Climate Change denial vs History

Thank you for this link,as it is interesting. However they used a LIMITED N2 resolution method built on an assumption,as shown from your link

"Parrenin et al. (p. 1060; see the Perspective by Brook) present a revised age scale for the atmospheric component of Antarctic ice cores, based on the isotopic composition of the N2 that they contain, and suggest that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming during the last deglaciation."

Here is a discussion on Proxies,including N2,starting at page 13. There you will see that while it has good potential,it has a serious weakness, that needs to be resolved before N2 be a reliable proxy.

Noble Gases in ice cores: Indicators of the Earth’s
climate history

LINK to a 43 page PDF

 

That isn't my position.

I'm a skeptic.

I'm not insulted by your mistake. I think that was your conclusion from the beginning. It isn't based on what I said it's based on your deliberate or mistaken misrepresentation of my posts.

 

For the likes of fellows like that a 'denier' is anyone broad minded enough to question the science elitists, which of course, is the lifeblood of actual science.

 

This is a nice reply to read.

I agree that the Scientific Method as defined is simplistic, but the outline is useful to show the basic approach to research, which are often quite complex. The big weakness of climate models that runs to year 2100,as based on the AGW hypothesis, can not be properly tested, as there are many years yet to come. That is what I object, is having an incomplete hypothesis be used to drive public policy,to claim it is going to happen, when we do not have the necessary understanding of a very chaotic complex climate system.

I jumped on the Consensus as being a fallacy, mainly because it is a tool politicians make. Scientists run on reproducible papers,which is the common engine driving science research. It can take only ONE science paper to overthrow a theory,but Consensus errors of the past are too common,causing suffering,loss of contrary view points and deaths.

Consensus doesn't drive science research, Reproducible research does.

Your link to Dr. Orekse's contrived paper, is disappointing because it was exposed as a bad paper by others over time"

This one pretty much killed her paper as she herself made admission that effectively destroyed her original claim,funny warmists never saw her admission:

Naomi Oreskes & her study: errata

Selected Excerpt:

"Some of you may remember a paper by Naomi Oreskes in Science that claimed that 100% of the papers about global climate support the "consensus view". Well, Prof. Beiser obtained different results. And I won't try to tell you what conclusions you should make.Since Naomi Oreskes has published her article, there have been dozens of new peer-reviewed "denier" articles about the climate. Try 10+ examples under this link where most articles are about the climate... Moreover, Madhav L. Khandekar has collected and nicely organized 60+ recent peer-reviewed articles against the global warming orthodoxy

From: Prof. Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores UniversityOn December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming."

LINK for the rest of the expose

She was quickly exposed, since there many science papers that didn't agree with her claim at all. How can anyone fall for the 100% consensus claim anyway? it is hilarious and a lie. She also didn't account for ALL of the papers and used a criteria that was biased.

Here is a source showing over 1,400 published science papers that doesn't meet Dr. Oreskes consensus claims.

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

LINK TO ENTIRE LIST OF PAPERS

You need to drop the Consensus fallacy, as it is worthless. There have been consensus failures in the past,why ignore that?

 

This is why you lose credibility when you go the consensus route to claim it is warming,when you could have use temperature data instead. Saying it is warming because there is a consensus for it,doesn't tell me anything of scientific value.

You entire statement had ZERO evidence in it, because you didn't provide any. Just a consensus claim.

Warmists push consensus claims a lot,while skeptics push evidence a lot.

Consensus means nothing to me,but research and evidence does.

 

I can see the truth in this statement but until there is a paper which no one can disprove (which may never happen) how else do we determine the likelihood of either side being right? And is the inability to prove conclusively that either side is right enough reason to do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions?

 

For those who are in deep love of consensus (a long used political tool) here is a long list of prediction failures to wonder over:

Failed Science, Predictions, Simulations & Claims: The Travesties of "Experts"

Excerpt:

"Much research, empirical evidence and many peer reviewed studies are represented in the headlines below. Predictions by experts, pundits, politicians, journalists, bureaucrats and computer models have all proven to be simply awful. Although global warming and climate change predictions have become a treasure trove of astoundingly exceptional failure, climate science is not the only field exhibiting prognostication misery. The public and policymakers are best advised to be cautious of 'white-coat' scientists and bow tie pundits uttering unsubstantiated claims. Included are recent bogus predictions generated from computer simulations and wild imaginations. © Copyright 2009 - 2015 | C3 Headlines (last updated 6/1/2015)"

C3 Headlines LINK

 

The AGW hypothesis failed long ago, what is going on today is a barrage irrational claims. that we are in trouble!!!!!

The few short term predictions/projection as published in the IPCC, are monumental failures. The per decade warming rate is less than half of the published projected rate. The lack of the Tropical Troposphere "hot spot" that was projected to show up in the IPCC report.

The 2001 IPCC report projected declining snow and more freezing rain,reality is the very opposite,as snowfall increased in the Northern Hemisphere since 2001.

Fewer Hurricanes and Tornadoes.

Fewer droughts

and so on.

When people push consensus arguments,that tells me they abandoned science research,in favor of a political/propaganda approach. They are the worst kind of people because they now become highly selective in what to believe and to employ a variety of fallacies and disinformation.

To deliberately mislead people by omission is a common tactic:

Recall the overblown new high temperature record for Esperanza Base Camp in Antarctica? It was touted as proof of global warming,that it was going to be hotter and so on. The reality was that a FOEN wind was the SOLE cause of the few hours long heat wave that effected a tiny area. It quickly went right back to freezing later in the evening. The media left out all that part.gee I wonder why......

Recall California Drought was going to be common and long lasting. That drought in Texas was to be the new norm,on and on with the crap. They were wrong when the rains came back, as it has done for centuries.

What was omitted in the several years hysteria of the California drought,was that the State is actually getting more rain than usual,since the 1850's. The usual pattern for most of the time BEFORE 1850's was much less rainfall and longer lasting droughts.


The AGW hypothesis is a failure,The IPCC short term projection are all failures.

As a "skeptic" have long accepted that it warmed up since the mid 1800's,but do not agree that recent warming since the 1979's is unusual or a threat to the planet. Do not agree that a trace gas,with a tiny IR absorption effect (absorb around 6% of the outgoing terrestrial IR) can drive the planets weather systems,since it has a very small energy absorption footprint.

 

Oh good post a few

 

Since most of this is unsupported rubbish from right wing shock jocks like o Reilly who do not even understand tidal movement of the oceans

 

Happy to,have anyone question the SCIENCE so far nobody is doing that

 

Don't care unless he is a VERY well known and respected scientist it is "sumone on da internetz"

Preferably link to a scientific institution

 

For those who are interested, CERN just came out with a new report stating the sun is the driving factor to climate change, debunking the consensus.

CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research is hardly what I would call a conservative think tank for those just wanting to dismiss it because of the source.

 

LOL, and as soon as they do, you label them 'deniers' and dismiss them using green agenda propaganda. Sad.

It is quite true though that you do not question the populist position.

 

Link??

Because the science I have read states the opposite

 

The earth is warming because we are coming out of an ice age.

 

That does not explain the rapid increase since the industrial revolution in comparison to the 1000s of years before it.

 

Go to their website, I can't do everything from my phone. Besides haven't you stated in other posts that you are a great researcher?

 

It's no question to me that earth seems to be heating up. It only makes sense that the massive population of mankind, and all their delicacies only contributes. The problem that I have, is acting as if though it's a problem money can solve. It's not. And if people don't want to change their lives from, tv, ac, heating, gas stove, vehicles, and everything else that is applicable. Then the problem will persist. It's not something money can fix, rather a lifestyle, they way we all choose to live must change. Or we are simply piling on another tax burden. No wonder the government is all for it. I wonder what they would say if we was to reduce our earth warming habits. Then they would probably be like, earth is not warming people, please continue as you were.

 

And what have done personally for the remedy? Has all your previous "ways of life" continued? Or have you done something to change it? Because it's not a problem money can fix.

 

If your position is not that everything can be known about anything, but the only way that you would accept Global Warming Science is if everything is known, then you are not a skeptic, i'm afraid.

"Skepticism' is a very well defined and very coherent philosophical position. You have too much to learn before you can claim to be a skeptic. If you don't like the word "denier", then make up your own word. But please don't degrade the term "skeptic"

 

I live of grid in a well insulated motorhome and use a solar panel for power a wood burning stove for heat and have a composting toilet. I park walking distance away when possible from the agency jobs I work as a chef for. I cycle everywhere when practical. I refuse to jet off around the world on pointless holidays,I make my vehicles and other consumables last as long as possible before I replace them. My last truck was just short of 30 years old and my last phone was nearly 10 years old. I refuse to get involved with the commercialism of Christmas buying presents only for my Mother and sister and never give them cards or wrap gifts. I buy food based on principles such as food miles and low intensity of farming, I haven't eaten meat for 33 years. I use a bow saw not a chainsaw, I would never buy an electric tin opener or other such pointless labour saving device. I wear clothes until they fall apart. I boycott all kinds of things which I know to be bad for the planet and never miss the opportunity to educate myself or others on all matters green.
I'm sure I could do more but I try to do the best I can.

 

Clearly, you are unable to differentiate between science compared to political discussion.....

 

Ok show me some science and we will see

Meantime thanks for the ad hom

 

All the data are real, they are just different kinds of data. It is not honest to mix them, especially to make the instrument data a big black line that obscures the proxy data that don't agree with the instrument data.