Here's why climate change is a growing problem still.

[kenneal - lagger]

Banks have invested $1.9 trillion into fossil fuels since 2016. Could have gone a loong way with renewables and energy storage.

[woodburner]

And here is why AGW is not a problem, or even doesn’t exist.

[clv101]

And here is why AGW is not a problem, or even doesn’t exist.

Why? Why do you persist with this nonsense? It's so easy, never been easier, to access high quality scientific research.

[kenneal - lagger]

His first slide is contradicted by this page .
More refutations of his claims are printed here and wikipedia says this about him -

Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon (born 1966)[1] is a Malaysian aerospace engineer who is a part-time externally funded researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[2][3]

Soon is a climate change denier,[2][4] disputing the scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[5][6] He co-wrote a paper whose methodology was widely criticised by the scientific community.[7] Climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions. He is nonetheless frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[2][4]

Soon co-authored The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection with Steven H. Yaskell. The book treats historical and proxy records of climate change coinciding with the Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare.[8]

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.[9]

I didn't get beyond the third slide because he is talking crap. There is no other word for it! Being paid $1.2 billion by the fossil fuel industry for doing that isn't a bad rate of return. Even his own institution doesn't agree with what he says

If his book is suggesting that the earth's temperature is governed by sun spot cycles, which it would seem from its title, we should be in a cold period now as the sun has been at its lowest ebb for a very long time over the last cycle. Instead we have had the hottest four years ever in the last five years.

If you believe, as he claims, Woodburner, CO2 is the gas of life please would you put a plastic bag over your head and breath the gas of life for ten minutes and do the rest of us a favour.

[woodburner]

His first slide is contradicted by this page .
More refutations of his claims are printed here and wikipedia says this about him -

Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon (born 1966)[1] is a Malaysian aerospace engineer who is a part-time externally funded researcher at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[2][3]

Soon is a climate change denier,[2][4] disputing the scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[5][6] He co-wrote a paper whose methodology was widely criticised by the scientific community.[7] Climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions. He is nonetheless frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[2][4]

Soon co-authored The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun–Earth Connection with Steven H. Yaskell. The book treats historical and proxy records of climate change coinciding with the Maunder Minimum, a period from 1645 to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare.[8]

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.[9]

I didn't get beyond the third slide because he is talking crap. There is no other word for it! Being paid $1.2 billion by the fossil fuel industry for doing that isn't a bad rate of return. Even his own institution doesn't agree with what he says

If his book is suggesting that the earth's temperature is governed by sun spot cycles, which it would seem from its title, we should be in a cold period now as the sun has been at its lowest ebb for a very long time over the last cycle. Instead we have had the hottest four years ever in the last five years.

If you believe, as he claims, Woodburner, CO2 is the gas of life please would you put a plastic bag over your head and breath the gas of life for ten minutes and do the rest of us a favour.

Skepticalscience and wikipedia are not trustworthy references. wikipedia is renowned for the speed at which corrections made to errors, especially deliberate ones, are reversed. Skepticascience persists with the 97% consensus claim.

Your technical term “crap� leaves something to be desired, and your suggestion that I should stick my head in a plastic bag is the sort of comment that anyone who doubts the “consensus� view of climate “science�, no longer has any doubt. You should realise, and not need it explaining, that CO2 is the nutrient that plants rely on, not as you attempt to imply that animals rely on. This is the reason that CO2 concentration is raised in closed plant growing (greenhouses).

You have claimed Soon received $1.2 billion from the fossil fuel industry, even wikipedia has stated only $1.2 million, never mind it’s only a thousand times less.

NASA’s James Hansen, who had already done more than anyone else to warn the world about the greenhouse effect, made the gutsiest call, issuing a precise prediction for how the planet’s temperature would shift, month by month, in the next three years. At first he seemed to have missed, and greenhouse skeptics jumped all over the early results, using them to call the whole theory into question. But at a memorable scientific meeting in Hawaii, Hansen stood up and said, “I believe this is one case where the model is right and the world is wrong.�
Mckibben, Bill. The End of Nature (Kindle Locations 128-132)

[kenneal - lagger]

So, Woodburner, the people who do the actual science are not trustworthy but someone who speaks for the fossil fuel community, who's own scientific institution says he is wrong and who is an amateur in the field of climate science is believed by you.

You deride the figure of 97% of scientist supporting climate change but you have yet to quote one, not one, of the supposed 3% of climate scientists who are sceptics.

Soon made the claim that CO2 is the gas of life but as you so rightly point out too much of it can cause death as we will all find out if we continue to increase the amount in the atmosphere. Soon derides the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 400ppm saying that $4 in and $1000 is nothing. How scientific is that when CO2 in the atmosphere has an effect at even 1 ppm? Not much, I admit, but it does have an effect that all scientist not blinded by the cash from fossil fuel companies will attest to.

Soon is talking emotive crap, rubbish, lies, bullshit, you chose the word because I can't find anything else that describes his claims any better, to an audience which has no knowledge of science and can only see the damage that climate mitigation measures will cause to their bottom lines. You can pick holes in his arguments even with the rudimentary knowledge of climate science that I possess. People on the Skeptical Science website have a greater knowledge than I do and they would find what he says laughable, if it wasn't so serious because idiots like those business men and you, woodburner, you believe it.

That CO2 level is raised in greenhouses has nothing to do with plants outside greenhouses because the climate inside a greenhouse is controlled for the plants that live in that greenhouse. Raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere causes climate effects that harm plants in their current locations because the plants aren't used to those effects. The west coast of the US is suffering a dieback of the forest because the climate has changed and it is unsuitable for the trees that live there now in the heightened CO2 atmosphere.

What should they do in the US? Build a bloody great greenhouse around the trees? Oh dear! that is what we have done by fiddling with the climate by emitting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and it's killing plants! It's happening all over the globe as plants die off because they are stressed by changing climate. Can't you see that, Woodburner? Or are you either too thick or too obsessed with being a contrarian? Chose one option please or you can have both if you wish.

Yes, I am making an ad hominen attack on you because you refuse to believe in the scientific method, the very scientific method that allows you to communicate with us using electricity via computer and the internet. You call climate science a religion but we who believe in the scientific method can see the valid evidence produced by that method to support the claims. You however cannot produce any valid evidence. You only have your blind faith that climate change doesn't exist. By relying on blind faith you show that you are the religionist not us.

What evidence do you have that Skeptical Science, a website run by scientists currently working in the field of climate science, isn't a trustworthy website? And yes, Wikipedia can't be used as a scientific reference, but then I don't use it for scientific references, but neither can Youtube which is where most of your references come from. We provide you with evidence from scientific websites while you provide us with evidence from what is little more than a comic book!

And yes, as you so rightly point out, Soon "only" received $1.2 million dollars from the fossil fuel industry and failed to admit the conflict of interest in his papers. Typo I'm afraid. I've admitted my minor mistake so when are you going to admit your major one?

[woodburner]

So, Woodburner, the people who do the actual science are not trustworthy but someone who speaks for the fossil fuel community, who's own scientific institution says he is wrong and who is an amateur in the field of climate science is believed by you.

You deride the figure of 97% of scientist supporting climate change but you have yet to quote one, not one, of the supposed 3% of climate scientists who are sceptics.

Soon made the claim that CO2 is the gas of life but as you so rightly point out too much of it can cause death as we will all find out if we continue to increase the amount in the atmosphere. Soon derides the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 400ppm saying that $4 in and $1000 is nothing. How scientific is that when CO2 in the atmosphere has an effect at even 1 ppm? Not much, I admit, but it does have an effect that all scientist not blinded by the cash from fossil fuel companies will attest to.

Soon is talking emotive crap, rubbish, lies, bullshit, you chose the word because I can't find anything else that describes his claims any better, to an audience which has no knowledge of science and can only see the damage that climate mitigation measures will cause to their bottom lines. You can pick holes in his arguments even with the rudimentary knowledge of climate science that I possess. People on the Skeptical Science website have a greater knowledge than I do and they would find what he says laughable, if it wasn't so serious because idiots like those business men and you, woodburner, you believe it.

That CO2 level is raised in greenhouses has nothing to do with plants outside greenhouses because the climate inside a greenhouse is controlled for the plants that live in that greenhouse. Raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere causes climate effects that harm plants in their current locations because the plants aren't used to those effects. The west coast of the US is suffering a dieback of the forest because the climate has changed and it is unsuitable for the trees that live there now in the heightened CO2 atmosphere.

What should they do in the US? Build a bloody great greenhouse around the trees? Oh dear! that is what we have done by fiddling with the climate by emitting vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and it's killing plants! It's happening all over the globe as plants die off because they are stressed by changing climate. Can't you see that, Woodburner? Or are you either too thick or too obsessed with being a contrarian? Chose one option please or you can have both if you wish.

Yes, I am making an ad hominen attack on you because you refuse to believe in the scientific method, the very scientific method that allows you to communicate with us using electricity via computer and the internet. You call climate science a religion but we who believe in the scientific method can see the valid evidence produced by that method to support the claims. You however cannot produce any valid evidence. You only have your blind faith that climate change doesn't exist. By relying on blind faith you show that you are the religionist not us.

What evidence do you have that Skeptical Science, a website run by scientists currently working in the field of climate science, isn't a trustworthy website? And yes, Wikipedia can't be used as a scientific reference, but then I don't use it for scientific references, but neither can Youtube which is where most of your references come from. We provide you with evidence from scientific websites while you provide us with evidence from what is little more than a comic book!

And yes, as you so rightly point out, Soon "only" received $1.2 million dollars from the fossil fuel industry and failed to admit the conflict of interest in his papers. Typo I'm afraid. I've admitted my minor mistake so when are you going to admit your major one?

Ok, I admit to my major mistake, and that was the hope I had that it may be possible to have a reasonable discussion with somebody (you) where it might be possible to tease out facts from a very complex topic without being continually subjected to a torrent of attempted riducle, and all people who know a lot more than both of us might be respected as knowing something we don’t. However, you appear to not respect anybody’s view if it doesn’t agree with yours, where you then descend into abusive attacks.

I will correct you on a point, I have not said climate change doesn’t exist, of course it exists, it always has existed. What I question is the claim that the rise in CO2 is the primary driver for the change, and the amount of that change in recent years, regardless of the CO2 change. Do try to get it right.

CO2 is killing plants? Really, couldn’t be pathogens could it? Or pathogens shipped around the world by excessive transport links? Ash die back in the Uk for example. The tree importers knew they were importing the disease, but they wanted the government to prohibit the import so they could claim compensation. And so it goes on. Or a spot of geoengineering perhaps?

Well carry on with your unquestioning belief, and your intolerant abusive reponses. Good luck with that. I’m sure others coming to read this will make judgements about the validity of the arguments, and they will be sceptical enough to carry on and do their own research to try and find the truth somewhere.

[kenneal - lagger]

Healthy plants fight off pathogens all the time. Stressed plants fall prey to pathogens and warming is stressing plants. The die off in the western US is caused by the climate warming, stressing the pines and weakening them allowing a beetle, which is extending it range northwards as the climate warms, to successfully attack the pines. Up until recently the climate was cold enough in the winter to kill off the beetle larvae and trees could fight off attacks by small numbers of beetles.

If the warming isn't being caused by extra CO2, what is causing it? It has been accepted science since the 18th century that CO2 warms the atmosphere and makes the earth habitable. The science also tells us that more CO2 will raise the temperature further. The scientists can tell us that they know from the isotope ratios of the carbon in the carbon dioxide that is coming into the atmosphere that it is from fossil carbon from the oil, gas and coal that we are burning.

The science also tells us that the warming from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere which can also increase warming, depending on where in the atmosphere is is and at what time. So if you can tell me where science is getting it wrong please tell me but give me a reference from a respected scientist but don't expect me to look at 55 minutes of comic video to get the answer.

I do not have unquestioning belief, I have asked questions in the past, not of people with your depth of knowledge though, and those questions have been answered. I don't get my answers from Youtube comic videos by comic characters paid by fossil fuel companies. I look at what scientists working in the field of climate science tell me. I also looked at what the oil companies own scientists told them fifty years ago and they told their bosses that burning all the oil that we have would warm the planet.

The reason that I am intolerant is that you keep repeating your half baked theories backed up by people paid by oil companies but you can't even quote one of the supposed 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus. Is there only a 97% consensus among climate scientists? Perhaps you should take your own advise when reading what climate science has to say, "...all people who know a lot more than both of us might be respected as knowing something we don’t." Those people who "know a lot more than both of us" also know a lot more than the people who you listen to so perhaps they "might be respected as knowing something we don’t."

[clv101]

[What I question is the claim that the rise in CO2 is the primary driver for the change, and the amount of that change in recent years, regardless of the CO2 change.

Why do you question that? There're many decades, more than a century of scientific investigation establishing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, the molecular chemistry, the atmospheric physics, lab experiment, Earth observation etc. To question this you must have some pretty compelling evidence, what is it? Which aspect of our understanding of atmospheric physics and chemistry leads you to question the accepted theories?

[woodburner]

There is indeed, and the results showed the CO2 increase follows the temperature change, not causes it. Oh, you forgot to mention the mathematical climate models which don’t seem to agree with the current measurements.

The International Pantomime for Climate Change spokesman said it has nothing to do with global warming it is wealth distribution. That is, it’s a scam to get people to accept the continual taxes that are being added to such things as their electric bills. So the UK builds wind and solar generators, shuts down its industry, ships it to India and China where all the same products are made (and more) using power from coal burning stations. (Wealth distribution).

And for KL, look at 59mins for pictures here to see the apalling effect increased CO2 levels have on, er, pine trees. I suppose it must be a put up job by a fossil fuel company.

I’ll look forward to the usual tirade of ridicule and abuse, as I alwas do, and am seldom disappointed.

[clv101]

There is indeed, and the results showed the CO2 increase follows the temperature change, not causes it.

Indeed, you're thinking of ice core data? This is pretty straight forward, no one claims CO2 rises ended ice ages. This fact in no way undermines today's accepted climate science.

Briefly, an ice ages ends when the orbital configuration of the Earth changes such that more energy is received by the Northern (more land) hemisphere, some ice melts in the Arctic, more freshwater injection alters global ocean currents leading the sea surface warming and reducing the solubility of CO2. CO2 is then released. Radiative forcing increases and we have a positive feedback loop. The triggering of this feedback takes the several hundred years observed in the ice core.

Most (~90%) of the observed warming coming out of the last ice age is from this CO2 positive feedback.

[kenneal - lagger]

You're getting desperate here woodburner. The shipping of jobs to the far east has nothing to do with climate change it is all to do with, as you say, wealth distribution. It is globalisation and the accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few, the few that have convinced you that climate change doesn't exist so that they can carry on making a pauper of you while also showing what limited intellectual capacity you have in believing their lies. It is very rich people, the Koch brothers and Nigel Lawson for instance, who want to carry on exploiting the world's resources to further enrich themselves at our expense and with no thought to the environment in which we live. They can always buy themselves a decent environment, they think!!

You really do need to sit down for a while and reconcile what you are saying with what is actually happening. As I see it we have people in this world, the mega rich, who are against taxation and environmental regulation because it interferes with their "right" to make vast sums of money for themselves. Those people see that environmental regulations make it harder for them to make money and they object to paying taxes which pay for the infrastructure which enables them to make money. In making that money by paying ever smaller wages, avoiding taxes where they can, destroying the environment with the pollution from their industry and lobbying government against any changes which might harm their position they are making our lives increasingly unlivable. They rely on fools like you to do their bidding and cast doubt on the science which tells us what is actually happening.

Yes, you can always find pictures of plants which are doing well at the moment with a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere but whether they will continue to do well as the climate continues to change around them is a very different question. The pines of California are, in general, not doing well at all.

Regarding the climate models which don't agree with current measurements, they aren't used, Woodburner, precisely because they don't support current measurements. Before being accepted all climate models are back cast, run with inputs of historic data, to check that they do in fact match up with what we are seeing now, current data, before they are used to predict future climate. The mathematical models which you are talking about are economic models which invariably produce strange results. Just look at the ones which have been used to prove how bad life would be after we voted for Brexit.

I am not sorry, woodburner, you deserve all the abuse and ridicule you get as you grasp at smaller and smaller straws to prop up your silly conspiracy theories.

[woodburner]

Well I am not disappopinted. Here you go yet again with the indications your case is suspect by being only able to abuse and ridicule.

I have said on previous posts that climate change does and always has existed, so perhaps you would like to correct your memory.

Wealth distribution, not saving the planet As I pointed out and you appear to have agreed with.

I won’t bother with the rest of your tirade as it is typical of the abuse you hurl when someone dares to question such obviously ridulous claims such as 97% of any particular group agree. That is nonsense, though you may not have been able to see that.

[kenneal - lagger]

I note that you haven't commented on CLV's scientific points because you have no answer to them.

As to my "ridiculous claims" of more than a 97% consensus, I also note that you are unable to give even one reference to a climate scientist speaking against AGW.

I am perfectly aware that you agree that climate change has and always has existed but for some strange reason you do not believe the 97% of climate scientists who believe that it is man made because they have provided the evidence to prove it. You, on the other hand, cannot find even one climate scientist to speak against the consensus but you believe all sort of fossil fuel company paid hacks and shills whose testimony has been easily exposed as fraudulent.

As to unequal wealth distribution, it is harmful to the growth of the economy so, to an extent, it is good for ameliorating the effects of global warming. That is not to say that it is good from a humanitarian point of view.

So I ask you again, where are the 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus on AGW? And what are your answers to CLv's points? You always avoid making any comments. So, no tirade and no abuse this time but let's have some answers from you without resorting to comic videos. A few peer reviewed papers wouldn't go amiss.

[woodburner]

Try this

Oh no, that’s no good it must be written by the oil industry or someone paid by them or some other excuse you will have to allow you to support the patently ridiculous notion that 97% of grant funding applicants agree on some “scientific� hypothesis. They may talk the talk, but that is usually followed with a statement that more research is needed. “Please provide more money for this vital work.�

Thanks should go to Al Gore, Nobel laureate and $billionaire, who brought the impending global warming and sea level rise informadion to the public, and is so concerned he still lives in his house on the coast.