I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Does it really matter who is wrong or right?   You can't go wrong with the SDGs and good governance so why not adopt them as soon as possible.  If that is sooner than technically needed does that really matter?  Of course we must secure the basics, money, food, health, rights, scientific progress but we have to do that now anyway.  If we do it properly, most jobs will fall away and everyone can go live in the country - which is all anyone wants to do anyway.  OK, I am being a bit facetious but I really don't see the point of the current direction.

Thanks for the reference!

Thank you for providing this!

I think democracy has been subverted by multinationals.  I have noticed that a lot of “people's revolutions” get hijacked.  Either by force or by money eg Spain, Portugal, China, Russia, USSR satellite states, Africa, South America, India. The UK very sneakily via the Land Enclosure Act and the USA by partisanship, vested interested and lobbyism.  France seems to be an outlier.

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Nonsense, of course. A simple example. Suppose I ask each and every one of these models “2+2=??” I bet they are all going to give me the answer 4.

Yet that is exactly my problem at trusting the IPCC climate models: as several scientists have demonstrated using hindcasting, when asking each and every one of these models “2+2=??”, the answers of IPCC CMIP5 and CMIP6 models seem to be “2+2=5” at best but “2+2=9” in many cases while we know it should be “2+2=4” due to existing measurement data.

Once again, my opinion is based on competent sources - the latest is an article "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers" by R. McKitrick and J. Christy, published on 15 July 2020.

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../2020EA001281

The authors conclude:

"The literature drawing attention to an upward bias in climate model warming responses in the tropical troposphere extends back at least 15 years now (Karl et al., 2006). Rather than being resolved, the problem has become worse, since now every member of the CMIP6 generation of climate models exhibits an upward bias in the entire global troposphere as well as in the tropics. The models with lower ECS values have warming rates somewhat closer to observed but are still significantly biased upward and do not overlap observations. Models with higher ECS values also have higher tropospheric warming rates, and applying the emergent constraint concept implies that an ensemble of models with warming rates consistent with observations would likely have to have ECS values at or below the bottom of the CMIP6 range. Our findings mirror recent evidence from inspection of CMIP6 ECSs (Voosen, 2019) and paleoclimate simulations (Zhu et al., 2020), which also reveal a systematic warm bias in the latest generation of climate models."

It is worth looking into Table 2 that presents Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) values and origins of the models. It may come as a surprise to many that while models from Canada and UK are parading ECS in the range of 5.3 to 5.6, some are close to the almost reasonable range within 1.8 to 2.5. IPCC seems to be diluting the differences of positions of corresponding research groups engraved into these values by presenting only multi-model means of CMIP6 runs (at least in AR6 WGI TS).

BTW, I might as well say that I am more than half convinced you are a bot.

I sometimes wish I was, considering where the world seems to be heading in the departments of freedom of speech, political correctness, etc. Nevertheless, perhaps that statement provides a hint of your analytical capabilities, explaining why you refuse to consider any climate science missing the IPCC brand-marks worth of reckoning ?
 

Interesting. You offer “alternative views” on climate science by various people with credentials you carefully enumerate. Who could have credentials better than the Nobel Committee? Yeet here, somehow, they don't count…………

I agree on the point that professor Ivar Giaever was not decorated with the Nobel Prize as a climate scientist, if that is what you mean. Nevertheless, while various journalists, politicians and self-appointed shady "experts" may offer great entertainment to some extent, I tend to trust scientists with proven sharp brain capabilities and long term physics experience when my own processing cannot detect faults of logic in their reasoning. It is hard to imagine that such persons would knowingly lie, particularly during congressional testimonies that would undoubtedly end up badly for them.

science.house.gov/.../Christy Testimony_1.pdf
defyccc.com/.../
www.epw.senate.gov/.../01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf

I simply cannot figure out what their motivation to lie would be - none of them strike me as evil sociopaths, most are of professor emeritus status and need no attention or funding. They must be acting out of the inner drive to speak the truth, as I prefer to think.

I noticed that I accidentally provided a wrong link to a report by Dr. Humlum that discussed Fourier's theory at the end, it was in the December 2020 report. Since I visited his website, I borrowed his latest graph showing the sea ice extent 1980-2021 based on NSIDC monitoring data. Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice seems to be recovering after the strong 2016 El Nino, undisturbed by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Aivar Usk: 
 

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Do note the word “prove”. I find it sad that we have people around who still doubt the results of a piece of Nobel-prize-winning physics from decades ago.

I would think that using the word "prove" was not proper in the quoted text;

The word “prove” is accurate. As an entity which has already admitted he cannot judge individual technical claims in climate science in supposedly-scientific contributions he has recommended, you must equally admit you cannot judge this issue.

 

 when results of the climate models cannot be verified using actual data, such models prove nothing. 

Nonsense, of course. A simple example. Suppose I ask each and every one of these models “2+2=??” I bet they are all going to give me the answer 4. Not only that, but, even if I can't do arithmetic and have no idea of the Peano axioms, I have very good reasons to trust that this answer is right. So it is clearly wrong, indeed nonsense, that “such models prove nothing."

Since you said that, I conclude you know little about models, so I see little point in engaging with you on issues of verification and validation and what “prove” might mean.

BTW, I might as well say that I am more than half convinced you are a bot. 

Having said that, let me also say that bots can be very helpful. I wish I'd had a bot commenting on all the arithmetic I do on-line. It would at times have been very useful :-(

 

Regarding Nobel-prize-winning scientists in physics: I would recommend a short lecture by professor Ivar Giaever (29:35, 2015) - should we doubt him?

Interesting. You offer “alternative views” on climate science by various people with credentials you carefully enumerate. Who could have credentials better than the Nobel Committee? Yeet here, somehow, they don't count…………

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Do note the word “prove”. I find it sad that we have people around who still doubt the results of a piece of Nobel-prize-winning physics from decades ago.

I would think that using the word "prove" was not proper in the quoted text; when results of the climate models cannot be verified using actual data, such models prove nothing. Many scientists have criticised inaccuracy of IPCC climate models; only the INM-CM4-8 of the latest collection is found to produce meaningful results - produced by scientists from a country that does not take CAGW seriously.

It is interesting to note that French physicist Joseph Fourier who was mentioned in the quoted source actually "did not use the term "greenhouse" in his 1824 publication, but he described the temperature of the Earth as being controlled by three distinct sources: (1) solar radiation, which was considered unequally distributed over the year and which produces the diversity of climates; (2) the temperature communicated by the interplanetary space irradiated by the light from innumerable stars; and (3) heat from the interior of Earth, assumed to be remaining from its formation (Fleming 1998)" as reported by Dr. Humlum.

Although the GHE exists, Fourier was obviously right about those three factors: solar variability and orbital variations have complex effects, space radiation does control forming of the clouds (Stensmark, Shaviv) while in addition to cooling effect of volcanic aerosols, underwater volcanism has significant heating effect that is most visible in the polar regions (and very likely releases lots of CO2). Surprisingly, the IPCC reports ignore the latter, consider only the cooling effect of volcanism, although the AR6 WGI SPM states "... but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss" (A.1.5). "There is low confidence in the projected decrease of Antarctic sea ice." (B.2.5) Imagine the historic effect of one million submarine volcanoes with the average cooking power similar to the one identified under the Antarctic Pine Island Glacier, ~2500 ± 1700 MW.

Regarding Nobel-prize-winning scientists in physics: I would recommend a short lecture by professor Ivar Giaever (29:35, 2015) - should we doubt him?

https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

More food for thought.

Renewable power fuels Europe’s energy crisis | EDITORIAL | Las Vegas Review-Journal (reviewjournal.com)

Sh1t hitting the fan this winter. All because of the Green madness.

Some food for thought.

UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2021: – Watts Up With That?

Climate emergency.. Not..

Climate problem, I'm not to sure about that as we're warming after the little ice age, mankind is flourishing and the planet is greening.

Sounds quite reasonable to me. According to the E&T piece on it  they predicted an ECS of around 2°C. As  I have said we have a climate problem not a climate emergency.