Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
Why do climate scientists always present the narrative that the current hyperthermal is unique in the earth's history ? Comparisons are always drawn with respect to pre-industrialized and post-industrialized man and never further back than that. I've already posted about Nobel prize winning physicists who disagree that the cause is man-made, including videos of presentations showing their models. You ignore or forget about arguments made in posts that are more than a few weeks old. Grants are extremely competitive - fuck yes I believe there is heavy bias.
I suspect your biases have led you to false memories regarding the narrative about "hyperthermals". (don't recall seeing that word after following this shit for decades...) Regardless, there really isn't a "narrative" regarding this. That is an attempt by political types to frame this as a political issue.

The original "global warming" concern came about because some guys figured out that due to physics, heat is trapped in the atmosphere. And this effect would continue to grow as more earth warming gasses are released from fossil fuels. From that it can be easily extrapolated that we're in for some serious problems but as we both know, modeling the actual direct effects is not really a doable problem. Climate scientists can come up with estimates but it will always be estimates until it has occurred. Estimates allow others to claim they're wrong. (Which is the exact reason I don't bother to post studies on here..)

So given the above, where does a narrative come into play? It doesn't. No one cares about prior "hyperthermals". "Hyperthermals" are for people looking for counter-evidence and not the truth of this situation. The fact that there have been other periods of heating over the millions of years the Earth existed doesn't really speak to the whys or even relatively basic science portion that has been laid out.

Yes, I'm the one with the heavy bias. That bias is towards the consensus amongst a very large portion of actual scientists. (guys who pursue truth/knowledge over $$$) These are the same types of guys who have made a lot of the advancements that have given us civilization. I'd be amazed if you could find 1 subject more well studied than Earth warming. Maybe cancer?

I don't recall specifically about what you're referring to with the nobel scientist. I usually listen to the stuff until they start layering on the political nonsense. Regardless, 1 or 2 nobel prize winners isn't going to do enough to change my mind at this point. If we took a survey of nobel prize winning scientists, I wonder how many would say it isn't manmade and how any would?