Posted by: Barry Bickmore | April 21, 2016

Dick Lindzen, Prager U., and the Art of Lying Well

In (Consensus) Denial

The clear scientific consensus about human-caused climate change (certainly between 90-100% of experts, and most likely somewhere around 97%) presents a big problem for the contrarians.  Namely, most people have neither the time nor the inclination to sift through the evidence for themselves, so they tend to defer to the majority of experts.  Therefore, if the contrarians want to keep the masses from demanding action to reduce human-caused climate change, they need to cloud the public’s perception of the scientific consensus.  That’s exactly what retired atmospheric physicist Dick Lindzen does in a new video called “Climate Change:  What Do Scientists Say?” produced by “Prager University”.  In this post, I will point out some clear instances where Lindzen obfuscates the issue.  He’s so good at the Art of Lying Well (TM) that he can do it without making any factual claims that aren’t technically true (in a sense that almost none of his viewers would understand).  But first, here’s the video.

Background

“Prager University” (hereafter PU) is not a real university, per se.  Instead, it is a website created by well known conservative talk radio host, Dennis Prager, where 5 minute videos about various topics are posted.  The purpose of PU, according to Prager, is to counteract the  “unhealthy” intellectual and moral climate of the American system of higher education.  I’ve watched a few PU videos, mainly because they show up on my Facebook feed, and have had mixed reactions.  Some of the videos I’ve seen bring up important philosophical points, such as this one about abortion, although they definitely come from a politically and socially conservative point of view.  I have no problem with the videos when they argue for a particular point of view (especially since I am politically and socially fairly conservative), but some of them have seemed astonishingly naive, ignoring easily anticipated counterarguments.  (E.g., see this one about progressive income taxes.)  Suffice it to say that PU videos sometimes make interesting arguments, but I wouldn’t trust them to provide a fair discussion of alternative (i.e., more liberal) points of view.

Given that human-caused climate change is practically a taboo subject in conservative American politics, it’s no surprise that PU would produce a video attempting to downplay the scientific consensus.  But to their credit, PU chose perhaps the most well credentialed climate change contrarian they could find, Richard Lindzen, as the star of the show.  Dick Lindzen is a retired Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, and is universally acknowledged to have made several valuable contributions to the field of atmospheric physics.  He is one of the few climate change contrarians who have really solid credentials in the field, and even scientists who have pointed out flaws in Lindzen’s reasoning have acknowledged that even when he’s wrong, he at least raises interesting questions.

Smoke and Mirrors

In the PU video, however, Prof. Lindzen leaves out quite a lot of pertinent information to make himself seem more mainstream than he actually is among climate scientists, and uses easily misinterpreted language to brazenly mislead his viewers.  Here are several examples.

1. Lindzen divides the scientists involved into two groups:  1) those associated with the IPCC, who “mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels… [which] might eventually dangerously heat the planet,” and 2) “scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem.”

All of that is true, but Lindzen neglects to inform us about the relative size of the two camps.  Some might object that “science isn’t about consensus” (which is misleading, at best), but it seems pretty obvious that your average Joe watching a five-minute video on “Climate Change:  What Do Scientists Say” isn’t looking to carefully weigh all the arguments that any scientist anywhere might happen to put forward.  He just wants a quick, representative summary of what scientists are saying, and a ballpark estimate of the level of agreement.

Take, for example, Lindzen’s statement that scientists associated with the IPCC “mostly” believe human-caused climate change is a serious issue.  Does “mostly” mean 51%?  75%?  90%?  99.99999999%?  I can’t give a definitive answer, either, but I can take a crack at it.  Marc Morano (a former staffer for Senator James Inhofe) issued a report which “features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.”  I once combed through this report to find out which IPCC scientists had “turned against” the IPCC, and found that Morano produced quotations from less than 1% of the authors and less than 1% of the reviewers of the IPCC report.  Let’s just say that describing >99%  agreement as “mostly” seems a bit coy.  Could there have been more dissenters who weren’t as forthcoming about their views?  Sure, but even if we assume that there were ten times as many as Morano found, that still leaves us with >90% agreement.

Even worse than his obvious attempt to downplay the level of agreement within the IPCC camp, Lindzen makes absolutely no attempt to give his viewers an idea of how big the group of contrarian climate scientists is, relative to the entire community of climate scientists.  When the opinions of two groups of experts are reported without any indication of their relative sizes, people tend to assume the sizes are at least roughly comparable.  This is clearly not the case, according to several studies.

2. When Lindzen describes the opinions of the contrarian scientists, he says “We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes….  None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.”

Look at how Lindzen begins his description–“We note….”  This language seems to indicate that the ideas about to be mentioned are simply facts to be pointed out, rather than opinions.  And in fact, the idea that there are a number of factors that influence the Earth’s climate, none of which are fully understood, seems completely uncontroversial to me.  Physicists don’t fully understand things like “light” and “matter,” either, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have perfectly serviceable theories about these subjects that fairly accurately predict the behavior of light and matter.  So what?

However, Lindzen also “notes” that “there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.”  What?  NO evidence?  If, by “evidence,” he means “absolute proof,” then sure, science never produces “absolute proof” of anything.  That’s Philosophy of Science 101.  But if, by “no evidence,” Lindzen means there are no facts that can be legitimately used to argue for the belief that CO2 emissions are (at least lately) the dominant factor driving global warming, then his statement is an astonishingly brazen falsehood.  See this article in Science magazine and this talk by Professor Richard Alley (Penn State), for example.

3. Lindzen also lists several points of agreement between mainstream climate scientists and the contrarians, and while these points are largely accurate in a technical sense, he crafts his language to make it sound like these points of agreement support the view that we shouldn’t be worried about human-caused climate change, or that we can’t possibly know enough to evaluate the risk.

Lindzen describes one of these points of agreement like this.  “Over this period, [the] past two centuries, the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically, by about… 1 °C.  But only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.”  There are a number of problems with this phrasing, but the most egregious is Lindzen’s use of the word “slightly”.  Certainly a 1 °C change in temperature isn’t much compared to how much temperature swings in a given locality between day and night, or between Summer and Winter at high latitudes, but a 1 °C change in global mean temperature turns out to be quite a bit more significant.  Consider, for instance, that the difference in global mean temperature between now and 20,000 years ago is only about 4-7 °C, but back then there were miles-thick ice sheets covering much of North America and Eurasia.  It is similarly uncontroversial to say that human greenhouse gas emissions weren’t really large enough to play a big role in global warming  until the 1960’s, but once again Lindzen leaves out plenty of pertinent information.  For instance, there has been about a 0.8 °C rise in the global mean temperature since the 1960’s, during which time natural climate drivers, like changes in the incoming solar radiation, have been pushing toward a cooler climate.

fig-a2

In other words, the bit about the temperature changing “slightly and erratically” by about 1 °C over 200 years is a red herring.  In fact, the global mean temperature meandered up and down a little over this period, right up until human greenhouse gas emissions became the dominant factor.  Since then, the planet has been heating up relatively rapidly and consistently.

And that’s the point.  Lindzen’s claim that climate scientists generally agree “the climate is always changing” is true, but the fact is that none of them are worried about climate change unless it happens faster than ecosystems human civilizations can successfully adapt to avoid major upheaval.  Remember how, during the last ice age, the global mean temperature was something like 4-7 °C colder than now?  Well, it took about 10,000 years for most of that change to happen.  Humans appear capable of raising the global mean temperature by several degrees in one or two hundred years, by contrast.

Lindzen’s last point of “agreement” among climate scientists is also technically correct, but so deceptively phrased it almost beggars belief.  He claims, “Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made.”  He backs up this assertion by quoting the 2007 IPCC report, which says that “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”  Hearing this, our average Joe watching the five-minute video to find out “What Scientists Say” would undoubtedly come away with the idea that even the IPCC admits the models IPCC scientists use to make projections about future climate states are worthless.  This is clearly not the case, however, and to understand what is going on, we need quite a bit more context.

Let’s start with a more complete quotation of the IPCC report.

Further work is needed [to]… [i]mprove methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Ask yourself this.  If climate models aren’t good for anything, why is the IPCC recommending further work to quantify uncertainties in model “projections and simulations”?  The key to understanding this is the way in which scientists use the terms “prediction” and “projection”.

When we say “prediction,” we mean a statement about what will happen at some specified future time.  Climate models don’t do “predictions” for multiple reasons, only one of which is the complex, chaotic nature of the climate system.  This simply ensures that no prediction can be overly precise, whereas a bigger problem is that we have no way of knowing how several important model inputs will change over time.  For example, how will volcanic activity change over the next century?  We don’t know.  How will solar radiation change?  We don’t know.  And most importantly, how much greenhouse gas will humans pump into the atmosphere?  Well, that’s exactly what people are trying to decide, isn’t it?  We could drastically cut emissions, or we could keep ramping them up as the Earth’s population grows and becomes more industrialized.  This is by far the biggest uncertainty for climate “prediction”.

When we say “projection,” however, we mean an estimate of what might happen IF a certain scenario plays out.  A model “projection” of future climate states must be based on a number of assumptions about what humans will do, and what natural climate drivers will do.  How well the actual climate follows such projections depends, in large part, on how well future reality conforms to the assumptions made.

In the paragraph quoted above, the IPCC report was simply saying that since it’s impossible to precisely “predict” future climate states, climate scientists should put some more work into quantifying exactly how uncertain various aspects of the climate model “projections” are, so that when they run “projections” for different possible scenarios, they can do a better job of quantifying the probability of different possible outcomes.  That’s why, instead of using a single climate model to make projections, the IPCC uses an “ensemble” of models that cover the spread of uncertainties in various aspects of the climate system.  And if we can quantify the probability of different outcomes, given certain courses of action, we can go on to estimate how risky those courses of action might be.

4. Lindzen wraps up his presentation by implying that climate scientists aren’t worried about climate change, and the only reason anyone is worried is that politicians, environmentalists, and media-types are pushing their agendas.  Oh, and other scientists (which happen to include a whole lot of climate scientists) are jumping on the bandwagon.  

The concept of “risk” is central to the message the IPCC is trying to get across, and essential for understanding how Dick Lindzen obfuscates the scientific consensus.  When he wraps up his presentation of supposed points of agreement between the IPCC and “skeptic” camps of climate scientists, he says,

The scenario that the burning of fossil fuels leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts.

But if the viewer understands that climate scientists try to estimate the probability of different outcomes, and the risks involved, it is clear why Lindzen’s language is once again misleading.  Of course climate scientists don’t “assert” that “burning fossil fuels leads to catastrophe.”  That would be idiotic.  Rather, almost all of them claim that there is a strong probability of outcomes many people would call “catastrophic” (like millions of people being displaced from their homes in low-lying areas due to sea level rise) if people don’t fairly rapidly curtail their use of fossil fuels.

He goes on:

So why are so many people worried, indeed panic-stricken, about this issue?  Here’s where Group 3 comes in:  politicians, environmentalists, and media.  Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want.  For politicians, it’s money and power.  For environmentalists, it’s money for their organizations, and confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting on nature.  For the media, it’s ideology, money, and headlines.  Doomsday scenarios sell.

See how he does that?  Lindzen first makes a statement that sounds striking, but in retrospect is revealed to be a pedantic statement of the obvious.  He then implies (without actually stating) that if actual climate scientists don’t “assert” that “burning… fossil fuels leads to catastrophe,” then they must not even be “worried” about it, and then blames the “worry” on several groups of non-scientists.

Don’t get me wrong–some members of the groups Lindzen blames sometimes do exaggerate climate change risks.  It’s a complicated subject, and people are people, after all.  But the implication that climate scientists aren’t even “worried” about the risks posed by uninhibited burning fossil of fuels is patently absurd, and Prof. Lindzen certainly knows better.

What he says next provides some insight into how he probably justifies this chicanery.

Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists outside of climate physics have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war.

Wait!  Up until this point, Lindzen never specified that the scientists he was talking about were “climate physicists.”  Certainly climate physicists like himself are important players, but many others, including ecologists, biologists, chemical oceanographers, agricultural scientists, doctors, economists, geographers, and so on, are clearly needed to assess how the projected climate changes would affect anything people care about.  But Prof. Lindzen wants to exclude all these others, and only allow climate physicists, who can say something about the probability of different changes in temperature and precipitation patterns under different scenarios, in the discussion.  In other words, we can argue about how much the temperature will rise if we burn so many billion tons of coal, but we aren’t allowed to discuss how such changes would affect people and ecosystems.

The sheer battiness of this line of argument would become even more evident if we were to poll just the climate physicists about whether they are worried about the risks posed by unabated fossil fuel burning.  In fact, I know a number of bona fide climate physicists (including some of Lindzen’s former students,) and I can assure you that they are worried about it.  Consider, for instance, this essay by Ray Pierrehumbert, Professor of Physics at Oxford University (formerly the U. of Chicago), and author of Principles of Planetary Climate, a graduate textbook on climate physics.  (In case you don’t click the link above, I should point out that the title of Prof. Pierrehumbert’s article is, “Climate Change:  A Catastrophe in Slow Motion”.  Did you catch the word “catastrophe”?)

[NOTE:  So what if someone, somewhere published an article about how hotter temperatures promote acne, or that enhanced heat and drought in a desert can lead to civil unrest.  I have no idea how much evidence there is for either of these propositions, but they don’t sound particularly stupid to me.]

Propaganda University

If the purpose of this Prager University  video is to inform viewers about “What Scientists Think” about climate change, it’s an utter failure.  Viewers without much prior knowledge of the subject would certainly come away with several false ideas about the opinions of the vast majority of climate experts.

If the purpose of the video is to be misleading propaganda, however, it’s at least mediocre. Consider this description of the Art of Lying Well (TM) by science fiction Grand Master, Robert A. Heinlein.

It’s not enough to be able to lie with a straight face; anybody with enough gall to raise on a busted flush can do that. The first way to lie artistically is to tell the truth — but not all of it. The second way involves telling the truth, too, but is harder: Tell the exact truth and maybe all of it…but tell it so unconvincingly that your listener is sure you are lying.  (Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love)

Almost everything Lindzen says in the video could be interpreted as technically true, but he leaves out so much pertinent information that his statements are almost guaranteed to be misinterpreted.  In fact, the clear direction of his arguments makes absolutely no sense, unless his factual claims are misinterpreted.

Lindzen needs to work on his game, however, if he wants to get away with this kind of propaganda.  His presentation is so far from telling “the exact truth and maybe all of it” that anyone even slightly familiar with the subject would be aghast at Lindzen’s shameless manipulation of his audience.

 

Advertisements

Responses

  1. ”In other words, the bit about the temperature changing “slightly and erratically” by about 1 °C over 200 years is a red herring” Yes that ”1C” is same as saying: ”she is only little bit dead, or pregnant”. #2: IF SOMEBODY INTERROGATES YOU to tell: HOW THE HELL YOU KNOW WHAT WAS EXACT ”GLOBAL” TEMP 200y ago; how will you show a proof? Everybody ”PRETENDING” to know ”global” temp for last year, is lying -/- everybody pretending to know the overall global temp for distant past, is a liar or too naive, most probably both. THE GLOBE IS A BIG PLACE, FELLAS. It’s not like sticking the thermometer up yours and telling the temp for your whole body. GLOBAL temp is different in every 100m and changes every 15minuts

    • There are absolutely definite ways of telling what the global temperature is. Hell, we do the same damn thing with telling the human body temperature. Are you saying that it’s impossible to tell when you’ve got a fever because there’s no “global body temperature”????

      Moreover, IT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE.

      Because we don’t really care what the “true global temperature” is, we’re worried about HOW MUCH HOTTER IT IS GETTING. And all we need there is the changes at enough places to make a good map of these.

      If it’s warming 1C at Lisbon, 1.2C in London,1.6C in Glasgow, 2C in Stockholm, we can get an average latitudinal increase and the global average in whatever definition you want to use as average quite easily and correctly. The fact that the temperatures in those cities is vastly different DOES NOT MATTER.

      But you’re a denier, proud of it,and you cling to your cherished ignorance because to let it go would be admitting error, and you are rabidly opposed to that.

      • Wow, how can you tell ”how warmer is getting” if you don’t have a starting point? #2: how can you get any increase in global temp, by monitoring on 7000m3, by 7000 thermometer? WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE PLANET, isn’t the rest of the planet on your ”globe”? Wow, Warmist lies don’t hold water… expend your knowledge, don’t sty as Swindler’s zombie for the rest of your life. REMEMBER: the more you know -> the more you are worth. Chanting, parroting Warmist gospel for many years will only give you a straitjacket… think about it. #3: I know things, because I always had an open mind.

        • Yes, but the thing is we HAVE a starting point. Ergo we CAN find out how much warmer it’s getting.

          Is there ANYTHING going on on that side of the keyboard that appears even SLIGHTLY human?

          “how can you get any increase in global temp, by monitoring on 7000m3, by 7000 thermometer?”

          Easily. But as said before, irrelevant.

          “WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE PLANET, ”

          What about it? The temperature isn’t wildly different 4m away from you, you moron.

          And that’s a disservice to most morons. Most of those are at least SANE.

          • Wow, When you cannot make sense, you resort to insults… that’s not science.. the more you know => the more you are worth, start learning. Start asking your brains-trusts for ”please explain”. They turned you into a monk, scared to look at the truth. You guys should take them ”in a class action, for brains degradation” I’ll be your witness

          • I can and do make sense, the problem is you cannot (or, rather, will not) see it.

            “the more you know => the more you are worth, start learning.”

            Same back atcha. But isn’t this an insult, claiming I’m unlearned? What was that you said earlier? Something about how you don’t have anything so you resort to insults?

            “They turned you into a monk, scared to look at the truth.”

            Ah, projection. Always lovely to see it.

      • Wow, when you stick a thermometer up your ass, if is one degree up -> the whole body is up by that much, arms, legs, kidneys; BUT: in the REAL environment is different temp on every km and changes independently every 15 minutes. Wow, listen to me: I have proven that: ” if it was possible to monitor the whole global temp incorrectly, would have been SAME every day of every year and millennium”. You people are prospering so-far, only because the ”climate skeptics” are stuck into their Pagan beliefs, established for the last 150years. Reason i asked you to read those two post, to update your knowledge and keep it at the back of your head; don’ be the last to learn the REAL PROOF!

        • And when we stick a thermometer in London and it goes up one degree, it’s warming.

          Moreover, as we heat up we sweat and that cools us.

          So by YOUR “reasoning” we cannot get a fever and cannot tell whether it’s even there.

          Given you do not apply that to the case of your own body, this clearly indicates you do not believe your claims either.

          Funnily enough, nobody else does either.

        • “different temp on every km and changes independently every 15 minutes”

          “Changes independently”? Got any evidence for that claim? Don’t you think scientists have EVER tried to find out correlation of temperatures between nearby locations? You make very brave claims.

          • Chis, get out of the city someday and you’ll see that temp, vegetation keeps changing. You’ll not need evidences presented to you by different people. here for you too: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/global-warming-lost-its-compass-again/

            • But we don’t go outside the city to find the temperature of the city.

            • “you’ll see that temp, vegetation keeps changing”

              The question was about independence of those changes, not whether there are changes. One could get the impression that you are deliberately trying to misunderstand.

      • The human body has a thermal regulation system and attempts to maintain a core temperature. Obviously the surface temperatures are going to vary.

        In the case of Earth, we cannot measure the core temperature neither is it relevant to the intended purposes. We measure skin temperatures.

        What matters to me and my tomatoes is the air and ground temperature in my garden. Too high, too low, too wet, too dry; tomatoes don’t like it.

        I haven’t seen much change in 40 years. I see a lot of politics.

        • “I see a lot of politics.”

          Gee, you must have some pretty interesting plants.

        • “In the case of Earth, we cannot measure the core temperature neither is it relevant to the intended purposes. We measure skin temperatures.”

          But the skin is where we live, and therefore is VERY relevant to the intended purposes.

          Why are you making up a load of cack as if it were relevant when it is, in fact, worthless?

        • I’m not sure what your point was. I think most scientists are primarily concerned about humans rather than tomatoes.

          Humans can make due in cold fairly well. It’s cheap to build a house and light a fire in a chimney to elevate outside temperatures by say 70F, from 0F to 70F. And even in that weather, you can still be outside with a coat (or even in swimsuit if you are running around enough). On the other hand consider if it was 140F outside. And what if we wanted 100F swing?

          What this means is that in general it’s a bigger threat to man when temperatures rise. Today, we can live in cold regions but the regions that are becoming too hot are growing in number and people are being displaced and generally becoming less stable.

          Fresh water. Stop giving it to your tomatoes so that humans can have enough of it should push come to shove and even your tomatoes won’t do well. Do they grow well in a desert or if the city institutes harsh water rationing?

          How about coastal flooding? Do your tomatoes live underground? How much will it cost to migrate 100 million people and rebuild? How about the lose of historical material? This isn’t moving a museum 20 miles inland. It’s a lot more than a museum at risk.

          Do you really think this is political because there isn’t a good reason to be worried? I think it’s political because of very wealthy interests seeing their gravy train potentially derailed and want to max out while they are still alive. So are you going to go along with those guys wanting to make it political for their reasons?

          • Jose_X wrote “I think most scientists are primarily concerned about humans rather than tomatoes.”

            I think most scientists are concerned about each his particular specialty. Anthropologists are probably as you describe, also sociologists. Everyone else not so much.

            “Humans can make due in cold fairly well. It’s cheap to build a house and light a fire in a chimney to elevate outside temperatures by say 70F”

            For the moment this seems to be true in civilized western nations. Around Hudson Bay there’s not much to burn and pretty soon nobody will be burning anything.

            “What this means is that in general it’s a bigger threat to man when temperatures rise.”

            A narrow range of temperatures exist for human life unaided by technology. Too cold is mitigated by using fossil fuel. Too hot is also mitigated using fossil fuel.

            “Today, we can live in cold regions but the regions that are becoming too hot are growing in number and people are being displaced and generally becoming less stable.”

            Tomorrow we will live in neither too hot or too cold and human displacement is hardly a new phenomenon. My ancestors came to the United States as part of displacement.

            “Fresh water. Stop giving it to your tomatoes”

            Fortunately it’s not for you to tell me what to do. I will reciprocate and not tell you where to put your advice. While I need water to drink, I also need food to eat, in particular foods that provide vitamin C. As it happens, little tomatoes provide vitamin C in a climate that does not support citrus.

            “so that humans can have enough of it”

            Where I live this is not a serious problem. Unfortunately there’s no easy way to ship my water to Africa.

            “How about coastal flooding?”

            Most of the coasts have been flooded for over 14,000 years. The parts that are not seem to be very popular with humans.

            “Do your tomatoes live underground?”

            No. I raise them about 10 cm above prevailing ground. They require less watering and weeding as a consequence.

            “How much will it cost to migrate 100 million people and rebuild?”

            $21.000.000.000.000

            Just for the houses and moving expenses. However, if this migration is spread over several hundred years then this cost is a “sunk cost” since houses must be replaced anyway and job opportunities migrate rather more frequent than climate changes.

            “How about the lose of historical material?”

            I do not understand “how about” questions. The greatest loss of historical treasures seems to be at the hands of humans (Taliban, ISIS for instance) rather than coastal floodings.

            “Do you really think this is political because there isn’t a good reason to be worried?”

            It became political the moment Al Gore and Maurice Strong made it political.

            “So are you going to go along with those guys wanting to make it political for their reasons?”

            I do not understand “going along”. While I am not in anyone’s herd or hive, it will happen that I travel in a direction similar to others also traveling in that direction and thus not traveling in directions taken by others.

            • You have no information with which to arrive at that conclusion, and is just made up by projecting your own inadequacies and psychological issues onto everyone else, so that you can justify you being normal as opposed to the seriously abnormal hominid you actually are.

              NORMAL humans would gather data before making a claim.

              Abnormal ones don’t even realise that option exists.

            • I should have been more specific, do you think most scientists warning about climate change are primarily thinking of the tomatoes or the people? I assumed you were referring to people that included many climate scientists who are warning about climate change when you said that you “see a lot of politics”. I also think it’s fair to say that most scientists care more about people than about tomatoes, but you may disagree.

              I think you are wrong if you think it’s as cheap to make an environment habitable to humans by cooling 70 or 100 F towards the ideas rather than warm by that amount to the ideal.

              I would disagree that it’s not a big financial hit if numerous major cities lose a significant fraction of their land, and the costs go beyond voluntary migrations. I can’t know how far engineering will allow us to go in 100 years say, but I suspect people will find many short term solutions that will fail within decades if we don’t put a hold in the rise. I believe there is also evidence that you get more violence as resources slowly run out and temperatures rise. When you migrate, you don’t destroy street plumbing where you came from and then rebuild where you arrive. This goes for many things that would not factor into the costs of a single family migrating voluntarily.

              Governments do tell you what to do when they institute harsh water rationing. You probably misunderstood the statement “stop giving it to your tomatoes….” I was just saying that if you stop giving it to your tomatoes (eg, because of rationing or to feed your human family), the tomatoes will suffer.

              As places lose water, people have to move and put pressure on places that currently might have enough fresh water. In any case, I was talking about policy decisions that affect many people and so concern politicians, city planners, etc, and affect tax dollars and tax requirements. Maybe you think you will be fine, but if many people are displaced, there will be ripple effects.

              The “historical material” was odd wording, but I wasn’t sure what to use at the moment. I was referring to cultural and other valuables that cannot easily be moved. Also, this would all be on top of existing threats by humans. I agree there are worse threats short term, but it seems foolish to use that as an excuse to ignoring significant potential costs from climate change.

              Republicans could have agreed with Gore and taken wind out of his sail. They could have adopted the position even more aggressively to try to make it their own issue. Politicians of differing parties do agree on many things. It didn’t have to become political opposites. [Barry has a major peeve in this area from what I remember reading.. I think his main drive with this website was to change minds under that assumption that there is such a thing as being on the wrong side of an issue.]

            • Jose_X wrote “I should have been more specific, do you think most scientists warning about climate change are primarily thinking of the tomatoes or the people?”

              Narrowly interpreting your question, I believe they are most interested in themselves. John Cook, Stephen Lewandowsky, Michael Mann. What do they have in common? Is there any evidence whatsoever that any of them are genuinely concerned about “the people” or even “a person”?

              “I think you are wrong if you think it’s as cheap to make an environment habitable to humans by cooling 70 or 100 F towards the ideas rather than warm by that amount to the ideal.”

              Indeed I would be wrong and I can state the reason where you missed an opportunity to do so. It has to do with efficiency. Heating, by burning fossil fuel, is extremely efficient. Cooling requires a heat pump and tends to be less than 50 percent efficient.

              BUT the heat pump can be electrically operated and is more likely to be needed where abundant solar power is already available whereas the cold climates tend to be where sunlight is not abundant. Consequently, in actual practice it will likely be better to rely on hot sunny climates rather than cold, dark climates for which fossil fuel no longer exists and neither does solar power.

              “I would disagree that it’s not a big financial hit if numerous major cities lose a significant fraction of their land, and the costs go beyond voluntary migrations.”

              Meaningful computations must necessarily weigh whatever you have in mind with whatever you don’t have in mind but ought to have in mind, which is to say the economic consequences of your mitigation strategy which in my opinion is the actual goal for some advocates.

              “I believe there is also evidence that you get more violence as resources slowly run out…”

              Yes, these ideas have been given the name Malthusian after Thomas Malthus.

              “Governments do tell you what to do when they institute harsh water rationing.”

              It hardly stops there. The CFR, Combined Federal Regulations, occupy 50 books.

              “As places lose water, people have to move and put pressure on places that currently might have enough fresh water.”

              Yes. It is Malthusian. Every place on earth with resources will attract people (and animals and birds) until so many have arrived that populations exceed carrying capacity and now some other place becomes preferable.

              “The historical material was odd wording, but I wasn’t sure what to use at the moment. I was referring to cultural and other valuables that cannot easily be moved.”

              I took your meaning and seems not to have misunderstood. The example that came to my mind was moving the temples near the Aswan High Dam to higher ground:
              [https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Simbel_temples

              However, ISIS and Taliban seem to have decided to simply destroy such artifacts as Palmyra and some big buddhas. Never mind climate change.

              “Republicans could have agreed with Gore and taken wind out of his sail.”

              Your strategy miles vary. It has nothing to do with wind and sails; that’s like my favorite soccer team ought to let the opponent win the game to take the wind out of the sails of the game. It would work; just walk out onto the field and let your opponent score goal after goal to “take the wind out of their sails”. But any team that did such a thing would be fired and be laughing stock.

              But with the demise of Gore’s credibility would come the demise of Republican credibility; not with Democrats where it doesn’t exist and cannot exist, but among Republicans.

              “They could have adopted the position even more aggressively to try to make it their own issue.”

              I believe a few did just that; Jon Huntsman comes to mind. How long did he last?

              The problem as I see it is that global warming was linked to left-wing goals by Al Gore and Maurice Strong. it’s as simple as that. Google “climate change and social justice”. They go hand-in-hand.

              [http]://www.peacefuluprising.org/climate-change-is-a-social-justice-issue-20110115

              Republicans don’t know what is social justice and probably cannot “grok” the concept as it seems to have no meaning. *I* don’t know what it means and the exemplars of it aren’t very impressive.

              For example, “Peace Up Bold School” shows a punching fist, seems not very peaceful to me.
              [http]://corr.peacefuluprising.org/elements/peaceup-bold-school “CLIMATE JUSTICE BOLD SCHOOL LAUNCH.Abolitionist Resistance History & Theories of Social ChangeTHEORIES of POWER.In order to evaluate theories of social change and develop our own, we need to understand power.” and “Bibliography: Abolitionist Resistance and Theories of Change Theories of PowerKarl Marx, The Communist ManifestoAntonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks”

            • I think there is much more evidence that on the whole scientists are more interested in people than in tomatoes. Personally, I haven’t found any genuine evidence you are interested in people. I also think a lot of the evidence that Mother Theresa was genuinely interested in people may boil down to self-interest. On the other hand, I can see how my eyeglasses can decide how to color the evidence. I also don’t think it matters much (whether or not “we” can “find genuine evidence”) to the main point, that arguing how a tomato may benefit is not going to make people feel that justifies a situation if it’s also believed it will harm humans more than not. This is just my opinion.

              I’ll move away from efficiency considerations of burning vs cooling. I wanted to make the point that we are biologically at greater peril from too high temperatures than too cold temperatures. Should we need to “run outside” or should a system break down and in any other case where you come into contact with the elements, more times than not, I’d rather be forced to fend in 50F colder weather than 50F warmer weather. A coat and fire on wood (never mind a basic house with primitive insulation) are very primitive mechanisms (efficient as well as you said) that solve the cold situation decently but which don’t have a counterpart when trying to cool down in a perennially warm environment.

              Recognizing harm and putting a price on it is smart. Doing so would help drive technology and innovation, for example, helping bring about cost-effective large-scale carbon sequestering (even converted back to efficient fossil fuels). Putting a price on fossil fuels will hardly eliminate its use. It may mean hundreds of billions less in yearly profit (?) for the industry, but it won’t end its use. Allowing the externalities doesn’t help our future on the whole. Where you trying to argue that it’s a better way to go about this?

              Next time someone tries to safeguard the monalisa from potential flooding, I really hope they keep in mind how they are wasting their time because … of ISIS.

              ” that’s like my favorite soccer team ought to let the opponent win the game to take the wind out of the sails of the game.”

              Could not figure out what you meant here. Are you suggesting Republicans cannot possibly back science and more responsible pricing?

              Huntsman did not last.

              ….. and so on.

              Do you want that to be the message?

              Let me put it a little differently. You almost seem to be arguing in the second half of your comment that Republicans could not be the friend of people who want to reduce the potential harm some problem or other might have on large groups of people. Either that or they just can’t figure out how to redefine “social justice” or “global warming” in any other way that still represents that they do want to tackle problems that present threats and losses to many people.

            • Jose_X writes “I think there is much more evidence that on the whole scientists are more interested in people than in tomatoes.”

              The evidence I have seen is the product; the reports churned out by scientists. Perhaps you have seen reports churned out by scientists that pertain to people rather than tomatoes, moths, benthic oxygen isotopes and so on.

              “Personally, I haven’t found any genuine evidence you are interested in people.”

              Evidence exists. How you interpret it is solely up to you. This conversation, for instance, would not exist if I was not interested in people.

              “On the other hand, I can see how my eyeglasses can decide how to color the evidence.”

              We think similarly then on this topic. I cannot read minds; a talent necessary to know what a person finds interesting. I can only know what a person does or says.

              “I wanted to make the point that we are biologically at greater peril from too high temperatures than too cold temperatures.”

              I understood your point. However, having lived in arctic climates I suspect your experience is a bit one-sided.

              “I’d rather be forced to fend in 50F colder weather than 50F warmer weather.”

              As would I until there’s no way to produce heat.

              “A coat and fire on wood (never mind a basic house with primitive insulation) are very primitive mechanisms (efficient as well as you said) that solve the cold situation decently but which don’t have a counterpart when trying to cool down in a perennially warm environment.”

              These options won’t exist when fossil fuel is gone; and in many locations wood burning is not permitted.

              As it happens, passive cooling also exists and is quite efficient.

              [http]://livinggreenmag.com/2013/07/22/home-garden/the-ancient-art-of-passive-cooling-for-todays-green-living/

              “Recognizing harm and putting a price on it is smart.”

              Harm ought not to have a “price”; that’s a bit like the Catholics selling indulgences.

              “Doing so would help drive technology and innovation”

              Maybe; but that’s magical thinking, a trait usually associated with skeptics.

              “helping bring about cost-effective large-scale carbon sequestering (even converted back to efficient fossil fuels).”

              It may be petroleum but it won’t be “fossil”. Trees already convert carbon dioxide to fuel. So does corn (maize).

              “Putting a price on fossil fuels will hardly eliminate its use. It may mean hundreds of billions less in yearly profit (?) for the industry, but it won’t end its use.”

              Much petroleum use is discretionary and *will* be eliminated; in fact, that’s the whole point of “pricing” petroleum out of the reach of most people.

              The first victims of higher gasoline prices are destinations that are not vital to survival. Industry will always have profit; if your goals is to deprive industry of profit (a typical left wing envy meme) this is the wrong way to go about it.

              Another way of viewing this is that western economies engage few people in food production; everyone else is basically entertaining each other in various ways. Increase the cost of production and transportation and you push the economy in a direction of subsistence.

              “Allowing the externalities doesn’t help our future on the whole.”

              I have yet to be convinced of the existence of a significant and harmful externality.

              “Where you trying to argue that it’s a better way to go about this?”

              I haven’t decide to “go about this” in the first place.

              “Next time someone tries to safeguard the monalisa from potential flooding, I really hope they keep in mind how they are wasting their time because … of ISIS.”

              People choose their behaviors; some to guard the Mona Lisa despite its eventual doom no matter what. Perhaps it is sufficient just to buy some time until the next Mona Lisa comes along.

              I read an interested science fiction short story where by law all works of art and literature were required to be destroyed after a time to encourage the production of new literature and art.

              “Could not figure out what you meant here. Are you suggesting Republicans cannot possibly back science and more responsible pricing?”

              Not as you are likely to define those words. You had suggested the Republicans act like Democrats in order to appeal to Democrats, or as you put it, “take the wind out of their sails”.

              “Science” is to a Republican whatever is scientific, that is to say, measurable, repeatable, factual and not speculative. “Responsible pricing” means to price a thing such that people will buy and the producer has incentive to produce (duh).

              “You almost seem to be arguing in the second half of your comment that Republicans could not be the friend of people who want to reduce the potential harm some problem or other might have on large groups of people.”

              I hope that is not a thing you only now are comprehending but maybe it is. It is not the purpose of Republicans to do that. Republicans are, or used to be, more interested in the economic engine itself a side effect of which is to make life better for many people. To move a Republican in the same direction as a Democrat you must show threat to the economic engine itself.

              “Either that or they just can’t figure out how to redefine ‘social justice’ or ‘global warming’ in any other way that still represents that they do want to tackle problems that present threats and losses to many people.”

              I cannot re-define a thing I do not understand (social justice). SJW’s (Social Justice Warriers) seem irrational, unhinged, sometimes dangerous. I am quite willing to entertain that a cloud of soot and fly ash from a powerplant is harmful to its neighbors (in excess of its value to those same neighbors).

            • If you don’t take money from a large wealthy hungry industry, someone else will and your odds of getting beat in primaries go up from a little to a lot. True.

            • Perhaps you have seen reports churned out by scientists that pertain to people rather than tomatoes, moths, benthic oxygen isotopes

              What is the point of this silly strawman? Of course scientists spend a lot of time studying things other than phenomena directly related to humans. But that doesn’t mean the study of non-human phenomena won’t be of enormous benefit to human well being e.g. the understanding of Newton’s laws of motion has been tremendously beneficial to humans even though it was not a study of humans.

            • Chris O’Neill aks “What is the point of this silly strawman?”

              I don’t know but I hope that eventually it will become clear.

              “Of course scientists spend a lot of time studying things other than phenomena directly related to humans.”

              Precisely so; it is the purpose of science to do just that.

              “But that doesn’t mean the study of non-human phenomena won’t be of enormous benefit to human well being”

              Indeed, and I am prepared to argue as you have just done in case anyone suggests otherwise.

            • Chris O’Neill followup of “What is the point of this silly strawman?”

              I remember a saying, “To a hammer, everything is a nail.” Thus, to a sociologist, everything is human.

              I suppose the strawman is as follows:

              Concern for (some) people == good.
              Science == good.
              Therefore science == concern for (some) people.

              (if A=C and B=C, then A=B).

              Studying benthic oxygen ratios is just a hobby. The true purpose of scientists is to be concerned about (some) people.

              I mention (some) people since this concern seems not to be universal even where it exists.

            • “What is the point of this silly strawman?”

              I don’t know

              OK. So you don’t know the point of your argument. If you don’t know the point of your own argument then there’s absolutely no point in anyone else paying attention to it, is there?

            • Chris O’Neill “So you don’t know the point of your argument.”

              While that is sometimes true even for me, in this instance it is Jose’s argument that is unclear to me.

              “If you don’t know the point of your own argument then there’s absolutely no point in anyone else paying attention to it, is there?”

              None; and yet here you are doing just that.

            • “in this instance it is Jose’s argument that is unclear to me”

              That may be so, but my question was about your strawman, not Jose’s argument. So again: what is the point of your silly straw man?

              By the way, I was trying to find out if there was some point to your argument before paying any attention to it, apart from the trivial observation that it exists of course.

            • Where did you get the idea I was trying to imply A=B as per your explanation?

              >> The evidence I have seen is the product;

              You seem to be saying that you only view as evidence a particular scientist’s alleged concern for humans if that scientist writes a paper on it.

              All scientists probably care about themselves, but you aren’t going to find a lot of evidence of that in their papers. Are you saying you doubt most scientists care about themselves? Are you saying that the only evidence of a scientist caring about themselves that could exist would have to lie in their papers? Are you saying you truly have not seen evidence of scientists caring about themselves?

              Let me ask the question this way, do you think it is true or false the following, most scientists care more about humans than about tomatoes.

              >As would I until there’s no way to produce heat.

              You aren’t serious are you? No way to produce heat? How do you propose we reach that point? I could talk about a hypothetical of me gaining HULK powers from gamma rays, but that is pretty silly, so why are you pondering on the day where we can’t produce heat?

              >“A coat and fire on wood (never mind a basic house with primitive insulation)…”
              >These options won’t exist when fossil fuel is gone;

              A coat won’t exist? fire on wood won’t exist (illegal to burn wood in your scenario of there being “no way to produce heat”?, are you serious?) a house won’t exist?

              I think you need a bit of a head tuning. Don’t mean to be rude. Are you reading what you write?

              >As would I until there’s no way to produce heat.

              I consider 78F to 80F to be comfortable most of the time indoors (no sun, no breeze). Using that guide, are you really saying that you prefer to live in a little city enclosed in a huge dome with the temperature in there set to 128F-130F round the clock than to one set 28F-30F. The conditions are that you can use primitive protections, and you can rely on sophisticated (modern) protections as well but if for some reason those fail, you have to deal with it.

              Are you serious?

              >Harm ought not to have a “price”; that’s a bit like the Catholics selling indulgences.

              You must really hate the criminal justice system. You don’t think for example that I should be fined something if I empty a truck of human feces into your house while you are out? [obviously the assumption here is that it would be without your permission, as we are assuming that harm is being done].

              >I read an interested science fiction short story where by law all works of art and literature were required to be destroyed after a time to encourage the production of new literature and art.

              I’ve also read a lot of weird and interesting stuff, but your logic appeared to be saying that because of what ISIS has done in a few places that that is reason to not care about harm the environment may do elsewhere.

              >if your goals is to deprive industry of profit

              I don’t think I suggested that anywhere; however, I think many people would agree that profits off fossil fuel stand to be diminished if we add some sort of tax/cost on CO2 ..”yesterday”.

            • Jose_X wrote a long rambly thing that seems a bit unfocused. This is as good a time as any to try to gradually wind-down my involvement in these distractions.

              “I think many people would agree that profits off fossil fuel stand to be diminished if we add some sort of tax/cost on CO2 “

              That is certainly the case. Many people agree on many things. Unicorns for instance. You tip your hand at your envy politics by this declaration.

              But let us consider Exxon. Suppose the oil companies make 5% profit on the gross price of fuel. You add a tax that doubles the price at the pump. Exxon still takes 5 percent, but now it is doubled in actual amount. Of course, they will be selling less so for them it would probably work out to about the same revenue stream. The impact or “incidence of the tax” if you are familiar with the term (and even if you aren’t) will be on consumers and secondarily on everything they would have consumed but now cannot.

              That is probably why Exxon supports carbon taxes. The tax will push smaller producers out of the industry.
              [http]://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-touts-carbon-tax-to-oil-industry-1467279004

              “You aren’t serious are you?”

              No, yes.

              “A coat won’t exist? fire on wood won’t exist? a house won’t exist?”

              These seem to be questions but structured as assertions.

              I suggest for your study Farley Mowat and the Northwest Territories of Canada; dealing specifically with Inuit. there you will find the answers you seek. You can watch a movie adaptation, “Never Cry Wolf” that captures the essence pretty well and even farther north a movie called “The Fast Runner” (*) no trees, no houses, no petroleum, no English, no steel. It is truly a one-of-a-kind motion picture. That’s the cold side of things. For the hot side of things you can study the Beduin or pretty much any middle eastern civilization.

              * [https]://www.amazon.com/Fast-Runner-Atanarjuat-Natar-Ungalaaq/dp/B00007L4ON

              In other recommended reading I suggest a tiny book called “The Little Book of the Icelanders” or something like that; it portrays life in Iceland over the past thousand years or so but before its own industrial revolution that for them was rather delayed. Heat came from animals. Cows and sheep live on the ground floor and their body heat rises to the upper floor where the entire family lives in one room. They had long since cut down nearly every tree, not that there were all that many to begin with. Bathing was postponed for an entire season; parasites inflicted upon animal and man alike.

              So if you prefer cold, go there. Try it! You’ll like it for a few days.

              “Are you reading what you write?”

              Yes. In fact, I typically rewrite a post several times before sending it because of a lack of edit capability. Occasionally I am rushed and send something that wasn’t quite ready for consumption.

            • Ok, I am ready to wind this down as well.

              For cold, you pick locations that are way below freezing point of water. For hot, you pick places that are just a little warmer than most tropic places. As simple evidence, there are no places on earth that are anywhere near 130F on average year round. In contrast there are places colder than freezing year round, and then some. And I am talking about places habitable by man. In any case, I did some looking up, and it seems in very dry environment (eg, like deserts), humans can last for a long time even at elevated temperatures (of course, assuming you have fresh water). Not that this changes the direction of balance, which I think you might see if you bothered to compare actual locations there deviated from say 75F equal amounts up and down.. And more heat deserts means less cheap fresh water.

              A sales tax would be a burden on consumers. [You can put a price on carbon by hitting profits in the carbon industry as well as assets.] At the end of the day, there will be shared pain. The quicker we find alternatives, the less painful will be future transitions. One thing that any tax does is move money towards government, money that could be by law required to be invested in research or can be put back as credits based on income. There are many options and yes I think wealth begets wealth in our society. It is an advantage when you have wealth. It is easier to make when you control assets. And income and wealth taxes help society. They fight the natural tendencies toward wealth accumulation in few hands. If you look at those numbers historically, we would be due for tax increases in a number of areas that primarily affect the wealthiest. All that aside, taxing can be structured in many ways to promote safer alternatives, but yes, I think we are doing a bad job of keeping a fair playing field. Wealth most definitely still promotes more wealth with our society’s current rules. People making many times average salaries and enjoying significantly more control and freedoms (or the option to) and access to information and sandboxes to learn and make mistakes and ultimately become good, are not paying for that significant benefit when you consider what Uncle Sam provides to keep that stable. As a minimum, what price do you put on having a volunteer military that is filled disproportionately in ranks by the poorest (in wealth, in access, in consequent education, etc)?

              As for your example, the economy is complicated. Alternatives to your scenario are many, and they assumed the tax would be purely a sales tax and would not be reinvested in competitors to that industry.

              Many people believe lots of things and lots of people believe in unicorn. I hope you weren’t trying to imply yourself something like the A=B you were trying to tag on me. But yes, I wasn’t using that “many people believe” as a proof, although I was using it as evidence that maybe it’s not such a crazy thing (a small fraction of people believe in unicorns I think). And by “people” I think I meant people who study the problem.

              I tried to wind it down, but I had to say something in reply to all your digs at “leftist” this and that. It’s easy to ignore one’s advantages and subsidies, redraw the “balanced” point, and then see government, even one with checks and balances, as just a drain from that “balance” point.

            • Jose asks: “Let me ask the question this way, do you think it is true or false the following, most scientists care more about humans than about tomatoes.”

              Insufficient data. I do not know most scientists. I know about three.

              As none of them seem to care about humans OR tomatoes it is not a thing I can answer nor can all scientists be lumped into anything. I suppose the only thing they have in common is some form of college degree.

              Each cares about his specialty.

              If you were going to eventually make a relevant point by this discussion perhaps you could just jump to the conclusion.

            • Do you know of many cases of people preferring to see their tomatoes survive a winter frost than their kids survive a winter frost?

            • Jose_X asks “Do you know of many cases of people preferring to see their tomatoes survive a winter frost than their kids survive a winter frost?”

              Parental negligence seems common but I have no story on this particular combination. The worst of these places pretty much anything ahead of their own children’s survival.

              [http]://www.oprah.com/relationships/Extreme-Cases-of-Child-Neglect-Danielles-Story

            • Jose, if you ask M2 a question he can’t (or won’t) answer, and he follows it up with wafffle (like above), then the answer to the question is obvious.

              After all, if he had an answer that would counter your point, he’d make it. The nonexistence of its appearance is proof of its nonexistence in toto.

            • Chris nails it: “OK. So you don’t know the point of your argument. If you don’t know the point of your own argument then there’s absolutely no point in anyone else paying attention to it, is there?”

              M2 is just trolling, plain and unvarnished.

        • Michael 2, before rising temperatures raise the cost of getting water, you can give $30 today and help someone drink water like you do. Great flic, https://donate.charitywater.org/donate/10-year

          • Jose_X wrote “you can give $30 today and help someone drink water like you do.”

            I am willing to teach someone to drink water like I do for free provided they come to me for instruction. I have several techniques depending on what contains the water.

            • Michael, you didn’t see the youtube vid did you? It’s a charity group. Not really about climate science, but I realized that these people who today can get water with about $30 (marginal costs to install water filters, etc, in remote areas) would probably require higher costs decades from now (assuming inflation, etc, constant). The video is a little sad actually.. and you may want to skip the 2 minutes 6:14 to 8:14.

            • Jose_X wrote “you didn’t see the youtube vid did you?”

              I do not understand “did you didn’t you” (or didn’t you did you) questions. However if by that you are asking did I watch the video whose link you provided, the answer is no.

              “I realized that these people who today can get water with about $30 (marginal costs to install water filters, etc, in remote areas) would probably require higher costs decades from now”

              Maybe. However some of the predictions are that warmer air can hold more water making precipitation more fruitful on the occasion that it happens which is a complicated thing. More water will increase instability and it is the fuel for the heat engine of thunderstorms. Where it falls is likely to shift a bit, where it doesn’t fall is the more precisely defined northern boundary of the Hadley Cell (about 30 degrees north or south). Don’t live there. Don’t ask people to pay you to live there.

              “The video is a little sad actually.”

              Can you think of a money demander that is not sad? The aim is to induce guilt in persons susceptible to it. Inducing joy is also possible but tends not to be as lucrative.

            • You don’t understand anything, though, M2, you merely type contrary and childish arguing as a replacement for thought.

              If you don’t understand what Jose said, the problem is on your end of the internet.

    • Stefan wrote:
      “THE GLOBE IS A BIG PLACE, FELLAS. It’s not like sticking the thermometer up yours and telling the temp for your whole body.”

      Actually it is like that. The oceans absorb > 90% of the extra greenhouse heat, and they keep warming strongly year after year:

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

      Where is the skeptic explanation?

      • WRONG again David! IF the oceans warm up more than normal, FOR ANY REASON -> evaporation INCREASES, evaporation is COOLING PROCESS B] more evaporation => more clouds, clouds are as sun umbrellas for the sea and land c] more clouds => more rain, rain brings COLDNESS from 6-7km up and those three factors are the self adjusting mechanism. #2: global warming mythology is 100% WRONG! Face the real proofs David, here: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

        • Of course Stefan since these perfect negative feedbacks ensure that the climate will never warm or cool by any significant amount, the ice ages must be fairy stories invented by glaciologists to ensure that their funding keeps coming in.

        • How can they warm up to begin with if they are going to be the same temperature?

          You’re insane.

        • “IF the oceans warm up more than normal, FOR ANY REASON -> evaporation INCREASES, evaporation is COOLING PROCESS B] more evaporation => more clouds”

          Show us the data.

          Because NOAA’s data says the ocean is warming:

          http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

          • David, listen son; I’ trying to put the apparatchiks in NOAA in jail- for constantly lying, you are bragging about them… can’t you come up with something better than that? Here where I am, the reef waters were much colder than normal – we didn’t get much rain, very dry year; BUT they are lying that was the warmest, and i supposedly bleaching the coral – they don’t even know that ALKALINITY BLEACHES TH CORAL, not heat and acidity. Everything they come up with, is offensive to the nose… BECAUSE: all o you marxist are born on the wrong hole…

            • Clearly you don’t have the data — any data — to back up your assertions about the ocean.

              Hence your claims are meaningless and irrelevant. This is science, after all.

            • David, what kind of proofs you want that: warmer increases evaporation?! #2: what kind of proofs you need that: EVAPORATION IS COOLING PROCESS?! #3: what kind of proofs you need that: more evaporation means MORE CLOUDS?! #4: what kind of proofs you need that: CLOUDS ARE AS SUN UMBRELLAS, WHEN CLOUDY, TEMP DROPS?!

              David, real facts you will never get from NOAA, the legal criminals are already getting insomnia, knowing that people can get from my HONEST SCIENCE. David, YOU try to disprove anything I say, instead of relying on the criminal politburo!!! YOU help NOAA, your peers here are only capable in abusing; but are panicking from my real proofs, in my posts

            • But to evaporate it has to BE warmer.

              It doesn’t evaporate more while the same temperature. The temp has to go up.

              A huge problem with your “thinking” is there isn’t any going on.

            • Wow, I have explained that: if it gets warmer, FOR any reason -EVAPORATION INCREASES. And the rest. Do you and David need third person to tell you if I’m correct on those…? Wow, broaden your knowledge; read those two links I gave you above and see what correct science IS – ”all proven beyond any reasonable doubt” -=- I don’t work like your brains-trusts on ”may happen, if happen, could happen” Wow, as a Warmist puppet you are not allowed to tell the truth, but for your own benefit, go on my blog and learn, nothing to do with me, I already know the real proofs, but for your good self!

            • “if it gets warmer, FOR any reason -EVAPORATION INCREASES”

              And if that causes cooling, EVAPORATION DECREASES.

              But the heating force is still there.

              So the temperature increase remains.

        • I know this is an old comment I’m replying to, but…

          While the comment about evaporation creating temperature-correcting clouds KIND OF made sense, I lost it at the “rain brings down coldness” part. Comedy gold right there.

          Moving heat around within the global system doesn’t count as actual cooling. That is basically the same thing as suggesting that air conditioners or eating ice cream is a fix for global warming. Also, the very use of the word “coldness” in a discussion about science is rather problematic for anyone trying to pass themselves off as a high school graduate.

      • David, you ask for proofs and then avoid to face the truth.. typical fundamentalist fanatic… I’m worrying about you David… by using the swindler’s chants to con others, you developed complete phobia from the truth… Allah is great… David, you only indoctrinated your good self… pity..

        • Stefan, I asked for data. Where is your data showing that the ocean hasn’t warmed, as you claim?

          Science is about data. Where are yours?

    • Stefan, in case you haven’t figured it out by now, Wow is an example of the original meaning of “contrarian”. You are wrong. He isn’t even right; what matters is that you (and I and everyone else on earth) is wrong.

      So to argue with him consider the value of your words to all of the readers and if you’ve explained something once, then you’ve done what you needed to do.

      • Why does meaning and common definition mean so much to you now, M2? Never had before.

        Moreover, please stop with the projection. It’s lame.

        • Wow “Why does meaning and common definition mean so much to you”

          I do not know. It does seem to me that for language to be useful in a society words ought to have widely shared and unchanging meanings; for that is the purpose of a word, to convey meaning, intention, knowledge, assurance, and threat.

          • “I do not know” really just sums you up, doesn’t it, M2.

            BEFORE making claims, try finding out first.

            • Wow ambiguously wrote “sums you up, doesn’t it, M2”

              I am groot.

            • Learn the meaning of “ambiguous”, dear, before trying to use it.

              And please stop with the content free posts. They merely show how little you understand, but how much you demand adulation for it.

  2. ‘And that’s the point. Lindzen’s claim that climate scientists generally agree “the climate is always changing” is true, but the fact is that none of them are worried about climate change unless it happens faster than ecosystems [and] human civilizations can successfully adapt to avoid major upheaval. Remember how, during the last ice age, the global mean temperature was something like 4-7 °C colder than now? Well, it took about 10,000 years for most of that change to happen. Humans appear capable of raising the global mean temperature by several degrees in one or two hundred years, by contrast’

    Similar temperature changes happened in the Younger Dryas in a matter of centuries. Apparently not fast enough to kill humans off.

    ‘Rather, almost all of them claim that there is a strong probability of outcomes many people would call “catastrophic” (like millions of people being displaced from their homes in low-lying areas due to sea level rise) if people don’t fairly rapidly curtail their use of fossil fuels.’

    It is misleading to characterize sea level rise as just one of some or several ‘outcomes’ that ‘many people would call ‘catastrophic”’. It is misleading because SLR is *the only* catastrophic outcome that emission-cutters can still mention without dying of embarrassment.

    Storminess, floods, droughts: no evidence. Increasing in some places, decreasing in others. And you see, it’s not just whether they cause less or more damage than before – the question is HOW MUCH more damage will they do. Extremely few homes are destroyed by tornadoes. Extremely few cities are hit by hurricanes. Weather-related disasters are about 0.2% of GDP and declining.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cd1UMwMUkAAlL54.png:large

    Admittedly, the chart looks only at insured disasters, which probably excludes droughts (plus a lot of uninsured assets). Still, there is no evidence of catastrophe there. And I mean, imagine the slope of the chart was up. Even if that were the case, would it make sense to spend tens or hundreds of trillions to keep weather disasters at 0.2% of GDP, rather than reaching 0.3% at some point in the future?

    There is a social cost of emissions, and a social cost of emission reductions. The world is obviously unconvinced that the former exceed the latter.

    Heat waves aren’t included in the chart either,a logic says they should increase… but heat impact on mortality is declining.
    http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0102-7
    Now, probably there is in fact some extra heat-related mortality due to AGW. But it’s so small, it’s just noise in the signal of rising human prosperity. Surely there aren’t ‘many people’ who would call this outcome ‘catastrophic’.

    The other theorized impacts are either massively speculative (eg AMOC shutdown) or a complete joke. Among the latter, my favourite is the claim that extinctions will skyrocket… even though they have been declining for decades, and even though verified extinctions have never exceeded something like 2 per year, and even though they almost always took place in islands (having more to do with invading species than with temperature changes).

    Somehow the catastrophe is always just around the corner and never in the rearview mirror.

    Anyway, back to the video. A pretty straightforward way to divide groups 1 and 2 is asking them what they think of temperature targets. Both groups know they are nonsense: there isn’t any ‘tipping point’ after which climate ‘damages’ increase massively. Even in the case of sea level, there might be a tipping point for Greenland, and a different one for East Antarctica, and another one for West Antarctica, and another one for the Himalayas; in any case what matters is local temperature trends and not some meaningless global value. (And melting the ice sheets would require keeping temperatures above these ‘tipping points’ for hundreds or thousands of years… me thinks the millions of people you talk about would have plenty of time to displace themselves, or to build a seawall, or to raise streets a couple feet as Miami Beach just did).

    Neither group even mentions the 2ºC ‘threshold’ in its papers, or any other ‘tipping point’ generally. Just today I looked at the forty-odd papers I’ve read on ice, sea level and polar temperatures. None mention it.

    Group 2 interprets this as meaning that ‘carbon budgets’ are meaningless and that there is a lot less urgency than politicians would have you believe. Group 1 instead goes silent, dances around the issue or passes the buck to politicians. The latter is done by referring to ‘the internationally-agreed target…’ as if what mattered is the fact that politicians have reached an agreement, and not that there is (or isn’t) scientific evidence to back it up.

    • How do you remember that ”during the last ice age was 4-7C colder than now”? THE TRUTH: by movements of the polls, creates ice age somewhere, but simultaneously gets WARMER THAN NORMAL other places. Overall ”global” temp is always the same! BECAUSE: Algore and Ian Plimer don’t regulate the global temp, but the laws of physics = those laws of physics were same in the past as today, AND WILL BE SAME IN 100 years from now. The truth and the HONEST LAWS OF PHYSICS makes both camps equal LIARS! : https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

      • “Global temp is always the same”? No. During glaciations, albedo changes (and to some extent circulation changes IIRC) drive global average temp down significantly. And if you have that wrong, what else do you have wrong?

      • by movements of the polls

        Indeed, it all comes down to politics 😉

      • Pretty weird you scream out “THE TRUTH” when so little of it even appears to register in your life.

      • stefan wrote:
        “How do you remember that ”during the last ice age was 4-7C colder than now”? THE TRUTH: by movements of the polls, creates ice age somewhere, but simultaneously gets WARMER THAN NORMAL other places. Overall ”global” temp is always the same!”

        I am sure you can’t provide data that supports this ridiculous claim.

        Let’s see it.

      • stefanthedenier: The sun is constantly giving the planet energy. There are other sources of heat within the planet. On the other hand, the planet is constantly losing energy to space or undergoing reactions that absorb energy. The net change helps define the temperature.

        Please explain what physical law you think requires that this net change be 0 for the planet?

        • I’d settle for proof the moron thinks.

          All indications that there’s no intelligence over that side of the internet.

    • By no means just SLR. Pay attention.

      Just one example: California and US Southwest drought. Already started, projected to get much worse by mid-century.

      • You could add bleaching of coral reefs, for example.

        • OPEN LETTER TO ALL AUSTRALIANS
          For the last few days the Warmist have being misleading that: ‘’95% of the northern part of the Barrier Reef is getting bleached; stressed from extreme hot water’’. They brought here even the not so honorable minister for the reef, Greg Hunt, to reward their lies and promote the phony ‘’global’’ warming. THE TRUTH: in El Nino years, as it is now – east Pacific of Chilean coast is much warmer / Barrier Reef water is much colder. B] in La Nina is opposite, reef water is warmer -> when ‘’warmer water’’ evaporation increases, evaporation is cooling process -/- more evaporation=> more clouds, clouds are sun umbrellas for the reef. Because of COLDER water this year, was LESS evaporation – Cape York attached to the northern half of the reef got less than 20% of the rain than usually gets when is warmer water. The cape, size of Britain doesn’t tell lies / Warmist climatologist / marine biologist do tell lots of lies.
          2]corals love warmer water; around Indonesia, in Red sea and around other Pacific islands water is always warmer than on Barrier reef and; if no industrial pollution, their coral is beautiful (only industrial pollution is new to the coral, doesn’t know how to handle it). SO: the pictures they are showing on TV, especially ABC, are pictures probably from Atlantic, Red sea coral; where is lots of industrial pollution discharged – now they are presenting it as if it is from the waters of Cape York on northern Barrier Reef, #2: On their boats, the poo not to stink, they put formaldehyde, potent killer of everything – occasionally dump the poo on the reef, to avoid paying for disposal -> that bleaches some coral on 20m2, where water is calm –suitable for Warmist Organized Crime marine biologist, to sell their phony global warming and increase their importance for more power and cash. It’s hard for Warmist to make Mr. Hunt to assist them as it’s difficult to force the cat to eat a sardine.. just ABC to love him…
          3] because I kept informing the public for last 3,5 years that: ‘’salt is alkaline – seawater will never be acidic, unless they manage to take the salt out of the seawater. They got stuck into warmer water now; on WRONG YEAR, when is El Nino on the reef… In reality; seawater is pH8,3 – needs to get BELOW pH7, to START getting acidic. a] carbonic acid is almost not acidic – your blood always has more of it than seawater will ever have. B] carbonic acid is basic food for the coral, the more carbonic acid => more and healthier coral. C] coral, algae, seagrass cannot get out of the water, to collect CO2 – is brought to them in a carbonic acid compound – they keep the carbon for themselves and release the oxygen from the CO2 molecule in the water for the fish and other critters, perfect setup. D] because corals and algae that give the beautiful colors to the corals evolved long before was any fossil fuel and trees – all carbon today trapped in vegetation and fossil fuel was some in the air, most in the seawater, ‘’corals and those algae are a very lousy carbon collectors’’ – need much more co2 than what the modern trees need it.
          4] Australians and people of the world, coral is not bleaching -/- global warming doesn’t exist -/- seawater is not acidic, river water is acidic, especially from rainforests brings the more potent acidic compounds as nitric and sulfuric acid; but is beautiful drinking water. B] marine biologist as big part of the Warmist Organized Crime (WOC) are using the reef to promote Marxist non-existent global warming. There are more marine biologist diplomas in Australia than fishing trawlers, and they are coming out more of them from university as from the sausage machine – prefer the reef to suffer, so they can get more cash and power = nothing less than extortion. They are badmouthing coal, to make it bottom price, because Australia exports lots of coal = as treason. Kept ‘’predicting’’ that Australia will get dryer; because they are against dams, which improve the climate. If it gets ‘’dryer’’ does that mean that on the bottom of the reef, where the coral is, will get dryer…?! Only 23 million people, half of the fish consumed is imported.
          5] marine biologist kept informing on the lefty’s Trumpet ABC, that ‘’the reef is 5billion dollars profit a year – as if they made the reef and want gratitude. Reality: the cheapest labor is in hospitality – from bed sheets to spoons and forks, souvenirs and most of other thing tourist use and buy is imported. Only the fresh food and stakes that OZ farmers produce – and OZ farmers are marine biologist’ best punching ball. It’s not like saying to tourist -”SLIDE THE MONEY UNDER THE DOOR, AND PISS OFF”’ needs lots of work, investment, electricity +++ B] people from around the world and around Australia – make it as a pilgrimage, at least ones in you life to visit the best place on the planet, the Great Barrier Reef; coral is not bleached, is better than ever, they are lying. Wet season is almost over – ask to see the northern part of the reef and get beautiful pictures from colorful corals and present to everybody to see that: WOC are using Greg Hunt, lefty minister in the former conservative party – to endorse and reward Warmist marine biologist liars.

          • Autralians can see you’re a nutter, why the hell would they read that???

          • >> because I kept informing the public for last 3,5 years that: ‘’salt is alkaline – seawater will never be acidic…

            You misunderstand what the scientists are saying. They aren’t saying the oceans get pH lower than 7. They say that the pH (above 7) has been going down (closer to 7).

            From Wikipedia:
            “Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world’s oceans.[6][7]”

            • Jose. we are monitoring here on Barrier reef every Friday; pH8,3 normally – in December got to -8,4 on few places. Those numbers and crap you got is fodder fo the zombies. #2: coral, algae, seagras collect their carbon in a form of CARBONIC ACID, it’s their basic food. #3: trying to scare people with ”carbonic acid is sick; YOUR BLOOD IS FULL OF IT #4: SEAWATER WILL NEVER BE ACIDIC, BECAUSE SALT IS ALKALINE, think how you are going to get the salt out; BEFORE TALKING THAT SEAWATER IS GETTING ACIDIC. #4: unless it gets BELOW pH7 i NOT ACIDIC, you deviates!

            • You have not found a single climate science research paper that claims pH are lower than 7, have you? You are making stuff up about the scientists since you haven’t found any papers that say pH is below 7.

              Again, “acidification” and “acidifying” refer to lowering pH, eg, from 8.4 to 8.3. That is what scientists are saying. That agrees with data.

              Go ahead and provide one research paper that says the oceans have pH below 7. You can’t, can you?

            • Jose, Jose… UNLESS GOING ”BELOW pH7 IS NOT ACIDIC; SWINDLERS USING THE WORD ”ACIDIFICATION” are prying on the ignorant that doesn’t understand the pH in the water. Honest person wouldn’t ever use the word ”asidification” for seawater. Same as for everything else, they use confusion;- reason the most ignorant and dopamine brains are the biggest fanatical supporters to the Warmist Organised Crime (WOC) – Jose, go and suck more on the weed!

            • I guess it’s unfortunate for you that you were confused. Did you not read the papers? And what word should they have used?

            • No, I apologize. I did not realize acidification, in general, has an established meaning along the lines of what you were saying. Were you confused by a paper or by what to make you think the scientists were talking about pH less than 7?

            • Jose, nobody other than deniers claim it’s ACIDIC.

              Acidifying isn’t being acidic.

          • std: “salt is alkaline”

            The raving of a mental case who thinks he’s entitled to his own facts.

            • Chis, Roman an Egyptians knew that ”salt is very alkaline” THEY WERE USING IT FOR PRESERVING FISH, update your knowledge to their’s at least – stop making a fool of yourself Chris, ask for what you don’t know. You are still ill informed because: you have being doing in the past, what you do now; trying to ridicule other person, FOR TELLING THE TRUTH FOR YOU TO LEARN!

            • Egyptians were using it as an ACID TRAP in their tombs.

            • “THEY WERE USING IT FOR PRESERVING FISH”

              As if salt’s preserving properties prove that it’s alkaline.

              As I said, you are a mental case Stefan.

          • More raving of a mental case: “THE TRUTH: in El Nino years, as it is now – east Pacific of Chilean coast is much warmer / Barrier Reef water is much colder.”

            Anomalies this past March: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20160426.ssta_pacific_monthly.png

            • In El Nino years Chris, every El nino year ever recorded, NOT WHAT COMES FROM THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE. They even put on TV that ”western pacific is and was colder during this el niono also, but exception was barrier reef…?…?! Do you want the truth. OR what comes from the swindlers that are using NASA’ name?!

            • What is supposed to support your insanity claims in that post?

              You claim it’s a propaganda machine, but all you have to support that is you don’t think they’re telling the truth.

              But nothing to support that assertion.

            • “They even put on TV”

              A.k.a. proof because it was on TV.

              “Do you want the truth.”

              Yes, that’s why I don’t believe mental cases like Stefan.

    • How do you know that this apparently happened? The time resolution of the proxies are not able to resolve that level of detail.

      Moreover, what was the population of New York City at that time? How many people died? How much was that as a proportion of humanity at that time? How many were “lucky” to die of other causes before the climate change got them?

      If such massive catastrophe was irrelevant to humanity, then why the pissing and moaning about changing how we do civilisation and weaning off fossil fuels? ANY “catastrophe” that results from the economic upheaval of that, even if completely impossibly severe, is irrelevant, because it won’t kill all humans off.

      No, YOUR problem is YOU don’t want to risk your comfort, even if it’s as liable to INCREASE, because someone else may do better relatively than you, and you really hate that idea.

    • Alberto, climate is changing with every season – ask migrating birds for advice. BUT THERE IS NO ”GLOBAL” WARMING!!! #2: rain changes climate INSTANTLY, after prolong drought, BUT THE PHONY GLOBAL WARMINGS ARE MOUNTAINS OF CRAP! Confusing those two is not good for your mentality.. cheers!

      • And none of that “climate is changing every season” means a damn thing other than you really haven’t a clue what you’re on about.

      • I think the problem here is that you haven’t studied the physics. Most skeptics are very critical but have little clue on offering an alternative that is more accurate.

        See if you can find a scientist you trust to explain the following paper to you http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr15.pdf

        • Jose, SHOVE IT, those propaganda articles don’t work for he knowledgeable – I need to learn a bit more English, BUT THE TRUTH I HAVE !!!

          • stefan, you are funny. You think math is propaganda. No wonder you don’t understand climate science. You don’t use math in your so-called proofs. I find that funny. You think you are doing physics. Newton and Einstein were jokes to you, right?

            • Jose, what the hell you are hallucinating about..? That’s what I’m saying to both camps: -”math and laws of physics don’t agree with the contemporary misleading propaganda OR what the phony skeptics promote their pagan beliefs” Jose, YOU OWN ME AN APOLOGY!

            • You did throw numbers around in your explanation on that page, so I will rephrase. What part of that paper I linked to do you think is inaccurate and why?

              Also, do you think the greenhouse effect (which doesn’t really work like a greenhouse, but that’s the name given to the radiative effect) is not accurate science?

              And do you have an idea of how much more energy the sun sends our way every second vs the rocket engines? It’s one reason why the planet is not much much colder. Because by the time the energy dissipates, more has come in.. so the temperature is maintained much warmer than cold space. When more CO2 is added, we still get same dissipative effect, but the balance is achieved at a slightly higher temperature because it takes longer for the same amount of heat to escape since more of it is absorbed by the atmosphere and sent back towards the ground.

            • Jose, ”heat doesn’t ESCAPE” – you got the old,wrong theory again! heat doesn’t escape, BUT is neutralized on the first few km above the ground – go and read my post, the lot and you’ll see. Broaden your knowledge; don’t stay a narrow-mined deviat all your life!

              P.s. extensive scientific research has proven that ”one in four Warmist follower is just as stupid and dishonest as the other three”

            • Heat isn’t neutralized.

              Ever.

  3. “and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.”

    Actually, for planets in the goldilocks zone, this is absolutely false.

    H2O is VERY abundant but in the goldilocks zone precipitates out so cannot really act as much of a driver, only an amplification feedback. methane and the other “more powerful” greenhouse gasses are biotic in source and their natural production would leave them far behind CO2. CO2, despite being somewhat boitic in nature, is far easier to achieve higher concentrations with, whilst the others are less quickly produced by “goldilocks” lifeforms.

    So he’s not “shading the truth” here, he’s just plain flat out wrong lying his ass off here.

    • Wow: you have water vapor wrong.

      The atmosphere can only hold so much of any condensable gas. That amount is determined by the Clausius-Claperyone equation.

      (Look it up.)

      The relative concentrations of the atmospheric gases has absolutely nothing to do with “lifeforms.” It comes from physics. Water vapor is condensable. CO2 (and CH4, N2O, etc) are not.

      That makes a huge difference.

      • David, that’s what I said about water,H20. Other gasses act like water in different locations, and water acts differently there too.

        For example, at Venus’ location, water cannot be much of a constituent of a liquid phase: it’s too hot all the time, so it’s noncondensing.

        At Triton’s location, Methane acts like water does here, being solid (methane ice) liquid and gas, and Triton’s temperature is such that it RAINS. Methane, rather than Water, but like Water is for Venus, Methane is for the Earth.

        The Goldilocks zone is so called because water can exist in all three phases at that temperature, and that’s a requirement for earthlike organic chemistry.

        Therefore water isn’t a forcing, since it reaches equilibrium by weather processes. But CO2 can’t reach equilibrium the same way, and therefore be a forcing.

        • There is no water on Venus — it was all boiled away by its massive greenhouse effect.

          PS: At Earth-like temperatures, water is always consensable. CO2, CH4, etc are not.

          • “PS: At Earth-like temperatures, water is always consensable. CO2, CH4, etc are not.”

            NB: Other gasses act like water in different locations, and water acts differently there too.

            For example, at Venus’ location, water cannot be much of a constituent of a liquid phase: it’s too hot all the time, so it’s noncondensing.

            At Triton’s location, Methane acts like water does here, being solid (methane ice) liquid and gas, and Triton’s temperature is such that it RAINS. Methane, rather than Water, but like Water is for Venus, Methane is for the Earth.

            The Goldilocks zone is so called because water can exist in all three phases at that temperature, and that’s a requirement for earthlike organic chemistry.

            Please bear the above in mind and the source of this information, readily available that you appear to have completely missed.

            TIA, the world.

            • Again, there is almost no water on Venus.

            • Hi David; how do you know about water on Venus? IF you want to know the whole truth about Venus, here it is: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/venus-runaway-greenhouse-con/

            • wrong! at night on Venus is colder than on our Antarctic; NIGHT IS 4 months long, gets very cold. The contemporary propaganda using Venus, to con about CO2 is wrong. NO RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE THERE! All proven beyond any reasonable doubt: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/venus-runaway-greenhouse-con/

            • Again, at Venus’ location, water cannot be much of a constituent of a liquid phase: it’s too hot all the time, so it’s noncondensing.

            • “wrong! at night on Venus is colder than on our Antarctic; ”

              Bullshit.

            • “at night on Venus is colder than on our Antarctic”

              Only a mental case could come up with that claim.

        • “Therefore water isn’t a forcing….”

          So it’s your belief that water vapor does not absorb infrared radiation?????

          • No, water isn’t a forcing.

            It’s a feedback.

            Need some help reading?

            • Ok, you’re right, for AGW. But at baseline it was a major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

            • Wow, water isn’t feedbck or starveback; those therms are concocted exclusively for misleading. If you want to know what WV does, compare desert wit rainforest on same latitude. H2O makes days cooler / nights warmer = overall is same temp always, only looks on paper hotter, when desertification expends, because the swindlers are only taking the hottest minute in 24h. Reason they are against dams, to save extra stormwater and IMPROVE THE CLIMATE. Even the earthworms know that is better climate, where is PLENTY H2O.

            • That’s right, David.

              You were expecting something different, hence you read what you thought was in there. It’s not just basket cases like stephan here who don’t read what their eyes see.

            • Stefan, you’re catastrophically wrong and do not care about that.

            • Wow, i cannot be wrong, because i don’t belong to any cult, i stick to the truth; read my post and see for yourself. Laws of physics control and regulate cooling / warming, not Ian Plimer or Algore. read my post, OR admit that you are suffering from ”truth phobia”

            • Makes days cooler than what? Deserts are frigging hot.

            • BINGO! Save extra stormwater => days become cooler / nights warmer, that’s good climate; desert is bad climate. Garden worm knows that and refuses to live in deserts – what’s the earthworm’s IQ you said? Sacramento valley has more CO2 than California’s desert = under the Warmist theory, in the desert should be better climate, because of LESS CO2. IF you have some money, invest in the factory that produces straitjackets – when the truth is known by the public, will be lots of demand for those. One oaktree knows that: where is more WV is much better climate. Warmist & climate sceptics think that h2o is bad for climate…

            • Nope, moron, that’s not how it works. Please pick up a clue at your nearest special needs education centre.

      • Methane (and O2) is VERY out of equilibrium on Earth *because of life processes*. It’s why we look for methane, O2 (but not H2O) in atmospheres of extrasolar planets to see if there’s liable to be life on that planet.

        Their concentrations are VERY dependent on biotic processes to be as high as they are on earth.

        Sans life *at all* on earth, there’d be a lot of H2O, but very little of any of the other gasses.

        But life processes H2O into O2, CO2, CH4, and the amount is much higher because of it.

        And biotic processes here on earth produce a lot more CO2 than it does CH4, hence CO2 is the most important of the non-condensing gasses, without which N2O would have a bigger slice of the pie.

        • Yeah. So what? Human emissions of GHGs are warming the climate system.

          • So the point is that the quote I took from Lindzen is absolutely false, not merely shading or eliding important information.

            CO2 would be the most important factor in the GHG effect.

          • So the point is that the quote I took from Lindzen is absolutely false, not merely shading or eliding important information.

            CO2 would be the most important factor in the GHG effect for any planet in the goldilocks zone.

          • BULL!!! Global warming is the biggest lie’ since homo-erectus invented language ! HERE IS THE PROOF: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

            • Well, you’re certainly in deep denial.

              Plainly trolling for attention.

      • why is water your problem DAVID? WHY do you think deserts are better, where is no water and grasslands are bad, because is plenty h2o? I told you long time ago that you’ll lose sanity, if you stick to the Swindler’s propaganda… David, H2O NOT GUILTY, CO2 NOT GUILTY! – both of them are essential for life, the more o it => better life. David, stop wetting the bed, propaganda is only scare-tctic, for fleecing the Urban Sheep

        • Why do you never understand what anyone else is saying nor the gaping logical holes in your rantings?

          • Wow, I do understand what your mob is saying, every bit of it; but because has being parroted trillionth time already, no need for me to repeat it. Instead, I’m presenting the truth, it’s for you to compare what you have being brainwashed Vs the truth, I already have compared it. Go on broaden your knowledge, don’t be their zombie for the rest of your life. They own you explnation

          • So you do understand it, but decide you don’t like it therefore you’ll make stuff up about how it’s wrong.

            Well, somewhat honest, anyway.

            Just take it to the next step and only say things that are true. That’s all your mob has to do, and they’ll be welcome.

  4. Lindzen has been spouting the same garbage for 30 years

    http://www.fortfreedom.org/s46.htm

    even as we watch the ice caps and glaciers melt, the ocean temps spike, record breaking surface temps, and etc. Lindzen’s past prediction that we would not see more than .5C temp rise should not be forgotten when assessing his credibility.

    • I’m pretty sure that Dr. Lindzen also contends that it has not yet been proven that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. I hope none of the hundreds of thousands of smokers who have died of lung cancer was relying on his assurances.

      • I’m not sure how you know Lindzen’s contention on this.
        He has explained what he actually contends many times and it isn’t what you’ve written.

        • It would be because Lindzen has stated his claims on that subject.

          Quite how you wonder how else someone would have known what someone else had said OTHER THAN HAVING SEEN IT SAID, I do not know.

          And how you come to the conclusion that climatehawk1’s post is incorrect given the blank verse of what Lindzen HAS SAID IN PRINT is likewise a mystery to everyone else who inhabits reality.

  5. The abortion video had some of same problems as this one, including a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the 5 “arguments”. And the tom, dick, harry one has same problem, leading the reader to a conclusion without supporting it logically (never mind the problem that not everyone gets the same value from the same things.. eg, a safe is worth much more to me if I have 1 million usd I want to protect than would to me if I have $10 only — supply/demand — and so much so that I might find it a bargain to find others with whom to share the safe with while picking up 90% of the tab if safes are only sold in group bundles.. to pick a hypothetical).

    • jose, I’m glad you asked, be fair to yourself and know the truth is here: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

      • You’ve said nothing other than idiotic ravings based on hope and belief and completely bereft of all attempt at accuracy on THIS site, yet you want people to visit YOUR site to see what you have to say?!?!?

        Sorry, kid, you have to indicate that there’s no insanity here first.

        • Wow I’m trying to bring sanity back to you people. Look outside your window and see; environment is the biggest laboratory, can teach you a lot. Stop chanting the gospel, invented by the top western Marxist, and face the reality. GLOBAL WARMING THEOLOGY IS SELF DESTRUCTIVE in the long run, same as every other big lie

          • No you’re not, you’re trying to get attention by raving your lunacy out in public.

            You, sir, are a frigging nutcase.

  6. It is similarly uncontroversial to say that human greenhouse gas emissions weren’t really large enough to play a big role in global warming until the 1960’s

    No, I am sorry, Lindzen was also wrong about that. Never assume a mitigation sceptic is right without checking carefully. They are able to get the most basic and easily checkable facts wrong.

    For the warming since 1951 the best estimate is that about all is man-made.

    But also for the period before 1951 a part of the warming is man-made. The IPCC attribution statement focussed on the period since 1951 because that is when they could draw the clearest conclusions. Before 1951 the data quality is not as good and there are likely also other factors that produced some warming. Thus the human contribution is harder to quantify, but it is very unlikely zero.

    • Hi Victor. I agree with you, but when I said that, I was thinking of some graphs from the IPCC reports showing what models say would have happened with only natural drivers, compared to model output that incorporates natural and anthropogenic drivers. The error bars overlap until about the 60’s, if I remember correctly.

      • But if the error bars overlap by less than half, then the chance of them being the same underlying truth is 2/3*2/3=4/9. Less than 50-50.

        So it’s earlier than 1960’s, most likely. And a claim of that is most likely wrong.

      • As we have seen in the surreal “hiatus” debate, it is important to distinguish between “not statistically significantly different from zero” and “zero”.

  7. Is there a Reader’s Digest version of all that?

    • No.

  8. “…aghast at Lindzen’s shameless manipulation of his audience.”

    Perhaps he should open up an account on Twitter so he can start insulting others.

    • That would be a better use of his time. And yes, I do have a Twitter account specifically for the purpose of insulting others. Ok, mostly Monckton.

  9. stefanthedenier, what theory leads you to believe that the earth does not radiate the moon and vice-versa?

    What do you make of experiments that measure large amounts of radiation at ground level coming from above.. beyond what is calculated that we get from the sun, and at high levels even throughout the night?

    You do know that the moon is in the direct line of path of a fairly small amount of the total radiation the earth would give off, right (the solid angle is small).

    Do you understand blackbody radiation?

    Do you know that radiation travels much much much faster than hot air rises?

    You should take a course to understand the math and physics of radiative transfer (including the relevant QED). Otherwise, I think you need to produce your own math to “disprove” what physicists have calculated and measured long ago.

    Without doing that work, you expect people out here reading to believe you and your beliefs over the work laid out in volumes of pages and believed by the major scientific academies of the world (including at least as early as 1979, the National Academy of Sciences)?

    In the 1979 report by NAS:
    > The primary effect of an increase of CO2 is to cause more absorption of radiation from the earth’s surface and thus to increase the air temperature in the troposphere.

    • Jose; BEFORE 79, those same scientist were LYING THAT: ”because of CO2 dimming effect, will be ice age by year 2000” Fear-mongering = cash.

      #2: SHORTWAVE IR&UV that comes from the sun are completely different radiation, than kinetic LONG-WAVE radiation from a hot body! b] black body absorption of heat you dickhead is confusing with radiation…

      #3: if you put a red-hot iron bar above your head, you’ll see and feel below, how far the kinetic heat travels from 1900C red-hot iron, only a foot – if you lift it higher, will not feel any heat. c] atmosphere will never get to 1900C.

      Jose AFTER you read the lot in the post I gave you above; here is another post for you, to broaden your knowledge:: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/global-warming-lost-its-compass-again/

      • stefan, I won’t say much more except that your problem is with fundamental physics. You have a lot of work to do do displace Newton and Einstein and the rest before you worry much about climate science. Perhaps if you understood the foundation, you wouldn’t be so uptight about climate science.

      • Nope, there was no consensus in the 70s for global cooling.

        Jesus freaking christ, can you deniers try SOMETHING new???

  10. stefan, you said on your website that the heat from an oven only radiates 1 foot. How did you measure that? Did you use your arm? if so, how accurately does your arm measure the fraction of the heat flowing into it that comes purely from radiation vs from hot air, and how do you know your arm has that accuracy?

    Are you familiar with the Beer-Lambert law and have an idea of the emissivity of CO2 and other gases in our atmosphere and how this relates to distances?

    You can study for free from MIT http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-58j-radiative-transfer-spring-2006/

  11. NOTICE: stefanthedenier has been blocked from commenting further. I don’t block many, but people who can’t cope with the Law of Conservation of Energy can go somewhere else.

    • But fortunately Wow’s tactics of accessing imaginary archives of court documents and of “quoting” me as saying sentences that are wholly a figment of Wow’s imagination will draw not the slightest hint of rebuke.

      You see on Bickmore’s farm all animals are equal. It’s just that some animals are more equal than others.

      • Unfortunately, Loco is nuts.

        But they gotta say something. So they do.

  12. I just went to stefanthedenier’s website and his writing is just as obnoxious, disjointed, and bereft of actual science as it is here, except there’s 100x more of it. I make the obvious suggestion that nobody ever go there.

  13. We tend to get more of what we expect….(Vincent Peale) and there is the Self Full-filled prophecy syndrome. Just look at how wrong science was and is about nutrition. Data collected from the 60s on heart healthy eating was interpreted incorrectly. Everything we were told about cholesterol, fats, saturated fat, dairy, salt and so much more was dead wrong. Why? It appears that the scientist were biased and that bias twisted the truth. The truth is there. We have to find it. To say the global temperatures are understood is silly. No data collected offers the scope or scale needed to have perfect information on an entire globe. My company instituted a safety program. Started collecting more and more data every year to reduce factory injuries. The result is the more sophisticated the data collection evolved every year the higher the incident rates ever year. The more they stared at the data the higher the safety violation. It is not apples to apples so the results cannot be compared year over year. The truth of the global temperature in 2016, 1970 and 1870 are not comparable and any scientist that believes they are is acting on faith and dogma over truth and science.

    • Scientists are sometimes wrong, so we should ignore them? Spoken like a true crackpot, Ward.

      And if I must have faith in the dogma that thermometers measured the same thing in 2016, 1970, and 1870, then call me a religious zealot.

    • “needed to have perfect information on an entire globe”

      Yet another crackpot straw man argument about data needing to be perfect before it is any use.

    • Some problems in science are easier than others. Scientists/people have discovered relationships among foods and health that have remained close to accurate for many decades (and millenia) and are true today. But as you get more specific to attribute precise mechanism within a very complex system, predictions are easier to get wrong early on. As goes the climate temp, that has much more support than some of the trickier “why” or “how” predictions on more local levels. We still can’t predict the average daily temp 3 weeks out in a certain place and oftentimes get wrong even 1 week out.

      As goes the factory injuries, is the company oscillating over whether a lost finger is an injury or occurred on Sept 29th? No, they don’t really doubt many of their measurements probably. Totals obviously go up if you have ways to discover new injuries. It is true that the totals of instrument temperature measurements have changed over time and also that old temp data is reinterpreted a bit. Quantities have changed over time as we dig into the data more closely; however, the set of quantities referred loosely each as the “average global temp for an associated historical year” are quantities that continue to remain fairly stable in value despite being analyzed by many different groups. Where they have changed a little, they have had a small effect on the average trends and almost no change on the conclusions made by a very large number of scientists studying the data that the trends are up. The theories and other data pointing the finger at man have also remained fairly robust over long periods of time.

      None of this means we can’t be wrong on climate science in some way or other, but do you propose we throw darts at a board? The skeptics have lots of room to come up with and try to defend alternative theories. That’s not happening (in the case of AGW), despite the huge potential for major awards and fame. Maybe in the case of your company’s data and the case of injury totals, it’s taken few people over short times to come up with new conclusions, but climate science has had at least an order of magnitude more hours invested cumulatively by at least an order of magnitude more people and the particular quantities you are complaining about have come out mostly in tact. I think that says something.

      Apples to apples. Don’t assume your company’s particular failure on some end implies the failure of others on a different end.

    • Was that a self fulfilling prophesy for you, ward?

  14. “We still can’t predict the average daily temp 3 weeks out in a certain place and oftentimes get wrong even 1 week out.”

    But we CAN predict Summer average temperatures in London will be higher than the following Winter average temperatures in London pretty much every year.

    Weird how this “unpredictable” climate CAN be predicted….

    • Wow says “Weird how this unpredictable climate CAN be predicted….”

      Predicting is easy. Being correct is the difficult part.

      • Nope, the prediction was correct.

        Or do you want to claim proof the prediction made false?

        “But we CAN predict Summer average temperatures in London will be higher than the following Winter average temperatures in London pretty much every year.”

        Prove it wrong, moron.

        • Wow writes “But we CAN predict Summer average temperatures in London will be higher than the following Winter average temperatures in London pretty much every year.” Prove it wrong, moron.

          There’s nothing to prove. You haven’t made the prediction. You have declared an ability or a possibility that such a prediction could be made. So, make the prediction and in a few months we will see if you were correct. of course it will require more precise definition of the terms than you have provided.

          So I will do what you have not:

          I predict that the simple average of temperature measurements made at the Greenwich Observatory at noon (1200) each day from June 1 through August 30, 2016 will have a higher value than a similar series made from December 1, 2016 through February 28, 2017.

          Now we wait.

          As to other predictions, we will be waiting a very long time to see what the sea level has become in the year 2100 although by then a new calendar will likely be established to honor someone besides Jesus.

          Past predictions have been numerous on many topics and tend to fail more often than had they simply flipped a coin to make the predictions. The Brexit vote predictions come to mind.

        • Wow writes “…Winter average temperatures in London pretty much every year.”

          This cannot be proven or disproven until all of the years have passed.

          Predictions ought to have a definite moment in which it can be asserted to have been successfully predicted.

          If you want a rolling prediction then it must be carefully defined as such but with a measurement window and it must still have an eventual goal or it isn’t really a prediction.

          • No, it can be proved. Every year the prediction holds true proves the prediction right.

            Reality does not become what you fatuously demand it to be, M2. Humans usually get over that stage of “thinking” by the age of three.

            You never liked to grow up, though, did you.

            • Wow writes “Humans usually get over that stage of thinking by the age of three.”

              Plain to see you did. 😉

            • Wow says “You never liked to grow up, though, did you.”

              I do not understand “never … did you” structured comments.

            • There’s a whole raft of things you do not understand, M2. Why single out that one in particular?

              And yes it’s plain to see I have grown out of my “terrible twos” mindset and into full adulthood, while you have never progressed beyond it. Again, why the big issue of agreeing with me on that????

            • Wow writes “There’s a whole raft of things you do not understand, M2.”

              While I doubt the utility of your unit of measure, yes, many things I do not understand.

              “Why single out that one in particular?”

              It seems to be the topic being discussed. Tomorrow it will doubtless be something else.

            • Yet you still prattle on about things you don’t understand and proclaim knowledge of it from one face and proclaim “humility” and lack of understanding from the other.

              Shameless hypocrisy from you is really all you’re about, though, isn’t it. Reality, truth or even honesty is something you care nothing for.

            • Wow says “Yet you still prattle on about things you don’t understand”

              While you prattle on about me prattling on 🙂

              “and proclaim humility and lack of understanding from the other.”

              Your attempt to humiliate me fails because I am already humble.

              This would be your opportunity to provide understanding of something (besides me, that is).

            • And while you prattle on with even less content. Precisely what is the blank assertion of prattle supposed to do here?

            • Wow asks “Precisely what is the blank assertion of prattle supposed to do here?”

              It is not clear to me where your semantic bindings were intended. Are you asking about a blank [assertion of prattle] or is it a [blank assertion] of prattle?

              The difference is in the object of the sentence; the prattle itself or instead the assertion. Prattles generally do nothing; assertions exist to persuade or attempt to persuade others of the existence of something or the truth of a claim. In the case that I asserted the existence of prattle its purpose would therefore be to try to persuade you of the existence of prattle, perhaps with a suitable demonstration.

            • Yes, M2, NOTHING is EVER clear to you, especially when understanding is disastrous to your case.

              And it’s clear that you incapability for coherent thought interferes with every post you bring.

              Which is WHERE my position of your empty blathering comes from, the very thing you’re not understanding here again.

            • Wow wrote “Yes, M2, NOTHING is EVER clear to you”

              Agreed. It would be arrogant and presumptuous for me to assume, as you do, that everything, or anything, is clear. Room always exists for error. English is an imprecise language at best, a tokenization of cultural references that we probably do not share. It is especially prone to failure where right-brain uses words one way but left-brain uses the same words for entirely different purposes. The opening pages of the book “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” portrays this communication gap. Of course, that was written back in the dark ages when only men and women existed. The updated book is going to have to include Uranus.

              “especially when understanding is disastrous to your case.”

              What case would that be? In this subthread I assert I have free will. It will be difficult to prove that I do, or do not; and it starts with defining “free will” in the first place, which hasn’t been done so we haven’t even gotten to the proof stages of this discussion. At any rate I do not see potential disaster.

              “And it’s clear that you incapability for coherent thought interferes with every post you bring.”

              So it seems; and yet the quality of my writing causes you some cognitive dissonance. I am clearly superior in thought and language so perhaps it is your own lack of comprehension that is causing you some discomfort.

            • So you dont understand anything at all, but you ignore the arrogance and hubris of pontificating on it with your complete inability to understand the situation anyway.

              Then insist that this massive arrogance of yours is somehow the alternative to arrogance????

            • Wow asks “Then insist that this massive arrogance of yours is somehow the alternative to arrogance?”

              Yes, but not exclusively so. Everything that is not a thing is an alternative to the thing. Your choice of alternative may well not be my choice of alternative since a great many choices exist.

            • So we both agree you’re not arguing in good faith, and we disagree on whether I’m doing the same thing.

              Since there’s disagreement and no proof, it cannot be claimed that I’m engaging in the same dishonest tactics as you, but we both agree you are.

            • Wow writes “it cannot be claimed that I’m engaging in the same dishonest tactics as you”

              That would imply you are capable of operating at my level.

            • So now you’re also agreeing that I’m not doing the same pernicious acts, and admitting you were lying when claiming we both were making bad-faith arguments, but agree that you were.

              Do you have any idea how this ensures your claims are never taken seriously, when you go and destroy your own claims in the very same thread you make them in.

            • Wow wrote “So now you’re also agreeing that I’m not doing the same pernicious acts, and admitting you were lying when claiming we both were making bad-faith arguments, but agree that you were.”

              Could you simplify that a bit?

              “Do you have any idea how this ensures your claims are never taken seriously, when you go and destroy your own claims in the very same thread you make them in.”

              It appears you take my claims seriously.

            • Yes, I could simplify, but it wouldn’t change your need to not understand, nor your desire to continue to argue in bad faith, a charge you agree you adhere to.

            • Wow writes “Yes, I could simplify, but it wouldn’t change your need to not understand”

              Likely so, but be courteous to your other readers (if any) and explain for their benefit.

            • It would be more polite to everyone, including yourself, to stop trying your damndest to not understand anything that you don’t like.

            • Wow writes “stop trying your damndest to not understand anything that you don’t like.”

              You have the logic backwards. It is zero effort to not understand; that is to say, the default condition is to not understand. Effort is required to understand and starts with you explaining the thing you wish me to understand. Then I exert some effort and maybe I will then understand.

            • I do not have it backwards. You’ve even admitted that you are arguing in bad faith and have no intent of adhering to anything consistent in your rhetoric.

              YOU stop being a deliberately ignorant fool and EVERYONE, *including yourself* will be less inconvenienced.

              Since that is your stated aim, you should pursue this forthwith.

            • Wow writes “Since that is your stated aim, you should pursue this forthwith.”

              Pursue what, exactly? Anyway, whether I should or should not do something is a decision I must make for myself although I accept suggestions from others. So, make a suggestion. If you already have, please make it, or an abbreviated version, again to re-establish context.

            • Yes, again you’re deliberately not “getting it” again because you don’t WANT to, and hang the comfort of anyone else.

              Conversations require that you read what is being said.

              This, however, is disastrous to your ego.

            • Wow writes “Conversations require that you read what is being said.”

              Indeed; preceded by having something to write that invites some back-and-forth otherwise it’s versation, not conversation.

              So: What would you like to write about?

            • Yes, don’t just quote a part and pretend that’s all you read.

              That you do so, and continue to prattle on as if somehow you don’t know what you’re doing, is why your whinge about how I must do something to make other people’s lives easier is mere smokescreen.

              By the way, I wonder if Loco nutbar will be along to whinge at how you keep trying to get the last word in, M2.

              Nah, that was never his gripe, was it.

            • Wow writes “I wonder if Loco nutbar will be along to whinge at how you keep trying to get the last word in, M2.”

              He’s probably waiting for you to say something with enough substance to argue.

              On the internet every writer necessarily and automatically has the last word until the next writer takes his place as having the last word. It doesn’t seem to convey much of a prize.

            • Nope, it’s not that, M2.

              I take it you’re admitting you’re not saying anything of substance, right?

            • Wow wrote “I take it you’re admitting you’re not saying anything of substance”

              For some weeks it seems. I keep hoping you’ll write something substantial for me to respond to. But I feel bad that nobody responds to you so I respond.

            • “Yes” would have been sufficient.

          • “Yes, but not exclusively so. ”

            Even if this were true, that’s irrelevant, just like “Yeah, but not excessively so” is a response to the charge of multiple murders.

          • No, that’s not what that indicates.

            You see, the “reason” “nobody can operate at [your] level” is that you have no level, just a fabricated internal fantasy land where the Humpty Dumpty defence is a knock-down/drag-out argument winner.

            • Wow writes “where the Humpty Dumpty defence is a knock-down/drag-out argument winner.”

              Yep. Works every time!

            • The point is that no, it doesn’t work. EVER.

  15. Michael 2, climate science is a scientific problem of a difficult nature because while we can apply physics we have tested on the field and in laboratory, the ultimate experiment, like much in astronomy, cannot directly be put into a “test tube” to run the experiment to completion many times over. The question is do you want to try to improve our understanding of the problem and be as honest with what you can put into a test tube and what that might suggest about the Big Experiment We Can Only Run Once, or do you want to stick head in sand and a priori say that it can never be science or something odd like that. Or you may just not care of course (please keep reading if the third option is closest to the truth).

    In any case, I came back to post (and in a new thread) to say something at what I think of the angle you have opted to use frequently of “I haven’t seen proof”. Despite that argument angle, you believe many things that have not been proven, I strongly strongly.

    *******

    Do you have any evidence of free will? I’m curious.

    There is reason to believe (oh oh, here comes the retort about “there is [also] reason to believe”.. that unicorns exist ) that people are rather similar. That if you were born in my exact sequence of circumstances and body, that you would live the same life I lived and believe the same things. We can point to quantum mech, but how well do we really know, or for that matter, what the consequences of that would be towards say free will or “deserving” any more in life than anyone else. In the end, you cannot rule out (I challenge you to try and reply about your success) the potential truth that “free will” might be not far from if not a total illusion, and that ironically, some of the people we ignore or look down upon are just “good old brilliant me” living in a “parallel” thread of life.

    Free will is actually a bit of magical thinking. It doesn’t seem grounded in the physical sciences. A unicorn might be closer to the truth come to think of it. Something I wrote recently. BTW, I’m not arguing that we can’t do anything in life except what is forced. After all, both “free will” and perhaps also “magic” may actually exist. The message in case it wasn’t clear is about what evidence do you have that there is anyone out there that you would not be like were it but for luck in the casting of the die at birth. I say the following speaking in general terms about any human IMO: you have a great “me” model that you know very well and hog to applying mostly to yourself as if it didn’t apply to other people as well.

    • Jose_X writes “climate science is a scientific problem of a difficult nature”

      Thank you for acknowledging this.

      “the Big Experiment We Can Only Run Once, or do you want to stick head in sand and a priori say that it can never be science or something odd like that.”

      I do not choose either of your alternatives.

      “Despite that argument angle, you believe many things that have not been proven”

      Yes.

      “Do you have any evidence of free will? I’m curious.”

      As I use the word, I have free will. I cannot imagine what sort of “evidence” exists. I suppose I could produce a receipt from WalMart showing purchase of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream and how that represents a free-will choice from among its many flavors.

      A hint in that direction: Rene Descartes, cogito ergo sum. If free will does not exist, then I do not exist, for there is no “i” without free will. That might explain why leftwingers almost always use “we” instead of “I”.

      “There is reason to believe that people are rather similar.”

      What reason could possibly lead to that assumption? Many reasons exist that they are not similar, not the least of which is the very large number of differences possible from a single breeding pair of humans (two to the 46th power combinations of DNA). Why anyone would assume siblings, much less anyone else, to be similar is going to be based on ideological, not scientific, considerations.

      “That if you were born in my exact sequence of circumstances and body, that you would live the same life I lived and believe the same things.”

      I do not believe that. My father does. It is an essential part of Marxism that humans are “tabla rasa”, clay, to be formed in the maker’s image. But there’s no evidence, despite millenia of trying, that you can actually do as you suggest. I suspect many religions make the same assumption; that with adequate Sunday School you’ll turn out to be a priest.

      “In the end, you cannot rule out the potential truth that ‘free will’ might be not far from if not a total illusion”

      It can certainly be defined that way for what its worth (not much).

      “Free will is actually a bit of magical thinking. It doesn’t seem grounded in the physical sciences.”

      Yes. It is semantic not scientific, properly the realm of yet another round of pointless philosophy, maybe at government expense at a university, and ultimately designed to grant or revoke civil rights somewhere.

      • Who cares what you choose or not? You don’t get to refuse participation in reality just because you don’t like the options.

        “It is an essential part of Marxism that humans are “tabla rasa””

        Lie.

        • Wow asks “Who cares what you choose or not?”

          I do, you do, the list continues but isn’t your concern.

          • You do? Nobody cares what you choose, M2.

            • Wow writes “Nobody cares what you choose, M2.”

              Thank you for not caring that I vote against carbon tax and for Donald Trump.

            • Yes, even if you HAD done those things, rather than just make the claims up as is you’re modus operandi everywhere you dump your crap on the internet, and even if it were even relevant to the reality of the two choices Jose gave you, NOBODY CARES.

              And nobody cares that you refuse to accept either choice given you by Jose, since they are exclusive and exhaustive, meaning there is no other choice, your petulant whining notwithstanding.

            • Wow insists: “NOBODY CARES.”

              You care, and because you care, I also care. Whether anyone else cares is for each person to declare, although the act of declaring reveals care even in the case of denial, and failure to declare may well be the only valid measure of not caring.

              You speak only for you, and I speak only for me.

            • No, M2, I don’t care. Nobody does. Not even reality cares, not even logic, even though you’ve never really bothered to let logic enter your life.

              Nobody cares.

            • Wow writes “Nobody cares.”

              You care. Everyone else left this thread long ago.

            • No, M2, I don’t care. Everyone else left this thread a long time ago, proving I don’t care what your choice is.

            • Wow, in a brilliant display of non-sequitur, writes “Everyone else left this thread a long time ago, proving I don’t care what your choice is.”

              That’s precious.

            • If you already knew that the continuation of this thread was a nonsequitur as regards to whether anyone cares about your claiming of choice, WHY THE HELL DID YOU BRING IT UP, YOU BLITHERING MORON????

              Or is it you’re a two-faced psychopath who wants to tie irrelevant facts to a claim of proof that does not exist, but will gleefully laugh when anyone else does it, AND NOT REALISE THE HYPOCRISY?

            • Wow wrote “If you already knew that the continuation of this thread was a nonsequitur as regards to whether anyone cares about your claiming of choice

              The first person to mention caring about my choices was you. This is easily verified by simply looking above. I was discussing Free Will with Jose. I have it; you probably do not.

              “Or is it you’re a two-faced psychopath who wants to tie irrelevant facts to a claim of proof that does not exist, but will gleefully laugh when anyone else does it, AND NOT REALISE THE HYPOCRISY?”

              That didn’t make much sense. Depending on what exactly you mean by face I have either one or six but not two. It is impossible for me to know the things I do not realize therefore I cannot confirm your speculation.

            • No, either you’re too dumb to make sense of it or you’re pretending there’s no validity to it to pretend there’s a chance for your pitiful claims to be valid.

              Or your ego won’t let you make sense of it as protective camoflage.

  16. Congratulations on spreading your own misinformation, Mr. Bickmore–you cannot substantiate even the first two sentences of this posting, thus I didn’t waste my time with your so-called “analysis.”

    • Well done, JoeP on making that up. Your momma must be so proud you can still type after all that eggnog.

      The first sentence contains a link where the claim is supported. Given you didn’t even get through the first sentence, your claims are ignorant.

  17. Very nice. Enjoyed the read. Going to show this to a trump supporter and see if he’s as unbiased as you.

  18. I have seen this video yesterday, and, apart from the science part, was fascinated by the way he describes group 3. Every single sub group, be it politicians, environmentalists, or journalists, are described with the meanest of all possible motivations. All this in the typical way how people in the post factual world just speak out any affirmation, without presenting any evidence whatsoever. In my opinion, what he percents is the textbook definition of a conspiracy theory.

    • Yeah, they’re really just a bunch o’ good ol’ boys: http://www.steynonline.com/7661/the-craziness-of-the-climate-science-echo-chamber
      –AGF

      • Yeah, STEYN is gonna be honest and unbiased about this…

        ROFL!

        Despite the reams of evidence AND all three judges ruling on the evidence before them in the single libel case, he refuses to think that Mann’s paper wasn’t fraud…

  19. BB, Professor of Uncritical Thinking, takes comfort in some kind of consensus: 97% of scientists agree with him about some kind of climate danger that needs to be addressed in some way. How it should be addressed was not at all apparent to the 18 and 11 BYU signers of two letters to the Utah Legislature, which just happened to sandwich the 2009 release of the “Climategate” emails, nor does BB address solutions now: I don’t see that he has made any specific recommendations in this big blog–feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. From what I’ve seen, confessing the original sin is paramount; that there may be no expiation at hand is of no consequence.

    But what if there really were some consensus about both the existence of a problem AND the level of its seriousness: quantifiable doom, so to speak? What should we do? What is the agreed upon solution? Prophet of doom Hansen cries for the nuclear option–follow France, not Germany. Oreskes, BB’s hero(ine), who started all this 97% BS and co-wrote the wholly slanderous “Merchants of Doom,” championed by BB in a former post, called Hansen a dangerous “neo-denier” for suggesting such. (How’s that for a consensus?) Hansen made enemies of Obama and the UN and the EU and Merkel for calling the Paris talks a farce–for all his lunacy Hansen at least recognizes that windmills and solar panels and carbon taxes won’t make any difference, especially while Germany replaces its nuclear plants with coal plants, and China and India and Indonesia build more coal plants like crazy, and nuclear plants to boot.

    All this while Obama exults in closing down coal plants in the US! Like I always say, there’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes this theology of Thermageddon seriously. –AGF

    • “Uncritical thinking”??? FROM YOU???? Look at your earlier post!

      “What should we do? What is the agreed upon solution? ”

      Cut out fossil fuels and go renewables. Duh.

      “Prophet of doom Hansen ”

      So you’re saying we shouldn’t go nuclear?

      “called Hansen a dangerous “neo-denier” for suggesting such.”

      [citation needed]

      “windmills and solar panels and carbon taxes won’t make any difference”

      They would if morons like yourself shut the fuck up and listened to reality instead of your own intestines. They 100% can be the answer.

      “while Germany replaces its nuclear plants with coal plants”

      They aren’t. Germany is closing down more plants than it opens, and the ones being opened were started before the decision to close nuclear power plants.

      “and China and India and Indonesia build more coal plants like crazy”

      Not sure about India/Indonesia, but your track record for reality is nonexistent, so meh, but China is building more renewables than fossil fuels, and closing down more fossil fuel plants than opening new fossil fuel plants.

      Ever visit reality? You probably won’t like it, it doesn’t do what you like.

      “All this while Obama exults in closing down coal plants in the US!”

      Just like China and Germany is doing!

      Oh, and it isn’t Obama doing it, its the owners,because they don’t see enough profit in it.

      “Like I always say”

      Yes, we know that you refuse to accept as real any science of AGW, even if it’s really the case. Opposite day is every day for morons like yourself.

      Always saying it doesn’t make it any less wrong, it only adds to your insanity.

  20. Nobody knows less and lies more than “Wow,” and Locus is certainly justified in observing BB’s partiality in banning that lunatic stefanthedenier and not the lunatic “Wow.” BB’s desperation is such that he relies on the likes of “Wow” for support. –AGF

    • On the bright side, I let you insult me however you want.

      • you can’t stop him, though. It’s part of his problem.

        And don’t think that you can get round him by being better than he claims. As long as you don’t do like he wants, he’ll go on hating you.

  21. More (non)consensus, where it counts (on the solution side): NY (shut ’em down) vs. Ohio (keep ’em running) on proven CO2 free electricity: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/16/new-york-announces-nuclear-shutdown-to-fight-climate-change/
    It’s quack Hansen vs. quack Oreskes (insults well earned). –AGF

    • Well, all you’ve done is show where your insanity comes from , nasty.

      Nukes take up money that can be used to produce even solar at cheaper rates, and the ROI happens VASTLY quicker. Not that wutters know what the hell reality looks like, mind.

      But as a group, you neither know nor care about truth when you have a “leader” who thinks CO2 snow happens on earth…

      • Wow writes “But as a group, you neither know nor care about truth when you have a leader who thinks CO2 snow happens on earth”

        I *am* that leader and making CO2 snow happen was a fairly common procedure in my Navy days for cooling canned soda and beer.

        In fact, here’s a video of a CO2 snow making machine intended for cleaning surfaces.

        • No, you’re a nut.

  22. Yeah, this was Indian Point. From the news :

    Indian Point nuclear plant in New York will close after dozens of ‘safety events’

    New York City secured agreement with facility’s operator for shutdown in about four years, following radioactive leak that contaminated groundwater last year

    Wutters would rather have nuclear waste leaks than accept AGW is real or, worse, the hippies were right.

  23. To repeat: “Nobody knows less and lies more than “Wow,” and Locus is certainly justified in observing BB’s partiality in banning that lunatic stefanthedenier and not the lunatic “Wow.” BB’s desperation is such that he relies on the likes of “Wow” for support.”

    The minuscule groundwater contamination, which had probably been there for years, and which just happened to be discovered at a time of controversy, is “not enough to threaten human health” (it heads straight for the river), while pollution in China attributed to solar cell manufacture is of catastrophic proportion:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?referrer=emailarticle

    Similarly the mainly gas fired power plants in Queens are a minor source of pollution compared to vehicles. “In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants.” http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

    Only climate paranoids are gullible enough to believe that “renewables” are up to the task of replacing traditional power production. When the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow you got nothin. When the nuclear plants go down they are invariably replaced with coal (Germany) or oil (England) or natural gas (NY and the rest of the US). China polluting solar panels and windmills will never amount to more than a few percent of global power production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif

    –AGF

    • In mountainous areas, where pumped storage is feasible, solar power costs about ten times as much as gas power: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/01/a-solar-power-plant-vs-a-natural-gas-power-plant-capital-cost-apples-to-apples/
      Where day time power consumption is high (AC running) and the sun is high and rarely obscured by clouds, solar arrays are still economical when government grants are available. Modern nuclear power is the safest, cheapest power on the planet. That’s why Oreskes hates it. Oreskes is only interested in global taxation and global regulation–she doesn’t give a damn about global warming. And neither do I. –AGF

    • 9 hours later my reply to Wow is still “awaiting moderation,” so I’ll repost it in 3 parts:

      Part I:

      To repeat: “Nobody knows less and lies more than “Wow,” and Locus is certainly justified in observing BB’s partiality in banning that lunatic stefanthedenier and not the lunatic “Wow.” BB’s desperation is such that he relies on the likes of “Wow” for support.”

      The minuscule groundwater contamination, which had probably been there for years, and which just happened to be discovered at a time of controversy, is “not enough to threaten human health” (it heads straight for the river), while pollution in China attributed to solar cell manufacture is of catastrophic proportion:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?referrer=emailarticle

    • Part 2:

      Similarly the mainly gas fired power plants in Queens are a minor source of pollution compared to vehicles. “In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants.” http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

      • ATTENTION BRAVES:
        INSTEAD OF FIGHTING TO STOP CLIMATE OF CHANGING – TRUMP NEEDS A GOOD PRESENT FOR HIS INAUGURATION; ANYBODY CAPABLE TO GIVE HIM A LINK TO THIS POST, WILL MAKE DONALD HAPPY; TO SHARE IT WITH HIS NEW CEO’s OF NASA, EPA, NOAA. SHOW YOUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS:
        https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/nasa-please-explain/

    • Part 3:

      Similarly the mainly gas fired power plants in Queens are a minor source of pollution compared to vehicles. “In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants.” http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

      Only climate paranoids are gullible enough to believe that “renewables” are up to the task of replacing traditional power production. When the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow you got nothin. When the nuclear plants go down they are invariably replaced with coal (Germany) or oil (England) or natural gas (NY and the rest of the US). China polluting solar panels and windmills will never amount to more than a few percent of global power production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif

      –AGF

  24. Whoops, make that 4 parts. Part 3:

    Similarly the mainly gas fired power plants in Queens are a minor source of pollution compared to vehicles. “In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants.” http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

    • Part 4 (one for each link):

      Only climate paranoids are gullible enough to believe that “renewables” are up to the task of replacing traditional power production. When the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow you got nothin. When the nuclear plants go down they are invariably replaced with coal (Germany) or oil (England) or natural gas (NY and the rest of the US). China polluting solar panels and windmills will never amount to more than a few percent of global power production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif

      –AGF

      • Definition of paranoid: there’s a conspiracy against them by everyone else, and all evidence of no conspiracy is just proof of the breadth of that conspiracy.

        YOU are the climate paranoid angryfart.

  25. Reality: nothing to bother the deniers. Just inconvenient.

  26. William Happer, who has a chair in physics to match Lindzen’s in meteorology, translates Pushkin’s pentameter to describe the legendary 97%:

    And muses will to me their tribute bring,
    Free genius will enslave itself to me,
    And virtue, yes, and, sleepless labor too
    With humble mien will wait for my reward.
    I’ve but to whistle, and obedient, timid,
    Blood-spattered villainy will crawl to me
    And lick my hand, and gaze into my eyes,
    To read in them the sign of my desire.

    He estimates alarmist funding to outweigh skeptical funding at about 10,000 to 1, and like Arrhenius, and Callendar, he sees nothing but good coming from CO2, and nothing scientific about the mythical consensus:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/10/the-william-happer-interview/

    –AGF

    • Yaaawn.

  27. What reality says about that bollocks:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/01/2016-is-hottest-year-on-record-three-in.html

    • So what? As the glaciers melt they uncover MWP forests. We’re still recovering from the LIA, fortunately. Have you forgotten everything I’ve taught you? –AGF

      • And you know this because…?

        You believe.

        • Round and round we go–it’s here: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-genius-legal-gambit/

          …on August 7, 2015, at 12:58 PM, and, you responded to it. So what are the possibilities?
          1) You forgot all about it? (That would explain a lot.)
          2) You’re pretending to have forgotten about it.
          3) A committee of paid know-nothings uses the name “Wow.”

          And so on. It’s hard to say–honesty and intelligence have never been hallmarks of climate fanaticism. I’ll copy the post for the lazy below; maybe BB will post it some day. –AGF

          • No, I figured you’d pretend it never happened because you got reamed and ridiculed for that farce.

            I guess since you’re going to ignore reality, you might as well go the whole hog.

          • Not forgetting that it indicated that, yes, you think that because “you believe”, it sure as hell isn’t in evidence.

      • Do you have a study supporting the following conclusion I think you are trying to make, that we have to hold the average global temp for decades higher than the 2016 average in order to see forests in that region? Instead, I suggest that holding the current temp even lower than 2010 might be more than enough to melt and reveal the old forests.. if we hold it long enough.

        [Putting aside minor issue of local vs global temperatures…]

        You “say” current temp is not hotter than the past because we see ice where there once presumably wasn’t.

        I say current temp might be more than enough, but it takes time to melt ice.

        Analogy: If I take a slab of ice with a frozen seed inside out of the freezer and put it in the kitchen counter top, then clearly it must have been warmer than the kitchen temperature when the seed was unfrozen? Not necessarily. In fact, if I raise the heater in the house very quickly to 45C (over 100F) and the ice hasn’t yet melted, then that must mean it was warmer than 45C prior to the seed being frozen? Nope. This analysis you seem to be suggesting ignores that it takes perhaps more than a few decades and more than a few years for the current temperatures to thaw what has been frozen for centuries. Especially since we didn’t arrive at 2016 temps slowly.

        • Being a niño year, 2016 might possibly be higher than a pre-LIA average, and your point is well taken–prolonged warmth is needed to grow a forest. But more to the point, these glaciers began melting a hundred years ago, long before CO2 became an issue. –AGF

          • The point wasn’t that prolonged warmth is needed to grow a forest (which would be true also). The point was that prolonged warmth is needed to thaw an area. We might be way past the thawing point or not. Just knowing we are seeing thawing is not enough to deduce the critical temperature although likely we would have to be above it.

          • For all I know the temp needed was reached in the first half of 20th century or even 19th century. For example, maybe the 0C mark for the region is the 1890 temp. Then consider how much lower it had been for how long and compare to how much warmer it is now and for how long. We can’t ignore the locality issue neither. If forest fires were common, maybe that kept local average temps warmer than global averages for the latitude. Later, the temps may have dropped back to average or below absent those fires and what not. Too many variables. Scientists are not using those studies to say global warming is real, but some people have suggested that those study could be used to refute global warming. I’m saying that the study is one piece of the puzzle that appears to be consistent with what climate scientists generally believe and that on the surface certainly doesn’t seem to me to refute it. In a larger context, perhaps those studies will prove more decisive one way or the other of course.

            My experience with skeptic views is that they are all over the map. Climate science has error bars. You can always be wrong here and there as well as have flaws in studies. The main question is will a theory be supported for the most part, where yes and where not so much. Skeptics don’t seem to have a single coherent theory that approaches climate science’s support with the evidence and standard physical laws.

            Let me ask, do you not believe adding CO2 gas to the atmosphere in quantities of the magnitude added from modern societies will warm the planet? Do you not accept the greenhouse effect? If not, what alternative physical set of laws/theory do you think explains what having more CO2 will do? If yes, then what’s the point of showing graphs that on the surface (ie, without an explanation of where the data came from) appear to suggest modern temps are not that much warmer than past temps? Do you have an actual precise position? Have you tried to construct or follow an actual theory of climate? You should try that. You may gain new appreciation for how weak the competition to AGW is.

            I have read a few skeptic papers allegedly mathematically/physically refuting AGW and have always found crucial flaws or even a single step in the math that was totally unexplained. Or the problem is with the assumptions… or the physical implications (Barry has covered a number of them here). One paper I was directed towards in comments (maybe by its author, don’t remember) argued that you could use certain data to predict the near-term warming. It was all based on algebra (no differential equations). It’s problem was that it relied on data that we usually get from measurements and predict essentially other data of the same time frame. Climate scientists already have skeptic-friendly ways to say that next year might be warmer or cooler than this year. The “leap” is to talk 100 years into the future. Do you accept the greenhouse effect or not? Do you accept thermometer measurements and analysis? The CO2 measurements in Hawaii and elsewhere?

            • Something to remember from his last thread’s failures is that he proposed areas to “prove” a MWP that had glaciers GROWING during the MWP, where those same glaciers are, today, shrinking.

            • Jose_X observes “My experience with skeptic views is that they are all over the map.”

              That is a correct; because “skeptic” is not itself a point of view. Consider a Venn Diagram with a singularity called “The Consensus”. Surrounding it is a vast realm of “Not Consensus” or skeptic. What have we learned about Skeptics? The are Not Consensus. That’s it. That is all. Whether the Skeptic prefers chocolate or vanilla is not revealed.

            • Well that was 100% pointless from you. Keep up the non-work.

            • >>chocolate and vanilla

              So I have strawberry climate science that produces x,y,z results/predictions in the proper ballpark, and I have an unknown mix of stuff that simply disagrees with strawberry but offers no u,v, or w.

              Do you see why a scientist doing serious work in the field might fail to be convinced that strawberry is bad? The possible flaws that might be pointed out here and there don’t provide a better alternative to strawberries, they simply help the strawberries get better (but no reason to think strawberry is fundamentally a problem).

            • Jose_X “Do you see why a scientist doing serious work in the field might fail to be convinced that strawberry is bad?”

              Of course. His expertise may well be on oranges and thus his opinion on strawberry is no more, and no less, meaningful than mine.

            • No, it would mean more because the scientist would have a point.

              You never managed to get that into your posts, even the really long and boring ones.

            • Michael 2, I hope you aren’t suggesting

              a) I ignore the vast majority of humans working on climate problems who come up with strawberries as the best answer and

              b) instead listen to those who don’t really understand the strawberry answer but know oranges really well — even though they can’t compose an oranges solution+predictions that matches reality.

              I agreed with a lot of what you said about skepticism. I am a major skeptic. I became skeptic about basic math so that I would challenge myself to really understand it on my terms so that I could understand some of the more advanced math. In the end though, if I came to conclusions to support a new type of arithmetic or geometry that doesn’t jive with reality, I would hope you would still be willing to follow what is taught in most schools rather than my crazy theories (even if you liked my conclusions and my political inclinations better).

            • Jose_X “Michael 2, I hope you aren’t suggesting (a) I ignore the vast majority of humans working on climate problems who come up with strawberries as the best answer”

              I am a libertarian, more or less and with due regard for your right to have a different meaning of what the word means. In this context it means I will not impose upon you what to heed and what to ignore; that’s more the realm of the People of the Left.

              However, since the PotL have been trying to take my money for their problem, I am reluctantly drawn into this non-debate that has been not going on for 10 years or so.

              Since the government incentive is to declare the existence of strawberries it is unsurprising that (1) government subsidized climate scientists declare the existence of strawberries and (2) to become a government subsidized climate scientist you must declare strawberries. It should be clear in this simple example that strawberries will be excessively weighted above the blueberries and currants that likely also exist in the same field.

              “I agreed with a lot of what you said about skepticism. I am a major skeptic. I became skeptic about basic math so that I would challenge myself to really understand it on my terms.”

              Indeed, even the basics ought to be challenged eventually as otherwise you are not really sure that Pi can be calculated from a Taylor Series (or why it works). https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30001.1-3.shtml

              I remember the day when I realized that the integral of a straight line slope from x1 to x2 looked like the formula for the area of a triangle.

            • [BTW, I know mathematics is an abstraction so it can be applied to reality in many different ways. Some non-intuitive geometry was applied by Einstein very successfully for example. But the math in that case allowed us to get predictions that were better not worse. I think the evidence as they understand it is not that convincing yet for some skeptics, but be warned if you care about the future humans will inherit from their parents that by the time you are confident might be way late to stop the avalanche.]

            • Jose_X “by the time you are confident might be way late to stop the avalanche”

              Quite right and impossible to dispute a “might”, or a “maybe”. Many futures are possible, some good, most bad. It is not clear to me why I should prefer to spend a trillion dollars this nation does not have on your preferred disaster rather than my preferred disaster (asteroids).

              A few times a year I read the online Science News and I am amazed at the weasel worded language:

              “New insight into how insect zaps invaders could boost battle against parasite”

              Or it might not! https://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-mosquitos-immune-system-can-tell-us-about-fighting-malaria?tgt=nr

              “In debate over origin of fairy circles, both sides might be right”

              Or they might both be wrong, or one side right and the other wrong. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/debate-over-origin-fairy-circles-both-sides-might-be-right?tgt=nr

              Still, that’s preferable to (un)Scientific (un)American that simply prescribes your behaviors:

              “Stop Sending Yourself Reminder E-Mails”
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stop-sending-yourself-reminder-e-mails/

            • You seem willfully ignorant of much science in part because you don’t seem to care about what happens to many people. Is that accurate?

              By the way, I would consider changing your money from money created by the government. I would also reconsider relying on government institutions to defend that money you call “yours” from claims for it that other might make in the future.

              If you do accept the government’s services, you should consider that they might have a price.

              You are free to try to raise your own army and build your own weapons or what not and play it by your law if you also wish.

              Well, you have likely thought of this and accept the government’s services or I don’t think you’d be here trying to get the government to charge you less money; nevertheless, I thought it could be useful to state why the government charges taxes. Many people may not want the government to help you protect “your” money, but they accept it in return for something for themselves I reckon… which may add further costs to the government of course.

              BTW, it’s not clear to me why the government has an incentive that strawberries exist and if that incentive came about before or after the 1970s, by which time the science (aka, the majority of experts in the opinion of various well regarded scientific bodies) had pretty much concluded as much.

            • Jose_X “You seem willfully ignorant of much science in part because you don’t seem to care about what happens to many people. Is that accurate?”

              It is not accurate. Ignorant cannot be used with “willful”. Will produces action, action produces knowledge. Ignorance stems from a lack of action, thus also, a lack of will.

              “By the way, I would consider changing your money from money created by the government.”

              Most money is created by the Federal Reserve banking system and comes into existence the moment anyone buys anything on credit.

              “I would also reconsider relying on government institutions to defend that money you call yours from claims for it that other might make in the future.”

              Jesus faced a similar question. Most “money” belongs to the Federal Reserve; it says so right on the paper. The labor it might represent belongs to ME.

              “If you do accept the government’s services, you should consider that they might have a price.”

              Yes. The more libertarian states have more of a fee-for-service schedule and less tax.

              “You are free to try to raise your own army and build your own weapons or what not and play it by your law if you also wish.”

              Indeed. I played that game in second grade. I was not very persuasive and me and my army of three were beaten quite effectively by my best friend and his army of 20 or so. I’m a geek with negligible powers of persuasion.

              “I thought it could be useful to state why the government charges taxes.”

              It does because it can. Prior to 1913 there was no federal income tax (for instance). But lest we start a whole ‘nother topic I’ll return to the former bat-channel and same bat-time.

            • It may not accurately represent your views of science, but I think I made a legitimate use of the words “willfully” and “ignorant”.

              I was referring to government property, US legal tendor bills/notes. I’ll leave this subject as well, but I want to note…

              .. that if we (via government) allow the government to decree property owners and to exert punishment etc based on it, then the greatest value from this government service/mandate goes to those who have the most wealth. That government backing gives wealth owners their leverage in defining supply/demand of things like wages and prices against the party sitting at the other side of the table. If we don’t have a wealth tax yet still wish to have those getting the most value for that government service pay on a commensurate basis, then a progressive income tax likely comes closer to that goal than does a general sales tax or regressive taxes. Generally, the more wealth you have the more income you have on any given year. [progressive/regressive is defined based on percentage of tax vs people’s income I think] The more income, the more wealth, the more you are utilizing the government to support yourself (unless of course you move to another place, raise army and bunker down, sign away all your court/etc rights, etc). These are some of reasons why I find it natural if one believes in Christianity to support progressive taxes, regardless of who you vote for. Otherwise, you are favoring the wealthier. Also, I would hope a generic libertarian (you or anyone really) would respect the idea of paying for what you consume, including government resources like police/military whose value to business can be indirect yet is ever-present in daily negotiations. When you are born into wealth, for example, you are already getting public resources even as you attend private school and a poor kid down the town goes to public school because all of your wealth continually relies on the government proportionally to that wealth value. [I have not addressed “fair” value of taxes, as this is solely an argument for progressive income taxes vs no such taxes and no wealth taxes.]

              Oh, one more bit. You mentioned money representing your labor. Most money’s distribution is not based on labor. It’s more based on wealth. Labor has leverage, but in this country wealth has more. Among people with equal wealth the advantage goes to the one that works harder, but between widely different wealth amounts, the advantage is easily for the one with the greater wealth. Presumably most people can work about as hard as another (if incentivized sufficiently, for example). But the “similar” mechanism to increase wealth is to appeal to someone who already has it, and two things happen. One, the owner of the wealth generally gets a much better deal (yadda yadda risk yadda .. which is true but besides the point here). Two, even if the hard-worker without assets gets a great deal (they are brilliant), even if they do, because wealth is initially so concentrated (the root of the problem), it turns out those who want to rise through hard work have to go way beyond the average.. Only people a standard deviation or more above are a small enough group for the market of getting high powered loans and access.

              [Despite some damage to the public/individuals from patents/copyright rights (especially the broader these are in scope), these things are a bit like assets given out by the government based on labor (although obviously, a good upbringing increases chances you can perform the labor, more so if we weaken public school and the like).]

          • 1998 was El Nino.And the beginning of your fake pause.

            Funny how you ignore it when inconvenient, then propose it without assessment when convenient to do that.

            This isn’t as big an El Nino as 1998. Yet still warmer.

          • Prove that El Nino is deep enough to make up the difference.

        • BTW, the 2016 spike was probably just that, a spike:

          And the spike came after a long pause, which is to say, there is nothing abnormal about 20th or 21st century warming. That’s just another invention of climate paranoids. –AGF

          • Which study did those values come from?

            And where are the other years’ values to support “there is nothing abnormal about 20th or 21st century warming”?

            With those other values of many other decades, we can apply statistical analysis to better describe this past decade in terms of averages (ordinariness).

            An analogy may help one understand “pause” better.

            You have a bathtub with water. The faucet is on adding water and a hole allows water to leave. There are ripples in the tub that create a constantly shifting water mark against the tub.

            Across seconds (analogous to years) we see the water mark move both up and down on tub’s side (analogous to average global temperature). We can call this natural variation over time. The adding and removing of water, if balanced, lead to non-shifting average height. If more water is being added, however, the average rises. Otherwise average drops as more water leaves the tub.

            Climate science says that the ups and downs will always be there but that in 100 years they will be higher highs and higher lows generally than now because there is more CO2 coming into the system than going out (and assuming this condition holds).

            Every year is a spike or dip of some sort. What the science cares about more than those yearly variations are if those spikes and dips in 100 years will be 2C higher (or whatever the case may be) than they are now.

            We expect many “pauses”, especially if you start measuring (cherry-picking) from a local high and continue on towards a local low. But the probability of being within a given pause goes down as time goes up if the average is in fact rising.

            I suspect though that 50 years from now, if any skeptics remain and the predictions have held, that they will take about a new pause and will have cherry-picked a much higher starting point than 1998. They will be calling water wet, true, but it will look a little impressive nevertheless, given how the future is always uncertain and, like the timeless stock market marketing, “could be on the cusp of a monumental change in direction”.

            • Jose_X “I suspect though that 50 years from now, if any skeptics remain…”

              Skeptics cannot fail to exist. For any assertion, someone doesn’t believe it. It is also highly POV dependent; if the majority opinion is that, at least for now, there is no global warming; you become the skeptic of that point of view.

              I am by nature skeptical of claims whose purpose appears to be to establish communism in any form. A wise and benevolent central manager would be (probably) a great thing; but no attempt at it has been wise or benevolent.

            • “I am by nature skeptical of claims whose purpose appears to be to establish communism in any form. ”

              But you by nature insist that only communism can do anything.

              Weird.

              BTW nobody else is insisting on communism, unless it’s Trump.

        • Nastyfart here doesn’t want reality, they only want excuses.

          If angryfart wants to propose their claim,they need to prove it, not just proclaim it.


  28. Mendenhall Glacier:
    http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb#.Ujsn03_iSeZ
    Exit Glacier:
    http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
    Jorge Montt Glacier:
    http://www.clim-past.net/8/403/2012/cp-8-403-2012.pdf
    Bering Glacier (p.ix):
    https://books.google.com/books?id=TlZG658NZYcC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=dating+glaciers+by+forest+remnants&source=bl&ots=lBo_ZDTd1C&sig=jfPiGmWGUMLizGBrvwJA6TPBUgM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7PZZVZikINiwogShs4CYDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=dating%20glaciers%20by%20forest%20remnants&f=false
    Eight glaciers from Prince William Sound (all with forest remnants):
    http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf
    A collection of Canadian glaciers:
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf
    Five Patagonian glaciers:
    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222560014_Little_Ice_Age_fluctuations_of_small_glaciers_in_the_Monte_Fitz_Roy_and_Lago_del_Desierto_areas_south_Patagonian_Andes_Argentina
    And Holocene remnants generally (from western Canada), including MWP (Table 2):
    http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/menounos_2009.pdf

    All these glaciers have uncovered remnants of ancient forests which grew when the world was much warmer, before the LIA just a few centuries ago. That’s why glaciologists reject CRU’s temperature reconstructions generally, as far back as Groves and Switzur 1994: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Glacial.pdf

    …and continuing till the present. –AGF “

  29. ‘course, one reason why funding seems so absent from deniers is that they lie, even to congress, about where funding comes from.

    Whereas actual science has to account for every penny.

    • Wow, always good for laughs. –AGF

      • I think what Wow is getting at is that science has more public accountability of money than does science performed for a private entity (which may totally remain hidden from the public).

        It’s also hard for me to believe there isn’t a lot of fame and money to be gained by disproving AGW. So the incentives are clearly there, yet there doesn’t seem to be a competing theory that can match AGW when looking at the vast amount of imperfect evidence.

        • When nastyfart can’t make any case,they try derision based on nothing as a “win”.

        • Jose_X wrote “I think what Wow is getting at is that science has more public accountability of money than does science performed for a private entity”

          You write it much more clearly, and I agree that it is so.

          “It’s also hard for me to believe there isn’t a lot of fame and money to be gained by disproving AGW.”

          Maybe I can help. (1) There’s not much glory to prove a thing that most people already believe. (2) It is possible, maybe easy to prove a thing, it is nearly impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing. (3) The BIG money is in government; therefore doing what governments wish is considerably more lucrative than opposing governments.

          “So the incentives are clearly there”

          Indeed; and the incentive is to prove AGW and from that prove the need for global governance.

          “yet there doesn’t seem to be a competing theory that can match AGW when looking at the vast amount of imperfect evidence.”

          It does or it does not depending on how many rocks you have turned over.

          It seems that since the 1700’s there’s been some GW, thank you very much. How much of that is due to “A” is somewhat fuzzy. Whether it is bad is fuzzy. Whether we should embrace a global government to “fix it” seems unwise.

          • Well started off sane then went off the rails big time.

            No, they don’t have to prove the nonexistence of a thing, they have to prove the effect doesn’t exist, or that the evidence is wrong, or that the mechanism doesn’t apply, or that another explanation works better.

            I don’t have to prove god didn’t start my car this morning by proving god doesn’t exist.

            And there’s vastly more money in denial than in AGW science, since you have to actually spend that money on work, not salaries, and you have to produce something real, rather than just make shit up. Moreover, there’s more money in Oil alone in one year than there is in all climate science ever spent in the history of mankind.

            And there’s no money in climate science for astrophysicists or biologists or medical doctors, or any of the 160-odd national scientific bodies around the world that have looked at it and said it’s solid.

            And there’s more money in the USA government than there is in the USA government spent on climate, and the USA government have been well against AGW all along.

            Or are you calling Reagan and all the Bushes watermelon commies in on the scam too?

            Like I said, pure batshit crazy there.

            • Wow wrote “I don’t have to prove god didn’t start my car this morning by proving god doesn’t exist.”

              Fortunately for living in a modern western civilization!

              And fortunately for me I don’t have to try to figure out what exactly you meant.

              It starts with defining God. Next, show that you have a car. Next, show that your car did not start this morning. If your car did not start this morning, then it is certain that God did not start it (neither did anyone else).

              Now, if it happens that you DID start your car this morning, one might engage in some argument about what parts of the process might God have involvement. If you were to succeed in your argument that there is no God of any kind, then you can be reasonably sure that something that does not exist is also unable to participate in starting your car.

              But proving that there is no God of any kind is a fools’ errand, quite impossible without a definition of God.

              So we are stuck with the probability that there’s something out there that some call “God” and may have something to do with some physical properties such as magnetism which very likely had something to do with starting your car this morning (assuming of course for the sake of argument that it did indeed start this morning).

              To invert the scenario, if you tried but failed to start your car one can insert “God” into that failure, and many do, shouting his name loudly as they kick tires and hit parts of their car with hammers and mallets.

            • It’s not that analogies are just beyond your grasp, is it, M2. It’s that the entirety of sanity is beyond your grasp.

              So what we have is that you know AGW is well proven but hate it because you’re a political hack.

              Fair enough.

          • “How much of that is due to “A” is somewhat fuzzy. ”

            More than 100% of it, since we should have been cooling from natural changes over that period, and the A part is sufficient to easily cover that change.

            “Whether it is bad is fuzzy. ”

            No, it is bad. It will easily raise to temperatures that would kill most of mankind over most of the globe and raise sea levels by 70m or more, flooding most of where humanity currently lives.

            This is considered bad. If you hate mankind, this may not be so much of a problem.

            “Whether we should embrace a global government to “fix it” seems unwise.”

            Goodness, whether you’re insane seems certainly true. And how come this isn’t “fuzzy”? Well, how about not forming a global government then and still fix it. That seems wise.

            • Wow “More than 100% of it”

              Jose_X asserts that you respect science. Perhaps you can explain how it is possible to have more than 100 percent attribution of a cause?

              “No, it is bad. It will easily raise to temperatures that would kill most of mankind over most of the globe and raise sea levels by 70m or more, flooding most of where humanity currently lives.”

              You have not explained why this is bad. It’s just a phenomenon; if a rock falls, is that good or bad? Sometimes in the geologic past the seas have been higher, sometimes lower, is that “bad”?

              Two million years ago there were no people at all, anywhere (at least on Earth). Is that “bad”?

              “If you hate mankind, this may not be so much of a problem.”

              Precisely so. Many People of the Left hate mankind; from that comes the simple motto, “Four legs good, two legs bad.”

              Whether a thing is good or bad is a matter of personal opinion or judgment.

            • I do respect science. More than 100%. Because we should by natural causes be cooling. Having problem reading still? It was in the comment you responded to. Try asking for help.

              No, I don’t have to explain why it’s bad because the only humans who won’t get the point would not get the explanation either, since they’re not here to ask in good faith. Stick your fingers in an live mains socket. See if it’s bad. Then scale it up

              Twenty years ago there wasn’t you. That doesn’t prove you’re not posting here. Likewise 2 million years ago proves nothing.

              So you’re of the left, given that you don’t think human death and misery is bad and need it explained to you? You’re on the left on your own, then, because there’s nothing there I recognise as from the left.

              If it;s all personal opinion or judgement, why do you judge me or the science or the left? Because that claim is empty sophistry. You’re talking out of your arse. And your digestion is poor.

            • Wow “I do respect science. More than 100%.”

              Just not respecting mathematics 🙂

              “Because we should by natural causes be cooling.”

              Precisely so, especially in winter. I’m wearing a fleece vest right now trying to reduce naturally caused cooling.

              “Having problem reading still?”

              Yes.

              “No, I don’t have to explain why it’s bad because the only humans who won’t get the point would not get the explanation either”

              That was sort of my argument earlier. Those who can be manipulated by SkS have already been manipulated, those that weren’t and aren’t will probably never be.

              “since they’re not here to ask in good faith. Stick your fingers in an live mains socket. See if it’s bad.”

              Nice. I’ve been (distantly, casually) following your jaunts across the Atlantic and it is interesting to see you pick up a few Britishisms. As it happens, the technique you describe I have used a few times in my younger years to detect if the socket was indeed live. The 120 volt American voltage is quite a bit less lethal than typical British 220 volt; which is why plugs aren’t shrouded like they are in some European nations.

              “So you’re of the left, given that you don’t think human death and misery is bad and need it explained to you?”

              You said nothing about human death and misery, a thing that has existed for as long as humans have existed. Rather, you were discussing sea level 70 meters higher than at present. Why is that bad?

              Why, if misery concerns you, do you spend so much of your energy trying to make others miserable with your insults?

              “If it;s all personal opinion or judgement, why do you judge me or the science or the left?”

              I do not know why I judge others. It seems to be human nature. It probably relates to animal instinct to identify friends, foes and breeding mates.

              Why, if judgment concerns you, do you spend so much of your energy judging others and trying to insult them? You would be much more entertaining if you could at least be creative in your epithets.

              “And your digestion is poor.”

              True, but Tums helps.

            • No, maths too. Do more than one sum too, so well ahead of you there.

              Goodness, everywhere in the world is winter? Not even flat earthers think THAT sort of insane shit!

              Yeah, how DARE SkS tell people what;s going on in a way they understand and get in your way of obfuscating because you’re virulently political! That’s just unfair!

              So you thought it was good? Go stick your fingers in some more power sockets. IYou say it’s good, you should do it a lot more!

              Yes, human death and misery. They exist. Go stick your fingers in more sockets and keep them there. See for yourself!

              Nobody else knows why either, yet you have this insane compulsion to do it then demand everyone accept that it’s all opinion. Because basically you haven’t got anything better. Sad.

              Why do you spend all your time judging others? Surely you should not do that AND insist it’s all opinion. That’s something liars do. You’re not supposed to be this obvious.

              No, you are spewing dripping shite out of your mouth, M2. A lame attempt to rile me up. Ain’t gonna happen, cupcake.

  30. By: Jose_X on January 19, 2017
    at 11:04 pm

    “If forest fires were common, maybe that kept local average temps warmer than global averages for the latitude.”
    =========================================================
    Forest fires can only release solar energy–the energy absorbed by photosynthesis–so they are energy neutral. Burn a forest down and you make room for a new one to grow, and burn down again. But the albedo of a forest is low, meaning trees absorb heat and warm the air–the opposite of what snow does. Rest assured BB would have no argument with this. The temperature chart is UAH, satellite measurement of the lower troposphere. No fiddling about it, rarely revised, calibration required, but only basic interpretation, and correlated with radiosonde (balloons). It’s the most reliable of T records.

    You can also rest assured that experts like Lindzen and Happer know the basics: CO2 is a GHG which when doubled should raise T about a degree. This is not disputed by competent skeptics. Disagreement involves feedbacks, mainly water vapor and clouds: how do the oceans respond to GHG warming? Nobody knows. Most models assumed high H2O feedback, and have been shown by observation to be wrong: 97% of them run high. Thirty years ago when T rose and the cold scare ended, reasonable people worried about what would happen if we switched from depleted oil to coal. Mercer worried about sea level rise early on. Hansen predicted catastrophic SLR, and still does in spite of only invented acceleration. Do you know what average SLR is and has been for the last 80 years as determined by tide gauges? (2mm/year) From SAT measurements? (an inch per decade) What a crock.

    To make a long story short, history has shown the heat scare to have been as exaggerated as the cold scare–so far at least. But careers and fortunes were invested in the mistake, and many were not about to let observation get in the way of theory. The UN got involved with the creation of the IPCC, tasked with the objective of detecting human influence on the climate. Its raison d’etre is threatened by skepticism. And data. A campaign was born to alter history: to eliminate the MWP and LIA in order to exaggerate the significance of current warming; to attenuate fluctuations of the warm 40’s and cold 60’s in order to minimize the role of natural variation; to deny the cold scare and the Pause in all its manifestations. In sum, to rewrite science and history.

    People naturally find it hard to believe that democratic governments could be in cahoots with environmental extremists to the point that they would aid and abet fraud, but after spending thousands of hours studying the subject I’m convinced that’s what it’s come to. And between Climategate and Wikileaks, expert skeptics and dozens of participants coming out of the woodwork, our initial suspicions have been born out by hard evidence. Every additional rewriting of the temperature history creates more skeptics of a different sort: skeptics who come to the realization that they can’t trust government agencies.

    Where should a novice begin? Read some books written by capable skeptics. There’s no shortage of good reading material. The best scientists have spoken: Singer, Seitz, Nierenberg, Jastrow, Lamb, Dyson, Groves, Lindzen, Happer, Soon, Carter… the list is long; these are people who devoted their lives to the subject–the best of the best. So the fanatics went on a campaign of vilification and marginalizing–the most pronounced anti-communists among them (the first 4 mentioned) were accused of being bought off by Big Oil, which is the utmost nonsense. Big Oil couldn’t care any more about climate than about who they buy Kuwaiti oil from. Others are ignored or marginalized, excluded from publishing, called names, etc. The latest victim is Judith Currey; she can no longer tell her honest students that there’s any hope for them in the professional world of climatology.

    I met a retired climate scientist from Rutgers last summer while biking along the local river. He told the same story: you can’t get skeptical papers published. The NSF won’t give out grants and the journals won’t publish them. He said he was voting for Trump just to get climate fraud out of the White House. And the extremists have filled the internet with junk science and lying propagandists, like Wow here. And they are bankrolled by the billions. Communist billionaires like Soros, foundations of dead billionaires like Ford and Rockefeller, somehow the Greens convince them they should save the world from carbon.

    Go to WUWT and see its list of skeptical sites: Climate Audit, JoNova, Judith Currey, etc. Avoid Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Hot Whopper, and and all such propaganda sites if you want any real facts; they exist to deceive you. BB here has one of the few unskeptical blogs that doesn’t routinely censor capable skeptical comments, and he has his limits. He’s either getting tired of blogging or tired of the likes of me.

    You’ve got a lot to learn. Better get started. –AGF

    • Well, that was a load of bullshit.

      They release the energy stored over years of growth and it takes how long to burn? The same number of years?

      You have EVERYTHING to learn, angryfart.

    • agf, I have been to many of those sites, but I disagree with your views. It’s good you found one skeptic that told you could not get his paper published and was voting for Trump. Dyson, Lamb? I assume those are the known physicists. What climate science did they do or theory are they critiquing? Dyson’s quote was that more research was needed in his opinion (which I think he recognized was of an amateur in that field at best). That’s basically saying, I have skepticism but recognize have not studied the subject matter carefully.

      You are again downplaying what most scientists have concluded in their papers. If you look at the 97% studies, you’ll see how they break down the questions and research. There is no way you could interpret that to mean most scientists disagree with AGW unless you are throwing in there the people who are scientists who don’t study climate science… and then you’d have to stretch the data quite a bit.

      The climate models are within error marks. Worse case they are in need of some tuning but have the right sense. The skeptic models if you know of any, please let me know. 40 years of rises vs what? It looks like you have not looked at the data. The skeptic scientists you mentioned have no models. They make no predictions. They have a burn in their gut ..maybe. McIntyre is a statistician who called out sloppy statistics. He is not a climate scientists and admits he only has suspicions.

      I’ll quote Wow: “they have to prove the effect doesn’t exist, or that the evidence is wrong, or that the mechanism doesn’t apply, or that another explanation works better.”

      You have a lot of opinions and conspiracy theories. What you don’t seem to have is a paper I can read to support a better or comparable theory. [btw, WUWT is full of a lot of hope and prayers and confusion. Last time I was there, they would consider every quack with almost as much respect and promise as genuine skeptic scientists.]

    • Getting back to the forest for a minute, it is probably easier to get frozen ground over a place where a forest was leveled or burned away than over ground with living trees. Anyway, that’s all just guesses independent of the point I made earlier that time is required for thawing.

      • Don;t forget, Jose, that one of the papers that angryfart here put forward to “prove” a hot MWP showed a place where the glaciers were GROWING during the MWP, while they were melting today.

        Kinda like it’s warmer now than it was during the MWP…

        Don’t forget about the denier model predictions vs realists’ model predictions here:

        http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

  31. “The skeptic models if you know of any, please let me know”

    Here’s an example of how denier model predictions have gone, Jose:

    http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

    Summary: real bad.

    • The worst part for skeptic predictions from that page is that the “warmist” are closer to the goal post (their mean prediction, never mind the whole probability envelope) despite making predictions decades earlier in time. I imagine there have been many more skeptic-blog-predictions that have gone nowhere and are not worth mentioning. I did get the feeling a few years back that many skeptics were getting vocal in part because it seemed like just maybe if they were right that things might turn south. And then 2014-16 came (also scrapping plans to call 2010 an outlier in the warmist direction).

      Do you make predictions based on guts, politics, or because you have studied physics AND the climate and data? I’d like people stating confidence in this debate to provide that answer along with their spiel.

      I can also add that Curry has not (iirc from her words at her blog) ever published a paper that concluded anything contradictory to AGW. But she lies among the skeptics who are looking to add more work in areas where just maybe the feedbacks picture or something else new might come about to sustain their skepticism. There are legitimate skeptic questions about different aspects of the overall climate theories or which cast doubt on some subset of the body supporting it. That will always be true. Climate scientists are skeptics. It’s just that few have remained skeptic about the basics of AGW. Each scientist judges for himself how long to follow their path. Muller got the skeptic itch after climategate and apparently scratched it pretty well (BEST series).

      • The problem is getting them to MAKE a prediction. Most just leave it at “It will stop going up in 20 years”, which you can’t put on a graph against reality to check.

        Those were all the ones that could be worked out to be a figure to test against.

        One of them (the one that goes steeply down) was where a denier scientist claimed it would get back to the 1950-80 average by 2000 (or something like that), so the number had to be one that would have made the decade average approach that figure.

        It failed.

        paullitely over on the other thread made a prediction:

        https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/republican-epa-chiefs-urge-climate-action/#comments

        He’s now saying “lets give it another year”…

        His two year prediction failed. Not surprising since he made a postdiction of freezing winters which hadn’t happened, so if he gets the PAST wrong, how can he be expected to get the future right?

      • Jose_X “Do you make predictions based on guts, politics, or because you have studied physics AND the climate and data?”

        I seldom make predictions. One that comes to mind from my Navy days pertained to my personal knowledge of typical weather at a location where an Air Force C-141 was intending to fly. Based on past experience it seemed unlikely the C-141 would succeed at going to its destination and that is indeed how it played. It was, and remains, impossible to predict the weather 6 to 8 hours in advance at that location.

        • No, denier blowhards like this don’t do predictions.They barely do language.

          They DO love living an exciting life,though, even if they have to live it in story mode, not IRL.

          Pretty much for the same reason. There’s no need for them to risk anything.

    • BTW, extrapolating a little bit to 2016 (guesstimating), it seems Hansen’s prediction is very close to the mark.

      A guy is respected and recognized in the 80s by climate science peers to know what he is talking about. He makes predictions. Everyone, go back in time (thought time travel) and make your predictions. Fast forward to the present. Those predictions are very close to the mark. How close are yours?

      • Right when the congressional hearing had Lindzen lying to congress about Hansen’s graph, the claim was that Hansen had it wrong.

        But if you took the actual emissions and put those into hos ***1980*** model, he would have been nearly right. He got 3.4C per doubling, the result that would have been spot on would have had 3.2C per doubling.

        But RP lied and cut out the two scenarios and cut the start point and shifted the data so that the period was still dominated by random weather and no trend was possible to discern, then claimed that it was hideously wrong to congress.

        And deniers have been bleating on that score ever since.

  32. When I was reading skeptic/denier papers, one common theme (flaw) was that the authors didn’t consider the radiative capabilities of CO2 (or of gases in general). Although I didn’t finish the paper (I skimmed the latter portions and could not find any evidence), one good example of that was the G&T paper. They made arguments about the math and about conduction, etc, but nothing there about radiation. Sad. To “disprove” the greenhouse effect without even considering the radiative properties of CO2. [the paper had other flaws as well] ..ok, it seems they waived their need to consider radiative radiation transfers by (incorrectly) invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics to say CO2 could not radiate to the earth (and also in the process ignoring earth radiation to atmosphere). It’s a messed up paper in many ways, but any time you deny science that is well established, a warning signal should go off in your head.

    • The problem with the Gin & Tonic paper is that they made several school-grade physics errors. Errors that if you went to your teacher with at school as a teenager, you would be failed.

      Gin & Tonic was “known” to be right because it came to the “right” answer for deniers. And anyone saying otherwise either didn’t read it or were lying if they came up with the errors right up front, or didn’t understand it properly. The latter the same BS that the christian apologists insist you’re wrong for.

    • I never heard of the Gin & Tonic site till now. I wonder how long it’s been around, who runs it, who funds it. Its obviously a farce. The list of contributors looks like something The Onion would put out. It’s not to be taken seriously. So Jose, you’ve got to distinguish between science and spoofs of science, experts and quacks. And Hansen is a quack. There is no theory or evidence that CO2 should or has increased the frequency or severity of storms. Even the IPCC grants that. Hansen is way out of mainstream with his SLR predictions and boiling oceans, and just about everything else: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130729-runaway-greenhouse-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/
      And this quack ran NASA GISS–that’s how bad it is. –AGF

      • Well spotted, Einstein.

        However, that was named after the G&T Gerlich and Tschauner paper which was a failure if presented by a 14 year old to their teacher.

      • From NatGeo:

        In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: “[I]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”

        So, angryfart, when did we burn all the oil/gas/coal reserves and tar sands/shale?

        Must be pissing people off in the fossil fuel industry no we’ve run out of all carbon based fuels and all that’s left is what’s in people’s gas tank…

  33. So when Jose googles “AGW denial” Google gives him this: “Friends of Gin & Tonic #1 AGW Denial Site in Canada & Australia,” and when he calls it G&T, Wow knows exactly what he’s referring to. That’s very interesting. Not just that the fraudsters are now planting fake skeptical websites to snooker innocent novices like Jose but that Wow here knows all about it. Wow knows as little about climate science as Oreskes but he knows G&T like the back of his hand, like he had some kind of inside knowledge. And of course he knows the strategy by heart: deny, deny, deny. Are you listening BB? Is that why you’d rather bring back stefanthedenier than get rid of Wow?

    Of course Wows claims and arguments and responses are never worth responding to: the consensus is that you COULD burn all the coal and shale oil and still not have to worry about any Venus syndrome–that’s what NG’s more credible scientists are saying. But no radical claim, no matter how extreme, isn’t worthy of Wow’s defense. Or BB’s silence. –AGF

    • When you google, you don’t even bother to read what you’ve found, cupcake.

    • “So when Jose googles “AGW denial” Google gives him this: “Friends of Gin & Tonic #1 AGW Denial Site in Canada & Australia,” ”

      So was this #1 hit for “AGW denial”, or just on the first page? Which page did it turn up on your search? 10th?

    • “Of course Wows claims and arguments and responses are never worth responding to: ***the consensus is***”

      Really? You’re hip on the consensus now? When did that happen, angryfart?

      Oh, and did you read that link you gave? Appears that it could be possible. That’s what the link you gave said, supported by someone other than Hansen.

      Whose model in the 1980s has been pretty damn close to reality, 30+ years later.

      When denier model predictions have failed within 2 years..

      No wonder he’s so salty.

    • agf, Wow was being sarcastic with “Gin & Tonic”. Seems he changes the names of things a fair amount to lighten the effect.

      I read a large part of the meat of that paper (G&T) and have to wonder how many skeptics/deniers who touted it back then actually had read it.

      The hansen article you mentioned is not a published paper. It suggests the guy has gut feeling about what may happen but has not gone through the trouble to quantify it formally and put it up to serious scrutiny. What he says is based on science but only by cranking the numbers can you be fairly sure or not. I think the effect he describes is what many believe happened in Venus.

      agf, do you have a prediction for the next 20 to 30 years on the ave global temp? Have you written up an analysis that you think will do comparable to Hansen’s? Calling the guy a quack doesn’t make sense given he put up and was right largely while skeptic/deniers have not.

      • Plus G&T is a common contraction when asking for a gin and tonic.

        And they must have been pissed out of their minds when they wrote this paper.

  34. Aren’t I a terrible person, knowing things before angryfart here can work out what’s going on and letting him get all confused and making himself look a moron.

    We have to be all like him: clueless. That’s the ONLY way to be “right”.

    What a terribly sensitive snowflake these deniers are.

  35. Google G&T climate paper and the first result….

    Search Results
    Published comment, and reply, on Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009 …
    climatephysicsforums.com › … › Climate science discussion
    8 May 2010 – The greenhouse effect rather implies a higher surface temperature in …. Of course, how the G&T paper got in there in the first place is bizarre, …

  36. Now try “Gin & Tonic” or “Gin & Tonic paper” and see where down the list “friends of Gin & Tonic” comes on that list….

  37. ‘What was it angryfart said earlier about “climate paranoids”?

    Snrk…

  38. agf, you can quiet Wow down if you come armed with science that refutes. Skeptics/deniers are waging a war or words still even as the attempts at science appear to fall short.

    Again, do you have a theory I can look at that produces reasonable predictions? Can we look at the theory and check up the predictions in years to come?

    • I can’t speak for Wow or anyone else, but I usually wait in anticipation for the moment I will feel at peace to not want to reply further.

      • That’ll never happen. As soon as deniers are hit by AGW, they’ll not stop complaining, but this time it will be about how it’s OUR fault for being so crap at telling them this was going on when it was true all along. It’ll be our fault because we failed to convince them we were right. And therefore their tragedy is OUR FAULT!

        So, you’ll never be free of having to reply further, even when they accept AGW, because by now the only ones refusing it are maniacs and will only change their mind on AGW when it bites them. Causing more complaints and accusations from them.

      • See what I mean, Jose? Pointless expecting something rational from them. The only ones still in denial are there for reasons outside the realm of intelligence or rationality. There’ll be no more Muller conversions, since the only ones left are batshit.

    • Jose_X “agf, you can quiet Wow down if you come armed with science that refutes.”

      That is unlikely. Wow has a desire to bully others, isn’t very good at it and takes refuge on the internet. I have a doubt he is a natural person; that is to say, I believe he is a persona, an avatar, existing to relieve aggression since his “real person” isn’t permitted to say what he thinks in his day job. He has to “suck it up” day after day, year after year and the only way to blow off steam is to be ridiculous on the internet.

      As such this persona does not exist to be agreeable about anything.

      • You have no clue what I desire, idiot.

        YOU meanwhile have a compulsion to type out any old shite then deny you ever meant anything by it before.

        You’re basically an idiot. With an opinion. This is not a combination to be proud of.

        • Wow “You have no clue what I desire, idiot.”

          An avatar exists to shield its owner. The closer I get to the truth the more vigorously it (you) will deny that it is so and in this manner the bounds of its conception can be discovered.

          So you are correct in a sense, the “I” you refer to isn’t writing to me. The Real You is carefully hidden, but it is in the act of hiding that you are revealed. You shield your weak spots.

          What the Real You desires above all else is security: Food, shelter and a warm blanket. Most people desire these things but not so many people fear others as much as you fear them.

          Your Avatar desires to identify foes and neutralize them. On the internet that’s not actually possible but a primitive, layer-1 (*) Avatar does not know the impossibility of it.

          * Maslow’s Hierarchy.

          Relentless bullying is described in George Orwell’s 1984. Your avatar’s desire is to make others suffer in the only way possible on the internet and very likely also the way you have been made to suffer, and for the same reason, establishment of power:

          “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”

          Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.

          “Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?”

          • Well that was boring and pointless. Tell me, did you actually get to any point there? I skipped it, the end just seems to be more cutnpaste prose wasting time and energy.

  39. I think Lindzen and Choi 2011 was mentioned. skepticalscience put out a page on that. If we want to analyze arguments regardless of who provides them, then I’d like the rebuttals presented by skepticalscience to be rebutted if you support Lindzen and Choi and/or their conclusions.

    The sk link is https://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm . They don’t present a formal rebuttal to the 2011 paper (the 2009 is primary focus), but they point out remaining issues the 2011 paper did not address from the 2009 criticisms. Are the lapses significant? Well, the numbers 2011 come up with are different (low climate sensitivity) than papers that take the whole planet into account, for example. If I have papers that take whole planet into account and get a high-ish climate sensitivity value and a paper that focuses on a portion of the planet (ignoring the poles essentially) and gets a lower value, just on this information, which group of papers would appear to be closer to the mark? If L&C are correct, why don’t they grow their analysis to include the whole planet. If they still get low climate sensitivity, they would have a stronger case that they actually did take all/more energy sources/sinks into account. That should be a minimum requirement if they want people to take their results as seriously as what other more comprehensive studies conclude.

    When you look at the whole planet, sun brings energy in, energy shuffles around, energy leaves into space. There is a sort of equilibrium established resulting in non-zero K temperature on planet. Easy concept. L&C look at temps in subset of planet but you have to now carefully consider what is going to and coming from not just sun/space, but the regions you aren’t covering directly. Harder problem to get right. I liken it to using newton’s laws over a very complex motion to arrive at final velocity vs using a simpler initial/final state energy equation. Since it’s accepted that the poles are where the temps are changing the most L&C 2011 suggests they have found a lower bound of sorts to the climate sensitivity but not likely a mean value. Maybe L&C 2020? or something else might be sufficiently comprehensive using their approach and produce a value nearer what others have derived.

    ATM, they have a flawed analysis and cannot infer a lower climate sensitivity for the whole planet. Water expansion is a serious concern in a warming planet and where the most warming is possible is at poles, the region they ignored (never mind there are further concerns of albedo contributions and ice/water runoff into the oceans). Like G&T, if you ignore the right things, you can get your result. Lindzen is not “looking for” as crazy results as G&T and so doesn’t require the same craziness. Failed attempts strengthen the theory.

    • The poles have snow rather than water or land on them, and snow is more reflective than either of the alternatives, so when the poles warm and the ice and snow melts, there’s a positive feedback, which causes more warming.

      Hence deniers pointing to Vostock for how much warmer it was in the past (because that being polar has a higher swing temperature than the global average), but excluding it (because they drop the poles) when they “calculate” climate sensitivity, because there’s one less positive feedback.

      • Wow “The poles have snow rather than water or land on them, and snow is more reflective than either of the alternatives, so when the poles warm and the ice and snow melts, there’s a positive feedback, which causes more warming.”

        I am reminded of the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz. He was humble and wanted a brain. You are not humble and imagine that you have one (fully functional, that is). So while I am reminded the scarecrow, you are not he.

        Inasmuch as the sun doesn’t actually shine much on that vast sea of melted ice, all that albedo is going to waste anyway. The open water radiates considerably more energy than does ice, so the net effect is toward global cooling to have the arctic ocean ice-free.

        You knew that already but there might be a reader that hasn’t thought of it.

        • Who knows why or cares what reminds you.

          Nobody, that’s who.

        • >> all that albedo is going to waste anyway. The open water radiates considerably more energy than does ice, so the net effect is toward global cooling

          If there is one thing I like about dark radiative surfaces is how cool they are to the touch and how they cool their environment!!

          OK, despite not having a brain, I think I need to pretend I do and add some insight here before we keep voting to cook and drown the planet. First of all, the prior paragraph was said sarcastically.

          Instead of reflecting high energy photons from the sun as ice would, ocean molecules will absorb many more of them. Then generally before the molecules have a chance to re-emit the radiation it is converted to kinetic energy (raising the temperature in the nearby surrounding) as the molecules bump around with their neighbors. Waste heat rather than clean cool reflection of high energy sun rays.

          The other problem is that when the water does radiate (some other molecule down the line), it radiates at a frequency (infrared) that now can be absorbed by many molecules in the atmosphere (like H2O and CO2) rather than just O3 upper layer. So instead of likely going straight back into space, it has warmed the nearby water and a lower frequency photon that is emitted is much more likely to later on end up as heat in the air and “keep bouncing around” before ultimately leaving into space. The trip to space takes longer. Energy arriving from the sun basically hangs around throughout water and atmosphere — the higher albedo on surface and the more greenhouse gases.

          This extra warmth is crucial to life as we know it but all in moderation. Go much higher and it will impact human social establishments (like cities and other investments in the land) in detrimental ways (high costs in short time-frame).

          So, concerning the extra heat, the battle was lost by the mere fact of absorbing what could otherwise have just reflected and never warmed the planet in the first place, much less now hanging around the surface for a while before going into space (special thanks going out to all the greenhouse gases).

      • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Midnight_Sun

        nuff said.

      • Wow writes “Hence deniers pointing to Vostock”

        Thank you for acknowledging their geographic knowledge and interest in this topic.

        • You’re welcome. Next time point out the reason they do this to deceive, I’m certain your commentary helped them understand what was said. You deniers are very hard of reading.

    • Jose writes “skepticalscience put out a page on that.”

      SkS is an advocacy website unlikely to persuade or convince anyone not already a subscriber of The Consensus.

      • No, it’s not an advocacy website, though it IS unlikely to change a denier because they hate the science, and that, really, is what SkS is.

        Anyone not already convinced it’s all a scam (e.g. you) would find it just fine and understandable.

        Now I think of it, that must be your real bugbear with the site: it’s understandable.

        • Wow writes “No, it’s not an advocacy website”

          You’ve spent too much time in Britain.

          “The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming” says Skeptical Science of itself.

          advocacy ‎(plural advocacies)

          * the profession of an advocate
          * the act of arguing in favour of, or supporting something
          * the practice of supporting someone to make their voice heard

          SkepticalScience is an advocacy website, plain and simple. As such it serves to provide about half of a well balanced opinion.

          • If I decide to advocate for newton’s laws and other accepted scientific theories to explain the earth is round, do you think I will provide “about half of a well balanced opinion”? I think it would be much more than half, but feel free to read what I would say and then rush over to flat earth society to get the other “half”.

            That’s good if you are now willing to hear the scientific “opinion” of things on a particular topic.

            I recommend skepticalscience strongly if you want the scientific “half” of the balanced opinion on what the earth’s climate is likely to do.

            • Jose_X “If I decide to advocate for newton’s laws and other accepted scientific theories to explain the earth is round, do you think I will provide about half of a well balanced opinion?”

              Yes. Your advocacy reduces a scientific observation to the same level as that of an evangelist; which is to say, the claim may be true but carefully chosen to leave out other information that the reader/hearer may find equally important.

              “I think it would be much more than half, but feel free to read what I would say and then rush over to flat earth society to get the other half.”

              Precisely so. What do they believe and why do they believe it? Does it really matter to you, or to me, whether the Earth is round or flat? Situations exist where it can matter and situations exist where it does not. Elephants proceed through their lives without, so far as I know, contemplating the question or depending on its answer.

              “I recommend skepticalscience strongly if you want the scientific half of the balanced opinion on what the earth’s climate is likely to do.”

              Yes, it is fairly well organized and decidedly opinionated along moral lines. Good and smart people think this way, idiots and bad people think that way.

              Being libertarian I have little care for what others think of what they think is me on the internet. In my world, good and smart people believe in God and have some idea what exactly the word means; idiots and bad people declare the non-existence of a thing they cannot define anyway. That the Earth is round is established by me, for me, by my own methods and for my own purposes. It’s nice to know that others have tackled the question.

            • >> reduces a scientific observation …

              I disagree and I think you do as well since you are advocating for something or other given the volume of comments you have made on the topic of climate science yet without including much science in your comments.

              The world if full of people observing things. People make judgements on their observations. One thing they observe is if others try to defend a conclusion and what they say about it. People don’t stop voting on important matters simply because they are ignorant of the subtleties of an issue. And nature’s behavior doesn’t much change on account of what others say about it and science.

              You seem to be taking a “binary” view of “advocacy” and of “science” as if these two items had a non-ambiguous definition and sharp black/white contours.

            • Michael 2,

              a) Are you advocating against the government accepting the conclusions of the vast majority of climate science experts and other experts (that the earth is warming and there will be consequences/costs to lives)? Or b) are you advocating against the government taking action to curtail those consequences?

              B) If you accept the science, you simply don’t care about the people that might pay a price in the future given the other costs involved (eg, potential tax raises on you). You are advocating to ignore these consequences. I am glad to have taken part here on the opposite side of that argument.

              A) If you don’t accept the science as fairly accurate as described by a large majority of climate science experts and are not using science to refute/rebuttal it in any way, then you seem to be advocating against the science. In this case, I am also happy to have taken part on the opposite side of that advocacy you were conducting against science.

              Nothing in the definition of advocacy nor any evidence or argument you have provided suggests advocating on behalf of science necessarily means only about half of a balanced argument is being provided. Not sure where you got the idea that it does.

              >> In my world, good and smart people believe in God

              Good, but just not the “turn the other cheek” or “give to the poor” good I take it.

              In some world, I am you and have come to exactly the same conclusions you have. I respect myself now here, so I respect those conclusions and you, a priori. Nevertheless, since your advocating against government taking action wrt AGW and I think that will hurt many people just like you and just like me, I find it valuable to argue the opposite point and explain my reasoning here and there. It may not matter who lives and dies when. We will all go and maybe it’s a merry-go-round. Maybe it’s great fun to die and we are wasting our time here “alive”. I really don’t know. It might be the better thing not to worry about this issue or to advocate for allowing the changes to happen. We all spend our time doing something. In this game, I have chosen the other side. En garde.

              Actually, I may disconnect from this mailing list and take a break.

              Luck (or maybe I should wish you bad tidings and lots of grief.. in reality that might be the best.. in the longer run. You pick, good or bad tidings upon your head and that’s the kind of luck I wish you,, next time I might be in the mood to wish you the opposite,, but not today).

            • Jose_X asks “a) Are you advocating against the government accepting the conclusions of the vast majority of climate science experts and other experts Or b) are you advocating against the government taking action to curtail those consequences?”

              I advocate neither approach. In a democracy governments will obey the will of the majority of citizens, not the majority of special interest groups, even if (as will often be the case) the special interests are better informed.

              “B) If you accept the science, you simply don’t care about the people that might pay a price in the future given the other costs involved”

              It is not for you to say what is “the science”. You can say what parts of it you think you know and believe, and what you believe, if anything, can and ought to be done about it. I will do likewise. Because of my military career I am far more involved in geopolitics than geowarming. People will pay many prices in the near future because of war and conflict; next to that the possible consequences of global warming are rather nebulous and hypothetical.

              “A) If you don’t accept the science as fairly accurate as described by a large majority of climate science experts and are not using science to refute/rebuttal it in any way, then you seem to be advocating against the science.”

              Well, the 75 out of 77 experts that believe a thing may well be correct. However I wonder if there’s a circularity; to be considered a climate expert you must already believe the Consensus.

              It’s a bit like Catholic Cardinals. Have you ever taken a poll of Catholic Cardinals to see how many of them are Catholic? Probably all of them. So it should not come as a huge surprise that nearly all Climate Scientists believe in the dogmas that got them there in the first place, sustains their funding, peers and publication cycle.

              “In this case, I am also happy to have taken part on the opposite side of that advocacy you were conducting against science.”

              I also am happy to converse with someone able to state his beliefs and why he believes them. It is quite refreshing as compared to the usual fare here.

              “Nothing in the definition of advocacy nor any evidence or argument you have provided suggests advocating on behalf of science necessarily means only about half of a balanced argument is being provided.”

              Yes, it is impossible to know if the dividing line is “half” or if alternative views exist or can exist. The discovery of quantum effects was a huge alternative to the idea that things are infinitely divisible. At some point it becomes discrete quanta and no longer divisible. Consequently, I consider it important to always leave the door open a crack on things that I think I know for sure.

              “>>In my world, good and smart people believe in God”

              “Good, but just not the turn the other cheek or give to the poor good I take it.”

              Neither of these is a government mandate. Whether you choose to turn your cheek (accept a small offense without seeking immediate retribution) or giving to the poor (perhaps becoming poor yourself in the process) is a choice each person makes for himself.

              As it happens, Mars, the God of War, isn’t interested in you turning your other cheek except maybe to strike that one, too. Perhaps you were thinking of Pele. Probably not. Thor? Odin? Probably not. Jesus of Nazareth; disruptor of commerce in the temple square? Maybe not that, either.

              My point is that “good” is an extremely slippery concept defined vastly different by many people; and that’s still just in the United States!

              “since your advocating against government taking action wrt AGW and I think that will hurt many people just like you and just like me, I find it valuable to argue the opposite point and explain my reasoning here and there.”

              THANK YOU. That is the most intelligent expression I have seen in quite a long time.

              Doubtless you have seen the argument by atheists for God: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Not a computer model; PROOF.

            • [I was not trying to be sarcastic or mock your beliefs. People just do come to different conclusions, so we might be “condemned” to lives of arguments/disagreements on all sorts of things. And sometimes there isn’t a rational explanation for one view over another. A person, seems to me, will only know ever so little about any question/subject matter. And like a program with lots of branches and pieces of “fact” (data), we won’t be entirely consitent.]

            • >> I advocate neither approach.

              Sounds like you are advocating something, and it’s against the accepted science by vast majority of the world’s climate scientists.

              >> It is not for you to say what is “the science”.

              I agree everyone will believe a fraction of what others call science. This is why I continue to refer frequently to what the majority of science experts in that field consider to be the best science currently in place. That’s the context most of the time when I refer to science without that clarification.

              >> next to that the possible consequences of global warming are rather nebulous and hypothetical.

              The military has claimed significant costs are predicted to come from global warming effects and has contributed a lot of resources to the study and understanding. For example, from Sept 14 of last year, you may want to google “military experts says global warming poses significant risks to military”. You may also want to google “military views investments in climate research”. [It started before that date of course, but I noticed articles as recent as that.]

              Much of global warming worsens situations that are already problematic (like diminishing fresh water sources and quantities, prolonged droughts, disease proliferation, weather/climate that doesn’t match region’s existing economic investments).

              >> 75 out of 77… However I wonder if there’s a circularity;

              Feel free to use the internet to find evidence suggesting such and that you think would significantly alter the stats. People from different disciplines within science have many times expressed skepticism and have done research. Those who tend to understand the science more I think are more likely to be convinced (based on similar polls). Go figure.

              I sympathize with that viewpoint. This is why I welcome deeper digging into the particulars of the science if you are so interested. I am not an expert but will invest time if you are willing to go for ride as well.

              >> to be considered a climate expert you must already believe the Consensus.

              That doesn’t follow. Experts exist that don’t. Expertise is usually defined by how much you have published and where. Climategate did not prove that all the world’s top journals (or any) are a hoax that filter you based on your views and ignore the details of your arguments. You might have to look for money in the private sector if you want to do extensive research away from the consensus, although consider that regular pressures the government exerts **to maximize use of tax dollars** by not firing a ton of money to scratch everyone’s itches that go against the widely held views of existing experts.

              Remember, this science did not start after al gore. These views were mostly established before Reagan was elected president. This is one reason why until Obama, not just democrats but republicans, have supported the science and respected the advice from the US NAS and other scientific bodies. Even post climategate and such, we see people like Muller (from other areas of physics and using some funds from groups that have interests in fossil fuels) redo analysis with perceived higher levels of rigor and come to the same conclusions. Curry was presumably on board apparently until it seemed the data was not going her way.

              >> It’s a bit like Catholic Cardinals. Have you ever taken a poll of Catholic Cardinals to see how many of them are Catholic?

              Oh, just like it!! Science is just like religion!!!!! All faith based (with evidence of the personal type) and little based on measurable data!!!!!!!!!! [I know you said “a bit” ..and I want to make sure emphasis is added on that.]

            • Jose_X wrote “The military has claimed significant costs are predicted to come from global warming effects and has contributed a lot of resources to the study and understanding.”

              I actually chuckled out loud on reading that. Of course they did. Any crisis will suffice to pry money out of Congress.

              Somewhere there’s an Admiral that wants another star; he appoints a Captain to do something, who appoints a Commander, who appoints a Lieutenant, who appoints an Ensign. There’s no telling who started it but it’ll be way down in the ditches somewhere.

              That’s not to say there’s no danger, but that’s just not how the military industrial complex usually works.

            • >> impossible to know.. quantum mechanics.. leave the door open a crack

              But you will note that it was experts that made the determination that quantum mechanics is good/superior science and people have accepted that at least as goes policy because those who do things with science and engineering (the wizards.. the experts) use it and get results.

              You also hopefully will understand that there wasn’t any significant conspiracy against these other ideas by threatened scientists. There may have been ruffled feathers and many arguments and some amount of wrongdoing, but how much really?

              Nor did the new stuff upend the majority of what existed, not at all. It allowed us to go **further** into fairly new territory (beyond frontier). The new stuff gave **better** results.

              Where are the better results from the skeptics/deniers? Can they predict tomorrow’s weather with higher accuracy? Can they predict global average temperatures better? Is there anything they can do better as goes climate science? Where are their predictions/projections?

              >> My point is that “good” is an extremely slippery concept

              Despite that, you made it a point to bring it up, and I find it odd if you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God that you would seem not to care about claims made by experts in science (who obviously are not experts in fortelling *all* manners of events not come to pass) that say things will likely be worse for many more people if we keep along our path.

              It’s a personal choice to turn the other cheek and give to the poor, but I think Jesus did not treat that as a small matter. He also talked about the rich man a camel and a needle.. and entrance into heaven. Not small matters. He also spent a lot of words on these topics among all covered in the Gospel and elsewhere in New Testament.

              >> Doubtless you have seen the argument by atheists for God:

              I hadn’t, and I am referring to scientists and the use (or not) of science in our society for things like attempting to predict and take actions on those predictions of future climate/weather threats to man. Not sure what the context is for that other statement. I don’t at the moment see a parallel. The climate scientists as a whole are not claiming to have proven or disproven God through science, yet they still think we should **continue** to utilize science to improve policy to do things like lower risks against humans and against the economy as we continue moving into the future.

            • Jose_X wrote “But you will note that it was experts that made the determination that quantum mechanics is good/superior science”

              Quite right. It’s their playing field. How do YOU know it is superior science, or science at all? Can you see quanta? Measure quanta? You, I don’t mean the figurative you, I mean Jose_X you.

              If not, then you are accepting someone else’s claim.

              As do I, most of the time 🙂

              “Where are the better results from the skeptics/deniers?”

              You mistake the burden of proof. The very word “skeptic” does not imply an advocate of an idea or claim; rather, a doubt with regard to someone else who IS an advocate of an idea or claim.

              If I say God exists, I have made a claim. A skeptic does not need to produce an alternative claim; such a person is not properly a skeptic.

              “Can they predict tomorrow’s weather with higher accuracy?”

              Some can I suppose. I’m pretty good at it; just look out the window, temperature trend, shape of clouds, barometric trend. Most farmers are probably pretty good predictors of weather.

              “I find it odd if you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God that you would seem not to care about claims made by experts in science”

              There’s no explaining your odd detector but okay!

              As it happens I am interested in both and have given considerable attention to religion AND to science, such that I have a well developed understanding of what is science and what is not science; and most of AGW, at least pouring out of the mouths of its advocates, is not science, but at best conclusions, guesses, predictions, projections; not one whit, bit or speck of which is “science”.

              Science is the ratio of benthic oxygen isotopes as a function of depth at a core drilling at Vostok. Science is numbers, facts, measurements, observations. You cannot observe the future, you cannot measure the future, the future is NOT SCIENCE.

              To be sure, one can use facts derived from scientific methods as a basis for your prognostication and it is probably better than tossing chicken bones or reading tea leaves.

              “It’s a personal choice to turn the other cheek and give to the poor, but I think Jesus did not treat that as a small matter.”

              Indeed, and these works have been a bone of contention for many Christians. Mormons, and maybe Catholics, place more emphasis on actuallly doing good deeds than many evangelical branches of Christianity.

              “He also talked about the rich man a camel and a needle.”

              Or so it seems. It is absurd to even suggest putting a camel through the eye of a needle, as such a poor example; why not an elephant? As it turns out, “kaml” in Greek apparently is a snarl or tangle in a fishing line, you can actually get it through but it has to be untangled, it is not easy and takes some work; a much better example of what Jesus meant. A rich man CAN go to heaven but he’s going to have to untangle his entanglements.

              There is no requirement to be poor. When Mary gave nice things to Jesus and annointed his feet, the disciples rebuked her, saying that they should sell the nice things and give the money to the poor. Jesus then rebuked his disciples. “The poor shall always be with you”. Elsewhere he advised his disciples to buy a sword, even if they had to sell a garment to do so. Christians are encouraged to have sufficient for their needs, and if they have a surplus, to do good with it. Merely giving money to the poor seldom accomplishes much. Wiser solutions exist to the problems of poverty and “work” is to be enshrined as a noble principle.

              “I don’t at the moment see a parallel.”

              Oh, well, it has to do with extraordinary claims of the immediately unproveable. The parallels between religion and AGW advocacy are acutely obvious to pretty much everyone that aims their mental radar in that direction.

              If I say, “if we choose a criteria, somewhere in the universe is a life form superior in that criteria”. Would you argue the claim? Probably not. You might even speculate a bit on what it might be like; science fiction is the result.

              But if I rewrite it to be semantically equivalent, “somewhere in the universe, for any particular criteria, is a supreme being” now your spidey-sense starts to tingle, it is starting to sound like religion.

              But I have asked nothing of you; you can speculate your own ideas on what it might be.

              Eventually I reach a relatively precise claim with demands — you, and everything you know, came into existence ex nihilo because God wished it to be so, and poof it was so, and he can wish you out of existence just as easily UNLESS you give me everything you’ve got, or at least, everything you’ve got that I want, money will suffice.

              Should it happen I made such a demand, you would probably demand some proof that I was telling the truth; not the least reason of which is that many people are making similar, but rival, demands.

              How many “tipping points” have already passed? Quite a few. The AGW religion is cluttered with rival dogmas and acolytes! When y’all agree on everything with some particularity the advocacy would then be more compelling. If every Christian on Earth told the same story, especially if independently obtained through revelation and experience, that would be compelling. But they don’t have the same story so its not compelling.

              So it is that AGW advocates are demanding a great many things, including the end of democracy, a huge reduction in heat, light and transportation, a non-demcratic World Government, wealth redistribution, the usual communist/socialist things that haven’t got a thing to do with AGW.

              So, there you have it. Extraordinary demand requires extraordinary proof.

            • >> It’s their playing field

              I’m glad we agree on that.

              >> You mistake the burden of proof.

              I don’t think so.

              Both sides are peddling conclusions.

              Each side is a skeptic of the other side.

              The deniers are skeptics.

              The experts are skeptics.

              The experts are doing a better job showing that the other side has significant flaws.

              So we have an expert argument that stays mostly in tact saying there are significant threats in our future and we have the skeptic argument largely neutered saying that no we don’t.

              Of course, there are many levels of gray here, but in a nutshell I think the experts have provided a much better presentation than the moncktons and even currys over what we are mostly likely to see in our future. They aren’t just less wrong, they are more right than a view that says we have nothing or very little to worry about.

              [In simplified form we have the following results: experts with model predictions and error bars that largely encompass the ongoing temperature trend, and deniers that don’t even get the correct sense right. You also have lukewarmers that keep saying to go sideways but they have been saying this for decades. Their sideways views pinned down at 1979 as some like to pin the “warmist” views are very much off.]

              >> I’m pretty good at it; just look out the window

              Listen to what you have said.

              I’m supposed to believe that NOAA is bad at predicting tomorrow’s weather but you are “pretty good at it”.

              >> you cannot measure the future, the future is NOT SCIENCE. ..To be sure, one can use facts derived from scientific methods as a basis for your prognostication

              OK. Glad we agree.

              When I took physics 101, I actually believed and still do that I can get a pretty good idea of the future position of a ball thrown in space and even in a baseball park. And where that prediction is likely to be incorrect, I usually have a good idea why (significant wind, an obstacle blocking the path, etc).

              >> Oh, well, it has to do with extraordinary claims of the immediately unproveable.

              I think your “extraordinary” judgement is based on ignorance. They have made a pretty good case of AGW and that climate sensitivity is likely not that low and could possibly be even higher. That is my view, but I have it in part because it is shared by a very large fraction of the people who have studied this problem the most.

              >> demand some proof that I was telling the truth

              If you don’t want to believe that U.S. coastlines will be 20 meters under water within 100 years, that’s a sentiment shared by virtually every serious climate scientist I think I can safely say.

              Not sure what claims you think are extraordinary.

              >> How many “tipping points” have already passed? Quite a few.

              Not sure what you are counting, nor what basis you are using to judge that those things failed.

              Like the hiatus example I mentioned earlier, it seems many people think that the scientists have said the temperature cannot go up and down across years.

              I think I gave an analogy of a bathtub with water (and others have as well). I can reuse that. Even if we measure the waterline to be lower at a future point in time, it doesn’t mean the tub has slowed down being filled or is being net drained. It’s just that there are internal variations that can lead to a lower water line even when there is more water in the tub. We can improve the analogy of course, but that’s the idea, that measuring one thing going down that usually moves in tandem with another thing doesn’t mean that other thing is going down since some of the time they go in opposite directions (in fact a great many times they do).

              >> religion

              I’m taking a pass on this and taxes since I got my say in earlier and actually agree with a fair amount of what you said. [will keep in mind the entanglement interpretation.. it’s actually closer to what I think most christians would believe since the camel scenario is a tiny speck short of impossible. of course, what person wouldn’t generally justify their wealth as within bounds (“I need that much”) and that what that wealth accomplishes is to be perhaps likely sufficiently unentangling. just saying.]

              >> So it is that AGW advocates are demanding a great many things

              yea, not sure about what you have been hearing there.

              >> including the end of democracy

              [giggle]

              >> Extraordinary demand requires extraordinary proof.

              And claims scientists are making “extraordinary demand” requires at least a little bit of evidence, as does the list of things you mentioned.

              Maybe you will address the socialism thing again in light of my last rebuttal.

              OK. Some people think we should all just do X (no democracy at all) in order to accomplish the very important Y (and only then can we have some democracy back). But far far and away that is a tiny minority and people. People neither think global warming is the biggest short term threat they face, nor have they voted to end democracy in the past amid the many threats that have come. What people do vote for in differing degrees (and I agree we have to be vigilant, but not everyone has the same thermostat setting on) is some amount of restrictions on the individual for the better of the group. That has always been the case, but people do basically like their freedom. Anyway, I do hear some talk on blogs here and there that is way too far, but on other blogs you get the exact opposite. The average I find isn’t crazy and accepting science isn’t going to change that too much.. now.

              Wait decades and watch oceans rise upon cities caught unprepared and maybe *then* you *will* have a lot more people willing to “kill” democracy in some way. This is why it makes a lot of sense to understand what the science says so we can plan and prepare.

            • Jose_X wrote (rather a lot, but then, so did I)

              “Both sides are peddling conclusions. Each side is a skeptic of the other side.”

              More than two sides exist. Or not. I think of it as a Venn Diagram. The Universe is people, all 7 billion of them. In the middle is a tiny little dot, 72 climate scientists that think more or less the same thoughts because they went to the same schools, correspond with each other regularly and so on. They are advocates of an idea; they are afraid, they see the “Tragedy of the Commons” on a grand scale that has never before been experienced.

              They would be largely ignored, and WERE largely ignored, but from such fear comes political power; and it takes persons skilled in political power to make it happen. Enter Maurice Strong and Al Gore and I’m sure you know the rest of the story.

              Now let us go back a couple of thousand years. Christianity started with one man, then a dozen. They corresponded with each other. For a few hundred years Christianity was inconsequential, a microscopic blip on the radar. Then suddenly the emperor of Rome had a brilliant idea to blend this new religion with bits of several others. After all, this new religion seemed to mandate poverty but enshrine work — so what is to happen to all that surplus? Well duh. Rome needs rebuilding.

              Leap forward to the present. The United States needs rebuilding. The whole world needs building. Where can we get some surplus?

              Taxes! But in a democracy people must be persuaded to give up their wealth willingly. So, you create a terrifying monster, polar bears falling from the sky, cities under water, millions of Bangladeshi’s drowning. Make movies of a huge tsunami inundating the Statue of Liberty and freezing solid in minutes (not that any of these things is remotely possible).

              But people lose interest rather quickly. Something must be done to stimulate interest; even though world leaders have announced “the debate is over”, in fact, that would be a huge political mistake. I would not be surprised but what the warmists contribute to their own opposition just as the oil companies contribute to “green” groups.

              Most people don’t care.

              “So we have an expert argument that stays mostly in tact saying there are significant threats in our future and we have the skeptic argument largely neutered saying that no we don’t.”

              Not quite. the skeptics are saying, “show me that your threat is more certain than any other threat”.

              In the computer world, risk analysis exists because it is impossible to pay for all possible situations; you must choose which situations are more likely so that your limited budget can be invested most wisely.

              “I’m supposed to believe that NOAA is bad at predicting tomorrow’s weather but you are pretty good at it.”

              I am mostly libertarian. You can believe what you wish to believe. My comment speaks to my views as a voter and taxpayer. If you want my money, you must convince me. As I don’t particularly want or need your money, you will have noticed I am not trying to convince you of anything other than a political reality or two and I don’t know why I do except its in my Scandinavian DNA.

              “When I took physics 101, I actually believed and still do that I can get a pretty good idea of the future position of a ball thrown in space and even in a baseball park.”

              Yes. I find that sort of thing inexplicably interesting. I still remember with some astonishment that I could measure the height of a tree by just stepping back 10 or 20 feet from its base and measuring the angle to the top and then using the inverse tangent function on the distance from the base of a tree. I had (and still have) one of the first Hewlett-Packard HP-35 calculators. Those were days of wonder going from slide rule (which I still have) to pocket calculator having more than 3 digits of precision and not having to estimate where the decimal point goes.

              “I think your extraordinary judgement is based on ignorance. They have made a pretty good case of AGW and that climate sensitivity is likely not that low and could possibly be even higher.”

              Maybe. I have spent some years at ATTP since, at least for a while, there was actually some physics there. Getting some non-advocate science is increasingly difficult (not less difficult) and basically requires to go back in time to science as it was known prior to the 1980’s. There wasn’t much known about climate BUT there’s quite a bit about the physical properties of carbon dioxide and other materials.

              Advocates are not expected to be reliable. Do you expect any pharmacy company to be perfectly honest about their products? Probably not. Neither will their competitors be honest. If you go to a Mormon for religion you’ll get one thing, if you go to the anti-Mormons you’ll get something else entirely. What is truth? It may lean one way or the other but in the end you have to decide that for yourself and I consider it wise to heed mostly the advocate but don’t ignore the nay-sayers, they might have a valid point.

              “Not sure what claims you think are extraordinary.”

              Accelerating sea level is one of my favorites. Over on ATTP was repeated this claim many times in a relatively short period of time. So I demanded the formula. Seems no one had a formula. So I did it myself and calculated that Mount Everest would be under water in 177 years.

              Another extraordinary claim is boiling seas and becoming another Venus, or drying out the entire Earth. Neither is remotely possible.

              To me a more serious possibility is “snowball Earth” from which there is no recovery or escape; at least not in the future. In the past it happened and persisted for millions of years, apparently escaping only when volcanoes put so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it was about 10 percent (100,000 ppm) and the greenhouse effect so powerful it overcame the problem of excessive albedo. It might also have been volcanic soot that helped. But in the future, there might not be enough trapped CO2 for volcanoes to do this magic again (nor enough volcanoes).

              “Maybe you will address the socialism thing again in light of my last rebuttal.”

              Western societies got where they are by being cooperative, with the premier examples being Scandinavians (Norwegians and Icelanders in particular).

              Both example nations were until recently living at the edge of subsistence and required cooperative societies just to survive! Natural selection has therefore chosen the DNA of cooperation.

              But George Orwell showed in a simple but effective way that cooperative societies are hopelessly vulnerable to exploitation by “pigs”.

              Iceland nearly had a meltdown in 2008 or so when all three national banks failed in the same week. I keep my eye on Iceland having lived there two years. The citizens are far too cooperative and trusting making it easy for bankers to siphon off billions of kronur and who knows where it went; rather a lot went to Russians. [https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_financial_crisis

              The Christian response is to “be harmless as doves but cunning as serpents”.

              “Wait decades and watch oceans rise upon cities caught unprepared and maybe then you will have a lot more people willing to kill democracy in some way. This is why it makes a lot of sense to understand what the science says so we can plan and prepare.”

              You speak of adaptation which is how humans became humans (and dogs became dogs, and so on).

              The Boy Scout motto is “be prepared” and I’m all for that. I’m even for alternative energy (and less energy) for the simple reason of “running out” of fossil fuel. Never mind AGW; it’s going to be GONE (but not suddenly).

              Already the easy fuels are depleted. Soon enough will begin an unstoppable decline where the cost of extraction exceeds the value extracted and then it will simply stop rather abruptly to extract what is left in the ground.

              Because of Maurice Strong and the Warmists, a backlash has come into existence that could very well close the window on creating meaningful distribution of alternative energy. There’s plenty of sunshine but not enough distribution.

              But 20 years of NOT global warming has shown to most people that AGW advocates were full of crap (from these people’s points of view) and so now its “business as usual” allowing the REAL threat to sneak up unchallenged; a threat that is not hypothetical or measured in millimeters.

              It doesn’t MATTER if AGW is “real”, by the time AGW rears its ugly head global civilization will already have collapsed through fuel starvation and the resulting Malthusian wars. Then will come what Christians and Democrats are waiting for: Fewer people and global government of what’s left, for a brief period then some millions of years of pastoral living in a pre-industrial setting waiting for the sun to burn itself out.

            • >> 72 climate scientists

              Nice story about the 72 kung-fu dragons.

              >> Taxes! But in a democracy people must be persuaded to give up their wealth willingly.

              not quite the definition of democracy (rule-making my majority vote) or how people think of taxes (unless you are considering we have never had a democracy at least since we have had taxes.. but then not sure what all the talk you have made of ending democracy is about), but ok… I just want to get to the terrifying monsters.

              >> So, you create a terrifying monster, polar bears falling from the sky

              Cool!

              >> Not quite. the skeptics are saying, “show me that your threat is more certain than any other threat”.

              Cause a business only deals with one investment at a time, the most certain one (wages? paying suppliers? a new marketing campaign? taxes? an increase in dividend? a new factory? oh which one should we do?). If it ain’t the worst, don’t talk to me about it.

              >> because it is impossible to pay for all possible situations

              OK, we went from only 1 to not everything. Good improvement although I thought you were drawing a parallel. Anyway, as long as we are evolving that’s good.

              >> “..weather..” I am mostly libertarian. You can believe what you wish to believe.

              So you are saying you really don’t mind that I not believe what you are saying? Cause you said you were pretty good at predicting tomorrow’s weather and really anyone is, yet before you had talked about how bad NOAA was at doing the same.

              But since you are libertarian, I guess you don’t mind I (or anyone else) not believe anything you say. Is that really what you are saying here?

              >> I am not trying to convince you of anything other than…

              OK, so you do want me to believe you.

              You are confusing me.

              >> Getting some non-advocate science is increasingly difficult (not less difficult) and basically requires to go back in time to science as it was known prior to the 1980’s.

              Right, cause Al Gore. Got it.

              >> There wasn’t much known about climate

              https://www.nap.edu/read/12181/chapter/1

              Title: “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”
              National Academy of Sciences, 1979

              From the foreword:
              “..For more than a century, we have been aware that changes in the composition of the atmosphere could affect its ability to trap the sun’s energy for our benefit. We now have incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that we ourselves contribute to that change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing, and these changes are linked with man’s use of fossil fuels and exploitation of the land. .. If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to belive that these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late…”

              There wasn’t much known about climate?

              >> Advocates are not expected to be reliable.

              Would you call the NAS or these scientists by 1979 “advocates”?

              OK, M2, you have made it clear you don’t care about this subject very much and don’t expect me to believe anything you are saying.

              Enjoy the weather. There will be many cold days again this Winter in high latitudes. Those climate scientists!!

              [I enjoyed some of your discussion, but where it comes to the main topic, you quasi-accept at times, but you really perhaps don’t care and think maybe the uncertainties have to be reduced to 0 before we direct policy.. You know, if your ancestors had taken that attitude, you would not be here today in a nice environment and nice country. Thank them or not, and fvvv your grandkids.. oh, you don’t have any. OK, everything ok then. My bad for worrying.]

            • Jose_X “Nice story about the 72 kung-fu dragons.”

              And a vivid reply; very nice.

              “>> Taxes! But in a democracy people must be persuaded to give up their wealth willingly.

              not quite the definition of democracy (rule-making my majority vote)”

              Taxes follow the vote of the majority. Hence you must persuade a majority that a tax is needed. The minority opinion can be ignored unless of course what you think is a minority (Trump electors) turns out not to be a minority.

              “or how people think of taxes”

              Many ways exist. In my other reply I have shown you a way.

              “>> Not quite. the skeptics are saying, ‘show me that your threat is more certain than any other threat’.

              Cause a business only deals with one investment at a time, the most certain one”

              Maybe. I doubt a generalization can be made. It will be a weighted decision but the weights could result in a single investment. IN a risk analysis I look at frequency of occurrence and cost-per-occurrence and then balance that against the cost to prevent versus the cost to recover; sometimes the cost to prevent is nearly infinite but cost to recover quite reasonable so if it is a rare occurrence, such as terrorists flying an airplane into a building, there’s not much you can do to prevent it so plan on recovering instead.

              If the costs of disaster avoidance and recovery exceed a reasonable portion of revenue, then the business is not sustainable. It may work for a while before the inevitable crash. But will the owner and CEO care? Probably not; they’ve stashed their earnings somewhere.

              So it is with AGW mitigation or adaptation. Preventing climate change is demonstrably extremely costly and hasn’t been demonstrated to even be possible. Cities moving happens naturally; many “ghost towns” are found in the western United States.

              “Good improvement although I thought you were drawing a parallel.”

              More of an example to illustrate an idea.

              “So you are saying you really don’t mind that I not believe what you are saying?”

              I have a desire that you understand my words which is quite different than any desire for you to believe my words.

              Usually it won’t matter BUT if you were a politician then you do care what other people think and believe even if you don’t have the same beliefs.

              “But since you are libertarian, I guess you don’t mind I (or anyone else) not believe anything you say. Is that really what you are saying here?”

              It is a reasonable conclusion. It is a mistake to assert that a libertarian does not care (although it may be so); rather, the libertarian is not going to impose his views on you (beyond ordinary declaration).

              “You are confusing me.”

              That happens a lot. I am at times interested in why this is so. For instance, it is nearly impossible for an ESFJ to have a meaningful conversation with an INTP; a simpler version of the same problem is expressed by the title of the book “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”. Of course that was written back when the words “men” and “women” had a generally well understood meaning.

              “Would you call the NAS or these scientists by 1979 advocates?”

              Yes. Let us examine their own self-description:

              “the NAS provides objective, science-based advice on critical issues affecting the nation”
              [http]://www.nasonline.org/

              “OK, M2, you have made it clear you don’t care about this subject very much and don’t expect me to believe anything you are saying.”

              And yet here I am carefully choosing my words to you while not caring.

      • WUWT and climateaudit and the like are advocacy sites. You can tell because they have no science on it.

        • Oh? What do they advocate?

          • You’ve never read anything there?

            • Come on, what do they advocate?

            • Seriously, you’ve never read anything on WUWT?

        • Wow “WUWT and climateaudit and the like are advocacy sites. You can tell because they have no science on it.”

          Advocacy is reveal by policy prescription and the occasional misspelling of “enroll” as “enrol” (get your screenshot now while it lasts!)

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/

          • Nope, advocacy isn’t defined by using the word “enrol”.

            Otherwise you’re an advocacy.

            • Wow “Nope, advocacy isn’t defined by using the word enrol.”

              Whereas a sweetened biscuit popular in Australia is defined by that word. Pull up to the pub and demand: “I’ll have a beer and enrol!”

          • “Advocacy is reveal[sic]”

            No need to get a screen grab.

            Hey, look, just because your bestie Steyn took away some pages on his website that were problematic,then, when wayback was used to show that he took it away then put it back after it would no longer be problematic for Steyn, coded up a robots file that forbid wayback machine from recording his lying manipulations doesn’t mean that you have to assume EVERYONE is doing it. It’s Steyn who did it because he’s a lying sack of crap.

  40. You can see quite clearly here, Jose, that not even the infants of the denier clique have anything to run with, it’s not just the big guns of denial with their failure to predict, it’s the little ones who are just empty of anything purposeful.

    It’s a fairly empty life they have, I would think.

  41. See, Jose, everything Wow says is BS. CA and WUWT don’t advocate anything. And I first entered this discussion a few days ago by noting that Climate Asylum doesn’t advocate anything either by way of action–it only professes a belief system. When it comes to advocacy of action CA and WUWT are silent, whereas the climate fanatics are in disarray. Hansen favors nuclear power so Oreskes calls him a denier. And BB has never faced the question. That’s my main point: there is no consensus where it counts–how to solve the (supposed) problem. I’m all for Hansen’s solution for entirely different reasons. Global warming is really a very good thing, but CO2 isn’t causing much if any of it, so climate wise fossil fuels and nukes are a wash. But nuclear power in its most modern forms can be fueled long after the coal runs out, and that would not be for many centuries. But nuclear power is far safer than coal mining.

    Now Jose, where did you hear about the G&T paper? I’ve never hear of it or its authors till now, and capable skeptics have never taken it seriously. Curry dismissed it in 2010, along with a few other quack skeptical papers:
    https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
    The fanatics don’t have a total monopoly on quackery–there are a plenty of skeptics who don’t do their homework too. Junk science like G&T just makes the skeptics look bad and the fanatics look good in the eyes of the novices who can’t tell experts from quacks.

    When was Hansen ever right? What predictions have been correct? The IPCC as acknowledged that 97% of climate models run hot:
    https[XXX]://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ar4.png
    …and Hansen’s predictions are right up there with the highest erroneous T model predictions.

    You say:
    “If there is one thing I like about dark radiative surfaces is how cool they are to the touch and how they cool their environment!!”

    Are you talking about night conditions? And you can tell the difference in T between a white and black car surface at night? How about during the day? Then it’s easy; the dark car will be a lot hotter. But that’s an important point. CO2 is also capable of both warming and cooling, and its cooling effect in the upper atmosphere is blamed by NASA for throwing off their orbital decay calculations: the atmosphere is shrinking. This doesn’t mean that the cooling effect makes much of a dent in net warming, but as I tried to tell you before, the feedback effects remain unquantified, and experience is teaching us that they are much lower than the models assumed.

    It gets harder and harder with time to double CO2 concentration, meaning the experiment is half over. And all we’re learning is that with a little luck the LIA may not be repeated. Warm is good. Cold is bad. Thank your lucky CO2 for global warming, however trivial its effect may be. –AGF

    • There’s original.

      Not.

    • “noting that Climate Asylum doesn’t advocate anything either ”

      So you think it is completely empty of all purpose, then? Weird defence of an anti-science denier blogroll.

    • See that where, angryfart???

    • See what where, angryfart?

  42. Angryfart: “Jose… When was Hansen ever right? What predictions have been correct? ”

    Jose: “BTW, extrapolating a little bit to 2016 (guesstimating), it seems Hansen’s prediction is very close to the mark.”

    Angryfart is not good at reading.

  43. “CO2 is also capable of both warming and cooling, and its cooling effect in the upper atmosphere ”

    angryfart here thinks that blankets both warm and cool you, because the top of the duvet is cooler than the top of his jim-jams…

    Whatalooon.

  44. “and experience is teaching us that they are much lower than the models assumed. ”

    Except by models,we should have warmed a little less than 1C at the moment, yet we have warmed a smidge over 1.2C.

    It’s not experience angryfart is relying on, it’s denial.

  45. Please note the insanity in M2’s posts.

    Waste of time wasting everyone’s time.

  46. Measuring the antipodal oceanic acoustic signal (“The sound of climate change”), Perth to Bermuda: Walter Munk, 2011:
    ” Brian Dushaw is planning to repeat Ewing’s experiment; he expects a reduction in travel time of approximately 10 s as confirmation of global ocean warming over the last 50 yr.”
    http[note 1]://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/…/cont…/sound-climate-change
    Dushaw’s results, 2013:
    ” No change in travel time (hence no change in temperature from 1960 to 2004) was observed.”
    http://staff.washington.edu/dushaw/

    • Note 1: http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/…/cont…/sound-climate-change

    • Water temperature is/was an important part of submarine hunting because the speed of sound in water is temperature dependent.

    • I think large areas of the ocean have not gone up in temp too much. This is one reason ocean levels have not gone up that much at this time (compared to meter(s)). Water holds a huge amount of heat. And also a lot of heat is needed to melt ice without any of that usable to raise the temperature. This is one reason climate sensitivity is defined by waiting for equilibrium to be reached.

      If it takes a long time to wreck our environment from heat overdose (meaning that it takes a long time to reach equilibrium from a change in CO2), maybe longer than scientists might currently think, 2 observations. One, it may take just as long to fix the problem in the tropics once it does show itself (eg, after polar ice has melted, etc. note, polar regions are changing before our eyes, but few Americans live in those regions so it’s easier to ignore). Two, are we really going to figure out how to cheaply and in large quantities sequester CO2 once a large fraction of the general population in the US starts worrying? Imagine that. Undoing a large fraction of the energy gains from fossil fuels. Some of us cry about slowing down fossil fuel consumption. Imagine now going into negative. We’ll really need other energy sources to more than make up for it possibly.

      Russia may really want global warming. Trump Family Inc may really want early dibs on Russian real estate. Seems silly, but I would not be surprised. I wouldn’t.

      • The current “crisis” has been caused in part by anti-nuclear environmental activism of decades past. The “solution” according to Hansen and most skeptics is to reverse the nuclear course. As I have been arguing above and to no avail, it is the Oreskes of the world who are the enemies of energy sustainability, and it is for those who worry about the climate to understand why that should be so. –AGF

        • bb I think has been pronuke for a long time. thankfully that didn’t stop him from speaking out against many (at least apparantly irrational) attacks on climate science.

        • Alternative facts require angryfart produce an alternative past to support them.

          Alternatively, we can just speak plainly and say you’re a lunatic and a liar, angryfart.

      • Jose_X writes “I think large areas of the ocean have not gone up in temp too much.”

        Or at all. It is unscientific to say “too much”.

        “a lot of heat is needed to melt ice without any of that usable to raise the temperature.”

        True; but that wasn’t the claim. The oceans are too big to all be at the triple point of ice, water and vapor (zero C). Heat is hiding in the oceans, that is the claim, and heat cannot hide without raising the temperature except where the temperature is held steady by melting ice.

        “If it takes a long time to wreck our environment from heat overdose … it may take just as long to fix the problem in the tropics once it does show itself”

        That’s as reasonable a guess as any.

        “are we really going to figure out how to cheaply and in large quantities sequester CO2 once a large fraction of the general population in the US starts worrying?”

        There is no “we”. A large fraction of the general population already worries about a great many things, the rest worry about nothing except where their next beer is coming from.

        Cheap and easy sequestration of CO2 is done by trees.

        “Some of us cry about slowing down fossil fuel consumption.”

        There is no “us”. People cry about whatever disturbs them sufficiently.

        “We’ll really need other energy sources to more than make up for it possibly.”

        No doubt.

        “Russia may really want global warming.”

        Russia wants nothing. It is an abstraction. Some Russians doubtless want some of that global warming.

        • Agreed, except that the tropics are least vulnerable to natural and AGW–the oceans regulate the tropical temperature pretty well. And the Russians have a long history of figuring out how to warm the climate, including a dam across the Bering Strait. A lot of Alaskans and Canadians wouldn’t mind a little global warming either. People continue to move south to retire, and to buy up beach houses where they all know deep down that sea level rise is insignificant. –AGF

        • >>Heat hiding.. is claim

          Heat might be in the oceans. I haven’t done the math or made the measurements and coverage at large depths I think is missing.

          That claim seems like informal speak and not part of a paper, but I may be wrong.

          The ice melting at freezing point boundary in Antarctica could potentially satisfy both that “claim” and what I said about water melting. You won’t measure the temp diff but you will eventually see the results from icebergs breaking off and other effects.

          How many icebergs would break off with less co2 vs now? and many other questions different scientists try to answer at some point or other as part of evolving the science. What is much clearer is that even if we can’t find every “ounce” of “heat” in “hiding”, basic analysis of fundamental physics explains a rise in temp from more Co2. afg says that there is little more to expect for doubling co2 than 1C. I think the better science says it’s closer to 3. Papers such as recent ones from Lindzen supporting a lower number than 3 or even 2 iirc have been rebuttled by different groups and I don’t think Lindzen has convinced most peers that he has addressed their criticisms appropriately. Curry and colleagues have very recently done an analysis but assuming it’s correct, that has a margin of error that is very similar than what the IPCC stated for their 95% confidence level. I think it’s also about a value that is different than the actual climate sensitivity (which is what you get after you wait long enough to get equilibrium). Main point, the science by those who practice it suggests a number near 3 as the midpoint with some room for error on both sides.

          >> Cheap and easy sequestration of CO2 is done by trees.

          I don’t think trees put fossil fuel co2 back in the box quite so conveniently. Slowly, the oceans/mineral reactions claim co2 and some trees will grow taller, but I think you have to wait a while to undo fossil fuels. There is also the question mark on how much methane is trapped by ice and how much that will contribute.

          >> next beer is coming from … russia wants nothing.

          I am sure russians have thought about this issue and some, maybe most have reasonably concluded they want more warmth up there. This impacts voters and governments. What people think (correctly or incorrectly as goes best science) makes a difference and helps guide policy.

          My guess is russia may stand to gain but at a cost to established societies especially along the coast and nearer equator. One problem is that when many people hurt at once, conflict is more likely to spread to affect others in far away places and/or others end up putting their dime in to help prevent problems or as charity. Whatever the case, the changes would be fast and many species that we have grown to depend on may not survive. In general, I think it’s foolish to write off large potential threats from sudden changes. Funny in a sense is how some people’s complaint against this science boils down to their pocketbook. Their grand children may end up paying a larger price in the future. As a wager, I don’t think it’s a smart bet to not take precautions, although admittedly, it’s not you but your grandkids who will get the tab if the wager is lost. [I don’t expect to have grandkids, fwiw.]

          • So Jose, what do you think caused the LIA, and what makes you think we’re safe from another? –AGF

            • If one hopes to provide a defense against natural climate pain, it doesn’t help to “deny” information achieved from the collaboration of the people focused on the science.

              I agree with Curry that alternative hypothesis should have a place, but I think most scientists working in the field honestly don’t think that many of the things that make it into say WUWT as challenging what I will call the consensus have a firm foundation. That’s my opinion from the perspectives I have read as well as some degree of digging into the science/math details on occasion.

              One of the earlier things I remember saying I think on this blog and others was that we might want at some point to control the knob of CO2 and other variables perhaps much as we engineer so many things around us in an attempt to bring value (eg, comfort). It makes sense to actually be able to have control over the process (which would entail being able to adjust in either direction).

            • Jose_X “it doesn’t help to deny information achieved from the collaboration of the people focused on the science.”

              That’s erratic, binary thinking. Between embrace a theory and deny a theory exist uncertainty and/or uncaring.

              “I agree with Curry that alternative hypothesis should have a place”

              Or no hypothesis at all! There’s about 60 reasons proposed for the cause of the pause. Is that better than none?

              “we might want at some point to control the knob of CO2”

              There is no WE. That is why Donald Trump is now POTUS. The We wasn’t as big as it thought it was.

            • No, there is we.

              Read your constitution some day, when you’ve learned English rather than had it google translated into your native tongue.

            • As you can see, M2 fails Enlgish at even a 4-year-old level of comprehension when it suits his fancy to troll.

              Engagement with it is impossible.

            • Wow “Engagement with it is impossible.”

              I admire that you continue to try despite being hopelessly outclassed.

            • >> erratic, binary thinking … [and rest of that comment] …

              Very many scientific papers of all sort (the vast majority of original research and experimentation I suspect) cushion their results and conclusions in different levels of uncertainty, so I don’t see why you would think I was assuming there doesn’t exist a theory without uncertainty and gray.

              Science tolerates competing hypothesis. That is what science is to a large extent.

              So I’ll try to be clearer. What I was referring to there was that Curry has developed a bit of a reputation for being overly welcomed, in the eyes of many climate scientists, to hypotheses that don’t necessarily hold much of their weight in water (again, in the eyes of many scientists). In other words, her urging other scientists to be more open minded surely has some justification as a general piece of advice, but it appears she goes much further in her desire to give credence to alternatives than go the vast majority of those practicing the science. It may also help to know that in an earlier thread the topic of Curry came up and an article was written about this issue.

              As for Trump winning because America got together to vote for or against climate science and voted against it, I think you are giving this one issue way too much credit.

            • Jose_X “As for Trump winning because America got together to vote for or against climate science and voted against it, I think you are giving this one issue way too much credit.”

              Agreed; and yet, global warming is, or has become, a *proxy* for socialism. Many people love socialism. When done right, which for brief moments in Earth’s history has been the case, it’s wonderful.

            • Different quantities of socialism is practiced in most or all advanced countries. Also, I don’t see how accepting science leads to socialism. The US has accepted science for the most part and is still practices regulated capitalism along with some socialism, etc. I think the main political problem is the resistance by a huge industry and opportunity to exploit this on both sides of the aisle. Anyway, if this were the only problem people (“deniers”) have against the views of most climate scientists, maybe the conversation should be about economics and such and not about greenhouse effect.

            • Jose_X “I don’t see how accepting science leads to socialism.”

              It is more the other way round. People who accept what government tells them, in any form or for any reason, are more likely to embrace socialism.

              Science is not accepted; it is not a thing that can be accepted! How I wish I could beat this into some skulls.

              Claims are made; claims are accepted. You can DO “science” but you cannot ACCEPT science!

              If you measure anything physical, by any means, you have just done science. When you tell your best friend that the temperature is 30 C, that’s a claim; it is also not exactly correct. What you should be telling your friend is something like “I measured the air temperature and my instrument claims it is 30 degrees”. Whether it *is* 30 degrees remains at least slightly uncertain for a variety of reasons; by the time you tell your friend it may have changed (likely so).

              Science is not binary. What exactly does it mean to “accept science”? All of it, every claim made by anyone, anywhere? What if those claims are rival; do I accept science if I accept string theory but not the Standard Model? How can I accept BOTH? What if I lack sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice on whether I should choose String Theory or Standard Model?

              It is clear to me that everyone on Earth, other than 75 of 77 practicing climatologists, are accepting, or not, CLAIMS. Not science!

              A claim may well have a scientific foundation; but no single claim encompasses all of “science”. What a ridiculous thing to say.

              “The US has accepted science for the most part”

              No. There is no “US”. There’s you, me and many other people. Some believe this, some believe that, some believe everything even rival things; others are stuck believing nothing.

              “Anyway, if this were the only problem people (“deniers”) have against the views of most climate scientists, maybe the conversation should be about economics and such and not about greenhouse effect.”

              Of course it is economics and politics. That the greenhouse effect exists, and without it the Earth would be a frozen ball, is not disputed by anyone with at least high school science education so far as I know.

              Spending trillions of dollars I don’t have to stop a problem I’m not sure exists is pure foolishness. Ignoring a problem, or potential problem, is also foolish so I could use some convincing that your idea of the world’s worst problem is better informed or more urgent than my own list of problems.

            • >> what a ridiculous thing to say.

              No, not ridiculous since if you look at more context and think about the logic you mentioned, you might see I was using shortcut in language. It was more efficient to cut corners. Do you want to address the question or do I first have to format it in the best proper English I can muster so that you can understand it?

              Honestly, do you not understand what I was asking when I posed:

              “I don’t see how accepting science leads to socialism.”

              This was partly in response to your comment:

              “Agreed; and yet, global warming is, or has become, a *proxy* for socialism”

              Mind, you, I drew upon the rest of our conversation to come up with my remark.

              BTW, after reading your explanation of what science is (thank you for that, now I think I know what science is), I am having trouble understanding how global warming is, or has become, a *proxy* for socialism. Can you please explain to me socialism the same way you just explained science? And then please explain *proxy*. I’ll let you know then if I think I can figure out by myself the meaning of that sentence you created initially. Eventually I hope to understand the meaning of the sentence I created.

              >> That the greenhouse effect exists, and without it the Earth would be a frozen ball, is not disputed by anyone with ..

              We are talking about several degree rise in temp once equilibrium is reached (as a result of doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere from some reference point prior to 1900 I think). The frozen ball is not being debated too much, at least here I hoped it wasn’t.

              >> so I could use some convincing that your idea of the world’s worst problem is better informed or more urgent than my own list of problems.

              Well, yea, the point here first is to see if in fact there is a problem and later to see if we can address it in cost-effective fashion to prevent ills. Context of “cost-effective” is that we have other problems plaguing society as well and limited resources to address them.

          • Jose_X wrote “basic analysis of fundamental physics explains a rise in temp from more Co2.”

            Which fundamentals? How basic of an analysis? Perhaps you could provide some of these fundamentals. It seems that the warmists are nearly always physicists; proceeding from fundamentals to models to “oops, there’s obviously a bit more to it” and 60 or so reasons (excuses) for the missing heat.

            If it’s so easy, fundamental and basic, why cannot NOAA predict tomorrows weather with better than 50 percent accuracy?

            “I don’t think trees put fossil fuel co2 back in the box quite so conveniently.”

            I encourage you to propose its alternative!

            Anyway, the physics are not basic or fundamental; but yes, it is “physics”.

            • Svante Arrhenius. Go look him up.

            • Wow wrote “Svante Arrhenius. Go look him up.”

              I think he’s dead. Not much to look at.

            • So are you, M2.

            • >> why cannot NOAA predict tomorrows weather with better than 50 percent accuracy?

              Weather is not climate, and not sure if 50% is accurate statistic but that would be state of the art. State of the art is not good for you and this comes from a rant about climate scientists not being real physicists? I think your problem is with science and your belief that we have enough coverage of the atmosphere to predict the evolution of wind and humidity thousands and thousands of seconds into the future.

              I think you are suggesting we need more money to measure the atmosphere or are you saying we are doomed to getting tomorrow’s weather incorrect using humans and science?

              What does any of this have to do with AGW?

              >> How basic of an analysis? Perhaps you could provide some of these fundamentals.

              Do you want to start with (a) the source code to an open source model or do you want to start off with (b) an elementary text into the physics of the atmosphere?

              >> >”I don’t think trees put fossil fuel co2 back in the box quite so conveniently.”

              >> I encourage you to propose its alternative!

              I encourage you then to stop fighting the investments and help provided by government (under prior presidents) to advance alternative research and industry. Even if you all succeed (eg, via Trump), it won’t stop progress, just slow it down.

            • Jose_X “What does any of this (*) have to do with AGW?”

              BASIC PHYSICS!

              I’ve waited a long time to be able to blurt out these magic words!

              * weather forecasting

              The basic physics of weather is also the basic physics of climate. GCM’s blend weather over the entire planet. Weather becomes climate.

            • Jose_X “What does any of this have to do with AGW?”

              So long as you have no interest in persuading me of the “A” in “GW” then we will stop here.

            • I didn’t understand your last comment (right above this one).

              Newton’s laws are basic physics, but you may have heard of or may want to look up the n-body problem. Now apply that idea to “zillions” of bodies if you want to go down to molecule level (at scale assuming newton’s laws function). Or even more complex, the “many-body problem” which increases the complexity of the problem and is more realistic (like a quantum mech version of above).

              There are macro-equations where you can get decent results without having to bother accounting for all the particles. This is where we do much science, at least for something like the atmosphere. However, this is an approximation to a problem that clearly defies computation in many cases.

              Point is that it’s not so much the laws and formulas but the scale that makes weather prediction so complex. Despite using fluid equations and things that approximate particles to make many problems tractable (engineers would also use fluid and heat equations not quantum mechanics or statistical mech in many cases I assume), you still have a heck of a large system to consider, a whole planet. Thanks goodness we have computers to make the job doable or we couldn’t forecast much of anything at all.

              My point again was that I don’t understand what your criticism is about since using the best science and tricks and best tools, it’s still a monster of a problem and we’d only ever get approximations anyway.

              And skeptic/denier alternatives aren’t better as they basically don’t exist. The paper and pen predictions (or dice-rolling perhaps) I have seen from skeptics don’t come anywhere near the climate science projections in terms of predictability.

            • Jose, denier models haven’t done so well:

              http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

        • And “not at all” in the face of contrary evidence is anti-science, M2.

          But you don’t care, you’re just trolling.

    • you’re clutching at straws, angryfart, because this is another record-destroying year for global temperatures. And you’re TERRIFIED of it. And you can’t handle it. So you deny.

      Pitiful.

    • We have bathymetric thermometers, angryfart.

      • Wow “We have bathymetric thermometers.”

        I don’t have one; I suspect you don’t have one, so who exactly is WE?

        • We also have education. You don’t.

          Patently. Go to that adult education center. It’s a necessary step to get you living independently.

          • Wow writes “We also have education.”

            How many of you are in there? 😉

            • Why did you fail English at 1st grade, M2?

            • Wow wrote “Why did you fail English at 1st grade, M2?”

              Vulcan was my native language. I came to Earth in 3rd grade. I picked it up quickly and almost as quickly discovered many variants of English. For instance, in the United States, a “boot” is worn on a foot; but in England, it is the storage area of an automobile. Your name, for instance, is often accompanied by flutter, suggesting instability:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_%28recording%29

        • If we don’t exist, where did we come from?

          • Wow asks “If we don’t exist, where did we come from?”

            There is no “we”. You exist in my mind. The cause of it appearing in my mind is this computer, the monitor (display) more specifically combined with interpreting the patterns of lightness and darkness.

            • Then there is no USA.

            • Wow asserted “Then there is no USA.”

              As it happens, there is a Usa, and it is in Japan.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa,_%C5%8Cita

  47. M2 likes to be so open minded that everything falls out.

    But he hates it that others manage to live a life of reason and sanity so he continues to try to get everyone to speak like their brain has just left for a permanent vacation and where words mean nothing and all things must be considered valid, JUST SO that we do nothing about AGW.

    Because he’s a flat out denier, make no mistake.

    • The sort of thing the skeptics have come to expect from NOAA: “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XlWgDL48
      Should be interesting to see how many U.S. papers report on the Daily Mail’s story: while the liars are babbling about Trump suppressing data, a high level whistle blower accuses Karl of making up the numbers (credit to WUWT). –AGF

      • Why do you believe any old crap like that? It’s not even coherent, let alone fact based.

        Why do you go out of your way to find people to sucker you into a lie?

      • You do accept that fairly easily agf. Notice there are no details given to just what if anything is wrong with the data. More importantly, what does that have to do with the body of work in climate science of which that is a tiny sliver? A different paper came out after that coming to the same conclusion. Again, you (and the article) offer no detail on what is the problem with the data or with any part of the paper.

        A flaw somewhere (much less a vague one) destroys very little of the science if any of it. Sure, if the allegations are correct, we would have an example of an imperfection among humans doing science. But you have to go further. Find the flaw and then see what the fixed item leads to. It may not lead to any different conclusion, or heck, maybe an even stronger conclusion.

        [excited skeptic:] I found a flaw in climate science.. yuppy, I have no idea how the flaw plays into the theory but obviously now we all surely know climate science if a fraud and not real — woooohoooooooo!!!!!!

        What many are doing (on both sides) is trying to win a political argument leveraging ignorance, but that doesn’t win over scientists for the most part.

        • Well Jose, you don’t know squat. Here is a host of collaborators including BB’s other hero, M Mann, who agree that Karl’s paper is garbage: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201603&spMailingID=50767823&spUserID=MTI0NzgyNDMwMjA2S0&spJobID=862987827&spReportId=ODYyOTg3ODI3S0
          This latest accusation is the first that I know of coming from a NOAA insider. But how can you teach perfectly ignorant believers who think they know everything? –AGF

          • Angryfart, you’ve never displayed any honesty over your re-interpretations of others’ work when your bigotries requires you to do otherwise.

            So I’ll take a rain-check on your insanity here and just tell you you’re a lying runt.

          • Do you have a public version? I don’t have free access to the paper through the link you provided.

            Without reading the paper, I recognize that maybe this would constitute (or not) evidence you had not provided before.

            Does the paper provide evidence that the NOAA paper used fraud or even that they used bad data?

            And does the paper make any claims against AGW or accepted values of climate sensitivity or any other generally accepted values in climate science or physics?

            As for squat, I asked for more information from you specifically because I am not familiar with the evidence the insider provided or how this is alleged to weaken what I’ll call the AGW consensus.

          • You can look at this recent link http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/01/there-was-no-pause/

            Not judging the NOAA issue (still fairly ignorant on that).

            I think an important issue though is talking about the temp pattern as being a sort of “hiatus” in surface temperature rise vs a “hiatus” in heat accumulation. The difference is obvious. The temp on the surface can vary due to many different factors (“internal variability”) and not go up in a straight line to match the increased heat absorbed by the planet.

            Different people are using that word differently. It’s mostly a matter of statistical interpretation to say the surface temp is/was in hiatus or not. You can also attack the surface temp data by claiming fraud or incompetence of some sort. To talk about a hiatus in accumulation of sun energy is trickier because we would need access to more information, not just surface temp data but temp within the oceans, precise ice volume, and other things that could serve as heat sinks (besides space, which we mostly cover by observing with satellites radiation leaving planet). The harder question to answer is the more important one.

          • ‘cos two links take you to moderation queue, I see your daily hate article:

            http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?spref=tw

          • And raise you one:

            https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3637#120340

            • It is almost amazing how much noise in the skeptic/denier world is being made purely from ignorance about what is going on and from articles created probably for the purpose of creating smoke everywhere and discredit scientists. Just read the comments and details of the skeptics/deniers. They don’t offer a scientific argument of any sort or evidence. It’s opinion after opinion after opinion to a large degree. It’s claims unsupported followed by opinions and opinions. .. and the liberals want to raise your taxes [without fail, that one is always thrown in there].

              Anyway, here is a video explaining the NOAA paper despite the badly researched dailymail article that some people apparently think spells the end of climate science and shows the science to be a fraud or something. I think it’s even been called climategate 2 (although not the first time some reporter claims they are cracking climategate2).

              https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise The video is part way down the article. 5 minutes. A researcher explains very simply the reasoning and how sensible this is.

              Why would anyone want to pretend something nefarious is going on? Why make out that the new “cooked” data is worse rather than the step forward it is in science of using existing raw data more accurately. As the guy explains though, he worked using different approaches (less cooked data from newer thermometers) and their result agrees more closely to the new NOAA “very cooked” data than to the older NOAA “less cooked” data. Cooking improves the stew when done right. The idea more cooking implies worse results is not founded and makes pretends to make a mockery of all science.

            • Jose_X writes “Just read the comments and details of the skeptics/deniers.”

              But you’d have to go where they are, which you have suggested you don’t.

              “They don’t offer a scientific argument of any sort or evidence.”

              Naturally not. They are skeptics. It is like being a movie critic. Movie critics do not make movies. They find fault with movies. It’s what they DO. They point out that spaceships don’t make “whooshing” noises.

              “It’s opinion after opinion after opinion to a large degree.”

              I’d say 100 percent, depending on how strict one defines the word. It can be sciency opinion or political opinion, but in the end some human being is sitting at a computer writing what he or she believes to be true and why he believes it.

              “and the liberals want to raise your taxes [without fail, that one is always thrown in there].”

              Indeed, with the upper limit presumably being 100 percent although Wow has discovered ways to exceed 100 percent.

              “Why would anyone want to pretend something nefarious is going on?”

              It’s a pretty good Alinsky tactic; not that he pioneered any of them.

              “Why make out that the new cooked data is worse rather than the step forward it is in science of using existing raw data more accurately.”

              I like that spin. I’ll try to remember it if I ever have to make my own adjustments.

              So I checked some adjustments. It may be that some are meritorious. But having lived in Alaska for some years I checked and found some dramatic adjustments, presumably for UHI. The problem is the wind is almost never less than 20 knots, usually 40 to 60, adjacent to the sea and thus well moderated by the sea and extremely well mixed. The temperatures were also taken very carefully because the military requires accurate measures of temperature for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is sound velocity calculation).

              So that data series was not properly adjusted; but adjusted it was just the same. Is that representative of all adjustments? Maybe. It is sufficient to reveal that the adjustments are not actually human adjusted, but algorithmically adjusted in sometimes absurd ways.

              “Cooking improves the stew when done right.”

              No doubt.

              “The idea more cooking implies worse results is not founded and makes pretends to make a mockery of all science.”

              I didn’t quite follow that but I’ll try a different approach. In a court of law, evidence is presented to a jury. The prosecutor makes the most horrible inferences from that evidence; the defender makes the most innocuous inferences from the same evidence. Truth is not known, nor can it be, there is only evidence.

              Should it happen that the evidence itself has been tainted, broken chain of custody, other defects, the entire case collapses because evidence is required most of the time.

              You might think, and argue as some do. that science isn’t a court; but democracy IS a court. The citizens of this nation are the jury. John Cook and Michael Mann are the prosecution; Anthony Watts the defense.

              Adjusting the data for any reason is pure poison in the courtroom of public opinion. It may be good science but I have my doubts.

            • Well, Jose, you have to recognise something. To them, AGW is an existential threat. As in they believe that they will die if anything is done by it, their lives and livelihood destroyed.

              And that irrational fear is what drives them, even as they are “winning” in the USA political sphere (not so worried any more about the politicisation of science: that’s only a problem when someone else might be doing it), because reality is making it damn clear they’re lunatics.

            • >> But you’d have to go where they are, which you have suggested you don’t.

              Huh? I put a link so it could be followed, and I further added “read the comments”.

              A number of times earlier I have also said that I have read skeptic/denier papers to different degrees and have visited different skeptic/denier websites.

              >> Naturally not. They are skeptics.

              I covered this a moment ago. Short version: everyone is a skeptic and everyone peddles something. The scientists have done a decent job showing there is reason to be worried even amid uncertainties while the deniers have not done a good job showing there isn’t reason to be worried, and their explanations of the uncertainties isn’t convincing.

              >> > cooked data
              >> I like that spin.

              OK, to the degree that “cooked” implies something done incorrectly, I used the wrong word. “Processed” would be a more accurate word to use.

              I hope you took a look at the video. It’s pretty easy to follow. One has to wonder at all the noise that is made about “fraud”.

              6>2+2>2, ok
              5>2+2>3, “FRAUD! FRAUD!”

              Funny if it weren’t sad.

              >> So that data series was not properly adjusted; but adjusted it was just the same. Is that representative of all adjustments? Maybe. It is sufficient to reveal that the adjustments are not actually human adjusted, but algorithmically adjusted in sometimes absurd ways.

              Can you be more specific? You are saying you found bad adjustments and you wonder if that is typical of the adjustments made. I could say I found adjustments to be excellent. It helps to get an idea of the data and calculations you are talking about.

              Remember, these things are backed by theory. Also, statistics is not the science of exact quantities based on perfect information. You will be able to find and cherrypick some cases where the processing is not ideal.

              So “warmists” are using acceptable statistics to make a claim. Bloggers are cherrypicking examples without using statistics, to imply their claims.

              >> Should it happen that the evidence itself has been tainted, broken chain of custody, other defects, the entire case collapses because evidence is required most of the time.

              Ignorance of the science would explain why a person would think that some piece or other of evidence being “tainted” would collapse the “case” of AGW.

            • Jose_X “6>2+2>2, ok”

              In “C” you would get “True”, or maybe 1.

              (6>2)=true, depending on the C library =1.
              (2>2)=false, or zero.
              True || False = True.

              Pointless bit of trivia but the programmer in me processes such constructions automatically.

              “You are saying you found bad adjustments and you wonder if that is typical of the adjustments made.”

              Yes, but it is hardly worth several years of my life to answer the question with any degree of precision.

              In a court of law, the defense counsel needs only raise a doubt. He doesn’t need to disprove the allegation; all it needs is doubt.

              “Ignorance of the science would explain why a person would think that some piece or other of evidence being tainted would collapse the case of AGW.”

              Precisely! So it doesn’t take much, a retired meteorologist, to bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

              In high school I won the regional math contest, First Place, with less than 50 percent correct. So while I have a lot to learn, I am far ahead of nearly everyone else. If persuading 7 billion people to give up their heat, light and transportation requires Calculus, Geology, Geography, Chemistry, Physics — in each and every citizen (at at least half of them) — well, AGW advocacy is doomed.

              That is why science is positioned as a religion and has done much better because of it. Science has prophets (Newton, Einstein), acolytes, disciples, evangelists (Dawkins, Hitchins); temples, holy books and incantations (“ee equals em see squared”).

            • More walter mittty from M2. A fantasy world because without these false claims to authority, he has bupkis.

              He claims it a religion so that he can pretend he doesn’t have to disprove it and can instead ignore it.

            • Why are you saying > has higher order of precedence than +?

              In the grammar laid out in the spec (iso C for some year or other), basically reproduced here I think: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~mckeeman/cs48/references/c.html

              relational-expression
              shift-expression
              relational-expression > shift-expression

              shift-expression
              additive-expression

              additive-expression
              multiplicative-expression
              additive-expression + multiplicative-expression

              multiplicative-expression
              cast-expression

              … and so on

              we see that to get the production that has the > we can first process the numbers and the +.

              In contrast, we can’t get a + production by first squeezing in a > production inside the additive-expression or the multiplicative-expression or anything else on that page.

              2 becomes ..blah blah.. becomes a multiplicative-expression.
              2 becomes …… becomes multiplicative-expression
              6 becomes …… becomes multiplicative-expression becomes additive-expression becomes shift-expression becomes relational-expression
              2 + 2 (two multiplicative-expressions joined by +) becomes additive-expression + multiplicative-expression becomes additive-expression becomes shift-expression
              6>2+2 (as relational-expression > shift-expression) becomes relational-expression

              In other words, we have a match via a path that processes the 2+2 first and later the >. I don’t think you can find a match that works the other way around (you could in theory if the grammar were different, in which case the ordering would matter or something else)

              In C (or javascript, etc) the following is a syntactically correct expression that achieves the result (true) for the math short-hand I used:

              6>2+2 && 2+2>2

              that gives true.

              6>2+2>2

              is an error in syntax

              (6>2)+(2>2)

              might be 1 and is what you said, but you would need parenthesis. I didn’t use parenthesis!

            • >> all it needs is doubt.

              Right, in a US court of criminal law .. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I believe.

              Here though, it’s closer to a business faced with doing something or not doing something and calculating probabilistic cost expression.

              >> If persuading 7 billion people [blah blah] requires Calculus, Geology, Geography, Chemistry, Physics — in each and every citizen (at at least half of them) — well, AGW advocacy is doomed… That is why science is positioned as a religion and has done much better because of it.

              I don’t think this is that far off, honestly; however, there is still the good old “who do you trust” which was discussed earlier. Basically, people tend to trust the experts, but may go for a pastor or politician or celebrity, etc, even in areas of science.

              We might be saying something very similar if we equate “blind trust” with “religious view”. Both are an appeal to trust/faith, yes. That can’t be helped for specialized disciplines. I am optimistic but not that much to think 50% of people would understand the details of the science involved here.

              The usual path is politicians of all sort trust groups like US National Academy of Sciences (for free — no advocacy required by scientists at that juncture) as well as their qualified scientific advisors, but these times are different as these science bodies are being ignored (at least publicly) to a large degree by way too many politicians. The wishful thinking I think is that nature won’t prove the scientists definitively right or wrong that soon in the future. Actually, that is the thinking of many skeptic/deniers I think and spreading their misinformation to grow their numbers. It has worked because nature is not expected to show the scientists are correct any time too soon. And politicians are leveraging those views, even if the voters are but a large minority, because of the money from the fossil fuel industry. That’s what I think mostly is going on.

            • The majority of USians want government to do more to stop AGW. M2 is lying by living in a libertarian conservative bubble.

      • I see your daily hate article :

        http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html?spref=tw

        and raise you one:

        https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3637#120340

    • Wow wrote “M2 likes to be so open minded that everything falls out.”

      Thank you! I have a doubt you intended to praise me but I’m happy with it.

      “we do nothing about AGW.”

      There is no “we”. You are free to do whatever you wish and are able to do about AGW.

      • They why are we talking?

        Heck, why am I talking to a psychopath?

        • Wow “Heck, why am I talking to a psychopath?”

          That would be the “we” by which you often refer to yourself. As to the why; I suppose its in the DNA.

        • Welp, yet more idiot ball from the idiot.

          Tiresome psychopath is tiresome.

  48. The basics of the argument go right over all the believers’ heads. Look, you dupes, it doesn’t matter whether the worst case scenario is somehow right after the Pause and all, if we can’t agree on how to address the supposed problem. If Hansen is right about the severity of the problem then he is also right about the solution: nuclear power (not windmills, solar panels, or carbon taxes to make them seem profitable). Most skeptics like Hansen solution whether or not they take his problem seriously.

    Oreskes hates Hansen’s solution. Why? Either she doesn’t know any more about energy production than she knows about climate science, or she doesn’t really believe there is a problem. Either way she is dangerous, or would be if there really were a problem.

    Jose and Wow, what are you doing to solve the problem you pretend to believe in? How do you propose we address it? There is only consensus among the skeptics, the only ones capable of rational thought.
    –AGF

    • Why are you doing nothing over the real problem of AGW, angryfart? Why do you want nobody else to do anything about it?

      Why is reality such a horrible thing for you to look at?

      • Well you imbecile, I’m right here advocating nuclear power. What are you doing? –AGF

        • I;m advocating something that can actually work. Renewables.

        • And exactly how is “advocating nuclear fuels” doing something????

    • Wrong agf. No single solution has to solve everything. The many people who don’t recognize a problem are not really likely to contribute much to finding a solution. When one sees a problem, one has extra motivation to focus on a solution and to rethink different things (compromise, whatever).

      There are many capable people on earth besides oreskes and hansen if that is what is troubling you.

    • agf, hansen and oreskes, assuming you are correct about their viewpoints and haven’t misunderstood that as well, have provided important components to a solution. Solutions of this nature are complex if you haven’t realized.

      Do you really believe with all of that energy the sun provides the planet that humans aren’t very much underutilizing it?

      • I already posted this. Even Hansen understands this graph, but Oreskes and you don’t.: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif
        –AGF

        • But you don’t understand.

          And there lies the problem.

        • What point are you trying to make? In other words, what do you think that refutes of the things I have said? And what part of that graph do you think I don’t understand?

          • He doesn’t know. But then again, angryfart doesn’t care, either.

  49. Welp, more shitposting from M2 using his lack of language skills, carefully honed at his dad’s purchased BA course, to troll the shit out of anyone who isn’t a psycho libertarian loon like him.

    • And BB prefers Wow over stefanthedenier. –AGF

      • Well, yeah.

        So?

    • Wow “to troll the shit out of anyone”

      Or just you 😉

      Really it’s too easy.

      • Yes, you’re easy.

        Tiresome and easy.

  50. What the pathetic pinheads don’t understand is that “alternative energy” is expensive. The only reason people put panels on their roofs is for the subsidy or to tinker–they don’t save money. When the law forces the power company to buy their electric tidbits at the price the consumer pays, the rest of the rate payers are subsidizing the panels. It costs the company about 2¢/kwh to produce; the rest is for transmission. If solar energy were as efficient as you know-nothings seem to think, the graph would not look like that–and it only shows power production–not the cost efficiency of power production.

    But I’m wasting my time here, as always. There’s not a competent scientist on the planet who takes the climate scare seriously, let alone the solutions to the scare or the lack thereof. The disease is benign; the cure is deadly. –AGF

    • What you don’t understand is, well, too long a list for a website to hold.

      Nuclear is the most expensive current tech for power generation, even with massive government subsidies helping it hide the costs.

      But rather than advocate for nuclear, morons have to ensure there is no competition for the cash and jobs that building up infrastructure will accrue.

      Not to mention that renewables already mean big job increases in the USA already, whilst there are not many people you can trust to make a nuke station, and that’s a significant brake on the rate of nuke rollout, before which there is no money generation, unlike, for example, Wind turbines where as soon as you have one hooked up, you got power offsetting costs.

      I haven’t read any of his post past the first few words, but I assume he’s blabbing about backup. All power needs it.

      Combined renewables need less because they’re load following and fail resistant.

      And lack a significant amount of danger when they fail…

      • “France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. This share may be reduced to 50% by 2025. France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.”
        http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

        • Yeah, but they have to buy in most of their electricity when it gets too warm.

          And Germany finds that their net exports in power go mainly to France, so Germany makes more money from France selling them their renewables excess than they pay to buy France’s off-peak excess.

          Indeed if it were not for the EU wide grid, France would have had to have shut down by now.

          Because 75% of their generation is from nukes. Nukes that are unreliable as well as expensive (you DO know that EdF is majority owned by the government, right? And the power heavily subsidised by government).

          • Wow: “Yeah, but they have to buy in most of their electricity when it gets too warm.” –BS.

            Wow: “And Germany finds that their net exports in power go mainly to France…” –BS

            Wow: “…so Germany makes more money from France selling them their renewables excess than they pay to buy France’s off-peak excess.” –True, but only because French (nuclear) power is cheaper than German. It’s so cheap that many of the French heat their homes with electricity, and sometimes in January they use so much power that they import a little from Germany. But France exports nearly twice as much electricity as Germany.

            Wow: “Indeed if it were not for the EU wide grid, France would have had to have shut down by now.” –BS

            Wow: “Because 75% of their generation is from nukes. ” –True!

            Wow: “Nukes that are unreliable as well as expensive” BS

            Wow: ” (you DO know that EdF is majority owned by the government, right?” –True!

            Wow: “And the power heavily subsidised by government).” –Not according to this chart (S-3): https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ECOFYS%202014%20Subsidies%20and%20costs%20of%20EU%20energy_11_Nov.pdf
            –that’s just renewables propaganda. Rather the French tax on electricity is skyrocketing (Fig.9): https ://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Energy-and-Resources/gx-er-merket-reform-france.pdf

            Keeping up with Wow’s BS is a full time job. –AGF

            • Well that was a load of bollocks, angryfart. Try some information sites rather than the disinformation sites you prefer.

              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/12/france.nuclear

            • “Wow: “…so Germany makes more money from France selling them their renewables excess than they pay to buy France’s off-peak excess.” –True”

              Correct.

              “, but only because French (nuclear) power is cheaper than German. ”

              Lie.

              Hinkley point is demanding twice the strike price to start and EdF want to get out of it because they don’t think they’ll get money.

              And it’s only going to get higher. The price is index linked with guaranteed income (even if they sell nothing).

              Meanwhile SolarPV is cheaper than coal in most countries in the world, onshore wind has been cheaper than any bar geothermal, and offshore is getting cheaper.

              As are all the renewables.

  51. https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/29/the-threat-of-climate-change/ is Curry talking about her views on risk and such. She alludes to other postings where she has given more of her justifications. [I haven’t read those] If people want to attack “warmism” and be “reasonable” in not denying things like greenhouse effect, etc, it might help to start with something along these lines. “I” accept the basic science and scientific process (though there may be errors and it is out job to find and fix them). There are risks implied, now what? How serious are the risks? What can we do? The curry link doesn’t go that much into details, but we can avoid some of the crazier portion of WUWT stuff discussions and claims if we can agree to use Curry as a base point or something like that. At least this is a compromise suggestion for people who are not heavy into the science. If you know the science well, you might find Curry to be hopeless and out of sync with the majority of the evidence or something like that and may not be willing to go to that level (I don’t know). agf, M2? Want to read over that? For my part, I agree with BB’s views as expressed somewhere some time back (paraphrased, iirc, and with my own twist perhaps) that despite uncertainties, there is too much at stake to not want to work seriously on mitigating the problem. Though I have read BB thinks nuclear is a good path forward, I don’t see why people who like nuclear would insist this should be the only path forward or else keep status quo. Cutting back on co2 emissions can be accomplished through multiple paths.

    • If we were to take Curry as our primary authority the quality of these discussions would advance by leaps and bounds. Suit yourself. –AGF

      • Only for the wellbeing of moronic deniers, angryfart.

        For reality? Not so good.

  52. Jose, weather models manage a one day forecast accuracy of about 85%. And, since this is also not a persistence model, each forecast day is even better than the simplest “model”.

    This is why farmers and businesses rely on the weather.

    Because the forecasts work.

    M2 doesn’t know a thing about what they’re talking about. He doesn’t even understand what country he’s in.

    • Wow “He doesn’t even understand what country he’s in.”

      I am my words and my words are me. My words are everywhere the internet reaches.

    • Good grief. No wonder deniers are failing even in power with idiots like psycho-boy here.

      Good advertising for the reality of AGW!

  53. To recap: BB accuses Lindzen of misrepresenting the “consensus” and calls him a liar; BB accepts Oreskes’ 97% figure. Under examination the consensus is seen to be a mirage in many aspects, three of which are the following:
    1) There is no agreement between glaciologists and the alarmist neodendrochronologists on the extent or even existence of the LIA.
    2) There is no agreement between alarmists Karl et al and alarmists Mann et al on the reality of the Pause.
    3) There is no agreement among alarmists on how to address the supposed problem. In vogue are carbon taxes and renewable energy. Hansen et al reject such solutions as unworkable. On this point a majority of skeptics are in line with uber-alarmist Hansen. –AGF

    • 1. Oreskes didn’t come up with the 97% figure.

      2. I know a number of glaciologists, and you are wrong, according to them.

      3. I don’t think you understand what goes into determining whether there was a “pause”. If you did, you would think the whole argument is stupid, and hinges on tiny statistical differences.

      4. I have met lots of the people you call “alarmists,” and although they differ on what kinds of solutions are best, they are almost all willing to compromise about that to address the larger problem. Because that’s how reasonable people operate in a Republic.

      • Barry Bickmore, after a long “pause” 🙂 wrote:

        “1. Oreskes didn’t come up with the 97% figure.”

        If I remember right, her figure was 100 percent. It wasn’t very compelling, sounds a bit contrived. 97 percent is a prime number, it sounds very precise and has demonstrably been more effective at least more memorable.

        Then of course there’s the problem of why Oreskes opinion matters.

        • That’s right, it was 100%. But she didn’t claim there were no contrarian papers, only that she couldn’t find any in a sample of over 900 original research papers gathered by searching for the phrase “global climate change” over certain years on the ISI Web of Science database. Therefore, she claimed that the percentage of contrarian papers must be pretty small. This is good statistical reasoning.

          The great thing about Oreskes’s analysis is that you can go on the Web of Science, search those same years for the same phrase, filter out the original research papers (as opposed to review papers or opinion pieces), and get a pretty exact list of the papers she had to work with. I did that a few years ago, and I got a couple more papers than she did, because some more journals had been added to the database.

          Some people have challenged her numbers, but when I actually went and looked up the papers they said were supposed to be counterexamples, many of them actually weren’t contrarian at all (the critics just didn’t know the science well enough to understand what “the consensus” actually was.) The rest were all opinion pieces, review articles, or papers published in obscure journals that wouldn’t show up on the Web of Science because they are too new, or they aren’t generally taken seriously. (Like the “Journal of Scientific Exploration”, which dabbles in dog astrology, among other topics.)

          So yes, I believe I can definitively say I know for a fact that Oreskes did her analysis correctly, and that her critics (at least the ones who have tried to provide specific criticisms) generally aren’t the brightest bulbs in the box.

          • It helps to confuse the masses when you deal only in undefined vagaries:

            “The clear scientific consensus about human-caused climate change (certainly between 90-100% of experts, and most likely somewhere around 97%) presents a big problem for the contrarians.”

            And here BB links to a Washington Post article which cited Cook’s thoroughly debunked 97% propaganda:
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
            Monckton writes regarding Cook’s paper:
            “It may be that more than 0.3% of climate scientists think Man caused at least half the warming since 1950. But only 0.3% of almost 12,000 published papers say so explicitly. Cook had not considered how many papers merely implied that. No doubt many scientists consider it possible, as we do, that Man caused some warming, but not most warming.

            “It is unscientific to assume that most scientists believe what they have neither said nor written.”

            That BB could take Oreskes’ 100% seriously adequately reveals his delusion. We’ll wait for him to ask Summer Rupper about the LIA and get back to us.
            –AGF

            • The only thing debunked is the asinine claim the 97% figure is debunked, angryfart.

              You lost. Get over it.

        • You don’t remember angryfart getting it wrong ALREADY?

          Goodness.

      • The technique you use to find out whether there’s a pause is called “change point analysis” and there is no pause according to that test. When you take out the changes from the PDO, it’s patently obvious there has been no pause.

        Tamino’s blog has a lot on both those things.

        M2 doesn’t even comprehend language. Maths is entirely beyond him.

        • That’s not the only way to do it. Even before the last couple years, you could calculate a 95% confidence interval on the slope of the temperature over whatever proposed “pause” and find out that the error bars encompass BOTH zero (i.e., “no statistically significant warming”) AND the long-term slope over the past several decades. So the upshot is that, statistically speaking, you can’t really say much of anything about whether the temperature was flat or consistent with the long-term average. The time period is too short and the data is too noisy.

          Thus, the whole argument is stupid, or at least started by stupid people.

          • Oh, aye, that disproves it, but CPA is how you do it with real data if you’re a statistician. And, remember, these moron deniers demand the BEST statistics or they’ll spend, what, nearly 20 years complaining that your work was a fraud.

            ‘course for people they want to hear, the demands are not so strict:

            http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

          • Additionally, paullitely is now proven wrong. His response? “lets give it another year”….

            So convinced he was, two years ago.

        • Wow “M2 doesn’t even comprehend language. Maths is entirely beyond him.”

          I appreciate you NOT sending me maths!

    • >> Under examination the consensus [AGW] is seen to be a mirage in many aspects, three of which are the following:

      >> 3) There is no agreement among alarmists on how to address the supposed problem.

      You haven’t shown your 3 claims are accurate nor how they undo AGW if they were correct. In fact, the logic fails in particular with issue 3, as it suggests that you think a theory can be called into question if the people coming up with the theory don’t have a clear unambiguous solution to the problem that theory lays bare.

      Extra Extra: Newton’s laws are now in question, ladies and gents, because we are not sure how to avoid a catastrophe on earth to the degree newton’s laws reveal an asteroid headed unimpeded towards earth. One friendly skeptic shared: “our failure to agree on a solution to the problem exposed by newton’s laws clearly logically absolutely calls into question the accuracy of newton’s laws”. We asked NASA for a response to this claim but did not hear from them by the time of publishing.

      • Jose_X wrote “Newton’s laws are now in question”

        That is correct. The question arose as a consequence of the Theory of Relativity, more or less. Newton’s laws now require a “adjustment” known as the Lorentz Transformation.

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

        • Newton’s are still valid.

          At the scale where the speeds are sufficiently low (which are common cases) and the bodies are sufficiently large (frequency/plancks constant/heisenberg uncertainty), the deviation from the most correct (QED) answer is dwarfed by the error in the system (from other sources and/or from measurements).

          I can be cute as well.

          • I have not studied the material very much. In any case, if General Relativity would be a concern with earth and asteroid, it would more likely be due to masses involved rather than speeds involved I think (and forget quantum mech).

      • Jose: “You haven’t shown your 3 claims are accurate”
        M2: “that is correct”

        And he continues to avoid doing that. It’s devastating to his case, and he’s not really armed for an actual argument.

    • It’s one thing to find flaws or things that can be better. It’s another to claim that a particular bag of imperfections implies a great many other failures (leading up to the failure of the main point of contention) without providing the dirty details of the reasoning.

      Both of you guys are doing this and the skeptic/denier world in general thrives on it. Specifics matter. And when pressed, you guys cannot create a logical argument for how this or that set of imperfections would cause AGW to collapse. You just know that it can in theory and pretend that by complaining enough it should have.

      That is the story of climate denial.

      • I was wrong. There is at least the following important component to the denial story as seen on most blogs: a misuse and misrepresentation of data and results from expert studies and experiments.

        It all boils down to a lot of ignorance about climate science yet an insistence that the denials are correct.

      • Jose_X “when pressed, you guys cannot create a logical argument for how this or that set of imperfections would cause AGW to collapse.”

        In fact, I don’t need to create a logical argument. When the Mormon missionaries come knocking on your door, you don’t need to prove their God wrong. It is sufficient to do nothing. The burden of proof or demonstration rests entirely upon the advocates of a belief system.

        • Their god? What about yours, you weak-willed buffoon?

          • Wow “Their god? What about yours?”

            I do not understand ‘what about’ questions. If you are seeking answers to specific questions, please make your question more specific. If you want a complete dump of Life, the Universe and Everything I recommend starting with Douglas Adams.

            [https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_the_Universe_and_Everything

            • I don’t get where that’s my problem.

        • Each voter is or isn’t convinced, but to the science community, they have met the burden of proof albeit with a degree of uncertainty and is not ideal. The ones who have not met their burden of proof are those who say that the scientists have not met the burden.

          This is very different from people knocking at door because that is not based on science (unverifiable). The scientists are doing science and have met the burden using science. If you are ignorant of the details of their work, that is one thing, but you have not shown that their proof has a flaw. You are just saying that you don’t care.

          Again, each voter may or may not care, but that is a separate question from whether they have met the burden.

          If I do a math proof.

          You can’t say that you don’t care, therefore, I have not proven it.

          You have to show that the proof is incorrect. Most mathematicians can usually just see it, but a better way is to show a counter-example.

          With science, we aren’t dealing with an abstract system like math or logic only. We are always modelling. The proof of sorts is by taking measurements with sufficiently low error rates and judging vs model. The model in this case has large enough error bars to I believe cover the current temps. That they “run hot” just means that if we ignore error bars, that the average in the modelling is higher than the current temps, but you have to consider error bars to show incorrectness.

          More importantly, the models are close enough that if they have a flaw, it likely isn’t that serious or large AND doesn’t necessarily invalidate AGW (which is not that scientific and a bit vague).

          • And to undo the claim that is proven, you need better proof it’s wrong. M2 can’t manage that. No aptitude nor inclination.

          • Jose_X “This is very different from people knocking at door because that is not based on science (unverifiable).”

            It is *identical* or nearly so. Mormons tell you to pray and if God is interested in you knowing of his existence, you will know it, and NOT because of some guy on your doorstep.

            Scientists offer basically the same thing. They propose an assertion and a test. If you perform the test, you might obtain the same result. If you do, you are not merely a believer, but a knower.

            So what is the test of future catastrophe? There isn’t one!

            The only things that can be tested are the methods of science. You could drill your own ice core near Vostok and see if you get similar results. As many cores have been drilled in Antarctica by relatively independent research (so far as I know), I am pretty comfortable at around the 98 percent certainty level that what they report is what it is.

            So it is for most research. But as you know, certainty is multiplicative — 10 research reports, independant of each other and on different topics, each at 98 percent of certainty, becomes .98 to the tenth power or 81 percent certain; of a claim that depends on all 10 being correct.

            Now then 10 reports, all independent, on the SAME claim, each .98, enhances certainty! In other words, it becomes nearly certain (I’m not going to do the math; not enough chocolate, my brain isn’t up to this task) that at 100 meters depth X benthic oxygen istope ratio actually exists.

            So you’ve got some duplicating research that enhances credibility and reduces uncertainty; and you have a “scatter” of research that reduces credibility of an umbrella claim. To average all of it you’d probably end up with NOTHING; so you use PCA, principle components analysis, to choose proxies that will produce something rather than nothing, but because of that selection process, claims of certainty become unreliable since you are processing a pre-selected subset.

            “If I do a math proof…”

            Math proofs only work on people that know and accept the methods of the proof. In my high school days it was a big deal; an entire year devoted to math proofs.

            In a sense it was wasted since I think those skills are no longer taught in the United States; it isn’t even on the curriculum.

            [https]://www.quora.com/Why-are-proofs-generally-left-out-of-the-high-school-mathematics-curriculum-in-the-United-States

            “With science, we aren’t dealing with an abstract system like math or logic only. We are always modelling. The proof of sorts is by taking measurements with sufficiently low error rates and judging vs model.”

            Yes! And if you know the model and accept it as a tool, like a calculator, slide rule, or any other tool, then it has “meaning”. If not, then it is neither more nor less persuasive than proving that a Taylor Series can derive “pi” to a six year old.

            [https]://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30001.1-3.shtml
            I went through the proof in calculus but I couldn’t do it again if my life depended on it.

            So you can KNOW a thing with three-9’s certainty, but the man standing next to you cannot be persuaded and it might as well be a random factoid.

            I know there’s a God with perfect certainty but there is no means on Earth by which I can convey that to you or anyone else. I can propose exercises and gradually develop tools by which you could decide for yourself (requiring perhaps a rather large shift in your sense of what the word means).

            So it is with Citizens of the world. It must be made interesting, not a subject of fear or political power. What ever happened to Edmund Scientific? Or the Pacific Science Center in Seattle? Both still exist but both seem to be somewhat tattered.

            The cart was put before the horse. It is time to put the horse back in front and pull the cart rather than push it.

            WUWT is popular because it is interesting and updated daily.

            SkS is not interesting because it is contemptuous of the very people it ought to be enticing to read it.

            • No, it’s completely different.

          • >> WUWT is popular because it is interesting and updated daily. …SkS is not interesting because it is contemptuous of the very people it ought to be enticing to read it.

            I’ve been to each and they both lob some grenades at their enemies while providing comfort and joy to their supporters. Each is updated many times a week.

            Sorry.

            I forgot you don’t really care about this subject nor much about my opinion either (although you did say you had Scandinavian DNA and that does something here to the contrary I think or something like that).

            When you next consider writing a long comment or even a short one, consider that you already have made me aware several times that you don’t really care about what I think on the subject (you’re a “libertarian”) and you don’t care much yourself. You are here I believe as an advocate against taxes and not much else. Point noted. Not sure there is much more to talk about. Although a good story is always appreciated I suppose (not sure why you would be motivated to tell one though).

            • Jose_X “You are here I believe as an advocate against taxes and not much else.”

              That would be a reasonable side effect of my belief system.

              In some cities while you wait for your green light at an intersection, someone may rush up to your car and wash your window and demand money. Are you obligated to pay? In my world view, “no”. Your mileage seems to vary because in a socialist world the answer is “yes”.

              Suppose you and I were neighbors. Do I have a right to come over to your house and demand money? Never mind for a moment whether I have done anything for you or whether we have any kind of prior agreement or contract; for this purpose we shall assert that no such agreement exists.

              Plainly, if I take money it is theft and if I intimidate you it is extortion.

              Suppose I persuade my other neighbor to walk with me. Has a “wrong” suddenly become a “right”? Probably not, but the intimidation will certainly have increased.

              And yet, somehow, if I gather enough people around me suddenly I am a government and “wrong” became “right”. It is not clear to me whether it is a magic number or a magic proportion or just bigger and more guns.

              So it is not exactly correct to say that I am an advocate against taxes; rather, I occasionally invite leftwingers to explain this conundrum of how you think you own ANY of the fruit of my labor without a contract where I agree to pay you and I get something in return.

              Plainly it is expedient to engage in this behavior but I find the moral foundation lacking and hence interesting.

              AGW is of course just the dressing on the salad to blind people to the real purpose of much AGW advocacy, which is “wealth redistribution” and I hardly need cite the source since you will have seen it dozens of times.

              Ultimately it is “Malthusian”; ultimately it is genetic; survival of the fittest and AGW is simply a strategy by academics to define “fittest” for their own purposes. You can be sure I would do likewise in their shoes, but I would NOT say the science is settled! That would be incredibly stupid; the science must not ever be settled. Let’s look for another boson!

            • “When you next consider writing a long comment or even a short one, consider that you already have made me aware several times that you don’t really care about what I think on the subject (you’re a “libertarian”) and you don’t care much yourself.”

              M2 doesn’t read too well.

            • M2, there is little reason for me to spend time arguing with someone who admits is not interested in the topic and doesn’t care what I think. We will just go around and around if I try to reply. If you don’t care, you aren’t really paying attention and I have very little to gain from the effort.

              I expect to keep repeating this sort of reply to you. I am not going to be reading most of what you are writing. This is the first comment for which this is true.

  54. 1. Did someone publish before her? Here she is in 2004: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686
    2. Several times I have thrown out the challenge: find a single glaciologist who doesn’t accept the LIA. You never responded. Put up or shut up.
    3. Tell that to Mann et al, who among many others tried to explain the Pause before Karl et al rewrote the data. Oreskes campaigned against the very word “Pause,” and Karl et al fudged the numbers to help her out. Though the numbers were trivial, the motive was rhetorical: don’t let skeptics tell the public about the Pause. Deny, deny, deny.
    4. And yet you seem to have no opinion on solutions, only on the need for such. Doug Smoot was way ahead of you. What happened to his paper? –AGF

    • “1. Did someone publish before her? Here she is in 2004:”

      See my response to M2 above.

      “2. Several times I have thrown out the challenge: find a single glaciologist who doesn’t accept the LIA. You never responded. Put up or shut up.”

      I don’t know any glaciologist who “doesn’t accept the LIA”. I know several who don’t think it was global in extent, and so didn’t affect the global mean temperature as much as some people (mostly nutters nowadays) think it did. Do you want their numbers, or something? You could try calling up Summer Rupper at the U. of Utah.

      “3. Tell that to Mann et al, who among many others tried to explain the Pause before Karl et al rewrote the data. Oreskes campaigned against the very word “Pause,” and Karl et al fudged the numbers to help her out. Though the numbers were trivial, the motive was rhetorical: don’t let skeptics tell the public about the Pause. Deny, deny, deny.”

      So you’re saying that an argument brought up by the contrarians for purely rhetorical purposes was stupid in the first place, and non-contrarians like Oreskes campaigned against that rhetoric, because it was stupid. I agree.

      Also, I know a number of climate scientists who think Karl was overselling his results, but I have no reason to believe his statistical manipulations were not done in good faith. Contrary to nutter belief, statistics isn’t always an exact thing (i.e., there are multiple ways to get similar, but not identical results, and all of them involve simplifying assumptions.)

      “4. And yet you seem to have no opinion on solutions, only on the need for such. Doug Smoot was way ahead of you. What happened to his paper? –AGF”

      No opinions? Really? Perhaps it would be better to say that I don’t have opinions so strong that I can’t conceive of compromising about them.

      Never read Doug Smoot’s paper, but I have met him. He presented a bunch of nonsense about climate to the Provo City Power Board, I rebutted it in great detail in an e-mail to the Board the next day, and I never heard back from him.

      • Barry, angryfart is trying to avoid being seen by not replying to you but starting a new thread.

        Just FYI.

  55. So, we have a 90-100% consensus about exactly what–we don’t know. But it allows for all the glaciologists to reject the intent of the Hockey Stick. If the Hockey Stick includes so much uncertainty that it doesn’t mean anything, that does not preclude its use as propaganda.

    You know some glaciologists who don’t think the LIA was global? Name one. I can sure show you some Patagonian glacier specialists who do. Why do you think Grove and Switsur took on Bradley and Jones’ 92, 93 denial of the MWP? This “local” LIA nonsense is an invention of the CRU and their cohorts, based on tree ring junk science, and that alone. The Hockey Stick is dead.

    If Smoot didn’t get back to you it would have been that he considered your IQ to be a waste of his time. Why don’t you post your letter here?

    BB: “No opinions? Really? Perhaps it would be better to say that I don’t have opinions so strong that I can’t conceive of compromising about them.”

    So you adamantly defend your inability to prescribe solutions! Like I said at the first, “…confessing the original sin is paramount; that there may be no expiation at hand is of no consequence.”

    BB: We’re doomed, we’re doomed. What should we do? I’ve got no idea.

    At least Hansen has an idea. –AGF

    • You don’t know, angryfart. Your incompetence isn’t everyone else’s Remember that.

      No glaciologists accept the validity of the Hockey Stick. Your insanity is not everyone’s.

      No, smoot was not talking to intelligent people, you have to work to convince them, and smoot wanted easier pickings: idiots like you, angryfart.

      BB doesn’t have to give you squat, moron.

      And your insanity is putting words never said. Your insanity is not everyone else’s.

      You got pwned with your daily hate mail link and the pissed off librarian who didn’t get his method for archiving done and is now setting up shop where he’s not going to have to do any work convincing people, since he’ll be targeting people already convinced. Morons like yourself.

      And now you’re here, spouting some of your home-grown mind’s-arse crap.

      Sad.

  56. 1. Call Summer Rupper. I’m sure she would love to talk to a local nutter. You could also call Gerard Roe at U. Washington. Let me know what they say.

    2. Here is my letter. Unfortunately, the links don’t come through when I cut and paste.

    Dear Provo Power Board members,

    I wanted to write to personally thank you for allowing my colleagues and I to speak about climate change issues to the board. Given the obvious importance of the issue, I think it is commendable for you to try to sort out what ought to be done about it. As with any complex scientific issue, however, it isn’t something that anyone can get a handle on in such a short time. Therefore, if the issue of renewable energy comes up again, and someone provides you with reasons why we shouldn’t bother with that because human-caused climate change is nothing to worry about, I would be happy to help you answer such assertions.

    The reason I am willing to provide help to any of you who want it is that I think it is critical for people in positions like yours to understand just how misleading some of the information out there is. I am a former climate change “skeptic” myself, and I know exactly how reasonable some of their arguments can sound. When I looked more closely, I found that I had been misinformed. Most of the time, it wasn’t that I had been “lied” to, exactly. The “skeptics” were often telling the truth, but leaving out many important facts. That is a serious charge, I know, so I will give a few brief illustrations of what I mean, taken from Dr. Smoot’s rebuttal to our presentation. By doing this, I don’t mean to embarrass Dr. Smoot, who was very cordial to us, because I found very similar arguments convincing only a few years ago. Therefore, I don’t really blame him. Given that I am an Earth scientist whose expertise overlaps considerably with climate science, I probably had a far poorer excuse.

    1. Dr. Smoot claimed that natural factors could be causing some of the observed climate change, and he specifically mentioned “sunspots” as a possible cause, which is a very common “skeptical” argument. Sunspots are magnetic phenomena on the surface of the Sun, and while they can’t do anything to the Earth’s climate system directly, they are a good indicator of the output of solar radiation. That is, when there are a lot of sunspots, the Sun is putting out a lot of radiation. We have been directly measuring solar radiation with satellites for only a few decades, but we have been counting sunspots for about 400 years, so consequently, we have a very nice estimate of solar radiation for the last 400 years, and there are other ways to extend those estimates to thousands or even millions of years using other techniques. It is a subject of ongoing research exactly what effect changes in solar radiation have on the climate, but the fact is that while solar radiation has been going down the last few decades, the temperature has been going sharply upward. Therefore, the solar effect simply cannot be as large as some people want it to be. Here is a nice BBC article explaining how the scientific debate has gone.

    The argument about “sunspots” is a clear example of the sort of lack of full disclosure I experienced. That is, all the scientists in the climate field know there are natural climate change drivers. They know the Sun is one of them, as I explained the other day. They spend quite a bit of effort trying to pin down how much effect these natural factors have. And yet, those who choose to argue against the mainstream scientific posiition very often make it sound like this would all be news to the climate science community. Simply hand-waving about a possible natural cause that scientists have already accounted for would never impress anyone who has any real experience with the climate science literature, but since most people don’t have such experience (and why should they?), it sounds reasonable.

    2. Dr. Smoot seemed to imply that projections of future climate, given different emissions scenarios, are completely based on models. He then claimed that the models require that a certain amount of heat is being stored in the deep ocean, but we don’t have enough good measurements of deep ocean temperatures to be sure that is actually happening. To a certain extent this is true, but once again it isn’t the whole story. Climate models are not the only means of estimating climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. There are actually a number of ways to do this, including making estimates of solar activity, volcanic activity, greenhouse gas concentrations, and temperature in the distant past. “Paleoclimatologists” have done this over periods of thousands, tens of thousands, and even millions of years. There are uncertainties involved in these estimates, but the temperature changes are large enough over such long periods that the uncertainties don’t matter as much as they would over a shorter period. You also don’t have to worry about ocean circulation over such long periods, because ocean water tends to cycle through the system in about 1000 years. In any case, the paleoclimate reconstructions yield climate sensitivity estimates in almost exactly the same range as the models, even though the uncertainties involved are quite different. See this article, which has some good links to the scientific literature.

    Once again, when all the evidence is considered, the mainstream scientific conclusions come out looking quite a bit more reasonable. What’s more, the objections by “skeptics” come off looking petty, in my opinion. Scientists always have a “wish list” of observations they would like to have (e.g., deep ocean temperatures for the last 100 years), but the trick is to see what the various lines of evidence that ARE available have to say.

    3. Dr. Smoot downplayed the idea that there really is a strong scientific consensus about human-caused climate change. To do this, he first cast doubt on a survey of publishing climate scientists, in which 97% said they believe humans are a “significant” cause of climate change. How much is “significant,” after all? This would be a fair point, if no other surveys of scientific opinion had been done that asked different questions. But there have been other surveys of scientists, and even surveys of the published scientific literature about climate change. In all cases, the percentage of publishing climate scientists or published climate science papers endorsing the consensus position that humans are mainly responsible for late 20th century global warming is in the high 90’s. I have seen many attempts to attack these surveys, but when I have examined the attacks closely, they have always fallen into two categories. a) Some attempts show a complete lack of knowledge about what the consensus position actually is (e.g., they count any papers about solar influence as going against the consensus.) b) Others tend to expand the field of “experts” beyond all recognition to get impressively high-sounding numbers, and then avoid any mention of percentages. For instance, Dr. Smoot mentioned a list of “3,000 scientists” who don’t follow the mainstream position. In reality, he was talking about the Global Warming Petition Project, which collected over 31,000 scientists’ signatures! That sounds kind of impressive, doesn’t it? It does, until you realize that signatories just had to say they had a degree (any degree) in some field of science or mathematics. Signatories were not required to have ever published any climate-related research, less than a third had PhDs of any kind, and it appears only a very small fraction (<2%) of the signatories had any degree whatsoever in a field related to the atmospheric sciences. If you really wanted an expert opinion about global warming, would you honestly ask your local mechanical engineer, veterinarian, or urine sample technician? This is not to say that people who sign such things are stupid–after all, Dr. Smoot mentioned a couple Nobel prize-winning physicists who agree with him. But neither of them specialized in climate issues, and in any case, if we were to poll Nobel science laureates I am quite confident that a much larger percentage would support the consensus position. It seems a little backwards to nitpick the wording of a single scientific poll of acknowledged experts in the field, and then come back with a petition (not even a scientific poll) of people who generally have no specific expertise in the field.

    4. Dr. Smoot's proof that human-caused climate change is scientifically controversial was the "Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change" report. (Dr. Smoot mentioned that the original NIPCC report had an appendix referencing the Global Warming Petition Project, but the petition was not about the NIPCC report, specifically.) Who are the people who produce this document? It is produced by the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank that has, among other things, worked with the tobacco industry to question the science showing the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke. Click here to read James Taylor, a Heartland lawyer who often pontificates about climate science, explain how second-hand smoke probably isn't that dangerous, and might even be good for Alzheimer's. (If you wonder whether the study he cites is credible, give Arden Pope up at BYU a call. Arden is a world-class epidemiologist who works on air quality issues.) What about the 50-odd scientists who were authors and reviewers of the NIPCC report itself? The report is ostensibly about the physical science aspects of climate change, but many of the contributors are not physical scientists. Some of the others are scientists, but don't specialize in climate. A couple of them are TV weathermen without any advanced degrees or published research, and one of those doesn't even know what the greenhouse effect is. Among the contributors who are published climate scientists is Roy Spencer. I am actually about to submit a scientific paper, along with some colleagues who are climatologists and statisticians, in which we analyze a climate model he published in an obscure Korean atmospheric science journal. It turns out that his modeling procedure was so bad that he could have gotten essentially any answers he wanted. All of his conclusions were scientifically baseless, and his paper is, frankly, the sloppiest piece of published research I have ever encountered. The bottom line is that most of these people have zero credibility for evaluating the state of the climate science field. There is no more polite way of putting it.

    As I indicated above, I would be very happy to answer any follow-up questions, or future questions, you might have. This issue is too important to just dismiss as "controversial". Even locally, we need to be trying to get the wheels moving so we can begin to deal with the problem. And the more we do locally, the fewer Federal regulations will need to be imposed, if that is one of your concerns.

    Sincerely,

    Barry Bickmore
    Professor of Geological Sciences
    Brigham Young University

    • BB writes “All of his conclusions were scientifically baseless, and his paper is, frankly, the sloppiest piece of published research I have ever encountered.”

      Accompanied by a bit of American Sign Language 🙂

      Other than that, a pretty good summary, maybe a bit TL;DR but who knows.

  57. I’d have to go with Smoot–there’s nothing there worth responding to. You argue consensus, and 40 years ago the consensus was that we were headed for global cooling. In the 50’s the consensus was that continental drift was rubbish. It’s been a decade now that PLOS published “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”; only a year since the WaPost published “Many scientific studies can’t be replicated.” And the absurd consensus is that a peregrine falcon can stoop at over 200mph, and 100mph with spread wings! Most people and most scientists are gullible dupes.

    Oreskes is a professional liar and you trust her. I have no doubt I could go through her consensus study and find flaws on every page, just like Connolley’s absurd debunking of the global cooling scare. Her book is sheer slander: guilt by association at best. She proves nothing of her libelous accusations–she only perpetuates the myth of Big Oil buying off skeptics. If anyone has been bought off it is she. I read a little of ch.6 in her book and could only laugh. She tells about ignored climate warnings from the 70’s and fails to mention the context of global cooling which gave rise to them. There’s just not an honest bone in her body, and I’m beginning to think the same could be said of you.

    So tell me, what do you make of Dushaw’s results (above, Feb. 2)? Stuff you don’t like you just ignore, as does the press, and the world of science, etc.

    –AGF

    • Yeah, because what Barry said is irrefutable, so you avoid it, as you do all truth when it’s an inconvenient truth.

    • Weird. You use findings all the time to “prove” your point, and now you’re admitting that many of them will have been false….

    • >> the WaPost published “Many scientific studies can’t be replicated.”

      Did you read the article or were you hoping throwing the title around was enough to strengthen your case?

      The failures were in psychology. If you want to make a case to climate science you need to do a bit more work than quote the title of that piece.

      >> “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

      I think another paper was done in rebuttal. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040168#pmed-0040168-b002 It includes this:

      > This is why, in the offered “proof,” the only study types that achieve a posterior probability of 50% or more (large RCTs [randomized controlled trials] and meta-analysis of RCTs) are those to which a prior probability of 50% or more are assigned. So the model employed cannot be considered a proof that most published claims are untrue, but is rather a claim that no study or combination of studies can ever provide convincing evidence.

      In other words, the second paper shows that the requirements of the mathematical model employed in the first paper to make their “proof” has a bit of “circular reasoning”, and effectively the first paper is concluding that **no** experiment can exist that can provide convincing evidence.

      The whole field of science is over!!! Newton’s laws are fake.

      Fraud!!

      We were just *very* lucky we got a satellite up into space. [I couldn’t get HBO otherwise.]

      agf, your 2 papers, as evidence against AGW, look very bad. Do you have any more papers?

      >> 40 years ago the consensus was that we were headed for global cooling

      Do you have a study to confirm this?

      Skepticalscience has written on this and provide reference links, concluding the exact opposite, that global cooling was a clear minority opinion among climate experts of the time.

      Are you, like M2, judging the science and scientists by what the media/blogs/uninformedblogcomments say?

      >> In the 50’s the consensus was that continental drift was rubbish.

      Well, it’s now been at least the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and half of the 10s and expert opinion about AGW is as strong as ever and rather close to 100%. [Global warming papers have been around a lot longer, but significant literature existed at least by the end of the 70s as that is when the US NAS unambiguously accepted AGW after reviewing the literature.]

      ..I think I understand why you dislike skepticalscience so much. They keep contradicting your views with reasoned arguments and lots of reference links. Feel free to publish on any website a rebuttal to any of their articles. I think going through that effort will help you sort out the details of your arguments. Then we can all judge and hopefully have something stronger than the laid back comments of a blog. [really, how were those 2 articles supposed to argue against AGW?]

      • >> “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

        I made the mistake that the link you (agf) provided was a rebuttal of sorts to the rebuttal. Without reading the papers it’s hard for me to say much more.

        What should be noted is that we do have multiple groups doing different analysis and checking each other in many cases (climate science). It’s been a lot of years. At some point we should be able to have some confidence that F=ma. In fact in a lot more than the key bits.

        Wow’s comment is appropriate. I may have to bring up this study next time you make a link to a Curry or other paper, especially when written within the last few years and with very few other papers referencing it. In fact, the strength of a paper I think many times is gauged by how much it is referenced by peers.

    • >> So tell me [Barry], what do you make of Dushaw’s results

      I commented above, but in light of research you just pointed to, I think there is a very good chance that Dushaw’s work would be flawed.

      On the other hand, there might be also a very good chance that “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” is itself false.. if it is correct.

      Seriously though, much of the increase in temperature has happened on the surface if I understand correctly. I don’t think Dushaw’s experiment was confined to the surface top-most layer of the ocean. I also argued that all the heat moved to melt ice would not be expressed as a raise in temp. As has been said, it could take many years to thoroughly mix the top layers with rest of the ocean. What is scary is that scientists think they have underestimated the speed of melting at poles and the amount of methane being released.

      • CH4 is about as scary as SLR and the bogeyman. At 1/200 the concentration of CO2 and a 10-year atmospheric residence, it can’t do squat. At 3mm/year (an inch per decade) and holding, sea level rise is about as harmless as could be hoped. If it starts dropping we’ll be in trouble. With LOD holding at near 1830 rates it’s clear that the big ice packs aren’t going anywhere either. Dushaw’s quiet and belated release of the sonic data provides as concise constraints as does LOD on the state of the climate. I would note that there is no discrepancy between Dushaw and ARGO since there is no overlap in chronology. It’s just possible that the oceans only began warming during the Pause. –AGF

        • More assertion from ignorance and proclamations unfazed by reality disagreeing with you.

          PS the “and holding” is BS. It was once 0.8mm/year, is currently 3.4mm.year, and your claim is like falling down past the 7th floor and going “So far, so good”.

          • Wow wrote “It was once 0.8mm/year, is currently 3.4mm.year,”

            Yes. Using Hansen’s figures of the accelleration of sea level rise, i calculated that Mount Everest will be under water in 177 years and in 200 years SLR will rise 10 meters per day.

            While you express criticism of my “maths”, you carefully avoid asserting that you have a clue. So I shall give you one.

            We need the base (the number to be raised to a power representing number of years). Hansen’s will do: “the mass loss is accelerating at a rate which would give you a doubling time of the order of 10 years.”

            Since it is exponential, we take the 10th root of “double” or 2 = 1.071 for the base. We need a coefficient, the current rate of sea level rise “The rate of sea level rise over the last century has been increasing. It’s now 3.2mm/year”

            So now we have almost everything needed for a formula. I assume a simple exponential function with a 10 year doubling. For the rate of SLR in any year y = 3.2*1.071^x where x is the number of years from the y intercept (starting point) and you’d simply integrate over an interval to get cumulative SLR. The indefinite integral (Wolfram Alpha) is 46.6521 * 1.071^x There’s a bit more to it than that but this is good for illustration.

            To submerge Mount Everest, 8,848 meters, work the equation 8848000 (millimeters) = 46.6521 * 1.071^x solving for X. Wolfram Alpha says 177 years until Waterworld.

            You don’t need calculus for estimating. With a doubling time of 10 years you can use good old powers-of-two familiar to computer programmers:

            10 years 2 (2^1) * 3.2mm per year = 6.4mm per year in ten years.

            20 years 4 (2^2)

            and so on (in a binary progression) to

            200 years (2^20) = 1048576 times 3.2mm per year or 3355 meters per year SLR, nearly 10 meters per day!

            So hows that for “maths”!

            • The math you did is a first approximation thing and looks correct enough (I’m trusting you used the tool correctly on what is basically a sane integral form and we can ignore the “decimal point effect” that as the sea rises it will cover more area as it encroaches into land and that would slow the doubling rate).

              Obviously you can’t maintain such a rate for very long.

              If you look at what Hansen said in the lecture, the ice would last to add 10 meters but not necessarily too much more than that. “Well it turns out that the same thing is true in this East Antarctic area fronted by the Toten Glacier, which is part of this Aurora Basin and part of the Wilkes Basin, which has more than 10 meters of potential sea level in it.”

              Anyway, the math looks fair enough but it will make physical sense (it would be part of a physical model) only until you consume 10 or so meters at most.

              Any model with accuracy would at most produce that doubling rate for that short time span. Hansen covered his rear end I believe, so your criticism would be invalid.

          • Nah, you only post crap, M2. Sorry. If you wanted to be believed, you shouldn’t be pratting about with nonsense like you gravitate to on every single occasion you start typing.

            • Wow writes “If you wanted to be believed…”

              That would come as a huge surprise to me.

        • I haven’t researched methane much, but if it’s 25x as strong and at 1/200. At least to some approximation, it seems it’s around 1/8 the problem of CO2. And the point is that (i think) there is enough uncertainty that it might start doubling faster than co2. That’s why I mentioned it.

  58. It’s early 2017, but his is what Arctic ice is looking like https://robertscribbler.com/2017/02/08/arctic-sea-ice-volume-is-lowest-on-record-by-a-considerable-margin/ Wonder what skeptic/deniers had predicted for this time.

    • I believe it was Aug. 18, 1778 that Capt. Cook reached a wall of ice about “10 or 12 feet” high north of the Bering Strait. That would make it somewhat less than a hundred feet thick, and nothing like it has been seen since. Lesser ice islands are a thing of the past, becoming rare by the middle of the 20th century.

      Before the LIA, back in the MWP, unknown European sailors explored the northern coast of Siberia and left maps depicting rivers far upstream to the south. The maps are of poor quality. Whether they had compasses or not they are pretty useless that far north, and they certainly did not have good clocks. Estimation of time and direction were mutually dependent; their only bases for reckoning time (hence direction) were high and low angle of the sun. But they managed to explore large sections of coast and at least a single river per season. Some suspect they even rounded Kamchatka. This required Arctic summers warmer than those at present, and one hell of a lot warmer than in Capt. Cook’s day.

      If the Arctic ever does return to summer ice free conditions it will be a boon to the shipping industry, save lots of fuel, and make the Russians very happy. –AGF

      • “You believe”????

        Sorry, angryfart, you believe in all sorts of shit and nothing in reality. So you need more than “You believe”.

      • The main likely correct point you are making is that it was warm enough at some point in the past (assuming details are correct), but the implication that is wrong as explained in the ice-cube-outside-freezer analogy is that this temperature was warmer than it is now or will be in a few years.

        With our current co2 levels and temperature, we could possibly see a lot more thawing even perhaps reaching no ice cover at all. It takes time since the waters must also be warmed sufficiently and that takes longer than the air. [and some of the heat goes over to Antarctica to melt ice shelves there] The point in one sentence: it is possible we will see less ice cover than back then even if co2 levels froze right where they are now or even go down some.

        • Cutting and pasting (2 years ago):

          “Back in 1856 the Rhône Glacier almost reached Gletsch Village (2nd photo):
          http://travelguide.all-about-switzerland.info/rhone-glacier-retreat-globalwarming.html
          14 years later it had retreated half a mile (next photo). That’s what you call blessed global warming. It’s also what you call ice age recovery. It’s still going on, fortunately. The longer it goes on the less we have to worry about ice taking out villages and nations (like Canada and Russia)–and the less we have to worry about another LIA.”

          And a few days ago:

          “So Jose, what do you think caused the LIA, and what makes you think we’re safe from another?

          You never answered. –AGF”

          • I provided an answer. We already know how to warm the planet if it gets too cold, but we don’t know how to cool it if it gets too hot. Our near term danger isn’t from too cold, it’s from too hot.

        • Right.
          a) you’re not reliable
          b) so you have one spot.what are you claiming from it?
          c) ask californians (esp. north) what glacier melt does for them

          moron.

        • Jose_X “With our current co2 levels and temperature, we could possibly see a lot more thawing even perhaps reaching no ice cover at all.”

          That seems likely. Differentiating the human influence will be the difficult part at least for me since some of the major glaciers have been retreating since at least 1850 and don’t seem to show accelleration, not dramatically anyway.

          But that they are retreating is certain in many areas. When I was in Iceland the glaciers I visited were considerably more advanced than they are now and it has been only 30 or so years. The Icelanders have not strongly advocated for a return of those glaciers; although some remnant would be good for tourism.

          • Difficult for you since you can’t and won’t comprehend reality. Luckily you’re a pointless internet troll, so no worries.

          • Quick post. (wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 Essentially it says glaciers have tracked global temps (but reverse sense). It has ref links I didn’t follow.

            • First sentence of you Wiki link:

              “The retreat of glaciers since 1850 affects the availability of fresh water for irrigation and domestic use, mountain recreation, animals and plants that depend on glacier-melt, and, in the longer term, the level of the oceans.”

              This is all too typical of the nonsensical propaganda the climatics put out. Here are the two extremes, with a range of mixed cases between:
              1) Ancient desert glaciers. These retain precipitation at high elevation held over from a climate that no longer exists. The only way they can provide water is by melting and receding.
              2) Young lowland glaciers. These have a high rate of turnover and continue to provide water wherever the equilibrium line happens to be found.

              Like everything else you hear, water problems from glaciers receding due to climate change is just lying propaganda intended for uncritical ears. –AGF

            • So, did you give Summer Rupper a call, A.G.? Because I know what she would say about your take on glacier retreat and water supplies. (Actually, it’s not just about water supply–it’s also about flow rates and certain places that rely exclusively on hydroelectric power.) Ask her about the situation in Bhutan.

            • Complains about extremes, then insists on the fallacy of the excluded middle.

              And also not talked to glaciologists…

            • BB, why don’t you stop bullshitting and do some science. Identify a dam in Bhutan which requires that a glacier doesn’t recede. No matter how simple an argument I provide it goes right over your head. –AGF

            • agf, that first sentence and what you provided are both vague and consistent with each other (in part because of how vague they are). I don’t see what makes the top propaganda but the other 2 not. I’m not sure what the propaganda would be since it says very little except to draw attention to the fact that:

              glaciers are an important source of fresh water as well as can affect ocean levels if they undergo extreme modifications.

              Why do you think that statement I wrote which is similar to the other one would be misleading or false?

              Here is an article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/05/20/10-things-you-should-know-about-sea-level-rise-and-how-bad-it-could-be/?utm_term=.52101a005061 . It has some factoids, including that all the ice currently could raise sea levels by 230 feet (over 70 meters). That’s nice info as if forms an upper bound and gives us idea of what it would mean if in fact Greenland had no ice and the Arctic and Antarctica ice melted totally at the same time. It’s an upper bound. Very important to understand this sort of thing if you are considering looking at a problem more closely.

              [The article also has a graph of sea level rise over century, which does suggest by itself we are not at a pace of doubling every 10 years. Every 20 years, probably also not. But if a major event were to happen like some Antarctic ice flowing into oceans, that would be a jolt. And whenever oceans speed up warming at deeper layers (if that happens), that would speed up the year to year rises.]

              If people understand what may happen (eg, 10 meter rise or 3 meter or whatever) by a likely general date, it helps a lot in planning. Look at how much of the US economy is in coastal cities that would potentially be devastating to the country. Is it worthwhile to build walls? Should we start abandoning those cities or building inland? Do we add walls within the city? Defending against 3 meters is different than 10m. And those procedures are very costly. We want honest assessment of the problems/probabilities that will have to be solved so we could undertake the complex and costly solution-finding/implementing.

              If you think climategate was a problem, then be precise. Do you have a list of papers you think should have been accepted and weren’t and were but shouldn’t have been? We (whoever has the competency) should be discussing the science at a high level of analysis to help resolve these problems. Get a rebuttal out there that lays something on the line.. so much more than just comments and broken data on blogs. If you can’t put numbers to it or a reasoned argument your potential critiques will be able to read, then I doubt your really understand the problem that well.

            • Instead of demanding that I become a glaciologist, AG, why don’t you call up Summer Rupper or Gerard Roe like I suggested?

            • Because if he has to do it, he won’t, and he can’t blame you for getting the question you should have asked wrong. Because it makes work for you and he can ignore their answer anyway.

              And because he’s runningoff to another thread head to demand that he doesn’t know what to ask them.

              Whatever he wants you to ask them would be the obvious answer, but angryfart doesn’t know what he wants you to ask yet. Just that you have to ask them.

    • Well, angryfart gave you what I expected. A half-assed anecdote of dubious quality of something that isn’t even data.

      Funny how denier retards get so bent out of shape with tree ring proxies of temperature but make out that a barely-asserted map of somewhere sometime “before the LIA and the MWP” somehow is 100% reliable data about anything…

  59. Propagandist Wow does an HRC trick with sea level (she said sea level had risen a foot off Miami without providing any time frame). Here’s the satellite skinny http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    As you can see the average rate is steady over the satellite record.

    • Here are data for the last century and more:

      As you can see SLR has not changed significantly for 100 years, all the propaganda you hear notwithstanding. –AGF

      • CU: 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr
        AVISO: 3.4 ± 0.6 mm/yr
        CSIRO: 3.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr
        NASA GSFC: 3.4 ± 0.4 mm/yr
        NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)

        I guess it’s all going to be goalpost shifting, hmm?

        The IPCC reports were LOWER than those figures. Yet you whinge and cry and have tantrums about “alarmist” IPCC…

        • Poor retarded Wow. The sat graph I linked to shows a 23 year trend of “3.4mm/year.” And he seems to think he just presented some sort of rebuttal. –AGF

          • Poor retarded angryfarter. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and he’s making the fact he hasn’t said anything my fault…

    • Begging the question fallacy there, angryfart.

      Proclaiming “propagandist” is not evidence that I’m wrong. But it DOES indicate you’re unconcerned with reality and have internally redefined everything to fit your narrative and to hell with evidence.

      And you have made yet more assertion of external reality to be taken onn faith alone as you having presented them accurately. With plentiful evidence you were lying (e.g. The UN officials’ words).

  60. Any arriving at this aptly named blog looking for consistently intelligent commentary might try Scott Adams’ website–he knows where his bread is buttered: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

    • So, um, a comedian???

      I suppose it fits with your love of a cockeyed lunatic who disagrees with the sovereign about whether he’s a member of the HoL or not…

      And believes he’s cured Graves Disease, but never bothered to apply the cure to himself…

    • Adams thinks we’ll likely find enough scrubbers in time. I think I read something similar he wrote a few months back. Mostly reasonable as a general approach and more so if you are not interested in being a part of any solution. Main difference though as compared say to M2 is that he doesn’t seem to be discouraging people from looking for solutions (possibly because, to use the same phrase again, he knows where his bread is buttered).

      It’s 2017. Interesting to know how this issue will be playing assuming we are still relatively stable (war, etc) in 2037 for those of us alive then. People tend to change their tune some when the abstract starts becoming reality. Hope to see all of you guys chipping in then.

      Is there more to talk about?

      • Adams once said in one of the dilbert book digressions that he had an idea and “nobody had refuted it” as wrong, he claimed.

        The thesis: Gravity is caused by everything expanding, doubling their size every period, and this would cause the earth to push up against you, therefore causing gravity, but because everything, including every ruler, also increases, there’s no way to tell the difference other than this “force”.

        Except in 3 seconds, I realised what was wrong with it, and am completely flummoxed why “nobody” had come up with a problem for his thesis (he “admitted” he wasn’t saying it was right, but that admission never really changed anything, so was a meaningless assertion).

        There’s no way to get orbits in his scheme.

        In the time taken to write that just thought “What about density and the square-cube law?”.

        So what Scott says is not reliable, usually half-thought with more seeming than actual reasoning behind it.

        • Yea, you can propose new laws of nature, but then you have to go around and verify everything else we know how to calculate. Of course, everything expanding is a simple statement that doesn’t provide any way to explain why a ball goes up and comes down (or planetary orbits).

          If everything doubles in 1D every time period, mass is 8x. We throw away mass/energy conservation unless there is a new formula and explanation for that. If it’s possible to redo everything on that premise, we’d still have to deal with that not being the simplest explanation since all things being equal the simplest is the one we are most likely to be able to teach and understand.

          • Yup, yet Adams said plain and clear, that nobody, not even real physicists, could tell him what could prove his hypothesis wrong.

            Kinda wonder who he asked, if anyone…

            Maybe he did a Trump and just didn’t hear anyone saying “Uh, this would be a problem”.

            But the point is that Scott Adams isn’t really a very reliable person on this. He’s a cartoonist who admits to incompetence and makes money ridiculing it in businesses. And he incorrectly sees incompetence as exactly as valid everywhere because it’s valid somewhere.

            IOW, “incompetence” is his hammer, and all he sees are nails.

  61. BB: “Instead of demanding that I become a glaciologist, AG, why don’t you call up Summer Rupper or Gerard Roe like I suggested?”

    And ask them just what, BB? Every where I turn I see expert glaciologists and limnologists and every kind of expertologist who give nothing but short shrift to the Hockey Stick, which you claim is alive and well. Here’s one from 10 minutes ago:

    “The extended cool and moist period expressed by our proxy indicators starting ca. 400 years ago and ending near the turn of the 19th century (Figure 2) corresponds with the period that is commonly referred to as the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ (LIA) [e.g., Barlow, 2001]. Although this period of cooling has been documented in parts of Europe and to some degree in North America, there is no clear consensus for a protracted and widespread cooling period during this time in the Asian Monsoon region, with variations recorded both in its occurrence and in the timing [Borgaonkar et al., 2002; Esper et al., 2002; Yadav and Singh, 2002; Cooke et al., 2003]. Our proxy evidence for a protracted cool and moist event starting ca. 400 years ago potentially extends the geographic range of the LIA to this area of theHimalayas. Further studies are needed to substantiate this cooling trend in the IOM region.” (p.4): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026704/pdf

    The CONSENSUS is that the LIA was global. Which as any fool can plainly see, means that the HS is bogus. If you can’t get that simple fact through your thick skull we’re wasting our time here.

    –AGF

    • If you don’t know what you would ask them, how would you know what Barry is supposed to ask, you retard?

      “The CONSENSUS is that the LIA was global”

      Proof plz. And how deep was it globally? Exists like it does in the MBH hockey stick graph, and like the MWP exists in the MBH graph too? They exist there, even you eventually accepted it was, you just moved on to claim “it wasn’t big enough”.

  62. Jose, for the beginning of you education I suggest you read this: http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

    • For yours, read:

      http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

      • I read it. It’s good but J R Fleming’s history is better. Downloaded but can’t find a current link.

        • Well, that explains why you don’t accept reality, angryfart.

          Fantasy and conspiracy waggles your drawers, reality is just too mundane for you.

          You prefer the ficiton section, hence reading WTFUWT, Climate Fraudit and the Daily Hate Mail. As much alt-fact as you can guzzle down.

          • As always, Wow makes it all up. Fleming is a believer, like Weart, or at least pretends to be. There are no doubt lots of closet skeptics out there, maybe even Munk. –AGF

            • And again angryfart just pulls crap from his arse and throws it on the internet.

    • You may have to do more than offer that link to entice me. I started reading just a bit and stopped. Any reason why I should expect the author has made an effort to present accurate context to the snippets of email rather than indulge in cherry-picking to weave another Shakespearean story line? I’m already familiar with the abuses on “hide the decline” and the “nature trick”.

      Ok, let me see what they say about hide the decline… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/ . OK, sounds bad if we assume the person writing this is faithfully rendering context. Maybe he interviewed the people involved to get their side. Nope, doesn’t seem like it since it totally fails to mention that there is a long-known problem with tree-ring failure post 1960 in some parts of the world and which doesn’t appear to exist prior to that (or so claims an sks article at top of google search).

      AGF, how do you explain that these people claim to explain climategate yet seem to make such little effort in understanding the context of the emails from the people involved or experts in the field? The tree-ring problem was a known issue. It wasn’t invented just to excuse climategate. Or was it? Have you researched it or you accept that climategate link hook and sinker?

      Skepticalscience offers this article that comes with a graph https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm . Do you have something better or a criticism of that graph that clearly shows (whatever it represents) a separation from temperature right around 1960 https://skepticalscience.com/images/Divergence_Tree_Growth_Temp.gif ?

      When you talk about me starting my education on climategate, I assume you have taken a few extra steps beyond that webpage. So did you research the claimed tree-ring divergence? Until you do that and offer evidence more convincing than skepticalscience to refute them, I consider your links a divergence problem, wasting my time with story-telling void or understanding of the science. I recommend you move away from your deep knowledge of the myths of climate science and into the science.

      • You still refuse to read the emails. You don’t have to read all of them, just the ones the various compilers have singled out for review. What you’ll see is science not at work, but a small piece of a propaganda machine. Why do you think we have this dichotomy, with the scientists solidly behind a global LIA and the IPCC championing the Hockey Stick? SS was set up to control propaganda and censor skepticism. One of the emails describes the intent to do just that–set up a tightly controlled blog to shut up the stupid old Graybill’s and Funkhauser’s who can’t be bought off to get published. You just gotta fudge a little, you know, like Mann and Karl et al, and poof, no LIA, no Pause.

        It’s a religion, a doomsday cult. Brainwash the suckers about the end of the world and they’ll do anything you tell them. It’s go Green or anarchy. Never mind that the priests and prophets make millions off the believers, money which they can in no wise spend without the utilization of oodles of energy. A large part of the cost of everything is for fossil fuels.

        So when Al Gore buys a beach mansion you can be sure he’s not nearly as worried about global warming as you are. That water is only rising an inch per decade, if that much. –AGF

        • Read the emails.

          Have you? No. You’ve read what people said they read when there hadn’t been enough time since release to have read them all.

          Al Gore didn’t buy beachfront property. It’s, what, 100ft above and over a mile away. And it’s 100% irrelevant anyway, just you hating on the rich.

          When they don’t share the same rethuglican “ethics” you do.

          • I’ll be hornswoggled–you got something right! And I don’t hate the rich; I wouldn’t mind being rich myself, so I could burn as much jet fuel as Al Gore!

            PS, Some people did read them all. There are people who do know how to read, you know. –AGF

            • So this is just envy.

              Yet you appear to think this is proof of a conspiracy? Or proof no such thing as AGW exists? Or that it’s not a problem?

              Does not follow.

            • I know I can read. Don’t know about you or M2, mind.

              And some people did read them all? So what? I read several score and found nothing untoward. And several investigations where they read everything found no problems except some testiness.

              So I don’t see why you’re whining here.

            • Wow “I know I can read. Don’t know about you or M2, mind.”

              If you continue to write to persons that cannot read how smart does it make you?

        • oh, so you don’t have anything specific except that link. Not interested. When those people figure out what hide the decline means, maybe I’ll think they have something reasonable to say.

    • My longer comment (had 3 links in it) is awaiting moderation. Here is a quote from the end of an sks article explaining “hide the decline”:

      > Skeptics like to portray “the decline” as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

      > The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn’t change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

      • BB has the blog set to allow only one link per post without moderation. He used to be quick but no longer.

        For “the decline” see Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He is marvelous fair, careful, polite, smart, intuitive, insightful. Rarely needs correction. He does the correcting, the auditing. His blog is as aptly named as this one. –AGF

        • McIntyre, along with McKitrick produced a BS paper that we’ve all gone over with you before, angryfarter, and the paper was trash and indicated either a complete incompetence at statistics or a deliberate attempt to lie to you.

          Neither buys him a legit status in reality.

          • Utter BS.

            • Yes, their paper was utter BS.

      • Jose_X “My longer comment (had 3 links in it) is awaiting moderation.”

        This can be avoided by bracketing the [https] part so WordPress does not see it as a link.

    • https://skepticalscience.com/images/Divergence_Tree_Growth_Temp.gif graph showing the problem known with tree-ring growth diverging from temperatures in some parts of planet around 1960s. The climategate sleuths missed that. They should have interviewed scientists about the science or taken some classes (but it would have destroyed their story, true).

      • Don’t read SS or RC or Wiki on Climategate, damn it! Read the emails. Read Kelly’s compendium for starters. If you don’t get to the source you will remain sucker bait. –AGF

        • Yeah, don’t read what the expert opinion is, only read the opinions that angryfarter reads, or it doesn’t work, dammit!

          ‘course you ALSO have to not question the conspiracy at all, and just gullibly believe the BS like angryfart here does, otherwise it still won’t work.

          Basically, just tell him he’s right or you’re doing it wrong.

          It’s how the self-styled “skeptics” (read: gullible morons) roll.

  63. NTZ lists some 500 papers from 2016 alone that call into question the supposed CO2 consensus (hence the doomsday nonsense): http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#comment-1118761

    –AGF

    • Is this going to be like Poptart’s list where even the authors insist he’s got it wrong. And not IPCC realists, but one of the deniers’ favourites, Roy Spencer, tried to tell poptart he was wrong with including Roy’s paper?

      Or is this going to be compared to the, what, quarter million papers produced in science in 2016 alone?

      Or is it just going to be plain old bollocks?

    • Read the first one in that list, angryfart. Let me know what you think of it.

      I’ll give you a hint for the first thing I want to see if you read it. A single word:

      Vostock.

      See if you read the paper enough to work out what that word relates to in the paper.

  64. More consensus (WUWT):

    ===================================================

    Anthony Watts / 2 days ago February 13, 2017

    The Battle For Truth And Credibility Over Global Warming Pause

    A story in the Sunday Times confirms that the UK Met Office does not accept Karl et al.’s denial of the global warming hiatus and acknowledges that, ‘the slowdown hasn’t gone away.’ Writing in this week’s New Scientist, Michael Mann claimed that the pause is an ‘utterly debunked idea’ and ‘in the final analysis was much ado about nothing,’ and a ‘favourite climate contrarian talking point.’ The pause is real and it contains lots of interesting science, there are over 50 explanations proffered for it. But is also has another effect in that is shows the diversity of opinion in climate science, which on this important topic is certainly not settled. Who can deny that climate science is divided over this crucial issue? –- David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 12 February 2017

    “What you see is that the slowdown just goes away.” –Thomas Karl (NOAA), Science Magazine, 4 June 2015.
    “The slowdown hasn’t gone away.” –Peter Stott (Met Office), The Sunday Times, 12 February 2017

    ====================================================

    So Michael Mann’s brief flirtation with real science has gone the way of the Hockey Stick. The Pause was here; the Pause is gone. Mann accepted the Pause: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201603&spMailingID=50767823&spUserID=MTI0NzgyNDMwMjA2S0&spJobID=862987827&spReportId=ODYyOTg3ODI3S0
    Now he doesn’t. That’s not consensus; that’s schizophrenia.
    –AGF

    • no consensus on hiatus, ok. [not very scientific analysis of opinions, but likely true]

      As to who is right, I’ll repost the explanation from before from a very recent study. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnyX32nkYBs

      It’s been a few years and no consensus on this issue (with newest research suggesting a long-term hiatus in surface temp across land/ocean is not real), but it’s been decades as goes AGW.

      Mann and others have a valid point that natural variability might be able to allow for long-term hiatus in surface temp. That makes sense (although they justify it I think based on model runs).

      As aside, largest growth of electric generation units (“additions”) in US last year was solar (beat out natural gas and wind). http://www.pv-tech.org/news/2016-was-us-solars-biggest-year-to-date-with-record-breaking-95-growth and compare prior year https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25492 . That’s not that special, but shows strong and increasing demand. In addition, total capacity roughly doubled now to 40GW which looks like might be around 1% of total I’m estimating (but doubled in one year is the point). Total capacity breakdown for 2015: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html (solar was about 20GW out of 400GW total.. 2016 it rose to 40GW). We need integration of doubling period being 1 year!! How long before solar is 100,000% !!!!! (lol)

      • oops, that’s 40 out of 4000 (GW).. [prior comment in moderation]

    • “The slowdown hasn’t gone away.” –Peter Stott (Met Office), The Sunday Times

      The Sunday Times must have a different Peter Stott (Met Office) fromthe Peter Stott (Acting Director of Met Office Hadley Centre) who retweeted:

      Topical reminder: All the ways we know the world is warming, & why

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/data-dashboard-climate-change

    • “More consensus (WUWT)”

      More lies from angryfart.

      For a start, Wtfuwt doesn’t even agree on whether there’s been warming.

      And as to the hiatus, there never was one.

      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

      pwned.

      • > https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

        I think the intuition is this. Look at say BEST data since 70s. There are many cases of ups and downs across the years/decades. If we flatten the data somewhat by subtracting the upward trend over that whole period, we get what looks like noise (much of it likely due to “internal variation”). To show there has been a change of trend that “noise” has to have a section with a trend line different from flat. That would mean that if we took that part and again subtracted that supposed trend, then we would get what again looks like noise of the same “color” as the noise in the other part and flat.

        In other words, the reason there doesn’t appear to be a (statistically significant) trend change in the 2000s decade is that the noise of that section looks about the same (same statistical features more or less) as the noise in the earlier decades, once we subtract the (assumed) same underlying trend.

        To see a (fake) down trend, you have start say around 1998 with the trend start point high up near the 1998 temp so that it slants significantly different from the normal trend line, but Tamino mentions how that would likely be an unphysical situation if the temp just abruptly shot up in a very short time so as to start the downward-ish trend from that high level.

        In other words, you can’t cherry-pick the starting point of the trend you want to see. You have to continue it from the prior trend line at the point where you believe the trend may have changed. Otherwise, you are assuming 1998, rather than being an extra hot year, was instead a normal year and the start of a slowing trend but appeared really hot relative to prior years only because of some incident that year, like large hot meteor hitting earth and quickly raising the average temp.

        Conclusion:
        Absent a reasonable alternative physical interpretation to argue 1998 was a normal year post an abnormal heat event, 1998 instead would be considered an extra hot year significantly above the established trend line. Furthermore, there is no new trend line starting in 1998 that would be significantly different from the multi-decade trend (assuming the two trend lines have to touch in 1998 and be average approximations to the scattered yearly points on either side of them).

        Besides all of that, we have a video link (again) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnyX32nkYBs explaining why effectively NOAA had forgotten to properly adjust their algorithm to mix temps from buoys with temps from ships from a time in the past when they made simple approximations that worked then when the ratio of ship to buoy temps was different and lopsided in the other direction as is the case now. Their failure to fix that algorithm as the number of buoys increased to surpass ship measurements introduced a false downward bias into the temp data for the past decade or so.

      • > [https]://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/slowdown-skeptic/

        I think the intuition is this. Look at say BEST data since 70s. There are many cases of ups and downs across the years/decades. If we flatten the data somewhat by subtracting the upward trend over that whole period, we get what looks like noise (much of it likely due to “internal variation”). To show there has been a change of trend that “noise” has to have a section with a trend line different from flat. That would mean that if we took that part and again subtracted that supposed trend, then we would get what again looks like noise of the same “color” as the noise in the other part and flat.

        In other words, the reason there doesn’t appear to be a (statistically significant) trend change in the 2000s decade is that the noise of that section looks about the same (same statistical features more or less) as the noise in the earlier decades, once we subtract the (assumed) same underlying trend.

        To see a (fake) down trend, you have start say around 1998 with the trend start point high up near the 1998 temp so that it slants significantly different from the normal trend line, but Tamino mentions how that would likely be an unphysical situation if the temp just abruptly shot up in a very short time so as to start the downward-ish trend from that high level.

        In other words, you can’t cherry-pick the starting point of the trend you want to see. You have to continue it from the prior trend line at the point where you believe the trend may have changed. Otherwise, you are assuming 1998, rather than being an extra hot year, was instead a normal year and the start of a slowing trend but appeared really hot relative to prior years only because of some incident that year, like large hot meteor hitting earth and quickly raising the average temp.

        Conclusion:
        Absent a reasonable alternative physical interpretation to argue 1998 was a normal year post an abnormal heat event, 1998 instead would be considered an extra hot year significantly above the established trend line. Furthermore, there is no new trend line starting in 1998 that would be significantly different from the multi-decade trend (assuming the two trend lines have to touch in 1998 and be average approximations to the scattered yearly points on either side of them).

        Besides all of that, we have a video link (again) [https]://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnyX32nkYBs explaining why effectively NOAA had forgotten to properly adjust their algorithm to mix temps from buoys with temps from ships from a time in the past when they made simple approximations that worked then when the ratio of ship to buoy temps was different and lopsided in the other direction as is the case now. Their failure to fix that algorithm as the number of buoys increased to surpass ship measurements introduced a false downward bias into the temp data for the past decade or so.

        [this is a near duplicate of comment in moderation.. reposted now because i don’t want to wait]

        • We could look at trends in bursts as is done in the “denier” section of the staircase example from sks. We could say that temps go on slightly downward trends for a number of years connected to each other by abrupt 1-year spikes.

          We can look at longer term trends like do most climate scientists.

          What we can’t do and be accurate is to say that we are trying to guesstimate temps 100 years from now but do so from trend lines that go up and down dramatically every few years. If you are modelling so that every few years there is a dramatic change in “climate” and you can’t find the meaning behind those changes, you have a weak case that you know what will happen in 100 years. You basically are just guessing that far out.

          Climate scientists in general are modelling for the marathon of seeing what happens in 100+ years. They try to understand what effects change the long-term trends. CO2 is the clear effect here. We have difficult to predict multiyear phases (like elnino etc) but which are understood to basically zero themselves every so many years, more or less, leaving a distinct co2 signal. They focus on long-term signals while trying to filter out the “noise” like weather and the planet’s multi-decade atmosphere pseudo-cycles. You can do this by focusing primarily on the big picture, energy balance equation at the global scale as well as looking to our long-term geological history. They look at tilt of planet (although this comes with multi-thousand year implications, so is not too relevant).

          Scientists like LIndzen focus on subsections of the planet, but then they will miss any effect that comes from the parts they are essentially ignoring (like ice melting near poles). So Lindzen can say, ok, we have this smaller trend, but it applies only as long as the poles (a boundary condition) don’t change dramatically. If they do, then these results won’t apply, and honestly I am not studying the poles, so I don’t know what to expect there.

          [Climate scientists in general do study the poles (and deep oceans, etc); they study everything that reasonably might come to affect temperatures centuries into the future. You can be uncertain about the details of clouds, the specifics of dates, yet get some degree of confidence in the bigger picture by looking at main sources and sinks (space/oceans/poles).]

  65. SST…sea SURFACE temperature. Measured consistently at the SURFACE by satellite only. So, UAH, and RSS (until recently), showed a Pause quite clearly (as did all the other data sets until recently).

    Now in your little video Hausfather wants to explain the ruckus away by telling us that SST means different things to different people, and that nobody figured that about before Karl, et al. And this in spite of the facts that:
    1) Satellites don’t care whether SST is measured by ships or buoys;
    2) The first thing you do when switching between measurement methods is to calibrate between them;
    3) A similar switch was made between bucket readings and ship intake readings long ago, and these scientists weren’t born yesterday;
    4) RSS adjusted its purely SAT data to get rid of the Pause, obviously not because of problems between variant subsurface methods of measurement;
    5) The Met Office apparently doesn’t know the first thing about calibration;
    6) The NOAA whistle blower, Dr. John Bates, evidently didn’t know any more than you or I why NOAA adjusted the data;
    7) Neither did Mann et al when they wrote their rebuttal to Karl, et al;
    8) Mann did an about face and called the Pause “an utterly debunked idea” seemingly because he and his colleagues had never read Karl et al when they published their rebuttal to it.

    So Jose, it seems you would have us believe that Mann just lately saw Hausfather’s video and realized he himself did not really know anything about the Pause or temperature measurement in general. Pardon me if I don’t convert to the cult of climate doom just yet. –AGF

    • the SURFACE by satellite only. So, UAH, and RSS (until recently),

      UAH and RSS don’t use satellite sea surface temperature measurements. They use satellite measurements of the atmospheric temperature in four thick layers spanning the surface through the lower stratosphere.

      showed a Pause quite clearly

      There is no such thing as a clear pause in UAH or RSS. There is far too much variance in the temperatures they measure to show any statistically significant change in the temperature trend.

    • “Measured consistently at the SURFACE by satellite only.”

      That’s a flat out lie, angryfart.

      They don’t measure temperature, only radiance levels.
      They don’t measure the surface, they only measure volumes.
      They haven’t been consistent, they’ve had dozens of changes

      Given the rest of that bullshit relies on that huge whopper of a lie being true, the rest of it is valueless bullshit.

      • As UAH measures the temperature of the lower troposphere it measures the direct effect of IR radiation from the ocean surface, as do radiosondes when released over water. Until Karl et al, UAH was the only T record which showed any warming over the “Pause.” Now it shows the least, and not because of any significant recent adjustments.

        Significant adjustments? Mann’s take on the Pause.

        –AGF

        • As that was a complete load of bollocks, you’re wrong angryfart.

          Go ask Roy Spencer. He’ll tell you you’re wrong too.

        • Consistent measurements by angryfart:

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

          they don’t even use the same calibrated instruments.

          Angryfart is a dumbass. Even Roy Spencer agrees on that.

        • it measures the direct effect of IR radiation from the ocean surface

          and the direct effect of radiation from the Sun and other levels of the atmosphere and clouds and …

          Whatever your day job is, don’t give it up because you’re incompetent at radiation physics.

          • Chris, it doesn’t measure IR. Go look up AMSU.

            Angryfart is more incompetent than you realise…

            • doesn’t measure IR

              Where did I say it measures IR? You would do a lot better if you stopped making up shit.

            • Angryfart did, chris, not you.

              you over-estimated angryfarter’s intelligence.

          • The atmosphere is nearly transparent to radiation from the sun; back IR heats it. That’s the “greenhouse effect.” Clouds interfere with measurement at the outset: junk, discarded.

            • And you just self-pwned, angryfart.

            • If satellites+analysts were doing the same job processing their data to compute temp at surface as thermometers+analysts do in processing their surface thermometer data, we would not get the large spike differences in the satellite data vs BEST and other analysis based on thermometers and like. That these temp profiles across years differ is basic evidence that satellite processed results is not reflective of the same physical quantity as thermometer processed results.

              The ir itself is not the main source of heat, the main source is the motion of the molecules experienced by local contact primarily. ghg work by capturing ir for a long time and funneling those bits of energy to nearby molecules slowly “building up” the surrounding temp after many such absorbed photons from ghg and contact between the ghg and surrounding gases. laser temp guns assume blackbody profile (the cheap ones) [easy to implement as digital lookup table]. If you have blackbody profile, then to know the ir is to know the temp. But ghg are not like that, and the atmosphere is full of a mix of lots of such substances. Just like the door of an oven blocks knowledge of the temp inside the oven, to the degree we don’t intelligently utilize all of the radiation information and understand the constitution of ovens, so too air masses, especially when you factor in varying water contents, dust, etc, make it non-trivial to identify the temperature hiding behind them. I suspect this difficulty is why the satellite groups don’t claim to measure surface temperature (again, the proof that they get looks significantly different from those of ground thermometers, at least as go the spikes from major elnino years).

            • junk

              I agree. Trying to measure surface temperature by measuring temperatures several kilometres up in the atmosphere with contamination reaching up as far as the stratosphere is junk. Discard it.

            • If we measure many different radiation frequency ranges so as to properly infer the composition of atmosphere/land/ocean and then process that with correct algorithms, we could get it to work. I don’t think our state of knowledge is at that level. Point though is that it is much more complex than thermometer measurements and stitching that data together with statistics if we have enough coverage. Also, costs and physical limitations might simply prevent all the right tools from being launched in a satellite.

      • “They don’t measure temperature, only radiance levels.”

        I wonder if Wow has ever heard of a thermometer gun, or night vision goggles. –AGF

        • I wonder how you think satellites measure temperatures with thermometers. Or night vision. Or guns (?!?!?).

          Oh, I know, you’re clueless. Got it.

        • I Also wonder if you know what AMSU means, or where it occurs.

          More premium-grade bullshit from angryfarter.

        • Laser gun and night vision goggles assume blackbody profile. So the ir they get at a given instance is assumed to come from a body at a given temperature.

          GHG don’t have blackbody profile.

          The satellites are getting ir from blackbody surfaces plus ir from air that doesn’t have blackbody characteristics. Satellites have to measure different things to guesstimate what the atmosphere is like and what temperatures are like. Even then, currently they don’t seem to claim they have figured out how to derive the surface temp but instead acknowledge they develop some unspecified composite temp of a large volume in the “vicinity” of ground.

          [It’s not just the ghg/air that poses a challenge. Even the ocean ir-temp connection is complex. The top layer in contact with air is much hotter than say 20 meters lower; however, on el nino years that ratio is likely different. If satellite algorithms don’t process el nino years differently than other years, they will produce algorithmic warming/cooling on those years that isn’t there. Basically, satellites need to infer temperature of the top layer of ocean (contact with air, sst) based on radiation gotten from top and from layers a little lower (and from atmosphere!). That association would be different whenever the profile of temp vs ir changes for that water, as likely happens on strong el nino years. If the satellites don’t make those adjustments on el nino years, they will fail to guess sst anomalies consistently across years, at least relative to what on-the-surface thermometers actually measure in temperatures. Remember (as mentioned in earlier comment), ir transfers a little heat, but temperature is defined by motion of molecules. From ir you can infer temp of where ir came from or of something else if you use proper model/assumptions, but like all proxies, it can be wrong vs the standard thermometer approach.]

          Conclusion: laser gun and nightvision work on the general assumption of a blackbody profile as they portend to measure temperatures of complex solid surfaces (usually assumed to be near range of 100F). SST includes lots of water (not exactly blackbody) and has an atmosphere above it that modifies the signal to be varying and very different from blackbody.

          Plus, to a satellite high in the sky, 1 mile of depth “looks about as flat” as 1 cm looks to a normal application of a laser temperature gun, yet that mile can vary significantly in temperature throughout at least vs that 1 cm.

    • For the “consistent Satellite data”:

      For example Mears et al. at RSS found 0.193 °C/decade for lower troposphere up to July 2005, compared to +0.123 °C/decade found by UAH for the same period.

      Average trend =(0.193+0.123)/2=0.316/3=0.158c/decade.

      IPCC average? 0.15-0.17C/decade.

      ooooh.

    • > 2) The first thing you do when switching between measurement methods is to calibrate between them;
      > 3) A similar switch was made between bucket readings and ship intake readings long ago, and these scientists weren’t born yesterday;

      If I understand this all correctly enough, the approximation was adequate early on but stopped being applicable as the relative number of buoys/ships changed significantly. It’s good biz to make approximations to make problems tractable. You can retain accurate enough solutions if done well. Engineers of all stripes make a living this way. We all live life this way. However, if the assumption conditions change, you have to change the algorithms, etc. Apparently they didn’t catch that quickly enough so that the data across a decade or so was tilted artificially downward. At some point, as the data deviated from what was expected, people went back and caught the mistake. This sort of behavior is how I believe all humans work, private/public, you name it. One is always making trade-offs and analyzing costs ($$ as well as time and complexity and consequences of being off x amount, etc). When what you observe strays sufficiently from what you expect or would like to see, you dig to try to find solutions.

      If you think they are being biased simply to fit what you believe is a desired result, then point out how it would be worse to apply the new algorithm or else try to find some verifiable way to make a case for unprofessional neglect in the past. Or don’t worry and maybe be happy that the data is likely now more accurate than before, although it speaks to a warming planet deviating from “natural variability” even further.

    • I think 1,2, and 3 at least those 3 have been addressed, pointing out some things you may not realize. 4, I don’t know what that is. 5 and 6 don’t seem to follow.

      7 and 8:
      Did Mann fail to understand the adjustments Karl made? I haven’t read the paper, so I don’t have a strong opinion. Even if we assume he did (as is suggested by that intro), how does that subtract from the other points and research on that or other papers? How does that impact AGW? If the paper is bad, it basically doesn’t. If it’s good, then please read it for me and tell me how AGW is strengthened of weakened if you want.

  66. Mears is another who suddenly realized all his previous work was wrong, just when NOAA did for supposedly different reasons. And then NASA GISS, etc. But Wow doesn’t know the first thing about thermodynamics, e.g., of correspondence between temperature and radiation. He’s only here to fill the blog with bullshit, to spout the party line, no pause, no pause, no pause. That’s why I emphasize Mann’s about face. For one brief shining moment he went scientific, defending the Pause. Now he denies it. You sure have to be stupid to not see propaganda at work here. –AGF

    • More bullshit.

      No, Mears doesn’t think his work was wrong and I know vastly more than you do, you ignoramus. I know, for example, that those satellite readings come from AMSU not IR cameras.

      For one brief shining moment …. nah, you were always talking bullshit. There was no shining, just shitola.

      PS there was no pause, dumbass.

  67. The IR GOES maps use IR cameras, which work like night vision goggles, displaying temperature variation visually. The AMSU is similar to a temperature gun, measuring radiation to be converted to temperature:

    “The Advanced microwave sounding unit (AMSU) is a multi-channel microwave radiometer installed on meteorological satellites. The instrument examines several bands of microwave radiation from the atmosphere to perform atmospheric sounding of temperature and moisture levels” (Wikipedia).

    Wow should read the Wikipedia article about AMSU in order to learn about “atmospheric sounding of temperature.” But he won’t, and he thinks you won’t either. –AGF

    • Yup, more bullshit. You just went and read the wiki page then “misunderstood” it to fit.

      No, the IR cam is used to take IR pics, not surface temperature measurements. AMSU uses microwaves, and is nothing like a “thermometer gun”, nor is it like IR goggles, you dumbass.

      And the AMSU data is used to produce those temperature readings via computer models in the UAH and RSS teams,where they both fail to show a pause,just like the nonexistent one in the surface records.

  68. OK. I said: “SST…sea SURFACE temperature. Measured consistently at the SURFACE by satellite only.”

    That’s misleading at best. Surface T cannot be measured directly from space due to atmospheric interference. But the troposphere can be, and its temperature on a clear day is determined in the short run by surface T and in the long run by atmospheric composition, including GHGs. Do satellites use the equivalents of T guns? Close to it, but as stated, they cannot be used to measure surface T directly.

    But the fact remains that the sat record (and radiosonde record) bridges the transition between ship intakes and ARGO buoys, and NOAA could only use such an excuse for amending the record on the assumption that either both SAT records and the radiosonde record are no good, or worse, that there should be expected no correspondence between SST and TLT. The latter would be tantamount to denying the greenhouse effect and the chances of global warming.

    Contrary to Wow’s many assertions, Spencer and his UAH show a fine Pause, which may not be over yet–we shall see. Chris O’Neill could teach him a thing or two about climate and rhetoric. And while the case of UAH over Karl et al is not as direct as I represented, we have said nothing of the hot spot, which like the Pause, was not disputed until 2015. The anthropogenic component of global warming is determined by the hot spot; without it all warming may be safely deemed natural.

    And of course the remainder of my argument at February 15, 2017
    at 10:12 pm is not affected by my misrepresentation of SAT measured SST. The fraud is old and ongoing as Mann’s behavior clearly shows. –AGF

    • “Do satellites use the equivalents of T guns?”

      No.

      They use a completely different method.

      Meanwhile your failure hasn’t stopped you plodding into other areas that you currently haven’t found out how wrong you are (and, having to argue against Roy Spencer, a fellow denier, and this one a scientist), to keep the same bullshit complaints.

      Buoys read cooler than Ship intakes, and the trend of SSTs with either on their own give the same trend. But because one is right next to a hot engine, it reads higher. If you up the buoy data, the trend is changed NOT AT ALL. You do not change a trend by adding a constant to it.

      Mind you, David Rose doesn’t understand that either.

      When you then add the constant to minimise the differences between the two datasets, the trend is not changed, but you can use the greater number of readings and their greater coverage both spatially and chronologically, to make a more certain value for the trend.

      But you, like Rose, don’t understand, if it gets in the way of a conspiritard rant.

    • And no, UAH don’t show a pause.

      Even of V6, the code and corrections for which are still kept secret, but none of the denier conspiritards care on this one.

  69. Let’s keep it real simple for Wow:

    1) Did Mann or did he not collaborate in a paper defending the Pause, published in Nature, Feb. 1, 2016: http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=0EzrpIPapygRJ8wbsq0CT9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9bldKYisAn–P5Djex2GxwUVaxHJvGZA6CV3RoVsacjc4Bn86sGs2o0Cf_t7bvmgVnexAsZGl_sj5cl968-0rn3-TKKTiKqC_s3Q09j3pThfDPycXe8LzueeRscl4CKDNi58tDKzjk6Fo1kd_kiv-sXePQULXJKqbaBW3mwQCOJRZ0zTsXiJoOiCZRHrvkxPZVJcuTcY6hxbXXpeVnHNR20oSaxKg36S15x3L6v_ag5Tho%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

    2) Does he not now, like you, deny the Pause?

    3) Why did he change his mind?

    –AGF

    PS, Spencer never denied the Pause on UAH:
    http[XXX]://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/comments-on-new-rss-v4-pause-busting-global-temperature-dataset/

    • Yeah, we went all over this ages ago, moron.

      Because you retards called the time period “the hiatus”, they had to call it “the hiatus” too, else you’d be all brainsick from trying to work out what’s going on.

      There is no pause.

      Mann isn’t saying there’s a pause.

      There isn’t a pause.

      Learn some maths, retardo.

    • “Pause busting”? Are you saying that the temps are going up massively?

      I guess when I told the police you were a pedophile, the papers saying you were being held on the charge of kiddie fiddling would prove to you that you were a child buggerer, right?

  70. Mann et al: “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

    ALMOST everything Wow says is a lie. Almost. –AGF

    • Yes, you morons claimed there was a hiatus. Therefore it was investigated. And to show it was investigated, they had to let you know what was investigated.

      The claim that there was a hiatus.

      And they found there wasn’t one.

      What’s the problem?

      Apart from the zombie argument you resurrected died a year ago…

  71. Mann et al:

    “It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming,

    has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations.

    The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”

    Read…it…again…,…Wow. That…is…about…as…easy…as…I…can…make…it.

    (Why do I waste my time with Wow? Because his is the true face of climate alarm.)

    –AGF

    • Yes, angryfart, i read it.

      the claims of a hiatus

      are proved wrong.

    • You can do it yourself, angryfart.

      What is the trend before “the pause”.

      What is the trend during “the pause”.

      What is the trend after “the pause”.

      Include your error bars.

      Let us all know what you get, retardo.


Categories

%d bloggers like this: