On September 9, 2019 at 11:45, BizarroTerl said...
There may be some valid points, but when you get to the point where the claim is global warming isn't partially man caused you're past good science. Scientific theories are always a mass of competing thought which are proven or unproven by further analysis. As more is known basic facts become evident. The scientific community as a whole has determined that global warming is occurring and it is in part human caused. That is a fact. Your argument is that the scientific community acts like a 4th grade social group with a "in" crowd that ostracizes the "out" crowd and thus human accelerated global warming isn't happening is not how science works.
There is no necessity for the scientific to determine planetary warming, as one can see it for oneself here1
. Planetary warming, however, is not in itself unusual, nor planetary cooling; e.g. MWP and LIA. Concerning the present warming though, one has to ask several questions.
i) What caused the early 20th-century warming?
ii) What caused the mid-20th-century cooling (noting that during the 70s there was some concern about the onset of a new ice age)?
iii). What caused the late 20th-century warming?
iv). What caused the early 21st-century pause?
Because of its being a greenhouse gas, it would be easy to assume that (iii) is purely the result of increased CO2
, but that would ignore the other factors which must have influenced (i) and (ii). And what of (iv)? Why a pause when the CO2
level continues to increase?
Because of their political agenda, the IPCC wants us to believe CO2
is the sole culprit, hence their proclamations of certainty. The reality, however, is that there is no real consensus regarding its effect (as attested to by the wide range of climate sensitivity calculations) and the anthropogenic component remains unknown. However, I think it's safe to assume there is one (if only from the rise in global population etc.) but the claim ‘part human-caused’ is ambiguous as it applies to both half a degree and a thousandth of a degree. “As more is known basic facts become evident.”
I quite agree. Here are several relatively recent papers suggesting a low climate sensitivity, along with a minimal anthropogenic component2-6
 [Link: woodfortrees.org]
 [Link: researchgate.net]
 [Link: link.springer.com]
 [Link: iopscience.iop.org]
 [Link: iopscience.iop.org]
 [Link: arxiv.org]
On September 9, 2019 at 12:04, BizarroTerl said...
No. It is because when it comes to science or any other discipline education and experience are more important. If anyone reading this started to bleed from places they shouldn't who do they go to? A plumber? He may be a great plumber, maybe the best that has ever lived. He does not however have the training and education to help with that bleeding.
Why should reporters have a degree to report on anything? Their job is to report the news and that is what they do. Once they start to make claims on subjects they're not educated in they're no longer acting as a reporter, they're in an area they're not educated and thus should be discounted.
Michael E. Mann - The paper you reference was written by him and 2 others, both of which are highly educated and respected in Geosciences. Michael's education - A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). Applied mathematics appears to be a really good start to come up with a way to develop a new statistical method to analyze climate data. Much better than doing tax returns.
As you claim. Andrew Montford isn’t conducting science outside of his expertise, he a reporter recounting events – with the added benefit of an accountant’s analytical eye.
Oh, there is no doubt Mann is well educated, but competent?1
I reserve judgement until he allows independent verification of the data and code for his hockey stick graph.
 [Link: climateaudit.org]