4 points I will respond to.
1) 95% certainty
2) 110% of global warming
3) Oceans don’t heat
4) Fudged data
The last 2 are the easiest. The oceans are part of an energy balance. They don’t have to HEAT to cause more warmth. They simply have to stop sucking so much heat OUT of the system. Voila. Everything else gets warmer.
I have responded in complete fashion to the data problems in another response on this same topic. Suffice it to say the adjustments are unbelievable and with 99+% confidence we can say are fabricated. Proof positive. Not even 1% doubt. Much higher confidence than any global warming model for sure.
The 95% confidence interval is a fabrication produced by looking at a small time interval and with some assumptions. This has been shattered by the last 20 years. There is no confidence left shall I say. You CANNOT prove any confidence interval of certainty when you look at the longer period to this point and if you go back to the early part of the 2oth century.
This confidence interval is fabricated by limiting the time period to short enough interval that the models look decent. This belies the fact that the models don’t do well in the early part of the 20th century.
It is now completely apparent that PDO/AMO are major issues. The climate models DO NOT model these phenomenon. Even if you factor them out over periods of 70 years then fine but you need to cut the co2 sensitivity rate in half to make that work.
Human factors are enough to account only when you double the sensitivity and ignore the PDO/AMO and then ignore the record before 1975 or after 1998.
The satellites are the only reliable source of temperature. Trying to homogenize and fudge 1000 thermostats poorly distributed over the earth is obviously a game the IPCC likes. We need to spend a lot less money on games like this and computer models and a lot more money on real science.
Look, Dallas, the science has not published in the filter bubble any of the problems. Nobody knows about PDO/AMO and the problems it has produced because the climate community doesn’t understand it. The continued denial of the doubt of the hockey stick is evidence of the filter bubble.
Over and over we see Dallas that problems in this science are real. That things are discovered that are huge problems. This never makes it into the news proving the filter bubble. This is a politicized science. The constant referral to “consensus” is unscientific and proof of some middle age like thinking about science when philosophers would quote their elders and Aristotle for science. Obviously the air behind the ball pushes the ball forward. Don’t ever use consensus with me. I appreciate you didn’t use it so far.
I have from the beginning wondered a simple question. If you believe in the hockey stick, please explain to me how parts of the world would be hotter or colder for centuries? How does that work in your computer models? How can you explain that? The climate modeler at LLNL couldn’t explain it. So, if the hockey stick is real then how did Europe get warmer for centuries and grow grapes in Greenland? How did the Themes get so cold it froze over and they had fairs on it for a century with people doing barbecues on the frozen themes?
If the 30s and 40s were much colder than today how come the arctic thermostats show it was warmer then than now? How come ships could cross the northern passage and how come there were dust bowls? How come when you look at number of days over 100 , 95 or 90 the records are all in the 30s and 40s? The adjustments like the hockey stick adjustments make a mockery of our history as documented by real world experience. Are you really willing to rewrite history based on computer models?
Computer models which ANY scientist would have to admit are impossible. Why does that not make it into the filter bubble?