Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[kahuna1]

It would not matter if you TOOK someone back in time, even back 260 million years ago when the air was NOT breathable ... and still they would dispute it.

In the course of 500 or more posts, back and forth discussions, it has not mattered what FACTS you, I and others presented or the 200 plus scientific organizations referred to which produce the SAME data and the fact they are in 20 different nations. There is NO convincing or even reasoning or a single inch given.

NOT one singe inch, acceptance or even questioning of their own beliefs or understanding. All 20,000 scientists in 30 different fields are ALL faking it. Talk about absurd conspiracy theories !!

I did so enjoy learning ... LEARNING from both sides, until I gave up contributing. I am as always amazed by humans and that NO QUESTIONING ... occurred, and clearly so .. when opinions were given, not science and science and factual data presented back, for some .... belief or dogma outweigh all else.

I learnt from the deniers by yet again going back and examining my own beliefs, their data, cut and paste stuff, examining data from 3,4,5 and even 20 organizations on temperature, ice and other things and comparing them to claimed opinions. Always good to do this, but ... when it went on ... and on ... and still goes on ? One side claims the sky is blue as does 99.99% of the world and the other ... its not, is where this thread is.

 

[rederob]

It would not matter if you TOOK someone back in time, even back 260 million years ago when the air was NOT breathable ... and still they would dispute it.

In the course of 500 or more posts, back and forth discussions, it has not mattered what FACTS you, I and others presented or the 200 plus scientific organizations referred to which produce the SAME data and the fact they are in 20 different nations. There is NO convincing or even reasoning or a single inch given.

NOT one singe inch, acceptance or even questioning of their own beliefs or understanding. All 20,000 scientists in 30 different fields are ALL faking it. Talk about absurd conspiracy theories !!

I did so enjoy learning ... LEARNING from both sides, until I gave up contributing. I am as always amazed by humans and that NO QUESTIONING ... occurred, and clearly so .. when opinions were given, not science and science and factual data presented back, for some .... belief or dogma outweigh all else.

I learnt from the deniers by yet again going back and examining my own beliefs, their data, cut and paste stuff, examining data from 3,4,5 and even 20 organizations on temperature, ice and other things and comparing them to claimed opinions. Always good to do this, but ... when it went on ... and on ... and still goes on ? One side claims the sky is blue as does 99.99% of the world and the other ... its not, is where this thread is.

A common aspect of climate science denial is obfuscation.
Apparently all (or nearly all) scientists agree with Sadjii. I was never able to work out what exactly they were agreeing on - the goalposts shifted from post to post.
The other aspect of denial is to use irrelvances.
The global climate response to warming oceans is unreliable at time scales of less than 250 years when using paleoclimate records. This is supported by the work of Zac Hausfather and others who have pointed out the capacity of the ocean to absorb heat without materially impacting generational-level climate.
The real problem, however, is that we need to focus on present trends, in light of parameters capable of driving climate change in present terms.
Not that this example is fair, but if we were to propose that temperatures would change at the present rate for the next 1000 years, there would be nothing in the paleoclimate records that could come close. Yet Sadjii is content to believe the present rate of change has many and regular precedents.
And he claims to be a scientist .
I need a pick me up .

 

[kahuna1]

Hahah ..

I would debate the ocean side, but sadly suspect their are issues more closer in terms of time than the ocean changes which on the main are post 2100. The potential feedback loops, and ones not spoken about, are actually worse even than the Arctic methane release, the permafrost melting event and even a melting of the Antarctic and sea levels rising 20 meters ... and combined ... then multiplied 5 times ... and that is something for the post 2100 or 2150 region to deal with, if they can.

In that I include the ocean acidification as well ... but that too, like most of this, is well known, now being measured for some time and of course obfuscated. If we deny it, even the rising of acidity by 50% ... or the disappearance of 75% of the Great Barrier Reef ... in 33 years, or ignore it.

Well ... I am sure if we can do this, even up until the point where one f the impacts of a feedback loop via climate change or weather induced climate events, it will be even be debated and denied until then, even with 100 million deaths and 200 million climate refugees.

If in 2018 the USA reporting of climate change and use of the word fell ... FELL by 45% in 2018 ... by mainstream media in the USA, it is not surprising this will occur. NOTHING ... denial and even this thread as interesting as it is, and refreshing my own finite understanding of the topics and being forced to examine whether I and 20,000 other scientists have it wrong or 250 organizations and institutions in 20 different nations, ALL with identical or very similar conclusions, and projections, we all are some delusional crowd supposedly who despite the last 30 years and even 130 years the predictions made pre computer were accurate ... scientific ones ...

Lets ignore it all !! Lets NOT report it as the USA does. Lets use the CATO institute numbers which is founded by the Koch brothers and funded BY them the coal and OIL and gas barons out of the USA and only use their data ... or the Heritage Foundation, different name, similar funding and non science based rubbish ... or maybe ... FOX ... I am going to have FOX news play during my sleep.

Fascinating on many perspectives this thread, peoples contributions, depth of knowledge which exceeds my own and I rely of course on others ... and have shared a few of them, I have to stop listening to them and just ... well buy some sunblock and ignore a lot of people I love are turning 18,19 and 20 in the coming weeks and their kids, will have an interesting time let alone if I am lucky to live till say 2060 or more it will be already I suspect with a great deal of confidence ankle deep in Miami where idiot Trump has his golf course somewhere down there. He will be long gone and hopefully forgotten other than in a negative way ...

Such is the circle of life.

 

[Joules MM1]

"....this is the fastest calving glacier in the world, it's advancing about 45m a week..twice as fast as it was 10 years ago"
from netflix our planet

watch on a full screen

 

[Ann]

"....this is the fastest calving glacier in the world, it's advancing about 45m a week..twice as fast as it was 10 years ago"
from netflix our planet

watch on a full screen

Here we go, another bit of 'unbiased' propaganda from WWF and Silverback films.

Wheeling out David Attenborough to do the voice over for totally unsubstantiated claims. Just say it, just say it loud enough, just say it often enough, just get someone with a broadcasters voice to say it with authority, no-one will question it! It must be true!

I am wondering if this clip was actually from some ancient film Attenborough narrated decades ago.

It is all so predictable.

 

[Joules MM1]

enjoy

Here we go, another bit of 'unbiased' propaganda from WWF and Silverback films.

Wheeling out David Attenborough to do the voice over for totally unsubstantiated claims. Just say it, just say it loud enough, just say it often enough, just get someone with a broadcasters voice to say it with authority, no-one will question it! It must be true!

I am wondering if this clip was actually from some ancient film Attenborough narrated decades ago.

It is all so predictable.

enjoying your new-found attempt at sarcasm (like that!)
try using this one
Ann says "all scientists are trying to be as smart as me but...."

 

[kahuna1]

Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:

• Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.

I don't wish to mislead or confuse people.

I not sure what I find more hysterical ... being told we are gaslighting by disagreeing with you ...
or having you on ignore and missing the chance to waste my time responding.

Since the others did .... and this claim ... is actually factual, that the rate of seas level increase is going UP every year, along with about half of the other things ... proof provided ... IGNORED ... time and time and time again ...

I am not confused. I had my blue pill, green and yellow pills ... had my 23 hours sleep. Changed my nappy prior to sitting down and well ...

I have to admit when I took the gibberish off ignore, I am confused.

I see claim, followed by factual evidence at source as the response, claims that NO one made on this thread, being treated as though they did .... or their responses ... pointing this out ... they never said that ... referring to worlds best scientific results and ... ignored.

Its all a conspiracy !! I don't have pill to fix this one.

I am confused as to your reasoning, logic and rude responses to anyone who does not agree with your, well, quite bizarre views.

I shall put myself to bed and you back to ignore, sadly, I cant even comprehend how one arrives at your conclusions, or dogma. Sad ... sad ... sad ..

 

[Sdajii]

A common aspect of climate science denial is obfuscation.
Apparently all (or nearly all) scientists agree with Sadjii. I was never able to work out what exactly they were agreeing on - the goalposts shifted from post to post.
The other aspect of denial is to use irrelvances.

I didn't say climate scientists all agree with me on everything. I said that on most points, I agree with climate scientists.

It shows how absurd the alarmists are, how extreme the mainstream narrative is, and how scientifically illiterate and naive people like you are, when literally just going with what the actual climate scientists say gets you called a 'climate science denier'!

 

[MARKETWINNER]

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/09/climate-change-industry-who-most-risk
Climate Change by Industry: Who Is Most at Risk?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/...onment/climate-change-carbon-engineering.html
Blamed for Climate Change, Oil Companies Invest in Carbon Removal

 

[rederob]

It shows how absurd the alarmists are, how extreme the mainstream narrative is, and how scientifically illiterate and naive people like you are, when literally just going with what the actual climate scientists say gets you called a 'climate science denier'!

What is an alarmist?
The mainstream narrative is not the science - you are supposed to be a scientist.
And when it comes to scientific illiteracy, your comments have been proven to be false on many occasions in this thread.
So false are your claims that you say you agree with the scientists on many points, but you don't even understand why GHGs are the most important issue requiring action be taken.
Exactly what is it that you agree with regarding the science on climate change, seeing you have got just about everything wrong?

 

[Ann]

Ann says "all scientists are trying to be as smart as me but...."

Joules, would you be kind enough to link to any post where I said this please? I don't verbal you, please do not verbal me.

Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda. Political interests are paying for the science and science has to deliver the outcomes their Masters require. One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works. If there is a negative scientific outcome for one of their drugs it is never published, they manipulate the sample group of trial patients and exclude those who are sensitive to the drugs in order to demonstrate low side-effects. There are ways and means to always get the answer the Master's want. They take the scientists' work and manipulate numbers and percentages in scientific papers to distort the outcome. Science and scientists and their work have very little to do with outcomes in Big Pharma or GW.

It is purely a way to add an international tax on to individual countries, their populations and business. Not to see this is naive in the first degree.

 

[rederob]

Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda.

There is no such thing, Ann. Why do you carry on this farce. Scientist are presenting the science.

Political interests are paying for the science and science has to deliver the outcomes their Masters require.

This is sheer ignorance. Climate science is one of the worst areas, financially, for people getting higher qualifications. If these people were out to make money they would choose more rewarding paths as job opportunities are few and far between.

One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works.

These scientists are amongst the highest paid in the word, and they are employed by massive, highly profitable, conglomerates.
You got your ideas completely assabout.

It is purely a way to add an international tax on to individual countries, their populations and business. Not to see this is naive in the first degree.

Clearly it is not as there is no such international tax.
To not see this is ignorance at the highest level.
But at least you are consistent Ann - nothing right, and no idea about climate science - just the usual baseless rant.

 

[kahuna1]

Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda.

Really ... another conspiracy theory Ann !!

One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works

And another ...

If there is a negative scientific outcome for one of their drugs it is never published

And another ..

I had the displeasure of reading your RUDE belligerent, and frankly insane posts on this thread yet again, to try and understand, just the last 15 pages or so ... was enough ...only to have yet another quite delusional conspiracy theory put forward, number 27 ? now ?Or is it number 28 ?

 

[Sdajii]

What is an alarmist?
The mainstream narrative is not the science - you are supposed to be a scientist.

That's my point. Most people follow what the mainstream and social media say, which is a massive exaggeration of the science, and the science itself is biased to the alarmist side, because the most alarmist stuff which can be justified as qualifying is science is what gets the most funding. Think about it - if climate science was sitting around saying 'no problem, nothing interesting, don't worry about it', it would get less funding. If it says 'Oh my god, the world is headed for apocalypse!' it will get more attention and funding. Even if you think the science is pure science and unadulterated by the bias (which apparently you do), you can't deny that bias exists, and it's a huge leap of faith to say it completely resists that bias.

You could call anyone who pushes or believes an exaggerated version of the issue an alarmist. Obviously it comes in varying degrees.

In most peoples' minds, there are two camps. The alarmists see themselves as correct, and anyone who doesn't unconditionally believe the most extreme version of the narrative is a denier, who they believe believes no climate change exists or humans are having zero impact on climate change. And I suppose most deniers do fit that image. Anyone in between, even if like me they totally acknowledge that climate change is real and that humans are having in influence on it, are seen as crazy by most people. When people get so irrationally polarised, both sides see anyone in the middle as belonging to the opposite side. Same deal with left/right. I'm actually a bit to the left but the vast majority of people on the left see me as alt right. Modern communication promotes echo chambers which makes people's views extreme and polarised, and anyone thinking rationally and not taking part in echo chamber mentality is seen as being an extremist on the opposite side.

And when it comes to scientific illiteracy, your comments have been proven to be false on many occasions in this thread.
So false are your claims that you say you agree with the scientists on many points, but you don't even understand why GHGs are the most important issue requiring action be taken.

I'm completely familiar with the arguments, but what can clearly be seen if you look at the data without bias or scientific illiteracy and faith, is that we don't have the data required to be as sure as the published science suggests, and the mainstream narrative doesn't just believe it but hugely exaggerates it. For everyone pushing the narrative there is huge financial incentive (the climate scientists themselves for funding, as described above, and the governments and media (because they're funded by political interest) to create taxes, stifle competitors, and distract from other environmental issues).

Exactly what is it that you agree with regarding the science on climate change, seeing you have got just about everything wrong?

You're asking for a massive answer there. If I was to post everything I agree with I'd need to write a book.

If you want to address specific points we can do that, but to ask for an all encompassing response like that is silly. Some of the specific things which I disagree with most laymen on and agree with the climate scientists on are the history of the climate (over the last few hundred million years) and the fact that the current climate is not exceeding natural limits in terms of rate of change or extremity. The climate scientists' words are often twisted and misrepresented. Most people believe that the climate is changing more rapidly than ever before (utterly, utterly untrue, and climate scientists don't believe this) and that the world is now hotter than ever (utterly, utterly untrue, and again, no climate scientist will make this claim). However, the mainstream narrative pushes both of these beliefs.

The one big point I disagree with climate scientists on is how important CO2 is. This is more of a shades of grey issue than a black and white one. Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas (not by any means the most important one) and obviously the greenhouse effect is extremely important to our climate. Yes, more CO2 will increase the temperature. Most people have difficulty seeing that it's possible to disagree 100% without disagreeing 100%, and in their minds they imagine that since I recognise that the situation is exaggerated somewhat, I must completely disagree, and then they attack me accordingly. Since we absolutely know there is a heap of bias in terms of the CO2 narrative from everyone reporting it, it almost certainly indicates that the mainstream narrative is going to be an exaggeration. It's incredibly naive to believe that with all that bias we are going to end up with a mainstream narrative (or even just a scientific consensus) which is spot on. Look at science throughout the whole history of science and you'll see problems with bias. It's strange if you think this is the first time bias has not altered the message. We actually have very little data to work with. Literally billions of years of climate history exists but we don't have accurate records of it, and we only have a few decades of reliable records. But, we do know that the climate has violently fluctuated throughout the entire time, often without CO2 fluctuations. We don't understand the climate system very well (some climate scientists acknowledge this, others try to pretend otherwise, and of course they are biased towards saying they know what's going on so that we'll take them more seriously so that we'll give them more money and attention, and when there's a clear bias and divided opinion, with any group or any issue, you can be fairly sure that the truth is closer to the unbiased opinions).

Most people will read that and just come away with the completely incorrect summary of "Sdaji doesn't believe climate scientists at all and thinks CO2 is a lie and he doesn't understand how the greenhouse effect works and believes Trump and is a climate denier and doesn't think climate change is real" - absolutely none of which is the case. It's a difficult conversation to have, because every step of the way people make completely incorrect assumptions like this, and then I have to try to carry on the conversation while I'm talking to people who have that completely incorrect view of the situation. With most people, anything other than blindly going along with the mainstream narrative and also believing that the climate scientists agree with it means that everyone will think you're a crazy 100% climate change denier and scientifically illiterate (very ironic!).

So, I've barely skimmed the surface and it's already a longer post than it should be, which is why I can't really answer your whole question.

 

[rederob]

Most people follow what the mainstream and social media say, which is a massive exaggeration of the science, and the science itself is biased to the alarmist side....

You really do not have a clue about science, despite what you think.
Science is based on science.

You're asking for a massive answer there.

Not at all. You do not believe that the pace of warming is unprecedented, and you have a view on GHGs which is not accepted by climate science.
Exactly what claims do you think you are in agreement with climate scientists regarding the present state of play?

Some of the specific things which I disagree with most laymen on and agree with the climate scientists on are the history of the climate (over the last few hundred million years) and the fact that the current climate is not exceeding natural limits in terms of rate of change or extremity.

We are talking about the science here - not about what lay observers think. I can link to more science papers - I thought 3 was enough so far - to show that your claim is false.

The climate scientists' words are often twisted and misrepresented.

By you presumably, as what they present is very clear.

...and that the world is now hotter than ever (utterly, utterly untrue, and again, no climate scientist will make this claim).

Probably because no climate scientist has ever made that claim - it's one unique to folk who make up stuff.

However, the mainstream narrative pushes both of these beliefs.

Another blatant lie - I have never read this nonsense in mainstream media.

Obviously CO2 is a greenhouse gas (not by any means the most important one) and obviously the greenhouse effect is extremely important to our climate.

Would you like the facts to prove you wrong, yet again, or would you like to find out for yourself.
I will give you some time and see how you go.

But, we do know that the climate has violently fluctuated throughout the entire time, often without CO2 fluctuations.

False. After earth formation and once the planet was habitable there is zero evidence for that claim. Moreover, the habitable planet has no periods where high CO2 levels inconsistent with warming.
You rambled on and on and continued with your inability to work out the present state of our climate.

 

[basilio]

Let's summarise Climate Science to date in a few paragraphs

1) Climate scientists know that there have been wildly ranging climatic conditions on earth over hundreds of millions of years. These have been caused by a range of factors including
Variations in planetary orbits
Large scale volcanic activity
Increases and deceases in Greenhouse gases caused by a range of influences
Changes in the intensity of the sun.
And more

2) In the last 150 years and in particular the last 40 years human produced greenhouse gases, (CO2 methane, Nitrous oxide, fluorcarbons ) have become the dominant forcing agent of our climate. In light of the overwhelming increase in these GG sources all other factors have been been reduced to bit players

3) As the planet has rapidly warmed a range of self reinforcing feedback effects are coming into play. It's basically akin to throwing more fuel on a raging fire. The most significant ones to date are the melting of Arctic sea ice enabling more sunlight to heat the oceans thus melting more ice and so on. This warming of the oceans is also threatening to destabilize billions of tons of frozen methane on the sea floors an under frozen tundra.

These are the basic facts about our climate. Any climate scientist would acknowledge them as the critical factors. Unless we somehow drastically reduce the excess Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere we facing runaway global warming as the various tipping points take effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

 

[basilio]

I started the discussion with the IEA energy report. The IEA is considered an independent world authority on energy resources. It is certainly no Government think tank. If anything it is aligned to the fossil fuel industry

If you look at its research and publications you'll find a number of extensive analysis of energy issues.

It just so happens that the major issue they are highlighting right now is the extreme risk of unstoppable global warming if we don't make drastic changes to how we produce energy.

And the response to date from the usual suspects (not everyone of course) is that the IEA has got it absolutely and totally wrong. That global warming on the scale they are suggesting will never happen. That we have nothing to worry about.

Big call.

Back to the beginning.

 

[Ann]

Scientists have very little input into this whole GW political agenda

Scientist are presenting the science.

Politically appointed representatives to the IPCC are assessing the scientific literature and presenting it, not the climate scientists who wrote the papers.

......Governments and Observer Organizations nominate, and Bureau members select experts to prepare IPCC reports. They are supported by the IPCC Secretariat and the Technical Support Units of the Working Groups and Task Force. Ref.

Climate science is one of the worst areas, financially, for people getting higher qualifications. If these people were out to make money they would choose more rewarding paths as job opportunities are few and far between.

Climate science is receiving a lot of funding and grants into the universities, not that the post grad students are getting a whole lot of money, they would get a small living grant and sufficient amount to get their papers published, this would enable them to gain their post grad qualifications. They will be beholden to the heads who offered the stipend for writing a paper related to the research focus of the subject. There would be the chance of their papers not being published if no clear outcome for the research was found. Scientists want their papers published. Academics by nature are more interested in science than making money, money is unlikely to be a major motive for a scientist/academic, published papers would be far more likely an incentive. The more published papers you have the greater the respect. I can see an incentive here for potential bias from a less than ethical student.

One only needs to look at Big Pharma to see how it all works.

These scientists are amongst the highest paid in the word, and they are employed by massive, highly profitable, conglomerates.

Generally the scientists in Big Pharma are not the people who are corrupt. It is the journals who won't publish negative results and Big Pharma who buy advertising space in these same journals. It is Big Pharma who select which papers they will publish. It is Big Pharma who feed the doctors distorted and manipulated facts using spin and distorted percentages to confound and confuse.
(For anyone interested there is an excellent book called Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre.) Alternately there is a long but interesting video which makes some salient points about Big Food and Big Pharma. The points they make could be relevant in any scientific area where a specific conclusion is desired.

It is purely a way to add an international tax on to individual countries, their populations and business. Not to see this is naive in the first degree.

Clearly it is not as there is no such international tax.

The UN’s emissions gap report suggests a carbon tax as high as $70 per ton would go further in reducing carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming.


“Studies show that a carbon tax of US$70/tCO2 in addition to existing measures could reduce emissions from just above 10 percent in some countries to more than 40 percent in other countries,” the UN reported, adding these taxes would also raise revenue. Ref.

Memo To Congress: French Riots Show Why U.S. Carbon Tax Should Be A Non-Starter
Ref.
Ontario challenge of federal carbon tax heads to court this week Ref.

Why greens are turning away from a carbon tax Ref.

Here’s How Carbon Gets Priced Around the World Ref.


This is the tax which is related to Climate Change the UN are suggesting should be imposed internationally, meaning as in each country. I am sure weaselly words could spin this into something other than an international tax but a tax it is and people are not happy! [italics fault of ASF]
Here is a research paper from 2016 which shows how the Carbon taxes are carved up in each country or province. Ref.

 

[Sdajii]

You really do not have a clue about science, despite what you think.
Science is based on science.

It should be, but unfortunately it's not. Scientists are human beings. They still need to make money, they still have egos. They still have basic human errors, they still make mistakes. There's no shortage of examples of scientists deliberately misrepresenting data or completely fabricating it for various reasons, and humans being biased is pretty much universal, and surely you can see which direction the bias is. Many people, scientists included, believe what they want to be true more. Being constantly surrounded by scientists who were being guided by money and politics rather than science is the main reason I left the whole scene.

Not at all. You do not believe that the pace of warming is unprecedented, and you have a view on GHGs which is not accepted by climate science.

It's not unprecedented. Climate scientists don't think it is. I obviously agree with the principle of the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its relative importance has been overplayed. This is actually inherently obvious. The bias is very obvious, and it should go without saying that if a huge number of people have a huge bias, it will affect what they say.

We are talking about the science here - not about what lay observers think. I can link to more science papers - I thought 3 was enough so far - to show that your claim is false.

Well, we were talking about both. If you really want to go through this, we can. The reality is, climate scientists don't make this claim, no matter how much you want to believe it based on influence from mainstream narratives, social narratives, and misrepresented data (if you carefully look at the data, you can see this). I'm happy to examine it in detail if you want, but if you do, do it as a standalone topic rather than a part of a lengthy set of responses like this or it will get too messy.

By you presumably, as what they present is very clear.

That's just a ridiculous statement.

Probably because no climate scientist has ever made that claim - it's one unique to folk who make up stuff.

Well, at least we agree on something. It's just one example of something most people think climate scientists say, despite the fact that they don't. But that wasn't my point.

Another blatant lie - I have never read this nonsense in mainstream media.

Come on, surely you know the media pushes that message. I think literally most laymen would believe it, and if so many people believe it, where do you think that message is coming from? Not climate scientists, obviously.

Would you like the facts to prove you wrong, yet again, or would you like to find out for yourself.
I will give you some time and see how you go.

You can get all emotional and silly like this, despite being wrong, but it's not conducive to a good discussion. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, not CO2.

False. After earth formation and once the planet was habitable there is zero evidence for that claim. Moreover, the habitable planet has no periods where high CO2 levels were cold.

You continually say "False" as though that's evidence of a legitimate demonstration for you being correct. There is plenty of evidence. It's true that we don't have any direct evidence for periods of high CO2 levels and cold temperatures. It's actually extremely likely to have happened but with confounding variables (such as massive volcanic events which released huge amounts of CO2 but also ash etc which caused extremely cold periods). No one was around to measure these events so we don't have the data, but it probably occurred. The reality is that we just don't have much specific data on short timescales for the last few hundred million years. But yes, under 'normal' circumstances we may not have had a period of cold temperatures and high CO2 levels, I haven't said otherwise and won't argue.

 

[rederob]

It should be, but unfortunately it's not. Scientists are human beings. They still need to make money, they still have egos. They still have basic human errors, they still make mistakes.

The peer review process resolves these concerns.
You keep clutching at straws.

It's not unprecedented. Climate scientists don't think it is.

Do I need to give another link to show your claim is false?

You can get all emotional and silly like this, despite being wrong, but it's not conducive to a good discussion. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, not CO2.

Water vapour is a feedback.
You seem to be oblivious to this.
Unless water vapour can heat itself, then its concentrations are stable. The role of water vapour in global warming is insignificant.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. While it absorbs less heat per molecule than methane or nitrous oxide, it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not. As a result carbon dioxide is responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance leading to warming.
But you can disagree with scientists on this, rather than me.