FamousPlan101

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. **

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.

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. **

No, to justify their deindustrialization while industry goes abroad and then say China bad.

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.

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.

I am not a full fledged climate skeptic, I want a discussion. That's why I prefaced it with the title. Sorry for being annoying.

The world is generally warming I don't deny that, but what do you have to say to the Russian academy of Sciences saying it's mostly caused by regional variations in the ozone layer not CO2.

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (Definitely not climate deniers) 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 current 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.

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.

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.

It's because he just likes the music of Wagner.

this was before the coup.