Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusi
Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and a slow response to global warming

Climate deniers have garnered far more media attention than prominent climate scientists over the years, fuelling public confusion and slowing the response to global warming, researchers reported Tuesday.

From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, and politicians who doubted global or attributed rising temperatures to "natural" causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often.

In reality, there has long been overwhelming agreement among that global warming—caused mainly by burning —poses a major threat to civilisation and much of life on Earth.

An increase of only one degree Celsius had triggered rising seas and a crescendo of deadly extreme weather, and Earth is on track to heat up another three degrees by century's end.

"Climate change contrarians have successfully organised a strong voice within politics and science communication," noted the authors, led by Alexander Petersen at the University of California at Merced.

"Such disproportionate media visibility of contrarian arguments and actors misrepresents the distribution of expert-based beliefs," they continued.

"It also undermines the credible authority of career change scientists and reinforces the trend of climate change contrarians presiding over public scientific discourse."

Over the last year, public concern over global warming has grown dramatically, sparked in part by an October UN report warning that only a wholesale overhaul of the global economy and consumption patterns can forestall climate chaos.

In Europe, green parties running on a platform of climate action gaining nearly two dozen seats in EU parliamentary elections. Climate protesters drawing from the civil disobedience playbook of Marin Luther King and Gandhi, meanwhile, have spilled into the streets.

Over the last year, public concern over global warming has grown dramatically, sparked in part by an October UN report warning t
Over the last year, public concern over global warming has grown dramatically, sparked in part by an October UN report warning that only a wholesale overhaul of the global economy and consumption patterns can forestall climate chaos

Sowing doubt

In the United States, a call for climate action has become a litmus test among Democratic candidates for president, and many young people have rallied around the legislative initiative known as the Green New Deal.

A handful of western governments have pledged to slash carbon emissions to "net zero" by mid-century.

But even today, established media continue to provide platforms for dubious or discredited assertions about global warming.

Last week, for example, US business magazine Forbes published an article on its website entitled "Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That is Not Easy To Reject".

The "alternative view"—that warming is caused by the Sun and not CO2 emissions—is thoroughly discredited, and the magazine was compelled within hours to remove the piece.

In testimony last month before the US Senate that took on confessional tones, long-time Republican Party strategist Frank Luntz revealed a key moment nearly 20 years ago in the campaign to blunt action against global warming.

"You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate," he told party operatives in a memo during George W. Bush's first term in office.

The disquieting term "", he further suggested, should be replaced with "climate change".

"I'm here before you to say that I was wrong in 2001," he told a Senate committee.

In the new study, Petersen and colleagues scanned 100,000 news items published from 2000 through 2016 for bylines, citations and mentions of 386 scientists, and 386 "contrarians".

"Tallying across all media sources we find climate change contrarian media visibility to be 49 percent greater than climate change visibility," they wrote.

The imbalance was made worse by the amplifying effect of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, they added.


Explore further

More sensitive climates are more variable climates, research shows

More information: Alexander Michael Petersen et al. Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians, Nature Communications (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-09959-4
Journal information: Nature Communications

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study (2019, August 14) retrieved 23 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-climate-deniers-media-scientists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
7265 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 14, 2019
Yes And all that spending over a $100 Million

The extend Human Induced Climate Change Deniers will go to preach their lies is beyond ludicrous !

https://www.green...ustries/

https://blog.ucsu...r-groups

https://www.clima...-health/

Aug 14, 2019
Another steaming load of AGW Cult bullshit.
Gobble up, Chicken Littles.

Aug 14, 2019
And here come the non-scientist, right on cue, with fancy words in their studies, like "ludicrous" and "bullshit".

Aug 14, 2019
Sorry You got my credentials wrong so that must make you ? Aaa... we know an Anti Science Gorilla (albeit his sockpuppet) ... but hey...keep trying, your downward spiraling image to the world has been growing at an unstoppable rate.

Aug 14, 2019
It can be said that claiming deniers of "climate change" got more "press" attention than those claiming "climate change" was occurring is an eminent demonstration of the witlessness and lemming like philosophical malleability of those accepting the "official story" about "climate change"! "Fossil fuel" generated "climate change" is the propaganda of choice of most of the "press" in the U.S.! It can be said any reference to denying "fossil fuel" generated "climate change" in the "press" has involved skepticism or mockery.
In fact, chemtrails, the government project of doping the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets producing long, non dissipating vapor lanes that stretch from horizon to horizon and can last for an hour or more is the cause of "climate change", not "fossil fuels".

Aug 14, 2019
Huh? Not a single climate denier article at phys .org, ever.

Endless alarmist news about climate worries, DAILY. What liars.

Aug 14, 2019
The problem is a lot deeper than some understand...or are willing to accept for that matter.

This may be quite rude to openly say but I'll brave it behind the veil of anonymity that is the internet:) lol. Through schooling the people I've associated with have all thought quite little of the intellectual prowess of students and those in the environmental sciences. Students that show true genius tend to head into math and math heavy fields in college, university etc. When a student wants a degree or doctorate and lacks in math skills, usually the route is through environmental sciences.

I think this is very the root of the problem STEMs for most people, tbh. How do you place your trust in the hands of the 97% of the community you don't really think much as critical thinkers to begin with?

This is not to say that geniuses don't exist within that community, but even geniuses can be wrong at times..

Aug 14, 2019
("The "alternative view"—that warming is caused by the Sun and not CO2 emissions—is thoroughly discredited. ") ... Please cite the study that proves the sun does not actually produce any warming effect on the earth... I would LOVE to read that one. The earth naturally produces greenhouse gasses on its own, much more than people do. Volcanoes, earthquakes and even the ocean emit billions of tons of the stuff.

And it is good to note that ALL the planets in our solar system are warming, not just the earth. That's a inconvenient fact that you eco-nazis love to ignore.

Aug 14, 2019
Anonum
Please cite the study that proves the sun does not actually produce any warming effect on the earth...
Nobody said that - did they Anonym? So talk about a strawman.
What scientists are actually saying - is that despite a slight drop in solar irradiance over the past 60 years or so - https://static.sk..._gpw.gif The earth is warming. So go figure Anonym - what is your explanation for that warming? On the subject of other planets warming - https://skeptical...hp?r=147

Aug 14, 2019
Huh? Not a single climate denier article at phys .org, ever.

Endless alarmist news about climate worries, DAILY. What liars.


That would be due to the climate deniers being scientifically challenged, and tending to only 'publish' their crap on YouTube and various wacko right wing woo sites. Science aggregates, like phys.org, tend not to scrape the barrel that far down in search of science news.

Aug 14, 2019
and tending to only 'publish' their crap on YouTube and various wacko right wing woo sites.


Oh BS, I never see climate change suggested in my youtube searches you dope.

Things are better than ever before in human history you meathead.

Aug 14, 2019
and tending to only 'publish' their crap on YouTube and various wacko right wing woo sites.


Oh BS, I never see climate change suggested in my youtube searches you dope.

Things are better than ever before in human history you meathead.


So, you cannot point to any decent science from these clowns? As expected. And if you've ever followed this idiocy, you'll know that these unqualified posers practically newer publish in the scientific literature. As I said - fruitloop right wing websites and YouTube. And I know this from experience of arguing with these tossers over the years. No science, just word salad. Designed to be swallowed up by people as dumb as they are.

https://thenextwe...istence/

Aug 14, 2019
wow, the bigger the lie the better eh ?

i wonder how many times the word 'Heller ' comes up in searches at cbc cnn
ie
https://www.cbc.ca/https://

www.cnn.com/searc...ersearch

zero times

Aug 14, 2019
"...news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—..." High standards of evidence? LOL. I'm surprised their keyboard didn't burst into flame after writing such a whopper.

Aug 14, 2019
"...news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—..." High standards of evidence? LOL. I'm surprised their keyboard didn't burst into flame after writing such a whopper.


The Telegraph doesn't surprise me. It is a right wing rag. However, I'm surprised by the Guardian.

Aug 14, 2019
Things are better than ever before in human history you meathead.


Hmmm, and why might that be? Science and scientists, perhaps? It sure as hell isn't politicians. Better medicine. Better transport. Better communications. Laptops, GPS, mobile phones, etc, etc. And yet when scientists tell the people that we are screwing up the planet with fossil fuels, the public know better! Due to being scientifically illiterate, for the most part, and getting conned by nutjobs, many of whom are funded by oil companies. As are a number of their politicians. So, who is being conned?

Aug 14, 2019
You are such an arrogant buffoon CastroJones.
Yes things are better because of science, not because of global warming alarmism.

Aug 14, 2019
As reality continues to defy the AGW Cult's dogma and their day of reckoning approaches, what is a desperate Cult to do?
Well, fabricate even more preposterous lies to silence the heretics.

Gobble up, Chicken Littles, there will lots of ice to wash it down with that special Kool-aid.

Aug 14, 2019
These Climate Change Advocates have called Wolf

Foreth
Whether we believe advocates or deniers
It does not alter this simple truth
Climate change advocates have called wolf

Fore, this is an impossible hurdle to surpass
There is this golden rule
When putting forward theories
That can apply to apposing points of view
Never overstate climate change with calamitous consequences

It ruins ones cause irrevocably

Aug 14, 2019
Huh? Not a single climate denier article at phys .org, ever.

Endless alarmist news about climate worries, DAILY. What liars.
says O_C_C

And yet, Al Gore and the rest of the rich humans want all the 'little people' who are not rich and influential to stop using fossil fuels, while Gore and the IPCC mob continue to fly in their luxury planes, drive or be driven in their luxury fossil-fueled cars, while they look down on the middle class workers of the world.
In the meantime, the cities in the USA that are run and controlled by the Leftist Socialist and AGW-concerned politicians are among the filthiest, drug infested and stinkiest cities in the world, with high-crime areas and homeless folks defecating in the streets.
Perhaps those who are so worried about AGW should go to those rat-infested cities in America and help to clean them up, and do something about the homeless before they allow anymore illegal immigrants into those cities and towns.

Aug 14, 2019
SEU, in all big cities
SEU> the cities in the USA that are run and controlled by the Leftist Socialist and AGW-concerned politicians are among the filthiest, drug infested and stinkiest cities in the world, with high-crime areas and homeless folks defecating in the streets

There are no go areas
where
people pretend to live on the street
for in reality, SEU
This is a ploy
for if you say
you are homeless
you are left to pretend to live on the street
as
if you have noticed, SEU
these people disappear for a while
where other people preserve their spot
because, SEU
these people have homes that they disappear to
foreth, SEU
if granville knoweths thiseth
in these idyllic Shires
where this world of which you speak are just fairy tales told in jest
SEU should also be conversant in the ways of these pretend street people
as
The same techniques are used the world over!

Aug 14, 2019
To quote a sage:
"Agree to disagree. That's what I like about Science. There's no one right answer."
also: wrt knowledge maps:
https://www.youtu...cj2MzPYc

Aug 14, 2019
How do you place your trust in the hands of the 97% of the community you don't really think much as critical thinkers to begin with?
Ever served on jury duty? The legal system is an excellent demonstration of ways that a combination of experts and the general community can work together to make important decisions, if system leadership wishes to include them. And there is more than individuals' critical thinking involved in public consensus. There's also a factor of efforts to persuade them.

Aug 14, 2019
When a student wants a degree or doctorate and lacks in math skills, usually the route is through environmental sciences.

Keep in mind that many (most?) of the prominent climate scientists don't come from environmental sciences, but from fields like chemistry, mathematics, physics, atmospheric sciences and other hard sciences.

This is not to say that geniuses don't exist within that community, but even geniuses can be wrong at times..

Actually, the basics of climate science are not that complicated. Certainly, enough is known to very confidently point out that: 1) The planet is warming, 2) It's primarily due to humans (mostly from CO2 release), 3) It will continue to heat up as more CO2 is released, 4) Climate change costs us a great deal right now, and 5) Those costs will greatly increase in the future.

Aug 14, 2019
@granville
There are some who are genuinely homeless. But the ones you speak of are basically "PANHANDLERS" who have an acquired habit of going around a city to beg for money. Their clothing gives them the appearance of really being 'down and out' and they get their share of the loot and then disappear. Some return to become beggars again, sometimes every day. I don't see the point in it since it's a dangerous pastime. It is possible to see them sometime later drinking in a pub, dressed in normal clothes.

About the only real concern I have for now is the toxins in the lakes and even in the ocean when there is 'red tide' or any kind of toxic algae growing. I fear for young people who go into those waters and swallow some of that water or get it up their nose. It is terrible stuff that can cause so much illness and even death. Even dogs who go into that contaminated water could die if they get it into their mouth. I wish that the gov here could do something about it.

Aug 15, 2019
Hmmm I notice that the usual objectors to fossil fuels have nothing to say concerning toxic algae in lakes and the ocean. Perhaps they consider toxic algae that can kill to be less of a dangerous issue than petrol in a car's engine?

Aug 15, 2019
The harder the punch in the guts for denialists, the greater the response in the comments section here. Keep it coming.

The question on why there are no denialist articles at this site made me laugh. This site presents science, as published in scientific journals. It's as simple as that. For denialist propaganda go somewhere else.

Aug 15, 2019
Perhaps if the CO2 levels weren't so high, the toxic algae blooms wouldn't have the CO2 that they need to grow into blooms! But a rebel coal-duster like you just loves that fossil fuel smoke dropped on us EV hugging scientist. JSFMS.
Hmmm I notice that the usual objectors to fossil fuels have nothing to say concerning toxic algae in lakes and the ocean. Perhaps they consider toxic algae that can kill to be less of a dangerous issue than petrol in a car's engine?

Just Speaking For My Self.

Aug 15, 2019
Deniers get more airplay than scientists, but compliant media shills who promote global warming theory get 99% more coverage than EITHER of the other groups get. Every liberal newspaper, online site and TV network promotes the idea of man-made global warming as real. Now much more coverage do they need?

Aug 15, 2019
All activists hath agenda's
SEU> Hmmm I notice that the usual objectors to fossil fuels have nothing to say concerning toxic algae in lakes and the ocean. Perhaps they consider toxic algae that can kill to be less of a dangerous issue than petrol in a car's engine?

Foreth, the climatic changeth activist's surely hath an agenda
Foreth thiseth agenda rides on the clameths of climateth changeths as a vehicle
Ineth thiseth vehicleth is the oneth only careth, the car
For it iseth noteth the fueleth thiseth careth burneths
Thateth theseth climateth changeths areth ineth disputeth
Foreth iteth is the car iteth it's self
Iteth iseth calleth communism
Climate change is a vehicle to remove the peoples mobility
Soeth thateth the downtrodeth peopleth
Haveth toeth be ateth the wimeths offeth publiceth transport
Foreth fellow commentators
If you do not know by know
Climate change activist are moving to take your wheels
Be them petrol or electric
You deserve to loose them!

Aug 15, 2019
Climate Change Advocates have called Wolf

This is an impossible hurdle to surpass
This golden rule
Never overstate your claim with calamitous consequences
It ruins ones cause irrevocably

Foreth
Amongst the wide variability of climate changers
There are good points that have to implemented
UNFORTUANTLY
For all the good there is in climate change, from the well intentioned

Climate Change Advocates have called Wolf
Thereby
Ruining Ones Cause Irrevocably

Aug 15, 2019
Trying to Mobiles Climate Change Support

For here we are, SEU
@granville
SEU> About the only real concern I have for now is the toxins in the lakes and even in the ocean when there is 'red tide' or any kind of toxic algae growing. I fear for young people who go into those waters and swallow some of that water or get it up their nose. It is terrible stuff that can cause so much illness and even death. Even dogs who go into that contaminated water could die if they get it into their mouth. I wish that the gov here could do something about it

Looked upon as climate change deniers
Discussing
This 'red tide' of toxins in the lakes and in the ocean's
Where you are wishing the government remedy the problem
Is unable to mobilise climate change support within the "the climate change government department"
Tis a sad day indeed: When climate change activists do not stand up to this climate plate!

Aug 15, 2019
C.f. the increased number of measles which similarly is caused by anti-vaccination populists - they and their irresponsibility are a pox on humanity.

Speaking of which:

And here come the non-scientist, right on cue, with fancy words in their studies, like "ludicrous" and "bullshit".


Dunno which you refer to (as I cannot read blocked comments) but those are not words used in studies. The only peer published studies so far are done by climate scientists, and notably there are no studies that can reject man made global warming.

When a student wants a degree or doctorate and lacks in math skills, usually the route is through environmental sciences.


That is irrelevant to facts and findings though, at worst they can slow progress: it is not an argument that rejects man made global warming. And I note it is anecdote, you cannot present statistics, so ironically it indicates a certain lack of "math skills" on your part.

- tbctd -

Aug 15, 2019
- ctd -

- Environmental science on one hand is interdisciplinary, so you will find physicists and computer scientists in it [ https://en.wikipe..._science ].

- Climate science on the other hand is a branch of atmospheric sciences/physical geology, one of the Earth sciences [ https://en.wikipe...matology ] which *heavily* relies on math. Weather prediction (atmosperic convection modeling) famously started chaos theory. Today it is rocket science due to Earth monitoring by satellites in US - in US helped and shaped by NASA [ https://climate.nasa.gov/ ].

I could go on, but it is obvious for everyone that you embody the Luntz' strategy even after he himself abandoned it: " continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue". Thank you, but no thank you - it's time to act, not to lack skills and/or accuse the experts of not having such.

Aug 15, 2019
And this is not even wrong:

That's what I like about Science. There's no one right answer.


What society and scientists like about science is that it produces useful answers, like the technology that enables the web. A useful answer is "right" and robust for what it is used for.

Gravity is a "right" answer, man made global warming is a "right" answer, since both are observable facts and those facts can be used (even if just to moot the harm that is following from AGW).

Aug 15, 2019
By the way, on the not even wrong comment, it referred to various media shows, not to science or even sundry authorities.

Which in some sense is consistent with the research hypothesis that media is influential and in another that it may be so because the average public does not know media and/or science.

Aug 15, 2019
''since both are observable facts and those facts ''

its an observable fact that temps are flat and that ''climate change'' is a criminal enterprise

Aug 15, 2019
here is the rebuttal from judith curry

https://judithcur...mVdyX3aA

Aug 15, 2019
You are such an arrogant buffoon CastroJones.
Yes things are better because of science, not because of global warming alarmism.


No alarmism, thicko. Science. Quite easy to understand science, at that. Ergo why most of the deniers seem to be scientifically illiterate, in my experience.

Aug 15, 2019
You are such an arrogant buffoon CastroJones.
Yes things are better because of science, not because of global warming alarmism.


No alarmism, thicko. Science. Quite easy to understand science, at that. Ergo why most of the deniers seem to be scientifically illiterate, in my experience.


Yes, there IS alarmism, jonesy. Emotional alarmism, not so much science. Most humans aren't terribly interested in any factual aspects of the intermittent warming and cooling of the Earth. They are too busy living their own lives to understand how the AGW cultists promote their indoctrination through the mainstream fake news in order to stir up the emotions of the unwary public who aren't that concerned with science (similar to YOU, jonesy).
The Earth is ALWAYS CHANGING, jonesy. If all of the active volcanos in the world started to blow and exude/emit huge amounts of deadly Methane, you and the rest of the AGW cult would STILL blame it on CO2 and fossil fuels.

Aug 15, 2019
Perhaps if the CO2 levels weren't so high, the toxic algae blooms wouldn't have the CO2 that they need to grow into blooms! But a rebel coal-duster like you just loves that fossil fuel smoke dropped on us EV hugging scientist. JSFMS.
Hmmm I notice that the usual objectors to fossil fuels have nothing to say concerning toxic algae in lakes and the ocean. Perhaps they consider toxic algae that can kill to be less of a dangerous issue than petrol in a car's engine?

Just Speaking For My Self.
says howhot3

The growth of toxic algae in lakes and oceans is caused by fertilizer runoff from farms and from cesspools and septic tanks that leach into waterways. Nothing to do with CO2 but plenty to do with bacteria. It is the bacteria that causes illness and death in human children and animals. But the AGW cult is not concerned about bacterial causes of illness and death. Only with a gas that is required by plants, trees and other vegetation to live and produce.

Aug 15, 2019
Yes, there IS alarmism, jonesy. Emotional alarmism, not so much science. Most humans aren't terribly interested in any factual aspects of the intermittent warming and cooling of the Earth. They are too busy living their own lives to understand how the AGW cultists promote their indoctrination through the mainstream fake news in order to stir up the emotions of the unwary public who aren't that concerned with science (similar to YOU, jonesy).
The Earth is ALWAYS CHANGING, jonesy. If all of the active volcanos in the world started to blow and exude/emit huge amounts of deadly Methane, you and the rest of the AGW cult would STILL blame it on CO2 and fossil fuels.


Stop talking crap, you scientifically illiterate poser.

Aug 15, 2019
No alarmism, thicko. Science. Quite easy to understand science,


Total alarmism, you've accomplished nothing Jones.

Go read a book.


Aug 16, 2019
Yes, there IS alarmism, jonesy. Emotional alarmism, not so much science. Most humans aren't terribly interested in any factual aspects of the intermittent warming and cooling of the Earth. They are too busy living their own lives to understand how the AGW cultists promote their indoctrination through the mainstream fake news in order to stir up the emotions of the unwary public who aren't that concerned with science (similar to YOU, jonesy).
The Earth is ALWAYS CHANGING, jonesy. If all of the active volcanos in the world started to blow and exude/emit huge amounts of deadly Methane, you and the rest of the AGW cult would STILL blame it on CO2 and fossil fuels.


Stop talking crap, you scientifically illiterate poser.
says Castrati

Poor jonesy. Still pretending to know ALL about the weather and gases in the atmosphere, oceans and what it is doing to the future of humans. Your silly "Stop talking crap, you blah blah blah and blah" means that you are CLUELESS.

Aug 16, 2019
The growth of toxic algae in lakes and oceans is caused by fertilizer runoff
Certainly part of the puzzle. Old code is not capable of understanding that things can have more than one influence.

https://www.epa.g...l-blooms

The oceans are warming - https://www.edf.o...i3fD_BwE


Aug 16, 2019
No alarmism, thicko. Science. Quite easy to understand science,


Total alarmism, you've accomplished nothing Jones.

Go read a book.



I don't need to accomplish anything, you uneducated clown! This is a comments section, dumbo. Science is not done here. It is done in the scientific literature. And you have lost the argument years since.

Aug 16, 2019
Poor jonesy. Still pretending to know ALL about the weather and gases in the atmosphere, oceans and what it is doing to the future of humans. Your silly "Stop talking crap, you blah blah blah and blah" means that you are CLUELESS.


I know far more about it than you do, lizard boy. Ditto with probably any scientific subject you care to mention. I am not the moron who claims to be an alien lizard!

Aug 17, 2019
The lack of low clouds, seeded by cosmic radiation (see: cloud condensation nuclei), is the primary reason for why there has been warming. CO2 has at most only caused 0.1C of warming over the past century, of which Man has contributed a mere 0.01C of the warming. The lion's share of the warming is still very much from the Sun. CO2's impact has been completely overblown; in reality, it's so negligible as to be irrelevant & not worth worrying about. Global warming/cooling is completely out of our control, since we cannot control the amount of cosmic radiation we receive, nor solar radiation we receive.

Aug 17, 2019
The lack of low clouds, seeded by cosmic radiation (see: cloud condensation nuclei), is the primary reason for why there has been warming. CO2 has at most only caused 0.1C of warming over the past century, of which Man has contributed a mere 0.01C of the warming. The lion's share of the warming is still very much from the Sun. CO2's impact has been completely overblown; in reality, it's so negligible as to be irrelevant & not worth worrying about. Global warming/cooling is completely out of our control, since we cannot control the amount of cosmic radiation we receive, nor solar radiation we receive.


Rubbish. Links to the papers, please.


Aug 18, 2019
There's a June 2019 paper on it, titled "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change" by Jyrki Kauppinen & Pekka Malmi.

Aug 18, 2019
So what? The hypothesis has been soundly rejected. Let's see a link to this "paper." I'd like to see who "peer reviewed" it and what predatory journal was paid to publish it.

Aug 18, 2019
Never mind, found it. It was never published in a peer reviewed source and has been labeled bullshit, as usual for liar denier "papers."

https://climatefe...warming/

They apparently got past the arXiv filters somehow, and the curators will doubtless fix that permanently.

Aug 18, 2019
Hahahah, and they have two "citations" to their own unpublished work, which obviously couldn't pass peer review since it never got published, and two more to sources outside the field. Always a warning sign.

Not to mention fake cloud coverage data. No source given, not even in the citations (except possibly their own unpublished papers, which no one bothered with).

All the liar deniers will be frothing about this and ignoring reality for another five years, and reposting it millions of times to try to pretend arXiv is "peer reviewed."

Then there's the fact that they don't seem to understand the difference between measurement and experiment.

Like I said, more liar denier bullshit.

Aug 18, 2019
Here, just to get all the hits in: https://www.iflsc...problem/

Aug 18, 2019
Now run back to all your butt buddies at Watts' site and tell them it's already been debunked.

Have fun.

Aug 18, 2019
The growth of toxic algae in lakes and oceans is caused by fertilizer runoff
Certainly part of the puzzle. Old code is not capable of understanding that things can have more than one influence.

https://www.epa.g...l-blooms

says green onions

Oh I think that O_C_C is well aware of it.
But that is my main concern; all that toxic algae that is also killing the fish and other aquatic animals in the waters that are infected with it. I don't believe that it is caused by AGW, mainly because it happens only in warm summer weather, never in winter when it is too cold for its growth. The algae has caused so many deaths of humans and animals. Sea life are getting washed onshore when the algae chokes them as it fills the water and removes Oxygen.
Animals such as seals and walrus are able to leave the water onto dry land; but the fish can't escape the algae. It's a bad situation.

Aug 18, 2019
Xenu isn't causing climate change.

Aug 18, 2019
@greeno

Nice link, but I think that they are attempting to tie algae blooms into AGW a bit too much. Toxic algae blooms have been occurring for thousands of years. It didn't just happen more recently. The algae, whether toxic or not, are naturally occurring and spread fast. They thrive on fertilizer runoffs from farms and septic tanks. There are even warnings to not breathe in the fumes where even the fumes could be carrying the bacteria.

Aug 18, 2019
Da Schneib, I read the article you linked and saw no refutation - just defensive skepticism & downplaying - which is to be expected from people who are invested in the CO2-centric "theory" of warming. The article you linked is a borderline smearjob, rather than a scholarly refutation; it's like something a tabloid might produce. Do better, please.

Aug 18, 2019
Poor jonesy. Still pretending to know ALL about the weather and gases in the atmosphere, oceans and what it is doing to the future of humans. Your silly "Stop talking crap, you blah blah blah and blah" means that you are CLUELESS.


I know far more about it than you do, lizard boy. Ditto with probably any scientific subject you care to mention. I am not the moron who claims to be an alien lizard!
says Castrovagina

I have NEVER CLAIMED to be an 'alien lizard'. Show the link where you have read it. And be quick about it.

Aug 18, 2019
I have just read in: https://phys.org/...ion.html
that mussels are natural filters for pollutants and bacteria in the waters of lakes, rivers and oceans. This is very good news, especially for my concerns about toxic algae growth that kill fish and other water life, as well sickening human children and pets, and sometimes causing their death.

Aug 18, 2019
What "the" article? I posted at least two. One of them was written by scientists and used references to well-known scholarly peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. Did you read that one? Because if that's the one you're referring to as a "smear job," you're just another bloviating liar denier.

Not to mention, you haven't addressed any of my other points, like most liar deniers don't.

Aug 18, 2019
Here's the one I'm talking about: https://climatefe...warming/

Meanwhile, turns out "Energy and Environment" (which two of the articles the authors of the paper you cited, without a link, cited, which are only published in that journal, which is classified as a sociology journal, not a scientific geophysics journal) not only has an impact factor of 0.93, 90th of 93 journals in sociology, but is noted for bad peer review, publishing out-of-the-mainstream articles, political bias of the editorial staff, and connection with known liar denier groups.

There's plenty more; bring it so I can make you look like the idiot you are.

Just to think about: the authors cited their own unpublished work, from arXiv. Apparently they're having trouble getting anyone, including predatory journal E&E, to publish anything they write any more.

ArXiv is not a peer reviewed journal.

Aug 18, 2019
Here's another article about this bullshit: https://davidappe...unk.html

Aug 18, 2019
See, here's the thing: real science gets peer reviewed, and if your pet journal gets accused of bad peer review, it isn't an opinion. And when your impact factor is 90th of 93, it's obvious that most scientists aren't interested in what you claim.

Another hit: E&E went bankrupt and got sold to SAGE, and now has a different editor. No idea if this person is a liar denier or not, but I bet he's more interested in increasing his impact factor, which gives a bottom line, than in trying to toe a political line. I could be wrong, but their publication history, peer review accuracy, and impact factor will tell the tale. Going bankrupt and getting sold kinda says it all.

Aug 18, 2019
The fact is that CO2 aka Carbon Dioxide gas is a major part of the "Circle of Life". Without CO2, life as we know it cannot exist. The gas is emitted from Life Forms such as human and animals, while plant life absorbs the gas and breaks it down and emits Oxygen. Then the Oxygen is inhaled by humans and animals and then again exhaling CO2 gas, which is then absorbed/utilised by plant life, producing Oxygen. And this amazing "Circle of Life" is continuous, enabling BOTH ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE to continue on without ceasing.

It is still even more amazing that AGW 'experts' would like to prevent the "Circle of Life" by REDUCING CO2 in the atmosphere - thus depriving plant life of their necessary CO2 gas - and depriving humans and animals their necessary Oxygen that is emitted from plant life.

It is mind-boggling to think that it is humans who are advocating for the destruction of this "Circle of Life" rather than increasing trees all over the world that would remove the CO2 from air.

Aug 18, 2019
This is of great interest:

https://climatech...-change/

So a team of Japanese scientists are in agreement with the scientists of Turku University regarding the "cloud cover" as the reason for the global warming.
I have noticed a LOT of cloud cover during these hot summer days. I think that it used to be called an "air inversion" IIRC.

Aug 18, 2019
Any new theory that competes with the big man-made CO2 one is going to face the full force of the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune. A series of slime buckets are lined up for anyone daring to offer an alternative theory.

I imagine that the intimidation is overwhelming in climate science. If you step out of line, even a little bit, then you are risking everything. It's like a totalitarian system.

Aug 18, 2019
Hmmm And after all that BS from Schneib, he escapes to another phorum. But he might come back here. AGW 'experts' can't stay away from articles like this one for long.

Aug 18, 2019
Hmmm And after all that BS from Schneib, he escapes to another phorum. But he might come back here. AGW 'experts' can't stay away from articles like this one for long.


Pardon? What are you doing here, you scientifically illiterate clown? Mate, give up up you wanker! Yes? You are bloody clueless, you clown. Go away, wanker.

Aug 18, 2019
Hmmm And after all that BS from Schneib, he escapes to another phorum. But he might come back here. AGW 'experts' can't stay away from articles like this one for long.


Pardon? What are you doing here, you scientifically illiterate clown? Mate, give up up you wanker! Yes? You are bloody clueless, you clown. Go away, wanker.


Speaking of AGW 'experts', the above outspoken clown believes himself to be an expert of everything. At least, that is the impression he tries to give to one and all.
If he had his way, nobody in the Comments who don't agree with everything that he and Schneib say would be allowed to say anything at all. Very undemocratic, he is. And he is from New Zealand where, one would think he would be TOLERANT of ALL ideas and opinions.
But perhaps not. It goes to show that the upbringing is paramount to how a person behaves in old age.

Aug 18, 2019
Not providing a source for these supposed "experiments" (which are actually not experiments at all but measurements) is not a nit being picked. It's a flaw that would prevent a paper from being published in any reputable journal. Period. If you cite data, you provide a source. If you can't then no one pays any attention to your "paper."

I was right the first time; you're just another liar denier. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere you won't get pwnt. Here, you're just another lying scum sucking denier. You wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.

We're done here.

Aug 19, 2019
As Kordane hath spoken:
Da Schneib, I read the article you linked and saw no refutation - just defensive skepticism & downplaying - which is to be expected from people who are invested in the CO2-centric "theory" of warming. The article you linked is a borderline smearjob, rather than a scholarly refutation; it's like something a tabloid might produce. Do better, please.


It is impossible for Schneib to do better, as he can only get worse. Schneib and CastroVagina cannot abide by any opposition to their own views. They would expect that everyone who has a different point of view should leave this site and never return. This is due to the fact that they both have a psychological NEED to be revered, adored, and put on a virtual pedestal by those who are ready and willing to do their bidding, which is to say that other commentators need not make up their own mind to make their own decisions as to what is right or wrong. They should just all agree with everything that is said.

Aug 19, 2019
Comes December, I am predicting a long, hard winter for most countries north of the tropics. I think that all this summer heat and melting of glaciers is but a prelude to an 'ice age'. The water vapour that comes from all the melting will result in massive amounts of snow and ice that will cover the land masses, killing off much of the unprotected wild life. Sunlight will be reflected back to space due to the albedo effect, and there will be frost even down towards the Equator in higher altitudes. Starvation may result as winter crops freeze.

Cloud cover is, IIRC, what they used to call "Air Inversion" but lacking the same pollutants as decades ago. Low-lying clouds trap heat and low wind velocity prevents the heat from moving out. But there will be more cloud formations from water evaporation from the oceans and, once the temperatures cool there will be plenty of snow and ice buildup.

Aug 19, 2019
Da Schneib, the flaw you speak of is an issue, but one that may be resolved in time with further papers & research into the theory in question.

The point is, you have NOT presented any hard refutation of the theory, and so you have NO justification for calling the theory "bullshit" and dismissing it completely.

The theory could still be correct, regardless of the flaws you mentioned in the paper I cited. This, I think, is what you're so afraid of, and why you lash out like you do.

Aug 19, 2019
No, it's a fatal issue.

To quote Sherlock Holmes, it's a capital mistake to theorize in advance of data.

Aug 19, 2019
Whatever. That's just your opinion. I'm still waiting for a hard refutation, and so I reject your characterisation of the theory as "bullshit", and I reject your total dismissal of the theory.

If you were honest, you would admit that the theory COULD be right, even though you have your doubts. Are you so invested in the man-made CO2 theory that you can't even bring yourself to admit that it/you may be wrong?

No theory is ever irrefutable.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more