I’m pleased to say I referred to Dr Willie Soon’s analysis of the rural temperature record (avoiding Urban Heat Island warming bias) for the past 150 years and the corresponding changes in solar activity which reached the obvious conclusion that it's the sun, not CO2 that drives global temperatures. See “Debunking the climate change hoax”, kindly hosted by our host: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Apart from the first pair using the shortest and oldest estimation period 1850-1899 when things weren't that sophisticated there's very little difference between land and rural. And this paper only refers to the North Hemisphere. There are now 32,000 stations across the world making the sharp drop in rural land readings at the beginning of the 1900s (as cities encroached on them) less significant. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/response-to-john-dees-nonsense?utm_source=publication-search
The final and longest estimation period 1850-1999 when the IPCC and scientists had learnt a lot about accurate recording shows that they now outperform Soon's predications (which we're not sure how he arrived at as he's not peer reviewed).
When plotted against observations the predictions of the IPCC (which do not come in simple lines like this- I'm unclear whether Soon's taken these from one study or the average that the IPCC uses- they should also include the variance lines of all the different studies included and perhaps this cherry picked study was for worst case scenario of co2 emissions) then good alignment is seen https://jowaller.substack.com/p/burning-fossil-fuels-is-the-plan?utm_source=publication-search
If you come to the conclusion that cherry picking selected periods of solar activity (we're not sure how arrived at) and temperature and showing that they are more accurate in some cases than (one?) prediction using co2, volcanic and solar means that the sun is driving the rise in global temperatures thats accelerated since the 1980s as solar activity has declined then I'm afraid it doesn't say much about your scientific credentials.
And if this is a rehash of the Urban heat warming bias nonsense then;
'Temp record is unreliable
"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)
A few years ago in the USA, an online project was launched with its participants taking photos of some American weather stations. The idea behind it was to draw attention to stations thought to be badly-sited for the purpose of recording temperature. The logic behind this, they thought, was that if temperature records from a number of U.S. sites could be discredited, then global warming could be declared a hoax. Never mind that the U.S. is a relatively small portion of the Earth;s surface. And what about all the other indicators pointing firmly at warming? Huge reductions in sea ice, poleward migrations of many species, retreating glaciers, rising seas - that sort of thing. None of these things apparently mattered if part of the picture could be shown to be flawed.
But they forgot one thing. Professional climate scientists already knew a great deal about things that can cause outliers in temperature datasets. One example will suffice. When compiling temperature records, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies goes to great pains to remove any possible influence from things like the urban heat island effect. That effect describes the fact that densely built-up parts of cities are likely
to be a bit warmer due to all of that human activity.
How they do this is to take the urban temperature trends and compare them to the rural trends of the surrounding countryside. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches
the rural trend – thereby removing that urban effect. This is not 'tampering' with data: it's a tried and tested method of removing local outliers from regional trends to get more realistic results but differences were small in amount. Even more surprisingly, a significant number of urban trends were cooler relative to their country surroundings. But that's because weather stations are often sited in relatively cool areas within a city, such as parks. Finally, there have been independent analyses of global temperature datasets that had very similar results to NASA. 'Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures' study (BEST) is a well-known example and was carried out at the University of California, starting in 2010
The observed heating cannot be due to the sun as this would warm the surface of the earth as well as warm the stratosphere. Whereas the observed warming is of the surface and cooling of stratosphere- which was predicted along if co2 emissions (and cutting down trees for animal ag pasture and crops preventing sequestration) were causing the warming.
And urban temperature bias isn't really a problem as 90% of the heat is absorbed in the ocean where stations don't suffer from urbanisation.
I can't make head nor tale of this paper but I do know that taking short periods of observed data to make predictions is bound to cause issues. That's why the IPCC use paleo climate estimates, observations (as Soon does, leading to lower estimates of warming) as well as models using equations of the known impact of co2 (taking into account solar activity and volcanoes) to predict scenarios of various human emissions. They have been remarkably accurate so far.
Hi Jo. The most obvious problem with your analysis is that you use corrupt establishment temperature series which have been doctored to fake relentless global warming, e.g. your postscript1 graph and the UK Met Office series you show in your main post. You can get the measure of how blatantly the Met Office lies and cheats to propagandise alleged man-made global warming from this compilation of articles: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/?s=met+office.
All the corrupt, retrospectively-adjusted establishment temperature series such as NASA’s GISTEMP have been faked to show relentlessly rising global temperatures, with the latest temperatures easing off only slightly: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Such faked graphs are used by climate propagandists like yourself to say things like “as global temperatures continue to rise”.
In contrast, the uncorrupted UAH temperature series shows a completely different picture of a series of transient natural ENSO spikes since 1998 with the current unprecedented natural spike slowly dissipating, caused by the massive Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which the establishment hides from the general public: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2025_v6.1_20x9-1-scaled.jpg
If, repeat if, the current UAH warming spike dissipates fully, and why shouldn’t it like all the other transient natural spikes since the series started in 1979, the graph will show miniscule net global warming since 1998, if any.
Spencer and Christie made a mathematical error in their satellite calculations that showed cooling instead of warming, excusing themselves that it was only one error (though there were others). It was significant in that it kick started the skeptical movement. We assume it was a genuine error though Spencer received $4000 from the coal industry to present to congress, only revealed as the Peabody trust filed for bankruptcy, so is this there more funding?
The UAH admitted the world was indeed warming so skeptics jumped to the RSS graph, which showed slight cooling instead, this graph was shown everywhere by the establishment. However, in 2017 RSS found the error in their data; the satellite data did in fact show...warming.
It's not a plot by conspirators to change the data. Spencer and Christie themselves published corrections in 92, 94, 97,98, 2003, 2004, adjusting tropospheric temperature upwards, as well as accepting RSS correction of their own data in 2005 and of RSS data in 2017.
Spencer didn't want to drop his theory so looked for other reasons for warming. But eventually admitted most of it was probably caused by co2. He admits to 1.5 to 2 degrees for doubling of co2.
Yes, we were cooling until the industrial revolution, solar activity is declining (nothing is ignored by climate scientists!), we should be back in another glacial period ('ice age') caused by orbital cyles in another 20,000 years; without human activity we should be getting colder.
Expect anyone with a brain can see we're getting warmer.
Heehee even Roy Spencer admitted his 'uncorrupted' UAH satelite data was wrong and is actually in line with other warming, as is the RSS. Of course there are ENSO spikes of course Hunga Tonga is not being ignored but only accounts of about 0.3 degrees of warming and even Roy admits that Co2 is probably responsible for most of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29QDGEJC1fg
Well, considering a computer model was implemented in the PLAN/SCAMdemic ploy, to such success, I see no reason why such an approach to achieve their goal won't be harnessed, yet again.
Computers are relatively simple to operate...garbage in, garbage out.
The radiation of solar activity that affects the temperature most is probably the amount of radiation, but internal nuclear fusion fluctuations are completely unobservable. It seems that it can be estimated in 1 billion years, but it cannot be predicted in 100 years.
At the moment, it seems that only the extreme observation of the sunspot count on the surface is likely to have an 11-year cycle and a few hundred years.
The percentage of solar energy that reaches the Earth is calculated to be approximately 0.000000445% of the total.
It is certain that the solar nuclear fusion↑→temperature↑, and in theory, there is a temperature↓ in areas in the galaxy where the sun is located with a lot of interstellar gas, and if it is thin, there is a temperature↑. But this is also unobservable.
Although we don't know the most important Mechanism or the activity data, COPnn (UN Climate Change Conference) say caused by CO2.
Therefore, there are someones who are in the shadows, like Bill Gates in vaccines.
I follow a guy who posts under the name Inigo Jones on Facebook and Telegram. He specialises in long term forecasting, His methodology works around the relative positions of the planets and their elliptical paths around the sun, and the work of one W D Gann, apparently a very successful investor back in the early 1900s.
It's worth a look, if only because he seems a hell of a lot more accurate that our weather gurus at the BOM here in Australia
The “climate models” overestimate global warming by 10F to 20F. Actual global temperatures have remained steady. Over the last 30 years, worldwide average temperature has varied less than 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F).
As one with an advanced degree in atmospheric science and decades of more extensive self-training in critical thinking; it's hard to get my head around the notion that the concentration of a gas that makes up such a tiny % of the atmosphere and even "greenhouse" gases could have a more significant impact than other much greater factors.
Climate has always been changing, and we're coming out a cool period in the history of the planet. Some prehistoric eras were much, much hotter, pushing land animal life near total extinction. So global warming should come as no surprise.
If thatre's any things humans are doing to warm the globe prematurely, first things that come to mind are urbanization and refrigeration, the latter of which producing more heat than it takes out of conditioned spaces.
The one thing that always amazes me about the whole climate cult is the fact that weather forecasters cannot forecast what the weather is going to do in the next couple of days accurately, and weather forecasting varies *wildly* between different forecasters. As a gardener, I need to keep an eye on the weather and I use multiple different applications to do so. NONE of them are ever on the nose. I only use the forecasts to get an "idea" of what the weather is going to do. That being said, we are somehow supposed to believe that the same "scientists" that haven't perfected weather forecasting for the next day or week, somehow are able to tell us what the weather is going to be like decades into the future?? Climate change is a scam. Along with the "vaccine" agenda, it has been used to scare and control populations. The weather has been used as a tool to keep people in line for centuries, if not thousands of years. There was a time when Chieftains, cult leaders, etc would threaten their people with scary weather events if the people didn't do what they were told, sacrifice to their gods, etc. Man, have we regressed or what? We are doing the same thing right now. People scared to death of the weather gods, the germ gods, etc. We have a lot of work ahead of us. Unfortunately, I really don't see much changing in the next couple of decades. The people are under a spell and I don't know what it's going to take to break it.
a) deliberately chose the highest prediction of warming for no mitigation of co2, the majority of predictions show 0.18 degrees per decade but some show double this- that's why the average is taken
b) deliberately chose 'off-sample' sites that don't show warming until 2000 to compare to
c) immediately comment for reliability of models for policy (as repeated in you headline)- not the purview of scientists, but pleasing to his fossil fuel sponsors.
This all shows how money, propaganda and AI can give the wrong end of the stick if you haven't got the sense to use your brain to look into yourself.
If it is degrees on the y axis I know of no predictions that show 5 degrees of warming above observed before 2010 let alone 2100 so I don't know where he's getting this prediction model from.
Aside from the fact that Science of Climate Change is open to anyone, is not peer reviewed and accepts donations 'Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate ‘debate’. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication). He is a frequent speaker at the fossil fuel industry funded Heartland Institute conferences (https://jowaller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute?utm_source=publication-search), and can be counted on to produce a contrarian take on any particular issue that anyone might care about – ranging from climate, to mercury in fish and polar bear population dynamics.
Recently, there has been a renewed focus on how much money Willie Soon has taken from fossil fuel companies for his ‘research’ (over a $1 million dollars).'
Yes 'climate science' seems to have been corrupted to safeguard a lot of folks' jobs, social status, power, money, etc. See too 'COVID'. Some of the 'fixing of the figures', e.g. by the Met Office, seems as disturbing as ONS's lying with statistics was in 2021.
In Steve Koonin's book 'Unsettled' 2022 he draws attention to charts indicating that the official narrative should at least be questioned. He pleads for scientific integrity at the front of the book ... goodness, who could he be referring to?
Based on the information therein, what if it's partly human-induced and partly natural? That's just as likely as 'either/or'. Certainty in science makes me suspicious.
People might also like to follow blogs/websites such as Consciousness of Sheep, Surplus Energy Economics, Our Finite World, The Honest Sorcerer, The Great Simplification, etc. 'Infinite' growth on a finite planet will stop at some point, especially if cheap (high-EROEI) surplus energy declines, as it is doing. This is deeply inconvenient for TPTB, especially for central bankers.
Yeah climate science has been smeared been reported misleadingly to safeguard a. lot of folks' (in power industries with huge lobbying power like arms, fossil fuels, animal ag (pharma's biggest client by far), banks and tech) jobs, social status, power money etc.
They deliberately linked the 'covid' debacle to climate and a plot to control us and stop as consuming so much (as if!).
Cue this piece by Justin Haskins (editorial director of fossil fuel funded professional climate crisis deniers the Heartland where Willie Soon is a frequent speaker) in The Hill published in December 2020;
‘In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.
The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.
As World Economic Forum (WEF) head ( the creator of this vanity project) Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed (He’s clearly a megalomaniacal mad man).
The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).'
If there is such a plot, I have to say it's going really badly- BP alone made its shareholders $7 billion in one year 2024.
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.[11] As is standard for externally funded researchers at the CfA, over half of this funding went on the Smithsonian's facility operating costs, with the remainder going to Soon as his salary
I’m pleased to say I referred to Dr Willie Soon’s analysis of the rural temperature record (avoiding Urban Heat Island warming bias) for the past 150 years and the corresponding changes in solar activity which reached the obvious conclusion that it's the sun, not CO2 that drives global temperatures. See “Debunking the climate change hoax”, kindly hosted by our host: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Apart from the first pair using the shortest and oldest estimation period 1850-1899 when things weren't that sophisticated there's very little difference between land and rural. And this paper only refers to the North Hemisphere. There are now 32,000 stations across the world making the sharp drop in rural land readings at the beginning of the 1900s (as cities encroached on them) less significant. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/response-to-john-dees-nonsense?utm_source=publication-search
The final and longest estimation period 1850-1999 when the IPCC and scientists had learnt a lot about accurate recording shows that they now outperform Soon's predications (which we're not sure how he arrived at as he's not peer reviewed).
When plotted against observations the predictions of the IPCC (which do not come in simple lines like this- I'm unclear whether Soon's taken these from one study or the average that the IPCC uses- they should also include the variance lines of all the different studies included and perhaps this cherry picked study was for worst case scenario of co2 emissions) then good alignment is seen https://jowaller.substack.com/p/burning-fossil-fuels-is-the-plan?utm_source=publication-search
If you come to the conclusion that cherry picking selected periods of solar activity (we're not sure how arrived at) and temperature and showing that they are more accurate in some cases than (one?) prediction using co2, volcanic and solar means that the sun is driving the rise in global temperatures thats accelerated since the 1980s as solar activity has declined then I'm afraid it doesn't say much about your scientific credentials.
And if this is a rehash of the Urban heat warming bias nonsense then;
'Temp record is unreliable
"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)
A few years ago in the USA, an online project was launched with its participants taking photos of some American weather stations. The idea behind it was to draw attention to stations thought to be badly-sited for the purpose of recording temperature. The logic behind this, they thought, was that if temperature records from a number of U.S. sites could be discredited, then global warming could be declared a hoax. Never mind that the U.S. is a relatively small portion of the Earth;s surface. And what about all the other indicators pointing firmly at warming? Huge reductions in sea ice, poleward migrations of many species, retreating glaciers, rising seas - that sort of thing. None of these things apparently mattered if part of the picture could be shown to be flawed.
But they forgot one thing. Professional climate scientists already knew a great deal about things that can cause outliers in temperature datasets. One example will suffice. When compiling temperature records, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies goes to great pains to remove any possible influence from things like the urban heat island effect. That effect describes the fact that densely built-up parts of cities are likely
to be a bit warmer due to all of that human activity.
How they do this is to take the urban temperature trends and compare them to the rural trends of the surrounding countryside. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches
the rural trend – thereby removing that urban effect. This is not 'tampering' with data: it's a tried and tested method of removing local outliers from regional trends to get more realistic results but differences were small in amount. Even more surprisingly, a significant number of urban trends were cooler relative to their country surroundings. But that's because weather stations are often sited in relatively cool areas within a city, such as parks. Finally, there have been independent analyses of global temperature datasets that had very similar results to NASA. 'Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures' study (BEST) is a well-known example and was carried out at the University of California, starting in 2010
If you have longer this is well worth a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv0MUbIxvwY&t=960s
The observed heating cannot be due to the sun as this would warm the surface of the earth as well as warm the stratosphere. Whereas the observed warming is of the surface and cooling of stratosphere- which was predicted along if co2 emissions (and cutting down trees for animal ag pasture and crops preventing sequestration) were causing the warming.
And urban temperature bias isn't really a problem as 90% of the heat is absorbed in the ocean where stations don't suffer from urbanisation.
I can't make head nor tale of this paper but I do know that taking short periods of observed data to make predictions is bound to cause issues. That's why the IPCC use paleo climate estimates, observations (as Soon does, leading to lower estimates of warming) as well as models using equations of the known impact of co2 (taking into account solar activity and volcanoes) to predict scenarios of various human emissions. They have been remarkably accurate so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjusrpiU16k just a short video well worth your time.
So why has temperature still being going up since the 80s yet solar activity has been going down? Eh Dougie? Numero 1 in the postscript https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search
Hi Jo. The most obvious problem with your analysis is that you use corrupt establishment temperature series which have been doctored to fake relentless global warming, e.g. your postscript1 graph and the UK Met Office series you show in your main post. You can get the measure of how blatantly the Met Office lies and cheats to propagandise alleged man-made global warming from this compilation of articles: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/?s=met+office.
All the corrupt, retrospectively-adjusted establishment temperature series such as NASA’s GISTEMP have been faked to show relentlessly rising global temperatures, with the latest temperatures easing off only slightly: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Such faked graphs are used by climate propagandists like yourself to say things like “as global temperatures continue to rise”.
In contrast, the uncorrupted UAH temperature series shows a completely different picture of a series of transient natural ENSO spikes since 1998 with the current unprecedented natural spike slowly dissipating, caused by the massive Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which the establishment hides from the general public: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2025_v6.1_20x9-1-scaled.jpg
If, repeat if, the current UAH warming spike dissipates fully, and why shouldn’t it like all the other transient natural spikes since the series started in 1979, the graph will show miniscule net global warming since 1998, if any.
It remains to be seen if and when predicted cyclical global cooling takes over, in the form of the cold phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (disgracefully ignored by the establishment) https://x.com/WorldClimateSvc/status/1580989087519223810 and/or a severe Grand Solar Minimum (also ignored by the establishment) https://iainhunter.substack.com/p/the-grand-solar-minimum-is-here.
Spencer and Christie made a mathematical error in their satellite calculations that showed cooling instead of warming, excusing themselves that it was only one error (though there were others). It was significant in that it kick started the skeptical movement. We assume it was a genuine error though Spencer received $4000 from the coal industry to present to congress, only revealed as the Peabody trust filed for bankruptcy, so is this there more funding?
The UAH admitted the world was indeed warming so skeptics jumped to the RSS graph, which showed slight cooling instead, this graph was shown everywhere by the establishment. However, in 2017 RSS found the error in their data; the satellite data did in fact show...warming.
It's not a plot by conspirators to change the data. Spencer and Christie themselves published corrections in 92, 94, 97,98, 2003, 2004, adjusting tropospheric temperature upwards, as well as accepting RSS correction of their own data in 2005 and of RSS data in 2017.
Spencer didn't want to drop his theory so looked for other reasons for warming. But eventually admitted most of it was probably caused by co2. He admits to 1.5 to 2 degrees for doubling of co2.
Yes, we were cooling until the industrial revolution, solar activity is declining (nothing is ignored by climate scientists!), we should be back in another glacial period ('ice age') caused by orbital cyles in another 20,000 years; without human activity we should be getting colder.
Expect anyone with a brain can see we're getting warmer.
Heehee even Roy Spencer admitted his 'uncorrupted' UAH satelite data was wrong and is actually in line with other warming, as is the RSS. Of course there are ENSO spikes of course Hunga Tonga is not being ignored but only accounts of about 0.3 degrees of warming and even Roy admits that Co2 is probably responsible for most of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29QDGEJC1fg
But fossil fuel funded Willie's not lying?
Well, considering a computer model was implemented in the PLAN/SCAMdemic ploy, to such success, I see no reason why such an approach to achieve their goal won't be harnessed, yet again.
Computers are relatively simple to operate...garbage in, garbage out.
You mean you can't just fit the model to all existing data and call it a day?
The radiation of solar activity that affects the temperature most is probably the amount of radiation, but internal nuclear fusion fluctuations are completely unobservable. It seems that it can be estimated in 1 billion years, but it cannot be predicted in 100 years.
At the moment, it seems that only the extreme observation of the sunspot count on the surface is likely to have an 11-year cycle and a few hundred years.
The percentage of solar energy that reaches the Earth is calculated to be approximately 0.000000445% of the total.
It is certain that the solar nuclear fusion↑→temperature↑, and in theory, there is a temperature↓ in areas in the galaxy where the sun is located with a lot of interstellar gas, and if it is thin, there is a temperature↑. But this is also unobservable.
Although we don't know the most important Mechanism or the activity data, COPnn (UN Climate Change Conference) say caused by CO2.
Therefore, there are someones who are in the shadows, like Bill Gates in vaccines.
Solar radiance runs on a roughly 1500 year irregular cycle apparently generated by three separate cyclical processes that occur in the Sun.
And if Einstein and all pre 1950 scientists were wrong…the earth temperature can be manipulated by faith….
I follow a guy who posts under the name Inigo Jones on Facebook and Telegram. He specialises in long term forecasting, His methodology works around the relative positions of the planets and their elliptical paths around the sun, and the work of one W D Gann, apparently a very successful investor back in the early 1900s.
It's worth a look, if only because he seems a hell of a lot more accurate that our weather gurus at the BOM here in Australia
Nuts.
That appears to be exactly what they're doing, a one size fits all, however, it's exempt from public scrutiny or criticism.
The c-19 cull was based on a video arcade game called, aptly, 'Contagion'!
More like climate models are useless because they are just guesses.
More like climate models are useless because they are based on false theories and are being manipulated to sell false cures for a nonexistent problem.
More like you've fallen for this nonsense from fossil fuels and animal ag that there is no problem. Take a look at Soon's funding.
Nope. False theories. Never accurately predicted anything, ever.
Yes they did. Climate models match with observations very well https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MjusrpiU16k
The “climate models” overestimate global warming by 10F to 20F. Actual global temperatures have remained steady. Over the last 30 years, worldwide average temperature has varied less than 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F).
Nuts.
As one with an advanced degree in atmospheric science and decades of more extensive self-training in critical thinking; it's hard to get my head around the notion that the concentration of a gas that makes up such a tiny % of the atmosphere and even "greenhouse" gases could have a more significant impact than other much greater factors.
Climate has always been changing, and we're coming out a cool period in the history of the planet. Some prehistoric eras were much, much hotter, pushing land animal life near total extinction. So global warming should come as no surprise.
If thatre's any things humans are doing to warm the globe prematurely, first things that come to mind are urbanization and refrigeration, the latter of which producing more heat than it takes out of conditioned spaces.
Yes, weather is local and less predictable. Climate models of global composites and averages of models have done very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv0MUbIxvwY&t=960s
Yes cities are hotter but 90% of the warming is in the oceans.
The one thing that always amazes me about the whole climate cult is the fact that weather forecasters cannot forecast what the weather is going to do in the next couple of days accurately, and weather forecasting varies *wildly* between different forecasters. As a gardener, I need to keep an eye on the weather and I use multiple different applications to do so. NONE of them are ever on the nose. I only use the forecasts to get an "idea" of what the weather is going to do. That being said, we are somehow supposed to believe that the same "scientists" that haven't perfected weather forecasting for the next day or week, somehow are able to tell us what the weather is going to be like decades into the future?? Climate change is a scam. Along with the "vaccine" agenda, it has been used to scare and control populations. The weather has been used as a tool to keep people in line for centuries, if not thousands of years. There was a time when Chieftains, cult leaders, etc would threaten their people with scary weather events if the people didn't do what they were told, sacrifice to their gods, etc. Man, have we regressed or what? We are doing the same thing right now. People scared to death of the weather gods, the germ gods, etc. We have a lot of work ahead of us. Unfortunately, I really don't see much changing in the next couple of decades. The people are under a spell and I don't know what it's going to take to break it.
Yes, weather is local and less predictable. Climate models of global composites and averages of models have done very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv0MUbIxvwY&t=960s
LIKE
REPLY
What Willie Wonka has done is
a) deliberately chose the highest prediction of warming for no mitigation of co2, the majority of predictions show 0.18 degrees per decade but some show double this- that's why the average is taken
b) deliberately chose 'off-sample' sites that don't show warming until 2000 to compare to
c) immediately comment for reliability of models for policy (as repeated in you headline)- not the purview of scientists, but pleasing to his fossil fuel sponsors.
This all shows how money, propaganda and AI can give the wrong end of the stick if you haven't got the sense to use your brain to look into yourself.
If it is degrees on the y axis I know of no predictions that show 5 degrees of warming above observed before 2010 let alone 2100 so I don't know where he's getting this prediction model from.
Aside from the fact that Science of Climate Change is open to anyone, is not peer reviewed and accepts donations 'Willie Soon is a name that pops up every so often in climate ‘debate’. He was the lead author on the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (the only paper that has ever led to the resignation of 6 editors in protest at the failure of peer-review that led to its publication). He is a frequent speaker at the fossil fuel industry funded Heartland Institute conferences (https://jowaller.substack.com/p/what-is-the-heartland-institute?utm_source=publication-search), and can be counted on to produce a contrarian take on any particular issue that anyone might care about – ranging from climate, to mercury in fish and polar bear population dynamics.
Recently, there has been a renewed focus on how much money Willie Soon has taken from fossil fuel companies for his ‘research’ (over a $1 million dollars).'
Yes 'climate science' seems to have been corrupted to safeguard a lot of folks' jobs, social status, power, money, etc. See too 'COVID'. Some of the 'fixing of the figures', e.g. by the Met Office, seems as disturbing as ONS's lying with statistics was in 2021.
In Steve Koonin's book 'Unsettled' 2022 he draws attention to charts indicating that the official narrative should at least be questioned. He pleads for scientific integrity at the front of the book ... goodness, who could he be referring to?
Based on the information therein, what if it's partly human-induced and partly natural? That's just as likely as 'either/or'. Certainty in science makes me suspicious.
People might also like to follow blogs/websites such as Consciousness of Sheep, Surplus Energy Economics, Our Finite World, The Honest Sorcerer, The Great Simplification, etc. 'Infinite' growth on a finite planet will stop at some point, especially if cheap (high-EROEI) surplus energy declines, as it is doing. This is deeply inconvenient for TPTB, especially for central bankers.
Yeah climate science has been smeared been reported misleadingly to safeguard a. lot of folks' (in power industries with huge lobbying power like arms, fossil fuels, animal ag (pharma's biggest client by far), banks and tech) jobs, social status, power money etc.
They deliberately linked the 'covid' debacle to climate and a plot to control us and stop as consuming so much (as if!).
Cue this piece by Justin Haskins (editorial director of fossil fuel funded professional climate crisis deniers the Heartland where Willie Soon is a frequent speaker) in The Hill published in December 2020;
‘In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.
The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.
As World Economic Forum (WEF) head ( the creator of this vanity project) Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed (He’s clearly a megalomaniacal mad man).
The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).'
If there is such a plot, I have to say it's going really badly- BP alone made its shareholders $7 billion in one year 2024.
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.[11] As is standard for externally funded researchers at the CfA, over half of this funding went on the Smithsonian's facility operating costs, with the remainder going to Soon as his salary
Modelling and scientific consensus is their "Science".
Thanks Joel for the link to Soon et al paper...hope to find tim to add to the "climate change" timeline. There are more presentations by Willy within.
https://totalityofevidence.com/climate-change/
Soon 'et al' paper, get you, you realise it wasn't peer-reviewed.
Where is the attached audio from?