Ever since it became news that the
"scientists" were manipulating the data and other unethical
processes, and it was publicized how the "deniers" were not
allowed to be part of the debate, I do not believe a word
about climate change. The experts all have their
careers, reputation, and grants dependent upon their proving
that global warming (whoops - climate change) is occurring.
With my science background, this climate change is the first
issue I have ever come across where "scientists" were found
fudging data (other than a few medical researchers here and
there). Very sad. And how many millions has Gore made from
his now-debunked assertions. At his press conference with
President Hollande on the ISIS threat earlier in the week,
Obama was more interested in talking about kissing Michelle
in Paris and the upcoming climate change conference. Hand it
to him that he has his priorities straight. (sarc) Why are
there climate change skeptics or deniers and no climate
change fantasist? Has anyone born after 1977 ever tried to
read an analog thermometer? They were marked in 2 degree
increments; no one ever gave a temperature of an odd number
back then. But we are supposedly 1 degree warmer on average
now including 100 years of this kind of data; and this is
compared against an 4,100,000,000 year old planet??
They made one incorrect assumption in the video, which was
that ice core data shows that small changes in CO2
concentrations produced large changes in global temperature.
It is actually the reverse. Large changes in global
temperatures caused small changes in CO2 concentrations.
Why? Because every scientist you ask will tell you that the
primary causes of climate change in the prehistoric past are
solar cycles (which cause short term changes), periodic
orbital cycles (which cause regular ice ages) and geological
changes (which cause irregular shifts). There were no
natural phenomenon (volcanoes for example) which caused
those CO2 levels to shift.
You also made an incorrect assumption that doubling CO2
levels would dramatically alter the earth's radiative
balance. It would not. CO2 concentrations are so small that
it has a very small impact compared to water vapor, which
accounts for almost all greenhouse effects. I have a problem
with ice cores because they only come from the polar regions
of the earth. I do not understand how those regions can then
be used to explain all of Earth's temperature for past ages.
At best they can be used for trends but not absolute values
for temperature for the whole Earth.
At best, we only have 130 years of "recorded" history on
Earth's temperature so proclaiming that one year is the
hottest on record is just nonsense. Comprehensive and
balanced article...sure to be derided by the warmest camp as
FFfunded denialism. A challenge to those who chose to use
this increasingly diluted and meaningless "denialist"
meme....what propaganda or misrepresentation of scientific
facts in the article concern you? The article certainly
"denies" the conventional political and environmental
consensus (gasp) but not the scientific one. The scientific
references are credible. Well written piece...and we can
only hope the outcome from the Paris talks is one of
empirics and pragmatism, not environmental justice warrior.