Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

So what caused the "natural cycles of temperatures"?

 

1.5 degrees C is a large increase. I posted this graph combo a few years ago, when the increase was less than 1 degree C. It should be noted than we are in the beginning stages of climate change, and CO2 is still on the rise.

 

Well, I already stated what causes natural cycles of temperatures of ice ages from Wikipedia and you didnt read it. Im not going to explain the daily cycle of temperatures for you not to read as well. What would be the point?

 

???????YOUR chart shows it wasnt less than 1 degree 19 years ago, let alone a few years ago. And 1.5 degrees and more in 150 years is to be expected when coming out of an ice age.

 

Satellites are more accurate at measuring the temperature of the earth. Thermometers only measure the temperature of the air they come into contact with.

 

The big money is there for the alarmists.
Profits of Doom
by Ben Pile
And if one can peddle misinformation on behalf of oil barons, one can peddle great big fat lies for green billionaires too.

A mainstay of the green lobby in the face of its growing number of critics is that climate sceptics are funded by oil, gas and coal interests. By claiming that commentators such as yours truly are merely the PR front for Big Oil, green campaigners feel that they have excused themselves from the need to make rational arguments. Profit, not reason, they claim, drives scrutiny of the climate agenda. But not only do their accusations lack any evidence, they ignore the much greater flow of money between private interests and green lobbyists. So, what’s in it for them?

If only we were funded by Big Oil, perhaps I would be as wealthy as Britain’s top green officials, such as the outgoing Chief Executive of the U.K. Climate Change Committee (CCC), Chris Stark. The civil servant’s total salary and benefits for the financial year 2020-21 amounted to a whopping £400,000. That’s more than the annual total income for the organisation at number one in the green demonology – the Global Warming Policy Foundation – for four out of the last five years. The CCC’s former Chairman, John Gummer, restyled as Lord Deben, was revealed to have made £600,000 from his business dealings with green companies, which he failed to declare in the register of interests – profits that helped him employ a butler, no less, at his Suffolk mansion. Gummer’s predecessor at the CCC, Lord Adair Turner, saves the planet by heating the swimming pool at his country retreat using solar power.

But as it happens, our alleged fossil fuel overlords are really quite mean. According to green activist sleuths InfluenceMap, the biggest oil companies in the world spend approximately $200 million per year on climate-related propaganda. That’s a lot of money, right? However, despite this being framed as ‘denial’ by InfluenceMap’s coreligionists, the group’s investigations expose no such thing. Rather than finding receipts, InfluenceMap’s analysis merely estimates the costs of its enemies’ advertising and lobbying campaigns – mere guesswork, in other words, forms the backbone of its research. And rather than finding ‘denial’, that analysis includes lobbying in support of Net Zero policies and global agreements. Using actual receipts, not merely estimates, I counted the total grants made by the organisations that fund InfluenceMap to green campaigning organisations. It amounted to over $1.2 billion per year – six times more than InfluenceMap guesses their enemies allegedly spend. And that is not even a remotely exhaustive survey of the green blob. . . .

 

I wonder if the alarmists count scientists with contrary conclusions as deniers?
“New Ice Age Has Begun,” Astrophysicist Warns…Due To Reduced Solar Activity
By P Gosselin on 23. April 2024

Due to changing solar activity, the Earth is heading into a new Little Ice Age, according to Northumbria University astrophysicist Prof. Valentina Scharkova, Newcastle, Great Britain.

“There’s nothing we can do about it.”

This was reported by German online Report 24 here last week.



NASA image of a blizzard. Image soutce: NASA, public domain.

“This is due to the changing solar activity, she explains. Only uneducated people could call for a reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” according to Report 24 here.

As the media is full of reports about record temperatures, the elevated readings likely have a lot to do with thermometers being placed increasingly in urban heat absorbing areas. The recent warming has very little to do with carbon dioxide.

“CO2 is not our enemy,” says Professor Scharkova, who was born and educated in Ukraine.

“We in fact have a CO2 deficiency in the world, and it is three to four times lower than the plants would like,” says Scharkova. On geological terms, over the last 140 million years, CO2 in the atmosphere is at really near record low levels.

“140 million years ago, it was estimated at 2,500 ppm, or about six times higher. And this also meant a greener and more biodiverse world, according to the professor,” writes Report 24.

“We don’t need to remove CO2 because we would actually need more of it. It’s food for plants to produce oxygen for us. The people who say CO2 is bad are obviously not very good at universities or wherever they studied. Only uneducated people can come up with such absurd talk that CO2 should be removed from the air,” Professor Sharkova tells Report 24.

Scharkova estimates the Earth’s average temperature will fall by one degree Celsius over the next 30 years and not rise. She says that the sun’s lower solar activity will lead to cooling.

Report 24 quotes Scharkova: “I only feel sympathy for the people who have invested in solar systems,” says the professor. “During the Maunder Minimum, there were years when there was no summer at all – there was a brief spring, then fall, then winter again. And if there’s snow on your solar panels or the sky is cloudy, they’re useless.”

“Whatever we do on Earth, we can’t change the orbit of the sun and the big planets like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus,” she explains. “There’s nothing we can do about it.”

Read entire article (German) at Report 24.

 

BWAHAHAHHAAAA!!

Are you really that ignorant of the methods of paleoclimate science -- indeed, apparently, all science -- or only pretending to be?

BWAHAHAHHAAAA!!

That's like asking what relevance last week's, last month's, and last year's morning rush hour traffic has to this morning's when you weren't commuting all those previous mornings, but you were this morning: the fact that you weren't there for all those previous morning rush hours is exactly what is not relevant.

 

Look closer: the facts I provide that prove you wrong are arrows in the bullseye, not straws.

 

I can see that in urban areas where thermometers are concentrated, but not over the whole earth. The built-up area is far too small.

 

The Law of Causation -- like causes have like effects, and the corollary that like effects are likely to have like causes -- is the bedrock principle of empirical science because it describes objective physical reality. You are merely unacquainted with it because you do not know any empirical science -- and have only a tenuous grasp on objective physical reality.

 

Do you really not know anything whatever about climate science?

I guess that is not unexpected; but normally, people who don't know anything about a subject are little more humble when requesting enlightenment from those who do.

 

Given that climate has been changing for >4Gy, it's odd to claim we are in the beginning stages of it. Climate will certainly continue to change, and CO2 will certainly continue to have minimal effect on it.

Are you really unaware that your temperature graph ends in the first year of a six-year cooling trend??

 

A few degrees of temperature increase would be nothing compared to Glaciers scrapping Canadian and Northern European civilization off the surface of the earth.

 

They used proxies, not a concept you are, or ever will be, familiar with, as you apparently know no science and have had no science education above the high school level, and did not do well in that.

The same relevance all the previous springtimes have to this springtime. Do you think that springtime was somehow completely different before you arrived on the scene?

 

No ice caps have melted. You made that up. And there is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that glaciers have melted more in your lifetime than they did in the Medieval Warm Period or the Holocene Optimum. Indeed melting glaciers have revealed the remains of human settlements from those periods, proving that it was warmer then.

Increased CO2 caused the greening of the Antarctic Peninsula, as it has most places on earth.

 

So how do you personally contrive to post such absurd and disingenuous tripe in response to honest attempts to inform you of the facts, and not experience, apparently, even the slightest scintilla of shame?

And what relevance does all your absurd and disingenuous strawman nonscience have to the established empirical methods of paleoclimate science?

Why do you incorrectly and absurdly assume that those who are acquainted with climate science (i.e., not you) are unable to measure, examine, or analyze climate processes that occurred before you were born?

 

Obviously the Arctic is warming.....

but I do not believe that a Carbon Tax will be effective in preventing ocean levels from eventually rising.

Large scale investment in sea water desalination technology is vastly more logical. Trees and plants hold the key to stabilization of the climate.

 

Just more guff and bluff from a non scientist.

 

Just more irrelevant bluff and guff as usual from a non scientist.

 

And more irrelevant guff and bluff from a non scientist.

 

Speaking of non-scientists -- and more specifically, non-scientists who, unlike some of us, have no knowledge of climatology or atmospheric physics, and no education in science beyond high school, and did not do well in that -- how do you personally contrive to post such absurd and disingenuous tripe in response to honest attempts to inform you of the facts, and not experience, apparently, even the slightest scintilla of shame?

And what relevance does all your absurd and disingenuous strawman nonscience have to the established empirical methods of paleoclimatology?

Why do you incorrectly and absurdly assume that those who are acquainted with climate science (i.e., not you) are unable to measure, examine, or analyze climate processes that occurred before you were born? Is it because you do not know any science whatever, and decline to learn any from those of us who do?

 

I can agree with that because of the relatively small portion of area made up of urban areas. But could also imagine white surfaces reducing the "reported" global temperatures because of the concentration of thermometers used placed in urban areas.

 

So how did the proxies measure temperatures 450,000 years ago, and did they use thermometers or their fingers

 

Why do you assume the arctic has never warmed in the past, and could never possibly be warmed by anything but increased CO2?