Oh heck.... This is weather. This is climate There, now you know more about science than Donny Dumbo. Which means you are above absolute moron level.
The hockey stick is contrived. Grafting instrument records onto proxy records is questionable enough. But then when you realize the proxy records don't match the scary temperature record you should need some real science before you conclude the proxies stopped working? Your first thought should be doesn't that theory violate Occam's razor in a preposterous way. Trees and other proxies all of sudden stopped working? Since the proxies are not supporting the temperature records perhaps the the proxies are still working but the translation from proxy to centigrade or needs to be recalibrated.
You've become even more delusional over the last two years then you were before. It's over the top and so pervasive on this site that I can't take you seriously at all. It's become obvious to me and anyone with a good head on their shoulders that you are a mental lightweight with an overdone sense of self that you can't control. Nobody is required to prove on your demand why your posts are so off base. When we do specifically disprove something you've said, you refuse to acknowledge it or trot out hand picked dubious news sources or abuse statistics. You'd rather let a lie fester on the site and just keep repeating it rather then just admit you are were wrong in whole or even in part. Been there done that you aren't a man of integrity and I'm done with appeasing you.
There is no reasoning with some of these people. I just think it helps illustrate what is wrong with today's America, where the truth often takes a seat to propaganda and politically bent opinions. The sad part is that Americans are only hurting themselves in the long run ( or their children and their children ).
This actually a very important scientific observation, viz., heat always leads to unbearable cold. (This is known in particle physics as "the hot tongue on the train track in January in International Falls Minnesota Principle). With all the heat hiding in the deep oceans the only thing not hiding is cold. Thus, once again, Al Gore is right as he always is -- he's actually a brilliant scientist disguised as a pop scientist . (Who Knew!) We are all going to die! Get used to it. Global warming folks! The only way out is for everyone in the world to step out of their backdoor at the same time and exhale at the same time. Face to the North when you do, please. By the way, at the last vote taken, 97% of scientists believed we are going to die, therefore it is true.
Well, not quite "All". There are a small minority dummy physicists and meteorologists that don't agree, but what do they know? This guy for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv Compared to Al Gore he's a real dummy. Shaviv started taking courses at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa at age 13.[7] He graduated with a BA in physics in 1990, and finished as best in class. During his military service (1990–93) he continued his studies and co-authored his first papers in astrophysics. In 1994 he received a Master of Science in physics and a doctorate during 1994–96. During 1996–99 he was a Lee DuBridge Prize Fellow at Caltech's TAPIR (Theoretical Astrophysics) group. During 1999–2001 he was in a postdoctorate position at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. In 2001–6 he was a senior lecturer at Racah Institute of physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2006-2012 he was an associated professor, and full professor since 2012. Between 2008 and 2011 he was the head of the faculty union of the Hebrew University, and he served as the chairman of coordinating council of faculty unions between 2010 and 2014. In 2014 he became a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and chairman of The Racah Institute of Physics in 2015. In 1999 Shaviv has shown that inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres reduce the effective opacity and thus increase the Eddington luminosity.[8] Shaviv later showed that atmospheres are inherently unstable as the Eddington luminosity is approached,[9] that these atmospheres will develop continuum driven winds that explain the appearance of eta-Carinae and classical nova eruptions.[4] In 2010 Shaviv made the prediction that Type IIn supernova should have super-Eddington outbursts before the main supernova explosions since the super-Eddington states can naturally explain the circum-stellar material present around the supernova at the time of explosion (Giving the narrow lines observed in the spectrum, i.e., the “n” in the Type IIn).[10] Such precursors were later detected with the Palomar Transient Factory, making them the first systematically detected supernova precursors. Shaviv has been one of the proponents of a cosmic ray climate link. In 2003 he has shown that the cosmic ray flux over the past billion years can be reconstructed from the exposure ages of Iron meteorites, that these flux variations are expected from spiral arm passages, and they correlate with the appearance of ice age epochs on Earth.[12] In a later work with Ján Veizer, it was demonstrated that the temperature reconstruction over the Phanerozoic correlates with the cosmic ray flux, but it does not correlate with the CO2 reconstruction, thus placing an upper limit on the effects of CO2.[2] This prompted several reactions by the climate community and rebuttals by Shaviv and his colleagues.[13] He has also shown[14] that the Cosmic Ray climate link explains part the faint sun paradox, since the slowly decreasing solar wind will give rise to a cooling effect that compensates the solar irradiance increase. Moreover, long term star formation activity in the Milky Way correlate with long term climate variations. In a more recent work with Andreas Prokoph and Ján Veizer,[15] it was argued that the reconstructed temperature has a clear 32 million year oscillation that is consistent with the solar system’s motion perpendicular to the galactic plane. The oscillation also appears to have a secondary modulation consistent with the radial epicyclic motion of the solar system. Because the existence of a significant cosmic ray climate link implies that solar variability will also have a large effect on the climate, Shaviv advocated the idea that natural climate variations play a significant role in 20th century climate change. Moreover, if solar activity increase over the 20th century contributed to warming in addition to the anthropogenic forcing, then the overall climate sensitivity should be lower than advocated by standard scenarios which do not include solar forcing.[16] In 2008, Shaviv used the oceans as a giant calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. He found that the peak to peak variations are close to 1 W/m2, significantly more than can be expected from the changes in the solar irradiance.[17] In 2011 he published a paper with Shlomi Ziskin arguing that the solar variability explains about half the 20th century warming, with the other half attributable to anthropogenic forcing.[18][non-primary source needed] Shaviv’s solar hypothesis has been disputed by Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich in an analysis of the sun’s output over the last 25 years. They argue that the sun’s activity has been decreasing since 1985 while global temperatures have continued to rise.[19] Shaviv argues that Lockwood and Froehlich's analysis is flawed for a number of reasons.[20] Firstly, while sunspot activity declined after 1985, cosmic ray flux reached a minimum in 1992 and contributed to warming during the 1990s. Secondly, Shaviv argues that short term variations in radiative forcing are damped by the oceans, leading to a lag between changes in solar output and the effect on global temperatures. While the 2001 maximum was weaker than the 1990 maximum, increasing solar activity during previous decades was still having a warming effect, not unlike the lag between noon and the hottest hour of the day. The perceived "hiatus" in the early 2000s was seen as consistent with the decreased solar activity. Shaviv denies the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[5] Shaviv was interviewed for The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary. In the film he states: “ A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say.[21] ” In 2012, he contributed, along with Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta, to the book Die kalte Sonne. Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet (The Cold Sun) of Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, a book expressing skepticism of anthropogenic global warming, which attracted considerable interest in Germany.[22] Numerous scientists criticised the book and considered its underlying assumptions to be either outdated or highly speculative.[23][24][25][26] In 2018 the German right-wing-party Alternative für Deutschland invited him as an expert to the German Parliament. There he denied that carbon dioxide had a substantial effect on climate change[6] and claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was hiding information that the sun was the primary cause for climate change.[27] Prizes and awards 1996 Wolf foundation award for excellence as PhD student 1996 Lee A. DuBridge scholarship at Caltech 2000 Beatrice Tremaine scholarship in Toronto 2004 Siegfried Samuel Wolf lecture for nuclear physics 2014 IBM Einstein Fellowship, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton Such a Dummy! The above is all Wiki crap. 97% of scientists know its a lie. Al Gore wouldn't lie.
Yeah, no publishing climate scientist anywhere in the world denies man made global warming. Shaviv is not a climate scientist. He knows nothing about climate. He's an astrophysicist. Do you even know the difference? The IPCC is hiding th evidence the sun is the cause? This is the guy you hang your hat on? Bwaaahhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! pie,you should also take your meds. We have been through this many times and you still trot out the same irrelevant bullshit, industry whores and fringe fools that the rest of the climate community laughs at. For good and obvious reasons. You and jem must have adjoining cubicles. Literally the only people arguing this way anymore are think tank workers and their lackeys.