Re ludwigs post 451

You have a very strange idea about what constitutes direct evidence.

I read the “actual science” and sadly the all too often pseudo-science from Mann to Steig etc that people pretend is science. Reading the science is not about what is published but rather about what is correct and hasn’t drawn BS unwarranted conclusions from undocumented data and processing methods predisposed to create the desired result.

Your statements about the previous administration burying AGW research is just silly. Funding increased by more than an order of magnitude. And a lot of truly stupid model based rubbish got funded as if it actually had some relation to the real world.

Meanwhile, real experimental scientists have to tiptoe around to make sure their data in the real world doesn’t accidentally disprove some BS model or they lose there funding. No bias there… tell that to Reg Newell or a hundred other scientists I could name but won’t because they are still alive and trying to earn a living. There is a reason why so many of the worlds top emeritus types are skeptics.

Some folks asked earlier about how much temp change the CO2 change should cause. If CO2 concentration is the only change, I get about 1 degree F in the last century plus, with future increase if the C02 continues to rise unstopped of about another 1 degree F total. All the catastrophic scenarios assume huge positive feedback effects within the environment. This is an idea that is not supported by the history of the planet and that is not evident in the data which to date suggest these effects are small and likely slightly negative.