Nope. Evidence that I can actually cross-check and verify against known-credible sources is just fine.
Which are credible known sources.... I can provide scientific papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals.... would that do it?
Nope. The climategate emails showed that pal review is no kind of guarantee of credibility in climate journals. In fact, recent research has shown the whole peer-review system is in deep trouble, and very little good science is being published any more.
But what is a known credible source if not peer reviewed papers Nasa NOAA Denmark Sweeden U.K. Germany?
Results were never falsified though. This according to multiple independent investigations. If you disagree present what you think was falsified and what you think the truth is so that we can all review it. I asked you legitimate questions in good faith to test your knowledge of the controversy. Will you rise to the challenge or not? I'm going to test your knowledge of the controversy here. As part of the multiple independent investigations of Mann and UEA what did investigators learn that is relevant to McIntyre's role? Why do you think McIntyre was never investigated?
What? By my accounting you call into question pretty much any evidence going so far as to call it all fraudulent and the product of a global conspiracy. So tell me...what evidence are you looking at exactly?
Notice the theme here. Instead of presenting evidence and furthering the knowledge base you cast unjustified doubt about all of it. If you feel this is an unfair characterization then prove me wrong by presenting a theory of the climate system that does a better job at explaining and predicting observations in both the paleoclimate and instrumental records than what we already have. That's your challenge.
Btw Do you agree sea levels are rising. If that is the case... there has to be a reason There are two potential reasons Land ice is melting Or thermal expansion of the water in the oceans.... do you quarrel with that as well,?
have you done your own personal research into solar irradiance? Of course not So how do you come by your proposed irradiance numbers Obviously by exactly the same scientists that you propose cannot br trusted
I'm not proposing any irradiance numbers. I'm looking at the logical coherence and consistency of claims and counter-claims.
The increase in sea level is well attested. It is caused by the natural rebound to more normal global temperatures since the anomalously cold LIA. Liars like Lyin' Michael Mann have tried to make the LIA disappear, just as they have tried to make the MWP disappear.
The doubt is not unjustified. The claims being made are preposterous. What "observations"? The "observations" by people like Lyin' Michael Mann that erased the MWP and LIA?
I'm looking at what has been done to actual empirical observations to make it look like they say something they don't say.
They certainly were. What do you incorrectly imagine the word, "independent" means? How can one tell where the falsification begins? The truth is, the MWP was real, significant, and global. Any dataset that purports to refute that fact, as Lyin' Michael Mann's hockey stick data did, are automatically suspect. I'm not going to debate the minutiae of what one or another kangaroo court said about emails that I can -- and have -- read for myself. No, you are not, because I'm not interested in "the controversy." I read the emails, and I know what they said. It was disgraceful, anti-scientific filth. Because he never did anything wrong.
At least some point of agreement So you do agree that temperatures are warming,,, a rare admission from the skeptic community it is certainly true that there are such rebound effects.ll that have been proceeding for centuries But it seems as though the rate of warming has dramatically changed in a way that is not explained by the Rebound effect Hey, the fact that you even know about these things is based on extensive scientific research.. the research that you dismiss when it does not yield your preferred result
As nobody denied the LIA existed, that's a remarkably stupid thing to demand as some sort of proof of something. Sea level rise is accelerating. Your loopy conspiracy theory could only explain a declining rate of sea level rise. Thus, the hard data conclusively debunks your conspiracy theory. But then, the hard data has debunked every conspiracy theory you've ever put forth. That's why you have to fabricate further paranoid conspiracy theories about how any data that contradicts your religious beliefs is faked. With you, it's conspiracy theory turtles all the way down.
Sure they did. They claimed it wasn't global, wasn't significant, blah, blah, blah. Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph made it disappear entirely. No, it is quite to the point: natural variation. No, it is not. Wrong. Wrong. You mean, the "hard" data that conspirators concoct? Except that anyone can look out their frickin' window and see for themselves that there is no climate crisis, no climate emergency, and in fact, the climate is no warmer now than it was in the 1930s. The anti-CO2 hysteria campaign has been gaslighting deluded children like poor little Greta Thunberg with lurid apocalyptic fantasies that have no basis in empirical fact..
I agree that they have warmed. Whether they are warming depends on your time horizon because they are rising about half the time, falling the other half. How far back do you want to go to decide if the "current" trend is up or down? The UAH data has current temperature down since September, down since 2016, down since 1998, but up since 2018, up since 2017, up since 1990, etc. It's not surprising that temperatures are higher than an average that began at the end of the 1940-1970 cooling period, let alone since the LIA. Nope. There's no such dramatic change anywhere but in the altered data. I don't have a preferred result. I just look at the data to see if they make sense. Anti-CO2 hysteria makes no sense.
Both have been happening as temperatures rebound naturally from the lows of the Little Ice Age, and also because of the sustained, multimillennial high in solar activity that characterized the 20th century. CO2's contribution to the increase has been minimal.
Where do you get that from the temps and sea levels have been accelerating And this is a 50 year phenomenon That does not correlate at all to either long term or short term solar activity changes once again, where do you get that from..l. The surprisingly accurate prediction of current increases was made over 100 years ago, I am unaware of anyone making similarly accurate prediction based on solar activity
The facts. Nope. Nope. Self-evidently false. The sustained high in solar activity that characterized the 1930-2000 period of rapid warming is VISUALLY OBVIOUS in the graph. The facts. It's not accurate in the least. Solar activity can't be predicted yet.
No, absolutely right. Your conspiracy theory would require that the increase in ocean levels be slowing. A step response rises asymptotically to a new level. That is, the increase decelerates. As we see sea level rise accelerating, your conspiracy theory is conclusively disproved, at least to those not running purely on religious fervor. Flat-earthers sincerely believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make the earth flat. We know with 100% certainty that flat-earthers are pushing nonsense, and for the same logical reason, we know with 100% certainty that you're pushing nonsense -- because the hard data says so. The sincerity and fervor of your belief in your nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
