First, it’s a lot more than an entire field of science. It’s a media bubble.
John the TIB
41

Ah yes, the litany of horseshit from the WUWT denier crowd. I am not in a “media bubble” as you put it, because I am a scientist and I read the scientific literature, not blogs or media reports on climate science. You, on the other hand, repeat the nonsense you read on WUWT and don’t bother to read the science, and then claim that it is all of science that is in a “bubble”. To say that is hypocritical is an understatement. To say you are ill-informed is even moreso.

So, let’s go through the crap you posted.

First, you claim the NOAA is “ignoring” the satellite data. That is a lie, since it is incorporated into the models. What you really mean to say is you think they should exclusively pay attention to satellite data that is uncorrected for important confounds like orbital drift, while ignoring not only the corrected data, but also the entire paleo record as well as the thousands of other sources of climate data. You say this because it doesn’t matter to you that the source is flawed. It only matters if you think it supports your world view. Did you ever pass a science test in your life?

You then spout a bunch of utter nonsense regarding the buoy data. The buoy data absolutely is consistent with the temperature record derived by other means. Here’s a Nature Climate Change article that summarizes some of this research.http://flux.ocean.washington.edu/riser_web/nclimate.argo.review.pdf Note the warming at all depths. Here’s a thought… try to find a peer reviewed paper that actually supports your statements.

You then start spouting off about the PDO and el Nino as if that is somehow pertinent to the fact of global climate change. We know there are many short term cycles the dramatically affect weather, but which have no impact whatsoever on long term climate. They certainly can’t alter the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. Is there much to learn about climate? Of course. Does that alter the fact of AGW? Not in the least.

Similarly, your statements about the LIA and MWP are both incorrect and irrelevant. Even if they were global we know what caused them and we know the MWP was not nearly as impactful as the warming we’re already seeing, never mind what we will see in the decades to come. Moreover, they were NOT global as confirmed by multiple studies of the paleo record. You see, you have to actually look at the whole literature not just that which you like. The statement that the papers you refer to were “ignored” is demonstrably false, and shows that you haven’t bothered to read the literature at all.

As to making outrageous claims about what I do and do not read (which again shows your profound lack of credibility since you could have no idea what I do and do not read) I read the scientific literature. There are many papers that argue one way or another on specific topics within climate science. I read as many as I have time for. But you clearly don’t read the literature in this way… you read the conspiracy blogs. Your post might as well be drawn directly from WUWT with the denier talking points, all of which are as easily disproven as the above. There are no new thoughts, nor is there any actual science in your commentary. It’s all just propaganda from the extremist right conspiracy blogs.

Which of course is the real point. You don’t know anything at all about the science, but feel compelled to accuse it of all being a “scam”, a gigantic conspiracy involving an entire field of science. Your claims are ignorant and insulting to some of the brightest minds in science. And the hubris of making such claims, without having even a shallow grasp of the science (much less reading any of it) is appalling and shameful.

The planet is warming and we are the cause.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Kenneth R Evans’s story.