The Elephant in the Climate Alarmists’ Living Room

Elephant in Alarmist's Living Room

As liberal members of the media promote the claims made by climate alarmists, the former don’t mention the elephant in the climate alarmists’ living room. That elephant is a little something called the Medieval Warm Period.

The Medieval Warm Period was a case of global warming that took place before the start of the Industrial Revolution.

It would be reasonable to ask what caused the Medieval Warm Period, since it apparently wasn’t caused by Mankind’s activities.

Instead of answering that question, climate alarmists have tried to delete the Medieval Warm Period from history. Either they claim that the Medieval Warm Period never happened – as in the case of Michael Mann’s infamous hockey-stick graph – or they claim that it wasn’t really global.

Such claim have been refuted by climate scientists.

Here is the the abstract of a science article titled “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula”, published by Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115).

The last sentence states, “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”

Now, here is the introductory paragraph of a 2003 press release issued by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Cambridge, MA – A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

It is one thing to claim that Mankind’s activities have contributed something – even if it is minor – to a present-day period of global warming, which is what that alleged 97% consensus actually says.

It is another thing to claim that Mother Nature can’t be the primary cause of a present-day period of global warming, which is not what that 97% consensus says.

The former claim is reasonable. The latter claim isn’t, because historical climate data refutes it.

Climate alarmists can continue being deniers by turning a blind eye toward the elephant in their living room, but members of the general public don’t have to.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, the study described in the above-quoted press release was funded in part by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners December 11, 2015
  • Jwb10001

    You know these people are not serious when the dump 300,000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere just to get a 31 page non binding load of horse shit agreement that does nothing. As someone once said I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it is start acting like it is.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Lets give credit where its due, that 31 page non-binding load of horse shit was a serious blow to ISIL.

      • retired military

        Don’t you know that Obama has identified the 3 most dangerous threats to the US.
        1. The first admendment
        2. The second admendment
        3. Global warming.

        • The most dangerous thing to the United States Constitution is 0bama and his supporters.

      • fustian24

        That’s just funny, right there.

    • That:

      I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it is start acting like it is.

      has been Glenn Instapundit Reynolds oft stated position on the matter for years now.

      • Ed Begley Jr decided he was going to walk the walk on ‘climate change’, and went as green as he could reasonably manage. Kudos to him for not just talking the talk but leading by example.

        Al Gore? Not so much.

        Now, who stood to make more off ‘Going Green’?

        • Walter_Cronanty

          [Posted yesterday on dead thread]

          Will it work?

          “Kerry: Public Shaming is ‘Most
          Powerful Weapon in Many Ways’ to Enforce World Climate Agreement”
          http://freebeacon.com/issues/k

          Yeah, when John effin Kerry sells all of his [and/or his wife’s] earthly possessions, lives in a mud hut and wears sackcloth and ashes.

          Five luxury homes, 76-foot yacht, SUV, and a private jet: John Kerry models the lifestyle of a liberal who allegedly believed James Hansen’s 1988 carbon dioxide warning. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

          • Well, HE is ‘special’, and deserves it all. We peons, however, aren’t anywhere NEAR so special.

          • jim_m

            Public shaming requires that the subject be capable of feeling shame. Hence it will not work on Kerry or any other leftist for that matter.

    • Constitution First

      Sacrifice is for little people.
      I’ll take Global Warming over Global Cooling every time.

  • yetanotherjohn

    What ever the crisis, the answer is more socialism and state control.
    The fact that this won’t really address the crisis but will be used to enrich the great through crony capitalism/graft and enrich the small with apparatchik jobs isn’t something for people to notice, we have a major crisis here that must be addressed now and not thought about. Don’t think, do something (but only exactly what we tell you to do).

  • retired military

    I am surprised David didn’t indict Trump somehow in his thread.

    Also Obama just wants his name in lights. When nothing happens as in future Congress says “Hey we aren’t funding this” because according to the constitution funding has to come from the House, Obama will say (as liberals do). “Well I tried. It isn’t my fault it didn’t work”

    • No, when there’s no appreciable warming they’ll just go “SEE!? All our efforts are paying off! We must SPEND MOAR!!!!”

      Because it’s all about the money, not the results.

  • yetanotherjohn

    You know, Obama may be on to something. The medieval warm spell started up about the time of the Norman conquest of England and didn’t really end until about the fall of Constantinople. So you see, letting the muslems over run western civilization was obviously what ended the medieval warm spell. So all Obama is trying to do is recreate what worked last time to stop the warming. That’s why he says climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. So he’ll let terrorism flourish to destroy the bigger menace.
    We must all stand in awe of Obama’s giant intellect to have figured this out. Climate change was started by a bunch of white guys invading England. Just the threat of Hitler invading England must have been enough to start it off this time.
    We are not worthy of our dear leader.

    • Mjolnir

      But we can also correlate the modern warming spell to when American women gained suffrage. This means that allowing women to vote has been a cause (if not the primary cause) of the modern warming spell.
      Maybe Ann Coulter knew more than she was letting on when she posited the concept of taking away women’s voting rights.

      • yetanotherjohn

        It all makes perfect sense now. No wonder satellite data isn’t finding any warming trends, it’s politics of one sort or another that is the root cause, so how could a satellite measure that.

  • alanstorm

    And don’t forget the Roman Climate Optimum!

  • Par4Course

    The hot air generated by the climate alarmists is the cause of anthropogenic global warming.

    • You might find this interesting – take a look at Chart 1b.

      http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

      There’s a fair bit of evidence (more so than for ‘runaway warming’ in my opinion, since that’s an artifact of computerized ‘forecasts’ that seem to ignore the GIGO principle) that if it hadn’t been for the invention/discovery of agriculture, we’d be nuts deep in an ice age at this point. (And since humans would be at best a sparse scattering of hunter-gatherers on the planet, we wouldn’t be having this discussion…)

      So.. AGW? Yeah. Love it.

      • iwogisdead

        I don’t believe that anything that tiny little humans can do to cause a minuscule change in the atmosphere of this little planet (and I doubt there has been much change) can impact the weather. The weather is controlled by a huge, continuous thermonuclear reaction going on nearby. The energy output of that reaction varies, apparently in cycles. When the output is low, our little planet gets cold. When the output is high, we get warmer. All indications are that the output is diminishing as we pontificate on the internet. Beware.

        That we can impact the weather seems silly.

        • fustian24

          The truth is that weather is so highly non-linear that it IS possible.

          But.

          Climate alarmists have taken an immensely complicated phenomenon and limited it to a single variable: CO2. Then they fit that to their massaged data.

          And here’s the thing.

          It has failed to predict the actual data.

          Which means it’s wrong.

          I had occasion to meet with the head of computing for NCAR a year or two ago. I was surprised at how coarse the global climate models were. A single pixel covered the entire Rocky Mountains. And their models had just gotten sufficient resolution to model weather systems as large as hurricanes.

          The science is NOT settled.

          Anybody that tells you it is, is either lying to you, or stupid.

          • iwogisdead

            The other thing is that climate seems to go in cycles which can only be understood in terms of hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of years. The goofball alarmists want to draw conclusions based on about 150 years of reliable data, and a few thousand years of data based on interpretation and implication. And, even then, they have to falsify the data.

            Corkscrew lightbulbs and windmills to change the weather? Please.

          • jim_m

            Anybody that tells you it is, is either lying to you, or stupid.

            I urge you to embrace the healing power of the word AND.

        • retired military

          Oh we could impact the weather but first we have to figure out how to create enough energy to do so. It would only take something on the order of our sun.

        • SteveCrickmore075

          Tomorrow New York’s forecast high is expected to be 72 degrees F. eclipsing the previous high of 59 degrees in 1949 of Deember 23rd. by 13 degrees.. In Europe the situation is if anything hotter With unusual weather from Britain to Australia, scientists are blaming climate change – but also the natural phenomenon called El Niño, which is raising temperatures and disrupting weather patterns. A double whammy then, but how disturbed should we be as the records tumble? http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/20/global-warming-weather-environment-el-nino

          • iwogisdead

            The record cold temperatures for NYC for December 20 and 21
            came in 2004. Hardly fits the narrative that temperature is being driven by steadily increasing amounts of CO2. In fact, the record cold temperatures for January 3 and 4 came in 2014. See how much fun this game can be?

            We actually have reliable records for a tiny sliver of
            time. Climate is measured in thousands of years, isn’t it? What we’re talking about is day-to-day weather.

            You shouldn’t be disturbed by the weather at all, unless you
            don’t have proper clothing or a place to live.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Normally centuries yes. BUt it is the disturbing speed, the rate of change which is happening now. There have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth’s temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. ttps://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

          • Measured CO2 has exceeded worst case predictions, global average temperature has actually declined (though correlating quite nicely with solar activity).

          • fustian24

            Actually we know more now.

            In past warming events, CO2 increases FOLLOWED warming by hundreds of years.

            One interpretation of this is that something causes warming, and in response, more CO2 comes out of the oceans.

            The warmist view now is that something unknown caused the original warming, but that CO2 exacerbated it.

            But what they don’t know is whether increased CO2 might actually increase cloud formation and act as a brake on climate variation. Because climate has been as stable as it is, you’ve have to think it’s fairly robust.

            The fact is, the science isn’t remotely settled.

          • And it’s been cooler than usual in the Western United States.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I believe the elephant in the room is the diddling with the actual recorded temperatures [just as the alarmists have tried to diddle with the Medieval Warming Period].

    “The keepers of these temperature datasets have, for some unknown reason, been tinkering with the evidence. Invariably, this has involved adjusting early 20th century temperature records to make them look cooler than they were, and more recent ones hotter. This has happened not just to Paraguay data sets, but also those from countries including the US, China, Russia, Greenland, Australia and New Zealand.

    Never has anyone offered any satisfactory explanation for these adjustments. Perhaps it’s about time someone did.
    http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/01/the-hottest-year-on-which-record/

    “[Dr. Roy] Spencer says that the data do need to be adjusted — but not the way NOAA did it. For instance, Spencer says that urban weather stations have reported higher temperatures partly because,
    as a city grows, it becomes a bit hotter. But instead of adjusting directly for that, he says that to make the urban and rural weather readings match, NOAA “warmed the rural stations’ [temperature readings] to match the urban stations” — which would make it seem as if all areas were getting a bit warmer.” http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Finally, some good news on the CAGW front:

    “Vegetarian and ‘healthy’ diets are more harmful to the environment.
    Carnegie Mellon study finds eating lettuce is more than three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/15/shocker-vegetarian-diets-worse-for-climate-than-eating-bacon/

    • Eat Moar Bacon!

    • jim_m

      This is good news!

      We should launch a RICO suit against vegetarians and their enablers. Put the CEO of Whole foods in prison. Confiscate his property!

      If denying warmism is a crime against humanity then vegetarians need to be punished!

      Finally, scientific proof that Tofu is a crime against humanity!

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Of the two commenters I have reviewed who mention “Tofu” and “crime against humanity” in the same sentence, both commenters [Jim m and me] agree that “Tofu is a crime against humanity.” Thus, we have 100% consensus.
        Others are allowed to voice their opinions on this subject if they agree with Jim m and me.
        “Deniers” may comment, but only if they cite to a triple blind, peer-reviewed study reported on in a major publication specializing in studying the effects of eating lettuce on CAGW.

        • retired military

          Sounds like it is settled science

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Obviously, it is settled science – well, not completely settled….I’d kind of like to get a government grant to study the extent to which “tofu is a crime against humanity.”

        • Commander_Chico

          You’ve never had fried tofu with chili and onions?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Hmmmm…..maybe another subject for a government grant. What substances, when eaten with tofu, make it less heinous?

      • iwogisdead

        Not a bad idea. How about trial by combat for vegetable-related crimes against humanity? Cage-match MMA with pay-per-view. This has real possibility.

      • fustian24

        Hey, wait a minute.

        I get my bacon FROM Whole Foods. It’s great!

        • Walter_Cronanty

          You sound like Dr. Judith Curry! Off with your head!!!

        • jim_m

          Organic bacon is probably even worse than lettuce. I say buy it because their CEO is gonna need a lot of money to defend himself against that coming RICO suit.

        • You’re paying way too much for that bacon…

          • fustian24

            Well that is an opinion, of course.

            I can certainly get cheaper bacon. But I don’t like cheap bacon nearly so much. I take my bacon very seriously.

            This is the benefit of a free market. I am willing to pay a little extra to get “real” bacon!

            Your mileage may vary.

          • I can (and do) get a very nice applewood smoked thick sliced bacon at CostCo, and there is a butcher shop about an hour’s drive away where I can get applewood smoked bacon, chops, and sausage (nitrate free). All of which are less expensive (toss up with milage on the local producer) than Whole Paycheck.

          • fustian24

            I’m afraid to buy meat from Costco. Their cost model is so stringent that I worry they bought the anthrax meat nobody else wanted. “And Kirkland bacon comes with natural trichinosis!”

            An actual butcher, though!?

            I thought those were illegal outside Germany.

          • We seldom go out for steak or other beef since we can get great USDA Prime beef at CostCo most weekends. We’re also fans of CostCo fresh farmed steelhead…

          • fustian24

            We tried some prime steaks from Costco twice. Both times they were chewy and tough.

            Now, maybe that was bad luck, but at our Costco, there’s no butcher to talk to. I see an industrial operation going on behind glass. There’s a window where an overworked guy could lean out and answer questions, but this is a very different experience from my local Whole Foods.

            And I’m really worried about the Costco model with respect to food. They aren’t just getting those prices through volume. Costco finds “deals”. If they can’t find one, they don’t have a particular item on the shelf this week. With food, it has to come down to them buying food that, for whatever reason, other people are unwilling to pay full price for.

            I always worry about buying food from operations with really low operating margins.

            So, I’m glad you’re happy with your choice. It may be that I am unfair to Costco, and it may well be that yours is much different than mine. I don’t have the ability to REALLY find out which food is better. I did try one local butcher (20 miles away) once and the meat was awful. I had to throw most of it out!

  • NormB

    “If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of.”

    Attributed to several people, but it applies to Lamarckianism, Lysenkoism, and now, global warming alarmist’s new religion.

    There ain’t no global warming, just hucksters, gangsters, thieves and the anti-human fanatics of the church of global warmingism.

    • jim_m

      And, as in the case with Lysenkoism, when people are inconvenient the warmists advocate to have them disposed of.

  • Commander_Chico

    Why I am for Trump, who else would say this:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWUmO9aWUAE9Ruy.png

    • Sky__Captain

      Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but thanks for playing…

      • Which is part of why he has lost that privilege on my posts.

        • Commander_Chico

          The other part is you’re a fag who can’t take a little debate.

          • jim_m

            Or just that you are a vulgar, lying, dirtbag that no one wants to hear from anymore.

          • Commander_Chico

            These climate posts are pointless – when someone gets a PhD in atmospheric physics or gas chemistry, and can talk about the science, let me know.

          • Sky__Captain

            Bullshit.

            It doesn’t take a PhD to see that NOAA is changing the temperature record to “create” a warming trend when none exists.

            The progressives’ problem is that the scam was discovered with the email leaks from the University of East Anglia.
            It’s been damage control ever since, but the scam is now common knowledge.

          • Commander_Chico

            I just want to know what is causing all these wild storms these days.

            Not like when I was a kid.

          • jim_m

            Actually, along with the failure of the agw models it does. The medieval warm period establishes that temperatures such as we experienced in the 1990s are not solely due to co2 as the warmists claim. It refutes the notion that only runaway co2 could be responsible.

            The fact that all agw models have failed demonstrates that the claims that man made co2 does anything to climate have not been proven. The notion that man made co2 has any measurable effect on climate has never been established as anything other than an ideological/religous dogma.

          • Commander_Chico

            So somehow someone has snookered the Chinese and all these other countries into participating in these Kyoto and Paris conferences and agreements?

            I’m not sure who has the religiously dogmatic view. It’s only on American “conservative” (what are they conserving?) blogs that the majority of scientific opinion is denied.

          • jim_m

            Dumbass. Have you ever even looked at Kyoto? It specifically exempts so called developing nations like China. Few nations that are actually covered by Kyoto have tried to implement it and NONE that are from the EU.

            Most nations that have signed it have ignored it because the regs are stupid and are designed to crush a modern economy. It is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the west to the third world.

          • Commander_Chico

            So why did they have Paris?

            Admiral Mullen endorsed the science, was he a stooge?

            It seems a lot of smart people are on the side of the concept, even Conservative David Cameron. Are they “dumbasses?”

          • jim_m

            You’re asking if political appointees in the obama administration are political stooges. Really?

            Yes, anyone who believes in agw is a dumbass because it requires believing in an ideology that is refuted by its own science and has demonstrated that the only thing that sustains it is scientific fraud and political patronage. You ask why politicians support it- it’s because it is a political gravy train.

          • Commander_Chico

            Mullen was appointed CJCS by Bush. Bush also endorsed the idea that CO2 was contributing to warming.

            They’re all dumbasses though, only Jim, Ph.D Caltech knows the truth.

          • jim_m

            Political hacks don’t vary much party to party. You once would have at least hypocritically said so while defending the ultra left wing line. Now you just defend the far left bullshit.

          • Commander_Chico

            So it’s all a big conspiracy to destroy America – Bush, Mullen, Obama?

          • jim_m

            You’re the conspiracy theorist seeing conspiracy around every corner and under every rock you try to slither under.

            No, incompetency, ignorance and pandering to a radically far left media is to blame for this crap.

          • fustian24

            Global warming is an enormous hammer the left is using to bludgeon the west with. They are using it as an attack on western economics (largely oil-based), they are using it to extract money and transfer it to the socialist third world. They are hoping to tie the US up using thousands of lilliputian ropes.

            If any of these guys REALLY believed this stuff, how come they’re flying big entourages all over the world? That would be insanely stupid. And why would they allow China and India free reign to continue to KILL THE PLANET?

            No, the US must be brought to their knees economically. And Europe. This is just a giant lefty shake down of rich white dudes. The way you can know this is their own numbers show the US and Europe cannot even begin to address the numbers their models need to make an actual difference.

            So, we know it’s not about climate.

            And say, how come Al Gore can have so many HUGE houses? Why doesn’t Obama cut down on his enormously polluting and expensive vacations if he actually believed any of this crap?

            They don’t.

            You shouldn’t either.

            As for Bush, Mullen and Obama…which one of those was a scientist again? None of these guys even remotely understand the actual issues and they look at this problem solely through the lens of politics. Look elsewhere for knowledge.

          • Graft.

          • If he’s on board with the warmists, he’s proved himself to be just that.

          • fustian24

            Science is never a vote, but there are plenty of scientific heavy hitters both in climate science and in Earth science and physics and in statistics (a big part of climatology) that are simply not on board.

            I trust Freeman Dyson more than I do Admiral Mullen. Or say, if you like Nobel prize winners, how about Ivar Giaever? Mullen went to the Naval Academy as a basketball player and has additional degrees in management. In what sense is he supposed to be a scientist? What he is, is a politician.

            In fact when you poll earth scientists and engineers you get only 30% that believe in the warmist nonsense:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

            That’s a peer-reviewed study, by the way.

            The lie is that this is settled science and all of the smart people are on the warmist side. I cannot tell you strongly enough what a lie this is. Not true. Baloney. Propaganda. You need to get out more. It’s wrong. It is intellectually lazy and dishonest. It’s bull poop. It’s a fib. It’s base calumny. It is duplicitous. A fable, if you will. It is disinformation. It is falsehood. It is a complete fabrication.

            And it’s the last refuge of people that have lost the argument and are insisting there BE NO MORE DISCUSSION!

            Because SCIENCE!

            MY SCIENCE!

            Don’t bring your physicists and your nobel prize winners by here. Don’t tell me my consensus is phony. Don’t tell me that temperatures have stopped warming. Don’t tell me that satellite data disagrees with ground data. Don’t tell me the data has been cooked for years. JUST SHUT UP!

            But here’s the thing. We’re not shutting up ever. Because that is the way ACTUAL science works.

          • fustian24

            Well.

            Nobody but the US has done anything close to meeting a single Kyoto target. And we are doing it primarily because we’re using more natural gas and less oil. The miracle of fracking.

            This is largely about the money.

            The third world is about using climate to leverage cash out of rich America and Europe. They don’t give a fig whether it’s true on not as long as they can get a bunch of socialists to pony up big. And here’s a clue: that money is going into the pockets of kleptocrats.

            And China would love it if we would tie one hand behind our backs as we compete in global markets. But they have ZERO intention of cutting back on any industrial development. Nor does India. Nor does Russia (if I recall correctly).

            Even little New Zealand has failed to meet any Kyoto targets. Their problem: sheep farts!

          • jim_m

            Statistically, severe storms have declined. You sound like one of these end times Christians claiming that wars and violence are on the increase when statistically they are in decline. Even with the increase in Islamic terrorism the world is demonstrably more peaceful than in past centuries.

            You mistake access to information as an increase in incidence. You are a fool.

          • iwogisdead

            The warmists insist that variations in the weather are due to tiny, really, really little, minuscule changes in the atmosphere that are very, very small, if they exist at all, and that haven’t been shown to have any real effect on the absorption of energy from the sun. The medieval warm period, as well as the rest of climate change, which goes on all the time, appears to be the result of something other than any changes in the atmosphere caused by people.

            Does that help?

            The other problem is that it looks like the temperature is going down, not up.

            And I understand that you are troubled by “wild storms” but I don’t think weather is all that much wilder than when I was a youngster. So, relax.

          • jim_m

            The whole concept of “forcing” is that small energy inputs create positive feedback loops that amplify the effects without any additional energy inputs. This has been referred to in the past as a perpetual motion machine. It is a fantasy that idiots have believed in since before Da Vinci.

          • fustian24

            I suspect today’s wilder storms are a function of the weather channel.

            You didn’t know nearly as much about world climate when we were younger.

            My understanding is that climate has been less extreme lately and not more extreme. Consider this year’s no stress hurricane season.

          • fustian24

            Well, today’s warmists claim the current temperatures are unprecedented and alarming and must be the natural consequence of industrial development.

            But.

            What if we knew that sometimes the world warms all by itself? Long before we generated all that CO2.

            And what if today’s temperatures were not especially unprecedented?

            And, what if we had an example to show that warming is not catastrophic, but was largely a good thing?

            Which is the case.

          • All of Wwhich is are the case.

            FIFY

          • Ha, Ha!

          • fustian24

            I actually am an Earth scientist and I recently retired from one of the biggest research labs in the world.

            One thing I can tell you is that the science is not settled and there is no consensus.

            Look up the origins of that 98% consensus number. It’s as bogus as the alarmist position.

            By the way, what’s the temperature supposed to be? Which year had the optimal temperature we’re desperately trying to hold to?

          • Commander_Chico

            Ok, so the science is not settled. But if they are right, Miami will be under water and people will be baking a large areas of the world in 100 years. If they are wrong, there’s cleaner air and less consumption of a depleting resource.

            If I have a dog in the fight, it’s oil, because I’m invested in it after the downturn (although not enough after ;( ). I don’t make my investment decisions by politics.

            I just don’t understand how science becomes an act of political belief. Again, GW Bush, who was an oil man, endorsed the CO2 theory.

          • fustian24

            Well, the socialist left is using climate as a hammer to strike industrial capitalism (as they always do).

            I always laugh at the argument that we should fight global warming anyway because of the consequences of failure. But we really don’t know what the climate is going to do.

            Some serious voices are beginning to believe we are looking at another ice age. In this case, if you really believe that increased CO2 increases temperature (when the evidence no longer really supports this), your best bet would be to INCREASE the CO2. Right?

            Which is why the real thing we need to do is continue to study the problem. Weather is so highly non-linear and complex, I am really not sure we will be able to reliably predict much. We can’t even predict the weather reliably for more than a few days.

            And, frankly, the study of climatology is about ever more elaborate after-the-fact explanations for phenomenon that they failed to predict.

            What you may not know is that climatology used to be a rather dismal part of the earth sciences. When meteorologists realized that weather was too chaotic to really predict very far into the future, it was theorized that there might be larger cycles that could be found statistically. But there were never very many of these guys and nobody was especially interested.

            Then the global warming money swamped those guys. And now, a climatologist is an Earth Scientist that decided to take the global warming money. If you really follow the money, you need to discount a lot of what these guys say and look at the more larger Earth Science community.

            And, by the way, the government research money, the big foundation money absolutely swamps any money coming out of Exxon or any of the other oil companies. The European oil companies have completely swallowed the warmist language, for example, and spend no money trying to disprove it in part because they expect to be able to make a ton of cash in any cap and trade regimes. Most of the climate skeptic work is unfunded. Leftist propaganda would tell you otherwise but it isn’t true.

            Another thing you’re probably not aware of is that your Exxon knows quite a lot about ancient climate since it is a key component of oil exploration. They need to know which strata are associated with high sea levels and which are associated with low sea levels. Low sea levels are sandier, and high sea levels are shalier (in general). Look up Peter Vail and eustasy curves if you’re interested. The oil companies own this subject and not all of their data is public.

            None of this is to say that reducing pollution is not a very good thing when you can afford it. Which is why not gutting your economy is a key strategy in saving the environment because only wealthy economies can afford to be the remotest bit green. If you want to see environmental horrors, go look at any Marxist country.

            And you are aware that CO2 is NOT a pollutant aren’t you?

          • jim_m

            When you speak of the socialist left you are speaking about Chico. Even his screen name indicates his political bent. This explains why he is so eager to claim consensus and settled science. He knows these are lies but he parrots them anyway because that is the narrative that he is wedded to.

          • Commander_Chico

            I am the Commander!!

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry. I’m so used to thinking that it says Commissar.

          • Don’t look around…

          • Commander_Chico

            Unless there is a nuke war, “industrial capitalism” will survive.

            In many ways “warmism” as you say has provided opportunites for investment and growth. Look at solar panels, windmills, Tesla and new battery tech.

            I hope that fusion makes the whole issue moot, but not before oil prices surge again so Chico can make some $$$.

            It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a difference if opinion in which the deniers are in the scientific minority.

          • jim_m

            So what you are saying is that i has benefited crony capitalism by distorting free markets and diverting capital into failed companies like Solyndra. It has forced consumers to pay far in excess of what is necessary for their basic energy needs to satisfy fascist a holes like you who would rather people be poor in order to salve their leftist consciences.

          • fustian24

            But the deniers are not even remotely in the scientific minority.

            I was at a lunch today of retired lab guys, all PhD’s. There was a quick discussion in which one of the physicists posited that history will look back on our time and write that this was a period in which science completely sold out to politics and money.

            He mentioned how many physicists have been resigning from the APS so that when the reckoning comes they will not have allowed their reputations to be impugned by such shoddy anti-science.

            Personally I think science has always been highly political and will be so in future.

            But it is simply a lie that a majority of scientists are in the warming camp. It’s certainly not true about meteorologists, for example (it’s an even split), and it may no longer even be true for climatologists although their livelihoods rely on a belief in warming. The famous 97% number is a simple fraud and is a lie:

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

            One little wrinkle you might consider. In the pantheon of greenhouse gasses, CO2 is a little weenie one. The big kahuna is water vapor. It’s effect compared with CO2 is ENORMOUS. Given that, you might be surprised to hear that climate scientists have NO IDEA what CO2 does to cloud formation!

            That should be off-putting if you are honest about this subject.

            As for the big investments in alternative energies, they are all subsidized by the government. None of them scale up. Some of them, like wind, may not even help. When the wind dies, what do you do? You fire up a conventional power plant.

            But.

            There is a cost to firing those things up. They run much more efficiently when they run continuously. I read somewhere that in some places the addition of wind power actually COSTS money.

            Tesla and the new battery tech aren’t even energy sources. They are ways to make conventional electricity more mobile. They are no more or less green than the conventional power plants used to charge them.

            By the way, if these were such great investments, why does the government need to get involved?

            This is all leftist fantasy.

            If you want a genuine alternative energy that would make a difference, you need to turn to nuclear. It is the ONLY other energy source that makes any sense at all.

          • Ayup, on all points.

          • Commander_Chico

            Chico has repeatedly supported nuclear energy, but not Chernobyl/Fukushima designs.

          • fustian24

            Of course.

            There is an interesting wrinkle on the Fukushima accident.

            Back when they were first testing the effects of radiation on animals, they found some odd things. The more radiation they applied to an animal, the healthier it was. This continued as the radiation dose was increased.

            Right up until it didn’t any more.

            All of a sudden, we would see all the problems we know are associated with radiation.

            As the mechanisms of genetic damage by radiation were understood, the acceptable doses for radiation were set extremely low. It seemed like a bad idea to have any of it.

            But, now there are scientists that believe this is wrong. They are now wondering if surprisingly large amounts of radiation are quite healthy for humans. The theory is that a certain amount of radiation keeps an immune system on its toes. We are supposed to get out of our houses and get irradiated on a regular basis.

            This is somewhat born out by studies that show that people at elevation (with less atmospheric protection from solar radiation) are on average healthier.

            The tie to the Fukushima accident is that a number of people got a lot more radiation than is recommended, but the expected health disaster has not transpired. Yet.

            Now, I’m not intending to move next to an old reactor, and I bought a geiger counter to make sure our kitchen granite was not “hot”, but I do think it is interesting and worth more study.

            And back to the original subject, my understanding is that the latest nuclear designs are significantly safer than the older ones and are worth a re-look.

            In the meantime, we need to understand that natural gas is significantly cleaner than coal or gasoline and we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We are rolling in the stuff.

            It is more expensive than Saudi oil and this is why your Exxon stock is suffering. The Saudis are trying to convince investors like you that American natural gas is an uncertain investment. If I were you, I’d hold on to that Exxon stock because the oil price will bounce as soon as the Saudis get tired of emptying their treasury.

            A sensible administration that doesn’t destroy the economy would be helpful as well.

          • Putz’s refer to themselves in the third person, puta.

          • Ayup.

      • iwogisdead

        Relevancy. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

  • Sky__Captain

    Here’s a link for Comrade Stolen Valor :
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

    It deals with NOAA’s adjustments to the data, which always seems to be to create a warming trend.
    The Comrade will be pleased to know that Roy Spencer, PhD is qualified to speak with him about the science.
    I suspect that Comrade Stolen Valor will not be pleased with the results of the conversation.

    • Commander_Chico

      How about giving me a peer-reviewed scientific article instead of a partisan website like the Daily Caller?

      This site says Spencer is feeding at the trough of right-wing institutions and full of shit: https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

      • jim_m

        Consensus says that you never served, so I guess you have a point that consensus must at least sometimes be correct.

        • Commander_Chico

          I don’t give a fuck about “consensus,” I only care about DFAS. http://www.dfas.mil/retiredmilitary.html

          • jim_m

            Yeah, but they are likely part of that consensus. You’ve never proved that they are not.

      • jim_m

        How about reading the freaking article and then reading the articles it links to you lazy, lying dumbass? The caller is (as any decent journalistic organization does) summarizing the news and providing links to sources so you can check them yourself.

        Jeez, you are dumb. You can’t be bothered to actually look at what is said.

      • jim_m

        So your arguments against this are that:

        1) it is referenced by a right wing political site
        2) you use guilt by association to attack the messenger
        3) you reference an article that spends the first 800+ words in an ad hom attack on Spencer
        4) that last article places ALL of its “rational” argument on a theory that positive feedback loops can outweigh the initial energy input. In other words, that perpetual motion machines do exist and they are called global warming.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    A study of high quality temperature stations, unperturbed by urbanization, movement or time of observations, and thus have no need for adjustments, shows that upward trend of surface temperatures is only 2/3 of the trend when using adjusted temperatures.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/