Climate Change denial vs History

So hundreds of peer reviewed journals are all only doing it as 'favours for friends"

And those papers were solid at the time of writing - it is the rebuttals that were junk

 

No if it is in "discover" it is an article and not a research paper but at least it is more valid than say something from Billybob's blog.

Trouble is that you yourself are unsure of specifics and obviously do not have the cognitive construct underpinning the understanding of the climate variations to evaluate THIS change fully and rather than trust those who do have this due to years of studying the field you have decided......

 

Ahem bullshit bullshit bullshit

There is little to no evidence that the MWP was global so how can you assert that the temperature was higher?

 

And who informed them and convinced all those people that the issue was concerning enough that so many governments signed the agreement?

142 DIFFERENT governments from DIFFERENT countries around the world - that is a lot of diversity

 

Please explain why the peer reviewers of the MBH98 and MBH99 papers missed the blatant and dishonest errors ?? Again peer review is meaningless.

 

Just asking the obvious question from the posted video. The claim is that if Antarctica melts that the global sea level will rise by 180 feet. When will that happen ??

 

Wow!!! What a logic fail!!! That is the equivalent of arresting a random passerby in case there might be a murder somewhere

Firstly we have to establish that there were blatant and dishonest errors.

And if you even THINK about trying to include bulldust about "hide the decline" be very prepared to be decimated

 

Peer review is meaningless. And the MBH98 and MBH99 papers were garbage when the were published even though peer reviewed. The IPCC has now refused to acknowledge them in AR5. If the papers were solid then how do you account for that ??

 

That blatant dishonesty has been unequivically done in the books "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding the Decline" which indeed decimated MBH98 and MBH99 which are now missing from any IPCC publications. Anyone who defends the Mann Hockey Stick papers is defending dishonesty.

 

On the contrary. I have not decided. And I have asked a very specific question which I'd like to have answered: given the evidence which shows that the earth's climate has changed in very similar ways in the past, why should we now believe that human activities are responsible for the changes we are now seeing? If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it. If you have access to the research of those who are attempting to answer this very question, I would love to read it. If you prefer to say that I'm a dope for asking such a question, I will politely ignore you and move on. The question is perfectly reasonable, and I'm willing to entertain evidence from all different sides. I'm just not willing to buy into a narrative that claims to be certain science, but wants to say that everyone believes it so I should too. That's not science, that's group think, and it's never been particularly compelling to those who prefer to think before coming to a conclusion.

 

The MWP was global. Thousands of papers attest to that and the global nature of the LIA. Anyone who thinks otherwise ignores the science. The reason MBH98 and MBH99 were so quickly endorsed is because they dishonestly showed that the MWP did not exist. This is exactly what the AWP alarmists at the IPCC needed and they ran with it only to be humiliated ~ 10 years later.

 

Politicians signed the AR5. Politicians have agendas. What do third world countries gain from signing ?? What do India and China have to gain from signing ??

 

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Based upon signs left by old glaciers, researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived—and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed exceptionally clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world.


Vikings colonized Greenland and possibly neighboring Baffin Island during what has been assumed to be—perhaps mistakenly--a temporary warm period. They disappeared in the 1400s. Southern Greenland’s Hvalsey church is the best preserved Viking ruin. (Wikimedia Commons)

“It’s becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global,” said lead author Nicolás Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “The concept is Eurocentric—that’s where the best-known observations were made. Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same.” Climate scientists have cited the Medieval Warm Period to explain anomalies in rainfall and temperature in far-flung regions, from the U.S. Southwest to China. The study appears today in the journal Science Advances.

 

They haven't.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

 

There are hundreds of studies which make the opposite conclusion. These are summarized in Climate Change Reconsidered - Physical Science II.

 

Come'on man. That article is 13 years old. The books which describe the dishonesty of Mann et. al. which give all the details of that dishonesty "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding the Decline" were published in 2010 and 2012 respectively. Please keep up to date.

 

This is in essence at the same point at which I began to investigate global warming. The dishonesty of those who can be described as alarmists is breathtaking as the Climate Gate emails clearly show.

 

That is far from a "specific" question. Firstly there are some glaring assumptions which underpin your questions and we have to address those first.

Most obvious is the broad statement that it has changed 'in similar ways"

So, yes there has been climate changes but a lot of these have been used by things like solar output variances and milankovitch cycles. CO2 has

 

And yes - even though CO2 has steadily increased from ~1950 the globe has experienced periods of cooling, warming, and steady temperatures. The real glaring assumption by alarmists is that all warming is human CO2 emission caused. And those alarmists who reject the use of "all" cannot state the percentage caused by human CO2 emissions.

 

Gee. I would like to see the "thousands of papers" showing that the MWP was global

Considering that we have not even been offered ONE paper showing even local changes

 

Where the **** did "politicians sign the AR%"????
Are you getting confused between the Paris Agreement and the AR5?
Exactly so why sign up? This may even inhibit economic growth so why sign up to the agreement if there were not overwhelming evidence

 

I've given the references many times. Obviously you have not read them.

 

Political appointees sign the AR's. Politicians have agendas. Again why would third world countries sign up ??

 

Both written by a BLOGGER with no scientific background

 

Regarding that piece of fossil fuel industry crap


"The final chapter advises readers that “Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policy-makers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest.” This comes from authors with well-known political biases, pariah status among independent, reputable scientists, and financial support from a rightwing political think tank with close ties to the fossil-fuel industry"

They are referring of course to the Heartland Institute.