Retraction of Paper Saying There is No Climate Emergency Illustrates How Dependent Climate Activists Are on Scaremongering
The recent cancellation of Alimonti et al shows clearly that catastrophising bad weather events and attributing them to a collapse of the climate is now the main weapon deployed to scare populations into embracing the Net Zero agenda. Of course, reference is still made to global warming, but most recent rises seem to owe more to frequent upward retrospective adjustments of temperature, rather than any significant natural boost. Perhaps we should not be surprised by this turn of events. In a short essay titled ‘The New Apocalypticism’, the science writer Roger Pielke Jr. noted: “For the secular millenarian, extreme events – floods, hurricanes, fires – are more than mere portents, they are evidence of our sins of the past and provide opportunities for redemption in the future, if only we listen, accept and change.”
The climate is collapsing all around us, shout the headlines – they require we ignore the data, the historical record, even common sense. When all is said and done, the Earth is not actually boiling! Well Professor Gianluca Alimonti and three other Italian scientists didn’t ignore the past data, much of it in fact from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and they found little change in extreme weather events. They published a paper concluding that there was certainly not enough to justify the declaration of a ‘climate emergency’. A year later, the publisher Springer Nature bowed to the demands of a group of activist scientists and journalists led by the Guardian and Agence France-Presse and retracted the non-conforming paper. An addendum was proposed and sent to four reviewers for comment. Three reviewers argued for publication. The fourth stated that typical readers were not climate experts and “editors should seriously consider the implications of the possible publication of this addendum”.
We own climate science, boasted UN communications flak Melissa Fleming at a recent World Economic Forum disinformation seminar, and we partner with Google to keep our version at the top of the search list. What a great service these climate experts provide in telling us what to think and see as we unsophisticated rubes struggle towards the path of true enlightenment!
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres recently said we are on a pathway to climate hell, with our foot on the accelerator. Steve Koonin, President Obama’s Energy Under-Secretary for Science and the author of Unsettled, recently charged that climate scientists were negligent for not speaking out and saying Guterres’s comments were “preposterous”. Koonin is not very impressed with mainstream media click bait weather stories. “I can take current media and almost any climate story I can write a very effective counter,” he recently told Peter Robinson, host of Uncommon Knowledge. “It is like shooting fish in a barrel.”
The mainstream media has an agenda to set, namely the de-carbonisation of society. Noting the influence of green billionaire-funded operations like Covering Climate Now, Koonin said the mission was to promote the narrative. The MSM will not allow anything to be broadcast or written that is counter to the narrative. And the narrative is: “We have already broken the climate and we are heading for hell.”
You just need to look out of the window, claim the politicised alarmists. These days any half-decent storm, or scorchio summer’s day, gets them going. This year some unusual weather patterns are put forward as Exhibit A for Thermogeddon. Such deception depends upon the rubes failing to spot the difference between weather and long-term climate trends. Nobody should ask why carbon dioxide has been up to 20 times higher in the atmosphere in the past and life on Earth thrived. CO2 might gently warm the atmosphere up to a certain point, but temperatures naturally go up and down, ocean currents get warmer and cooler, change direction and melt and freeze polar ice. The idea that single events can be linked to any long term effects of CO2 is not just unproven, it’s unprovable. Computer models that ‘attribute’ single events to 30-year trends are laughable pseudoscience.
That wise sage Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, who’s spent decades trying to figure out how the atmosphere works, summed up all this fraud and corruption:
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.
For the distinguished climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, the Alimonti affair is “why I no longer publish in peer-reviewed papers”. She described the behaviour of the journal editors as “reprehensible” in retracting a widely read climate paper just because it contained “politically inconvenient conclusions”. She is right of course – the Alimonti affair is another shocking scientific scandal that casts further doubt on the climate science peer-review process. But then, Dr. Curry is merely a scientist in all this – she doesn’t own the science.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
To be clear, this paper was retracted as it did not reference the IPCC’s latest version of their twaddle.
That said twaddle had not actually been published when the paper was is it seems, deemed irrelevant.
“An addendum was proposed and sent to four reviewers for comment. Three reviewers argued for publication. The fourth stated that typical readers were not climate experts and “editors should seriously consider the implications of the possible publication of this addendum”.”
This should tell anyone paying attention all they need to know about the AGW scam. I’ve seen similar phrases used when referencing covid data that was inconvenient to the narrative.
for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned
Yes, and none of the four stated that the addendum was “wrong” or “incorrect” or “inaccurate” – only that there might be negative implications for publishing it. Those negative implications being perchance that it would swing people’s opinions in a different direction.
Exactly the point – truth is no longer a priority. The priority is to push a political agenda, same as with covid.
I have to admit that if Covid hadn’t come along, I’d probably still be in the camp of those who just accepted the official and MSM narratives, without giving much thought to them.
And the latter was and is the problem, just as with Covid (9/11, Ukraine, moon landing, JFK, aliens etc.).
What makes the acceptance of the various official climate change narratives so astonishing is how little and only very basic digging is needed (in contrast to the other narratives) to evaluate them as totally absurd and hence primarily corrupt.
Hence, the ruthless focus of the climate change priests and gatekeepers to prevent the publication of any dissent or even of the basics.
While the ULEZ and heat pump Vs gas boiler resistance is encouraging, I fear that most people are now so brainwashed and intent upon staying dumb, and that this has now already gone too far institutionally and in practice to be reversed before the inevitable catastrophe and implosion ends it, after a long period of, totally unnecessary, hardship for most.
The idea that there is “an emergency” with the rate of change of the weather values is a con. In the real world, “climate change” is normal – it’s a dynamic system. What would be weird is that the climate was stable for hundreds of years – but then, we wouldn’t know, due to not being alive.
There is no shortage of deliberate false links between one thing and another as well. Conventional use of the term “climate” is related to long term records, typically over several years. There are always short term spikes, like winter 1962/3, or summer 1976 and so on. Anyway, you’ve spotted a link that makes sense: money talks, especially in the image attached!
In reporting the curious case of the worm removed from the Australian woman’s brain, the BBC managed to find an associate professor of medicine (Dr Senanayake) and twist his words to link, journalistically rather than medically, the worm to covid, bats, zoonotic transmission (because it couldn’t possibly a lab leak?), the need for “good infectious diseases surveillance” (test, jabs?) and human-caused habitat change. I’m surprised Phil Mercer didn’t get “climate change” squeezed in.
Conversely, the risk to vegans and koala bears of foraging for leaves, accidentally ingesting carpet python faeces and hence becoming infected with the worm, though mentioned, was not developed.
We are only allowed to be scared by the right sort of hobgoblin.
They must have misread the script. They almost always squeeze in “climate change” into every farming related programme these days on the beeb.
Indeed. IIRC around twenty years ago, around the time of Climategate, there was a particularly egregious example of this when the BBC radio programme Farming Today[?] made a programme about the problems caused to farmers by coastal erosion around Norfolk. (Coastal erosion is mainstay of BBC “Climate Change” farming programmes). The male farmer being interviewed could not be induced into uttering the trigger phrase “Global Warming” (as it was then known) and kept instead to his observation that the waves pounding the cliffs were undercutting them and causing his fields on top to fall into the sea bit by bit. As broadcast, his replies were interpolated at exactly the “right” moments by the female interviewer’s words “caused by global warming. I suspected the interviewer’s words were spliced in afterwards at the editing stage; I didn’t think it likely that she could react so quickly and accurately to the interviewee’s use of a particular word or phrase. I think a similar thing happens in the present each year when a bit more of Hemsby or Happisburgh falls down on to the beach, sometimes with half a house or a church attached. It’s never the relentless pounding of the North Sea and… Read more »
Ironic that the Propaganda climate machine is just down the road in East Anglia.
I see now that Pigs are to fart a semi tone higher than pre industrial times because of global warming. By 2100 pigs may fart a whole octave higher. We must act now before all pigs become Soprano’s.
Higher frequency vibrations carry more energy. Hence, there’s a positive feedback cycle here: Climate change causes pigs to fart at ever higher frequencies which causes ever more climate change.
But this doesn’t explain how cows are farting lower ——-Or maybe there is bit more to the climate emergency than meets the eye. Or in the case of bureaucrats at the UN “Doesn’t meet their eye”. ——-Because they decided long ago that nothing will be allowed to meet their eye that isn’t climate dogma. ——-PS I hope some people are aware reading all of this that Pigs and Cows are perfectly fine and their farts are pretty much as they have always been
Can I just point out that all this talk of cows and pigs farting is terribly speciesist – loads of other species do too (horses are particularly gassy & get colic if they don’t). But not sloths, apparently, too constipated.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/3/17188186/does-it-fart-book-animal-farts-dinosaur-farts
May I suggest, going forward, that ER, JSO and their ilk therefore adopt the sloth as their emblem? Would reflect their constipated mindset admirably…
Your reply is way too subtle for even the smartest of climate nut jobs and their faith and emotion based “science”. ——But ofcourse in the real world (not the phony pretend to save the planet world) pigs and cows, and no doubt sloths fart as they have always done. It is only in silly models full of assumptions that they will soon be farting so only dogs can hear them.
You’re really going to your own hell in your own handcart. The sequence of events leading to the first world war was 1) Austrian crown prince gets murdered by Serbian extremists. 2) Austria-Hungary sends an ultimatum to Serbia. 3) Serbia goes to Russia for aid against Austria and is promised aid. 4) Austria-Hungary starts mobilisation against Serbia after having been promised German aid should the Russians intervene. 5) Russia mobilizes against Germany and Austria. 6) In response to a German enquiry if it was willing to remain neutral, France mobilizes. 7) Germany mobilizes. In 1919, this was recast as unprovoked German attack on all of its peaceful neighbours at once despite both the Russians and the French actually invaded German territory before coming into contact with German troops (and despite numbers overwhelmingly in favour of the other side) and the USA, anxious to recover all the money it had lent to England, France (and Russia) from the entity that was most likely to become solvent again first – Germany, let this pass. This set the precedent that history is always what the peope who are currently in control want it to become. The UN wants a climate emergency to extract… Read more »
It only reached 17c yesterday in Turin yesterday. Not boiling, not even simmering.
There is so much to dispute in this polemic but there is only so much you can do in a comment. So I am concentrating on one small sentence.
Nobody should ask why carbon dioxide has been up to 20 times higher in the atmosphere in the past and life on Earth thrived.
During the last 800,000 years or so until very recently CO2 levels have varied between 170 and 300 ppm (we know with some confidence because samples of the atmosphere have been trapped in ice cores). In the last 200 years they have recently gone up to over 400 ppm.
There is much less certainty about CO2 levels if we go back million of years as you have to use proxies for CO2 levels but there were times when they were much higher than present. However, if you go back such a long time then the world was a very different place – the continents were in different places, the sun was dimmer, and life was different. So it would be rash to draw any conclusions about how well life will do with say 1,000 ppm in the current environment
During the last 800,000 years or so until very recently CO2 levels have varied between 170 and 300 ppm (we know with some confidence because samples of the atmosphere have been trapped in ice cores).
We know the composition of the atmosphere throughout the last 800,000 years with some confidence because microscopically tiny fractions of these 4,200,000,000 km³ of gases have been trapped in some ice cores somebody found somewhere, each being an atmospheric sample captured during a very small time period.
WTF?
But as they say Faith moveth mountains. In the minds of the faithful at least.
I think you will find that all the leading sceptical climate scientists (Lindzen, Curry etc) accept the evidence of ice cores for CO2 concentrations. But of course maybe all these scientists are wrong and you are right.
How do you account for this statement?
“An addendum was proposed and sent to four reviewers for comment. Three reviewers argued for publication. The fourth stated that typical readers were not climate experts and “editors should seriously consider the implications of the possible publication of this addendum”.”
“So it would be rash to draw any conclusions about how well life will do with say 1,000 ppm in the current environment”
Farmers already use enhanced CO2 to grow crops/flowers in Greenhouses. The challenges with Greenhouses is that CO2 drops during to day down to 200ppm so CO2 technology is used to maintain CO2 levels as well as enhance to over 1,000ppm because of the increased yield. In addition there has been a 15% greening of the planet especially in areas bordering arid climates. This is due to increased CO2 which allows plants to have less pores that absorb CO2 or lose moisture, thus allowing plants to grow in more Arid places. Corals have been around for 500 million years and at the beginning CO2 was over 4,000ppm and temperatures 10C above now.
And…life came out of the oceans when CO2 was 20% to 30% of the atmosphere with Oxygen beginning to appear.
Increased CO2 can increase plant growth other things being equal. But that doesn’t mean life will be just fine with a sudden increase in temperature, sea levels and ocean acidity.
Corals and other classes of organism may have been around for 500 millions of years but there have been five mass extinctions in that time so life has not had it easy. Not going extinct doesn’t mean thriving!
When life came out of the ocean both life and the planet were very different. Both have changed a lot since.
So tell us what the optimum CO2 level is.
Here is another graphic and this time showing the atmosphere for all of Earth’s history. This graphic has an x-axis that changes scale, which I find wrong and annoying, but apart from that it’s possible to see where Stromatolites started consuming CO2 and exhaling Oxygen, at around 3.5b years ago. Also, Note that CO2 drops down to a trace gas so that it doesn’t show up at this scale. Multicellular Life appears around 2b years and there is the Cambrian Explosion when CO2 was between 5,000 and 7,000 ppm
Nice chart but what has it got to do with our discussion?
It provides scale so if you see that the massively varying CO2 measured in ppm in the first graphic it would be a flat line in the second graphic and undisguisable from the bottom border. It is Oxygen that is key to all life on land and that Oxygen comes from plants that consume both Oxygen and CO2. Scale and context is missing from all discussions related to AGW, at least from those that are in the cult.
But this all took place billions of years ago when the planet was totally different in so many respects. What relevance has it to us?
“But this all took place billions of years ago when the planet was totally different in so many respects. What relevance has it to us?”
The Stromatolites that kicked off the Oxygenation of our atmosphere over 3.5b years ago are still here. There are many other species that have been around for millions of years meaning they have lived through many changes and variations. Perhaps life just moves with the changes and doesn’t just sit there and watch their own demise.
Where is this “sudden increase in temperature”? Since 1860 according to officialdom, global temperature (whatever that is supposed to mean) has risen by 0.8C but half of that occurred before we were emitting much in the way of CO2 from Industrial activities. So in actual fact the temperature in the last 160 years or so has really been quite stable, and as CO2 continues to increase, temperature rise is “statistically insignificant” according to former CRU person Jones. ————-Even if speculative climate models are likely to be correct (which they have not been so far) temperature rises will be slow and over a very long time, not “sudden”. By that time it is unlikely we will still be using much in the way of fossil fuels, as maybe new technologies will be developed which is really where the money should e going towards, rather than to inefficient part time wind turbines splattered everywhere
OK, MTF! We geddit! You want to be at liberty to pick and choose from the generally accepted geological reconstruction of past CO2 levels. Anything to be able to give some slight credibility to the failed shroud-waving doom narrative! So here’s the thing. We could be impacted by an Asteroid next year. Or, as you suggest, maybe we’ll be enjoying a sixth mass extinction event by then. Some of the very well funded GangGreen loonies pretend it has already started! In the mean time, I must remind you that CO2 is a trace gas that is absolutely essential to all life on Earth. The amount in the atmosphere has trivially increased since the end of the Little Ice Age. The Global Average temperature has also increased over a similar period, although it is difficult to quantify by how much, because the data has been tampered with on an industrial scale over the last 30 years. Yeah. Things have changed a lot. And then there is the scrupulously ignored but obvious Urban Heat Island effect… There is an abundance of evidence that both trivial increase in CO2 and the trivial increase in temperature (and whichever may be driven by the other)… Read more »
OK, MTF! We geddit! You want to be at liberty to pick and choose from the generally accepted geological reconstruction of past CO2 levels. I don’t dispute the reconstruction of past CO2 levels – what made you think I did? – I just dispute the relevance to today of CO2 levels hundreds of millions of years ago when the planet and life were utterly different. In the mean time, I must remind you that CO2 is a trace gas that is absolutely essential to all life on Earth. I don’t dispute either fact. The trace gas argument is a fallacy. What matters is how much CO2 there is – not how much there is in proportion to other gases. There is enough CO2 to sustain life on earth so why not enough to affect global temperatures? The amount in the atmosphere has trivially increased since the end of the Little Ice Age. For 800,000 years it never went above 300 ppm, since 1900 it has increased to 420 ppm – that’s not trivial. The myriad “experts say that Armageddon may be coming” scare stories beloved by the BBC, MET, IPCC etc. (all very well funded by Billionaire foundations, Gates, Soros and… Read more »
OK, MTF. “For 800,000 years it never went above 300 ppm, since 1900 it has increased to 420 ppm – that’s not trivial.” You have zero evidence that CO2 “never went above 300 ppm for 800,000years. Nobody knows. How could anyone know? You brashly ignore numerous learned papers, very widely then accepted, e.g. G.Slocum (1995) “Has the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the C.20th?” – Monthly Weather Review October p225-31 (average level of 335 ppm with little variation over last two Centuries, Ernst Beck (2007) “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” – Energy & Environment 18, pp259-82, summarising 200,000 wet chemical analyses showing fluctuations including up to 380 ppm in the 1940s. But we are instructed to only believe the IPCC’s favourite figure from Mauna Loa Volcano and elsewhere. And to ignore the fact that Water Vapour which is a far more potent “greenhouse gas” is hugely more relevant. But remind me. Just let’s assume that your wild claim of 800,000 years with CO2 below 300 ppm could be proved to be correct. Then what caused:- (a) Even warmer temperatures than today in the 1930s? (b) The (worldwide) Medieval… Read more »
You have zero evidence that CO2 “never went above 300 ppm for 800,000years. Nobody knows. How could anyone know? You might want to look at some of the other comments. We know about CO2 levels going back about 800,000 years because of Antarctic ice cores which contain bubbles of air from that time so the atmosphere can be measured directly (CO2 is well mixed gas so you can safely assume the same concentration of CO2 globally). You brashly ignore numerous learned papers, very widely then accepted, e.g. G.Slocum (1995) “Has the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the C.20th?” – Monthly Weather Review October p225-31 (average level of 335 ppm with little variation over last two Centuries, Ernst Beck (2007) “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” – Energy & Environment 18, pp259-82, summarising 200,000 wet chemical analyses showing fluctuations including up to 380 ppm in the 1940s. True I was not aware of either paper. I can’t find the Slocum paper despite extensive searching on Monthly Weather Review web site. Do you have access to a copy? The Beck paper is about CO2 levels since the industrial revolution. My whole point is that they have… Read more »
The whole scam since 1988 has been “confusing temperatures with CO2 levels.” And not just common, or garden CO2 levels but the 4% or 5% of CO2 levels attributed to those wicked human beings. Even less than that, since China and India as well as underdeveloped Countries’ CO2 is apparently fine. “scepticalscience.com”? Yeah right. Or “desmogblog” Or the Grauniad. Or the BBC. Brilliant sources. Add in Putin who has been pumping money into anti-fracking and anti-pipeline protest groups for over a decade. Add in the CIA and FBI. No, water vapour is far more prevalent and the wave frequencies for absorption and re-emission of energy aren’t as saturated. But they couldn’t fix up a way to tax water vapour. How about an actual “Climate Scientist”? Ottmar Edenhofer is scientific director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). From 2008 to 2015 he served as one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change”. Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 stated the priority: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy… Read more »
The point is that in the past the level of CO2 has gone up and done naturally.
But when CO2 goes up now it is deemed to be the fault of humanity.
Perhaps the current increase in CO2 is due to natural causes.
It has gone up and down in the distant past for many different reasons. However, it has not been as high as it is now for 800,000 years and there is little doubt that the recent rise is due to human activity.
“and there is little doubt that the recent rise is due to human activity.”
Any evidence of this?
Computer models are not evidence.
“You have omitted just about every scientific institution in the world e.g US national Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society, Chinese Academy of Sciences etc, etc. This is some conspiracy!”
You have just listed a number of authorities. Science finds it’s way forward through individuals. Galileo and Copernicus were individuals up against the authority of the Vatican. Just 2 men against an army of ‘specialists’ and ‘experts’ that all agreed with each other. Galileo just escaped with his life. It wasn’t long ago the Russian and Chinese people suffered as a consequence of the authority of Trofim Lysenko, a ‘scientist.’ I would have thought the experience of Lysenkoism would be enough for the west not to repeat that time – but obviously not.
Science is not the product of consensus.
“Don’t pay attention to ‘authorities,’ think for yourself.”
Richard Feynman
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth”
A. Einstein
[1] “I don’t dispute either fact. The trace gas argument is a fallacy. What matters is how much CO2 there is – not how much there is in proportion to other gases.”
Proportion is absolutely necessary. What kind of physics or chemistry ignores the proportions or context? A percentage increase of something has different meaning depending on the context. A 40% increase someone’s my salary can have widely different value if someone is on £20,000 pa or £200,000 pa. If CO2 increases by 50% of itself that information is not much use unless the proportion with other gases is known. As it happens CO2 has increased by about 1 molecule in 10,000 which is meaningful. CO2 increasing by 1 molecule in 10 and 1 molecule in 10,000 are not equivalent.
[2] “There is enough CO2 to sustain life on earth so why not enough to affect global temperatures?”
One is biological and the other physics. Different properties, dynamics, drivers etc. You do know this?
I am running out of time so I will focus on the trace gas argument. Concentration of CO2 is simply the proportion of CO2 to other gases in the atmosphere. So if we had the same amount of CO2 but no other gases then the concentration would be 100%. So concentration (as opposed to quantity) of CO2 can only make a difference if the other gases make a difference – and by and large they don’t. (the situation with water vapour is complicated). A good example is comparing Mars, Earth and Venus. Mars has a concentration of 95% Co2 but hardly any greenhouse effect. Earth has a very low concentration of CO2 but a definite greenhouse effect. That is because Mars has very little atmosphere – period. So the actual amount of CO2 is less than the amount of CO2 on Earth – even though the concentration is high. (A complication is that Mars has no water vapour to amplify the effect). Venus, like Mars, has a very high concentration of CO2. However, it has an enormous greenhouse effect because it has a lot of atmosphere so there is a lot of CO2. You might explain why small concentrations have… Read more »
Again, your bright idea. (Or rather, what Al Gore’s merry team tells you what to say).
Nothing to do with “biology vs. Physics”. Just (a) that your beloved gas bubbles in ice cores actually show that temperature rise causes CO2 to rise, because warmer oceans de-gas. Not the reverse. And (b) the ÇO2 energy absorption and re-emission frequencies are saturated
Give your kitxhen window five coats of whitewash. Will another coat mske the glass much more opaque?
At the end of the day, if you are a great believer in the shroud waving Climate Crisis cult, then good for you. But you need to up your game if you want to promote twaddle on here.
Again, your bright idea….Nothing to do with “biology vs. Physics
No. It was sskinner’s idea that biology was different from physics.
your beloved gas bubbles in ice cores actually show that temperature rise causes CO2 to rise, because warmer oceans de-gas. Not the reverse.
See https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
the ÇO2 energy absorption and re-emission frequencies are saturated
So now we are on to a new subject. I suggest you listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc-Y-mJ_uY
But you need to up your game if you want to promote twaddle on here.
I am not so naïve as to think I am going convert anyone here. I engage in the debate primarily because it improves my understanding.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 92 times the mass of Earth’s atmosphere. It rotates opposite direction to all other planets in the solar system and a day lasts longer than it takes to go round the sun. In addition Venus is the most reflective object in the solar system and only 3% of sunlight reaches the surface. Because the days last so long it means the dark side of Venus is 120 earth days out of the sun’s glare, and yet the surface temperature is the same over the entire planet, including the poles. Venus is different to Earth in almost every aspect related to what generates weather and climates so all bets are off trying to make comparisons. As CO2 absorbs reflected infra red from the surface how does it pump out such heat when either only 3% of sunlight reaches the surface or none reaches the surface on the dark side that is out of the sun for around 120 days? At the altitude in the atmosphere on Venus where the pressure is 1 bar the temperature is about 75C to 80C, which hotter than Earth but seems a bit cool considering Venus is much closer to… Read more »
This is a digression but you may be interested in this discussion of the temperature side of this venerable chart which has been around for decades. Mind you, even the discussion is 10 years old!
Older than you, perhaps!
Alas no – I am 72.
Thanks, I will give it a read as it looks thorough, although I notice it is Gavin Schmidt so I will expect the defence of the AGW hypothesis.
To be clear. I am not recommending the end of the article with it’s appeal for better graphics. It’s the history of how past temperature graphics have developed which is kind of interesting.
That is interesting, although much like statistics it does take effort in trying to understand if a graphic or statistic is the best it can be or whether it has been given a slant. I am guessing you have read ‘How to Lie With Statistics’ by Darrell Huff?
So what is a ‘collapsing’ climate? What do ‘collapsed’ climates turn into? As this is asserted with great certainty this must mean that those pushing this speak from experience having observed a climate collapse before, or they have some geological evidence of some such event. Asteroids do not count and neither are mega volcanoes as these don’t change climates but block out the sun which is a much more fundamental problem.
What’s in the whole covid , Jab & Climate stuff for the useful idiots ????….
I do believe the message is starting to get through to some of the less brain-dead sheeple, who have never questioned “the narrative” before.
The words “load of b0ll0cks or similar” have been used to me several times recently in relation to the “climate crisis” by people who, ordinarily, would have kept quiet or even expressed supportive words for the propaganda.
‘The science’ is the very heart of the problem. People (alarmists) treat it as an object that says things. That couldn’t be further from the truth. ‘Science’ is a process, an action. You ‘do’ science, which is a physical process of discovery. Whether we’ll ever get the media hacks to understand this, considering their jobs depend on them NOT understanding it, remains to be seen.