So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm?


peer review process is (double) blind

Isn’t this happening on both sides? And would you in the same say: “Contra-G.W.” research is not science?

I agree that you can’t trust every published global warming paper. But it would be a bit too easy – and also self-righteous – to say: The whole global warming research is bullshit because one or another paper had been faked - and at the same time accepting contra-global-warming-research as real science although there happened unserious activities too.

Yes, I totally agree here. I do not understand the general denial of a potential human caused global warming many conservatives share.
Even if there were human caused global warming, this wouldn’t necessarily imply negative consequences for the economy, conservatives or the western world itself.
In another thread someone said “Capitalism causes opportunity”. Along these lines I think investing into green tech is much more an opportunity for people to make money, do research, found companies, create jobs… than a threat to the western society. And this issue could be very interesting especially for conservatives. Capitalism always finds solutions and problems can be seen as chances. For conservatives it’s self-defeating to leave the whole environmental topics to the left.

Do you have any reasons for this very strong claim? My position is: I don’t know if human cause global warming because I didn’t study metrology. You on the other side seem to KNOW that there is no human caused global warming – why else your certainty.

So, are you an expert, able to assess scientific articles from both pro and contra global warming sides or do you just CLAIM that there is no human caused global warming because this is what you WANT to believe? And would you say: Everything we want to believe comes true…


FC, that was one of the most well-spoken responses I’ve had and it may surprise you to know that I largely agree.

There is a lot of bad science out there. Not only is there bad science, but there are sites pretending to represent good science, that are just fronts.

The system has largely been one without formalized rules. It was a system largely held together on the integrity of the people that have taken part in it (the US system of lawyers worked the same way and it began to break down in the 1970’s). Today the peer-review system is under attack (probably thanks to the internet). There are “scientific journals” being created with impressive names that will take your submission for $500 and put it on a website that looks really impressive so that a person with a BS article get’s to claim that his paper has been added to “The Journal of Science and Engineering”. Sounds impressive, if you went and looked at it, would probably even look impressive, but I just made that up. There are even some who would just like to sew confusion to the point we can’t tell good work from bad and eventually distrust it all.

You’ve chosen a discipline as an example that is the most subjective and barely qualifies as science. The empirical basis of psychoanalysis is inadequate, that its central concepts are untestable. Actual scientists of the time were critical of Freud’s work (Karl Popper (a person who forwarded the few that science could never be proven only falsified, the longer something stood up to scrutiny the more likely it represents reality - He rejected an inductive view for an empirical one) Frederick Crews, and Adolf Grünbaum).

So once again, if you know where to look, you’ll find the “mistakes” of science are corrected by science. IF you want to call what Freud did science and I don’t believe the Freud’s work was largely embraced by people in his field.

100% correct. However, I’d also point out that there are people who attack science, not with any interest in understanding the truth (small “t”), but undermining the conclusions.

If we should cast doubt on science out of fear that the scientist in question is working to spread an ideological point of view, shouldn’t we be just as skeptical of detractors who may be trying to suppress good work because it could potentially threaten their ideology?

Certainly, it works both ways, and tossing out “it’s peer reviewed” has about as much clout as attaching the moniker “deluxe”, “platinum” or “custom” when used to describe things. Unfortunately today, you can’t judge the value of an opinion based soley on that fact. You have to do more reseach and learn more about the people that hold the opinions that are doing the work. Something I try to do.


I thought Phillip did a good job in his response, but I would like to address this.

You should know me well enough by now, that I won’t let your unsubstantiated comments go.

Micheal Man is a scientist with a good reputation who has done a lot of work in his field. Deniers love pointing to the “hockey stick” and claim it was fudged data meant to mislead.

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analyzing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Original hockey stick graph (blue - 1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).

While many continue to fixate on Mann’s early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).

There was a mistake in Mann’s original work, but after the correction, the data did not change substantially.


But the question then is, why does that matter, when we can look further out, and find these trends which demonstrate neither the warming, nor the temperatures are unusual:

We’ve been hotter than this; there was once an inland sea in North America, hence why you find aquatic dinosaur fossils in Kansas.

The only thing happening now that’s unusual is the rate of growth in temperature.


Whenever anyone posts a chart to prove their point, I just scroll down past it. Some people’s posts I just scroll past. Under the old format, I put them on ignore.


The reason I say humans are not controlling the weather is because there’s no evidence of humans controlling the weather in spite of a worldwide effort to establish that narrative, this coupled with the fact that the earth is following the very same climate trends as it always has would lead any critical thinker to conclude “much ado over nothing”.

Which would beg the question, why then?

The answer to that can be reasonably surmised by looking at all the “solutions” to this non problem that gain traction and the ones that fall on deaf ears.

The absolute cleanest and safest way to produce large amounts of energy is nuclear, this has been universally opposed and obstructed by “Environmentalists” for decades.

“Green Energy” like solar and wind are completely useless technologies that cannot meet the energy demands of any growing economy or prosperous people, but “Environmentalists” have been touting these for over 40 years knowing the entire time that the second public subsidies are removed they would cease to exist.

Unless you are willing to accept the premise that these people are dumber than dirt the only plausible explanation for their preferred “solutions” is the mutually beneficial relationship that politicians and the “Environmentalists” glean from pushing this ridiculous narrative.

The “Green” industry profits from the subsidies and the research entities profit from the grants; the politicians gain a “constituency” (the earth) that cannot voice an opinion but which can be used as an excuse to hinder individual liberty and control private enterprise while increasing dependency on the government.

I used one glaring example in energy creation but I could have used numerous examples from idiocy like battery operated cars and “forest plans” that burn down the whole damn forest every 7 or 8 years but the common thread in them all is the very same mutually beneficial elements between the same groups.

I tire of those who try to lend credibility to these religious fairy tales by “agreeing” with me about the obvious hypocrisy in the commonly supported “solutions”, they usually say things like “you know I agree that nuclear is a better solution and many are now coming around to that understanding”.

That is nothing more than an attempt to perpetuate the myth that these “Environmentalists” have good motives in spite of getting on board some destructive band wagons.

They do not have good motives, the “Earth” matters nothing to them beyond a means to line their pockets and secure their own power.

ALL of their ideas make perfect sense if the goal is remove Liberty from individuals and steer prosperity to only those who the Left approve of.

It is not a conspiracy, it is just the same traits that have plagued humanity for our entire existence; to obtain security and authority which can be held without fear or challenge.

Just as the small entrepreneur loves liberty when he is building his business, then seeks government protectionism once he has “made it” so he won’t have to compete to stay on top; the same applies to politicians, “Green companies” and schools that “research” on the public dime.

They are not wrong, they are right about a completely different question; “how do we hide our selfish motivation and claim a noble cause in its place”.


So far, EVERY opportunity to “invest” in green energy has benefitted ONLY those who started the company in the first place, and ripped off those they convinced to “invest.” I give you Solyndra as only one example, and there are many more. Ethanol isn’t viable as a fuel without massive government subsidies. The same can be said about wind turbines and solar panel “farms.” Who gets ripped off there? US, the taxpayers. We pay for the government subsidies and then pay for the “energy” produced, too. Double-dipping into OUR wallets.


So being lied to by the greenies is OK as long as someone on the opposing side may have done so too??? It’s not “one or another paper” that’s been faked. Virtually ALL of them were faked at the outset.
Go back and read the entire, original IPCC research and compare it to the “executive summary” that was released to the public. You’ll realize that the conclusions reached by both are in no way even similar. The original “model,” for example IGNORED the albedo effect as if it didn’t exist. When it WAS finally taken into account, it was “officially” minimized because it didn’t comport with the result the globalists wanted to promote. Al Gore’s ballyhooed book falsified data to the point where the British finally took it off the reading list for students there–though it’s STILL required reading in most US schools. Just for one example, the book touted the idea that rising temps FOLLOW rises in CO2 when the opposite is actually the truth, which knocks into a cocked hat the premise that CO2 rises “CAUSE” warming, because in reality, warming is what causes rises in CO2, assuming, of course, you believe in the concept of cause & effect.


Humans aren’t controlling the weather. Humans are burning carbon-based fuels and releasing the CO2 trapped in the fuel. Evidence shows that higher concentrations of CO2 make the earth warmer relative to the suns output. Thus the earth is warmer than it would be if humans hadn’t released CO2 mostly via the burning of fossil fuels.


No they weren’t


No one that understands climate science is unaware that the earth has gone through heating and cooling periods, but this feels like an appeal to nature fallacy. If it’s natural it must be good!

Grapes and raisins are natural, feed enough to most dogs watch them die. Natural does not mean good.

It doesn’t matter what the temp was in the past, what matters is that humans have adapted to the climate we have now.

Does that mean we won’t adapt if it changes? No, of course we will, but the problem with adaptation is that it generally causes a period of hardship where some people are harmed during that period. Recent floods in places that were never considered to flood risks are one potential example. Something I suspect that will get worse as weather changes, generally for the worse relative to how we have come to live in our environment.

Interestingly, looking at your chart, the interglacial periods are often remarkably short, this interglacial period we live in now has lasted 10’s of thousands of years and I suspect has made modern society possible.

You can’t imagine why conditions that lead to an inland sea in the US might be considered a bad thing?

I agree that the planets temps change over time, that’s not really the issue. The question is, is our activity making it happen and what are the consequences.


BS. There is no such evidence. In reality, rises in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere actually FOLLOW rises in temperatures.


Again, nonsense. For us to experience an “inland sea” in Oklahoma today, the sea level would have to exceed 800 FEET in rise from today’s levels. Under NO imaginable condition would that be possible today short of the center of the continent sinking while the seas rose. If the icecaps were all to suddenly melt, we STILL wouldn’t see anything close to an 800’ rise in sea levels.

The fact is, Earth’s temperatures are ENTIRELY dependent upon solar output. To prevent “global warming” we’d have to figure out a way to AFFECT the sun’s output. Given today’s technology, it’s not possible.


As usual, your understanding of the topic simply mimics your own pre-conceived ideas

I agree that historically CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase. This is because warming caused by changes mostly in the earth’s orbit, but also include changes in ocean circulation or the sun’s output, in turn, released C02 creating a feedback effect. Specifically, warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 to rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):
The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag.

Point being is that we know what the triggers for past warming events. In this case, human activity is the trigger. The more we release CO2, the greater the feedback effect. There will come a point, where if our carbon release were to stop completely, the system will continue to feed on itself.

In the past, it was increased rain driven by increased evaporation that eventually scrubbed CO2 from the air, but it’s a process that takes thousands of years.


I wasn’t suggesting that this was imminent that the plain states would flood. Chances are that when the plains were underwater, they were probably lower in elevation (like Florida is today). Either way, I wasn’t suggesting that catastrophic sea level rise was definitely going to happen anytime soon. The most clinical projections say 8’ by the year 2100. The median estimates put the rise at 3-5 feet. That would put most of the state of Florida underwater, which of course, was my point Anything over 6 feet and Florida is gone and I think that’s a bad thing. The conditions that led to the plains being underwater will put the state of Florida underwater and we are creating the conditions by increasing the output of CO2.

Categorically false. This is no different than having separate faucets in your tub. One hot and one cold. If you turn the cold on to some point and don’t touch it then only change the levels of hot water, then the changes in the hot water will correlate with the temp of the water in the tub. If you do the opposite and only change the cold water, then changes will correlate to the amount of cold water added, but if they are both changing, the temp will be an aggregate of both and indeed that’s what the record shows. The problem is deniers aren’t looking back over a long enough period. They have found a period where CO2 is steady and point out that the sun is the only thing that influences the earth’s temps.

If we look at the history of the suns output and map it on temperature, there is little correlation over a long enough timeline. Similarly the same applies to concentrations of CO2. However, if you look at a period when either the sun or CO2 are steady and the other is changing, you can, of course, note a correlation, that’s why you can’t look back over 20, or even 100 years. You have to find periods where the sun changes relative to CO2 and CO2 changes relative to the sun to realize they are two factors that contribute to the temperature of the same system.

It’s only when you map CO2 concentrations with the suns output that you see a correlation.

I demonstrated in this post (link below), the Sun’s energy has been declining for 40 years and CO2 concentrations have been rising and temps have been rising. In the faucet example, even if you turn up the cold if you turn up the hot faster, the system will see a rise in temps. Even though the Sun’s energy is decreasing, we’re still seeing a rise in temps because CO2 is, at this moment the greater influence.


Well, yes, for the moment this is true, as we don’t know enough to decide otherwise.

We don’t know why the Earth carries on in this cycle, and interrupting it, and by that I mean holding it constant, could likely have far more dire consequences than we realize.

When people have told me we should consciously use carbon emissions to game the Earth’s temperature, and keep it constant to where it is now ( or where it was, 20-40 years ago), I call them what they are: nuts.

It would harm a lot more people to prevent access to hydrocarbon energy.

Energy allows people to overcome the consequences of harsh weather.
People who die from extreme weather events have fallen by about 90% since the 1920s, despite a 4-fold increase in the world population. Energy development is largely to thank for that.

At the time, Carbon ppm was more than double what it is today. It’s to counter the claim that by us humans adding carbon into the atmosphere, we’re irrevocably harming the Earth, when that isn’t true.

Every ounce of carbon in the crust has been in the atmosphere at one point, and I don’t just mean when the Earth was formed.


We’re not holding it constant. The climate should be cooling as CO2 would be constant or falling due to decreased output from the sun. Instead, it’s increasing. By your way of thinking, how do we know that forcing climate due to CO2 release won’t cause the very dire consequences you just asked me about. In your own words, the real issue is the rate of change. Perhaps the “dire” problem in the rate of change is that plants and animals will have a harder time adapting and that will have a profound impact on ecosystems.

How can that be any more or less nuts than causing it to rise sharply?

I agree that the changes should not come at the expense of real people. The problem is society has to work together to solve these problems.

As I’ve said, I would like to see nuclear deployed to accomplish both goals.

  1. Reduce carbon emissions (and nuclear waste)

  2. GIve technology time to catch up.

Again, this is something any paleoclimate scientists know. I’m just not sure what that has to do with forcing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 that wouldn’t be there unless we put it there, today.

The suns energy was weaker in the past thus the effect of CO2 would have been less, but it’s really neither here nor there.

The ecosystem that exists today is adapted to weather that exists today. The change could result in a climate that changes faster than plants and some animals can adapt. That can cause some real suffering to humans long term.

Honestly, I’m almost 50 and personally, I’m not worried that in the next 40 years if I’m graced with that much time, that it will make much difference to me. But it might make a difference to my kids and it will definitely make a difference to their kids.

If the climate changes and food becomes a real problem as the environment changes, that kind of instability leads to unrest and unrest can lead to war. Now I admit that’s an unkown, but I think it’s not an unreasonable statment.


If every human died tomorrow and the species was gone forever there would be absolutely no effect on the temperature of the earth.

There is no science that can prove that statement is flawed.

These religious fruitloops take ONE ELEMENT (carbon) that is a component in the earth’s temperature and pretend that it is the component that drives the climate.

They ignore countless other natural elements that can nullify the carbon effect and they try to give the false impression that human produced carbon is a significant percentage of the carbon that exists.

All BS, we don’t produce any significant levels of carbon and carbon is not even close to being an absolute driver of the climate.

Compound that with the complete inability to measure the earth’s temperature in enough places to produce a reliable average NOW while comparing the fake numbers today with more fake numbers from the past and you have nothing more than a religion for morons.

There is not one scientist that has drawn the conclusions that the human caused climate freaks embrace that has not been paid by governments to do so, not ONE.

That is certainly not a coincidence.


Anybody here remember why “Greenland” is called “Greenland”? (Rhetorical question, in case you didn’t catch it).


Agreed, dead humans don’t drive climate.

No climate scientists believe that carbon “drives” climate in the sense that if there were no sun, no amount of CO2 would cause the temps on earth to rise or fall a single degree. The amount of CO2 (and other elements like methane) affect how much of the sun’s energy stays in the atmosphere.


[quote=“RET423, post:59, topic:58976”]
All BS, we don’t produce any significant levels of carbon[/quote]

Please define ‘significant’ in this context.

We don’t need to know the exact temp, just changes in it over time. Furthermore, if the roughly 500 glaciers in the northern hemisphere more than 400 of them have received, some have receded more in the past 10 years than the previous 100.

A fallacy that assumes that everything government does is wrong. Not to mention the fact that research has been done privately that has come to the same conclusions.