Booby, in the “Dubyne is a snake oil seller” thread asks plaintively:

“What about Galactic Cosmic Rays?”

He knows that CRs cause nucleation but nucleii that are WAY too small to have water vapor condense on them. I have told him, commenters on the snake oil seller YT channel have told him. He doesn’t have knowledge or education, he won’t accept facts, just believes the Dubyne snake oil. And he has destroyed the Environment board as I knew he would.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 10:04pm:


Exactly.  I had earlier referred to DuByne's stuff as 'Dear Diary, today it was cold in New York. Ice Age coming.'

Now the dupe accuses me of being a liar, that cosmic rays do cause clouds. He cites as authority a YouTube (of course) quoting something about CERN. A YouTube by that fraud Svensmark.

I call Svensmark a fraud because he does not follow the scientific method: he tortures data (excluding data that doesn’t fit  until he gets some correlation or other then says “Proved!” Fraud.

Whatever. When this crap about GCRs affecting our weather came up in a snake oil seller video I did some searching in Google. GCR–caused nuclei are too small to have water vapor condense on them. Maybe in some tightly controlled conditions they might but not in real life. Not only that, someone explained this at length in a comment to one of the snake oil videos.

What is causing more clouds is that there is more moisture in the air due to AGW.

There is no global cooling that can be seen, e.g in this GISS graph:



We see temperatures have cooled a tad as expected after the big El Nino in 2016. There is NOTHING there to indicate global cooling leading to an ice age—we see bigger fluctuations in the graph. Peaks due to El Ninos and dips due volcanic eruptions and La Nina’s. Remember too when looking at the graph that TSI reduced a tad since the 1980s yet the globe warmed and will continue warming due to AGW.

Look at the temperature anomaly for 1880—about -0.2°C then look at the temperature for 2016— close to 1°C so that is 1.2°C WARMING since 1880.

Yes I know all these figures are rigged  Nah I think they are pretty good.

It is hypothesised that one of the triggers for an El Nino was fifty years of very heavy volcanic eruptions sending tons of sulphates into the upper atmosphere where they reflected away a lot of sunlight. This would have been in the late thirteenth–early fourteenth centuries.

The LIA had temperatures about 0.5°C cooler than temperatures in the early 1900s—it wasn’t a real ice age at all. We have warmed like 1.0°C since then, so similar cooling now would not be all that bad, would it?

The world will keep warming while we keep pumping CO2, CH4 and N2O into the air.

Having shown all this—come on, it is way beyond time that Booby was removed as Mod of the Dubyne MRB and someone, Barnacle maybe, NOT me, be appointed Mod and the board become the Environment board again.

Do we need TWO Fringe boards, FD?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2018 at 10:26am:



Now  am not a climate scientist; but from what you have posted neither are you.

So what amount of predictions by "limate scientists" have been shown to be not true?

End of Snow? - Nope
Increases in Extreme weather? - Nope. Landed Hurricanes in the USA - decreasing.

Need I go on?

lee wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2018 at 11:18am:


Got the names of climate scientists making those predictions? Thought not. Al Gore is not a scientist if you were going to name him.

Anybody making predictions will come a cropper sometimes, in science, on the stock exchange, betting on a race, businesses making business plans or a request for a bank loan, a scientist formulating a theory etc.

Wow, three scientists.