Climate Myths and The AGW Priesthood. Evidence can not interfere with Faith.

You read that right. The Earth is now going to help us kill ourselves. In a massive new study published Wednesday in the influential journal Nature, no less than 50…

LikeShow more reactions


Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Phwoar!!! Climate Catastrophe Porn, can´t get enough of it. Climate science discovers the Carbon Cycle, perhaps in another ten years they will actually understand it! Misanthropic propaganda such as this is laughable, extremism and founded in massive iSee More

John Ferguson
John Ferguson Mankind is causing global warming by destroying the environment. By chopping down the rain forests and filling the sea with toxins we are creating an unsustainable environment for our own existence let alone the other species on the planet.
Saying that the world is perfectly fine is absolutely delusional

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis No one I am aware of says the world is fine or that humans do not have bad impacts and poorly managed systems for co existing with nature.
What this article seeks to say is that CO2 is a forcer of Global Warming and that Human CO2 emissions are the biggest impact that Mankind is having.
CO2 is a natural chemical compound made of the King of Elements Carbon combined with two oxygen atoms. Plant life and sea life use CO2 as their food in simple terms and breathe out the oxygen that we breathe. This article is a travesty of understanding of the Carbon Cycle and how all Carbon Based life forms both Plant life and Mammals like humans would be in deep trouble without it, to a large extent we are Carbon.
The Carbon Cycle and the climate are related and The earth and its eco system and atmosphere are also part of a larger solar system climate as well.
Here is a very good pair of presentations on the carbon soil cycle.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis As a committed environmentalist, I find myself increasingly frustrated that a huge amount of political capital is wasted on the CO2 debate when the provable and winnable arguments regarding renewables instead of Nuclear of Fracking etc can be won empirSee More

Glyn Goodwin
Glyn Goodwin You do understand that we are adding 30-40 billion tons of CO2 to the system every year don’t you Roger? The way this is panning out we are heading for a Permian extinction event. Research has shown that the little ice age was stated by a decrease in co2 of only 17 billion tons. The oceans health is crucial to the planet, but the only way that can plausibly be helped long term is by reducing CO2 emissions.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Glyn, the accumulation arguments regarding human emissions are being re-visited based upon empirical research as I linked to that report is a few weeks old. I understand the more dire claims based upon the modelling, I understand modelling on computersvery well and expect the predictions to be scaled back and not dialled up as per the dire climate catastrophe porn which the OP article represents. The IPCC reports if you read them are actually measured and proportionate, the science is scientific and sober and does not make truth claims which can not be substantiated. If one engages in the full spectrum of the scientific fields encompassed within Climate Science one finds that there are many aspects of Climate change which are wholly more influential than CO2 let alone man’s emissions and contributions thereto. How long Anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere as so called well mixed green house gases is a bit of a finger in the air effort I am afraid and I am persuaded by empirical data from Bomb test curves and the study I link to above and not by the early modelling hypothesis, and estimates adopted as starting assumptions for early modelling efforts. One has to start somewhere with ones assumptions and then tune parameters as empirical evidence is collected and appropriate time tables observed. So yes Glyn I have studied the science both in the IPCC reports and elsewhere and find the science bears little resemblance when you read it to the sensationalist porn in this linked to article. From what I have learned about the science I personally see absolutely no objection to CO2 at 400PPM and getting the genie back in the bottle is frankly not within our gift . I think we should pursue alternative energy as so-called fossil fuels and nuclear energy as so very old fashioned and do not promote decentralised and autonomous community-based government. I find most so-called Climate Change policy coercive and poorly supported empirically and it seems to me to mask a push for a stronger more authoritarian centralised government. My arguments from a Political economy perspective are made above. A simple point of disagreement between us Glyn might be that you consider CO2 to be pollution and I categorically do not. I do think that the Hydro Carbons industry is a polluting industry and environmentally damaging but their crimes lie in other chemical compounds and despoilation not CO emissions. Monetising Carbon actually lets polluters off the hook how more people who claim to be environmentalists do not see this is beyond me.,…/0B6ZHfkDjveZzXzVnTll…/view…

John Ferguson
John Ferguson Glyn glyn glyn… You are buying into the mass hysteria that science and reports are producing . Think for yourself dude … It’s all fine. Climate change is all in the mind man. Chill. Keep driving your 4×4! Keep drilling for oil and what ever you do don’t worry. It’s all just a big fat lie ….

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis John Ferguson CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the physics is quite clear so are water vapour and so is Methane. The question regarding Human emissions which make up a small part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and how much difference they make is the realSee More

Earl Bramley-Howard
Earl Bramley-Howard oh please get real… it would *normally* take thousands or even millions of years for that coal deep underground to re-enter the carbon cycle (usually via volcanic erruptions).
At present we dump 800 years’ worth of ‘volcanic’ carbon into the atmospheSee More

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Earl your point about volcanic CO2, perhaps you missed the point volcanism leads to Cooling and the co2 aspects of volcanism has more to do with increased sequestration of co2 in oceans as cooler oceans sequester more co2. The ocean cycle is sequestration at the poles and Outgassing at the warmer equator. Although I expect you already knew that.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…

Paul Sousek
Paul Sousek Every day humanity burns about 90 million barrels of oil. I calculate that adds roughly 36 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – every single day. Plus coal, plus gas, some 30 billion tons each year. Of that almost half remains in the atmosphere whilSee More

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Earl I did watch the whole thing why would I not have done. With respect to the cosmic ray thing the video was in 2009 the research of Svensmark has developed further and made some striking discoveries since.

The Cloud results of Svensmark were confirSee More

The Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment uses a special cloud chamber to…

Earl Bramley-Howard
Earl Bramley-Howard This is a straw man argument and typical of climate change denialism. Nothing here throws out the consensus on mankind’s pollution being responsible for the *extra* warming we see, nor does it disprove that co2 is the main forcing for the *extra* warming we see, due to the sheer scale of our emmissions. 30 billion tons dumped into the atmosphere every year. The maths of co2 heat absorbtion has been known for well over a hundred years… and is matched by real-world data.
If you continue to troll this group with cut n pasted ‘evidence’ for your straw man arguments, I will remove you from the group. #adminwarning

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Earl,
Science is about looking at all the evidence and testing assumptions. Climate modelling is in its infancy empirical experiments such as the CLOUD experiment are seeking to assist in making climate models better. Seeking advances and progress in the field of climate science is not in denial of anything. Svensmark has been vindicated what he says does not even make any difference to the question about Anthropogenic CO2 and Natural CO2, No one has seriously questioned that CO2 is a factor in how the atmosphere is warmer than it would be without it as a component. People like Dr Glasman and Scientists such as Freeman Dyson point out that there are metrological( not to be confused with meteorological).challenges which have only started to be solvable since satellites became available,( in short some suspected or claimed phenomena are just not measurable or detectable with current instruments) in 1979 and even then the various dynamic properties and lapse rates of various phenomena due to air pressure and altitude and so on and so forth leave many educated guesses requiring confirmation, clarification and in many cases revision.
All clarifications will not inevitably lead towards a worsening of the prognosis, some will and some will not. I must say I do object to your characterization of the serious science I have linked to , much of it drawn from the IPCC itself as ´straw man arguments´ I think your warning is both unwarranted and excessive.
The OP is sensational and exaggerated climate alarmism, I call it Climate Catastrophe porn. I had hoped to find more climate science scholars in the green party than there appear to be, it is a shame as one would have hoped Green party activists would be in a position to provide more than slogans to concerned potential voters.

Roger Lewis

Write a reply…

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis There is no ‘evidence’ that the oceans can increase their ‘sink’ and perhaps you could explain why we see more warming at the poles than anywhere else? This paper downloadable here, Actually presents evidence that appears to show precisely that Earl. CO2 uptake by the Earth surface of 13.6±3.4 PgC / year. New report

´´5 2010). Our best data driven bottom-up global estimate of NCE is -6.07±3.38 PgC / year. That means, that our data suggests a
large net sink. However, the amount of C in the atmosphere is increasing by an estimated rate of 4.27±0.10 PgC / year.
Combining both estimates, we obtain a C imbalance of 10.34±3.38 PgC / year (=NCE-CGR). Potential reasons for this
mismatch are discussed Section 4.
Using the ensemble approach we obtain an uncertainty in NCE of ±3.38 PgC / year. With quadrature error accumulation“ Thats pause for thought surely?


Roger Lewis

Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing?

Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing?Earl, that is a serious scientific paper which makes a point that there are large apparent ocean sinks which they are looking to explain. What could possibly be Found in that to justify your posturing? There are other papers demonstrating considerable greening of forest and High Arctic Fen , when research is engaged in , scientists find evidence that refutes previously supported conjectures, your insistence on the infallibility of all aspects of the carbon cycle in oceans which is not well understood is pretty disturbing and not at all scientific. On the Paper I have just attached or the one previously attached I suspect you have either mis understood what it says or simply not read it. The researchers are clearly surprised by their own results it was not what they had assumed according to the existing assumptions in models, they will be looking to clarify and if no errors are found they will no doubt double check, Science is about falsification at the end of the day not about sainted dogmas. Earl your characterisation of what I have posted here as Trolling is plainly not supported by the evidence. CERN is a highly regarded International Scientific collaboration their experiments on cosmic rays reference Sevnsmaerks work. The Biogeosciences papers are also climate science research papers from various climate research groups funded by the EU , NASA and many others supportive of the AGW hypothesis, any honest research science will encounter and publish results which do not support their own hypothesis. You are seeking to trivialise sound and important science that is clarifying the many areas of the AGW hypothesis that the IPCC itself categorises as being less than certain. If you can not engage with the evidence or wish to ignore it then do so but do not make un-supported claims that the existence of the papers has to be straw man argument or that By stating a view that the bottom end of IPCC predictions of Climate change are likely not to be exceeded as some sort of denial of 1. The fact of Climate change and 2. That CO2 is a (Greenhouse) ( would be better described as a quilt) Gas.

Earl Bramley-Howard You are posting links from climate change denial websites and cutting and pasting from stuff which does NOT refute the scientific consensus on climate change, nor does it claim to. You’re using an endless stream of straw man arguments as if that’s supposed to prove anything. It’s called Trolling Roger and it gets you booted from this group if you do it anymore.


Author: rogerglewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

Leave a Reply