Nothing to see here....

Lady Thunberg already declared us doomed as we all didn't stop using fossil fuels. So enjoy the end fellas! We had a good run!

 

By that well known expert “Guest blogger”

Not worth even opening it to read it

 

Awwwww! Did a young woman from another country upset you?

 

Your prejudice is your prison.

 

Not at all!

 

Why not look that up for yourself? The “natural” warming comes from solar and Milankovitch cycles mainly. We are not in a “warming phase” of the Milankovitch cycle so that leave solar input - let’s take a look
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

And at the moment we are at a “peak” which will last a couple more years - which means that the baseline that AGW has increased in global temps will be worse


Yeah! Not good news and fingers crossed that the next cou0le of years do not see us crossing a tipping point

 

Nope! Don’t go down rabbit holes because there is usually nothing there but dross and ****

 

Then why mention here at all?

 

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays, Vol. II: 1926-1929

 

And just because some TWONK on the internet has posted twaddle on an obscure website it is not automatically and magically turned into “facts”. If it is so earth shattering let them go through normal channels - publish it in a peer reviewed journal

 

You have no basis for an opinion.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Because her "expert environment scientist" has already declared us doomed. So as such...why the **** should I or anyone else care about the environment.

It's over. Go home!

 

When did she say that was what she was? Mind you she HAS done one thing that I can almost guarantee you have not - read the IPCC reports

 

The IPCC has been exposed as a mere propaganda outlet. The criticisms exposed by CLINTEL are devastating.

CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6
Posted on May 13, 2023 by curryja
by Judith Curry

Clintel has published a new report entitled “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: Analysis of the AR6.”

“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”

Continue reading →

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.

The CLINTEL Report is edited by Marcel Crok and Andy May, with contributions from Javier Vinos, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, Nicola Scafetta, and Fritz Vahrenholt.

The Chapter topics are:

1. No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
2. The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
3. Measuring global surface temperature
4. Controversial Snow Trends
5. Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
6. Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
7. Misty climate sensitivity
8. AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
9. Extreme scenarios
10. A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
11. Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
12. Extreme views on disasters
13. Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven . . . .

 

You want memes? Fine I can google as easily as you can


The only way you can convince me about your link is a) show that the author is an actual expert and not some half arsed TWONK b) show that it has been written to a high (publishable in a journal) academic standard and c) has some new information to depart and is not just a regurgitation of the same old same old debunked twaddle

 

As you wish.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Daniel J. Boorstin

 

It's over. We had a good run!

 

Why the abusive language?

 

Sooo - you want me to believe a Dutch astroturf site over the body trusted by every world government and metrological organisation and science foundation in the world?

Let’s look at their cred eh?

https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/

 

Sorry but did English suddenly become too hard - where is she claiming to be the “top scientist”

 

Not “abusing” you but describing Twit With Opinion No Knowledge. TWONK apt description of those people like the bloke you have linked to before as a “guest blogger” who turned out to be some tantric massage artist in America

 

I know you weren't abusing me, but there's no reason to use such abusive language about someone whose linked writing you yourself said you would not read.
As for CLINTEL, they have presented their views and their critique of the IPCC's work.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison

 

I think you're being a bit sensitive. You cannot completely detach your views from the contained in the blogs. Particularly when you don't have anything to say yourself. Often you just post a link. Well I assume that link represents what you want to say, no?

From the blog link you posted earlier:
"And according to the con merchants"
"peddling the same lies and nonsense"
"is sheer fraud."

This is the type of attitude and language you expect us to read. Yet you're suddenly sensitive about a general comment hitting back at these skeptics. Geez!

 

I introduced the link with a comment of my own.
I don't see the word "hoax."
I don't include the language you quoted in my posts. Links to sites active in public debates will indeed sometimes include strong language. So what?
I consistently seek a discussion of the substance of the issue. I usually don't get that.

 

En masse you have put a lot of effort into the threads that you create by posting links.

However, I don't think you understand how much work it is to read through the material that you post and then comment with specific criticisms. Certainly a lot more than posting that link (even with an attached small comment).