As to the "majority of climate scientists"

do you have no doubt that your reality may not be real?

 

But you didn't post any studies at all did you? You posted three random graphs intending to show that there is nothing to worry about because ice cores show it was warmer millions of years in the past. Interesting how you've jumped from heat islands to ice cores in you attempt to prove all the world's climate scientists are wrong. But it's okay I went to your source material and analysed it for you.

First of all, everyone knows climate has changed in the past and that natural cycles in planet orbital mechanics, volcanic activity and other factors have an influence on climate. The trouble with these changes is that they always involve massive release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses such as methane clathrates and are usually very bad for life on Earth because of the changes to local environment. In fact in many ways climate change is a driver of evolution. The thing you want to ask yourself is, was there a civilization of 7 billion people and counting back then living around coastlines, dependent on a stable climate and on the knife's edge of environmental degradation and species extinction back then?

Nevertheless, the first graph appears to come from wiki. This is what they have to say about it:

"Direct combination of these interpreted geological temperature records is not necessarily valid, nor is their combination with other more recent temperature records, which may use different definitions. Nevertheless, an overall perspective is useful even when imprecise. In this view time is plotted backwards from the present, taken as 2015 CE. It is scaled linear in five separate segments, expanding by about an order of magnitude at each vertical break. Temperatures in the left-hand panel are very approximate, and best viewed as a qualitative indication only.[9] Further information is given on the graph description page."

But even if valid, what was happening 500 million years ago is hardly indicative of what we are facing today is it?

The second graph I couldn't access without registering with the cite but it appears to show the same thing as the Market Oracle article that spent a whole page trying out all of the denier tropes to deny climate change. This graph is a common one on denier websites and for a good reason. It is truncated. Notice that the graph ends at zero. That would be 2000 ya, far before the start of the industrial age. this is a common trick with denier website to make it appear that rapid warming we are seeing today is nothing to worry about. Notice even on this graph they have two red dots approximating where temperatures will be in 2050 and 2100 but choose not to include in the graph. Here is the real graph from NASA:



"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3"

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...en-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/

There are only so many forcings that effect climate along with feedback effects from those forcings. In the past we can posit things about those forcings such as orbital mechanics and volcanic activity. But the truth is that none of those things, such as Milankovich cycles, solar irradiation, aerosols from volcanic activity and such can be shown to be behind the very rapid changes we are seeing in climate.

As CO2 has always been a factor in climate change in the past, we have to come to the conclusion that human activity is acerbating this problem.

Read over the NASA page I linked. The evidence is compelling.

 

ideologues only don't think, they don't reason, they're not objective, they're not impartial, they're not inquisitive, they don't learn or have any compulsion to learn to avoid being confronted by facts that don't match their ideology...it's all about the ideology not about the facts...

 

How did Phil Jones destroy Mann's paper? Climategate has been debunked ages ago as scientists talking......well science. Mann was cleared by several investigations so was everyone else.

Do you have a link to Mcintyre winning both the scientific and legal battle with Mann?

This is all ancient news bty. Are you a recent convert to WUWT and just discovering all these earth shattering scandals for the first time?

 

Lol, What the heck has all this got to do with his asking for a cite so he could look over the data for himself?

 

I have to say, I appreciate these efforts. The subject is gigantic, and the effort involved in tracking down the research and bs usually leaves me saying f-it. Which of course is the goal.

 

LOL! Add medicine and epidemiology to your list of "soft" sciences - as opposed to that waay hard science, "climate".

"Because when studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test.

Medicine, epidemiology, population science and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them.

"Across biomedical science and beyond, scientists do not get trained sufficiently on statistics and on methodology," Ioannidis said."
AFP, Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns, By Ivan Couronne, July 5, 2018.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-t...es-most-wrong-researcher-warns-164336076.html

 

AGAIN, a major problem these soft science studies fail replication tests is that there aren't adequate controls.

And, placing adequate controls on studies of human populations is incredibly difficult, due to ethics limitations.

 

So the climate scientists got it wrong 1990 - 2007, but finally got it right in 2012?
Why would anyone believe them in the era of rampant science fraud?

IPCC's four assessments – massive, multi-tome volumes released in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 – are considered the gold standard in climate science. The fourth report earned both intense criticism from climate skeptics and the honor of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, shared with former Vice President Al Gore.

Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise (see sidebar).
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming, By Glenn Scherer, December 6, 2012.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

 

And?

Did you think this was some sort of decades long, lock step conspiracy?

Are you discounting climatology today on the grounds that there was a less well developed argument 28 years ago???

Do you know a significant branch of science that has been stagnant for that long?

imo, you need to consider what science knows today.

And, that holds true for other science, too. Limiting yourself to the medical solutions of 1990 would be another such mistake.

 

And Fake Science remains an inconvenient truth for you.

"Ramping up wind power in America would also dial up the nation's temperatures, a new study out of Harvard found.
While wind energy is widely celebrated as environmentally friendly, the researchers concluded that a dramatic, all-out expansion in the number of turbines could warm the country even more than climate change from burning coal and other fossil fuels, because of the way the spinning blades disturb the layers of warm and cold air in the atmosphere.

Some parts of the central United States are already seeing nights that are up to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) warmer because of nearby wind farms, said study lead author Lee Miller, an environmental scientist at Harvard.
"Any big energy system has an environmental impact," said Harvard engineering and physics professor David Keith, a study co-author. "There is no free lunch. You do wind on a scale big enough ... it'll change things."
ABC NEWS, No free lunch for renewables: More wind power would warm US, By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP SCIENCE WRITER, WASHINGTON — Oct 4, 2018, 5:25 PM ET.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/free-lunch-renewables-wind-power-warm-us-58292940

Wind power! What a boondoggle! There is big money in Fake Science.

 

Get real, all you know is what you're told by people with the right academic pedigrees - which in the case of climatologists is clearly not earned by demonstrated competence, seeing theirs is dwarfed by that of meteorologists.

Yes, with such an unimpeachable CV, it surely beggars belief that any can restrain themselves from falling at your feet.

Trust me, pilgrim, people with a lick of sense don't trust you as far as they can throw you.

 

That doesn't show what you want it to show.

Wind power is an engineering solution. It that solution has objectionable side effects (dead birds, whatever), it doesn't mean climatology is wrong in any way.

 

they avoid facts, they ignore facts, it's all about denial and when cornered they revert to conspiracy or run away ...

 

No "science" involved - right?

 

OK list the other times this many scientist have agreed on something and were wrong

 

Hmmmm looks like NOAA data but it google images to the well known fact twister site Whatts up with that”

 

Where are you getting your data?

 

Yet the data is all there for you to see so are you saying you reject facts based on the messenger? Not surprised.

 

Not-necessarily, the same way we know everything else we know.

 

Am I? You shat all over the idea that science wasn't imbued with fraud. I provided several cases of it. But I understand why you cannot repudiate the message. Play the game better, or don't play.

 

Fortunately, the computer models that predict anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change don't work.

 

The similarities to the inquisition are remarkable here. They might as well be flat earthers....

 

Geo-centrism, miasma, bleeding the ill, microorganisms, the capabilities of women, …
Need I go on?

 

The unfortunate side effect of wind is that rare minerals are then required and to obtain them, a series of intercene wars, slavery, forced child labor must then be relied on so the smug of the proponents can be satisfied. The only response to this obscenity is "it's necessary" or "for the good of the larger populations", or other similar BS.

The winds don't always blow. And when they don't, there won't be power. Unless you have a massive ability to store the energy, in batteries that all require other folks suffer. Ask how fun it is to have wind power to the 5-9 yos in the DRC who expose themselves to the most caustic and horrific working conditions I can think of. I've suggested that the faithful go and staff those mines themselves, just so they can get some perspective. Of course, none have thought it was necessary for them to actually contribute....