the lies behind climate change denialists

bonzono
bonzono: and we know who this is focussed towards.

I'm just using this forum as a way to keep track of the misinformation, lies and obfuscation employed by denialists like loin. I tend to it from time to time.

no input is necessary from anyone, though loin and others always have right of reply.
Of course, if there are any stores, please bring them to my attention and I'll address them.

Almost all of this comes from the forum at:
Topic: Science
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
1
bonzono
bonzono: loin lies about what scientists say.

one of the funniest moments occured when loin stated:

"I have proposed a hypothesis which fits both past and present climates, it's incomplete yet but promising enough to be continued by Osaka University and won Clauser the Nobel."
now this statement was written on a profile post by loin, and was subsequently deleted - as idiotic as he is, he at least does not deny he's said it:
Topic: Science

and :"except I misunderstood the report about Clauser"
Topic: Science

now, this is funny because ... clause is a quantum physics theorist, and a climate change denialist, for a list of poorly rationalised reasons that actually have nothing to do with ecology.

however, what clause got the nobel prize for - was, actually quantum physics - specifically entanglement of photons...
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/clauser/facts/
"Prize motivation: “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science"
... which sure as heck aint atmospheric physics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
loin ALSO claims "The 3 leading experts in the world agree with me. That's Tom Clarkson, Edith Farkas and Sylvia Nichol"

this link contains a whole lecture by tom clarkson when he talks about climate change AND the ozone :
https://mediastore.auckland.ac.nz/library/public/MSS_Archives/MS/MS_2020_01/mss-archives-ms-2020-01-item-30-4.mp3.preview

tom most certainly does NOT agree with loin - he claims frequently in that lecture that humans have upset the balance with their increasing additions of GHGs into the atmosphere.

in the context of ozone: clarkson is a flag bearer for the montreal protocol - a protocol designed to reduce/eliminate use of CFCs.
https://niwa.co.nz/news/niwa-celebrates-success-montreal-protocol
"Clarkson says, "It's the most successful environmental treaty by far. New Zealand sent a small delegation to the meetings in 1987: a scientist and an engineer"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sylvia of course, has been publishing vairious papers on the damage of the ozone by human-generated CFCs.: - recently a paper she's contributed to contains this in the abstract:
" Discovered in the mid-1980s, the ozone hole is directly caused by a chain
of processes that enable human-made chlorofluorocarbon and related gases to destroy a significant fraction of ozone in the lower stratosphere over the Antarctic region during spring"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358947013_The_Antarctic_ozone_hole_during_2020?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7InBhZ2UiOiJzY2llbnRpZmljQ29udHJpYnV0aW9ucyIsInByZXZpb3VzUGFnZSI6bnVsbH19

Therefore, Sylvia EXPLICITLY connects damage to the ozone layer, with human activities.

let's look at Edith.
made a name for herself as an atmospheric physicist, and was one of team who discovered that the ozone layer dissapears during spring, and connected it with human-generated CFCs..
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: claims against extant, measured data, claims made without any data at all.

from a 'discussion' about one of loin's pivotal claims, that rises in temp precede rises in CO2 levels.

The data show they certainly do not:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/

and what is loin's response to this?: that's right!, the published, acessible data are fudged!

Topic: Science

-----------------------

Repeated deferral to non-existant datasets, specifically, the 'osaka' dataset.
This is, apparently, a dataset that was given to loin and shows that the solar activity is increasing in tandem with global temps.

of course, extant data shows this is not the case at all, with links to available data provided in other sections below.

Though Despite repeated requests, the mythical 'osaka data' have not eventuated - and of course, they should, as loin has no special access to these data.
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: outright claims that qualified researchers are wrong, while unqualified faux-researchers know more.

Loin does this a heck of a lot. His favourite whipping boy is NASA who he claims doctor the data (no mention of the fact that there are plenty of other research institutes around the world that have the same results, from differently-aquired data).

"unfortunately many organisations such as NASA have a vested interest (research grants) and dismiss such influences as GSCs and Milankovitch""
Topic: Science


this is an outright claim that nasa fudge the data - and notice that while loin makes this claim, he has no evidence, nor reason to actually show that it's a sane thing to say.


and - loin declares climate science is a conspiracy himself:
"Thanks Bonzo. Yes, I guess you could call the AGW industry a conspiracy given the political spin they've created in order to extort billions from the public in the form of carbon taxes, "
Topic: Science

Loin continues to assert AWG is a financial 'scam' -
"Oxfam has just reported the World Bank climate change research funding dept has "lost" US$41 billion since 2019.
But AGW isn't about making money is it?
Yeah, Right "

Topic: Science

"NASA and NOAA continue to fudge data to fit their narrative. Editing temp records to fit with AGW thereby keeping their research grants"
Topic: Science

"Personally I didn't need to know others supported my work, I have thoroughly examined the theory of AGW and I realised 20 years ago it was a complete scam"
Topic: Science

" I know the figures are fudged, I was working for NZ meteorological service, now NIWA, when I was given the task of running early temp and rainfall data through a programme to change them to fit the AGW narrative, this was in the 1980s. I refused. "
Topic: Science
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: deferral to anti-science, anti-vaxxer conspiracy blogs as a 'resource'.

yep. in case the poor sap couldn't go any lower, any more stupid than he already is, he's gone and referred to an actually notorious conspiracy website to try to validate his claims.

here it is:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-08-30-nasa-admits-climate-change-not-caused-by-suvs-fossil-fuels.html

referred to by loin, here:
Topic: Science
"^^^ Pretty much confirms everything I've been saying for years.
It's nice to see the folks at NASA have decided to be honest at last. "

great!, a link finally!..
let's check out 'naturalnews.com'
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=naturalnews

who report natural news as having a pseudo-science credibility level of 'complete quackery'
and a conspiracy level of 'strong' (one point below 'tin-foil hat').

and report that:
"Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on the promotion of quackery-level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right-wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet"

Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT CONSPIRACY-PSEUSDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY-LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History

Founded in 2005, Natural News is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information. The founder is Mike Adams, who owns several Questionable websites such as News Target and Trump.news.

Google and several others have blocked Natural News over the course of its history.

.... but okay, let's have a look at the article referenced by loin.


"nasa admits climate change not caused by fossil fuels..."
okay, lets find the NASA citation they refer to.
...wait... there ISN'T one?

true, dear reader, the link loin has provided, to a far-right, anti-science, anti-vaxxer, notorious conspiracy site, entitled 'nasa admits... ', does not contain a SINGLE reference to ANYTHING nasa has said, at all. There isn't a single quote, there isn't a single reference to anything nasa has said at all.



this is the level of intelligence and honesty that's available from loin. It's dismal, it's pathetic.
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: more absent data, more claims that qualified researchers are wrong..

"1. It's not increases in CO2 causing the periodic warming of Earth, it is fluctuations in solar activity causing the warming which causes periodic peaks in CO2."

this is a pearl.

this is the claim that is directly, and explicitly refuted by NASA - there are simply no data to show this is the case.
science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
"The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century"

in case this isn't clear, NASA have several versions of that claim, peppered about on similar pages:
science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
"But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity"

and, since loin is allergic to NASA, a separate body:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
"A comprehensive review of published scientific research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that, averaged over the solar cycle, the best estimate of the Sun’s brightness change between the pre-industrial period and the present (2019) is 0.06 Watts per square meter. That increase could be responsible for about 0.01 degrees Celsius—around 1 percent—of the warming the planet has experienced over the industrial era "


sorry loin, to claim NASA regard solar activity to be responsible for climate change is a complete lie.


N.B. loin does not know what 'solar activity' means - he thinks it means 'the sun is shining'. in fact, 'solar activity' refers to magnetic-related solar phenomena. that the sun is hot has to do with fusion, not magnetic-related phenomena.

loin's failures to understand the meanings of the words he uses is addressed elsewhere here, and is just yet another example of him really not knowing the basic science, the physics, the state of science or what people more qualified than him can show to be true.

(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: the incompetent use of terminology.

this is such a long list, I'll throw a few down and add to them later.

1. the constant mis-use of 'solar cycle' - the poor sap thinks that 'solar cycle' is the same as 'grand solar cycle' - in fact, they are VERY different things, despite having similar sounding names. The physics behind both processes are of course, related, but still refer to very different things. Poor loin confounds the two constantly.

2. My favourite was the time loin tried to explain that a postdoc position was 'tenure'... oh dear.

3. the constant confusion between 'radiative transfer' and 'reflective transfer'. Of course, knowing the difference will require a basic knowledge of thermodynamics, which loin lacks.

4. 'solar activity' - loin believes that 'solar activity' refers to anything the sun does. anything.
it doesn't. the term 'solar activity' is used by solar researchers to describe magnetic-related phenomena to do with the sun. The fact that the sun emits light has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetic phenomena, and so it is not considered 'solar activity'. lion hasn't figured this out yet, even though it would require nothing more than a few seconds actually reading the literature he claims to be informed on.
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: a fundamental misunderstanding of the main issues behind climate change.

poor loin believes that the issues relevant to climate change are 'it's never been this hot' or 'the CO2 has never been as high as it is now'.

of course the earth has been hotter than what it is now, not a single scientist alive claims differently. That is not the problem behind climate change.

or course the earth has had more CO2 than it has now, not a single scientist alive claims differently, again, that is not the problem behind climate change.


loin tries to make this claim pretty frequently, but here is a good example:
Topic: Science
"Zykra you might like to explain how climate was controlled way back then (300MA)
CO2 was at 1500ppm yet Carboniferous was actually an ice age almost identical to the ice age we are currently in"

and also here:
Topic: Science
"CO2 has been higher in the past, it has also been much lower with oxygen making up 40% of the atmosphere, at the same time temps were considerably higher."
and"
"During the last ice age CO2 levels dropped to well below 300ppm, I suspect that was because vegetation was rather sparse so photosynthesis was at a minimum. CO2 increased soon after temps increased as Earth entered an interglacial.
Today we are still in the tail end of the Little Ice Age so temps will continue to increase and as that happens CO2 will increase rapidly.
If you look at 20th century records you will notice a cool period from 1945 to about 1975. At this point CO2 was high which doesn't fit the AGW model"

so? (and yes, it does fit with the AGW model, because the AGW model does not preclude cold intervals - , the AGW model explains why there is a rapid increase in temperature)

a common misunderstanding among idiot denialists like loin is that 'the world has been hotter/has had more CO2"

yup, it sure has.

that isn't the problem.

idiot denialists like loin completely misunderstand the problem. the problem being not that there is CO2, not that it's hot, it's that the rates of increases in both are absolutely unprecedented. NEVER in the recorded history of the planet has such a high rate increase EVER been observed.


loin likely is too dense to understand that a 'rate' is not the same as 'amount'. likely he failed differential calculus in highschool (and likely he sufficiently numerically illiterate to fail to understand why I even referred to differential calculus).
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: actual legitimate Belief that 'greenies' 'support child slavery'.

"BTW, make believe greenies like Greta do support child slavery in Africa. After all where do you think lithium and coltan ores come from if not Congo? EV batteries won't work without them. "

yes, of course greta wants children slaves, of course she does.

this is the kind of infantile nonsense that deranged morons like loin and his ilk come up with.
apparently great supports child slavery bcause she drives an EV (cos, lithium).

loin has apparently forgotten that, with the same reasoning, not only does he support child slavery, but his imported wife does too.....
...they both own phones which use lithum batteries.


so - on that basis, we are able to conclude that greta supports child slavery as much as loin does.

(no mention of the fact that loin, presumably, does not support child slavery despite owning several fists full of lithum batteries)

.. this is the kind of 'reasoning' we expect from deranged lunatics who have next to no grasp at all of basic logic, basic reasoning, any means to process actual data, much less synthesise iit.
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: a complete inability to understand the relevant physics.

poor loin never really did well at school.
He studied alpine flowers, back in the day - allegedly, it's worth pointing out that there is nothing loin has done or said which indicates he has any experience in research OR science.

So long ago, in fact, they had not yet invented first year thermodynamics classes.
Fundamental to the operation of the Greenjhouse effect is the process of radiative transfer (and loin hilariously enough refers to this as 'reflective transfer' which have nothing to do with each other).

Radiative transfer describes the process by which radiant energy is exchanged by molecules and atoms. given that this is exactly what the GHE is, one would reasonably expect that someone who objects to climate change would have some understanding of the process.
given that loin constantly confuses it with 'reflective transfer' - clearly loin does not understand the process. - but what do we expect from a douche who studied nothing but mountain flowers - allegedly (again, no real evidence of him doing any science at all)


central to this whole problem is loins complete failure to grasp the process of doppler broadening. now, loin stupidly thinks that a gas magically stops absorbing energy when it gets hot. of course it doesn't. it's a stupid thing to claim.
what confuses loin is that gases behave as ensembles of particles, the equiparation theory applies (he doesn't know what that is either) - when a gas heats up, the energy is distrbibuted throughout the ensemble. temperature is related to kinetic energy directly - that is, as a gas heats up, the constituent molecules move faster.
by moving faster, the consitutient molecules now open up a wider range of absorption frequencies previously unavailable to them - this is nothing more confusing than the doppler effect - by moving faster, the (monotonic) absorption frequencies are doppler shifted into BOTH higher and lower frequency ranges.

this is all explained in various places, notably firstyear physics textbooks, but despite me pulling several articles for loin, to try to educate the poor muppet, the ignorant idiot is quite insistent on remaining exactly that - an ignorant idiot.


2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono:
a fundamental misunderstanding of the main DRIVER behind climate change.

"Solar activity is the main controlling influence on climate"
Topic: Science
oops, no, solar activity is not the main controlling influence on climate.
'solar activity' refers to a 22 year cycle of the sun's magnetic properties, which generates solar ejections, sunspots, etc. There is no correlation of global weather with that 22 year cycle.

as mentioned elsewhere, NASA and NOAA, and other bodies, explicitly reject this claim.
science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
(Edited by bonzono)
2 months ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: idiotic claims that result in him shooting himself in his own foot:

this quote is already mentioned above, in a different context,
"Yes, by smearing your opponents is exactly how you AGW nutters work. It describes perfectly how you've interacted with me.
BTW, make believe greenies like Greta do support child slavery in Africa. After all where do you think lithium and coltan ores come from if not Congo? EV batteries won't work without them. "

of course, loin has forgotten that the phone he uses, and that his wife uses, are also powered by lithium batteries... apparently he's too dense to understand he's just accused himself of supporting child slavery. yes, the stupid is real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Edited by bonzono)
10 days ago Report
0
bonzono
bonzono: claims that are simply contradictory to basic science - as well as claims contradictory to available evidence

"Not quite Zykra, ocean pH has dropped by 0.1 this century, it is still alkaline at 8.2 so seashells are safe"

wrong.
pH is simply a measure of the abundance of OH- and H+ ions in water. more acid, means more H+, and more carbonic acid. more OH- means RELATIVELY LESS carbonic acid, not zero.
https://www.micds.org/news/article/a-sea-of-chemistry/

therefore, of course calcium can dissolve in alkaline water, it STILL has an acidic component, it's just more dilute and so, it just takes longer than in more acid water - once again, loin has failed basic science, basic chemistry, and basic reasoning.


being 'alkaline' does not mean that there are no acids present, and that chemistry cannot proceed.


aside from that, loin's information is absolutely out of date - modern ocean pH is measured closer to 8.0, and is on a very steep downward trend, increasingly so.
www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

once again, loin has tried to misinform and obfuscate the actual ramifications of climate change, simply because he is ignorant, is unaware of his ignorance, and does not want to educate himself properly since it would mean he has to admit he doesn't know all that he claims to know.
(Edited by bonzono)
10 days ago Report
0