‘CRAZINESS’ in climate field leads dissenter Dr. Judith Curry to resign

Hmm? Should I believe NASA and scientists looking at ice from almost a million years ago and what's in it, or some guy on the internet with a link to a blog? I'll stand with NASA, their link, their chart, and their information.

NASA studied the Antarctic ice cores and what chemicals were found in them, going backwards in time 800,000 years. You're talking about something 50 million years ago, without direct evidence. You asked what does coral have to do with it? Maybe you should read your own link?

You're trying to argue with me about something I never mentioned. That's called a straw man, and it's a logical fallacy.

- - - Updated - - -

Deflection noted. Have a good day.

 

Translation: You have no clue what the difference is.

 

Oh pff... if you got anything to dispute this, than lets have it.
So far: hot air.

 

Not my problem if you lack the curiosity or energy to look at anything but the cartoonists study and refusal to look at any critiques of such.

 

I'll not take this thread off topic. Either answer my simple question or stop replying to me with non-answers.

Is NASA's Antarctic ice core data accurate about the CO2 levels they have measured? Yes or no?
Is the present measure of CO2 in the atmosphere accurate? Yes or no?

 

Source

Yeah... scientists are rather dumb.
oh wait.

It has little to do with left or right. It has to do with people who refuse to invest because they are scared about the future. If it was up to you lot the assembly line would not have been invented.

 

Debatable, example is a recent study using a different proxy differs fron the current proxies showing 600ppm instead of 300ppm of past CO2. If you knew anything about proxies you would understand the problems with proxies.

 

I actually do, but I wasn't going to get into Mauna Loa, the Keeling Curve, and all that jazz. Other people in this thread have already posted about Carbon isotopes and the confirmation they bring. I just wanted to know if you believed the science or not. Now I know.

Some people actually can have discussions on a topic without a condescending accusation. There's nothing more for us to talk about on this issue.

 

What are you saying? That if you look at all the science you are a science denier? That someone that does not display a knowledge of the problems with proxies is always right? That someone that does not know the difference between direct measurements and proxies knows what they are talking about?

 

It sounds like reality.

 

Give you the SAME challenge I give everyone else here - tell me what is causing the current climate change because climate like underwear does not change itself

I always hope when I put that out there that that is not news to some

I mean it is a big complex system so something has to be causing change

 

Manifest ignorance of chaotic, nonlinear systems well displayed.

 

Maybe she can find another job when she recovers from the craziness.

 

Not an answer

What is driving the change?

 

She is like almost 70 years old. So it's rather obvious she is just going to enjoy her retirement. And this is just her last huff and puff of frustration and hot air that she did not convince her collegues on global warming.

 

So you think the Holocene optimum, the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period, and the Little Ice age were caused by man? Gosh, what do you think caused those?

 

Deflection still have not answered the question

Plus there is scant evidence of any of those being world wide changes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered/ It is warmer now than it has been in the last thousand years.

 

Sorry, there are papers of proxy studies all over the world including Antarctica showing warming during that period. You probably haven't figured out how the alarmists control Wiki articles about this. One scientist was misrepresented by wiki and when he tried to correct it, it was immediately remove. When the scientists can't even correct mistakes about themselves then you can't trust wiki, especially on this issue.

 

It is freezing because it is winter. Expect more precipitation, rain, flooding, snow, and a herbie.

 

REally? How about linking them instead of making up conspiracy theories about Wiki

Oh! And you STILL have not answered the question

"What is causing the current climate to change"?

 

Very hard from my IPad, Will have to do it later.

 

Here you go, Google maps indicating the locations and links to abstracts of warming during the Medieval Warm Period. The red ones show warming. Blue cooling, Grey neutral, yellow dry, green wet.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...S&ll=16.10404598751001,1.8272475000000554&z=2

 

Now that is the 64,000 dollar question. If we only knew

 

only thing made up is your AGW "propaganda Bower. It is a fact that William Connoly edited over 5400 articles on Wikipedia that to eliminate all historical climate changes on Wikipedia. His goal was to eliminate all references to all the prior warming and cooling trends.That is why he was topic banned by Wikipedia from making any further topic edits. I can see why he is a AGW hero, he cares more for the political movement than he does science