Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Climate Change Triggered Warming That Lasted Thousands of Years (phys.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: A rapid rise in temperature on ancient Earth triggered a climate response that may have prolonged the warming for many thousands of years, according to scientists. Their study, published online in Nature Geoscience, provides new evidence of a climate feedback that could explain the long duration of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which is considered the best analogue for modern climate change. The findings also suggest that climate change today could have long-lasting impacts on global temperature even if humans are able to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Increased erosion during the PETM, approximately 56 million years ago, freed large amounts of fossil carbon stored in rocks and released enough carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere to impact temperatures long term, researchers said. Scientists found evidence for the massive carbon release in coastal sediment fossil cores. They analyzed the samples using an innovative molecular technique that enabled them to trace how processes like erosion moved carbon in deep time. Global temperatures increased by about 9 to 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit during the PETM, radically changing conditions on Earth. Severe storms and flooding became more common, and the warm, wet weather led to increased erosion of rocks. As erosion wore down mountains over thousands of years, carbon was released from rocks and transported by rivers to oceans, where some was reburied in coastal sediments. Along the way, some of the carbon entered the atmosphere as greenhouse gas.
Increased erosion during the PETM, approximately 56 million years ago, freed large amounts of fossil carbon stored in rocks and released enough carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere to impact temperatures long term, researchers said. Scientists found evidence for the massive carbon release in coastal sediment fossil cores. They analyzed the samples using an innovative molecular technique that enabled them to trace how processes like erosion moved carbon in deep time. Global temperatures increased by about 9 to 14.4 degrees Fahrenheit during the PETM, radically changing conditions on Earth. Severe storms and flooding became more common, and the warm, wet weather led to increased erosion of rocks. As erosion wore down mountains over thousands of years, carbon was released from rocks and transported by rivers to oceans, where some was reburied in coastal sediments. Along the way, some of the carbon entered the atmosphere as greenhouse gas.
No wonder they slaughtered mammoths, it was to decrease methane emissions!
Man, those Chinese climate hoaxers just don't know when to quit do they?
It's like 10,000 Homer Simpsons farting at the same time. Any idea how much methane gets out in one rip?
The title should be...
Ancient Climate Change Caused Mass Extinction Less Severe Than Projected Future
If we don't do take action soon then in a billion years some creature may be digging up fossils trying to figure out what caused our present mass extinction event.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That sounds reasonable. A 200,000 year long process now takes 100 years. I hope geological changes speed up the same way. That'd move the next Yellowstone caldera eruption from sometime in the next 600,000 years, to possibly next Thursday. Just enough time to plan an apocalypse party!
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
There is a Wikipedia entry:
WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator which has been described as "fringe" and far right[6] as well as politically conservative.[7] The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[16]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are not a source of reliable information.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
We can live anywhere.
[($)]
Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.
I looked up who this guy was and oh boy.
Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.
Excerpt about the paper.
The withdrawn study “is just a curve-fitting exercise of five data points using four free parameters and as many functional forms as they could think of,” Schmidt, an expert in atmospheric climate modeling, said in an email. Like the previous pseudonymous research, “it too has nothing fundamental to add.”
He added, “The authors’ insistence that they are ‘contradicting mainstream theory’ is just delusional self-aggrandizement.”
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Genetic Fallacy, much? https://www.logicalfallacies.i...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
How about Nature?
This study cuts a primary pillar out from under the climate alarmists' argument: That the climate has never changed this fast.
It looks to be like their attempt at forcing the largest ever global wealth transfer is on even shakier legs then it was.
Earth's climate isn't consistent. Never was. It sometimes changes quickly. Welcome to Earth.
It's never changed this quickly, therefore everything is fine? Wow, that's some great logic there, sparky. The planet didn't have to contend with anthropogenic forcing putting a finger on the scale.
You mean apart from burning fossil fuels, increasing CO2 and heating up the planet? I'm pretty sure we can even cut holes in the Ozone too, if we switch back to CfCs.
Good luck with that line of denial Huxley.
How do you feel about the Russian Asbestos legalization? I'm guessing your *for* more Russian asbestos in the USA. Natural tasty rock, who could be against that??
Mercury from dirty coal burning, mercury is a natural metal, who could be against it in the lungs of American kids...
The same way that people eventually die from natural causes, so how can someone shooting people be related to people dying now?
It's turtles all the way down.
"How can humans be doing anything to climate related now?" - Said the retard in broken retard English, stupidly forgetting about the millions and millions of smokestacks, tailpipes, offgassing trash heaps, clearcutting, and all else.
It is neither an idle solar system, nor an idle galaxy nor an idle universe, plenty of things things can quite readily screw with the earth and even a major sun event can have dramatic outcomes for the earth, an even over a week having an impact over millions of years, just suck it up. We get subject to enough catastrophies without creating our own, oh look it's too late, we have already created at own, it is only a matter of socialising those costs now that the profits have been privatised but when the calamity strikes, they will be seeking to hang those profiteers and it is only a matter of time and the randomness of weather outcomes, forget stable change with stable models reflect climate change or weather averages, real weather will make a mockery of the nice smooth climate change models, expect the 1st metre sea level rise resulting from a cycle of weather events to occur a whole lot sooner, that the nice smooth averaging climate change models predict. With that sea level rise, will be the scream to, hang em high, at it will be the rich who loose underwater front assets who are not fossil fuel investors who will scream the loudest and be heard, ahh fossil fuellers kicking in the wind.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Preying upon the Dinosaurs and forcing them to evolve into birds. They saw their fate coming so implanted the designs for their resurrection into promising mamals so that in the distant future they could be resurrected and begin the cycle anew.
Have you looked closely at the pictures of Henry Ford he's at least three quarters metal.
Of course it doesn't take much to cause warming, there's only a few vehicles on mars and they are solar electric yet that planet is warming.
Ocasio-Cortez just announced we have 12 years until the end of the world.
millennials and people, in gen z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
As a sanctimonious do gooder that has no clue about what's going on.
14.4F
Or perhaps Americans wouldn't understand 5 to 9C, so 9 to 14.4 it is.
So-- the world was hotter 55 million years ago, which brings up questions before we get into a complex feedback loop theory:
1. Do we know where the Earth's orbit was 55 million years ago? (or do we assume it has been stable/constant?)
2. Do we know the Sun's output 55 million years ago? (or do we assume it was constant, or worse-- model it because we have a theory of the sun's behavior).
At least with regard to natural disasters
https://ourworldindata.org/upl...
Oddly enough the 1910s were a pretty good decade for not dying from natural disaster, at a guess that might have been because people were too busy dying from WWI and the pandemic of the Spanish Flu
About sepp.org.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
<obvious>A tax won't fix it. It's mostly a money grab.</obvious>
Throughout history greed wins Everytime. Especially among Americans who consider it socialism to do anything about it
http://saveie6.com/
Why so cheerful?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
From https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/st...
Eventually, their true identities were discovered, and so, the journal, Advances in Space Research, retracted the paper, though the editors acknowledged that the retraction was “not related to the scientific merit of the study.”
Nikolov told WND that the main reason for using fake names was federal policy under the Obama administration.
“I was told by my superiors that I could not publish anything on climate as a government employee,” he said, adding that he works for the U.S. Forest Service but that the research “was done in my private time, has nothing to do with my work, and does not represent the position of my employer.”
Oh I live internet climate "skeptics". You neither know nor understand the science yet are "skeptical" of it.
And yet when an organisation wiht the name "Science and Environmental Policy Project" which is clearly from the name a political thinktank says something like you guzzle it greedily down.
You're not a skeptic, you're only skeptical about things which challenege your political worldview. IOW you're just another foolish partisan blowhard.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It sounded like an honest question, there was no need to insult the person, regardless of your personal opinions. When you respond in such ways, any valid opinion you might have had is ignored and the person moves on. I find it humorous to have people who know nothing about me toss out an insult and think it will end the discussion or change my opinion.
Wow. Reading comprehension fail much?
How about you try to prove what the poster said was wrong instead of screaming denalist and other ignorant insults? Your making yourself look foolish because you cant respond in an intelligent manner.
I bet you are fun at parties.
It sounded like an honest question
It wasn't.
The climate discussion have been going on for so long now that you can be 100% sure that any climate change denier is acting in bad faith.
At some point you just have to stop giving them the benefit of doubt.
He's not new, he's said this shit before, no it was not an honest question.
Dribbling denialist posts utter claptrap, yawn, what a pathetic dumb sadass.
It'd be nice if you were right. Unfortunately not. CO2 is indeed potent compared to O2 and nitrogen for its warming. I mean, CO will kill you at trace amounts so it's not like a trace gas isn't known to have a strong effect.
Water vapour does cause warming too but has 2 key differences. First it was already there, we didn't upset the balance by adding to it, so it's not forcing but a feedback from the forcing. Second it is radiative in both directions, it can also cool, whereas CO2 is more opaque to the heat at the wavelengths leaving Earth.
To your point on the benefits of more CO2, the greening of the planet already happened and it did indeed offset some of our emissions. However, plants can only absorb so much extra, they need other nutrients and fresh water and have physical limits. We've long passed that one, sorry.
Your argument falls dead on the basic fact that the premise is wrong; current climate change is not part of any natural cycle, it's happening too rapidly to match any previous event that didn't have a substantial global change associated with it, such as a massive asteroid strike, or massive super volcano eruption. Neither of those things have happened in this case, which is why the only thing left that could be causing it is the only other significant change to the planet whose effects are similarly visible and measurable from space - industrialization by the human race.
Genetic Fallacy, much? https://www.logicalfallacies.i...
So opposite of the boy who cried wolf then?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
that I didn't even bother to read anything other than the first sentence to know it had nothing of value in it. Saved time that did.
I blame farting dinosaurs.
So, yeah, stop with the fake alternative to "CO2 is a plant food" moron.
No, not much. He was correct in saying that it has never changed this quickly. The article states
As erosion wore down mountains over thousands of years, carbon was released from rocks and transported by rivers to oceans, where some was reburied in coastal sediments. Along the way, some of the carbon entered the atmosphere as greenhouse gas.
The fastest known change in the past, that in the article, was over time periods two orders of magnitudes or longer than we are seeing today. The "primary pillar" GGP spoke of is standing untouched.
"Never try to defend the 'proof' of idiots" you mean. the OP was bullshitting and his whinge as well as subo who seems to be a new age of climate denieridiots on slashdot who doesn't know what proof IS, since he accepted the word of someone claiming a PhD at face value, yet refuses to accept the word of thousands of PhDs claiming otherwise.
But you denieridiots like to form ranks. Your political ideology is at stake, and that's FAR more important than survival, it's your EGO at stake!
Please stop using lazy language. I'm sure you meant Man Made Climate Change not just Climate Change. No one is saying the climate never changes and has never changed which is what you are accusing them of. What most MMCC deniers are arguing Against is
1. Man is 100% responsible for the change in temperature being observed and
2. That the models used to predict the dire consequences are accurate.
3. We have the financial and technological ability to make a difference.
The answer to 1 AND 2 is - no they are not.
for 3 the answer is No We do Not - unless you want to eradicate 3/4 of the earths human population.
You've discovered what we've known about for awhile.
Ice ages and inter glacial periods. The warming lasts for quite a long time then goes away and things get cold again. It happens regularly on earth, it has happened before, and it will probably happen again, hopefully people can adapt when the ice comes because I don't think we'll be able to stop it, not easily anyway. But that won't be any time soon.
Someone putting PhD after their name doesn't mean what they say is correct. THAT TOO is a genetic fallacy.
Moreover citing a fallacy instead of a counterargument is also a fallacy. You need to show that that fuckwit pretend scientist is right, not just assert he is as the OP did.
But you don't care about logic or arguments as long as the argument goes the way your feels like, do you, retard?
Correlation does not equal causation. Funny how "science" and its liberal agenda always ignores this simple fact! The only real truth to be found in the world is from the bible. If you want to stop the libtards from controlling your life, banning your video games, confiscating your guns, stopping your free speach and pushing their left wing SJW politics, pick up a bible today and hear the good news that there is hope!
Interesting. From what you post, however, he makes a pretty strong case for a legitimate use of a pseudonym. Publishing under another name is not necessarily sketchy, and in fact it has a looong history going back thousands of years. In this case there was hardly any deception, because he merely spelled his real name backwards.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
"Publishing under another name is not necessarily sketchy, "
As in the famous Student of statistics fame, who wanted to keep his research separate from his employer.
Even if a broken clock is right twice a day, you still have to be wary of any info from sites that are well known to be biased; and that goes for other side too, from Buzzfeed to HuffPost, Salon, Mic, Mother Jones, Vox, The Guardian, etc..
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Since the hoax was climate constant, why does the GH theory need to be correct for climate change?
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Never try to "prove" shit to idiots.
The important thing about posting in the face of those unwilling to debate or learn, is that you might educate some other readers on the fence, even if the idiot learns nothing...
Interesting that I am the only person posting educational links, I wonder what that says about the desire of others to teach vs. preach.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
no amount they pay you will make up for the damning of your eternal soul
Now support your last sentence with some evidence.
None of the claims in that Wiki post address what the article I posted was saying. It's not saying there is no warming - it's saying proof of DANGEROUS rates of warming, like the hot spot over the tropics, have not occurred as they were predicted. In short all of the worst effects of warming that were supposed to cause real issues have not happened, and in fact what is happening is causing weather to become less severe, not more... none of that is addressed by your religious Wiki page.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why do you passive-aggressive faggots always say sparky?
I can vouch that after not watering my girlfriend's plant for 2 weeks while she was away it did, indeed, die. Plants apparently do need fresh water and nutrients.
Just because you dont care for the source doesn't make the article wrong. In fact since you are making such claims, then prove their research is wrong.
Fine. If there are no greenhouse gases we should be freezing to death right now. Thus the "study" is obviously bogus. See, that was easy.
A prudent man skeptics his own actions w.r.t. matters which he does not well understand. He rejects powermongering expert ansatz removing his own power to act ; rejects bleeding-heart sympathies; he refuses quick fixes; he relies on workable if imperfect historical solutions ... and rejects rash novel emotional actions which history demonstrates ( as a class ) cause their own great harm. He accepts slavery rather than a nibberized Chicago ... he prefers Henry Ford to Mother Teresa; he accepts from high-ground the BLACK SWAN flood not the silted dam; accept the King not Napoleon; accept two pecks of corn not 4 GMO fluorescent mongrels. He dies a younger free man not a Ginsbergish electro-mechanical zombie. He spits on the Rawlsian post-moderns. He slaps down Trotsky-slut equalitarian tyrannies ... smash their face, bust their neez, make them bleed each time they pea BURMASHAVE.
Can someone get Al Gore out here to fact check this please?
Not only that...white man LOL. Gee, "global warming" happened before the industrial revolution...go figure.
It'd be nice if you were right. Unfortunately not. CO2 is indeed potent compared to O2 and nitrogen for its warming. I mean, CO will kill you at trace amounts so it's not like a trace gas isn't known to have a strong effect.
CO kills by chemical reaction, not physical effect like warming action of CO2. Extremely apples and oranges. Physical effects of a trace gas are far less pronounced.
Once-exhaled air is 4-5% CO2, which is low but far greater than trace levels. It is more than 100 times the level in the atmosphere, and yet we can re-breathe it safely. That is the air we use to revive people during CPR. That is the air gnats are attracted to. "Trace amounts" of CO2 will not in fact "kill you." You are wrong about that.
The benefits of increased CO2 are well known in agriculture. The degree of benefit varies by species and whether the plants are water stressed. Increased CO2 reduces aspiration and thereby the need for water, so it is the water-stressed plants which benefit the most. However they all benefit.
Generally the benefit of increased CO2 tends to curve and level off at around 1200 ppm, or three times the present concentration. Again it varies by species, for some it levels off around 700 ppm, a bit less than twice our current levels. For others it is more.
The concentration has to rise to about 100X atmospheric before it has harmful effects, on certain smaller insects. (It begins to interfere with their ability to find food.) But there is no danger of this happening. The entirety of the industrial era to date has raised the concentration by only about 130 ppm, and the negative feedback mechanisms have only begun.
Regarding the greening of the planet, that process is not in the past tense. It is ongoing and this is even observable from satellite. Deserts are greening most observably, crop yields are up measureably, and even the bristlecone pine is showing record growth.
Atmospheric CO2 does not drive climate change; rather it is a converse effect which did establish a correlation. (When ocean temperatures rise, CO2 comes out of solution and joins the atmosphere.)
Guess what? I may be a registered Democrat (and proudly and Independent for decades before that) but I'm no 'socialist' or 'communist' or any of the above. I'm not dumb though and I'm not wrong, and I think I'm far from alone in what I had to say here. Also the people you're referring to are the same ones who voted for Trump, and that more or less proves that they're too short-sighted to be making big decisions for the rest of our species.
Would it be asking too much of you for you to exercise some common sense and foresight rather than having the attention span of a ferret on bad biker meth? Or are you a Creationist and really believe we can shit all over the Earth because Zombie Jesus is going to come take you away to Heaven when the Rapture happens, so it doesn't matter? FFS get a brain.
Is that the best you can do? Was there a point to this comment? Or are you as unintelligent as it makes you seem? I'm giving you an opportunity here to show you have better than a room-temperature IQ, are you going to rise to that, or are you just going to continue being pointlessly insulting? Not everything is a joke, old son.
"[...]warming action of CO2."
You're fallaciously assuming the consequent.
How about you try to prove what the poster said was wrong
How many times do I have to prove him wrong before it's reasonable to assume what he's saying is bullshit? 10? 20? It's probably been that many by now.
In the real world if you act like a denialst repeatedly then it's a reasonable assumption that something linked to from an ovbiously incrediably biased source is clearly denialist bullshit.
You know this too and that makes you as bad as he is. You very well know that it's easier to spew bullshit to rebut it. However you won't admit to that because you want your bullshit to "win".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
that cars are powered by people's breathing...???
1) We're the cause of MORE THAN 100% of the warming since 1850. Most of the feedbacks aren't man made, but they respond to our forcings just like the respond to any other forcing.
2) They're very accurate. Hansen's 1988 paper would have been spot on if the climate sensitivity had been 3.2C/doubling rather than 3.4 as he predicted in his model.
3) We did it. We can stop doing it. In what way is not stopping impossible?
Most of what you say is true, of course. CO2 is not a danger to animal life at the levels have now, nor is it going to go up to those levels. But, the fact that you could swim in coca-cola without suffering any immediate damage is not really that relevant. Yes, where there is plant growth are getting greener because CO2 is more readily available to grow on. But other areas are getting drier, so less green.
None of this changes the key reality that CO2 levels are now higher than for, I think 400k years, that global temperatures track very well with CO2 levels. There are a number of ways to establish cause and effect, which is not the way you state. We know why CO2 is increasing, we know how much it is increasing by both as a percentage and an actual amount. And we know where it is coming from, because we can measure the production of it both my humanity and other sources. It's not coming from the ocean. It's coming from fossil fuels.
Your last sentence is the key one. It is wrong and untrue. Sprinkling it at the end of a set of mostly true, but largely unrelated facts does not make it true.
They predicted a major terrorist act by plane. So since THEY predicted "the end of the world" just as much as AOC did or the IPCC reports say (IOW nothing of the sort, just how X will happen in less than Y years),they were wrong, hm?
> We're the cause of MORE THAN 100% of the warming since 1850.
I deny this completely.
>> "[...]warming action of CO2."
> You're fallaciously assuming the consequent.
No, he's correctly assuming that the work of this guy has not been refuted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
We did. Turns out ManBearPig is REAL. I'm super cereal.
I did not speak untruly, I never denied that the current rise in CO2 is due to industrial activity. However former rises in CO2 have been due to rising ocean temperatures and volcanism, which is how the corellation in proxies from the ice core records comes about. Extrapolating that widely misinterpreted relationship to the current man-made rise of CO2 cannot result in a valid inference, and it hasn't. In the 20th century alone global temperatures rose and fell multiple times. Since 2000 contrary to warmists' dire predictions there has been virtually no rise, despite a period of record CO2 output.
What I've said that you admit is true, I shouldn't have even needed to say. I simply refuted things you said which were ridiculous, and I did so with common sense.
Not true.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/did-global-warming-really-pause-during-the-2000s/525645/
> No, he's correctly assuming that the work of this guy has not been refuted:
> [Arrhenius wiki link]
Arrhenius' was found to have overestimated the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas by 96%. He actually omitted the effect of H2O from his calculations, and this was first pointed out by Prof. Knut Angstrom of Upsala in 1901.
It appears that you, he, and conceivably some actual climate "scientists" are 117 years out of date. Arrhenius was wrong about that.
He was also wrong with his prediction of peak oil happening in his lifetime.
I detect a pattern.
The pauses were so significant, and the 21st century hiatus in particular, serious adjustments to the dataset were needed to hide them. Of course those pesky, original untampered data are still around.
Nobody wants to say fraud, but some things go unsaid.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/06/climate-scientists-manipulated-temperatu
See also, regarding the causality direction of the temperature / CO2 correlation:
"Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
And a bit of history on this topic in case you missed it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
[PS: I"m getting the timer now on AC posting...]
> Nobody wants to say fraud, but some things go unsaid.
There is no reasoning with a conspiracy theorist. No proof will ever be sufficient.
Oh an ad hominem now? I was wondering how long that would take.
Science is inherently skeptical, the burden of proof is on the warmists - who have provided none.
The scientific method consists of hypothesis, prediction and testing, in that order.
Every prediction made to test the validity of this hypothesis of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" has backfired, instead falsifying the underlying hypothesis.
But this is the very scientific process. People who deny it or circumvent it, especialy by clalit "settled science" are the true science deniers.
At some point one has to awaken to the fact that it simply isn't true.
True skeptics consider all points of view and demand to be convinced with evidence. They attempt disprove their own position.
Conspiracy theorists are blinkered, intransigent, incorrigible, irrational and partisan.
You cherry-pick the evidence and conclusions that you prefer, and if anything disagrees with you, it must be fraud, corruption, incompetence - never based on any evidence, as the last thing you would ever attempt do is test your hypothesis or conduct any real investigation.
That way you can dismiss proof with hand-waving and sit comfortably in your armchair quarterbacking self-assurance. It's really pretty sad.
Funny, because you're describing exactly the behavior of the warmists.
"Blinkered:" The IPCC heads literally were caught discussing how to "hide the pause.". (See ClimateGate papers) You want to talk about sad? It's all here.
"Cherry picking evidence:" The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/#6e4be746428e
"Partisan:" “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.) Here wirth virtually echoed Maurice Strong, the leftist billionaire whose work led to the founding of the IPCC.
Intransigent: Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
The surface temperature data are bad, suffering from selection bias due to widespread siting issues. Rural stations have fallen out of the network causing urban areas to be overrepresented. The NASA GISS data were so beyond bad they even contained Y2K errors for years - until a blogger of all people had to catch that egregious bit of malpractice.
But fortunately there are not one, but three major categories of data: surface temperatures, balloon temperature data, and satellite temperature data.
Of these three data sets, only the surface temperature data have ever shown any fleetingly apparent support for warmist dogma, and even these highly flawed data have failed to validate modeled predictions without being heavily adjusted.
And I use this word dogma deliberately. Warmism has become indistinguishable from a religion. Heretics such as Prof. Judith Curry are even shunned. Actual science on the other hand is skeptical.
There is absolutely no point arguing facts with you, you are a True Believer. You cannot be convinced.
You are emotionally committed to your position, and your ego would never permit you to consider that you may be wrong.
Science is not your tool, rhetoric is.
Facts? You haven't offered any. Only I have offered facts.
From the beginning, everything you've said has been, at best, the very rhetoric you pretend to decry. You started with calling CO2 harmful even at trace levels. That should have been my clue, I should have stopped interacting with your cluelessness there.
It's clear your grounding in science is worse than nonexistent, and that you have zero intention of remedying that. There's nothing I can do for you, you are willfully ignorant.
over and out.
So, when you say "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you meant in the past, and not now. You are incorrect about warming since 2000. There is ample evidence that this statement is wrong. Please go and google for it. You didn't refute any things I said, because I haven't commented on this thread before.