Our favorite climate publicity hound, fake Nobel Laureate Dr. Michael E. Mann is going to get some real time on ‘RealTime’, where presumably, he’ll wail about the embellished injustices heaped upon him by people that question his hockey stick, his interpretation of science, and his sanity on Twitter. Bill Maher has been known to throw some curve balls, so this might be entertaining, or maybe not. Given what I witnessed at Mann’s lecture in Bristol last year, he’s pretty much a one-trick pony with nothing new to say.
Well that was a thing that happened. More on the #GOPDebate from @BillMaher and his guests tomorrow at 10pm! @HBO pic.twitter.com/AYiSeQhA8B
— Real Time with Bill Maher (@RealTimers) August 7, 2015
Note the “submit a question” tag on Twitter: #RTOVERTIME I wonder if Maher will dare to ask about Mann’s Nobel Laureate claims?
h/t to WUWT reader “canman”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s a study suggesting that Medieval Warm Period was at least northern hemispheric in extent..
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:356915/FULLTEXT01.pdf
and here
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
and extended south to Patagonia
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01092413#page-1
and South Africa
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/tyson.pdf
and New Zealand
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GL014580/abstract
David Appell,
You claim the PAGES2K reconstruction supports your beliefs about the MBH98/99 hockey stick as an accurate representation of the paleoclimate. You do realize, then, that the PAGES2K authors only use 3 regions for their “global” reconstruction for the 0-800 AD period: Europe, Antarctica, Arctic, and they indicate that all 3 regions had warmer periods than the late 20th century during that time (0-800 AD).
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/study-charts-2000-years-of-continental-climate-changes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
“In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in A.D. 741–770, and the interval from A.D. 21–80 was substantially warmer than 1971–2000. Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as A.D. 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000.”
Here’s the “corrected” Arctic reconstruction (2014) showing warmer or just-as-warm temperatures throughout the first millennium:
http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426/figures/2
So, according to the PAGES2K authors, for the 3 regions represented in their 1 AD to 800 AD period (Arctic, Antarctic, and Europe): a) Europe was warmer than now during the late 700s AD, and “substantially warmer” during the Roman Warm Period; b) Antarctica was warmer than modern not only for the Medieval Warm Period, but for more all of the 1,000 years preceding it; and c), after so many “errors” were found in their original Arctic reconstruction, the PAGES2K authors had to issue a correction paper (http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426) that made temperatures in the Arctic just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period (~1,000 AD) as modern—and for much of the 1,000 years preceding it.
Their 2013 graph (below), even with the uncorrected (biased warmer) Arctic temperatures, shows similar warming levels for the 1st millennium compared to modern. And even the colored Mann, Ljungvist, and Moberg reconstructions atop depict a just-as-warm Medieval Warm Period.
http://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Ahmed_2013_paleo_fig4.jpg
There’s no Mann-like hockey stick here. So how does PAGES2K help you?
Here’s Bill Maher:
Mann is boring but the lt gov of Calif is interesting on drug legalization. …..Lady in Red
I am sure he even wasn’t aware of what he said about Hansen: “Any time he says something you wanna listen very carefully to him.” Dead right, Mann! Everybody ought to listen extremely carefully to what Hansen says. But his insight into the negligeable quality of Hansen’s statements doesn’t last long.
That Mann really is deceitful. He is talking about an alleged permanent 6 ft sea-level rise and compares it with Hurricane Sandy, that was over in a few days and brought, as he said, damages of 7 1/2 bn bucks. Mann, of course, didn’t say when he expects such a rise but carries on fearmongering by comparing CA nuts with FLA oranges. I suppose he’d love to flood the whole ConUs just to demonstrate he is right. What a dreary fruitcake.
If everybody goes to google and searches for ‘climategate’ or ‘hide the decline’ etc, perhaps we can start a new trend on google to revive the climategate affair.
done
If ever material is short for a Friday funny, just post a link to Appell’s blog. That will more than suffice.
I would encourage all the readers and commenters to post their best Smoking Guns and challenge David Appell to write about them in his articles. Clearly he has the background to understand good science from bad science, good statistics from bad statistics, good math from bad math. His resume proves he has the ability to discern the truth.
http://davidappell.com/
David can claim ignorance as long as all he does is parrot the conclusions of “peer” reviewed articles. That is the way a lazy journalist would handle things. A real journalist seeks the truth, and is skeptical of those who stand to gain from the story they are pushing. Use this article to publish challenging questions for David, and challenge him to publish his answers in Scientific American, Physics World, Audubon, New Scientist, Wired, Salon, Popular Science, Nature, Discover, The Boston Globe, The San Francisco Chronicle, Physical Review Focus, Discovery Channel Online, Science, and many other publications that buys his work. I’ve always said there is a Pulitzer Prize in exposing this hoax. Also, no Nobel Prizes in SCIENCE has been given for Climate Change research. I doubt there ever will if the focus remains on CO2.
Please post your challenging questions for David Appell, help him discover the truth.
David, using your math and science background, how can you explain almost 100% of the errors being skewed to one side, the one side the overestimates temperature? How can you explain such a systematic failure?
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628×353.jpg
David, given CO2 is the most significant contributor to global warming, how can CO2 increase by 25% and temperatures be flat over the past 18+ years? How can δCO2 be 20% and δTemperature be 0%?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2015_v6.png
David, the oceans are warming. It take a huge continual quantifiable influx of energy to warm the oceans. Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm increases downward radiation of about 1W/M^2 from a wavelength of 13µ to 18µ, wavelengths that don’t penetrate the ocean. Is 1W/M^2 enough to warm the vast oceans by 0.5° C. While you are at it, why does the slope of increase between 1910 and 1945 exceed that of the slope between 1970 and today? How does CO2 explain the “pause” between 1945 and 1970?
http://i51.tinypic.com/119z1ux.jpg
David, why does the Hockeystick graph not include thermometer data before 1902? We have temperatures records going back to the mid 1600s?
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/cet.png
David, why didn’t CO2 cause catastrophic warming in the past when it reached 7000ppm, how did we fall into an ice age when CO2 was 4000ppm?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
David, it is exposed in the Climategate E-mails that Dr Thompson and others know that the Mt Kilimanjaro glacier is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming. Will you help educate the public on the truth? Why do honest “scientists” conceal the truth from the tax paying public? Isn’t failing to tell the whole truth an ethical violation?
David, the hide the decline deception is exposed in two previous videos featuring Muller and McIntyre, and it is evident in the Hockeystick which uses temperature data only after 1902. Will you help educate the public regarding this statistical fraud?
David, specific Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting due to Volcanoes, yet is is blamed on atmospheric CO2. How can CO2 cause local warming of the atmosphere, let alone warming of the ocean?
David, Polar Bears have been thriving, yet they are the poster children of climate change damage. Will you educate the public about the truth?
David, the rate of sea level increase has not been accelerating (especially if adjusted for thermal expansion), which would happen if glaciers were melting at an increasing rate. Will you help educate the pubic as to the truth about sea level increase? Note the increase is 3.3mm/yr. How many years will it take to flood Manhattan? Match the level of daily and/or seasonal tide?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
David, pH is a highly quantifiable measure. If you took 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved it into the oceans, what would the change in pH be? What if you dissolved 100% of all CO2 from burning fossil fuels over the industrial age? Can atmospheric CO2 rally alter the pH of the oceans? How did life thrive when CO2 was 7000ppm?
David, temperature variations are huge in deserts where there is no H2O, humid environments at the same latitude show much moderate temperature variation. How can you claim CO2 is the climate driver when H20 is easily demonstrated to be the defining GHG?
I would encourage all readers of WUWT to post your challenges to AGW so David can understand the issues beyond reading the conclusions of corrupt “peer” reviewers and a corrupt “peer” review process. BTW, the piece of crap Hockeystick, and past temperature records that are now being “adjusted” made it though “peer” review. The failed IPCC models made it through “peer” review. The highly variable “residency” of CO2 can be found in “peer” reviewed papers ranging from 5 years to over 200. Then IPCC reports it to be 50 to 200 IN THE SAME REPORT.
I would also encourage readers of WUWT to visit David’s website and send him e-mails directly with your comments and challenges, and be sure to cc: some of the magazines that have hired him in the past.
Here is his website.
http://davidappell.com/
Once again, please post your challenges so that the next time David writes an article he can no longer claim ignorance of the fraud that is Climate Change.
I forgot my favorite challenge for David:
http://davidappell.com/
David, given your background in Physics, and assumed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. How can CO2 result in record daytime temperatures? As a reminder, CO2 is transparent to visible light, and that heat travels from hot to cold. Please use an example of a desert that the previous night fell below the previous night’s low temperature, and then set a record daytime high. How can CO2 result in record high daytime temperatures, given that CO2 simply can absorb radiated heat between the 13µ and 18µ wavelengths.
David, these lists of questions are an effort to help you from becoming a modern Lysenko.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
We’ll be watching to see how you address these issues in your coming articles. If you avoid them, we will know you are a Lysenko. You have an opportunity to restore your credibility. Just be honest.
@CO2isLife
Incredible questions you ask about the greenhouse effect and the range of atmospheric life times for CO2, among others.. Illustrating mostly your ignorance of 6th Grade Science. Neither Appell nor Science has much to worry about from your ‘challenges’.
warrenlb, in response to co2islife, writes: “Incredible questions you ask about the greenhouse effect and the range of atmospheric life times for CO2, among others.”
Yes, they are good questions and help steer discussion.
“Illustrating mostly your ignorance of 6th Grade Science.”.
Probably. My 6th grade was a long time ago. I am pretty sure it did not cover greenhouse effects and the atmospheric residence time of carbon dioxide. On the other hand, I remember spending some time studying electromagnetism and making my own electric motor with nails and wire and a home-made commutator.
“Neither Appell nor Science has much to worry about from your challenges.”
Science is not a person. Why do you suggest it has any capacity whatsoever to worry?
Appell will choose for himself what he worries about. He ought to worry about his employment but so long as he speaks to his sheep what they want to hear then I agree with you he has little to worry about. It does seem that not many sheep still march to that tune but that’s for Appell to worry about; not you, not me.
@Michael 2
Good questions? ‘Good questions’ reflect either an understanding of the issues being asked or are asked in the spirit of wanting to know more. The questions do neither; instead CO2islife is challenging Appell without having a clue about the subject.
warrenlb writes “Good questions reflect either an understanding of the issues being asked or are asked in the spirit of wanting to know more.”
Agreed, but not limited thereto. I used the phrase in the context of suggesting topics of study and discussion which is similar but not identical to the spirit of wanting to know more. A good question identifies the sticking point or the heart of a matter which, if not resolved, make somewhat irrelevant all other discussions.
In this context establishing that there is, or is not, global warming is obviously crucial to any further exploration of global warming. If !(global warming) the door is still open on a vast realm of climate science, just not global warming and its accompanying one-world-government mandate.
I accept that there has been no significant global warming in nearly 20 years, certainly none where I live, which is the only thing I can personally verify. I accept that the future is unknown and probably unknowable; although I also accept it is worth trying to know it.
I accept that the warmists are wrong to attribute global warming to humans exclusively or that it represents a catastrophe. The most strident advocates of global warming do not seem to be personally concerned about it — Al Gore’s huge mansion or DiCaprio’s “Eco Resort” in Belize about three feet above sea level. He’s obviously not worried about sea level rise. He just wants you and me to be worried about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/belize/11515287/Leonardo-DiCaprio-unveils-futuristic-eco-resort-for-Belize.html
Really? See my response to your challenge below. Seems you might want to brush up on your “science.”
“warrenlb
August 9, 2015 at 6:05 pm
The questions do neither; instead CO2islife is challenging Appell without having a clue about the subject.”
Too funny! You have demonstrated time and time again you have no clue, about anything, relating to this planet!
It was pretty much as I expected, after watching. I think Bill Maher’s and extraordinary guy, as knowledgeable as he is sharp, and with a great memory. But as soon as I heard Mann was on in the new season’s première, I thought: ” this is going to be a love in!” It was.
No-one is more fascistic in their Warm-mongering views than Maher.
I have another question for David.
Bill Gates has lost a fortune on Green Energy, and this is his conclusion.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/30/3675684/renewable-energy-needs-policy-not-tech-innovations/
Google has abandoned many renewable energy projects:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/google-abandons-renewable-energy-projects/
Given that snow can effective make solar panels totally ineffective, and wind is highly variable, if everyone start to drive electric cars, how will we recharge them? Assuming at best a 20% efficiency rate for wind and solar combined.
How much more energy capacity will we need to recharge these cars? How many new 1.65MW wind turbines will we need? How much will that cost? What will the cost be to recharge a car overnight?
If we recharge it with solar, how many more solar acres of farms will be need? How many “7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre.” will we need? How much will it cost to charge the car overnight?
And two questions for you: What is your take on:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Or: climate.nasa.gov?
A) Conspiracy by aliens? Or
B) Conspiracy by all the Climate Researchers in the US, China, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Brazil, Italy, and Canada?
Water vapor. As the sun heats the oceans, more H2O enters the atmosphere. H20 absorbs the same IR as CO2, only much more of the spectrum. Facts are, oceans are warming, CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans. You are ignoring the most obvious explanation, H2O. H20 is 10x as potent at CO2 is as a GHG.
?itok=TVgMhYuS
BTW, note how that spike in 1997 coincides with an El Nino. Did CO2 spike? Nope, H2O did. Imagine that.
?w=882
Warrenlb asks “What is your take on: Or: climate.nasa.gov?”
I don’t have one. Perhaps I should look at it briefly. Quote from that website “What happens on planet Earth stays on planet Earth”
I think NASA hasn’t heard of Voyager. I’m pretty sure it’s not coming back. Radio signals do not stay on Earth. Obviously the rest of the website is going to proceed according to the emotions of its director.
“A) Conspiracy by aliens? Or”
Many such things; Los Zetas comes to mind. 11 million aliens in the United States. Most of them are not probably in a conspiracy, but then, conspiracies are secret so how would I know?
“B) Conspiracy by all the Climate Researchers in the US, China, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Brazil, Italy, and Canada?”
Impossible. However if you remove “all” and make it “most” then I would say yes. How exactly does one become a “climate researcher”? Obviously it is by approval of existing climate researchers or you won’t get a degree, or a grant, or a tenured position at a university.
Consider Nasa’s claim: “Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree.” On what, exactly? That is either evidence of something real that they agree on, OR it is evidence of groupthink; you are admitted to the club IF you subscribe to the Consensus. If not, some people want you to die or be imprisoned.
Appell claims he does not take blogs seriously. I guess that means we are also to assume his posts are bull. However, he likely reads Unrealclimate. Readers of Climateaudit will recall that during one Superbowl game Steve McIntyre posted on an Antarctic paper, which was corrected the next day. Of course the Unreal ones would not admit to having read Steve’s post which (may not have been peer reviewed(sarc)).
When the American and other people of the world get an honest perspective of this issue they will be outraged, and I can only hope that the people supporting these groups drop their support. This could be the next Planned Parenthood and ACORN scam exposed.
Bottom line, the truth can bankrupt Sierra Club, WWF and Green Peace. These organizations are looting the public treasury for their own personal misguided agenda.
The most damning part is highlighted about 34:00 into the video. I bookmarked in in the following link. It highlights what I’ve been saying, silence in the face of evil is evil itself. The silence of the real scientists that know better will bring down everyone. Everyone knows a fraud is going on, and yet they remain silent, either because their jobs depend upon it, they need the research grants or they are simply scared. I doubt those excuses will be enough to protect the entire field of academia and science when the crap hits the fan. This is complete and absolute corruption from the top to bottom, and the villains will be easy to identify. We can only hope that the funding for such corrupt organizations will follow ACORN and now Planned Parenthood. There is a common denominator. Left-wing political organizations and corruption.
https://youtu.be/pruTqY_JLcg?t=34m22s
Remember, the depth of depravity of these left-wing organizations can not be overstated. ACORN was exposed for their willingness to help establish child sex slavery rings. Obama was an ACORN Lawyer.
http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/30075/acorn-fires-its-child-sex-slave-smuggling-czar-greg-pollowitz
This highlights the evils of silence.
The Bizarre Silence of Child Advocates on ACORN’s Child Sex Trafficking Advice
http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2009/10/03/the_bizarre_silence_of_child_advocates_on_acorn%E2%80%99s_child_sex_trafficking_advice/page/full
Another question for David. Why do temperatures mirror H20? CO2 doesn’t spike, H20 does with El Ninos.
?w=882
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
This may go down as one of the most epic gaffs in WUWT history. Above in the comment section warrenlb insulted me, my scientific knowledge and the insightful questions that I posed. He made comments like
It is worth noting that warrenlb didn’t say why or how my questions demonstrated an ignorance of science, he just attacked me. He never attempted to answer any of my questions, he just simply discounted them. This is a typical distraction tactic used by dishonest liberals (Yes, I know that is redundant).
Oddly warrenlb focused in on one question regarding residence life. That seems odd to me because 1) concentration is what matters and 2) with a range from 5 to 50 to 200 depending of the source, that issue doesn’t seem “settled.” Why he would defend the IPCC not having an answer to a critical component of their model is beyond me.
The epic gaff of warrenlb was that he identified how you would reach the truth regarding CO2 and temperature. He states.
Clearly he knows at least the basics of regression analysis. The Einstein then posted this graphic to make his case. Sure enough the charts to demonstrate auto-correlation and they are in fact trending up for the lower atmosphere and down for the stratosphere. No argument there. Clearly, we have established that there is some warming going on. We can all agree on that, and we can all agree that a regression analysis can help answer our question regarding the cause.
?w=978
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Now here two possible causes, CO2 and H2O.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/whendeesilver-131219050249-phpapp01/95/whendee-silver-2-638.jpg?cb=1387429435
The simple question then becomes, if I run a regression with CO2 as the independent variable and Temperature as the dependent variable and if I run Specific Humidity as the independent variable and Temperature as the dependent variable which one will give a higher R^2? That experiment can be run in any 9th Grade Science Class, and it pretty much gets to the root cause of the recent warming trend. Just eye balling it I would say the CO2 vs Temperature R^2 would be about 0.30, and I bet Specific Humidity vs Temperature would have an R^2 of at least 0.80, much much much higher than CO2. Also, I bet if you ran a rolling period regression of around 3 years I bet H2O would have many periods near 1.00, and I bet CO2 would have many periods of a (-) correlation. Temperatures fell from the 1950s through the 1970s while CO2 increased. Anyway, I would like to thank warrenlb for helping me find one of my most convincing arguments against AGW yet. warrenlb also provides a great example of how narrow minded, lazy and intellectually dishonest liberals can be regarding this issue. warrenlb provides a great case study in liberal political tactics which is useful in helping identify the deceitful and dishonest tactics used by the anti-science and scientifically illiterate left.
Sorry old chap — you have me, as well as the science, totally wrong. I’m a lifelong conservative Republican who agrees with Bob Inglis, (R-South Carolina) [go here: republicen.org], George P Schultz, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and a dozen other Republican leaders who advocate for a revenue -neutral carbon tax to address man-caused Climate Change.
By the way, your “analysis” of humidity correlated with warming climate is laughable — you’ve mixed up cause and effect to a fare thee well. Humidity rises as a RESULT of warming, by the Clausius Clapeyron equation, and CO2 drives the warming.
And since every Science institution on Earth concludes AGW, you seem to be the one with a science literacy problem.
Why do you all take Appell’s bait? It’s clear he’s just having fun aggitating everyone. He has no interest in true debate or a quest to understand the truth. He just wants to agitate.
David L asks “Why do you all take Appell’s bait?”
All? You are here too. Whatever is your reason may well be someone else’s reason but hardly “all”.
Appell is like the seed of a snowflake. The seed is vital to get it started but inconsequential after that.
OK, here is an experiment we all can run to get to the bottom of what is possibly causing the warming. warrenlb Using the temperature, Specific H2O and CO2 graphs posted above you can turn them into digital format through this website. WebPlotDigitizer.
http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/app/
I’ve digitized the data and tested it using the =rsq function in Excel. You can test it yourself. The R^2 I get between Temperature and H2O is a whopping 0.75. In other words the 75% of the variation in Temperature can be explained by H20. I’ll leave it up to everyone else to test CO2.
Once again warrenlb thanks for providing the data needed to prove your CO2 theory is 100% garbage.
Reference: David Appell (a commentor).
The vile commentor David Appell has been debunked, exposed and thoroughly torn to shreds by JohnWho, Kennethrichards, indefatigablefrog, co2islife, richardscourtney, James Bradley, RH and others.
I think it would be best to IGNORE that particular commentor completely: I’m sure that the moderator is well aware of the situation.
Regards,
WL
I am really surprized that Scientific America risked their credibility by publishing a pro Mann pro-Hockey Stick article. No other organization seemed to willing to suport Mann in court. David Appell seems to have taken a personal passion and was willing to drag down Scientific America with him. Now that Steyn has the new book out Scientific America is going to look like a fool. My bet is David Appell will have difficulty finding work in the future. He clearly puts his personal politics ahead of professional integrity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/the-drawn-out-mann-lawsuit-science-is-not-taking-a-stand-for-michael-mann/
1) R^2 of H2O and Temp in infinitely higher than R^2 of CO2 and Temp. You can’t even show the basis relationship exist.
2) CO2 follows Temperature, it is well defined by Henry’s Law. Care to explain how CO2 leads Temperature coming out of an ice age.
3) Care to explain why past histories of CO2 reaching 7000 ppm didn’t result in run away warming.
4) Your simplistic example of higher temp results in higher H20 results in higher temperatures is a self fulfilling run away catastrophic. That has never occurred in 600 million years of geologic records.There are no natural dooms day bombs.
5) You have 0 evidence CO2 drives temperature. Computer models based upon your nonsensical Clapeyron equation have failed.
6) If CO2 causes the warming you claim it causes, other more potent GHGs would have already resulted in catastrophic warming. Mother Nature isn’t that stupid or fragile.
7) Warming results in higher H2O, but also higher CO2 through Henry’s law and greater decomposition. Why is do you select CO2 as the culprit when H20 is a far more potent gas?
1) I keep waiting for you to provide evidence. Your temperature and CO2 model is a joke as I proved above. Ice core data proves recent temperature volatility is nothing abnormal. What evidence do you have? Warming doesn’t prove man or CO2 is the cause.
2) How does CO2 warm the oceans?
1) That’s a joke
2) Appeals to join the herd are effective with the collective mindset of the left, not the free thinking individualistic conservatives.
3) I’ve heard countless liberals use that phoney claim of being a conservative. It is right out of Saul Alynski’s deceitful Rules for Radicals.
4) Regardless of your , it doesn’t change the fact that you have no science backing your position. Conservatives simply aren’t that gullible.
1) Once again, conservatives don’t make 2nd Grade type arguments like are you popular or do I fit in. We don’t join herds and unions. We think for ourselves. Claims of polls and consensus are used to convince lazy liberals to support your position knowing that they will never bother to look into the facts, or even care about the truth. Being part of a collective movement is what Liberals want. They are herd animals. Conservatives don’t make those kinds of arguments. We think, we don’t outsource out decision making to groups like “every science institution on earth.” We are smart enough to know that they are populated by left wing activists and will eventually be proven wrong. They always are.
2) I’m pretty sure solar physicists and geologists don’t support the conclusions of the climate science departments. When push comes to shove, no one will really step up to support the climate scientist. They may remain silent, but they won’t offer overt support when the spotlight is shined on them. Just ask Michael Mann. No one with an ounce of common sense would support this guy knowing that someone might actually look behind the curtain of his deceit. No one would every want to testify in a court of law that Michael Mann and the climate science field practice commonly accepted scientific practices.It is one thing to remain silent when others lie, it is a whole other thing to openly support and participate in the lie.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/a-review-of-steyns-scathing-new-book-about-michael-mann-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/
Here is another GHG with a very high R^2 with temperatures. Funny how all the climate alarmists fail to read this research.
?w=720
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says