Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

The BMJ editors strike back against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook

The BMJ’s outgoing editor Fiona Godlee and incoming editor wrote open letter to Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook’s labeling Paul Thacker’s conspiracy-filled Pfizer story as lacking context. It did not go well. Actually, it was downright embarrassing.

I was reluctant to write any more about The BMJ and its descent into bad journalism, one of its editors amplifying antivaccine misinformation, and its publishing of outright conspiracy theories by a hack journalist, but unfortunately its editors leave me little choice. It started again when readers started emailing me links to an Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg, published as a Rapid Response after the utter crapfest of a “news report” by hack journalist and anti-GMO conspiracy theorist Paul Thacker. The story claimed that Ventavia Research Group, a contract research organization (CRO) hired by Pfizer to run three of its sites in Texas for its original phase 3 clinical trials of its then-experimental mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine had all sorts of problems that, or so Thacker insinuated, called into doubt the clinical trial data behind the safety and efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine that were used to apply for its emergency use authorization (EUA). Thacker’s main source was a “whistleblower” named Brook Jackson, who had worked at Ventavia for only two weeks. As I described, the allegations were either big nothingburgers that wouldn’t have affected the quality of the data (e.g., not appropriately using sharps containers to dispose of sharps) or were mainly insinuated and implied without actual evidence (e.g., unblinding or even falsifying clinical trial data). The article follows a familiar format for disinformation. Very definitive and serious accusations are leveled very early in the article, followed much later in the article by “facts” that do not actually substantiate such definitive and serious allegations.

I realize that Paul Thacker recently won a Special Journalism Award at Press Gazette’s tenth British Journalism Awards for three of his previous BMJ reports (but not for this one, I note), which suggest to me that the state of British journalism is dire indeed. Personally, I can only might recall Thacker as the conspiracy-mongering freelance “journalist” with a penchant for harassing scientists with frivolous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and amplifying antivaccine messages himself. I deconstructed in my usual detail everything that I found wrong in Thacker’s news story (and there was a lot), as did a number of others, some of whom I cited, some of whom I didn’t. (David Grimes and I also wrote a Rapid Response that the editors of The BMJ did not see fit to publish, which I will include later in this post, given that I didn’t include it in my last one.) Basically, current editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee and incoming editor Kamran Abbasi, current executive editor who will replace Godlee after she steps down at the end of the year, are very, very indignant about Facebook’s use of a fact checking source that—correctly, I might add—declared Thacker’s article to be misinformation.

Godlee and Abbasi complain about this early in their open letter:

The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.[1]

But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”

Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2]

Of course, given his long history of promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, commissioning Thacker to do an article on anything related to pharma, GMOs, or vaccines was The BMJ‘s first mistake. They might as well have commissioned Andrew Wakefield to do an investigative report about the MMR vaccine and whether it causes autism. Seeing Thacker’s hack journalism in the service of a conspiracy mongering article long on insinuation and accusations but short on actual evidence to back up those accusations in the same journal that a decade ago had published Brian Deer’s excellent investigative journalism blowing the lid off of Wakefield’s MMR fraud, even going so far as to call it “Piltdown medicine” and vigorously defending against Wakefield’s libel suit over the article, was truly depressing. I even gave Godlee props once for how she handled a particularly annoying antivaxxer questioning her about The BMJ‘s reporting on Wakefield.

That history aside, apparently The BMJ‘s “usual high level editorial oversight and review” is nowhere near as high as it once was, say, eleven years ago. Let’s just put it this way. If you commission an “investigative report” by Paul Thacker about Pfizer (or any pharmaceutical company, for that matter), the results will be as preordained as they would be if you commissioned an “investigative report” by Andrew Wakefield about the MMR vaccine. If Godlee didn’t know that that’s what she would get when The BMJ hired Thacker, then she’s painfully naïve beyond belief. If she did know, then it’s hard to conclude anything other than that she was purposely putting The BMJ on the side of spreading antivaccine conspiracy theories. I don’t know what Abbasi’s role in all of this was, but the fact that he would co-sign an open letter with Godlee complaining to Facebook about its labeling of Thacker’s article as lacking context tells me that he’s part of the problem. Of course, neither of them have found enough reason to fire Peter Doshi, even after he appeared to testify at roundtable hosted by COVID-19 minimizer and antivaxxer Senator Ron Johnson, at which he spewed misinformation about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, as touted by antivax activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.”

When a leader of the antivaccine movement likes your testimony enough to promote it on Twitter, you know it’s really, really bad.

Again, I deconstructed all that was wrong with Doshi’s testimony in my original article. Let’s just say that it was bad—really bad. Abbasi, you might recall, had publicly defended Doshi on Twitter with the weakest of weak defenses, “he didn’t represent The BMJ“:

I said at the time, when Peter Doshi lists his titles, including “editor at The BMJ,” before launching into his deceptive, misinformation-filled anti-COVID-19 vaccine testimony, Mr. Abbasi can’t disavow it. Indeed, antivaxxers trumpet it! Doshi was the face of The BMJ for this, and he implies that The BMJ supports him. The BMJ is thus now complicit with Doshi in spreading antivaccine disinformation.

Before I address Godlee and Abbasi’s embarrassing letter responding to the fact checking of Thacker’s article, which The BMJ had apparently commissioned, let’s take a look at the article that Facebook used to reach its conclusion, a Lead Stories article by Dean Miller entitled The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials. (Oddly enough, Abbasi and Godlee did not mention a similar deconstruction published in MedPage Today that listed the same problems with Thacker’s report (and that was also cited by Dean in his Lead Stories article), citing experts describing Thacker’s allegations as a “vague kind of hand waving”). It also cited examples of Brook Jackson retweeting and agreeing with antivaccine misinformation.

So let’s look at Godlee and Abbasi’s criticisms of the Lead Stories article, which lead them at the end to a hilariously off-base demand for a “correction”:

We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.

— It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong

— It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”

— The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”

— It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article

— It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert” 

We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.

We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.

The first complaint is, while perhaps not completely false, definitely misleading. The main problems withThe BMJ story by Thacker was not the falsity of any specific claim in it, but rather how various “facts” were either poorly supported by evidence and/or woven together in a deceptive manner to suggest nefarious intent and ends where there were almost certainly none. For example, his report states that Jackson reported data falsification by Ventavia, but Thacker could only support that allegation with one throwaway line in this passage:

Documents show that problems had been going on for weeks. In a list of “action items” circulated among Ventavia leaders in early August 2020, shortly after the trial began and before Jackson’s hiring, a Ventavia executive identified three site staff members with whom to “Go over e-diary issue/falsifying data, etc.” One of them was “verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry,” a note indicates.

Let me cite what I wrote about this passage a month and a half ago:

I also note that, although Thacker claims that Ventavia “falsified data” in the very introduction of his report, this is the only mention of “falsifying data” that occurs anywhere else. There is no description of any specific incidents of “falsifying data” listed, only a memo mentioning three staff members, one of whom was apparently counseled about “changing data and not noting late entry.” One also notes that this memo comes from early August 2020, shortly after the trial began, which means that Ventavia intervened before that many patients could have been signed up. This is truly thin gruel to make sensationalistic claims about “falsifying data” in the introduction in such a way as to make it sound as though the practice was widespread.

Basically, we don’t know if falsification occurred, how often it occurred, or what the specific “falsifications” were. Indeed, the phrasing of the memo could have indicated that the changing of data, which could have been the correction of errors, and not noting a late entry could have been discussed in the context of how even minor violations like that without the appropriate audit trail could be interpreted as “falsifying data.” Again, we just don’t know, and Thacker doesn’t tell because he doesn’t have evidence. (If he did, you know he would have cited more than just a cherry picked quote from a memo, which is very thin gruel indeed to base a charge of “data falsification” on.)

Thacker has since tried—and failed—to bolster his allegation of data falsification by Ventavia on his Substack, and I’ll get to that before the end. First, I want to deal with the rest of Godlee and Abbasi’s complaints.

The second complaint is downright cringeworthy. The title of Miller’s article was not “nonsensical.” It said exactly what the article was about. True, it’s an arguably annoyingly click-baity title, but it’s not “nonsensical.” I’ll (sort of) give them the third complaint, that The BMJ is not a “news blog.” I say “sort of” because Lead Stories has responded, and one of its responses was:

BMJ.com objects to our use of the term “news blog.” Without a hard copy in hand, we can only responsibly work from the BMJ.com post. It is one item in a regularly updated feed of articles with the newest items at the top: a news blog, subject to the kind of after-the-fact updating not possible in a printed journal.

This one’s not worth fighting over, obviously, and it’s all a red herring anyway, a distraction on the part of Godlee and Abbasi, who take a relatively inconsequential “gotcha!” and try to use it to discredit more substantive criticisms of Thacker’s article.

The fourth response about “flaws reviewed” made me want to write Godlee and tell her that The BMJ owes me for keyboard for my new 14″ M1 MacBook Pro laptop, because I spit up the water I was drinking when I read it. Again, it’s a obvious and cringeworthy bit of misdirection that leads me to reluctantly question Godlee’s and Abbasi’s motivations. I mean, seriously, the most effective disinformation is disinformation that weaves a deceptive tale using verifiable facts. The problems with Thacker’s reporting weren’t that it reported things that were necessarily demonstrably false, but rather how Thacker wove his findings and a lot of other “facts” that were very weakly supported into a deceptive narrative suggesting that his dubious findings from three sites in the Pfizer clinical trial were generalizable to the entire clinical trial of tens of thousands of subjects. Again, one example is how Thacker outright stated as fact early in his report that data had been falsified, but the only evidence that he could muster to support that allegation was a single line from an “action plan” provided to him by his “whistleblower” Brook Jackson. He never once demonstrated that any data were actually “falsified”!

Let me just put it this way to Ms. Godlee and Mr. Abbasi. I can point out a number of articles at the conspiracy mongering antivaccine and health disinformation site Natural News that contain, strictly speaking, zero factual errors but are nonetheless completely misleading. How is it that they do not understand this, and instead retreat to haughty indignance over how a site like Lead Stories would dare question Thacker’s report without demonstrating a single error in fact? Retreating to the defense that there were no “factual errors” to defend a report like Thacker’s is the same defense someone like Mike Adams would use about one of his conspiracy articles.

And, indeed, in their response Lead Stories points out in a response that would make Orac proud:

“Missing Context” is the most accurate rating available to us in the Facebook Fact-Checking rubric: The concerns Jackson raised affect three of 153 sites, while BMJ.com’s headline makes no effort to convey how small the subset is; at no point in the article are Pfizer, Ventavia and the FDA granted the opportunity to respond to accusations of mis-, mal- and non-feasance; the whistleblower’s public statements about vaccines give vital context to her actions; and while Jackson was hired for her auditing expertise, her publicly expressed views of COVID vaccines, public health efforts and of vaccination of children are at least noteworthy. BMJ prides itself on accompanying each article with a statement of conflicts of interest. Perhaps its high-level editing could have noted their key source’s advocacy.

And that’s exactly it, the same thing that I noted when I discussed how bad Thacker’s article was. It doesn’t put its allegations into context, because if it did the allegations would then suddenly become a lot less worrisome. Basically, Lead Stories did review the flaws in Thacker’s article, it’s just that Godlee and Abbasi seem to be misrepresenting the flaws that were actually reviewed (lack of context and deceptive narrative) as meaning clear, undeniable factual errors. It’s also amusing that Godlee and Abbasi don’t know that the label placed on Thacker’s article does not inhibit the sharing of the article on Facebook at all. Anyone can share it; it’s just that the “misleading” label will be added to it—and, appropriately so, I might add. This is one of the times when Facebook actually got misinformation screening largely correct.

One can’t help but wonder if, to Godlee and Abbasi, keeping Peter Doshi on board and publishing “investigative journalism” by a hack like Thacker is all about the clicks:

Note that the scale is logarithmic. Those are some impressive peaks!

While I’m at it, Grimes included our submitted Rapid Response to The BMJ that was rejected outright for publication, even as multiple Rapid Responses from antivaxxers associated with the blog Age of Autism were accepted:

Godlee and Abbasi’s final point is perhaps the most embarrassing, namely that presumably reliable sources of information are sometimes incorrectly flagged as misinformation:

There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.[3] Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.

The example pointed to is the Cochrane Collaboration, which Tweeted last month:

Citing this example, as bad as it is, is misdirection, too. Basically, Godlee and Abbasi’s last argument seems to boil down to something like this: Social media fact checkers and algorithms sometimes mistakenly flag reliable sources as unreliable. Therefore, the same is true of the fact-check of Thacker’s article by Lead Stories. This is what we in the biz call a non sequitur. It does not follow from the observation how sometimes social media companies mischaracterize reliable sources as unreliable that in this instance they did the same. At best, such an example shows that Facebook might have mischaracterized a reliable article as unreliable, not that it did, in fact, do so. You have to show that they did for this article. Godlee and Abbasi most assuredly failed to do this—and failed miserably, embarrassingly even.

Indeed, Lead Stories gets it right again:

We would like to point out that Lead Stories is not involved in enforcing said Community Guidelines and that we agree this content probably should not be blocked. We actually alerted our contact at Meta about this issue on November 10, 2021 and hope this can be resolved soon.

That is exactly how Lead Stories should have responded to this red herring.

I’ll conclude by looking at whether any new information has come to light to support Thacker’s allegations and make Godlee and Abbasi’s letter any less cringeworthy. Spoiler alert: The answer is no, although Paul Thacker did release additional documents on his Substack three weeks ago and then later as part of an attack on David Grimes. In his first article, Thacker includes a cease-and-desist letter from Brook Jackson’s attorneys to Ventavia over its statement to MedPage Today that she wasn’t involved in the clinical trials. I won’t adjudicate that particular disagreement other than to consider that I doubt a company like Ventavia would have made such a statement without having its legal department look at it first. Whatever the “truth” is; my point is more that there’s a whole lot more nothing in Thacker’s article. Nothing he adds in any way bolsters his case.

For example, he includes this as an example of the “chaos” going on at Ventavia during the clinical trial:

Ventavia
Why did Thacker cut this off?

This appears to be cut from an email included here:

Ventavia
The full email, dated September 14, 2020, doesn’t look particularly damning, as it appears to point out that the company is working on fixing regulatory issues related to the trial.

Thacker also just outright recycled another email quote that he had included in his report:

FDA coming
I’m not sure why Thacker thinks this is so damning. Of course the FDA was coming!

For context, here’s the whole email:

Olivia, myself and the leadership team made a decision this morning to pause our enrollment on the COVID C4591001 trial. Apparently, word travels fast in this company…and with that comes a lot of rumors. So let me help clear this up. We have been enrolling fast and furious for 7-8 weeks now. Though we have participated in high-enrolling studies before, this one had it’s own set of challenges from the beginning. Then to top it off…the enrollment period was extended for longer than we’d anticipated and that is HARD.

We realize that the more we enroll, the more chaotic and messy things get. We decided to pause our enrollment so that each of our COVID sites can not only catch up, but also make sure they are in complete compliance. I know I’ve said this several times, but I’ll say it again here…it’s not a matter of IF the FDA is coming…it’s a matter of WHEN the FDA is coming. This is the biggest clinical trial in the world…and we are atop enroller And they are coming soon. THE FDA IS COMING…SOON (like in a matter of days, if I had to make a guess).

I don’t say all of this to scare you. I say this so that you can make sure you are prepared. And this is why we have decided to pause our enrollment. We need to do our own internal audit (as a team) and make sure we are prepared.

We will be having an FDA training in the next few days (in preparation), so be on the lookout for an invite…it will be mandatory. But until then, do not forget…if they knock on your sites door…the first thing you ask for proof of who they are (they will have the documentation you need to see) and immediately notify your manager and the manager will then notify the RD (and so on). SOMs…make sure anyone who answers our doors/sits at the front desks, know to immediately ask for identification if someone says they’re from the FDA.

Let me know if you have any questions (don’t cc all, unless necessary…I don’t want the emails to get out of control with this)

The picture I get is of management trying to make sure all the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed before the FDA inspects. None of this shows that the trial was compromised or that any “data falsification” had occurred.

Then there was this email from Jackson:

Again, none of this sounds particularly nefarious, more like efforts to correct flaws in the system. Moreover, I’m not sure why Thacker thinks it’s a bad thing that Ventavia considered temporarily halting enrollment in order to make sure it had caught up on documentation and fixed problems in its systems, but he does. In any event, I perused the documents included in Thacker’s document cloud and left very much thinking that nothing in there supports his allegation of data falsification, although I always leave open the possibility that I could be wrong if anyone wants to show me where in this long email chain linked to by Thacker this is documented. I see a lot of discussion of roles of various personnel in the trial, a $500 stipend for study personnel, and questions about an unblinded CRA, and the only thing I could find about data falsification is a note that is not damning:

Go over ediary issue/falsifying data, etc. DONE-Thea also verbally counseled for changing data and not noting late entry.

If you’ve ever been involved in a clinical trial, you’ll recognize that someone likely made late entries or corrections to records but did not appropriately note that this was a late entry, which the FDA can sometimes view as data alteration. It happens occasionally, and it sounds as though it was corrected here. Truly, as in Thacker’s original article, this one little entry does a lot of work that it can’t really do. It sounds like something that happened with one employee, who was counseled, and didn’t happen again. In the scheme of things, it sounds very minor and certainly doesn’t support the impression of mass data falsification that Thacker insinuates in his article. Similarly, the issue of unblinding was never really well-supported either. I discussed that in detail in my original post; nothing here changes my assessment. Basically, there’s nothing new in Thacker’s big document dump. No wonder he never quoted more in his original BMJ article!

It’s sad to see what’s happened to The BMJ. It hired someone who is, if not outright antivax, at least antivax-adjacent who has continually spread misinformation about vaccines dating back to the H1N1 pandemic and continues to do so with COVID-19 vaccines while commissioning an awful conspiracy mongering bit of “journalism” by a known hack. Then, when criticized for it, instead of seriously looking at where they might have gone wrong, Godlee and Abbasi instead double down and throw out red herrings to try to discredit the criticism. It’s a sad way for Fiona Godlee to leave the journal, and, if this open letter to Mark Zuckerberg is any indication, I’m not reassured that things will get any better under Kamran Abbasi’s leadership.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

174 replies on “The BMJ editors strike back against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook”

Hey Orac, what do you make of the FDA wanting 5+ decades to redact clinical trial information before releasing it to FOIA requests, seem excessive to you?

Misleading. The FDA offered to provide a set number of pages each month, a common response to large FOIA requests. They don’t have infinite personnel to do the redaction of trade secrets and PHI they are legally required to do before release. Regardless, they would start providing data as it was completed, not hold it for 50 years and release all at once. The fact that it would take 50 years to complete speaks to the scale of the FOIA request, not the FDA’s refusal to release data.

For comparison, the largest court ordered FOIA release rate I can find is about 10x what the FDA ordered, and that was less sensitive data.

Unless the redaction has to do with de-identifying patient data (which should have already been done before it got to the FDA), there is no reason to redact the information at all. Redaction defeats the entire point of FOIA requests: transparency. It should take no longer to release the data than it did to collect it. 50 years is indefensible.

FOIA, besides setting out a requirement for government disclosure, also has a list of exceptions to protect other important interests. Redaction protects those other interests, and is part of the law.

Not liking the law won’t change it.

Are you really falling for that nonsense? This FOA request was so broad the filers must have known this would happen. In my view this is exactly what they wanted to happen so they could act like something nefarious was happening.

Three thoughts. First, thank you for going through this. It’s painful to see BMJ drop so low, though the fact that for several years now their Rapid Responses were a favorite forum for antivaccine activists – who sometimes quote rapid responses as published in BMJ, too – should, perhaps, have been as much of a warning as their use of people like Thacker and Doshi.

In fact, the fact that their article here appeared at the same level as antivaccine comments from people like Age of Autism’s John Stone can, perhaps, say something.

Second, it’s hard not to get the impression that Thacker believes any problem is a fatal one, regardless of efforts to fix it. That’s a strange attitude. We want places to monitor, find issues and fix them – that’s how you prevent or solve problems – and holding such efforts against a company seems likely to backfire. Note that this is assuming that Thacker actually believes it’s a problem, rather than is just trying to throw shade.

Three, isn’t the heart of the difference between misinformation and disinformation that misinformation is wrong in ways that are easy to catch, but disinformation weaves threads of truth into a misleading whole, and that’s what makes disinformation harder to fight?

Reading your BMJ response more closely, I liked the framing of malformation more.

I don’t know if it’s hard, but would it be possible to paste the content of that response somewhere more shareable than a screenshot on a tweet?

The most biased opinion based website I have ever come across. David, you are something else. Funded by the government who clearly has vested interests in the pro-vaccine narrative. Nothing you say holds any weight. You lack objectivity and have a clear agenda to promote the false narrative of your funders.

Would love to debate you sometime. I presume you won’t though because you know you don’t have a leg to stand on with regards to this matter. You have my e-mail though if you want to prove to the world that you more than just a man who is limited to spewing his opinions on his personal website who fears open dialogue with the opposition.

And no, I will not be responding further on your website. I am not signing up for notifications. You have my e-mail. Prove to the world that you are confident in your position to such an extent that you are willing to debate others on this matter publicly.

Look forward to hearing from you. But I doubt I will.

I do so love drive-by comments where the commenter says how awful my post is and then says he won’t stick around to see the responses as he challenges me to a “live public debate.” How well you demonstrate how correct I was back in 2013 when I wrote about how cranks, antivaxxers, quacks, and denialists fetishize “live public debate” over all else:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/26/all-truth-comes-from-public-debate-a-corollary-to-crank-magnetism/

Sam Harris was discussing why he won’t debate disingenuous crap-slingers like this, too. I think the quote was: “Every two seconds they’ll say some thing like ‘What about the fourteen CDC employees that just quit?!’ and when you say you don’t know anything about that they will use it as ammo to call you misinformed.” He went on to say that he had just made that cdc thing up on the fly. Trump did this, too. He would pull a gotcha from his bung whoever needed and fire it with such vigor it was assumed true.

People like Steve Kirsch and RFK jr. love the spectacle of calling people out, not understanding the way the scientific debate happens.

@David,
Steve Kirsch had a long post up on the “We’ll Publish Anything” Blog for a while with a long list of subjects he wanted someone to debate him on. But he never posted a prima facile case for any of them.

He had at least one other post there. For a few days I was having a back and forth discussion with one of the other commenters there. Then one day I checked on a Disqus reply and the post was no longer available!

I’ve had extended back and forth discussions with a few commenters at SBM for weeks. The real process of scientific debate is likely much more like that but ongoing for years with occasional inputs from relevant new research.

At best public debates might inform the public about the real evidence. But these days they mainly provide a chance for non-scientists to misinform people.

I note that the commenter did not point to anything actually wrong in the post, or any problems with it.

This is a private blog. It’s not government funded.

If and when you have anything specific you think is wrong, we can discuss it. But why would anyone debate anything with someone whose only comment is empty abuse?

Two things stand out to me about the BMJ’s response:

First, there’s the hilariously over-the-top high dudgeon over a BMJ article being flagged as misleading, given the “usual high level editorial oversight and review” and status of being a “high quality information provider” that Fiona et al believe immunizes the BMJ from screwing up badly in this instance.

Secondly, it was ten years ago that the BMJ earned the ire of antivaxers by publishing Brian Deer’s article about Wakefield’s MMR fraud, with an editorial reinforcing the point that was authored by…Fiona Godlee. There are probably severe mental contortions going on in Antivax-Land as they decide whether or not to jump to defend Fiona and the BMJ.

Well OK, a third point: if Paul Thacker is the BMJ’s idea of a respected investigative journalist for hire, expect to see Sharyl Attkisson’s byline in the journal soon.*

*unless Boris Johnson and his thugs hack her keyboard.

Well OK, a third point: if Paul Thacker is the BMJ’s idea of a respected investigative journalist for hire, expect to see Sharyl Attkisson’s byline in the journal soon.*

LOLOL.

Two thoughts from journalism studies land.
1) BMJ sure seems to have a problem. It’s not so much any one thing, but the overall pattern, including the choice to commission Thacker, having Doshi in a position of authority, blurring lines between peer-reviewed research and investigative journalism…
2) Thacker’s article in and of itself isn’t out of bounds for the genre of Investigative Journalism. That genre (think typical 60 Minutes expose) is typified by more-or-less partisan takes, and as such typically functions to start debate rather than settle it. In short, the exchanges that followed the publication, including Orac’s posts, are all expected parts of the process. Which means it’s lame for BMJ to get all pissy about the criticism, and blather on about their standards and “peer review”, as if that applies to something they commissioned from an author they chose in any way typically invoked by the term. But back to the article itself— some weak insinuations hardly make this a noteworthy example of anti-vax rhetoric. Under normal conditions, the outcome of this might only be increased pressure to insure best practices by sub-contractors in pharma-land, which given the problems that occurred with J&J’s manufacturing subcontractor is probably all to the good. The fact anti-vaxer’s will try to weaponize it can only count for so much as they try to weaponize everything. I have to think FB shouldn’t have blocked or even flagged Thacker’s piece, but it’s kind of weird it did get flagged given how much total venal anti-vax garbage goes on Meta’s platforms. Zuckerberg vs. Godlee is a Hobson’s choice to be sure.

But back to the article itself— some weak insinuations hardly make this a noteworthy example of anti-vax rhetoric.

I didn’t say that they were antivax rhetoric. I said that they were conspiracy mongering, which they rather were, the idea being that there is this lone “whistleblower” telling a horrible “truth” that “they” (i.e., Pfizer and Ventavia and the FDA, I guess) tried to cover up. The problem is, the horrible truth isn’t particularly horrible, and there’s no good evidence of a coverup. Thacker led with very strong assertions—for example, that data falsification definitely occurred at Ventavia during the Pfizer clinical trial—and didn’t get to any evidence to back up those assertions until much later in the article. By the time of the reveal—surprise!—that evidence turned out to be incredibly weak.

I’m torn regarding whether Facebook should have flagged the article. On the one hand, you have a point that it is odd to flag this article when so much other undeniable misinformation and disinformation seems to manage to go without being flagged. On the other hand, this article, because it came from The BMJ, was far more powerful when weaponized than it would have been coming from most other sources, and it really did mislead through lack of context. So I think a case could be made to flag it. I do see your point, though.

Maybe when they removed Medical from the journal title and went to just BMJ they decided to relax their high standards? It seems like you can generate a lot more traffic with a relaxed attitude to accuracy to go along with your hip new acroname.

“Thacker’s main source was a ‘whistleblower’ named Brook Jackson, who had worked at Ventavia for only two weeks. As I described, the allegations were either big nothingburgers that wouldn’t have affected the quality of the data (e.g., not appropriately using sharps containers to dispose of sharps) or were mainly insinuated and implied without actual evidence (e.g., unblinding or even falsifying clinical trial data).”

Here’s a bold idea. Instead of the usual (frankly, banal and predictable) knee-jerk mockery, data-denial and big-pharma apologetics, how about actually looking at Jackson’s evidence to see if it holds up? In this interview, she presents specific evidence backing up her claims:

https://www.rokfin.com/stream/11498/Brook-Jackson-Interview–Pfizer-Whistleblower-Exposes-Cover-Up-Calling-Vaccine-Data-Into-Question

The timestamps in the specimen log sheet are pretty clear indications of falsified data–at the very least, fudged durations and/or timestamps invalidate data for the associated participants for reasons that ought to be obvious to an impartial judge who understands how controlled experiments work.

Her allegations concerning the lack of informed consent are more than credible. We don’t even need evidence from Jackson to know that the entire experiment has lacked informed consent by definition: until the complete ingredients list is disclosed and long-term safety data have been collected and analyzed, participants in the population-level gene therapy trial can only give uninformed consent. The non-so-subtle insinuation that the people who decline to give uninformed consent are the crazy ones is absurd on its face.

Is there a transcript somewhere? I don’t watch hour-plus long interviews like this because they’re an incredibly inefficient use of my time. Also, I looked at the titles of some of the other videos on that site by Ryan Cristián and saw a 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory video, an interview with Dr. Robert Malone (who has gone completely antivax conspiracy theorist), and a lot of other material that suggests that this is not a…reliable,…source.

As for this:

We don’t even need evidence from Jackson to know that the entire experiment has lacked informed consent by definition: until the complete ingredients list is disclosed and long-term safety data have been collected and analyzed, participants in the population-level gene therapy trial can only give uninformed consent

This is an utterly ridiculous assertion on its face. If this were the real definition of informed consent, than it would be impossible for any participants in any clinical trial ever to give informed consent because the reason the clinical trial is being done is to collect safety data. Nor do most clinical trial consent forms list every single ingredient in the drug. (I know. I’ve helped write such forms and have counseled and asked patients to sign them.) Finally, that bit about “population-level gene therapy” is even more ridiculous. mRNA vaccines are not “gene therapy.”

The timestamps in the specimen log sheet are pretty clear indications of falsified data–

If the timestamps are clear then it ain’t fudged. Ever run a trial? Data is updated and corrected all the time… with timestamps.

FDA audits high-enrolling sites, and sites with reports of problems. They don’t list in their report which sites got audited, and they don’t list minor findings. Still, here’s what they wrote in their Clinical Review Memo: “Bioresearch Monitoring inspections of nine clinical sites in study C4591001 did not identify deficiencies that would affect the integrity of the clinical data submitted in this BLA.” (page 15 at: http://www.fda.gov/media/152256/download )

For those interested in the anti-vax (anti-FDA, anti-CDC etc.) angle, this provides ‘proof’ that of a ‘cover-up’. That’s the world of ‘conformation bias’ we live in.

Interesting concept…….”empty abuse” or “scientific debate happens” and the ever present ‘conspiracy” theory.

but vaxxers are the prime users of empty abuse especially on this SBM site.

“Oh look, Kay West has got herself a little pet! Hump that leg, baby!….Too late, asshole….Thereby “proving” to us you’re lying, you damn well know you’re lying, and you don’t give a flying crap that we both know you’re lying, because all you incontinent cockwombles …..vomitous murder-death cult how fecking dedicated and Speciaaaaaal you are. Like fcuking dogs pissing on the lamppost…….So fcuk you and your wall of noise about IPCC and houses and every other bullshit distraction you puke out, because all you loathesome twunts will be the death of humanity…

Posters who use the terms “twunts or czunts” on this site are welcome, as long as they support the pro vaccine side.

And the idea that this site is supporting, a “DARPA” project (lifelog) and not only sells all the data that it collects to anyone who is willing to pay the price and willingly shares the collected date with any government agency (both foreign and domestic) that would be against the law for a “US government” agency to collect and store, well…..

And misinformation is wrong

Rochell Walensky claiming “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
or
Dr. Fauci ‘They (vaccinated) can feel safe they are not going to get the virus or spread the virus.”

msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-don-t-carry-can-t-spread-virus/ar-BB1fdFMy

Here’s a quote from your own link:

“Dr. Walensky spoke broadly during this interview,” a CDC spokesperson told the Times. “It’s possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get Covid-19. The evidence isn’t clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.”

Yes, “misinformation is wrong”. That includes leaving out key facts to sell a deceptive narrative.

And as you well know, while some people who’ve been fully vaccinated against Covid-19 get infected, it remains true that they are at much, much less risk than the unvaccinated to develop serious illness or die, though antivaxers like you refuse to admit it.

But do go on clutching your pearls over “tone”.

What makes you think that so-called abuse is “empty”? Anyway,

And the idea that this site is supporting,[↲ n.b. microdot] a “DARPA” [“?”] project (lifelog) and not only sells all the data that it collects to anyone who is willing to pay the price and willingly shares the collected date with any government agency (both foreign and domestic) that would be against the law for a “US government” agency to collect and store, well…..

So, you’ve got something that never existed, the Gnomes of Zurich present Antiques Road Show, and a malformed ellipsis? Thank goodness there are professionals keeping an eye on you.

Peripheral observation: an acquaintance who has worked at BMJ for many years just quit to go edit fiction because he is a bit disgusted at the erosion of editorial standards there.

Interesting. What I don’t understand is why. Fiona Godlee was awesome 11 years ago, when she published Brian Deer’s exposé of Andrew Wakefield. What has happened since then. They hired Peter Doshi. They started publishing crap by Thacker. Ugh.

@ Kay West

You write: “Rochell Walensky claiming “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
or Dr. Fauci ‘They (vaccinated) can feel safe they are not going to get the virus or spread the virus.”

Yep, they misspoke, based what they said on ONE study published end of May. And they got lots of flack for it. What you miss, is that even Einstein, Newton, real geniuses were wrong about some things AND Walensky and Fauci have been much more careful since. You, like all of your ilk, those who have NO understanding of immunology, microbiology, virology, vaccinology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases, or epidemiology; but think you know better, well, you grab at any and all errors, contraditions, no matter how few, no matter how overwhelmingly outweighed by evidence accumulated by scientists around the world. Yep, they misspoke, so that means you must be right about the pandemic and vaccines. Yikes!

You write: “And the idea that this site is supporting, a “DARPA” project (lifelog) and not only sells all the data that it collects to anyone who is willing to pay the price and willingly shares the collected date with any government agency (both foreign and domestic) that would be against the law for a “US government” agency to collect and store, well…..”

Don’t know what you are referring to? Just an example of your inability to communicate clearly.

And I could care less about your gender, ethnic group, skin color, sexual orientation, etc. All I care about is your unscientific irrational certainty and ignoring when I or others clearly refute what you claim.

I did suggest a while back that PBS has several programs on climate change, you know the big hoax is your opinion, which outweighs 98% of world’s scientists. You should watch them:

Greta Thunberg 3 episodes (I wish I had been as insightful and had the vocabulary she has at 18, especially in a foreign language, English; but then I have read up on Asberger’s and they often are EXTREMELY intelligent, especially in technical areas)
Extinction: The Facts
Arctic Drift

and one book: Naomi Oreskes. Merchants of Doubt where she documents that the same scientists who worked for the Tobacco Institute to refute that tobacco harmful went on to work for Fossil Fuel companies to refute global warming. Oh, oops, maybe since you agree that climate change is a hoax, maybe you also agree with them that tobacco really isn’t harmful???

As for the first part of your comment, I haven’t seen such really super nasty language used, perhaps typical exaggeration on your part; but, I do from time to time call people morons, intellectually dishonest, stupid, and rarely, try not to, assholes; but I do it when they, including you, totally ignore what I write and/or completely twist it. In other words, it is you who really doesn’t enter into a civil discussion. However, if you can cut and paste examples of such extreme unpleasant language, please do. Otherwise I’ll just consider an example of paranoia.

And, feel free to point out I’m an old man living along. How that in any way, shape, or form relates to the logic, science, validity of what I write is beyond me; but maybe you can explain???

@ Kay West

In my previous comment I suggested you actually cut and paste examples of the nastiness you claim. However, I don’t trust you, so if you do, include the following:

Kay Westsays:
December 26, 2021 at 4:09 pm

AND if not this exchange, then the title and URL, just cut and paste:

The BMJ editors strike back against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/12/22/the-bmj-editors-strike-back-against-mark-zuckerberg-and-facebook/#comments

My guess is your last comment just an example of your paranoid grossly exaggerated delusions; but if you actually cut and paste some, as opposed to you, I am quite wiling to admit being wrong.

an acquaintance who has worked at BMJ for many years just quit to go edit fiction because he is a bit disgusted at the erosion of editorial standards there

If you want to make a living in editorial these days, the best strategy is to get some degree in human resources and minimize interactions with the workforce.

AMERICA’S QUACK DR. OZ IS RUNNING FOR SENATE:

has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 7:55 pm

You need help, not attention. Ideally from the business end of a shotgun.

has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 8:13 am

#FuckOffGerg

has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 5:04 am

This is a blog about science, not autofellatio.

has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 4:23 am

So kindly fcuk off and go conduct your holy-rolling auto-fellatio somewhere in private so we don’t have to watch your disgusting spooge show any more.

has
says:

Oh look, Kay West has got herself a little pet! Hump that leg, baby!
Too late, asshole…..because all you incontinent cockwombles care about is Lying For The Cause: virtue-signalling to the rest of your vomitous murder-death cult how fecking dedicated and Speciaaaaaal you are. Like fcuking dogs pissing on the lamppost, each determined to show that he’s the Top Dog now.
So fcuk you and your wall of noise about IPCC and houses and every other bullshit distraction you puke out, because all you loathesome twunts will be the death of humanity. and at this point

has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 4:50 am

Oh, girls, girls, you’re both pretty!

has
says:
December 5, 2021 at 4:15 am

So eff you, Kay West. You really are dirt

has
says:
December 6, 2021 at 8:46 pm

Far Too Atheeeeeeeeeeeeeist here to feed your ego the free fucking blowjobs it craves.

I did condense my previous post for readers (and that was just one pro-vaxxer’s post).

Walensky ‘misspoke’ based on one study, they misspoke about children and facemarks based on ONE study as well.

As to my reference to DARPA and “lifeLog”. This site has a tendency to support big ‘what ever” and is myopic in its view of serious issues of how the government can corrupt processes/media/public opinion by using big companies. Facebook is one of those companies the government uses or misuses and yet this blog post is siding with Facebook who’s face checkers are just opinions not actually facts.

I hesitate to use Wikipedia on the subject
wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog

“The LifeLog program was canceled in February, 2004, after criticism concerning the privacy implications of the system”.
but a few months after the DARPA project was stopped ‘Facebook’ was started
As to the fact checkers, they used to be called censors.

nypost.com/2021/05/18/how-facebook-uses-fact-checking-to-suppress-scientific-truth/

Facebook admits in court filings ‘fact checks’ are just opinion

americanthinker.com/blog/2021/12/stunning_facebook_court_filing_emadmitsem_fact_checks_are_just_a_matter_of_opinion.html

As to global warming, Why do you keep on referring to journalist(tv) opinions of what the science claims, Aaron said not to believe what was written in the “Atlantic” because it was written by a journalist . As a intelligence person who reads lots of books etc, instead of opinion pieces why don’t you read the real science and peek behind the curtain and see what the science is telling you. Most predictive science on global warming has been wrong. Remember the arctic was to be ice free by 2014 at the latest or sea level rise is accelerating so fast that the long island freeway was going to be under water by 2010 and in England children by 2020 just wouldn’t know what snow was (they just has some of the largest snow falls in the last 50 years). I am not as well versed on the science of global warming as some, but I can spot a ‘grift’ when I see one.

You want to claim that the BMJ is not real science, ok. Remember when the editor of the Lancet said “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext

Facebook is one of those companies the government uses or misuses and yet this blog post is siding with Facebook who’s [sic ] face [sic ] checkers are just opinions [sic ] not actually facts.

If you really believe the pachinko-in-your-head notion that Bookface is actually a sprawling false flag operation, there’s a pretty simple solution, now isn’t there?

And if you’re really worried about DARPA, there’s another, really good solution. You should try it — your mouse might be spying on you.

I do read real science about climate change, the published papers. Perhaps your claims about failed predictions is from journos. You do not give a link, anyway, Try to find the original paper
Your article was a journalistic article appearing in Lancet. Like:
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness
Read the paper carefully, and all these problems are obvious.
I am no fan of Facebook, generally. All free content is financed by ads, remember this. But tagging obviously false medical advice is useful.

@ Kay West

Congratulations, the first half of your comment proved, at least on that topic, that you were ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable. As I wrote, I do call individuals stupid, moron; but based on their refusal to enter into a civil dialogue, based on their ignoring what I write; but NOT based on their “race”, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. I target the individual as an individual. So, once again your previous comment was ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable.

But then, back to your usual self.

You write: “As to my reference to DARPA and “lifeLog”. This site has a tendency to support big ‘what ever” and is myopic in its view of serious issues of how the government can corrupt processes/media/public opinion by using big companies. Facebook is one of those companies the government uses or misuses and yet this blog post is siding with Facebook who’s face checkers are just opinions not actually facts.”

Typical hyperbole, exaggeration, and believing that since sometimes this website has supported certain issues regarding Facebook, then “this blog post is siding with Facebook who’s face checkers are just opinions not actually facts.” Did Orac ever discuss sharing data with DARPA??? NOPE!
I guess in your mind “guilt by association” if it suits your rigid opinion.

You write: “Facebook admits in court filings ‘fact checks’ are just opinion.”

Yep, I don’t trust Facebook; but there are a number of websites that do fact checks that are credible. Literally, they do the research, find that sentences were taken out of context, or that someone relied on one questionable source. And I check them; but often check several of them if subject important and then, based on what they write, I do my own web search to confirm if they were right.

You write: “As to global warming, Why do you keep on referring to journalist(tv) opinions of what the science claims, Aaron said not to believe what was written in the “Atlantic” because it was written by a journalist.”

I have read each of the International Panel on Climate Change reports. I have read a half dozen books and literally 100s of papers. The fact that they may have been off in how soon Arctic ice would end, though it is approaching that, etc. doesn’t mean they are wrong. And some of the journalists have advanced science degrees and their articles give detailed references to scientific papers, which I often go to, download, read and file.

You write: “As a intelligence person who reads lots of books etc, instead of opinion pieces why don’t you read the real science and peek behind the curtain and see what the science is telling you. Most predictive science on global warming has been wrong. Remember the arctic was to be ice free by 2014 at the latest or sea level rise is accelerating so fast that the long island freeway was going to be under water by 2010 and in England children by 2020 just wouldn’t know what snow was (they just has some of the largest snow falls in the last 50 years). I am not as well versed on the science of global warming as some, but I can spot a ‘grift’ when I see one.”

Neither the Intergovernmental Panel’s reports nor any of the books or papers i read claimed “long island freeway was going to be under water by 2010 and in England children by 2020 just wouldn’t know what snow was (they just has some of the largest snow falls in the last 50 years)”, so the question is what books, what sources have you read? And again, if they were off by a few years, not proof they were wrong. A doctor can give a patient with a terminal illness 6 months to live. If they then live 10 months does that mean the doctor was incompetent? And you haven’t given me the impression you are an intelligent person. Remember when you said that it is normal for icebergs to move towards the ocean. Yep, except their speed has increased considerably, and precipitation behind them that kept them built up has decreased. And Greenland is in real trouble. You ignore that studies where they literally drilled deep into Antarctic Ice and measured isotopes of oxygen and CO2, you ignore the acidification of the oceans, etc. Do you even understand what causes acidification of oceans and its repercussions? Oceans absorb CO2 which is acidic. Acidification of oceans is killing phytoplankton which is responsible for much of our oxygen and also food that goes up the food chain, which will lead to losses of many ocean species, etc.

So, yep, I read papers by journalists and watch documentaries; but understand how valid they are based on other readings, etc.

You write: “You want to claim that the BMJ is not real science, ok. Remember when the editor of the Lancet said “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Nope, I have not claimed that the BMJ is not real science. Many of the articles they publish are quite good; but their Rapid Responses are another story. As Orac explained, they literally didn’t post his Rapid Response that, based on his article, would have demolished claim that Pfizer’s vaccine’s study was fraudulent. Of course, you choose to believe it. And years ago I submitted a few Rapid Responses and they did something I have NEVER experienced. They posted them between 3 to 10 days after I submitted them; but on the date they were submitted, so one would have to scroll down, in one instance, over half dozen pages. I have submitted articles to journals, OpEds and Letters to magazines and newspapers and all post on date posted, not submitted. And finally, they literally didn’t post eight of my Rapid Responses, not one attacking someone else; but simply point by point refuting another Rapid Response, complete with references, a couple had around 100 references. I would bet Peter Doshi was responsible. I have thought of writing a paper tearing apart several of his opinion pieces. But Fiona Godlee has to be aware what is happening.

As for the quote from Richard Horton, well, even after Wakefield’s 1998 article was torn to shreds, he took over 10 years to retract it. And, typical of you, cherry picking one quote.

I have asked you over and over if you have studied or even read a book on immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, statistics, scientific methodology, etc.; but you haven’t answered. As I’ve written several times, I am reasonably intelligent and extremely well-educated and read; but if someone gave me a number of plans for building a bridge over a river, I couldn’t honestly choose one of them. Simply, I have NEVER studied structural engineering. And that is where we differ. As Dirty Harry said: “A man has to know his limitation.”

So, I have studied ALL of the subjects mentioned above, numerous courses, and worked in related areas, and I have audited courses even in Health Economics, etc.

So, whether you have innate intelligence or not, you don’t give the impression you have the basics to decide on pandemics and vaccines and whatever you read on climate change goes against the overwhelming consensus of top scientists around the world; but, of course, you know better than them. Please, finally tell us what level of education you have, degree(s) in what, your profession? Otherwise, your accepting or rejecting things just based on your subjective opinion.

And, again, if you read so much I suggest you read Naomi Oreske’s “Merchants of Doubt.” How same scientists who worked for tobacco industry then worked for fossil fuel industry.

So, you were absolutely right that some of the posted comments on this blog were SICK and Orac should consider warning them, maybe even temporarily blocking them, for instance, first time 3 months, etc.; but as usual, you then assume facts not in evidence, that is, supporting some aspects of Facebook, means supporting everything. And your take on climate change is just plain WRONG. And then you find one quote by Richard Horton, Editor of Lancet and that proves your point.

Well, you might consider yourself intelligent and maybe innately you are; but your overall comments display that either you are intelligent; but don’t use it, don’t have the skills, e.g. critical thinking, basics of science, etc. or just plain aren’t intelligent. Doing a lot of reading doesn’t mean someone is right. Reading must be valid sources and not just a few and the person has to have the skills/basics to understand what is read.

YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT COVID PANDEMIC AND VACCINES AND YOUR ARE WRONG ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE! ! !

By the way, it must have taken some time to find and assemble the nasty comments, so, you keep hinting that my living alone means I have too much time on my hands, so how do you find so much time???

@ Kay West

So, UK got most snow in 50 years. You claim you have read lots about climate change. I guess you missed the part where the predictions are that some areas will experience extreme drought, while others will get large rainfalls, etc. basically that the ecology of the Earth will be upset, though heat waves, fires, etc. will increase. So, a snow storm doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Did you ever see the new version of Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson? In one episode he walks along a beach with his dog. He goes in a straight direction but the dog runs from side to side. An analogy of weather versus climate. Weather can fluctuate but the climate is getting hotter and hotter; but doesn’t mean no fluctuations in weather! ! !

And, as for intelligence, I’m sure some of the believers in QAnon have high IQs. And I have several books and a number of papers written by university faculty, etc. that claim Afro-Americans are intellectually inferior to Whites. University professors, etc.; but I have many other books that completely refute their claims based on science, mythology, sampling, etc. And there are highly intelligent people who are anti-semites, islamophobes, etc. Intelligence can be use to question and to look at ALL points of view or it can be used to cherry-pick, confirm ones bias. I gave two papers related to HIV and AIDs. The second one are excerpts from excellent book tearing apart those who don’t believe HIV causes AIDS.

Below is a couple of cut and pastes that apply to YOU:

“Avoid Falling into Single Study Fallacies
No one research finding ever proves anything. Even the most compelling research studies require further analysis and independent replication before scientists themselves draw firm conclusions. One red flag is raised when a summary of research extracts a single sentence from a study to make the case for an argument.

Doing some investigative digging in credible places, like PubMed, can help. Information found on the Internet can be evaluated with the help of watchdog groups such as quackwatch.com. Red flags for Internet web sites include being based on old sources, especially dating back to the 1980s, not having a time stamp of their own with dates and updates, having dead-end links,”

An excerpt from Denying AIDS, published by Copernicus Books, an imprint of Springer Science & Business Media (2009).
https://www.thebody.com/article/denying-aids

Do look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect, the less one knows/understands, the more certain one is. You have given NO indication you understand the basics of infectious diseases or vaccines; but are certain you are right????

Oop!

I wrote “mythology” when I meant “methodology” It’s late, just got back from walking dog in rain a mile, during walk was contemplating the mythologies being promulgated by climate denier and antivaxxers. Oh well, should have proof read before submitting.

Joel you rely too much on the press releases that cloud your thinking. You have access to a search engine, try typing the word “warming faster” it will show you how alarmist point out that every where on the planet is warming twice/three/five times as fast as the rest of the planet.

Or the Great Barrier Reef experiencing ‘record high’ levels of coral coverage

skynews.com.au/opinion/outsiders/great-barrier-reef-experiencing-record-high-levels-of-coral-coverage/video/52141c3e6d241eab3393a03476ee20ae

As to rising sea levels you have failed to read original data.

and you can use this link to any station. this gauge located at Battery park in New York has seen only a 2.88 mm rise (every year) since 1850 with no surge in the steady rise.

tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750

tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.html

don’t like that gauge try the longest tide gauge in existence at Kronstadt. since 1777 about 3 mm per year with no acceleration.

psmsl.org/data/longrecords/ReportsFGI_2000_1.pdf

In September 1988 scientist told us that the Maldives would be underwater in 30 years. Well, 30 years later and they are building new airports and resorts to handle the tourist traffic.

trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798

Hurricanes are not getting stronger, they are getting more “expensive” as the coastal areas are being built up.

nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

And death world wide from all disasters has fallen from the millions in the 20’s to under 100,000 now.

ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters

Fire acres burned according to the National Interagency Fire Center, in 1931…… 51,607,000 of forest were burned in 2019 on 4,664,364 were burned in the US

web.archive.org/web/20201124062942/https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

and if you are worried about sea ice and ice bergs and loss of snow/ice on Greenland, here is a real research site run by Denmark. It shows the snow mass index and shows that Greenland has gained ice 5 out of the last 6 years and even is on track this year to be ‘average”. It also displays the retreat and advance of the glaciers (which produce icebergs), glaciers are advancing, due to the increase in snow/ice accumulations.

polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

And Antarctica just had their coldest year on record.

cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-cold-antarctica-climate-change/index.html

And if your source is the IPCC, here are a few emails that shows how dissenting opinions are kept out of the IPCC report.

Mike,
… Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil

Mike,
… I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

And if you really read the IPCC reports you would have found that man made CO2 is only 3% of CO2 in the air. The rest of the CO2 rise is due to warming oceans at a rate higher than previous thought.

newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/

and as to your ocean acidification

nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16714

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.13223

academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/704/2459091?login=true

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000136

And even with all the lock downs and limited air travel for 2020-2021 the rise in CO2 never varied . Even NOAA couldn’t find the drop in CO2 due to Covid, even with humans using at least 4% less carbon based energy in just 2020 alone.

gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

You want to blame CO2 for warming (which is occurring) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the equivalent of 1 person in a stadium that holds 100,000 people and mans contribution to that 1 person is about 1 or 2 fingers.

Even Gavin Schmidt of NASA wrote a paper “When the Sahara was Green” and describes other factors in weather.

phys.org/news/2010-12-earth-orbital-shift-sahara.html

There are so many influences on long term weather that the science is not addressing in its global warming theory, (did you know that the magnetic north pole has shifted over 300 miles since it was first found) which effects cosmic rays or the suns cycle which blocks cosmic rays or allows more of them to strike the earth or the shape of the orbit of the earth around the sun is changing or the output of the sun is not a constant from day to day, the CHAOS theory is very much in play. And forget water vapor or cloud cover on effects of global temperatures. And just what is earths temperature right now and what is its ideal temperature ? For your climate models to work every measurement has to be exact, even a 1 million th of a degree in temperature will quickly multiply the error and within a few weeks to months make models wrong. That is why climate forecasters quickly fall below the Mendoza Line

of course you watched some tv shows so that makes your research of better quality.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “Joel you rely too much on the press releases that cloud your thinking.”

Just how stupid and/or dishonest are you? I clearly wrote that I have read each and every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report since the beginning, that I have read almost every paper in Scientific American, many reports/papers in journals Nature and Science, and reports from our National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Have you read any of the Intergovernmental Panel reports. They are quite detailed.

Just as with vaccines, you are dead wrong; but, as opposed to you, Kay, Greg, and Indie Rebel, I will download ALL the references you give; just as I read RFKs book “The Real Anthony Fauci”, linked to many of the references, downloaded all that I could find online, and either read and/or skimmed them. His book is one paranoid delusional dishonest demonizing hyperbolic screed; but I’m sure you think it valid???

I’ve asked you, as I’ve asked Kay West, on numerous occasions what your education/background/profession is? Regarding Covid and vaccines, have you ever studied immunology, microbiology, virology, history of pandemics, epidemiology, statistics, etc.? I have an extremely strong science background, including a masters degree in biostatistics and epidemiology, and THREE graduate level courses in Causal Theory, etc.

However, despite your being wrong, compared to Kay, Greg, and Indie Rebel, at least you can document what you base your beliefs on; but you don’t document if your list is cherry-picked or that you really understand the basics of the sciences.

As for Covid. I will make a prediction, though, as opposed to you, Kay, Greg, and Indie Rebel, not with absolute certainty; but a probability between 85% and 90%.
My prediction:
1. By Easter number of Covid deaths will pass 1 million
2. Percentage of deaths in children will increase
3. 90% – 95% of deaths will be in unvaccinated

So, if I’m wrong, feel free to point it out after Easter. I hope I’m wrong. Like a doctor who has a terminal cancer patient and tells them they have six months to live, on rare occasion such patients have gone into remission and I would be delighted to be wrong; but, just as said doctor with expertise in cancer, I have expertise in infectious diseases, epidemics, and pandemics; but, as opposed to “EXPERTS” like you, nothing is certain, I can only base my knowledge on probabilities.

One more prediction:

Unfortunately, at 75 don’t know if I will make it another 10 years; but if I do, given we have already passed the tipping point with climate change and doing little about it, one or more large icebergs will enter oceans, raising sea levels, overall temperatures around the world will be higher (this past year was highest on record), more fires will rage, more droughts, etc. And even you will have an almost impossible ability to deny it. If Orac maintains this blog and I am still alive, we will see; but if I’m gone and I’m right, you can think positive thoughts about me, and if I’m wrong, dance an Irish jig on my grave, at least pretend you are doing it.

In any case, please, what is your education, profession, etc.? Why do you think you and Kay, etc. are more knowledgeable than myself, Orac, scientists around the world.

Now, I have to begin downloading your links above; but just to reiterate, claiming I rely on press releases just tells me you are full of it! ! !

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “of course you watched some tv shows so that makes your research of better quality.”

As I wrote: “You write: “Joel you rely too much on the press releases that cloud your thinking.”
Just how stupid and/or dishonest are you? I clearly wrote that I have read each and every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report since the beginning, that I have read almost every paper in Scientific American, many reports/papers in journals Nature and Science, and reports from our National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.”

So, yep, I have watched many of the various TV documentaries; but certainly don’t rely on them alone.

So, I’ve now downloaded ALL of the links you gave. Several are to news reports, the press, so you rely also partly on the press, not original papers, what a HYPOCRITE.

As for fires, we have already gone through this. First, reports from prior to 1980 not confirmed; but what experts know is that, prior to 1980s, even controlled burns were included, now only include wild fires. I guess you either forgot what I wrote or continue with your dishonest approach.

One question: Since you give sources from a wide variety of sources, did you actually alone compile this list or did you copy it from some other source?? Tell the truth if you are capable.

I will read through them; but noticed one you included contradicts your position:

Wendy Zuckerman (2011 Apr 25). Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought. New Scientist.

So, the oceans are warming! ! !

And, yep, they are releasing CO2. Why? Because they are super saturated and can’t absorb anymore. But where did it originally come from? From us, so the CO2 released by the oceans is just an indirect addition from us! ! !

As for acidification, you do understand CO2’s pH level is acidic? So, if oceans do absorb CO2, then it makes them more acidic.

The combination of warming waters, acidification, weather changes, etc. are having serious effects on life in oceans, including phytoplankton which, among other things, produce substantial amounts of total oxygen in world, and supply bottom level of foods that goes up the food chain.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2020 Apr 1). Ocean acidification

The Climate Reality Project (2016 Jun 21). Global Warming’s Evil Twin/ Ocean Acidification

Union of Concerned Scientists (2019 Feb 6). CO2 and Ocean Acidification.

As for CO2 released during pandemic, still increasing; but at lower level. Keep in mind that key percentage of CO2 comes from coal burning and other fossil fuel burning plants, which also had some decrease, etc, so less use of cars and planes does decreased amount; but still increasing!

Stein (2021 Apr 7). Despite pandemic shutdowns, carbon dioxide and methane surged in 2020 – Welcome to NOAA Research

As for Coral Reefs, Peter Ridd, who is quoted in article you refer to from Sky News Australia is known as a rabid anti-climate change person and Sky News Australia is an extremely right-wing pro-business newspaper.

Maldives:

“Today, 80% of the country’s 1,190 islands are just a meter above sea level, making them particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels. Already, 90% of the
islands have reported flooding, 97% shoreline erosion, and 64% serial erosion.”

Kaaren Gilchrist (2021 May 18). Maldives calls for urgent action to end climate change, sea level rise. CNBC

Union of Concerned Scientists (2011). Sea-Level Rise in the Republic of Maldives | Global Warming Effects.

In any case, I realize that the list you gave is basically same as a while back. And I would still like to know if you assembled it alone or . . . ? And what your “expertise” is that allows you to pick and choose articles that support/confirm your belief system, what your level of expertise is that makes you know that masses of scientists around the world are wrong???

Sky News Australia is an extremely right-wing pro-business newspaper news channel.

FIFY 🙂

The go-to Australian newspaper for climate misinformation is The Australian (same owner).

@ Sophie Amsden

Your list includes link to P. Moore’s “Ocean “Acidification” Alarmism in Perspective”.

So, a little background on Patrick Moore.

From Wikipedia. Patrick Moore (Consultant). [Note. Wikipedia article gives numerous references]

“Moore is a policy advisor on climate and energy at The Heartland Institute (a conservative and libertarian think tank)”

“In 2007 The Guardian said “he is on record advocating the felling of tropical rainforests and the planting of genetically engineered crops”

“During an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Moreira that one ‘could drink a whole quart of it’ without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying ‘I’m not an idiot’ and ‘I’m not stupid’ before ending the interview.”

“Patrick Moore, chairman of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, which promotes the benefits of carbon dioxide, wrote on Twitter that ‘Greta=Evil.’ In an interview with E&E News, Moore denied that his numerous mentions of Thunberg’s autism in media appearances and on social media were attacks on her disability but that he instead was ‘comparing her masters to Hitler.’ He said that Thunberg’s public speeches were written for her, that she was a ‘puppet’ and that she was unable to answer questions in interviews because her ideas were not her own.”
[Scott Waldman (2019 Aug 9). Climate Deniers Launch Personal Attacks on Teen Activist. Scientific American]

I have seen Greta interviewed several times and she does and is quite capable of answering questions. As I suggested earlier, watch PBS three part series: Greta Thunberg. And having lived in Sweden almost 10 years, I asked friends in e-mails if they have observed any of her presentations, and the answer was “yes.” And Moore calls a kid “evil” and plays the Nazis card. What does that say about him?

See also:

Denise Robbins (2014 Feb 27). Who Is Patrick Moore? A Look At The
Former Greenpeace Member’s Industry Ties And Climate Denial: Patrick Moore’s Climate Misinformation Is Nothing New. Media Matters for America.

Katie Sanders (2014 Mar 17). Climate change skeptic Patrick Moore
says Earth has ‘not warmed for the last 17 years’. PolitiFact. [Note the article goes through global warming with charts and points out how he cherry-picked data, etc]

Wow! You sure know how to pick ’em!

I really don’t care about your creds on public health, my post was on global warming/climate change/CO2.I believe I had 16 links and only 3 were to news sites. One of the news sources was CNN, not an anti global warming news site

If you didn’t the sky news cite I used, here is the original data from that news story. I don’t think the Australian government is an anti global warming group.

aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/gbr-condition-summary-2020-2021?fbclid=IwAR1OglQmrf3yjzQ8VithR1xcJcxZhdvG78oMHuYAVGcj1ybkNfTD_Nm3gHk

I gave you 13 cites all were government or scientific papers. 4 were NOAA’s own sites which shows a steady 3 + MM rise in sea level for the past 100 years or PSMl long term (about 300 years) sea level rise of about 3 MM, with no acceleration in rise, acceleration in rise ould show up as a curve on tidal gauge records, there is none. The oceans have been rising since the Quaternary glacial period., with as much rise as 5-10 feet in a 100 year period.

The Danish site clearly shows that Greenland has been gaining ice for the past 5 or more years.

And Gavin Schmidt is not a denier of global warming either.

And even NOAA explains that the drop in energy use can’t be determined because of ‘back ground noise” (that statement was from NOAA as well, if you read the link)? So we reduced our fossil fuel use by 4% (in 2020) and they can’t identify it from the back ground noise, that would tell me that something else is responsible for increase of CO2 and if (following Boyle’ law) the ocean are warming and off gassing, then the content of CO2 in the oceans is going down, so much for your ocean acidification. I never claim the oceans weren’t warming. And the oceans CO2 level has been higher, some times getting over 4,000 PPM. More from NASA on ocean and CO2.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

And Maldives under water, that was a news report as well. You said the Maldive were a meter above the sea level, well they have been that way for a couple hundred years of record keeping. And the speed at the construction of hotels and resorts and new air ports, the people who live on the islands aren’t too concerned.

sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=454-002

pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/43/6/515/131899/Coral-islands-defy-sea-level-rise-over-the-past?redirectedFrom=fulltext

You read every IPCC report and I showed you and proved to you how the IPCC reports are manipulated.And yes to your question as to IPCC reports, did you think I just made up the 3% of total CO2 is man made ?

This is from the UN charter for the IPCC, they are tasked with finding “human induced climate change” by law/charter they can’t find another cause. “ if you job depends on you finding cow “poop” in a meadow, you will find it, no matter how small ”.
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”

“Why do you think you and Kay, etc. are more knowledgeable than myself, Orac, scientists around the world.”

Why do you think you’re more knowledgeable than anyone else on every subject? But you just relied on 2 methods of poor arguments, band wagon fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy. I never claimed I was more knowledgeable, I can just read what the science says and don’t rely on as Aarno calls them, ‘journos”.

Just a quick question, what is the ideal temperature for the earth, so we don’t have adverse weather events?

@ Jlbatx

Wow! In one line you have done a better job of refuting antivaccinationists than I have in much longer commentaries. Look forward to more comments from you.

It’s hard to remember all of these new ‘dog whistles’…
Seems that there are lots of ways to declare your membership in this tribe.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “I believe I had 16 links and only 3 were to news sites. One of the news sources was CNN, not an anti global warming news site.”

You accused me of using news sites, so I simply pointed out that you are a hypocrite because you used them as well. And claiming CNN isn’t antiglobalization warming, may be true, maybe not, irrelevant because MORON it is a news site.

And I left off that in a previous exchange “Tom Chivers and “reasonable” apologia for science denial” at: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/09/03/tom-chivers-misunderstands-science-denial/#comment-450219

You accused me of including a group that lobbied. Well, so did you, just one more example of you being a hypocrite. And almost every organization does lobbying, so that is a rather stupid thing to base an attack on.

I also in the previous exchange refuted a number of points, including wildfires with many more references, Maldives with more references, Hurricanes/Tropical storms with more references, and sea rising with many more references. In all, compared to your “16 links” I probably combining the previous exchange and this one have way over 50.

You write: “You read every IPCC report and I showed you and proved to you how the IPCC reports are manipulated.And yes to your question as to IPCC reports, did you think I just made up the 3% of total CO2 is man made ?”

No, you didn’t prove, you just referred to some who disagreed. As for the 3%, you ignore what I wrote that the amount coming from the oceans is CO2 they absorbed, so, yep, if one focuses only on direct releases, 3% probably accurate. But you ignore that the oceans absorb excess CO2 and they are now saturated.

You write: “Why do you think you’re more knowledgeable than anyone else on every subject? But you just relied on 2 methods of poor arguments, band wagon fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy. I never claimed I was more knowledgeable, I can just read what the science says and don’t rely on as Aarno calls them, ‘journos”. “
“Appeal to authority???” Yikes, so besides referring to Intergovernmental Panel, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmosphere, I refer to papers in a number of peer-reviewed journals; but, of course, when you refer to any paper, they aren’t by anyone you consider an “authority.” WOW! Just how stupid are you? And “band wagon fallacy.” So, basically, if one gives references to valid papers by experts, it is NOT because of the science? If one happens to find the majorities reasoning compelling? But, of course, by referring to those who don’t agree, what is that, “the terrible twos?

And where did I say Kay was more knowledgeable than you? I consider you two twin morons.

And you still can’t answer answer a few simple questions, namely:

Did you find all the papers you refer to yourself or some or all of them from one or more websites? If the latter, which websites.

And, though you claim you understand the papers underlying your position, what do you base this on? Have you had any course in science, if so, which? Have you read any science books?

I suggested one book, read it: Naomi Oreskes. “Merchants of Doubt” She documents how many of the same scientists who worked for the tobacco companies writing papers debunking links between tobacco and health, then worked for the fossil fuel industry. Oops! I’m assuming you, at least, accept that smoking is bad for ones health; but maybe you don’t agree???

And go back to the previous exchange we had. It will, among other things, prove just how dishonest you are because, using many references, as mentioned above, I debunked/refuted you over and over! ! !

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “If you didn’t the sky news cite I used, here is the original data from that news story. I don’t think the Australian government is an anti global warming group.”

So, you reject anything that disagrees with you from NOAA, NASA, etc.; government agencies; but if you find one you agree with, then it is credible. In other words, the credibility of any government is based on whether you agree or disagree with what they say. Wow!

@ Sophie Amsden

So, you referred me to an Australian government report. So, I looked at it:

Australian Institute of Marine Science. Long-Term Monitoring Program. Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition 2020:21.

Summary:

“Results from 2021 revealed MINIMUM LOSS of coral from 2020 coral bleaching events . . .While there has been recovery of hard coral cover, this was driven by fast-growing Acropora corals which are VULNERABLE to the common disturbances affected the GBR. . . The GBR remains exposed to the predicted consequences of climate change, including more severe cyclones and more frequent intense heatwaves. THE OBSERVED RECOVERY HAS BEEN SEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME.”

I capitalized key words, etc. There was MINIMUM LOSS, so there was still some loss. And the type of coral that was growing is more vulnerable than traditional coral found on the reefs. AND “THE OBSERVED RECOVERY HAS BEEN SEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME.”

Just how stupid are you? Really? You base your position on a paper that actually doesn’t support your position.

As to fires, do you really believe that the people prior to 1980 didn’t know how to estimate acres of land? Some one on this site actually posted that meteorologist did not know how to accurately measure the air temperature before 1970. So what else didn’t people know how to do before the 70-80’s.

One just one fire in 1910 burned more acres of land in under a week than all the fires in the US last year, it actual had a name “Devil’s Broom”. I guess your google is broken,, that you can find news reports from before 1980 that show just how massive the forest fires were between 1900 and 1940’s were……. In 1937 the New York Times reported (9 October 1938) that 1 forest fire occurred every 3 minutes and burned 21,980,500 acres, that was according to the Forest Service, but they probably didn’t know how to count acres either.

And your point of back burning, how many of the fires this past two year were arson or man made, PG&E got sued for starting a fire in 2018,2019 and 2020 and plea guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter for starting a fire.

I am sorry to use newspaper articles but there is no peer reviewed science on these events yet, and if you really read the past posts it was Aarno who questioned the use of ‘journos’/news organizations.

nypost.com/2021/08/12/arson-spree-near-californias-dixie-fire-blamed-on-former-professor/

nypost.com/2021/09/26/alexandra-souverneva-arrested-on-suspicion-of-starting-california-wildfire-known-as-fawn-fire/

http://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/us/caldor-fire-arson-arrest-california.html

latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-18/bikini-clad-woman-charged-with-arson-for-fire-near-lake-tahoe

They are even changing the data to meet their models that don’t fit the observations.

“Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations”
j
journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/15/JCLI-D-20-0768.1.xml

“The first three are ratios between trends in water vapor (WV) and trends in sea surface temperature (SST), lower-tropospheric temperature (TLT), and mid- to upper-tropospheric temperature (TMT). The fourth property is the ratio between TMT and SST trends. All four ratios are tightly constrained in CMIP simulations but diverge markedly in observations.
“Relative to CMIP5, the more recent CMIP6 models have higher resolution (on average), more complete numerical portrayal of Earth’s climate system, and nominally improved representation of external forcings (Eyring et al. 2016). These advances do not guarantee improved agreement between simulations and observations……
We find significant differences between simulated and observed values of all trend ratios involving water vapor and tropospheric temperature.”
So now that the 4 models don’t match the observations, they are trying to tweak the observations to match the models.
“Three further points are relevant to the question of whether the model–observed differences in Figs. 10a–c are mainly due to underestimated observed tropospheric temperature trends or to an overestimated satellite WV trend.”

Do you approve of changing/constrain the observations to match the models?

Per you
“But you ignore that the oceans absorb excess CO2 and they are now saturated.’
If the oceans are saturated as you claim, where is the excess CO2 coming from, (remember IPCC report only 3% of CO2 is man made). If as you claim to read the NOAA science links I posted you can clearly have seen for yourself how science, about ocean CO2 levels are unclear. As to your claim that the oceans are now saturated, that contradicts you argument that the oceans are increasing in acidity.

You keep asking me for my education and background and if I had help in my assembly of facts and websites and research materials. I have posted my background in previous post. No one assisted me nor did I go to any website that list all or for that matter any the facts or cites I used.
You question US government websites, you question Australian government website, you question the research I cited, well I guess you can refute all of those scientist/researchers who collected the data, with a wave of your hand, you know because you read a book, or scientific american or watched PBS. You post no real world data on sea level rise to refute NOAA and tides and current website that would show an acceleration in sea level rise. You post no real world data to show a decrease of CO2 because man reduced the burning of carbon fuel during the Covid.

I understand the physics of the atmosphere much better than you do. Or to put it the way you do, have you ever done any climate research, have you ever had any of your climate research published. You ignore the actual science of a published news source (after you criticized the use of a newspaper) and you call me dishonest. You did not refute any of the government collected data nor did you claim that they are wrong. You are like the pigeon playing chess, who knocks down all the pieces and then claims victory.

Would it bother you more if I was a grade school drop out, or if I was a PhD with over 40 published articles. Your obsession with pedigree reminds me of the AKC dog show, no matter what pedigree, in the end they are all just dogs.

“If the oceans are saturated as you claim, where is the excess CO2 coming from, (remember IPCC report only 3% of CO2 is man made)”

It wouldn’t be so bad if you didn’t just repeat intellectually dishonest talking points. Three per cent seems to be around the total man-made CO2 introduced to the atmosphere. The rest is introduced from forests and the ocean etc. However, that 97% tends to be reassigned by the forests and ocean as well. In other words, in a year, almost the same amount is absorbed as is emitted. Equilibrium. So most of the cumulative increase in CO2 is from human activity. Some of which is absorbed by the ocean/plants. Human CO2 is not in equilibrium unless we make it so.

Bloody spell check. I swear it waits until a sentence or two later before altering something. Not ‘reassigned ‘, ‘reabsorbed’.

@Sophie Amsden I actually said that measurement of temperature could be improved. Not a difficulr notion.
You missed this one:
“We compare atmospheric temperature changes in satellite data and in model ensembles performed under phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). In the lower stratosphere, multidecadal stratospheric cooling during the period of strong ozone depletion is smaller in newer CMIP6 simulations than in CMIP5 or satellite data. In the troposphere, however, despite forcing and climate sensitivity differences between the two CMIP ensembles, their ensemble-average global warming over 1979–2019 is very similar. ”
So there is a global warming. idea is to find the best proxy for it. (It is not about models actually)
NOAA reports sea level:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
It is you that ignores NOAA data.
There is a simulation for California wildfires:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld2m8BrUuB4
There is atmospheric physics a grade school dropout could understand:
Earth get visible radiation from sun and emits some of it back to space as infrared radiation. Green house gas does not block visible radiation, but it blocks infrared. Result is that more energy stays in. and Earth is warming. Get it ?

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “I am sorry to use newspaper articles but there is no peer reviewed science on these events yet, and if you really read the past posts it was Aarno who questioned the use of ‘journos’/news organizations.”

You really are incredibly stupid. You accused me of using news, rather than original studies, and, stupid hypocrite that you are, now you admit you use newspaper articles. Wow!

You write: “If the oceans are saturated as you claim, where is the excess CO2 coming from”

I explained that. The oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; but when they become saturated, they release it. So, where does the excess CO2 from the atmosphere come? Why, from Martian spaceships hovering around??? Or maybe from US. One more example of just how incredibly stupid you are. I explained and you ignore.

You write: “You question US government websites, you question Australian government website, you question the research I cited, well I guess you can refute all of those scientist/researchers who collected the data, with a wave of your hand, you know because you read a book, or scientific american or watched PBS.”

I’m the one who pointed out that you rejected most of what I cited from National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration and NASA and I explained that I read, besides many such reports, and besides Scientific American, numerous articles in, among journals, Nature and Science. You really are a incredibly dishonest. You ignore what I write and just make things up.

You write: “I understand the physics of the atmosphere much better than you do. Or to put it the way you do, have you ever done any climate research, have you ever had any of your climate research published. You ignore the actual science of a published news source (after you criticized the use of a newspaper) and you call me dishonest. You did not refute any of the government collected data nor did you claim that they are wrong.”

I pointed out that the Australian government paper you cited didn’t back you and it is you who tried to refute some of the NOAA and NASA as well as the Intergovernmental Panels reports, not me. . It made it clear that overall climate change was hurting the coral reefs. It pointed out that the type of coral that was growing was fragile and it pointed out that there had been brief periods where such coral grew; but reversed. It really isn’t worth responding to you because you really are too stupid to understand what I write.

And, you claim to understand the physics of the atmosphere better than me and ask me if I have ever done any climate research or published articles. Nope, but I also have attended a number of seminars, for example held by NASA when I lived in Texas. How many papers have you published on climate change or even physics???

You write: “Would it bother you more if I was a grade school drop out, or if I was a PhD with over 40 published articles. Your obsession with pedigree reminds me of the AKC dog show, no matter what pedigree, in the end they are all just dogs.”

Actually one of my all-time favorite authors is Eric Hofer, who was a longshoreman with a high school education. I first read his book “The True Believer” as an undergraduate and still have it and have read it several times. Nope; but if you don’t have any degrees, if you are not published, what makes you think you understand the physics of the atmosphere??? Maybe just delusional???

And you wrote: “But you just relied on 2 methods of poor arguments, band wagon fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy.”

Really, the fact that the vast majority of scientists around the world support climate change, that I have read a number of the reports is just jumping on the band wagon and whoever the authorities are?? Well, I also accept the germ theory based on both education and extensive reading, despite there are people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr who really doesn’t believe in it. So, I must be wrong because I agree with the overwhelming evidence. And I also believe in evolution, and there are those who don’t; but the vast majority of scientist do, so I must be just jumping
on the bandwagon or maybe I audited a course, read many books, many articles, understand genetics, etc. and that is why. You really are SICK SICK SICK. You don’t read what I write and/or don’t really understand it or are just plain dishonest and push your position.

One last point about climate change which I have mentioned before. The Earth’s orbit around the sun is elliptical. We are currently at around the furthest point from the sun, so the weather should be cooler than when we were much closer to the sun; but it isn’t. And you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather.

Keep making an absolute fool of yourself. Or, maybe you are mentally ill. If so, sad.

Number
So the oceans and forests know which CO2 to take out of the chain and only remove the natural CO2 and leave the man produced CO2 in the air. Trouble with you theory is the earth is gaining more CO2 then the 3% of mans burning carbon fuel. Mauna Loa shows between 2-3 ppm rise since they started keeping records in 1958. If man reduced by 4% use of carbon during 1- 2 pandemic years it should have shown up in the numbers, but it didn’t.

Joel
Is their no subject in which you believe you are a expert in biology,chemistry,law, physics,mental health.
I have never denied using newspapers and I always link to their website, but everyone was admonished for using ‘journo’s s.so I took the advise and limited my post to government website or first research.

Aarno Syvänen
says:
December 22, 2021 at 8:49 am
And cite a scientific article,not a journo.

You can’t dispute that the sea rise has been happening for hundreds of years and is NOT accelerating from the 2 links NOAA/PSML yet you claim research shows that it is based on models. Is NOAA hiding the acceleration as I gave you ALL the tide gauges in the world NOAANASA/PSML all show a steady 3 mm rise, or are they all wrong. You ego prevents you from seeing what the observations are telling you.

You claim that Greenland is causing more icebergs, well a simple understand of how icebergs are formed would have told you its because Greenland is accumulating snow/ice at a greater rate in the last 5-6 years, which leads to sea connected glaciers to grow and that is what causes icebergs.
You claim ocean acidification is increasing but on the other hand want to claim the oceans are saturated with CO2 which are diametrically opposite positions.

You referral to the consensus of climate science is really anti science. You cite Oreskes’ makes no claim on the specific number of the 928 reviewed but just makes a blanket statement and puts the number between 97-100. Have you EVER seen that kind of agreement among any science community?

I went back on this very site and found this

“97% of scientist agree, You really think you could get 97 out of 100 scientist to agree on anything, you have never been in a room with more than 1 scientist in it. I was at a conference and watch two well respected researchers get into a physical fight over difference of opinions. Please show us any survey from 10,000 scientists in which 97% agree on anything.

Of the first study 10,257 people were surveyed only 3146 responded of that number, only 77 were used in the final number of which 75 said human-induced warming was happening.

11.944 papers were inspected only 41 stated that humans caused most of the global warming, so 99.7 did not say that CO2 caused most global warming. Of those that the study claimed humans caused most of the global warming. some of the authors of those papers were upset enough to give the following public statements.

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=2578bcc23f9f

And if 97% of scientist agree on AGW and it’s settled science, why are we spending money on research, why all the discussion?”

So if you had read the original research by Cook you would have found that 97% was wrong, (refer to the Editor of Lancets view on science and sample size and how maybe half of science is false.

I will repeat the question, ‘Just a quick question, what is the ideal temperature for the earth, so we don’t have adverse weather events?” Which you or climate experts claim are caused by global warming.

“So the oceans and forests know which CO2 to take out of the chain and only remove the natural CO2 and leave the man produced CO2 in the air.”

No. The oceans and forests also absorb some of the human generated CO2. What I said was that our CO2 is an outside source. We are disturbing the equilibrium. Also true of other CO2 sources. I’m not arguing the effects. I’ll leave that to people who make a study of it. I’m saying that your point is intellectually dishonest. It’s not aimed at genuinely arguing scientific conclusions. It’s aimed at convincing people without knowledge to join your tribe.

Perhaps one could compare it with a bucket of water. As soon as it is filled to the brim, it flows over. Or perhaps one could compare it with a fountain in a pond. If it rains, the pond get fuller, till at some point there is more water than the pond can hold. And if someone starts adding water with a firehose, some of that water stays in the pond, but soon the pond flows over.

You speak about CO2 causing global warming. It is not the only greenhouse gas. Mixing CO2 and global warming is wrong. If you say that humans do not cause most of climate change, it can mean they cause 50% of it. Quite lot.,. Definitely it means humans have a great effect.
I think more than 97% of scientists agree that Earth is not flat. It is about persuasive evidence, If you do claim that most of papers do not support human caused climate change you should cite these papers.
There is report of Greenland ice:
https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2021/ArtMID/8022/ArticleID/946/Greenland-Ice-Sheet
Sea level has changed for ever, for sure, Short term change during industrial revolution is another thing, Do you think that Mauna Loa CO2 release

@ Sophie Amdsen

NOTE. I don’t give links because simply cut and paste title in Google will find. And I prefer making clear what my sources are.

You write: “And if you really read the IPCC reports you would have found that man made CO2 is only 3% of CO2 in the air. The rest of the CO2 rise is due to warming oceans at a rate higher than previous thought.
newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/”

I guess you missed or didn’t understand that the article you reference said EXACTLY what I said: “As the world’s oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study. The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths.”

So, the CO2 being emitted by the oceans is “capture . . . of human carbon dioxide emissions.”
Wendy Zukerman (2011 Apr 25). Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought. New Scientist [The paper you gave URL to]

I couldn’t find in IPCC reports “that man made CO2 is only 3% of CO2 in the air.” GIVE A REFERENCE; e.g., IPCC report, year, page.

I did find: “Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States increased by about 3 percent between 1990 and 2019”:

US EPA (2021 Nov 19). Overview of Greenhouse Gases.

And another paper from Australian Scientists that supports climate change:

Australian Academy of Science. 3. Are human activities causing climate change?

And since you referred to paper in the New Scientist:

Brahic (2007 May 16). Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter. New Scientist

And a paper that lists 9 ways we have proof of climate change. Each in list links to more extensive paper:

Environmental Defense Fund (2021). 9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

And the following title says it ALL:

Freedman (2013 Mar 3). The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist. Climate Central.

You claim you did post in a comment your biography. Well, I am getting older and my memory not always as good as it once was; but since I did ask several times and read Orac’s articles and comments, I’m fairly sure I would have seen it. So, if you aren’t lying, simply give name of Orac’s article and URL to it.

As for my biography. I’ll be quite honest. I had a partially failed career. I do have a PhD, four Masters degrees, a 3-year NIH Post-Doctoral fellowship, doctoral competitive fellowship, 15 peer-reviewed publications, and 50 OpEds in magazines and newspapers, and had an assortment of positions, including faculty of medical school, department of public health, etc.; but they were on research grants, not permanent positions. And I like learning more than working. And I suffered from the Peter Pan Syndrome, namely, little boys who never grew up. I loved traveling, lived in five other nations. And a combination of bad luck, bad choices, and differences of opinion with bosses played a role (I’m sure you will think it my fault and it would be my word against theirs, so I won’t bother to explain). Just one example. I interviewed on a Friday for a Federal research job. The man who recruited me drove me around on Saturday, bought me lunch, took me to airport, and told me they were submitting my papers on Monday. I got up Monday morning and there on front page of paper was FEDERAL HIRING FREEZE. Absolute truth. In any case, when my mother was diagnosed with cancer I moved home to take care of her. When she passed I interviewed for half dozen jobs around town, all MPH and they didn’t hire me, either because project leader was a kid with an MPH and threatened by my level of knowledge and experience or they thought with all my credentials I wouldn’t stay.

So, since I’ve always loved reading, attending seminars, etc. since my mother’s passing I’ve read tons of books and papers on a variety of subjects and prior to the lockdown, attended seminars at local universities, etc. And, yep, I watch documentaries and nature programs on PBS and Netflix; but if someone peeks my interest, I do an internet search of topic, either Google, Google Scholar, and/or PubMed.

In any case, nope, I don’t have and don’t claim to have expertise in climate physics; but as I shown with the Australian article you referred to and the New Scientist article on CO2 emissions, you either misread or misunderstood and I simply read them and understood them. When I read articles with sections I don’t understand, I pause, go to internet and find explanations. Nice thing about be single, living alone with a dog, I have lots of time on my hands and love learning.

So, do give your biography; but your claim to understand climate physics better than me is meaningless because you don’t seem to even understand the papers you refer to! ! !

I must admit, though this takes me from reading other things, it is rewarding to know that at 75 i can still learn new things, understand what I read, and, though it is a waste of time with a moron like you, you are the catalyst for the aforementioned.

Once again ( will type slowly so you can comprehend what I am typing)
It was Aarno who claimed we should not be using ‘JURNOS’ for posts here. I just attempted to follow the rules put forth by other posters. I just noticed that Aaron just used a U-tube video as evidence of something, is using U-tube not science evidence and first hand research. So please save your criticism for Aarno.

So back to the debate (not with the demons running around in your head)( see I can be mean too, but I choose not to be for the most part, I don’t believe that name calling or calling people stupid, sick….. or what ever name you wish to use to bully your opposition makes a well reasoned argument) but to the question of the climate.

So the recovery has been seen previously and according to the research the corals have come back to their previous high levels. So the long term trend does not coincide with acidification.
“THE OBSERVED RECOVERY HAS BEEN SEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME.”
Did you even read the research or just read the summary?
You NOAA article stated the PPM has gone up about 45 PPM in the last 12 years. Using IPCC percent man made CO2 has added about 1.5 – 2 PPM. Again where did the rest of the CO2 come from (those aliens in space are really good at terraforming).
You NOAA article also says that CO2 levels weren’t this high for millions of years when the earth was 30 degrees warmer. (on a side note the earth has had CO2 at 2,000 ppm and it was an ice age, with New York City covered by a mile of ice.).
During the Jurassic period the average CO2 was 1800 PPM and during the Cambrian period about 7,000 PPM but during both time the earth’s temperatures were about 5 to 10 degrees warmer and life thrived, it’s the cold, that kills life There are link embedded in this site with the supporting data
geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
As to your earth orbit, this explains what you were describing. The earths orbit and the tilt (as described in Gavin Schmidt’s paper on ‘When the Sahara was Green” (which you didn’t read) ,obliquity of the ecliptic, better explains the point you were attempting to make and reinforces my point that its more than CO2 that has an effect on climate, Nobody has come up with a ‘grand unifying theory” on global warming yet.
The earth oceans contain about 38,000 billion tons of CO2, the land (plants, trees etc.) contain about 2,000 to 3,000 gigaton of CO2 and the atmosphere contains about 750 billion tons of CO2. Man made CO2 is about 6 gigaton, so we are a bit player in that equation.
CO2 is actually great for the planet. At least the researchers at NASA claims.
“Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.”
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Probably everyone who reads these posts benefits by more fruits and vegetables because most greenhouse kick up the growing food stuff with added CO2 by man.

One more time did you read NOAA tides and currents website, there is NO acceleration in sea level rise. And Greenland ice cap/sheet is not disappearing but actually increasing.

And again for the last time what is the temperature of the earth suppose to be to avoid adverse weather events?

@Sophie Amsden Observed warming could be reversed, but how this would happen ? Reducing volcano activity, or tilting the Earth ? How this would happen ?
Sahara was green when Global Ice Age was ending, perhaps it indeed was a tilt. Have you astronomical data for current tilting ?
What use is CO2 fertilization if sea level is rising ?
Why sea level rise must be accelerating ? Besides of that, it actually is, read my NOAA link. There is Greenland ice cap links for you, read them
And volcanos actually emit very little CO2, when compared to human activity:
ttps://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “I will repeat the question, ‘Just a quick question, what is the ideal temperature for the earth, so we don’t have adverse weather events?” Which you or climate experts claim are caused by global warming.”

You still don’t understand that climate and weather are different. No matter what the overall temperature is, there will be adverse weather events; but the total number and the intensity will differ based on the average global temperature. Just how STUPID are you?

You write: “I have never denied using newspapers and I always link to their website, but everyone was admonished for using ‘journo’s s.so I took the advise and limited my post to government website or first research.”

You are so incredibly dishonest. You were the one who attacked me for relying on new, ignoring that most of my references were not to news.

You write: “Trouble with you theory is the earth is gaining more CO2 then the 3% of mans burning carbon fuel.”

Give a reference for this and again, the CO2 coming from the oceans is actually CO2 created by us, absorbed in the water and let released. MORON, MORON, MORON.

I don’t have to be an expert in all subjects. I have learned to carefully read and double check what I read, find more papers, not rely on a few. Currently, I have almost 400 papers in a file on my computer on Global Warming, then subdivided in subfolders, e.g., Maldives, Ocean Acidification, etc. and for whatever you link to in your comments I have probably 10 papers that refute it.

You write: “If man reduced by 4% use of carbon during 1- 2 pandemic years it should have shown up in the numbers, but it didn’t.”

Stein (2021 Apr 7). Despite pandemic shutdowns, carbon dioxide and methane surged in 2020 – Welcome to NOAA Research

You write: “You can’t dispute that the sea rise has been happening for hundreds of years and is NOT accelerating from the 2 links NOAA/PSML yet you claim research shows that it is based on models. Is NOAA hiding the acceleration as I gave you ALL the tide gauges in the world NOAANASA/PSML all show a steady 3 mm rise, or are they all wrong. You ego prevents you from seeing what the observations are telling you.”

Berwyn (2018 Feb 12). Sea Level Rise Is Accelerating: 4 Inches Per Decade (or More) by 2100 – Inside Climate News

“Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in
just the last two and a half decades” Lindsey (2021 Jan 25). Climate Change: Global Sea Level. NOAA.

“Earth’s global sea levels are rising – and are doing so at an accelerating rate. Waters in the ocean are expanding as they absorb
massive amounts of heat trapped by greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere. Glaciers and ice sheets are adding hundreds of gigatons
of meltwater into the oceans each year” NASA Rising Waters: How NASA is Monitoring Sea Level Rise.

“The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14
inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015.” Lindsey (2020 Aug 14). Climate Change: Global Sea Level. NOAA.

You write: “You claim ocean acidification is increasing but on the other hand want to claim the oceans are saturated with CO2 which are diametrically opposite positions.”

YOU ARE AN IDIOT. CO2 IS WHAT CAUSE OCEAN ACIDIFICATION. “Carbon dioxide does not have a pH, because it is a gas. However, an aqueous solution of carbon dioxide has a pH, because the carbon dioxide reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.” Didn’t you even study Chemistry in high school???

You write: “You referral to the consensus of climate science is really anti science. You cite Oreskes’ makes no claim on the specific number of the 928 reviewed but just makes a blanket statement and puts the number between 97-100. Have you EVER seen that kind of agreement among any science community?”

Yep. Almost ALL scientists believe in the Germ Theory. Almost ALL scientists believe in evolution. Almost ALL scientists/physicist believe in Einstein’s General and Specific Theories of Evolution. I could go on and on.

CONSENSUS:

“IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar
statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences . . . The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. . . The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking
no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” Oreskes (2004 Dec 3). Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science Magazine.

AND Wikipedia. Scientific Opinion on Climate Change lists a huge number of organizations from around the world who agree with climate change, etc.

You write: “And if 97% of scientist agree on AGW and it’s settled science, why are we spending money on research, why all the discussion?””

Why spend money on research? To try to anticipate/prepare for what is to come. To try to figure out ways to counter the worse effects? And more. Almost everyone believes in evolution; but still research is being done to deal with more specific aspects. YOU ASK REALLY STUPID QUESTIONS.

Given that you think ocean acidification and CO2 are opposites, it really is a waste of time refuting you, since you don’t even understand high school chemistry.

And, once more, you claim you gave biographical info; but I don’t believe you. If so, just cut and paste into a comment here.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “So back to the debate (not with the demons running around in your head)( see I can be mean too, but I choose not to be for the most part, I don’t believe that name calling or calling people stupid, sick….. or what ever name you wish to use to bully your opposition makes a well reasoned argument) but to the question of the climate.”

“Demons running around in my head? In Psychology there is a defense mechanism called PROJECTION. It is when someone denies something negative about themselves and sees ii in others. You are the one who is trying to defend an indefensible position. And in every one of my comments, I first cite something you said, then give a “well reasoned argument” with references. You can’t even post comments that one can follow everything you say, including based on what? Not bullying; but calling you stupid/moron are objective descriptors. And you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are stupid when you wrote: /You claim ocean acidification is increasing but on the other hand want to claim the oceans are saturated with CO2 which are diametrically opposite positions”

And you write: “CO2 is actually great for the planet. At least the researchers at NASA claims “Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.”

I guess you missed that the paper also said: “While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” NASA (2016 Apr 26). Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds .

But, I won’t waste my time with additional papers that you droughts and heavy rains are also destroying crops around the world.

So, you cherry pick papers and don’t even read them carefully and, yet, accuse me of this, PROJECTION. You need help! ! !

Give your biography. You claim you already did, so, if true, which I doubt, then you can’t be ashamed to give it once more. By the way, did you ever even have high school chemistry???

@ Sophie Amdsen

You write: “CO2 is actually great for the planet. At least the researchers at NASA claims. ‘Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.’
nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Probably everyone who reads these posts benefits by more fruits and vegetables because most greenhouse kick up the growing food stuff with added CO2 by man.”

And this may be true, ceteris paribus, all other things being equal. However, imagine I have a potted plant and give it the best “plant food”; but I either forget to water it or overwater it and/or imagine I place it too close to a heater.

I guess you missed that the paper also said: “While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” [NASA (2016 Apr 26). Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds]

“2.6. Nutrient Losses
Beyond its influence on yields, increasingCO2 levels are also changing the nutritional composition of crops. Experiments in which food crops are grown at elevated CO2 levels, both in chambers and in open-field conditions using free air CO2 enrichment methods, show reductions in protein content . . . Crops grown at elevated CO2 also exhibit lower concentrations of important minerals. CO2 concentrations of 550 ppm can lead to 3–11% decreases of zinc and iron concentrations in cereal
grains and legumes (109) and 5–10% reductions in the concentration of phosphorus, potassium, calcium, sulfur, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, and manganese across a wide range of crops under more extreme conditions of 690 ppmCO2 (92).These declines in zinc content are expected to place
150–200 million people at new risk for zinc deficiency and will exacerbate existing deficiencies in more than 1 billion people (108). In addition, roughly 1.4 billion children ages 1–5 and women of childbearing age, which represent 59% of the world total in these groups, live in countries where
current anemia rates exceed 20% of the population and where dietary iron intake is expected to decrease by 3.8% or more as a result of these CO2-mediated nutrient changes (M. R. Smith, manuscript in preparation). Overall, hundreds of millions of people are expected to be placed at
risk of zinc, iron, and/or protein deficiencies as a result of rising CO2 concentrations, and the estimated two billion people already experiencing zinc or iron deficiency will likely see those deficiencies exacerbated by this effect.” [Samuel Myers et al. (2017). Climate Change and Global Food Systems: Potential Impacts on Food Security and Undernutrition. Annual Review of Public Health; 38: 259-77.]

“Changing precipitation patterns. Rainfall patterns have already begun shifting across the country, and such changes are expected to intensify over the coming years. This is likely to mean more intense periods of heavy rain and longer dry periods, even within the same regions. . . Changing temperature patterns. Rising average temperatures, more extreme heat throughout the year, fewer sufficiently cool days during the winter, and more frequent cold-season thaws will likely affect farmers in all regions. Floods . . . Droughts . . . New pests, pathogens, and weed problems. Just as farmers will need to find new crops, livestock, and practices, they will have to cope with new threats. An insect or weed that couldn’t thrive north of Texas in decades past may find Iowa a perfect fit going forward—and farmers will have to adapt. . . Intensive inputs.” [Union of Concerned Scientists (2019 Mar 20). Climate Change and Agriculture]

See also:

E. M. Fischer and R. Knutti (2015 Apr). Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nature Climate Change.

IPCC (2020 Jan). Climate Change and Land: Summary for Policymakers
IPCC (2020 Jan). Chapter 5: Food Security in Climate Change and Land.

As for my writing about the elliptical orbit of the Earth, it actually involves three things; but currently plays a minimal role, not zero; but MINIMAL, so I was WRONG about this. [Alan Buis (2021 Feb 27). Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth’s Climate – Climate Change – NASA – Vital Signs of the Planet]

And what about El Nino???

“Climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme El Niño events,
leading to intensifying droughts, worsening floods, and shifting hurricane patterns, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” [Yale Environment 360 (2019 Oct 23). Climate Change is Making El Niños More Intense, Study Finds] AND [Bin Wang et al. (2019 Nov 5). Historical change of El Niño properties sheds light on future changes of extreme El Niño. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 116(45).

See also: NOAA (2020 Nov 9). How will climate change change El Niño and La Niña?.

So, you referred me to an Australian government report. So, I looked at it:
Australian Institute of Marine Science. Long-Term Monitoring Program. Annual Summary Report of Coral Reef Condition 2020:21.

Summary:

“Results from 2021 revealed MINIMUM LOSS of coral from 2020 coral bleaching events . . .While there has been recovery of hard coral cover, this was driven by fast-growing Acropora corals which are VULNERABLE to the common disturbances affected the GBR. . . The GBR remains exposed to the predicted consequences of climate change, including more severe cyclones and more frequent intense heatwaves. THE OBSERVED RECOVERY HAS BEEN SEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME.”
I capitalized key words, etc. There was MINIMUM LOSS, so there was still some loss. And the type of coral that was growing is more vulnerable than traditional coral found on the reefs. AND “THE OBSERVED RECOVERY HAS BEEN SEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME.”

Your response: “So the recovery has been seen previously and according to the research the corals have come back to their previous high levels. So the long term trend does not coincide with acidification.
“THE OBSERVED RECOVERY HAS BEEN SEEN PREVIOUSLY AND CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME.”

Apparently, you don’t really understand the report. The recovery only appears to be a recovery, it is a much more vulnerable coral, so it doesn’t build a foundation for life on the coral reef. That it ‘CAN BE REVERSED IN A SHORT TIME’ means that it is the recovery that will be short-lived. Don’t you understand English? And I won’t bother with references; but overall, the Great Barrier Reef is in severe decline. Finding some sections with temporary improvement doesn’t change this.

As for previous exchanges on rise in oceans. What you don’t understand is that one can take a series of data points and draw a straight line through them. It may NOT be a perfect fit; but gives a general idea, which is that the oceans are rising. However, a bit more complicated equation and changing the scales on the graph will show that it was rising linearly for many years; but then began to curve upwards as the articles I referred to explained, that is, over past years rate of increase almost double. I will bet you don’t understand this at all.

And you wrote: “I understand the physics of the atmosphere much better than you do.” But then you wrote: “You claim ocean acidification is increasing but on the other hand want to claim the oceans are saturated with CO2 which are diametrically opposite positions.”

“Carbon dioxide does not have a pH, because it is a gas. However, an aqueous solution of carbon dioxide has a pH, because the carbon dioxide reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.” CO2 + H2O —-> H2CO3. Didn’t you even study Chemistry in high school???

I find it a bit hard to believe that your understand “the physics of the atmosphere” when you don’t even understand high school chemistry.

Finally, once again, since you claim, and I don’t believe you, that you already posted a comment with your biography, please post it once more if you did or for the first time! ! !

Actually this is sort of fun. I am quite willing to change my mind on some points or many points if persuaded by valid research; but thanks to you I have been learning more and the more I learn the more convinced I am that climate change is both real and already doing harm which will intensify with time. And just reading gets a bit boring, so searching the web, etc. gives me a bit of variety.

While the ‘research’ you cite is not first hand research. It doesn’t matches just what NOAA’s tide gauges show, the sea is rising at about 3 mm per year with NO acceleration. Satellites used in your article start in 1993 and end in 2018. During that time 25 years the sea level has risen about 80 MM. Using my grade school math and my Bowmar calculator that about 3.1 MM a year with no acceleration. I didn’t go to high school remember so I didn’t take chemistry or any other fancy classes…..

They are using models to predict your 2 feet or 4 feet of sea level rise. And they have removed the link to the study that claims 4 inches per decade, (because the data refutes that model, since that was written). And the lead “sea level rise” is accelerating has also be removed, because it doesn’t match the data produced in the last 3 years.
insideclimatenews.org/news/12022018/sea-level-rise-accelerating-satellite-study-coastal-flood-risk-antarctica-oceans/

In your “Climate change Global sea level NOAA”. they don’t even use the NOAA collected data.

Here is the NOAA data gathers from all over the world, with the station, and length of operation and the change in sea level. You can export and obtain the trends over time for each station or for any number of station and for any period of time or length of time, the aggregate sea level rise is a little over 3 mm per year. Yes you can do you own real research. If you don’t like that just narrow your data set to the US or any other region in the world. About 20 minutes of work on your part.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html

I use ‘The Battery” location as the land is very stable (not rising or subsiding)(2.88 mm). that works out to almost 1 foot per 100 years, I don’t know where Lindsey got his 8-9 inches you wrote about.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
and you keep relying on old papers to support their notion that the glaciers and ice sheet are adding to ocean rise, I showed you the site
Polarportal which clearly shows the Greenland ice sheet has be gaining hundreds of gigatons of ice over the last 6 years and the ice sheet is about the same as it was in the early 1980’s

Yes the weather has been really bad for crop yields. They are highest on record

ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

Drought man made ?

ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/cook/Cook_etal_2007_ESR.pdf
Where was the man made CO2 back when droughts were more severe, 800 years ago.

And as far as the Arctic sea, 2021 ended the year with the highest sea ice in 18 years. Not bad if this was the hottest year ever.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

You continuously deflect from my posts, to covid, the defense department, crop yields, drought, floods and god only knows what else, or cares. as to the 3% of CO2 it comes from the IPCC’s 3rd report 1997 I am sure with your extensive readins of the IPCC reports you should have no problems finding that.

You try to link me or anyone who questions the global warming orthodoxy, to tobacco companies, guilt by association.Your “research” is very dependent on trade groups, you cite the likes of climate central, UCS, Climate Reality Project et.al. These are projects funded or started by the like of Al Gore, Jeff Schmidt or even the solar and wind industry. Some of those organizations are funded by oil companies, who are now investing in solar and wind companies, because of the large tax breaks.

And you seriously can’t find the post of myself or my ‘pedigree’, actually I am mentioned in one paper I cited in previous posts. It is no wonder that you have had fewer published papers than most grad students, your ability to use well documented first line data is to say the least lacking and your 400 documents that you have saved are mostly thinly disguised opinion pieces.I mean seriously do you believe that the Union of Concerned Scientist is ever going to publish research that opposes their position on global warming? It is heart warming to see that you are challenged by someone with an 8th grade education, you should probably demand to get your money back for all that college education

Orac,I am hoping that your referring to the “pedigree” remark, if you follow the conversation, Mr. Harrison was questioning my education and background as he does with everyone else that would challenge him, which gives him a chance to display his ego driven “knowledge”, and use it as a bulling tactic. I was called ‘stupid, uneducated, the list goes on, being an educated female in a field dominated by males, I am use to the tactics that Mr. Harrison uses to intimidate his opposition.
As you can read I sarcastically implied I either had a grade school education or was a PhD with over 40 published papers, so he could feel better about himself because of who he was arguing with.

“Polarportal which clearly shows the Greenland ice sheet has be gaining hundreds of gigatons of ice over the last 6 years”

Weird. I just looked at the Polarportal website. Greenland mass and height change section. It doesn’t seem to be agreeing with you at all. Definitely looks like a constant mass loss over the last twenty years to me.

Oh there is a bit showing some parts getting thicker though. So you can take comfort in that.

@ Sophie Amsden and NumberWang

I made a “slight” error in my explanation of acidification. However, doesn’t change the overall fact of how increases in CO2 are caused by us, absorbed by oceans, resulting in acidification, then released by oceans, with acidification damaging phytoplankton, etc. and released CO2 contributing to global warming.

Above I wrote: “Oceans absorb CO2 which is acidic.”
“As for acidification, you do understand CO2’s pH level is acidic? So, if oceans do absorb CO2, then it makes them more acidic.”

Sophie wrote: “You claim ocean acidification is increasing but on the other hand want to claim the oceans are saturated with CO2 which are diametrically opposite positions.”

My response was: “Carbon dioxide does not have a pH, because it is a gas. However, an aqueous solution of carbon dioxide has a pH, because the carbon dioxide reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. CO2 + H2O —-> H2CO3”

So, CO2 as a gas has NO pH level; but once in water, yep.

So, as I’ve said before, I have NO problem admitting when I am wrong or make a mistake. When I write longer comments I often write them first in a word processor, then take a break, come back and double check. However, sometimes I just write them directly and that’s when most of my typos and few errors occur.

NumberWang wrote: “Three per cent seems to be around the total man-made CO2 introduced to the atmosphere. The rest is introduced from forests and the ocean etc.”

Trees and the oceans do absorb CO2; however, the destroying of our rain forests (20% gone last few decades), boreal forests, etc. by various means to make room for cattle or for lumber, which, in turn, allows release of CO2 trapped in roots and soil, increases in forest fires which releases CO2, mainly responsible. And the CO2 in the trees mainly came from us, first in trees then much transferred to soils. And I’ve already explained how as oceans that absorb CO2 become saturated they release it back to atmosphere. And the CO2 in oceans mainly from us. So, total CO2 released into atmosphere created by us much much higher than 3%. There is a new documentary on PBS that does excellent job of explaining this: “Earth Emergency”.

Sophie Amsden thinks documentaries not credible, even when involve interviews with top scientists in world. Oh well. What else should one expect from someone who doesn’t understand the basics of high school chemistry.

@ Sophie Amsden

You ask: “Where was the man made CO2 back when droughts were more severe, 800 years ago.”

I guess you aren’t aware that there was a mini ice age: “the rapid cooling phase was associated with more erratic weather, including increased storminess, unseasonal snowstorms, and droughts.” [Wikipedia. Little Ice Age]

YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT CO2 AND ACIDIFICATION! ! ! AND ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO CO2, BOTH DIRECT AND FROM OCEANS AND FORESTS.

You write: “While the ‘research’ you cite is not first hand research. It doesn’t matches just what NOAA’s tide gauges show, the sea is rising at about 3 mm per year with NO acceleration. Satellites used in your article start in 1993 and end in 2018. During that time 25 years the sea level has risen about 80 MM. Using my grade school math and my Bowmar calculator that about 3.1 MM a year with no acceleration. I didn’t go to high school remember so I didn’t take chemistry or any other fancy classes….”

I guess you missed: “”The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015.” Lindsey (2020 Aug 14). [Climate Change: Global Sea Level. NOAA]

So, your grade school math is correct about the amount of sea level rise during the past 26 years; but, as usual, you are too stupid to notice that the rise was about half as much for the earlier part of the century.

You write: “Here is the NOAA data gathers from all over the world, with the station, and length of operation and the change in sea level. You can export and obtain the trends over time for each station or for any number of station and for any period of time or length of time, the aggregate sea level rise is a little over 3 mm per year. Yes you can do you own real research. If you don’t like that just narrow your data set to the US or any other region in the world. About 20 minutes of work on your part.
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.html

The title for the above is: “Linear Relative Mean Sea Level (MSL) trends and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) in mm/year and in ft/century”

In other words, they simply took all measures and found an overall mean sea level trends. This in NO way allows one to see if there was a rise or not. I could give 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5 and come up with an average of 3; but, as you can see the 3 hides the 5. Just how stupid are you???

You write: “Polarportal which clearly shows the Greenland ice sheet has be gaining hundreds of gigatons of ice over the last 6 years and the ice sheet is about the same as it was in the early 1980’s”

First, thanks for alerting me to Polar Portal which I’ve added to my Climate Change URLs.

From Polar Portal: “Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm (Barletta et al. (2013).” [Polar Portal. Mass and Height Change]

“It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.” [Polar Portal. Surface Conditions]

The above contradicts what you wrote. If you are NOT delusional, then cut and paste section that supports what you wrote and give where on Polar Portal website you found it.

You write: “Yes the weather has been really bad for crop yields. They are highest on record ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

Yep, crop yields highest on record; but you ignore that partly based on cutting down rain forests, irrigation, artificial fertilizers, etc.; but you failed to understand what I wrote about CO2 significantly reducing protein, minerals, and vitamins. And you fail to understand that by cutting down forests, we increase global warming.

“Use of fertilizers, especially, the chemical fertilizers has brought in blessings on humanity, which helped contain hunger and death in different corners of the world. Though chemical fertilizers increase crop production; their overuse has hardened the soil, decreased fertility, strengthened pesticides, polluted air and water, and released greenhouse gases, thereby bringing hazards to human health and environment as well. It has already been proved how chemical fertilizers pose serious challenges to the balanced and sustainable growth. Accordingly, scientists and researchers are seen arguing in favour of organic fertilizers as the best solution to avoid soil pollution and many other threats to environmentand life caused by overuse of chemical fertilizers. Continuous use of these chemical fertilizers depletes essential soil nutrients and minerals that are naturally found in fertile soil.” [B. Asvini et al. (2018). Impact of Using Artificial Fertilizer in Soil]

See also:

Majeed (2021 Apr). Chemical Fertilizers and Their Impact on Soil Health.

Scientific American (2009 Jul 20). How Fertilizers Harm Earth More Than Help Your Lawn

UN Environmental Programme. Fertilizers – challenges and solutions.

You write: “Drought man made ? ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/cook/Cook_etal_2007_ESR.pdf

I guess you failed to read and/or understand the paper:

“These numerical experiments indicate the dominating importance of tropical Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in determining how much precipitation falls over large parts of North America . . . It may well be that the West will luck out as rising greenhouse gases induce an equatorial warming, or an El Niño-like response, and the resulting circulation changes increase precipitation across the mid-latitudes.” [Cook (2007 Jan 3). North American drought – Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth-Science Reviews; 81: 93–134.]

I guess you missed mention of rising greenhouse gases and sea surface temperatures which I have made clear in numerous comments are both happening and man-made.

You write: And as far as the Arctic sea, 2021 ended the year with the highest sea ice in 18 years. Not bad if this was the hottest year ever.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Thanks for giving me National Snow & Ice Data Center. I’ve added it to my collection.

It states: “The November 2021 monthly average extent was 9.77 million square kilometers (3.77 million square miles), which ranked tenth lowest in the satellite record. The 2021 extent was 930,000 square kilometers (359,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average. Extent was higher than average in the Bering Sea, but is extremely low in Hudson Bay. . . The downward linear trend in November sea ice extent over the 43-year satellite record is 53,300 square kilometers (20,600 square miles) per year, or 5 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. Also based on the linear trend, since 1979, November has lost 2.2 million square kilometers (849,000 square miles). This is equivalent to about three times the size of Texas.” [National Snow & Ice News & Analysis. Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis]

According to what I found, not highest sea ice in 18 years. If someone else, please cut and paste exact quote and give where you found it???

You write: “as to the 3% of CO2 it comes from the IPCC’s 3rd report 1997 I am sure with your extensive readins of the IPCC reports you should have no problems finding that.”

First, the IPCC 3rd report that I found is from 2001. I couldn’t even find one from 1997. Please give full title??? And I’ve already refuted your 3%. I guess you form of argument is to ignore when refuted and just keep posting
as part of your delusional world.

The ones I found are:

IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Third Assessment Report of IPCC
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”. Didn’t give exact amount of CO2. It does give tables that show large increases.
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Summary for Policy Makers Third Annual Assessment.

You write: “Your “research” is very dependent on trade groups, you cite the likes of climate central, UCS, Climate Reality Project et.al. These are projects funded or started by the like of Al Gore, Jeff Schmidt or even the solar and wind industry. Some of those organizations are funded by oil companies, who are now investing in solar and wind companies, because of the large tax breaks.”

I have given references to Nature Magazine, Science Magazine, NASA, NOAA, Scientific American, IPCC, and numerous other peer-reviewed journals. You continue to ignore this. You are literally just plain DISHONEST. And you have referred to organizations and individuals who are funded by industry.

You write: “And you seriously can’t find the post of myself or my ‘pedigree’, actually I am mentioned in one paper I cited in previous posts. It is no wonder that you have had fewer published papers than most grad students, your ability to use well documented first line data is to say the least lacking and your 400 documents that you have saved are mostly thinly disguised opinion pieces.”

First, if your biography is really mentioned in one paper you cited, why can’t you simply give link to it or repost. You really are SICK SICK SICK. And, nope, most grad students don’t have more papers than me; but if they did, so what. I explained why? I didn’t focus on a career. Oh, yep, the 400 documents I saved “are mostly thinly disguised opinion piece.” Yep, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, Science Magazine, Nature Magazine, Scientific American, and numerous other peer-review journals. You just throw out bull shit. I have refuted each and every thing you claim and all you can do is make an ever bigger fool of yourself.

Either repost your biography or I and anyone following this exchange will understand just what a dishonest liar you are. But, it is obvious given you didn’t even understand how CO2 absorbed in oceans becomes carbonic acid, something anyone with high school chemistry should know.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “Orac,I am hoping that your referring to the “pedigree” remark, if you follow the conversation, Mr. Harrison was questioning my education and background as he does with everyone else that would challenge him, which gives him a chance to display his ego driven “knowledge”, and use it as a bulling tactic. I was called ‘stupid, uneducated, the list goes on, being an educated female in a field dominated by males, I am use to the tactics that Mr. Harrison uses to intimidate his opposition.”

First, I have NEVER in any way attacked your level or lack of level of knowledge due to your gender. And, you lowlife, Mr. Harrison was my father. I earned my doctorate and it is Dr. Harrison.
I challenged your education and background because with regards to the current pandemic and vaccines you give no indication you understand the basics of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, etc. And what you write is absolutely wrong. As for climate change, I have refuted every point you have made with numerous valid references, even pointed out how you have either misread/misunderstood some of the articles you refer to or just plain lie and how you keep lying about the validity of the vast majority of my sources.

So, given you don’t even understand high school chemistry, you ignore overwhelming evidence of human contributions to CO2, you even got Polar Portal wrong, and you claim you gave your biography; but now, not directly, but in paper you referred to, WOW!

I would love for Orac to chime in. He is way out of my league. As cancer surgeon has saved literally thousands of lives. And when he couldn’t save them, extended their Quality of Life Years. He has a PhD in immunology, way above my level of knowledge; but I do understand the basics. He has 60 publications and millions of dollars in grants. And he has probably supervised numerous Interns and Residents. So, I consider myself second string when it comes to battling for science and being a skeptic. However, even second string on a Super Bowl team is still OK in my book. I do have one thing Orac doesn’t; but he probably doesn’t care. I have lived in five different countries, and, having a failed career; but loving learning, though not in his league on medicine, etc. probably more knowledgeable on several other subjects. But I’m NOT in competition with him, just wonder how he finds the time after saving lives, supervising interns and residents, writes grants, does research, to find papers, then write such impressive articles. Some have criticized him for downplaying, for instance, nutrition. Not so. His blog looks for papers, etc. that are unscientific, so he focuses on them, showing how wrong they are. I’m sure he could easily write praising positives; but he loves being a skeptic and is great at it.

I would love to know overall what he thinks of my comments. Do I deserve to be on the Skeptics, promoters of science, Super Bowl Second String? Or am I the one who is delusional???

MR Harrison. Does the IRS/PGE etc use you title or do they use Mr. Joel Harrison when you pay your house taxes to they send it to DR Harrison.You defend Greta Thunberg yet she is a school drop out, she doesn’t even have a high school diploma let alone any college training or any education, but she did get her doctor’s degree from the University of Mons, so I guess we should start calling her Dr. Thunberg and you Dr. Harrison

First why must you always hide behind the work and accomplishments of others and when challenged, call for others to come to your aid.

You once again deflect or divert the thread, as I have not made any claim to pandemic or vaccines. I claim no superior knowledge of any of the items you list in your post about covid death, hospitalizations, nor vaccines.

You post stuff that is way beyond your skill level in regards to global warming, your listed expertise, consisted of 400 items book marked on your computer, you attended several of NASA’s presentations, you have articles that use activists websites and organization and you watch NPR or PBR or whatever and as to your sources I am sure that all these are unbiased and not influenced by any of the people who contribute to ‘keep the lights on”. A lobby group for solar or wind or oil or cigarettes is still a lobby.

Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate Central
Environmental Defense Fund (how is this for a quandary, JFK jr. is a supporter of EDF
New Scientist

“regards to the current pandemic and vaccines you give no indication you understand the basics of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, etc’. If you were to post something on these things I wouldn’t be vain enough to attempt to refute anything you post. To quote Harry Callahan, “A good man (or woman) always knows his limitations”

Just because you claim to refute my first person data, does not make it a fact. You inability to research even the Polar Portal about how the ice mass budget is obtained and by attempting to refute by using a study published in 2013, when the DMI shows that Greenland Ice Budget Mass is increasing for the past 5 of 6 years. Your explanation is “ice bergs” show your complete lack of basic knowledge of Greenland and what the ice sheets actually are or how icebergs are formed and glaciers are GROWING, if you had actually just clicked on the various glaciers and compared them to past estimations of length/size. or to this little gem from the research you used as supporting evidence of global warming

“It has long been known that ice age cycles are paced by periodic changes to Earth’s orbit of the sun, which subsequently changes the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface.
However, up until now it has been a mystery as to how small variations in solar energy can trigger such dramatic shifts in the climate on Earth.
In their study, the team propose that when the orbit of Earth around the sun is just right, Antarctic icebergs begin to melt further and further away from Antarctica, shifting huge volumes of freshwater away from the Southern Ocean and into the Atlantic Ocean.”

My link to Gavin Schmidt’s (you probably don’t even know who Gavin Schmidt is) research on ‘when the Sahara was green” it took you a long time and many posts to get to that research.

And you can’t even determine the sea ice extent from year to year from a very user friendly/interactive website, nor can you refute that the sea level rise is not accelerating (except in models), from either the tide gauges nor the more modern satellite measurements. but you “refuted” everything.

“Or am I the one who is delusional???”
So to answer your question as far as global warming, YES.

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”

― Mark Twain

Sophie really should contact all those scientists who have expertise in evaluating glaciers and climate change, to tell them how very wrong they are.

“We extensively validate our estimates against independent, high-precision measurements and present a globally complete and consistent estimate of glacier mass change. We show that during 2000–2019, glaciers lost a mass of 267 ± 16 gigatonnes per year, equivalent to 21 ± 3 per cent of the observed sea-level rise. We identify a mass loss acceleration of 48 ± 16 gigatonnes per year per decade, explaining 6 to 19 per cent of the observed acceleration of sea-level rise. Particularly, thinning rates of glaciers outside ice sheet peripheries doubled over the past two decades. Glaciers currently lose more mass, and at similar or larger acceleration rates, than the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets taken separately.”

http://nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03436-z

It’s not difficult to find NASA satellite data showing a marked degree of receding of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica since 2002.

But Sophie knows better, just because.

“I claim no superior knowledge”

You’ve got that part right. Say, when you talk about “my first person data”, is that before or after you extract it from your nether regions?*

*cue the tone police

@ Dangerous Bacon

Thanks for the link. Your input always welcome. I really should just ignore Sophie; but she represents a large segment of population who are perfect models for the Dunning-Kruger Effect, too stupid to know they are stupid. And I’ve to too much time on my hands. If you have read my comments, I hope you agree that I was right about her misreading/misunderstanding a number of papers, etc. I am old, 75, hope I’m not senile yet???

“Just because you claim to refute my first person data, does not make it a fact. You inability to research even the Polar Portal about how the ice mass budget is obtained and by attempting to refute by using a study published in 2013, when the DMI shows that Greenland Ice Budget Mass is increasing for the past 5 of 6 years. Your explanation is “ice bergs” show your complete lack of basic knowledge of Greenland and what the ice sheets actually are or how icebergs are formed and glaciers are GROWING, if you had actually just clicked on the various glaciers and compared them to past estimations of length/size. or to this little gem from the research you used as supporting evidence of global warming”

Polar Portal. Greenland Section. Mass and height change section. Big map of Geenland. Below the map is a graph showing the loss of mass since 2002. Does that map show positive numbers? No, it doesnt. It shows a loss of around 4000Gt of water in those twenty odd years. It also shows the increase and decrease of mass throughout the years. Clear downward trend.

There’s obviously something that you are misunderstanding. Is it deliberate though? Like the people who try to claim that the earth isn’t warming by cherry picking a time period with unusual start and finish values?

I imagine that the people who contribute to Polar Portal (including the DMI) know what they are doing.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “MR Harrison. Does the IRS/PGE etc use you title or do they use Mr. Joel Harrison when you pay your house taxes to they send it to DR Harrison.You defend Greta Thunberg yet she is a school drop out, she doesn’t even have a high school diploma let alone any college training or any education, but she did get her doctor’s degree from the University of Mons, so I guess we should start calling her Dr. Thunberg and you Dr. Harrison.”

And you probably missed that one of my all time favorite writers is Eric Hofer, a longshoreman with a high school degree that wrote a book I have read several times: “The True Believer. Another was social psychologist Carolyn Sherif, who wrote textbooks and lots of peer-reviewed papers. However, she only had an MA. She couldn’t get tenure at U of Oklahoma, so U of Texas offered her a PhD for one year’s residency, teaching some seminars, and a dissertation, which she simply used some research she was working on. I can name more; but point is, you haven’t given any indication you really know what you are talking about and then claim you actually posted your biography. I think you are lying. And you say stupid things like graduate students publish more papers than I have. Maybe a v

Greta Thunberg is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and from her presentations and Q&As, extremely well-read on climate. But NOPE she doesn’t have a PhD. And NOPE the IRS doesn’t address me as Dr Harrison and neither as Mr Harrison. Just plain Joel A. Harrison. So, you even got that wrong. However, whenever I’ve attended a seminar, meeting, etc. I have been addressed as Dr. Harrison. And when I go for doctor appointments or speak on phone with doctor or nurse, they address me as Dr. Harrison. It is a courtesy that civilized people accord to those who have earned a PhD or MD. Not just here; but in Sweden as well.

You write: “First why must you always hide behind the work and accomplishments of others and when challenged, call for others to come to your aid.”

Hide behind the work of others? Wow! So, why aren’t you simply presenting your own research? Of course I cite others who are experts in the area, e.g., NOAA, NASA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, articles in Scientific American, Nature, Science, and other peer-reviewed journals. As for calling others to come to my aid, it was you who first asked Orac directly a question; but, since it is my word against yours, most reasonable people would want one or more independent people to evaluate. How stupid are you???

You write: “You post stuff that is way beyond your skill level in regards to global warming, your listed expertise, consisted of 400 items book marked on your computer, you attended several of NASA’s presentations, you have articles that use activists websites and organization and you watch NPR or PBR or whatever and as to your sources I am sure that all these are unbiased and not influenced by any of the people who contribute to ‘keep the lights on”. A lobby group for solar or wind or oil or cigarettes is still a lobby.”

Way beyond my skill level??? I can read and know how to evaluate what I read. I have been following climate change since late 1980s and probably read over 1,000 papers or more. Are some biased, sure; but not most of them. In your sick mind anyone who disagrees with you must be biased. Even if the authors are professors at major universities. All bought and paid for, otherwise they would agree with you. As for Union of Concerned Scientists, perhaps you haven’t looked at who are leaders, major scientists. As for JFK jr being a supporter of EDF, as I’ve written, even a broken clock can get the time right twice daily. You bring up irrelevant things. I look at the credentials and writings from EDF. I’m sure one could find other things RFK and I agree on. I agreed even with Trump when he criticized use of military way too often in unnecessary foreign lands; but I certainly didn’t agree with the vast majority of what he said and did.

You write: “Just because you claim to refute my first person data, does not make it a fact. You inability to research even the Polar Portal about how the ice mass budget is obtained and by attempting to refute by using a study published in 2013, when the DMI shows that Greenland Ice Budget Mass is increasing for the past 5 of 6 years.”

I cut and pasted direct quotes from Polar Portal and gave which page I got them from. If you have something else, cut and paste direct quote and where exactly you got it.

You write: ““It has long been known that ice age cycles are paced by periodic changes to Earth’s orbit of the sun, which subsequently changes the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface.
However, up until now it has been a mystery as to how small variations in solar energy can trigger such dramatic shifts in the climate on Earth.
In their study, the team propose that when the orbit of Earth around the sun is just right, Antarctic icebergs begin to melt further and further away from Antarctica, shifting huge volumes of freshwater away from the Southern Ocean and into the Atlantic Ocean.”

First, where did you get this from? Second, stupid as you are you assume that there is just one cause for changes in ice cycles; but also ignore that Earth’s orbit hasn’t changed drastically in the past 150 years; but do give the reference for the above.

As for Gavin Schmidt’s paper on “when the Sahara was green” who cares? The current science of climate change deals with the rapid increase in CO2 in the air over the past century, an increase that anyone but idiots like you attribute to humanity.

You write: “And you can’t even determine the sea ice extent from year to year from a very user friendly/interactive website, nor can you refute that the sea level rise is not accelerating (except in models), from either the tide gauges nor the more modern satellite measurements. but you “refuted” everything.”

I gave several well-written papers that clearly prove that sea level is rising, and accelerating, you simply ignore anything that disagrees with you.

You write: ““regards to the current pandemic and vaccines you give no indication you understand the basics of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, etc’. If you were to post something on these things I wouldn’t be vain enough to attempt to refute anything you post. To quote Harry Callahan, “A good man (or woman) always knows his limitations”

Actually, you did try to refute my comments on number of deaths in India from covid and I cited half dozen papers, some written by leading Indian researchers that make absolutely clear that the deaths in India and also Africa were grossly undercounted, not because of corruption; but many other reasons, e.g., if someone dies in a village they aren’t required to report and they just bury them, etc. Estimating deaths, etc. is something epidemiologists do! ! !

And you write: “which gives him a chance to display his ego driven “knowledge”

Well, yes, my ego is involved, that is, my sense of self. So, you have NO ego involved in your comments. You just write them and don’t care if people agree or disagree. How STUPID to bring in my ego as if you don’t have one as well. As I’ve written before, you suffer from the psychological defense mechanism of projection.

AND ONCE MORE, IF YOU REALLY INCLUDED YOUR BIOGRAPHY/BACKGROUND IN A COMMENT, WHICH I DON’T BELIEVE, PROVE ME WRONG AND POST IT AGAIN IN A COMMENT OR LINK TO IT.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “You defend Greta Thunberg yet she is a school drop out,”

No, she isn’t a school drop out. She took a year off to travel the world, see effects of climate change herself, attend various meetings and give presentations, including to international bodies, and now she is back in school. Do you even understand the difference? She is not and was not a high school drop out. Just one more example of how your sick mind twists things!

You really should watch the PBS three part series on her. And PBS has another documentary “Earth Emergency” that goes through the difference sources/causes of CO2 emissions and interviews a number of experts, some, of course, member of organizations you don’t like; but others profs at universities.

The polar portal is inter active, just like the sea ice extent. on the page I listed is a date box which allows you to explore the snow ice accumulations since record keeping has started. I am not going to put 365 links for 50 years of data in a post because you are incapable of searching. You use of a paper that was published 9 years ago has no bearing on what I posted about IBM that is occurring now.

Again as to sea level rise. Please show the tide gauge or satellite that has an accelerated sea level rise that is not due to land subsidence. You keep using papers that depend on modeling for the acceleration.

this quote may stray a little from global warming but it is applicable to all fields science.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctiantly over my two decades as editor of the “the New England Journal of Medicine.”

you claim to read scientific american

scientificamerican.com/article/sometimes-science-is-wrong/

People who I collaborate with know this ….. if we draw different conclusions from the accepted consensus science our funding for research will vanish….. So we collect the real data and publish and with in those consensus. You are no longer a researcher and have no real world idea of how the modern science works (or doesn’t). I linked to a scientific paper which the admit that they will have to use a different metric because the actual data doesn’t match the models (“if your theory doesn’t match the data your theory is wrong “,RF), apparently is the way of modern science works I quoted several passages from the leaked emails about how the IPCC report is misused and opposing views are kept out. Yet I am the stupid one, which is probably better than you being the gullible one

We have past one tipping point.

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.” DDE

this quote may stray a little from global warming but it is applicable to all fields science.

It’s not even particularly applicable to what Angell aimed it at nine years ago.

@ Sophie Amsden

First, no apology for claiming Greta Thunberg is a high school drop out. Of course not, that is your modus operandi. My guess is, given what I’ve seen of her and read, that she is much more intelligent than either you or me. I certainly wasn’t as articulate at 16-18 as she is.

No comment on how you claimed acidification and CO2 were opposites? No comment on why, as well knowledgeable as you claim to be, that you don’t seem to understand simple high school chemistry?

No comment on papers I gave that CO2 may increase growth of vegetation; but harms soil, significantly reduces protein and vitamins/minerals, so more to eat, maybe in short run; but more malnutrition?

As for sea level rise, one simple example, Hurricane Sandi. All the experts have explained that only a couple decades ago when sea level was less a storm of same magnitude would NOT have done damage as far inland as it did.

How about your misreading of article on Great Barrier Reef?

And I did refer to articles on sea level based on measurements, not on models. You just keep lying/ignoring what I write.

You write: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present.”

So, researchers and scientists around the world are ALL or MOST corrupted by US Federal employment??? Wow! While I don’t disagree that some might be, your rigid defense of your position forces you to make such extremist statements.

You write: “People who I collaborate with know this ….. if we draw different conclusions from the accepted consensus science our funding for research will vanish.”

People you collaborate with? So, once again, what are your credentials, your education, your profession? You post comments, certain you are right and certain I am wrong; but just because you say so doesn’t make it true and I have posted numerous comments that have shown flaws in your reasoning, including the hypocrisy of referring to newspapers, the hypocrisy of referring to think tanks who lobby, etc. Yep, almost all think tanks, far right to far left lobby, just plain stupid and dishonest to call out mine and ignore yours.

You write: “Yet I am the stupid one, which is probably better than you being the gullible one.”

I have sent out e-mails to friends asking if they know anyone who is faculty in climate sciences. If they get back to me, I will contact them, ask them to read our exchanges, and post their own comment; but, of course, you will question why I got an independent outside person to look at our exchange because you know you are right. Bull Shit!

AND IF ANYONE FOLLOWING THIS EXCHANGE CLOSELY HAS AN OPINION, PLEASE SHARE IT

And you keep bringing up climate history, so here’s a paper that explains climate cycles and why human CO2 is still responsible for current climate change:

David Herring & Rebecca Lindsey (2021 Sep 27). Hasn’t Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history? NOAA Climate.gov.

As for not all science always being right. I don’t disagree; but the science of climate change has been going on for over 50 years and, despite what you choose to believe, the vast majority of scientists believe in climate change. You even lied about Naomi Oreskes wrote regarding percentage of scientists who agreed. You are incredibly dishonest.

Oh, hilarious, you refer to an article in Scientific American when you criticized my use of it.

In fact, several predictions from many years ago have come true (and, yep, some are newspaper articles; but majority are scientific journals):

Svante Arrhenius (1896 Apr). On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science; 41: 237-276.

Hilary Brueck (2018 Aug 17). A Newspaper in 1912 Published This Eerily Accurate Prediction About Today’s World. Science Alert

G.S. Callendar (1938 Apr). The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Infuence on Temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society; 64(275): 223-240.

Andrew Freedman (2019 Dec 4). The simplest of climate models run decades ago accurately projected global warming: Study refutes a common climate-change-denial talking point. The Washington Post.

E.O. Hulburt (1931 Nov 15). The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth. Physical Review; 38: 1876-

Neville Nicholls (2019 Jul 22). 40 years ago, scientists predicted climate change. And hey, they were right. The Conversation.

Gilbert N. Plass (1959 Jul). Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Scientific American.

Brandon Specktor (2021 Jul 20). Infamous 1972 Prediction of Global Collapse in The 2040s Looks to Be Right on Track. Live Science

Windows to the Earth (2013 Aug 26). Early Studies of the Impact of Carbon Dioxide on Climate.

ONE QUESTION: WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO DEVOTE TIME AND ENERGY INTO TRYING TO INFLUENCE ME? I THINK IT IS BECAUSE YOU REALLY AREN’T CERTAIN AND HOPE IF I CHANGE MY MIND THAT WILL CONFIRM YOUR RIGID OPINION.

@ Sophie Amsden

You write: “The polar portal is inter active, just like the sea ice extent. on the page I listed is a date box which allows you to explore the snow ice accumulations since record keeping has started. I am not going to put 365 links for 50 years of data in a post because you are incapable of searching.”

I went to their website and cut and pasted what they wrote. So, you are saying that the people working at Polar Portal don’t understand their own data, that their summary was wrong and you are right. Wow! I suggest you contact them, explain this, and offer your services. I’m sure they will leap at the chance?????????????????

Oh, and just to remind you, you were wrong about IRS addressing me as Mr. Harrison. Papers from them, my property tax bill, etc. just use my name. Oh well, just one more goof on your part. So what else is new?

Ok I will do what the rest of the world does for you

Joel Harrison.

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
RF

Frank Wentz and Carl Mears can hardly be called climate change deniers. Here is their site, even you can see that the models are showing that water vapor is a much better indicator/contributor of warming than CO2. The trouble is that the models even they use have fallen below the Mendoza Line.

remss.com/research/climate/

And as you can read, you have used research papers by Santer et al and the blog Skeptical Science, they are one in the same, but are claiming two different sources. As to the research “We call to these four explanations “model physics errors”, “model input errors”, “observational errors”, and “different variability sequences …In fact, there is hard scientific evidence that all four of these factors contribute to the discrepancy, and that most of it can be explained without resorting to model physics errors.” so once again the data must be wrong because we don’t want to resort to changing our models as our models are great.

And once again you want a cadre of people to help you in your arguments. If I was wrong you wouldn’t need all those people to help you. the data that I cite should be all you need. It is interesting that a grade school drop out has caused you so much consternation and you have devoted so much time and the searching of articles in an attempt to refute the data. I asked for records either tide gauges or satellite records which shows an acceleration in sea level rise (without land subsidence), you haven’t produced them, all you have produced it papers and articles which claim there is or will be. You posted lots of stuff with lots of guesses and some of the stuff has been removed from YOUR websites because, basically it didn’t happen. You reference to climate predictions that were correct is just one big loop and they all refer to each other (echo chamber)and again they are just guesses, as the oil didn’t run out nor did food production drop. Just a question why does the temperature graph start in 1979, I believe the weather service has records that go back as far as 1900’s.
As to scientific american, to paraphrase you, even a stopped clock get it right twice a day. and as to think tanks and lobbies if you actually read my post, I don’t like any of them right or left and never used a think tank or lobby’s website to ‘prove’ my point you on the other hand you did.

I really don’t care to change your mind, if that is even possible, with your super ego such that it is. All I did was to present an opposing point of view. If it angers you and causes you consternation, well that’s just a bonus.

@Sophie Amsden If you actually read the site, it states that atmosphere is warming, but model predictions are on he lower limit of error band.
If you want people take you seriously, you should least read your own links.

Aarno
Maybe the wayback machine can help you understand what you were thinking you understood.
“Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.”

web.archive.org/web/20170531221140/http://www.remss.com/research/climate

Oh, bloody hell. Are you still at this? It has nothing to do with the topic of the climate science denial I’m seeing is starting to annoy me. Keep it up, and I’ll shut this thread down prematurely. (Usually I leave comments open for six months after an article publishes.)

Orac I want to apologize for me replying to Joel about climate change and I will cease. I do have better things to do.
If you were following the thread, Joel was the first to mention climate change and I responded to his misinformation.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
says:
December 26, 2021 at 7:49 pm

…….

“I did suggest a while back that PBS has several programs on climate change, you know the big hoax is your opinion, which outweighs 98% of world’s scientists. You should watch them:
Greta Thunberg 3 episodes (I wish I had been as insightful and had the vocabulary she has at 18, especially in a foreign language, English; but then I have read up on Asberger’s and they often are EXTREMELY intelligent, especially in technical areas)
Extinction: The Facts
Arctic Drift……”

It went on for several paragraphs about climate change, in Joel’s usual fashion.

@Sophie Amsden As I said, read your own link. It says that observations stay inside of error margins of models. You continue to speak about CO2, too. It is not only greenhouse gas,
Because you are such a superduper scientist, try to understand error margins

@ Sophie Amdsen

You write: “And once again you want a cadre of people to help you in your arguments. If I was wrong you wouldn’t need all those people to help you. the data that I cite should be all you need. It is interesting that a grade school drop out has caused you so much consternation and you have devoted so much time and the searching of articles in an attempt to refute the data.“

You just are too dishonest or stupid to understand that you believe the data you provide should convince me and vice versa. One of us is right; but it is obvious that nothing will change your mind. You claim to be a climate scientist; but continue to call yourself “a grade school drop out.” You have said several times how much better educated on climate science you are; yet refuse to even mention what you education is, claiming you did once??? So, any reasonably intelligent person would understand why an independent third party or parties is needed. Are you really so STUPID?

As for me devoting so much time, I throw that right back at you. Why are you devoting so much time in exchanges with one old man? Maybe, because you really deep down are not sure and hope if you can convince me that that will reinforce your wavering confidence.

You writes: “I asked for records either tide gauges or satellite records which shows an acceleration in sea level rise (without land subsidence), you haven’t produced them, all you have produced it papers and articles which claim there is or will be.”

Well, here you go:

“The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can
provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of
global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined
with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measure sea level on a global
basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that
started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1
(2001–2013), Jason-2 (2008–2019), and Jason-3 (2016–present) estimate
global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm. . . The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site.” [NOAA (2020 Mar 16). Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry: Sea Level Rise]

“A new NASA and university study using NASA satellite data finds that tide gauges—the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels may have underestimated the amount of average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century” [NASA (2016 Oct 17). Tide-gauge records might underestimate sea level rise: NASA Sea Level Change Portal]

“Sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. The rate of sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015. [NOAA (2020 Aug 14). Climate Change: Global Sea Level. NOAA Climate.gov.]

For discussion of various measures of sea level: [Sea Level, Waves and Coastal Extremes. Sea level measurements]

I’m sure you will jump on the “uncertainty of 3—4 mm every 10 days, ignoring that they use means, etc. and you were the one to request satellite data, so, unless you wish to continue showing what a hypocrite you are, you should accept the above.

You’ve also questioned the consensus of scientists, well, here’s another paper where 11,258 scientist from 153 countries signed on [William J. Ripple et al. (2020 Jan). World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. BioScience.

You write: Frank Wentz and Carl Mears can hardly be called climate change deniers. Here is their site, even you can see that the models are showing that water vapor is a much better indicator/contributor of warming than CO2. The trouble is that the models even they use have fallen below the Mendoza Line.”

First, so you jump away from sea level to water vapor and you often attack me for changing focus/subject. So, what do they say: “In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record.  We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor . . . Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality.  The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes.  For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino – Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.” [Remote Sensing Systems. Climate Analysis]

Unfortunately I couldn’t find on their website anything about sea levels, only temperatures and have to have an account with them to access actual data. “in a recent online YouTube video, Dr. Carl Mears, a senior scientist with the team behind the satellite data, explained how he believes his data set needed correction.[6] I would have to say that the surface data seems that it’s more accurate, because a number of groups analyze the surface data, including some who set out to prove the other ones wrong, and they all get more or less the same answer. In June 2017, version 4 of the TLT was released and this substantially revised upwards the trend from 1979 by 36% from .135K per decade to .184K per decade.[7][8]” [Wikipedia. Remote Sensing Systems] Note that the Wikipedia article includes references, links to YouTube video with Carl Mears and articles/links by Frank Wentz.

So, two scientists that you refer to as credible have admitted that they now have revised upwards the trend from 1979 by 36%. Not exactly a minor change.

You write: “I really don’t care to change your mind, if that is even possible, with your super ego such that it is. All I did was to present an opposing point of view. If it angers you and causes you consternation, well that’s just a bonus.”

So, again, I have an ego; but you don’t; yet, you keep posting comments directed at me. Just how stupid are you? I keep asking this question because you keep making utterly stupid statements. And you want to anger one old man. Don’t you have better things to do.

In any case, once again I have responded to your assertions and refuted them; but I’m sure you will ignore or twist what I wrote.

So, once again, given you don’t seem to understand high school chemistry when you stated that ocean acidification and CO2 were opposites, please, stop being dishonest, and give your education, training, what ever.

Thank you Orac, thank you Joel et al. Very much appreciate what you do here, very grateful.
Especially Joel – and I hope you, Joel, and Orac are actually still here in 10 years time.
( David Attenborough should be our absolute inspiration – his latest TV documentary shows him sharp and sprightly ay 94.)

@ Cath

Thanks! And I love David Attenborough, not just his latest “Extinction: The Facts” I’ve been watching his documentaries as far back as i remember and hope he makes it to 110 and continues to make documentaries.

As for me being around 10 years from now, it has its positive and its negatives. The negatives is worsening effects of climate change and this nation and world moving to the violent right. Did you see Trump endorses Viktor Orban, Hungarian leader changing their Constitution to, in reality, create a one-party system, limit freedom of the press, etc? Yep,Trump and Tucker Carlson endorse him. Yikes!

[…] Similarly, “discrediting the authorities” is another longstanding antivaccine tactic, except that I generally refer to it as falsely discrediting authorities using misinformation, disinformation, lies, pseudoscience, quackery, and conspiracy theories. Fortunately, large media outlets are much more savvy than they once were about these sorts of tactics. Unfortunately, certain other once proud media outlets—I’m talking to you, BMJ, but not just you—have demonstrated themselves to be useful idiots for antivaxxers. […]

Joel
“You ignore the actual science of a published news source” well yes, of course I ignore the published news sources, I prefer to read the actual data and the science papers.As Aarno said we shouldn’t use ‘jurnos’ in a science forum.

“So, once again, given you don’t seem to understand high school chemistry when you stated that ocean acidification and CO2 were opposites, please, stop being dishonest..”
Please show where I said that, I just pointed out your statements, quoted below, which are directly opposite each other. If the oceans are saturated they can’t absorb anymore CO2, according to you, but they absorb more CO2 to make them more acidic.

“The oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; but when they become saturated, they release it.
But you ignore that the oceans absorb excess CO2 and they are now saturated
Because they are super saturated and can’t absorb anymore.
As for acidification, you do understand CO2’s pH level is acidic? So, if oceans do absorb CO2, then it makes them more acidic.”
You post so much stuff you don’t even remember what you write. If the oceans are saturated (or super saturated) then they can not absorb more CO2 so they can’t get more acidic. That is grade school math.

“I am not as well versed on the science of global warming as some, but I can spot a ‘grift’ when I see one.”
Of course you don’t see the wind energy companies or the solar companies as the grift, both of which are greater polluters of long life greenhouse gases (SF6 and NF3) which are much worse for the earth. Oil companies are big investors in those two energy sources, as the oil companies know that those two sources of energy are not reliable and need an equal amount of gas/oil back up systems.
The EU is at it lowest point for the production of wind energy and is now having to buy electricity from other countries who use coal to produce electricity, the EU is now declaring the use of natural gas as carbon neutral, just as it did with its use of wood pellets.

“A new NASA and university study using NASA satellite data finds that tide gauges—the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels may have underestimated the amount of average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century”
Again please cite the study that your news story refers to. I did note that the news story included this caveat “the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels”. If NOAA/NASA records that they admit are of the highest quality, then ALL of NOAA/NASA records can be questioned.

Three final points, the satellites are hundreds of miles up (with an error rate of 3mm), the tide gauges are fixed sites on the earth, which is more accurate, you cited a report that the satellite temperature records should be questioned (they don’t show as much global warming as land based gauges) because of orbit and height drift, wouldn’t that apply to sea height as well.
The second point the use of the word ‘MAY’ have underestimated, is a reoccurring word to describe much of the science of this story. And the ‘story’ is 6 years old is there no update in the research, which really focused on gravitational influence on sea level and glacier melt.
The third point is, once again the models don’t match the data so the data must be wrong. You don’t get to cherry pick the data or change the data to make it meet the models, that is not science, that is religion.

When I showed you actual science on the GBR and how it has recovered to the pre1980 levels, you refuted the science by saying that it could revert back to the loss. That is some refutation. Much of the reduction in size of the GBR was due to the crown of thorns starfish who’s populations rose due to over fishing of the natural predators that would eat the crown of thorns. But that would have required you to do real research and on the issue and not rely on press releases

I don’t really attack you so much, as attack your belief in global warming. Warming is occurring but not to the extent that you and alarmist believe and the belief that warming will be harmful to man, plants and animals thrive when it is warm.
Of course I make comments directed at you, I am responding to false or misleading statements that you make and your repeated statements that you have refuted the actual science of sea levels, Greenland ice sheet et al.

I have (and others) have posted link to CO2 sources (not volcanoes), sea level change, warming of atmosphere and melting of Greenland ice cap.You, of course reject all this and sprout about how great scientist you are
You actually showed a link to science. It tells that proedictions are still inside the error margin. No changes needed
Wind turbines or solar panels does not require fuel. This main source of greenhouse gases

@ Sophie Amdsen

You write: “I just pointed out your statements, quoted below, which are directly opposite each other. If the oceans are saturated they can’t absorb anymore CO2, according to you, but they absorb more CO2 to make them more acidic.” Nope, they absorbED more CO2.

Wow! The point is that the increased output of CO2 from us resulted in the oceans absorbing it, leading to acidification. So, they are acidic. As I wrote, they have so much CO2 that they release it back to the environment. They are acidic because of our CO2 output. Don’t you even understand this? And the combination of increased ocean temperature and acidification is, among other things, killing off phytoplankton that some species responsible for much of Earth’s oxygen, and all phytoplankton compose bottom of food chain. As they die off, so dies off higher animals of our oceans.

You write: “The third point is, once again the models don’t match the data so the data must be wrong. You don’t get to cherry pick the data or change the data to make it meet the models, that is not science, that is religion.”

A model is based on data, based on the underlying science. You really don’t understand science. Statistical models are developed all the time to understand what is happening and to predict developments. Models fill in gaps in data, etc. You assume cherry picking the data or even worse, changing the data to make it meet the models; but you base this not on your honest evaluation; but if the models don’t fit what you choose to believe, then must be so. As for “religion” seems, given that over and over I have shown that the vast majority of scientists do support global warming, but you think you are more knowledgeable or honest than them, it is your religion. Wow! Talk about delusions of grandeur.

You write: “I don’t really attack you so much, as attack your belief in global warming. Warming is occurring but not to the extent that you and alarmist believe and the belief that warming will be harmful to man, plants and animals thrive when it is warm.
Of course I make comments directed at you, I am responding to false or misleading statements that you make and your repeated statements that you have refuted the actual science of sea levels, Greenland ice sheet et al.”

As for: “Warming is occurring but not to the extent that you and alarmist believe and the belief that warming will be harmful to man, plants and animals thrive when it is warm.”

Absolutely WRONG. I realize that you reject documentaries; but many interview well-known, well-respected scientists. And you automatically reject anything from some non-profits, ignoring that some of their “experts” are experts. There is a new PBS documentary that goes through each and every aspect of our world that is being seriously hurt by climate change and interviews a number of experts. You should watch it: Earth Emergency.

As for the Great Barrier Reef:

“Predictably, this report was translated by many commentators into two diametrically opposed and equally false messages: one, that the reef was near death; and the other, that the reef was absolutely fine, and as good as it had ever been. These extreme views were typically bolstered by anecdotes of personal visits to specific parts of the reef, confirming the polar opposite interpretations, and the exhortation to “see for yourself”. . .Our 40 years of data clearly show the largest and most diverse reef system in the world is under growing pressure from the combined effects of coral bleaching, outbreaks of coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, cyclones and poor water quality. Today, there are still many parts of the reef that remain in excellent condition – the ecosystem has huge in-built resilience that allows coral to recover when given the chance – but the number of such reefs has been declining over time. And the number of reefs in poor condition is increasing. . . .In the past 20 years, climate change has emerged as the single biggest threat to the future of the GBR and reefs worldwide. The evidence is clear and unequivocal. Corals are highly susceptible to small changes in water temperature. Warming of as little as 1C maintained for eight weeks is enough to cause coral bleaching – which can lead to death. Mass bleaching, unheard of before the 1990s, is now becoming a regular occurrence, with major events in 1998, 2002, 2010, 2016, 2017 and 2020. We now know coral reefs take about a decade to recover after serious damage. Mounting evidence suggests that as reefs recover, they are changing in composition and diversity. And as marine heatwaves become more frequent, there is less and less time for recovery. It’s a vicious spiral. [Paul Hardisty (2021 Jul 12). The Great Barrier Reef is not fine and nor is it dying; truth is inbetween. Australian Institute of Marine Science.]

NOTE: “Mass bleaching, unheard of before the 1990s, is now becoming a regular occurrence, with major events in 1998, 2002, 2010, 2016, 2017 and 2020. We now know coral reefs take about a decade to recover after serious damage. Mounting evidence suggests that as reefs recover, they are changing in composition and diversity. And as marine heatwaves become more frequent, there is less and less time for recovery.” “A REGULAR OCCURRENCE. And the authors of this study are climate scientists! ! !

See also: Terry P. Hughes et al. (2018 Apr 18). Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature; 556: 492-496.

So, once more, why do you devote time and energy to attempting to refute one old man? And I have over this exchange cited numerous papers from NOAA, NASA, EPA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Science and Nature Magazine and others. And, by the way, many articles in Scientific American are actually written by researchers that have published in the areas. Quite simply, the write articles in Scientific American to allow the rest of us to understand ongoing research.

So, what is your education/training that you claimed you posted in a comment? Liar, liar, pants on fire. And, I am an old man with time on my hands; but you imply that you are working/collaborating with climate scientists, even one of them, so, again, why do you devote any time at all to exchanging comments with me. By the way, several other commenters who I do not know have also found your comments wrong. So, I’m not alone.

The only reason I even bother to responding to someone as dishonest as you is it stimulates me to find more info on climate change and the more I find, the more convinced I am; but, as opposed to you, I would be more than happy to change my mind if real, more than one or two, researches show it to be wrong or less harmful because I was raised to believe each generation leaves a better world for the next; but given the overwhelming science, I doubt I will change my mind. And given how you misread/twist what I write, just continuous proof you are sick and delusional.

No global warming/climate disaster are not becoming more dangerous to man kind. Again you ignore what your eyes tell you. and you make up things that you think I posted but didn’t.
As for my time to respond, I am on Christmas break.
As to your idea that climate deaths are up is really in your imagination.
The first is a site with raw data which if you really are a numbers person you can look up and analysis to see for yourself. It from the Max Planck institute, not a climate change denier organization

emdat.be/search/node/climate%20related%20deaths

and if you don’t choose to do the work yourself here is a site that did that for you .

fee.org/articles/climate-related-deaths-are-at-historic-lows-data-show/

Coral bleaching has occurred before 1990 it was just never studied as intently and has several causes some man made some not (they are sedimentation, cyanide fishing, herbicides, heavy metals, from mining especially in Asia/China, schages in salinity and temperature.and again with the “may” but now you want to use suggest.
“Mounting evidence suggests”

As to your documentaries, the editors can cut and past and make any point from a scientist interview.
“many interview well-known, well-respected scientists”
As to your point on the 97% all you would have to do is look up the John Cook study that has now been disproved/refuted, I included quotes from scientist who Cook claimed said that man was the cause of global warming, they all disagreed with what Cook claimed their papers said and was based on your Naomi Oreskes who you cited several times.

You continuously use the echo chamber to try to make your point.
If you were to really look at a real survey on climate review the survey by Bray and von Storch, Go to question 14.

hvonstorch.de/klima/pdf/CliSci2013.pdf

So the oceans are saturated or super saturated but they still can absorb CO2?
I showed you data and research that proves the oceans are not saturated and actually breath CO2 in and out.

“By the way, several other commenters who I do not know have also found your comments wrong. So, I’m not alone.”
So you called out your posse, to come help you. You needed their affirmation ?

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
RF

@ Sophie Amdsen

So, again you devote time and effort to attempt to prove you are right in an exchange with one old man. What does that say about you? It says YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! The fact that you don’t even understand how and why scientists use models. The fact that you don’t understand or accept why the oceans are releasing CO2 because they are saturated by man created CO2, etc. The fact that you demanded I present satellite measures of oceans, then reject them. And on and on it goes. I don’t have to be an expert on climatology to see just how flawed a moron you are!

I now have over 500 papers on climate change and despite your continuous lying about my referring to news clipping, climate change isn’t my main concern at this period of my life and exchanging comments with a delusional, dishonest, sick person like you is a waste of time. Yep, it did get me to build up my climate change library; but you are just too despicable to waste more time with.

As I wrote a while back, if I live another 5 – 10 years, we will see who is right. Now GO TO HELL!

Now back to reading new edition of text on immunology, later edition of excellent book on history of racism, up-to-date articles on current pandemic and host of other subjects of interest. Again GO TO HELL! ! !

@ Sophie Amdsen

You write: ““By the way, several other commenters who I do not know have also found your comments wrong. So, I’m not alone.”
So you called out your posse, to come help you. You needed their affirmation ?”

Since I made it clear I don’t know them, calling them my posse is just one more example of how delusional and dishonest you are. As for “their affirmation”, as I’ve explained and you are far too stupid to understand, since you refuse to admit you are wrong and I the same, most people would welcome independent third parties. Not you. MORON

And you claim you are on Xmas vacation; but everyone I know returned to work this Monday. But, it still doesn’t explain why a “highly trained professional like you” is wasting time in exchange with one old man???

If CO2 in atmosphere is raising, oceans obviously do notabsorb it (at least not all of ot).
There is a paper about it:
Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change
CORINNE LE QUÉRÉCHRISTIAN RÖDENBECKERIK T. BUITENHUISTHOMAS J. CONWAYRAY LANGENFELDSANTONY GOMEZCASPER LABUSCHAGNEMICHEL RAMONETTAKAKIYO NAKAZAWA[…]MARTIN HEIMANN Authors Info & Affiliations
SCIENCE • 22 Jun 2007 • Vol 316, Issue 5832 • pp. 1735-1738 • DOI: 10.1126/science.1136188
Besides of that, acifification of oceans is not a such great thing.
Your link about climate scientists describes a project. Please report results.
Your first link about climate deaths is broken and second is a journo. You must do better.,

This just in:

Peter Gøtzsche has a rapid response on BMJ

to Dean Miller’s response to the ‘Open Letter.’ Lot’s to unpack there, but it ends with this gem:

There was a Ministry for Truth in Orwell’s novel, 1984. But today, it is not only Big Brother is watching you,

and

They remind me of the Inquisition.

The inquisition! for adding a ‘fact check’ note to shares of the BMJ article. Haha, poor Peter.

Joel, you didn’t even look at the satellite data.
Just click on the the line that has the global means sea level. The rise has been pretty consistent since 1995 an acceleration would be a curved line.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov

@ Tony

NOPE! If you understood statistics you would know that one can take data and do a linear regression on it which results in a straight line; but one can add a second variable, which will show a curve. The first will have data on both sides and some further from the line. The 2nd equation will be often a better fit. If the goal of those doing the graphs is just to show increased sea levels, the first is adequate. I found several papers with the curve; but don’t feel like trying to find them just now. Plus, I doubt if you would care. I’ve devoted too much time to commenting. I’ve better things to do.

Try actually to fit a line to data, not whole of it, but first half of it, I would say that there is curving it the latest data.
Besides of that, why do you think that linear sea level rise is perfectly OK?

Linear rise of sea level has been ongoing for 100’s of years (some sea level records go back as far as the 1600’s) at a pretty steady rise of just a little over 3 millimeters per year, some periods a little more some a little less.
As to acceleration. If you were to break down the numbers in the second 5 years the the rise was 16.8 mm in some 5 year periods it ranged between 12 mm to 17 mm in the last 5 year time frame it was 17.3 mm. If you were to go back in the data record before satellites you would find some years in which the sea level actually went down and in this graph sea level went down by 4 mm in 2010 -2012 and in 1998 it went down 10 mm (if you click on the graph you can see what the actual reading was). So it depended on what date range you want to use to show accelerating. The satellites have only been taking measurements for the last 25 years and have a error rate of .4mm so I wouldn’t place a lot of stock in such a short record.

Aarno

PSMSL has data going back to the 1700’s (before industrialization) that shows just a 3 mm + rise. It integrates NOAA’s with the rest of the world. and has categories for length of readings etc., it is interactive and its just data.Some of the older data you have to plot for yourself.

@Tony Check when Industrial Revolution really started, and count from it. If you check my link, there is an acceleration lately.

@ Tony

Here’s one that show accelerated rise: Lindsey (2020 Aug 14). Climate Change: Global Sea Level. NOAA at: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level climate.gov

And if you really want to learn all about climate change, including a number of graphs:

Blunden (2021 Aug). State of the Climate in 2020 – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.pdf at: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/

click on high resolution version. The graphs are better

From your first citation
They cobbled together two different data sets, which are both called “Seasonal (3-month) sea level ESTIMATES”.
If you looked at the data when they overlap they don’t even match.
The graph I linked to is expandable, and has the actual data, if you followed the instructions to hover the mouse over the data points

@ Tony

How nice, you picked one of my two referenced papers, ignoring the much more detailed one.

You write: “If you were to go back in the data record before satellites you would find some years in which the sea level actually went down.” Do you understand the difference between climate and weather? First, though it may have gone done a bit, not to its earlier levels. Second, it is the overall trend that is important. I guess you are unaware that recent hurricanes of same magnitude as previous ones had surges that went much further inland because of higher sea levels, etc.?

In any case, not worth continuing with you. The evidence on climate change is overwhelming. As with other climate change deniers, antivaxxers, etc. you try to find something, anything. Imagine a jury where the prosecutor has DNA, 12-point match fingerprints, etc. and five eye witnesses. Now imagine the defense attorney proves that one eye witness confused his dates. I guess if you were on the jury, your would ignore the DNA, fingerprints, and other four witness and vote not guilty.

@ Tony

Typical, you focused on only one of two links I gave. The other gives a lot more info, a lot more graphs. Believe what you want. For the vast majority of us, we already recognize that the weather is hotter than during our lifetimes, that more fires are occurring, etc. And I choose to go with the vast majority of scientists. I doubt anything will get you or others like you to change your minds. So, the future will decide. At 75 I may or may not live another 5 – 10 years; but if I do we’ll see who is right. If I’m wrong I would be delighted because I believe, hope that future generations will have ever better lives; but if I’m right, the future will be more like a living hell. I assume you are younger than me, so if you are wrong, which the overwhelming evidence says so, well, what will you say then???

And it isn’t just sea level that proves climate change is real, it is so many other things. Basically, if you were on a jury and the prosecution presented DNA, 12-point fingerprints, and five eye witnesses, if defense attorney proved one of witnesses got date wrong, if you wanted to believe defendant innocent, you would ignore DNA, fingerprints, and four of five witnesses. Oh well.

joel

“Do you understand the difference between climate and weather?”
The difference between weather and climate is about 30 years according to NOAA/NASA/IPCC.
“It’s about using the weather data we collected in the past to look for long-term trends of 30 years or more.”
your satellites are nice but not yet climate and YOU don’t understand the difference between climate and weather

20,000 years ago the sea level was lower by about 120 METERS, the current rise isn’t even a pin point.

fws.gov/slamm/changes%20in%20sea%20level_expanded%20version_template.pdf

As to drought in the west, it has been much worse.

web.archive.org/web/20170519044151/https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/30/graphic-californias-droughts-in-the-past-1200-years/

I will not respond to the rest of your incoherent babbling

@ Tony

You write: “Warming tracks with scientific consensus, researchers
report”

Yep, incoherent to simply state that the future will determine which of us is right and that you ignored one of the two URLs I referred to, the one with much much more details, etc.

So, GO TO HELL

@Tony 20000 years since there was an ice age, with lots of waters fixed in polar ice caps. Of course sea level was lower. Global glaciations are an exception.

I suspect Tony is Tony Heller, a long-standing climate change denier who has been banned from Twitter for bringing anti-vaccine misinformation on top of his climate denial.

https://www.desmog.com/steven-goddard/

There’s quite a bit of information on his efforts to mislead online, and the point I want to make is that he is an experienced – and dishonest – hand at this. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/hosted-by-former-australian-senator-tony-heller-repeats-false-claim-that-scientists-fake-the-warming-trend/

Unlikely to be worth your time, Dr. Harrison.

@ Tony

You write: “20,000 years ago the sea level was lower by about 120 METERS, the current rise isn’t even a pin point.”

I guess your immense stupidity doesn’t understand that 20,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age and the entire planet was covered in ice.

Me posting from HELL
“I WAS TOLD BY SOMEONE ON THIS POST THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL PLACE FOR ME HERE.”

“I guess your immense stupidity doesn’t understand that 20,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age and the entire planet was covered in ice.”

Joel exactly what caused the planet to come out of an ice age, 20,000 years ago?

and 5 million years ago were were in an ice age with 1,000 ppm of co2.
Just a side note, Mars has a CO2 concentration of 95% CO2 (950,000 ppm vs earth’s 450 ppm) according to your logic it should be burning up on Mars.

And just a question. man did didn’t raise the CO2, 5 million years ago, what caused the ‘climate change” or 20,000 years ago?

and “300 parts per million 150,000 years ago and then decreased until 20,000 years ago.” (that would be the ice age end point) so a decrease in CO2 caused the planet to warm????.

education.seattlepi.com/co2-levels-atmosphere-over-150000-years-ago-6082.html

I like being warm as do plants and most animals.

Dorit you would be wrong, so I am borrowing a line from Die Hard,”Eeeh! Sorry Hans (Dorit), wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?” You are a college law professor so I will let it slide this time.

DORIT you do realize that ‘desmog” is a public relations organization from Canada not a research organization?
“DeSmog was founded by Jim Hoggan of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms.”

desmog.com/about/

Not a Ph.D in the group and not any real scientist, just reporters, so Mr. Harrison according to your standards they don’t measure up.

Wanna guess where they get their funding????

You two’s are really funny, trouble is neither of you know climate science, I am sure either one of you can communicate with ORAC and find my email address, my full name is part of that and it ain’t Tony Heller, happy hunting.

“It Ain’t What You Don’t Know That Gets You Into Trouble. It’s What You Know for Sure That Just Ain’t So”
MT

@Tony There are any number of theories about the cause of Quaternary glaciation. One of them is a massive *decrease” of atmosperic CO2.

As to CO2 being good for plants, do you realize that plants need CO2 to grow and below 200 ppm plants die and that the increase in CO2 is great for plants, plants die when its too cold or there is not enough CO2

“the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.”

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalGarden

Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide

noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-dioxide

@ Tony

You write: “As to CO2 being good for plants, do you realize that plants need CO2 to grow and below 200 ppm plants die and that the increase in CO2 is great for plants, plants die when its too cold or there is not enough CO2”

Except you must have missed that excess CO2 diminishes signficantly the amount of protein and nutrients in plants, so people may fill themselves; but suffer malnutrition. And in the long run CO2 significantly damages soil leading to loss of crops, etc.

So, MORON, you either didn’t understand what I’ve written and/or don’t care and keep on with your biased ignorant approach.

And “too cold” yep; but we are talking about cold, we are talking about too hot for us and world’s ecology.

Dorit, you are probably right.

Sorry but I just love the quote:

“Dorit you would be wrong, so I am borrowing a line from Die Hard,”Eeeh! Sorry Hans (Dorit), wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?” So change Dorit to Joel.

The thing is, and there is always a thing, If I had questions about the law, I would not go to you (Joel) for the answers but I would defer to Dorit. And if I had questions about, infections/epidemiology I wouldn’t go to Dorit but would go to Joel, those are your specialties, why do either of you think that you are now experts on climate, because you possess education in law or epidemiology (you’ve read articles, books, watched TV programs or visited a PR blogs), that is hubris. Your MS/PhD. means you know more and more about less and less.

And too hot for man, people live in climates where the temperatures gets over 120 degrees, crops are grown in all 4 seasons in that environment, very few people live in cold regions, where they may get 1 crop a year. Man originated in Africa, a pretty hot climate.

PS: the devil just showed me my special place……I’ll save room for you twos

@Tony 120 degree Fahrenheit is actually Sahara, where plants do not grow abundantly. Many grains would prefer temperate climate, though bananas would grow well in tropics, though not in Sahara.

“And too hot for man, people live in climates where the temperatures gets over 120 degrees, crops are grown in all 4 seasons in that environment, very few people live in cold regions, where they may get 1 crop a year. Man originated in Africa, a pretty hot climate.”

Why don’t you think about that statement for a while? Then ask yourself if the total rearrangement of the agricultural production areas of the world would cause a bit of disruption.

To make it clearer. Some places will become too hot for agriculture. Some colder places may become more suitable. Rainfall patterns could change so some places may become deserts and some may flood. Worst case, the entire world map of food production will change. Fancy a new dust bowl?

Obviously this is ignoring the massive changes to coastal areas due to changes in the sea level. Probably resulting in large population movements. More disruption.

For all I know, not being a climate scientist, the world will stabilise at a new mean and everything will eventually be fine. However, the transition sounds like a bugger and I bet it’s not short.

Only 27 countries have all-time record temperatures over 120ºF. Their annual average maximum is going to be a lot less in almost all cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Highest_temperatures_ever_recorded

In the case I’m most familiar with, Oodnadatta in South Australia, I can assure you that there’s not much agriculture thereabouts. Its all-time high was 50.7ºC (123.3F). Its average annual maximum is 38.4ºC (101.1ºF).

But probably the main thing that limits its agricultural potential is water: an average annual rainfall of 185.2mm (7.29″).

Have a look at the satellite images from around Oodnadatta:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/27%C2%B032'53.2%22S+135%C2%B026'43.6%22E/@-27.54811,135.445432,30869m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xa6b73ab2a834894b!8m2!3d-27.54811!4d135.445432?hl=en

If you zoom in on the town, the only bit of green is a fairly dry-looking Australian Rules football field.

Aarno
did you even look at the article you linked to when the concentrations of CO2 fell below 200 ppm we had ice ages.

When we had high concentrations of CO2 (4,000) life flourished .

“Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000 parts per million (ppm, on a molar basis) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years

Carbon dioxide concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene

The Cambrian marked a profound change in life on Earth; prior to the Cambrian, the majority of living organisms on the whole were small, unicellular and simple (Ediacaran fauna being notable exceptions). Complex, multicellular organisms gradually became more common in the millions of years immediately preceding the Cambrian, but it was not until this period that mineralized—hence readily fossilized—organisms became common.[11] The rapid diversification of life forms in the Cambrian, known as the Cambrian explosion, produced the first representatives of all modern animal phyla. ”

Life as we know it would not be on earth if the concentrations of CO2 were not as high as 4,000 ppm

@ Tony

You write: “Joel exactly what caused the planet to come out of an ice age, 20,000 years ago? and 5 million years ago were were in an ice age with 1,000 ppm of co2.
Just a side note, Mars has a CO2 concentration of 95% CO2 (950,000 ppm vs earth’s 450 ppm) according to your logic it should be burning up on Mars.”

Slow changes in the Earth’s orbit cause changes in the seasonal cycle of solar radiation. As the Earth’s orbit changes, the amount of insolation that the northern hemisphere
receives increases or decreases depending on how the Earth is tilted on its spin axis. When the northern hemisphere receives less insolation, the surface temperature begins to fall slightly, triggering a cycle of global cooling.

Mars is much further from the sun and has a very thin atmosphere so amount of CO2 is minuscule. Do you just write anything, regardless of how stupid it is???

What you ignore in your immense stupidity is that things first aren’t caused by one thing and two that there are limited ranges for life on Earth to thrive, too much or too little CO2, etc.

@ Tony

First, while I’m not a climate scientist, I am good at researching topics and have obtained and either read and/or skimmed over 500 papers, the vast majority, 95% from NOAA, NASA, EPA, and scientific journals.

I realize that you really don’t post comments to enter into a dialogue; but just to provoke/irritate people. Basically, you are an adult version of “Oppositional Disorder of Childhood”, also called “The Terrible Twos”. While I’m an old man with time to spare, read a lot, etc. makes me wonder why someone like you is commenting? Are you so unhappy, so frustrated, so . . .?

Jimmy Carter warned us in 1980 of climate change and he put solar panels on the White House. His warning included changes, but nothing consciencious responsible people couldn’t accomplish, etc. Instead many like you voted for Ronald Reagan whose campaign slogan was “Let’s Make America Great Again.” So, what did Reagan do? He lowered regulations on industry and taxes on corporations and the super wealthy, adding significantly to our national debt and accelerating climate change. The reduced regulations increased fossil fuel usage, increased toxins in the air that damage our health, and he made sure that SUVs were categorized as trucks, not cars, so they weren’t required to increase mileage, that is, reduce usage of gasoline. And SUV sales jumped. And people like you have continued to vote, despite such votes benefit mainly corporations and the super wealthy, leaving us, and future generations a huge national debt, toxins in the air, and climate change.

Climate change is upon us; but it is getting worse. Maybe you don’t have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or any younger generation that you care about because if you do, the combination of people like you is leaving them a hell on Earth. So, I don’t know why you continue to post such stupid comments, basically just saying anything and everything in opposition to overwhelming science of climate change; but sooner or later, as I’ve written, climate change will become so bad, probably in less than 10 years, that even morons, sickos, like you will have to realize just how wrong, how stupid you have been. Had people listened to Jimmy Carter we would not be already suffering the effects of climate change and it is just beginning.

You write: “You two’s are really funny, trouble is neither of you know climate science, I am sure either one of you can communicate with ORAC and find my email address, my full name is part of that and it ain’t Tony Heller, happy hunting.”

As I wrote above, maybe not a climate scientist; but I understand the basics of science and have read/skimmed over 500 papers. And what an absolute STUPID thing to say. ORAC, the opposite of you, is an honorable man, so he will NOT betray people’s trust. Why don’t you just give your name?

Now, I have waste enough time. You aren’t worth the effort.

GO TO HELL

@ Tony

I forgot to add one more of Reagn’s actions. He tore down the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put up and many like you cheered him. So, what was bought with our tax monies and would have saved us a little of our tax money, people like you cheered. STUPID ON STEROIDS

I found this in Sophie’s post
“There are so many influences on long term weather that the science is not addressing in its global warming theory, (did you know that the magnetic north pole has shifted over 300 miles since it was first found) which effects cosmic rays or the suns cycle which blocks cosmic rays or allows more of them to strike the earth or the shape of the orbit of the earth around the sun is changing or the output of the sun is not a constant from day to day, the CHAOS theory is very much in play. And forget water vapor or cloud cover on effects of global temperatures. And just what is earths temperature right now and what is its ideal temperature ? For your climate models to work every measurement has to be exact, even a 1 million th of a degree in temperature will quickly multiply the error and within a few weeks to months make models wrong. That is why climate forecasters quickly fall below the Mendoza Line.”

And she gave you a reference to Gavin Schmidt research into why the Sahara is a desert (earth tilt and orbit).
You of course immediately dismiss all those factors and went to CO2 for several posts

But then you change course and your argument and agreed with Sophie’s post.
“ changes in the Earth’s orbit cause changes in the seasonal cycle of solar radiation. As the Earth’s orbit changes, the amount of insolation (sic) that the northern hemisphere
receives (sic) increases or decreases depending on how the Earth is tilted on its spin axis. When the northern hemisphere receives less insolation (sic) the surface temperature begins to fall slightly, triggering a cycle of global cooling.”

Then you reinforce what she said with this:

“What you ignore in your immense stupidity is that things first aren’t caused by one thing and two that there are limited ranges for life on Earth to thrive, too much or too little CO2, etc.”So at least she got you to agree with her on something.

So a least we can agree that too little CO2 is bad, Of course man lives in higher levels of CO2 and does quite well. Take a submarine, the average CO2 level is about 3,500 parts per million and can get as high as 10,600 with no ill effects on the crew.

As to solar panels, they are very bad for the environment, first the materials to make the panels are mined, mostly in China where environmentalist can’t observe the immense damage being done to the earth. Second the use of NF3 in the process which is a GHG that is long life (700) years and is 17,200 the GHG that CO2 is. Third solar panels have a 20 year life (they decline in output 1-5% per year based on several factors) and have to be replaced, very few solar panels are recycled. Electric companies are now putting up solar farms, the catch is they are having to build gas turbine plant beside the solar farm to make up for lost power when the panels are not working. If you don’t believe me look at the NOAA website on CO2 at Mauna Loa and SF6 and NF3. Even 5 years ago they were becoming very concerned about NF3 and SF6 (both man made gases that are more potent then CO2). SF6 is used to make wind turbines. As to Reagan removing the solar panels, Those panels were not electricity producing panels (unlike solar panels of today), but actual were the hot water producing kind and they leaked. Who is the dishonest one now.

“he made sure that SUVs were categorized as trucks, not cars, so they weren’t required to increase mileage, that is, reduce usage of gasoline. And SUV sales jumped.” The CAFA standards were adopted in 1975 and light truck (SUV’s) in 1979. Reagan wasn’t in office yet. The light truck/SUV were lobbied, with the blessing of several environmental groups. by farmers.

You want an adult conversation but your repeated use of slurs and calling me (and others who disagree with you), names, when evidence goes against you is more descriptive about you.
“I realize that you really don’t post comments to enter into a dialogue; but just to provoke/irritate people. Basically, you are an adult version of “Oppositional Disorder of Childhood”, also called “The Terrible Twos”. While I’m an old man with time to spare, read a lot, etc. makes me wonder why someone like you is commenting? Are you so unhappy, so frustrated, so . . .?even morons, sickos,.like you will have to realize just how wrong, how stupid you have been.””And what an absolute STUPID thing to say…..STUPID ON STEROIDS”

Its really a good idea to do real research and remove preconceived notions or beliefs and your own bias when you skim articles.
You are a classic case of over educated person who has been rewarded with the saying “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S#$%.

@ Tony

You cite Sophie but ignore my responding comments. And what makes you think she is right? What is your level of expertise? Nope, I am not an expert in climatology; but I am reasonably intelligent and have been following climate research since Jimmy Carter’s speech in 1980. I have read almost every article in Scientific American. Sophie rejects Scientific American because in 1911 it had an article on eugenics. Well, following that logic we would have to reject many medical journals because of articles from 100, 125 years ago. Many of the authors of Scientific American are actually the published researchers in the respective fields. And I have also read many articles in Nature and Science. Since advent of internet have read NOAA, NASA, EPA, etc.

If you followed my exchange with Sophie, among other things you would have noticed that she denied ocean acidification and I explained in simple high school chemistry that when CO2 combines with water it becomes carbonic acid. When she cited study that part of Great Barrier Reef did, to some extent, recuperate; but with less resilient coral, I gave an up-to-date paper that clearly explained that bleaching incidents had multiplied, come at shorter intervals, not giving reef time to recuperate. And on and on it goes. Does one have to be an expert to read what many experts write? And what do you base your position on? How many papers have you read? The fact that you cite Sophie and completely ignore what I wrote shows your bias.

By analogy, in California our ballots at election time often have numerous initiatives, some 50 – 60 pages with brief summaries and a number of candidates for everything from Congress, state legislature to judges. I often devote up to 20 hours reading the initiatives, taking notes, and doing internet search. In the end I often leave several unmarked and also some of the judges, etc. I don’t rely on 30-second soundbites, nor even summaries. I take voting seriously. I would bet the vast majority do NOT put in the time and effort that I do.

Back to climate change. I have also watched, some several times, documentaries. Sophie rejects them; but many interview top scientists and I follow-up by doing internet search to see who they are and what they have done, published, etc. Sophie automatically rejects certain non-profits, ignoring their often well-documented papers and that some of those representing them are well-respected researchers, even tenured professors at major universities. I would recommend series “Years of Living Dangerously”, PBS programs: Earth Emergency, Arctic Drift, Extinction: The Facts, and the series with Greta Thunberg.

So, nope, I am not a climatologist; but I read carefully many papers, skim others that just reinforce what I’ve read, read carefully often opposing views, and form an opinion, not ever claiming I’m 100% right; but, at some point, one has to decide, take a position. I ask again, what do you base your position on? How much time have you devoted to reading and studying? Or, are you just suffering from an adult equivalent of oppositional disorder of childhood?

And Sophie claims she is an expert; but refuses to give her credentials, education, etc.; but even if she did, we know that several “experts” who denied climate change worked for fossil fuel industry and actually before that worked for tobacco industry denying health risks of smoking. Read Naomi Oreskes book “Merchants of Doubt”

So, keep proving just how dishonest and stupid you are. You question my level of knowledge which if one carries this to its logical extreme means no one should ever form an opinion on anything unless they are an expert. And what is an expert? A few undergraduate courses? A bachelors degree? A masters degree? A PhD? So many peer-reviewed publications? Again, what do you base your position on???

So to sum all of your comments into a readable amount of time.

First joel continuously goes of the rails, it is funny but on the other hand sad as well.

“By analogy, in California our ballots at election time often have numerous initiatives, some 50 – 60 pages with brief summaries and a number of candidates for everything from Congress, state legislature to judges. I often devote up to 20 hours reading the initiatives, taking notes, and doing internet search. In the end I often leave several unmarked and also some of the judges, etc. I don’t rely on 30-second soundbites, nor even summaries. I take voting seriously. I would bet the vast majority do NOT put in the time and effort that I do.”

I will borrow a post that ORAC had on this thread”

“Oh, bloody hell. Are you still at this? It has nothing to do with the topic of the climate science denial I’m seeing is starting to annoy me

Everyone agrees that the climate has changed since the earth was formed. The earth has gone from a seething mass of molten rocks, to an ice covered ball or covered with water. From extreme heat to extreme cold from high concentrations of a whole lot of poisonous gases. Thrown into to that was abundant life forms that were exterminated by outside forces only to be transformed to other life. So the climate changes with or without man, before man got here and will continue long after man is gone.

So of course the climate changes and will continue to change, some of you are climate change deniers by believing that CO2 trapped millions of years ago in coal and other energy forms are going to change the earth to a “hell”. You want to stop the climate from warming, that it has done since before Roman times only to be interrupted by the “little ice age” (maunder minimum)(1300 to 1850) from which we are still recovering.
If you want to watch a ‘documentary” about being cold, the History channel.
youtube.com/watch?v=VTW2Sczq2NA

Here is an example of what is wrong with the climate change/global warming debate ” I am not a climatologist;” yet joel posts endlessly about how right he believes he is and then Dorit wanted to use desmog to refute what I posted, not realizing that it was just a public relation group with no real scientist, notice that joel didn’t question their credentials and ask about their training or experience.

Can any of you tell us what is the ideal temperature the earth should be, that would stop all the doom and gloom WAG’s?
If you can’t answer that simple question, there is not much to debate about.

But I will follow ORAC advise ‘you are starting to annoy me.”

You should speak about what have happened since start of industrial relvolution. Very short time, geologically speaking. Climate has always changed is not answer here.

@ Tony

You write: “Its really a good idea to do real research and remove preconceived notions or beliefs and your own bias when you skim articles”

So, even people with degrees who haven’t actually done research don’t count. Well, I did a search of Safari, Google, Google Scholar, and Yahoo for Sophie Amsden. Didn’t find a single instance of her name on any climate research. So, why do you cite her???

@ Tony

You write: “Here is an example of what is wrong with the climate change/global warming debate ” I am not a climatologist;” yet joel posts endlessly about how right he believes he is ”

First, I made clear that I make NO absolute statements; but I also made it quite clear that I have devoted a lot of time and effort over 40 years to learning about climate science, etc. Yet, you keep stating your position without any evidence you have devoted any time and effort to learning about climate science and you cite Sophie Amsden; but there is NO evidence she has any expertise, except what she claims.

As for the ideal temperature. It depends. The ideal average temperature for what? For agriculture to thrive??? Based on the green revolution of the 1960s and 70s and the agricultural problems, famines, droughts, etc of the past 20 or so years, I would venture that the average temperature of the Earth in the 1960s was quite good.

And you write: “then Dorit wanted to use desmog to refute what I posted, not realizing that it was just a public relation group with no real scientist, notice that joel didn’t question their credentials and ask about their training or experience.” And it was Sophie who lied and attacked me for relying on news clippings, when, as I’ve written, the overwhelming number of my sources was from NOAA, NASA, EPA, scientific american, nature, science, and other peer-reviewed journals.

So, why should I question desmog, though they also cite respected climatologists? I cited hundreds of sources. It is you and Sophie who think you prove your point by critiquing one or two sources.

But, I expect some idiotic response from you, just to continue with your adult version of oppositional disorder of childhood.

Bottom line. You are a SICK DISHONEST EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL.

“Well, I did a search of Safari, Google, Google Scholar, and Yahoo for Sophie Amsden. Didn’t find a single instance of her name on any climate research.”
joel you have to be dumber then dirt. All that education and reading and TV watching has not made you any smarter, probably more clueless..

I showed my grad students this post/thread, 3 of them were able to identify Sophie after reading just her first post on this thread, (they have smart phones). They were ALL able to go back thru this site and find other clues to her identity after 20 minutes or so.

And I also see that you have not watched the History channel video on U-tube I posted either.

“It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth.”
― Milan Kundera,

@ Tony

So, if your students found reference to Sophie give them in a comment, her name and a few of her publications. Otherwise, given your previous posts, just one more example of your dishonesty.

And I gave an analogy to explain how I function, that is, both with climate change and even when voting, I do my homework. And you used my analogy as another stupid dishonest excuse to attack me.

And you have NEVER explained why you think you know more about climate than me.

Also, you attacked Dorit for claiming she understands things because she is a lawyer. I guess you’ve never heard that lawyers can defend cases related to environmentalism, infectious diseases, etc. Oh, that’s right, while you understand climate science without proving it is your profession, no one else can.

And once again, you claim your grad students. In what subject?

As far as I’m concerned, there is no other way to describe you that as a friggin ASSHOLE. You’re not alone unfortunately. I’m not sure why Orac allows people like you to continue to post comments. My guess is he wants the rest of us, that is, the open-minded, to see first hand how ASSHOLES like you function.

So, once again, first, what is your education and work and two, give actual references to who Sophie is and some of her publications. Otherwise, just one more example of why you are a friggin ASSHOLE.

And even if it turns out that Sophie is a climatologist, as I explained, expert climatologist prostituted themselves by working for the fossil fuel industry.

In any case, as I’ve written several times, within a few more years even ASSHOLES like you will be confronted with climate change you won’t be able to deny, even though open-minded people already realize it is here and the damage it is causing.

“even if it turns out that Sophie is a climatologist,”

She’s not. No climatologist would ignore the mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet and then say that it’s increasing because of surface snowfall measurements. That’s like chopping some bloke’s legs off and then claiming he’s not lost any height because he’s wearing a hat.

Number wang

polarportal does not measure snow it measures ice budget mass (IBM).
And Greenland has been GAINING ice for the last 5 of 6 years and as of today the ice gain is ‘normal’.
How can you people call yourself scientist with out actually looking at the data?
The site is very interactive pick a date and follow the data to the present day.
You can go back in time and pick the ‘large version of the latest graph”
It represents the best measurement of Greenland ice cap.

I do notice that joel is getting more vitriolic the more he post, I am started to be concerned for his blood pressure and it not that, it’s that he may run out of foul words to use against me.
I am still waiting on a retraction on the CAFA standards for SUV’s or why the water heaters on the white house were removed or even an exact tempature the earth should be that unicorns will come back and all weather disaster will cease.

Tony.

Polar portal clearly shows a mass loss on the Greenland ice sheet. Why is this so bloody difficult to see? It’s a graph. Below the map of the island. Showing the cumulative loss of gigatons of mass over the last twenty odd years. Look at the mass and height change section for Greenland on Polar Portal. It’s there in red dots on the graph.

If you can explain why this graph showing cumulative mass loss over twenty years DOESN’T show cumulative mass loss over twenty years then please do.

Actuslly some claims have more evidence behind them. some less. You should consider amount of evidence.

@ Tony

You write: “And I also see that you have not watched the History channel video on U-tube I posted either.”

So, give the actual title and URL if you really posted a video. Friggin ASSHOLE

And how in hell could you or anyone know if I watched a YouTube video or not. I use Firefox which blocks tracing, etc.

It always makes me wonder if it’s a matter of “That video convinced me, he must not have watched it if he still disagrees!”

I suppose that the view counter on unpopular videos could tell you if it’s been watched since it was suggested.

joel
“Also, you attacked Dorit for claiming she understands things because she is a lawyer. I guess you’ve never heard that lawyers can defend cases related to environmentalism, infectious diseases, etc.”

Yet you attack RFK jr. (lawyer) because he has no training in infectious diseases.

I did not attach Dorit I attacked her source material, desmog which is just a PR firm much the same as pr firms defending tobacco and oil companies, you are a hypocrite . And she accused me of being Tony Heller, he lives half way round the earth from me.

And as I suspected you didn’t watch the video. and to respond to Yeti, his response proves he did find it and thus couldn’t watch it.

joel
“So, give the actual title and URL if you really posted a video. Friggin ASSHOLE”

If you are as really smart as you claim you are, you should be able to cut that paste the line into your browser and the u-tube would come up. much the same reason why you can’t find other stuff on the internet. and while your foxy browser may stop trackers, it doesn’t stop view counts, I can’t believe you didn’t know that either.

You keep referring to food production and famines, will since your 60’s weather daily per capita supply of calories has INCREASED

ourworldindata.org/food-supply

The best line in the whole 1 and 1/2 hour video is this, a drop in temperature, as little as 1 or 2 degrees can send the planet into a little ice age, and we are coming out of the little ice age that ended around 1850. One of the main factors in the drop in temperature is a drop in the suns output. (look up the maunder minimum)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTW2Sczq2NA

I put the whole ht…ww just so mr harrison could find something, even if it slow the posting down.

@ Tony

You write: “Yet you attack RFK jr. (lawyer) because he has no training in infectious diseases.”

I didn’t attack RFK because he was a lawyer. I attacked him because his book is totally dishonest, a very sick piece of work. Nowhere did I focus on his being a lawyer. Just one more example of what a friggin lying ASSHOLE you are. RFKs book is so dishonest it seems he almost based it on what Hitler said, which I will paraphrase, “the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” Except I believe he wrote it based on his being mentally ill, so, not an intentional lie, though could be a combination.

You write: “I did not attach Dorit I attacked her source material, desmog which is just a PR firm much the same as pr firms defending tobacco and oil companies, you are a hypocrite . And she accused me of being Tony Heller, he lives half way round the earth from me.”

First, I doubt she only refers to desmog, but why drag her into the exchange at all? Second, desmog includes referring to climate scientists. And third, I have and continue to give references to numerous scientific websites and journals.

You claimed your students found Sophie Amsden, including proof she is a climatologist. So, ASSHOLE, prove it. As for your video. Nope MedicalYeti didn’t write he found it. You just twist anything and everything. You didn’t post the video of the Little Ice Age; but in your immense stupidity you assume that there is only one cause of changes in extreme weather. I will watch it later today; but I can find videos supporting QAnon, Racism, Anti-Semitism, etc. so what? If the video backs what you want to believe, doesn’t make it true. And if it actually explains valid reasons, so what, there are more causes of climate change, not mutually exclusive. Yep, changes in the sun, Earth’s axis, etc. have affected climate; but that doesn’t in any way, shape, or form rule out that man-made CO2 is the current driver of climate change and not good.

As for calories, as I explained and you ignore, CO2 levels do increase temporarily crops; but crops with depleted amounts of protein, vitamins, and minerals. And the CO2 damages soil in many ways, including increasing numbers of destructive worms.

You claim you have grad students, so what is your area of specialty? And if Dorit got your name wrong, what is it? I will repeat, because it fits you perfectly. YOU ARE A DISHONEST SICK LYING ASSHOLE.

@ Tony

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001 described the
areas that were affected:
Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely
spread regions outside Europe prior to the twentieth century, including Alaska, New Zealand
and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs
considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes,
not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support
globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this interval, and the
conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited
utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past
centuries…. [Viewed] hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a modest
cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late
twentieth century levels.[11]”

So, as opposed to current world-wide effects of CO2, the so-called Little Ice Age to some extent represented independent regional climate changes.

@ Tony

First, thanks for the link to Little Ice Age: Big Chill (2005). I actually saw it when first shown on History Channel. I also read book by Brian Fagan and read and own several other books by him. I cancelled my cable TV and donated TV to Amvets dozen years ago. Prior to that I watched History Channel, Discover Channel, National Geographic Channel, Animal Planet, and lots of PBS. In any case, enjoyed watching it again. I was able to get a transcript printed as well for Little Ice Age:

05:19
extreme volatility of climate
05:21
than of constant cold the little ice age
05:24
was a period
05:25
of very volatile climatic shifts
05:29
mixed up without any logic or cycle to
05:32
them you couldn’t predict them
05:35
it was a modest change compared to the
05:38
things we see in the geological record
the idea that the world became globally
15:38
cooler during the little ice ages
15:40
i think an oversimplification it looks
15:42
like it was very cold for instance in
15:44
northern europe
15:45
but it was not that the whole world was
15:47
thrown into some giant chill
15:49
in places like western europe it seems
15:51
that what was happening was
15:53
it wasn’t just that the mean temperature
15:55
was colder but there were a lot of
15:56
significant extremes

SO, NOT COMPARABLE TO REAL ICE AGES! AND AS OPPOSED TO CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING EVERYWHERE, THOUGH FURTHER FROM EQUATOR HIGHER INCREASES IN TEMPERATURE NOT CONSISTENT, NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The Maunder Minimum did account for the coldest part but it began:

between 1645 and 1715
37:47
winter temperatures in the northern
37:48
hemisphere dipped by an additional
37:50
three degrees fahrenheit
37:55
climatologists trace the cause to the
37:57
sun which they believe was weakened by a
37:59
phenomenon known today as
38:01
the maunder minimum the minimum there
38:04
refers to a minimum in the number of sun
38:07
spots
38:07
on the face of the sun and when there
38:10
are less sunspots on the face of the sun
38:12
the sun is sending out less radiation
38:14
and the earth is getting less radiation
38:18
so if we’re getting less radiation that
38:20
can cause a global
38:21
cooling

Not in 13th Century, so you were wrong about this.

And the main theory is:

the thermo-haline circulation
35:33
or oceanic conveyor belt
35:37
the conveyor is a powerful flow of warm
35:39
water that transports heat to northern
35:42
latitudes
35:43
the gulf stream is just part of this
35:45
massive global loop
35:47
in essence the way that it works is that
35:49
surface waters
35:50
of the ocean get warm in the tropics
35:52
because there’s a lot of sunlight there
35:54
those waters flow they’re conveyed
35:58
north about to the latitude of let’s say
36:01
iceland
36:01
that’s where they’re losing a lot of
36:03
heat to the atmosphere so heats being
36:04
sucked out of the water
36:07
the conveyor’s momentum continues as the
36:10
cooling water grows dense and sinks
36:13
it then flows south to maintain balance
36:15
with the warm water flowing north at the
36:17
surface
36:23
some scientists believe the little ice
36:25
age occurred when natural forces
36:27
disrupted the enormous flow
36:33
that the catalyst was a flood of fresh
36:36
water from arctic ice which melted
36:38
during the medieval warm period
36:41
the reason why people believe that the
36:43
addition of fresh water
36:45
can kill the conveyor is because you’re
36:47
basically
36:48
messing with the salinity part of that
36:51
equation
36:53
by adding lots of fresh water you’re
36:55
making the surface waters
36:56
less dense and so no matter how cold you
36:59
get them they can’t sink
37:00
and if they can’t sink it stops a
37:02
conveyor
37:04
if the conveyor stops the effect on the
37:07
earth’s climate
37:08
especially in europe could be
37:09
catastrophic
37:12
heat would no longer be transported to
37:14
the atmosphere above the north atlantic
37:16
and the prevailing eastward winds over
37:18
the ocean would blow
37:19
cold instead of warm air over the
37:22
continent

NOTE FRESH WATER FROM ARCTIC LESS DENSE LED TO ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE, SO, MAYBE, CO2 WHICH IS HEATING EARTH & ALMOST ALL REPORTS SHOW LESS ARCTIC ICE WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER LITTLE ICE AGE. IN ANY CASE, I LOVE IT WHEN IN YOUR IMMENSE IGNORANCE YOU REFER TO ARTICLES, DOCUMENTARIES THAT ACTUALLY CONTRADICT YOU. I GUESS YOU AREN’T AWARE THAT PRIOR TO 13TH CENTURY EARTH HAD BEEN HEATING???

SO, THANKS AGAIN FOR LINK TO HISTORY CHANNEL PROGRAM AND, AS I’VE ALREADY WRITTEN, THE MORE I READ, THE MORE I WATCH, THE MORE CONVINCED I AM THAT CO2 FROM US IS DESTROYING THE PLANET. ACTUALLY NOT DESTROYING THE PLANET. EARTH WILL PERSIST; BUT OUR WORLD IS BECOMING A NIGHTMARE.

ALSO, INTERESTING HOW YOU REFERRED ME TO A HISTORY CHANNEL PROGRAM BECAUSE SOPHIE MADE IT CLEAR ONE SHOULDN’T TRUST TV DOCUMENTARIES. I, OF COURSE, DISAGREE SINCE PBS NOVA PROGAMS OFTEN INCLUDE INTERVIEWS WITH TOP QUALITY SCIENTISTS; BUT I STILL ALWAYS DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.

SO, PROVE YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE AND GIVE EVIDENCE YOUR STUDENTS ACTUALLY FOUND SOPHIE AMSDEN BY GIVING TITLES AND URLS TO ARTICLES/PAPERS, ETC. WRITTEN BY HER AND WEBSITE YOU FOUND HER ADD, THAT IS, ORGANIZATION/COMPANY???

“First, I doubt she only refers to desmog, but why drag her into the exchange at all?’

She inserted herself into the exchange, in an attempt to discredit/attacked my post by accusing me of being someone else and using a PR firm to support her point, just like you claim some post are from pr firms that were tobacco or oil company fronts.

science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-little-ice-age/

history.emory.edu/home/documents/endeavors/volume6/endeavors-vlm-vi-anderson.pdf

So what you are proposing is, it was 1 degree (or less) cooler in the northern hemisphere but not the southern hemisphere. Even though there were 5 major volcanic eruptions and the sun dimmed (maunder minimum) but it was just a local event, just out of curiosity how did volcanos in the southern hemisphere only effect the northern hemisphere .

But at least you admit that even a drop of 1 degree in temperature will have devastating consequences for people on earth or as you describe it “can only be considered as a modest cooling”

Again I will ask what temperature should the earth be to avoid all the cataclysmic things that are being blamed on global warming?

The earth eccentricity, obliquity and procession all change the amount of sunlight/energy the earth receives plus the output of the sun it self which can vary from day to day and even hour to hour cosmic rays and the progress of the magnet poles. Even the head of NASA Gavin Schmidt claims this can happen as little as a hundred years (‘when the saraha was green’). Yet you still want to believe that water vapor (95% of GHG) and man made SF6 and NF3 and all of those items over ridden by a trace gas that makes up 450 parts per MILLION.

Find me a model which factors all that into their model and the model will work backwards and frontwards and I will believe in your idea of man made CO2 induced global warming.

Check Milankovic cycles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
We speak about 100000 years, earth orbit changes are very slow, so are their effect when we speak about hundred years. Earth orbit is well known, btw.
Check sunspots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Modern maximun was circs 1950, after that sun is,if anything, cooling.
I could not find Sophie Amsden’s papers either. Perhaps you could link to them

Quoting “clueless’ joel on civil dialogue,

“you were ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable. As I wrote, I do call individuals stupid, moron; but based on their refusal to enter into a civil dialogue”

“MORON,Just how stupid are you?You really are incredibly stupid, SICK SICK SICK dishonest Keep making an absolute fool of yourself. Or, maybe you are mentally ill. moron like you, Just how STUPID are you?You are so incredibly dishonest, MORON, MORON, MORON.YOU ARE AN IDIOT YOU ASK REALLY STUPID QUESTIONS.PROJECTION. You need help! ! !You really are SICK SICK SICK.what a dishonest liar you are How stupid are you???In your sick mind stupid as you areHow STUPID sick mind You just keep lying stupid and dishonestYou just are too dishonest or stupid STUPID, stop being dishonest,Talk about delusions of grandeur.Liar, liar, pants on fire. you are sick and delusional.YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, moron you are delusional, dishonest, sick person like you,GO TO HELL!, GO TO HELL!! how delusional and dishonest you are,MORON, GO TO HELL, MORON, immense stupidity, STUPID, GO TO HELL, STUPID ON STEROIDS, You are a SICK DISHONEST EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL. friggin ASSHOLE. friggin ASSHOLE, ASSHOLES, Friggin ASSHOLE, friggin lying ASSHOLE, So, ASSHOLE, YOU ARE A DISHONEST SICK LYING ASSHOLE. YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE

“ONE QUESTION: WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO DEVOTE TIME AND ENERGY INTO TRYING TO INFLUENCE ME? I THINK IT IS BECAUSE YOU REALLY AREN’T CERTAIN AND HOPE IF I CHANGE MY MIND THAT WILL CONFIRM YOUR RIGID OPINION.”

@ Tony

And you still refuse to back up your claim that your students found Sophie Amsden. You are just a lying friggin ASSHOLE. Frankly I don’t care what you choose to believe given just how incredibly dishonest you are. But, I forgot to add that the History Channel program Little Ice Age ends with stating exactly what I have stated, thus, you referred to a documentary that completely contradicts your position. Absolute proof of just how stupid you are:

global temperatures are rising faster
78:27
than at any time in the past
78:29
thousand years

rapid warming has been triggered
78:48
by man decades of burning coal
78:51
gas and oil have overloaded the
78:53
atmosphere with carbon dioxide
78:56
which traps the sun’s heat that would
78:58
otherwise radiate into space
79:00
creating the so-called greenhouse effect
79:09

I really doubt you teach grad students, though anything is possible. During my lifetime I have had a few university instructors who were beyond terrible; but, fortunately, they didn’t get tenure.

As I already wrote, don’t know why you do this; but a good guess is you are severely mentally disturbed. So ASSHOLE, GO TO HELL.

Oh, Dorit may have been wrong about your name; but you attacked her for her knowledge of climate change, ignoring that she is quite intelligent and could have read quite a bit on it. You have given NO indication that you really have devoted any time and energy to it; but even if you had, you have made it clear that you are really disturbed, so . . .

Oh, ASSHOLE, I suggest you actually watch the entire History Channel program Little Ice Age, though I’m sure you will misunderstand it.

@ Tony

Actually, Dorit may have been right about your name. Given what a lying ASSHOLE you are, nothing you say can be accepted as true.

joel
“Given what a lying ASSHOLE you are, nothing you say can be accepted as true.”

Please point out which of these things you didn’t post , (I will have to add: severely mentally disturbed, ASSHOLE, GO TO HELL,lying ASSHOLE).

“you were ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable. As I wrote, I do call individuals stupid, moron; but based on their refusal to enter into a civil dialogue”

“MORON,Just how stupid are you?You really are incredibly stupid, SICK SICK SICK dishonest Keep making an absolute fool of yourself. Or, maybe you are mentally ill. moron like you, Just how STUPID are you?You are so incredibly dishonest, MORON, MORON, MORON.YOU ARE AN IDIOT YOU ASK REALLY STUPID QUESTIONS.PROJECTION. You need help! ! !You really are SICK SICK SICK.what a dishonest liar you are How stupid are you???In your sick mind stupid as you are,How STUPID sick mind You just keep lying stupid and dishonest You just are too dishonest or stupid STUPID, stop being dishonest,Talk about delusions of grandeur.Liar, liar, pants on fire. you are sick and delusional.YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, moron you are delusional, dishonest, sick person like you,GO TO HELL!, GO TO HELL!! how delusional and dishonest you are,MORON, GO TO HELL, MORON, immense stupidity, STUPID, GO TO HELL, STUPID ON STEROIDS, You are a SICK DISHONEST EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL. friggin ASSHOLE. friggin ASSHOLE, ASSHOLES, Friggin ASSHOLE, friggin lying ASSHOLE, So, ASSHOLE, YOU ARE A DISHONEST SICK LYING ASSHOLE. YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE

“ONE QUESTION: WHY ARE YOU CONTINUING TO DEVOTE TIME AND ENERGY INTO TRYING TO INFLUENCE ME? I THINK IT IS BECAUSE YOU REALLY AREN’T CERTAIN AND HOPE IF I CHANGE MY MIND THAT WILL CONFIRM YOUR RIGID OPINION.”

@ Tony

You write quoting me: ““you were ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable. As I wrote, I do call individuals stupid, moron; but based on their refusal to enter into a civil dialogue”

However, you intentionally take it out of context, leaving out that I was agreeing with Kay about comments attacking her gender, etc. You can find her comments at:
Kay Westsays:
December 27, 2021 at 10:32 am

“has
says:

Oh look, Kay West has got herself a little pet! Hump that leg, baby!

For the record, I wrote:

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 27, 2021 at 7:17 pm
@ Kay West

Congratulations, the first half of your comment proved, at least on that topic, that you were ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable. As I wrote, I do call individuals stupid, moron; but based on their refusal to enter into a civil dialogue, based on their ignoring what I write; but NOT based on their “race”, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. I target the individual as an individual. So, once again your previous comment was ABSOLUTELY right and I TOTALLY agree that use of such phrases was just despicable.

So, just one more example of how utterly dishonest sick disturbed you are, so calling you, as an individual, as ASSHOLE is probably an understatement.

@ Tony

We are all waiting for proof your students found Sophie Amsden?

And you asked how 400 parts per million of CO2 can affect Earth’s atmosphere, read the following two papers. I know you won’t or if you do will not understand them or just keep on lying:

Sarah Fecht (2021 Feb 25). How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? You Asked. Columbia Climate School

Earth Institute (2017 Mar 10). The Science of Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Columbia Climate School.pdf

@ Tony

You write citing me: “YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE”

Except you, in your typical dishonest way, took it out of context. Here is what I wrote:
“SO, PROVE YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE AND GIVE EVIDENCE YOUR STUDENTS ACTUALLY FOUND SOPHIE AMSDEN BY GIVING TITLES AND URLS TO ARTICLES/PAPERS, ETC. WRITTEN BY HER AND WEBSITE YOU FOUND HER AT, THAT IS, ORGANIZATION/COMPANY???

You really are one SICK SOB. Though I have had extensive education in psychology, including grad courses in Abnormal Psychology, I still find it difficult to understand just how someone as sick disturbed as you are live with yourself. The only answer is the sicker more disturbed one is the less they recognize/acknowledge it.

Now, I’m tired and PBS is showing 2nd Season of new version series All Creatures Great and Small. I saw the first series 40 years ago when living in Sweden, watched it one more time a few years ago, read all the books, and love it. Excellent break from dealing with a world loaded with SICKOs like you.

@ Tony

One more lie from you. You write quoting me: “YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE”.

Taken out of context, I wrote: “SO, PROVE YOU ARE NOT A COMPLETE DISHONEST LYING ASSHOLE AND GIVE EVIDENCE YOUR STUDENTS ACTUALLY FOUND SOPHIE AMSDEN BY GIVING TITLES AND URLS TO ARTICLES/PAPERS, ETC. WRITTEN BY HER AND WEBSITE YOU FOUND HER ADD, THAT IS, ORGANIZATION/COMPANY???”

Exchanging comments with you is almost amusing in that it is so easy to point out just how incredibly dishonest you are in addition to inability to actually defend your position against climate change. Cherry picking, taking things out of context, and even referring to documentaries that actually contradict your position, WOW!

Now for the last episode on PBS of second season of All Creatures Great and Small. Next to last episode showed a pub with sign “Dogs Welcome, People Tolerated”

Let me help you out on mans contribution to CO2 use IPCC own calculations.
journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx

Are you really this stupid, and your abilities to do research this limited? In all probability the reason you did not get the job at the CDC is not because of Reagan but your talents are very limited in doing research (some agencies received exception to Reagan’s hiring freeze, the CDC was one of those agencies). I mean seriously you can’t be this stupid/inept for all your education

To quote one of my students
“If both your hands were tied behind your back, you couldn’t find your A** ”

SMH

“concerns, outbreak, doomsday virus”

To quote you.

“STUPID ON STEROIDS’

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: