Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[Sunsettommy]

Future projections

NO you are now LYING as they are based on official data from 1900 onwards showing that warmest/alarmists claims are false.

My statement I started the thread with remains accurate as you have failed and made a complete fool of yourself in the process,

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

 

[80zephyr]

I get real tired of posting this graph. The history of the earth is ice ages and warming periods. And for the last 500,000 years, when the earth comes out of an ice age, the temperature continues to rise until we collapse into another ice age.

Nothing we can do will change that.

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 1150653

Yup most scientists who are invested in the climate scam are on government payroll through universities, Grant process, and science organizations who depend on government money.

 

[80zephyr]

Yup most scientists who are invested in the climate scam are on government payroll through universities, Grant process, and science organizations who depend on government money.

What do you think would happen to their funding if they disagree with their paymasters?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Post one article content continues to be ignored because this ideologist doesn't know what a Rebuttal is.

Post one article remains unchallenged.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

I get real tired of posting this graph. The history of the earth is ice ages and warming periods. And for the last 500,000 years, when the earth comes out of an ice age, the temperature continues to rise until we collapse into another ice age.

Nothing we can do will change that.

View attachment 1150655

The current warming is mainly caused by humans, says 87% of climatologists

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

How to identify and understand different types of denial: scientific, economic, humanitarian, political and crisis.

theconversation.com

 

[80zephyr]

The current warming is mainly caused by humans, says 87% of climatologists

Then explain my graph. Better yet, get one of them to explain it. Sure looks like we are following a pattern that is thousands of years old.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models

Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.

www.spiegel.de

 

[Foxfyre]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

What made me and keeps me not a denier of AGW but a pretty strong skeptic of the so-called 'mainstream scientific opinion' about that is:

NO. ONE: Despite trillions of dollars poured into green energy projects around the world, restrictions on our vehicles and appliances, prohibition of various activities that were once commonplace, attempted eradication of cows/beef products etc., etc., etc., the CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have not been changed/improved by a single particle. This calls into questions whether government controls and restrictions on our choices/opportunities/liberties can be justified.

NO. TWO: The climate scientists and their advocates are not living their own lives as if AGW/climate change is a problem. They still private jet all over the world to get together instead of videoconferencing which would seem to be the 'ethical' thing to do. They buy water front homes and enjoy other lifestyles that call into question their personal convictions that we have a serious climate problem. And they allow no opinion in their scientific groups that would call AGW into question.

NO. THREE: The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is not written by scientists but is written by political operatives who never recommend any course of action other than more government control over the people.

NO. FOUR: Going back to one of my old threads, even if we concede adding more than seven billion people to Planet Earth might actually affect global warming to some extent, there are more reasonable and practical ways to address that than impoverishing most of the human race. Link to that thread is here:

Thread 'A Balanced View of Climate Change'

Mar 14, 2024

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here...

• Foxfyre
• Replies: 416
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models

Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.

www.spiegel.de

New survey of climate scientists by Bray and von Storch confirms broad consensus on human causation
by Bart Verheggen
Bray and von Storch just published the results of their latest survey of climate scientists. It contains lots of interesting and very detailed information, though some questions are a little biased in my opinion. Still, they find a strong consensus on human causation of climate change: 87.4% of respondents are to some extent convinced that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes (question v007). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). In line with Bray (2010) a response between 5 and 7 is considered agreement with anthropogenic causation. In their 2008 survey the level of agreement based on the same question was 83.5% and in 2013 it was 80.9%.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

What made me and keeps me not a denier of AGW but a pretty strong skeptic of the so-called 'mainstream scientific opinion' about that is:

NO. ONE: Despite trillions of dollars poured into green energy project around the world, restrictions on our vehicles and appliances, prohibition of various activities that were once commonplace, attempted eradication of cows/beef products etc., etc., etc., the CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have not been changed/improved by a single particle. This calls into questions whether government controls and restrictions on our choices/opportunities/liberties can be justified.

NO. TWO: The climate scientists and their advocates are not living their own lives as if AGW/climate change is a problem. They still private jet all over the world to get together instead of videoconferencing which would seem to be the 'ethical' thing to do. They buy water front homes and enjoy other lifestyles that call into question their personal convictions that we have a serious climate problem.

NO. THREE: The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is not written by scientists but is written by political operatives who never recommend any course of action other than more government control over the people.

NO. FOUR: Going back to one of my old threads, even if we concede adding more than seven billion people to Planet Earth might actually affect global warming to some extent, there are more reasonable and practical ways to address that than impoverishing most of the human race. Link to that thread is here:

Thread 'A Balanced View of Climate Change'

Mar 14, 2024

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here...

• Foxfyre
• Replies: 416
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

What made me and keeps me not a denier of AGW but a pretty strong skeptic of the so-called 'mainstream scientific opinion' about that is

 

[Donald H]

I think that my great grandchildren should have affordable, reliable energy.

How much should we invest in new nuclear plants?

I'm not an expert.

My layperson opinion is that more will be invested in nuclear.

But that opinion isn't based on solid science on the negatives of nuclear energy.

I can only suggest that it seems to me that nuclear is a possible solution to the very real issue of climate change and/or AGW.

Does any of that help you to understand?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Then explain my graph. Better yet, get one of them to explain it. Sure looks like we are following a pattern that is thousands of years old.

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

I'm not an expert.

My layperson opinion is that more will be invested in nuclear.

But that opinion isn't based on solid science on the negatives of nuclear energy.

I can only suggest that it seems to me that nuclear is a possible solution to the very real issue of climate change and/or AGW.

Does any of that help you to understand?

Biden signed a big funding increase for nuclear energy

 

[Seymour Flops]

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

Precisely.

"Science" is not a collection of people offering opinions. Science is a process of investigation, testing, analysis of results and publication of findings.

To support or counter such findings, one may offer an alternative analysis of the original investigation, conduct a new investigation, complete with testing and analysis, and publish those results, or one may attempt to replicate the original investigation and report the results. Any of those is scientifically sound.

Attempting to counter the original findings by saying that they do sufficiently comply with the "mainstream view" is not a valid way to conduct science.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

I'm not an expert.

My layperson opinion is that more will be invested in nuclear.

But that opinion isn't based on solid science on the negatives of nuclear energy.

I can only suggest that it seems to me that nuclear is a possible solution to the very real issue of climate change and/or AGW.

Does any of that help you to understand?

HB11 - Laser Fusion Energy

HB11 Energy is developing commercially viable fusion energy technology that can be deployed worldwide.

hb11.energy

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Precisely.

"Science" is not a collection of people offering opinions. Science is a process of investigation, testing, analysis of results and publication of findings.

To support or counter such findings, one may offer an alternative analysis of the original investigation, conduct a new investigation, complete with testing and analysis, and publish those results, or one may attempt to replicate the original investigation and report the results. Any of those is scientifically sound.

Attempting to counter the original findings by saying that they do sufficiently comply with the "mainstream view" is not a valid way to conduct science.

Peer review

 

[80zephyr]

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

What are you trying to show with this link?