To Belly.

Something to think about is the difference between conspiracy theory, which is coordinated and designed, versus cultural movements that are not planned out, but just happen.

There are big enough players in the world to keep in mind the consparicy theory possibilities. If there's a backer that is powerful enough to do so, there's a good chance that they will use their influence to push their own agenda.

However, calling it al conspiracy is ridiculous. I'm not a victim of minipulation and consparicy. If anything, I'm just a guy who stepped into something you might think of as "the wrong crowd." (Because they reject things you believe strongly in). I don't think they are the wrong crowd. But I'm using that as an example to illistrate the point of cultural influence instead of conspiracy influence. From my point of view you've been hoodwinked into the wrong crowd, not me. But that probabley comes with the terroritory of disagreeing with eachother's stances.

"That in fact we will probably get the hottest day on record"

Hottest day on record....maybe. OMG we're all gunna die.

2/12/19 "Thredbo...recorded Australia's lowest maximum summer temperature on record." Nothing to see here...move along.

__________________________________________________________________

"Bill McKibben did the math on the highest probability ....."

Did he? Show me where? Show me that math?

" now even Nature has undermined your weird claims."
My claim was based (in part only,you assiduously avoid all my other points) on the FACT that there is a range. What the range is doesn't matter to the issue. If part of the 'math' involves a range then the answer must also be a range. I'm sure you're now thoroughly lost. But thanks for finding more data to support my point.

"The majority of the hype was from the media, not the scientists."
Well that's utterly false. But Max's gurus at SkepticalScience have hoodwinked him yet again by using dodgy data that he neither understands nor bothers to question. The fact is the ice age theory was endorsed by organisations like NOAA, NASA, CIA, CRU (the climategate folk) and other bodies that no longer exist. And if it was mere media hype, where is the evidence that scientists were rushing to disavow the hype with the truth.
SkepticalScience did a search on papers by using dodgy methods and then got the answer they (and Max) wanted.

What amuses me is that in 30 yrs or so, Max Green Jr will be telling us that the warming scare was just media hype and that scientists didn't really buy it. And they can use Cook's own data. Currently he gets his 97% figure by assuming that any paper that doesn't explicitly disagree with AGW, agrees with it. Hey presto, 97% consensus. But if you say that any paper that doesn't explicitly agree with AGW, disagrees, you get a 99% consensus that there is nothing to worry about.

There was general consensus that an ice age was coming. Dodgy data doesn't change that. Just as there is no 97% consensus that we're-all-gunna-die - dodgy data doesn't change that.

NOT NOW SOON,
We can agree that social media “culture silos” or “echo-chambers” or “tailored fake news worlds” have weaponised the tribal nature of politics. Where we disagree is what to do about it.

“I shake my head in wondering if you really don't remember the same things already said before”
I’m still confused what you’re talking about as you haven’t offered any concrete evidence or examples. Are you talking about stuff like Bill McKibben’s DO THE MATH tour and movie? Check it out — 3 minutes. http://youtu.be/5KtGg-Lvxso
Is this the sort of warning you mean?

Your “Point 1” has not been established yet. Four posts of waffle and hot air and not ONE shred of evidence! Dude, let me spell something out for you. You’re an adult posting on an internet forum that you disagree with the overwhelming consensus on a scientific enterprise. It is YOUR job to google these ‘examples’ you’re talking about and show them. Don’t try and guilt me into doing your own work for you! Seriously, if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

“All three points of unreliability converge to make the whole issue unreliable.”
Except you haven’t made ONE point, let alone three! It’s not my fault you haven’t read the non-technical Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ It’s not my fault you have not investigated your own subjective impressions by comparing them to what the science actually says. Read the Summary above. It will take a few hours. Print it out and keep it for future reference. You may find many questions answered there.

You also just keep *repeating* there is no reliability. If you say it 20 times on the forum, it must be true hey? Warning: you have already shared your own whacky misunderstandings of climate predictions when you said it predicted "15-30 degrees hotter each year". http://tinyurl.com/wkgk48z That is the worst, most exaggerated strawman about climate science I have EVER heard and I've been debating tinfoil hatters like you for about 15 years!

BOOM! See what can be done in one post?

NNS no way you can convince me the tobacco lobby was not a group ,trying to hide the truth for financial gain
Or that anti climate changers, believers like me, are a cultural thing
Funny stuff
Mhaze tell me please why are so many records being broken now?
Fill me in on that
But consider science has answered that and you just refuse to see it

MHAZE,
Can you please do me the courtesy of putting my name MAX GREEN in capitals and then I’ll know you’re talking to me and not accidentally miss something you’re writing to me.

Bill McKibben based his carbon budget on the IPCC studies. Imagine that? http://350.org/science/

“What the range is doesn't matter to the issue. If part of the 'math' involves a range then the answer must also be a range.”
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force him to drink. Dude, this is the quote of quotes that shows you don’t have a clue about the probability distribution of all those hundreds of paleoclimate studies. It shows you’re just a gambler, intent on being a denier and fussing over the tiniest, freakiest probability that we *might* be OK if we doubled our CO2 concentrations when the vast majority of climate studies are showing danger ahead. And those studies are coming up with MORE proxies from the ancient climate data and finding MORE reasons to be concerned. The physics of a doubling leading to 1.2 degrees of CO2 warming, the paleoclimate studies converge on an ECS of 3 degrees and the increasing sophistication of climate models that show where and how this extra heat energy will cripple the global economy all point to 1.5 degrees now and a vastly REDUCED carbon budget on even Bill McKibben’s worst fears of 2013. But as you said, I'm sure you're now thoroughly lost.

Your ice age theories need quotes or they didn’t happen! Sorry, but I DON’T TRUST CLIMATE DENIERS I accidentally bumped into on the internet. Not accepting the peer-reviewed science from the world’s body of experts is to me the definition of insanity, or at least a stubborn old crank! So excuse me if I demand some evidence. Or are you just another rhetoric dependant hot-winded “assertionist” like NOT NOW SOON?

You referenced 97% as by Cook? That means you don’t even know where that figure came from! You’ve quoted the wrong meta-study! Try again. Where did the original 97% figure come from?

Oh dear Max you truly are a worry,

" do me the courtesy of putting my name MAX GREEN"

Nup. I stick to my normal processes. You'll just have read every post I offer. Maybe you'll learn something even if by osmosis.

You said McKibbon did the maths. I asked "Did he? Show me where? Show me that math?"

And in response to that you direct me to a page that doesn't mention any of this - not the math, not the calculations, not even the stupid 565gt numbers. Nothing. How moronic is that?

But I know why. Previously you claimed that they'd taken one number out of the range and used that. But I suspect you made that up. Did you? Is that why you're trying so hard to change the subject. Show me where they did the math by picking one number out of the range. Remember, that range is the range of 95% confidence. Show me. Or else admit you made it up.

(BTW I'd explain why that's completely invalid to pick one number out of that range, but its at several levels of understanding beyond you)

"You referenced 97% as by Cook? "

Oh dear. Are you unaware of Cook's (aka skepticalscience) 97% study? Just how clueless are you? I know it wasn't the first study to get the 97% number (that was Doran) but it is the most quoted because Doran was such a load of BS. Then again Cook's study is a load of BS as well, just not so obviously so.

If you think the ice age scare was all media, show me an example or two from the time, of scientists calling the media out. And why did scientists from NASA, CRU, CIA, NOAA all have papers on the coming ice age?

Belly asks "why are so many records being broken now?"

Well it sure is hard to understand. All those cold records being broken like the Thredbo record. I guess its just not as hot as we're led to believe.