Posted by: Barry Bickmore | June 19, 2014

Republican EPA Chiefs Urge Climate Action

Four former EPA administrators from Republican administrations testified at a congressional hearing about the new EPA rule on coal plant CO2 emissions, urging action and supporting the rule.  Articles from the AP,  Reuters, National Journal, and Huffington Post.  

Some coal companies bused in a bunch of coal miners to oppose the EPA rule, but one of them brought up an important point in the Reuters article.

Baker, a manager at one of Murray Energy’s mines in Marshall County, Ohio, wanted to attend because he worries EPA rules may not “take into account some of the towns that will be gone” if the pollution crackdown closes coal mines: “We need both sides to act together.”

This is why I have always preferred that Congress initiate climate action, rather than leaving it to the EPA.  What is the EPA supposed to do about side effects like this one?  Republicans have only themselves to blame if they force the administration to act unilaterally.  (BTW, let us not forget that the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that the EPA has to take action on greenhouse gas emissions.)


Responses

  1. Barry–thanks for posting this, as I do think that it’s crucial to have bipartison support for action on climate change. It’s good to know that there are some Republicans who believe in science although one might conclude that none of them are in office. Do you think that the current GOP office holders really believe that Fox News and the tea party base trump nearly all science and these former EPA administrators under GOP presidents? How many of the GOP Senators and House members really think that climate change is not a threat and how many just follow the party line and play to the party base?

    I think that it’s great that you are working within the Republican party. However, I wonder if you can find any Republicans to vote for, at least on the national level (president, Senate, US House). Decades ago I have voted for some of the moderate Republicans but these seem to no longer exist at the national level. As a fellow scientist, I view climate changes as the biggest problem facing our country and the world and would never vote for a politician who denies climate science.

    • Hi Bill,

      I don’t know what the numbers are with respect to elected officials, but something around 40% of Republicans in general think climate change is a problem. I think if more of the leadership would quit hiding from the Tea Party, more people would come around. It doesn’t help that so many Republicans blow off science in other areas (e.g., evolution) and believe there is some giant atheist conspiracy to keep Creationism out of schools.

    • Bill, there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who buys into this climate doom evangelism. You really need to pull your head out and get an education on the subject–the only places where good science is being discussed is on the skeptical blogs, and be sure, that does not include “Skeptical Science.” For novice lesson number one I might recommend this: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/michael-kelly_the-cru-mails-anatomy-of-climategate.pdf
      –AGF

      • AGF–I think that Barry and I are competent scientists. If you want to see my publication record, see my profile on Google Scholar under WR DeMott. Climate is an issue in my field, which is Limnology and Oceanography and I am author on one climate paper (Manca and DeMott 2009; an open access article) but its not my main research area. I agree that climate science is not “gloom and doom evangelism” but just facing the facts and being able to understand the earth’s trajectory. I’ve read 10s of 1,000s of scientific articles and have been a reviewer or editor for over 1200 manuscripts during a long career. Sorry, but good science is mainly discussed in scientific publications and among scientists at scientific meetings. You can also find good discussions among professors and their students.

        • It all depends on the field, the time, and the country, that is, the political situation. Take fluoride in toothpaste–while Europe has largely abandoned it, the CDC still claims success based on a decreased incidence of caries–correlated of course to fluoride use. However, in countries where fluoride was long since abandoned, caries have similarly decreased. It seems to have more to do with better hygiene than fluoride, but when politics are involved, science suffers.

          And scientists don’t need political interference to get everything backasswards. Take Continental Drift–ridiculed for decades by English speaking geologists on the basis of little but irrational opinion and reputations to uphold. We might wonder, is any field completely free of political/social/psychological bias? Take your opening statement, e.g.:

          “Using correlation analysis, ecologists have sought linkages
          between climate warming and phenomena such as earlier
          breeding of amphibians and birds, upward movement of
          alpine floras, northward shift in the range of butterflies,
          and changes in plant community composition.”

          You reckon with a one degree change in T, which might move a microsystem 100m uphill, but make no mention of a 50% increase in CO2 partial pressure which, if CO2 were the sole limiting factor, might move a microsystem one or two thousand meters uphill. This doesn’t detract from the value of a fine paper, but it does hint slightly at group think–you have been taught to think in terms of temperature.

          But you want it both ways: “facing…the trajectory” without gloom and doom. What does that mean, “facing the trajectory”? Yes, in the last few decades Major Lake’s euphotic later has warmed at three times the rate of surface T–interesting amplification–but does that mean we should shut down our coal plants (while Germany builds them)? Does it even mean CO2 is responsible for any of the warming euphotic layer in Lake Maggiore? Just how does this apply to Republicans’ acceptance of science? Aren’t we talking about their acceptance of an evangelism of doom, if…if we don’t do something like…shut down our coal plants?

          See Bill, you may be a competent scientist within your field but I don’t think you have got to first base as far as the politics of climate change are concerned. There is no end of outlandish claims of catastrophe (now largely rejected by the IPCC) blamed on supposedly unprecedented climate behavior, blamed on GHG’s, when the truth is the President and his backers are clearly the ones on the wrong side of science–or so the IPCC would tell us. For starters, sea level rise has been fairly constant for 80 years–no correlation with T, no correlation with CO2. Does that observation fall within your expertise or competence?

          Cheers, –AGF

          • Living in Europe I can tell everyone here that AGF is telling porkies. The Europeans use fluoridated toothpaste just like the Americans.

            Perhaps it is typical of AGF’s confusion (and hence failure to understand also climate science) – many European countries do not add fluoride to the *drinking water*. Interestingly, many European countries do have fluoridated table salt, which the US does not have. Guess why it is fluoridated?

            • Any wishing to verify Marco’s claim need only look as far as Wikipedia (“Fluoridation by Country”) to see how little European drinking water is fluoridated. And of course, you can buy NaFl mixed with your NaCl if you wish, if you think it will do you good, and you know how much you’re getting. Marco is your typical CACC dupe–and fluoridation dupe. He can’t even google.
              –AGF

            • Seriously, are you so blinded by ideology that you just make up what others (and you yourself) write?

              You wrote that Europeans do not have fluoridated *toothpaste* (which is factually wrong, which I thus duly pointed out), and now you try to make it sound I denied most European countries do not add fluoride to drinking water, even though this is what I explicitly mentioned in my response!

              It would be funny if it wasn’t this sad. Such delusions…

          • I have to say that most ecologists including me have been surprised at how strongly species have responded to the ecological changes that have already occurred in response to warming. I went to the Dutch ecology meeting while I was working in Europe in 2009, and a large part of the presentations were about plant species from Portugal and Spain that have recently expanded northward into Netherlands and Germany. The actual changes are much faster and stronger than one might expect Many interesting cases at higher latitudes, such as the decline in Arctic fox as red fox have expanded northward, outcompeting its smaller relative that is better adapted to colder conditions. Warmer arctic winters and longer summers have allowed the red fox to live in regions where it could not earlier survive.

            • These are probably legitimate observations that only need context. Such adaptations will occur in response to climate change whether natural or unnatural, and just as glaciers worldwide are still recovering from the LIA, so is the Arctic. Polar bears are probably increasing in number now, with hunting better controlled. But more significant is the response to the “Columbian Exchange”: introduced earthworms are changing the landscape in NE U.S. and SE Canada. Russian olive, tumbleweeds (Russian Thistle), cheat grass, and dozens of other weeds have infested the West. The Suez Canal allows mingling of species between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Bilge water from ships mingles water and species from the seven seas, and mail order seed catalogs allow land species to mingle world wide. This results in whole sale annihilation of species on a level not seen since the K/T catastrophe, and absolutely dwarfs any species response from minor cyclical climate change. Global warming is merely a distraction from the real problems. –AGF

  2. […] 2014/06/19: BBickmore: Republican EPA Chiefs Urge Climate Action […]

    • I agree that “global mixing” is a big cause of extinction. But when combined with climate change, the situation gets much worse.

      • Take Pleistocene megafauna extinction for example. You’re no doubt aware of the old climate/overkill debate. Right when humans arrive in Australia, or the Americas, or any of a number of islands, most or all of the biggest animals disappear. But even before CO2 alarm a whole lot of scientists blamed the megafauna extinctions on climate change. Or climate combined with hunting. But the climate has been going through such cycles for three million years, and the mammoths et al did just fine. And the northernmost mammoths (on Wrangel Island) survived till 4ky, until humans arrived. And the Australian megafauna were wiped out with no help from climate. Same with Madagascar and New Zealand.

        Climate doesn’t know how to specialize in the biggest game. Hunters do. Species are almost always able to adapt to climate change. Adapting to alien species is another matter. –AGF

        • I favor human hunting form most of the pleistocene megafauna extinctions and I think that the evidence is accumulating. But many animals cannot adapt to climate change in their ecological context, with competitor, predators and parasites.

  3. For well informed climate evangelist humor see this: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-prat-of-2013-we-have-a-winnah/
    For an example of how green policy takes from the middle class and gives to the rich, see this: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/geophysicist-rubbishes-balcombes-solar-illusion/#more-8918
    As for alarmism enriching the rich at the expense of the impoverished, see this: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/well-whoopidy-bloody-doop/
    –that Pointman is really on a rampage. Eschenbach has treated the subject too: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/15/james-hansens-policies-are-shafting-the-poor/

    So while the Greenies would like you to believe it’s the environment versus capitalism, don’t you believe a word of it. They know very well that only the wealthy can afford to be green. And they also know that they can only be green at the expense of the poor.

    The irony is, that by keeping the poor poor they must rely on firewood, and burn up the brush and forests. If there were a competent environmentalist he might recommend growing more eucalyptus on the Altiplano–that could capture considerable carbon. –AGF

    • I don’t think that it’s the environment versus capitalism. I spent time behind the “iron curtain” before it came down and environmental devastation was worse under authoritarian rule. On the other hand, a free for all capitalism is a disaster for the environment and public health. That’s why president Nixon created the EPA. Personally, I favor free market ideas, including a carbon tax and or cap and trade. Cap and trade has worked fairly well for reducing acid rain.

  4. OK, I got careless on both points: I meant to say drinking water, which sorry to say, Marco did say. The point being, CDC claims fluoridation has saved American teeth, while Europeans, who can choose their fluoride sources, do just fine without it (any figures on NaFl table salt consumption in Europe?).

    The important point being dosage. The same bunch that decries bottled water wants fluoride in tap water. The hotter the weather or the more you exercise, the more you drink, the more fluoride you get. Why should we put fluoride in our salt when we can’t avoid fluoridated water? And the reckless presumption is you can’t get to much, when considerable evidence points otherwise. The recommended dose has been scaled back over the decades due to increasing recognition of fluoridation causing fluorosis. You have to get the dose right.

    Europeans have gone another direction for two reasons: the public should not be medicated against their will, and the case for fluoride is dubious. The science is not settled. But as with climate science, a whole lot of dentists have been indoctrinated with an ideology and they are not capable of backtracking no matter how compelling the counter evidence (for a thorough scientific review see: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571 ).

    Fluoridation is a thousand times simpler than climate, but the doctors and dentists can’t even agree on that. Nevertheless, the dentists got their way and the water has been poisoned ever since. Prescription from ignorance. That describes climate science to a tee. –AGF

  5. Here’s a blatant example of hopelessly unscientific propaganda:
    http://www.climatecentral.org/wgts/CityFutureTemps/index.html?utm_source=ext&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=CityFutureTemps
    …claiming every U.S. city will heat up 11F by 2100. The philosophy behind such propaganda seems to be that lies are good for you–you can’t overstate the danger in a teleological sense.

    So no honest scientist can deny some component of junk science involved, yet only the “skeptics” are willing to point out the BS. Say something, BB, Bill, anyone. –AGF

  6. Most of this controversy will fall by the wayside as we realize that we need the power plants we have closed in order to deal with the upcoming long and cold winters. Last winter we came within a hair of having blackouts during the winter because solar power and wind power was not working and the long and cold winter was demanding more electricity for heating. Space heaters are pretty popular. I predict that we WILL have power blackouts this upcoming 2014-2015 winter, and it will require restarting some of those closed power plants to keep people from freezing.

    • So, Paul, how have your predictions turned out so far?

      Batting zero.

      • It depends upon whose data you are using. Sattelite data is consistent. Manipulated surface measurements are fudged to make it look like warming. Arctic ice is now above average. See considerthis.info

        • No, it doesn’t depend on whose data you’re using.

          They all indicate your prediction failed. But, hey, you show us the manipulated surface dataset that shows your prediction came through.

          And what manipulated surface data hides blackouts in cities in the USA or wherever you thought you had predicted it to happen? As far as anyone sane knows, no surface data is used there.

          • It is now shown as true that it doesn’t depend on whose data you use and that your defences have all been NOTHING to do with the surface temperature datasets.

            So your claims here are proven 100% wrong.

            Batting average holding at 0% success rate.

        • Are you telling us that the polar sea ice has millions of people who are dying of cold and suffering blackouts because coal power stations are being shut down in the area????

          • No, fortunately, the power companies managed last winter’s crisis very well, and coal plants were allowed to continue operating.

            • So you agree when I say your alarmist “sky is falling!” claims were wrong.

              Why, then, did you say that your claims were right?

            • The predictions of power outages did not materialize. Warnings from the power companies were listened to. I am happy to be wrong. We shall see if the colder future is also approached with caution.

            • So where is your manipulated surface data that proves those claims?

              You didn’t give any.

            • To see how the surface data has been manipulated, go to considerthisinfo.com or paullitely.com. There are charts and graphs of the changes made by NASA, NCDC, HADCRUT, all of the “Official” data sets. There are also several definitive articles with the raw data vs the altered and manufactured data and how it was done. There is no doubt the raw data has been manipulated to MAKE warming from raw surface data. Satellite measurements do not show these trends, and satellite data is from far more points worldwide.

            • Graphs and articles are in earlier posts too if you go down there

            • Ah, so because the data doesn’t show what you want, you claim it must have been manipulated.

              You know SANE people decide that when reality disagrees with their predictions, that is proof they got it wrong.

              When nutters who haven’t a clue find reality disagrees with them, they go blame other people for picking on them.

              You, sir/madam, are a nutter.

            • “There is no doubt the raw data has been manipulated to MAKE warming from raw surface data.”

              Except that the rate of warming from the raw data is HIGHER than the rate of warming from the QC adjusted data.

              Moreover, BEST was funded by the denial industry to find out what the results “really” was.

              They got the same graph.

              It is clear that these claims of manipulation of data to MAKE it appear warming are merely the unthinking rhetoric of those without the skill to do their own work.

            • The graphs clearly show that the most recent official data series are slanted to show cooler earlier years and warmer later years. In NOAA’s case, they did this more than once, adding even more slant each time.

            • Source for graphs was Climate4you.com.

            • Hey, if the “manipulation” of the raw data meant it wasn’t warmer in reality, but the demands for heating wasn’t as bad as you predicted, then you must think that using the heading is based on whether the numbers reported say it’s cold or not, not what the ACTUAL temperature is!

              That’s seriously whacky thinking there! All we have to do to cut back heating costs is tell everyone it’s 20C outside in winter!

            • Suspicions based on who finds the data is not letting the data speak for itself.

            • So why do you cast suspicion on the providers of the data when it proves you wrong?

            • There is clear verifiable proof of the data being manipulated and if the providers are not transparent, what should we think of them?

            • Climate4you is not a science organisation and have done no measurements at all. So when you come back with someone who has actually done some measurements, let me know, m’kay?

            • The sources are printed right on the graphs, and are the biggest official record keeper – manipulators

            • “The graphs clearly show that the most recent official data series are slanted to show cooler earlier years and warmer later years. ”

              No they don’t. They show the opposite.

            • Read the graphs. They are graphs of the DIFFERENCES of later temperature series releases vs prior releases by the same “Authorities” except for Satellite data that cannot be manipulated.

            • “Read the graphs.”

              I did.

              “They are graphs of the DIFFERENCES of later temperature series releases vs prior releases ”

              No, I don’t want to read MANIPULATED data. I went and read the RAW DATA. And compared it to the QC’d data.

              And what it showed was that RAW DATA showed a HIGHER rate of warming.

              “Satellite data that cannot be manipulated.”

              Since satellite data isn’t a temperature reading until it’s been manipulated, your assertions are not even wrong EVEN FOR AN ENGINEER.

              You may have an MBA, but you have no other qualifications.

            • Here is the most recent NOAA temperature series adjustments with the before and after graphs overlayed, released to announce that suddenly 2014 was the hottest year.

              https://paullitely.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/the-big-global-tenperature-lie-becomes-official-at-noaa/

            • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made

            • https://paullitely.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/hadcrut-nasa-giss-us-ncdc-australia-altered-temperature-data-records/

            • No, the graph is here:

              http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html?sa=X&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAmoVChMIiaPzzYv2xgIVxjwUCh2zjg86

              “hadcrut-nasa-giss-us-ncdc-australia-altered-temperature-data-records”

              Yes, they altered them, but the alteration REDUCED the trend. Therefore the adjustments could not be the CAUSE of the warming trend.

            • Wow, I don’t see that in the charts at all

            • “released to announce that suddenly 2014 was the hottest year.”

              And how did that change the trend? Because the change is between the RAW data and the QC’d data, NOT between one year’s recalibration and the next, which would BOTH be QC’d data.

              Given your inability to consider this you’re either a lying sack of shit or you don’t even have an MBA.

            • Yes, this is the latest… Adjustments to already adjusted data… Were the prior QC’s defective? If so, what level of confidence do we have in any of the QC’s? Repeated adjustments to the same data series, always with the result of cooling early years in the series and warming later years in the series, along with public declarations of recent heating…. Let’s go back to the raw unadjusted data.

            • “The predictions of power outages did not materialize”

              Therefore your alarmist claims are proven false.

            • Humans do have control over power outages if they are allowed to plan and manage systems with as the goal instead of closing plants just because they burn coal and having no replacements or reductions in consumption. The crisis was well managed by having the right priorities.

            • For any respectable prediction or forecasting, when the forecast does not pan out, we revise the model and or its assumptions. The assumptions I had were that the winter would be severe, and it was, plus the governments plans to close coal fired plants under THEIR assumption that there would be warm winters. The government was warned by the power industry, at the same time as I predicted trouble, and the closures were delayed, and major industrial consumers of power cut back. It worked.

            • I don’t have to be right for my ego. The prediction was conditional on the administration’s declared path of plant closures and no other changes. That did not happen. I revise my MODEL in light of the outcome, not the data. Now the administration has seen the winters are getting colder, not warmer, they will keep more fossil fueled power. They are changing their model, not the data.

            • “I don’t have to be right for my ego”

              Indeed you don’t. Your ego will make you blind to being wrong, as a form of protective camouflage.

              “The prediction was conditional”

              No it wasn’t. There was no conditional on the claim AT ALL.

              “the administration’s declared path of plant closures”

              Nope, it wasn’t, you claimed that there were not enough AT THAT TIME. No more closures were claimed to be necessary.

              “I revise my MODEL in light of the outcome, not the data”

              Your model never changed.

              Hell, it was never USED.

              “Now the administration has seen the winters are getting colder, not warmer”

              How could they do that when you insist that all the data they’re given is manipulated to make it appear warmer?

              And the winters WERE warmer than normal.

              “Yes, this is the latest… Adjustments to already adjusted data… ”

              But your claim is that the adjustments before were wrong and you insisted that the RAW data showed less warming, when in fact your claim is that it has NOTHING TO DO with the raw data.

              Clearly your model is “make up claims, and change them without changing the conclusions”.

              “Let’s go back to the raw unadjusted data.”

              If we do, the trend of warming is higher than currently stated with the QC’d data. The opposite to what you “believe” is happening.

            • “Wow, I don’t see that in the charts at all”

              Maybe you need to use the raw data and the QC’d data rather than manipulating it further before doing a comparison.

              Because the link I gave

              http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

              shows that the raw data has a higher warming rate than the data after adjustment.

              Look again.

            • “if the providers are not transparent, what should we think of them?”

              Since the providers HAVE been transparent (well, not J Christy and R Spencer, their code and models are unavailable, still. You DO know who they are and the datasets they produce, right?), then the question doesn’t arise for HadCRUT or GISS.

              It DOES arise for RSS and UAH.

              You appear to think highly of them. So it appears the answer to your question is “We must believe them better”.

              Which is the opposite of what your question was intended to imply.

            • We will see soon enough in the crucible if time whose models are true.

            • Just noticed that you didn’t disclaim the accusation that you do believe that the Arctic has a lot of people living in a city down there who are dependent on several coal power stations at the pole to keep warm.

              You really DO believe it, then.

              Damn, that’s seriously fucked up shit right there.

            • “We will see soon enough in the crucible if time whose models are true.”

              We already have.

              The AGW demonstrating ones have been shown valid and useful, yours and other deniers have been shown utterly wrong.

              Yours had no chance but to be wrong, given that they were based on data you had observed to be saying one thing that turned out to be 100% incorrect, so it really had nothing other than GIGO to describe its capabilities.

          • Polar sea ice is back to normal now since 2012 minimum. Coal power stations were kept up or converted to natural gas. Reducing capacity, powered by coal or other fossil fuels CAN result in deaths from the longer colder winters already happening and deepening into the 2030s. It is not global warming to fear, but global Cooling. If you really believe CO2 causes warming, you will be wishing for more. However, it will be quickly obvious that Global temperature control is far beyond human control, and has been that way forever.

            • “Polar sea ice is back to normal now ”

              No it isn’t.

              Go to the sea ice site http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

              “Coal power stations were kept up or converted to natural gas.”

              Really? You never said that it was currently OK with the numbers of stations when you made your claim, but now you claim the numbers were fine. I guess your post was crass alarmism, right?

              Then again, this indicates your claims are wrong:

              http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/more-coal-plants-are-being-cancelled-than-built/

              Hmmm.

              Are you making shit up again?

            • Polar sea ice is nowhere near normal, paul.

              And your claim was that there weren’t enough coal stations to make enough power and here you claim that they didn’t close even more. Therefore your claim is not supported and, in fact, failed.

              You also claimed that solar and wind wouldn’t be there, but that was false too.

              And you claimed a colder winter, yet it was one of the top 10 warmest winters on record.

              And we have no global cooling to fear, you alarmist shill.

              And the only thing out of control is your manufactured alarm and ignorance.

            • Polar Sea ice charts that end in 2012 miss the rapid recovery since then. 45% in 2013 and another 25% in 2014.

            • It was one of the coldest winters in 30 years in the northern hemisphere if you use raw temperature data.

            • Oh, and again, getting personal does not further the discussion. There are differences of opinion based on assumptions, beliefs and Verifiable facts. Reliance on anybody’s OK onions without independent verification of the facts and the treatment of those facts is dangerous. Perhaps the most dangerous opinions are those of “peers” because of the hazard that they all operate with the same assumptions. Only independent thinking can result in a clear understanding of the truth . With regards to the publications it is well-known that there is lots of money available for those who operate under the assumption of human caused Carbon dioxide based global warming. There are legions of authors who are trying to establish themselves as worthy of grants and notable publication by operating without questioning the basic assumptions.

            • To understand how the earth’s weather as a whole operates in the context of carbon dioxide water vapor and the suns influence go to Paullitely.com the first article. I am an electronic engineer and MBA in finance I love numbers and I love science I do not claim to be licensed or have a ticket in climate science. However nine years of independent research and critical reading has led me to the inescapable conclusions. In my article.

            • I am satisfied to watch the future unfolds to either approve or disapprove of my conclusions and I am totally open to changing those conclusions as reality and verifiable facts may be different. I will not alter the facts and I will not argue that I am right in the face of verifiable facts. Unfortunately this is exactly what today’s IPCC

            • Originated models and their advocates have been doing.

            • “Polar Sea ice charts that end in 2012 miss the rapid recovery since then.”

              It also doesn’t show any rapid recovery. So where is your graph?

              “It was one of the coldest winters in 30 years in the northern hemisphere”

              No it was one of the 10 warmest.

              “Oh, and again, getting personal does not further the discussion.”

              Claiming conspiracy to manipulate data when you’re wrong does not further the discussion. Conspiracy theories are self-healing and can never be changed because any disproof is further proof of the conspiracy.

              “There are differences of opinion based on assumptions, beliefs and Verifiable facts.”

              The verifiable facts prove your predictions all failed. Your opinion is that this is a vast worldwide conspiracy against you. That’s based on your assumption, beliefs, but not the verifiable facts.

              “I am an electronic engineer and MBA in finance”

              Ergo without any relevant experience, certainly none to answer what the climate does.

              “However nine years of independent research and critical reading”

              Which you only researched what you wanted and criticised anything that didn’t agree. This isn’t what research is.

              Try being a scientist, not an MBA.

              “I am satisfied to watch the future unfolds ”

              But will refuse to believe that your claims were proven false and instead insist that it’s a vast conspiracy against you.

              So, no, you’re NOT satisfied to watch.

              “I will not argue that I am right in the face of verifiable facts.”

              You just did.

              You then claimed, based on your wilful ignorance and overwhelming arrogance, that the verifiable facts are faked, because you’re not going to let yourself be wrong.

              IOW anti scientist.

            • I am satisfied to watch the cold unfold. I don’t take it personally. If the next few years do not conform to the predictions, I will happily revise the models, not the measurements.I did research the IPCC based Models

            • “Coal power stations were kept up or converted to natural gas.”

              Really? You never said that it was currently OK with the numbers of stations when you made your claim, but now you claim the numbers were fine. I guess your post was crass alarmism, right?

              Then again, this indicates your claims are wrong:

              http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/more-coal-plants-are-being-cancelled-than-built/

            • “I am satisfied to watch the cold unfold”

              Except it’s summer with winter coming soon. And so far this year has been the hottest on record.

              This is not cold unfolding.

            • The weather will go where it wants. We have had nothing to do with it, and we can’t do anything about it, just observe, theorize, and attempt to forecast. Accurate unadulterated data series are an important part of understanding the underlying processes.

            • “We have had nothing to do with it”

              Uh huh.

              So what is your “model”, then, if it doesn’t include the greenhouse gasses like H2O and CO2? How does the earth manage to be above the freezing point of water without those two things?

              Because we certainly have a lot to do with the CO2 levels.

              And being a greenhouse gas means that the increased CO2 levels causes warming.

              Therefore we DO have a lot to “do with it”.

              Like I said, you clearly don’t have ANY education, otherwise you would be incapable of making such terrible basic mistakes.

            • The first post in this blog addresses the significance of CO2 relative to H2O as a greenhouse and phase changing gas, and the fail of the CO2 “Amplification” Mechanism to add moisture to the upper atmosphere… It is drying out instead. See the charts. That blog also shows that global temperatures were much warmer than now during the Medieval period, when science and enlightenment thrived. Why are those days not included in the “record”. Finally, the inverse relationship between Solar storms and Earthly cloud cover produces a long term model that fits the long term dynamic climate history of the earth far better than the lazy curve of CO2. It is time to revisit the popular IPCC based model. With it’s long straight handle extending into the past. If you cannot show alignment with historical data, OR recent data with consistency, shred the model, fix it, and put it back together for another run.

            • “The weather will go where it wants”

              So your model is a gaia hypothesis, where there is intent and intelligence in the otherwise natural processes of the world, such as Weather?

              Because sane people believe that natural processes happen for a reason and that reason isn’t the natural process *deciding* what to do.

              Gravity doesn’t decide to let rocks fall, nor decide to let birds fly. Gravity, like weather, has no appreciable opinion on what falls or flies.

              But I guess your model is “Well, it’s far smarter than me, so the weather is completely unpredictable, except I’ll still make predictions, that turn out wrong.”

              Not much of a model.

              Me, I use the physical processes operating rather than some mystical anthropomorphised deity-like figure with the limited remit of “being the weather” deciding whether it will be warm or raining.

            • There are two universes we live in: 1) Physical Nature and 2) Human Nature (contains behaviors and beliefs). Human nature often attempts to frame physical nature in human terms (eg. Gaia), but the two natures are independent. We get into trouble trying to bring them into alignment. Utopias are doomed to failure because they deny parts of human nature.

            • The “unadulterated” data shows more warming, therefore a higher level of AGW.

            • AGW is a Utopian idea.

            • “and the fail of the CO2 “Amplification” Mechanism to add moisture to the upper atmosphere”

              There’s nothing requiring adding more moisture to the upper atmosphere, therefore it cannot fail there.

              Also Cassius/Clapeyron shows how more CO2 leads to warming leading to more H2O and warming amplification of the CO2 warming. Therefore it doesn’t fail there either.

              “That blog also shows that global temperatures were much warmer than now during the Medieval period”

              It does not. It pretends that the MWP is, but it never was.

              “Why are those days not included in the “record”.”

              They are.

              “Finally, the inverse relationship between Solar storms and Earthly cloud cover”

              Has been investigated by denier stooge Bjorn Blomberg in the CLOUD study and shown to be inapplicable.

              You see the problem is that there is no such relationship. And quite necessarily too, since clouds only form when there are nucleation sites and 100% or more relative humidity. Which isn’t a problem since we on earth have DUST as nucleation sites and the solar flares don’t cause more moisture in our atmosphere.

              “far better than the lazy curve of CO2.”

              Well, nobody is fitting the CO2 curve to temperatures. So you’re “disproving” a model nobody uses.

              Doesn’t do anything about the models actually used. Ones far more successful at predicting the climate than your model managed so far on all evidence so far presented.

              “It is time to revisit the popular IPCC based model.”

              Well, if you think it’s all about a lazy CO2 curve, you cannot visit whatever model you looked at, since it doesn’t exist.

              And since there’s no “the popular IPCC based model” since the IPCC don’t do models. They collate and collect the results of other papers in the scientific literature. Like Nature collects papers but does no science research itself. So you can’t visit that.

              And if you haven’t visited it, you can’t REvisit it.

              “With it’s long straight handle extending into the past.”

              Which graphs have YOU looked at, because that one doesn’t exist in the IPCC reports.

              “If you cannot show alignment with historical data, OR recent data with consistency, shred the model, fix it, and put it back together for another run.”

              If we had a model that failed that badly, we would.

              We don’t have one like that though.

            • “AGW is a Utopian idea.”

              You either don’t know what AGW is, what Utopian means, both, or really don’t care that you’re making shit up. Or all three.

            • It is not happening.

            • “There are two universes we live in: 1) Physical Nature and 2) Human Nature”

              Nope, we only live in one universe. Ones where we humans are part of physical nature and not some mystical Other Thing.

              Let me guess. You “know” AGW can’t be happening because the Bible says man is subject to God’s will and he promised Noah that he’d never flood the world again.

            • NOAH and NOAA seem to have common Utopias.

            • “It is not happening.”

              Yes, it is not cooling. It is, rather, warming.

              “NOAH and NOAA seem to have common Utopias.”

              Again you fail to comprehend what the word utopia means. Is it meant to be some dogwhistle for New World Order? You a troofer too?

            • Global flooding

            • What about global flooding?

        • Arctic ice is way below average.

          • You are right, but within 2 Standard Deviations. 2012 was the lowest since 1981, with significant increases since then each year, almost back to normal. I stand corrected.

            • Me: Arctic ice is way below average.
              You: You are right

              Therefore your claim “Arctic ice is now above average” is wrong.

              “Within 2SD” is not *above*. Even if your “Within 2SD” were either correct or relevant.

            • “2012 was the lowest since 1981”

              No it wasn’t.

              1981 was VASTLY higher.

        • “Sattelite data is consistent.”

          No it isn’t. See:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

          Corrections made are numerous.

          Not to mention that the computer model that turns radiance levels into temperature profiles is on version 6 now.

          If you visit sites and come back with the idea that arctic ice is above average now, and are corrected, that satellite data is not changed and are corrected, then there are at least one of two things that need to be changed:

          1) where you get your information from
          2) your reading ability

          • Yes, even though they have been concerned that satellite data did not show enough warming, so they could not find an acceptable method to alter it too by as much as a 0.1 degree trend. That is what I meant by they can’t manipulate it. From your citation: “The UAH TLT dataset was a source of controversy in the 1990s as, at that time, it showed little increase in global mean temperature, at odds with surface measurements. Since then a number of errors in the way the atmospheric temperatures were derived from the raw radiance data have been discovered and corrections made by Christy et al. at UAH.”
            The net increase of all the adjustments is only 0.069 degrees in the satellite trend, while the surface records have been altered as much as 4.0 degrees upward trend in just recent decades.

            • “even though they have been concerned that satellite data did not show enough warming”

              You claim it’s COOLING. What does “warming less than other datasets” have to do with proving it’s cooling?

              Nothing.

              Oh, by the way, it doesn’t measure the surface temperature. Look at the link again.

              So it isn’t measuring the surface but a volume of atmosphere, which will be cooler and, in the case of warming from greenhouse gasses, will be warming more lower down and less higher up (and cooling even higher up), therefore a lowered warming trend is entirely expected.

              Your knowledge here is completely lacking.

              “The net increase of all the adjustments is only 0.069 degrees in the satellite trend,”

              Since the current trend is +0.13C per decade, that would mean that in the last 30 years the trend must have started at around +0.11C per decade, in contravention of your quote stating that it showed cooling.

              Your current claim ALSO proves your claim that the satellite data is consistent or unadjusted was 100% wrong.

              Just like all your other claims.

              Yet despite all your initial “proof” that the world is cooling, we’re going for an ice age Real Soon Now ™, and that all the data is faked being wrong, you’re STILL not going to change your model or methods.

              Which is something you said you would not do.

            • We shall see.

            • “while the surface records have been altered as much as 4.0 degrees upward trend in just recent decades.”

              Nope. Nowhere near reality. Can’t see reality with a really good telescope and a forwarding address.

            • In an article which NASA published in 1999, Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year, after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953. In fact, 1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934.

            • “We shall see.”

              We already have

              http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html

              And yours has failed 100% of all claims made under it so far.

            • If any theory fails, it fails to describe reality. Right now we have opposite predictions for the future. We shall see in the next few years what theory works. I will not protest either way.

            • It is quite interesting that the alarmists are now calling everyone else alarmists. I missed when that happened. Clever confoundment. Now everyone should say lets spend Billions to mitigate future possible disasters “Just in case” they happen.

            • “Hansen showed that 1998 was only the fifth warmest year,”

              No he didn’t.

              “1998 was 0.6C cooler than 1934.”

              No it wasn’t.

              See GISS graph posted on the nearby response to your other bullshit claims.

            • Today’s Data series are not the same as in 1999. That is the point.

            • “Today’s Data series are not the same as in 1999.”

              Today’s Data series of RAW data is the same as in 1999. That’s the point.

              And comparing the RAW data with the QC’d data shows that the quality controls reduce the warming trend, and therefore disprove your claims that the adjustments are made to make a fake warming trend.

              That’s the point.

              And the difference in 1999’s data to today’s has nothing to do with your claims of Hansen’s report being right when they are spectacularly wrong. That’s the point.

              Your incorrect claims about Hansen’s report does not support the data trend being changed by up to 4 degrees even if they WERE true. That’s the point.

              Do you get the point yet?

            • Alternate universes.

            • I’ll take mine and you take yours.

            • “It is quite interesting that the alarmists are now calling everyone else alarmists.”

              No, you alarmists have been doing that for over two decades now.

              “If any theory fails, it fails to describe reality. ”

              Yours has.

              “Right now we have opposite predictions for the future. ”

              We had one in August 2014.

              “We shall see in the next few years what theory works”

              We;ve seen already: yours failed. The actual scientific ones succeeded.

              “I will not protest either way.”

              Except you have, by claiming it’s all a fraud and faked data and an expense you don’t want to see made because “It might not happen if my model suddenly turns out a correct prediction (which it has failed so far in every prediction)”.

              “lets spend Billions to mitigate future possible disasters “Just in case” they happen.”

              Sounds better than “Lets wait for the future possible disasters and pay more to fix them and die en masse in those disasters”.

              Do you not take insurance? Do you not save for a rainy day? Do you not have a pension? Or are you hoping to let the government pay you out of other people’s pay packet?

            • I would be very happy to sell insurance against Global Warming for the next thirty years. I hadn’t thought of it. Thank you.

            • “I’ll take mine and you take yours.”

              So when you said you’d change your model if it turned out wrong, you were lying, you meant you’d stick with your model.

              Seems not even your stated principles are statements of truth.

            • Neither of us will know what happens for some years yet.

            • “I would be very happy to sell insurance against Global Warming for the next thirty years”

              I’ll ask again:

              Do you not take insurance? Do you not save for a rainy day? Do you not have a pension? Or are you hoping to let the government pay you out of other people’s pay packet?

            • “I would be very happy to sell insurance against Global Warming for the next thirty years”. I would never buy it or recommend buying it.

            • “Neither of us will know what happens for some years yet.”

              We already know your model has failed catastrophically. And that the actual scientific models have done fine.

              We already know this.

              You don’t get a “best out of three” on this. We already know your model has failed.

              We already know AGW is happening and it’s going, if anything, worse than the IPCC report put it.

              We don’t have to wait for the future to know what has already happened.

            • Until CO2 tracks temperature, that model is not proven. When temperature tracks Solar Storms, that model may be proven. We have both rising CO2 and declining solar storms and flat global temperature since 1998. There is no result confirming either one yet. We have to wait for any positive confirmation. However, looking BACK in time, the solar driven model fits while the CO2 model fails.

            • “I would never buy it or recommend buying it.”

              As the seller of that insurance you would be well advised to tell everyone that taking your insurance would be a bad idea, as long as you don’t let them know the bad idea is for you.

              Selling insurance against the science being right when the science is right will only cost you money,unless you’re running a scam so obvious that you won’t get any takers (e.g. “Pay me $1000 in insurance and if the science turns out to be right after all, I’ll pay back over $800.00!”)

            • No. I am willing to make a handsome profit betting against global warming for 30 years.

            • If the disaster is as you predict, then the insurance would pay out, as with any insurance.

            • “I am willing to make a handsome profit betting against global warming for 30 years.”

              You aren’t able to.

              But you won’t do it, anyway. No denier has ever offered up their own money on some concrete bet. They prefer to insist on waiting.

            • We are still waiting

            • “Until CO2 tracks temperature, that model is not proven.”

              Since that model doesn’t exist, it doesn’t matter if it’s not proven.

              However, the science models are proven.

            • “When temperature tracks Solar Storms, that model may be proven.”

              And since it hasn’t, it’s been proven wrong.

              “We have both rising CO2 and declining solar storms and flat global temperature since 1998”

              It hasn’t been flat.

              “There is no result confirming either one yet.”

              Yes there is. The ones like GISS. Yours has been proven wrong. Weren’t you saying that you’d change or abandon your model if it were proven wrong? That was a lie then.

              “However, looking BACK in time, the solar driven model fits while the CO2 model fails”

              Nope, looking BACK in time the solar driven model failed (it never had a causation either, so no surprise it failed), whilst the GISS et al have been successful.

            • “We are still waiting ”

              For what? Your model to stop failing? Is this how you drive? Wait until you crash and THEN start to put the brakes on???

  7. To see what is happening this year in the arctic and globally, look at the links at the beginning of my blog Paullitely.wordpress.com. You will be amazed at what has happened suddenly in 2014, that started in 2013. Global Warming is dead, be it from CO2 or any other forces. The predictions from climate scientists emphasizing the effects of ocean currents and Solar Magnetic Fields seem to be right on. We are entering a little ice age. The next two years will make it so obvious that nobody will be able to deny it credibly. We will then see who the “Deniers” are. They will be denying the weather that does not conform to their CO2 Global Warming Models.

    • Of course, now that evidence shows your claims were wrong, you deny these facts with conspiracy theories about how you really WERE right.

      Your claim there about GCM models appears to be entirely projection at best, or more likely self-serving made up BS.

      Your “Global Cooling model” fails. You deny the evidence.

      Pretty damn clear proof of your denial.

    • So far the reality of arctic ice has been shown different to your claims and evidence, the satellite data has been shown to be other than your beliefs in it, yet still you deny that you need to change what you’re claiming.

      Exactly what you claim IPCC et al are doing and decrying.

      It’s projection, isn’t it?

      • The IPCC projections for rapid extreme warming have not materialized. It is time to overhaul the model, not cling to it and say there is an unanticipated and unexpected “Pause”. If actual results are unanticipated and unexpected then FIX the model. There is plenty of evidence the model is busted and too simple to include grossly important factors.

        • “The IPCC projections for rapid extreme warming have not materialized.”

          Yes they have.

          “not cling to it and say there is an unanticipated and unexpected “Pause”.”

          There is no pause. See above.

        • Looking VERY bad for your prediction. And your claims here have fallen in ruins too.

          Will you change your model? Or will you cling to it still?

          • In light of the actual unadjusted temperature data, and toe obvious failure of IPCC and friends model failure to model the past before 1850,the question is how long will THEY cling to THEIR models? The ones I follow do a much better job, and don’t require repeated revisions to the actual raw temperature data, or even their own last adjusted data.

            • What “unadjusted actual temperature”?

              Given that the adjustments reduce the trend, this only makes your claims even more inaccurate and broken.

              “model failure to model the past before 1850”

              Nope, they do well at that too.

              Indeed your “model” (if indeed it exists as an actual thing rather than just a rhetorical figleaf) did VASTLY worse based as it is on only the sun’s effects.

              “The ones I follow do a much better job”

              Then they must be entirely imaginary.

              “and don’t require repeated revisions to the actual raw temperature data,”

              Well, no, fictitious models that are really just “I have it right on the money!” doesn’t rely on ANY data, indeed requires the refusal of all data input, so yes, it doesn’t require any revisions to data. Or any data at all.

              Fiction really doesn’t work in reality, though.

              In reality your predictions have just failed harder and harder.

            • The adjustments SHOULD show cooling, IF they are applied to remove the Heat Island effect. However, plots of the after vs before adjustment temperature series ONLY show increased Warming. See my post that begins with HADCRUT NASA GISS, AND ALL OFFICIAL TEMPERATURE SERIES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO MAKE WARMING.

            • The adjustments you decry have REDUCED the warming trend, paul.

              Using them makes your prediction EVEN LESS TRUE.

            • I moved the graphs of adjustments to the top of my blog at paullitely.com. Look again at this post and others I reposted from others.

            • “The adjustments SHOULD show cooling”

              if your models were accurate or anywhere near reality.

              But your models aren’t accurate, and insisting that the data MUST be manipulated to create a warming trend, despite this being absolutely and flat out wrong, solely so that you can then claim your “model” (if it even exists) is right is entirely getting the cart before the horse.

              Do you accept that there really IS a warming trend because the CMIP5 models say it does?

              No?

              Then why should you accept that there really is a cooling trend merely because your model (again, if it does exist) predicts one?

            • I said the adjustments should show cooling vs raw data. if they are applied to reduce heat island effects. The adjustments and the adjustments to the adjustments show warming trends instead.

            • Nope, you haven’t put the adjustments to the raw data up there, paul. Stop lying.

              Especially when it’s so damn obvious that you have done so. For goodness sake, it’s even there in black and white that you haven’t done this!

            • Oh, it’s there. Click on view original at bottom of the reblog forts post at Paullitely.com

            • The top graph on the post is a graph of the ADJUSTMENTS, not the raw data.

            • Yes, you have said that, paul. This isn’t true, however. And no matter how many times you say that, it won’t MAKE it true.

              All evidence available indicates this falsity.

              The adjustments DO remove the effects of UHI (indeed they remove MORE than the UHI effect actually is). That is why the raw data shows a much higher trend than the QC’d data and that is contrary to your claim that the adjustments are there to MAKE a warming trend.

            • “Oh, it’s there.”

              What “It”? The “it” of proof that raw data has been ajdusted upward? No, it isn’t there.

            • “The top graph on the post is a graph of the ADJUSTMENTS,”

              It isn’t.

              If the raw data is taken and those changes applied, you do not get the latest figures at all.

            • Right, because subsequent adjustments were made in the same direction, since these adjustments were made. The bias from adjustments is worse now.

            • “Right, because subsequent adjustments were made in the same direction,”

              What does that have to do with the FACT that is that the raw data STILL shows a greater warming trend than the latest adjustments?

              And no, they haven’t all been in the same direction, either.

            • WOW! Show us where the actuals show more warming than the adjusted data! That is backwards from everything I have seen!

            • It also has nothing to do with the fact that your claimed adjustments are not the adjustments to the raw data.

              Moreover you haven’t even got what you calculate to be the UHI effect. Which would be central to your demand that the entire positive trend is due to the UHI.

              See
              https://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=32

            • “Show us where the actuals show more warming than the adjusted data!”

              I already did when you made this fatuously ignorant claim.

              http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

              Now, you retarded shrill moron, where is your proof that the raw data shows less warming than the adjusted???

            • Pooh, don’t get personal. The unaltered facts speak for themselves

            • To begin with, this source is biased, and their data do not reflect the cumulative effects of adjustments made to raw data. These graphs don’t align with what NOAA and GISS have recently published. Your graphs for land based measurements show MORE warming by reducing the older measurements, regardless of the explanations. Somehow, they don’t show the latest NOAA or GISS upward adjustments for recent decades. Heat island effects should be compensated for by LOWERING LATER measurements instead. As for ocean temperatures, there were very few ocean temperature measuring stations prior to a few decades ago. Making up an ocean temperature series from land based temperatures is a huge leap, and open to broad interpretation. It all has to be made up. Mixing the adjusted land based temperature series that has been inappropriately adjusted to show warming with a fictitious ocean temperature series that has been made up to try to smooth it out is also inappropriate. Again, raw data is adjusted inappropriately to serve an agenda.

            • Here is what NOAA is doing for adjustments to recent temperature data:
              https://paullitely.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/noaa-releases-new-pause-buster-global-surface-temperature-data-and-immediately-claims-record-high-temps-for-may-2015-what-a-surprise/

            • Unfortunately, when the data doesn’t match the model predictions, the IPCC and friends Based models are not abandoned or even adjusted. Instead, the input data is adjusted to preserve the output forecast despite the fact that predictions have failed and the model output does not conform to historical data at all prior to 1850.

            • “Here is what NOAA is doing for adjustments to recent temperature data”

              Irrelevant. It doesn’t show what they did to the RAW DATA. Which is YOUR CLAIM and so far completely unsupported.

              TRY AGAIN.

            • No, paul, that’s what you would do. You can’t access it, so you make up that they are doing it and that “magically” UHI would make your “model” correct.

              Yet you don’t have the faintest clue what effect UHI has.

            • “despite the fact that predictions have failed and the model output does not conform to historical data at all prior to 1850.”

              And you continue to peddle this despite it being a complete and utter porkie-pie.

              Why?

            • “To begin with, this source is biased

              No it isn’t.

              ” and their data do not reflect the cumulative effects of adjustments made to raw data”

              Yes it does.

              “These graphs don’t align with what NOAA and GISS have recently published”

              No, it aligns very well indeed.

              “Somehow, they don’t show the latest NOAA or GISS upward adjustments for recent decades.”

              Somehow, they didn’t include changes made in the future in their total changes up to that date. But subsequent changes do not reverse the graph trends.

              “Heat island effects should be compensated for by LOWERING LATER measurements instead”

              Yes, they did. See the drop in that graph between the raw data and the quality controlled data? That’s the result of, among other things, correction for UHI.

              Changes that they still apply today. Changes that are above the rural only stations’ trend, a trend that doesn’t have an UHI effect. This still doesn’t change the fact that the adjustments are reducing the trend from the raw data trend, the opposite of your claims.

              “As for ocean temperatures,”

              They have no city growth, so cannot be affected by UHI. But they show a warming trend too.

              “Making up an ocean temperature series from land based temperatures is a huge leap,”

              Which is why that was never done.

              “that has been inappropriately adjusted”

              Begging the question. A fallacy.

              “fictitious ocean temperature series”

              Well, with a real ocean temperature series, as actually exists, this isn’t a problem.

              “Again, raw data is adjusted inappropriately to serve an agenda. ”

              Again, you have no evidence of this being remotely true. Either in the adjustment or the reason for it.

            • Oh, the full period of the oscillation through the galactic *plane* (not plain) is 70 million years. Not 13 thousand (or 26 thousand if you were talking about the peak-to-trough).

              Ask any astronomer.

              Kinda fucks up your claims, don’t it?

          • “Cling to it still” it is.

            As expected. And despite all your protestations that if reality doesn’t match the model, you will abandon the model. As expected.

  8. “it is well-known that there is lots of money available for those who operate under the assumption of human caused Carbon dioxide ”

    Nope, it isn’t.

    It’s a conspiracy theory that idiots who hate the facts cling to because it makes them feel right.

    There is vastly more money in climate change denial, since your outgoings are naff all, and it’s all profit.

  9. “The unaltered facts speak for themselves”

    They do.

    But you’re not doing that, youre making shit up. And then whining when I call you a shithead under the pretense that you never did that. Or it means that I am in error. It is orthogonal.

    The insults are only focused on by people who don’t have anything better to “prove” an error.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 335 other followers

%d bloggers like this: