Climate Change denial vs History

I've said it quite simply and clearly many times in answer to the question is "what is the climate sensitivity to CO2" ?? That is the key metric.

 

I was thinking to myself this very morning.....what global climate would be best? San Diego... San Trope.....St Petersburg....St Marten.....St Moritz....

And then, it occurred to me, the globe has climatic diversity and why should I get to insist that the entire globe be just like somewhere I like?

And then, I wondered, what is "average" like then? Is it Cleveland? Alexandria? Bangaloor?

I didn't think twice when I ripped up my contributory check to Al.....

 

Wrong! The only key metric are the number of peer-reviewed studies. Which are done by people who actually know what they're talking about. That's what the Scientific Method dictates.

Intellectual masturbations by climatologist wannabes, don't count.

BTW: what does CO2 have to do with the conversaton about Republicans and Democrats being analytical or not? You either changed the subject, or completely lost track. Either explanation doesn't speak well of your analytical capabilities.

 

Like MBH98 and MBH99 ??

Personal attacks and insults are indicative of a lack of argument. Please review some of these quotes from Popper:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

 

Which peer reviewed papers? The ones that fit your bias or the ones that don't?

 

Sure... so I haven't made any.

BTW, you quote Popper as if you were quoting the Bible. Popper contributed quite a bit to Epistemological Science. But he's not a "prophet". I'm sure that if he saw you quoting him in lieu of making "arguments" he would not be happy.

Show the study you mentioned about Republicans, Democrats and being analytical. Or admit that there isn't any.

 

Peer reviewed papers are peer-reviewed. So it's irrelevant whether they fit my bias or not.

 

Watch Earth and try to explain how anybody can predict climate or change it using the best tactics. It can't be done.

Earth is simply too complex and massive.

 

Enjoy your ignorance of climate science. It's bliss.

 

Ah. Like those. Fraudulent Mann Hockey Stick graphs. Or using temperature stations in major cities to reflect temperatures in farmland.

Or the fact that Mars seems to be 'warming' at exactly the same rate we are.

Those sorts of things.

 

OK, so the ones saying we are headed into a cooling period are completely valid in your opinion.

 

Like MBH98 and MBH99 ??

What about them?

 

Like MBH98 and MBH99 ??

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (199 reconstruction
Filed under:

• Paleoclimate

— mike @ 4 December 2004
A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (199 proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004–the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature; both are collectively henceforth referred to as “MM”). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998–henceforth MBH9 reconstruction, including the “hockey stick” shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank (‘ITRDB’) data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the ‘St. Anne’ Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.

 

Funny stuff. Got anything more recent than 2004. Try reading "The Hockey Stick Illusion" - 2010 and McIntyre & McKittrick's papers MM03, MM04, and MM05.

https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

 

Of course! All studies that have undergone and "survived" (if I can use the term) peer-review are absolutely valid and valuable.

So I'm guessing (hoping) that this is the part where you provide references to dozens (maybe hundreds) of such peer-reviewed studies, right?

 

Hockey Stick graphs (fraudelent or otherwise), temperature stations (regardless of where they are) and "seems to be warming" are not Science.

Only peer-reviewed studies are Science.

Did nobody on the right ever take a Science class that explained what Science is and is not?

 

The date isn't the issue. The attacks on those reports were bogus and it was illustrated back THEN

 

Yes, these guys are real believable.

 

Then why did the IPCC completely disavow the hockey stick papers and remove the hockey stick from their logo in 2007 ??