Dear mhaze,

You admitted: "Nup.... a Jordan Peterson fan.".

Wow. I wasn't sure there were too many left outside the male 25 - 35 demographic.

Well good for you.

I get he messaging would be pretty appealing given he has drunk the URW Koolaid in great quantities. His tweets nowadays are far more parody than anything substantive.

Even in his area of expertise the fact that he so spectacularly dove into a substance addiction and entertained serious suicidal thoughts kind of disqualified him as the guru of self help and actualisation don't you think.

Also the fact that he was so supportive of his daughter dating the now disgraced sex trafficker Andrew Tate speaks to his parenting skills or lack thereof.

But if he remains your guru well have at it. You look good together old boy.

Same old SR. Shoot the messenger, ignore the message.

You probably won't watch it, almost certainly won't understand it and most definitely won't learn from it but what the heck....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/22/the-world-is-not-ending-bjorn-lomborg-and-jordan-peterson/

WTF?

Well I read the article you linked but I'm unsure if you did since it in no way offers support for your claims above. The word "unprecedented" isn't used. Indeed it shows that the current temperatures around the Baltic are near to the lowest of the whole Holocene.

Interestingly it spends a bit of time talking about a cooling event around 8000 yr BP which was resolved by a rapid warming over a very short period, not unlike the warming following the Little Ice Age. Unprecedented?

The article also talks of rapid warming phases ("At the beginning of the Late Preboreal time, between 11,270 and 11,210 cal year BP, there was a sudden shift to a warmer and more humid climate, and forest vegetation expanded once more.").

So I'm not sure how you think this article supports your claims. Indeed it wouldn't have been out of place for me to link it as support for my claims - current temperatures low as compared to the rest of the Holocene, periods of rapid warming quite usual.

Yes - climate science NEVER said "All climate change is caused by humans - always has, always will be!" That's such a childish strawman that it hardly needs unpacking.

Precession operates in 26,000 year cycles. Marcott analyses roughly this length of time in his 2 papers - Mhaze is just looking at the second paper. But NASA shows that while Precession had an influence back then, it's not responsible for today's warming.

To try and invalidate climate science on Precession is like saying you can't burn your hand on a man-made stove because natural volcanoes are hotter. I mean, duh!

http://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

Also - this is what Marcott says about the future. He's quite happy with the IPCC. Why isn't Mhaze, hmmmmmm? (winks).

"A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Max,

"Yes - climate science NEVER said "All climate change is caused by humans - always has, always will be!"

Well neither did I...or anyone else for that matter so I've got no idea what you're raving about. Since no one said it, why did you put it in quotes? I don't know and I suspect that makes two of us.

"To try and invalidate climate science on Precession "

Well since I did no such thing I don't know what you're raving about. I suspect that makes two of us. BTW Marcott13 doesn't mention prescession so I don't know what you're raving about. I suspect that makes two of us.

As to what Marcott said about his "projections of future temperature " , I feel like this is a biennial subject since I already educated Max on this a coupla years back. Here's what Marcott finally admitted about his projections after he and the paper were heavily critiqued for including them....

"Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

"not statistically robust".....I doubt Max will understand that.

One of the reasons I like the Marcott paper is that he was honest enough to own up that he added the 20th century data inappropriately. I think Max will need to look up the 'honest' for a meaning.

Max wanted evidence that the current temperatures aren't exceptional as I'd previously told him. I (and, perversely, WTF?) have provided that evidence. A better man might have acknowledged that. But Max? Not likely

Dear mhaze,

I certainly don't mind Bjørn Lomborg. I don't agree with a chunk of what he says and he has been caught out a number of times but his perspective is worth noting.

Peterson on the other hand is a shocker, both as a person and as an interviewer. His 5 minute long questions to Bjørn were both typical and painful. He is one of those who is so opinionated that he hogs the time in all his interviews.

Go look at the link I sent you and you will see how much better Lex's interview with Bjørn Lomborg was.