• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A new Solar cycle 25 forecast

If this comes to pass, it WILL promote significant cooling in the future.

Oh God... not this BS again!

Isn't that exactly what you all claimed back in 2008 at the start of cycle 24?

All past large solar drops have been followed by a cooling wave, even the significant drop of cycle 20 was enough to intensify an existing cooling trend, that we then experienced in the 1970's.

Except for the last cycle. 24 was even lower than 20. In fact, 24 was the lowest in almost 200 years. And...

trend25.jpg

...mostly a lot of warming.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
 
Let's look at your source that you heavily rely on. Ten, Independence thinkers can evaluate for themselvees.

. Anthony Watts - SourceWatch



It then goes on to examine his qualifications, and how he misrepresents them.

Then from Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check




And Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science | Environment | The Guardian



So.. as long as you use anthony watts as a source, I can safely say that there is objective and credible evidence my statement is true.

Wow...

The trifecta of activist sites.

Doesn't surprise me.
 
And you think these sites of stupid punditry are better than WUWT, which sources they material well?

I pity you. Your education is most certainly sub-standard.

Ever read the source material WUWT uses?

I didn't think so.

You prefer to have others tell you what to believe.
 
LOL Research grants are not lobbying funds which are solely given to pursue the denialist agenda. Huge difference.

Research grants are based on political agenda. Most the nations like the notion of another means of controlling and taxing people.

Do you have an answer as to why the research is so much out of balance, skewed 99.5+% to the AGW agenda, but it only buys them a 57% or so agreement?
 
If this comes to pass, it WILL promote significant cooling in the future.

A NATURAL trend...………..

Not so sure

Solar activity and climate - Wikipedia

Look at the first chart. 1996 saw a low in solar activity, and yet the average temperatures at this time were INCREASING.

The pattern seems to be that during most of the recent lows, temperatures have remained steady at the very lowest point and then increased at all other times.
 
Not so sure

Solar activity and climate - Wikipedia

Look at the first chart. 1996 saw a low in solar activity, and yet the average temperatures at this time were INCREASING.

The pattern seems to be that during most of the recent lows, temperatures have remained steady at the very lowest point and then increased at all other times.

I see you are ignorant as to how equalization works.

This is a science topic. Please familiarize yourself with science if you wish to debate it.
 
I see you are ignorant as to how equalization works.

This is a science topic. Please familiarize yourself with science if you wish to debate it.

Oh, one of those people who start with insults.

Sorry, I don't bother with such people. Bye.
 
Oh, one of those people who start with insults.

Sorry, I don't bother with such people. Bye.

Ignorant simply means you don't know. I myself, am ignorant of many things. This topic is not one of them.
 
Yes yes yes you can deny all you want.


Yet, here, it says , 17M

Heartland Institute | DeSmogBlog

Another interesting note is that most of the Heartland Institute records cited were from before 2010. The Conservative movement got more creative after that time. They started using Donors Trust. Same big oil money from the same players, such as Heartland Institute, but the money is more difficult to track, as Donor's Trust, as the name implies allows the donators to hide their contributions. Does it make you wonder - WHY DO GROUPS LIKE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE WANT TO HIDE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS? The answer is simple, as the following article exposes --- it's DARK MONEY!

Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement – Mother Jones

Founded in 1999, Donors Trust (and an affiliated group, Donors Capital Fund) has raised north of $500 million and doled out $400 million to more than 1,000 conservative and libertarian groups, according to Whitney Ball, the group’s CEO. Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so anonymously, essentially scrubbing the identity of those underwriting conservative and libertarian organizations. Wisconsin’s 2011 assault on collective bargaining rights? Donors Trust helped fund that. ALEC, the conservative bill mill? Donors Trust supports it. The climate deniers at the Heartland Institute? They get Donors Trust money, too.

Donors Trust is not the source of the money it hands out. Some 200 right-of-center funders who’ve given at least $10,000 fill the group’s coffers. Charities bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the DeVoses, and the Bradleys, among other conservative benefactors, have given to Donors Trust. And other recipients of Donors Trust money include the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the NRA’s Freedom Action Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, chaired (PDF) by none other than David Koch.

"DeSmogBlog concluded . . . " To which the response to this unsupported claim is: So what? Meanwhile, in reality world:

[FONT=&quot]IS THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE FUNDED BY THE KOCH BROTHERS?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No. Neither Charles Koch nor David Koch — nor any Koch family charitable foundation — is a current or regular contributor to The Heartland Institute. Koch Industries has never funded The Heartland Institute.The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 donated $25,000 to Heartland to support our work promoting free-market health care solutions, not climate issues. That is a paltry sum (0.36 percent) in our organization’s $7 million budget. That single donation — to support our work on health care issues — was the only Koch-connected contribution to Heartland over the last 16 years. [Important note: Heartland didn’t begin to support and promote scientists who are skeptical of human-caused climate catastrophe until 2008.]The “Koch Brothers” generously support many nonprofit organizations that promote free markets and individual liberty. The Heartland Institute is not among them. Our policy positions, at any rate, are based on principle. We are not a “pay to play” organization.[/FONT]

Heartland Institute: Home


Home | Heartland Institute



MICHAEL PARRY MAZUR LIBRARY The Heartland Institute hosts one of the nation's best libraries on freedom and limited government with more than 14,600 ...About Us · ‎Center-Climate · ‎Reply to Critics · ‎Careers
 
Research grants are based on political agenda. Most the nations like the notion of another means of controlling and taxing people.

Do you have an answer as to why the research is so much out of balance, skewed 99.5+% to the AGW agenda, but it only buys them a 57% or so agreement?

The "notion" that scientists are being coerced into a "AGW agenda" by evil nations is all yours. Science and research grants do not work that way. Denialist "grants" are another story. If you want to be paranoid, look at the fact that 4 out of the 5 largest profit corporations in the world make their money from fossil fuel.

The five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year, in 2011, despite reducing their oil production.
In 60 seconds, these five companies earned $261,000 — more than 96 percent of American households make in one year.
These five oil companies received $6.6 million in federal tax breaks every day.

In 2011, the three largest domestic public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest share holders.
The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and keep big oil tax breaks, totaling nearly $150 million.

What Five Oil Companies Did With Their $375 Million In Daily Profits – ThinkProgress
 
Last edited:
"DeSmogBlog concluded . . . " To which the response to this unsupported claim is: So what? Meanwhile, in reality world:

[FONT="]IS THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE FUNDED BY THE KOCH BROTHERS?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]No. Neither Charles Koch nor David Koch — nor any Koch family charitable foundation — is a current or regular contributor to The Heartland Institute. Koch Industries has never funded The Heartland Institute.The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 donated $25,000 to Heartland to support our work promoting free-market health care solutions, not climate issues. That is a paltry sum (0.36 percent) in our organization’s $7 million budget. That single donation — to support our work on health care issues — was the only Koch-connected contribution to Heartland over the last 16 years. [Important note: Heartland didn’t begin to support and promote scientists who are skeptical of human-caused climate catastrophe until 2008.]The “Koch Brothers” generously support many nonprofit organizations that promote free markets and individual liberty. The Heartland Institute is not among them. Our policy positions, at any rate, are based on principle. We are not a “pay to play” organization.[/FONT]


Heartland Institute: Home


Home | Heartland Institute



MICHAEL PARRY MAZUR LIBRARY The Heartland Institute hosts one of the nation's best libraries on freedom and limited government with more than 14,600 ...About Us · ‎Center-Climate · ‎Reply to Critics · ‎Careers

The Koch Brothers connections to the Heartland Institute, through Donor's Trust are still well established. Prior to 2010, their payments were direct. Since then, they go through Donor's Trust. Pretty simple, and now exposed. The question to ask yourself is - WHY DO THEY WANT TO HIDE THESE DARK MONEY DONATIONS?
 
I see you are ignorant as to how equalization works.

Oh No!! Not your mythical solar equalization argument again!

Lord of Planar said:
This is a science topic. Please familiarize yourself with science if you wish to debate it.

Wow!! Absolutely brilliant debate tactic there Lord. Demand that your opponent go and look up something that you know damn well doesn't exist.

Or did you actually find some legitimate science or peer-reviewed studies that back up your mythical solar equalization argument and forget to show us all??
 
The Koch Brothers connections to the Heartland Institute, through Donor's Trust are still well established. Prior to 2010, their payments were direct. Since then, they go through Donor's Trust. Pretty simple, and now exposed. The question to ask yourself is - WHY DO THEY WANT TO HIDE THESE DARK MONEY DONATIONS?

No. "The Koch Brothers connections to the Heartland Institute, through Donor's Trust" are not​ well established. In fact they're not established at all. Meanwhile:

[FONT=&quot]WHY DOESN'T HEARTLAND REVEAL THE IDENTITIES OF ITS DONORS?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For many years, The Heartland Institute provided a complete list of its corporate and foundation donors on our website. We stopped doing this for several reasons. First, because people who disagree with our views sought to smear and defame us by selectively disclosing the names of donors they thought were especially unpopular. Second, groups including Greenpeace and Center for American Progress systematically attack and demonize anyone they identify as being a donor to The Heartland Institute. Third, we frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.Disclosure of funding sources is important in some circumstances, but not in this one. No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our total annual receipts, and most give far less than that. And we have procedures in placethat protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.
Keeping confidential the identities of donors is very important for organizations that speak truth to power, since such disclosure can be used to defame and intimidate the individuals and organizations that support such organizations. A landmark Supreme Court case, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), protects the anonymity of those who financially support nonprofit organizations for exactly this reason. Regrettably, organizations such as The Heartland Institute that support individual liberty and limited government now find themselves in need of such protection.
[/FONT]
 
No. "The Koch Brothers connections to the Heartland Institute, through Donor's Trust" are not​ well established. In fact they're not established at all. Meanwhile:

[FONT="]WHY DOESN'T HEARTLAND REVEAL THE IDENTITIES OF ITS DONORS?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]For many years, The Heartland Institute provided a complete list of its corporate and foundation donors on our website. We stopped doing this for several reasons. First, because people who disagree with our views sought to smear and defame us by selectively disclosing the names of donors they thought were especially unpopular. Second, groups including Greenpeace and Center for American Progress systematically attack and demonize anyone they identify as being a donor to The Heartland Institute. Third, we frequently take positions at odds with those of the individuals and companies who fund us, so it is unfair to them to mention their funding when expressing our point of view.Disclosure of funding sources is important in some circumstances, but not in this one. No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent of our total annual receipts, and most give far less than that. And we have procedures in placethat protect our writers and editors from undue influence by donors. This makes the identities of our donors irrelevant.
Keeping confidential the identities of donors is very important for organizations that speak truth to power, since such disclosure can be used to defame and intimidate the individuals and organizations that support such organizations. A landmark Supreme Court case, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), protects the anonymity of those who financially support nonprofit organizations for exactly this reason. Regrettably, organizations such as The Heartland Institute that support individual liberty and limited government now find themselves in need of such protection.
[/FONT]

Awww, the poor Koch Brothers.
 
The Koch Brothers connections to the Heartland Institute, through Donor's Trust are still well established. Prior to 2010, their payments were direct. Since then, they go through Donor's Trust. Pretty simple, and now exposed. The question to ask yourself is - WHY DO THEY WANT TO HIDE THESE DARK MONEY DONATIONS?

Who cares?

Why does one side of a cause get to fund something but not another?

There you go with your hypocrisy again.
 
The question to ask yourself is - WHY DO THEY WANT TO HIDE THESE DARK MONEY DONATIONS?

Do you realize how much money the left gets from various "dark money" funds?
 
Oh No!! Not your mythical solar equalization argument again!

Nothing mythical about equalization. Especially when dealing with a mass coming to equilibrium as large as our oceans.

You prove again, you don't understand science.
 
Nothing mythical about equalization.

There is when we are talking about your scientifically unsupported belief that it takes decades for solar effects to equalize.

Lord of Planar said:
Especially when dealing with a mass coming to equilibrium as large as our oceans.

And this is something completely different that is supported by science and only takes a few years to reach equilibrium.
 
There is when we are talking about your scientifically unsupported belief that it takes decades for solar effects to equalize.



And this is something completely different that is supported by science and only takes a few years to reach equilibrium.

You are so wrong. Even James Hansen gives an 81 to 120 year window for only a 60% (or was it 70%, I forget) equalization of the SST from radiant perpetration.
 
You are so wrong.

No, you are wrong.

Lord of Planar said:
Even James Hansen gives an 81 to 120 year window for only a 60% (or was it 70%, I forget) equalization of the SST from radiant perpetration.

Hansen was talking about equilibrium for added CO2 which is a completely different mechanism than your mythical solar equalization.
 
Oh God... not this BS again!

Isn't that exactly what you all claimed back in 2008 at the start of cycle 24?



Except for the last cycle. 24 was even lower than 20. In fact, 24 was the lowest in almost 200 years. And...

View attachment 67258540

...mostly a lot of warming.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Solar Cycle 20: The solar cycle lasted 11 + years, beginning in October 1964 and ending in March 1976.

Your temperature charts starts in 2000, only 24 years AFTER Solar Cycle 20 ended. :lol:

The already observed cooling from the 1940's INTENSIFIED into the 1970's.

Next time try using a calendar.
 
Last edited:
And you think these sites of stupid punditry are better than WUWT, which sources they material well?

I pity you. Your education is most certainly sub-standard.

Ever read the source material WUWT uses?

I didn't think so.

You prefer to have others tell you what to believe.

They seem willing to overlook the part where WUWT easily outranks their trifecta sites in science coverage, it has over 3, MILLION posts in it, with a number of actual scientists and many with science education posting comments there. Many HERE never have the guts to post there, which doesn't surprise me.

The last few pages of this thread is a catalogue of funding, Authority, Education Fallacies, it seems they rather ignore the Solar Cycle discussion for faulty amounts of $$$ and small organizations that gets any of it. It is a sign that they have no science arguments to fully pursue, which is why they look foolish with their dumb "hottest year on record" babble, which doesn't actually help their cause since that isn't what the AGW conjecture is about.
 
Last edited:
How so? We now are finding that the excess heat went into the deep oceans.



SotC2017_04_OceanHeatContent_graph_800x450.png


Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov

Cute quote mining, but you didn't actually read much of this because the claimed "excess heat is never quantified. Go read the report next time, but you can see the appendix showing how little Ocean data they have before year 2000, even then the ARGO system has large gaps in ocean coverage between them and already have been adjusted to reduce cooling effects from the data it collected.
 
The following IPCC AR5 table shows clearly that solar irrdiance has very little impact on long term Climate Change.

AR5 Radiative forcing_Fig8.15_Pg697.JPG
 
Back
Top Bottom