Climate Scientists Moan About Critics On Twitter
By Paul Homewood
Some of the UK’s top scientists are struggling to deal with what they describe as a huge rise in abuse from climate crisis deniers on Twitter since the social media platform was taken over by Elon Musk last year.
Since then, key figures who ensured “trusted” content was prioritised have been sacked, according to one scientist, and Twitter’s sustainability arm has vanished. At the same time several users with millions of followers who propagate false statements about the climate emergency, including Donald Trump and rightwing culture warrior Jordan Peterson, have had their accounts reinstated.
Climate scientists say the change has been stark, and they are fighting to make themselves heard over a “barrage” of often hostile comments.
“There’s been a massive change,” said Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science at University College London and the author of popular books including How to Save Our Planet. “I get so much abuse and rude comments now. It’s happening to all of us, but I challenge the climate deniers so I’ve been really targeted.”
Maslin says he used to have regular meetings with Sean Boyle, Twitter’s former head of sustainability, who was laid off in Musk’s mass cull of staff shortly after he began his takeover in April 2022. Maslin said Boyle discussed the platform’s work to develop ways of ensuring that trusted information was pushed to the top.
“They were using climate change as a good test bed, because it was fairly clear who the good and bad actors were,” Maslin said. “But he was sacked and Twitter became the wild west.”
Maslin said he will stay on the platform and push back against conspiracy theories with scientific evidence. “I want people to understand there are solutions. There is a real need for us to be on social media defending the truth, however nasty the responses get.”
But not all scientists have found standing up to regular hostility an easy feat. Doug McNeall, a statistician working on climate change at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, said he had blocked or muted many accounts on Twitter even before Musk’s arrival. “I got to the point where it was definitely affecting my mental health,” he said.
“I spent years debating quite strongly with climate sceptics, including people I assume were paid,” he added. “But there can be a real personal cost interacting over a long time with people who are abusing you.”
McNeall said it was hard for scientists to work out how to cut through the false information on Twitter. “I just can’t tell if people are seeing disinformation or getting good scientific information about what is happening,” he said. “That’s really worrying.”
This raises several points.
First, it confirms that pre-Musk Twitter was censoring climate sceptics.
Secondly, far too many climate scientists want to be political activists too. If they want to carry on publishing scientific papers, then fine. But it is not their job to tell us to change our lifestyles. These are political matters, to be determined by governments and voters. If they want to get involved in politics, then they should rightly expect to be criticised.
Thirdly, if they don’t want the hassle of defending their views, then the answer is very simple – don’t go on Twitter. Ben Pile summed it up nicely, when he called them planet-saving super heroes.
They actually think they are more important than they really are.
https://twitter.com/clim8resistance/status/1657873031681785859
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Almost worth creating a Twitter account to highlight the “climate” scam even more
“Maslin said he will stay on the platform and push back against conspiracy theories with scientific evidence.”
I wonder what his definition of ‘evidence’ is – models?
Hot models is all they got.
I am reasonably sure even under Elon Musk you can block anybody from reading and replying to your tweeps. If you think it matters.
What the scientists are actually complaining about is that they are not so easily able to censor and de-platform others who have a different view.
I reccomend they join the Royal Society where it is a long established principle that nothing but science consensus is the truth.
Science by consensus is science by a vote. That is not necessarily the truth.
I seem to think that for many centuries the scientific `consensus’ was that the sun moved around the earth. Consensus is an unscientific term.
“science consensus” is an oxymoron.
And an oxymoron is someone whose brain has been deprived of oxygen.
I get confused – to access Twitter one needs a device almost totally dependent on fossil fuels for its components, its manufacture in the Far East, transport to the West, and nightly recharge.
That’s all good use of fossil fuels as opposed to the evil fossil fuel you and the rest of us use.
“I want people to understand there are solutions.”
Not science. Solutions are politics amd where they are science, they are not his area of expertise. Maybe if he stuck to what he actually knows about and accepted that his solutions aren’t science, he wouldn’t get such abuse. But then like all these goons, he’s happy to give out abuse – Deniers, conspiracy theorists – but can’t take it.
I challenge the climate deniers
Leading with the chin there 🙄
So the headline says these scientists are getting “vicious abuse” but reading on the main complaint is they can’t “make themselves heard”.
“I spent years debating quite strongly with climate skeptics, including people I assume were paid,” he added. “But there can be a real personal cost interacting over a long time with people who are abusing you.”
Yet it’s OK to be abusive to “the climate deniers”
I wish I was paid to be a skeptic … but the Pro bono job came up after I’d learned critical thinking.
I’ve spent years debating quite strongly with climate maniacs, including people I KNOW were paid from my taxes; when their logic is proved false (often with their own data ), they call foul & descend into schoolyard bullying & name calling, then say it’s affecting their ‘mental health’ … if that’s true then good, it’s payback for all the anxiety they’ve caused, particularly in children.
Having been a “climate change denier” for over 10 years, my main observation of the climate emergency warriors is their reluctance to submit to open debate, over what is actually happening.
Has parallels with the trans issues.
Trans orgs. just want to stamp out any other opinions, but won’t engage in open debate.
Can’t see it on twitter but most other MSM, including the BBC, CNN, Reuters, are blaming climate change for the mountain falling onto the village of Breinz in Switzerland. These scientists still have lots of other outlets where they are most unlikely to be pestered by hurtful responses.
“Some of the UK’s top scientists are struggling to deal with what they describe as a huge rise in abuse from climate crisis deniers on Twitter since the social media platform was taken over by Elon Musk last year.”
Can we have the names of these ‘top’ scientists so that we can invite them to have a face to face discussion with ‘top’ scientists across the World who disagree with the one sided view of the fanatics? Scientists who themselves have had their names sullied by the fanatics over the past 30 years or more, and branded with such abusive comments as deniers (even in this story) and headless chickens for having an opposing viewpoint and which the main media, including the BBC, have refused to debate with over many years. Balanced reporting has never been the friend of the fanatics. Perhaps if Ms Fazackerley can give us the names of the complainants, she might also include details of any fees or grants which the receive for hoisting their one sided untruths on the gullible public.
Real science is starting to catch up. Death to the models!
Of course, he fails to state that he is also paid – very well (as long as he sticks to the script).
Here are some of Mark Maslin’s tweets. I’ve read some of the comments and couldn’t find any that are what you might term “abuse”. Maybe he terms counter argument as abuse. I don’t use Twitter myself but I’ve heard that it is a playground for all sorts of vicious souls. Maybe I’ve missed some.
And it is the prof who prefaces his ripostes with ‘BS’!
Thanks for the link Mad Mike.
I had a scan through. No real abuse I can see, just a hot kitchen. Would be worse on Gordon Ramsay! Lots of robust ripostes.
However, most impressed how many people have published excellent and valid rebuttals backed up with graphs etc. Very uplifting. Quite frankly the Prof’s sea level claims lack merit on multiple grounds:
(a) The satellite data has been massaged in the overlap periods to manufacture an acceleration – Willis E posted very clearly on this at WUWT
(b) in the overlap period the satellite data and the tide gage record different rates of rise and the error bars of the two measures do not overlap – again clearly demonstrated by Willis E at WUWT
(c) despite (b) the prof shows a graph splicing the tide and satellite data together and claims acceleration – false, misuse of data
(d) considering just the tide gauge data even the IPCC AR5 admnitted that rates of sea level rise in the first half ot he C20th were as fast the latter half
(e) the tide gauge data is best characterised as a linear trend with a quasi-periodic variation overlaid, with a period about 60 – 70 years. No evidence of acceleration.
(f) the linear sea level rise in Jevrejeva tide gauge reconstruction starts as early as 1820 – 1830 and accounting for lag this would imply temperatures began to rise as early as 1800. That clearly does not fit the “its man wot dunnit” story in any shape or form
The Prof is a fail. F’in exams. I note he has a few “F’s” after his name – FRGS and FRSA.
FRGS = Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society
FRSA = Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
Neither of which are really science affiliations.
Me, I have FRAS after my name – that’s because I am a geophysicist which might explain why apparently I understand the issues the Prof. is winging about better than he does.
He’s got some nice pictures of Hokey Schticks I notice!
Always a dead giveaway that.
Such good news. Has this come about because Musk wants an honest debate or is it simply because he wanted to cull the Twitter workforce?
‘often violent tweets’
Is this an English English definition of violence? In American English, this is childish. Sticks and stones . . . .
‘At the same time several users with millions of followers who propagate false statements about the climate emergency, including Donald Trump and rightwing culture warrior Jordan Peterson, have had their accounts reinstated.’
Bad People say . . . .
Goofball ad hom.
‘Some of the UK’s top scientists are struggling to deal with what they describe as a huge rise in abuse from climate crisis deniers on Twitter’
A helpful hint from the Colonies: Get off Twitter.
‘since the social media platform was taken over by Elon Musk last year’
Best thing that has happened this millennium.
‘key figures who ensured “trusted” content was prioritised’
That ain’t a platform, Sweetie. That’s a publisher.
An oddity of the 21st century: “trusted” content can’t be trusted.
‘Ed Hawkins, professor of climate science at Reading University, who has 94,000 Twitter followers’
Goofball metric. Ms Anna seems impressed with number of Twitter followers. Yet she dismisses Trump and Peterson, each with MILLIONS.
Do teachers warn problem kids, “You are never going to have any Twitter followers!”
Another fine article where every line can be picked apart.
Good comment!
So he’s not a great fan of free speech then…
So they are complaining that climate sceptics are no longer blocked and they are upset that people who disagree with them are allowed to do so. This is the first time I have seen the phrase ‘climate crisis denier’ – amazing to think that one can deny a fantasy and be abused for so doing. These people are terrified of being found out to be fantasists who will say anything to keep their well paid jobs.
Enough to cause ‘mental health problems’ perhaps 😎
I bought my first house in 1983 and have owned a total of four properties within a radius of one mile. I lived in Spain for three years, but moved back to the same district four years ago. I have had 37 years of living in NE5/15, I can honestly say that I have not noticed any difference in the climate whatsoever. I realise that this is a subjective observation, BUT 37 years of experience must count for something?
On the other hand the predictions extreme climate change, necessitating climate refugees, severe droughts, crop failures etc, simply has not happened and in my view after almost four decades, it is highly unlikely to do so!
If these top-level scientists think twitter (the clue is in the name) is the place to air their learned views, then I hope they are rightly abused.
Stick to your silly modelling and leave the social media to the woke and the kids
So much whining….so few adults.
What they never do is provide actual facts and proofs. So much for the “Scientific Method”. Of course, their ludicrous premises would collapse under actual facts and proofs.
I get involved in debate on a site called ResearchGate: a lot of the discussion is technically good, but the AGW advocates take-up between 40 and 50 % of the space with ad-hominem attacks on people who post with the primary objective of killing debate. The most common claim is that people are not “Climate Scientists” and have not published in the climate journals, which reject any “denier” papers anyway, so cannot be “qualified” to comment. Basically, the AGW advocates are not used to being questioned or criticised as they have been almost universally protected by climate censorship.
There is a difference between climate “denier” and skeptic. ResearchGate is owned by some Germans. It has severely censored some who are consistent climate skeptics by removing them as members, as well as all of their comments and data. Unprecedented! I was one. Not even allowed to ask for an explanation.
A common climate science fallacy is appeal to authority. Facts speak for themselves.
You don’t a PhD in maths to know that 2 +2 = 4.
Amazingly, anyone, even a washed up Hollywood actress, who agrees with them is automatically qualified.
Fact: No changes in extreme weather patterns in over 100 years. Just keep saying that until the warmunists are forced to respond with data. Then analyze their data.
Some towns in the Sahel are seeing more rainfall. Else, NO PLACE ON EARTH has a changing climate. NONE. Not in a hundred years. The southern margin of the Sahara moves up and down, so even the greening of the Sahel could be cyclical.
Climate Change has the rare quality of being both ignorant and stupid.
If you have a PhD in maths you will recognise that 2+2=11 base 3 is a perfectly correct alternative answer.
“Climate Change has the rare quality of being both ignorant and stupid.”
Same as it’s proponents !
“2+2=11 base 3”
Forty years ago, with the ‘New Math’ syllabus, an attempt was made to teach all children, when twelve or thirteen, how to use different bases, and how to convert between them. I do not think schools try any more.* The minds of even the brighter children were already ossified by their schooling, and they could not grasp the concepts involved. They also could not understand why you would want to convert a number in base 10 to base 3. The actual answer, “You will never want to. I am stretching your brain!” is guaranteed to infuriate any normal child.**
It is a very difficult problem WHEN to tell children – and adults! -that they need to revisit or revise something they KNOW they have mastered. We all hate “revision” do not we?
* I guess they do teach binary notation? Can not learn how so called digital [sic] computers function without knowing about the world of zeros and ones.
** “Modular arithmetic” is also something essentially simple which is taught so late that it always feels strange.
2+2 = 1 mod 3.
The difference is that modular arithmetic is actually useful in many applications of mathematics.
When I was in primary school I was taught arithmetic in bases 10, 2,3,4,5,8,12,14,16,20,22,60… a.k.a. imperial weights and measures. Which rather undermines Tom Lehrer’s amusing dig at “New Math” (which he taught) where he sang a subtraction sum in base 10 and then in octal. You may stay behind after school and clean the erasers…
Familiarity with the different bases makes it a lot easier to estimate multiplication and division sums.
So they wouldn’t have got on well with the sort of programming I used in the old days that involved binary, octal and hexadecimal – often all at the same time, dave!
A relative who was a math teacher until recently tells me that, despite their being addicted to computers and other devices, modern children know nothing about them.
I suppose the same happens with every generation. Things are made easy for us, we take them for granted, and we lose interest in the technology behind them. Many of my friends built ‘crystal’ radios. Who even remembers what they are? I loved the terminology. Superheterodyne! Whatever that is.
Ah, the magic of the home-built crystal radio set, pulling voices from the ether. I remember it well. If memory serves crystal sets were pre-heterodine which came later and required thermionic emission vacuum tubes to amplify the feeble signals detected and rectified by the magic crystal and cat whisker arrangement. Sound decoded by a piece of literal rock. But your point is well taken about the lack of any knowledge on the part of the users of how modern devices function. Perhaps we should require students to build a crystal radio set in science class; you know, winding the coils and using an actual gallium crystal and cat whisker, and some WWII surplus headphones. Making the “Earth” connection alone should start them thinking as long as the “teacher” dose not start a lecture on the proper pronouns of said connections, coils and phones.
“winding the coils”
Around a toilet roll centre!
Good! It’s about time! It just means that the debate about climate change is now more of a level playing field and people like Maslin can’t any longer scurrilously brand climate sceptics like us as “deniers”, with impunity.
If they genuinely want to engage in civil debate they need to stop using the word “denier” to vilify people by associatiing them with holocaust denial.
But they don’t want to engage in debate. That’s the theme from Climategate to these illogical rants on Twitter. They want platforms where they can pontificate and lecture, often on things well outside their actual areas of expertise. I get banned on Twitter by physicists who don’t want their supposed Economics expertise questioned, even when it’s obvious they don’t have a clue. For many academics it’s a shock to be questioned as they live in small bubbles of identical opinions these days.
Argumentum ad verecundiam, an appeal to an unqualified authority.
“I assume were paid”. It’s a scientist’s job to observe. Don’t assume- just give us the evidence.
“fairly clear who the good and bad actors were”. Likewise, where is the evidence for “fairly clear” and would it stand up to scientific testing of good versus bad actors.
There is a complete absence of scientific practice and rigour right through the Observer article about comments supposedly put forward by “a scientist”.
BBC lunchtime headline reader just called passing the 1.5C warming limit ‘DANGEROUS’!
Some ‘dangerous’ things better start happening soon after 1.5C day or I want my money back .😆
Meet the trollhunters who got 600 climate change deniers banned from Twitter
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/04/26/meet-the-trollhunters-who-got-600-climate-change-deniers-banned-from-twitter
“… But since Elon Musk took over Twitter and reinstated many previously banned accounts, things have changed a lot.
“After Musk took over, some of the other founders of the group are no longer active on Twitter. They were not particularly happy about the fact that all the accounts that we managed to get rid of for spreading misinformation were straight back on. It was four years of work removing these 600 key accounts that were causing damage,” says Tom. …”
“causing damage”
Interesting phrase. Being true is no defense. “Misinformation” is anything they don’t like, for whatever reason. Tyranny.
You have the right to say whatever you want, EVEN IF IT IS WRONG.
“Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.” — Neal Boortz
Not anymore. Even truth is no protection against elitist tyranny.
Paul. is there any reason you don’t use your twitter account much?
I never really think about it to be honest!
I’m not sure how many would follow it anyway
Just tweet a link to every now article you publish and I’ll personally guarantee you 1k followers by the end of June. As a guide, Steve Milloy has nearly 100k.
Will do!
Mark, I think you will find it is the other way round – you are being challenged. The sceptics were silenced for too long so you had an easy ride. Science is about challenge, not consensus.
The following is really worrying though:
WTF? Some two-bit Prof from UCL was having regular meetings to discuss censorship on a public platform?
Good.
Maslin is complaining that HIS truth is now being challenged. Now he cannot hide behind censorship so he will have to actually defend his ideas. Its called….SCIENCE.
Elon Musk has made a huge contribution to global free speech with Twitter.
In any case, it seems to me that the CAGW crowd are quite old people now, and have no real fire in their bellies. They are no longer relevant to ‘yoof,’ as ‘The Revolution’ has moved on to more exciting things, such as how many times you can change sex during a single conversation.
The CAGW crowd are in the frustrating position, for them, that the Earth probably has continued to warm, but with no effects on the weather! They thought that as a consequence of earth-shattering climate disasters, they would BE the Government by now, not merely minor advisers to it; and they certainly did not realize that the main financial winners would be the net-zero scammers and not them.
If we cast our minds back, we may remember that we were threatened with – or promised – real, noticeable effects. Crops would wither in the fields. Bangladesh would do the decent thing by way of example and disappear under the waves. We literally would never see snow again in England.
Promises! Promises! ‘Climate Refugees’ by now should be storming the beaches of Antarctica – not bloody Dungeness!
Real scientists previously welcomed debate however the arrogant climate change establishment have no interest in discussing their models or even debating other highly qualified scientists. Their minds are closed , it’s their way or the highway. May the blowback continue to challenge their total arrogance and condescension.
97% of scientists believe whoever is funding them. The other 3% get cancelled.
Of course the poor darlings will be quoting peer-reviewed papers in their defence but Jo Nova’s has a post showing that 60 years of peer-review has been a total failure in producing quality science. In fact, does the opposite.
Scientific breakthroughs were never peer reviewed because nobody else believed them: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein are just a few notable examples. All of them were persecuted for their insights by both the church and the scientific community. Plus ca change, mais plus ce le meme chose!
‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it …’ — Max Planck
Colloquially, “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”
It would seem then that “peer review” is a barrier to advancement. Peers confirm that a reviewed study complies with conventional wisdom.
The original purpose of peer review was, perhaps, threefold:
(1) To find out if a paper was likely to interest the audience of a Journal;
(2) To find out if a paper was old-hat or plagiaristic;
(3) To help the Editor evaluate a paper that he did not fully understand.
I do not think it was ever much about “gate-keeping” by the reviewers. “Green-inkers” were already weeded out by the Editor.* Victorian scientists did not worry about “bad ideas,” unless their Christian assumptions were directly called into question. Apart from that taboo, anything that provoked thought was good. And this gentlemanly approach to science worked well, so long as most of the ‘heavy lifting’ was done by inventors and engineers.
* Sometimes, of course, wrongly.
“Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science at University College London…”
Heh, University College London…that’s the notorious institution that “Professor” Neil “Pantsdown” Ferguson of Covid model fame belongs to.
Presumably they both use the same computer gamers – sorry, modellers!
No, I think Ferguson is attached to Imperial College. This was part of the University of London until 2008. UCL still is part. I would guess these institutions now are all pretty much of a muchness.
To borrow an apropos phrase, “When the flack comes up, you know you are over the target.”
Articles in the Observer/Guardian deserve their own set of awards for sheer crass stupidity. Take this article from the US edition (do Americans really read the Graun?)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/16/food-insecurity-us-college-students
It actually highlights an obese idiot who ” rolls out of bed every morning around 9 or 10am” (presumably he rolls because he’s too fat to get up normally) who is suffering from under nourishment. FFS is this supposed to be a piss take ? If so it speaks volumes about the rest of the crap the Graun pumps out
Wake me when people are starving to death in the streets, rather than fat people complaining about not getting enough to eat.
“…under nourishment…”
Perhaps not quite the right phrase, as it suggests not eating enough. But one can definitely eat enough foods – but of poor nutritional quality. Indeed, holistic doctors say that half of us are actually mal-nourished – consuming plenty of calories but insufficient high-quality protein, and virtually running on empty for some trace elements and vitamins, as our intestines are often in poor condition and mal-absorb.
Dogmatic doctors have convinced almost everyone that something called complex* carbs are good, and fat and protein bad. And that vitamin supplements are ‘expensive urine.’ Complete nonsense. But the food industry found this to be a cover for producing what is merely easy and cheap to make – and highly addictive. I do not blame them in the slightest for this. We should be grown-up enough to decide what is sensible for us and what is not.
* Just chains of various sugars actually and so – sugar.
The debate is entirely at the wrong level. Climate is changing and always has. The question is whether CO2 has an influence. No conclusive evidence has been provided. Man made CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total gain (ca.4%). The evidence is that the CO2 levels are a dependent variable on temperature increase. This is basic physics. The bleating by “Climate Crisis” pseudo scientists is simply an attempt to avoid true scientific review of their political positioning. I have no sympathy for their fragile egos.
“Man made CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total gain (ca. 4%)”
There is a fallacy here, as it ignores the fact that not only is there a stock of CO2 in the atmosphere (of which it may or may not be true that 4% can in some sense be identified as man made – I have no idea) but there are flows in and out of that stock all the time.
Consider you have a pile consisting of 1,000 pound coins and you spend all 1,000 steadily through every month and replenish steadily with 1,000 coins from your income. The stock stays at 1,000. Now your Aunt puts in 20 fifty-p coins a month to help you save and you still spend only £1,000 in total but use whatever coinage comes to hand. In that case almost always the 20 added fifty-p coins disappear during the month and, at any time, actual fifty-p coins will be “a tiny fraction” of your stock. After 100 months the stock will have increased to £2,000 in value but contain very few of the two thousand fifty-p coins that your Aunt actually put in the pile. If you accuse her on that basis of not being the cause of the increase in your stock – she should call you out on your fallacy.
Consider the implications of Dalton’s Law, Henry’s Law and Charles’ law.
Every molecule of CO2 removed from the atmosphere by sequestration will rapidly be replaced by another molecule from the vast sink in the oceans, lakes etc.
Note that during the Scamdemic mankind’s CO2 emissions apparently reduced by 17% so some “climate scientists” proclaimed that this would cause a reduction in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, hence clearly demonstrating mankind’s effect.
Unfortunately, the Keeling curve never so much as twitched, so that notion rapidly descended into oblivion.
“Every molecule of CO2 removed from the atmosphere will rapidly [sic] be replaced…”
Indeed, there are fifty molecules of (undissociated) carbon dioxide in the sea for every one in the air and final balance requires that additions (or reductions) to the atmosphere be shared with the sea in that ratio – with the sea ‘scrubbing’ most of the addition (or reduction). However, the eventual balance is attained in two steps, of which only the first is rapid.
To be more precise, for every two molecules added (or removed) in the air, one will be rapidly removed (or added) from the upper, vigorously-mixed, layer of the sea*. The ‘other molecule’ will find its place eventually, when the whole sea mixes sufficiently that all the deep water has been exposed to the air – but (unfortunately) this is a mixing which takes centuries to happen**. The carbon dioxide that is being released to the air at this moment by ‘upwelling’ in warm climes was absorbed near the poles during the Little Ice Age!
* Micro-mixing and diffusion mean that the CO2 in the top twenty feet is always in balance with the air. Churning by wind extends this down to fifty feet. Winter storms mix everything so that the top hundred or so feet of water is mixed annually. But below this everything is calm; diffusion of the contained gas, on its own, is not enough to overcome the essential layering of the sea within human lifetimes.
** By the thermohaline circulation, which takes a thousand years to mix everything. Having said that, there is growing evidence for important, active-transport down of carbon, by life, in such a way as to be the equivalent of transport down of carbon dioxide. Radioactive material from the nuclear testing era has been recovered from samples of benthic life at depths of twenty thousand feet. Fifty years to get there – not a thousand.
Dave, have you come across this CO2 visualisation tool?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-2.28,54.07,462/loc=-2.278,54.068
It is interesting to observe the wide variation in concentration at different points, for example on 2023-05-20 13:30 :
460 ppm at 39.85° N, 75.44° W
407 ppm at 12.36° S, 70.95° W
429 ppm at 19.92° N, 155.62° W
Not what I would expect from a “well-mixed” gas, it is also interesting to change the date and watch the concentration change.
It would interesting to know where the data comes from also.
Found it!
https://earth.nullschool.net/about.html
“Climate is changing and always has.”
[citation needed]
Very well said, thank you.
A BBC employee has said that they were told by the BBC that they know there is not a climate emergency and that CO2 is not to blame. They were told not to mention this to anyone and all relevant staff were similarly advised
I asked of our MP whether he knew this about the BBC.. This was his reply:-
Setting the BBC itself to one side, what we know for certain is that a global group of around 11,000 scientists endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency. That announcement, back in 2019, was based on 40 years of data and analysis.
Just like Wikigate
>>key figures who ensured “trusted” content
Man who calls people who disagree with him ‘deniers’ gets upset if people are rude to him.
Complete lack of self-awareness.
Yes, and No. This fool is obviously suffering delusions of grandeur, along with the latest malady added to the DSM-4, Climate Derangement Syndrome. Hopefully he will get the help that he so obviously needs.
“Climate Derangement Syndrome.”
Doctors are divided on the question of whether or not this is a ‘variant’ of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or even of “Johnson Derangement Syndrome.” They agree that a common symptom in these conditions is extreme irritability.
Very strange that the “derangement syndromes” attributed to names of politicians only happen for those supposedly “on the right”. Why are those “on the left” ignored?
A closer read reveals both Trump Derangement Syndrome AND its new cousin, Climate Derangement Syndrome effect only the very tightly wound leftist, RINOs and members of the DC Administrative State. The common thread linking these seemingly disparate groups is uncontrollable, child-like fear of authority, reality and common sense. Hopefully Barrator Beijing Biden has included additional funding in his Dec 2023 Omnivorous bill so these troubled souls can get the help they so desperately need.
“Why are those “on the left” ignored?”
“There are no enemies on the Left”, ask any Lefty!