Another winter North Sea storm struck Germany last Thursday, and naturally the alarmists and climate-downfall conspiracy nuts – among them flagship German public television – immediately mobilized to point the blame on manmade CO2 emissions.
Linking skepticism to the right wing AfD party. Image cropped from rbb Kontraste.
And because the right wing newcomers, the AfD (Alternative for Germany, in the German Parliament have made climate skepticism part of their platform, rbb seized the opportunity (and almost every dirty propaganda trick in the book) to cast the AfD and climate skeptics in a very deplorable light. Details in German here at EIKE.
Firstly, I’ll never understand why leading skeptics like EIKE in Germany would agree to let themselves be interviewed by the highly biased German media, knowing full well it’s going to be a pile-on, totally void of balance. Moreover, there are a lot of things EIKE could do a lot better. Personally I haven’t been too impressed with the site and the institute. But that’s another story.
Of course in the rbb smear, the skeptics’ cause did not get any help from AfD climate spokesman Rainer Kraft who stupidly told rbb that there was “no such thing as the greenhouse effect”. That and other things made rbb’s putting together of the smear report a piece of cake. The whole thing was designed from the get-go to be a drive-by media hit.
Kraft should never be allowed to comment on climate science again as he is clearly ill-informed and ended up looking like a crackpot saying such a ridiculous statement.
Unsurprisingly, the “renowned” Stefan Rahmstorf and Harald Lesch were given the microphone to portray the skeptics as deniers, paid shills of ExxonMobil and other horrible things. Here Willie Soon was singled out.
rbb then described the skeptics as being mostly comprised of “disgruntled pensioners working out of their homes” and who agree with the likes of Donald Trump.
RBB carefully crafted and edited the segment to make it look like it was an issue pitting renowned experts who should not be questioned on one side, and crackpots on the other. They threw fairness and balance out the window. EIKE should have foreseen this from the get-go.
According to EIKE, one experienced cameraman commented on the reporting techniques used by RBB:
Because I saw the entire rbb report, I noticed many other things. The reporters did act as ‘reporters’ who politely asked questions and recorded them. Instead they were for the most part snotty-arrogant and condescending, like a chief interrogator with a criminal suspect.
Here all camera tricks were employed (unnoticed by the audience) to make Lesch and Rahmstorf appear positive and nice, surrounded by books in a well lit and friendly room. In total contrast, the man from the Berliner Kreis-CDU [Lengsfeld] appeared in full close-up via tele-perspective in a red toned face, a sort of ‘interrogation perspective’ with which the audience (unknowingly) associates with guilt. Anyone who has years of camera experience recognizes such fine points.
In short, everyone at rbb used every trick, also the most nasty ones!”
In other words, rbb violated its fundamental obligation of the German public television charter.
Don’t worry about the biased presentation of the story. Germans have 3 trillion reasons to suspect they’re being had.
Oh boy, someone feels threatened when the actual “nuttiness” of his “movement” is displayed on national TV 😉
Sure, instead they should have pointed out how the AfD is a shining beacon of democracy with very sane arguments of how Germany should or shouldn’t be. And of course they should have pointed out how totally reasonable climate skeptics arguments are and that they have nothing to do with conspiracy theorists. Yeah, right.
There is a huge problem with this statement. On the one hand, you don’t want skeptics to be interviewed by someone who could be skeptic about what they publish/say and on the other hand you seem to want balance, or in other words those skeptics to have a voice … however idiotic their arguments are.
At least you seem to recognize that what those EIKE guys are saying is stupid and will “be a pile-on”.
You must know that he is not the only “skeptic” who is ill-informed, right? You don’t have to look any further than the comment section of this blog to find others just like him. Who do you want in a position like that? Is there a single person on this planet who’s “arguments” will not fall through any fact check?
The value of the internet organized skeptics is that they can put out their statements at a far greater speed than anyone could fact check them and even if it only takes a few days, nobody cares about those “old stories” anymore. The important thing is that the base/followers saw those statements and believed them, never coming into contact with what is actually happening.
This strategy doesn’t work for a person, at least not to this extent (counter example: Donald Trump, where it appears to work).
Hand up, who isn’t a pensioner writing/commenting on this stuff from home? Any real experts here? Or just people who are somehow “against the system” and have too much time at hand? Or will you call them racist, like you did with me for pointing this out?
Are you saying there are sane people on the climate skeptics side? Where? Anyone there who isn’t desperately trying to construct an alternate reality and explaining any inconsistencies away with “the data is fake”?
Haven’t watched the video yet, but they aren’t wrong just because you guys are painted in a bad light. As if your side doesn’t consist of a majority of “crackpots” (like you put it) … get those flat earthers and “there is no greenhouse effect” groupies to understand the physics and mechanisms and when you are at it, tell them that “there is no proof that a x ppm increase of CO2 over a body of water warms the water by Y degrees” is not sufficient to claim that humans have nothing to do with the current climate change. Talking about “fake data” doesn’t help either … the raw data is available, you can actually prove that it is fake or not right there, in physics there are no proofs.
So long … don’t feel too hurt in your little bubble, because some regional broadcast showed you how you are perceived by the rest of us.
Still ZERO-SCIENCE to back up ANYTHING you say seb
You are a sad, sad case of blatant far-left ignorance.
Keep trolling with your anti-science FANTASIES in your little land of MAKE-BELIVE, seb
You KNOW there is no scientific proof that CO2 causes any warming atmosphere or oceans or land.
You should stay away from topics which you have proven yourself TOTALLY LACKING in, like physics, science and maths.
Your fossil fuel heated basement, is your bubble, seb.
As you well know, the GHE is just a misnomer for the gravity-thermal effect.
The radiative GHE from CO2 has never been measured anywhere. CO2 warming has never been measured anywhere.
You have proven that by your abject inability to present any.
The gravity-thermal effect is measured on every planet with a viable atmosphere.
Start backing up anything you say before you demand that from others, angry man…
This is priceless. So the very same person who claims he has data to back up his belief that the oceans are acidifying so fast that the oceanic biosphere cannot adapt and has been asked to produce that data about 10 times and yet still cannot do so…
…and the same person who claims he has data to back up his belief that the Earth’s surface is browning and deserts are expanding because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions but who has failed to produce this data despite being asked to produce them 10 times…
…is now insisting that someone else should back up what he has to say before he demands that from others. Unbelievable.
“Start backing up anything you say before you demand that from others, angry man…””
ROFLMAO!!
And the comedy act continues.
You must be trying to play “the straight guy”
You have been EMPTY of any science to back up anything you say for many months,
All you have is mindless troll-like yapping.
You could of course try to provide EVIDENCE that I am wrong.
You know, like empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in our gravity controlled convective atmosphere.
You are still EMPTY on that one, the very basis of your cult-like brain-washed religion.
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
Sebastian the hypocrite writes<
"SebastianH 22. January 2018 at 7:52 AM | Permalink | Reply
Start backing up anything you say before you demand that from others, angry man…"
You have been asked many times to back up your assertions, many time that appear to be absurd to others here.
Try answering Kenneth's comment for starters:
https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/21/german-public-television-carries-out-textbook-propaganda-hit-on-german-climate-deniers-used-every-trick/comment-page-1/#comment-1249115
Waiting for your reply, try surprising us…..
So if human CO2 emissions don’t have “nothing to do” with the +0.09 C change in ocean temperatures since the 1950s, what real-world experiment are you operating from to affirm what you believe: that humans control the ocean heat content by emitting more or less CO2? I’m not asking for proof. I’d at least like to have a cause-effect observation, though. Why isn’t your side capable of producing this cause-effect evidence? Why do you have only models to rest your claims on?
Will you be providing a scientific source for your beliefs that humans are acidifying the oceans so fast that the oceanic biosphere cannot adjust? You said you had this data, but you keep on running away every time you’re asked to produce it.
Will you be providing a scientific source for your belief that the Earth’s land masses are browning, or desertifying? You’ve claimed to have data supporting this belief of yours, but you have yet to produce any. Is that because you were once again caught fabricating your claim that you have data? Why fabricate, SebastianH?
“what real-world experiment are you operating from to affirm what you believe”
Real-world experiments are to be TOTALLY Avoided by seb.
The “Real-world” DOES NOT support the baseless, farcical, AGW religion. !
The real world doesn’t support climate skeptics beliefs … you’ll come to that conclusion eventually, once you start becoming skeptical of anything your “side” puts out 🙂
Please specifically identify what these “climate skeptics beliefs” that are unsupported by real-world observations. It is highly likely that you are making up positions that we don’t espouse and then dishonestly claiming that we “believe” your made-up stuff.
Speaking of your beliefs, though….
You’ve stated that you believe that the oceans are acidifying so fast because of human CO2 emissions that the oceanic biosphere cannot adapt. What real-world evidence do you have to back up this belief of yours, SebastianH?
You’ve stated that you believe the Earth is browning, and deserts are expanding, because of human CO2 emissions. What real-world observational evidence do you have to back up these beliefs of yours?
You’ve stated that you believe West Antarctica is warming 10 times faster than the rest of the world. Considering WA has been cooling since 1999, please identify the real-world evidence to support your beliefs.
Almost all skeptics once believed the world was warming due to CO2. But after looking at the data, they became skeptical, e.g. Judith Curry, Nir Shaviv, Fritz Vahrenholt, etc.. Rarely do you see a skeptic becoming an alarmist. Once people see the truth, they never go back and believe the old lie.
So, NOTHING to combat the FACT that the “Real-world” DOES NOT support the baseless, farcical, AGW religion.
Zero data, zero, measurements, nothing accept mindless prattle.
Empty as always, seb.
I worked for “Climate Action Newcastle” for a while, BEFORE I started look at the science and the FACTS.
Now I just laugh at their quaint anti-science antics.
They are very much like you seb…..
…..a monumental zero-science clown act.
The ClimateGate e-mails were the turning point for me. “Hide the Decline” and openly discussing changing temperatures to show more warming were just too much for me to continue trusting them.
“Almost all skeptics once believed the world was warming due to CO2”
I don’t think I even actually “believed”.
I had just never got around to looking into it, and there was this rather yummy hippy-chick I was enjoying the company of…..
You get the picture.. nudge-nudge, wink-wink. 😉
I started being skeptical when on political blogs the looniest of the leftists started claiming ‘consensus” proved they were right about what was then called “Global Warming”. Though I’m no scientist, I knew enough about the history of science to know that many of the greatest advances in fields of science occurred when a person or persons went up against the “consensus” and were proven correct. It was that which drove me to start looking into “climate science” and the claims being made. I would credit this book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5681936-the-resilient-earth
as being my first step to starting to learn something about climate science and expanding my horizons of understanding just how complex it all is and how many disciplines are necessarily involved. It served as the starting point and I would still recommend it to anyone that has decided to take the time to dig into the issue.
“Dear Sebastian
you wrote
“At least you seem to recognize that what those EIKE guys are saying is stupid and will “be a pile-on”
He didn’t write that
Take some time to look again. This is what is written.
“Firstly, I’ll never understand why leading skeptics like EIKE in Germany would agree to let themselves be interviewed by the highly biased German media, knowing full well it’s going to be a pile-on, totally void of balance.”
It means ‘They’ will ‘pile’ on to the skeptics and allow no balance.
Two different meanings of pile.
This blog is for grown ups with experience of the subjects discussed. You have the opportunity to learn a lot with a little humility.
“Consider that you may be wrong”
I am convinced that humility is not a strength area for SebastianH. That’s why he finds it worthwhile to just call people names who he disagrees with…
…who concocts highly substantive analogies and discussion points…
Thank you, SebastianH, for adding so much substance to these comment boards and faithfully representing those who believe humans are in control of ocean temperatures, glacier melt, and sea level rise by emitting more or less CO2.
Seb’s problem is that is basically nil-educated about climate science, or any other sort of science, physics or maths for that matter.
He has nothing to offer in the way of actual real science to back up ANYTHING he says.
He has been shot down at every point he has tried to propagandise about.
Oh Kenneth, I tried substance when starting to comment here. I was faced with the master troll AndyG55 from who I learned that it doesn’t matter. You guys are so blinded by your beliefs that no amount of contradicting information can make you see why most of the skeptic’s talking points are based on wrong assumptions and sometimes are are just made up fantasy physics.
So I gave up. No point in spending time to post an elaborate comment, because some troll will come and stomp on it. It’s a pointless waste of time with you guys …
ZERO evidence, ZERO science.
Poor EMPTY seb.
“no amount of contradicting information…..”
We keep asking for some, but you have proven yourself to be INCAPABLE of producing ANY evidence.
Where is this evidence?
fantasy La-La land ??
Seb,
you have NEVER been a honest debater here. You ignore base facts and base data over and over. You make thumper statements without support over and over.
You ignore the IPCC prediction failures over and over as well.
Some of your comments are so absurd, that many here have no choice but to think badly of you who comes back with a lot of name calling and ZERO humility, you are never wrong in your own mind.
I wonder if you are another leftist fella with a god complex?
So the reason why you call people names and characterize skeptics as stupid and insane because they espouse “fantasy physics” and think 1+1=3…instead of providing scientific data to back up your assertions is because you are faced with AndyG55’s trolling?
SebastianH, during the 3-4 months that AndyG55 stopped commenting here, you were doing the exact same thing: hurling insults, failing to back up your claims with scientific evidence, concocting straw man arguments, fabricating positions that we don’t have… In other words, this but-he’s-trolling-me excuse for your callow behavior here would appear to be another of your fabrications and failure to take responsibility for your own actions.
Substantive posts that use scientific sources to back up your claims/beliefs would be far more worth reading than your recent emissions (name-calling, insults, false accusations, straw man argumentation, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I rejoinders, etc.). I don’t know what’s happened, but your posts in the last 2-3 weeks especially have devolved into snark and ugliness. It would be appreciated if you would at least attempt to raise the bar…even when there is another poster who isn’t doing so himself.
Par for the course, “quer” on Bayerisches Rundfunk is another programme that takes such a leftist and warmist stance, making any contrarian look like a lunatic. Phoenix does this quite often too.
Who gets me is Lesch, though. I mean he seems to know what he is talking about on his science shows and then when he gets to the subject of Climate he becomes a frothing maniac. Does he just do it for show, like Brian Cox ?
“a frothing maniac”
Standard manic AGW cultist. You should see Gore, McGibbon, Schmidt et al when they gets going. 🙂
We have a little child-troll, come AGW cultist, who posts here regularly..
.. he is always yapping mindlessly like a demented Chihuahua, but never seems to know what he is talking abot.
I bet you guys would be fully supportive of hearing that kid out that claims 1+1=3, right? Why shouldn’t we have a balanced public discussion between those who believe that’s true and those who say that this is incorrect? Is that how you feel about this issue?
You are mainly lunatics. Some of you seem reasonable from time to time, but then they make rookie math/physics mistakes or support some paper with fantasy physics because it sounded so nice to finally have something sciency to get behind. If you don’t want to be viewed as lunatics, don’t act like you are one …
“I bet you guys would be fully supportive of hearing that kid out that claims 1+1=3, right”
No seb, we do not support you.
Is that another of your mindless analogies??
You have produced NOTHING to back up anything you say.
You have ZERO science, and ZERO maths or physics.
You are reduced to mindless attention-seeking tantrums.
and it HILARIOUS 🙂
No seb,
Your idea that people who disagree with you support irrational mathematics is purely a projection by YOU and is a ad hominem.
What is understood by those that disagree with you is that there is little to no observable evidence that the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere affect the climate disastrously. Indeed there are MANY, MANY observations that increased CO2 levels benefit all life on the planet.
The hobgoblin of CO2 warming the atmosphere is a nonsense and illogical, and does not stand-up to scrutiny. cAGW advocates like yourself, have yet to show verifiable observed evidence that CO2 can warm this planet’s atmosphere. Your belief (for that is all there is) is based solely on the virtual reality of models, not on scientific observations.
That is the nature of the disagreement and not your mind-fumblingly ridiculous, ad hominem, assertion about people’s mathematical ability.
So you are saying that someone claiming “there is no greenhouse effect” is not like someone who says “1+1 = 3” and that person should not be corrected in his/her wrong beliefs, but instead we should listen to him/her and recognize the disagreement?
Why? The greenhouse effect is as real as you needing to breath oxygen. Why should we not laugh at people who are stubborn enough to believe they can live without oxygen (or can’t add 1 and 1)?
This world does not have a greenhouse for its atmosphere. The idea is just trotted out for the scientifically inept to swallow — and YOU and they do.
As for your mathematical ability — a fail, by the evidence of your past comments.
You’ll probably be trotting out some argument about blankets next. You keep having to pull ever fancier analogies out of the hat because YOU do not understand the science! Or can you yet find the evidence for all those holes in your firmly (religiously) held beliefs that Kenneth has so adroitly shown.
No seb, on the evidence of your comments you are not worthy to criticize authors of the studies here, as you are useless at science.
“The greenhouse effect is as real… blah, blah “
About as real as a Grimm fairy tale.
You have been unable to produce one piece of empirical evidence to back CO2 radiative warming.
WAITING… still !!
“Why shouldn’t we have a balanced public discussion”
We tried that earlier.. you have proven that you have NOTHING to offer to rational discussion.
“If you don’t want to be viewed as lunatics, don’t act like you are one …”
mirror, mirror seb.
Look at what you are wasting your time on.
No steps forward, 10 steps back.
Only one person here is lacking sanity.
Use the mirror, seb, and you will see him looking back at you with manic eyes.
That’s a littlebit childish AndyG55, don’t you think? And you want to have a rational discussion? I don’t think so … you want to troll people who you perceive to be “the enemy”.
Still wasting your time on your EMPTY posts..
…. YAWN
Bring some of your so-called science, seb…
or not !!
Ha ha ha, it is people like YOU who stridently ignore the well supported case about IPCC per decade prediction/projection failure, which by itself destroys the AGW conjecture.
I showed it to you many times, you shove it aside or just ignore it.
Why can’t you grow up, Sebastian?
It is you who ignores all replies I ever made to your comments, but never mind … apparently I have to do some growing up to do … into a pensioner with too much time at hand who easily falls for all the conspiracy theories out there? No, thank you.
“Are you saying there are sane people on the climate skeptics side? Where?”
The fellow writes such nice things, it is a wonder that folks are not sitting at his feet waiting for words of wisdom to drop like pearls.
The list of sane climate scientists, he thinks, begin with Al Gore, Bill Nye, Peter Gleick, Jerry Brown, Barrick Obama . . ., and Peter ‘all the ice is melting’ Wadhams.
Off da!
seb wouldn’t know a sane person if he met them.
He lives in his own little anti-science fantasy world of make believe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s_YFLI4G1M
The fact that he bothers wasting his and out time posting his manic AGW yappings here, shows that he basically lacks even a tiny amount of basic sanity.
But I guess when he is locked in his padded, fossil-fuel heated, basement most of miserable life, you could hardly expect him to be sane.
Sorry seb, no pictures of unicorn farts for you in the video. !
don’t fret too much. !
Well I hope we never meet in person. Your way of talking to anyone who contradicts your views in climate blogs is just appalling. I don’t even thing you are one of the insane ones here, you do this on purpose for whatever reason. Maybe you get something out of playing the nasty denial troll, I don’t know. If you are really the person you are portraying here, then my condolences … I hope you have friends in real life who like you nevertheless.
You ought to see his comments before I edit them!
Gees Pierre, and I’ve been very restrained in my comments of late. 😉
Surprise me! I can take it 😉
Rules have to apply…
You could surprise everyone, seb
And actually produce some SCIENCE to back up your baseless rantings.
Not going to happen, though.
I am a moderator on Two science blogs, where I have had to moderate AndyG55 behind the scenes too, he is smart and productive, but gets carried away with personal diatribes.
Gees sunset, you are no fun. 😉
He he,
you are fun, but you do dilute your comments with unnecessary personal stuff in a personal way that weakens your often solid science based writing.
You do well to confine your attacks on what they write and think about on the subject at hand.
Why haven’t we seen anything like that from him in this blog comment section yet?
Instead, we get claims that CO2 does nothing or even has a cooling effect and still countless trolling attempts. It’s fun to read, but “science based”? Definitely not.
Queue in his parrot reply …
“we get claims that CO2 does nothing”
It doesn’t, except enhance plant growth.
You are invited, yet again, to prove otherwise, using empirical science.
Or you can just keep avoiding the fact that you are INCAPABLE of proving such proof.
CO2 is not the cause of the beneficial warming since the LIA
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
– There is no empirical science that show CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.
The truth about warming
– In the satellite era, warming is NOT global, only those places and times directly effected by El Ninos events show any warming.
– The Earth is currently at the cool end of the current interglacial. Any real warming would take place first at higher latitudes where warming would be highly beneficial opening up large tracts of currently unusable farmland.
– A warmer Earth means less differential between equator and pole, hence less energy to drive extreme events (this is showing in real data)
The real truths about CO2
1. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is naturally good for plants and also for agriculture. CO2 also enhances the bacterial release of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the soil.
2. Currently, Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is highly beneficial.
3. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause any measureable global warming.
“denial-troll.”
Tell me seb,
What do I “DENY” that you can prove scientifically.
This should be HILARIOUS. 😉
It is noted that seb cannot even tell us what I actually deny, that is able to prove scientifically.
He is scientifically EMPTY, and just seeking attention.
“playing the nasty denial troll”
When I have ever trolled anyone?
All I do is answer your desperate attention-seeking, so that you won’t be lonely.
Isn’t that why you post here? To get attention??
I can see no other purpose for your EMPTY posts.
I have the feeling you are the lonely one here, replying multiple times to each and every comment I make 😉
It’s nice to have such loyal followers though, so please continue to lighten up my mood …
You poor thing, still desperately seeking attention.
EMPTY and LONELY.
Deniers aren’t the ones “adjusting” the data to make their theory valid. That is the real story. Real science doesn’t need to adjust its data.
I see, so you’d take the raw measurements instead. Do us a favor and draw a temperature graph with that data please! So we can compare it to the adjusted graphs of course …
You really have absolutely NOTHING to add to rational conversation, do you, seb.
It has been posted HUNDREDS of times now Sebastian. You never seen any of the temperature charts showing the obvious changes……?
I have probably posted this link a hundred times too:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
The raw data is available and the adjustment algorithms are also available. What are you waiting for? Take them apart and show us where they are wrong? Don’t just claim “conspiracy”, “everything is fake”. That’s too cheap for a real skeptic, isn’t it? Do the actual work of discovering a fraud and don’t repeat what the idiots on your side imagine to be true.
When all the warming is due to “adjustments” that cool the past and warm the present, I have every reason to be suspicious of their methods.
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/
SebH has also seen comments on this topic, and only pretends to not know about it. Like my previous comment in need of being recovered from spam, this is yet more evidence that SebH is ignoring evidence in favor of propaganda.
NOTE – I would be equally suspicious if they warmed the past and cooled the present.
Its either base-level wilful ignorance,
or deceitful lying ignorance.
Take your choice which matches seb best.
I’ve posted documentation on that several times in response to SebH’s nonsense. At this point he has NO EXCUSE not to know it. Among the best references are the numerous excellent posts by Tony Heller, and also Dr. Richard Keen’s video “Show Me The Data,” which can be watched here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
SebH has feigned ignorance for so long that it is no longer possible to believe he isn’t deliberately and maliciously lying.
“deliberately and maliciously lying.”
and getting caught out time after time.
Climate Skeptics are Modern Day Churchills
Modern climate skeptics share many of the characteristics of Winston Churchill, as well as challenges. Winston Churchill, like Patton, believed that they were born to fulfill a destiny. They both had unwavering confidence in their ability, and the role they would play in shaping world history. They paid untold personal costs and made huge personal sacrifices, all for the unselfish goal of protecting society from itself, or more accurately, the political left. The reward for protecting society and preserving freedom was extreme opposition, criticism, humiliation, failure, underminings, and misguided political demagoguery. Their crime? They were unafraid to speak the unpopular truth and unwaveringly defended it. They were unashamed and unafraid to oppose the political left.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/climate-skeptics-are-modern-day-churchills/
Hand up, who isn’t a pensioner writing/commenting on this stuff from home? Any real experts here? Or just people who are somehow “against the system” and have too much time at hand? Or will you call them racist, like you did with me for pointing this out?
Seb, how much does Soros pay you to vomit this rhetoric? It bears remarkable resemblance to the script written for current German soaps.
If anyone is pay seb, they are paying way too much for such GROSS incompetence.
No, seb is just a lonely little brain-washed child-troll with nothing else to do with his miserable life.
Don’t project your own situation to others …
That is even more PATHETIC than your normal EMPTY replies.
But it is all you have left, we understand that.
Your deflection of the argument here seb tends to indicate that you are a paid advocate as suspected by Clint and others here.
If as I suspect it is true, IMO you are only a poorly trained stooge and not fully qualified cAGW propagandist.
Paid to attempt to disrupt rational realist conversation, using inane anti-science rantings.
Pretty pitiful life choice, but that is seb.
And off we go with the conspiracy thing again … and since when is it a deflection to reply to a troll like that? Oh wait, I am replying to one again.
As if anyone where – besides maybe Kenneth, but he is unfortunately on a loop – is interested in a rational conversation. You are making stuff up and freely interpret papers so they fit your imagination. Just because you feel that climate science is somehow your enemy. It’s irrational and fun to watch. So continue your act, please. You aren’t doing real skepticism any favor 😉
We are asking you to PROVE at least some tiny facet of this so called “climate science”
You are INCAPABLE of doing so.
You are incapable of rational or scientific discussion.
You are an embarrassment to the AGW cult, unable to provide proof for even the most basic fallacy of the AGW myth.
It is YOU that lives in an zero-science fantasy land.
Your fanatical “belief” is totally and absolutely IRRATIONAL from a scientific point of view.
The alarmists’ DENY (ironic?) that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now. Why would the alarmist “scientists” DENY this? Well, if the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer than it is now, the alarmist computer models (and, of course the modelers) cannot explain it. Why not? Because their computer models depend very heavily on co2 increase and even more so on their ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback related to co2 increase causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as caused by the co2 increase. At the time of the MWP and for many thousands of years before, co2 was static – at 280ppmv. It could NOT have contributed one iota to the global and warmer MWP. What’s more, since co2 had not increased ntil 1,000 years after the MWP, there was also no water vapor feedback.
It must be recognized that this denial by alarmists does not preclude the possibility that co2 is now contributing to our current warming. But wait, it is well known that co2 supposed capability to influence warming diminishes rapidly as co2 increases, and co2 has already doubled 8 times.
How do the alarmists justify their denial? The only way to justify it is to have performed temperature proxy studies around the globe which show that MWP was not global, and not as warm as it is now. Alarmists claim the MWP was regional, merely an event in Europe because that’s where that warming has been well documented.
But, wait…. There have been global studies around the globe. In fact there have been global MWP studies. Probably all have been cataloged by co2science.org and, even more conveniently, by region.
Here comes a meta-study confirming that the MWP was global and likely warmer than it is now. First, there are about 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe. Each of these boreholes demonstrates that the MWP trend was global. (A great discussion on boreholes can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.)
The receding Mendenhall glacier in Alaska recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year old forest, still in its original position. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. Alaska is distant from Europe.
Readers can google the peer-reviewed Greenland Temperature study (gisp2). This study shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer than during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska. This, together with the 6,000 boreholes should certainly have aroused the curiosity in any real scientist who had been DENYing the global warmer MWP.
But, wait, there’s more, and readers can participate in this step. co2science.org includes hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. A subset of those studies directly address temperature estimates. Readers should choose, say, a half dozen regions separate from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe. Select a temperature study from each region. You will find that the selected study shows that the site(s) investigated were all warmer during the MWP than now.
Any “scientist” wishing to rebut/debunk this meta-study can only do that by finding conflicting evidence. (Keep in mind that one or two regions that may not show warming are hardly adequate since alarmists have no problem claiming that our current warming began in the 1800s, but there were some significant cooling periods during this supposed global warming period, the most recent being from 1940s to 1975. Our current global warming was not synchronous. Quoting Mann’s hockey stick graph does not come close to qualifying as evidence. Neither are results from any computer models. (the only “evidence” from computer models indicates, at best, the modeler’s understanding).
Since a global and warmer MWP obviously implies that it was a NATURAL climate event, that may also explain our current warming (such as it is). In any case, a global and warmer MWP also obviously implies that the climate “alarmists”, including the IPCC, have NO CREDIBILITY. (ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NONE). They have asked you to believe them rather than your own eyes.
Well put GoFigure!
“…the IPCC, have NO CREDIBILITY. (ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NONE). They have asked you to believe them rather than your own eyes.”
Excellent!
“How do the alarmists justify their denial?”
The absolute MANIC farce of Nick Stokes trying to discredit Kenneth’s extraction of the Stein sea ice graph on WUWT was HILARIOUS to see.
He just COULD NOT ALLOW sea ice to have EVER been less than now. !!
I was stuck at home with a cold, and had a very enjoyable afternoon 🙂
https://s19.postimg.org/vgdnb299v/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Holocene-_Stein-17.jpg
Yeah Nick is downright hilarious over it.
He doesn’t accept what he can see, since it violates his beliefs.
GoFigure, can you tell us the last year in the GISP2 timeline of temperatures? Can you do the same for all the MWP studies you are referring to? What was global (and/or local) temperature increase – e.g. the change in the instrumental record – since then?
Then again, the whole argument – “it was warmer in the past, so today’s warming isn’t caused by CO2” – is ridiculous. Just be a good skeptic and become skeptical about what your fellow bubble friends claim. You’ll eventually get there and recognize that it is all conspiracy talk and fantasy physics imagined by “disgruntled pensioners”.
So, nothing but meaningless ranting again seb
Have you ANY PROOF whatsoever to back up anything you say?
The answer to that is and has always been a big EMPTY NO. !!
MWP was warmer than today, you have been shown MULTILE studies that show that.
LIA was COOLER than today, not even you are dumb enough to DENY that.
First 8000+ years of the Holocene were significantly warmer than today, certainly not driven by human CO2
You have NOTHING seb.
You have provided NOTHING