climate change - biggest con of a generation

[Professor.Arturo]

Its nothing more than natural global change (up and down) which has been going on for millions of years, in the last decade the planet has heated by 2/10th of a degree, yup thats all! But multi billion pound corporations are raking in many more billions on the 'green' scam.

 

[mod delete]

[Grumpy]

Seems like a good way for governments to justify yet more tax on fuel if you ask me.

 

When it was just fuel tax it got the truckers blockading refineries - now were paying to save the planet the sky's the limit for whatever green tax they want to introduce.

[felix]

Dunno where the cut n' paste comes from but I agree with the general sentiment of the thread title.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

You may be right but we do have to change the way we live though.

 

There is a man-made tip in the middle of the Pacific Ocean which has developed over the years from plastic etc which is twice the size of the fecking USA! The toxins from the plastic are infecting the fish which results in humans eating toxic fish and all sorts of birds/fish are dying because of the stuff they are eating off this dump.

 

Bit ridiculous and major lifestyle changes are needed before things like that become really dangerous.

[Guest]

I blame the aliens myself.

[scuj1]

It's true the Earth has swung back and forth climate wise, countless times over millions of years. We just seem seem to be making a good job on making it swing that little bit quicker.

 

This bollox of saving the planet, gets on my nips.

 

We aren't saving the planet, we're trying to save ourselves! The planet will still be here long after we, are all gone. Something else will just evolve to become the dominant species.

 

IMO of course

[jambovambo]

"Yes, the UEA emails must be investigated, but the overwhelming scientific evidence makes a climate change deal vital.......

"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/04/climate-change-uea-email

[jambovambo]

"Johann Hari: How I wish that the global warming deniers were right

Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet?

Every day, I pine for the global warming deniers to be proved right......

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-i-wish-that-the-global-warming-deniers-were-right-1833728.html

[jambovambo]

Dunno where the cut n' paste comes from but I agree with the general sentiment of the thread title.

 

 

 

Quality journalism from here ;

 

http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:05b6c3b1289b238a6afc2af40085f2de:1606e080f590a2614576e2f02d53939b/Here-They-Come-Right-on-Time-Third-World-Climate-Change-Refugees

[jambovambo]

Fact is, it doesn't matter whether man caused the coming change or not, the world is going to change so much that there will not be 6,700,000,000 (and counting) of us able to live on it in 30 years time.

 

Think about that.

 

What kind of conspiracy would involve all of the world's scientists in one particular field ?

 

The UK will be one of the last places badly affected, like other so-called "lifeboat islands", such as New Zealand, Japan, Tasmania ... great for us, you might think.

 

So the mediterranean area becomes unhabitable ? Serves them right, one might say. But do you think those people will just stay there and say "I wish we'd bought a house in Scotland all those years ago" ?

 

But when it gets bad, where will the other 6.5 billion people want to be too ?

 

Can we afford to get this wrong, for our kids' and kids' kids' sake ?

[Ulysses]

Dunno where the cut n' paste comes from....

 

Almost certainly from the BNP.

 

I noticed a couple of posts in this thread that quoted full media articles in full. Many media outlets do not like people cutting and pasting full stories, and we've had complaints before about it happening on JKB, so it's better if you just include a link and an indication of what the story says.

[Peebo]

Its nothing more than natural global change (up and down) which has been going on for millions of years, in the last decade the planet has heated by 2/10th of a degree, yup thats all! But multi billion pound corporations are raking in many more billions on the 'green' scam.

 

I'm no expert on global warming, but I'd hazard a guess that, on balance and overall, the "multi billion pound corporations" of the world will make far, far more money through practices believed to contribute to global warming, than those advocated by those with a "green" agenda.

[wibble]

One thing is certain. Humans will never agree to measures that will make a jot of a difference.

 

The Yanks have never signed anything that stands in the way of them raping and pillaging the planet. They are not going to start now.

 

Already the governments are proposing exemptions for the coal industry and the power industry.

 

There is no point in doing anything if the biggest polluters are exempt.

 

Prepare to be reamed (no lube).

[Therapist]

Its nothing more than natural global change (up and down) which has been going on for millions of years.

 

Correct.

 

If one believes in evolution then it follows logically that the planet will naturally adjust to any challenge that's thrown at it. Millions of years of history tells us this is a fact.

[BigCGilmour]

The way I see it is what little changes we make are vastly offset and will continue to be so by the emerging economies of China and India - they will be pumping plenty of CO2 etc into the atmosphere. The usa isn't too far behind either!!!

 

We are getting ripped for something that makes little or no difference

 

Having said all that I still try to do my bit

[Ben Dover]

Slightly off the main topic but, recycling..............to me it just makes a lot of sense not to throw EVERYTHING onto a big heap out the back.

The possibilities for reasonable scale employment in that area look promising to me too ?

[Therapist]

Slightly off the main topic but, recycling..............to me it just makes a lot of sense not to throw EVERYTHING onto a big heap out the back.

The possibilities for reasonable scale employment in that area look promising to me too ?

 

I pay a lot of money in Council Tax. If they want things recycled, they can sift and sort my rubbish.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Correct.

 

If one believes in evolution then it follows logically that the planet will naturally adjust to any challenge that's thrown at it. Millions of years of history tells us this is a fact.

 

Millions of years of history tell us that when there are major changes to the earth, it is the more complex creatures that die out first.

[Drew Busby !]

I'd wager I'm in a minority here in having actually taken and maintained temperature records in Edinburgh in the 1970's/80's. So it would be an understatement to say that I'm a climate anorak ! Professionally I'm a data manager and well aware that the steps of data measurement, clean-up, analysis and interpretation are always open to bias in one direction or another. Research groups and peer-reviwers have to be constantly aware of these biases, and constantly seeking to minimise them. I've never been fully convinced that climate researchers and groups have adopted that rigorous approach to their work.

 

Whilst none of us have access to the raw-data, the methodologies and the models that the climate research groups use in support of man-made global warming ... like many I suspect that the case may be over-stated and excessively pessimistic in its future projections - and possibly just plain wrong. Science should always be open to criticism, and the defensive position of global-warming climatologists and green/media/political commentators in the use of terms like "deniers", "flat earthers" (Brown yesterday) and the arrogance that "the science is settled", has been almost totalitarian in its tone.

 

Climate change is a truism and occurs regardless of our presence. Its possible in terms of atmospheric physics that increased CO2 may have an effect - but most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and only a miniscule remainder comes from our activities. Whether its all that significant is contentious, and existing solar, oceanic, atmospheric and vulcanic effects are all larger scale climate changers and drivers, which operate all the time over years, decades, centuries and millenia. And to which as has been pointed out, life on earth has adapted to ... in both the short and long term

 

Its vital the climate research groups now open the books to inspection and allow independant audits - NOT just chummy reinforcement by their peers. Once thats done and the data is re-analysed to reduce bias to a mimimum....then and only then, should we consider whether drastic and expensive measures are necessary. Or whether (and I suspect its more likely), the man-made global-warming climatologists, the misguided politicians and the zealous enviromentalists have created a global panic entirely of their own making.

[Brian_1874]

Its nothing more than natural global change (up and down) which has been going on for millions of years, in the last decade the planet has heated by 2/10th of a degree, yup thats all! But multi billion pound corporations are raking in many more billions on the 'green' scam.

 

The inconvenient truth is that the temperature of the earth is intimately linked with the sunspot cycle

[Sheriff Fatman]

The inconvenient truth is that the temperature of the earth is intimately linked with the sunspot cycle

 

The sunspot cycle lasts 11 years, I really don't see that being much of a factor in climate change over decades.

[Gorgieboy]

Its nothing more than natural global change (up and down) which has been going on for millions of years, in the last decade the planet has heated by 2/10th of a degree, yup thats all! But multi billion pound corporations are raking in many more billions on the 'green' scam.

 

Read somewhere recently that a Prof. from one of the Ivy League uni,s in the States had written a thesis/book/paper on the global warming problem .It was later discovered that the same guy (writing under a pseudonym) had published a book in the late 60,s regarding "The coming of the next Ice Age" which was at the time expected to be on its way. Apparently when hot shot Profs etc. write these papers/books it attracts millions of dollars in "research" money for the associated universities.

[Brian_1874]

The sunspot cycle lasts 11 years, I really don't see that being much of a factor in climate change over decades.

 

Think you will find that the sun is the prime reason for temperature change not just on earth but throughout the solar system. And that the whole global warming theory is just an excuse to introduce a raft of new taxes. Incidentally the term climate change is a bit misleading IMO. As the climate is constantly changing and always has

[Drew Busby !]

Copenhagen is only another step on the road to a massive transfer of wealth from the developed/industrial world to the 3rd world. Theres a current and crudely fashioned piece of 3rd world/enviromentalist pressure on the west (or just plain blackmail if you prefer) which is along the lines of "give us the money or the rain-forest gets it". Now, that might be the right thing to do, or it might not. Depending upon the true severity of the effects of a changing climate - and the implications for all of us globally - we have to be as sure as we can be:

• that the problem is a genuine one and caused by man,
  
• that the future adverse climate projections are credible
  
• that any fiscal/economic/environmental measures we take now will have the intended effect
  

 

None of these points are proven yet IMO. And when I see politicians writing blank cheques to the 3rd world ... or claming Canute-like an intention to reduce warming by 2C through 17% emissions reductions by 2020 ... then in my mind the alarm bells should be ringing amongst anyone who posseess the capacity for independant rational and critical thought. We've already had governments bailing out failing banks on our behalf. Before they repeat the exercise by diverting your hard-earned cash to failing 3rd world economies, it better be bloody well proven to each and every one of us, that the rationale for doing so, IS in all our intrests and those of our children !

[Commander Harris]

...

Whilst none of us have access to the raw-data, the methodologies and the models that the climate research groups use in support of man-made global warming ... like many I suspect that the case may be over-stated and excessively pessimistic in its future projections - and possibly just plain wrong. Science should always be open to criticism, and the defensive position of global-warming climatologists and green/media/political commentators in the use of terms like "deniers", "flat earthers" (Brown yesterday) and the arrogance that "the science is settled", has been almost totalitarian in its tone.

...

excellent post and one that sums up my thoughts on the matter. Particularly with regards to phrases like "Climate change denier".

[Ulysses]

Correct.

 

If one believes in evolution then it follows logically that the planet will naturally adjust to any challenge that's thrown at it. Millions of years of history tells us this is a fact.

 

It also follows logically that the planet will function perfectly well without Homo Sapiens. Billions of years of history tells us this is a fact.

[RoaldJensen]

while there is absolutely no doubt that people are lining their pockets and indulging in a certain amount of scaremongering, do you really need to see a polar bear on a blanket on the pavement outside the caley hotel with a hungry and homeless sign to admit something bad is going on?

[Commander Harris]

while there is absolutely no doubt that people are lining their pockets and indulging in a certain amount of scaremongering, do you really need to see a polar bear on a blanket on the pavement outside the caley hotel with a hungry and homeless sign to admit something bad is going on?

The question isn't primarily about what is happening, but what the cause is and therefore what the solution, if such a thing exists, could be.

 

If man-made CO2 emissions aren't the primary cause yet we invest large amounts of resources trying to reduce CO2 emissions then as the climate continues to change we will be in a worse position to try and deal with what is happening.

[Drew Busby !]

One of the suspected reasons why man-made global warming climatologists erased the medieval warm-period from their graphs, is that it outright contradicts both the causes and claimed future effects of the current warming.

 

A period when coastal Greenland was arable and inhabitable and when grapes were harvested for wine as far north as Yorkshire. A several-hundred year period of warming not caused by man and with eh ... mostly beneficial effects for civilization at that time. Polar bears didn't get wiped out, mankind didn't starve, icecaps (to whatever degree they may have been impacted) subsequently returned, sea levels didn't rise to wipe out coastal areas etc

 

For sure there could be future effects ... but chiefly because mankind has expanded and inhabited some very marginal parts of the world prone to flooding, drought, erosion etc There could be some localised effects in these marginal areas but arguably that just demonstrates that nature ultimately defeats man every time...

[Someday]

It sickens me that literally trillions of dollars are being wasted by the developed countries of the world in the drive "to reduce carbon emmissions". This money should be being spent on helping communities at risk from either rising water levels or continued desert creep to relocate and/or protect themselves.

[jamboinglasgow]

Whilst none of us have access to the raw-data, the methodologies and the models that the climate research groups use in support of man-made global warming ... like many I suspect that the case may be over-stated and excessively pessimistic in its future projections - and possibly just plain wrong. Science should always be open to criticism, and the defensive position of global-warming climatologists and green/media/political commentators in the use of terms like "deniers", "flat earthers" (Brown yesterday) and the arrogance that "the science is settled", has been almost totalitarian in its tone.

 

I read article from a scientist in one of the papers who says that it worries him that scientists have been using the phrase "the debate is over" and similar phrases. He says it contradicts the whole philosphy of scientist to continually debate and research all evidence. And I think this is very true in the debate with climate change. In all debates, if you doubt either the extent of how bad things are or what extent it is caused by man, then your shouted down and treated as an idiot. He says that while he believes action needs to be done to reduce C02 there still needs to be debate in the whole issue. As you say the green side are totalitarian in the issue and wont hear any other word on it.

 

An interesting study released this week said that they found in Britain that those who are the most vocal about climate change and claim to do most to combat it are actually the largest producers of C02. They say this is because it is usually the wealthiest. It had the quote that they need to encourage people not to drive 4x4's to the recycling plant.

 

In my view, I think there are things that need to be done to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am unsure if it is a bad as some make out nor if it is all man-made (I feel that alot of it is natural, man hasn't helped.)

 

I remember reading an article from one climate scientist who said to be brutally honest, most of the things we are told to do to help the climate is nothing more than just to make us feel better about ourselves (such as turn off the stand by button) and that if we wanted to change alot, then there would need to be a huge amount of power stations and factories needed to be closed down (at the cost of destroying the world economy.) I dont subscribe to that extreme but I find it a joke that power companies lecture us in climate issues (EDF being the most annoying one.) And the Mastercard advert worries me, it demonstrates the way that kids are almost being brainwashed into eco issues in a way that would unacceptable in any other cases.

 

My view is that if we want to combat climate change, we need to yes reduce C02 emissons, but we have to come up with new technology, ones that can replace polutting technology and make it affordable for the third world.

[wibble]

I pay a lot of money in Council Tax. If they want things recycled, they can sift and sort my rubbish.

 

If global warming does wipe out the human race there will be an upside.

[Moriarty]

You may be right but we do have to change the way we live though.

 

There is a man-made tip in the middle of the Pacific Ocean which has developed over the years from plastic etc which is twice the size of the fecking USA!

 

not quite. twice the size of texas, which is still massive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

[Drew Busby !]

I read article from a scientist in one of the papers who says that it worries him that scientists have been using the phrase "the debate is over" and similar phrases. He says it contradicts the whole philosphy of scientist to continually debate and research all evidence. And I think this is very true in the debate with climate change. In all debates, if you doubt either the extent of how bad things are or what extent it is caused by man, then your shouted down and treated as an idiot. He says that while he believes action needs to be done to reduce C02 there still needs to be debate in the whole issue. As you say the green side are totalitarian in the issue and wont hear any other word on it.

 

An interesting study released this week said that they found in Britain that those who are the most vocal about climate change and claim to do most to combat it are actually the largest producers of C02. They say this is because it is usually the wealthiest. It had the quote that they need to encourage people not to drive 4x4's to the recycling plant.

 

In my view, I think there are things that need to be done to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am unsure if it is a bad as some make out nor if it is all man-made (I feel that alot of it is natural, man hasn't helped.)

 

I remember reading an article from one climate scientist who said to be brutally honest, most of the things we are told to do to help the climate is nothing more than just to make us feel better about ourselves (such as turn off the stand by button) and that if we wanted to change alot, then there would need to be a huge amount of power stations and factories needed to be closed down (at the cost of destroying the world economy.) I dont subscribe to that extreme but I find it a joke that power companies lecture us in climate issues (EDF being the most annoying one.) And the Mastercard advert worries me, it demonstrates the way that kids are almost being brainwashed into eco issues in a way that would unacceptable in any other cases.

 

My view is that if we want to combat climate change, we need to yes reduce C02 emissons, but we have to come up with new technology, ones that can replace polutting technology and make it affordable for the third world.

 

Have to agree, the hypocracy on display is staggering, in particular from our leaders. We are lectured about our "carbon footprint" and use of resources. Yet last week we had commonweath leaders pontificating about climate change in Trinidad and Tobago ... politicians, their entourage, the media all flying there and back. This week its Copenhagen and not so much a carbon footprint as a pair of filtthy carbon welly boots. Brown has proposed as part of the mass 10 billion transfer of cash to the 3rd world (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gordon-brown-proposes-pound10-billion-fund-to-fight-climate-change-1829312.html) that satellites will need to be built to monitor any abuses by them as regards rainforest or land clearance etc (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/28/satellite-spies-in-global-eco-vigil-115875-21856490/) The Carbon footprint of raw materials, construction and launch of those satellites would be immense. All of this tells me how seriously the government takes this carbon footprint notion ... or scam as it is in reality.

 

One law for the leaders and their almost insane notions of global surveillance ... but if they have their way, laws, economic restrictions and tax increases for the rest of us, in order to foot the bill for this madness.

[jamboinglasgow]

Have to agree, the hypocracy on display is staggering, in particular from our leaders. We are lectured about our "carbon footprint" and use of resources. Yet last week we had commonweath leaders pontificating about climate change in Trinidad and Tobago ... politicians, their entourage, the media all flying there and back. This week its Copenhagen and not so much a carbon footprint as a pair of filtthy carbon welly boots. Brown has proposed as part of the mass 10 billion transfer of cash to the 3rd world (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gordon-brown-proposes-pound10-billion-fund-to-fight-climate-change-1829312.html) that satellites will need to be built to monitor any abuses by them as regards rainforest or land clearance etc (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/28/satellite-spies-in-global-eco-vigil-115875-21856490/) The Carbon footprint of raw materials, construction and launch of those satellites would be immense. All of this tells me how seriously the government takes this carbon footprint notion ... or scam as it is in reality.

 

One law for the leaders and their almost insane notions of global surveillance ... but if they have their way, laws, economic restrictions and tax increases for the rest of us, in order to foot the bill for this madness.

 

precisely, it was one of the main reasons why I didn't like live earth or whatever it was called. You get lectured by celebrities on cutting your carbon footprint when most of them came here on private jets.

 

Eco tourism is another. All these people who go on eco-cruises to the antarctic to see the devastation that global warming is bringing without thinking what they are actually adding to it. It is basicly a status symbol which they proudly wear at parties "oh we care so much about the terrible effects of global warming, ever since we flew down to the South Atlantic and went on the cruise where you saw those Ice sheets melting. So tragic, I make sure to tell my friends to go along and see it for themselves as we must stop global warming."

[AlphonseCapone]

Correct.

 

If one believes in evolution then it follows logically that the planet will naturally adjust to any challenge that's thrown at it. Millions of years of history tells us this is a fact.

 

If one also believes in evolution then it follows logically that something which is unable to adjust and adapt will die out.

 

Science should always be open to criticism, and the defensive position of global-warming climatologists and green/media/political commentators in the use of terms like "deniers", "flat earthers" (Brown yesterday) and the arrogance that "the science is settled", has been almost totalitarian in its tone.

 

100% correct, science is never settled. There is no such thing in science as fact or finished isssues because theories must always be testable, and there is no way to know what evidence will discovered in the future which may impact current theories.

 

Climate change is a truism and occurs regardless of our presence. Its possible in terms of atmospheric physics that increased CO2 may have an effect - but most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and only a miniscule remainder comes from our activities.

 

I read that there are scientists who believe one of the biggest contributers to harmful gases can actually be linked to cattle, around 18% of global warming gases.

 

while there is absolutely no doubt that people are lining their pockets and indulging in a certain amount of scaremongering, do you really need to see a polar bear on a blanket on the pavement outside the caley hotel with a hungry and homeless sign to admit something bad is going on?

 

Not necessarily, but there are a lot of issues with the current evidence.

[TsarKhan]

Correct.

 

If one believes in evolution then it follows logically that the planet will naturally adjust to any challenge that's thrown at it. Millions of years of history tells us this is a fact.

 

 

 

And if you don't, you **** yersel laughing all the way to the bank! Millions of years of history, each with birth certificate and birthday card so you know how exactly old they are tell us through inanimate objects exactly how they lived and died.

 

To this day they can't even tell you how some folk in Bosnia lived and died, just a few years ago.

 

 

Anyway, with evolution, there's always the danger of reverting to type, and becoming a primordial slime ball.

 

Personally being dumped here by aliens or even supernaturally created by a god is much more amenable

[Drew Busby !]

If one also believes in evolution then it follows logically that something which is unable to adjust and adapt will die out.

 

Science should always be open to criticism, and the defensive position of global-warming climatologists and green/media/political commentators in the use of terms like "deniers", "flat earthers" (Brown yesterday) and the arrogance that "the science is settled", has been almost totalitarian in its tone.

 

100% correct, science is never settled. There is no such thing in science as fact or finished isssues because theories must always be testable, and there is no way to know what evidence will discovered in the future which may impact current theories.

 

Climate change is a truism and occurs regardless of our presence. Its possible in terms of atmospheric physics that increased CO2 may have an effect - but most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and only a miniscule remainder comes from our activities.

 

I read that there are scientists who believe one of the biggest contributers to harmful gases can actually be linked to cattle, around 18% of global warming gases.

 

Not necessarily, but there are a lot of issues with the current evidence.

 

Absolutely so. Two of the other greenhouses gases which don't get any great attention - despite their potency - are methane and water vapour. In essence, farting cattle and damp air ...not much we can do to resolve either, although I do recall us being lectured recently on the future climatic benefits of vegetarianism.

 

Work in research myself, and as you say, any scientific hypotheses is there to be tested, tested again and retested... Its the crux of the scientific method. My concern with this oft-repeated claim that the "the science is settled", is precisely due to the arguable nature of the chronological strands of evidence that are synthesised to arrive at their conclusions and each of which have their own uncertainties.

 

1) Before the advent of human recorded temperature records (the earliest are from the 1600's in England) then they have to use "proxies" as the next best guess of climate at that time (tree-rings, ocean sediments, peat-bogs etc).

 

2) Although much temperature gague data has been recorded since then, its not always of consistent quality (although there are agreed ways now to take a "standard" temperature observation at a location)

 

3) Of the oft quoted hi-tech/satellite data, then of necessity this only covers a few decades. The frequently quoted ice-loss at the north pole is part of a series of 30 years worth of satellite observations there - as climate time-series goes, its almost nothing at all.

 

4) And of the future climate projections, these are based on mathematical computer modelling, devised and coded by humans , and its no surprise such models are often skewed, coded and biased in favour of a desired outcome. Anyone looking at the "climategate" code and code comments will have seen that already.

 

So climatologists are stitching together a best-guessed past history, a shortish recent period in which we have a range of poor to satisfactory recorded observations, and future climate predictions based on a possibly biased, not proven and possibly plain wrong set of mathematical models, implemented by programmers (who make mistakes) in software.

 

Settled science ? Hardly !

[Sheriff Fatman]

Think you will find that the sun is the prime reason for temperature change not just on earth but throughout the solar system. And that the whole global warming theory is just an excuse to introduce a raft of new taxes. Incidentally the term climate change is a bit misleading IMO. As the climate is constantly changing and always has

 

All well and good, but the fact remains that the 11 year sun spot cycle that you said was one of the major reason for climate change over the last few decades has got bugger all to with it.

 

Plus the sun is in the cooler phase of it's long term cycle, and yet average temperature on earth are still rising.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Yet last week we had commonweath leaders pontificating about climate change in Trinidad and Tobago ... politicians, their entourage, the media all flying there and back.

 

Flying is actualy one of the most energy efficient modes of transport.

[Brian_1874]

All well and good, but the fact remains that the 11 year sun spot cycle that you said was one of the major reason for climate change over the last few decades has got bugger all to with it.

 

Plus the sun is in the cooler phase of it's long term cycle, and yet average temperature on earth are still rising.

 

If you go back and read my initial post you will realise that I said the sunspot cycle and temperature were intimately linked I did not mention the term 'climate change'. Thank you for your attention