Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "Climate Change: Why Facts Don't Matter" video.

  1. The case is not closed. Any country that attempts it will be indebted or impoverished. Example: For the UK to reach net zero by electrification of its transport fleet and heating system, it will require a tripling (as a minimum) of its current electrical generation capacity among other things. This will essentially require the UK consuming all of the current global supply of copper and other rare metals for the next 25 years. The cost will be unaffordable and the skilled manpower levels unattainable. And that is just to eliminate the 1% of the global CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for. So times that by 100 for the Earth. 10,000 child slaves in the cobalt mines of the Congo not enough for you? Make it a million. Imagine all the human suffering and environmental damage done from all that resource extraction! It's pointless anyway. In just 8 years (prior to 2021) China emitted more CO2 than Britain did since the start of Industrial Revolution that began over 220 years ago! And China plans to vastly increase its coal fired generating capacity. An electric vehicle requires 6 times the mineral input compared to a conventional one, and the carbon cost is greater until you reach 80,000 miles. Production of all of these minerals has been mastered by China: a totalitarian communist regime that thinks nothing of the mass murder of its own citizens, imagine how much it cares about the rest of us. And why are we embarking on this great net zero crusade? For what? So someone can virtue signal by driving around in a Tesla. Maddeningly, there is no climate crisis. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past.
    4
  2. The case is not closed. This scientific consensus idea (usually 97%) comes from a paper by Cook et al in 2013. They reviewed 11,944 climate science papers. 66.4% (7,930) expressed no opinion on 'global warming', and were wrongly discarded. 3% (118) of papers with an opinion rejected GW (Hence the 97% nonsense). The reality was only 24% (2,910) of the papers that they looked at were in support of GW. Only 8% (986) endorsed the view that GW was anthropogenic i.e. man-made. Only ½% (64) supported the IPCC view of AGW. So not 97%, ½%. Because of such perfidy, all climate scientists are now paid and funded to research and agree with AGW. (Look at what happened to Ridd, Curry, Ball, Svenmark, Bellamy). And don't forget to remind Dr John Clauser, Ivan Giaever, Robert Laughlin, Edward Teller and the rest about the consensus, they must have missed the memo. A poll of scientists (meteorologists, physicists, geologists, hydrologists, and climatologists) conducted by the Fairleigh Dickinson University and completed in October 2022 found 59% thought climate change will cause "significant harm", but 39% said either “significant improvement,” “slight improvement,” “no change,” or “slight harm.” That's not a consensus. Any claim of a consensus that “science is settled” regarding the existence of a dire climate crisis emergency caused by carbon dioxide is a deceptive, destructive, and costly fraud. A “World Climate Declaration” made public in August, 2023 endorsed by 1,609 informed scientists and professionals — including two Nobel Laureates, John Clauser (USA) and Ivar Giaever (Norway/USA) — clearly says otherwise.
    4
  3. Weather is not climate. The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
    3
  4. The case is not closed. There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
    3
  5. Global burned area has decreased by one quarter this century! The World is burning less. For the whole of Canada, there is no trend in burn acreage for the period 1980-2021. The previous highest burn acreage was in 1989. Over that same period the trend for number of fires was slightly downwards (CNFDB). Note that 2020 had the lowest recorded burn acreage and number of fires, so can that record be attributed to man-made climate change? Burn acreage was much, much, higher in the US during the 1920's, 30's and 40's. It peaked in 1930 at well over 50,000,000 acres. The trend is downwards (1926-2020 NIFC US) eventhough CO2 has increased exponentially. For 2000 onwards the average burn acreage is much less than 10,000,000 acres. The number of fires has also declined. Remember CO2 was increasing all the time. Burn area for US so far in 2023 including Maui is 3rd lowest on record. Data for Siberia seems harder to come by. However, for the period 1997-2016, the trend was highly variable (by a factor of 4) but the trend for the annual burn acreage was downwards (Global Fire Data). For the Amazon (2003-2019), 2010 was the record year for fire emissions with all subsequent years lower by at least ½. When it comes to wildfires there is nothing unusual about this summer's fire season in Europe (look it up on the EFFIS website). Besides all this the forest fire record in Southern Europe is related to the previous winter rains, not summer temperatures. Wetter winters encourage more plant grow, which forms more fuel for fires when it dries out. Mediterranean summers are always hot and dry enough to allow fires to spread. Furthermore, with regard to the IPCC, they have not detected or attributed the number of fires or the burn acreage to man-made climate change. Also IPCC only has medium confidence ( that's a 50-50, so toss a coin) that weather conditions that promote wildfires (fire weather) have become more probable in southern Europe, northern Eurasia, the USA, and Australia over the last century. Note that annual Global Wildfire Carbon Emissions have been declining dramatically since 2003, with 2022 being the lowest on record (Copernicus). "With higher CO2, increased tree cover leads to reduced fire ignition and burned area, and provides a positive feedback to tree cover" (Chen et al, 2019), so burning fossil fuels actually leads to less forest fire! Global burned area has decreased by nearly by 24.2% in 20 years (Chen et al, 2023). The World is burning less! There is no climate crisis...there isn't even any evidence for it.
    2
  6. Join the Quasi-Marxist Slow Mass Death Cult Party. Be baptised into the Church of Climatology. The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. Fuckin' Commies.
    2
  7. @teddansonLA  Of course I have looked at it. I particularly like the blue block denoted by the number 2: extreme heat, already emerged in the historical period. It is based on erroneous science. A paper referenced by the IPCC - Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis, 2020 - has the number and length of heatwaves increasing globally (1951-2017) as you would expect in a slowly warming world, but there is no trend for average intensity. However, I dug a little deeper. The data that these heatwave assumptions are built upon are largely non-existent or fabricated. There are two data sources used: GHCN and Berkeley Earth. At least with the one data source GHCN it shows there is no reliable data going back to the 1950s across almost the whole of Indonesia, India, Arabia, Africa, plus Central and South America. The other data source Berkeley Earth "observational" dataset - now that's a misrepresentation! - just makes it up. It's supposed to be high resolution (1° lat, 1° long 69x54.6miles grid) and go back to 1850. So I thought, hmm, the Horn of Africa and Arabia are looking a bit toasty and red on the maps. Let's check out the data. I found Berkeley Earth’s data sources. I reviewed WMO, GSOD, and NCAR. For the period reviewed in the paper (1950-2014) in the Horn of Africa there were no meteorological station that cover that period. That's right - zero. In the whole of Arabia there were three, just three. Just like Arabia, the whole thing is built on sand. There will be huge parts of the globe where no measurements will have been taken until the advent of satellite technology in the 70s. Very interestingly, if you look at the charts on Fig. 1 on the paper, the US, especially the eastern half looks distinctly unaffected by any increase in heatwaves. Bit of a blue tinge there, I think you'll agree. It's much more difficult to fudge that one because of the huge number of long-term meteorological stations in the US. And why do they start in 1950, and not 1930 or 1900? Hmm.
    1