The scientific literature is replete with evidence that the geological record for the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) fails to support the concept that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause ocean and land temperatures to rise.

Actually, the scientific literature strongly suggests that the correlation between rising CO2 and temperature would appear to veer off in the opposite direction: as CO2 rises, temperatures decline.

So if there is a correlation for the Holocene, it may be the inverse of climate model expectations.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/20/50-inverte...ses/#sthash.gCnvHjLq.dpuf
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/20/50-inverte...ses/#sthash.gCnvHjLq.dpbs

The March for Science is tomorrow and no one in their right mind would say they are against it because of its name. First of all, you are standing against the right of people to march for whatever cause they wish. Second, you would be portrayed as someone who is against science.
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/48675

As this has become a climate topic for the WCG, putting it here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energ..._pnl_news&date=052017

That's how you stop a great disaster. You get the fill up, use it slowly & we don't die, if it released all at once! ;)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/05/the-ma...arisagreement-on-climate/

hard verney
June 5, 2017 at 5:43 am

You note that CO2 lags temperatures on short time scales (less than 1 year) and on long time scales (circa 600 to 1000 years). Indeed, that is the evidence (if proxy evidence hold true).

You then surmise that CO2 may not lag temperature on medium time scales (say multi-decadal/centenial). Indeed, that is a possibility, but given what we know about CO2 as operating in real world conditions, there is no evidence that it responds differently on medium time scales, and the burden is squarely on those that allege that the response is different on medium time scales to support that contention.

I would suggest that the balance of evidence suggests that it is no warmer today in the Northern Hemisphere than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The RAW data from the US, Iceland, Greenland (including Greenland ice cores) suggests that. Russia is very sceptical of the claimed warming, and has noted that its high latitude stations have been excluded. Michael M@nn had to ignore the tree ring data through to the 1990s since when included it showed no warming. This is the reasoning behind his nature trick.

In 1981 the leading Climate Scientists, Hansen and Phil Jones both published separate papers showing that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were some 0.3degC cooler than the 1940s, and Phil Jones pointed out in the Climategate emails the unreliability of Southern Hemisphere data and the need to manipulate data to get rid of the 1940 blip. Hansen in his 1981 paper also noted the unreliability of Southern Hemisphere data. The reality that the only data of any worth (and I cautiously use worth) is that of the Northern Hemisphere since there is insufficient data historically returned from the Southern Hemisphere, and even today it is sparsely sampled.

If it has warmed by about 0.3 degC since 1980 (the satellite data suggests that it might have), we are back today at about the same level of temperatures seen in 1940. That would cover a period when man has emitted some 95% of all manmade CO2, and yet there has been no temperature increase. This is consistent with the view that there is no reason to consider that the interaction between CO2 and temperature is any different on multi-decadal timescales to which you refer, and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero, or close thereto.

As I say, the burden is on those arguing that the multi-decadel response is different, and in this regard, you will be aware that one of the climategate emails notes that ‘they will kill us if all we are seeing is multi-decadadal natural variation’. I cannot remember the exact wording or the parties involved, but an email along those lines exists.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/16/america-first-climate/
Besides, the Paris agreement is not binding. Under its terms, no nation is compelled to sin no more, and many – even including Germany and Denmark, the leaders in renewable energies – now appear unlikely to meet the agreement’s targets. The Paris agreement is, in practice, a political tool for suppressing growth and redistributing wealth. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, said, in resigning in 2015, that the environment was his “religion,” and Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated in 2015 that the goal was to overturn capitalism — in her words, “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”