BS Chuck.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And what happened to your double standard that demanded only reputable scientific organizations be allowed to offer any contributions to climate science.

The director and editor of Carbon Brief is Leo Hickman, who

graduating in Art History in 1994.

According to Wikipedia.

Now I don't normally play your games, of attacking the messenger. I just spent countless posts destroying the inconsistencies and outright lies and omissions within the message instead, something you have never done, you promptly claim the source isn't approved, then ignore all the scientific evidence within. But please apply your own standard consistently.

And as for Zeke Hausfather, the author, you might want to find a more reputable source. This is the guy who recently wrote a paper defending how accurately the models have forecast current temperatures. You know, the models in the graph furrowtickler posted above indicating that the empirical measurements have now fallen completely below the range of all of the models, which themselves represent a range so broad as to be almost useless.

[chuckChuck]

And Charney? And the whole IPCC?

It doesn't matter to you if the source is credible climate scientists or not.

According to you they are all wrong! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5 climate sensitivity range is not zero or negative. Charney said 1.5- 4.5 degrees with a doubling of CO2 from pre industrial levels. The latest science says 2-4 degrees approximately. Neither are good news. Time to move on A5 you are grasping at straws.

The zero value came right from the Climate Brief link you posted in this thread. Didn't you read it? The range from the interactive chart ranges from 0 to 10 degree C. Now you are contradicting your own sources?
Pick your time frame, almost all show an inverse corellation. I thought you were the one who "believes" in science?
30 years of US data yields this:

When the correlation is calculated for the chart's temperature trends and the average CO2 levels for each time period, the result is a -0.93 with a r2 of +0.86. That puts it in the universe of almost a perfect inverse (negative) correlation - higher CO2 levels seemingly drives temperatures to deceleration and cooling.

500 million years:

8000 years:

[jazz]

A couple of weeks ago it was relatively hot and very dry and drought was looming

Isnt that better for solar panels?

A bunch of furnaces will now have to run for the next few week. April should be warmish right? Thats a shoulder month.
And you want it cold?

Sounds like the same logic as the carbon tax. Get a bigger rebate by using more fossil fuel.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Back to Foragefarmers assertion that I'm doing a good job of debating Chuck.
As proved here once again, I've done a terrible job.
After all this effort ,Chuck is back to where he started. Didn't learn anything.
I used his own sources, to prove he is wrong.
I used his own words, and his own arguments to disprove his own arguments.
I turned everything he said and used it against him.
And it had absolutely no effect. HIs mind is as closed as ever.
It's almost as if he didn't come here to learn anything.
Almost as if his sole purpose is to spread propaganda, not have a debate.
The operation was a success, the patient died.

[Partners]

A couple of weeks ago it was relatively hot and very dry and drought was looming

In April I will take -2 and wet over hot and extremely dry any time.

It was -10 last night again chuck. You must be so happy.
Without a warm April NO seeding in May...
So which planet are you on ???

[dmlfarmer]

For those of you who claim you are open minded, looking for answers to climate change questions, and base your opinion about climate change on science consider reading the article "The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof" that was in this morning NYTs. This article addresses the biggest questions people have about the science behind climate change and the misinformation used by climate change deniers. It is an interesting read. The author has a doctorate in geology so has some credibility. I will only post the link so those who refuse to consider anything outside their bias will not have to scroll past a long cut and paste.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20210420&instan ce_id=29436&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=50975083&se gment_id=55916&user_id=7a12d123dfb1d02ee141dbfea00 5288b https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?campaign_id=2&emc=edit_th_20210420&instan ce_id=29436&nl=todaysheadlines&regi_id=50975083&se gment_id=55916&user_id=7a12d123dfb1d02ee141dbfea00 5288b

[Guest]

https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763

[sumdumguy]

Chuck, you have lots of friends here because ‘A friend listens to your BS, tells you that it is bullshit and then listens some more.’ Now I didn’t say he reads your cut and pastes. But its all good if you have a friend or two. 😂

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for posting the article dml. I always read on when I see a headline or paper with such promises.
I keep hoping they will present the smoking gun evidence.
I really want you to be right, that there might be some more warming in our future and that we have control over that.
I was underwhelmed yet again.
Perhaps I missed it, but can yo point out which section of the article you consider to new undisutable information that cements your side of the debate? So that we have a starting point for a facts based debate on this.

But unfortunately, Chuck already contradicted you when he pronounced that no one listens to anyone who isn't a climate scientist. And the geologist in your article is not a climate scientist.

Are you really sure that Chuck is on your side? Every post he makes seems to make your job harder. With his contradictions, complete and willful ignorance of the topic and lack of any scientific comprehension. Not to mention the attitude. Perhaps he is really a double agent? In spite of all my efforts using facts, evidence and pointed question to counter your arguments, I am of the opinion that Chuck has been our sides biggest asset in destroying the credibility of the CAGW narrative.
Lock him in a room with Al Gore for an hour, and Al will come out as a born again climate denier. With apologies to Al Gore, I wouldn't actually wish that on my worst enemy.
But if you really care about the issue as you claim, perhaps you should take Chuck aside and politely ask him to quit sabatoging your cause at every turn.