CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[flan327]

Too Much Green Means It's Time to Mow the Lawn

The settlers got wiped out after they started dancing with wolves.

Is that a pathetic attempt at humor?

 

[Yarddog]

"Paid propagandist comes up with some bad propaganda that he was paid very well to write. Film at 11."

William Kininmonth is a meteorologist with zero experience in climate science. I am much, much more informed about the topic than he is. If you're going to appeal to an authority, then at least appeal to a real authority.

Now, if any of the deniers here would like to state the "science" in that "paper" in their own words and try to discuss it, I'm game. But none of them will, since none of them even looked at the paper. Being a propaganda parrot is all they're good for.

Deniers, please proceed with the deflections, dumb memes and personal attacks that you always use to hide your laughable igorance of the topic.

OHH yeh, and no one on your side of the issue ever received grant money have they? Do you really believe that if the Democrats and the WWL found any information to counter their theory that they would actually let it see light of day?
At this point they cannot, or would not admit they were wrong, which is why they do not allow debate.
Their stance is ANTI -SCIENCE as they label anyone with a dissenting opinion a "denier" , as if they were some sort of religion.

 

[mamooth]

OHH yeh, and no one on your side of the issue ever received grant money have they? Do you really believe that if the Democrats and the WWL found any information to counter their theory that they would actually let it see light of day?

Well, yeah.

Try to understand, we're not like you. We're honest.

You? You and your side are so corrupt, you can't even imagine that anyone else isn't as corrupt as you are.

 

[flan327]

OHH yeh, and no one on your side of the issue ever received grant money have they? Do you really believe that if the Democrats and the WWL found any information to counter their theory that they would actually let it see light of day?
At this point they cannot, or would not admit they were wrong, which is why they do not allow debate.
Their stance is ANTI -SCIENCE as they label anyone with a dissenting opinion a "denier" , as if they were some sort of religion.

Denier refers to pantyhose

 

[Yarddog]

Well, yeah.

Try to understand, we're not like you. We're honest.

You? You and your side are so corrupt, you can't even imagine that anyone else isn't as corrupt as you are.

So I’m corrupt because I believe the scientific community should not censor other opinions? Do you even understand how science is supposed to work?
I believe in debate by the experts and that people can be wrong even though there is a consensus. Therefore one should not run away from or ban other studies and or opinions. Other theories should be welcomed, because all though the history of scientific discovery you can see that the process has turned up many discoveries that were not even targeted.

Your side believes in censorship, blind faith in government and what they tell you is true . Even with Covid , the CDC has had to say “oops we were wrong” even though at the time they claimed they were the scientific authority.

So yes, I’ll try to understand how honest you are. Honestly a fool.

 

[ReinyDays]

In spite ballooning populations ... we see vastly lower human death rates from weather now ... research money well spent ....

More research is always better ...

 

[mamooth]

So I’m corrupt because I believe the scientific community should not censor other opinions?

Nah.

You're corrupt because you make up crazy stories about the scientific community censoring opinions. Like you just did.

 

[Winston]

Article excerpt >> 31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming. But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed… think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Comment: So 97% of scientists, working in the field of climate science, all believe human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming. That means there is virtually no one in the field of climatology who is convinced of global warming, but doubts that human activity is a significant factor or cause for real change? . That is a joke. . Because there are a ton of articles by experts who strongly dispute evidence for human activity impact. You won't find them watching PBS. . In other words, Judith Curry was right… “it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.”

Here is the statement 31,000 scientists refuting human induced impact did sign on to. ----- There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

So it’s not about Judith Curry's stance only, is it? . It is about funding, it is about agenda, and it is about towing the party line.

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation

Seriously? I mean did you not read the article. For instance,

To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not. Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.

Comical really. No verification, and few, if any, of those that signed actually work in the field. I mean let's take this back to Judity Curry. She admits there is global warming. She actually even admits that human activity causes global warming. But she believes it might not be as bad as we think, and maybe, well we can't afford mitigation efforts.

Horseshit. Her real expertise lies in global warming's effect on hurricanes. Ian hit Florida as a Cat 4, unleashed unprecedented amount of rain, and caused billions of dollars in damages, and he ain't done yet. What is the damage difference between Cat 4 and Cat 3? Where does that difference fit in the calculus concerning rather we can afford mitigation efforts?

But back to the OSS, I mean you really need to do more research. You made this claim in your post,

So 97% of scientists, working in the field of climate science,

Obviously, reading comprehension is not your forte, from the article,

According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

Wow, and sad, really sad. What you fail to realize is that the OSS is primarily funded with a grant of Lorne Trottier, a member of the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education. While initially created to combat creationism, they have opened up a new front, against climate change deniers. Ironically, the article you post to support your climate change denial position is actually one that stands firmly against that belief. Amateur, rank amateur.

 

[Winston]

I did ... Dr Kininmonth's credentials are impeccable ... what's your point again? ...

William Kininmonth (meteorologist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hyperlinks are your friend.

The book launch for Kininmonth's Climate Change: a Natural Hazard was organised by the Lavoisier Group,

The Lavoisier Group is an Australian organisation formed by politicians and dominated by retired industrial businesspeople and engineers.[1] It does not accept the science of global warming and works to influence attitudes of policy makers and politicians.

Lavoisier Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kininmonth is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a United States public policy organization which promotes climate change denial.

Science and Public Policy Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Look, you don't even have to click the hyperlink on Wiki. You can just hover it and get a synopsis. That took me all of two minutes.

 

[ReinyDays]

Look, you don't even have to click the hyperlink on Wiki. You can just hover it and get a synopsis. That took me all of two minutes.

And where does any of this refute that meteorologists are experts in climatology ... if you don't know why we have a psuedo-adibatic lapse rate, maybe you shouldn't be commenting in a thread about climate ... you can bet your sweet ass Dr Kininmonth knows ...

 

[Winston]

And where does any of this refute that meteorologists are experts in climatology ... if you don't know why we have a psuedo-adibatic lapse rate, maybe you shouldn't be commenting in a thread about climate ... you can bet your sweet ass Dr Kininmonth knows ...

The difference between you and I, I can actually calculate that equation. You can't.

 

[Winston]

And where does any of this refute that meteorologists are experts in climatology ... if you don't know why we have a psuedo-adibatic lapse rate, maybe you shouldn't be commenting in a thread about climate ... you can bet your sweet ass Dr Kininmonth knows ...

What you are saying is that journalists are experts in history. Do you really want to walk down that path.

 

[Yarddog]

Nah.

You're corrupt because you make up crazy stories about the scientific community censoring opinions. Like you just did.

yep sure. LIKE I JUST DID.... right mamooth, I JUST made up that link and the exerp... made it all up in my head right now!This type of thing is pretty well known , but you know, the Democrats are going to run with one story line and anyone who challenges them will be considered a heretic.... which is why they teach one theory to kids in school about global warming as fact so that their minds will be closed completely to alternative thought.

There is big money in contracts surrounding the whole man made global warming scenario, politicians will get their cuts and invest well.... they don't need money from the oil industry anymore who are their competition... your too blind to see the AOCs and Bidens of the world know even less about earth climate than they do how to run an economy.... but you would sell your grandkids future on a fantasy. Your going to leave them a fucking hell of a country to live in if you had your way... thank you so much.

Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression (NYC Climate Conference Report - Part One of Reports)

Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from...

www.epw.senate.gov

Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him.

 

[ReinyDays]

The difference between you and I, I can actually calculate that equation. You can't.

The difference between you and I, I can actually define my terms whenever I post an equation ... like scientists do ... you won't ...

 

[ReinyDays]

What you are saying is that journalists are experts in history. Do you really want to walk down that path.

Strawman argument ... why not say dogs are expert in cats ... I said "meteorologists are experts in climatology" ... fucking deal with it ...

But go ahead ... post something meteorological that a climatologist wouldn't know ...

 

[mamooth]

yep sure. LIKE I JUST DID.... right mamooth, I JUST made up that link and the exerp...

Of course, you didn't make up that link. It's a real link, a link to your right-wing kook pals making stuff up. We've seen it hundreds of times before. It doesn't get any better with age.

I mean, it's propaganda from 2008. That's how bad things are in denierstan -- they can't even come up with any propaganda from the last decade. Denialism is old fogey propaganda now. The cool conservative kidz are repeating propaganda about election fraud and CRT.

 

[jehanne1431]

Ironically, the article you post to support your climate change denial position is actually one that stands firmly against that belief. Amateur, rank amateur.

I do not care. My focus was on the survey they linked, 31,487 of those in the field of science who responded believe human-induced climate change is so "microscopically" small, it is de facto bunk. . And they signed the petition statement which virtually says the same thing.

You dismiss Judith Curry’s other words which carry far more weight than just global warming’s effects on hurricanes. . It was in her resignation letter where her dismay emphasized-- “it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.” She is not talking about a disagreement on the effects upon hurricanes. She is talking about the body of science, honest reporting of data, and how one must be in agreement with global warming and also in agreement that human activity is a significant cause. It’s pretty obvious that is what her words are referring to. That is what is at stake here.

And you mention the OSS was first originated primarily to combat creationism. Well another prime example of career suicide if one does not accept the party line. And for us creationists, we do not care if it were creationism or evolution. The crux of the matter is this: We will give you evolution occurred for the sake of argument; just don’t push the insane idea it could have all happened without an Intelligent Designer. That is not scientific integrity, that is agenda --- and that is what is being strongly taught or implied in high school text books and universities.

According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

It was not in the article, you had to link to the actual survey which you did. First of all, there is no reason to doubt all 31,487 scientists polled are legitimate, all one needs read further what the qualifications and verification is required. As to those this poll considered more closely associated with climate science are in the fields of Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment. The breakdown for that 12%, or 3,805 scientists, was as follows: - - Atmospheric Science (112), Climatology (39), Meteorology (343), Astronomy (59), Astrophysics (26), Earth Science (94), Geochemistry (63), Geology (1,684), Geophysics (341), Geoscience (36), Hydrology (22), Environmental Engineering (487), Environmental Science (253), Forestry (163), Oceanography (83)

Apparently, those who gave the survey, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, deemed all the scientists in this broader field have greater ability to interpret the data and articles on the subject of climate change. And why would they not? Or do we posters have more talent at interpreting climate data than they? . So of that group the survey reports that 97% --- “think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” . So that is why I say either these scientists (at least in the fields of atmosphere, earth and environment) better ascribe to human activity being a significant factor in altering the climate or they are no longer an esteemed colleague with all its implications. Career suicide at play here. Same with a creationist in the field of science --- career suicide.

 

[Mustang]

Of course, this is true.

And if people truly believed that CO2 was this evil molecule they would be attacking China and India over those two nations building hundreds of coal-fired power plants and increasing their usage of coal.

​

Forget ‘settled’ science or ‘consensus’ – that is a political construct designed to quash debate in the interests of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda. One of the great drivers of continual changes in the climate is heat exchange within both the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. Current understanding of the entire picture is limited, and it seems the opportunity has been taken to fill this gap by blaming carbon dioxide almost entirely for the recent gentle warming. A new paper on the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect highlights the vital role played by oceans and water vapour flows. CO2 is said to have “minimal effect” on the Earth’s temperature and climate.​

​

The paper has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and is written by meteorologist William Kininmonth, a former consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology and former head of the Australian Government’s National Climate Centre. Kininmonth argues that the oceans are the “vital inertial and thermal flywheels” of the climate system. If one wants to control climate, it will be necessary to control the oceans, he argues. “Efforts to decarbonise in the hope of affecting global temperatures will be in vain,” he adds.​

​

In Kininmonth’s view, the recent warming is “probably simply the result of fluctuations in the ever-changing ocean circulation”. CO2 “must be recognised” as a very minor contributor to the observed warming, and one that is unlikely to prolong the warming trend beyond the peak generated by the natural oceanic oscillations, he notes. He explains that the main driver of global temperature is the movement of energy in water, both in the oceans and the atmosphere after evaporation.​

​

...​

​

Of course Kininmonth’s work will be largely ignored in the mainstream. The BBC will bin it, the Guardian might be tempted to run its usual in-house slur that bungs are being paid by BP; anyone publicising its conclusions runs the risk of woke corporations like PayPal suddenly withdrawing financial transactional services, while footling ‘fact checks’ will ensure black marks and warnings across social media. GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review the Kininmonth paper, promising any response would be published as an appendix. “No reply was received,” noted the Foundation.​

CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist – The Daily Sceptic

Carbon dioxide has almost no effect on global temperature as almost all Earth's energy flows occur via the oceans and water vapour, William Kininmonth, a former head of Australia's National Climate Centre has said.

dailysceptic.org

The current debate on the motivation of climate deniers focuses on three likely possibilities.

The first is sheer stupidity and/or a woeful and a willful ignorance to face reality. Frankly, I can't deny the human capacity to deny the truth when it represents an unwanted reality, especially when probably almost everyone can remember a time in their own lives when they were unwilling to accept an unwanted truth in their personal or professional lives.

The second is a financial interest in denying climate change reality. After all, if someone personally benefits financially from the hundreds of trillions of dollars fossil fuel industry at every level of the economy, it's not difficult to understand that they have a conflict of interest, and their wallet may easily win out.

The last reason is the saddest and the most pathetic reason of all: it's politics. By that I mean this: if person X (a conservative, in this particular case) is against idea A (fighting climate change, in this particular case) simply because the perceived political opposition supports it, that means that ideas and/or truth matters considerably less to certain people than team loyalty does when team loyalty means that you must support climate denial if you want to stay in the good graces of "your" team. This is not only an institutional failure to face and address real problems, but it's also a political willingness to accept the failure to address those problems. In my opinion, that attitude is unconscionable for anyone who takes an oath of office.

I've read about 5 books on climate change starting over ten years ago. The scariest one was the most dispassionate one. It was "The Storms of my Grandchildren" by James Hansen who once was in charge of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies from1967 to 2013. He became interested in Global Warming after studying Venus.

My personal belief is that the human race will never rise to the challenge of this existential threat simply because there is too much money to make in ignoring it, and too much potential human hardship in addressing it.

Then, of course, there's the fact that human conflict on any idea is virtually assured. I mean, show me any bad idea, and it will have supporters. And show me any good idea, and it will face opposition. Simply stated, conflict is a part of our human nature, and that natural inclination may very well be our undoing. Do you know what I say to that? So be it! After all, if evolution has brought us to the point that we cannot AND we will not work together to save ourselves from a crisis of our own making, then we don't deserve to survive.

 

[ReinyDays]

Of course, you didn't make up that link. It's a real link, a link to your right-wing kook pals making stuff up. We've seen it hundreds of times before. It doesn't get any better with age.

I mean, it's propaganda from 2008. That's how bad things are in denierstan -- they can't even come up with any propaganda from the last decade. Denialism is old fogey propaganda now. The cool conservative kidz are repeating propaganda about election fraud and CRT.

Ouch ... the fluid mechanics part of this was all worked out by the middle of the 19th Century ... Max Planck and Albert Einstein were contempories (and friends) ... so the fundamentals of energy transfer and fluid motion were all worked out and in place by 2008 ... I'm sorry, if you violate the laws of nature, you're wrong ... global warming won't do these catastrophic things you folks say you believe ... like hypercanes are impossible ... yet still you advocate they will exist in the warmer world ...

Friction isn't propoganda ... why are you saying it is? ...

 

[Winston]

Strawman argument ... why not say dogs are expert in cats ... I said "meteorologists are experts in climatology" ... fucking deal with it ...

But go ahead ... post something meteorological that a climatologist wouldn't know ...

What the hell, are you twelve? Quoting,

I said "meteorologists are experts in climatology

And then,

post something meteorological that a climatologist wouldn't know

I bet you don't even see the problem there. LMAO.