Study: Republicans more persuasive than scientists on 'climate change'

There’s a simple explanation for why proponents of CAGW, “scientists” in particular, are having difficulty convincing folks: They have no evidence. All the evidence is against them.
The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming (hereinafter referred to as “alarmists”) invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require on increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase brought on by the corresponding increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, long after the MWP.
With no co2 increase there is obviously also no further temperature increase provided by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have been nothing more than natural climate variation. It therefore becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2. The issue of climate influence on polar bear population can be dismissed because polar bears were around long before the MWP and survived that warmer era.
A brief meta-analysis follows to demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.
First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes are scattered around the globe, and not constrained to just those locals where ice core data was used. A great discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.
Next, the receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a 1,000 year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now. Alaska is quite distant from Europe.
Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it was a different “ballgame”. It’s worth noting that studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.
Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature estimates. The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska.
These numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. The studies also span several decades.
Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. You will find that each of the selected sites were warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend provided by borehole data.
There is also other confirming observations which include antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.
This meta-analysis is comprised of straight-forward non-controversial studies. The MWP studies as well as various other data and are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study does NOT involve the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.
One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” constraint must be ready to accept that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event.
For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”.
There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran at least until 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase following 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently to have ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due to a continued natural climate warming?
Any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has acknowledged another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” was talking about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. It’s clear that the uncertainty error is likely greater than one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the error is as much as one degree.
So, all this controversy involves just two decades, and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs
Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.
There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran at least until 1830 (perhaps until 1850) when co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase following 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much of the temperature increase after 1830 was merely continued natural climate warming?

I’m still wondering why, after hundreds of billions spent on Climate Change research, hasn’t anyone come up with anything concrete?
The best the American Physics Society can put forward is ‘the Greenhouse Effect is generally accepted. No proofs, no experiments, just anecdotal statements that lead to circular arguments.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-with-all-of-the-hysteria-all-of-the-fear-all-of-the-phony-science-could-it-be-that-man-james-inhofe-59-53-06.jpg

So what did Democrats say when an “elite” Dem came out against AGW. This is a biased study , making me discount it right there. And since when is the consensus make AGW credible. Science isn’t about consensus, it is about facts. The more I read, the more I see the AGW alarmists have lied and changed data. Why I am I supposed to believe these consensus scientists.