No dicussion of global climate change can possibly take place without an appreciation of these incontrovertible effects.
Those who are loud proponents of Global Warming very often have not even HEARD of these things.
And for those who aren’t dummies, there’s Burt Rutan’s (also skeptical) take on Global Hot Air®:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
______
GHA is a registered trademark of Al Gore, Inc.
I could do a better job than that:
e.g., simple explanation of the hockey stick fraud; namely the unmentioned tacking on thermometer data at end of tree ring data to get the puck-hitting part of the stick, or cherry-picking the trees to start with.
no, the oceans haven’t risen.
no, there has been no warming for 18 years.
Antarctic ice pack is at a record, and Artic ice pack had 40% growth this year.
no mention of the overwhelming impact of the sun and solar cycles on the climate.
no mention of overwhelming of prehistoric data showing CO2 lags warming because of production by plant growth.
insufficient mention of the significance of the medieval warming period.
no mention that it’s been mathematically proven that current WEATHER can’t be accurately predicted beyond 3 days, so how the hell are you going to predict “climate”.
“The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%.”
A closing remark from the author.
3) Haven’t Global Temperatures Risen Before? Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.
But just in case I need to tax you at 90%, restrict your usage of reliable privately owned transportation, micromanage/restrict your diet and force you to warm yourself with a primitive dung fire.
Pretty well presented..... truth is climate changes and we don’t fully understand it. No I don’t think it is worth studying
This is why a good meteorologist will always point out the inaccuracies of even a short-term weather forecast, and will make it clear that predictions of things like storm tracks and precipitation are based largely on historic data and therefore subject to a lot of variations.
Great post - thanks Daracnette...
I think the author is a fence rider and is afraid of confrontation. From his perspective, there just isn’t enough evidence to be sure if humans are responsible for Global Warming.
That’s too weak for me considering the money and resources that has been stolen and distributed for the “cause”.
IMHO, Dr. Spencer went way to easy on Mann’s hockey stick and especially on the Climategate emails. The collusion and fraud evident in those emails is far worse than I view his description of them to be.
A scientist is not supposed to “hide the decline” - his purpose is (or should be) to research the cause and explain the decline, not hide it because it contradicts his agenda.
This is excellent. I might email this to some folks.