A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.
For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.
The ‘mole’ writes:
I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.
(I took copious notes)
a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.
b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.” Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!
c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps. He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.
d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.” The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years. I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump. It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.
e) Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-hours-of-reality-dirty-weather_n_2130344.html
To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess. Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time. Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.
Personal observations:
a) We skeptics ain’t liked much with them folks. The “d” word (denier) was used liberally, and I queried several participants, some of who were very cool folks, about it. Al Gore and his speakers used “Denier,” “Denial Industry” and other terms I found objectionable. Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
b) Nothing new was presented, technically speaking. This thing was “An Inconvenient Truth” redux, with much of the controversial stuff (hockey stick & drowning polar bears) deleted. Al got our message, he doesn’t seem to want to engage folks like us.
c) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power. He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima). He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.
d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.
Quick summary:
Al is a polished speaker, and looked trim & in shape. Very impressive command of his speaking material. Decent speakers lined up, including some sustainability folks from private industry. I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.
==============================================================
UPDATE: Since many of the Gore followers are arriving here, I welcome you to answer this question that nobody would ask Mr. Gore this week:
If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page).
You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
For the few of you brave enough, thanks for taking the time to answer that question – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
So you will agree that the insane reds-under-the-beds rants about socialists, liberals (whatever that means), watermelons, etc., that regularly pollute the comments sections of sceptic blogs are not doing a lot to help spread Global Warming scepticism?
What I haven’t done is seen any empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that increasing CO2 will cause catastrophic consequences, or seen evidence that Al Gore is intelligent, honest and believable. That is why many ridicule him and by association, the true believers in CAGW.
##############################
In my time on the internet in discussions with other skeptics its quite easy to see that they don’t understand or want to understand that co2 is the main reason for the earth’s warming in the last 150 years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
How do we know humans cause global warming?
Many are still asking is this global warming human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, ‘is this global warming natural’? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
1.Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy.
2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
3.We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
4.The models and the observations match.
5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.
So, just so I understand. You went to a climate conference held by Al Gore’s initiative to what….bash it? The dates on their website indicate that it was a 3-day shindig. Did you actually go through a whole process of applying and traveling to Chicago to attend this thing so you could ride your superiority soap-box on this website?
Do you not have a job?
Or anything better to do?
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Al Gore, it’s pretty easy to surmise that you’re just pathetic.
REPLY: This person went through all three days, is a certified engineer with a job, is actually “green” in deeds, and found the idea necessary because Al Gore keeps these things in secrecy, not allowing the press, not sharing the materials to allow the outside world to examine their validity.
Just look at the agreement you signed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-climate-reality-project-online-training-agreement2.pdf
It reads like a gag order. – Anthony
John, said wrt ORNL nukes:
“They should be safer and cheaper per amount of electricity produced, and if you don’t need as much electricity as the standard huge nuke that requires economies of scale to even begin to be economic, you can order a modular nuke that produces 1/10 the power at (hopefully) something like 1/15th the cost.”
In the context of the “AGW/climate change” discussion, the importance is that these units may not require work in progress financing for the regulated utilities. As such, they don’t need a “price for carbon” to fluff up the costs of fossil fuel alternatives in the trade-off studies. This would undercut a key promoter of AGW and funding for the climate change crowd – the utilities.
Additionally, the construction on ORNL provides some legal cover and government contractor defense – which has a positive cost and schedule effect.
The alarmist crowd started out with their premise reversed. But the correct premise is that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice-versa, as they originally believed. When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong.
#########################
There are equations that point out just say doesn’t. There is a lag caused by the oceans which are incredibly slow to heat up.
Strangely enough there is so much evidence that co2 is the cause of the warming, it is the skeptics that need to prove through the scientific process that it is something else. There in lies a cosmic black hole of nothing accomplished by skeptics. The best explanation wins and a very poor explanation fails.
##########################
This is just from today’s co2. Tomorrows co2 can be a lot more or hopefully a much much lower amount.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig)
5.35 ln (400/280) = 1.9 watts/meter*2
Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number
Climate sensitivity is .75*C/ watts/meter*2
1.9watts/meter*2 ( .75*C/ watts/meter*2) = 1.4 *C
We have warmed .8*C so far and have .6*C left in the pipeline of fast feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are also mostly positive and will take several hundred more years adding a little more to the surface temperature.
Here’s what I’ve added to my house in Seattle to avoid energy-intensive air conditioning.
• A thermostatically controlled exhaust fan, at one end of the attic, with weighted louvers on the outside.
• Fiberglass insulation in the rafters.
• Blown-in wall insulation.
• Wide “Sunsetter” awnings, high on the sunny sides of the house.
• Lexan (or Plexiglas) outer-window-covering.
• An in-wall exhaust fan, in the dormer.
If the gov’t wants to cut the use of energy, reduce joblessness, and stimulate the economy, why not offer homeowners long-term, zero-interest loans for such improvements? And why not also offer loans for earthquake-resistant improvements such as I’ve made, namely:
• Half-inch plywood sheathing, using many long screws in every stud and sill, around the upper basement wall.
• Metal roofing, which reduces an earthquake’s impact.
These all add value to your house beyond their cost.
Try this new peer-reviewed paper for starters: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
http://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html
Humlum’s work seems to be easily debunked.
REPLY: We aren’t talking about Humlum or the SkS kidz, we are talking about Al Gore. Of course if he wasn’t such an intellectual coward, he’d make his slides available for critique, but he can’t risk doing that. – Anthony
In fact, the natural rise in global warming has remained on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years. Global warming has not accelerated — whether CO2 was low, or high. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half, even as CO2 levels continue to rise.
############################
93% of the heating goes into the oceans and it is showing. When this finally gets to the atmosphere, we will feel the heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html
New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated
Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981
A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
•Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
•As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
•Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
•The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.
REPLY: This person went through all three days, is a certified engineer with a job, is actually “green” in deeds, and found the idea necessary because Al Gore keeps these things in secrecy, not allowing the press, not sharing the materials to allow the outside world to examine their validity.
Just look at the agreement you signed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-climate-reality-project-online-training-agreement2.pdf
It reads like a gag order. – Anthony
###################################
I have signed and am not worried in the least.
There is no testable, falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None. Scientific skeptics are not required to prove a negative; to prove that man made global warming does not exist. Rather, the onus is entirely upon the climate alarmist crowd to demonstrate conclusively that human emissions are the main cause of global warming. But they have failed.
#############################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109
In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:
This was the event for Al Gore’s “Climate Un-Reality Project” – interesting, the “Gore Effect” visited Chicago when he was here, as it was unseasonably chilly!
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/al-gore–the-climate-reality-project-welcome-1500-new-climate-leaders-217769101.html
There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
1.Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy. OK, why is CO2 more important then water vapor?
2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
Cool, who cares
3.We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
Wow. We’ve departed from natural cycles we can’t define or explain – how do we know that, whats the “natural” temperature for 2015 supposed to be in Norway or India?
4.The models and the observations match.
Your going to have to define how your using the terms observation and match here, because they aren’t coincidental with my understanding of those terms. Do the models “match” themselves?
5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.
I went outside today, you know the big blue room with the really bright light, and I looked up and saw clouds, then the sun, and it was humid — hmmmm.
Hey look, its been dark outside for a few hours – its about time the renewable batteries flatline.
RoHa says:
August 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm
“Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”
“So you will agree that the insane reds-under-the-beds rants about socialists, liberals (whatever that means), watermelons, etc., that regularly pollute the comments sections of sceptic blogs are not doing a lot to help spread Global Warming scepticism?”
The truth is never liked by those who don’t want it spoken…
To renewableguy
I’m sorry but the SkS posts you make make alot of claims which are simply not supported… you as well.
First you claim the heat is going into the oceans… we have little data on this and thus its a near impossible thing to say. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is correct…. THIS COMPLETELY DISPROVES global warming. At no time until after the pause to find the “missing” heat did anyone say the heat would go into the oceans outside of the standard “everything goes up at the same time”. This means that global warming was proven wrong even if we argue that heat really did go into the oceans as it was not predicted to do as such.
Then we have the
“In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:”
The SkS piece you post claims alot about sat data but the sat data doesn’t support those claims. Once again even if we assume for the sake of argument that the sat data does showing CO2 warming… its only inline with the concept of tested in lab CO2… aka ZERO FEED BACK. Thus we are only looking at tops a 3 degrees of warming for about 10k ppm CO2.
sks has a habit of twisting info into supporting an argument neither those that support global warming made until after the fact or debunking strawman that never existed in the first place.
Add in that due to the fact cultists have literally made millions of claims/predictions/said everything proves global warming…. even the rare times they are right is meaningless. If the science is settled then you should be able to predict before something happens… not 5 years after it happens such as with the oceans “suddenly” sucking up all the heat.
Add in the fact the south pole for some reason isn’t sucking up any heat into its oceans kind of makes that argument worthless on its face.
I ask you a simple question… explain to me what would prove global warming wrong? The IPCC supposedly the bible of the cult has had its predictions proven wrong. So what else is left to prove wrong?
[snip – off topic as warned before this isn’t a thread about what skeptical science thinks – mod]
climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming.
This is a pretty extensive summation of the science of the recent warming to the earth. If you choose open the link and read on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]
…increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
…global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
…increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.
There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that “[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”[2] The IPCC defines “very likely” as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.[3]
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]
@Scott –
I recommend you start with Steve Goreham’s Climatism, then go to Bob Carter’s The Counter Consensus. These will give you a graded start, as it were, with the issue and prepare you to dig deeper. Dr. Klaus is more on the political aspect of CAGW, and is also an important read here. And if you really want to get PO’d at the alarmists and the greens generally, read Paul Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. It made me want to do something to those worms with my hands.
OK – just ordered both books suggested by Chad Wozniak, plus a slew of others. I’m probably going overboard here, but here’s my overly ambitious reading list, courtesy of Amazon and a lot of used bookstores:
The Inquisition of Climate Science – Powell, James Lawrence
The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change – Gore, Al
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan
Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – Hansen, James
Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic – Goreham, Steve
The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Alley, Richard B.
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) – MONTFORD, A.W
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) – Lomborg, Bjorn
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition – S. Fred Singer
The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines – Mann, Michael E.
What We Know About Climate Change (Boston Review Books) Emanuel, Kerry
Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam – Sussman, Brian
I’ll report back in, what, a year or two? 🙂
Val,
The Soviet Union and every other bloody brainwashing totalitarian regime in the world stood upon the shoulders of people “passionate do-gooders” like you.
When I read posts like yours, I feel ashamed of being human.
Bruce Cobb says:
August 3, 2013 at 2:48 am
@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.
##############################
In essence I am a normal person like you are. I have a family to help raise, go to work every day, go to church to help celebrate life on earth.
Al Gore hasn’t really influenced my science knowledge. Its really just for the networking.
renewableguy the day the IPCC says its not man to blame is the day before there is longer an IPCC for without this its got no reason to exist . Think about that before you take anything they say without question.
renewableguy the day the IPCC says its not man to blame is the day before there is longer an IPCC for without this its got no reason to exist . Think about that before you take anything they say without question.
###############################
Humans have changed the earth in this manner. Do you agree?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]
increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.
####################
Do you think any of the natural mechanisms below have caused this warming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
######################
When scientists put out a statement like this, they have done a great deal of homework because they don’t like to be wrong. This is a big statement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]
@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.
At 2:48 AM on 3 August, Bruce Cobb had written:
Hm. When I’d run through this schmuck’s cut-and-puke, I’d had precisely the opposite reaction, thinking that they’d “trained” him rather less effectively than the average pet owner housebreaks the family pooch.
Which same he’s been screwing repeatedly.
I can’t read something like this Watermelon serial spew of stupidity without having Wolfgang Pauli’s remark come to mind:
@renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they?
######################
I knew 98% of it before I got there. Seeing that you don’t like what the data in science says, do you just go with anything that isn’t AGW.
renewable guy says: @n August 2, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Speaking of engineering and science books.
……The conclusion, to summarize, is that a high-penetration solar and wind utility
system is possible…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh great, they want to make my state another guinea pig but didn’t bother to take a look at the fiasco in the European Union.
Of course this has always been about power and money and nothing else even as the Elite speak of ‘Social Justice’ ‘Global Governance’ ‘Interdependence’ and efficiency hampered by the Westphalian order and the primacy of sovereign nation-states that comes with it…
From the IMF
In the 20th century, they tried the brute force method of totalitarian government (The Soviet Union and others) and the people never accepted their serfs collars so now they are trying to institute a system similar to that of the EU where ‘Governance’ is given a glaze of legitimacy. WTO Director-General Lamy identified “the three pillars of governance — leadership, efficiency and legitimacy — are split among various structures. Where the UN has an undeniable comparative advantage is in terms of legitimacy. “ He also states the decision to have a world government was made in the 1930’s
“Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?”
Sounds great until you think about it. What is being said is the elite think the ordinary citizen in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU have too much wealth and they want to take it from us under the guise of providing others with a ‘decent living standard’ Decent by whose measure? The starving African in a mud hut or the soccer mom in the suburbs? Of course the Elite with the tripling of their wealth really don’t care what the soccer mom thinks.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill
We have been trying these ‘experiments in socialism’ since 1600s.
It didn’t work then and it didn’t work in the Soviet Union. But that is all right, the elite are sure to get it right this time….
renewableguy says:
August 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm
….How do we know humans cause global warming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Because that was the original IPCC mandate.
Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the ‘facts’ needed to hang the human race. This is why water vapor is not a ‘Forcing’ but a ‘Feed back’ otherwise CO2 would be a non starter. The IPCC assumed the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.
Of course the bankers control the media link And the bankers have a vested interest in ‘Global Warming’ so much so that a world bank employee, Robert Watson was chair of the IPCC.
The banker’s stake in CAGW
This is a fraud that produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth and instead acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization.
Wall Street has always been behind ‘Socialism’ Robert Minor’s cartoon Dee-Lighted! makes that clear. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers such as John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Right behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, of the Progressive Party. Minor was a member of the American Communist Party. link
Just for the record, as a civilized being I think we should take care of our fellow humans. That is what makes us civilized. My beef is with the financiers who use ‘Socialism’ as a long con for lining their pockets from the sweat of the poor.
Mother Jones and OPedNews have two very good articles showing exactly what I am talking about. So does this socialist.
renewableguy says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm
climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.
The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And we should hope like heck that is the case.
From Peer-Reviewed papers.
Older:
Within the past year:
I emphasized the quote “was not subdued by radiative forcing”. What is meant by this is since this interglacial was at a minimum node of eccentricity and precession index oscillation, insolation did not go down to as low a level as one normally expects to be needed to set off glaciation. But glaciation started anyway.
(The actual paper without corrections?)
Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
“…Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”
And if you forget the decadal wiggles and look at centuries:
The real controversy is will the Holocene be ending now (we are near the half precession point) or will the Holocene be a double precession interglacial. You can find a synopsis in a comment from WFM (William McClenney?) http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3305#comment-7191
Also MIS-19 appears to have had at least 3 abrupt warming events during the descent into glaciation so a ‘warming spike’ doesn’t mean diddly squat.
Now tell me why ‘the fact CO2’ is keeping us out of glaciation is not making front page news. Could it be because you can’t use that to scare the masses into giving up more of their wealth and freedom?
renewableguy says:
August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm
….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Wikipedia’s Climate information is ruled by William Connelley. Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues
He was banned but it did not stick.
Posted on October 13, 2010 Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again
October 14, 2010 William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia
You can put Wikipedia in the WUWT search engine for the other posts on Wikipedia mangling science.
I find the vapid, repetitive emotional appeals of the warmists posted above genuinely terrifying. It is a salutary reminder that the sort of useful idiots that supported the murderous, genocidal totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century are still being churned out.