I think most of us here agree that ditching the Gulfstream will do wonders for the environment; but this isn't a pitch for "Arnold is living the best life for the environment."

He is a man who is becoming more conscious of his meat intake and taking steps to reduce that and his footprint.

Can he do better? Of course! Does that negate the validity of the argument that reduction of meat intake is a good idea for the environment? Nope.

The overall point is that we can all take little steps to reduce our footprint and meat is just one of them.

That said, it is quite amazing just how much fuel has he used.

> Does that negate the validity of the argument

Does that matter? Most people will just say "What a hypocrite" and ignore the message. People don't respond well to logic, they respond to emotion. A valid argument that doesn't convince anyone is worthless.

I'm saying it's a glaringly bad strategy. Buy hey, continue trotting out complete and utter hypocrites to lecture us on what ought to feed our families for dinner.

If followed conscientiously by those who really think this way - this approach really might benefit future generations.

Yes. Kyle Simpson rocks. He is smart and he looks deeply into things. He is opinionated and I like that too. I learn more when I see smart opinionated people disagree with each other.

The fact that these books need to be written to de-mystify JS is evidence that JS sucks. We should not need to know esoteric crap - NOR SHOULD WE BE SATISFIED with programming by rote as many above seem to be advocating. (!?)

Having said that, JS is improving and the future looks bright.

(Disclaimer: this coming from someone self-employed who has never worked on a team.)

>"1. The laws of physics were proven to false and it turned out the CO2 does not trap energy in the atmosphere."

Most skeptics agree that CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere. By itself, a doubling of CO2 should cause about 1 degree of warming.

But climate models say a doubling of CO2 will cause anywhere from 2 to 12 degrees of heating.

So you can be a climate skeptic without breaking any laws of physics. Climate "sensitivity" estimates are highly uncertain and are all over the map. Most of the predicted warming is due to climate "sensitivity" estimates, not CO2 directly.

>"2. The sun was proven to be increasing significantly in solar output and this explained the warming we have seen to date."

We do know the planet was warming before CO2 could have had any significant effect. If there were some change in solar radiation in the past it would take time for the earth to warm and come to a point of equilibrium. There is nothing ruling out this possibility.

>"3. The planet stopped warming and started cooling."

There has been no statistically significant warming for over 22 years according to satellite data.

>"4. The source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere was found to not be the result of burning fossil fuels."

Highly unlikely.

>"5. We had highly predictive and accurate models that showed that warming via the accumulation of CO2 is not possible."

What if we could show that warming is increasing at a much lower rate than predicted by climate models?

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/christy_cmi...

I was also wondering how they successfully rule out other possibilities. Many people seem very eager to believe. Some skepticism here can help aid a more thorough understanding.

I suppose the prediction didn't include a scale (it was determined from the observation+model) so there is a little bit of room for model fitting there. And sure, other stuff could have generated a frequency sweep. Maybe if this is replicated the newer methods will narrow down the possibilities.

Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right?

For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at all time record highs for much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but strangely fascinating.

I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate science.

And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling. - This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common."

Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't it?

> ice levels were at all time record highs

That's what I though as well, but after I went investigating, I found out that actually, Antarctic sea ice levels were at record highs, which basically means that glaciers were melting more than usual (and shedding huge pieces of ice into the sea) - apparently because of winds bringing more hot air from northern (hotter) regions.

Did you make a new account just for this comment?

That's not against the rules per se, but there have been lots of sock puppets used on global warming topics.

Haha, no. I'm genuinely new and my account is 18 days old. But I can see why many people wouldn't want to be identified as 'deniers' if that's what you mean?

Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.

The very notion that the climate will amplify CO2 heating by as much as 4.5 times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on climate sensitivity and the estimates are all over the map. This should indicate less certainty, not a "the science is settled" attitude.

Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012 presentation he gave: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-...

Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism.

When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government agencies. Go figure.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think.

It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the data-set. That should also raise some red flags.

Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like. There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course. It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.