It's not his fault he didn't see that spike around year 2000. He only looked at the part highlighted in pink/red/orange with the word "medieval" and "warm". That's what you should have been looking at too! ;-)
Soon and Baliunas again? The first time they disproved climate change was in 2003. Thirteen different scientists put out papers on why their methodology was wrong and it the journal that published it then retracted the paper. They proved climate change was wrong in 2011 too. That time it was found out all their funding came from oil companies, which they had refused to cite as a conflict of interest. 11 of his papers were shown to have a specific conflict of interest, with 8 of them being against the guidelines of the journals he published in them. Soon has received $1.2 million from oil companies from 2001-2015, which was found out by a Freedom of Information Act request on his grants. He is associated with the Smithsonian, but they don't fund him at all. They were forced to have their inspector general do a full review of ALL of their scientist's sponsorships due to Soon's outright dishonesty. In 2015 he cowrote a paper with Lord Monckton - who is not a scientist. They managed to get it published in the Chinese Climate Review, after peer review. They could not get it published anywhere else. And oh by the way, China controls that periodical, and they are the largest carbon polluters in the world now. It was the subject of an article, 'Why does climate denialism still get published?' Should be pretty easy to see why in this context. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bmjpg5/peer-reviewing-climate-denial Anyway, not a guy to be taken seriously. Natural variation does occur, no one has argued against that. It's just that isn't the only thing happening, we are doing the rest, and we are seeing things such as massive continual wildfires scorching unheard of amounts of wilderness to insurance companies moving entirely out of certain regions in the US as being uinsurable. But the oil companies still want to sell as much oil as possible as long as possible, and there are people out there willing to be bribed to help them do that. Such as Willie Soon.
Here's actual global temperatures since 1900. Not the IPAA projected temperatures that Mann, Bradley and Hughes put together in 1999 that was referred to as the Hockey Stick, the actual temperatures according to the NOAA. This graph is from climate.gov.
Things not so good in NYC. And look see what the priority of the NYPD is. https://twitter.com/SafetyNetUJC/status/1707922714818695526?t=xwKSNrt5AKFRGH4PrAkyMA&s=19
Climate change could make beer taste bad. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67078674 Yeah, you'll pay attention now, motherfuckers.
On the upside, a 20m rise in sea levels would effectively wipe out Florida. Just trying to look on the bright side!
It’s December and there’s a tornado warning in my area. I’ve lived in this state for almost 30 years and I can’t remember ever having a tornado warning in December.
https://x.com/thisjustintv/status/1733623272808366255?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ That’s less than 10 miles from me.
Yeah, that rise takes place over centuries according to the article. That gives florida man time to breed with water creatures to form an army of aquafloridamen that will rule the world. Did you see shark guy from The Suicide Squad? Imagine him hooked on meth, with military weaponry and hungry for humans. Life in the duh does not die easy. It is full of crazy drugs and has a taste for human faces. Just saying we probably want to stop this before it gets out of hand.
2023 has been a first for me on many fronts. April was so hot we actually turned on our Air Conditioner. I don't think we've ever turned it on prior to the Victoria Day (late May) weekend. And just this past weekend, I mowed my lawn. In December. Remember that I live in Canada. But hey, nothing to see here, folks...
COP28 looks like it's going to collapse, mainly due to the petro-states refusing to agree to phase out fossil fuels. They're still talking about keeping us within 1.5 degrees, which is utterly delusional. Hard to conclude other than that the whole process is for show.
I could easily see billionaires emitting more CO2 just by virtue of having more cars, private planes, more homes, yachts, helicopters, etc. Not to defend billionaires, but I think the researchers fudged these numbers a little too much by including CO2 emissions related to their financial investments and shareholdings. Unless they operate or fully own a company, they aren't solely responsible for all of the CO2 emissions of that company.