Having people acutally use scientific methods is nice and all, and thanks for the run-down.
Me, I'm thinking I didn't and still don't need that to realise human-caused climate change hypothesis is bunk. Reasons being:
1) Climate data are aggregated weather data - and we all know how "good" meteorologists are at predicting weather. Any timescale beyond 12-24 hours and their probability rate drops to 50% accuracy or less. So methods and means with that poor accuracy used as the basis for claiming human action affects the global climate? Nuh-uh.
2) Not a single private corporation was the slightest interested in this until the taxes started flowing to them and politicians got invited onto boards and as shareholders, as per Hayekian neo-liberal economic theory (aka capitalist corporatism, also called fascism only this verson is non-marxist). Whn there's zero real risk for the decision-makers own assets, and no accountability, and it's all wrapped up in moralistic messaging, that means it's a grift. Always.
3) Media hysterics and terror-mongering. This always means the same thing: to get you to panic and obey in the hope that the one you obey can defeat the terrible whatever.
And, just to tootle my own horn: this was obvious in the early 1990s. Remember the indian (or was it pakistani?) teenaged girl they trotted out at press-meetings around the world during the years leading up to the Kyoto-meeting?
Yup. Never fails. They always pick the same method, from the Children's Crusade to having children testify at witch-trials to puppeteering Jidda Krishnamurti as Jesus v. 2.0 to climate prohetesses.
To paraphrase: "Oh my god, it's full of patterns!"
Dr Ed Berry submitted hi paper on this refuting the IPCC claims. And this Seven Proofs: Why Human CO2 does not control the CO2 level or the climate. https://edberry.com/seven-proofs/
Academia is collapsing and I could not be happier. https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
Guy publishes a climate change paper in Nature, then comes out and says how fraudulent the process was.
Oh, wow, that is…underwhelmingly surprising, for, if you happen to read papers such as the one above, for instance, *that* was obvious.
And, yes, your excitement of the coming downsizing of (parts of) academia is shared by me.
I hope they retract his paper and he starts a Substack. He does not "deserve" a paper in Nature now. It's time to bring it all down.
Oh my, I'm translating and publishing Brown's piece in German as I type this--thank you so much for bringing this up!
It might well be that Nature 'retracts' Brown's paper, which will garner more attention.
Having people acutally use scientific methods is nice and all, and thanks for the run-down.
Me, I'm thinking I didn't and still don't need that to realise human-caused climate change hypothesis is bunk. Reasons being:
1) Climate data are aggregated weather data - and we all know how "good" meteorologists are at predicting weather. Any timescale beyond 12-24 hours and their probability rate drops to 50% accuracy or less. So methods and means with that poor accuracy used as the basis for claiming human action affects the global climate? Nuh-uh.
2) Not a single private corporation was the slightest interested in this until the taxes started flowing to them and politicians got invited onto boards and as shareholders, as per Hayekian neo-liberal economic theory (aka capitalist corporatism, also called fascism only this verson is non-marxist). Whn there's zero real risk for the decision-makers own assets, and no accountability, and it's all wrapped up in moralistic messaging, that means it's a grift. Always.
3) Media hysterics and terror-mongering. This always means the same thing: to get you to panic and obey in the hope that the one you obey can defeat the terrible whatever.
And, just to tootle my own horn: this was obvious in the early 1990s. Remember the indian (or was it pakistani?) teenaged girl they trotted out at press-meetings around the world during the years leading up to the Kyoto-meeting?
Yup. Never fails. They always pick the same method, from the Children's Crusade to having children testify at witch-trials to puppeteering Jidda Krishnamurti as Jesus v. 2.0 to climate prohetesses.
To paraphrase: "Oh my god, it's full of patterns!"
worth considering
Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere
by Peter Stallinga
Entropy 2023, 25(2), 384; https://doi.org/10.3390/e25020384
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/2/384
Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2
Edwin X Berry, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, USA
DOI:1 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20190301.13
Dr Ed Berry submitted hi paper on this refuting the IPCC claims. And this Seven Proofs: Why Human CO2 does not control the CO2 level or the climate. https://edberry.com/seven-proofs/
Well, I'm baffled. Not.