are why the BBC disinformation unit authored this masterpiece in propaganda:
“ Climate change: How to talk to a denier
By Merlyn Thomas & Marco Silva
BBC Climate Disinformation reporters
Published 2 days ago”
hat tip TCW :
“ As with so many aspects of the parlous state the world is in, this tale for me has echoes of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, both in the story itself and the way it is presented.
For the BBC, of course, it is blatant propaganda of the type that Winston Smith – the hero of Orwell’s novel – might have concocted at the Ministry of Truth, where his job was rewriting history.
The article’s authors, Merlyn Thomas and Marco Silva, are described as ‘BBC Climate Disinformation reporters.’ No room for any compromise there. But are they fabricating climate disinformation or reporting on it, I ask myself. However, I digress.
As ever with the BBC these days, there is no question of any alternative view being tolerated, just an in-your-face diktat that man-made climate change is settled science and any dissenters must be dismissed as deranged, or simply ignored.”
No, Zharkova isn’t a serious voice on climate change.
@CJ1 is just scraping the barrel to try and find something, anything, that might disprove CO2 based climate change. It’s funny, but kind of sad to behold.
After arguing that no amount of temperature measurements on planet Earth are reliable in the slightest he immediately falls for someone telling us about the temperature record of other planets.
Oh dear.
Bro, are you ever going to look at the mountain of evidence that shows us what’s actually happening?
Are you ever going to face the fact that we don’t need to understand every detail to understand the big picture?
Are you ever going to answer or acknowledge my point that a sinking ship is very complex but entirely predictable?
I’m not sure why you have such a problem with basic evidence my friend, its a real bind spot for you.
Perhaps it’s worth checking that this central point in the paper is actually true?
Sadly, it’s completely false. Zharkova’s calculations were most likely either
(1) a simple mistake in entering the wrong orbital period of the earth into the software package she used (a point convincingly reverse engineered by someone trying to reproduce her graphs), or
(2) simply made up.
Anyway, this error was one reason why her paper was retracted. From a journal that she is an editor of.
Also, I note, without surprise, that you didn’t comment on the points I made about what is estimated to be the likely impact of sunspot activity on temperature compared with CO2 forcing.
It’s a much smaller effect. And the cycle time of about 30-50 years is a lot shorter than that of excess CO2.
Finally, I do find it highly amusing that you can use the same scientist to argue (within the span of back-to-back posts) that
(A) we are about to experience serious global cooling due to a grand solar minimum, and also
(B) the temperature of the earth is increasing because the distance between the earth and the sun is shrinking
Congrats! You’ve covered all the bases.
A simple google search will return a number of links to a much more reliable analysis than Zharkova’s.
A denialist in this case is someone who goes out of their way to deny that adding CO2 to the planet’s atmosphere results in higher temperatures.
Basic physics, proven in several different ways.
Both Rancourt and Zharkova make a theoretical argument as to why this just cannot be, but they don’t really engage with the experimental evidence that shows that it is and has happened several times in the past.
Its like the old adage of a physicist proving, with impeccable maths, that a bee cannot fly. A scientist who continues to believe that a bee can’t fly might reasonably be called a bee flight denialist.
Nice theory, but immediately contradicted by actual real life.
Oh yes, and to reiterate Rob’s point from another thread:
Is Zharkova using a system.of maths that includes the unknown square root of 2? Because that “maths” is highly discredited, and as a mathematician, Zharkova should be treated with the greatest of suspicion.
“Bro, are you ever going to face the fact that you really don’t know, with any justifiable certainty, what’s going to happen, despite your apparently firm conviction that you do.”
So the answer to this question of mine is a no, then P? You’re going to go on insisting that you know with certainty this inherently unknowable thing, inappropriate ‘sinking ship’ metaphors and all? (Mam Gaia as a sinking ship! LOL!)
Ah well, I guess it’s going to have to be one of those subjects that friends just avoid discussing, for the sake of peace.
In this, or more likely in subsequent incarnations I shall have to wait and see what happens with the climate. I imagine reality will continue to do what it always does: carry on regardless, ignoring completely the convictions of we little human atomies and just doing whatever it chooses to do, indifferent to our certainties, as ever.
Show me an unbiased paper that proves man-made CO2 has caused anything more than a marginal increase in our global warming since the end of the Maunder Minimum in 1715. I have yet to see any recommendation from you despite my asking.
Ignoring Solar activity and gravitational influences of other planets is madness, do you not see that the distance of the Earth to the Sun at any one time determines a large part of Solar influences?
Why would you ignore climatic events on other solar system planets occurring at the same time as changes to our own climatic conditions given we are all heated by the same source?
The information from a leading solar scientist and mathematician like Professor Zharkova, who has no axe to grind in the political or commercial spheres is new information which establishment science has sought to silence - censorship and undue influence seems to be rife in not just medical but also climate science so it’s not surprising that this new information hasn’t reached the general public. When did you hear about this for the first time? This is not a case of me, or the scientist I am quoting, scraping the barrel - it is a case of suppressed vital information that could save lives if the correct action is taken.
Is this your opinion or that of an IPCC scientist - are you saying there is evidence of fraud, that’s quite a defamatory statement if you have no proof.
As to errors - there was a claim from 2 establishment scientists - one from NASA- that Zharkova’s first paper on this was in error but she has since gone back to the ephemeris data to disprove their claims. Surely you are aware of this?
[quote=“PontiusPrimate, post:23, topic:3275”]
what is estimated to be the likely impact of sunspot activity on temperature compared with CO2 forcing.[/quote]
Are you not only concerned with man-made CO2 or do you really want to include a comparison of all CO2 - I gave a link earlier to Professor Harde’s work http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Opinion-Draft-Law%20-%20Reduction%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf
that puts man-made CO2 into the vanishingly small category :
“Natural and Anthropogenic Contribution: This allows the measured warming over the last century to be reconciled in very good agreement with all other observations and calculations. It shows that the solar influence was contributing about two thirds and CO2 only one third to the warming over this period (Harde 2017b [11], Harde
2022 [12]). A very topical discussion on anthropogenic or natural influences is given in Connolly et al., 2021 [17]. Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance. In view of this vanishingly small contribution,
of which the Germans are only involved with 2.1%, it is absurd to assume that an exit from fossil fuels could even remotely have an impact on our climate. Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.”
I think you accept that solar activity and its influence on the Earth’s climate is a complex system, no? So why would you be amused that a solar scientist has discovered that such a complex system has a whole host of cycles that have competing impacts on our climate, wouldn’t you be surprised if it didn’t?
I don’t do GO-OGLE if I can help it - censorship is rife from that organisation, imo.
If only you would quote someone who is free of bias other than your own opinion!
If I find someone else of value I will share their work too - isn’t this what research should be about - rather than seeking to hide uncomfortable opinions/work.
Unfortunately it is not possible to fit the planet earth onto a petri dish to experiment upon. Scientists and their experiments can’t even agree on average global temperatures within the last few decades - witness the confusion over the Pause!
Do they actually say that CO2 makes no difference at all to the earth’s temperature or do they say the difference is negligible?
I think you will find that these days actual real life is what the MSM and the Big Tech companies tell us - are we not here to point this out?
I get the gist of it @CJ1 and wouldn’t dispute that ice cores, and other physical traces, can give good clues to long term trends. I’m not altogether convinced that these are likely to recur quite so regularly, but in any case we (humanity generally) have to get through the next few decades, if not a rather shorter timespan.
The notion @RhisiartGwilym that the planet ain’t gonna run out of humans any time soon (I paraphrase) is very close to the sort of lofty, amoral cruelty of the global elite. It does you no credit.
“A denialist in this case is someone who goes out of their way to deny that adding CO2 to the planet’s atmosphere results in higher temperatures.”
The term adds no logical value “in this case”, but does “add hom” (pun intended).
You didn’t address my question which was about the role of CO2 in particular.
“Both Rancourt and Zharkova make a theoretical argument as to why this [rising temp due to CO2] just cannot be, but they don’t really engage with the experimental evidence that shows that it is and has happened several times in the past.”
You could be right of course, but I think your argument would be advanced if you could indicate what the experimental evidence on CO2 is that they don’t engage with. Much more useful than exercising your maths skills to aim at the protagonists!
“…the lofty cruelty of the global elite” ? What, K, just for observing that we’re good survivors and that our prospects for that are good? Shome mishtake, shurely?
You’ll have picked up, I daresay, that I’m fairly convinced about constant re-incarnation, so I don’t really see the need to make death such a horrible bug-bear; just a rest-and-refresh interlude that our immortal souls go through repeatedly, in our long journeys. That thought helps to keep me serene about things.
But you may have picked up also that I’m much susceptible to cherishing life, in all its manifestations, and never treating it with cavalier indifference; and you may have picked up my belief in the absolute validity of love and loyalty, and the entirely right and proper grief that we all feel - and should feel - when anyone we love passes. That’s only human, and profoundly correct.
Sounds like “lofty cruelty” does it, K? Well bugger me! I must proof-read my prose more carefully before publishing.
Hi @LocalYokel , I’m surprised anyone would venture out to read thermometers at temperatures around 130 degrees F , 4 degrees F short of its 1913 record high! Was this in Furnace Creek Death Valley?
I have no idea why this is.
cheers
This is one of those entrenched debates that - I would hazard - doesn’t really get us anywhere.
Of course there is a problem with manmade pollution; I don’t think anyone here would deny that. The real problem is the way the world is structured, financially. None of the ‘eco-warriors’ or the media ever address this, which of course is because the eco organisations and the media are all bought and paid for by the same big, evil corporations that are causing all the pollution.
You-can’t-make-it-up
And of course this coming winter, when people in London, Paris, Berlin, etc, are starving and freezing to death do you really think they are going to give a shite about ‘the climate crisis’?
What-planet-are-you-on
I’d strongly advise the eco warriors to keep their heads down over the coming months.
You’ll be as popular as stepping in dog poo on Blackpool beach.
I shall have to wait and see what happens with the climate. I imagine reality will continue to do what it always does: carry on regardless, ignoring completely the convictions of we little human atomies and just doing whatever it chooses to do, indifferent to our certainties, as ever. 
(for K 
)