Dr Clauser is one of the three 2022 Nobel prize winner in physics.

From the article

Dr Clauser starts: “As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO2 and methane have negligible effect on the climate.”

The policies government have been implementing are total unnecessary and should be eliminated”.

The article goes on to discuss the fact that the sun is cooling as we head deeper into the grand solar minimum.

I’m sure all you lefties will snort and not even read the article.

The short hand of writing this is 417 parts per million or ppm. At the start of the 20th century it was 284ppm. So the increase from 284ppm to 417ppm is what the climate alarmists are saying is risking all life on this planet.  

 
Scientists have for years take ice core samples. You dig down into layers of snow and ice and you can count how many years back it goes. You can then look at tiny air bubbles trapped in the ice and measure quite accurately the amount of oxygen, nitrogen, argon and CO2 that was present when that snow and ice froze in place so many years ago.  

 
Keep in mind that the amount of nitrogen and oxygen back then is unchanged from what it is today. This is one of the ways we can tell these measurements are accurate.  

 
Now remember, the climate alarmists are freaking out about CO2 jumping from 284ppm to 417ppm. But this begs the question. What’s the highest amount of CO2 that we have a record of? What do the ice core samples show?

What is the source of that image? The INSERT is from the 1972 Weiss paper but the top and bottom are from a different source. WHAT IS THE OTHER SOURCE?
.
Here's a 1992 paper trying to explain the discrepancies in the CO2 claims in many pre-1992 papers.  
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004896979290428U
Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story?
Jaworowski, Segalstad, Ono
.
The same core can provide drastically different values depending on which sample prep and analytical method is used. Also, cores differ in diameter, transport and storage conditions, etc..
.
There are more recent papers on CO2 in ice cores, too.

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON A WARMING PLANET.

 
IOW, willy believes one of the 3% of scientists who are climate change deniers rather than the NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT who DO believe in climate change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/16/john-clauser-nobel-climate-denial/

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue...This knowledge did not prevent the company from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation -- an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago

 
Oh, but what does SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN know?  It's only the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States, in print since 1845, with more than 150 Nobel Prize-winners being featured since its inception.
But you do you, willy, and believe a 3 percenter.  ROFLMAO!

There’s no such thing as “consensus” in science.

Not everything is known about the sun. We’re still finding out new things about it daily. I’ve talked to enough people who work in this area of research to know that new research is quite robust. They seem to carefully avoid any claims about climate change and stick to the science of their field.

 
One pattern that has emerged is solar Eddy cycles that last approximately every 1000 years. Based upon this, the earth has been in an overall warming trend since 1630 and will begin a cooling trend in 2130. Previous warming trends caused the medieval warming and prior to that caused the Roman Empire warming trend.  

 
Notice that these warming trends have zero correlation to atmospheric CO2.

There’s a few great science journals/magazines like Science and Nature. Scientific American isn’t one of them. They used to be pretty good 10-12 years ago. But at some point it was taken over by left wing political activists and it just puts out trash now. Everyone in science knows this BTW, actual scientists ignore it like they ignore the I Fucking Love Science page on Facebook, which recently seems most dedicated to the “science” that men can have abortions and other absurdities. No one in science takes them seriously. Unfortunately the new editor of Science magazine, which is perhaps the most important in all of science recently hired a woketard and is trying to destroy that magazine as well, but the pushback has been extreme. When editors say “you must not research this” because it’s not “inclusive enough” you’re just fucking with the empirical evidence to cherry pick results.

We are in fact living in a period of dangerously low CO2. For most of the last 225 million years, since mammals have been around, CO2 was closer to 3000ppm. Today it’s only 417ppm and it was 284 at the start of the Industrial Revolution. If it drops below 150ppm all plants on earth would suffocate and die. Even as it is, most plants evolved their photosynthesis process in an era of higher CO2. Some plants like grasses and wheat evolved to more efficiently deal with the extreme carbon deficits we’re now in. It’s for this reason that greenhouses have to go to the extreme expense of charging their greenhouses with extra CO2.  

 
http://rimol.com/co2/co2-generator/

 
Regardless, it should be understood that the amount of CO2 on earth is constantly changing, and did so long before the Industrial Revolution. Volcanic activity releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the rate of which is always random. The earth absorbs CO2, not just from plants taking it up, but it’s absorbed by the soil and most especially by the oceans. That ring around your toilet bowl is calcium ions in the water and CO2 mixing to form calcium carbonate. This makes up the main ingredient in TUMS antacids, the main ingredient in seashells and limestone. The white cliffs of Dover in England is nothing but ancient CO2.  

 
So the earth continually pumps CO2 out and continually absorbs it. When volcanic activity skyrockets like when the super continent Pangelia broke apart, CO2 would have soared. And yet life on earth survived. In fact over the entire span of 600 million years, earth’s temperature only varied +/- 10 degrees. We are today around 10 degrees cooler than the earth has been for the history of life on this plant.  

 
The most remarkable thing is that NASA has calculated that the extra CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels (which aren’t made by fossils, BTW) has resulted in a greener world. Significantly greener. The extra foliage is calculated to be equal to the square mileage of the entire continental United States. Times 2.  

 
One of the problems with modern farming is the excessive use of fertilizers. These fertilizers run off and make their way into rivers and oceans. This results in algae blooms that cause dead zones in places like the Gulf of Mexico. Sometimes they can even be harmful or deadly to humans. But if CO2 was higher we could transform farming, and get more plant growth with no fertilizer use at all. It would also prevent droughts, as plants would lose less moisture to the air by not having to struggle so much to take in CO2.

We are also in an interglacial period -- between glacial ages.  The world has been frozen over before.  It has never been a desert world except after the initial molten stage at the formation 4.5 billion years ago.  
.
When snowball earth happened, it almost killed all life on earth.  Even in the modern world, more people die of the cold than of heat.  Cold is brutal for life.
.
And as mentioned above, carbon is the building block of life.  Carbon dioxide is an air borne fertilizer.  
.
There is almost nothing good about cold temperatures and low CO2.  

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/if-it-didnt-come-from-peer-reviewed-research-399415
Posted By: willywonka4u
Re: If it didn’t come from peer reviewed research…
…then you can discard it. The media is simply not capable of reporting on science. Science has its own publications, like Scientific American, Science magazine and Nature. You should only refer to these kind of publications for anything scientific.

I can no longer recommend it. Time after time you see them injecting left wing politics and commentary into things and getting the science completely wrong. Here's an example. Notice woketard buzzwords like "normative".  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-ok-not-to-breastfeed/

Here's another example.  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

And the then the most hilarious Scientific American screw up happened that forever made them a laughing stock.

I guess IMP didn't bother to read the Abstract.  

"Until 1985 most studies of CO2 in gas inclusions in pre-industrial ice indicated that CO2 concentrations (up to 2450 ppm) were higher than the current atmospheric level. After 1985, lower pre-industrial CO2 values were reported, and used as evidence for a recent man-made CO2 increase. The errors in these revised values, however, are of a similar magnitude to the apparent increase in atmospheric CO2 level. The assumptions used in estimating lower CO2 values in past atmospheres have been: no liquid phase in polar ice; younger age of air than of ice due to free gas exchange between deep firn and the atmosphere; and no change in composition of air inclusions. These assumptions are shown to be invalid. Liquid saline water exists in ice at low temperatures, even below −70°C; airtight ice layers are ubiquitous in Antarctic firn; and more than 20 physico-chemical processes operating in situ and in ice cores contribute to the alteration of the chemical composition of air inclusions. The permeable ice sheet with its capillary liquid network acts as a sieve which redistributes elements, isotopes, and micro-particles. Thirty-six to 100% of air recovered from old ice is contaminated by recent atmospheric air during field and laboratory operations. The value of ∼290 ppm, widely accepted from glacier studies for the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level, apparently results from: invalid assumptions; processes in ice sheets; artifacts in ice cores; and arbitrary rejection of high readings. To date, glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of either the CO2 level in pre-industrial and ancient atmospheres or paleoclimates. Instead these studies have led to a widely accepted false dogma of man-made climatic warming. This dogma may have enormous negative impact on our common future."

LOLOLOL!!!!

with all your blather about Scientific American.  Don't be a weasel, willy.  

 
How about "Science," willy?  Has it gone "full woketard" too?  It published "Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections," an analysis last year by a team of Harvard-led woketard researchers and crackpots from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

From the 2nd paragraph of your left wing activist article:

 
“Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.”

 
Really? Accurate?

 
Here’s a research paper that looked into the data of global temps and found they’re not up by 1-2 degrees but by 0.3 degrees. The reported higher temps are a result of the Island Heat Effect. You put a thermometer in a city in 1950, and that city grows and adds more asphalt to the surrounding area and it gets hotter. That’s not global temps that’s from the growth of cities. Rural thermometers would detect if this was a local or global phenomenon. It’s local. Temps are only up 0.3 degrees.  

 
CO2 emissions do NOT cause climate change.

Lester is beyond right.

From the paper  

“Sun is the main source of energy for all planets of the solar system. This energy is delivered to Earth in a form of solar radiation in different wavelengths, called total solar irradiance. Variations of solar irradiance lead to heating of upper planetary atmosphere and complex processes of solar energy transport toward a planetary surface.”

The grand solar minimum we have just entered will last till 2053. The last grand solar minimum lasted from 1640 to 1715 and the last 5 years of it were called the mini ice age where approximately 50 to 55 million people starved to death.

Ever wonder where they got that number?  

 
From the article:

 
“This erroneous and totally misleading figure was obtained from four different studies, all of which were flawed.

 
The first was done in 2004 by Naomi Oreskes, who is not a scientist. She examined the abstracts [summaries] of 928 scientific studies that she had found by putting in the search term “global climate change.”

 
This yielded only 8% of the results she would have obtained from the search term “climate change”, thus leaving out hundreds of studies focusing on natural causes of climate change.

 
The topics of many articles counted in this study didn’t address causes of climate change but, assuming that IPCC conclusions were correct, focused on the influence of climate on the incidence of influenza, the life cycle of frogs, etc.

 
Before publishing Ms. Oreskes’ article the journal editor failed to check either her methodology or her sources. Shortly thereafter Naomi Oreskes wrote a book entitled, Merchants of Doubt, which lambasted climate skeptics.

 
In a 2009 study (Doran and Zimmerman), Maggie Zimmerman, a graduate student, sent a 2-minute online survey to 10,257 employees of schools and government research agencies.

 
This left out over 10,000 geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and astronomers, many of whom were studying the issue. She received 3,146 responses.

 
Yet her 98% figure was based on only 79 responses she had handpicked – certainly not a representative sample. So, this study has been debunked.

 
In 2010 another college student, William Anderegg, identified 908 scientists who had written the most papers about global warming. He considered these to be most qualified to hold an opinion on climate change.

 
“The 50 most prolific alarmists were published an average of 408 times each, versus only 89 times each for the skeptics.” Hundreds of the studies considered had several – as many as twelve – different authors. This misinformation weighted the results against the skeptics.

 
Anderegg failed to consider that the number of published studies doesn’t equal correctness. Studies which reach conclusions agreeing with the official government position on climate change are heavily financed.

 
In contrast, those scientists who study the natural causes of global warming must scramble for financing. This is one reason why these scientists aren’t publishing as many peer-reviewed papers.

 
In 2013, John Cook, who is not a scientist but a professional cartoonist, issued a report to the Global Warming Policy Foundation stating that 97.1% of the 11,944 scientific papers he examined “explicitly or implicitly suggested that human activity was responsible for some warming.”

 
This claim has been debunked by at least four other studies, which found that this definition doesn’t support the IPCC claim that mankind is responsible for most global warming.

 
A study by Legates found that only 41 of these 11,944 papers stated the opinion that most of the warming since 1950 was man-made. It was revealed that Cook had told the publisher of his study the results (97% consensus) before he had even done the research.

 
But science doesn’t operate by consensus. To adhere to the scientific method, scientists are obligated to question all new ideas. In that case, even if this 97% figure were correct (it isn’t), it would be meaningless.”

New study:

“13,000+ global islands were assessed for coastal change since 1990. 93% of coasts were stable or grew seaward.

Coasts grew (net) seaward 402 km² from 2000-2020. For islands losing coastal area, sea level rise was "not the predominant" factor.”

...Trump, willy and 3% of scientists are the only ones who don't believe staring at the sun causes eye damage.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2024/04/03/total-solar-eclipse-april-8-2024-what-not-to-do-trump-stares-at-solar-eclipse-in-2017/73194541007/