A decidedly sarcastic Open Letter to @YouTube

If it is necessary to add links to official sources to videos posted by skeptics it is also necessary to add links to statistical and methodological errors in the videos of the official sources.

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/spurious-correlations-in-climate-science-2/

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/a-greenhouse-effect-of-atmospheric-co2/

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/tcr-transient-climate-response/

This is a blog.
Subject to WordPress TOS
People comment on the Posts and other comments.
Subject to the blog Rules of the road.

You post on youtube
Google provides the servers and bandwidth for free.
Other people can post on your video if you open comments.
Google can play ads on your video.
Google can ALSo add their own comments indicating that your video is fiction, conspiract crap
or whatever.

They have no obligation to allow you to post whatever you want.
Just as you can comment on commenters or delete comments,
Google too gets to say what they want to say on the page THEY provide you
for hosting.

dont like that?

https://peertube.live/

there is no constitutiona right to a platform. You get what you pay for. You paid zip for youtube
and should not be surprised that they will exert control.

build a better mousetrap.

The same way that WUWT is Anthonys house and he gets to make the rulz
Youtube is googles house.
If you take a dump in Foyer, then expect them to dis invite you, or put up a sign.

Who gets to decide what is fake news? the houseowner.

Tough.

I fully agee with those that think this was a bad decision for the warmists. None likes to be told what to think, and the bias in FB, Google, Utube only becomes extremely clear. This will backfire on them, the confidence inn MSM will god even further down. And this is also a clear evidence that they are becomming desperate. The sense that they are loosing the information battle. Just let them shoot themselves in the feet.

Excellent start.
Turn these officious ignorant bigots arguments against them.
We should start reviewing youtube and actually filing complaints against the alarmist anti-science videos.
We should start posting videos in youtube and elsewhere listing the mistakes in alarmist videos.

Who, just watched “Sir Anthony” run at Arlington Park in a $100,000 race, and didn’t bet a penny on it cause it seemed too easy.
I did, it won at 35-1.
Onward and upward!!!, and “F” me.

It’s starting now at Vimeo. They removed Alex Jones videos. What’s next?

The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming 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 an 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 as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not increase during the MWP nor for hundreds of thousands of years before the MWP.

With no co2 increase there is obviously also no temperature increase brought on by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been strictly due to natural climate variation. It therefore becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly 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 level.

However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. Most alarmists also insist that the “science is settled”.

A brief meta-analysis, using numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as other easily accessible data follows which demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to have been global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier 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 significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were acknowledged 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. In fact, one of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it is a different “ballgame”. More important, peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up, also confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

The Greenland Temperature study (gisp2), 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.

The numerous MWP peer-reviewed studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers, representing dozens of countries, using various temperature proxy techniques. Idso is merely operating as the librarian. These studies now span several decades and new confirming investigations continue to show up regularly.

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). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected study sites was warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are also consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

There are also other confirming observations which include such things as 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.

The MWP peer-reviewed studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require 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 their requirement that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP may vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” argument must then admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global warming 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 globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”. The entire world was “out of synch”. Their global warming considerations must therefore be constrained to the relatively brief warming beginning in 1975.

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 continued until at least 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 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. Also, how much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

Any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point following the cooling which ended in 1975. The global temperature began steadily 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 reluctantly acknowledged a GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. (Please recall that this is in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since it started around 1830-1850.

NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” year devoted significant time to wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. Such miniscule differences are not significant because the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is significantly larger.

So, this current “global warming” controversy merely involves just over two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But 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. (Dozens of peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, plus various other well known facts, all 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.