Top products from r/climateskeptics

We found 65 product mentions on r/climateskeptics. We ranked the 107 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/climateskeptics:

u/DrDolittle · 1 pointr/climateskeptics

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. How much of the warming since 1850 is caused by CO2 is uncertain because other forcings influence the temperature simultaneously.

In climate modeling "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity")
expresses the potency of CO2 as a climate gas. ECS expresses how much temperature increases from doubling CO2 at equilibrium. Changes in "forcings" take centuries to fully propagate in climate due to thermal inertia, and ECS is "at equilibrium".*

The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that the (ECS) is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5"
The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2.

The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century.
CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks set to hit 560 ppm (a double from 1850-levels) sometime late this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming.

The IPCC have themselves observed that lower ECS better fit observations and that their climate models are running hot.
ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models.
AR5 WG1 technical report states that "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (page 84) ("no best estimate for ECS is given because of a lack of agreement").
"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). A comparison of temperature and CMIP5 model predictions can be found here.

ECS estimates vary based on what temperature sets are considered, choice of start- and end-dates in the analysis, carbon-cycle modeling and what warming is attributed to other sources.
Temperature datasets differ significantly. Using the sattellite dataset UAH (starting in 1979) and removing vulcanic events and El-Ninos results in ECS-estimates in the 1.5-2 range [paper1], [paper2].
Man-made emissions are part of a larger carbon cycle, and simulations of the "coupled earth-system response" to man-made CO2-emissions indicate TCR below 1
The accelerated recent warming in datasets like GISTEMP is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges, indicating that warming in them may be spurious. "homogenization" in GISTEMP is accused of spurious warming, and an audit of HADCRUT4 has found serious data-quality issues.

Changes in solar forcing occurs on longer timescales than our satellite- or instrumental records, and is potentially the cause of exaggerated ECS estimates. The solar activity is known to oscillate with 11-year cycles, but also longer ones (see and sources therein) including a grand 350-400 year cycle and a major ~1000 year cycle. Solar forcing(TSI) had two major minima (1645–1706 Maunder solar minimum and 1810–1838 Dalton solar minimum) prior to the beginning of the instrumental temperature record around ~1850. The period 1700-1850 is referred to as the end of the Little Ice Age(LIA), a time when historical sources document average winter temperatures dropping 2 degrees (in Europe). After a dip around 1900 TSI has been increasing throughout the 20th century.
There is ample evidence that 1850, start of the instrumental record and baseline pre-industrial temperature, was an unusually cold period. Temperatures will have recovered gradually after 1850 due to climate inertia and gradual TSI increase, a temperature recovery that could be mistaken for CO2-related warming.

Climate models cited by IPCC assume that solar forcing varies little, potentially causing the warming after the LIA to be wrongly attributed to CO2 increases. TSI estimates before about 1980 are constructed from proxies and are uncertain, while satellite measurements exist since then. Some TSI estimates are "high variability" while other are "low variability". A low-variability solar forcing dataset is mandated in "CMIP5" climate models.
Some authors have studied ocean temperatures found that historical changes in ocean temperature are 5-7 times
greater than TSI-estimates suggest (but no accepted explanation as to why).
Changes in low-variability TSI-estimates are also too low to explain the temperature declines at the end of the LIA. These observations hint that TSI may be changing far more on the timescale of centuries than is currently thought. The "high-variability" Hoyt&Schatten TSI-estimate is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient and a causal link has been suggested. If Hoyt&Schatten is a better estimate of TSI, it would directly explain much of the solar "amplification" seen.

Solar forcing variability of just 5 W/m2 or 0.3% would be enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (284 degC), a gain of 0.209 degC per W/m2. Existing "high-variability" TSI-estimates vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries.

CMIP5 model properties indicate that solar forcing is under-estimated. As solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ),
CMIP5 models have run warm, as the IPCC itself states.
If climate models underestimate TSI-increases, one would expect that they would need larger-than-life ECS-estimates be able to describe the warming of the past century, and this is exactly what has happend: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report). This discrepancy should be seen as a sign of structural model errors rather than evidence of a high ECS.

Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS even lower than 1.5.
ECS estimates based on "high variability" Hoyt&Schatten TSI-estimate gave an ECS of 0.44. Authors hand-picked rural temperatures, but would still have obtained low ECS estimates with other data sets. It was encouraging that their model autonomously chose a gain of 0.210 degC per W/m2 (close to expected value).

Exaggerated ECS in CMIP5 is evidenced by IPCC observations that (a) temperature predictions overshoot since 1998, and (b) lower ECS better fit observations. Under-attributed (1)solar variability, (2)transient warming after LIA, and (3)carbon-cycle response could separately or jointly explain the discrepancy. Persistent flaws in climate research is plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests and on weaknesses of models used.
ECS 1.5,the low end of the IPCC likely range, indicates only 0.5 degree of eventual extra warming from CO2-concentration doubling by late century, and would have enormous policy implications.


(Peer-reviewed literature where possible, presumably vetted by independent reviewers. Known that some of the cited authors are shunned by established climate scientists.)

*= "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) expresses the temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually, before transients settling. TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 0.5-0.8 degC. TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5. ECS 1.5 is roughly equivalent to TCR~1.

u/italkaloadofshit · 3 pointsr/climateskeptics

TESTING COPY PASTE OF TEXT:::: PLEASE IGNORE.

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

  • "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  • "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  • "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).

    Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
    "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.

    CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:

  • as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  • larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  • CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.

    Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.

    Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.

    * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.

    ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.

    ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1
u/counters · -1 pointsr/climateskeptics

> "Even the ancient Romans...". By the standards of that time, exposing oneself to radiation is not dangerous so using 100-year-old guesses as "evidence" smacks of desperation.

You missed the point. You claimed that models are the cornerstone of the evidence behind global warming. That is laughably wrong; the basic physics and chemistry of the topic were elucidated decades before computers even existed. That's something Arrhenius contributed to.

> So, climate models that have been calibrated with 20th century data simulate the 20th century extremely well? Color me unsurprised. Even if that were true, it's hardly evidence of their validity, just the very minimum requirement for them to even have the possibility of any predictive capability. Bob Tisdale for one has done exhaustive reviews of climate model performance and has found them to perform very poorly. Considering their shortcomings, I don't find that hard to believe

Models are not calibrated with 20th century data. That's simply not how they work.

You said models perform poorly. And yet, they are able to reproduce observed 20th century climate variability among many, many other things - dynamical responses to volcanic eruptions, coupled oceanic-atmosphere oscillations, etc. Bob Tisdale's work is incredibly slip-shod; it's deconstructed regularly at Tamino and elsewhere. If you have nothing but citations to blog-science to back up your point here, I think we can move on.

> Whether it's a parametrization or results from the model run itself is irrelevant; all AR4 models had a positive cloud feedback. In actuality if a cloud feedback arises in the model as an emergent phenomenon, it is a condemnation of said model because a positive cloud feedback is not supported by any kind of empirical evidence. I suppose we'll see how your "virtually zero cloud feedback" claim stands up when AR5 gets released.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, the CMIP3 models generally had a weak positive cloud feedback. Soden and Held (2006) is a good paper which elaborates on this analysis. Above all else, that you think there is a settled "empirical evidence" estimate of the magnitude of cloud feedback really betrays how little time you have spent on this topic. The most relevant pre-AR4 article on cloud feedbacks is Randall et al, 2006. Read it; you'll find that observational estimates of cloud feedbacks had even higher uncertainty than model estimates, for a host of tehnical and dynamical reasons. As of AR4, theo bservations msot definitely did not exclude the modeling results.

I've already read drafts of the section on clouds in AR5. You do know that you don't have to wait for the report to come out, right? You can go to Google Scholar and start reading up on the topic; all the papers cited have already been published.

> Elementary physics like this one? In case you don't understand what a positive water vapor feedback means, it doesn't mean that warmer air can hold more water vapor. It means that A) the absorption bands of water vapor are not saturated, B) the latent heat going into evaporating said water is not equal or greater than than the increasthed absorption, C) that relative humidity stays constant and D) increased absolute humidity does not cause an increase in albedo through increased precipitation (more clouds?). I am sure there are more parameters but I guess those are enough.

Trying to deflect by invoking Al Gore? I see why it's necessary:

A) If absorption bans are not saturated, then that means adding water vapor will inrease absorption. How do you increase the water vapor? By warming, and letting Clausius-Clapeyron take effect.

B) That has nothing to do with the water vapor effect, and doesn't make sense. Latent heat is consumed during evaporation; it would cool the surrounding air. Hence why precipitation kills downdrafts in convection.

C) Assuming relative humidity stays constant in a global average is just an approximation - and it's a very good one on the time scale of global warming.

D) Nonsense; absolute humidity has nothing to do with precipitation, which is a consequence of dynamic cloud physics. This is entirely irrelevant to water vapor feedback.

You might want to brush up on a basic climate science text.

> Now I'm confused. This guy seems to disagree with you, perhaps you should go and educate him of Real Climate Modelingtm. One thing the GCMs do achieve consistently, though, is not replicating the 1910-1970 warming/cooling period.

Barnston is simplifying the response since it's an IAMA, not a journal article. He's also not disagreeing with me; He's talking about how the oscillations interact, which is a different topic.

For your irrelevant topic change in the middle here - when you look at model output, you're typically looking at ensemble statistcs. There will be ensemble members that reproduce many finer details of observed 20th century warming. Others won't, becuase in ensemble modeling, you perturb the initial conditions slightly to get a better sense in the response's sensitivity to the initial conditions. Observed fine details aren't outside of the ensemble statistics by any stretch of the imagination, and they're a result of internal variability - not exogenous forcing.

> That is, the models are incapable of explaining past climate variability. This does not mean that a high feedback is a requirement, it can just as easily mean that having such a requirement means the climate models are flawed.

False. Models aren't usually used to simulate geological climate variability because it's too expensive to run them for that long. The necessity for a higher cliamte sensitivity comes from our knowledge of the time scales on which geological climate change has occurred. This is once again where physics and chemistry come into play - physical climatology dictates this. It ain't from models.


> So, I was correct then wasn't I, since I said that "The justification is that nothing else except a CO2 forcing and a high climate feedback could explain the rate of warming of the latter 20th century". That's a very roundabout way of agreeing with me. Also note the difference between "can measure" and "have sufficient historical data of".

No, you're wrong because you're playing semantics. There are plenty of other forcings that could explain modern observed warming. They just aren't happening. The sun isn't enormously increasing it's output. The Earth's orbit isn't rapidly changing. We're not releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. We're not seeing a global decrease in stratospheric ozone.

I'm not interested in word games.

> Hmmmm? Besides, I didn't say no warming trend for 15 years, I said practically no warming for 15 years. I guess the Real Climate Sciencetm filter was too eager to mush what I said to agree with its parameters.
> Also, "models routinely produce variability which has characteristics similar to what we observe." I almost blew milk out of my nose without drinking any when I read this spin. That statement could mean practically anything or nothing.

A trendline is meaningless without a robust estimate of uncertainity. Gee, I wonder why you don't produce that statistic here?

After you clean up your keyboard, devote a handful of neurons to understanding the sentence. If I were to hand you a timeseries of model output and a timeseries of observed global temperature, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That's because models produce decent climates - certainly decent enough to study the physics of how different processes elicit different responses in teh climate system.

> Oh, so that's why there has been such a scramble to explain the lack of warming with Chinese aerosols and heat magically disappearing in the deep oceans, yes? Gotcha. Decadal weather also has a funny ring to it, I must remember that the next time someone goes "zomg is HOT we has global warmings ok?!?!?!?" and tell them that counters himself of the Climate Science Businesstm talks of decadal weather.

Not all aerosols cause warming. Aerosols in china are an intense focus of research, especially in Asian-language journals (not so much in the West). No one has claimed that Chinese aerosols are a major contributor to global warming. There are many interesting things to talk about with respect to aerosols and their impacts on cloud physics, but that's an entirely different topic.

The deep ocean does store large amounts of heat. The infamous Trenberth quote alludes to our difficulty in building monitoring systems to measure this with any certainty. The physics is (relatively) straightforward; read the Hartmann book linked above.

Decadal variability is hard to produce in models which is why no one produces downscaled decadal forecasts. It's a technical problem involving needing too many ensemble members running at too high a resolution to resolve the statistics necessary to say anything meaningful about decadal-scale changes. that doesn't mean it isn't done; it means that there is lage uncertainty.

> More like the Art of Spin by Coun Tzurs.

Calling out your BS isn't spin, despite your heavy spinning trying to call it such. And that's what it is - BS.

u/greenfyre · -3 pointsr/climateskeptics

Another Hatchet Job by Somebody Who Does Not Know the Science

When one begins to drink a glass of spoiled milk, it only takes a sip or two to understand that there is nothing good in there and I better put the glass down now. The same is true for LaFramboise's book. After reading about 50 pages, and it was a struggle to go that far, it is clear that the author does not understand the scientific process. To claim that the IPCC reports are "not true" is to misrepresent thousands and thousands of scientific papers by thousands of international scientists.

Common sense questions readers should ask themselves:

  1. If the science behind the IPCC reports is untrue, why have the same conclusions been reported by nearly every scientific body on the planet? US National Academies, American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, American Meteorological Society, United Kingdom Royal Society, and many other scientific bodies such as the national science academies of: national science academies of Australia, of Belgium, of Brazil, of Cameroon, Royal Society of Canada, of the Caribbean, of China, Institut de France, of Ghana, Leopoldina of Germany, of Indonesia, of Ireland, Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy, of India, of Japan, of Kenya, of Madagascar, of Malaysia, of Mexico, of Nigeria, Royal Society of New Zealand, Russian Academy of Sciences, of Senegal, of South Africa, of Sudan, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, of Tanzania, of Turkey, of Uganda, The Royal Society of the United Kingdom, of Zambia, and of Zimbabwe.

  2. Since the release of the IPCC (2007) reports, where are all those thousands of scientists who were supposedly misrepresented? Instead, since 2007, more and more evidence is presented in the literature that either supports the IPCC conclusions or shows that these conclusions were too conservative (emissions, sea level rise, ice melt, etc.)

  3. Why has the pattern of warming matched that of heat-trapping CO2 warming: nights warming faster than days, winters warming faster than summers, higher latitudes warming faster than lower latitudes, troposphere warming while layers above are cooling? If the sun, oceans, cosmic rays (pick your favorite skeptical forcing) were the cause, we would not be seeing this type of warming pattern.

  4. In the past 800,000 years, CO2 has naturally cycled between 170 ppm and 300 ppm. At 170 ppm there were massive ice sheets. At 300 ppm there were no massive ice sheets and sea levels were hundreds of feet higher. Small changes in the Earth's orbit shape, tilt, and eccentricity were the initial cause of global climate change and then CO2 feedbacks accelerated the change. We have blown past 300 ppm and are adding CO2 at rates not witnessed in at least the previous 800,000 years. Does it make sense that this increase in CO2 will not cause much climate change, especially when nearly every expert tells you it will? In the past decade, the increase of CO2 in the air due to human emissions has averaged about 2 ppm per year. To put that into perspective, the amount of CO2 that is emitted globally each day that remains in the air is equivalent to almost 8,000 Gulf oil spills each day. Does that sound safe to you?

  5. Why do health officials, military officials, and insurers claim that climate change is one of the greatest threats to humanity? Are they all ignorant or corrupt?

    For our health, our national security and our economic competitiveness, we need to curb our fossil fuel addiction and we need to stop bashing science and its scientists. Otherwise, we'll wind up clients of the Chinese, paying top dollar for renewable technologies that we should have invented ourselves.

    Climate change is already here and the worst is yet to come. Solutions are going to be put into place. If you do not accept the science and choose not to sit at the solution table, you will have no say in what happens. Why not come join the discussion. There is no debate that humans are overloading the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon and that big climate changes will occur if we keep emitting away like there is no tomorrow. The debate needs to move away from the cause and on to the solutions.

    Trust the evidence and the experts - not libelous diatribes such as this book. I can only assume that LaFramboise's next book will be titled: United States National Academies: Those Kool-Aid Drunked Sailors.
u/Will_Power · 1 pointr/climateskeptics

>Sure but I'm not revealing who I am.

Did you think I asked you to?

>Name one then.

Richard Lindzen. Shall I name another, or is this counterexample sufficient for you to change your post?

>Again you have very very few and most did not gain widespread acceptance. Do you have an example

The expanding earth theory was replaced by plate techtonics not all that long ago, and with much ridicule of the latter by geologists who adhered to the former.

Tabula rasa in psychology was established science that was finally overturned.

Einstein's static universe has been almost universally rejected.

Luminiferous Aether was universally accepted until photon theory of light was established.

Most recently, the idea that eating fats leads to body fat is undergoing a major revision.

>One example is not really worth anything.

One example is sufficient as a counterexample to your assertion of the saintliness of all scientists.

>I know plenty of professors who have challenged the norm and won.

Please share.

>Without details I can't even check your story or if that guy was right (not that I'm even in astrophysics).

Halton "Chip" Arp.

>There is data from different parts of the world if you read carefully parts have been shown to cool during the medieval warm period.

Cite, please.

>McIntyre isn't a reputable source.

Why?

>McKitrick I've never heard of.

He wrote the paper debunking Mann with McIntyre.

>Got a link?

The whole story of how M&M refuted Mann can be found here

>The IPCC does not use that much paleontological evidence. Mostly it's based on models.

Is it your assertion, then, that the climate sensitivity derived from paleontological evidence that you were so keen on may not be as reliable as you implied?

u/AuLaVache2 · 3 pointsr/climateskeptics

Nice list. You missed off Naomi Orskes Klein's book: "This changes everything: Capitalism Vs The Climate"

Naomi is one of the nutters behind the shit digging on Exxon. (It's Naomi Orskes who is one of the nutters behind the shit digging on Exxon, not Klein. But my God they look identical).

Edit: I was wrong. H/t Fungus.

u/AlyssaMoore · 5 pointsr/climateskeptics

"Watermelons" by James Delingpole is one of my favorite books about climate skepticism:

http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409

Here are some other books that I recommend.

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-Surprising/dp/0615569048

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

u/JRugman · 1 pointr/climateskeptics

"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? This question is of considerable philosophic interest and of practical import as well. If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth? And if our knowledge is perishable and incomplete, how can we warrant its use in sensitive social and political decision-making?" -- Naomi Oreskes, The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science, 1999

u/OortCloud · 3 pointsr/climateskeptics

You've completely lost touch with reality. Must come from having too many arguments with yourself. To wit:

>Try basic literacy ... the question obviously refers to the point made above it .... DUH

Since you're only 12 I'm going to advise a course of medication starting with heavy doses of Ritalin.

Nice of you to include a link to the reviews. You probably didn't see the link at the top of that page to the rest of the reviews. Other than those of the usual bunch of professional AGW advocates, the reviews are mostly positive.

u/hammiesink · 4 pointsr/climateskeptics

That's an excellent article. Non-tree ring proxies, done by a skeptic, and still shows a fast upswing to temperatures slightly above the MWP.

But the RealClimate article is a review of The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill.

u/fatal1dea · 2 pointsr/climateskeptics

Read the book on the greatest fraud of all time, which is their "balancing" energy budget diagrams of flat Earth theory:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Y6QDLWG

u/gnodeb · 0 pointsr/climateskeptics

I don't think anyone is in charge of human race. There is no global "we“.

What part of your local environment is not sustainable? Why that is not an example right now? Cheer up, here is a book https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143111388/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

u/retardedmoron · 1 pointr/climateskeptics
u/fungussa · 3 pointsr/climateskeptics

Well, here's the Ron Paul of climate science. He invented the electron capture detector, which was used to detect CFCs. he's been involved in climate science since the early 60s, and is considered the grandfather of climate science. Also, he's self funded and lives a simple and humble life. His conversation style is quite refreshing as he uses hardly any emotive language when describing his work, ideas and predictions of the climate.

u/FormerlyTurnipHugger · 0 pointsr/climateskeptics

The book Merchants of Doubt explains the history and philosophy of climate skepticism very well.

u/0rbytal · 3 pointsr/climateskeptics

Stoked1984, I think you should read "Cool It"...

u/james3563 · 7 pointsr/climateskeptics

Written, I assume, by William Connolly himself, or another acolyte of the RealClimate/Fenton Communications PR machine.

Here's Klein,of course,

http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697392

u/deck_hand · 5 pointsr/climateskeptics

For the record, counters suggested Principles of Planetary Climate in another thread.

u/ActuallyNot · -7 pointsr/climateskeptics

> Whooosh! (Or today you learned absolutely nothing, same as every other day).

What other day was this?

> So, do you think there may be something wrong with doing 'science' by putting a few choice keywords into Google scholar (which conveniently excludes any papers that might contradict your predetermined thesis) scanning abstracts for the presence of that keyword (which just magically happens to be present), counting them up and then declaring that science has spoken?

No. What I'm saying is that there has been global warming throughout the past decade.

The warming of the near surface air has been slower than usual. (I've never seen the claim that this is statistically significant.)

But the oceans are warming and the ice is melting.

> If you find problems with this, then you really can't endorse similar junk from Oreskes, Petersen, Connolley, Schneider, and of course, John Cook and his imbecile Krusher Kroo.

Those papers are psychology and history of science. You could argue that they're science, but they're not climate science. They're useful enough to discover why science communication seems to be behind in some fields compared to others, but Oreskes has a much better handle on why that is in "Merchants of Doubt".

... Anywhere else it would be needless to say that you're description of the methodology of those papers is dishonest. But here it probably has to be said.

u/RonBeck62 · 0 pointsr/climateskeptics

Sure, I'll bite. Mann's stupid Hockey Stick used tree ring data that was cherry picked to exclude any indication of the MWP or the LIA. Because those would make our current warm period look like more of the same.

Then he tacked on temperature data from a dataset skewed upward by urban heat sources. Unhappy with how slowly the graph was "spiking", his cronies at CRU "fix" the numbers by applying a correction -- in the wrong direction.

Mann and his UVA cronies refuses to disclose how much he tweaked his data, but more than one book has been written about his junk science. But he keeps clinging to it: “there’s not just a hockey stick — there’s a hockey league.” The mann is an embarrassment to real researchers everywhere.

u/Seele · 2 pointsr/climateskeptics

It depends. The default setting for reddit is that submissions below a certain threshold (I forget) simply do not appear. Comments and submissions can get downvoted to oblivion.

The position of the alarmists is that the matter is settled, and that anyone expressing doubt is trying to muddy the waters in order to further some nefarious agenda. There is a whole genre of books with this theme. One example is the loathsome 'Merchants of Doubt'

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1596916109

On the 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought:' section of the page above you can see other examples of this idea.

Edit: sorry for double post. bad connection.