One of the more common tropes of climate change deniers is that climate change activism is driven by the large amount of money that can be made in research grants, subsidies, etc.
This doesn't surprise me at all. People who say there is no human-caused global warming don't pass the smell test. Like anti-vax activists, or the supporters of incel rights. This hasn't really changed over time; back in the day, you could tell Stalinists, members of the John Birch society and voters of George Wallace ten yards against the wind.
What I'd like to know however is how much substance there is to the belief that German (anti-nuclear) Greens have been financed by the petro-industrial complex, in particular by Russia's.
I guess that for you is very consensual that 0.04% of the atmosphere (the CO2 percentage) is responsible for everything? For me that "consensus", is strange and intriguing, to say the least.
The concept of climate deniers is also hilarious. A nice "way" for people that don't have arguments, to call others with different ideas and explanations. Anything that we don't like is an "anti-" something.
The idea that a system so complex as the Earth is influenced by only CO2 is very simplistic, to say the least! I guess the various ice age that ended in the past, was also because of humans!
Nothing about underwater volcanos? Sun radiation (our energy provider)? Water vapor (the biggest contributor for the greenhouse effect)? I guess the smell test didn't go so far.
Like the vaccines, these complex themes should be discussed without pre-conditions or the usual "anti-" attached to it.
Science is hard and most definitely, not consensual. That's the only way to get breakthroughs.
As someone who worked for three years on disentangling the effect the sun has on climate change vs. human greenhouse gas emissions I can assure you that climate scientists have debunked your talking points thoroughly some 25 years ago. Underwater volcanoes do absolutely nothing to change the climate. Past ice ages and warm periods have indeed been triggered by changes in solar irradiation driven by solar cycles that are tens of thousands of years long. But these solar cycles are currently near a low point, not a high point. Based on these solar cycles we should be living in a cold period right now similar to what we have seen in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, since then temperatures have risen by a lot and there is no reasonable doubt that human greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.
Stating that human greenhouse gas emissions (of which CO2 is the most prominent but other gases like methane are more potent) do not cause climate change is at the same level as stating that vaccines cause autism. There simply is no evidence for it and these views are the result of online misinformation and lies.
You say 'science is hard and most definitely not consensual'. That is true and false at the same time. Yes, there is a lot of debate all the time because that is how science progresses. But as a trained scientist, I can assure you there is an awful lot of consensus in science. Once a scientific result has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, science moves on and tackles new problems. that is why we tend to leave our houses by the front door rather than the second floor window to paraphrase Tim Minchin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIWj3tI-DXg
Solar is on a low point indeed. Do you think this works like a heater at home? It takes time to see effects of that. The Earth don't "cool off" in a couple of days. The shear mass of the planet is enough to understand that.
CO2 is not the most prominent for sure, water vapor (H2O) is. H2O absorbs way more radiation than CO2 in the complete spectrum of wavelengths. Only in the 700um wavelength the CO2 absorbs more. The data is there.
Yes, temperatures are going up and concentration of CO2 as well. Nobody ever denied that, at all. The question is: if CO2 triggered temperatures or vice-versa? There are no proofs of any of the scenarios, because unfortunately, as a civilization, we don't have enough data collected. 100 years compared to millions of years of the Earth existence, is nothing. And proxies, are subject to data "corruption" as the climate gate showed.
There are plenty of recognized scientist (with more experience than you or me) that are skeptical of the CO2 explanation for everything. Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Clauser (nobel prize with a nice take on the cloud issue).. But hey, what these guys know, right? Are they correct? I don't know. Does it make sense when they explain their point of view? Yes, for sure.
And to finish this nice discussion. I never denied anything. I have an open mind, but I'm skeptical that the CO2 is the "answer" for everything and I definitely don't believe in the climate apocalypse.
P2 While it is true that Milankovich cycles are not causing today's warming, there is a problem with completely taking out the sun from the discussion: most media produce articles and above all HEADLINES that attribute any event directly to climate change (even the Valencia floods…While the place has been flooding for ever). And when you look at EVENTS and not climate (which is measured over 30 years) you have to look at what incident may cause such a (sudden/unexpected etc) event. But most media usually prefers to ignore any relationship and settle for ‘scientists say’. But when you look INTO the studies it's all modelling, modelling, modelling. And every now and then something like this happens:
Utrecht University 2021:
Current climate model simulations overestimate future sea-level rise by 25% https://bit.ly/3H3JsSp
Oops. And the only reason they found it was because they had the opportunity for the first time to work with a powerful high resolution model.
We have seen extraordinarily warm years in 2023 and 2024 (ocean temps are rapidly cooling since, btw but THAT you wont read in fat headers - hello Guardian). And what have we seen just these past few years? A historically huge El Nino https://tinyurl.com/4mrhstrm, the Hunga volcano and this…’However, the solar cycle has broad latitudinal patterns that cause significant variations for both global mean temperature and ozone, and recent changes are important as it has been near its maximum phase after 2022’
So we have had lots of events that became ‘climate’ when they were reported. Including:
'Underwater volcanoes do absolutely nothing to change the climate'
Here you’re using - again - pretty clear tactics. But you’re not the only trained scientist who revert to those. This is how it works: the commenter points at the relationship between volcanoes and temperature and you make of that 'volcanoes and climate'. Two entirely different subjects…But that makes for easy ‘debating’ no? Tying his words to the most exotic fringes of the discussion…’Hey look guys, I'm correcting an idiot’.
As for volcanoes, temperature and events (events, not ‘climate’) - the nice thing about the below study is that is is not reliant on models only. The model simulations and the observations match):
Long-Term Temperature Impacts of the Hunga Volcanic Eruption in the Stratosphere and Above https://tinyurl.com/52nuwekt
‘Global average stratospheric temperatures cooled by 0.5–1.0 K during 2022–2023, following the Hunga volcanic eruption. This impact is mainly due to radiative cooling from H2O injected to the stratosphere by Hunga, and the observed cooling patterns rise in altitude over time following the H2O plume. There is quantitative agreement between MLS satellite observations and WACCM simulations for this behavior…
…Appropriately accounting for the transient Hunga cooling effects in the stratosphere may be important for quantifying long-term evolution of stratospheric temperatures in response to GHG and ODS changes’.
Of course, many would happily cry out ‘God, another idiot! He is posting evidence of cooling (sic) by the Hunga volcano, not warming’.
But, like any trained scientist, and especially the trained solar specialists among us, we all had to immediately think of the well known anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere.
Why the lower stratosphere cools when the troposphere warms
The Germans have attracted most attention as they are enthusiastically and successfully dismantling their economy.
But the biggest basket case is the UK. It has narrowly avoided black outs the past 6 months and the risks are ever more imminent. While it is operating from a much more feeble economic basis than the Germans.
And that’s WITH the Norwegians and Swedes still on the EU grid. But after just a few years of interconnectivity they’re fed up with the destabilizing efforts of weirdos like the UK and DE who exist - for now - in a parallel reality. And they’re going to see how they can disconnect from the Anglo- and Teuton mess.
One analyst to follow is Kathryn Porter of Watt Logic. She was on Unherd a few weeks ago. That’s a well spent hour (if you’re a realist of course, I don't want to rain acid on others’ totemic pleasantries).
P1 Mmm, climate worries legitimise bad faith arguments?
Yes they do, you see it all the time.
Example:
'Stating that human greenhouse gas emissions...do not cause climate change'
Show me where he said that.
You can't, because he didn't. He merely indicates that there are several causes of temp rises. Which is true. But it makes for convenient ‘debating’ doesn’t it? You’re basically calling him stupid.
But first, let’s start with where you finished. With this…
‘Once a scientific result has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, science moves on and tackles new problems’.
…You put yourself in the ‘average-social-media-commenter’ bracket. There, that statement is made all the time. Apparently it has meaning on social media. But let me give you just one example. Here’s what surprised trained scientists (yes, I'm going to rub it in) last year. They always believed, pardon, they knew, that heat and heat only causes evaporation. And then, in 2024:
‘...MIT has demonstrated that heat isn’t alone in causing water to evaporate. Light, striking the water’s surface where air and water meet, can break water molecules away and float them into the air, causing evaporation in the absence of any source of heat.
The astonishing new discovery could have a wide range of significant implications. It could help explain mysterious measurements over the years of how sunlight affects clouds, and therefore affect calculations of the effects of climate change on cloud cover and precipitation’.
From: How light can vaporize water without the need for heat
‘Surprising “photomolecular effect” discovered by MIT researchers could affect calculations of climate change and may lead to improved desalination and drying processes’.
So ‘moving on’ in science all too often means completely changing past knowledge.
Of course, like the Amish, one can stick to a settled state but I'd not advise that for science. But heed David Bowie’s words when he Move(d) on. Since it often finds you (and even trained scientists)…
Feeling like a shadow
Drifting like a leaf
While you:
stumble like a blind man.
Anyway,it is true that 97% of all trained scientists say that temperatures are rising and that the climate is changing (another social media truth and truthbomb to some) - Though the concept of global average temp is ridiculous since it's mainly Europe and the arctic which are heating up significantly - unfortunately the average reader (and those who still watch tv) are so uninformed that they believe arctic ice melting will cause sea levels to rise).
But no scientist and no climate model (I understand how economists fall for them) is capable of disentangling all the influences and say: this does that, and that does this. On top of that: clouds are hardly represented in models and the ocean currents aren't at all. Two massive influences. We have 20 years of accurate (satellite) data on ocean current temperatures (sic), we have sort of an idea of short- and long term current cycli, but hów they interact on a global scale is far beyond our knowledge right now.
But that does not deter scientists and reporters from all the hopeless attempts at 'proving' that the AMOC is collapsing. And then a few months later the Gulf stream ‘collapses then and then’ (99% of newspaper subscribers could not tell you the difference between AMOC, PDO or the Gulf stream. Or El Nino’s and La Nina’s reverse global effects for that matter. Nor locate them on a map. And neither can most reporters - have you noticed the staggering amount of ‘journalists’ who’ve moved in their careers from writing on ‘media’ to ‘sports’ to ‘economics’ to ‘politics’ to ‘climate & environment’? How brilliantly versatile are these people? Or do they just serve up stuff without being able to really understand it? But anyway, for them, ‘scientists say’ will suffice - also for the scientists themselves btw).
Money follow the policies dictated by politicians. That's not new and it will continue to be the same in the future. It's not lobby's only, it's subsidies that were given to renewables.
In Germany for example, how much money they spent in renewables/net zero ideology? And now they are burning COAL! Again, COAL... Don't tell that this was done by climate deniers lobbying!
It's perverse that a) fossil fuel companies are still being subsidised by taxpayers, b) fossil fuel companies are using government subsidies for lobbying creating a vicious circle of omnicide and ecocide.
This doesn't surprise me at all. People who say there is no human-caused global warming don't pass the smell test. Like anti-vax activists, or the supporters of incel rights. This hasn't really changed over time; back in the day, you could tell Stalinists, members of the John Birch society and voters of George Wallace ten yards against the wind.
What I'd like to know however is how much substance there is to the belief that German (anti-nuclear) Greens have been financed by the petro-industrial complex, in particular by Russia's.
I guess that for you is very consensual that 0.04% of the atmosphere (the CO2 percentage) is responsible for everything? For me that "consensus", is strange and intriguing, to say the least.
The concept of climate deniers is also hilarious. A nice "way" for people that don't have arguments, to call others with different ideas and explanations. Anything that we don't like is an "anti-" something.
The idea that a system so complex as the Earth is influenced by only CO2 is very simplistic, to say the least! I guess the various ice age that ended in the past, was also because of humans!
Nothing about underwater volcanos? Sun radiation (our energy provider)? Water vapor (the biggest contributor for the greenhouse effect)? I guess the smell test didn't go so far.
Like the vaccines, these complex themes should be discussed without pre-conditions or the usual "anti-" attached to it.
Science is hard and most definitely, not consensual. That's the only way to get breakthroughs.
As someone who worked for three years on disentangling the effect the sun has on climate change vs. human greenhouse gas emissions I can assure you that climate scientists have debunked your talking points thoroughly some 25 years ago. Underwater volcanoes do absolutely nothing to change the climate. Past ice ages and warm periods have indeed been triggered by changes in solar irradiation driven by solar cycles that are tens of thousands of years long. But these solar cycles are currently near a low point, not a high point. Based on these solar cycles we should be living in a cold period right now similar to what we have seen in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, since then temperatures have risen by a lot and there is no reasonable doubt that human greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.
Stating that human greenhouse gas emissions (of which CO2 is the most prominent but other gases like methane are more potent) do not cause climate change is at the same level as stating that vaccines cause autism. There simply is no evidence for it and these views are the result of online misinformation and lies.
You say 'science is hard and most definitely not consensual'. That is true and false at the same time. Yes, there is a lot of debate all the time because that is how science progresses. But as a trained scientist, I can assure you there is an awful lot of consensus in science. Once a scientific result has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, science moves on and tackles new problems. that is why we tend to leave our houses by the front door rather than the second floor window to paraphrase Tim Minchin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIWj3tI-DXg
Solar is on a low point indeed. Do you think this works like a heater at home? It takes time to see effects of that. The Earth don't "cool off" in a couple of days. The shear mass of the planet is enough to understand that.
CO2 is not the most prominent for sure, water vapor (H2O) is. H2O absorbs way more radiation than CO2 in the complete spectrum of wavelengths. Only in the 700um wavelength the CO2 absorbs more. The data is there.
Yes, temperatures are going up and concentration of CO2 as well. Nobody ever denied that, at all. The question is: if CO2 triggered temperatures or vice-versa? There are no proofs of any of the scenarios, because unfortunately, as a civilization, we don't have enough data collected. 100 years compared to millions of years of the Earth existence, is nothing. And proxies, are subject to data "corruption" as the climate gate showed.
There are plenty of recognized scientist (with more experience than you or me) that are skeptical of the CO2 explanation for everything. Steve Koonin, Richard Lindzen, William Happer, John Clauser (nobel prize with a nice take on the cloud issue).. But hey, what these guys know, right? Are they correct? I don't know. Does it make sense when they explain their point of view? Yes, for sure.
And to finish this nice discussion. I never denied anything. I have an open mind, but I'm skeptical that the CO2 is the "answer" for everything and I definitely don't believe in the climate apocalypse.
Thanks for your answer. I do enjoy your posts.
Cheers.
P2 While it is true that Milankovich cycles are not causing today's warming, there is a problem with completely taking out the sun from the discussion: most media produce articles and above all HEADLINES that attribute any event directly to climate change (even the Valencia floods…While the place has been flooding for ever). And when you look at EVENTS and not climate (which is measured over 30 years) you have to look at what incident may cause such a (sudden/unexpected etc) event. But most media usually prefers to ignore any relationship and settle for ‘scientists say’. But when you look INTO the studies it's all modelling, modelling, modelling. And every now and then something like this happens:
Utrecht University 2021:
Current climate model simulations overestimate future sea-level rise by 25% https://bit.ly/3H3JsSp
Oops. And the only reason they found it was because they had the opportunity for the first time to work with a powerful high resolution model.
We have seen extraordinarily warm years in 2023 and 2024 (ocean temps are rapidly cooling since, btw but THAT you wont read in fat headers - hello Guardian). And what have we seen just these past few years? A historically huge El Nino https://tinyurl.com/4mrhstrm, the Hunga volcano and this…’However, the solar cycle has broad latitudinal patterns that cause significant variations for both global mean temperature and ozone, and recent changes are important as it has been near its maximum phase after 2022’
( https://tinyurl.com/mp3pxdh ).
So we have had lots of events that became ‘climate’ when they were reported. Including:
'Underwater volcanoes do absolutely nothing to change the climate'
Here you’re using - again - pretty clear tactics. But you’re not the only trained scientist who revert to those. This is how it works: the commenter points at the relationship between volcanoes and temperature and you make of that 'volcanoes and climate'. Two entirely different subjects…But that makes for easy ‘debating’ no? Tying his words to the most exotic fringes of the discussion…’Hey look guys, I'm correcting an idiot’.
As for volcanoes, temperature and events (events, not ‘climate’) - the nice thing about the below study is that is is not reliant on models only. The model simulations and the observations match):
Long-Term Temperature Impacts of the Hunga Volcanic Eruption in the Stratosphere and Above https://tinyurl.com/52nuwekt
‘Global average stratospheric temperatures cooled by 0.5–1.0 K during 2022–2023, following the Hunga volcanic eruption. This impact is mainly due to radiative cooling from H2O injected to the stratosphere by Hunga, and the observed cooling patterns rise in altitude over time following the H2O plume. There is quantitative agreement between MLS satellite observations and WACCM simulations for this behavior…
…Appropriately accounting for the transient Hunga cooling effects in the stratosphere may be important for quantifying long-term evolution of stratospheric temperatures in response to GHG and ODS changes’.
For fun’s sake let’s include this:
‘The time series also show impacts of the 11 year solar cycle at upper levels’ https://tinyurl.com/22vjancw.
Of course, many would happily cry out ‘God, another idiot! He is posting evidence of cooling (sic) by the Hunga volcano, not warming’.
But, like any trained scientist, and especially the trained solar specialists among us, we all had to immediately think of the well known anti-correlation between the higher and lower atmosphere.
Why the lower stratosphere cools when the troposphere warms
https://tinyurl.com/2s3wwu2r
And vice versa.
Speaking of idiots…
The Germans have attracted most attention as they are enthusiastically and successfully dismantling their economy.
But the biggest basket case is the UK. It has narrowly avoided black outs the past 6 months and the risks are ever more imminent. While it is operating from a much more feeble economic basis than the Germans.
And that’s WITH the Norwegians and Swedes still on the EU grid. But after just a few years of interconnectivity they’re fed up with the destabilizing efforts of weirdos like the UK and DE who exist - for now - in a parallel reality. And they’re going to see how they can disconnect from the Anglo- and Teuton mess.
One analyst to follow is Kathryn Porter of Watt Logic. She was on Unherd a few weeks ago. That’s a well spent hour (if you’re a realist of course, I don't want to rain acid on others’ totemic pleasantries).
Unherd Will blackouts come to Britain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjl_HjEL3Sc&t=946s
New report: Blackout risks in the GB grid
https://watt-logic.com/2025/02/02/blackout-risks-in-the-gb-grid/
P1 Mmm, climate worries legitimise bad faith arguments?
Yes they do, you see it all the time.
Example:
'Stating that human greenhouse gas emissions...do not cause climate change'
Show me where he said that.
You can't, because he didn't. He merely indicates that there are several causes of temp rises. Which is true. But it makes for convenient ‘debating’ doesn’t it? You’re basically calling him stupid.
But first, let’s start with where you finished. With this…
‘Once a scientific result has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, science moves on and tackles new problems’.
…You put yourself in the ‘average-social-media-commenter’ bracket. There, that statement is made all the time. Apparently it has meaning on social media. But let me give you just one example. Here’s what surprised trained scientists (yes, I'm going to rub it in) last year. They always believed, pardon, they knew, that heat and heat only causes evaporation. And then, in 2024:
‘...MIT has demonstrated that heat isn’t alone in causing water to evaporate. Light, striking the water’s surface where air and water meet, can break water molecules away and float them into the air, causing evaporation in the absence of any source of heat.
The astonishing new discovery could have a wide range of significant implications. It could help explain mysterious measurements over the years of how sunlight affects clouds, and therefore affect calculations of the effects of climate change on cloud cover and precipitation’.
From: How light can vaporize water without the need for heat
‘Surprising “photomolecular effect” discovered by MIT researchers could affect calculations of climate change and may lead to improved desalination and drying processes’.
https://tinyurl.com/y5vbb7s3
So ‘moving on’ in science all too often means completely changing past knowledge.
Of course, like the Amish, one can stick to a settled state but I'd not advise that for science. But heed David Bowie’s words when he Move(d) on. Since it often finds you (and even trained scientists)…
Feeling like a shadow
Drifting like a leaf
While you:
stumble like a blind man.
Anyway,it is true that 97% of all trained scientists say that temperatures are rising and that the climate is changing (another social media truth and truthbomb to some) - Though the concept of global average temp is ridiculous since it's mainly Europe and the arctic which are heating up significantly - unfortunately the average reader (and those who still watch tv) are so uninformed that they believe arctic ice melting will cause sea levels to rise).
But no scientist and no climate model (I understand how economists fall for them) is capable of disentangling all the influences and say: this does that, and that does this. On top of that: clouds are hardly represented in models and the ocean currents aren't at all. Two massive influences. We have 20 years of accurate (satellite) data on ocean current temperatures (sic), we have sort of an idea of short- and long term current cycli, but hów they interact on a global scale is far beyond our knowledge right now.
But that does not deter scientists and reporters from all the hopeless attempts at 'proving' that the AMOC is collapsing. And then a few months later the Gulf stream ‘collapses then and then’ (99% of newspaper subscribers could not tell you the difference between AMOC, PDO or the Gulf stream. Or El Nino’s and La Nina’s reverse global effects for that matter. Nor locate them on a map. And neither can most reporters - have you noticed the staggering amount of ‘journalists’ who’ve moved in their careers from writing on ‘media’ to ‘sports’ to ‘economics’ to ‘politics’ to ‘climate & environment’? How brilliantly versatile are these people? Or do they just serve up stuff without being able to really understand it? But anyway, for them, ‘scientists say’ will suffice - also for the scientists themselves btw).
Part 2 next
Money follow the policies dictated by politicians. That's not new and it will continue to be the same in the future. It's not lobby's only, it's subsidies that were given to renewables.
In Germany for example, how much money they spent in renewables/net zero ideology? And now they are burning COAL! Again, COAL... Don't tell that this was done by climate deniers lobbying!
Big institutions want money! that axiomatic.
The top two charts suggest the tables had turned somewhat though with pro-climate lobbying beating anti-climate, or at least a draw.
Yes, indeed. More recently, the pro-climate lobbyists won out and spent more on lobbying than the anti-climate lobbyists.
It's perverse that a) fossil fuel companies are still being subsidised by taxpayers, b) fossil fuel companies are using government subsidies for lobbying creating a vicious circle of omnicide and ecocide.