How to argue with a global warming "skeptic"

BrentGolf, what can I say about your response except this:

You are very representative of your generation: the capricious enthusiasm for bien-pensant causes that you don’t take the time to understand that boils into hysteria whenever your pet beliefs are challenged. Perhaps, I should start using trigger alerts in my messaging so that they won’t unduly upset you?

I imagine that all your friends believe in global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) and the publications that you take the time to scan indicate that the peer group with whom you want to identify also finds these causes worthy. Perhaps, Vay is right. There is a lot about this whole global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) issue and how cigarettes used to be marketed. Pretty packaging. Cool images of sophisticated friends in sophisticated surroundings engaged in sophisticated behavior like drinking martinis, gambling at casinos (and always roulette or craps, right?) or at beach idylls. Must make for a madcap meander from the mundane milieu of mediocrity in which many find themselves mired.

Fred, you conveniently avoided the most important part of that last post to you: the last three paragraphs:

[quote]Fred, I already said it to Mick - everyone does that. If you think you don’t, you are deluding yourself. The question is not whether or not you take a leap of faith, but just how big that leap is. The whole point of skepticism, is intellectual humility. Our memories are shit. Are brains aren’t built for abstract reasoning. Our entire grasp of reality is just a simulation in brains. It goes on and on.

Let’s put it this way: I put up a bit of pop-science about research from a climatologist - any climatologist. Heck, I can’t even get you to open a link, let alone read the article. But let’s say you actually do, and that you disagree with the article. So then what? Do you actually go to the research, challenge it, refute it using your extensive knowledge of physics, chemistry, statistics and what-have-you? Course not. You wave your hands at it. Maybe if you’re feeling really motivated, you look it up on WUWT.

So where’s the difference between you and me? I, at least, actually care what the truth is. We differ in that you want the science to be wrong, because it rubs up against your ideology. I want it to be wrong, too, because I’m fearful for my daughter’s future. But I try to at least check my bias about that and the door and make a best effort that don’t just tell me what I want to hear and find sources that give a good sense of what the best current knowledge actually says, and I put my bet there. But everyone’s got their strengths and weaknesses: you are definitely way way funnier, and can really turn on the charm when you try.[/quote]

As for what you said about Ball (saw him on Jessie Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” not long ago) and Lindzen and Curry - re-read what I said to Mick on the last page, where I wrote about Lindzen. There are heuristics - er, sorry, fast and dirty rules of thumb - that can help us overcome that problem.

Moreover, sorry to say, but I’m sure the believers in the handful (literally) of hand-picked scientists who supported the cigarette industry’s claims on the question of smoking and cancer AND second-hand smoke and cancer, or those who defended CFC’s, or said leaded gas or acid rain weren’t problems, probably made the exact same argument.

If one waits for 100% consensus in science, the result - and in the case of denialism, the ~intended~ result, is paralysis. Because it ~never~ happens. Should they stop teaching evolution as “settled” science in textbooks? After all, there are a tiny number of biologists and lots of scientists in other fields who disagree with that consensus, too.

[quote=“hannes”][quote=“BlownWideOpen”]Anyone else lost in this convoluted web of reason and argument?

Fred and Vay, lay out your best, most succinct argument for your side in one short paragraph or less[/quote]

While we are at it. Here is my question to Fred and Vay. This discussion has been going on for quite some time (years?). Have any of the other’s arguments had any (even a little) impact on your thoughts regarding global climate change, and if, what were they and how did they change your thoughts?[/quote]

Yes, he has. Ten pages back or so, he had a very eloquent post where he convinced me I need to take myself less seriously, focus more on what’s important, and probably stop spending so much time in these arguments! :wink:

Btw, BrentGolf, great post on the last page.

What can you say? How about something relevant? How about something marginally intelligent? How about something that shows anything but your complete lack of understanding of the subject? Maybe try something that doesn’t continue to make you look like a punching bag in any and all debates you take part in?

That conclusion you wrote about your views in this thread says it all. There were words on the page, but you said absolutely nothing of any substance. I went through it one by one explaining how vapid it all is, and your only response is some weird nonsensical jab at my generation? :unamused:

But that’s when you know you are totally obsolete in the world, when you start to use the “hey sonny boy” as an actual retort in debates. Anything that starts with “your generation” is probably a sad attempt from a pathetic old fool, intellectually dwarfed and confused in this big bad new world. What happened right Fred? When did the world change so much? Don’t you just feel like curling up under a warm familiar blanket, sipping hot cocoa and reminiscing about the good ol’ days? Why does science have to come along and fuck up all your predetermined views you so successfully solidified in High School in the 1950’s. It’s not fair right? Damn science !

So, that bothered you, eh? Good. I will put that arrow back into my quiver. Now, sonny boy, how’s about fetching your uncle another martini (note: NOT hot cocoa!)

Not at all. In fact, this “brave new world” has a striking resemblance to all the other “brave new worlds” that came before it. THAT is what is so funny. REALLY funny, but also REALLY sad. It is curious though to see the same half-educated spouting the same sureties… that hasn’t changed either…

Again, you and your earnest views and your half-educated, half-understood, but 100% pontificated “sentiments” are nothing new. THAT is EXACTLY why it is so funny. It is like going to Yellowstone to see Old Faithful spout like clockwork. And here you are again… with the same old angst-driven anger and blather. I keep winding you up so that you will come back with stuff like this. THAT really does make my day. It is exactly what reminds me … gosh no need to reminisce about the good ole days when the prancing ponces are still preening and prattling.

Well, that sounds like you almost might be trying to make an argument. If you are, one wonders whether you had the opportunity to visit the rather lengthy exchange about the climate models that has been taking place for the past several pages. One imagines, however, that like all of your attempts to understand a subject that you skimmed through most of it and then came back to your default: “Everyone I know thinks that global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) is a serious issue ERGO it MUST BE!!!” thus conflating your “knowledge” with your “sentiments” which are then buttressed by “what people I know think” and voila you have the complete flat-earth scenario that you scoff at without realizing that it is YOU with the faith-based beliefs.

And to Vay: Again, you state you are not qualified, nor do you have the knowledge but you rely upon experts (and you didn’t answer the points in my last message) but how do you choose which experts to rely upon when Curry and Linzen are probably more peer-reviewed than most of your other cited scientists. IF their views/research exists and has not been refuted, then, what? We have to go with the majority view? in science? Think about what you are saying? I believe that you may have the scientific process confused with your last prom in high school. This is not about popularity but what is right and NO ONE has refuted Linzen and Curry. There has been no PROOF that their views are wrong. IN FACT, the 18 year pause in warming (and yes, we can call it that despite all the clever step graphs you want to use and how do you really understand them? by your own admission?) has led many (the Economist editorial) to conclude that the inaccuracy of the models is a “very big deal.”

[quote=“Vay”]
As for what you said about Ball (saw him on Jessie Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” not long ago) and Lindzen and Curry - re-read what I said to Mick on the last page, where I wrote about Lindzen. There are heuristics - er, sorry, fast and dirty rules of thumb - that can help us overcome that problem.

Moreover, sorry to say, but I’m sure the believers in the handful (literally) of hand-picked scientists who supported the cigarette industry’s claims on the question of smoking and cancer AND second-hand smoke and cancer, or those who defended CFC’s, or said leaded gas or acid rain weren’t problems, probably made the exact same argument.

If one waits for 100% consensus in science, the result - and in the case of denialism, the ~intended~ result, is paralysis. Because it ~never~ happens. Should they stop teaching evolution as “settled” science in textbooks? After all, there are a tiny number of biologists and lots of scientists in other fields who disagree with that consensus, too.[/quote]

Not really, perhaps you haven’t seen very smart people with qualifications to write and be respected in the scientific community fail terribly, I have, in fact many times. Sometimes and perhaps its not surprising for the over achievers to think they can solve anything, relatively quickly. Sometimes they just bite off more than they can chew, it looks like this, or at least the claim the models are reliable now, is a complete fiction, it looks to me like they are still working on the broad outline.

The second argument you make, regarding numbers, I doubt there are are a handful of people who really understand what the modelling guys are doing. They may have thousands cheering them on, but right now I suspect they have discovered just how difficult their task is and are in a dark place right now.

In saying this you are ignoring my previous response to your point on models, and not really even addressing what I said to Fred above. Perhaps you think you’re talking over my head again, but you’re not. What I said about CFC’s and leaded gas and cigarettes is true; the strategies were identical - and climate science isn’t based only on models.

Mick - I wanted to add, about the last thing you wrote on models: I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that I’ve seen an argument very similar to this before - it was in the comments under an article in SkS about the same subject. The guy was in tech like you - some kind of engineer and was talking about exactly how complicated models are in his field, very similar lines to your argument. I got the sense he was, like a lot of tech guys, probably libertarian-ish. I don’t remember exactly how the other participants in the discussion there responded to him; only that their response seemed quite persuasive - though again maybe that’s just my bias.

But more importantly, there’s another reason I’m skeptical of your argument, even without really being able to respond to it: because it’s a kind of hubris. It’s the same hubris that leads Freeman Dyson or Ivar Giaever to dismiss the problem. The heuristic - er, sorry Fred, fast and dirty rule of thumb - which both he and you are missing is this: experts need to give other experts the benefit of the doubt. In this case, just because you know models in your field, doesn’t mean you ~really~ understand climate models in ~that~ field enough to make judgements like you are making. I really recommend this article, from ScienceBlogs:

“The Area of My Expertise”

[quote]There has been some discussion in these parts about just who ought to be allowed to talk about scientific issues of various sorts, and just what kind of authority we ought to grant such talk. It’s well and good to say that a journalism major who never quite finished his degree is less of an authority on matters cosmological than a NASA scientist, but what should we say about engineers or medical doctors with “concerns” about evolutionary theory? What about the property manager who has done a lot of reading? How important is all that specialization research scientists do? To some extent, doesn’t all science follow the same rules, thus equipping any scientist to weigh in intelligently about it?

Rather than give you a general answer to that question, I thought it best to lay out the competence I personally am comfortable claiming, in my capacity as a trained scientist.

As someone trained in a science, I am qualified:

to say an awful lot about the research projects I have completed (although perhaps a bit less about them when they were still underway).

to say something about the more or less settled knowledge, and about the live debates, in my research area (assuming, of course, that I have kept up with the literature and professional meetings where discussions of research in this area take place).

to say something about the more or less settled (as opposed to “frontier”) knowledge for my field more generally (again, assuming I have kept up with the literature and the meetings).

perhaps, to weigh in on frontier knowledge in research areas other than my own, if I have been very diligent about keeping up with the literature and the meetings and about communicating with colleagues working in these areas.

to evaluate scientific arguments in areas of science other than my own for logical structure and persuasiveness (though I must be careful to acknowledge that there may be premises of these arguments — pieces of theory or factual claims from observations or experiments that I’m not familiar with — that I’m not qualified to evaluate).

to recognize, and be wary of, logical fallacies and other less obvious pseudo-scientific moves (e.g., I should call shenanigans on claims that weaknesses in theory T1 count as support for alternative theory T2).

to recognize that experts in fields of science other than my own generally know what the heck they’re talking about.

to trust scientists in fields other than my own to rein in scientists in those fields who don’t know what they are talking about.

to face up to the reality that, as much as I may know about the little piece of the universe I’ve been studying, I don’t know everything (which is part of why it takes a really big community to do science).

This list of my qualifications is an expression of my comfort level more than anything else. It’s not elitist — good training and hard work can make a scientist out of almost anyone. But, it recognizes that with as much as there is to know, you can’t be an expert on everything. Knowing how far the tether of your expertise extends is part of being a responsible scientist.[/quote]

My sense is you may be tempted to latch onto #5, and that’s fine, I suppose… But I dare say I still think it will be hubris talking if you do so.

In any case, I’m going to succumb to something Fred talked about before and take myself too seriously again- enough to say I’m quitting. I need to announce it, though, because if I don’t, I won’t follow through on it.

Ironically, it was Fred talking about fun and what’s important that got things rolling in my mind. In truth, if I didn’t waste so much time arguing about this topic, I could probably earn enough extra money to get solar panels on my roof - or earn that MOOC degree in statistics I’ve been wanting.

Also, I find it bizarre that you, Mick, as moderator seem to have taken it as your mission to step firmly into this argument on Fred’s side, posit yourself not only as an expert but also as an adjudicator of logic: - while completely ignoring not only the bulk of my actual points, but blatantly obvious PR tactics and - sorry, Fred - avoidances, logical non-sequiteurs and so on by Fred. (And of the two moderators, ~you’re ~ the reasonable one!)

So cheers, guys. It’s been fun (sometimes). Finley, Cfimages, BrentGolf, Xeno, keep up the good fight. BWO, keep working on Fred - your shining optimism and perseverance will eventually pay off!

Ps - incidentally, Fred, read back through the thread. Lindzen has been refuted.

No, one of your pet sites has provided someone who has challenged him. His research has not been refuted. It has been challenged and, in the Guardian, by someone who believes that 15 year pause has also been disproved. Clearly, that is NOT the case. I note, however, the usual tie in with cigarette smoking denialism, which again, is not a fair assessment of the challenges. The issue was with regard to SECOND-HAND smoke and the reason why this became an issue is because the usual lawyers were doing the usual chasing after multi billion dollar claims. These did not go through. That said, they are always looking for a new angle. One day, they will get together to file a class action law suit with regard to climate change and the “harmful effects.” Naturally, they will retain 40% of the payment.

Enjoy your retirement. Remember family is more important than posting online. When you stop enjoying it, it ain’t worth the effort. Congratulations! Spend more time with the people who should matter most.

You are the one that called me out, rudely I may add. I don’t recall anything you said that refutes what I am saying about climate models at the least you may have made a point regarding a correlation between CO2 and Milankovic cycles.

The bulk of your points follow on from assuming the range of warming is known, or there is a temperature most scientists agree with, i.e. 3 degree warming for a doubling of CO2. This is true, most scientists do agree with that, but you and Brent and everyone else in this thread have no right to start name calling because someone doubts that figure.

Honestly, it may be much lower. so now your lashing out against me again, instead of talking about the points raised. Your posts are littered with fallacious logic, when Fred makes the claim the range supplied by the IPCC for warming is dubious, you sound off with incredulity. A fallacy of incredulity, despite the fact he has numerous reasons for backing up such a claim. You often make long posts with multiple disjointed points of reason making it impossible to address each and every point as just addressing one often makes a long post, which in itself is another fallacious argument, but even worse, you follow that up just as you do here with an appeal to the stone, “oh you didn’t address my argument” as if that will somehow lend weight to what you said. You do this all the time, I think I mentioned it once and you were very quick to call me out on it, so it seems you are well aware of this technique and should know it gets everyone elses back up just as much as it does yours.

More on the subject of climate models:

[quote]There are dozens of climate models. They have been run many times. The great majority of model runs, from the high-profile UK Met Office’s Barbecue Summer to Roy Spencer’s Epic Fail analysis of the tropical troposphere, have produced global temperature forecasts that later turned out to be too high. Why?

The answer is, mathematically speaking, very simple.

The fourth IPCC report [para 9.1.3] says : “Results from forward calculations are used for formal detection and attribution analyses. In such studies, a climate model is used to calculate response patterns (‘fingerprints’) for individual forcings or sets of forcings, which are then combined linearly to provide the best fit to the observations.”

To a mathematician that is a massive warning bell. You simply cannot do that. [To be more precise, because obviously they did actually do it, you cannot do that and retain any credibility]. Let me explain :

The process was basically as follows

(1) All known (ie. well-understood) factors were built into the climate models, and estimates were included for the unknowns (The IPCC calls them parametrizations – in UK English : parameterisations).

(2) Model results were then compared with actual observations and were found to produce only about a third of the observed warming in the 20th century.

(3) Parameters controlling the unknowns in the models were then fiddled with (as in the above IPCC report quote) until they got a match.

(4) So necessarily, about two-thirds of the models’ predicted future warming comes from factors that are not understood.

Now you can see why I said “You simply cannot do that”: When you get a discrepancy between a model and reality, you obviously can’t change the model’s known factors – they are what they are known to be. If you want to fiddle the model to match reality then you have to fiddle the unknowns. If your model started off a long way from reality then inevitably the end result is that a large part of your model’s findings come from unknowns, ie, from factors that are not understood. To put it simply, you are guessing, and therefore your model is unreliable.

OK, that’s the general theory. Now let’s look at the climate models and see how it works in a bit more detail.

The Major Climate Factors

The climate models predict, on average, global warming of 0.2 deg C per decade for the indefinite future.

What are the components of climate that contribute to this predicted future warming, and how well do we understand them?

ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) : We’ll start with El Nino, because it’s in the news with a major El Nino forecast for later this year. It is expected to take global temperature to a new high. The regrettable fact is that we do not understand El Nino at all well, or at least, not in the sense that we can predict it years ahead. Here we are, only a month or so before it is due to cut in, and we still aren’t absolutely sure that it will happen, we don’t know how strong it will be, and we don’t know how long it will last. Only a few months ago we had no idea at all whether there would be one this year. Last year an El Nino was predicted and didn’t happen. In summary : Do we understand ENSO (in the sense that we can predict El Ninos and La Ninas years ahead)? No. How much does ENSO contribute, on average, to the climate models’ predicted future warming? 0%.

El Nino and La Nina are relatively short-term phenomena, so a 0% contribution could well be correct but we just don’t actually know. There are suggestions that an El Nino has a step function component, ie. that when it is over it actually leaves the climate warmer than when it started. But we don’t know.

Ocean Oscillations : What about the larger and longer ocean effects like the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole), etc. Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%.

Ocean Currents : Are the major ocean currents, such as the THC (Thermohaline Circulation), understood? Well we do know a lot about them – we know where they go and how big they are, and what is in them (including heat), and we know much about how they affect climate – but we know very little about what changes them and by how much or over what time scale. In summary – Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%.

Volcanoes : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%.

Wind : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%.

Water cycle (ocean evaporation, precipitation) : Understood? Partly. Contribution in the models : the contribution in the climate models is actually slightly negative, but it is built into a larger total which I address later.

The Sun : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%. Now this may come as a surprise to some people, because the Sun has been studied for centuries, we know that it is the source of virtually all the surface and atmospheric heat on Earth, and we do know quite a lot about it. Details of the 11(ish) year sunspot cycle, for example, have been recorded for centuries. But we don’t know what causes sunspots and we can’t predict even one sunspot cycle ahead. Various longer cycles in solar activity have been proposed, but we don’t even know for sure what those longer cycles are or have been, we don’t know what causes them, and we can’t predict them. On top of that, we don’t know what the sun’s effect on climate is – yes we can see big climate changes in the past and we are pretty sure that the sun played a major role (if it wasn’t the sun then what on Earth was it?) but we don’t know how the sun did it and in any case we don’t know what the sun will do next. So the assessment for the sun in climate models is : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%. [Reminder : this is the contribution to predicted future warming]

Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) : GCRs come mainly from supernovae remnants (SNRs). We know from laboratory experiment and real-world observation (eg. of Forbush decreases) that GCRs create aerosols that play a role in cloud formation. We know that solar activity affects the level of GCRs. But we can’t predict solar activity (and of course we can’t predict supernova activity either), so no matter how much more we learn about the effect of GCRs on climate, we can’t predict them and therefore we can’t predict their effect on climate. And by the way, we can’t predict aerosols from other causes either. In summary for GCRs : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%.

Milankovich Cycles : Milankovich cycles are all to do with variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun, and can be quite accurately predicted. But we just don’t know how they affect climate. The most important-looking cycles don’t show up in the climate, and for the one that does seem to show up in the climate (orbital inclination) we just don’t know how or even whether it affects climate. In any case, its time-scale (tens of thousands of years) is too long for the climate models so it is ignored. In summary for Milankovich cycles : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 0%. (Reminder : “Understood” is used in the context of predicting climate).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) : At last we come to something which is quite well understood. The ability of CO2 to absorb and re-emit a specific part of the light spectrum is well understood and well quantified, supported by a multitude of laboratory experiments. [NB. I do not claim that we have perfect understanding, only that we have good understanding]. In summary – Understood? Yes. Contribution in the models : about 37%.

Water vapour : we know that water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas, and that in total it has more effect than CO2 on global temperature. We know something about what causes it to change, for example the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is well accepted and states that water vapour increases by about 7% for each 1 deg C increase in atmospheric temperature. But we don’t know how it affects clouds (looked at next) and while we have reasonable evidence that the water cycle changes in line with water vapour, the climate models only allow for about a third to a quarter of that amount. Since the water cycle has a cooling effect, this gives the climate models a warming bias. In summary for water vapour – Understood? Partly. Contribution in the models : 22%, but suspect because of the missing water cycle.

Clouds : We don’t know what causes Earth’s cloud cover to change. Some kinds of cloud have a net warming effect and some have a net cooling effect, but we don’t know what the cloud mix will be in future years. Overall, we do know with some confidence that clouds at present have a net cooling effect, but because we don’t know what causes them to change we can’t know how they will affect climate in future. In particular, we don’t know whether clouds would cool or warm in reaction to an atmospheric temperature increase. In summary, for clouds : Understood? No. Contribution in the models : 41%, all of which is highly suspect.[/quote]

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
The words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ spring to mind.

Finley:

You seem to be confused (as usual) by what words mean, actually mean.

“Hysteria” for example would be, perhaps, “panicked excitement,” or, perhaps, “frenzied activity ungoverned by calm, rational thought.” Now, if I am laughing about the panic attacks of the global warming (SORRY!!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!) alarmists, and if someone else (certainly NOT me) is calling for URGENT ACTION NOW!!! which of us do you think is engaged in hysterical behavior?

Thus, sorry, your attempt at a “pot kettle” comparison is nothing but yet another in a long line of solecisms.

Well, seems the thread is on it’s last legs unfortunately. HUGE thanks to Vay :bravo: All your hard work was definitely not in vain. Speaking for myself I know I learned a lot reading all the links and peer reviewed work you detailed here and I don’t think I’m alone in that. Because of people like you who actually take the time to go through it so thoroughly, there does seem to be a growing awareness and acceptance of the problem. Hopefully over time more and more people will be able to acknowledge that climate change is happening and that human activity is at least partially (if not significantly) responsible for it. From there a push towards change should be possible. Beliefs form actions, so it all starts with an understanding of the underlying science which is what many people will learn from threads like this one.

I always find it so ironic that the deniers point to economic arguments as a way to ignore the problem and kick the can further down the road. While it’s true that sometimes the economic benefits are not immediately and easily measured, we’ve seen many times throughout history that the countries that lead the new frontiers gain exponential economic benefits for generations to come. The United States is the strongest most influential economy in the world and if a real push towards renewable energy was made, the masses of new jobs created coupled with the immeasurable benefits of education and spinoff technological advancements would pay off enormously. It’s like the space program. I’m sure back then there were lots of people moaning and griping about the costs involved. It’s as obvious as could be now in hindsight that the benefits far outweighed the costs, but strangely enough the same silly short sighted argument is being recycled here yet again.

It’s depressing how slow change comes but you definitely made a dent Vay, thanks ! :thumbsup:

Great. Why don’t you provide a summary of what it is exactly that you learned?

It’s been fun gents. Vay and BrentGolf and some others did a great job working away on Fred. I came in at the end and finished the job off. I was smart enough to see that psychology and other mind tricks were needed to circumvent Fred’s hold on the wrong position. Furthermore I was able to offer to the discussion some keen insights like “go full nuclear” and “worship the ground Elon Musk walks on”. Job well done boys

Yes, but no, er, what?

Fred, where do we go from here?

[quote]LONG-TERM SUMMER TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS IN THE PYRENEES FROM DETRENDED STABLE CARBON ISOTOPES

Abstract:

Substantial effort has recently been put into the development of climate reconstructions from tree-ring stable carbon isotopes, though the interpretation of long-term trends retained in such timeseries remains challenging. Here we use detrended δ13C measurements in Pinus uncinata treerings, from the Spanish Pyrenees, to reconstruct decadal variations in summer temperature back to the 13th century. The June-August temperature signal of this reconstruction is attributed using decadally as well as annually resolved, 20th century δ13C data.
Results indicate that late 20th century warming has not been unique within the context of the past 750 years.
Our reconstruction contains greater amplitude than previous reconstructions derived from traditional tree-ring density data, and describes particularly cool conditions during the late 19th century. Some of these differences, including early warm periods in the 14th and 17th centuries, have been retained via δ13C timeseries detrending — a novel approach in tree-ring stable isotope chronology development. The overall reduced variance in earlier studies points to an underestimation of pre-instrumental summer temperature variability derived
from traditional tree-ring parameters.

Full paper here: blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09clim … ochron.pdf

[/quote]

[quote]95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
February 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.

I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.

Yet, that is the direction we are heading.

And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.

If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.[/quote]

And what does Roy Spencer have a Ph.D in? meteorology NOT climate science so according to the usual detractors he is not qualified to speak on this subject but let’s look into this more closely:

and

[quote]Roy Warren Spencer is a meteorologist,[1] Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.[2][3] He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.[2][3]

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.[3][/quote]

So if he is qualified to serve as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies and he was awarded for his satellite-based temperature monitoring, is he still UNQUALIFIED as a peer-reviewed scientist from making the above conclusions? I merely ask because, according to many of our sacerdotal sages, such presumption is blasphemy! heresy! atheism! though, of course, it was amusing to see how much of the “peer review” among climate change alarmists is a closed shop. You have the same few reviewing each others’ work and miraculum miraculorum! finding the research to be TRUE and ACCURATE! Amazing!

I’ll take over where Vay left off but I only have enough stamina to handle two or three sentences at a time.
Please be very concise

Fred, why do you see going green and carbon efficient as not good for the economy?