2017 was second hottest year on record, after sizzling 2016: report

[RickBradford]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And not the names of even one climatologist. Of course politicians exaggerate. It was a first step. A beginning. The agreement only runs to 2030. At which time it's expected more stringent goals will be set. And given that China and to a lesser extent India are already way ahead of where they were predicted to be at this time, it seems a safe bet that further progress will be made.

Of course politicians exaggerate. And of course, a compliant media trumpets all these exaggerations, which become akin to accepted fact.

 

This "fact" then translates into political action such as over-regulation, taxation, and the creation of millions of meaningless make-work jobs. And of course, this finds its way into the school curriculum, where young children are scared by these political exaggerations. As the economist Bjorn Lomborg noted:

 

".. [A] survey showed that half of young children [in the UK] aged between seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern. This is grotesquely harmful.  And let us be honest. This scare was intended. Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that ."

 

Utterly  reprehensible and utterly typical of the Green/Left.

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

You will still see that warming and cooling occurs without industrial levels of CO2.

 

Is that the point I missed?  No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it's irrelevant.  Nobody is suggesting that prehistoric warming was caused by industrial CO₂.  Show me who said that, and I'll be the first to correct them.  But I do understand why you want to pretend that somebody made this argument, because knocking it down helps you support your claim that industrial CO₂ can't be the cause of current warming.

 

Thanks to ice core samples, it's known that CO₂ wasn't the initial cause of any of the recent deglaciations.  Does that make you feel better?  Multiple ice core samples have all shown a few hundred years of lag between temperature rise and CO₂ rise, with temperature change always happening first, and CO₂ lagging.  The same thing happens with cooling periods: temperature falls, and then CO₂ falls.  The most likely cause was orbital forcing (the milankovitch cycles).

 

The two drivers of the average global temperature are the sun and the amount of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere.  The current discussion is about how man's unearthing of massive amounts of CO₂ is leading to another warming event, despite what happened in the past.  Your assertion that this can't be the cause in the present because it wasn't the cause in the past is just silly.  No, it wasn't the cause in the past, but it IS the cause now.  This hypothesis is supported by both measurements and basic physics.  Your hypothesis, if you have one, isn't supported by either.

 

Let's be clear: there's a difference between what happened in the past and what's happening now.  THIS TIME the situation is different, because the input variables are different.  There is no solar forcing resulting in a CO₂ rise, but there is something else causing a CO₂ rise, and that "something else" is human activity.  To say that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't have a warming effect on the planet is ignoring basic physics.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

This "fact" then translates into political action such as over-regulation, taxation, and the creation of millions of meaningless make-work jobs.

 

Recent political action has resulted in budget cuts ,not job creation, for NASA, NOAA, the EPA and other climate-researching agencies, and specific climate research programs have been called into question by an ignorant congress.

 

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

And of course, this finds its way into the school curriculum, where young children are scared by these political exaggerations.

 

 

Won't somebody think of the children!?  Classic appeal to emotion. Well done.

 

If children think think the planet is going to explode because of climate change, then those children need better teachers.

[RickBradford]

Quote

Won't somebody think of the children!?  Classic appeal to emotion. Well done.

 

Indeed. Which is why almost every politician and activist invokes the "for our children, and our children's children, we must save the planet."

 

It's why Francois Hollande, French president at the time of the Paris agreement, said: "You’ve done it, reached an ambitious agreement, a binding agreement, a universal agreement. Never will I be able to express more gratitude to a conference. You can be proud to stand before your children and grandchildren.”

 

It's why everyone from the UNFCC, Barack Obama, director James Cameron, former Australian PM Kevin Rudd, and a cast of thousands play the children's card so regularly.

 

I suggest it is a bad tactic for climate zealots to get into an argument about who is using children more in an appeal to emotion. It's one they will lose, and it will end up with them becoming what a Nigerian acquaintance of mine calls a "lafinstalk".

Edited January 12, 2018 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Is that the point I missed?  No, I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it's irrelevant.  Nobody is suggesting that prehistoric warming was caused by industrial CO₂.  Show me who said that, and I'll be the first to correct them.  But I do understand why you want to pretend that somebody made this argument, because knocking it down helps you support your claim that industrial CO₂ can't be the cause of current warming.

 

Thanks to ice core samples, it's known that CO₂ wasn't the initial cause of any of the recent deglaciations.  Does that make you feel better?  Multiple ice core samples have all shown a few hundred years of lag between temperature rise and CO₂ rise, with temperature change always happening first, and CO₂ lagging.  The same thing happens with cooling periods: temperature falls, and then CO₂ falls.  The most likely cause was orbital forcing (the milankovitch cycles).

 

The two drivers of the average global temperature are the sun and the amount of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere.  The current discussion is about how man's unearthing of massive amounts of CO₂ is leading to another warming event, despite what happened in the past.  Your assertion that this can't be the cause in the present because it wasn't the cause in the past is just silly.  No, it wasn't the cause in the past, but it IS the cause now.  This hypothesis is supported by both measurements and basic physics.  Your hypothesis, if you have one, isn't supported by either.

 

Let's be clear: there's a difference between what happened in the past and what's happening now.  THIS TIME the situation is different, because the input variables are different.  There is no solar forcing resulting in a CO₂ rise, but there is something else causing a CO₂ rise, and that "something else" is human activity.  To say that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't have a warming effect on the planet is ignoring basic physics.

Did you know that scientists first considered the possibility of apocalyptic warming when they discovered rapid warming in the ice cores and sediment records? It certainly isn't something new under the sun.

When something natural occurs regularly over a period of time, it is logical, even scientific, to predict that it will happen again.

The sun rises every day at a predictable pattern, the seasons change on a less predictable but still regular cycle

Storms occur within a range of wind strength and precipitation.

All of this we know because of the historical records.

This is why we refer to some storms as 500 year storms or 100 year storms; because they are unusually strong, but not outside of historical observations.  Past records are indisputable and the only hard evidence available, unless someone alters the data later on like NOAA likes to do.

There is no way to know the degree with which humans have contributed to warming because the warming is not outside of the range of the historical record. ILMP will tell us that this warming is faster than ever recorded, but this is not true. There have been more rapid warmings.

Now you claim that we should disregard the history because you say that although CO2 did not cause historical warming, it is causing the warming we see today. You even say it is basic physics. Well I don’t remember discussing all the complex relationship of atmosphere, and solar radiation, orbital patterns, negative forcing,  cloud cover,  sunspots,  trace gases, the reflection of the ice sheets, and the fluctuations in the magnetosphere, when I took basic physics in high school. Perhaps you went to a better school.

 

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Your assertion that this can't be the cause in the present because it wasn't the cause in the past is just silly.  No, it wasn't the cause in the past, but it IS the cause now.  This hypothesis is supported by both measurements and basic physics.  Your hypothesis, if you have one, isn't supported by either.

You might  also believe that the sun rose yesterday because of earth's rotation but today it rose because Apollo dragged it across the sky.

Your hypothesis is not supported because you can't run the experiment. Exactly what measurements have shown that this time it's different? the 0.0002% increase in CO2 in the last 100 years? Remember you agreed it did not cause previous warmings. And what basic physics? Climate science is not basic physics. My hypothesis is that there is nothing going on that is outside of historical parameters, ie. nothing unnatural is happening. In fact we are in a fortunate position.

 

 

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Let's be clear: there's a difference between what happened in the past and what's happening now.  THIS TIME the situation is different, because the input variables are different.  There is no solar forcing resulting in a CO₂ rise, but there is something else causing a CO₂ rise, and that "something else" is human activity.  To say that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere don't have a warming effect on the planet is ignoring basic physics.

Now you are saying C02 is causing warming even though you earlier show evidence that warming causes  C02 to rise. You really need to make a stand on this point. Because if both are true, then where does global cooling come from?

 

[attrayant]

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Past records are indisputable and the only hard evidence available[...]

 

Hard evidence of what?  If you mean "Past records are indisputable and the only hard evidence available about what caused past climate change events", then I'll accept that.  But we're trying to explain current warming trends, are we not?  Even if you observe a dozen times that A→C, that does not mean that B→C is impossible.

 

Quote

[...]unless someone alters the data later on like NOAA likes to do.

 

You're probably referring to the need to normalize or correct data when errors or unwanted variables disrupt the measuring environment.  Three valid instances I can think of right away are:

 

• Adjusting weather station thermometers to compensate for the fact that a hot asphalt parking lot had been built nearby
• Adjusting ocean temperature readings when the measurement method changed from shipboard readings to automated buoys (ship engines radiate heat into the surrounding water and make the measurements seem artificially high.  The same measurements taken by buoys will be a bit lower.)
• Adjusting satellite readings when it was discovered that atmospheric drag was causing the satellite's orbit to decay, and therefore the satellite was gradually taking its reading later and later in the day, giving the false appearance of no warming

 

What would you suggest a scientist do if they discovered that an input variable had accidentally changed, resulting in erroneous readings?  Just keep quiet and report the bad data?   Then what happens when their bad data set is compared to all the other data sets and is an obvious outlier?  If they can figure out how much of an error it was, and they can correct for it, why shouldn't they?

 

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Now you claim that we should disregard the history because you say that although CO2 did not cause historical warming, it is causing the warming we see today.

 

Don't disregard history, just don't make the careless mistake of assuming that all future events absolutely must follow historical patterns.  As I said above, just because A caused C the last ten times we checked, it doesn't necessarily follow that B can't also cause C.  What should we do when we observe C, but this time it's not preceded by A?

 

Quote

You even say it is basic physics. Well I don’t remember discussing all the complex relationship of atmosphere, and solar radiation, orbital patterns, negative forcing,  cloud cover,  sunspots,  trace gases, the reflection of the ice sheets, and the fluctuations in the magnetosphere, when I took basic physics in high school. Perhaps you went to a better school.

 

[snip]

 

Climate science is not basic physics.

 

I agree that climate science is not a "basic" branch of science.  Basic science has been around for hundreds of years or more.  Climate science is relatively young.  The basic physics I'm referring to are understandings of how energy and matter affect each other, for example:
 

• CO₂ is less soluble in warm seawater than in cold
• Ocean water expands when heated
• CO₂ is opaque at IR wavelengths and traps thermal energy very easily
• As temperatures rise, more water evaporates
• Warm air holds more water vapor than cold air
• Water vapor is a greenhouse gas
• Albedo (white surfaces reflect solar radiation while darker surfaces absorb it)
• Geochemical cycles (carbon cycle, water cycle, etc.)

 

... and so on.  I don't think there was anything special about my schooling, but I did tend to choose science subjects for most of my electives so I was probably exposed to it more than the average student was.

 

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Exactly what measurements have shown that this time it's different? the 0.0002% increase in CO2 in the last 100 years? Remember you agreed it did not cause previous warmings.

 

Yes, I did.  But I did not agree that it can't be the cause of the current warming. 

 

The reason I say it's different this time is because there are at least two different input variables: (1) man has entered the equation, and (2) solar irradiance is on the decline.  Once we establish that man has dumped a lot of CO₂ into the atmosphere, and once we understand CO₂'s effect on climate (see basic science bullet point #3, above), and once we observe that solar irradiance is declining in recent decades, our hypothesis becomes stronger.  If you disagree, you should explain why and offer a new hypothesis that explains the observations better.

 

Quote

My hypothesis is that there is nothing going on that is outside of historical parameters, ie. nothing unnatural is happening.

 

That's not a hypothesis, it's a conclusion.  Or it could be an observation, but that would need to be based on data and you haven't said what data you're using.  Do you have any global temperature records that indicate nothing unusual is happening?  Have you done firsthand research and found nothing out of the ordinary?

 

Your hypothesis shouldn't simply be a contrary statement.  Your hypothesis should follow a question, and that question is usually based on an observation.  It sounds like your scientific method started out like this:

 

Observation: nothing unusual or out of the ordinary is happening.

 

Research: has anything like this (nothing unusual) ever happened before?  If so, what do we think were the causes?

 

Construct hypothesis: Nothing unusual is happening because...

 

And that's where you lost me.

 

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Now you are saying C02 is causing warming even though you earlier show evidence that warming causes  C02 to rise.

 

Correct.

 

Quote

You really need to make a stand on this point.

 

No I don't, because both statements are true.  Maybe this seems counter-intuitive, but it is possible for something to be both a cause and an effect of a process.  This is true for CO₂ and its role in climate change. Furthermore, there is a positive feedback loop which makes it possible for the process to run-away under the right conditions. Warming periods work like this:

 

 

This describes historical warming periods without the need for CO₂ as the initial cause.  That does not mean CO₂ can't also be a cause.  Just change the first block in the diagram to say "man dumps thousands of gigatons of CO₂ into the atmosphere", and it works just fine to explain the current warming.

 

Quote

Because if both are true, then where does global cooling come from?

 

This is a speculative question about cooling, but I'll bite.  All we would need is the right conditions to throw the pendulum back in the other direction.  Low solar irradiance coupled with an atmosphere full of aerosols might do the trick.  Sulfate and nitrate aerosols (both by products of volcanic eruptions) are highly reflective.  In 1991, Mount Pinatubo ejected millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  Sulfur reacts with other atmospheric elements to produce sulfate aerosols:

 

The Atmospheric Impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo Eruption:

 

The large aerosol cloud caused dramatic decreases in the amount of net radiation reaching the Earth's surface, producing a climate forcing that was two times stronger than the aerosols of El Chichón. Effects on climate were an observed surface cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of up to 0.5 to 0.6°C, equivalent to a hemispheric-wide reduction in net radiation of 4 watts per square meter and a cooling of perhaps as large as -0.4°C over large parts of the Earth in 1992-93. Climate models appear to have predicted the cooling with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

Once temperatures start to drop, the oceans start to absorb more CO₂ instead of release it.  The atmospheric CO₂ returns to the earth as carbonate minerals and food sources for life forms and voila, another feedback loop this time sending the planet into an ice age.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by attrayant

[ilostmypassword]

On 1/12/2018 at 7:33 AM, RickBradford said:

Of course politicians exaggerate. And of course, a compliant media trumpets all these exaggerations, which become akin to accepted fact.

 

This "fact" then translates into political action such as over-regulation, taxation, and the creation of millions of meaningless make-work jobs. And of course, this finds its way into the school curriculum, where young children are scared by these political exaggerations. As the economist Bjorn Lomborg noted:

 

".. [A] survey showed that half of young children [in the UK] aged between seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern. This is grotesquely harmful.  And let us be honest. This scare was intended. Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that ."

 

Utterly  reprehensible and utterly typical of the Green/Left.

How many fact free posts can you create? Just empty assertions. Please give some documentation for "millions of meaningless make-work jobs"

As for "Let us be honest. This scare was intended." Speak for yourself. Don't try some shoddy rhetorical trick to include others.There's no "us" here. Just you. Do you think the sentence "Let us be honest" give you license to make unproveable allegations about motives?" When you write "let us be honest" when it really means is "let me be tendentious"

And while you're at at, can you find the surveys that Lomborg cites?   I haven't been able to locate them..

I did locate this one which notes among other things:

 

"By a three-to-one margin, Americans also say that schools should teach children about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming (76% agree vs. 24% who disagree)."

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-november-2016/

[balo]

What the survey does not tell us is that it was a warmer climate back in the 15th century , at least in Europe it was.  And now some scientists think we will experience a small ice age , because the sunspots are fewer now than in over 200 years.  

From 2050 the climate should get colder and colder and the small ice age will last for maybe 40 years . 

 

 

 

[attrayant]

What the survey does not tell us is that it was a warmer climate back in the 15th century , at least in Europe it was.

Why should a report on global temperatures have anything to say about regional temperatures, and why does that even matter?

And now some scientists think we will experience a small ice age , because the sunspots are fewer now than in over 200 years.

From 2050 the climate should get colder and colder and the small ice age will last for maybe 40 years .

This has already been addressed in this discussion. Can you link us to the study that allegedly forecasts a mini ice age?

[ilostmypassword]

W

 

3 hours ago, balo said:

What the survey does not tell us is that it was a warmer climate back in the 15th century , at least in Europe it was.  And now some scientists think we will experience a small ice age , because the sunspots are fewer now than in over 200 years.  

From 2050 the climate should get colder and colder and the small ice age will last for maybe 40 years . 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Why should a report on global temperatures have anything to say about regional temperatures, and why does that even matter?



This has already been addressed in this discussion. Can you link us to the study that allegedly forecasts a mini ice age?

 

This claim has to do with what's called a Grand Solar Minimum. It's been observed that there is something of a correlation between sunspot activity and climate. For instance, the Little Ice Age partially occurred during what is called the Maunder Minimum. There have been studies done to estimate what the cooling effect might be of another Grand Solar Minimum One climatological study estimated the cooling effect would be between .09 and .26 degrees centigrade

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

An independent study came up with virtually identical results

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf

And someone else did a study that concluded the colling effect would be no greater than .3 degrees centigrade

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50806/abstract

And here a further study that agrees with the ones above

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/jma/meehl_grand_solar_2013.pdf

 

Keep in mind that this decrease in cooling is not absolute but only subtracted from a much larger increase due to AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

 

 

 

[attrayant]

Yes, I mentioned this back in post #55, which is why I told balo he's beating a dead horse... again.  In a discussion about what's happening in the present, I am not too concerned about what happened a thousand (or more) years ago.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Yes, I mentioned this back in post #55, which is why I told balo he's beating a dead horse... again.  In a discussion about what's happening in the present, I am not too concerned about what happened a thousand (or more) years ago.

Yes, it's also interesting that a 50 percent jump in CO2 levels is insignificant according to denialists, but a 0.25 percent decline in sunlight is cause enough to create a new ice age.

[canuckamuck]

16 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Snip

 

Well that's quite a filibuster. No way I am going to find the time to multi nest quote a response to that. 

I will make a modest response tomorrow. I think you used up all the pixels for today.

[balo]

 

This has already been addressed in this discussion. Can you link us to the study that allegedly forecasts a mini ice age?

 

I read it in a Norwegian magazine, there must be some articles online about this. That's right , a mini ice age. So the winters in Northern Europe will get colder and colder, in the Uk , England and Scotland it will be normal with snow from December - February , just like in Scandinavia today.

 

[attrayant]

I wasn't aware they printed a magazine version of the Daily Mail in Norway, because that's where this myth is usually quoted from.  Anyway it's fabricated, as you might expect from the tabloid press.  Nowhere in the article do any of the named scientists say anything about a mini ice age.  Refer to the last bit of post #55 in this thread for the info.

[USPatriot]

Scientists qill comw up with what answer that will get them the next study and grant money.

 

How long do you yhink you would last qorking for al gore and twlling him he is peddling  a lie.

[boomerangutang]

14 minutes ago, USPatriot said:

Scientists qill comw up with what answer that will get them the next study and grant money.  How long do you yhink you would last qorking for al gore and twlling him he is peddling  a lie.

I don't agree.  I think most scientists, particularly those who don't work for corporate interests, are doing good honest jobs.   I can think of thousands of professions where workers cheat and create ruses to get more money.  Scientific study is v. low on that list, if it's on it at all.

 

Have you seen the time-lapse photos of glaciers receding?  The scientists who did that risked hardship and didn't get paid much.  One had an injured leg, but kept on trekking (long distances in below-freezing weather - to set up and check on cameras) when his doctor and wife told him not to.  The first season, none of the cameras worked, but they didn't find out until months later when they went back out in the far north to check on them.  Did they give up?  No.  They got a whiz kid techie to fix the cameras and went out again the next season, ....and again the season after that.  

 

 

[attrayant]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Well that's quite a filibuster. No way I am going to find the time to multi nest quote a response to that. 

 

And thus the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle has been demonstrated.  Not saying that your posts are BS, necessarily, but in general the person supporting the science always has to do much more work than the person who's just trying to shoot holes in it.  You ought to see my posts in the GMO threads.

 

It would help if we could avoid needless tangents like "unless someone alters the data later on like NOAA likes to do."  It's not germane to the discussion, but since you made the charge, I have to spend time refuting it or some other reader might believe it.  You'll notice that your twelve word statement required a 200 word refutation from me.  If I hadn't done that, and just responded with my own twelve words lacking examples and supporting evidence, then we'd just be shedding heat without light - the classic internet argument.

 

[canuckamuck]

11 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

And thus the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle has been demonstrated.  Not saying that your posts are BS, necessarily, but in general the person supporting the science always has to do much more work than the person who's just trying to shoot holes in it.  You ought to see my posts in the GMO threads.

 

It would help if we could avoid needless tangents like "unless someone alters the data later on like NOAA likes to do."  It's not germane to the discussion, but since you made the charge, I have to spend time refuting it or some other reader might believe it.  You'll notice that your twelve word statement required a 200 word refutation from me.  If I hadn't done that, and just responded with my own twelve words lacking examples and supporting evidence, then we'd just be shedding heat without light - the classic internet argument.

 

 Which one is you? 

 

I disagree with your suggestion that this is an argument of science against non science. In fact Climate alarmism is a misrepresentation of science to support various political aspirations. So the arguments are more about pulling back the curtain on the subterfuge and showing what a house of cards the climate apocalypse really is.

 

The reason it is a lot of work is because most of the institutions that the masses believe are pure and beacons of sober scientific fact are in fact merely political tools.

 

Quote

It would help if we could avoid needless tangents like "unless someone alters the data later on like NOAA likes to do."  It's not germane to the discussion, but since you made the charge, I have to spend time refuting it or some other reader might believe it.  You'll notice that your twelve word statement required a 200 word refutation from me.  If I hadn't done that, and just responded with my own twelve words lacking examples and supporting evidence, then we'd just be shedding heat without light

That comment about NOAA is actually more to the heart of the matter than the rest. NOAA's claim its adjustments are necessary, and you gave their list of reasons why. If I had time this week I would show you why I disagree more specifically. But don't you find it amazing that every time NOAA adjusts the temperature record the correction always promotes accelerated warming in the last 20 years and levels out the warming of other historical periods. Same same tidal gauges and satellite observations. How the medieval warm period now looks like it never even happened or the little ice age, as well as the super hot 1930's. But society views NOAA as entirely scientific with no bias whatsoever. This is all very convenient for the money side of the debate. And a very big obstacle for the independent thinkers, who are represented quite often by cheap looking websites and constantly derided as either being either paid by big oil or being tinfoil hatters. 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

 Which one is you? 

 

I disagree with your suggestion that this is an argument of science against non science. In fact Climate alarmism is a misrepresentation of science to support various political aspirations. So the arguments are more about pulling back the curtain on the subterfuge and showing what a house of cards the climate apocalypse really is.

 

The reason it is a lot of work is because most of the institutions that the masses believe are pure and beacons of sober scientific fact are in fact merely political tools.

 

That comment about NOAA is actually more to the heart of the matter than the rest. NOAA's claim its adjustments are necessary, and you gave their list of reasons why. If I had time this week I would show you why I disagree more specifically. But don't you find it amazing that every time NOAA adjusts the temperature record the correction always promotes accelerated warming in the last 20 years and levels out the warming of other historical periods. Same same tidal gauges and satellite observations. How the medieval warm period now looks like it never even happened or the little ice age, as well as the super hot 1930's. But society views NOAA as entirely scientific with no bias whatsoever. This is all very convenient for the money side of the debate. And a very big obstacle for the independent thinkers, who are represented quite often by cheap looking websites and constantly derided as either being either paid by big oil or being tinfoil hatters. 

 

 

A well funded climate denialist group agreed with you and were so confident that the books were being cooked that they hired an eminent physicist, Richard Mueller, to challenge the land based  temperature figures used by NOAA and others. He, like most denialists, believed that climate scientists weren't adequately adjusting for heat island effects and other factors that led to a consistent overestimation of temperature rise. Mueller was given enough money by the denialist camp to put together a dream team of scientist to examine the temperature data for bias in the results. And do you know what his conclusion was? That climatologists had gotten it exactly right. 

"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

And then there's this about ocean temperature:

No Data Manipulation at NOAA

"This means that in the large scheme of things, the rate of global warming remains unchanged, whether or not there was a “slowdown” in the rate of global warming in the beginning of the 21st century.

To top it off, Karl and his co-authors point out that “it is also clear that the long-term trend would be significantly higher … without corrections” to the raw data. In other words, compared with the raw data, the adjusted data show less warming over the long-term."

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

 

[RickBradford]

Quote

 

I disagree with your suggestion that this is an argument of science against non science. In fact Climate alarmism is a misrepresentation of science to support various political aspirations. So the arguments are more about pulling back the curtain on the subterfuge and showing what a house of cards the climate apocalypse really is.

 

The reason it is a lot of work is because most of the institutions that the masses believe are pure and beacons of sober scientific fact are in fact merely political tools.

 

 

Indeed. The climate debate is really just another outcrop of the Green/Left/SJW movement, the common element being: We are right, they are wrong, because they are either stupid or evil.

 

So, it's just as obvious that there is only one correct view on climate (and everyone who disagrees is a 'denier'), as it is that there is only one view on President Trump (his supporters are idiot bigoted rednecks), on Brexit (supporters are racist "little Englanders"), on single-sex marriage (homophobes), transgender rights (transphobes) and so on for every category in their simplistic Victim v Oppressor game.

 

It's the same totalitarian playbook. There is only one "correct" view, and there is no allowable view to the contrary.

 

Mind you, it could be worse. In North Korea, they blow dissenters away with anti-aircraft guns. In the climate debate, the Green/Left/SJW zealots only suggests that "deniers" be executed, treated as traitors, gassed, jailed, fed DDT, or branded on their foreheads.

 

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

Indeed. The climate debate is really just another outcrop of the Green/Left/SJW movement, the common element being: We are right, they are wrong, because they are either stupid or evil.

 

So, it's just as obvious that there is only one correct view on climate (and everyone who disagrees is a 'denier'), as it is that there is only one view on President Trump (his supporters are idiot bigoted rednecks), on Brexit (supporters are racist "little Englanders"), on single-sex marriage (homophobes), transgender rights (transphobes) and so on for every category in their simplistic Victim v Oppressor game.

 

It's the same totalitarian playbook. There is only one "correct" view, and there is no allowable view to the contrary.

 

Mind you, it could be worse. In North Korea, they blow dissenters away with anti-aircraft guns. In the climate debate, the Green/Left/SJW zealots only suggests that "deniers" be executed, treated as traitors, gassed, jailed, fed DDT, or branded on their foreheads.

 

All calumny, all the time.

[Basil B]

I blame the yanks, it is all that hot air coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...