Climate change: A cooling consensus

Defence of the indefensible is all that is left for them now. I was myself in the alarmist camp too until the shreikings of impending doom got so loud I started to take a long hard look at the credibility of the established science that was claimed to underpin all this. It turned up missing. Then I went looking closely at all the consensus claims of 97% yadda yadda and I found each an every one of them had been statistically skewed to reach a predetermined conclusion. Then there was the IPCC an authority set up by governments for governments and headed up by a railway engineer ! All the certainties and absolutes espoused on the hypothesis of AGW have little or no basis in either fact or science as it turned out but on climate modeled constructs all of which have failed spectacularly in just 25 years to fit observed reality. The rest is just watermelon politics

 

Wow! All the right wing radio shock jock messages in one post!!

Rupert Murdoch would be pleased

 

There is no right or left here for me with this issue there is only right or wrong

 

and by posting that link as your evidence demonstrates you clearly don't understand the simplest scientific data recording method, an error other deniers repeatedly make and cannot comprehend...a single year (data point) does not constitute a trend...

but we see this demonstrated continually among the forum deniers..."today is colder so it's a trend AGW is over!", "this month is colder than last so it's a trend and AGW is over!", "this year is colder than last it's a trend so AGW is over! and now floggers assertion there is more arctic ice now than last year so it's a trend there is no AGW ! ...all this demonstrates is a lack of scientific studies are done at it's most basic level, seriously I learned in grade school science one data point on a graph is not a trend, how adults keep claiming just the opposite is an embarrassment, and then they claim they understand science better than the experts...

 

Where did I claim that it did ?

Do you also subscribe to the fantastical notion that the Arctic will be gone in 7 years too ? .

 

Yet we saw the same thing with CAGWers with the Greenland Ice Sheet melt in 2012 because of the same thing, the jet stream.

 

Yes our military is historically stupid whrn it comes to prediction. Need we do the list again.

 

And you tell your opponents to be civil.

Such a hypocrisy.

 

That is not a strawman that is a question, one you cannot answer. The statements I made were factually accurate.

You perpetually make things up, I am saying exactly what was said.

Witty word usage is not a slur. Here are more sources,

Wikipedia's Zealots (Financial Post, April 13, 2008)
The Real Climate Martians (Financial Post, April 26, 2008)
The Opinionator (Financial Post, May 3, 2008)
Wikipropaganda On Global Warming (CBS News, July 8, 2008)
Wikipropaganda – Spinning green (National Review Online, July 8, 2008)
Global Warming Alarmists Sabotage Wikipedia Entries (The Heartland Institute, November 1, 2008)
Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles (Financial Post, December 19, 2009)
Leftist Green Party Member Exposed Using Wikipedia to Preach Enviro Doom (NewsBusters, December 19, 2009)
More on Wikipedia and Connolley – he’s been canned as a Wiki administrator (WUWT, December 19, 2009)
Climate Cultist William Connolley sabotages Wikipedia (RedState, December 20th, 2009)
For AGW religionists, when in doubt, change the facts (American Thinker, December 20, 2009)
History of climate gets 'erased' online: More than 5,000 entries tailored to hype global-warming agenda (WorldNetDaily, December 21, 2009)
Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia (The Daily Telegraph, December 22, 2009)
Wikipedia's hockey stick wars (Financial Post, December 23, 2009)
Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate (The American Spectator, December 30, 2009)
Wikipedia Exposed As Part Of Climategate Scandal (UK Column, January 10, 2010)
Who am I? (Financial Post, February 13, 2010)
Global warming propagandist slapped down (Financial Post, October 14, 2010)
William Connolley, now "climate topic banned" at Wikipedia (WUWT, October 14, 2010)
Wikipedia Bans Real Climate Propagandist (The Heartland Institute, October 19, 2010)
Wikipedia Bans Radical Global Warming Propagandist From Editing All Pages (NewsBusters, October 21, 2010)
Huzzah! Wikipedia Bans Climate Alarmist from Editing Global Warming Entries (Somewhat Reasonable, October 22, 2010)
Wikipedia decides enough is enough on global warming propaganda (Orange County Register, October 22, 2010)
WikiPropaganda: Wikipedia bars a global warming censor from editing its pages (The Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2010)
Climate-forger Connolley: The man who rewrote our worldview (Kopp, December 26, 2012)

Here is the actual Wikipedia Ban,

The First Amendment protects my right to an opinion. Rob and Connolley denigrate themselves, I do not need to do anything. You can make up whatever nonsense you wish, while people are free to read what is actually on my site.

Witty word usage is not derogatory. It is completely relevant to point out the lack of scientific credentials man-purse maker Rob has. I don't get my science from man-purse makers and cartoonists like you do. Neither produces any "science". Rob demonstrated his computer illiteracy by showing he has no remote idea how to use Google Scholar.

No you can't infer anything because such a claim would be an outright lie. This is not something up for debate, there is only the reality of what I posted as partially archived by the WayBack Machine. You should not be commenting on things you have no knowledge of and are utterly wrong about.

Please explain how "media" is a "weasel word" and "strawman". You do not even understand what the terms you are using.

 

Excellent defence Poptech but good grief where are you finding the time and patience for all this ! You know that despite your best efforts the response will be more of the same after all, however well qualified you make your rebuttal

 

That is very true no matter how many rules Connolley breaks and what happens Connolley his team of wiki trolls will always wait till the heat dies down then quietly reinstate him.

 

Why not start a thread on it once you have ? I'd certainly be interested

 

Exactly, if any skeptic did what Connolley has done they would be indefinitely IP banned. Connolley is an absolute lunatic on Wikipedia and people need to be made aware of it.

 

'In your opinion - and again this is about attacking the people not the science

 

ooooh! wow! A complete listing of the internet denialosphere plus a whole slew of Rupert backed rubbish

Do not care - in my opinion the way it is worded is NOT "witty" but snide and derogatory which is NOT a measure of professionalism

It is concentrating on the people and not the science

What "science" is on that site is mostly tucked into massive straw men

Like the "discussion" on http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

First YOU define the parameters of the concern about rising CO2 in the atmosphere in terms that are at variance with the issue relating to climate change

In effect that "discussion is doing this


Oh! I will concede your "facts" are right but they are aimed at the wrong argument - one that is not part of global warming

 

One would think that the lack of warming would be an issue with CAGWers.

 

No, I provided 25 sources including his ban from Wikipedia itself. Strawman, I am not discussing "science" here but Connolley's criminal behavior on Wikipedia.

 

I have no idea what the Internet "denialosphere" is. And are you actually checking your facts before you post? Rubert Murdock founded and acquired numerous completely legitimate news publications, of which a whopping single one was listed and is the most respected - The Wall Street Journal.

Nor do I care about your opinion on this.

People like the Cartoonist don't produce any science to concentrate on.

You do understand it is a strawman argument to falsely accuse me of a strawman? My argument in that article is that CO2 is not a pollutant and "pollution" (as in air pollution) has nothing to do with global warming. This is not the "wrong" argument but the one I am actually making. The purpose of this article is for people who falsely believe CO2 is harmful to air or water quality. I wrote it after I found lay people constantly confusing REAL air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) and smog with carbon dioxide (CO2). This confusion was the driving force behind most people wanting to regulate it as they falsely assumed it would make their air and water "cleaner". Regulating CO2 will do nothing for air or water quality, it will simply make energy more expensive.

No, my actual argument is very relevant so people do not confuse the "pollution" argument with global warming.

 

No, my actual argument is very relevant so people do not confuse the "pollution" argument with global warming.[/QUOTE]

The actual argument of your words is that regulating CO2 is expensive and, since it has not killed anyone yet and is not actually killing you right now, you should be outraged at the government for heaping this needless expense on you.

If you put things in the air and water at high enough levels that they kill organisms, especially organisms that are crucial to life, they are pollution. We are doing that now with CO2, the current science and prehistoric record agree that the high CO2 levels we are approaching are not conducive to a continuation of the current ecosystem. The ecosystem will adapt and survive but it is becoming a question if ecosystem adaptations will support a continuation of human life. In other words, we have engaged in a vast global chemistry experiment by pumping huge quantities of CO2 into the air, the peril of which is just now becoming apparent.

Let's not get too confused here, global warming and pollution are just two sides of the same coin.

 

I don't know about the 2nd and 3rd of your graphs, but the first made me wonder. How do we know the temperature 10,000 years ago, and to an accuracy in the tenths of a degree C?

After some reading, it turns out we don't. There is no consensus at all on the holocene temperature. Its mostly guesswork based upon what we know of the animals and plants (fossil records) that were living throughout the ages, assuming those animals and plants were comparable to a modern animal/plant, and applying current living conditions for life throughout the holocene.

I don't buy it at all. Plants and animals adapt to changing conditions, and sometimes very rapidly. Similar animals live in a wide range of environments - today dog like creatures live all over the world in deserts, forests, snow.

To apply that "educated guesswork" to the entire world from 12,000 BC to today and come up with a global temperature accurate to a tenth of a deg C - bull.

 

What you are talking about are proxy temperature reconstructions. There are many varied proxies that show globally that it was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) than now. To be accurate about current temps, one would have to use only proxy data to compare against past proxy data instead of adding measured temps during the last 100 years. When you do that, you do not show any spike and a lower temperatures than both the Holocene maximum and the MWP.

 

Yes, when I was reading about these temperature estimates there was a lot of papers about "proxies" and temperature reconstructions. I can see how the process would be useful in some ways, such as determining what is a cool plain today was a hot, wet jungle 10,000 years ago. But as far as determing the temperature of that jungle - not to mention all the regions of the world - to allow highly accurate estimates of global temperature, thats ridiculous. One of the papers showed temperature profiles from multiple reconstructions, some showed warming, some cooling. It seems you can get whatever you want to get by using the "proper" reconstruction process.

 

Strawman, that is not what I said.

There is no valid science that supports the current and likely future CO2 levels as being harmful to humans. There is no peril, only hysteria.

CO2 is only "toxic" when it becomes abundant enough to replace oxygen, which is no different than claiming that water is "toxic" when you are submerged. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) concentrations are about 0.039% (395ppm) and have no chance of reaching REAL toxic levels,

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Submarine Crews live and work in a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) rich environment of 3,500 to 4,100 ppm on average

 

Not really. You have to take into account the different types of proxies used. Each has it's own indicators. Taken together as a whole will show general trends. Corals, fossil pollens, tree rings, ice cores, and ocean and lake sediments tell a lot. You only get whatever you want if you start cherry picking from certain proxy records like what happened with the debunked hockey stick graph.