won't call you closed minded. You prove that you don't believe in Science
Climate "science" isn't science. There are so many things that climate "scientists" get away with that would be laughed out of a lab in, quite literally, ever other scientific discipline on the planet, it's ridiculous.
You know the "hockey stick" graph? That's sourced from at least two (actually, probably three or more) different temperature collection methods, plotted on the same graph.
Temperatures from before 1870 are from proxies: tree rings, ice cores, and the like.
Temperatures after 1870 are from actual thermometer measurements.
Then, in the mid to late 20th century, they also started adding satellite measurements to that graph.
You cannot, in any scientific field, take two measurements of two different things, done in completely different ways, and directly compare them. Unless your experiment is trying to prove something about the variability of the two different measurement methods, in which case you'd have to measure the same thing, in two different ways. That's not what's happening, so there's flaw number one.
Second, the experiments that are done in a lab on CO2 energy absorption, etc, are fine for the most part. But you can't then take that, and create a model of a chaotic system and say "Humans are causing global warming." That's a massive leap that's
not supported by evidence. There is some evidence that points in that direction, but there's also a lot that points away from it. There's a whole cause and effect thing that's completely missing from the arguments. There are a lot of
assumptions of cause and effect, but nothing proven at all.
Third, in order to prove a human cause of global warming, there need to be controls in the system. The only way to do that scientifically in a chaotic system is to run a number of replicas, some as controls, and some with your experimental change. The results from all of them should be unchanged in the controls, and showing the predicted variability in the changed ones.
If you can point to a single climate scientist who has set up replica Earths, all orbiting the same sun at the same distance, all equally populated, with half following the industrialized path and half not, then I'll.....well, I don't need to do anything, because nobody's ever done that, and nobody ever will.
The thing is, there are so many cycles in climate, and we don't even know them all, yet.
When I was a kid, the coldest of winter was December to February. When I was around 20, my Dad and I had a conversation about how winter seemed to have moved to January-March. December wasn't as cold anymore, but March was colder.
Now, another 20 years later, it's back to December being cold, and things are warming up in March again.
There's been significantly reduced warming for the last decade or so. (I know...this is a standard - "leftist" swear word coming - "denialist" talking point, but hear me out.)
I'm not going to say there is no warming, but it's definitely much less than it appeared to be in the 80s and early 90s.
A lot of the climate science community has responded to this by saying that the
oceans are warming, instead. All the extra heat is going into the deep oceans, so we're not seeing it in the atmosphere at the moment. Well, my first question is, how does the sun heat the deep ocean without heating land or the upper ocean?
But then, recently, I read of a scientific discovery that the
deep Pacific was still cooling from the Little Ice Age, which started
700 years ago! (Again, note: It's cooling....not heating, as the climate scientists would have you believe...) The reasoning is that water that was at the surface of the Pacific during the LIA has now circulated to the bottom. I don't buy that it takes 700+ years (it's still cooling, so it hasn't done a half cycle yet) for a circulation like this to occur, so I don't think it's cooling because of the LIA, but whatever.
Let's, for the time being, assume that it
is cooling because of the LIA, and this, let's say 1500 year (700+ down, then 700+ back up again) circulation cycle. If that's true, then the water at the surface now, was last at the surface 1500+ years ago. That would correspond to the end of the Roman warm period, so current ocean warming is possibly caused by warm water coming
back up from the deep ocean, which was warmed by human industrial activity...I mean...natural causes, in 400 AD.
There are writings from Greeks just before the RWP started that state that date trees would grow in Greece if planted, but wouldn't bear fruit because it was a little too cold. A more well known one is by Theophrastus, who died in 287 BC. The RWP officially started in 250BC, so it got even warmer in Greece after Theophrastus' death.
However, current temperatures in Greece make growing date trees possible, but they don't bear fruit.
The exact same situation as 2300 years ago. This is, of course,
before the warmest of the RWP.
The Roman Warm Period ran for 650 years, from 250BC to 400AD. The Medieval Warm Period started 550 years later, and ran for at least 300 years, from 950AD to 1250 AD. Some interpretations put it as longer than 300 years, but we'll go with 300 right now.
The current warm period started 750 years after the MWP, and has run for about 100 years so far, but
seems to be leveling off. It's currently no warmer than it was 2 warm periods (2000+ years) ago, otherwise date trees would grow fruit in Greece.
So far, everything looks like a cycle to me. The only evidence that
doesn't fall exactly into the natural climate cycle idea is current satellite and thermometer measurements, but they cannot be placed alongside historical proxy measurements to show a trend, or it's not science.
That means the grand "climate change is a disaster" crowd has precisely zero evidence.
If they wanted to say that humans affect the climate, then I'd have no issue. Of course humans affect the climate. The climate affects humans, too.
Everything on earth is interrelated, and everything affects everything else.
But, if climate was the knife-edge unstable thing that climate "science" points to it being, then the entire planet would either be a lifeless ball of ice, or a lifeless ball of ash, because it would have been thrown into endless feedback loops by so many events in history.
The fact that we're here obviously proves that it's not, so I'm with Blue Moon.
Stag
Edited because I messed up the quotation block, and included my response in it.
