Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Where is this evidence of which you speak? Please show it to us.

The consensus lie has been rehearsed over and over again on this site and elsewhere on skeptic sites throughout the web and even in peer-reviewed papers:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10...nsus-on-climate-change-busted-in-peer-review/

 

Nope. I suspect Loper might earn Trump a spot on Mt. Rushmore.

 

Do you think he will crash there? Either way, Melania will be patiently waiting to cash in on her pre-nuptial agreement when he does.

 

No. The entire issue of "climate change" as a politically forceable fraud will collapse there. And then the US will be free of having to listen to the "climate change" fascists and life will go back to normal.

With the biggest and most obnoxious of the progressive screech monkeys effectively muted, Trump will walk to victory in November and everything you and your cohort have said will fade blessedly into the background noise of the universe.

 

IPCC AR-6, NASA, the Royal Academy, the National Science Foundation and many others.

Watts Up With That has poor credibility and bias ratings.

 

Simply referencing the IPCC AR6 report isn’t presenting evidence. Seems to me to be more of an attempt to dodge the question.

 

WUWT are just quoting a peer-reviewed paper as far as I can tell. How has their credibility got anything to do with the study?

 

Not just AR-6, but all the most respected scientific agencies on the planet

 

No it isn’t. It references an e-mail from an individual. Interesting that you weren’t aware. Just shows the manipulation and dishonesty of WUWT.

 

Still waiting for the evidence rather than these appeals to authority.

 

It’s been presented over and over from all these agencies. Go to any of their websites. I can provide links, but you are obviously so ingrained in your contrarian beliefs that it would not make any difference.

 

I haven’t seen any such evidence from these agencies. I have yet to see evidence supporting the IPCC’s ECS of 3C.

 

Did you go to any of their websites? Did you search in these sites - CO2 Global Warming correlation?

 

I have been reseraching this topic for a while. Yes, I have seen the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Perhaps you think that proves AGW, I don't know.

 

I stated that AGW and CO2 has been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” by Climate Scientists, the authorities on the topic.

 

I agree that AGW is real, but when I say "AGW" I'm referring to the IPCC's stance on AGW and their estimate of 3C for ECS.

 

Last time I looked through an IPCC AR document, they presented different scenarios of Climate Change. Are you quoting the worst case scenario?

 

Their best estimate for ECS is about 3C and has been for about 20 years:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-1/figure-1-16

 

China is importing more and more food all the time.

https://www.cfr.org/article/china-increasingly-relies-imported-food-thats-problem#:~:text=Changing diet patterns have also,its crude oil import dependence.

India sometimes claims to be food self sufficient. But 16% of their population is undernourished. I guess if a big share of your population isn’t eating much it’s easy to claim self sufficiency.

 

Good link. Thanks for providing. As you are most likely aware, ECS, by definition is the researched consensus rise in temperature from a hypothetical doubling of CO2. We are currently at 1.5x pre- industrial CO2 levels. My hope is that the world continues to take this matter seriously, as atmospheric CO2 must start leveling off. I tend to be optimistic, and I believe mankind is up for the challenge. It sounds like you want to argue that 3 degrees C is too high. I am not a Climate Scientist, but my background is Science. Just like I wouldn’t appreciate a Climate Scientist telling me I’m wrong about my area of expertise, I will not pretend to tell them they are wrong. I do know that there are a lot of amplifications, regarding greenhouse gases, and it sounds like the later AR studies are seeing more relevance regarding these amplifications.

 

Below is a collection of ECS studies with estimates ranging from 4.5C to under 0.5C. These are instrumental ESC studies (i.e. things like satellite observations) which are the most direct. The higher ECS estimates generally come from paleo-climate studies that infer ECS through correlations. The average seems to be around 1.5C to 2C.

 

And you think Climate Scientists aren’t familiar with these studies? I do remember that the satellite temperature data from Huntsville, AL has been shown historically to be errant, with faulty procedures. Nonetheless, I trust the expertise of the Climate Scientists, and I am assuming that you are not one.

 

Well Ok, I suppose this discussion can go no further if you completely trust scientists without any independent investigation for yourself. But, of course, the estimates showing a low ECS in the graph above are scientists, many climate scientists. So, what makes you trust one climate scientist from another?

 

Hmmm. NASA/NOAA, who continue to fund UAH and use their data, seem to have a different view.

 

I’ll look again at UAH. I briefly looked at a graph recently, and the temps seemed to align fairly closely. There are some who use high end projections of ECS. You seem to want to use low end projections. I’ll go with the center.