Climate Change Is Settled Science. EXCEPT…
November 10, 2023
By Paul Homewood
Willie Soon sent this video to me.
It seems like the Climategate shenanigans are still going on:
17 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P… vickimh234 on How Wet Was The Spring? vickimh234 on Labour’s Green Obsession…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well worth the 15 minutes watching. If only that could be broadcast on the BBC.
I agree
Send it to GBnews – see if they have the courage to screen it.
I doubt it. They have a few presenters who challenge the cost and pace of Net Zero, but none except Neil Oliver who say the whole premise is a scam for impoverishment and control.
And when one does dare talk sense, the producers, cowering from Ofcom, ‘balance’ them with shill guests. They now have a whole ghouls gallery they rotate, that is allowed to lie with no push-back. These are just some, all whose livelihood depends to some degree on pushing the scam :
Jim Dale -Met Office
Donnachadh McCarthy – Director, Climate Media Coalition
Jack Richardson – Head of Energy and Climate at Onward
Steve Masters – Green Party, Newbury council
Tom Burke – Co-founder and Chair of E3G
Prof John Grant – Lecturer in sustainable construction and climate change
Quentin Wilson – rich enough to have been an early adopter and now advocate who can afford the down side.
Laurie Laybourne – Economist and environmental campaigner
John Cauldwell – Billionaire businessman, who you would think has enough time to research the truth.
Ed Gemmel – Climate Party
There was one glimmer when Nana Akua had on Paul Burgess of ClimateRealism who destroyed Jim Dale.
Dale did the old trick, when floundering, of appealing to authority. But it back-fired. He asked, “Do you respect David Attenborough?”
Burgess replied, “I did… until the Walrus incident,” which allowed him to go on and educate viewers on that disgraceful false flag.
Message to the UN/IPCC, ‘Oh what webs we weave when we try to deceive’.
Absolutely — but Auntie would not screen it – better chance with GB News.
Talk TV tends to be more robust on this subject.
Everyone with a reasonable pass in Physics A level should be able to understand, with only a bit of an explanation, that Windfarms are unable to be a reliable Energy source, even worse than at first sight, only that ‘no wind equals no power’.
This means that one of the top manifestations of the Climate Emergency is, ironically, blown away, yet it’s still at the forefront of Government policy!
I recall from 2013 that the notion of battery storage was given a free pass, even though it did not exist then, and still doesn’t. Also, a lot of academic paper were about grids being able to cope with intermittent wind power, true back then when wind power was tiny, but these papers are still trotted out today.
Robert, wind turbines utilise sulphur hexaflouride internally and in the commissioning of a new turbine. The UN IPCC have decided that sulphur hexaflouride is the most potent global warming gas of all.
Oh, the irony!
So Science is settled, eh? ‘Awa ye go’ it’s definitely NOT settled here, nor can they make up their mind: and how far can you go with anything on ONE THOUSAND watts ? and as for HYDROGEN? Get it all here: https://us13.campaign-archive.com/?e=feba5cb3b4&u=2790e780a1533f4bc05c8679a&id=730f79de28
The GIF Tony Heller made combining two versions of “NASA” temperature charts. The newer version shows different temperatures. No looter warmunist of the Sharknado persuasion has ever confronted this gif The Perition Project we circulated to stop Kyoto seppuku stopped ratification, but is ignored outside the Senate.
Scientists signed the Petition Project. Volunteers checked their credentials. Sharknado warmunists have fake names, no science degree and are unemployable in the applied sciences. Where is their Petition with names and degrees?
I find Soon’s contributions confusing on two counts, both related to his espousal of the sun as decadal-scale influencer.
Firstly, his conviction that a trend exists and that it needs a specific cause to explain it, the same position as held by the climate change believer. This is far from evident to me as all I see is decadal fluctuations with nothing falling outside the bounds of past fluctuations. The sun’s diel and seasonal influence is beyond obvious and millennial and longer reasonably arguable. But nothing much in between, not even the much vaunted ups and downs of the sunspot cycle. Interacting flywheels and energy and substance exchanges between the atmosphere, geosphere, biosphere, and cryosphere are adequate for a fluctuating pattern of climate to emerge.
Secondly, the points he keeps making about the avoidance of solar influence in IPCC reports. Here Soon asks for something which the IPCC was not asked to do as he forgets that the IPCC remit was to be purely confirmatory of the greenhouse effect, and to take it from there to consider impacts and responses. In other words, their terms of reference were to treat the ghe as a paradigm which let them off the two hooks of considering (a) alternative explanations, and (b) evidence to the contrary of the paradigm.
We see that latter most clearly in the way reports talk about anticipated impacts – examples being floods and hurricanes – that don’t turn out the way they anticipated. The convention in normal science is to set up a null hypothesis contrary to the anticipation and use the data to test the likelihood of rejection of that null hypothesis. In the example case, one would hypothesise no trend in floods and hurricanes and, based on the data, normal science would accordingly conclude no evidence of trend. But that’s not how they do things in IPCC reports because their paradigm is that a trend exists, and so it is that which becomes their null hypothesis. As a consequence of this topsy-turvy way of doing science, we are treated to that unfamiliar verbal contortion of how the data provides “weak confidence” in the particular trend. This of course leaves the taste that there is confidence, albeit not currently strong, but ready to be strengthened by future data and the passage of time. Plenty to go on for a hard case precautionary principle-ist!
Whoops – forgot the hydrosphere.
Thx Max.
Though this just explains the IPCC. It doesn’t excuse scientific organizations playing along using the same paradigm.
Climate change leeches integrity from science.