Debating sf9, considering difference between MWP and AGW

I have a bit of hyper-attention syndrome, so I let myself get side-tracked, such as with a fresh comment at a YouTube video of - Stephen Schneider talking to 52 Climate Change Skeptics [PART 3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wzEHtYk8B8\.  which led me to reviewing the comments and finding this precious example of the contrarian mind in action.  I'll start with my comment made a couple years ago, then my new pal's response.  Then I'll follow with my usual collection of information for the interested student who wants to learn about these matters for themselves.

So-Called Medieval Warm Period Not So Warm After All

Study Undercuts Idea that 'Medieval Warm Period' was Global

The Medieval Climate Anomaly: A Myth Debunked

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Bob Ward thinks that Bob Carter has probably published the worst paper on climate change ever

Bob Carter Does his Business

Bob Carter's Financial Post Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial

Climate Myths as told by Bob Carter compared to what the science says.

_________________________________________________________

citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago

Regarding the end of this video

Her question about the reasons for "why we can't have a civil debate" and the hostile reactions of some.

Why not also ask:

Why is it considered OK to endlessly repackage and repeat misrepresentations of the science and Earth observations, up to and included lies?

Why should it be OK to ignore huge aspects of the known evidence?

Why should it be OK for an amateur's "science" to be given equal weight to an educated and seasoned expert (read: much examined and peer reviewed science?

__________________________________________

To which a character I'll refer to as sf9 writes: 

"Since mr citizen raises the qualification question, Bob Carter of James Cook University is a Marine Geologist has equal qualification as James Hansen (PhD in Physics) or David Suzuki (PhD in Zoology)  

regardless, Schneider denies volumes of evidence for global medieval warm period, still flogging the dead horse of the hockey stick , unprecedented fairy tale. There are hundreds of proxies from all over the planet that show medieval warming in excess of current temps."

______________________________________

For starters, don't know what my comment has to do with anyone's "qualifications", it was about the dishonestly and reprehensibility of people assuming the right to lie about what scientists are trying to teach us!

I notice sf9 offers no references to support his MWP claim and I suggest sf9 is about 20 years behind on paleoclimate understanding of the past ten millennium.

Scientists do have a good understanding of the various "natural variabilities" that influence weather, an ever so slightly dimming sun, volcanic activity, even the reforestation of the America during the 16th century Indian holocaust in North and South America, that resulting in massive reforestation and pulling massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere, played a role in the subsequent "LIA" - it's a complex dance between many known elements.

What sf9 is missing is that geophysically speaking, CO₂ is an atmospheric insulation medium and a major regulator of our Earth's heat holding capacity.  Period.  The science is settled on that one.  It really is that simple, no debate.

It is also settled reality that humanity, through its hydrocarbon driven modern marvels, has been injecting unimaginably massive quantities (of a geologic scale, even.) amounts of CO₂ and other "greenhouse gases" into our atmosphere.  

Climate Change Reconsidered - NIPCC Translation - Authors: Idso, Singer, Carter examined

Climate Change Reconsidered - Translation by the Chinese Academy of Sciences

 Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Robert M. Carter – June 11, 2013

From the Heartland Institute's news release:
The first 856-page volume of Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, and its follow-up, the 430-page Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,were produced by a team of scientists originally convened by Dr. S. Fred Singer under the name of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The volumes were coauthored and edited by three climate science researchers:

• Craig D. Idso, Ph.D.
, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, editor of the online magazine CO2 Science, and author of several books and scholarly articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life;

• Robert M. Carter, Ph.D.
, a marine geologist and research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of Climate: the Counter Consensus; and

• S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
, founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and a distinguished atmospheric physicist and first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It's amazing what a few ideologically committed folks with lots of financial support can do.  

Basically, we have a claim that three outlier scientists with a handful of helpers have proven thousands of professional scientists over decades, nay over a century, of research and observation can't do basic science.  Think about it.  

Keep in mind the NIPCC report was done within an Heartland Institution which is openly committed to pushing a "Libertarian" political agenda - ones that clearly places economic interests above and beyond real geophysical realities.  Look at Heartland's "Mission Statement" there is nothing in their about striving to learn about our planet's climate.  

I'm talking about our 'global life support system' and it's treated with thoughtless contempt by Republicans of every stripe... it simply does not make sense to me!