Browser-based climate change simulation

> However, what you're proposing seems to imply that either (1) there is a vast conspiracy of climate scientists, who are engaging in that conspiracy for ultimately very little gain or (2) climate scientists are incredibly stupid, and keep repeating incorrect things as fact to each other while being blind to other evidence.

It may seem this way to you, but you have formed an incorrect conclusion (a behavior which I argue is the very core of the problem). Please see my other comments in this thread for clarification.

> There's nothing scientists love more than attacking each other's interpretations of data, to prove that they're smarter than the next guy.

Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that this competitive behavior takes place within an overall "overton window" of acceptable discourse and study. To be clear, I am not asserting that this is in fact what is happening, but I am very much asserting that if you are saying something along the lines of "this is not happening, at all, and I know it", then my reaction is suspicion due to an obvious lack of epistemic humility.

I am also not recommending my beliefs to others, I am simply trying to provide some insight into how I think, and that the underlying reasons for my non-compliance are other than those you and others presume. What I will recommend though, is to observe how willing yourself and others are to even consider the possibility that us "deniers" (yet another comically simplistic belief) are not actually motivated by sheer stupidity. Disagreement with the proposal isn't even attempted, but rather the response will almost always be silence.

I proclaim that something very interesting is going here.

We are at a very warm part of a very long cold trend. The idea that human increases in CO2 is a bad thing is completely divorced from historical observation.

The earth has been much hotter than it is now and at the hot parts was peak life here on the Earth. Additionally, the climate models by the IPCC omit the effect of the Solar wind's effect on the thermosphere. If this was included, then many of the climate models would be saying the following: "the Sun got hotter, the Earth and all the planets in the solar system followed."

Conversely, the sun has entered into an unusually cold period, signified by a lack of solar spots these last few years. NASA confirmed this in 2017 when they announced that the Sun had entered into a Solar minima and would continue.

The Farmers Almanac also confirmed this with predictions that there would be extensive rain that would destroy crops. This prediction panned out and for a great summary of the crop failures going on around the world you can follow "Ice Age Farmer" on YouTube. Ice Age farmer was calling out extensive cold a year ago and now it's happening.

Given the full history of the Earth's temperature, it would make sense for world leaders to come to an agreement to dig up as much locked up carbon in the ground as possible, remove the impurities and then clean burn it - simply to get the CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs so that we avert a future DEVASTATING ICE AGE.

Hopefully one day the "Global Warming" hysteria will be taught in schools as an example of how a mass of people can be deceived. Much in the same way that "flat-earth" was commonly accepted as reality in Spain prior to 1492, and peak oil was pushed in the 1970's and beyond.

What I'm saying is that all of our historic CO2 data comes from cores, which are a proxy for paleo-CO2 levels. The theory is that bubbles of atmospheric gas are trapped in ice as it forms over thousands of years. What I'm saying is that there's the possibility that this trapping is imperfect, and ratios of atmospheric gassed may change after being sequestered, such that past ppm values are underestimated, and the currently measured values are not unusual in history, and are rather consistent with the peak that historic core data shows us to be at.

In fact, here [1] is a well sourced article which highlights at least one indication that this is the case - historic CO2 estimates derived from plant stomata are much higher and closer to contemporary measured levels than ice core data. Then there is the idea of time averaging smoothing out peaks, and we can only speculate/model the loss of resolution.

It's very easy for a well intentioned group of researchers to reason themselves into a corner, particularly when things like institutional momentum, political biases, and understandable doomsday concerns influence the kinds of questions scientists ask and the paths they are willing to take to find answers. Because this research has broad effects on economic, social, and corporate policy, it is dangerous to close off one side of questioning behind an apparent consensus, not to mention it's simply bad science.

>the time resolution of the ancient ice core data is quite low, while all the anthropogenic action happened in the last 150 y or so

All the more reason to be open to questioning.

1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plan...

The "basic physics" contradicts the data. Your error is approaching this enormously complex question with the assumption that climate science is unquestionably correct. This lag is a glaring discrepancy that begs resolution. No, it doesn't mean climate science is totally wrong, but this attitude of unquestionability is absolutely pervasive in both society at large and academia, and gives deniers a justifiable reason for suspicion.

And I'm not some snot nosed programmer looking in from outside. I'm a former geoscientist and I saw this pressure firsthand, even at a relatively conservative University.