The CSIRO told Senator Malcolm Roberts that today’s temperatures are NOT unprecedented, and that they NEVER said that human-generated carbon dioxide affects the climate. Politicians said that.

Further, nobody in the Greens, Labor or the Coalition has been able to provide Roberts with evidence that carbon dioxide affects climate. His fellow politicians have refused to even debate him on the matter. (Interview with Alan Jones, 7/9/22).

"Climate and CO2: No Evidence, No Debate". The 'Flat Earth' fella is at it again, presenting nonsense, provided by his beloved far right extremists Malcolm Roberts! What a silly topic from the 'Usual Suspect'. The evidence is overwhelming that CO2 causes Climate Change, the debate is long over, action to minimise the harm is what's necessary now.

Someone tell the knuckle draggier Roberts what "unprecedented" means, he wouldn't have a clue.

Hi Paul,

CSIRO is in the top 0.1 % of the world for the core
fields of science and in the world's top 1% for the
other 14 fields. They rank the top 3 of the world's
national science agencies for their input.

Their climate briefings to Senator Roberts as well as
subsequent reponses to his questions are publicly
available on the Senate website. One of which was:

"CSIRO stands behind its researchers and the integrity of
the research they produce. We continue to commit to
full and transparent participation in the scientific peer
review process which results in evidence-based science of the
highest quality, including making data publicly available."

Notice they don't even bother mentioning his name.
That's how high he's held in their esteem.

Anyone who knows anything about the science (you know that thing we're s'posed to follow) would know that the current temperatures ARE NOT unprecedented. Only the brainwashed cultists think otherwise.

eg Marcott et al 2013

Glad that 'flat earth' was brought up. It was the same sorts of people who declared the earth flat that are now blaming a trace gas for climate change. In time, the current lot will look as silly as the flat earthers.

The current lot still hasn't said why it's human induced carbon dioxide that is the villian, and not the 97% of CO2 that occurs naturally. Ian Plimer is still waiting to have this explained to him by people who are so up themselves that they expect us to believe what they say just because they say it. It must annoy them that all people are not gullible fools like Paul 1405.

It was politicians first, starting from Margaret Thatcher, who decided that CO2 affects climate and warms the earth.

Following this decision, scientists were ordered to research this phenomenon and report back to the politicians, with carrots given to bribe those scientists who supported this theory and sticks used against those scientist who refuted it. Moreover, even scientists who disagreed with the above hypotheses had their names added to "scientific" papers that supported it, some without their knowledge, others against their will.

Like everyone else, scientists too have families to feed and mortgages to pay.

Such "evidence" is morally inadmissible, so even if the meteorological reality happened to agree with this corruption, even if we were about to fry or drown due to CO2, it is morally wrong to promote or act on this theory whose birth was in sin.

BTW, I still happen to believe that fossil-digging ought to be phased out, but that for completely different reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with climate.

With confirmation that lockdowns, vaccines and the 'management' of Covid was a hopeless ballsup, the next penny to drop should be the the CO2 hoax, economy-wrecking Net Zero, and expensive unreliable energy that only Comminist China is benefiting from.

Anybody who considers that lunatic Malcolm Roberts as a sane voice on any matter has problems of their own.

As Project Leader of The Galileo Movement it's obvious where his biassed interests lie and his crazed attempt to be exempted from any Carbon Tax because of his claimed (but later misleading denial of) "Sovereign Citizenship" demonstrate his delusional attitude and willingness to be a shill for the fossil fuel industry.

The misleading but desperate claim about CO2 being a pollutant is wrong. The problem has always been a matter of too much CO2- that's what too much means and the whole denial sideshow has been about deliberately blurring the science.

For example, despite attempts to ban tobacco in the USA because of it's known link to lung cancer in particular, the publicity machine simply had to say that "not everybody who smokes gets lung cancer and not everybody who gets lung cancer has smoked". Same argument, same people behind it, same result.

Somewhere logic and commonsense must play a part in decision making rather than spreading global conspiratorial fantasies.

You appear to know it all rache.

Would you please give me the formulae that prove CO2 is capable of increasing global temperature by any meaningful degree.

Thank you.

I would like proof that Senator Roberts is a lunatic, but I believe that will not be forthcoming either.

They have all been taken in by the co-incidence that coal burning
started around 1800 just as the temperature started to rise from
the Maunder minimum of the Mini Ice Age. It is known cycle 8.
Everything else has been made to fit that reality.

IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

Struth, the idiocy on this thread is astounding even by the standards of this board!

ttbn, of course it isn't completely unprecedented - there have been greater changes before, during global mass extinction events.

But it's never got this hot this fast in human history. And the amount of heat going into the sea is slowing down the warming of the atmosphere.

Human activity has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 50%. Plimer fools only the gullible; the fact that organisms absorb and reemit CO2 does not change the fact the amount of CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is more than enough to raise its CO2 concentration by 50%, meaning that nature is a net absorber of CO2.
__________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
What exactly would you regard as sufficient proof?
Do you accept that there's more infrared radiation coming from the ground than entering the atmosphere from above?
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs infrared and emits it in different directions, And that this results in more infrared being radiated back down?

__________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu
Where did you get the crazy idea that it was Thatcher who started it?
Environmentalists had brought the issue to public attention long before she got involved. And scientists had known about it for decades before that.

__________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Blaming the sun is stupid, as we're not seeing more solar radiation.
Cycles don't magically affect the temperature.

Aidan wrote "But it's never got this hot this fast in human history."

I'd ask for evidence of that but I know it'd be futile since no such evidence exists. The alarmists used to say that it was the warmest period ever, but when that unravelled they've reverted to the claim that its warming faster than ever. But its just something they say since they don't and can't know it to be true. For example, when Marcott released his 2013 paper he said that the average temperature resolution was >300 years. That is, the data isn't good enough to know if there has been other periods of 100 years or so where temperatures increased at the rate of the 20th century. Claiming otherwise is not science even though those who make such claims assert that they are following the science.

Incidentally, Marcott in the same paper found that temperatures were higher than at present for 25% of the past 12000 years.

Aidna wrote: "Environmentalists had brought the issue to public attention long before she [Thatcher] got involved."

That's true. Thatcher got on board since she could use it as a cudgel to smack coal miners around with. But its a little disingenuous to say science had bought the issue forward "long before". Indeed, what alarmists were saying long before was that we were headed to a great cooling and an ice age. But we are required to forget that.

Is it possible that we cannot get proof or evidence for climate change claims because there is none?

We have been conditioned to listen to 'experts' for so long that we meekly accept everything they say.

Let's face it: most people get information only from the media, which in turn, repeats what it is told.

Follow the money. There are a few not-very-nice people making billions out of all the scaremongering; there are also not-very-nice politicians and bureaucrats revelling in the power they have taken upon themselves.

Globalists and the WEF refer to it all as an "opportunity", as does our new king and other amazingly rich people who don't know how 80% of people live.

We think we are smarter than the people who fell for the 'world is flat' science; too many of us are definitely not smarter.

God struth the brain dead fossils are stirring from their coffins yet again. How many times does this need to be put to bed. Speaking of which...

Dear mhaze,

You asked of Rache: "Would you please give me the formulae that prove CO2 is capable of increasing global temperature by any meaningful degree."

Sure. Let's start with the IPCC's.

ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0)

The "Δ" in the above post was the 'change in' symbol.

SR wrote: "Dear mhaze, You asked of Rache:.... "

Nup. T'wasn't me.

But if I had, the answer would have required defining the word "meaningful".

Dear mhaze,

I think defining the word would more properly lie with the questioner. So what is yours?

CO2 and other greenhouse gases, are better at holding heat than oxygen and nitrogen because carbon dioxide gas molecules have more parts than oxygen and nitrogen gas molecules do.

CO2 absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

Eunice Foote demonstrated the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide at a scientific conference in 1856.

Meanwhile other greenhouse gases are far worse than CO2.
Methane has a 100-year global warming potential 28-34 times that of CO2. Measured over a 20-year period, that ratio grows to 84-86 times. About 60% of global methane emissions are due to human activities. However the melting permafrost in Siberia is releasing vast additional amounts of methane as decaying matter defrosts.

Roberts' misleading CSIRO argument is that "none of the events have been unprecedented". In other words he says that there have been other equally hot or cold days and floods in the past. The difference is that they are increasing in frequency and intensity, as was predicted to happen at this time some decades ago. The CSIRO is reluctant to respond to him further, not because he's correct but because they consider addressing his constant denials are a waste of their time.

His other favourite buzzword is "empirical evidence" but there is no empirical evidence that gravity exists but it's pretty self-evident that it's real.

Meanwhile I'm waiting for the first scientist whistleblower to come out and claim he/she was bribed to falsify test results - just like those who allegedly faked the moon landing. Surely there must have been one during the last 50 years.

In the end, what's more likely? What the science has been saying plus the growing evidence of predicted change or the likelihood of a sinister well-organised global conspiracy decades in the making by unknown people?

If you keep doubling the atmospheric CO2 you will get to Venus a bit after 18 iterations, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I used to be quite concerned about global warming, but the idiocy of the reasoning and the politics put me right off. Rabidly anti-nuclear, despite the "emergency" threatening civilisation itself. Also rabidly against any sort of geoengineering to the extent that real world testing is banned because "we don't know what it might do.", and faith in long range forecasts when my own experience is that a correct five year forecast is a very lucky guess.

The UK's economy has been severely damaged by it's pursuit of renewable/low carbon energy. The climate catastrophists would see Australia go the same way with their erratic energy lunacy.

Fester

All true.

Another bloke who needs to start providing evidence is Climate and Energy Minister Bowen, whose "blustering rhetoric" has become quite bizarre.

In 'Show show us the evidence, Minister', Andrew L Urban refers to Bowen's maniacal comments as "overheated" and "under-informed".

Bowen's outbursts on matters to do with his portfolio are "loud and derisory" and they invite ridicule; as are TV ads of him smirking as he drives off in a Tesla, or holds onto a recharge 'plug' like you do a petrol nozzle.

CSIRO says increased CO2 is Greening the Planet.
http://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2013/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2

This wasn't the original article I had, I did once have an earlier article, but maybe they updated the website, and this article superseded it.

- So CO2 certainly does affect the climate, it's helping to green the planet.

But these droughts have me a little bit worried.
Are human beings, through increased population and agriculture sucking up all the water?
What's going to happen when we start relying on desalination and start drinking the oceans?
Where's that path going to end?

Also I wonder, does sucking up all the oil in the ground impact the planet?
I've always wondered whether or not oil in the ground provides a kind of insulation in between the earths core and the surface temperature, and more importantly whether taking so much out has the potential to affect the climate on the surface of the planet.
I'm not sure what the answer is.

I've always been against the Climate Change narrative, because I think it's a highly politicised issue used to take the power away from sovereign nations and put these issues into the hands of unelected bureaucrats to reside over it, together with planned global taxes, and everyone knows I'm against being ruled by foreigners of any kind.
Also I like to think humans have the ability to adapt and use creative ingenuity to solve problems and be the masters of our own environment.

I've never been against good ideas that are better for the environment, but I won't support willfully cutting ones nose off to spite our faces.
We can see clearly now that shutting down our coal plants was foolish, and resulted in impacting our energy security and the prices for consumers.
I support unity in self-sustainability or self-sufficiency.
I believe this issue largely transcends all the other issues.
- Make Australia 'The Lucky Country' again.

SR,

Again, I didn't ask the question!

But if I did "meaningful" would be greater than 11 degrees centigrade.



____________________________________________________________--
Rache,

writes: "The difference is that they [hot or cold days and floods] are increasing in frequency and intensity. "

Again I'd suggest there is zero evidence for these claims. Just as when Aidan claimed it was warming faster than the past, this is just assertions that the alarmists make without having any way to demonstrate it.

As the various claims of the warmists have been progressively disproven, rather than re-evaluating their claims they simply move on to more unproven (and often unprovable) assertions.

Speaking of disproven claims...."a 10-year survey of a remote reef 1,200 kms south of Hawaii has established beyond any reasonable doubt that coral bleaching is caused by natural sudden changes in local water temperature. The decade-long survey found coral quickly recovers when normal conditions return." This after the reports showing the GBR had largely recovered from previous bleaching events.

This'll upset a few folk....

http://twitter.com/goodfoodgal/status/1568173044828631041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1568173044828631041%7Ctwgr%5Ed0dddda047d80cc35e5cd58b9ecf4e94d863a6d2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dpj-instapunditt_i%3D1-541697t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Finstapundit.com2F5416972Ft_e%3DOPEN20THREAD3A2020Just20do20it.t_d%3DInstapundit20C2BB20Blog20Archive20C2BB20OPEN20THREAD3A20Just20do20it.t_t%3DOPEN20THREAD3A2020Just20do20it.s_o%3Dascl%3Dversion%3D0837a7fb2afa86b68e4ee5098ec9905b

"But these droughts have me a little bit worried.
Are human beings, through increased population and agriculture sucking up all the water?"

AC

It is known that the density of vegetation can influence rainfall. My interest is in whether increasing the density of life in the sea via ocean fertilisation can increase the rainfall on the surrounding land. The hypothesis is that vegetative life increases the amount of heat trapped in the surface of the ocean, so increasing temperature and evaporation. It also releases volatile sulphur compounds into the atmosphere which help clouds to form. It is unlikely we will see such experiments, but there is evidence of the process happening via air and water pollution, the smoke from bushfires being an example. I am amazed at the lack of interest. People seem to prefer the idea of screaming "Catastrophe!" and casting blame.

Rising CO2 levels indeed make plants greener but the type of increased growth in many food crops usually results in a lower nutrition yield so we would need to consume more to get the same result.

Also - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/humans-are-officially-greening-the-earth-is-that-a-good-thing/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-global-greening.html

rache,

So are you claiming that living tissue is degraded because it grows more quickly? That sounds a bit nonsensical to me. As an example, meat chickens grow in six weeks I think. Does this mean they are less nutritious, or does your claim only apply to plants. I know that for fish you tend to get a larger mercury content for longer lived fish. Does that make older fish more nutritious than younger fish? To me it sounds like something an "I'm never wrong!" climate zealot might make up, along the lines of the Amazon being the lungs of the world or the oceans being in danger of becoming so acidic that sea shells wont be able to form.

I prefer the idea of science being a means of understanding things better so that all humanity might benefit rather than a political tool to promote irrational fear.

Dear mhaze,

You replied: "But if I did "meaningful" would be greater than 11 degrees centigrade."

Enough said really.

"Enough said really."

Well that was cryptic.

'Cryptic'? More like craptic.

Dear mhaze,

What on earth was cryptic about it? Pretty straight forward for all but the wilfully deluded.

Glad to know a 10 degree rise in global temperature won't be anything to get hot under the collar over.

Fester

Unlike so many committed denialists I don't make up facts to fit a political or moral agenda. Nor do I start from a conclusion and work backwards and cherry-pick information to support it.

It was only a few years ago that many of the same armchair scientists who were claiming there was no increase in global temperature are now shifting their arguments to the reasons for the increase.

It must be nice to be so certain about things you know so little about.

Here's just one article on nutrition in a higher CO2 world -
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfcfa

"Experiments exposing wheat, rice, and other C3 plants to concentrations of CO2 expected later this century show declines of about 10% in protein, 5%–10% in iron and zinc (and potentially other micronutrients), and up to an average of 30% in individual B vitamins.."

SR,

Oh now I get it. You've forgot how climate works...again.

The question was "Would you please give me the formulae that prove CO2 is capable of increasing global temperature by any meaningful degree."

At its alleged natural level of around 280ppm CO2 increases global temperature by c. 9c.

It is alleged that an additional 2c would be a problem - no evidence, just assertion.

Therefore, before wetting our pants, we need to see at what levels of CO2 we'd see 11c increases in global temperature due to that CO2 (9c + 2c)

I'm pretty sure I've walked you through this before - not sure itf you forgot or it went over your head.'

rache wrote: "Unlike so many committed denialists I don't make up facts to fit a political or moral agenda"

Oh good. So when she wrote: "The difference is that they [hot or cold days and floods] are increasing in frequency and intensity" she obviously had irrefutable data to support that view, which, I'm sure she's about to reveal to us all.

In the meantime she related a study (without linking to it...I wonder why!) which says that plants are less nutritious at higher CO2 levels. It's true that the study does say that, if you, under lab conditions, keep everything unchanged but increase CO2 levels, plants become less nutritious. But the same report also points out that in the real world things aren't that simple. For example, higher temperatures offset the effects of higher CO2. And plant modification completely offset the lost nutrition levels.

Oh now I see why she didn't link to the full report.

rache wrote: "Unlike so many committed denialists I don't make up facts to fit a political or moral agenda".

Of course she doesn't, she doesn't have to. All she has to do is have a naive belief in the squadrons of C grade academics, anxious to ingrate themselves with authority, making up the most outlandish claims of dreadful things the poor much maligned CO2 molecule can do.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote:

“Therefore, before wetting our pants, we need to see at what levels of CO2 we'd see 11c increases in global temperature due to that CO2 (9c + 2c)”

Well that is pretty juvenile semantics. You having a bad day?

SR,

Yeah I figured you misunderstood the science.

Dear mhaze,

Mate you don't even accept the science.

"At its alleged natural level of around 280ppm CO2 increases global temperature by c. 9c."

Alleged?

It is rather churlish for you to accuse anyone of misunderstanding it when you dismiss it with your opinion.

SR,

There is significant doubt about the CO2 levels c1850. Its somewhere between 200ppm and 300ppm with 280ppm being a consensus number. There is also significant discussion about whether CO2 levels were stable throughout the past millennia and therefore whether the levels as at 1850AD were representative of all natural levels or perhaps an anomaly.

I'm pretty sure I've taught you about this previously.

Good news for the Brits from their new PM who plans to allow fracking to tap into the UK’s massive gas reserves and has appointed Jacob Rees-Mogg as the minister responsible for energy and Climate Change. He has attacked ‘climate alarmism’, saying humanity should adapt to, rather than mitigate. He also warned that trying to achieve Net Zero was responsible for high energy prices.

Meanwhile, our "highly receptive to climate alarmism" bozos go in the opposite direction, with NSW ready to declare CO2 a pollutant!

In a recent article on energy stupidity in Australia, Alan Moran quoted Cicero, who said " Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome …".

It is the mutton-headed Australian voters who are to blame for the destructive idiots we have in Canberra.

"Squadrons of C grade academics..." - unlike the brilliant minds on display in forums like this.

Why are you wasting your time here and not setting those amateurs at NASA and other half-baked global organisations straight?

Maybe you could even pick up some of that sweet dirty money that's coming from mysterious unknown sources that's conned every government on the planet and invest it in a new coal mine.

Meanwhile I'm interested in seeing some of the peer-reviewed science behind those alternative conflicting notions.

A new report from a large group of scientists states that there
is no such thing as a climate emergency.
Have not found where it came from, anyone know ?

Seems highly likely as there are signs of temperature reduction.
Trouble is will take longer than I will live to be certain.
So I'll say it now.
I told you so !

ITS THE SUN STUPID !

Hi Bazz,

You are like that last passenger on the Titanic, as the ship was slipping below the waves he was heard to scream; "THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING! THE OCEAN IS RISING!" Only an hour before he had been heard to chuckle; "ICEBERG, WHAT ICEBERG!". Whatever you say

Hi rache

"Why are you wasting your time here and not setting those amateurs at NASA and other half-baked global organisations straight?"

What I did was to put my money where my mouth was while all the greenie chumps were saying that fossil fuels were dead. It seems that the greenie chumps are sore losers as well, as I now observe Anatoly Goatsballs of the UN calling fossil fuel profits obscene and demanding super taxes.

No evidence and no debate? Have a look at Google Scholar - type in CO2 and Climate Change - it will return 2,120,000 results - so there clearly is debate. If you select a date range of 1850-1910 you will find a total of 601 studies linking CO2 to climate change. In 1958 Frank Capra produced a film showed in the Bell's television hour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHYcNtcW7g arguing for the link between climate change and CO2. So why do people ignore the likes of you and Malcolm Roberts? Simply there comes a point in any debate that the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that there is no longer a reason to respond.
One of the reasons the Malcolm Roberts of this world keep banging on is because they do not understand the role uncertaintity plays in science. Scientific theories can be confirmed but not proven. The 1958 film shows the state of scientific thinking in 1958 -today we moved on beyond that - the process of refining will continue for ever but the evidence is consistent: greenhouse gasses such as methane and carbo dioxide do have an impact on climate. Of course it will not convince TTBN; a closed mind is not amenble to rational debate.

There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate; and "looking up" waffle online will not change the fact. When the politicians wrecking our lives, because they also believe everything they are told, like Baygon, are asked for proof, they cannot provide any: they just say, "We must adhere to our global obligations".

Consensus and Google have nothing to do with science.

There is no climate emergency. The emergency is economic, and caused by the idiocy of people thinking that they can change the climate, and the carpet baggers making billions out of the stupidity.

Communist China is also doing well out of the scam, selling us 80-90% of our unreliable wind and solar equipment using COAL to produce it.

Forgot to mention the most serious emergency nothing to do with climate - the energy/electricity emergency, caused by the hysterical, and very lucrative for some, carbon dioxide and zero-emissions bullshite and lies.

Here is someone for you to argue with.
Prof Lindzen of MIT. Look him up and think again.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/09/23/ipccs-greenhouse-narrative-is-becoming-implausible-eminent-climate-scientist-says/

Pardon, here is a more manageable link;

http://tinyurl.com/mszeehju

Whoops, sorry that long link is the wrong one but there is a link at it anyway. The Tinyurl goes direct to Lindezen's paper

Bazz,

The argument isn't about climate. The argument is about how capitalism is evil and how citizens of developed countries should feel a collective guilt for destroying the earth.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-elite-disconnects-on-climate-and-prices-could-lead-to-chaos

"The argument isn't about climate. The argument is about how capitalism is evil and how citizens of developed countries should feel a collective guilt for destroying the earth."

Bazz, you should tell that to the flood victims, fire victims, famine victims, storm victims etc and of course etc.

"That's not your house disappearing in flames, its the Commos undermining Capitalism!"......"Doesn't that explanation make you feel better?"

Repeat 3 times after me; "The Earth is flat, the Earth is flat, the Earth is flat".....The good news just keeps on coming.

Paul,

Don't doubt that ideology is a strong motivator. You would still remind people of the murder of the people of My Lai over fifty years ago, yet the current murder/torture of tens of thousands of citizens, the unprovoked destruction of cities, the abduction and relocation of hundreds of thousands, all sanctioned by the Russian hierarchy, would seem to be of little interest to you. Might that be because the crimes are being committed by your commie mates?

Fester, what gives you the idea I am not bitterly concerned about the war in Ukraine, and its horrible impact on innocent people, I'm certainly troubled by that war, like any war. What's your guff about; "Might that be because the crimes are being committed by your (Paul1405) commie mates" I don't have commie mates, as you put it.

I don't know where exactly on the political spectrum your philosophy lies, but having read a few of your posts, it appears to me well off centre. As a believer in the 'horseshoe political theory' I see you somewhere near the extreme, be it right or left, it don't much matter, like you, they are both totalitarian in nature.

Bazz

Thanks for the information. As for 'arguing', that's all the Left does, but their arguments are tripe, certainly of no use against professionals who actually know what they are talking about, and they haven't convinced anyone here in the decades they have been barking.

Paul,

I agree with you that the political extremes are both revolting with much in common, like cleptocratic authoritarian rulers, a controlled media, brainwashed population, sham democracy, and no problem with war crimes or the murder and torture of any opposition. You often describe others on the forum as Nazis, so obviously you have a strong dislike of Nazism, but as far as I can see the Russian Federation is currently the closest thing to a Nazi regime in the world, yet you never seem to offer much criticism of it. I don't think I have come across people promoting Nazism on this forum.

Fester,

I am often referred to as a Communist on this forum by others, so calling them Nazi's is of no consequence. You say; " I don't think I have come across people promoting Nazism on this forum", I say; no more than you or others have come across me or others promoting Communism.

That is good to know that you speak from your heart Paul. I certainly don't comment here with the intention of pushing any political agenda. On climate and CO2, my concern is that the solution being proposed might cause more harm than the problem itself. I think of my participation in this forum as no more than a chance to call out from the peanut gallery.

Hi Fester,

Thanks for the above.

Extremists do not come to power by accident, a particular set of extreme circumstances creates a political vacuum which allows for extremism to propagate and eventually take over, Germany 1930's, Russia 1917. Both Hitler and Stalin were products of a disastrous political environment existing in those countries at that time. That's not to say that moderate political societies such as ours, don't have problem, we do, but we try to address problems in a non violent democratic way regardless of who is in office. That is definitely a good thing.

Dear Bazz,

I did look him up.

This is from his Wikipedia page.

"The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data. These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others, and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS. The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication. Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Anything you would like to add?

SE
Who said clouds are causing climate change.
You have missed the point totally.

I did not respond to Aiden on this thread.
Here is my observation of the situation for others;

Aiden, the sun being near maximum is not the whole story.
It is the occurrence of sunspots and the expulsion of matter that
passes earth and so upsets the earth's magnetic field resulting in
cosmic rays causing more of less clouds.
This why the cycle has a long period of 600 to 1000 years.

My calculation of 100%/8% was a instantaneous reading.
The load at the time does not matter.
It was an amount x and and 100% of x /8% = 12.5 the number of the
windturbines operating at that time that would be needed to keep the
lights on.
Right now wind & solar is 15% of the load.
So 100%/15% would mean 6.66 times the number of W&S is needed to keep
the lights on.
Forget about batteries, everyone that talks about them ignores the
problem of recharging them. You cannot charge them from the grid,
it is busy keeping everything else going.
They have to be big enough to carry the demand all night till the next morning.
If you are lucky to have a sunny and windy day.
You might have to have additional wind and solar next morning to get
them recharged before the next night.
That means close to duplication of wind & solar as you have to
generate a full nights demand including the peak period.
All that depends on the next day being sunny and windy.
Oh yes, you do not know where the wind will be so you have to have
multiple recharging sites.
And you think 100% x 100% wind & solar is possible at reasonable cost!

Thank you Paul.

Full week for me. What I find sad is that the USSR made a great sacrifice defeating the AXIS alliance: The AXIS countries were made peaceful and prosperous: Russia should be at least their equal, yet it is a mess run by nuclear armed paranoid gangsters. "Them and us" can be so destructive.