The Guardian has verified that one of the Left climateers' favourite scare-mongering weapons is language manipulation.

" We will use language that recognises the severity of the crisis we’re in. In May 2019, the Guardian updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world, using “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” instead of “climate change” and “global warming”.

Their use of language to mislead is part of their "climate challenge". They are no longer performing their core reason for existing - reporting; they are persuading, brain-washing, bullying; and they no longer try to hide the fact. That's how stupid they think you are, folks.

Once dignified taxpayer-funded organisations such as the BOM have fallen victim to Leftist propaganda by changing 'extreme' fire conditions to 'catastrophic' conditions. And, the usual climate fraudsters are hotting up the language as the climate itself refuses to hot up inline with their dodgy predictions.

ITYF the reason for the change isn't because the climate's not as hot as predicted, but because it's hotter!

A degree rise in temperature in a century, especially in the cities. Two inches rise in sea-level in a century. God, how much more can the planet take ?!

Just to be helpful, can I suggest that we use the phrases "climate catastrophe" and "climate Armageddon" instead of piddly phrases like "climate crisis". How can we get across the possibility that we are about to come to the "end of days" ? And there's nothing we can do ?!

Don't just stand there ! Panic NOW !

Joe

Dear loudmouth2,

"Arctic sea ice extent averaged for October 2019 was 5.66 million square kilometers (2.19 million square miles), the lowest in the 41-year continuous satellite record.

This was 230,000 square kilometers (88,800 square miles) below that observed in 2012—the previous record low for the month—and 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average.

Daily ice extent began tracking below 2012 levels on October 13 and continued to do so through the end of the month, which was enough to reach a new record monthly low at 5.66 million square kilometers (2.19 million square miles)."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Yup nothing to see here mate.

The climate changes from day to day. Drrr!

SR,

So we'll soon have a navigable North-West Passage around the top of Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic then ? Like what Sir John Franklin tried to find in 1842 ?

Of course climate change is occurring - on your figures, if they're reliable, the Arctic ice-cap is a third smaller than forty years ago. Agreed. Let's see if that continues, of the ice-sheet contracts enough for a navigable sea passage. .

Joe

According to the expectations of the Svenmark hypothesis we are at the
peak of temperature now and it will be all downhill from now, so to speak.
Lowest temperature in about 300 years time celebrated with an ice festival on the Thames. !
Trouble is I will not be here to see it and go ya ya ya at the AGW crowd !

The evolutionists don't want the world to change !

individual just said:

'The evolutionists don't want the world to change !'

I'm not going to waste one cent of my million dollar brain commenting on that. I think the statement speaks for itself.

And for all of you AGW denialists: If there's no AGW then you have nothing to worry about. Unless of course the problem really is that you are terrified of AGW but your mind just won't let you come to terms with it. You just cannot face the reality of it. This is a fairly common psychiatric condition among those with a $1 brain so don't be too alarmed.

BTW Right now is a great opportunity for you to register your denial that the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica is getting bigger again. Don't be late, get in early. Be one of the first to register your denial.

"If there's no AGW then you have nothing to worry about".

At last, he makes a sensible comment! Yes, There is no AGW, and the people who know that are not worried. The people who are worried are those voodoo practitioners and chicken-innards fossikers whose religious-like fanaticism leads them to think man has power over nature. Mankind has not caused climate change, global warming or whatever the latest buzz words are, and mankind cannot 'fix' it by throwing money at the fraudsters who started this crap.

OPINION, There "might" be no AGW but there IS GW.
You will know for certain in 300 years approx.
It has been going on forever.
I might well be a 600 year approx cycle.
Sun, sunspots, cosmic rays, Malenkovitch cycles all ground up to
produce warming periods just like we have been having since heaven
knows when. The current warming period was spot on time, late 20th
century early 21st century. Peak thought to be about 1995 to 2015.

Opinion said; If there's no AGW then you have nothing to worry about.

Why on earth did you say that ?
Of course we have a lot to worry about, you AGWers will send the
country broke and probably foodless.
Certainly we will be in for very unreliable electricity supplies.
That is the best for which we can hope.

Hi Bazz,

Thanks, that's a great explanation of why you denialists are so determined to discredit AGW. For you it's a simple matter of not wanting to do anything about it because you don't want to spend money on it.

Thanks again, we finally know the reason for your denial of AGW. It has nothing to do with science; for denialists it is just all about being greedy and selfish.

the warmist scientist are as desperate as the evolutionist frauds in their attempt to find the missing link. No wonder they have to keep lying, changing textbooks and moving on to the next prophetic failure.

runner just said:

'the warmist scientist are as desperate as the evolutionist frauds in their attempt to find the missing link. No wonder they have to keep lying, changing textbooks and moving on to the next prophetic failure.'

Goodness gracious, it just gets worse every minute! I suppose runner has a dozen degrees like Loudmouth. What's gone gone with our education system?

What's gone wrong with our education system?

I saw an article and video with a female One Nation MP a few weeks back.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-22/teachers-schools-lashed-as-conservatives-fear-leftist-agenda/11648892

"We need to get back to basics" she proclaimed.
"We need to get back to the three R's: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic."

Is it true this is what the Three R's stand for?

Writing and Arithmatic don't even start with an R.
- And I don't know when they stopped using 'arithmetic', but when I went to school the subject was called 'mathematics.

Why am I bringing this up?
When I went to school they had this thing called 'SQ3R'.
This was the strategy for learning at that time.
SQ3R stands for Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQ3R

I don't know what these people were taught but for me, the three R's were Read, Recite, Review;
- And they actually start with an 'R'.

Opinion, it is not a case of not believing science.
It is just that the conventional science seems dodgy and there is an
alternative science with an answer that accords with history.
You are certainly taking the AGW theory at their word, you are very
certain on that.
I am very doubtful of the AGW theory because it has failed most of its predictions.
I am interested in the Svenmark hypothesis because it agrees with
histories warming periods and the present one.
Surely only the blind would ignore that ?

Dear Bazz,

Rubbish!

"Climate models have accurately predicted global heating for the past 50 years, a study has found.

The findings confirm that since as early as 1970, climate scientists have had a solid fundamental understanding of the Earth’s climate system and the ability to project how it will respond to continued increases in the greenhouse effect. Since climate models have accurately anticipated global temperature changes so far, we can expect projections of future warming to be reliable as well.

The research examines the accuracy of 17 models published over the past five decades, beginning with a 1970 study and including 1981 and 1988 models led by James Hansen, the former Nasa climatologist who testified to the US Senate in 1988 about the impacts of anthropogenic global heating. The study also includes the first four reports by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).

“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” said Zeke Hausfather, of the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/04/climate-models-have-accurately-predicted-global-heating-study-finds

Climate models have accurately predicted global heating for the past 50 years, a study has found.

Svenmark has predicted the temperature change for the last 150 years.
Ever since the Maunder Minimum.

Dear Bazz,

You write; "Svenmark has predicted the temperature change for the last 150 years."

Damn, that's one old dude.

Lol.

Have a look at why parts of Australia are hot. Madden Julian Oscillation reports are worth a look, as are enso updates by the bom. Here are some links, with modified versions for Belly.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjo.shtml

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/mjo.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Also of interest are sea surface temperature anomalies.

https://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta

The anomalous warm water seems to have more to do water and air born additives than CO2. The good thing is that the waters around Australia are starting to warm, and a favourable MJO is on its way, hopefully by late December and into January. Then the ABC can take a break from its global warming hysteria.

Cheers

A friend who believes in the conventional global warming has given me
a page of a new paper showing that the regular warming, eg Svenmark etc
of the Roman period, Medieval period and Thames freezing 1800 etc did
not occur all over the world at the same time.

I knew that as soon as the Turku and Kobe papers appeared there would
be papers pointing out its failures. I look forward to see what answers
appear. I wonder if in the cycles within cycles there is a reason for it.

Perhaps the opposition is in the pay of wind turbine manufacturers ?

Anyone see the massive snowfall in the Sahara desert? These warmist are totally deluded or dishonest.

Runner,

Do you mean this ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-09/snowstorm-blankets-sahara-desert-in-white/9315848

Just trying to fill out the picture. A metre of snow in 2016 ? Wow, a bit like Tasmania this week.

Joe

actually Joe it was the 15inches in 2018 I was referring to. Good to clarify that for you.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/901733/Sahara-Desert-snow-Ain-Sefra-Algeria-pictures-photos?fbclid=IwAR34pHakiay2i-E9bJRIF0QzWLqOIUg5nPemP_UgFVmqW0ucROEHqqpGGIg

Dear deluded ttbn,

If it's not that hot then why don't you and your non-science denialist friends try walking into one of the bushfires to demonstrate. Firstly, you get to put your theory to the test and secondly we get rid of a whole bunch of greedy self-interested nobodies.

Misopinionated,

Putting one's assertions into practice has a lot going for it.

Presumably you believe in rapid sea-level rise ? That the coasts are going to be swamped in a very short time, ten years being the period of choice ?

Perhaps you could try standing on a beach and - apart from the daily tides seeming to knocking your theory around, but you can ignore them - wait there until your fears are realised. See you again in 2050. Or 2100. Or 2200. We could organise for someone to bring you sandwiches.

Joe

Loudmouth,

how many people have you fooled into believing you have a dozen degrees? i suppose they're people on the same level as you, which would make sense. everyone knows now that all you are is greedy and self-interested and made up a lie about having a dozen degrees so that people wouldn't look upon you as just another dummy profiting out of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment and people's lives.

Misopinionated,

I've never claimed to have a dozen degrees. Strictly speaking, I have only one. My eight other awards ( a certificate, two TAFE diplomas, an honours, three PG diplomas and two Ms) are not strictly degrees. Why does it bug you so much ? Whereabouts are you on the spectrum ?

And I've never been paid anything by any of the fossil industries, or even by the nuclear industry. If anything, I pay the bastards about forty bucks a week.

Any chance of you sticking to topic instead of spewing out your usual infantile and irrelevant tanty ?

Joe

"If it's not that hot…". As I've said before: you do not read or listen to what other people write or say. It's not about it being hot or the climate changing - it's about the cause of climate change. Humans are NOT the cause. The climate is changing because of nature.

"you and your non-science denialist friends" Surely you not now claiming to be a scientist yourself! Sociology is not a science. You know nothing about climate science. I doubt that you even have a job, given all the time you spend on OLO demonstrating the ignorance of your generation, chirping away like a wind up bird. We'll just have to wait until your spring breaks. Your sort doesn't last long

Loudmouth,

So now you are saying you only have one degree, which I assume is not in any way related to science.

So if you're not a scientist please tell us what qualifies you along with the other denialists to debate science?

Truth is of course that it is not about science it is really only ever about greed and self=interest.

You and your kind would rather see the planet go up in smoke than for you to spend any of your money trying to fix the problem.

You won't admit to AGW as the cause of climate change in order to distance yourself from responsibility.

ttbn,

As an environmental sociologist my interest is in studying people in relation to the environment, which is exactly what I have been doing all along.

You're just ignorant so you find it difficult to understand what I am doing. You think it is just a personal attack on individuals like yourself, thinking that I am doing it simply because you believe I don't like dumb people like you denialists.

BTW, talking about AGW denialists, where is ScuMo? He seems to be staying out of sight while bushfires are ravaging the country. A bad look for him I suppose given that he doesn't appear interested in preventing AGW unless he's dragged by his heels kicking and screaming. just like with the bank royal commission.

I suppose he has more important things to do like working out how to get a million cashed up Chinese into the country so that he can claim to have created another million jobs since the election.

Wow! The global warming scammers must be getting desperate to recruit a clown like Mr O to promote the cause.

They obviously are desperate, they must have access to the solar research that tells them something like a Dalton minimum is approaching, with conditions so cold they will be gone for ever. They are desperate to get some things locked in place before the sun makes makes a complete fool of them, freezing their asses & their scam off.

Yes SR, with any luck that pesky sea ice will be down to what it was a couple of thousand years ago quite soon.

Misopinionated,

Of course there is climate change, there always is. One degree rise and two inches of sea-level rise in a century. And probably something similar, or a bit more, in the next century. Gosh.

No, I'm not a denialist either. Just not hysterical about climate change. If you had much of an education, even in something like environmental sociology, or social environmentalism, or whatever, you would know the difference.

Joe

Joe,
> other awards ( a certificate, two TAFE diplomas, an honours, three PG diplomas and two Ms) are not strictly degrees.
What do you mean by Ms?

>That the coasts are going to be swamped in a very short time, ten years being the period of choice ?
Put a sock in it!
Just because a few of the more alarmist environmentalists thirty years ago were predicting sea level rises that fast doesn't mean that was a widespread belief. It certainly wasn't what the scientists were predicting. It was around that time that a lot of the climate modelling started, and they soon realised that the sea level rises would be over a much longer timescale (though it looks like it's starting to happen faster than they predicted). Don't make the mistake of conflating the time available to prevent something from happening with the time until it happens.

Meanwhile we're still increasing the rate at which we're increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
___________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
> Humans are NOT the cause. The climate is changing because of nature
Humans were the cause of a 50% increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration above its preindustrial levels. What makes you so sure this isn't what's caused the global warming?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
It's unclear how much cooling the Dalton Minimum was responsible for and how much is just coincidental. But it's clear the relationship of temperature with atmospheric CO2 is much stronger than that with sunspot activity.

Dear Aidan,

From the above, it's obvious you know what you are talking about.

I'm an environmental sociologist so I am primarily interested in the human face of what I am now calling our environmental crisis. Because I speak in terms of sociology the denialists like Hasbeen, Loudmouth, ttbn, etc., think that I'm just making a personal attack on them. That's because they don't understand that the focus of my interest is people themselves.

And that tells me that they as denialists don't see people as being responsible for AGW and its consequential environmental crisis. So they look for scientific explanations even though none of them have scientific training and lack the skills and knowledge to debate the science.

My research covers mainly what scholars and scientists are saying about the environmental crisis (again I emphasise that what we are now dealing with is an environmental crisis and not just an aberration that will go away by itself the way the denialists want people to believe).

The AGW denialists are on the same par with the Holocaust denialists. The Holocaust denialists try to distort history whereas the AGW denialists distort science. Their areas are different but they are both about corrupting knowledge in their ignorance of truth.

Loudmouth apparently doesn't regard an honours, postgrad diplomas, and masters as degrees, which I find a bit odd. I have a BE, BA and 2 x MAs and call each a degree. So I don't know what planet he's from, but here on Earth we call them degrees.

If this "climate emergency" really exists, then we are doomed. You have to be a complete and utter idiot to think we are going to be all drowned or frizzled or desiccated unless we stop emitting CO2, and yet renounce the only possible solution - nuclear power; an idiot or, you have a regimented mind conditioned to accept whatever you are told by a higher power. The sort that says 'believe the science" when you don't understand the science, but have blind faith in people who tell you to believe them. People like rent-seekers and ABC activists with grants to be gained or axes to be ground.

If you have this kind of fundamentalist faith, then stay in bed and wait to die. You are doomed. The human beings you blame for climate change are growing in numbers, and a few Dark Ages windmills and glittery things on roofs are not going to top the end of the world that your 'higher beings' (rogue scientists) say is coming if we don't "do something". Actually, the consequences these gods predicted have come and gone several times now; but, of course, your blind faith prevents you from recognising that

ttbn,

I am calling it more than a climate emergency. I'm calling it an environmental crisis.

And you are one of the people responsible for it. We have you and people like you to blame for it.

When all of the little Greta Thunbergs get older and become politically active they will let you know with their votes exactly what they think of people like you. If I was you or one of the many people like you I would be very worried about what all of those little Greta Thunbergs have in store for you.

They might drag you all out into the streets by your heels and burn you at the stake as climate witches!

'little Greta Thunberg' is already old news. The media has lost interest. And, if you are not lying about your qualifications as you have lied about everything else, then your education has been a waste of money, which hasn't even landed you a job.

Aidan, how many people with SUV do you think it took to start & then stop the last ice age.

You are talking such garbage to query the Dalton Minimum, when every low sun spot period has led to similar, if less sever events.

Surely you can see the stupidity of this by the fact that Mr O, the resident clown, is supporting you.

I do feel just a little sorry for Greta Thunberg, it must be hard not to be mad at the world when born so ugly, but that gives her no right to run around talking such garbage. Her & your totally fact free assertions are just showing that there is no evidence that global warming theory has no scientific basis.

Misopinionated,

Your medieval thinking is starting to show:

"They might drag you all out into the streets by your heels and burn you at the stake as climate witches!"

Yes, indeed, the way things are going, yes, that might start to happen by the pig-ignorants: in the Middle Ages, any dissenters like Galileo or Cellini could be tortured or burnt at the stake, basically for disagreeing with the dominant ideology.

So you want to go back to those intolerant days ?

Yes, of course there is climate change, and some of it caused by human production and release of CO2. So how can we take some of that CO2 out of the atmosphere, to bring the CO2 level down to the optimal level for plant growth ? Yes, change electricity production technologies, perhaps nuclear; and also plant far more vegetation and trees - which means better watering systems.

Or you could do us all a favour and glue yourself to a major roadway. We could bring you sandwiches :)

Joe

ttbn,

You are very slow at picking up on the movement that little Greta Thunberg has started. There are now millions of little Greta Thunbergs all eager to carry out her calling and may more millions will follow them in the next couple of decades.

I think you are wrong in saying little Greta Thunberg is old news. Isn't she currently in Spain carrying on the cause at the UN Climate Change Conference? So I would not say she has left the scene as you seem to think. Wishful thinking on your part me thinks.

I think you are truly worried about all of those little Greta Thunbergs coming down the road. And I think there must be a lot of politicians and elites in the world who are also very worried about them. This could and probably will turn out to be one of the biggest social movements in human history.

PS Why would I lie about my qualifications? I'm quite proud of what I am. I like being a sociologist and studying people, even if they happen to be very odd like you and your fellow denialists.

This was posted by a person claiming to be educated:

"The AGW denialists are on the same par with the Holocaust denialists".
People don't come more ignorant than that; nor can they go any lower. To drag the slaughter of 6 million human beings into a discussion on dodgy science about climate change is disgusting.

".. Why would I lie about my qualifications? I'm quite proud of what I am. I like being a sociologist and studying people, even if they happen to be very odd like you and your fellow denialists".

People lie about all sorts of things. They usually lie to boost their fragile egos. Noone lies that they never made it out of primary school, for instance. Even if you are a sociologist - and actually have a job - you admit that you just study people and what they think, not climate science. How people react to climate change says nothing about the validity of AGW - and studying people, not science, is all you've done, buster. And, even then, you have learned absolutely nothing about your fellow human beings.

It's time to ignore you in the same way I ignore the other fanatical brainwashed Leftists.

ttbn,

Good try but your retort is totally illogical.

You know as well as everybody else that AGW denialists distort science but just do not want to accept the fact that you act similarly to other denial groups. There's nothing wrong with making the comparison. What is wrong is that you don't want to face the reality behind your own actions.

Half a million people marched behind little Greta Thunberg in Madrid last night. And you're now afraid because you think they might be looking for climate witches like yourself to burn. Do you really think they'll strap you to a stake and set fire to you? Is that what you're afraid of?

Poor, poor ttbn. I truly pity you.

Hasbeen,
> Aidan, how many people with SUV do you think it took to start & then stop the last ice age.
Can you find the answer if I say "Hasbeen ought to be able to work that out himself"?

I never claimed CO2 to be the only factor affecting the climate, so your strawman falls at the first hurdle. What I am saying is we've put so much extra CO2 into the atmosphere that it has become by far the biggest cause of climate change.

> You are talking such garbage to query the Dalton Minimum,
On the contrary, querying everything is the very basis of science! It's what happens afterwards that's key - the reasonable ones follow the evidence, while those who talk garbage ignore the evidence.

Anyway, I didn't query the existence of the Dalton Minimum; I merely queried the extent of its effects. It is known that volcanic eruptions (and specifically the resulting ash clouds) have a substantial cooling effect on the planet, and they were directly responsible for a lot of the cooling during the Dalton Minimum.

>Surely you can see the stupidity of this by the fact that Mr O, the resident clown, is supporting you.
There are so many resident clowns on this board that their support or opposition means nothing.
And judging by your ludicrous claims about Greta Thumberg, I'd count you in their ranks!

ttbn,
Thanks for the insight into the reasons for your denials. I suggest you reconsider the implications:
>If this "climate emergency" really exists, then we are doomed.
W have the power to mitigate the extent of climate change, and also to mitigate its effects. The latter strategy is more expensive than the former strategy, though we've neglected the former for so long that both are now needed to some extent. And that's still preferable to being doomed.

> You have to be a complete and utter idiot to think we are going to be all drowned or frizzled or
>desiccated unless we stop emitting CO2, and yet renounce the only possible solution - nuclear power;
Nuclear power is not the only solution. In Australia it's not even the cheapest solution. Having said that, it does have significant advantages, and if I were the UK PM my policies would include building a few more power stations in England.

> an idiot or, you have a regimented mind conditioned to accept whatever you are told by a higher power.
Did you fail to notice how much of that there is on the denialist side?

> The sort that says 'believe the science" when you don't understand the science,
Typically the denialists assume not only that their opponents don't understand the science, but that the scientists don't understand the science. Have you even considered the possibility that you don't understand the science?

And as for the rent seekers, look at the coal industry!

Thunderbox has admitted in Spain that her childish performances have achieved nothing because emissions are still rising. The cheek of it!

Aidan,

The longer the rant, the less interest I take. I don't read anything you address to me. You are boring.

Aiden, when was the Dalton minimum ?
I have recently seen information about various peaks in temperature
much more frequently than I had previously understood.
These additional ones have a period of 172 years.
Cycles on cycles, they must all add up at some time.

Aiden, not to worry, I just looked it up. Interesting as it confirms
the very cold period in the UK when the Thames froze each winter.
The low sunspot count enables cosmic rays to enter and form more clouds
and so shade the earth and reflect more radiation back out.
Interesting, Svenmark still looks viable.

Bazz,
>when was the Dalton minimum ?
Early 19th century, mostly. It started at the end of the 18th century and lasted about thirty years.

I don't know where you got that 172 year cycle claim from, but I doubt it's of much value. I suggest you read http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/09/the-imminent-mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong

Even the 11 year sunspot cycle, which is far more obvious and intense than longer term cycles, has a declining influence, as its effects are getting swamped by that of CO2.

Dear Aidan,

It's easy to see you know your stuff. I read as much science as I can to support my primary interest in environmental sociology. It's fascinating when one starts to see the Big Picture.

Just be wary because Bazz, mhaze, ttbn, Hasbeen, etc (the usual suspects) are all climate witches. They're the reason we have an environmental crisis on our hands.

Actually they are a great source of information on the behaviour of AGW denialists and I have had a load of fun studying them (albeit online) as part of my research in environmental sociology.

I'm actually the one who came up with the term 'climate witch'.

Misopinionated,

Every religion needs some Satanic figure, the Devil, Satan himself, some embodiment of evil to focus all of their troubles on. In the Middle Ages, as you unintentionally stumbled upon, they created witches to personify evil, those in league with the Devil. And of course, they had to be exterminated. Perhaps some fifteen million women were burnt to death or otherwise killed - in fact, the last recorded 'witch' to be burnt alive was in Hungary in 1929. She could have been still alive if she had a bit been luckier.

So you raise the possibility (at least) that the 'Climate Crisis' is a new pseudo-scientific religion, one in need of figures of Evil to be exterminated. I'm not saying that it is, except in the simple minds of some devotees. But thanks for joining the dots.

As you get further into your sociology, you may encounter the work of Durkheim on this subject. Persevere with it.

Joe

Aiden, the Turku & Kobe studies commentated on the co2.
Because the various IPCC studies did not take into account Svenmark's
hypothesis the effect that it caused was put down to co2.
In their study CO2 has caused 0.1deg C and the rest is due to Svenmark
Sun,sunspots,cosmic rays & clouds.
The mathematics of it was way over my head.

Bazz,
Svenmark was under the impression that global warming had stopped. But the data since then has proved otherwise. His conclusion about the relative effects of cosmic rays and CO2 has been shown to be incorrect.

Cosmic rays do have some effect on cloud formation and therefore climate. But the effect is far less than that of CO2.

Dear Bazz,

This isn't over anyone's head.

From the horse's mouth;

“In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable.”

That was 10 years ago. In the decade since we have seen an average temp of +0.265 °C over the decade before.

This is what was predicted from the climate scientists and they have once again proved to be spot on the money.

Time to let him go.

What do people think about the news release today that Scott Morrison does not want to assist the firefighters?

I could write what I think of him doing that but I would be banned from The Forum for an eternity.