What's the best evidence[Legit published papers] against Global Warming?

>that doesnt even make sense
It's because science usually doesn't set out to specifically discredit theories. It examines evidence and if it finds none it considers it unsubstantiated but not disproven. you won't find any studies claiming they disproved anthropogenic climate change or any evidence that would discredit it. The way you would have to argue against it is to view the common arguments for it and explain why they don't imply what the argument says it does i.e. the earth is warming, but it has always gone through warming and cooling cycles. There's no magic bullet against it.

Look I get what you are trying to do and I personally love playing devils advocate but there is a point where you should simply stop. If you keep up this attempt to fuck with her teacher you may convince your sister for some very untrue things. Worse you may even just get her a bad grade because your sources are going to be quite sketchy to fill a whole paper on global warming. Finally you are going to teach your sister that it's okay to look at a bunch of data and cherry pick to get the result you wanted which is a terrible problem in science at the moment.

Wow, so you suck Bernies cock, right? You clearly have no clue. i would teach her something you do not know; correlation doesn't equal causation. I'm trying to teach her that she doesn't have to follow the popular belief when there isn't much evidence to prove the claim. tell me, bernie boy, where's your proof? carbon dioxide levels in 1850 were only 260-280ppm. 35-45% lower and they'd hit their all time lows(180-200). now, in 2016 at 400ppm, its raising temps when 7,000 during the cambrian(greatest explosion of life ever) didnt? how do you explain the cold climates of the cambrian when the co2 levels were over 10 times higher than now on average? when co2 doubled it didnt raise the temps either. now, its only up 40%.

yea, i agree.i wasn't talking about that when i said it doesnt make sense. meant about putting it on 2 boards

32 video Youtube series arguing that it is real and backing it up with evidence. Watch the first few videos at least. It's the best in depth guide I've ever seen on the topic.

heres the link, took me a bit tio find it
youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

The fact of the matter is that the evidence points for it being a thing.
So you're left to try and argue that it isn't a bad thing, or more likely, that it isn't nearly as bad as people have predicted. Good luck, and look at the facts.

Okay so the OP is searching through board after board and attempting to find any evidence that supports their presupposed idea and failing. You went to /pol/ for chrissake, I'm all about being skeptical of the establishment but there's a point where you're teaching a bad life lesson about science to your sister. Science doesn't exist so that a person can filter through data until they find the version they like. It's almost as bad as P-hacking.

I am literally stating the same stance as . What you are doing right now is the same reason we have the anti-vaxxer's, by aggressively looking for one specific answer your confirmation bias becomes unwieldy. If you find a good paper go on ahead but people are posting youtube series here which is on the level of flat earthers.

what does it say is real? climate change? i've never heard of a climate change denier in my life. some people deny carbon dioxide as the cause but not much else. no one denies that the climate is changing. if those videos are the best in depth guide you've ever seen then t you have never done any research on the subject whatsoever and you certainly have never read any studies farther than the headline. there are a dozen positive effects that raised levels of carbon dioxide is having on life on earth. can you name even a single one? can you tell me 1 negative effect it has had?? you do realize that cooks 97% was a lie, right? have you ever even read cooks "study"? he did a study about other studies and guess what, he never even read any of those studies. he only read the abstracts. whenever humans were mentioned and climate, he took that to mean that they "support man made climate change."
Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming, so 33% didn't endorse it. This is all right in the study that everyone quotes the 97% from.
Cook calls this “an overwhelming consensus”.
here's how many of the peer reviews looked after they saw his claim of 97%:
They examined “11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Look it up for yourself instead of watching videos of reading headlines retard

not quite. you sir are just very uneducated on the subject. i am simply looking for sources. who said i failed? i've succeeded in my goal. just because you bernie bots here tow hillarys party line doesnt mean the sky is falling. i found extensive evidence that higher levels of carbon dioxide is a good thing and it does not cause higher temp by itself. please, name 1 other time in history when carbon dioxide made the worlds temperature higher. go ahead, you have until this 404s. you cant do it. its not a real thing. CO2 is only o.o4% of the atmosphere. for every million parts, CO2 is only 395 of those million and thats now after the "hike." there have been many times the CO2 levels have been higher but the temps never rose. sorry dude but youre the one who believes unproven bulshit. please do research instead of being a cuck and just repeating what you heard on a facebook science page or read in a headline on the huffington post. more CO2 has caused an almost 30% increase in foliage on earth in the last 40 years because thats what plants breath, senpai. they, in turn release oxygen, which is also good. yea, the plants use over half the "new" CO2 produced since 1850. Suck a dick faggot.
i'll give you a video since you chimps dont seem to enjoy reading at all.
youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

God, I fucking hate /pol/. Threads like this make the other shitty threads in Veeky Forums seem brilliant by comparison though. Keep posting, OP.

that's alright. history is on my side

Science isn't fucking about this shit. It's based on current evidence. If you think you are more informed than the guys doing the research, continue to be ignorant. I could understand questioning a handful of papers but there are hundreds if not thousands of papers disagreeing with you. Fuck off.

1st off, why respond if you dont even read the current research youself? 4 of the last 6 papers on long term greenhouse effects of CO2 found no effects what so ever; the other 2, very minor effects. i like how people like yourself respond without knowing what they're talking about. i just gave you a link to a video where some of the best scientists in the world are saying what i am saying. actually im saying what theyre saying. theyre doing research. i've already went through this. no one respond the way you did unless you know nothing. your knowledge of the subject and research goes no farther than headlines and videos of bill nye(who isnt even a real scientist).

Maybe just watch the video instead of rambling like an insane person.

Why are you looking for evidence that Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit, you're better off looking for info that proves either are real, and if you can't find convincing evidence, it must be fake.

climate change is real.

global warming doomsday, probably not.

we can't predict weather more than 3 weeks, you have to be retarded to think we can predict it a century ahead.

elon musk has said this before, we know the climate is changing, we know we're causing some of the change, anything past that we have no idea.

Fuck off. I have no opinions on the issue because I'm not a climate scientist. I trust the consensus because that is entirely what scientific fact means (and it changes when consensus slowly moves). You are doing this to be a contrarian. Get off of this board.

>I trust the consensus because that is entirely what scientific fact means (and it changes when consensus slowly moves).
>le science by consensus meme
nice try retard.

Wow, thank goodness we have a few Youtube video series and a Republican documentary that easily defeats years of research done by thousands of scientists, whew!

youre clearly changing your stance now that you have been confronted about your ideology. just admit youre a know-nothing and try to learn something next time you speak

that's all i'm saying. i got the proof now from some other links and following the trail in the description of some videos people posted.
years of research actually support the more conservative view on the subject. if anything, more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. its only .o39% of the atmosphere and people are upset over 390 parts per million? there is no 97% consensus. stop believing rachel maddow and anderson cooper

freeman dyson isnt a republican

>we can't predict weather more than 3 weeks, you have to be retarded to think we can predict it a century ahead.

Calculated prediction. If the world keeps doing what it's been doing for an entire century, then based on evidence of what's happening now, we can propose things will only get worse.

Sorry, I'll change my mind. Continue with your research on youtube. Clearly you are enlightened. I'll go hit up wikipedia and let you know what I find.

This is how fucking science works. I'm assuming you've never done any real science?

>there's no such thing as global warming
What?
Also climate is the weather pattern over several decades. Sunspots, tilt of the earth don't last that long.

>we can't predict weather more than 3 weeks, you have to be retarded to think we can predict it a century ahead.
Are you that fucking stupid? Climate change isn't the same as predicting clouds and tornadoes. Holy shit. There are significantly less RELEVANT variables to climate change, as opposed to weather where every goddamn particle in the atmosphere is an equally relevant variable. I'm obsessed with chaos, and there's a massive difference in the chaotic nature of these two systems.

We don't have NO idea, we have SOME idea. It may be wrong. It's probably not. There's a lot of data but you are more interested in cherry-picking anything that agrees with your preconceived notions while ignoring everything else. It will be adjusted as time goes on, because that's how we fucking do science.

>Calculated prediction
fancy way of saying extrapolation, take a statistics class to realize why you shouldn't do this.

>le science by consensus meme
nice try retard.

>Are you that fucking stupid? Climate change isn't the same as predicting clouds and tornadoes. Holy shit.
it is actually, both are weather prediction.

>There are significantly less RELEVANT variables to climate change,
do you have downs? weather is a chaotic system and every single variable matters.

you're not going to fool me with this, you can't predict past 3 weeks, you definitely can't predict a century ahead, good try faggot.

> I'm obsessed with chaos, and there's a massive difference in the chaotic nature of these two systems.
>muh anecdotes
theres a difference, predicting a century ahead is way harder I agree.

You seem to be stupid, and I feel bad for you, so I'm going to help you out. It is absolutely impossible to find absolute truth in the world. Therefore, you either have Faith, as a religious nut, or you work together with humanity to form consensus on the most reasonable explanation, which usually evolves over time. as more information is available.

If you think otherwise, you are delusional and should see a psychiatrist.

Go back to your safe space

Nice reading comprehension, moron.
Weather is not the same as the overall trend of the average temperature. The latter is a MUCH SIMPLER system. The weather has NEGLIGIBLE effect on this trend. Rather, this trend has effect on weather.

Lastly, I was not comparing the nature of a short-term prediction and a long-term prediction, you fucking dope, I was comparing prediction of weather to prediction of previously stated trend.

Weather is about AIR. Climate change is NOT about air. Clear enough for you?

But he's as stupid as one

Please link me to some of your published papers or list some conferences you've spoken at. You seem to be pretty aware of how science works. Show me what you've done.

fuck you, i dont need to do anything

and yes, ive written a couple of sentences in a well-known lab equipment manual

Exactly. I'm saying you don't know how science works. It is about consensus.

A lab equipment manual. So you took a technical writing course in college. That's adorable. Why are you here if you aren't interested in discussing science? Feelings and rhetoric are not science. As the party with the burden of proof, provide backing for your argument or fuck off and find somewhere else to post. No one cares what you feel.

I don't care for videos that try to prove something is right while overlooking alternative options. I'm not into circlejerking.

but it does.
it combines cycles over tens of thousands of years. I'm not talking about sunspots

Lists of Skeptical Papers
populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
c3headlines.com/peer-reviewed-research-studies-climate-change-related-other.html
chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html
notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/
notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/
notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/
friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Madhav bibliography LONG VERSION Feb 6-07.pdf

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

Climate Sensitivity: +0.5 °C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

Climate Sensitivity: +0.3 °C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso

Climate Sensitivity: +0.4 °C

Revised 21st century temperature projections
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition”
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008)
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-2.3 °C

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

Climate Sensitivity: +1.1 °C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

Climate Sensitivity: +0.7 °C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.6 °C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, November 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3-1.8 °C

Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °C

Ring, Michael J., et al. "Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century." Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 2.04 (2012): 401.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.8 °C

Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

Climate Sensitivity: +1.98 °C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

Climate Sensitivity: +1.7-2.3 °C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp. 7414-7429, October 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

Climate Sensitivity: +1.6 °C

The Potency of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a Greenhouse Gas
(Development in Earth Science, Volume 2, pp. 20-30, 2014)
- Antero Ollila

Climate Sensitivity: +0.6 °C

The role of ENSO in global ocean temperature changes during 1955–2011 simulated with a 1D climate model
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp. 229-237, February 2014)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

Climate Sensitivity: +1.3 °C

Otto, Alexander, et al. "Energy budget constraints on climate response." Nature Geoscience 6.6 (2013): 415-416.

Climate Sensitivity: +1.9 °

A minimal model for estimating climate sensitivity
(Ecological Modelling, Volume 276, pp. 80-84, March 2014)
- Craig Loehle

Climate Sensitivity: +1.99 °

The best evidence is the continually rewritten temperature record. By pure coincidence every new "correction" increases the rate of warming.

a. “Reconciling observations of global temperature change” Richard Lindzen & Constantine Giannitsis. Geophysical Research Letters V 29 (2002) No 12 10.1029/2001GL014074

Analyzes the discrepancy between global mean temperature trends, obtained by satellite
microwave data, and surface temperature measurements.

b. “Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs climate reality” Robert Balling Jr & Randall Cerveny Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 103-112

Documents the mismatch between popular perceptions, as created by media reports, and
climate reality, which does not show extreme weather as increasing in the USA.

c. “On destructive Canadian Prairie windstorms and severe winters: A climatological assessment in
the context of global warming” Keith Hage Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 207-228

Documents a temporal frequency peak in severe windstorms and associated tornadoes
during the 1920s and 1930s, then a steady decline since 1940 through 1980s. A steep rise
in tornado frequency since 1970 is attributed to increasing awareness and reporting of
tornado activity in recent years, and NOT due to change in tornado climatology.

d. “Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the Unites States: a result of societal
changes, not global warming” Stanley Changnon Natural Hazards V 29 (2003) p. 273-290

Documents that increasing economic impacts of extreme weather events in the USA is a
result of societal change and NOT global warming.

e. “The global warming debate: A review of the present state of science” M L Khandekar T S Murty &
P Chittibabu Pure & Applied Geophysics V 162 (2005) p. 1557-1586

Concludes that the recent warming of the earth’s surface is primarily due to urbanization,
land-use change, etc. and not due to increasing green house gas in the atmosphere.

f. “Extreme weather trends vs dangerous climate change: A need for a critical reassessment” M L
Khandekar Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p.327-331

Shows that extreme weather events like heat waves, winter blizzards, rainstorms, droughts
etc are not increasing anywhere in Canada, USA or elsewhere, where sufficient data are
available for adequate analysis.

g. “The interaction of climate change and the carbon dioxide cycle” A Rorsch R S Courtney & D
Thoenes Energy & Environment V 16 (2005) p. 217-238

Argues the relatively large rise of CO2 in the 20th century, was caused by the increase in
the mean temperature which preceded it.

h. “Can we detect trends in extreme tropical cyclones?” Christopher Landsea et al Science V 313
(2006)p.452-454

Suggests the Dvorak technique, developed to estimate hurricane strength, was not
available in the late 1960s and early 1970s or before, when some of the hurricanes and
tropical cyclones may have been stronger than estimated.

i. “Trends in western North Pacific tropical cyclone intensity” M- C Wu K-H Yeung & W-L Chang EOS
Transactions AGU V 87 (2006) No 48 28 November 2006

Suggests that the western North Pacific tropical cyclone climatology does not reveal
increasing strength for typhoon records from 1965 to 2004.

j. “On global forces of nature driving the earth’s climate: Are humans involved?” L F Khilyuk & G V
Chilinger Environmental Geology V 50 (2006) p. 899-910

Presents a comprehensive review of the global forces driving the earth’s climate over
geological times. The present warming of the last 150 years is a short warming episode in
the earth’s geologic history. Human activity (anthropogenic green house gas emission)
may be responsible for only 0.01°C of the approximately 0.56°C warming of the 20th
century.

Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate

a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science
Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review
Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how
this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio,
Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones
during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was
100 ppmv less than at present.
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little
Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the
solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as
identified through sunspot cycles.
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?”
Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208

Arctic & Antarctic temperatures: from Holocene to present
a. “First survey of Antarctic sub-ice shelf sediment reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat” C J Pudsey
& J Evans Geology 29 (2001) p.787-790
Documents that the Larsen A & B ice shelves in the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula were
probably altogether absent about two thousand years ago.
b. “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response” P Doran et al Nature online 13
January 2002 (DOI:10.1038/nature 710)
Documents a cooling trend in the Antarctica using recent temperature data.
c. “Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875-2000” I V
Polyakov et al J ournal of Climate 16 (2003) p. 2067-2077
Presents a long series of temperature and pressure data (1875-2000) over the Arctic basin,
and documents strong multi-decadal variability on a time scale of 50-80 years.
d. “Holocene climate variability” P A Mayewski et al Quaternary Research 62 (2004) p. 243-255
Identifies Rapid Climate Change throughout the Holocene, involving cool polar regions
and wet (or dry) tropical regions.
e. Global warming & the Greenland ice sheets” P Chylek, J E Box & G Lesins Climatic Change (2004)
63 p. 201-221
Shows that a rapid warming over all of coastal Greenland occurred in the 1920s. Average
annual temperature rose between 2° and 4°C in less than ten years.
f. “A multi-proxy lacustrine record of Holocene climate change on northeast Baffin Island, Arctic
Canada” Quaternary Research (2006) 65 p. 431-442
Shows a pronounced Holocene temperature maximum, about 5°C warmer than present.

thanks to whoever took the time to post all those papers.

Extraneous influence on mean temperature trends: urbanization, landuse
change etc.
a. “The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to
climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases” R A Pielke sr et al Phil.
Trans. R soc. London UK (2002)360 p.1705-1719
Considered a landmark paper in the present global warming debate. This paper brings out
an important aspect of land-use change and its dominating impact.
b. “Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate” E. Kalnay & M Cai, Nature, Vol. 423, 29
May 2003, p. 528-531
Using the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, USA, re-analyses upper-air data and
an extrapolation to the surface, obtaining the urbanization impact on mean temperature
trend to be about 0.280C over 100 years and about 0.180C over the recent 30 years.
c. “The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska” K Hinkel et al International J of Climatology, Vol.
23, 2003, p. 1889-1905
Obtains the urban-rural temperature difference of over 20C during the winter months at
Barrow, Alaska.
d. “Impacts of anthropogenic heat on regional climate patterns” A Block, K Keuler & E Schaller
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31, L12211, 2004
Shows how anthropogenic heat released from highly industrialized and populated areas
can produce a permanent warming from 0.15° to 0.5°C.
e. “A test of correction for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data” R McKitrick & P
Michaels, Climate Research, Vol. 26, 2004, p. 159-173
Documents a definite warm bias in the temperature trend, as a result of non-climatic
impact of local (and regional) economic activity.

Temperature reconstruction using proxy data: The Hockey-Stick Graph
The following studies demonstrate conclusively that the highly publicized Hockeystick
graph was based on several erroneous calculations and assumptions.
a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature
series” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777
b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-
682
c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick
Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710
d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution
proxy data” A Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617
e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of
the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House sub-committee on
Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick global climate reconstructions. US House of
Representatives, Washington USA. Available for download from
ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006 Wegman Report.pdf
f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O
stalagmite record” A Mangini, C Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p.
741-751

You not know how to use pastebin or something?

>we can't predict weather more than 3 weeks, you have to be retarded to think we can predict it a century ahead.
I can't tell you whether or not it will rain on a given day, but I can tell you that it will be warm in the summer and cold in the winter. Large-scale trends are frequently easier to predict than smaller fluctuations.

>if anything, more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. its only .o39% of the atmosphere and people are upset over 390 parts per million?
DNA is only a few hundred parts per million of body mass, by some estimates, but it plays a huge role in your development. and there are toxins that will kill you at concentrations of a few parts per trillion!
don't assume that because there's just a little of something, that it doesn't have major effects.

>I POSTED IT AGAIN, LOL

yes, because cherry-picking a few papers that support your opinion TOTALLY proves a consensus, right?
I don't have the time to go through all your Gish Gallop, but the last time we did all this, you (or some other denier) posted the notrickszone list, and it proved to contain two papers published in predatory journals, one paper that wasn't even peer-reviewed and had just been posted on a denier blog (cargo cult science at its best), and a bunch of legitimate papers that didn't say ANYTHING about climate change.

Just dig up all the stuff from the 70s about global cooling, and use the absolute guaranteed doomsday of impending global ice age to counteract the global warmists.

>yes, because cherry-picking a few papers that support your opinion TOTALLY proves a consensus, right?
This is what the thread was about.
Not your autistic sperging.
There is no reason to argue here.

I know it's less related to your topic, but isn't ocean acidification still an issue due to CO2 levels?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Negative

That's cute. So as technology improves and our measures get more accurate, we see global temperatures clearly increasing. And you think this is evidence of a cover-up.

You're like a biblical creationist who points to scientists who over the years have corrected the age of the earth, placing its creation long before we once thought it was (due to more accurate measurement) and going, "see!! They changed the dates so it's not accurate!! Earth must be 6,000 years old!!"