GB54;842851901 said:

---

You're not for Trump

You're not for coal

You're not for global warming

You're against "bad deals."

A lot of people have posted information that demonstrates Paris won't ruin our economy or autonomy. Has it occurred to you that Trump leaving was a 100% politically motivated decision

---

I'll tell you one thing Odonto is for. A stronger stance against Russia. At least he was when Obama was President and he was complaining about Obama not being strong enough against Russia.

Since Trump became President I haven't heard peep from him about it. GB54, what were you saying about politically motivated decisions?

Go!Bears;842851888 said:

---

Developing countries want some recognition that developed countries had the benefit of using fossil fuels to develop. Having done so and having put CO2 into the atmosphere in the process - now those developed countries are telling developing countries the rest of the world cannot do what developed countries have done. Holding all countries to the same standard seems like pulling up the ladder after you have climbed up. Maybe rich countries should take some of the wealth they have gained with the exploitation of cheap fossil fuels and assist developing countries in the transition to green energy? Yeah, that could happen..

---

This argument about the developed world needing to penalize themselves is the ultimate in liberal guilt. The developed world has created advancements and passed them on for the benefit of the entire world. Enough with this self flagellation.

OneKeg;842851878 said:

---

I think you are confused about what an ad hominem attack or a character assassination is. Or you're not confused but are accusing me of it anyway. I said that you have not made your case for very similar reasons that the climate scientists Muller criticized in their video had not made their case. Not because every fact they posted was false, though some were, but because of the false impression they attempted to create by fudging, or in your case, cherry-picking the data. I did not say you were stupid or evil.

(snipped to stay under board character maximum)

...The main criticism is you cherry picked from a fairly early part of Muller's research arc into this and left out his conclusion that, again "I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."


Just as you have cherry-picked in your original post to leave out the key point about Muller's lengthy research and subsequent conclusion after the video that "I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."


He became a skeptic, rightly, when he discovered the fudged data. He then did a ton of research and pattern matching. Then he concluded concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause." He didn't just "join the ranks." He did what a good scientist does and un-biasedly looked at the data. I trust him a hell of a lot more than I trust... well just about anyone.

Your last sarcastic sentence is pretty awesome, after saying others are assassinating your character, you then mention that Muller's got grant money coming in now. What's wrong with that? Hell his study itself during which he became convinced of climate change after first becoming a skeptic was [U]funded by the Koch brothers[/U]. At the time, after the video you cited, it sure seemed like Muller and his research would validate the skeptic viewpoint. He didn't.


I, like you, am not a climate scientist. But after your above misrepresentation of Muller, I basically suspect you of cherry-picking or fudging data. I don't think you've addressed the issues with that, even though you say you have. See above. And others have also found issues with different data you have posted, causing you to just move on to other points. I was a Physics major, and having had Muller as a professor, I noticed your misrepresentation of his final conclusions by choosing that video only. And that's what I posted about.

I don't have the time an expertise to check every thing that you post. You take the high volume machine gun approach, which can be good, but loses its credibility once some of the flaws are exposed. Even what you just say in the quote above - why the hell are we talking 1948-1978? Why not the last 100 years? 150 years? Combined with your past cherry-picking of Muller's full timeline and other deceptive data you've posted, I see no reason to spend time thinking about further limited sets of data that you present, just like the climate scientists Muller criticized in his initial video you posted weren't worth his time...

.

---

Quote:

---

I did not say you were stupid or evil.

---

You said I've willfully deceived by using Muller's presentation as evidence of data manipulation and collusion by leading figures in climate research establishment, making implications of malice on my part. I could have used other sources that made the same claims as Muller and didn't turn around years later, but I've used Muller's video because it was a fairly clear and succint rundown of Climategate.


Your favorite bolded quote from Muller (that you liked so much you just had to write several times in bold in the same post), that he "concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause", is misleading, because it implies that Muller was a skeptic who had a turnaround after carefully studying the problem. Incidentally, that is not just your take, but also the way Muller is presenting himself with much dramatic flourish in his NYT editorial.

In fact, there wasn't much of a conversion, Muller was a believer about human CO2 being almost entirely the cause in AGW right from the start. He wasn't a skeptic as far as his basic belief, his skepticism was more about the scientific integrity of his peers. This is what he wrote all the way back in 2003:

Quote:

---

“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.”

---

He was pretty much a warmist in 2003, so the drama and flourish from his NYT column about his damascene conversion falls a bit flat. The issue was the scientific integrity of his peers, which he clearly challenged in the video I've presented, not about his belief in human CO2 as the main driver of AGW.

He founded a climate research group with his daughter the year after his strong criticism of Mann and Jones, who are the heads of the leading climate research groups, his main future peers and collaborators. He might have come around on his criticism of their integrity, but I think you have to question his motives here. Muller strikes me as someone who is a "team player" with long-standing, tight defense and elite establishment links (JASON Pentagon panel, Bohemian Grove). He's strongly argued for the Iraq war, claiming Saddam had WMDs that he was hiding and that would be found after the invasion. He's also argued that Ben Laden was responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks, which somehow only targeted politicians like Pat Leahy and Tom Daschle, leading Democrats who weren't strong Iraq War proponents.

As to his Koch bros relation, their angle here is fracking, which Muller somehow supports despite being a CO2 warmist, quite a bit of a contradiction there... I would guess that the koch brothers might have gotten a definite inkling of what the outcome of Muller's research was going to be before their financial commitment for Muller's research outfit startup.

My intention is not to go into detail over his politics, but just to show that he is far from being a maverick scientific figure, he's someone who was always deeply connected to the scientific and military establishment, a particle physicist/astrophysicist who has made the jump into the hot climate research industry with his daughter, founding BEST one year after that video where he tore apart the people who would become his close research partners and peers. That much is clear.


The second point in your post, and the superficially dismissive leitmotiv that my critics have pushed is about me "cherry-picking" the data. Other than Berliner, no one seems to have done enough research to challenge the basic validity of the data I've presented or its implications. The criticism really boils down to a very summary and almost tribally reflexive dismissal.

Quote:

---

why the hell are we talking 1948-1978? Why not the last 100 years? 150 years?

---

1948-78 was a period of global cooling, which took place at a time of high industrial expansion and steep increase in human CO2 production. This strongly contradicts the notion that human CO2 is the main driver, as opposed to natural forces. But really you could have picked any other period from the last 100 years to challenge that notion. The warming period that preceded the post-war cooling period (according to every chart out there that wasn't "adjusted" in recent times by climate establishment heads like Hansen or Mann) has roughly the same warming rate and amplitude as the last warming period of 1978-97, thereby once again placing serious doubt about human CO2 as the main driver.



This is the picture seen in pretty much every historic temperature graph that hasn't been "altered" in recent times after global warming got politicized.

Quote:

---

You take the high volume machine gun approach, which can be good, but loses its credibility once some of the flaws are exposed.

---

I've addressed every flaw, the list boils down to two peripheral details in a long list of posts I've made in the last half dozen pages: one bad magazine cover (big deal, plenty of real ones, I'll take the time in the near future to make an irrefutable case for the scientific consensus on global cooling in the 70s), and Muller (murky "career arc"/"conversion" side drama; could have used a number of other sources establishing the fact that Mann and co were manipulating data in the same manner Muller exposed them).

sycasey;842851897 said:

---

Nope, you don't get to dodge like this. Are these really your arguments? You read a headline about "Cooling of America," so that means it is "clearly" about climate change? You "would be very surprised" if the other stories weren't actually about global cooling? I take these statements to mean that you haven't actually read the articles?

They're not hard to find, you know. Time Magazine has these stories up on their website, and you can read them if you're willing to pony up for an online subscription (single-month subscription is about three bucks). The original article I linked was helpful to link to them: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Here you go:
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19731203,00.html
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770131,00.html
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19791224,00.html

I did pay to subscribe and read the articles. Surprise, surprise, none of them mention climate change or "global cooling" at all. Two are about energy shortages and one is strictly about cold weather over one particular winter, exactly as dajo said. He was not wrong. Snopes did not reference these articles because they are not about climate change. They are not relevant.

If you disagree, please cite for me the specific passages in these articles that talk about global climate change.



It's already been acknowledged that some in the media took early predictions from SOME scientists about a possible new Ice Age and blew them up beyond their level of acceptance in the scientific community. This Nimoy video appears to be one such example.

It is not evidence of a "scientific consensus" about global cooling during the 1970s.



Yes, it was already acknowledged in the articles I provided that these stories existed (including in the Snopes article, which you claim failed to address other real articles about "global cooling"):
http://www.snopes.com/the-coming-ice-age/



So like the Nimoy video, these articles are evidence of a few media outlets running too quickly with a story WITHOUT the strength of scientific consensus behind them. This is a good lesson for us to be careful when consuming media sources and to check their claims, but it is NOT evidence of there ever having been a scientific consensus about global cooling like there is now about global warming.

---

I've provided another Time story that clearly addressed climate change/global cooling of that era in the form of expanding polar ice cap:




I will provide you later with evidence of scientific and media consensus on 1970s global cooling dispelling the notion that it was a scattered story with marginal support from the scientific community at the time.

I'll just start with Snopes' contrived downplaying of the Newsweek story:

Quote:

---

The most notable and by far the most sensationalized version was a 28 April 1975 Newsweek story written by Peter Gwynne, bearing the title “The Cooling World”:
...

This article, and much of the media coverage in its vein, overstated the level of scientific concern regarding on global cooling and its effects from that time period, a point graciously conceded by the author of the 1975 Newsweek article in a 2014 story he wrote for Inside Science:

"Here I must admit mea culpa. In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it."

---

The author reduces his mistake to being wrong about tornado activity and world food production, but in his article he wrote:

"The evidence in support of these predictions [weather patterns changing dramatically] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather"

"Climatologists..."

and so forth...

Snopes is trying to put the blame on the author, blame which he readily accepts when in fact the bulk of that opinion is based on the many facts he presents about the scientific consensus, and the positions are those of climatologists, supported by the latest data from the time, not his own.



Read the last paragraph of the article, it is a call to action by the scientific community to allay the potentially devastating effects of global cooling. The author is only reporting here, not predicting or being "over-enthusiastic", unless he totally mischaracterized the climatologist community. This article is similar to many others from that period posted across media outlets.

Cal88;842843499 said:

---

Someone of the intellectual caliber of [_____] is not to be dismissed out of hand. You don't put your name on a [_______] without a certain level of personal scrutiny and due diligence.

---

Would you agree with this quote if it were Muller and his actions who we used to fill in the blanks?

The people who put a man on the moon and brought him back know a thing or two about science. Unlike the climate scientists, their models actually worked--afterall, Neil Armstrong came home--and they say NASA GISS has been corrupted. I think that is significant.

I don't care if the people running the skeptic blogs are climate scientists or not. There are plenty of climate scientists who publish peer-reviewed research and post there. Your side just refuses to listen to them. As for your claim that skeptics are tainted by fossil fuel money, that logic cuts both ways. The amount of grant money to research climate change is in the tens of billions. You don't think that has an effect on the research outcomes? You don't think that money affects peer review and tenure decisions?

As for Pielke, here is the point I was trying to make. Climate scientists, the ones people like you trust implicitly, are behaving in a way that is extremely political and very unscientific. They've clearly made a conscious decision that climate change is too important a subject to allow for debate. Dissent must be crushed so that it doesn't cause the public to waver in their support for painful policies to mitigate climate change. In short, the end justifies the means. And now they are taking it to a whole new level with the manipulation of the temperature record. The earth cooled significantly between 1940 and 1975, a widely known fact supported by NASA's data a decade ago. That cooling is now gone, wiped out of existence by a handful of true believers who have made very successful careers out of climate change hype, because it didn't fit the narrative. I find that extremely disturbing.

Four climate scientists testified before Congress earlier this year. Skip the first 20 minutes and compare the testimonies of Curry, Christy, Mann and Pielke. One of them makes appeals to authority and consensus yet cites the completely debunked 97% consensus. He cites extreme weather events but his testimony is immediately rejected by the real expert in that area, Pielke. He talks about unfair criticism of his famous hockey stick and support he has from Congress but fails to acknowledge that the hockey stick prediction was a major failure just like all his other predictions about disappearing sea ice etc. He makes derogatory, dismissive comments about people who disagree with him. This is the person you and your crowd put your unquestioned trust in. I'll go with other folks on the panel who believe science is a process that requires freedom to pursue all lines of inquiry without fear of reprisal in order to reach the correct conclusions.

hbbear;842851930 said:

---

The people who put a man on the moon and brought him back know a thing or two about science. Unlike the climate scientists, their models actually worked--afterall, Neil Armstrong came home--and they say NASA GISS has been corrupted. I think that is significant.

I don't care if the people running the skeptic blogs are climate scientists or not. There are plenty of climate scientists who publish peer-reviewed research and post there. Your side just refuses to listen to them. As for your claim that skeptics are tainted by fossil fuel money, that logic cuts both ways. The amount of grant money to research climate change is in the tens of billions. You don't think that has an effect on the research outcomes? You don't think that money affects peer review and tenure decisions?

As for Pielke, here is the point I was trying to make. Climate scientists, the ones people like you trust implicitly, are behaving in a way that is extremely political and very unscientific. They've clearly made a conscious decision that climate change is too important a subject to allow for debate. Dissent must be crushed so that it doesn't cause the public to waver in their support for painful policies to mitigate climate change. In short, the end justifies the means. And now they are taking it to a whole new level with the manipulation of the temperature record. The earth cooled significantly between 1940 and 1975, a widely known fact supported by NASA's data a decade ago. That cooling is now gone, wiped out of existence by a handful of true believers who have made very successful careers out of climate change hype, because it didn't fit the narrative. I find that extremely disturbing.

Four climate scientists testified before Congress earlier this year. Skip the first 20 minutes and compare the testimonies of Curry, Christy, Mann and Pielke. One of them makes appeals to authority and consensus yet cites the completely debunked 97% consensus. He cites extreme weather events but his testimony is immediately rejected by the real expert in that area, Pielke. He talks about unfair criticism of his famous hockey stick and support he has from Congress but fails to acknowledge that the hockey stick prediction was a major failure just like all his other predictions about disappearing sea ice etc. He makes derogatory, dismissive comments about people who disagree with him. This is the person you and your crowd put your unquestioned trust in. I'll go with other folks on the panel who believe science is a process that requires freedom to pursue all lines of inquiry without fear of reprisal in order to reach the correct conclusions.

---

Well said!

drizzlybears brother;842851860 said:

---

I'm the one who asked if you're a climate scientist. I'm not. I ask you because if you're not, then you're either an extreme skeptic or you enter the fray with a strong bias you're eager to keep.

You have to admit that it takes a certain amount of confidence to oppose such a widely supported position. And you have to believe that either the bulk of climate scientists are incompetent, or that there is an intentional conspiracy. Each of which is a pretty big ask.

My guess is that this is primarily political for you. I'm curious as to how and where your skepticism originated. Is climate science a particular area of interest that you followed previously, or did someone lead you to this? If so, what were their motives? Do you feel most branches of science are misinformed, or is it just this one?

See where I'm going w this? You're crossing too many bridges for me to believe that your primary interest is in getting the science right.

---

Fair points Drizzly, I've written a long response that got lost in cyberspace, so let me take a quicker stab here. Basically I have been working in the environmental field at the real estate development end for over ten years, attending regular conferences and trade shows on sustainable development in N America and Europe. I've done a lot of research on many aspects which pushed me towards skepticism.

And yes it does take some guts to come out and challenge such a widely held public belief, particularly in our blue state circles. I'm pretty confident about my stance and beliefs though, based on the amount of research I've done, but less so about my ability to convey the facts and defend those positions, particularly to an audience of lawyers and committed fellow Cal pundits, not an easy task.

And yes, there's clear evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate the facts in scientific establishment circles, working along with a hardened editorial line in the MSM that shuts off any dissenting views. Mainstream news outlets like the BBC or the LAT have an outright editorial ban on any reporting that does not conform to the anthropologic global warming narrative, and a tendency to produce stories that heighten the public's anxiety about impending global warming doom. Stories like the recent finding that California will become wetter not drier due to warming (link) will be underreported, or downplayed (see the LAT coverage).

What is less visible to many is the strong link between these groups (media, research groups) and the parties that stands to benefit financially from the policies set up with the goal of throttling CO2 production, mainly the financial oligarchs who will run and profit from a carbon trade market slated to reach $10 trillon/yr by the end of next decade. This windfall will come from restrictions on industrial output (mostly in industrialized nations) and higher energy costs passed on to consumers. When such a large financial market gets created from scratch through the regulatory process, you can bet that there will be a big push for its creation, not just in the political and regulatory realm, but also on the cultural front.

There is a natural tendency towards Lysenkoism, the perversion of science to serve wholly political ends, the exploitation of science to further political and economic objectives, and given the stakes here it's no surprise that the climate research establishment has become so vehemently politicized and monolithic. People like Judith Curry, who was near the top of her field, get pushed out.

I've started changing my mind about 5 years ago when talking with a friend who is an astrophysicist on the technical end, and on the political end, looking into the political history of key players and institutions in the climate change establishment (IPCC etc), and figures like IPCC founder Maurice Strong, Roger Revelle (who started the modern global warming movement), his disciple Gore, and the protagonists from Climategate and the overall agenda.

Cal88;842851848 said:

---

The graph above is mostly meant to show that the satellite curve has been relatively flat over the past two decades. There is no y-axis, but this data set is widely known. Each vertical gradation represents 0.2C, so your green best fit line (not sure if it's an actual statistical best fit or eyeballed, but let's assume it is) has an actual slope of around 0.1C/decade, which represents a definite decrease in the warming rate from the previous two decades, despite a corresponding acceleration in human CO2 output, and a warming rate significantly smaller than that observed in the previous warming period around the 1930s, when CO2 emissions were far, far smaller...

This green line also represents an increase of 1C/century (assuming the trend is to continue), which is several degrees of magnitude smaller than all the alarmist predictions from the IPCC and scientific establishment.

---

The best fit line was eyeballed. In fact, last night's post by me was mostly my own scientific training, intuition, and skepticism at work. I can now give you a more detailed rebuke of the last set of data you provided and show how it belongs in the garbage like so much else from the denier crowd.

This blogger on the American Geophysical Union's website goes into extensive detail about the UK Met Office data, and how it was first manipulated by the Daily Mail to eventually give rise to your graph.

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2017/02/06/graph-daily-mail-not-want-see/

Here was what the Daily Mail published. The blue curve corresponds to the blue line on your graph. The x-axis scale runs from 1997 to 2017, as does yours. The Daily Mail claimed the NOAA data was manipulated since it consistently plots hotter than the Hadley (UK Met Office) data.



Now that we can see the data in a more original form (still manipulated, see below), a couple of points become clear.

1) We see the y-axis, which is actually the average temperature ANOMALY and not the average temperature. The caption of your original image "Global temperature in January 2017..." is incorrect.

The Daily Mail used the longer time period from 1901-2000 (the average of which is colder due to it spanning time periods before global warming began) to get to their "warmer" NOAA anomaly trace in red in the bogus graph above. Once the time period (1961-1990) is used to determine the baseline for both the UK and NOAA traces, they show very close agreement.



2) Back to your data vs. the real data... now that we can see the y-axis, we can see the values of the anomaly. In 1990 we were already running +0.2 deg C compared to the average and are now in the +0.8 vicninity. Your assertion of a 0.1 C temperature increase per decade is false. My best fit line shows a 0.6 deg C temp increase over the last 20 years. That's 3 times larger than your claim, all because I took the time to actually find the original correct data.

So we've dealt with a 0.6 degree rise in temperature over the last 20 years, and a full degree increase since 1970. Extapolating forward, that's 3 whole degrees a century. 3 degrees takes us into dangerous territory.

As far as a decrease in warming rate over the last 20 years, this so called "pause", that's bogus too and not borne out in data that isn't cherry-picked or manipulated. There's noting "relatively flat" about average global temperatures. That assertion by you is false. The blog has a nice quote about this:

Quote:

---

Did you notice the Daily Mail graph did not show any part of the reconstruction before 1997? I guess they didn't want to show that big rise in temperature to their readers. Here is a tip: When I see a graph of Earths temperatures that starts within the last 25 years or so, it almost always sets off my fake science alarm. Someone is holding back all the data, and I start wondering what they DON'T want me to see?

---

Here's the rise in global temperature since 1970, according to six separate sets of data. I don't see a pause:



I've done all this with your data, once the smokescreens and outright forgeries have been debunked.

Cal88;842851848 said:

---

2- I got the image through a Google image search, not through Alex Jones' site. I've first came across that image on wattsupwiththat (link), site which has fairly high scientific standards and is a gathering point for many scientists, as reflected by the overall tenor of the comments there. I think it is one of the best sites for issues related to climate.

---

I disagree strongly with your opinions on the scientific validity of whatsupwiththat.com, which reposted a thoroughly-debunked figure, as well as your claim of its high standards. The evidence for my assessment is right there in plain view.

Cal88;842851848 said:

---

3- The premise of that curve is fairly clear, as CO2 increases, temperature goes up by the magnitude represented on the right end of the curve, a succession of very small increments getting increasingly smaller.

Thanks for the civil tone and the well-taken scientific arguments Berliner.

---

I already called the validity of that curve into question in my first post. There is a pattern of manipulation in the data you have provided.

I appreciate the civility as well, but when you attempt to up the ante with actual data, be sure it's accurate. Cal has cranked out lots of scientists over the years, some of whom read this board.

Unit2Sucks;842851929 said:

---

Would you agree with this quote if it were Muller and his actions who we used to fill in the blanks?

---

Yes I would. What you do have to realize though U2S is that there are big calibers on both sides of the debate. Edward Teller is certainly no less impressive than Muller, who is himself a relative newcomer to the field of climate research, being a particle physicist and astrophisicist. And you have to give credence to the man who started it all, Roger Revelle, who became a skeptic towards the end of his career, as far as the actual impact of human activity and the need for prudent restraint in trying to apply expensive solutions. As well, looking into Muller's background and many of his writings, I don't hold him as much in esteem as the Kegster in terms of his integrity.

I gather you support(ed) Trump.

BerlinerBaer;842851945 said:

---

The best fit line was eyeballed. In fact, last night's post by me was mostly my own scientific training, intuition, and skepticism at work. I can now give you a more detailed rebuke of the last set of data you provided and show how it belongs in the garbage like so much else from the denier crowd.

This blogger on the American Geophysical Union's website goes into extensive detail about the UK Met Office data, and how it was first manipulated by the Daily Mail to eventually give rise to your graph.

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2017/02/06/graph-daily-mail-not-want-see/

Here was what the Daily Mail published. The blue curve corresponds to the blue line on your graph. The x-axis scale runs from 1997 to 2017, as does yours. The Daily Mail claimed the NOAA data was manipulated since it consistently plots hotter than the Hadley (UK Met Office) data.



Now that we can see the data in a more original form (still manipulated, see below), a couple of points become clear.

1) We see the y-axis, which is actually the average temperature ANOMALY and not the average temperature. The caption of your original image "Global temperature in January 2017..." is incorrect.

The Daily Mail used the longer time period from 1901-2000 (the average of which is colder due to it spanning time periods before global warming began) to get to their "warmer" NOAA anomaly trace in red in the bogus graph above. Once the time period (1961-1990) is used to determine the baseline for both the UK and NOAA traces, they show very close agreement.



2) Back to your data vs. the real data... now that we can see the y-axis, we can see the values of the anomaly. In 1990 we were already running +0.2 deg C compared to the average and are now in the +0.8 vicninity. Your assertion of a 0.1 C temperature increase per decade is false. My best fit line shows a 0.6 deg C temp increase over the last 20 years. That's 3 times larger than your claim, all because I took the time to actually find the original correct data.

So we've dealt with a 0.6 degree rise in temperature over the last 20 years, and a full degree increase since 1970. Extapolating forward, that's 3 whole degrees a century. 3 degrees takes us into dangerous territory.

---

It's nowhere near a 0.6C temp increase over the last 20 years. People have actually performed statistical analysis on the dataset, instead of going by your eyeball estimate (or mine), we should look at the actual figures from the analyses.

Quote:

---

As far as a decrease in warming rate over the last 20 years, this so called "pause", that's bogus too and not borne out in data that isn't cherry-picked or manipulated. There's noting "relatively flat" about average global temperatures. That assertion by you is false. The blog has a nice quote about this:



Here's the rise in global temperature since 1970, according to six separate sets of data. I don't see a pause:



I've done all this with your data, once the smokescreens and outright forgeries have been debunked.

---

A large segment of the establishment scientific circles have moved on from denying the existence of the 1997-07 Climate Pause to offering explanations on why it's actually taking place, there are over 50 reasons put forth to date, with the ocean absorbing the CO2 heating being the lead theory. One of the main problems with this interpretation is that it doesn't explain why the warming was more intense the previous 20 years.

Quote:

---

I disagree strongly with your opinions on the scientific validity of whatsupwiththat.com, which reposted a thoroughly-debunked figure, as well as your claim of its high standards. The evidence for my assessment is right there in plain view.

I already called the validity of that curve into question in my first post. There is a pattern of manipulation in the data you have provided.

I appreciate the civility as well, but when you attempt to up the ante with actual data, be sure it's accurate. Cal has cranked out lots of scientists over the years, some of whom read this board.

---

Two issues with this graph:

1- it starts at the end of a cooling period (1940s-70s), so it looks like a uniform warming process, taken out of context from previous temp variations. This rise should be viewed in the context of past fluctuations, side by side with it 20th century observations. Hansen/NASA and others have systematically manipulated the data from that era to make the rise in global temperatures from the last warming period look exceptional, when in fact it is comparable in amplitude to the 1930s-40s warming era:



If you'd put the two graphs together, you would get a V-shaped curved between 1940 and present times, and a rise from 1880 to 1940 not unlike the 1970s-00s rise.


2- the last spike at the right end of the multicolored curve - none of the more objective unaltered satellite measurements (or even surface measurements) show the same type of drastic runaway warming, they only show a sporadic recent El Nino spike, which has by now come down to near the recent 20yr plateau.

Compare the NOAA curves on that multicolored line graph to a more detailed NOAA graph:


[SIZE=1]Global mean surface temperatures as anomalies relative to 1900-99, plotted with linear trends for 1970-2013 (blue) and 1998-2013 (red), (from Trenberth et al. 2014). Trenberth et al (2014) Nature Climate Change
[/SIZE]

Incidentally the slope of the Hiatus on this graph (small red line), published by Kevin Trenberth Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (a warmist), is actually smaller than 0.1C/decade. He used this graph in an attempt to explain the reasons for the Pause.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/10/caused-pause-global-warming/

Finally...an answer to loss of polar ice! They were dumping coal soot up there to encourage melting of the ice.

Cal88;842851946 said:

---

As well, looking into Muller's background and many of his writings, I don't hold him as much in esteem as the Kegster in terms of his integrity.

---

OK so you don't think Muller is of the highest integrity and yet you put him forth as someone trustworthy to listen to ... when he's challenging climate data that you don't want to be true. The irony of you calling into question Muller's integrity and the fact that he's a "relative newcomer" is not lost on me or I suspect many others. You are a hobbyist who has posted a staggering number of falsehoods here and have given us no reason to trust you. I would normally say that hanlon's razor applies to the garbage you are posting but it's pretty clearly fraud at this point. You know you are posting graphs that have been repurposed by climate denier hacks and even after getting called by it just wave your hands and find other lies to post.

Keep posting and keep wasting everyone's time doing the research to figure out what debunked crap you've posted all the while you sit on your high horse assailing people for not developing the rich expertise that you have picked up in your years of indoctrination by industry hacks. I'm not going to pretend to know how much deception or data fudging is involved in the AGW community but it's pretty clear to me that close to 100% of the denialist data, judging largely by what you post and is presumably intended to be most persuasive, consists of cherry-picked data, relabeled charts, forgeries and outright fabrications.

Unit2Sucks;842851961 said:

---

OK so you don't think Muller is of the highest integrity and yet you put him forth as someone trustworthy to listen to ... when he's challenging climate data that you don't want to be true. The irony of you calling into question Muller's integrity and the fact that he's a "relative newcomer" is not lost on me or I suspect many others. You are a hobbyist who has posted a staggering number of falsehoods here and have given us no reason to trust you. I would normally say that hanlon's razor applies to the garbage you are posting but it's pretty clearly fraud at this point. You know you are posting graphs that have been repurposed by climate denier hacks and even after getting called by it just wave your hands and find other lies to post.

Keep posting and keep wasting everyone's time doing the research to figure out what debunked crap you've posted all the while you sit on your high horse assailing people for not developing the rich expertise that you have picked up in your years of indoctrination by industry hacks. I'm not going to pretend to know how much deception or data fudging is involved in the AGW community but it's pretty clear to me that close to 100% of the denialist data, judging largely by what you post and is presumably intended to be most persuasive, consists of cherry-picked data, relabeled charts, forgeries and outright fabrications.

---

You're starting to lose it U2S, settle down and lay off the hyperbole, I mean even by your standards saying I've "posted a staggering number of falsehoods...forgeries and outright fabrications" is complete BS, stop smearing bro. One bad magazine cover that was part of a triptych graphic, and some peripheral issue about Muller, and off with my head...

If I'm a hobbyist, you're a complete analphabet, and at least I have the decency to keep it on a civil plane. If you can't do that, I suggest you step off this site and make better use of your downtime.

LOL how is it civil to knowingly post so many lies? Either you are doing it on purpose or you are a mark, pick your poison.

You're even lying about the number of lies you've been called on just in the last few pages of this thread.

One magazine cover. That's rich. How much time have Berliner, myself and others spent refuting your propaganda?

Unit2Sucks;842851968 said:

---

One magazine cover. That's rich. How much time have Berliner, myself and others spent refuting your propaganda?

---

I have already demonstrated lies about at least four magazine covers. He chose not to acknowledge that part of my findings and moved on to something else. Exactly as I predicted he would.

And of course, after being called out on these lies, he cries about civility. This is not an honest person.

OK, here is a collection of documents showing that the 1960s-70s were a period of global cooling with a consensus from the science community and the media:

National Academy Of Sciences - Science News - link-





http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1970/07/18/355101822.html









































Science; Worrying About a New Ice Age
- WALTER SULLIVAN ();
February 23, 1969, For the past few hundred thousand years the climate of the earth has oscillated enough to produce a succession of frigid ice ages and warm interglacial periods. It has generally been assumed that these climate changes were gradual, but new theories that they occur with devastating suddenness are now being tested.

Chicago Tribune Mar 2, 1975

CIA Report 1974 -link-













http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf














The Canberra Times Thursday 16 May 1974











OK, I guess I can stop here, there is your scientific consensus on global cooling circa 1960s-70s, shared across scientific and government agencies, and across the media, and the world, so no point in quibbling about a particular Time magazine cover.

The Newsweek article I've posted a while back was the norm, not an outlier, and this cooling trend wasn't some passing craze, as Snopes and other sources tried to deceptively frame them, it was the scientific and cultural consensus from that period.

The headlines from that era echo today's, except back then it was in the other direction, ice age doom. The main fear during that period was to agriculture, and there were crop failures due to cold weather, whereas today, even as the years get labeled "hottest ever" year after year after year by climate agencies, humanity has been enjoying record crops.

Global record high stocks of wheat, rice soybeans, corn...

http://www.businessinsider.com/global-corn-wheat-rice-soybeans-surplus-storage-2017-4

sycasey;842851969 said:

---

I have already demonstrated lies about at least four magazine covers. He chose not to acknowledge that part of my findings and moved on to something else. Exactly as I predicted he would.

And of course, after being called out on these lies, he cries about civility. This is not an honest person.

---

The magazine cover nitpicking was good while it lasted. :rollinglaugh:

At a minimum, I hope that posters such as Cal88 snicker with others behind closed doors about their posts here. Not many buy what they're selling. I mean, it's the same strategy that has resulted in the current state of the Republican party - those that talk the loudest and longest end up in positions of influence. RIP Rebuplican party, at least for the time being. I only hope that our planet, for the foreseeable future, isn't as lost.

Cal88;842851974 said:

---

The magazine cover nitpicking was good while it lasted. :rollinglaugh:

---

It's funny that you think a bunch of newspaper clippings and a individual reports/studies represent a "scientific consensus." All you've done is prove that what I already said was true, was true. SOME studies did show cooling. AT THE TIME, in the 1970s, there were some scientists who believed the Earth was in a general cooling trend and others who believed we were in a warming trend:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

As scientists learned more, more and more of them came to believe the warming theory, to the point where we have arrived at the 90%+ consensus there is today.

This is at the height of sophistry: to suggest that because scientific methods have IMPROVED and CHANGED over time, that because we have learned MORE about our planet over the last 40 years, this is somehow evidence of a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about climate science that was apparently perfected back in the 1970s. When you strip away the noise, this is basically an attack on the very idea of scientific advancement.

And that is why I have no trouble calling you and others "denialists."

Cal88;842851954 said:

---

It's nowhere near a 0.6C temp increase over the last 20 years. People have actually performed statistical analysis on the dataset, instead of going by your eyeball estimate (or mine), we should look at the actual figures from the analyses.

A large segment of the establishment scientific circles have moved on from denying the existence of the 1997-07 Climate Pause to offering explanations on why it's actually taking place, there are over 50 reasons put forth to date, with the ocean absorbing the CO2 heating being the lead theory. One of the main problems with this interpretation is that it doesn't explain why the warming was more intense the previous 20 years.

Two issues with this graph:

1- it starts at the end of a cooling period (1940s-70s), so it looks like a uniform warming process, taken out of context from previous temp variations. This rise should be viewed in the context of past fluctuations, side by side with it 20th century observations. Hansen/NASA and others have systematically manipulated the data from that era to make the rise in global temperatures from the last warming period look exceptional, when in fact it is comparable in amplitude to the 1930s-40s warming era:



If you'd put the two graphs together, you would get a V-shaped curved between 1940 and present times, and a rise from 1880 to 1940 not unlike the 1970s-00s rise.

2- the last spike at the right end of the multicolored curve - none of the more objective unaltered satellite measurements (or even surface measurements) show the same type of drastic runaway warming, they only show a sporadic recent El Nino spike, which has by now come down to near the recent 20yr plateau.

Compare the NOAA curves on that multicolored line graph to a more detailed NOAA graph:


[SIZE=1]Global mean surface temperatures as anomalies relative to 1900-99, plotted with linear trends for 1970-2013 (blue) and 1998-2013 (red), (from Trenberth et al. 2014). Trenberth et al (2014) Nature Climate Change
[/SIZE]

Incidentally the slope of the Hiatus on this graph (small red line), published by Kevin Trenberth Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (a warmist), is actually smaller than 0.1C/decade. He used this graph in an attempt to explain the reasons for the Pause.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/10/caused-pause-global-warming/

---

You put far too much stock in the analysis of arbitrary 10 to 20-year increments of time. Small time periods equal small sample sizes, which leads to a weaker signal and more noise. That is just basic statistics. Climate science involves analyzing data with large error bars, therefore it's necessary to expand your data set as much as possible.

I don't doubt the existence of The Pause as much as I doubt its relevance. The fact that it's named "The Pause" indicates that "The Resumption" is sure to follow, and we'll be back to breakneck warming. Then again, they could just be decadal fluctuations, mere pixels in the 70+ year trend of warming we find ourselves in, and nothing more than the topic of your occasional doctoral thesis.

Let's look back almost 140 years to put it all into perspective. Your 10-20 year blips are in there, somewhere.

sycasey;842851979 said:

---

It's funny that you think a bunch of newspaper clippings and a individual reports/studies represent a "scientific consensus." All you've done is prove that what I already said was true, was true. SOME studies did show cooling. AT THE TIME, in the 1970s, there were some scientists who believed the Earth was in a general cooling trend and others who believed we were in a warming trend:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

As scientists learned more, more and more of them came to believe the warming theory, to the point where we have arrived at the 90%+ consensus there is today.

This is at the height of sophistry: to suggest that because scientific methods have IMPROVED and CHANGED over time, that because we have learned MORE about our planet over the last 40 years, this is somehow evidence of a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about climate science that was apparently perfected back in the 1970s. When you strip away the noise, this is basically an attack on the very idea of scientific advancement.

And that is why I have no trouble calling you and others "denialists."

---

You don't think the fact that the climate actually changed, going from a cooling phase in the 1960s-70s, to a warming phase in the next 20 years, had anything to do with this?! Maybe the reason scientists didn't believe in global warming during the 1960s-70s and believed instead that we might be headed to an ice age is actually because it was constantly getting colder in that era.

Duh!!!


PS: that link is ridiculous, the fake penguin Time cover as his central thesis... seriously?!? You could have made that argument to people who had no idea what the news headlines from that era were actually like, but to post this kind of deceptive strawman crap after all the evidence I've shown just now is not particularly smart from your part Sy.

chazzed;842851976 said:

---

At a minimum, I hope that posters such as Cal88 snicker with others behind closed doors about their posts here. Not many buy what they're selling. I mean, it's the same strategy that has resulted in the current state of the Republican party - those that talk the loudest and longest end up in positions of influence. RIP Rebuplican party, at least for the time being. I only hope that our planet, for the foreseeable future, isn't as lost.

---

Not many know that they are being sold trillion dollar carbon taxes, widescale energy poverty and entire industrial sectors to be mothballed, all because of a near religious devotion to CAGW, and this despite the fact that temperatures have barely budged in the last 20 years.

Our planet isn't lost, but many of its inhabitants seem to be.

Cal88 - can you show us all of the contemporaneous articles that refute the global cooling theory? Not sure how a dozen articles over a few decades is evidence of a consensus so would be great to see the other side. I'm assuming as someone who is serious about his study of this issue that you are aware of the other side as well.

Cal88;842851989 said:

---

Not many know that they are being sold trillion dollar carbon taxes, widescale energy poverty and entire industrial sectors to be mothballed, all because of a near religious devotion to CAGW, and this despite the fact that temperatures have barely budged in the last 20 years.

Our planet isn't lost, but many of its inhabitants seem to be.

---

Thank you, Cal88. That is what this all boils down to. A big money grab by those vested in power of the climatology establishment.

Our country is being duped and have no idea of the consequences.

These global warming "climate change" arguments will likely look as silly as the ice age alarmists a few decades down the road as we inevitably experience another climate cycle.

Just imagine if we were experiencing the disastrous dust bowl era of the 30's right now. Climate change nazis would rule the world.

sycasey;842851979 said:

---

It's funny that you think a bunch of newspaper clippings and a individual reports/studies represent a "scientific consensus." All you've done is prove that what I already said was true, was true. SOME studies did show cooling. AT THE TIME, in the 1970s, there were some scientists who believed the Earth was in a general cooling trend and others who believed we were in a warming trend:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

As scientists learned more, more and more of them came to believe the warming theory, to the point where we have arrived at the 90%+ consensus there is today.

This is at the height of sophistry: to suggest that because scientific methods have IMPROVED and CHANGED over time, that because we have learned MORE about our planet over the last 40 years, this is somehow evidence of a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about climate science that was apparently perfected back in the 1970s. When you strip away the noise, this is basically an attack on the very idea of scientific advancement.

And that is why I have no trouble calling you and others "denialists."

---

Attack, attack, attack....Why do you feel you have to attack anybody/ anything? That is one of the big problems.....Attack the messenger, attack his/her credentials....Attack, attack, attack....Because you detest the message. Yes, some retorts to message, but why ANY personal attacks.....I don't necessarily agree with Call 88s info but.........Sticks in your craw I would guess....Don't play games with the libtards (stronger than in the past) because they but attack the messenger. George Soros strategy...

Look at Units post 586 right above this...."Show us....all the articles that refute.." You continually ask for your opposition to provide facts, don't provide much of your own and then attack them personally....Familiar tack from the left...Very familiar.

BerlinerBaer;842851981 said:

---

You put far too much stock in the analysis of arbitrary 10 to 20-year increments of time. Small time periods equal small sample sizes, which leads to a weaker signal and more noise. That is just basic statistics. Climate science involves analyzing data with large error bars, therefore it's necessary to expand your data set as much as possible.

I don't doubt the existence of The Pause as much as I doubt its relevance. The fact that it's named "The Pause" indicates that "The Resumption" is sure to follow, and we'll be back to breakneck warming. Then again, they could just be decadal fluctuations, mere pixels in the 70+ year trend of warming we find ourselves in, and nothing more than the topic of your occasional doctoral thesis.

Let's look back almost 140 years to put it all into perspective. Your 10-20 year blips are in there, somewhere.

---

Glad we're on the same page WRT the Pause now, Berliner. Ten years ago, many scientists who denied its existence claimed they'd need another 5 to 10 years before they could really no longer consider it to be a statistical anomaly. Nowadays, they're mostly trying to find reasons for why the temperatures have been barely rising if at all in the period where humanity has added 50% more CO2 into the atmosphere than what was released in the entire previous centuries of human activity...

Quote:

---

Climate science involves analyzing data with large error bars, therefore it's necessary to expand your data set as much as possible.

---

OK then, here's your graph above tacked to a much larger time sample:



In the big picture, we've been coming out of the little ice age, which ended around the middle of the 19th century, just outside the time frame represented in your graph. And that's a great thing! They're growing wine again in southern England, where the Thames used to be frozen solid for months on end nearly every winter centuries before.



Before the little ice age, there was the medieval warm period, when they used to grow grapevines not just in southern England, but as far north as the Scottish border, and possibly in Newfoundland ("Vinland"?) on the other side of the Pond (which has seen record ice deposits on its shores this year and unprecedented sightings of polar bears -link-).

It's been warming, but they're not growing grapevines in Newcastle yet, as they used to in the warm medieval period, though it seems that we've still been at a comfortable level now, with record crops and record stocks of wheat, rice, soybeans and corn in the world today, despite continued population growth.

http://www.world-grain.com/articles/news_home/Features/2016/11/Another_record-breaking_harves.aspx?ID=%7BF66FAB2B-AE1E-40B6-95F7-A7F92CD9B379%7D&cck=1

And when it was warm enough to grow vines in northern England during the middle ages, Holland was not under water...



Going back a half dozen pages, Sebastabear expressed his dismay at Scandinavia's eroding glacier remnants. Some of the recently receding glaciers in the Alps revealed under melted ice entrances to old mines exploited during the Roman Era, which was another warm period where humanity thrived. The glacier cover was significantly thinner then.

Some of the best work on this subject was done by French historian Le Roy Ladurie in "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000".

https://www.amazon.com/Times-Feast-Famine-History-Climate/dp/0374521220




And thank God for the increase in CO2 levels from below 300ppm at the turn of the last century to 400ppm today. This alone accounts for an increase in the yield of key cereals and other plant life of the order of 20%, representing a delta large enough to feed a billion people or more.



Not only do plants grow faster with more CO2, but they need less water to grow, because their stomatal pores are narrower in higher CO2 levels, so less water escapes as the plant captures CO2 vital for photosynthesis, which means more drought-resistant plants and growth in drier areas like the African Sahel:





Final question to you Berliner: how many more years would the warming Pause need to extend before it will cause you to change your mind? 5 more years? 10 more years, 20 more? (honest question)

Cal88;842852005 said:

---

Before the little ice age, there was the medieval warm period, when they used to grow grapevines not just in southern England, but as far north as the Scottish border, and possibly in Newfoundland ("Vinland"?) on the other side of the Pond (which has seen record ice deposits on its shores this year and unprecedented sightings of polar bears -link-).

---

Well, temperatures may have recently exceeded those of the Medieval Warm Period, based on studies of ice cores and other methods we have of past climate reconstruction. The most drastic effects of the MWP may have been confined to the North Atlantic region, therefore global effects like a rise in sea level would not have occurred. On a global scale, we could be heading into territory without historical precedent.



Events like the MWP could have been better tolerated in the past than they would be now, in many respects. Modern society is tailor-made for the current climate. Our ports aren't meant to accommodate a 10 ft rise in sea level, on top of the tides. Mass migrations due to regional climactic variation wasn't so jarring when the global population was a fraction of what it is today. Even then, there was conflict. For comparison, we already have major issues with resettlement of large numbers of people without climate making matters worse.

Cal88;842852005 said:

---

Final question to you Berliner: how many more years would the warming Pause need to extend before it will cause you to change your mind? 5 more years? 10 more years, 20 more? (honest question)

---

With the data I've seen, I'm not convinced that a warming pause is occurring.

Now for a take on one of your favorite sources of information:



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

OdontoBear66;842852004 said:

---

Attack, attack, attack....Why do you feel you have to attack anybody/ anything? That is one of the big problems.....Attack the messenger, attack his/her credentials....Attack, attack, attack....Because you detest the message. Yes, some retorts to message, but why ANY personal attacks.....I don't necessarily agree with Call 88s info but.........Sticks in your craw I would guess....Don't play games with the libtards (stronger than in the past) because they but attack the messenger. George Soros strategy...

Look at Units post 586 right above this...."Show us....all the articles that refute.." You continually ask for your opposition to provide facts, don't provide much of your own and then attack them personally....Familiar tack from the left...Very familiar.

---

So much projection here. I think most people can see that.

What a "moderate" you are.

BerlinerBaer;842852017 said:

---

Well, temperatures may have recently exceeded those of the Medieval Warm Period, based on studies of ice cores and other methods we have of past climate reconstruction. The most drastic effects of the MWP may have been confined to the North Atlantic region, therefore global effects like a rise in sea level would not have occurred. On a global scale, we could be heading into territory without historical precedent.



Events like the MWP could have been better tolerated in the past than they would be now, in many respects. Modern society is tailor-made for the current climate. Our ports aren't meant to accommodate a 10 ft rise in sea level, on top of the tides. Mass migrations due to regional climactic variation wasn't so jarring when the global population was a fraction of what it is today. Even then, there was conflict. For comparison, we already have major issues with resettlement of large numbers of people without climate making matters worse.



With the data I've seen, I'm not convinced that a warming pause is occurring.

Now for a take on one of your favorite sources of information:



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

---

Who the heck is mediabiasfactcheck? Just because it has factcheck in the URL we are supposed to take its claims as unvarnished truth?
Look at the notes at the end.

"Watts up With That is a 100% climate denial website. The cite junk science and reject the consensus of climate scientist [sic] globally in their pursuit of denial."

If you disagree with the so-called consensus, your work is junk science and you are guilty of pursuing denial. The circular reasoning here is breathtaking.

sycasey;842851979 said:

---

It's funny that you think a bunch of newspaper clippings and a individual reports/studies represent a "scientific consensus." All you've done is prove that what I already said was true, was true. SOME studies did show cooling. AT THE TIME, in the 1970s, there were some scientists who believed the Earth was in a general cooling trend and others who believed we were in a warming trend:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

As scientists learned more, more and more of them came to believe the warming theory, to the point where we have arrived at the 90%+ consensus there is today.

This is at the height of sophistry: to suggest that because scientific methods have IMPROVED and CHANGED over time, that because we have learned MORE about our planet over the last 40 years, this is somehow evidence of a conspiracy to hide the "truth" about climate science that was apparently perfected back in the 1970s. When you strip away the noise, this is basically an attack on the very idea of scientific advancement.

And that is why I have no trouble calling you and others "denialists."

---

Cal88 has provided considerable evidence that the scientific community was concerned about a clear, discernable cooling trend in the early 70s. Yes, science has advanced over time. There is nothing sinister about scientists predicting the coming of an ice age in 1975 when the earth was cooling and now predicting warming. New data becomes available, theories advance. What IS sinister is the attempt to rewrite history so that the early century warming and subsequent cooling no longer exists which is exactly what the prophets of doom have done. Your narrative claiming there was a balance of views at the time is interesting fiction. The number of scientists who believed CO2-induced warming was a threat was tiny. The scientific community was concerned about cooling. FACT. Deal with it.

hbbear;842852025 said:

---

Cal88 has provided considerable evidence that the scientific community was concerned about a clear, discernable cooling trend in the early 70s. Yes, science has advanced over time. There is nothing sinister about scientists predicting the coming of an ice age in 1975 when the earth was cooling and now predicting warming. New data becomes available, theories advance. What IS sinister is the attempt to rewrite history so that the early century warming and subsequent cooling no longer exists which is exactly what the prophets of doom have done. Your narrative claiming there was a balance of views at the time is interesting fiction. The number of scientists who believed CO2-induced warming was a threat was tiny. The scientific community was concerned about cooling. FACT. Deal with it.

---

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Quote:

---

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

---

Cal88's examples are cherry-picked, as usual. This is the survey cited here, for those who actually want to check up on the work and not just believe climate denier websites run by hobbyists:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Cal88;842851942 said:

---

Fair points Drizzly, I've written a long response that got lost in cyberspace, so let me take a quicker stab here. Basically I have been working in the environmental field at the real estate development end for over ten years, attending regular conferences and trade shows on sustainable development in N America and Europe. I've done a lot of research on many aspects which pushed me towards skepticism.

And yes it does take some guts to come out and challenge such a widely held public belief, particularly in our blue state circles. I'm pretty confident about my stance and beliefs though, based on the amount of research I've done, but less so about my ability to convey the facts and defend those positions, particularly to an audience of lawyers and committed fellow Cal pundits, not an easy task.

And yes, there's clear evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate the facts in scientific establishment circles, working along with a hardened editorial line in the MSM that shuts off any dissenting views. Mainstream news outlets like the BBC or the LAT have an outright editorial ban on any reporting that does not conform to the anthropologic global warming narrative, and a tendency to produce stories that heighten the public's anxiety about impending global warming doom. Stories like the recent finding that California will become wetter not drier due to warming (link) will be underreported, or downplayed (see the LAT coverage).

What is less visible to many is the strong link between these groups (media, research groups) and the parties that stands to benefit financially from the policies set up with the goal of throttling CO2 production, mainly the financial oligarchs who will run and profit from a carbon trade market slated to reach $10 trillon/yr by the end of next decade. This windfall will come from restrictions on industrial output (mostly in industrialized nations) and higher energy costs passed on to consumers. When such a large financial market gets created from scratch through the regulatory process, you can bet that there will be a big push for its creation, not just in the political and regulatory realm, but also on the cultural front.

There is a natural tendency towards Lysenkoism, the perversion of science to serve wholly political ends, the exploitation of science to further political and economic objectives, and given the stakes here it's no surprise that the climate research establishment has become so vehemently politicized and monolithic. People like Judith Curry, who was near the top of her field, get pushed out.

I've started changing my mind about 5 years ago when talking with a friend who is an astrophysicist on the technical end, and on the political end, looking into the political history of key players and institutions in the climate change establishment (IPCC etc), and figures like IPCC founder Maurice Strong, Roger Revelle (who started the modern global warming movement), his disciple Gore, and the protagonists from Climategate and the overall agenda.

---

That's interesting, thanks for sharing.

What do you do w data that contradicts your current position?

And, as an aside, if your goal is to persuade your opposition, you would benefit from speaking their language. An example is your use of MSM. It implies you're working from a different set of facts and that the rest of us are just a bunch of dupes. I'll give you that there exists bias within all media, but it has not been my experience that it gets more accurate as I move from mainstream regardless of direction. That you feel that one direction from the main is more consistently credible is problematic, and makes me feel you don't honestly challenge your sources well enough. You feel baked in to me.