Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Cardinal Carminative]

You complained that critics couldn't take on his studies. You clearly were unaware of M&M and the whole Principal COmponent Kerfluffle.

I complained that without releasing his data, his results can't be replicated.

That's patently absurd! Are you serious? That's not how science works. I don't need YOUR data to test your hypothesis.

Why would I need YOUR data if I were trying to replicate the effect you found?

Should me the data and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick.

You are ignoring the various other hockey stick graphs that other researchers found in yet OTHER proxies. That's fascinating. It's really as if you don't understand how science works in regards to replication.

(I keep forgetting that you don't have any actual scientific experience of running experiments and analyzing data).

And I never won the Nobel Prize.

There you go again. I understand you want to focus on the things you "understand" and not the science. Maybe you should make some comments on Mann's weight. That would be more your speed.

Leave the science to people who know what science is, mmmmkay?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's patently absurd! Are you serious? That's not how science works. I don't need YOUR data to test your hypothesis.

Yes, I'm serious.
Show me the data you used and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick with taxpayer dollars you dishonest data molester.

Maybe you should make some comments on Mann's weight.

Or the lawsuits he keeps losing. Is he ever going to pay the legal fees he owes?

What a scumbag.

 

[ding]

I complained

That's not a surprise.

 

[ding]

you dishonest data molester

Debates shouldn't make you this angry.

 

[ding]

No, that's how I describe people who deny the reality of the science behind AGW.

Hence the word "denialist"....(hint: it's in the word itself)

So if I deny that man is causing the planet to warm does that mean I deny the science behind AGW? And if so wouldn't anyone who denies that man is causing the planet to warm must be a denier in your eyes?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, I'm serious.
Show me the data you used and how you used it to build your lying hockey stick with taxpayer dollars you dishonest data molester.

Wow. OK. So we need a little remedial logic here.

Let's say I propose an hypothesis that there is a "j-shaped curve" for some thing in nature. It goes down and then steeply rises over time.

A valid replication of this can easily be done even without ever seeing any of my data. Other labs look at how this thing functions over time and they use different methods of measuring it...and IT SHOWS A J-SHAPED CURVE OVER TIME! Wow! That's amazing.

In fact, that is how sceince SHOULD work.

I agree it would be great to see the raw data, but honestly there's no real reason to. It's not like YOU have a clue what it would mean. But you can be shown numerous other methods by which the same "hockey-stick curve" shows up using independent methods.

That's kind of nearly perfect science.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So if I deny that man is causing the planet to warm does that mean I deny the science behind AGW?

Yeah. That's kind of the definition. Don't get me wrong, there are always people who disagree with the science...even in the sciences! I even had a mineralogy professor back in the 1980's who doubted plate tectonics! Go figure.

The vast majority of the earth's climate experts actually DO agree that AGW is probably real. They do so based on the science.

And if so wouldn't anyone who denies that man is causing the planet to warm must be a denier in your eyes?

Certainly among the scientifically illiterate it would. Folks like Lindzen (I assume you know how he is) or Curry (I assume you know who she is) are outliers. They are technically skilled but I am more likely to ignore them because the preponderance of the scientific analysis shows they are likely incorrect.

Neither you nor I are "experts" in this field (and I've got a LOT more experience directly relevant to this than you likely do) so, in a sense, I am forced to go with the overall scientific consensus. Folks who have NO experience in the sciences have even less reason to deny the scientific consensus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A valid replication of this can easily be done even without ever seeing any of my data.

Can we include the MWP and the LIA in the honest hockey stick?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Can we include the MWP and the LIA in the honest hockey stick?

The MWP? You mean the effect that may have very well been limited to only part of the Northern Hemisphere while the overall global temperature was cooler? Why would it make a difference in the conclusion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The MWP? You mean the effect that may have very well been limited to only part of the Northern Hemisphere while the overall global temperature was cooler? Why would it make a difference in the conclusion?

Yes, the MWP that he molested out of existence.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes, the MWP that he molested out of existence.

Wow. So you couldn't read the article I linked? Were the words too big or did they just not confirm your cartoon view of science you don't actually understand?

 

[Crick]

Yes, the MWP that he molested out of existence.

Todd, are you under the impression that the existence of the MWP somehow refutes AGW?

 

[ding]

Yeah. That's kind of the definition. Don't get me wrong, there are always people who disagree with the science...even in the sciences! I even had a mineralogy professor back in the 1980's who doubted plate tectonics! Go figure.

The vast majority of the earth's climate experts actually DO agree that AGW is probably real. They do so based on the science.

So basically what you are saying is that you believe the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a denier.

Is science ever settled?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So basically what you are saying is that you believe the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a denier.

No. I think the science is largely settled but I understand that there are professionals who question aspects of it. I don't, however, believe that non-scientists with no real expertise in anything even remotely related to this have anything worth actually listening to since all they ever do is parrot talking points pre-digested for them by someone else.

Is science ever settled?

Assymptotically so.

 

[ding]

The vast majority of the earth's climate experts actually DO agree that AGW is probably real. They do so based on the science.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles. And not one of those instances was caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing. So it would be disingenuous to casually dismiss natural causes - such as solar output and albedo - as the reason for the recent warming trend. The planet is much much closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is to a greenhouse planet.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

You act as if there's a 50/50 toss up of how the scientific community views anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts believe AGW is real and a significant concern.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

Again, incorrect. There are a couple of researchers like Willie Soon and company who have been pushing this, but again, the general consensus is it cannot be explained by solar variability.

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles. And not one of those instances was caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing. So it would be disingenuous to casually dismiss natural causes - such as solar output and albedo - as the reason for the recent warming trend. The planet is much much closer to extensive northern hemisphere glaciation than it is to a greenhouse planet.

That's just poor logic. The ONLY reason you know anything about the past earth climate is because of the research by the same folks who tell you TODAY the warming cannot be explained by solely natural forcings

I mention this because the field of paleoclimatology has existed for a very long time and it has helped us understand how the NATURAL forcings impact climate. Right now the natural forcings cannot account for the warming we see.

Here's a great set of summary graphs comparing hindcast data to natural and anthropogenic forcings. Note how the data ONLY MAKES SENSE when human forcings are included.

 

[ding]

No. I think the science is largely settled but I understand that there are professionals who question aspects of it. I don't, however, believe that non-scientists with no real expertise in anything even remotely related to this have anything worth actually listening to since all they ever do is parrot talking points pre-digested for them by someone else.




Assymptotically so.

In our conversations what is it that you believe I have written that wasn't based on science? What "pre-digested parrot talking points" do you believe I have made?

 

[ding]

You act as if there's a 50/50 toss up of how the scientific community views anthropogenic climate change. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast, vast, vast majority of the earth's climate experts believe AGW is real and a significant concern.

Science isn't decided upon by popular vote. There are dissenting opinions which are being squelched to arrive at "consensus." That's not how science is intended to work. That's the antithesis of how science should work. You can't just dismiss something because it contradicts your beliefs.

Again, incorrect. There are a couple of researchers like Willie Soon and company who have been pushing this, but again, the general consensus is it cannot be explained by solar variability.

That's really odd because the geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends following cooling trends within glacial cycles and cooling trends following warming trends within interglacial cycles that can only be explained by solar output and albedo. Orbital forcing cannot be responsible for the up and down climate fluctuations within the cycles because those timescales are very short compared to the orbital forcing time scales. Here's an example of climate fluctuations which were not caused by atmospheric CO2 or orbital forcing:

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

That's just poor logic. The ONLY reason you know anything about the past earth climate is because of the research by the same folks who tell you TODAY the warming cannot be explained by solely natural forcings

I mention this because the field of paleoclimatology has existed for a very long time and it has helped us understand how the NATURAL forcings impact climate. Right now the natural forcings cannot account for the warming we see.

Here's a great set of summary graphs comparing hindcast data to natural and anthropogenic forcings. Note how the data ONLY MAKES SENSE when human forcings are included.

So what you are saying is that I should blindly accept what I am told? Does that sound like the scientific process to you?

 

[ding]

Certainly among the scientifically illiterate it would. Folks like Lindzen (I assume you know how he is) or Curry (I assume you know who she is) are outliers. They are technically skilled but I am more likely to ignore them because the preponderance of the scientific analysis shows they are likely incorrect.

Neither you nor I are "experts" in this field (and I've got a LOT more experience directly relevant to this than you likely do) so, in a sense, I am forced to go with the overall scientific consensus. Folks who have NO experience in the sciences have even less reason to deny the scientific consensus.

No one is forcing you to do anything. In fact to argue otherwise is counter to the spirit of science which is best served by healthy debate and challenges.

I've been studying this for the past 20 years. I have an engineering degree and worked as an engineer for 37 years. I'm pretty well versed in science.

Again... the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends within glacial and interglacial cycles and not one of them was caused by CO2. So to casually dismiss natural causes for the recent warming trend is at best short sighted and at worst disingenuous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, are you under the impression that the existence of the MWP somehow refutes AGW?

No. I'm under the impression that it shows that Mann was molesting the data.