Climate Change, page-899

I have italicised your words just FYI

Alex Shipway - do you stand to benefit monetarily from the above posts? What sensation do you feel when providing us with your research? You are on a coal producer's thread posting absolute utter nonsense that all of us have heard before. I genuinely want to understand why you do what you do..
You are surrounded by rational thinkers on these threads - beware...lol

Of course I dont benefit monetarily. This thread originally started because a certain poster - Hagetaka - insisted on inserting his opinion on the matter on every other comment on other WHC threads. For a time, I ignored it. Eventually I got tired of the anti - scientific rhetoric and continually corrected his view.
You call it absolute utter nonsense, yet if you go through and look at the data I've posted, its independently verified, peer reviewed, testable data.
You say I'm surrounded by rational thinkers, yet I get retorts like the following;

and reaching very poor and inaccurate conclusions like the following.

Haga posted this source and used it as "evidence" - he clearly didnt read it, or didnt use his reading comprehension skills to do some critical thinking of the paper. He completely ignored my response (I take it he then re-read the paper and realised I was correct, seriously, read it for yourself and let me know what you think of my response.)


My response was;
Ok, I'm trying to read this from your screen shot, because the paper doesn't appear to be available on open access.

It's a pretty hard read, and I cant tell if the paper is just poorly worded, or if it things have been omitted. If you have a link to a PDF or something that'd be perfect, but I'll try make do.

In the paper he writes "Twelve month mean values from 1981 to 2019 indicate the temperature has increased 0.506K and CO2 concentrations 71.6ppm during 38 years (Figure 1) If the temperature is controlled by the CO2 then 100pm could increase global temperatures by 0.71K".

Now, I cant make it out exactly, but it looks like Figure 1 is temperatures of Moana Loa (Hawaii). But hold on, Moana Loa isn't representative of global temperatures? Why did the author suddenly refer to a 100pm increase in CO2 leading to a global increase in temperatures by 0.71K when he was referring to twelve month mean values of Moana Loa? Moreover, there is no discussion on the local climate of Moana Loa. I had a quick "google" and it seems the tropical region experiences relatively warm temperatures year round with a September average high of 27C and a February low of 24 degrees C. That is not much variation at all. Take for example, Melbourne, which has ranges of 12 degrees C+ between Summers and Winters. Again just a pretty obvious flaw to use this as your base temperature readings. Almost like its been cherry picked.

Further down, again, he writes "As stated above, 100ppm change in CO2 concentration should increase the global temperature by 0.71K" - This is flawed reasoning and surely you must accept this? Global temperatures are not based off one temperature graph and you and I could both find individual locations with temperatures getting much much warmer, or much more colder. Global average temperatures are taken from many (I don't know the exact number, I'm guessing in the thousands) datasets.

With regards to the second part of the paper, again, its quite hard to read, and I need to see the figures a bit more clearer. CO2 concentrations have been in a steady state for over eight hundred thousands years. So I don't know how the Author has reconciled eight hundred thousand years of "constant" (say, 170ppm and 300pm) and then a sudden increase from the industrial revolution to now over 400pm. (Source: Based on figure by Jeremy Shakun,)


Or the time Mypravda thought a letter to the editor was a scientific research paper - see my response below

Well, for starters, this isn't a research paper at all. Its a letter to the British medical journal. Not only that, but its an editorial from 1998 - over 25 years ago. You can see the full thing below.




Ok, so its not a research paper, they do cite some sources like when they say;

" Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994. Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?"

which the author of the letter cites (5. Balling RC. Global warming: messy models, decent data and pointless policy. In: Bailey R, editor. The true state of the planet. New York: Free Press; 1995. pp. 83–107) This is a book by the way, not a research paper. As you might be aware, you can basically write whatever you want in a book. But lets look at the claims anyway.

Lets look at the first one; "Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994"

The Author used this source to show "cooling" (Global Atmospheric Temperature Monitoring with Satellite Microwave Measurements: Method and Results 1979–84) When sourcing this graph showing "cooling"
Now, this is where the problem of using a letter from 1998 as source comes from. You see, Spencer et al (UAH - the brown line in the graph below) was the lower end of a range of data sets (that's what we in the biz call cherry picking).


Furthermore, a follow up on Spencer's data in 2005 showed that the satellite that was taking the reading was taking temperature readings later and later in the day instead of taking readings at the same time every day. (https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1114772)

When Spencer's data was corrected, they showed a warming trend of 0.193 degrees centigrade per decade - matching the other datasets in the graph above.


The second quote "why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?""

The book somehow makes the mistake of posting a rainfall graph twice, instead of the actual temperature graph of the artic that it presumes to reference. So I went to the source material, and unfortunately I dont have access to it. However, I can read the abstract, which does say;

"Recent homogenized near-surface temperature data over the land and oceans of both hemispheres during the past 130 years are combined to produce the first comprehensive estimates of global mean temperature. The results show little trend in the nineteenth century, marked warming to 1940, relatively steady conditions to the mid-1970s and a subsequent rapid warming. The warmest 3 years have all occurred in the 1980s."(https://doi.org/10.1038/322430a0)

So, to recap;
1. Your source is not a research paper, its a letter to a journal.
2. Its over 25 years old (not that that is necessarily a problem, but its used dated and since corrected information)
3. The sources of information of the letter have been corrected as the originals were flawed - this was accepted by the authors Spencer et al.

That is how being a sceptic works. I'd love to see a reply from you.

Are these the rational speakers you're talking about?

You have posted a snapshot of a climate change theory from 1955 from the John Hopkins University. How does the fact these preposterous theories were being shoved down people's throats 70 years ago somehow strengthen your arguments? 1955 is not long after WWII ended, 10 years in fact. Communists were looking for something new to spend their time on..they came up with these types of theories.
The last 4 years (since Covid came about) have allowed people like us to deepen our understanding on what drives the left, and their self-fulfilling prophecies. What I find with every left-leaning individual I come across is their lack of faith in religion.. They're simply on a journey to discover something/someone worth worshipping and turn to these types of ideologies as they find it empowering. I'll put my left nut on the line that you are not religious. Additionally, they are usually very comfortable and have had to sacrifice and give up f**king nothing to be where they are. Do you think my grandparents had time to think about supposed man made CC when they came to Australia? They fled war to come here and started with a complete blank canvas, they left properties behind which they killed themselves to buy, bang, gone in an instant as a result of an invasion into their homeland. Our great nation did wonders for them and their children, it presented them the opportunities to flourish.Well for starters, it was earlier than 1955, try late 1890's


The data is what strengthens the argument. Its the evidence - for which there is lots.

Correct, I am not religious (but I dont see what that has to do with anything). Again, with the rest of your comment, I am not sure what that has to with the science, can you make the connection for me?

Think about it -
Animal lovers (human haters): Greens disturbing duck hunting (all types of game hunting for that matter), and putting animals' survival before humans'.My family and I have toiled with these groups for decades. If there was poverty, droughts and f*ck all to eat like in prior centuries I wonder if they would be anti-meat consumption groups. Vegetarian diets kill more animals than diets underpinned by meat-consumption, why is this not pushed by the mainstream media?

What has this got to do with Climate science? Why is an animal lover a human hater? This is a false dichotomy.
I just dont understand why you've brought this point up - along with how covid continually gets brought up for some reason.

So, what are the specific points of climate change science you don't accept/are sceptical of?

• Do you not accept that the sun emits short wave radiation that passes through our atmosphere?
• Do you not accept that this radiation bounces off the earth and turns to long wave radiation?
• Do you not accept that this long wave radiation is trapped by CO2 (and other GHG) and causes them to vibrate and heat up?

and many more...

Climate Change believers: Life is so good in Western nations, these people are bred in the best countries on earth. This upbringing breeds success, which breeds further comfort, which breeds a reversion to top private schools, top universities which shove these left-leaning theories down our next generations' throats. It's like with the bushfires. Bushfires have been occurring in our great nation for thousands of years studies show. In fact, Australia needs bushfires in order for the cycle to breed more resilient vegetation. Why all of a sudden are bushfires the result of man-made climate change? Fundamentally, this cannot be true but it's pushed by hard-left teachers and lecturers in the modern day who are responsible for educating our vulnerable children in school and university.

I cant find a single scientist that is claiming (with evidence) that bushfires are the result of man made climate change. Is this a straw-man argument? Because again, I am not aware of any scientist making this claim. If you read through many of my posts, I condemn media/celebrities/politicians, that make outrageous claims.

However, what I am sure I would be able to find, is that with increased temperatures and changing rainfall patters, the risk of bushfires are exacerbated by climate change. Yes, bushfires are an integral part of the Australian landscape. Remember the adage "The dose makes the poison".

"Gender is a social-construct" believers: Anyone that is of this belief simply does not understand science 101, the most basic fundamentals. Or they ignore them.

Cool, I have never said anything about gender, why bring this up? (FWIW I think there's 2 genders).

"Welcome to Country" Advocates: Great, we are being welcomed to our own country by the Indigenous, whom we already spend billions of taxpayers' hard earned money on annually. It's as if we have done nothing for them, we have not recognised them enough. Where is the apology to my parents and their grandparents, their home was invaded and to this day is illegally occupied? How far back should this rule go? Years? Decades? Centuries?Or does it only apply to the indigenous in Western nations because it suits the agenda pushed by the left-wing political parties in the US, Canada, Canberra and London?

I legit didn't even read this past the "Welcome to Country" Advocate, because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

I am not insinuating that those who believe fossil fuels are fundamental to our existence on Earth are all religious, but I think you will find 'fossil fuel lovers' share the same opinions on the topics I have mentioned.

Good for them, I dont care about their beliefs. It makes no difference.

You need to ask yourself why so many people disagree with your arguments. Ask yourself why we are not as scared of the changes in temperature as the elitist-run mainstream media, CC activists, unelected bodies such as the UN, the WHO, and the WEF and Western Govts wants us to be....Why is it?I have a bit of an idea. Its a concentrated group of coal investors. Only a few of them are able to separate their emotions from their investments. I am not sure if you followed, but I made several profitable trades with WHC because I saw a good opportunity. My investment thesis was based purely off business. A lot of the people posting think that accepting the science means a personal attack. Why are you not scared of the changes in temperature? Again, all those groups you mentioned don't seem include the actual scientists, and I dont even think they are saying you should be scared of the temperature. I've said many times, you (presumably) live in a wealthy Western country. We'll be fine. A few degrees means nothing for the most part. But out environment? our wildlife? our oceans? A lot of the world depends on those, they are complex systems and they interact. So whilst, for example, a 3C change in temperature means nothing for our personal comfort, take for example what will happen to our oceans - melted ice caps and glaciers (they're already retreating) rising sea levels, populations along coastal areas are displaced. I am not claiming this will happen tomorrow, but its certainly a possibility in the next 100 years or so.

I have spoken with numerous analysts, MDs, oil and gas experts who all agree that climate change is not an issue worth solving, in other words, let's focus on what matters here and now, cause CC ain't one mate, the climate has been changing for centuries.

Not an issue, or not an issue worth solving - those are two different things. Of course, the MD's, and oil & gas experts would say that, they've got money to make. Doesn't the other said always say "follow the money!"? I am not aware of super rich scientists (Al Gore isn't a scientist by the way and he's made plenty of B.S arguments too.).
Yes, the Climate has always changed, its the rate, or did you miss that part?