It is always amusing when climate change deniers, uh, sorry, I mean skeptics, cite historic climate data to try to discredit climate research.

The historical record they cite was collected by the very community of researchers whom they attempt to discredit by those facts. It is as if they think the researchers are unaware of those historical facts and that they never realized that there have been warming and cooling periods before.

It just exposes their motivations: scientists are charlatans who don't understand anything when the climate scientists support AGW, but the data from the same scientists is heralded as the real truth when the deniers/skeptics think it supports their own beliefs.

> It just exposes their motivations: scientists are charlatans who don't understand anything when the climate scientists support AGW, but the data from the same scientists is heralded as the real truth when the deniers/skeptics think it supports their own beliefs.

I don’t think that is quite correct. Most ‘climate deniers’ I have spoken with don’t question the competence of scientists, they question their motives and suspect they are simply seeking funding, attention, or both.

motives are simple (for both sides):

  advocates = the planet is in peril
  deniers = fossil fuel companies are paying us (or, "I hate liberals")

"A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason."

There is way too many people like this on hn. I guess this means that HN is essentially 'mainstream' now (at least in SV?), but it's also disappointing.

It's like discovering your close circle of scientist friends has a anti-vaxxer.

Of course, this is a bunch of nutpicked scans from newspapers with no scientific value beyond making some climate trolls feel smug. The level of science and attention given to the issue today is unprecedented and the fact that there were heatwaves in the past is not controversial. CO2 emitted by human activity is demonstrably warming the Earth in line with predictions going back 40 years, the predictions without drastic action are disastrous, and the observed is generally trending worse than predictions.

What are your primary sources for these statements, or are you just parroting what you've heard? Have you looked at any of the raw data?

"Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity" was published in the 1960s.[0] It aligns with current models.[1]

If you don't want to read them, then in summary, describing the 2017 report (itself a followup to a similar 2014 report) Ars mentions:

> If you’re wondering what could have changed since the last report in 2014, the new Assessment highlights a list of areas in which our understanding has improved. That includes the evaluation of the human contribution to individual extreme weather events, higher-resolution climate models producing better simulations of things like hurricanes, and studies of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica that have bumped the worst-case sea level rise estimates upward.[2]

In other words, the conclusions are the same as they've always been, except we underestimated how bad things are going to be. There is no reputable scientific position to take that says climate change isn't happening or that it isn't human caused. Even Chevron accepts that conclusion at this point.[3]

If you're claming that you know more than both >90% of the scientific community and the actual oil industry, then you are alone in that belief.

[0]: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)...

[1]: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

[2]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/us-government-climat...

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

I do not believe that we can link to any sources that you have not yet already seen and disregarded. You'll just ignore them or find a different way to read plain English. Your time might be better spent finding a real conspiracy to uncover. If, of course, you really believe what you just said and are not just trolling to begin with in the hopes of wasting everyone's time.

In case I am wrong and you truly believe this stuff, I took the time to at least disprove the source that looked most trustworthy to me in another conspiracy theory comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21084305

The only source that I could find immediately is this one: http://www.wettergeschichte-hessen.de/

Entry 3508 talks about 35 degrees Celsius in May of 1892, which for Germany is freakin' hot.

Another entry calls 31 degrees Celsius in June 1818 exceptionally hot, which I would not consider exceptional at all.

You might as well ask for the primary source of my assertion that Donald Trump is the sitting president of the United States. Ergo, the answer is "the front page of any major newspaper". Now that I've tripped the wire, please do go on about how that doesn't count.

So newspapers, which are not primary sources, and have a long history of parroting climate alarmism predictions that have never come true: https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1175075616699355139

Then why do you, and the links you post, insist on debunking newspaper articles? Seems like a classic straw man. Go debunk the primary sources.

Can sealions not use google?

No, they want you to google it for them. It's part of the sealion code of conduct.

I'll take my "realclimatescience" in the form of physical evidence over a significant period (ice cores, growth rings, etc) rather then a few anecdotes about heat waves (that's weather, not climate). If that's ok?

What about the NOAA data adjustments and climate scientists openly discussing getting rid of the 1940s warmth: https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86IIKK9FRg

And lack of warming trend in the raw data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mWanx8ojmOkcazzRhDao...

And the new USCRN data showing no significant warming trend in the USA in 12 years: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/08/the-uscrn-revisited/

And the Canadian data purge: https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1174909654297538560

What about what? All I'm seeing is some irrelevant local data over a period that is way too small to say anything useful about climate trends and a few political talking points about isolated incidents..

This is a fake news blog, created to spread conspiratorial misinformation.

What sources do you have for this, or is this just your opinion?

The burden of proof is on you to establish a random wordpress blog's credibility.

The tin-foil NOAA "cover up" conspiracy the site is pushing means it's spreading conspiratorial misinformation.

False. All of the sources in the blog are cited; you obviously didn't look carefully enough before arriving at your conclusion.

Citing cherry-picked data sources, spreading conspiracy misinformation, and making misrepresentations is not credible behavior for a wordpress blog, but I can see you're of the opinion that it is.

Reading comprehension.

Source: It goes against my narrative, so it must be banned / deplatformed.

This is the new way the left "debates", unfortunately.

There are a decent amount of resources online that are skeptical about the man-made impact on the climate or whether or not CO2 is the temperature knob for the climate.

I wonder if there are any sources for the data provided in these old newspaper articles.

Save your trolling for Reddit.