Personally I think if China and other AES states agree with this, we should join in as well. Right now I read these articles with healthy scepticism and I am curious on your views. These are the ones that I found interesting. Russia may present an alternate take this December, an interesting time to be alive.
Edit: I shouldn’t have started with such a hollow article. The dismissal of increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts due to warming is not something I support. Here’s something better that shows that the current model fails to explain the strong cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and East Pacific.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article219438.html
^ Explains that the Russian Academy of Sciences has a different account on climate change that will be presented this year. The IPCC has a monopoly on climate science, the IPCC was founded by Thatcher as a reaction to striking coal workers and is a political organization.
https://www.voltairenet.org/article163379.html Ecology of war
https://www.voltairenet.org/article164791.html Market ecology
https://www.voltairenet.org/article164792.html Financial ecology
A cold climate petro state like Russia has a lot of incentives to present alternative explanations. They don’t want the world to burn less oil and could do with some more warm weather anyway.
Also, are we really pretending the West actually bases policies on it’s own climate change science anyway? To present carbon as a conspiracy by the West would contradict the reality that the West continues to emit carbon.
I’m skeptical.
A cold climate petro state like Russia has a lot of incentives to present alternative explanations. They don’t want the world to burn less oil and could do with some more warm weather anyway.
Yeah, that’ why I am waiting for some confirmation.
To present carbon as a conspiracy by the West would contradict the reality that the West continues to emit carbon.
What’s the contradiction in that? They can emit CO2 while complaining about China doing the same.
CO2 emissions as a greenhouse gas create a contradiction between immediate productivity and future productivity. Why would they promote a theory that would hurt economic productivity for an imaginary threat to future productivity? There’s no good reason to invent this theory from nothing when they could have invented a different theory that wouldn’t hurt their own ability to exploit natural resources and produce energy and burn fuel. They could have invented a different lie that wouldn’t hurt their own interests and vassals.
It only makes sense as real science, because the West is being forced to reckon with a real threat to its own future.
They can ignore it while telling other countries to deindustrialize (they already attacked China)
Also deindustrialization happens under capitalism and it could be useful to justify it.
What would be the benefit to the West for nations like China to deindustrialise? The west lacks the industrial capacity to support itself, let alone the entire world. It also both cannot and will not ramp up production as it would be simultaneously far too costly, and would give far too much labour power to workers for the capitalists’ comfort. So is their ultimate goal just global degrowth? That doesn’t really track.
No, to justify their deindustrialization while industry goes abroad and then say China bad.
So we should doubt climate change because capitalists will use it as a justification to achieve their goals?
No, the discussion is on why they would do lie not are they lying.
Even the mainstream majority believe that the climate models are wrong as cooling has been measured in the Pacific.
The Russian theory attempts to account for this.
This is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that**** end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. ****These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
**>She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted. **
How is it useful to justify their own de-industrialization though? To create dissent within their own carbon emitting empire?
And if they can ignore dissent that is caused by the CO2 conspiracy, why not just ignore dissent caused by attacking China?
There are no alternate explanations because the explanations that we have make sense. Unless you have reasons to be skeptical I don’t see the point of exercising skepticism for the sake of it. You can wait for the grand reveal of this alternate theory at the COP if you want but you are likely going to be disappointed.
Edit: my bad. Looks like the theory has already been publicised according to the linked telegram post. I can’t assess the merits of it though.
The current theory does make sense but there are parts of the world that are cooling despite that being contrary to modeling.
Even the mainstream majority believe that the climate models are wrong as cooling has been measured in the Pacific.
The Russian theory attempts to account for this, although like you mentioned, I am not sure how good it is.
This is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that**** end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. ****These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
**>She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted. **
I will just add that the no climate emergency declaration is most likely a nothingburger. From its signatories almost none of them are climate scientists. The two Nobel laureates that have signed it are washed up physicists.
As you said the Russian theory does not invalidate current models. If it is correct it will augment existing models so that predictions conform to real world observations.
If you agree with the the first paragraph then you will agree that there is no reason to be sceptical of climate change.
Not sceptical of warming but the anthropogenic and global nature.
The theory is that CO2 is not the main factor contributing to climate change (outside the Eastern Pacific and Southern ocean) and forest fires. This is radically different. The question ultimately arises: If CO2 is not the main driving factor of climate change, then to what extent does human activity relevant? If we do not have control then we should focus on the mitigation disaster than CO2 emission.
As you said the Russian theory does not invalidate current models.
The article by the bulletin of atomic scientists says that their models are not necessarily invalidated by the cooling trend but it still needs to be explained. The Russians explained this by saying that CO2 is not a major factor. This is radically different from the models which assume that CO2 is the main factor. Thus the Russian theory would invalidate the significance of CO2 in warming and instead of global warming, we have several examples of regional warming. This is much more than a footnote.
“The main cause of local climatic catastrophes is the increasing emission of natural hydrogen due to the alternating gravitational forces of the moon and sun, which cause holes in the ozone layer. The resulting rise in temperature and the mixing of ozone and hydrogen are the main causes of forest and steppe fires”
The wording of this is much different from what we’ve heard. I understand the greenhouse effect theory better, this one seems weird but it’s definately a big if true.
I am not convinced at all by the voltairenet article. The whole basis of it is a translated telegram post of a study that has not been scrutinized. Either way it is very simple to find out whether the author is in over his head or not. When the next COO happens, we can see for ourselves whether Russian delegates put this theory forward and whether it causes a political split as the author puts its.
Regardless the wording of the translation is very vague. “Main cause of local climate catastrophes”. It is not clear at all to what extent the author is trying to discredit anthropogenic greenhouse gas emmission.
If you care for my opinion then I think you are mindbending incomplete information to conform to a bias that you have about the causes of climate change or maybe its existence. I am not an expert on this topic and I have my own biases but neither are voltairenet and especially CLINT. I’ll stick to the currently understood model of climate change until the consensus changes.
deleted by creator
Lemme break down Clintel for you:
This is some pseudoscience garbage that has no merit. All of their arguments are the same ancient, tired ones that your moron conservative uncle has been saying for thirty years. When your scientific document’s primary basis just says “i mean but where’s the proof that it’s anthropogenic though?” without any additional insight beyond parroting a 2001 Fox News chyron, it’s not good science. They’ve decided that climate change does not exist, and are trying to work back from there.
Quacks will frequently try to tell you that their skill and knowledge in one field of science will make them an expert at everything. If a physicist tries to tell you something about climate change, trans people, or capitalism, you should regard their opinion the same as you’d regard a trucker or a glassblower’s. They have no additional training, understanding, or insight on these subjects simply because they’re very skilled at something that’s entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Looking through the signatories, I see physicists, geologists, computer scientists, and exactly zero climate scientists.
Also, this organization is tied closely to the Koch-funded Atlas Network, with the overwhelming majority of their signatories and ambassadors being members of the Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, or other associated groups. Their website is a blog and virtually all of the media listed there are either very poorly researched essays with charts that show the exact opposite of the claims they make, or bios on random signatories and their flat earth wives whose accreditations are mostly just “I went to college for geology in the 70s and I teach computer science at a college you’ve never heard of.”
VoltaireNet is anything but a reliable source, it’s a wild conspiracy org associated with Thierry Meyssan, who’s best known for 9/11 conspiracy theories and using circular citations with other conspiracy theorists. He cites weirdo B, B cites weirdo C, C cites Thierry. Dude is a total crank, dunno what to tell you. Look at the website, it’s totally goofy shit. Come on, now.
Voltaire net has been used here a lot as a source, he’s a left winger and his book has been popularized by Arab leaders. 9/11 being an inside job is a commonly held opinion in the global south. The website is the most followed on geopolitics. I am not a conservative, my parents are both left wing Indians.
Comrade, I’m not trying to suggest you are a right-winger. I’m just saying that these sources may not be as authoritative and reliable as you may have thought. Even if voltairenet is respectable on geopolitics, why would a geopolitics expert be the person you’d trust on climate change, rather than a climate scientist?
A conversation on 9/11 is probably best left for another thread, my points are simply that A. People can be wrong, B. Just because someone is good at one thing doesn’t mean we should trust them on another, and C. When the research and scientific methods being used for something are dubious at best and intentionally misleading at worst, we probably shouldn’t trust those sources.
You can find other sources corroborating this. I get that CLINTEL is shady but what they say can be corroborated. I haven’t looked at everything on their site so there may be some wacky stuff (I do regret using it as a source) but my point is the modeling can’t explain everything.
Point is: the Earth is cooling a lot in the Eastern Pacific and southern ocean and there’s an alternative Russian theory that suggests that holes in the ozone layer are the main cause of climate change not CO2. It will be likely discussed at the world stage at COP this year.
This is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists corroborating the CLINTEL article on climate change not having been as severe as predicted, with a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean:
https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
You can find a group of people willing to sign anything for money or attention. 1600 “scientists” worldwide doesn’t really mean much. Especially since the question becomes: how many of them are climate scientists? A physicist might have a good grasp of an atom, but that doesn’t mean they automatically understand every other scientific discipline. It’s like saying a plumber can easily do a mechanic’s job because they both use wrenches.
A lot of bad faith groups use tactics like this, finding an impressive sounding number of people to support whatever thing they claim, but when you look closer, you find that none of the people (or very few) actually have the credentials necessary to make an informed decision on the matter, sometimes they’ll even just lie and add fake names or fake doctorates to try and pad the numbers.
I don’t know about this one chief
The report in the first link is 1 page of affirmations, without any evidence, backing, nor references. Followed by 50 pages of names of random people, including a veterinarian and my old scuba instructor (really!).
That’s not a report. I’ll pass.
I can provide evidence to back up those claims
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (founded by nuclear scientists like Einstein, talks about climate change issues) https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/
Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.
She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.
I understand that the CO2 theory is a well-regarded mainstream theory but Russia’s theory of climate change attempts to account for these abnormalities. So I wanted to discuss this with the comrades.
