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.

 


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.

  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.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: