@AkademiskC 2/7》Here's the Most Trusted Man in America™ (Walter Cronkite) reporting on the threat of Global Cooling, 9/11/1972:
Prof. Hubert Lamb (the source who Cronkite cited) was founding director of the UEA Climate Research Unit.
@AkademiskC 3/7》Here's a 1974 CIA report about the looming threat of a return to the neo-boreal conditions of the Little Ice Age (global cooling). It summarized the scientific consensus:
"The western world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change… during 50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century… The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal climate of agricultural-optimum is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal era. The climate change began in 1960…"
5/7》The grim climate to which we were thought to be returning was the Little Ice Age. ("Boreal" means cold.)
boreal. adj. Relating to or characteristic of the climatic zone south of the Arctic, especially the cold temperate region dominated by taiga and forests of birch, poplar, and conifers…
@AkademiskC 6/7》In that same CIA Report you'll find Figure 7, entitled "Food for Thought," which shows how the number of persons supportable per hectare of arable land diminishes with cooling temperatures:
7/7》
@ThreadReaderApp @Rattibha @threaddotblue unroll
@reSeeIt save thread
Here's a list of resources for learning about #ClimateChange — science, not political spin:
It has:
● accurate introductory climatology information
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● accurate information about impacts of CO2 & climate change, such as the effects on crop yields
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the climate debatesealevel.info/learnmore.html
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@ciais_philippe 2/7❯ The benefits of rising CO2 levels for agriculture are spectacular. CO2 is not the only reason for improving crop yields, but it is one of the major reasons:
@ciais_philippe 3/7❯ The best scientific evidence shows that CO2 emissions are beneficial, and manmade climate change is modest and benign. Here are some relevant studies: sealevel.info/negative_socia…
2/17. That DeSmogBlog article about Will Happer is a brazen, despicable smear.
DeSmogBlog claimed that "Peabody Energy paid [Happer] $8,000 which was routed through the CO2 Coalition."
That's a LIE. Prof. Happer was not paid, because he asked that his entire fee be donated to charity.
3/17. DeSmog also falsely claimed, "Happer told Greenpeace reporters that he would be willing to produce research promoting the benefits of carbon dioxide for $250 per hour, while the funding sources could be similarly concealed by routing them through the CO2 Coalition."
That's ANOTHER LIE.
Happer did no such thing. Rather, he was asked to produce a white paper (which is not "research") explaining the best scientific evidence about the costs and benefits of fossil fuel use—and he generously asked that the fee for that work be donated to charity.
The CO2 Coalition @CO2Coalition is a 501(c)(3) educational charity. Happer didn't "route" anything "through" them. He very generously donated the fees to which he was entitled, to that very worthy charity.
I have the paper, and the five responses, and Skrable's responses to the responses, on my site, here: sealevel.info/Skrable2022/
2/6. The 14C bomb spike decay reflects 3 main processes:
1. Removal of CO2 from the air, into other "reservoirs" (ocean & terrestrial biosphere).
2. Exchanges of carbon between atmosphere & other reservoirs.
3. "Suess effect" dilution: the addition of fossil CO2 with no 14C.
3/6. The bomb spike decay follows a beautiful logarithmic decay curve, with an 11 year half-life, so an 11 / ln(2) = 16 year apparent lifetime. But that fails to take into account Suess effect dilution. sealevel.info/logc14_two_hal…
1/5. Anymous84861064 & Lynas (2021) are bludgeoning a strawman. They pretend the climate debate is whether anthropogenic climate change is real, so they can claim there's a scientific consensus - while slyly avoiding saying what the consensus is about. sealevel.info/consensus_defi…
@Rabs1958 @LottRan @Anymous84861064 @GillesnFio @S_D_Mannix @mikeshearn49 @ItsTheAtmospher @navigator087 @Veritatem2021 @Devonian1342 @MarcEHJones @GAJAJW @BenKoby1911 @Jaisans @bulkbiker @Climatehope2 @DenisDaly @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @Anvndarnamn5 @Michael_D_Crow @Hji45519156 @waxliberty @priscian @SuperFoxyLoxy @ChrisBBacon3 @JaapTitulaer @Willard1951 @wjack76995 @Rocky35418823 @NobaconEgbert @balls95652097 @BointonGiles @AristotleMrs @ammocrypta @SeekerTheGreat1 @ubique60 @EthonRaptor @RMcgillss @paligap17 @TheDisproof @MaggieL @Willy1000 @AuroriaTwittori @3GHtweets @MartinJBern @gstrandberg1 @Jakegsm @EricWil06256732 2/5. Most skeptics of climate alarmism agree with that "consensus" view, including me. So what? That's not what the debate is about! quora.com/It-is-claimed-…
3/5. Of course AGW is "real." The climate industry's problem is that the best evidence shows that CO2 & manmade climate change are beneficial, not harmful. The "social cost of carbon" is negative. sealevel.info/negative_socia…