and we pioneered recycling in the 60's.

That said we do have a waste crisis currently;
Too much crap is being shipped overseas or dumped in landfill.

How much crap are we shipping to these countries?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahleung/2018/04/21/five-asian-countries-dump-more-plastic-than-anyone-else-combined-how-you-can-help/#728e56171234

when one doesn't know science?
Mr Opinion,
Being a non-scientist however, qualifies a pragmatist to clearly see incompetent scientists' views !

Isn't it great to see Mr Opinion & Belly doing what all good lefties are supposed to do. Obeying their betters, & actually, [probably], believing what they art told to believe.

Go for it fellers, fortunately some of us still have enough grey matter left to see a scam when presented.

Careful now, don't let all the worry about a scam give you stomach ulcers.

Hasbeen your snarling use of the term lefty is a sure sign you have a problem with the truth
My anti true left stance is well known
Just as your anti reality one is
Masters? silly stuff old man
I made up my own mind about this and all things, never stop researching, and even changing my views if needed
You could not say that could you

You don't have to be a scientist to understand what they are telling us.
They are taught how to inform us all. Some do it well some do not.
Never the less it does seem to fit in with our observations.
ie the earth should have crashed 20 years ago.

50 years ago [one of my club members took part] we went to the moon
Science made that possible
I get the feeling if our anti science folk here tried that it would be by blimp
Surely when challenging science reality often gets ignored

Belly keeps rabbiting on about following THE science. He thinks, or has been told to think, that all science is in agreement on the issue.

But if I showed him a paper like Marcott et al, 2013 which used science to show that, over the last 12000 years, the world has been hotter than the present for 25% of the time for reasons that had precisely nothing to do with CO2, Belly would either find ways to ignore it or just pretend to not hear about it.

There is no such thing as THE science. There are lots of different views on where the science currently sits on the issue. But only one of those views is acceptable to governments and so-called progressives, and that's the one that gets the air-time.

The people who don't accept that view or are sceptical about it, aren't anti-science. But the Bellys of the world won't understand that since they've been conditioned to think the science is settled. Hint: the science is never settled.

mhaze thanks, any time my thoughts are not shared by you is a good time
See in truth at our age our concerns are often, is my brain still ok
Your assurance lifts me
First is the climate changing? in my view yes
Second is man playing a roll in that? again yes
We have seen all types of animals insects and such go extinct under our watch
We over farmed dry areas, ensuring droughts would get bigger
Too we damage the environment by dumping our waste not just in landfill but in our waterways
So Rabbit on I will, or just maybe it is you who does that

So Belly,

As I thought, that's a 'no bloody way' to examining any science that doesn't confirm your prejudices.

Just for fun...

**"First is the climate changing? in my view yes"

I agree.

**"Second is man playing a roll in that? again yes"

Agree again.

But the third question you and all other unthinking alarmists never ask is how much of a role does man play.

And the fourth question you and all other unthinking alarmists never ask is whether the warming is dangerous.

**"We have seen all types of animals insects and such go extinct under our watch"

Yes its called evolution. Been happening for quite a while now. There's no, or at least merely disputed claims, that's its happening faster now than at any other time in history.

**"We over farmed dry areas, ensuring droughts would get bigger"

Droughts get bigger because of lack of rain, not because of farming. And if it is caused by farming, what's that got to do with Global warming. And there's no evidence that droughts are getting bigger, unless you think that just really really wanting it to be true, is all the evidence that's required.

Belly your posts confirm you are a lefty. I don't put you in the radical ratbag left, but you arte way left of middle of the road. Hell you even think Albo is a suitable leader for Oz.

You may not ne left of Nikita Khrushchev, but you are at least on a par with Mikhail Gorbachev. Of course that does not make you a bad bloke, after all we should all be allowed a foolishness or two.

Gentlemen again thanks, in the game of verbal tennis it helps if your opponents show there are no strings in their racket
Left? no but if it amuses you, see anything left of today's conservatives is ok by me
Centerist? no defense guilty
As we head toward the day the climate change debate will be resolved my confidence about my view remains
Have a great weekend

Belly,
you're the one who writes the word truth more times than anyone here yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

The science on AGW has been under attack for a long time.

Well previously I thought it might well have been nonsense because it
seemed in improbable that warming was caused by CO2.
However now someone comes up with 'yet to be proven" that it is
natural and co2 has no effect.
The cause is suggested to be cosmic rays and cloud cover.
To me that sounds much more plausable, and that it will decline again
when the cosmic ray count drops again.

Incidentally, while looking around for more info on the above I found
that there is a group of universities in the UK that have a different
theory that warming is caused by the wobble in the orbit of the earth
around the sun, and the variation in the ellipse of earths orbit.
It is beginning to look like no one is accepting CO2 and have looked
for another answer.
I'll bet someone will say it is the coal companies behind it.

warming is caused by the wobble in the orbit of the earth
Bazz,
I have been thinking along the same line for many years. Man-made imbalance of the Globe !

If we are going to quote science can we quote that part of science that is involved in climate?
For me at least some of the evidence [if we must call it that] given to prove the science is wrong, is feeble
How do we account for the ice melting so fast
Too temperatures at record lever

Dear Everyone,

Does anyone on OLO believe that the planet in our time is not getting warmer?

Belly, anxious to show his ignorance again writes

"How do we account for the ice melting so fast"

The ice isn't melting fast or at all. The levels of sea ice in the Arctic have been basically unchanged for a decade while Antarctica continues to accumulate ice cover.

"Too temperatures at record lever"
1. Temperatures have been declining over the past coupla years.
2. As I showed above, temperatures aren't even close to record levels as compared to the rest of the Holocene. But Mr I-follow-the -science decided that was science he didn't want to follow or even investigate.

We are still coming out of an ice age, which surely means that we will notice it warming. The Earth changes all the time, non-stop. The beginning of the next ice age has already been 'written in' by proper scientists.

Selective censorship prevents me replying in kind'
Sticks and stones will change nothing
The science is right
Mr Opinion, know this site is inhabited by some far right people and true often suffers
Midwinter far far less frost's first giant bush fire here, once 23 frosts every winter some 5 below some thing is taking place
mhaze I give no weight to your opinion on anything

Those of you who blame such things as coal for what is actually a natural change in climate will be disappointed to know that, despite Left-wing cage-rattling and the 'promises' of our gormless politicians to 'cure' the climate that, in our Asia-Pacific region, coal-fired power production INCREASED by 354 terawatt hours last year.

In contrast, solar power increased by only 87 terawatt hours.

Coal remains by far the predominant source of electricity across the planet. There are over 400 coal fired power stations in construction or planning around the world. The era of coal is far from over because coal-fired power provides such clear and abundant benefits to people who want to climb out of poverty.

The International Energy Agency predicts that India will increase its thermal coal demand by 670 million tonnes per year by 2040.

mhaze and ttbn have just stated that they do not believe that the planet is getting warmer in our time.

Anybody else who believes the same or should we all assume that it is only these two? Or maybe others could name someone who has refrained from admitting it?

Mr O,

I don't think ttbn said that at all:

"We are still coming out of an ice age, which surely means that we will notice it warming. "

A bit ambiguous, but I took it to mean that we are still warming after the last Ice Age 10-12,000 years ago. Give or take the odd orbital oscillation and sun-spot activity, etc., some of that might be caused by too much CO2 (and water vapour) (and methane).

So how much has the planet warmed over the past century ? Half a degree, or a full degree ? Gosh, really ? They must be terrified in Canada and Russia, Scotland too.

How much has sea-level risen - not a metre or so each day, twice, as the tides go up and down, but fundamental, permanent change ? An inch since the 1950s ? Good heavens, no ! Not really ?! I'm packing up and heading for the hills of Tasmania ! But, but aren't some of the Pacific islands actually growing in land area ? Or are the mountains of Fiji about to be submerged ?

Jesus, we're all mugs to believe every scare-story.

Joe

That makes three so far: mhaze, ttbn, and Loudmouth.

Oh for gods sake Mr O.

We all know the planet has been warming from an ice age.

Those with half a brain, & enough math to follow the scientific arguments also know that CO2 is not guilty of causing it.

Those who keep up with the science also know the planet has been cooling for the last couple of years, caused by low sunspot count, & will continue to cool if the current forecasts of sunspot numbers in future are correct.

As I said a few days ago: some people don't actually read what others write. I also believe that there is a condition that some people suffer from, which makes them see things that are not actually there. In either case, communication with them is very difficult.

Mr Opinion,
I haven't been to Uni so I obviously can't really comprehend how indoctrinated minds work.
I think we all agree that was an an Ice age ten thousand years ago & had there not been continued global warming everything would still be frozen. As many others have stated many times, climate change is on-going so why would some people think of stopping this cycle ?
Doesn't it suit them ?

We now have two more who do not believe that the planet is warming in our time, bringing the list to mhaze, ttbn, Loudmouth, Hasbeen and individual.

"mhaze and ttbn have just stated that they do not believe that the planet is getting warmer in our time."

Nup. Never said it. Never thought it. You see, unlike poor old Mr O, I know how statistics work and can read a table.

Now we all know that asking Mr O to offer evidence for his ludicrous claims is like asking my pet budgie to explain General Relativity but just for fun...

Mr O,
please explain where you got the notion that I think the planet hasn't warmed in our time.

What a dill.

Dear mhaze,

So you now want to have a quinella on yourself by claiming that you know the planet is warming in our time.

I suppose you will claim that the scientific community has been measuring temperatures around the world and can show that it has been getting hotter over past the 60 years. The very same scientific community that is telling us that this heating they are measuring is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The very same scientific community that you, Hasbeen, ttbn, Loudmouth and individual keep telling us are lying about global warming and its consequential climate change.

At the ‘election on climate change’, Australians did not agree that the science is “settled” and rejected the hysteria and lies; they gave the Morrison government a mandate to question the dogma, to resurrect coal, and to make a proper assessment of the United Nation’s climate agenda.

But, the Morrison government has ignored this mandate, continuing to turn a blind eye to the growing evidence that hypotheses about rising sea levels, sinking islands, weather ‘events’ and dead coral reefs are NOT supported by sufficient evidence. The government continues to play bum boy to the corrupt wealth-transferring UN despite signals from their Australian bosses, who are far more intelligent than they are. Unlike the new-look politician Donald Trump, the goons have remained in the climate cult, claiming that their policy is a little better for Australia than Green Labor’s is.

Morrison’s mob hasn’t even questioned that old ratbag David Attenborough’s claim that our Great Barrier Reef is the “one single worst example of catastrophic climate change” that he has encountered in all his (CO2 producing) travels.

National Senator, Matt Canavan recognises the common sense of Australians who support industries that develop wealth and create jobs. The north of his own state, Queensland, has had 10% unemployment for the last few years. At the peak of the economic downturn, Townsville's workforce was reduced by 33%. Yet, the climate catastrophists blocked Adani for years: a project that will provide jobs and add $10 billion to our export income

Hey ttbn,

Tell us all about how the planet is not getting hotter even though the scientific community which is measuring temperatures around the planet is recording that the temperature of the planet is rising as well as saying that the temperature rise is being caused by anthropogenic activity. And this is the same scientific community that you, Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth and individual keep telling us are lying about global warming.

There seems to be no doubt that the planet has warmed to a small extent
since the Maunder minimum, then some hundreds of years previously there
was the Middle Ages Warm period.
So it appears that the temperature has risen then fallen then risen
and fallen again and has now risen again.
I also read somewhere a suggestion that there was a warm period
in Roman times.
Could this be the natural cycle that the Finish and Kobe Unis are talking about ?
Obviously I do not know, but currently the Sunspot Cycle count is at a
very low level and is lower that previous cycles.
In what I read of the Turku/Kobe theory the effect of cosmic rays is
affected by the earths magnetic field which in turn is affected by the
outburst of plasma from sunspot activity.
Incidently the first sunspot of the new cycle has been noted because of the polarity reversal.

So maybe we are on the verge of another Maunder Minimum cycle.

If so we can forget all about CO2 !
Wouldn't THAT be a relief ?

I asked Mr O "please explain where you got the notion that I think the planet hasn't warmed in our time."

The answer is about as close to an admission that he just made it up as we are likely to get.

What I find humorous is that people like O., Belly et al all have convinced themselves that they understand the issue without understanding anything.

Mr O for example seems to think that, just because there is warming, that proves the entire CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming) case is proven. Such beliefs only proves that they just don't understand at all.

1. If it can be proven that there has been warming over the past 170 years that doesn't prove that it was caused by man.

2. If it can be proven that some part was caused by man that doesn't prove that it was fully or even mainly caused by man.

3. If it could be proven that man caused most of the warming, that doesn't prove that the warming is dangerous. It might be beneficial.

4. If it could be proven that it is dangerous, that doesn't show that anything we do will make the slightest difference.

Its a very complex issue. Just assuming that, because its warming all else follows, indicates someone for whom the complexity is just too hard.

Bazz,

"I also read somewhere a suggestion that there was a warm period
in Roman times."

Yes there was a Roman Warm Period which was somewhat hotter than the present temperatures. There was also a Minoan Warm period around 1500BC which was warmer than now. And before that a Sumerian Warm Period around 2500 BC which was warmer than now. And before that a Egyptian Warm Period around 3500 BC which was warmer than now. And quite a few even hotter periods before that.

But don't tell the others. They're struggling to keep up as it is.

You might note that each of these periods of higher temperatures were accompanied by periods of expanding civilisation and well-being for peoples around the globe. Best to not mention that either - heads will explode.

Dear mhaze,

Stop throwing up red herrings to distract people from the fact that anthropogenic global warming is only related to the industrial period in which the world has been using fossil fuels to drive economic production and global consumption. Unless of course you actually believe that Romans and ancient Egyptians were driving around in cars and powering their houses with electricity. Is that what you believe mhaze?

The main fact is that the scientific community has been recording dramatic per annum increases in the mean temperature of Earth since the 1950s. This is the very same scientific community that is saying that these temperature rises are due to anthropogenic activity. And this is the very same scientific community that you, Hasbeen, Loudmouth, individual and others are saying have been lying to the public about global warming and its consequential climate changes.

The world has been a lot warmer than it is now, well before industrial times. The evidence is available but, once the alarmists started to lie, they could not stop. Global warming was juggled to become climate change. I think that they will have a struggle to come up with another description as their lies become even more evident. But, they are very inventive, so who knows what we will be 'experinceing' next!

Dear ttbn,

These people you are saying are lying about anthropogenic global warming are the scientific community. It is the scientific community that has been recording global temperatures over the past 60 years and their measurements are showing that the panet is getting warmer. This very same scientific community has calculated that the temperature rises in the industrial period are due to the burning of fossil fuels.

That's right. The members of the scientific community involved in the scam are liars.

Well there we have it everyone! ttbn has just confirmed that the scientific community is plotting against humanity.

Oh dear Mr O, you'll really don't get it do you?

In the past there were temperature rises similar or exceeding those of the present caused by entirely natural phenomena.
Now that doesn't prove that the current warming is also natural, but it does disprove the theory that the current warming can ONLY be man-made.
And because of the doubt as to the cause, it leaves one wondering why we'd want to uproot the economy when doubt exists. So not a red herring...just a herring that you'd prefer to ignore.

As to your assertion (for that's what it is - a claim without evidence) that "This very same scientific community has calculated that the temperature rises in the industrial period are due to the burning of fossil fuels." Well that's just not true. SOME members of what you falsely call the scientific community have indeed reached that conclusion. But equally large numbers of scientists have reached an entirely different conclusion and an even greater number have yet to reach a conclusion.

"The main fact is that the scientific community has been recording dramatic per annum increases in the mean temperature of Earth since the 1950s. "

That's simply, laughably untrue. The increases haven't been 'per annum'. In fact temperatures have decreased slightly in the last two years and many time before that. Additionally temperatures decreased between the 1950s and the mid 1970s which is why all the scare-mongering in the 1970s was about the impending ice age. Finally neither the increases or decreases have been dramatic but easily within normal ranges.

Dear mhaze,

It is the scientific community that has been measuring the mean global temperatures over the past 60 years and they are recording a mean temperature rise that they can only put down to human activity viz the burning of fossil fuels.

We all know that you, Hasbeen, individual, Loudmouth and some others do not want to accept the findings and conclusions of the scientific community. To me that seems like a ridiculous position to take and I think it is a totally irrational position to take in light of the seriousness of the threat that global warming and its consequential climate change poses to life on Earth.

Mo Opinion, if you don't believe the scientific community are not as corrupted by government financing of their entire lives, just stop for a minute & look over the Peter Ridd case.

The judge effectively said in his judgement, that the James Cook management are about as trust worthy as the very worst used car salesman. Hell they still believe they have the right to lie to their paymasters, us the tax payer, & continue to receive their obscene salaries.

The global warming gravy train has exposed this sector of the bureaucracy, which is what they have become, as one of the very worst in their rip off practices. There is no longer any sector of the scientific community I would trust without a very through examination of their ethics & science.

There is no doubt that the very worst is the global warming bunch, but the biologists, particularly marine, are gaining on them quickly.

Dear Hasbeen,

The scientific community is not trying to deceive you. Your belief that the scientific community is lying to you about their temperature readings is not correct.

You are having what shrinks would call paranoid delusions. You need help and should see a psychiatrist who can prescribe medication to correct your mental aberrations.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/bad-science-australian-studies-found-to-be-unreliable-compromised-20190719-p528ql.html
Devils advocate? no not at all honesty however must be taken into account
Another field but seems to prove some science can not be trusted
I agree, in fact as a climate change believer I think it is the anti climate changers who use fake science
But others will mock me,fine no problem stand by for yet again the hottest summer we have ever seen

It would be nice Mr Opinion, if I could feel reassured by your assurance. However you come across as one of the grant chasing scientists, or an apologist for them.

I am not the least interested in your opinion, unless it is backed up by some facts & proof. When any so called scientists does not release enough information for others to duplicate their results, or does release enough information, but no one can duplicate their results, they have no right to further research grants.

We are bring robed blind by the university sector, as shown by the Peter Ridd case, & need to pull these people into line.

If you have anything to support your opinion. let us have it, your platitudes mean nothing.

Dear Hasbeen,

Yes, yes, of course you are being robbed by the lying scientific community. We know, we know. It's terrible what they are doing to you ............. and to Loudmouth and to mhaze and to individual too. It's terrible.

And don't forget those awful Bachelor of Arts types either. That's where you find those awful archaeologists, anthropologists, historians, sociologists, philosophers. They're all liars too ...... aren't they Hasbeen? But don't worry Hasbeen; just take your medicine and they'll all go away.

Mr O,

This discussion started with Bazz mentioning a climate theory which has come to be called the Svensmark hypothesis. It basically says that that CO2 has little to do with temperature and the main driver of change is cloud cover. In turn cloud cover is determined by the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth which is in turn determined by the strength or weakness of the solar winds. So ultimately the temperature is primarily altered by the cycles in solar activity.

Now there are quite a number of scientists who buy this theory and are working on gathering more evidence. The most recent papers say that the increase in temperatures over the past century were mainly caused by the sun's activity. They say that of the 1 degree rise, 0.1 degree is caused by CO2 and of that 0.01 degree is caused by man. But the vast majority of the rise is related to the solar winds.

Now Mr O, you clearly don't agree with that since you're fully on board with the CO2 story. So do you think that the scientists who write about and support the Svensmark hypothesis are lying to you?
If yes, then we can mark you down as a denier. If no, then why don't you admit that the science isn't settled.

Or you could just ignore the problem.

Climate change is what is regarded as a wicked problem - A wicked problem can be described as a problem with neither clear causes nor solutions, they are problems which defy understanding; they are incomplete, contradictory and constantly changing. Little wonder then that there will be contradictory findings. This is why, far from being concerned that scientists continue to receive grants we should be applauding it; whether or not you believe climate change is real or not it is important that we continue to collect evidence about the impact we are having on the biosphere. Good scientific research leads to theories which in turn produce predictions - the greater the accuracy of those predictions the more confident we can be in the theory. With that in mind perhaps read this article - some will remain resolutely unconvinced that it proves anything, for others it may just give you pause to think. And if it gives you pause to think then go on and google The Anthopocene. https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

Dear mhaze,

The scientific community has been measuring mean global temperatures over the past 60 years and it is saying that the temperature rise is due to human activity viz burning of fossil fuels. You, Hasbeen and others say that the scientific community is lying about its results and conclusions.

This is a nice topic.
http://sydneystonepolishing.com.au/marble-restoration/

'The scientific community has been measuring mean global temperatures over the past 60 years and it is saying that the temperature rise is due to human activity viz burning of fossil fuels'

telling lies often enough does not make it truth. A favourite tactic of those who know that true science does not back their claims. Evolution fantasy is another good example of this tactic.

This year, the world will spend $US162 billion ($230bn) subsidising renewable energy, propping up inefficient industries and supporting middle-class homeowners to erect solar panels, according to the International Energy Agency. In addition, the Paris Agreement on climate change will cost the world from $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion a year by 2030. Astonishingly, neither of these hugely expensive policies will have any measurable impact on temperatures by the end of the century.

The present approach to climate change isn’t working. If fully implemented, analysis of the leading climate-economic models shows that the Paris Agreement will cost $US1 trillion to $US2 trillion every year in slowed economic growth. Our response to climate change is so expensive because alternative energy sources remain expensive and inefficient in most scenarios. It is still very expensive to switch from fossil fuels — hence the fortune being spent on subsidies, to little overall effect.

Looks like we can add runner to the list of those suffering from paranoid delusion.

Mr O,

"You, Hasbeen and others say that the scientific community is lying about its results and conclusions."

Well that's not true but also avoids the point.

I showed some members of the scientific community who say that the rise in temperatures is caused by things other than man ie the big yellow thing in the sky is the cause of the rise in temperatures.

Do you think they are lying?

I suspect Mr O will continue to take the 5th on that question.

Highly amusing that some naifs think that scientists are angels who never lie. When it comes to taxpayer grants they lie like pigs in straw with the best of them. Remember, they have been brainwashed by political commissars posing as lecturers in universities, where all is fair in Marxism and war against the West.

Baygon if those scientists were actually doing genuine research, I would be all for it. However as we know, most of them are not doing original research, but are looking for anything, no matter how ridiculous to try to prop up the failing theory. Every week there is a new pile of bulldust claiming some new catastrophe that CO2 causes.

We all know, or should do, that the IPCC is not a research organisation, but was set up to prove the theory that global warming is manmade. They have been dismissing all evidence to the contrary from the start, & destroying the careers of those whose data is hard to refute.

Then we get the useful idiots like Mr Opinion, who in dozens of posts have not produced a single piece of data to support their case.

Then we get the big yellow ball in the sky. Today he has a huge smile on his face, as he prepares his joke on the global warmers. His reduction of sunspots will really play havoc with the global warmers warming. How long will it take them to blame the coming cooling on the poor much maligned CO2, as they did during the ice age scare of the 70s.

Hasbeen, mhaze, ttbn, et al,

The scientific community has been measuring mean global temperatures over the past 60 years and it is saying that the temperature rise is due to human activity viz burning of fossil fuels. You say that the scientific community is lying about its results and conclusions.

"You say that the scientific community is lying about its results and conclusions".

The penny has dropped at last. Scientists are human, just like the rest of us.

Dear ttbn,

The thing that sets you, Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth and individual apart from the scientific community is that you are all suffering from paranoid delusion.

Dear Amir Livne,

Looks like you would fit in well with ttbn, Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth and individual.

More Warmest alarmist junk
How did the sneaky beggars manage to get the phoney fake news to lie about a heat wave in Europe?
OH maybe it is true
Please explain what is going on if not climate change
Remember this fire fighter and bush man sees the bush is about to deliver the worst bushfires in this country's history ground cover at critical numbers

I showed some members of the scientific community who say that the rise in temperatures is caused by things other than man ie the big yellow thing in the sky is the cause of the rise in temperatures.

Do you think they are lying?

I see that Mr O isn't going to answer that because he doesn't have an answer. Its pretty obvious that Mr O doesn't have the internal fortitude to honestly address these issues nor the intellectual ability to actually understand the issue. Just regurgitates memes feed to the useful idiots by the AGW industry.

Dear mhaze,

I keep trying to work out where you and the other anthropogenic global warming denialists are coming from and I keep coming back to the same answer: paranoid delusion.

Mr. Opinion is getting desperate now.

"Looks like you would fit in well with ttbn, Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth and individual".

What a stupid thing to say. Anyone is entitled to 'fit in' with anyone else, and disagree with a warmist hysteric.

As for him saying that some of us are coming around to the AGM myth, it is clear that reading and English comprehension was not necessary for his Mickey Mouse sociology course.

Sorry. His stupid comment on 'deniers' switching was in another thread on big business. His obsession is like a rash. All all over.

Well Mr O isn't going to answer my question about the science community that doesn't buy CAGW.

We all know why although the drongo probably thinks he can escape scrutiny.

Honesty and integrity aren't high priorities on O's list. But you'd imagine not looking a complete fool would be.

Mr Opinion by now you have found we have residents who do not value truth very much
The thought they may not be right is unwanted
Nothing you or I can say, or produce as evidence will change that
They clearly think we are victims of a huge international con job
Some will say by a Socialist plot, or the UN
Asking if in fact, like the tobacco industry did, fossil fuel owners are in fact funding their side leaves them again thinking WE have been fooled

"Nothing you or I can say, or produce as evidence will change that"

But the problem is Belly, that you and Mr O don't actually present evidence, you just regurgitate talking points that you've been indoctrinated into accepting as the one, true faith.

And when you are presented with evidence that you'd prefer wasn't true (eg scientists who have alternate theories or evidence that it was hotter in the recent past as compared to now) you just pretend to not see it.

Its all rather pathetic really.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/climate-change-nothing-like-this-over-past-2000-years-scientists/11345022
OK Mhaze read this lefty lie,construct a reason why all those involved are telling lies, me included
But may I? calling me deluded is the very very black pot calling the kettle black

Dear mhaze,

I am not in a position to provide evidence. I am not a scientist and therefore not qualified to test the information and conclusions of the scientific community but I do recognise the scientific community as the authority on science.

Problem with you and your fellow denialists is that you are suffering from paranoid delusion brought on by your refusal to accept things must change to accommodate a universal acknowledgement of anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

I think people like you, Hasbeen and individual are just simply jealous of people who have been able to make something interesting of themselves and you are just something ordinary and uninteresting. And that makes you even more delusional!

Europe heat wave could melt much of the Arctic ice
This morning's press
Over a million Olympic swimming pool size tubs melt everyday
Us warmists are good aren't we,faking climate chang

Mr Opinion. "I am not in a position to provide evidence. I am not a scientist and therefore not qualified to test the information and conclusions of the scientific community but I do recognise the scientific community as the authority on science."

So you are merely appealing to authority Mr Opinion.

Well some of us are not. I spent 4 months working on restoring the math I had when doing my BSC. After the Climategate emails gave me much doubt, I became annoyed that I was being taken for a sucker, just as you are.

With my math now able to follow the stories, it became obvious quite quickly that the whole thing was basically a pack of garbage, with the merest smidgeon of fact as an incredible shaky foundation.

Since then I have seen ever more ridiculous garbage published in support of the fallacy. When some clown bursts into print claiming CO2 will make fish left hands, & the scientific community does not shoot it down immediately, it is impossible not so see the fraud, if one is looking with open eyes.

Claim what ever you like old boy, but don't claim you have any idea of what you are talking about, if you don't do the work to actually understand the subject. Appeals to authority are pretty useless in this day & age.

Dear Hasbeen,

Have you published your findings and have they been tested by the scientific community?

Dear Hasbeen,

You don't come across to me has having a science degree. Or do you mean Bachelor of Santa Claus when you say your BSC? The way you express yourself and the things you say are not what I would expect from a science grad.

When my kids were very little, I used to read them kids books, one of the most favourd being 'All Flowers are Red'. The premise of the book was a kid having come to believe ...ahem...all flowers were red. So it had mum showing him pictures of a meadow of flowers of, say, yellow, but one red flower in the midst. The kid would always see the red but not the yellow. The book was just a way to teach colours to infants.

Here we have Mr O who professes to believe that there is " a universal acknowledgement of [AGW] and its consequential climate change." Universal?

Yet within this very thread we have shown him scientists who don't think the increasing temperatures are caused by CO2. I've invited O, to comment on those scientists but he refuses to even acknowledge their existence. And for him they don't exist. Universal, remember?

Yet these papers and scientists do exist and in numbers that would astound O. The website 'NoTricks' started counting all papers they saw which specifically disputed aspects of the consensus. For 2018 they got to something like 600 papers. Last I looked they were around the same figure just for the first half of 2019.

Now I'm not saying all those papers are right or that they disprove AGW. But the very existence of sceptic papers and sceptic scientists utterly disproves Mr Os daffy ideas that there is universal belief in AGW in the scientific community.

To make matters even worse for poor old Mr O, even when members of the scientific community do accept AGW their level of belief differs. Some think man is partially to blame but at low levels. Others think man is largely to blame but that the danger is minor or manageable. Still others think there isn't enough data to decide anything yet and that its way too early to be making decisions about uprooting society.

That is, the flowers aren't all red. And they aren't just red or yellow. There's a plethora of colours and many flowers are multi-coloured.

Universal? What a dill.

Dear mhaze,

Looks like you might have a Bachelor of Santa Claus degree as well.

As a Warmist may I ask those who, and let us face it there are many, think I know nothing about this subject, to consider the following
what if you are right
What if some huge conspiracy exists to do what?
Harm the world's economy? kill coal
IF you think like that why could it not be the very opposite?

Dear Belly,

People like Hasbeen, individual, mhaze, Loudmouth and ttbn are suffering from paranoid delusion. They are probably the same people who argued against taking action to prevent the depletion of the ozone layer in the 1980s by banning CFCs. They believe that they are being persecuted by the wider community, which they believe is trying to do them harm. The good news is that their mental illness is treatable by psychiatrists.

Belly,

No one, other than you, is talking about a huge conspiracy. Its just that you've been taught that almost all scientists buy the 'we're all gunna die' story. But they don't so there isn't a conspiracy, just a lack of information getting out about how few scientists really buy the whole thing.

"IF you think like that why could it not be the very opposite?"

Yes it could. And why couldn't it be the opposite of what you think?

The fact is we don't know the answers to these questions. We don't know exactly how much warming is going on. We don't know if its unusual. We don't know if or how much is man-made. We don't know if it will continue or if it does if it'll be dangerous to man or beneficial to man. We don't know if curtailing CO2 will make any difference.

There is so much we don't know. But we do know that some people want to up-end our economy while all the 'don't knows' remain don't knows. And we do know that at least some of them want to up-end society, not to combat AGW but are just using AGW to make changes that have nothing to do with warming.

mhaze if one side is wrong then they are indeed victims of a conspiracy
Think about it surely that is clear
Now ask why would either side want to say the other is wrong
And I am far from the only person to mention a conspiracy
Truly think you have seen but maybe forgotten, the thought the UN is behind false claims of global warming,to try to, [it gets funnier] put a Socialist one world government in place
Constracy is not be any means a new word in this subject

I tend not to believe in conspiracies, they would be too much work to maintain without falling apart. Faking anything must be very difficult: the conspirers would have to simultaneously ensure, on the one hand, that nobody twigs to what is going on, and on the other, that everything works exactly right.

BUT it's entirely possible that people who do believe in conspiracy theories of any sort are either (or both) so simple that they can't see the possibility of just another point of view; OR are mentally unbalanced themselves, believing perhaps that someone in the world is out to get them - i.e. paranoid. OR of course, in Mr Opinionated's case, barely out of nappies.

Yes, there's global warming, with perhaps a multitude of causes, too much CO2 being one possible cause. I'm not sure how much CO2 is being produced at the moment over the Sahara Desert but it's having huge effects in Europe where Sahara winds blow towards. I'm inclined to Phillip Adams' part-solution for global warming: plant a hell of a lot more trees to soak up the CO2 just in case, since, after all, trees are fundamentally made of CO + water + sunlight. And that's all relatively free, so why not ?

Joe