For any who actually want to understand the cyclical warming & cooling of the planet, there is a very good thread at

Tallbloke's Talkshop | Cutting edge science you can dice with
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/

You'll need a bit of math, but it is very well explained, even for the math illiterate. Perhaps not for the true warmist nuts, as it will, if understood, destroy your illusions. However for any seeking the truth, this will set you down the right road.

Yawn.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

Do you really think rolling these two shysters out again is going to achieve anything?

Well at least they are using their real nmaes this time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/

SR obviously you would be a prime candidate to,

1/ Not have the math to understand any of the facts or equations.

2/ Have to avoid such science as it would destroy your ability to talk total bull.

Hassy, I thought you might be wheeling out that Old Fart from up the road again, the one who has been taking the temperature in his chook house for the past 70 years. He's proven it definitely colder in July rhan January, thus no such thing as global warming, its all a scam!

I've gotta agree with SR here when he wrote "Well at least they are using their real nmaes this time."

Yes its certainly a heavy indictment of the climate change 'science' community that people with a radical new (ie unapproved) way of analysing the data feel the need to hide their identity in order to get it published.

We've know ever since ClimateGate that the climate community actively seeks to suppress unapproved data and analysis, but I, like SR, are disturbed at the lengths some must go to to navigate around this.

Of course, we are constantly told that the science is settled. Therefore this new analysis doesn't exist and is a figment of our imagination. Along with the 300 hundred or so other papers published each year that dispute the 'settled science'

Dear mhaze,

You whine: "Yes its certainly a heavy indictment of the climate change 'science' community that people with a radical new (ie unapproved) way of analysing the data feel the need to hide their identity in order to get it published."

It wasn't that at all, these two have been serving up easily refutable nonsense for quite a while now and they were rightly concerned a journal wouldn't go through the time and expense to have yet another peer reviewed.

Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia, reviewed the paper and said:

“The paper is laughable. It is so riddled with unsupported, fantastic and … or … unintelligible claims, arranged in a disorderly fashion and sprinkled liberally with innuendo.”

Is there any reason to dispute it?