Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Gillanders]

Sid, I was wondering what you thought of Trump's pick to head up EPA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkLi...emocracyNow%21

[Sid Belzberg]

What you call "fearmongering" with no facts to back it up .... here are some FACTS for you to read-it-and-weep to show that I am merely REPORTING what is ALREADY HAPPENING....

The fearmongering is that we are responsible for this you cretin.


CLIMATE DISASTERS COST $TRILLIONS

As I've said ... you've picked a fight you cannot win. Learn from the Trump election victory ... what did the working class vote for? THEIR WALLETS.

You won't convince anyone of any of your bullshit when their wallets are ALREADY being decimated by property insurance hikes, by rising costs of groceries due to agricultural damages, by collapsing bridges and highways and massive wildfires and surging rivers .... and it is only going to get WORSE each year.

Learn Sid .... Learn!

if there is even a tiny sliver of a chance that we are primarily responsible for what it happening, we must change our behavior if humanity is to survive.[/q

Not when that "change in behavior" murders people based on a "tiny sliver of a chance" of working especially when it has no chance of working.

I have no problem seeig man as a cancer .

Of course, you have no problem with that. Please after you.

Since you want to quote the MSN Bill gates owned propaganda News Network, maybe it is time you learned who Bil, Gates is.
https://plandemic.com/the-real-bill/




Here is what happened to the Genocidal WEF leftist Government of Sri Lanka with Pargault Bonhamperrer's dream of "changing human behavior." The dream of a Nitrogen fertilizer ban was implemented.


With Country Facing Crisis, World Economic Forum Deletes Post on Making Sri Lanka 'Rich by 2025'


Rebecca Downs | July 13, 2022 11:30 AM
AP Photo/Eranga JayawardenaLast weekend, the Sri Lanka president and prime minister resigned in wake of protesters storming their residences, and the president has since fled the country. It was an instance of so-called "green" policies gone terribly wrong, as Bob Barr laid out in a column for Townhall, which involved a catastrophic fertilizer ban.

As an editorial from National Review on Tuesday that highlighted the "Collapse of Sri Lanka Is a Failure of Leftism," pointed out, what happened "are the real-world consequences of government central planning."

"Sri Lanka, under the leadership of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, decided in April 2021 to become the world’s first all-organic country," the editors wrote. "The government banned the use of chemical fertilizers and banned their importation. The move was pitched as creating a self-reliant economy on the island nation and hailed as a great experiment in green policy-making."

With such an embarrassing failure that Sri Lanka turned out to be, it looks like the World Economic Forum (WEF) is trying to cover its tracks. Tucker Carlson, who discussed the turmoil on his Monday night episode of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," shared that the WEF appears to have deleted an article dated August 29, 2018 from Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, "This is how I will make my country rich by 2025."
Recommended


Former Fox News Reporter Takes a Blow Torch to Dem's Pathetic Defense of Hunter BidenMatt Vespa
As of Wednesday morning, the link is still broken, but archives show the link was working as recently as Monday morning.

There is only the briefest of mentions about the policies that drove the Sri Lankan people to revolt, with added emphasis:
We have also played a constructive role in promoting international and regional initiatives in many areas, ranging from the environment and climate change to maritime security and migration. It is our commitment to use the strategic potential of the country, including its vibrant maritime connectivity, for enhancing friendly cooperation with all partners while reaping the economic benefits for all our peoples.



Stunningly, on Monday, amidst the turmoil in Sri Lanka, WEF published a piece on how "Transitioning to green energy is key to both tackling climate change and creating sustainable economies. Here's why." Recommended reading includes a piece from June 20 about "Why the global energy transition must be just and equitable."

The World Bank has a page up on "Vision 2025: Sri Lanka’s Path to Prosperity," from October 17, 2017. There is no mention of buzz words such as "environment" or "climate change" or "green."


"Anti-government protesters angry over power blackouts, shortages of basic goods and rising prices have long demanded that [President Gotabaya] Rajapaksa steps down," the explainer reads at one point. It fails to delve into why such blackouts occurred though, which are already coming to the United States, especially in the case of deeply liberal California, which Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought to turn into a progressive oasis of sorts but has really become more of a wasteland.




What you call "facts" are little more than cherry-picked economic effects that have much to do with government policies and little to do with climate science. Your insistence that costs are driven by climate disasters alone is laughable given the actual drivers of inflation, including reckless government spending on inefficient “solutions” like solar panels and wind farms while neglecting effective, energy sources like nuclear energy. If you want to discuss “wallets,” look no further than the failed policies that add enormous costs without solving the root issues.

1. Inflation and Government Spending: Rising insurance costs, property damage, and food prices are heavily influenced by misguided policies and overreliance on unproven climate “solutions.” Countries implementing radical environmental restrictions without alternatives—like Sri Lanka’s disastrous nitrogen fertilizer ban—prove that ideology-driven policies create far greater harm than the problems they supposedly address. Blaming climate alone for inflation is either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorantAs Spencer wrote in a column last month about these coming blackouts:
   Across America, millions of citizens facing forecasts of "above-average season temperatures" are at elevated risk of "forced outages for generation and some bulk power system equipment." That means, as the NERC assessment explains, "elevated or high risk of energy shortfalls this summer." Those grim findings on the crisis that looks set to plunge Americans into darkness during the hottest summer months have already been confirmed by power officials in Texas and California, another mismanaged jurisdiction where Golden State residents have been told they'll face "blackouts every summer for another four years."
   
   Californians, plus millions more Americans who find themselves in the elevated risk zone — nearly everyone living west of the Mississippi River — face energy emergencies during what NERC calls "extreme conditions" such as droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires. Americans in the high risk zone — including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and portions of Michigan, Illinois, Arkansas, and Louisiana — face power disruptions during both extreme conditions as well as normal summer conditions. That is, pretty much any time that summer temperatures put a strain on the power grids on which millions of Americans rely.
   
   
   
   Biden's apparent solution, as seen in his executive orders and dubious use of the Defense Production Act, is to continue down his leftist-inspired "transition" away from reliable fossil fuels to falsely named "green" energy. But NERC's report also contains warnings that such policies and energy sources have already jeopardized America's electrical grid and led to the foreboding predictions for that came true.
2. Misplaced Focus on Human-Produced CO₂: You rant about fossil fuels and human-emitted CO₂ as if they’re the sole cause of all climate issues, yet you ignore that human emissions make up a tiny fraction of atmospheric greenhouse gases. This unscientific fixation disregards the roles of oceans, volcanic activity, and natural carbon sinks, which play much larger roles in the climate system. There’s no reproducible evidence supporting CO₂ as the primary climate “control knob,” despite your obsession with it.
3. Real Solutions vs. Alarmist Spending: You push for drastic measures based on ideology rather than fact, ignoring reliable, proven technologies that would genuinely lower emissions without wrecking the economy. Nuclear energy, carbon and technological innovative fusion are real solutions, not the ineffective policies you cling to.
   Continuing to pour money into inefficient, unreliable energy sources while banning necessary agricultural resources will result in exactly what we’ve seen in Sri Lanka: economic collapse and human suffering.
4. Fearmongering and No Empirical Evidence: You conflate economic hardships with climate change to push a doomsday narrative that ignores the data. Repeating buzzwords like “collapsing bridges” and “massive wildfires” without showing causation by human CO₂ emissions is not science—it’s fearmongering. If you had any concrete, peer-reviewed evidence that a minor fraction of human-emitted CO₂ is the primary cause of these disasters, you would present it. But you don’t, because that evidence doesn’t exist.

Get lost you very very Nasty Troll.

[Pargat Perrer]

Your latest rant is yet another exercise in alarmism and misinformation, built on half-truths and complete ignorance of practical solutions. Here’s the reality:

1. Distorted Claims of Industrial Impact: You accuse me of disregarding industrial impact on the Arctic, yet it’s you who cherry-picks data and ignores natural climate cycles that predate industrialization by millennia. Blaming human CO₂ emissions as the sole “control knob” is a simplistic, scientifically baseless view. You might want to study the actual data instead of relying on selective quotes that conveniently fit your narrative.
2. “1000-Year” Events Misconstrued: Throwing around “1000-year events” as proof of impending doom is disingenuous. This term doesn’t mean “never before seen” but is instead a statistical probability, which has existed as long as weather patterns have been documented. Stop misrepresenting these events as proof of a crisis driven solely by human activity—it’s alarmist propaganda, not science.
3. Your Aversion to Real Solutions: You consistently ignore viable, proven solutions like nuclear power if correctly executed is a pollution-free, reliable energy source. Instead, you promote ideologically driven policies that create chaos and suffering. Case in point: Sri Lanka’s nitrogen fertilizer ban in the name of “sustainable farming,” which directly led to famine and economic disaster. These are real-world consequences of your utopian, one-size-fits-all approach—a direct cause of human suffering, yet you blithely ignore it.
4. Binary Thinking at Its Worst: Your reductionist argument that we must “decarbonize or die” is as misguided as it is uninformed. Viable alternatives—carbon capture, nuclear energy, fusion—don’t fit your narrative, so you dismiss them outright. This kind of thinking is dangerous and delusional. Addressing emissions doesn’t require dismantling entire economies or pushing unsustainable policies. But nuance clearly doesn’t fit your agenda.
5. Science vs. Fearmongering: Your vague references to “macro events” are not scientific evidence; they’re emotional appeals devoid of data. You talk of “smelling the coffee” instead of analyzing the science, proving you’re more interested in fearmongering than facts. Your position is built on sensationalism, not substance, and it’s frankly exhausting.

It’s clear you aren’t interested in discussing real, effective solutions. Instead, you promote fear, disregard evidence, and parrot ideological dogma while avoiding substantive debate. Until you can offer data instead of doomsday rhetoric, your comments amount to nothing more than trolling. If you’re unwilling to engage constructively, spare everyone the hollow histrionics.

What you call "fearmongering" with no facts to back it up .... here are some FACTS for you to read-it-and-weep to show that I am merely REPORTING what is ALREADY HAPPENING....

CLIMATE DISASTERS COST $TRILLIONS

As I've said ... you've picked a fight you cannot win. Learn from the Trump election victory ... what did the working class vote for? THEIR WALLETS.

You won't convince anyone of any of your bullshit when their wallets are ALREADY being decimated by property insurance hikes, by rising costs of groceries due to agricultural damages, by collapsing bridges and highways and massive wildfires and surging rivers .... and it is only going to get WORSE each year.

Learn Sid .... Learn!

[Sid Belzberg]

Talk about being speculative ... you state "warming in the Arctic regions is part of a complex set if interactions, many of which predate industrialization." You are suggesting -- with zero evidence -- that industrialization has had little or no role in the warming of the Arctic. You say your "position" is based on totality of evidence, in this case it is presuming something for which there is lack of evidence.

Yes, there are many variables going into climate change, and we humans cannot fathom how all those variables interplay. But we do get a clue from the macro events that happen around the world:
- increasing frequency in diverse locations of "1000-year" climate events, especially flooding
- striking contrasts in climate extremes, heat and drought in some locations, deluges and floods in other locations
- overall rising trend in world temperatures, especially since year 2000
- increase in financial instability due to massive insurance claims from the various extreme climate events

We may not be able to precisely read all the coffee been grinds but we can smell the coffee!

You can fight the trend all you like, but you have picked a fight you will lose over time ... especially now that Trump is elected and the world's biggest economy will gear up again on use of fossil fuels.

And again, because you especially don't get this message: if there is even a tiny sliver of a chance that we are primarily responsible for what it happening, we must change our behavior if humanity is to survive. The only alternative is to colonize Mars as fast as we can.

Listening to you "position" (aka opinion) would be the height of irresponsibility, because it calls for doing absolutely NOTHING in the face of the macro events that tell us what is coming. Whether its a natural cycle or not, we DO know greenhouse gases contribute, and that is an area we can AND MUST address.

And we will. Nothing you say or do can stop humanity from acting to survive. You should just slink off and give up your foolish nonsense.

Your latest rant is yet another exercise in alarmism and misinformation, built on half-truths and complete ignorance of practical solutions. Here’s the reality:

1. Distorted Claims of Industrial Impact: You accuse me of disregarding industrial impact on the Arctic, yet it’s you who cherry-picks data and ignores natural climate cycles that predate industrialization by millennia. Blaming human CO₂ emissions as the sole “control knob” is a simplistic, scientifically baseless view. You might want to study the actual data instead of relying on selective quotes that conveniently fit your narrative.
2. “1000-Year” Events Misconstrued: Throwing around “1000-year events” as proof of impending doom is disingenuous. This term doesn’t mean “never before seen” but is instead a statistical probability, which has existed as long as weather patterns have been documented. Stop misrepresenting these events as proof of a crisis driven solely by human activity—it’s alarmist propaganda, not science.
3. Your Aversion to Real Solutions: You consistently ignore viable, proven solutions like nuclear power if correctly executed is a pollution-free, reliable energy source. Instead, you promote ideologically driven policies that create chaos and suffering. Case in point: Sri Lanka’s nitrogen fertilizer ban in the name of “sustainable farming,” which directly led to famine and economic disaster. These are real-world consequences of your utopian, one-size-fits-all approach—a direct cause of human suffering, yet you blithely ignore it.
4. Binary Thinking at Its Worst: Your reductionist argument that we must “decarbonize or die” is as misguided as it is uninformed. Viable alternatives—carbon capture, nuclear energy, fusion—don’t fit your narrative, so you dismiss them outright. This kind of thinking is dangerous and delusional. Addressing emissions doesn’t require dismantling entire economies or pushing unsustainable policies. But nuance clearly doesn’t fit your agenda.
5. Science vs. Fearmongering: Your vague references to “macro events” are not scientific evidence; they’re emotional appeals devoid of data. You talk of “smelling the coffee” instead of analyzing the science, proving you’re more interested in fearmongering than facts. Your position is built on sensationalism, not substance, and it’s frankly exhausting.

It’s clear you aren’t interested in discussing real, effective solutions. Instead, you promote fear, disregard evidence, and parrot ideological dogma while avoiding substantive debate. Until you can offer data instead of doomsday rhetoric, your comments amount to nothing more than trolling. If you’re unwilling to engage constructively, spare everyone the hollow histrionics.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .

[Pargat Perrer]

Your sources on permafrost thawing may describe a concerning trend, but they do nothing to establish that the small fraction of CO₂ in the atmosphere (0.04%) acts as a “control knob” for global climate. You’re conflating regional permafrost effects with global climate causality, an assumption not supported by the evidence you’ve presented. Yes, permafrost thaw is happening—scientists don’t dispute that—but asserting it’s primarily driven by human activity ignores broader climate dynamics, including ocean cycles, solar influences, and the role of natural carbon sinks.

Your selective use of studies on permafrost changes does nothing to support your extreme predictions of global catastrophe or mass extinction. Even leading scientists recognize that warming in Arctic regions is part of a complex set of interactions, many of which predate industrialization. If anything, the rapid warming in the Arctic suggests that natural cycles and regional factors play a far more intricate role in permafrost dynamics than your “CO₂ control knob” theory accounts for.

Regarding “balanced viewpoints,” my position is based on the totality of evidence, not cherry-picked quotes to support alarmist scenarios. The “doomsday” narrative you’re pushing lacks empirical support, and until you can address the entire spectrum of climate variables—not just isolated statements about permafrost—your argument remains speculative and incomplete.

If you have additional peer-reviewed studies that explicitly prove that CO₂ levels, specifically from human activity, directly control global climate on their own, feel free to present them. Otherwise, I suggest you reconsider the selective and unbalanced approach in your argument.


https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ge5#post231409

Talk about being speculative ... you state "warming in the Arctic regions is part of a complex set if interactions, many of which predate industrialization." You are suggesting -- with zero evidence -- that industrialization has had little or no role in the warming of the Arctic. You say your "position" is based on totality of evidence, in this case it is presuming something for which there is lack of evidence.

Yes, there are many variables going into climate change, and we humans cannot fathom how all those variables interplay. But we do get a clue from the macro events that happen around the world:
- increasing frequency in diverse locations of "1000-year" climate events, especially flooding
- striking contrasts in climate extremes, heat and drought in some locations, deluges and floods in other locations
- overall rising trend in world temperatures, especially since year 2000
- increase in financial instability due to massive insurance claims from the various extreme climate events

We may not be able to precisely read all the coffee been grinds but we can smell the coffee!

You can fight the trend all you like, but you have picked a fight you will lose over time ... especially now that Trump is elected and the world's biggest economy will gear up again on use of fossil fuels.

And again, because you especially don't get this message: if there is even a tiny sliver of a chance that we are primarily responsible for what it happening, we must change our behavior if humanity is to survive. The only alternative is to colonize Mars as fast as we can.

Listening to you "position" (aka opinion) would be the height of irresponsibility, because it calls for doing absolutely NOTHING in the face of the macro events that tell us what is coming. Whether its a natural cycle or not, we DO know greenhouse gases contribute, and that is an area we can AND MUST address.

And we will. Nothing you say or do can stop humanity from acting to survive. You should just slink off and give up your foolish nonsense.

[Sid Belzberg]

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...years-earlier/


“We are seeing a big increase in the thaw of permafrost,'' Emily Osborne, program manager for the Arctic Research Program, NOAA, and editor of the Arctic Report Card, said. “The landscape is physically crumbling as a result… things are changing so fast, and in ways that researchers hadn’t even anticipated.”

"Thawing permafrost is one of the tipping points for climate breakdown and it's happening before our very eyes," said Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

https://phys.org/news/2024-10-arctic...ermafrost.html

"Due to climate change, permafrost is slowly thawing over decades."

https://www.knkx.org/environment/2024-08-31/thawing-alaskan-permafrost-is-unleashing-more-mercury-confirming-scientists-worst-fears

"what is known is that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, and the thawing permafrost is already forcing some communities to relocate."

https://www.earth.com/news/rapid-per...imate-balance/

"Dr. Brown, supported by academic peers from several notable institutions, set out to unravel the elusive nature of permafrost in a climate-challenged world.

The study was focused on the Koyukuk River in Alaska. This 425-mile tributary of the Yukon River is a vital component of the Alaskan ecosystem and plays a considerable role in the region’s permafrost.

The research, published by the American Geophysical Union, reveals a concerning trend. While new permafrost is developing along the floodplain, it’s not keeping pace with the amount melting due to rising temperatures.


There's lots more if you need it .... but no, you'll just ignore it because it doesn't suit your position.

That last one was a SCIENTIFIC STUDY ... shocking, huh?

THEORIES? You are the King of theories, of hand-waving.


Here's a suggestion Sid .... why don't YOU present a BALANCED VIEWPOINT that includes ALL THE POSSIBILTIES rather than being like a horse wearing blinders and not considering where all the CO2 and methane might be coming from?

Absurdity? Absurdity would be putting all humanity's survival eggs n one basket, the one that says we should do nothing because Sid Ballsbag says we need MORE CO2 not less.

Your sources on permafrost thawing may describe a concerning trend, but they do nothing to establish that the small fraction of CO₂ in the atmosphere (0.04%) acts as a “control knob” for global climate. You’re conflating regional permafrost effects with global climate causality, an assumption not supported by the evidence you’ve presented. Yes, permafrost thaw is happening—scientists don’t dispute that—but asserting it’s primarily driven by human activity ignores broader climate dynamics, including ocean cycles, solar influences, and the role of natural carbon sinks.

Your selective use of studies on permafrost changes does nothing to support your extreme predictions of global catastrophe or mass extinction. Even leading scientists recognize that warming in Arctic regions is part of a complex set of interactions, many of which predate industrialization. If anything, the rapid warming in the Arctic suggests that natural cycles and regional factors play a far more intricate role in permafrost dynamics than your “CO₂ control knob” theory accounts for.

Regarding “balanced viewpoints,” my position is based on the totality of evidence, not cherry-picked quotes to support alarmist scenarios. The “doomsday” narrative you’re pushing lacks empirical support, and until you can address the entire spectrum of climate variables—not just isolated statements about permafrost—your argument remains speculative and incomplete.

If you have additional peer-reviewed studies that explicitly prove that CO₂ levels, specifically from human activity, directly control global climate on their own, feel free to present them. Otherwise, I suggest you reconsider the selective and unbalanced approach in your argument.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ge5#post231409

[Pargat Perrer]

.......

Your claim about imminent climate catastrophe and mass extinction based on speculative future emissions is the height of alarmism. Waving around unproven theories about permafrost methane and “extraterrestrial intervention” doesn’t strengthen your argument—it highlights its absurdity. ......

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...years-earlier/


“We are seeing a big increase in the thaw of permafrost,'' Emily Osborne, program manager for the Arctic Research Program, NOAA, and editor of the Arctic Report Card, said. “The landscape is physically crumbling as a result… things are changing so fast, and in ways that researchers hadn’t even anticipated.”

"Thawing permafrost is one of the tipping points for climate breakdown and it's happening before our very eyes," said Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

https://phys.org/news/2024-10-arctic...ermafrost.html

"Due to climate change, permafrost is slowly thawing over decades."

https://www.knkx.org/environment/2024-08-31/thawing-alaskan-permafrost-is-unleashing-more-mercury-confirming-scientists-worst-fears

"what is known is that the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, and the thawing permafrost is already forcing some communities to relocate."

https://www.earth.com/news/rapid-per...imate-balance/

"Dr. Brown, supported by academic peers from several notable institutions, set out to unravel the elusive nature of permafrost in a climate-challenged world.

The study was focused on the Koyukuk River in Alaska. This 425-mile tributary of the Yukon River is a vital component of the Alaskan ecosystem and plays a considerable role in the region’s permafrost.

The research, published by the American Geophysical Union, reveals a concerning trend. While new permafrost is developing along the floodplain, it’s not keeping pace with the amount melting due to rising temperatures.


There's lots more if you need it .... but no, you'll just ignore it because it doesn't suit your position.

That last one was a SCIENTIFIC STUDY ... shocking, huh?

THEORIES? You are the King of theories, of hand-waving.


Here's a suggestion Sid .... why don't YOU present a BALANCED VIEWPOINT that includes ALL THE POSSIBILTIES rather than being like a horse wearing blinders and not considering where all the CO2 and methane might be coming from?

Absurdity? Absurdity would be putting all humanity's survival eggs n one basket, the one that says we should do nothing because Sid Ballsbag says we need MORE CO2 not less.

[Bob Armstrong]

The science on rising Earth temperatures is certainly divided....If it wasn't, there would be no discussion.

Thanks, Sid, for a very thorough presentation for all of us to try to digest.

Bob A (Non-scientist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob, as I pointed out in a prior post https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/chesstalk-s-non-chess-discussion-board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc?p=232039#post232039, the global climate estimates by Copernicus, IPCC et al. are grossly distorted by the urban Island effect, When this is removed climate variations are not significantly different than they have been for millennia, A peer-reviewed climate science journal has vetted the data.\
For months, you did a thorough analysis of the data on the US election from polls from legacy mainstream media when an uncensored platform of crowdsourced data of amateur journalists on X said that a landslide was inevitable.
Legacy Mainstream Media is dead with everything from corrupted climate data to omitting the dangers of the vaccines to who made the viruses. Decentralized crowd source data is the most accurate "polls" one will see these days as the betting markets proved to be accurate.

Sorry Bob, when it comes to legacy Mainstream Media as a data source, in the words of William Shakespeare :"I have as much faith in thee as a stewed prune".

Cheers,
Sid



New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem


Updated: Oct 3, 2023



A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.


The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.


It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.



Source: Maps taken from NOAA Climate.gov.


The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.


When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.


The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings,
“For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”

Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained:
“This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”


This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences). It took a different approach to analysing the causes of climate change – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.




For media inquiries, please contact Dr. Ronan Connolly (Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences) at ronan@ceres-science.com.




Links to both studies mentioned:

• W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S.-I. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S.-S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera and W. Zhang (2023). "The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data", Climate, 11(9), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access).
• R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, V.M. Velasco Herrera, H. Yan and W.J. Zhang (2023). "Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850". Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23(10), 105015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Open access).

[Bob Armstrong]

Earth's Rising Temperature (Whatever may be the cause)

It IS really happening!



"This year [2024] will be the hottest on record, and the first to exceed the target set at the Paris climate conference in 2015.

The temperature in 2024 will likely be more than 1.55C above the pre-industrial level, the Copernicus Climate Change Service said Thursday. The landmark Paris Agreement called for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the hope of limiting global warming to 2C (3.6F), and ideally 1.5C, above temperatures at the outset of the Industrial Revolution.

But maintaining that threshold has been all but discarded as nations fail to move quickly. Scientists warn that the acceleration of global temperatures will lead to more and bigger climate disasters while pushing the planet closer to a series of tipping points from which there will be no return."

Bloomberg - Evening Briefing Newsletter - 24/11/7

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Your latest response only confirms the contradictions and baseless fearmongering at the core of your argument. You admit that climate change could be part of a natural cycle, yet you insist we must remove CO₂ and methane as if human activity alone is the primary driver. You can’t have it both ways. Either present actual evidence that human emissions are responsible for “cooking the goose,” as you so melodramatically put it, or admit that your conclusions are pure speculation, devoid of scientific grounding.

Your claim about imminent climate catastrophe and mass extinction based on speculative future emissions is the height of alarmism. Waving around unproven theories about permafrost methane and “extraterrestrial intervention” doesn’t strengthen your argument—it highlights its absurdity. If you truly believe CO₂ and methane are the culprits, then present concrete data to show how they alone drive climate trends, rather than floating unscientific hypotheticals.

As for your off-topic jabs about Trump, oil drilling, and divine intervention, these are nothing but distractions. If you’re here to have a fact-based discussion, stick to climate science and present peer-reviewed data instead of veering into inflammatory political side notes and apocalyptic predictions.

And for the record, labeling you a troll isn’t an “exposure”—it’s a reality. Your responses are full of inflammatory rhetoric, personal attacks, and baseless claims. If that isn’t trolling, I don’t know what is. Come back with facts or save your handwaving for someone who buys into it.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...409#post231409

[Pargat Perrer]

"Stop talking nonsense, you very, very nasty troll', agreed! Your argument is riddled with contradictions and lacks any serious basis in fact. On one hand, you declare that the “only solution” to climate change is to remove carbon and methane from the atmosphere, yet you simultaneously insist you’ve “never claimed human emissions cause climate change.” So, which is it? If these gases are truly the only solution, then they’re the problem—and your denial of their significance makes no sense.

This double-talk shows a lack of understanding and only serves to confuse the issue. You can’t argue that CO₂ and methane must be eliminated, while also implying they’re irrelevant. If you truly had a grasp on this topic, you’d present coherent evidence rather than this contradictory, baseless rhetoric.

Moreover, your attempt to speculate about how I value my time only reveals the emptiness of your position. Personal assumptions about my priorities are irrelevant, off-topic, and do nothing to strengthen your case. They are a weak diversion at best.

If you’re here to present actual data, then do so. If not, your stupid trolling and rhetorical floundering will only continue to be ignored for the noise it is. Stick to facts or stop wasting everyone’s time.

I guess you skipped over the lines I wrote about climate change could be at least partly due to a natural cycle, where slow incremental warming beginning say 200 years ago leads to eventual melting of the permafrost in Siberia and the Arctic, releasing methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. I did write that in one of my recent posts, so there you go, the point being the problem IS the CO2 and methane but the causes MIGHT NOT be solely human emissions. If anyone is guilty of lack of understanding, you are the one.

So yes, the CO2 and methane MUST be removed from the atmosphere. again you put words to me I never said, I did not say these greenhouse gases are irrelevant. You claim I say human emissions are solely responsible, and no I do not claim that, but I do claim the greenhouse gases are if not solely, at least primarily responsible. But there is a LOT of methane and CO2 locked up in that permafrost! Lots more to come in the next few decades as things accelerate.

Anyway, now that Trump is returning, oil drilling and fracking will rise again and I think we can safely say now that the goose is cooked (literally, along with almost all species) and climate change will continue to accelerate and the human species has less than a century left on planet Earth, assuming there is no divine or extraterrestrial intervention in the matter.

You and Dilip, always resorting the "TROLL!" when you are exposed for being a troll yourselves.

[Sid Belzberg]

You attribute words to me that I've never said. Never said human emissions alone drive climate change.

Your statement "It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data" ignores that I AM considering the broad historical data .... namely the frequency in the past few years of these 1000-year events. To get so many of them in such a short time, and spread all around the world, speaks to a message being given to us ... and it is this message that propels governments and scientists around the world to consider more radical actions.

Sure, we can listen to "waving hands" like you .... the King of waving hands, even going on to an obscure chess forum and posting repetitively despite the fact that for you time is money ... we can listen to you saying we don't need to do anything because things were even worse some hundreds of thousands of years ago .... yeah, worse for the woolly mammoths LOL.

But to listen to you and do nothing and let Earth gradually turn into Venus and possibly wipe out the human species and many other species besides is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

You are mocking in another thread here the people who didn't listen to the message from Twitter (X) about the movement towards Trump in the US election. The situation is comparable because there was no iron-clad scientific evidence that voters were moving en masse towards Trump, so we had to listen to all the messages available to us, and many messages were saying "No, everythlng is up in the air, we have 7 states that will decide and they are all toss-ups." This was all based on polls in which people can lie.

Similarly, you are asking us to listen to YOU tell us "No, nothing is wrong, we need MORE CO2 not less." all based on data you've gathered in which people can lie, and WILL lie to prevent things like carbon tax, renewable energy, phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, etc.

Notice I still haven't said ANYTHING about human emission being the sole driver. Yes, climate change COULD BE a natural cycle event. That's not what's important. What's important is to figure out what TOOLS we have to fight the cycle, and the biggest tool is to REMOVE CO2 and METHANE from the atmosphere.

You talk about natural carbon sinks as if they are all going to miraculously absorb all the extra human-caused emissions. BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT! So any scientific paper that conjectures that plants can absorb 31% more CO2 than we thought previously IS IRREVALENT. THE PLANTS ARE NOT ABSORBING IT! THE CO2 IS CLIMBING YEAR AFTER YEAR NOW!

We aren't built to, or capable of evolving fast enough to, live in a much hotter world.

Therefore we must act. The Spains, Bangladeshes, Californias, Floridas, etc etc. all give us this message. And I haven't talked about the FINANCIAL imperatives to act ... the breakdown of our entire financial system because gigantic insurance companies all go bankrupt from claims due to climate change events, leaving no one anywhere able to insure assets against losses, imploding the value of those assets.

Go ahead, KIng Hand-Waver, go ahead and wave your hands and shout "No! We don't need to do anything!" You will be dutifully ignored.

Grameen Bank: if that were a government, taxpayer-funded program, I have NO DOUBT you'd be deriding it as government waste! Thats' all I need to say about that. I don't know who is putting up all the money, but they are all going to lose it all. It doesn't matter that the Bangladeshians (?) are all hard-working and responsible and want to pay the loans back, unlike in America where half the people would run away with the money, making the model unworkable there. In Bangladesh catastrophic floods are very likely, and now even MORE likely to be MUCH MORE severe and widespread, leading to massive losses.

"Stop talking nonsense, you very, very nasty troll', agreed! Your argument is riddled with contradictions and lacks any serious basis in fact. On one hand, you declare that the “only solution” to climate change is to remove carbon and methane from the atmosphere, yet you simultaneously insist you’ve “never claimed human emissions cause climate change.” So, which is it? If these gases are truly the only solution, then they’re the problem—and your denial of their significance makes no sense.

This double-talk shows a lack of understanding and only serves to confuse the issue. You can’t argue that CO₂ and methane must be eliminated, while also implying they’re irrelevant. If you truly had a grasp on this topic, you’d present coherent evidence rather than this contradictory, baseless rhetoric.

Moreover, your attempt to speculate about how I value my time only reveals the emptiness of your position. Personal assumptions about my priorities are irrelevant, off-topic, and do nothing to strengthen your case. They are a weak diversion at best.

If you’re here to present actual data, then do so. If not, your stupid trolling and rhetorical floundering will only continue to be ignored for the noise it is. Stick to facts or stop wasting everyone’s time.

[Pargat Perrer]

Your argument about “1000-year events” and “inconvenient truths” shows a lack of understanding about statistical probability and historical context. Let’s clarify a few points:The “1000-Year Event” Misconception: Calling extreme weather events “1000-year events” doesn’t mean they are unprecedented or humn caused. It’s a statistical term that refers to the probability of an event occurring in any given year, not a guarantee that it will only happen once every thousand years. Additionally, natural climate variability has produced extreme events throughout history. It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data. Claiming otherwise ignores the role of natural cycles and other contributing factors, including the Urban Heat Island effect and ocean temperature shifts, which heavily influence climate dynamics, as I posted earlier in this thread for those who know how to read.

1. Ignoring Historical Climate Data: You accuse me of ignoring data, but you’ve yet to provide any empirical evidence that these events are driven by human CO₂ emissions rather than a combination of natural factors. Your narrative is based more on alarmist headlines than on rigorous scientific analysis. If you want to claim that these recent events are entirely new or unprecedented, I invite you to present concrete, peer-reviewed data that definitively attributes them to human activity—rather than cherry-picking statistics or invoking Al Gore’s “inconvenient truths” without context.
2. Florida and Homeowner Insurance: Rising insurance costs in Florida are largely due to a combination of natural disaster risks and economic factors—not exclusively climate change. Florida’s exposure to hurricanes, for example, has been a fact for centuries. Yes, insurance companies are reacting to increased risk, but attributing this solely to recent climate events is ridiculous and ignores the underlying complexities of the insurance market and real estate speculation.
3. Grameen Bank vs. Dot-Com Bubble: Comparing Grameen banking to the dot-com bubble shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economic impacts and long-term value creation. People who speculated in dot-com securities, despite potential losses, fueled one of the most significant eras of technological progress in history. That speculation built a robust technological infrastructure, established a global ecosystem, and laid the groundwork for the modern internet economy that benefits humanity to this day.
   
   The Grameen model, by contrast, is rooted in sustainable, community-focused lending that offers real stability and resilience to impoverished communities, especially in regions vulnerable to economic shocks. It’s not about speculation or quick gains; it’s about incremental, sustainable growth that empowers people. The comparison to speculative markets fails to recognize the impact of Grameen’s approach to poverty alleviation and community resilience—values that speculative investment alone could never achieve.
   
   So, while speculative investments can spur innovation, comparing them to a system like Grameen misses the point. Both forms of economic activity have their place, but Grameen is designed to withstand crises and uplift communities, not create bubbles.
   
   If you’re serious about discussing real-world impacts, focus on the proven resilience and societal benefits that these models offer instead of attempting to draw irrelevant comparisons.
4. The Role of Natural Carbon Sinks: My point about Canada’s forests, oceans, and other natural carbon sinks stands. These systems absorb far more CO₂ than you seem willing to acknowledge. Your argument that human emissions alone drive climate change ignores the data on carbon cycling and natural CO₂ fluctuations influenced by ocean temperatures and biological processes. The 31% increase in GPP (Gross Primary Production) only underscores the importance of natural carbon sinks, which are more effective than many climate models have accounted for.

You’re conflating natural variability with human-caused effects, overlooking critical data on carbon sinks, and trivializing sustainable financial models like Grameen. Your position isn’t grounded in science, just alarmist rhetoric and handwaving. If you want to contribute to this discussion, bring forward empirical evidence instead of dismissing complex scientific findings with oversimplifications and insults.

You attribute words to me that I've never said. Never said human emissions alone drive climate change.

Your statement "It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data" ignores that I AM considering the broad historical data .... namely the frequency in the past few years of these 1000-year events. To get so many of them in such a short time, and spread all around the world, speaks to a message being given to us ... and it is this message that propels governments and scientists around the world to consider more radical actions.

Sure, we can listen to "waving hands" like you .... the King of waving hands, even going on to an obscure chess forum and posting repetitively despite the fact that for you time is money ... we can listen to you saying we don't need to do anything because things were even worse some hundreds of thousands of years ago .... yeah, worse for the woolly mammoths LOL.

But to listen to you and do nothing and let Earth gradually turn into Venus and possibly wipe out the human species and many other species besides is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

You are mocking in another thread here the people who didn't listen to the message from Twitter (X) about the movement towards Trump in the US election. The situation is comparable because there was no iron-clad scientific evidence that voters were moving en masse towards Trump, so we had to listen to all the messages available to us, and many messages were saying "No, everythlng is up in the air, we have 7 states that will decide and they are all toss-ups." This was all based on polls in which people can lie.

Similarly, you are asking us to listen to YOU tell us "No, nothing is wrong, we need MORE CO2 not less." all based on data you've gathered in which people can lie, and WILL lie to prevent things like carbon tax, renewable energy, phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, etc.

Notice I still haven't said ANYTHING about human emission being the sole driver. Yes, climate change COULD BE a natural cycle event. That's not what's important. What's important is to figure out what TOOLS we have to fight the cycle, and the biggest tool is to REMOVE CO2 and METHANE from the atmosphere.

You talk about natural carbon sinks as if they are all going to miraculously absorb all the extra human-caused emissions. BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT! So any scientific paper that conjectures that plants can absorb 31% more CO2 than we thought previously IS IRREVALENT. THE PLANTS ARE NOT ABSORBING IT! THE CO2 IS CLIMBING YEAR AFTER YEAR NOW!

We aren't built to, or capable of evolving fast enough to, live in a much hotter world.

Therefore we must act. The Spains, Bangladeshes, Californias, Floridas, etc etc. all give us this message. And I haven't talked about the FINANCIAL imperatives to act ... the breakdown of our entire financial system because gigantic insurance companies all go bankrupt from claims due to climate change events, leaving no one anywhere able to insure assets against losses, imploding the value of those assets.

Go ahead, KIng Hand-Waver, go ahead and wave your hands and shout "No! We don't need to do anything!" You will be dutifully ignored.

Grameen Bank: if that were a government, taxpayer-funded program, I have NO DOUBT you'd be deriding it as government waste! Thats' all I need to say about that. I don't know who is putting up all the money, but they are all going to lose it all. It doesn't matter that the Bangladeshians (?) are all hard-working and responsible and want to pay the loans back, unlike in America where half the people would run away with the money, making the model unworkable there. In Bangladesh catastrophic floods are very likely, and now even MORE likely to be MUCH MORE severe and widespread, leading to massive losses.

[Sid Belzberg]

Your argument about “1000-year events” and “inconvenient truths” shows a lack of understanding about statistical probability and historical context. Let’s clarify a few points:The “1000-Year Event” Misconception: Calling extreme weather events “1000-year events” doesn’t mean they are unprecedented or humn caused. It’s a statistical term that refers to the probability of an event occurring in any given year, not a guarantee that it will only happen once every thousand years. Additionally, natural climate variability has produced extreme events throughout history. It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data. Claiming otherwise ignores the role of natural cycles and other contributing factors, including the Urban Heat Island effect and ocean temperature shifts, which heavily influence climate dynamics, as I posted earlier in this thread for those who know how to read.

1. Ignoring Historical Climate Data: You accuse me of ignoring data, but you’ve yet to provide any empirical evidence that these events are driven by human CO₂ emissions rather than a combination of natural factors. Your narrative is based more on alarmist headlines than on rigorous scientific analysis. If you want to claim that these recent events are entirely new or unprecedented, I invite you to present concrete, peer-reviewed data that definitively attributes them to human activity—rather than cherry-picking statistics or invoking Al Gore’s “inconvenient truths” without context.
2. Florida and Homeowner Insurance: Rising insurance costs in Florida are largely due to a combination of natural disaster risks and economic factors—not exclusively climate change. Florida’s exposure to hurricanes, for example, has been a fact for centuries. Yes, insurance companies are reacting to increased risk, but attributing this solely to recent climate events is ridiculous and ignores the underlying complexities of the insurance market and real estate speculation.
3. Grameen Bank vs. Dot-Com Bubble: Comparing Grameen banking to the dot-com bubble shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economic impacts and long-term value creation. People who speculated in dot-com securities, despite potential losses, fueled one of the most significant eras of technological progress in history. That speculation built a robust technological infrastructure, established a global ecosystem, and laid the groundwork for the modern internet economy that benefits humanity to this day.
   
   The Grameen model, by contrast, is rooted in sustainable, community-focused lending that offers real stability and resilience to impoverished communities, especially in regions vulnerable to economic shocks. It’s not about speculation or quick gains; it’s about incremental, sustainable growth that empowers people. The comparison to speculative markets fails to recognize the impact of Grameen’s approach to poverty alleviation and community resilience—values that speculative investment alone could never achieve.
   
   So, while speculative investments can spur innovation, comparing them to a system like Grameen misses the point. Both forms of economic activity have their place, but Grameen is designed to withstand crises and uplift communities, not create bubbles.
   
   If you’re serious about discussing real-world impacts, focus on the proven resilience and societal benefits that these models offer instead of attempting to draw irrelevant comparisons.
4. The Role of Natural Carbon Sinks: My point about Canada’s forests, oceans, and other natural carbon sinks stands. These systems absorb far more CO₂ than you seem willing to acknowledge. Your argument that human emissions alone drive climate change ignores the data on carbon cycling and natural CO₂ fluctuations influenced by ocean temperatures and biological processes. The 31% increase in GPP (Gross Primary Production) only underscores the importance of natural carbon sinks, which are more effective than many climate models have accounted for.

You’re conflating natural variability with human-caused effects, overlooking critical data on carbon sinks, and trivializing sustainable financial models like Grameen. Your position isn’t grounded in science, just alarmist rhetoric and handwaving. If you want to contribute to this discussion, bring forward empirical evidence instead of dismissing complex scientific findings with oversimplifications and insults.