Nature retracts study predicting catastrophic climate change costs.

How can a communication strategy create a scientific fact liike increasing temperature?

Dan Lobb said:
I highlighted the relevant phrases above, so there can be no doubt that the failed climate alarmists have been attempting to panic the population into a meek acceptance of unecessary government measures.

This explains why the climate models of the climate panic promoters have always been so false in their predictions.

These climate models are not legitimate attempts to scientifically model the climate, they are deliberate political instruments designed to panic the population, and they deserve to be called out.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
How can a communication strategy create a scientific fact liike increasing temperature?
Click to expand...
Here is the plan, here is how it works to undermine both legitimate science and the political system. It is all laid out in this review of tactics.

"Whether climate change requires "panic" is a subject of active debate among scientists, psychologists, and communicators, with the answer often depending on how one defines panic versus urgent concern.

1. The Argument for "Productive" Alarm
Some experts and climate authors argue that because the threat is existential and the window for action is rapidly closing, a state of "panic" or high alarm is a rational and necessary response.
  • A "Smoke Alarm" for Humanity: The IPCC has described its findings as a "piercing smoke alarm," indicating that the facts themselves demand an urgent, almost panicked global response to overhaul energy and food systems.
  • Breaking Complacency: Proponents of this view suggest that "catastrophic thinking" can be valuable to break through human cognitive biases toward complacency and the belief that the future will simply look like a slightly warmer version of the present.
  • Historical Precedent: High fear campaigns have historically worked in other areas, such as the fight against pesticides (Silent Spring) or nuclear proliferation.

  • 2. The Case Against Panic
    Many psychologists and communication experts warn that panic can be counterproductive, leading to paralysis rather than action.
    • The "Goldilocks Zone": Research suggests there is an optimal level of worry; if anxiety becomes too high (panic), it can lead to "maladaptive" responses like denial, avoidance, or emotional paralysis.
    • Efficacy vs. Fear: Fear-based messages often backfire if they aren't paired with clear, actionable solutions. Without a sense of "self-efficacy" (the belief that one's actions matter), high fear often leads to a feeling of hopelessness.
    • Polarization: Extreme, fear-based rhetoric can increase social polarization, leading some to double down on denial as a defense mechanism against a perceived threat to their freedom or worldview.
    • 3. "Climate Anxiety" as a Motivator
      Recent studies show that for many, a moderate level of "climate distress" is actually a healthy, rational response that leads to increased engagement.
      • Action as the Antidote: Research from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that Americans who feel at least some anxiety or depression about climate change are significantly more likely to take collective action, such as volunteering or contacting officials.
      • Community and Resilience: Engaging in group activities or social movements has been shown to buffer against the debilitating effects of anxiety, turning fear into a sense of agency and solidarity.
    • In summary, while the scientific reality is dire and requires unprecedented urgency, most experts suggest replacing "panic" (which can be debilitating) with "constructive worry"—a state of high concern that drives collective action rather than despair.
    • If you are feeling overwhelmed, I can provide practical steps for collective action or resources for managing climate-related anxiety."
This explains why it was deemed necessary to construct a false climate science, creating models which falsify predictions and attempt to create panic. Described above as a "fear campaign".
"High fear campaigns have historically worked in other areas,"

Fortunately, this false ideology has been exposed and is being taken down by the current administration in Washington.
 
When placed under stress, you merely repeat yourself.

Dan Lobb said:
Here is the plan, here is how it works to undermine both legitimate science and the political system. It is all laid out in this review of tactics.

"Whether climate change requires "panic" is a subject of active debate among scientists, psychologists, and communicators, with the answer often depending on how one defines panic versus urgent concern.

1. The Argument for "Productive" Alarm
Some experts and climate authors argue that because the threat is existential and the window for action is rapidly closing, a state of "panic" or high alarm is a rational and necessary response.
  • A "Smoke Alarm" for Humanity: The IPCC has described its findings as a "piercing smoke alarm," indicating that the facts themselves demand an urgent, almost panicked global response to overhaul energy and food systems.
  • Breaking Complacency: Proponents of this view suggest that "catastrophic thinking" can be valuable to break through human cognitive biases toward complacency and the belief that the future will simply look like a slightly warmer version of the present.
  • Historical Precedent: High fear campaigns have historically worked in other areas, such as the fight against pesticides (Silent Spring) or nuclear proliferation.

  • 2. The Case Against Panic
    Many psychologists and communication experts warn that panic can be counterproductive, leading to paralysis rather than action.
    • The "Goldilocks Zone": Research suggests there is an optimal level of worry; if anxiety becomes too high (panic), it can lead to "maladaptive" responses like denial, avoidance, or emotional paralysis.
    • Efficacy vs. Fear: Fear-based messages often backfire if they aren't paired with clear, actionable solutions. Without a sense of "self-efficacy" (the belief that one's actions matter), high fear often leads to a feeling of hopelessness.
    • Polarization: Extreme, fear-based rhetoric can increase social polarization, leading some to double down on denial as a defense mechanism against a perceived threat to their freedom or worldview.
    • 3. "Climate Anxiety" as a Motivator
      Recent studies show that for many, a moderate level of "climate distress" is actually a healthy, rational response that leads to increased engagement.
      • Action as the Antidote: Research from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that Americans who feel at least some anxiety or depression about climate change are significantly more likely to take collective action, such as volunteering or contacting officials.
      • Community and Resilience: Engaging in group activities or social movements has been shown to buffer against the debilitating effects of anxiety, turning fear into a sense of agency and solidarity.
    • In summary, while the scientific reality is dire and requires unprecedented urgency, most experts suggest replacing "panic" (which can be debilitating) with "constructive worry"—a state of high concern that drives collective action rather than despair.
    • If you are feeling overwhelmed, I can provide practical steps for collective action or resources for managing climate-related anxiety."
This explains why it was deemed necessary to construct a false climate science, creating models which falsify predictions and attempt to create panic. Described above as a "fear campaign".
"High fear campaigns have historically worked in other areas,"

Fortunately, this false ideology has been exposed and is being taken down by the current administration in Washington.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
When placed under stress, you merely repeat yourself.
Click to expand...
This was not a repeat, you seem to stuck in a groove with your needle. I answered your question from above, "How can a communication strategy create a scientific fact liike increasing temperature?".

"This explains why it was deemed necessary to construct a false climate science, creating models which falsify predictions and attempt to create panic. Described above as a "fear campaign".
"High fear campaigns have historically worked in other areas,""

I showed the motivation for the false climate science, that is worth knowing.
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
When placed under stress, you merely repeat yourself.
Click to expand...
So let’s just clear things up right.
The original post has shared a document that suggests that the climate claims are not as extreme as others have suggested and you disagree with this and you think they are extreme as suggested , right ?
Let’s get this clarified first. The fact that you have been arguing constantly against the OP’s claims therefore you do subscribe to the climate emergency, catastrophe or extinction narratives or one of the 3.
If this is the case then why do you align yourself with the CCP that continues to increase their purchase of Australian coal and other mining products? Why do you do this ? I think this alone destroys any credibility and honesty in your participation on this forum.
On one hand you think that climate change is an emergency but on the other hand you support the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet ?
 
China has 3168 coal plants as of 2024
They are responsible for 95 percent of all new coal plants built in the last 5 years;
They are involved in 240 coal projects in neighbouring countries.
They have 243 gas plants
They have 59 nuclear reactors
They used 2.1 billion tonnes of cement
Chinas emissions alone is higher than the rest of the world combined with the world at 29 percent and China between 31 and 35 percent
Bartelby pushes the climate emergency follow the science mantra but then that emergency doesn’t apply to the CCP which he defends.

Australia has between 15 and 20 coal plants operating at any one time but if we point out Chinas 3168 coal plants Bart calls us far right and sinophobic and conspiracy theorists.

It’s obvious Bart does not believe in climate change at all. He believes in system change: He believes that freedom, capitalism and libertarianism are the catastrophic emissions wrecking his life and therefore we must dismantle and destroy western society and transition to clean snd renewable communism,
 
Crocodile said:
China has 3168 coal plants as of 2024
They are responsible for 95 percent of all new coal plants built in the last 5 years;
They are involved in 240 coal projects in neighbouring countries.
They have 243 gas plants
They have 59 nuclear reactors
They used 2.1 billion tonnes of cement
Chinas emissions alone is higher than the rest of the world combined with the world at 29 percent and China between 31 and 35 percent
Click to expand...
We are cheering for the CCP to meet our climate alarmist Bart's 2030 peak emission doomsday deadlines.
Are we at a turning point for the biggest emitter? Will the CCP come through?
:unsure:

Current Status​

China's emissions have flatlined or fallen for 21 months as of early 2026, potentially marking the peak already (e.g., coal possibly by 2027), thanks to record solar/wind additions outpacing demand.

Official plans eye a plateau around 2027 before true declines, with the 15th Five-Year Plan (March 2026) set to confirm timelines.

insideclimatenews.org

China Could Reach Peak Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sooner Than Beijing Planned, New Report Suggests - Inside Climate News

Falling emissions from the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter could mean a global turning point.
insideclimatenews.org insideclimatenews.org
 
Last edited:
I
Better_Call_Raul said:
We are cheering for the CCP to meet our climate alarmist Bart's 2030 peak emission doomsday deadlines.
Are we at a turning point for the biggest emitter? Will the CCP come through?
:unsure:

Current Status​

China's emissions have flatlined or fallen for 21 months as of early 2026, potentially marking the peak already (e.g., coal possibly by 2027), thanks to record solar/wind additions outpacing demand.

Official plans eye a plateau around 2027 before true declines, with the 15th Five-Year Plan (March 2026) set to confirm timelines.

insideclimatenews.org

China Could Reach Peak Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sooner Than Beijing Planned, New Report Suggests - Inside Climate News

Falling emissions from the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter could mean a global turning point.
insideclimatenews.org insideclimatenews.org
Click to expand...
I wonder how the CCP manufacturing industry would fare if they decommissioned say 3100 coal plants and kept 68 open plus shut down 240 gas plants and ban all nuclear plants like they have done here.
Are we not trying to save the planet because it’s an emergency?
 
If a leftist climate cult agitator was a swimming coach in a western country that he/she despised , he or she would tie the students arms behind their back and tell them to start swimming. The student would then collapse and give up learning to swim.
Meanwhile at CCP headquarters the CCP students would get all the proper training and nutrition plus the flippers and would start breaking records.
The leftist climate agitator would then turn to the world and say , “Look how good we are at turning out good swimmers”. We are going ahead with good swimming coaching.
The libertarian or freedom bystander would complain that the western swimmer had his hands tied behind his back and the CCP even had flippers to which the left wing agitator would first accuse the bystander of spreading conspiracy theories followed by bring a far right extremist and not following the science of swimming bio mechanics.
The libertarian bystander would then further outline the logic behind the discrepancy to which the leftist climate agitator ran out of responses and then to shut down the bystander they start a smear campaign of racism and Sinophobia. This is how the narrative operates.
 
Crocodile said:
I wonder how the CCP manufacturing industry would fare if they decommissioned say 3100 coal plants and kept 68 open plus shut down 240 gas plants and ban all nuclear plants like they have done here.
Click to expand...
They do not need to decommission coal plants if they can offset emissions through growth in green energy and still reach peak emissions by 2030.
One must tip one’s hat to them if they manage to achieve that.
Do you think the CCP will achieve that? It appears that they are on track, according to the Finnish study.
:unsure:

Planet-warming emissions from China, currently the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter, have continued to flatline or fall as cleaner forms of energy outpace coal and gas generation, according to a new analysis published Wednesday.

If the trend continues, China’s emissions from energy production could peak in the next two years, representing a major structural change in global fossil fuel use and a critical milestone in the effort to slow atmospheric warming.

The study, from Finland’s Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, says that China’s emissions from major emitting sectors have dropped over the last year, continuing a slowdown that began in May 2024.

“What we’re seeing broadly is a plateau in emissions, which is in itself a huge step forward from the preceding decade when China single-handedly had the majority of global emissions growth,” said Lauri Myllyvirta, the lead author of the analysis and co-founder of the center.

 
You think climate change is fake and won't do anything to support measures against it, so you are pedalling Sinophobia.

As reported above once again, China is increasing the use of renewables in its energy mix whereas the US has just declared climate science fake.

Crocodile said:
I wonder how the CCP manufacturing industry would fare if they decommissioned say 3100 coal plants and kept 68 open plus shut down 240 gas plants and ban all nuclear plants like they have done here.
Are we not trying to save the planet because it’s an emergency?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
You think climate change is fake and won't do anything to support measures against it, so you are pedalling Sinophobia.

As reported above once again, China is increasing the use of renewables in its energy mix whereas the US has just declared climate science fake.
Click to expand...
China thinks climate change is fake because they have 3168 coal plants. Australia has 15. I’m just peddling facts, You think it’s unfair that Australia even has 15 coal plants as they must be worse than 3168 coal plants right ?
Electric cars will not reverse climate change - fact. Stop trying to say otherwise because you are wrong.
The world still gets 80 percent of its energy from fossil fuels with only meaningful evolution coming from nuclear energy which green cultists despise. These are facts and nothing to do with Sinophobia,
China produces more carbon emissions than the whole of the rest of the world, I’m entitled to say that because it’s the fact and you are not entitled to call me or anyone a Sinophobe because I mentioned that fact. You have a different view - that’s your problem not mine.
 
Last edited:
Each country in the rest of the world should do what Bart says and all build 3168 coal plants like China and then offset them with some gas, nuclear and renewables and then we will be on target to equalling China: will that save the planet ?
 
Last edited:
China is the world's factory and, hence, it needs more energy.

If you hate China, you might want it to produce fewer goods.

Given these goods would still be produced, you are just re-distributing the geography of CO2 emissions.
 
Bartelby said:
China is the world's factory and, hence, it needs more energy.

If you hate China, you might want it to produce fewer goods.

Given these goods would still be produced, you are just re-distributing the geography of CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
I think America, Australia, Japan and Europe should be the worlds factory as well so they can equalise production with China and make all the wind turbines domestically.
Let’s do what you said ,it you love China, build 3168 coal plants and then build a few more gas and nuclear plants and then some renewables just so we can say that we are increasing our proportion of energy from renewables. What a good idea Bart.
 
The countries that you mention are failed economic states or, perhaps, failing ones.

Crocodile said:
I think America, Australia, Japan and Europe should be the worlds factory as well so they can equalise production with China and make all the wind turbines domestically.
Let’s do what you said ,it you love China, build 3168 coal plants and then build a few more gas and nuclear plants and then some renewables just so we can say that we are increasing our proportion of energy from renewables. What a good idea Bart.
Click to expand...
 
Once they build those 3168 coal plants and the many gas and nuclear plants plus a few solar parks those countries will be energy abundant and then the sky is the limit as to what these countries could achieve with all that abundant energy.
They are only failing right now due to lack of cheap energy and following woke ideologies and that can be fixed by removing the culprits.
Imagine how prosperous Australia would be if we had even 200 coal plants and then build a few wind installations just so we could say that we were increasing our proportion of renewables. We would make everything here and have no need for Chinese imports. We could be leaders in renewable technologies and build electric cars.
Bartelby said:
The countries that you mention are failed economic states or, perhaps, failing ones.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
China pumps out high-quality and inexpensive goods that the lower and middle classes in the Western world need and buy.

The attempt to emasculate Chinese industry, which is the goal of Trump's tariff policy, is also an attempt to make the cost of living unaffordable in the West.
 
Bartelby said:
China pumps out high-quality and inexpensive goods that the lower and middle classes in the Western world need and buy.

The attempt to emasculate Chinese industry, which is the goal of Trump's tariff policy, is also an attempt to make the cost of living unaffordable in the West.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you don’t want countries like Australia producing high quality and inexpensive goods for the lower and middle classes of the western world that they need to buy, because I’m sure this can be arranged.
3168 coal plants plus 260 gas plants plus 60 nuclear power plants plus a proportional increase in renewables and we are in business. And you don’t even need the tariffs, just build robots and they can build the products because in the past the only difference between western workers and Chinese workers is that Chinese workers were kept as slaves. Not that you western socialists cared about because you were too busy destroying the competitive work place relations in western countries.
Obviously that’s now over if we implement robotics as then the only cost variable is land and energy right and with those 3168 coal plants we would have that covered and there is lots of empty cheap land in Australia.
 
Last edited:
Australia can't and won't build high quality and inexpensive goods. Our industry policy is to build expensive American nuclear subs and other weapons of war.

Crocodile said:
Are you saying that you don’t want countries like Australia producing high quality and inexpensive goods for the lower and middle classes of the western world that they need to buy, because I’m sure this can be arranged.
3168 coal plants plus 260 gas plants plus 60 nuclear power plants plus a proportional increase in renewables and we are in business.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
Australia can't and won't build high quality and inexpensive goods. Our industry policy is to build expensive American nuclear subs and other weapons of war.
Click to expand...
That’s garbage - Australia can make and do anything they like. We have the diversity of people living here like no other country on the planet, with all types of skill sets and knowledge backgrounds. You just don’t want it to go ahead - why ?
We just need those coal plants like what China has. We can make all those solar panels domestically.
Why can’t Australia have the same energy mix and GW’s or power as China. Are you against cut and why ? Maybe they could reduce their coal plants from 3168 to 2168 and we could increase ours from 15 to 200. Still a huge difference but a little bit of rebalancing,
 
Last edited:
We can indeed make a lot of things here, but all of it will be highly expensive and extremely difficult to pull off in terms of labour and supply chains.

In short, it would be a fool's errand.

To give you a somewhat tangential example, high-end Italian clothing needs the "Made In Italy" label to sell but there are not enough machinists left.

Italian factories import Chinese as quasi-slave labour to solve the problem.

The label doesn't say "Made By Italians".

Crocodile said:
That’s garbage - Australia can make and do anything they like. We have the diversity of people living here like no other country on the planet, with all types of skill sets and knowledge backgrounds. You just don’t want it to go ahead - why ?
We just need those coal plants like what China has. We can make all those solar panels domestically.
Why can’t Australia have the same energy mix and GW’s or power as China. Are you against cut and why ? Maybe they could reduce their coal plants from 3168 to 2168 and we could increase ours from 15 to 200. Still a huge difference but a little bit of rebalancing,
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Based on the most recent scientific literature and reports from major scientific bodies, there is no credible, peer-reviewed research that casts real doubt on the foundational theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)—that human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, are the main cause of recent rapid warming.
Scientific consensus on this issue has grown stronger, with studies showing that 97% to over 99.9% of peer-reviewed climate literature supports the conclusion that human activity is causing the climate to change.
Here is a breakdown of the current scientific landscape regarding AGW:

1. Strength of the Consensus (2024-2025)
  • Near-Total Agreement: A survey of over 88,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that over 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree on human-caused climate change.
  • Consensus Strengthens with Expertise: The more expertise a scientist has in climate science, the higher the agreement on human-caused global warming.
  • Official Statements: Leading scientific organizations, including NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC, maintain that human influence is "unequivocal".

2. Emerging Research on "Accelerated" Warming
Rather than doubting the theory, recent research (2023-2025) has focused on why the warming in 2023 and 2024 was even faster than expected.
  • 2023-2024 Temperature Jumps: Record-breaking temperatures in 2023 and 2024 exceeded some projections. Researchers attributed this unexpected jump to a combination of a strong El Niño, reduced aerosol pollution (which has a cooling effect), and underlying long-term greenhouse gas warming.
  • "Unexceptional" Extremes: While the heat is alarming, scientists note these trends are "unexceptional" in the context of rising emissions, meaning they follow the expected path of climate change rather than contradicting it.
  • Accelerating Trend: Some research suggests the rate of global warming is accelerating faster than predicted by some previous models.

3. Addressing Alternative Hypotheses
While there are a small number of studies that suggest alternatives to AGW, they are often outliers in the scientific community.
  • Solar Activity & Natural Factors: Research shows that natural drivers, including solar variability, play a minimal role compared to the forcings from human-produced greenhouse gases.
  • Model Performance: Recent analyses have confirmed that climate models have accurately projected long-term warming trends, even models developed back in the 1970s.

4. Continued Evidence
  • Record Emissions: Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide levels reached new record highs in 2024, directly tracking with increased emissions from human activities.
  • Ocean Heat Content: Data shows that 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the ocean, which continues to heat up at an accelerating rate.
Conclusion: The latest research is refining the pace and specific impacts of climate change, not doubting that it is caused by human activity. The "doubt" surrounding climate change is primarily found in public discourse and media rather than in peer-reviewed scientific studies.

- Gemini
 
Bartelby said:
Based on the most recent scientific literature and reports from major scientific bodies, there is no credible, peer-reviewed research that casts real doubt on the foundational theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)—that human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, are the main cause of recent rapid warming.
Scientific consensus on this issue has grown stronger, with studies showing that 97% to over 99.9% of peer-reviewed climate literature supports the conclusion that human activity is causing the climate to change.
Here is a breakdown of the current scientific landscape regarding AGW:

1. Strength of the Consensus (2024-2025)
  • Near-Total Agreement: A survey of over 88,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020 found that over 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree on human-caused climate change.
  • Consensus Strengthens with Expertise: The more expertise a scientist has in climate science, the higher the agreement on human-caused global warming.
  • Official Statements: Leading scientific organizations, including NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC, maintain that human influence is "unequivocal".

2. Emerging Research on "Accelerated" Warming
Rather than doubting the theory, recent research (2023-2025) has focused on why the warming in 2023 and 2024 was even faster than expected.
  • 2023-2024 Temperature Jumps: Record-breaking temperatures in 2023 and 2024 exceeded some projections. Researchers attributed this unexpected jump to a combination of a strong El Niño, reduced aerosol pollution (which has a cooling effect), and underlying long-term greenhouse gas warming.
  • "Unexceptional" Extremes: While the heat is alarming, scientists note these trends are "unexceptional" in the context of rising emissions, meaning they follow the expected path of climate change rather than contradicting it.
  • Accelerating Trend: Some research suggests the rate of global warming is accelerating faster than predicted by some previous models.

3. Addressing Alternative Hypotheses
While there are a small number of studies that suggest alternatives to AGW, they are often outliers in the scientific community.
  • Solar Activity & Natural Factors: Research shows that natural drivers, including solar variability, play a minimal role compared to the forcings from human-produced greenhouse gases.
  • Model Performance: Recent analyses have confirmed that climate models have accurately projected long-term warming trends, even models developed back in the 1970s.

4. Continued Evidence
  • Record Emissions: Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide levels reached new record highs in 2024, directly tracking with increased emissions from human activities.
  • Ocean Heat Content: Data shows that 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the ocean, which continues to heat up at an accelerating rate.
Conclusion: The latest research is refining the pace and specific impacts of climate change, not doubting that it is caused by human activity. The "doubt" surrounding climate change is primarily found in public discourse and media rather than in peer-reviewed scientific studies.

- Gemini
Click to expand...
Recently you claimed that 99% of global warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2, and now you claim that 99% of science studies support CO2. You seem to have 99 on the brain, however, you should also know that whenever new research is published, it usually disagrees with the vast majority of existing literature.

That is why percentage of scientists or publications is never used as a measure of scientific validity. What counts is whether or not the proposed hypothesis stands up to the data.

This statement from your quote has been proved wrong,

"Model Performance: Recent analyses have confirmed that climate models have accurately projected long-term warming trends, even models developed back in the 1970s."

From above,
"Tropospheric and stratospheric tropical temperature trends in recent decades have been notoriously hard to simulate using climate models, particularly in the upper troposphere. Aside from the warming trend itself, this has broader implications, e.g. atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients. In this study, tropical temperature trends in the CMIP6 models are examined, from 1979 to 2014, and contrasted with trends from the RICH/RAOBCORE radiosondes, and the ERA5/5.1 reanalysis. As in earlier studies, we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature. We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere: the CMIP6 models appear unable to capture the time evolution of stratospheric cooling, which is non-monotonic owing to the Montreal Protocol. Finally, using models with large ensembles, we show that their standard deviation in tropospheric temperature trends, which is due to internal variability alone, explains ∼ 50% (± 20%) of that from the CMIP6 models."

And,
It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.
 
Last edited:
I'm merely quoting what the current, provisional consensus is about AGW and that stands at 97% plus support at least.

So the fact that you are able to find a few articles giving partial or indirect support for your outlier views is not surprising.

Dan Lobb said:
Recently you claimed that 99% of global warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2, and now you claim that 99% of science studies support CO2. You seem to have 99 on the brain, however, you should also know that whenever new research is published, it usually disagrees with the vast majority of existing literature.

That is why percentage of scientists or publications is never used as a measure of scientific validity. What counts is whether or not the proposed hypothesis stands up to the data.

This statement from your quote has been proved wrong,

"Model Performance: Recent analyses have confirmed that climate models have accurately projected long-term warming trends, even models developed back in the 1970s."

From above,
"Tropospheric and stratospheric tropical temperature trends in recent decades have been notoriously hard to simulate using climate models, particularly in the upper troposphere. Aside from the warming trend itself, this has broader implications, e.g. atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients. In this study, tropical temperature trends in the CMIP6 models are examined, from 1979 to 2014, and contrasted with trends from the RICH/RAOBCORE radiosondes, and the ERA5/5.1 reanalysis. As in earlier studies, we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature. We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere: the CMIP6 models appear unable to capture the time evolution of stratospheric cooling, which is non-monotonic owing to the Montreal Protocol. Finally, using models with large ensembles, we show that their standard deviation in tropospheric temperature trends, which is due to internal variability alone, explains ∼ 50% (± 20%) of that from the CMIP6 models."

And,
It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
I'm merely quoting what the current, provisional consensus is about AGW and that stands at 97% plus support at least.

So the fact that you are able to find a few articles giving partial or indirect support for your outlier views is not surprising.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out to you above, percentage of scientists supporting an idea is not a test of the truth or significance of that idea. That has been shown many times in the history of science, including Darwin and Mendel and every other major scientist.

From AI,

" Famous "1% vs. 99%" Success Stories
History shows that the consensus can be wrong. These ideas were once considered "invalid" or even "crazy":
  • Plate Tectonics: Alfred Wegener was ridiculed for suggesting continents move. It took 50 years for the 99% to catch up to the evidence.
  • Germ Theory: Doctors once scoffed at the idea that invisible "microbes" caused disease, preferring to believe in "bad air" (miasma).
  • H. Pylori: Two Australian doctors were dismissed when they claimed bacteria caused ulcers (rather than stress). One of them eventually drank the bacteria to prove it and won a Nobel Prize."

The only metric which counts is the ability to explain the data without altering or changing the data. What I showed you above is that the data are the major battleground here, with the standard climate models consistently over-estimating the degrees of global warming, almost universally so.

"Tropospheric and stratospheric tropical temperature trends in recent decades have been notoriously hard to simulate using climate models, particularly in the upper troposphere. Aside from the warming trend itself, this has broader implications, e.g. atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients. In this study, tropical temperature trends in the CMIP6 models are examined, from 1979 to 2014, and contrasted with trends from the RICH/RAOBCORE radiosondes, and the ERA5/5.1 reanalysis. As in earlier studies, we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature. We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere:"

"It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high."

If models fail to perform and the scientists respond by ignoring the criticisms and continuing with their biases, then at that point we are no longer talking about science, but about politics.

Climate scientists who advocate against CO2 will adopt the "fear campaign" I referred to above, which they see as a political weapon, and will make preposterous claims of being neutral.
 
Last edited:
A prevailing scientifc consensus exists until a rival and better alternative emerges to it. Your politically-constructed fake climate science is no such alternative.

Dan Lobb said:
As I pointed out to you above, percentage of scientists supporting an idea is not a test of the truth or significance of that idea. That has been shown many times in the history of science, including Darwin and Mendel and every other major scientist.

The only metric which counts is the ability to explain the data without altering or changing the data. What I showed you above is that the data are the major battleground here, with the standard climate models consistently over-estimating the degress of global warming, almost universally so.

If models fail to perform and the scientists respond by ignoring the criticisms and continuing with their biases, then at that point we are no longer talking about science, but about politics.

Climate scientists who advocate against CO2 will adopt the "fear campaign" I referred to above, which they see as a political weapon, and will make preposterous claims of being neutral.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
A prevailing scientifc consensus exists until a rival and better alternative emerges to it. Your politically-constructed fake climate science is no such alternative.
Click to expand...
No, sometimes the old theories hang on through inertia for quite some time, like a "dead man walking". But the truth wins out in the end.

The two articles I linked for you above are sufficient to lay the old theory to a permanent rest.

"Tropospheric and stratospheric tropical temperature trends in recent decades have been notoriously hard to simulate using climate models, particularly in the upper troposphere. Aside from the warming trend itself, this has broader implications, e.g. atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients. In this study, tropical temperature trends in the CMIP6 models are examined, from 1979 to 2014, and contrasted with trends from the RICH/RAOBCORE radiosondes, and the ERA5/5.1 reanalysis. As in earlier studies, we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature. We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere:"

"It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high."
 
If the theory changes, then I'll change my mind. But it's not going to do a 180 so you'll be out of luck.

Dan Lobb said:
No, sometimes the old theories hang on through inertia for quite some time, like a "dead man walking". But the truth wins out in the end.

The two articles I linked for you above are sufficient to lay the old theory to a permanent rest.

"Tropospheric and stratospheric tropical temperature trends in recent decades have been notoriously hard to simulate using climate models, particularly in the upper troposphere. Aside from the warming trend itself, this has broader implications, e.g. atmospheric circulation trends depend on latitudinal temperature gradients. In this study, tropical temperature trends in the CMIP6 models are examined, from 1979 to 2014, and contrasted with trends from the RICH/RAOBCORE radiosondes, and the ERA5/5.1 reanalysis. As in earlier studies, we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature. We also uncover previously undocumented biases in the lower-middle stratosphere:"

"It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high."
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
If the theory changes, then I'll change my mind. But it's not going to do a 180 so you'll be out of luck.
Click to expand...
It's already done a 180, so you are just slow. The old climate science has already been discredited, so that means that the political campaign is way behind the curve.
 
The "old" climate science was produced by scientists. You flip between fake climate science and Trump's rejection of the "old" climate science.

Dan Lobb said:
It's already done a 180, so you are just slow. The old climate science has already been discredited, so that means that the political campaign is way behind the curve.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
The "old" climate science was produced by scientists. You flip between fake climate science and Trump's rejection of the "old" climate science.
Click to expand...
The new climate science is by uncommitted scientists, that means that they are real scientists, not promoting a political cause.

Your people have sold out their credentials in the interest of promoting a cause, they are no longer scientists but advocates.
 
Given that you have joined yourself at the hip with Trump's rejection of climate science, you are hardly in a position to judge climate scientists simply doing their job.

Dan Lobb said:
The new climate science is by uncommitted scientists, that means that they are real scientists, not promoting a political cause.

Your people have sold out their credentials in the interest of promoting a cause, they are no longer scientists.
Click to expand...
 
Bartelby said:
If the theory changes, then I'll change my mind. But it's not going to do a 180 so you'll be out of luck.
Click to expand...
The theory will change only when it has been tested. The standard climate theory has now been tested and it has failed. It is a "dead man walking" status.
 
This is your opinion as a person who is scientifically illiterate in climate science and who is a dogmatic supporter of Trumpian climate science denialism.

Dan Lobb said:
The theory will change only when it has been tested. The standard climate theory has now been tested and it has failed. It is a "dead man walking" status.
Click to expand...
 
Together with Ford and GM, this brings losses of just these 3 companies to around $50 billion because of their idiotic decision to push EVs on people that didn't want them.

Stellantis are going to be start selling diesel cars and trucks in Europe again. This is what happens when companies try to force consumers into buying what the company wants instead of making and selling things the customer wants.
 
Those three companies just can't make good BEVs. That's not surprising given that they are mostly cut out of Chinese supply chains.

America is going backwards, even at the level of technology.

Bhagi Katbamna said:
Together with Ford and GM, this brings losses of just these 3 companies to around $50 billion because of their idiotic decision to push EVs on people that didn't want them.

Stellantis are going to be start selling diesel cars and trucks in Europe again. This is what happens when companies try to force consumers into buying what the company wants instead of making and selling things the customer wants.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top