Thank you for the article with many interesting links, but I fundamentally disagree with the essential message you give on the climate. The physics of radiative forcing, which is the fundamental driver of increasing surface earth temperature from atmospheric gases well understood for over 100 years. The atmosphere acts like a duvet, being transparent to incoming solar radiation and opaque to the loss of heat infrared radiation back from the earth to space. Pouring millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will inevitably warm the surface of the earth. Climate is a complex system (not complicated, like a watch) with complex differential equations using at least 25 parameters, some of which have very wide range of possible values with both positive and negative feedback loops and singularities as tipping points, but the trend is overwhelmingly obvious. I have been to the high mountains for over 50 years and the shrinkage of glaciar ice is obvious. The changes in animal and plant behavior in our own gardens is obvious to anyone with an inquiring outlook. The seed catalogues offer varietarying aspects of the ‘climate change agenda’. You could find scientists willing to write papers and appear in court to deny smoking caused cancer and asbestos caused mesothelioma long after it was realistically no longer tenable to do so. The various statemetnts etc by politicians are of the type called ‘announceable’ in the UK, ie something to say while ensuring nothing actually gets done. The hidden inflluences of pharmaceutical industry will be well known to most readers, but there are massive hidden influences of all the various opaque foundations, institutes etc set up by industry money and wealthy individuals to muddy the waters. The Koch brothers massively outgun Greta Thunberg in the corridors of power.ies that would be impossible to grow in the UK climate a few decades ago. If course the planets climate has varied over the last thousands of years and by cherry picking different times, almost any thesis can be supported.
You can of course find lots of scienttsts denying varying aspects of the ‘climate change agenda’. You could find scientists willing to write papers and appear in court to deny smoking caused cancer and asbestos caused mesothelioma long after it was realistically no longer tenable to do so. The various statemetnts etc by politicians are of the type called ‘announceable’ in the UK, ie something to say while ensuring nothing actually gets done. The hidden inflluences of pharmaceutical industry will be well known to most readers, but there are massive hidden influences of all the various opaque foundations, institutes etc set up by industry money and wealthy individuals to muddy the waters. The Koch brothers massively outgun Greta Thunberg in the corridors of power.
Thank you, Ian, for a comprehensive comment, much appreciated!
As you may have noticed from the text, climate is certainly a complex system and that is one of the key messages. Humans have little knowledge of the miracles that occur in nature and on our planet. The conventional narrative tries to convince us that it is quite simple and clear and that science understands most of it.
The second message is that the climate is changing and has been doing so all along, in many cycles, going back to the beginning of time. The climate crisis narrative says that the change is not so frequent, that it is a fairly recent phenomenon connected with human behaviour, and that humans have a lot of power over climate processes.
The third message is about the disinformation industry, which 'fact-checks' certain claims and leaves others (half-truths, half-lies, lies, etc.) untouched, mostly those backed by the powers that be.
Global boiling may have been intended as a metaphor, but it is a devious one, aimed at increasing fear, anxiety and panic. It is also not at all helpful for rational discussion and academic research. Anyway, objective research in this area has shrunk a lot and many researchers, scientists are not able to express their true opinions and study real hypotheses because many of them are dependent on financial incentives coming from the powers that be. The claim of "settled science" has curtailed a lot of academic freedom, and this is a particularly damaging manifestation of authoritarianism.
Briefly, in reply I did get your three messages, and in general do not disagree with them, but what bothers me is that there are 2 other 'messages' that I think are just as important but are always omitted from the type of article you posted.
Firstly, the planet IS in big trouble for many reasons, and the changing climate is one of them and we are mostly responsible for this. Iti sin not really significant that I can now grow plants in northern England that would not have been possible 50 years ago, but the loss of planetary ice and increasing desertification is important.
Secondly, while politicians of all stripes and shapes pay lip service to 'the green agenda' some are in it for the money, some for votes. There is money in academia for research, but overall the scales are massively tilted in the opposite direction with the influence of hidden money working the other way. The malign influence of pharma is well known, but the influences of the oil and related industries are never mentioned in these posts.
Thank you for the additional comments, it is good to discuss these important aspects. Indeed, the planet is in trouble because of many problems, especially toxicity, waste and pollution, but these issues tend to be pushed aside because of the CO2 frenzy. Toxicity is really an issue that should be taken very seriously, but certain interest groups downplay the effects, e.g. the effects of heavy metals, forever chemicals, etc. Oil vested interests have created waste and pollution, but a similar problem arises with so-called "green technology" (wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc.) which may not be so green after all. Not to mention the mess created by mining the essential minerals needed for this technology etc. So there are many sides to consider and we are on the safe side if we do not take for granted the many claims made by the often overconfident conventional scientists, politicians and journalists.
Thank you for the article with many interesting links, but I fundamentally disagree with the essential message you give on the climate. The physics of radiative forcing, which is the fundamental driver of increasing surface earth temperature from atmospheric gases well understood for over 100 years. The atmosphere acts like a duvet, being transparent to incoming solar radiation and opaque to the loss of heat infrared radiation back from the earth to space. Pouring millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will inevitably warm the surface of the earth. Climate is a complex system (not complicated, like a watch) with complex differential equations using at least 25 parameters, some of which have very wide range of possible values with both positive and negative feedback loops and singularities as tipping points, but the trend is overwhelmingly obvious. I have been to the high mountains for over 50 years and the shrinkage of glaciar ice is obvious. The changes in animal and plant behavior in our own gardens is obvious to anyone with an inquiring outlook. The seed catalogues offer varietarying aspects of the ‘climate change agenda’. You could find scientists willing to write papers and appear in court to deny smoking caused cancer and asbestos caused mesothelioma long after it was realistically no longer tenable to do so. The various statemetnts etc by politicians are of the type called ‘announceable’ in the UK, ie something to say while ensuring nothing actually gets done. The hidden inflluences of pharmaceutical industry will be well known to most readers, but there are massive hidden influences of all the various opaque foundations, institutes etc set up by industry money and wealthy individuals to muddy the waters. The Koch brothers massively outgun Greta Thunberg in the corridors of power.ies that would be impossible to grow in the UK climate a few decades ago. If course the planets climate has varied over the last thousands of years and by cherry picking different times, almost any thesis can be supported.
You can of course find lots of scienttsts denying varying aspects of the ‘climate change agenda’. You could find scientists willing to write papers and appear in court to deny smoking caused cancer and asbestos caused mesothelioma long after it was realistically no longer tenable to do so. The various statemetnts etc by politicians are of the type called ‘announceable’ in the UK, ie something to say while ensuring nothing actually gets done. The hidden inflluences of pharmaceutical industry will be well known to most readers, but there are massive hidden influences of all the various opaque foundations, institutes etc set up by industry money and wealthy individuals to muddy the waters. The Koch brothers massively outgun Greta Thunberg in the corridors of power.
Thank you, Ian, for a comprehensive comment, much appreciated!
As you may have noticed from the text, climate is certainly a complex system and that is one of the key messages. Humans have little knowledge of the miracles that occur in nature and on our planet. The conventional narrative tries to convince us that it is quite simple and clear and that science understands most of it.
The second message is that the climate is changing and has been doing so all along, in many cycles, going back to the beginning of time. The climate crisis narrative says that the change is not so frequent, that it is a fairly recent phenomenon connected with human behaviour, and that humans have a lot of power over climate processes.
The third message is about the disinformation industry, which 'fact-checks' certain claims and leaves others (half-truths, half-lies, lies, etc.) untouched, mostly those backed by the powers that be.
Global boiling may have been intended as a metaphor, but it is a devious one, aimed at increasing fear, anxiety and panic. It is also not at all helpful for rational discussion and academic research. Anyway, objective research in this area has shrunk a lot and many researchers, scientists are not able to express their true opinions and study real hypotheses because many of them are dependent on financial incentives coming from the powers that be. The claim of "settled science" has curtailed a lot of academic freedom, and this is a particularly damaging manifestation of authoritarianism.
Thank you and nice to hear your response.
Briefly, in reply I did get your three messages, and in general do not disagree with them, but what bothers me is that there are 2 other 'messages' that I think are just as important but are always omitted from the type of article you posted.
Firstly, the planet IS in big trouble for many reasons, and the changing climate is one of them and we are mostly responsible for this. Iti sin not really significant that I can now grow plants in northern England that would not have been possible 50 years ago, but the loss of planetary ice and increasing desertification is important.
Secondly, while politicians of all stripes and shapes pay lip service to 'the green agenda' some are in it for the money, some for votes. There is money in academia for research, but overall the scales are massively tilted in the opposite direction with the influence of hidden money working the other way. The malign influence of pharma is well known, but the influences of the oil and related industries are never mentioned in these posts.
Thank you for the additional comments, it is good to discuss these important aspects. Indeed, the planet is in trouble because of many problems, especially toxicity, waste and pollution, but these issues tend to be pushed aside because of the CO2 frenzy. Toxicity is really an issue that should be taken very seriously, but certain interest groups downplay the effects, e.g. the effects of heavy metals, forever chemicals, etc. Oil vested interests have created waste and pollution, but a similar problem arises with so-called "green technology" (wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, etc.) which may not be so green after all. Not to mention the mess created by mining the essential minerals needed for this technology etc. So there are many sides to consider and we are on the safe side if we do not take for granted the many claims made by the often overconfident conventional scientists, politicians and journalists.