Gavin Schmidt’s new climate picture book: Anti-Science?

Reprinted here by request from Harold Ambler – Anthony

What follows is an open letter to the Salon writer Peter Dizikes, who recently published an article about a new book by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt on climate change.

The water level of Lake Powell, like that of all reservoirs in the American West, has fluctuated since the day it was dammed.
The water level of Lake Powell, like that of all reservoirs in the American West, has fluctuated since the day it was dammed.

Dear Mr. Dizikes:

I recently saw your overview of Gavin Schmidt’s new book as well as your interview with him on Salon.

I was surprised to see that you consider the effects of manmade global warming to be “oddly invisible.” Having studied the subject for a couple of years now, while performing my own research, it has been my observation that newspapers, magazines, and television news sources show images of supposed manmade climate change on a daily basis. Such images include: floods, polar bears, glacial calving, etc. If anything, images of global warming might be said to saturate western media.

As with so many other products generated by the AGW industry, Schmidt’s book Climate Change: Picturing the Science is part of an ongoing effort to frighten the credulous. Its messages include: weather will kill you, our moment on Earth is unique, climate did not used to change.

Had you wanted to fulfill the responsibilities of an objective and hard-hitting journalist, you might have asked Schmidt about the image of Lake Powell on his book’s cover book. Now, of course, we are all told never to judge a book by its cover – but this is a visual book that demands to be judged on visual terms. There are a lot of people, unfortunately, who don’t know enough about the facts to perform this kind of analysis themselves. Failing to do so for them is a pity.

Were you aware, may I ask, of the controversial nature of the damming of the Colorado River that led to Lake Powell? Environmentalists were and are appalled by this particular dam. It has changed an important piece of the American natural landscape. But, like all manmade dams on Earth, it has changing water levels. Dammed lakes in the American west are particularly prone to fluctuating water levels, within single years, year to year, and on the decadal level. Water use varies as well, although it can be counted on to slowly increase. Using an image of lowered water level on Lake Powell, which is a reservoir, sitting in a desert, to indicate anything about climate change is perverse. I would even go to far as to call it anti-science.

The assumption that industrial production of co2 has altered precipitation patterns is exactly that, an assumption. Further, what you are going to find, in the next decade, is that global temperatures are going to remain flat (as they have since 1998) and/or start to decline. What you are also going to find is that science writers in the American media establishment are going to peel off, one by one, from the AGW heterodoxy.

Group-think has affected many societies negatively, and it has not disappeared during our own time. The fact that neither Mr. Schmidt’s editor, nor his publisher, nor you, nor the photographer, nor Mr. Schmidt himself would stop to reflect on the oddity of this cover is enough to give one pause.

Sincerely yours,

Harold Ambler

About these ads

157 thoughts on “Gavin Schmidt’s new climate picture book: Anti-Science?

  1. Good propaganda is highly visual. Pictures can more easily get people to suspend their critical thinking skills than the written word. AGW propaganda needs all of the help it can get i keeping people from actually thinking about the validity of what is claimed.
    Schmidt, having lost his debate with the late Chrichton, knows better than to try and actually use words to sell AGW. He tries, and fails, daily over at his blogsite, Real Climate. His only hope is to use misleading pictures to sell his position. And he knows it.
    The other point of the article, that AGW is maybe only topped by Brad Pit and Angelina Jolie as to over exposed images, is extremely good. AGW has, in effect already lost the war. The AGW promoters made specific predictions, and those predictions have failed. But the AGW industry still ahs a huge amount of social capital, and it will take a few years for it to dissipate.

  2. I recently tried to contribute on realclimate’s web site. I composed a detailed explanation that ‘Warming-worriers’ had only themselves to blame for leading the public perception that by now we would (should) be in a much warmer world than we actually are. As their software wouldn’t let my piece pass, Mr Schmidt kindly sent me an email saying that he had read it through and, although he disagreed with it, could see no reason why the software rejected it. So he pasted it onto the site personally. Naturally, my piece was derided by a mouth-foaming mob, so I countered their arguments. However, this time my reference to ‘warming-worriers’ was edited out and I was told in no uncertain terms to “cut out the abuse”. I sent Mr Schmidt an email explaining that he had originally personally passed the comment as okay as he had read it! But more than that, he constantly allows “Deniers” with all its connotations as acceptable. I drew the conclusion that realclimate is an odd place, with odd perceptions, and run by an odd person.

  3. A picture is as good as a thousand words. Propagandists use these pictures intentionally; not by accident. In my RAF days I saw two five minute propaganda films made by our RAF film club; one showing British wealth and over consumption the other showing British poverty and despair. Both were filmed inside 5 minutes drive of the RAF station (base to our US readers).

    This book is yet more AGW propaganda.

    Enjoy.

  4. Its messages include: weather will kill you, our moment on Earth is unique, climate did not used to change.

    I challenge you to find any place in the book where the claim is made that climate did not change in the past.

    Ignoring the fact that the book is about climate, not weather, I’m curious about the claim that weather will not kill you. Tell that to the investigators trying to figure out what happened to the Air France flight that was recently lost over the Atlantic.

    On the other hand, our moment on earth *is* unique, as Homo sapiens time on earth has been a very tiny fraction of the history of the planet. An eyeblink.

  5. Well I have a Comment. Note the book has a forward by Jeffrey D. Sachs.

    Sachs is a sometime opinionator in the pages of “Scientific American” magazine.

    I have been taking SA for something like 40 years; but I am likely to stop any time soon, because in recent years, SA editors have fully intoxicated themselves on the looney left coolade; and the Mag has tended to become more of a political rag, than a scientific mag.

    For something over 30 years I have also paid for a subscription for my former Florida Keys tarpon fishing guide, for his edification. A now retired South Carolina lad, he now runs a Gun range in western Florida. I imagine he soon will be refusing delivery of SA, because of their taking a dive.

    But some of these Chicken Little books, are worth having around, to see what is being pushed as the current agenda.

    It’s a sad commentary on science and scientists; that they now prostitute themselves to the one world agenda to keep their research grant funds coming.

    That leads to the absurdity of a US President standing up in front of the whole world and declaring that a “religion” that was born in the 600 ADs, somehow sparked the invention of Arches (some Roman examples of which were already falling down in earthquakes by this time), as well as Algebra, and Music.

    Hello, Earth to Obama, music is banned in most Islamic cultures.

    Truth, it seems, is what one declares it to be.

    Well Gavin Schmidt fully understands that.

    Funny thing; when I lived in St Louis Mo, and told the locals, that my name was Smith; the next question was:- “Is that two t’s or dt ?”

    I think I’ll elect to go with the two t’s.

    George

  6. I think that the front cover epitomizes the AGW case.

    To wit:

    Lake water levels:

    1. Man made the dam.
    2. The dam made the lake.
    3. Man controls the flow rate from the dam.
    4. Thus, lake level variation is manmade.

    AGW:

    1. Man made the instruments (thermometers).
    2. Man made the computers.
    3. Man places thermometers near heat sources.
    4. Man wrote the programs for the models.
    5. Man manipulates the models and data for effect.
    6. Models make global warming.
    7. Thus, global warming is manmade.

    An aside issue why is it when we talk about global warming being “manmade” is acceptable, but when talking about other issues the male gender representation of humanity isn’t appropriate?

  7. Has Mr Schmidt’s book got that photograph of the poor old polar bear floating off to oblivion on his ice-floe? Has me in floods of tears every time, that one.

  8. Agreed, Lake Powell is affected by regional conditions (including effect of the ENSO and PDO & AMO states), and water outflow. Last year while the Lake had been recovering levels a major sustained discharge was made for ‘environmental’ purposes of the river and wildlife. Such discharges are another factor in Lake level.

    Year / Max / Min elevations
    1966 3545.68 3521.45
    1970 3601.77 3566.62
    1972 3619.71 3603.02
    1979 3684.77 3626.93
    1982 3687.83 3661.89
    1992 3634.01 3615.91
    2008 3633.72 3588.24

    All of the data can be found here.

    http://lakepowell.water-data.com/index2.php

  9. Taking jounralists to task over their slavish devotion to AGW has got to be a good thing. What Harold Ambler said was spot on. We could do with a few Harold Amblers on this side of the pond.

  10. As with so many other products generated by the AGW industry, Schmidt’s book Climate Change: Picturing the Science is part of an ongoing effort to frighten the credulous. Its messages include: weather will kill you, our moment on Earth is unique, climate did not used to change.

    I wonder if Dr. Schmidt ever had to take a geology class while he was getting his BA in Mathematics and his PhD in Applied Mathematics…If “climate did not used to change” there’s a whole lot of sedimentary section out in the Gulf of Mexico that someone needs to return to North America…;-))

  11. Anthropogenic global warming isn’t even pseudoscience, it’s a religion.

    Carbon dioxide is less than 00.038% of the atmosphere.

    Only someone who is completely off their heads could go on about that.

  12. How do you know temperatures are going to decline?
    Recently this site put up a post with a chart showing the opposite.

  13. I read Salon on a daily basis (I’m kind of a masochist I guess?) Anyway when the interview was first published, the little slideshow of pics from the book that went along with it had a picture of a collapsing house in Alaska with a caption along the lines of “house collapsing due to melting permafrost.” Well, a couple of Alaskans commented in the letters thread that this house was actually a casualty of the 1964 earthquake and had nothing to due with melting permafrost. The picture was removed from the slideshow, and Schmidt posted a correction at the end of the letters thread, but I guess the book is already published. OOPS. That, along with the Lake Powell thing, and also another comment by someone about the bark beetle problem being due to lack of forest fires rather than global warming, pretty much convinced me this book is bunk! The scary thing was how the Salon community ate it up.

  14. Further, what you are going to find, in the next decade, is that global temperatures are going to remain flat (as they have since 1998) and/or start to decline.

    This is as much of a guess as saying temps will rise. We simply don’t know what will happen, why are people afraid to say that?

  15. dhogaza (11:18:42) : – you DID notice that linky of yours was from 2003, didn’t you? As Alan Cheetham (11:34:28) posted – the levels seem to be going up. Think 6 years might make a difference?

  16. Ah yes. The book. Schmidt uses his time at GISS to write coffee-table books, and even gets the government to advertise them:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2009/Schmidt_Wolfe.html

    Meanwhile, the Model E sits there, a horribly documented pile of FORTRAN junk, as always – untouched…because Gavin Schmidt doesn’t have ANY TIME to write any proper documentation for it, you see…

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    And all they while, he keeps churning out stuff like this…

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Schmidt_Archer.pdf

    “Dangerous change, even loosely defined, is going to be hard to avoid.
    Unless emissions begin to decline very soon, severe disruption to the climate system will entail expensive adaptation measures and may eventually require cleaning up the mess by actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.”

    Your tax dollars at work…

  17. Here is the United States Drought Index through 2005.

    Also you can find a similar slide in the author of Climate of Extremes at the Heartland conference Thursday.

  18. “I have been taking SA for something like 40 years; but I am likely to stop any time soon, because in recent years, SA editors have fully intoxicated themselves on the looney left coolade; and the Mag has tended to become more of a political rag, than a scientific mag.”

    After my 40 years, I cancelled this year.

  19. Here’s a climate picture that the IPCC might try to put a spin on (even though it’s a map and not a real pic. but has pretty colors)

    Today’s map shows the cool PDO area is history, coincidentally it seems the horse-shoe shaped cool area only is very noticable when the ENSO region is cool as well as seen in other years.

  20. I wonder if Roger Pielke, Sr will pick up on the Lake Powell story; it would seem to be right up his alley.

  21. Oh look, the climate is changing! It must be from carbon dioxide emissions!

    First of all, the fact that the climate is changing does not suggest nor does it prove what caused the change. More important is that fact the climate is supposed to change. From the moment the earth developed a climate, it has always changed and will always change.

    This book does not offer any evidence that the observed changes are unnatural or out of the ordinary.

    BTW: When is weather climate? When it supports the catastrophic man-made climate change hysteria belief. Otherwise, it’s just weather.

  22. Hmm, but wait, maybe they can spin the whole PDO thing on that map, but what about on this map where it shows the PDO cool area is still there?

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    Why is the PDO area shown with the cool phase as gone in the NOAA map but still somewhat holding on this other map? I know the colors are different, but still…

  23. I remember when some people sued to keep 2-cycle watercraft out of Lake Mead. The exhaust was destroying the natural environment, you see. But Lake Mead is a man-made lake.

  24. Actually, Peter Zikes’ comment about the effects of manmade global warming being “oddly invisible” is pretty much correct, though not in the sense that he meant. :-)

  25. Does anyone else find it ironic that the dam at Lake Powell has the potential to generate 1.296 kw of EMISSIONS-FREE energy yet the very religious environmental zealots that post such misleading pictures also support elimination of the dam?

    Just doesn’t make sense…

  26. Mr. Moderator,

    You needn’t post this message.

    We would like to begin to advertise on your website: wattsupwiththat.com.

    We apologize for our ineptness concerning internet protocols. We do not know where to direct such a proposal. Could you advise us?

    Thank you.

    David K. Wherry
    dkw@physicsxxi.com

    Physics XXI
    1813 Montrose Ave.
    Chicago, IL 60613
    Phone – 773-935-0918

  27. Lake Powel will be silted in long before the climate changes enough (naturally or anthropogenically) to be a concern. Rapid silting has been an ongoing problem for the chain of dams along the Colorado and one reason they do sustained releases of water – further lowering the lake water levels. Lee Kington (11:21:09) points out the environmental objectives which are served.

    I had the opportunity to hike out to St. Thomas, a small town that went under water when Lake Mead was filled. Due to lower water levels, St. Thomas was above water and accessable by foot a few years back. What amazed me the most is how much silt built up around foundations and filled the concrete structures.

    Here is a photo that I took that illustrates the silting: Click

    Now watch this photo show up completely out of context in some scare story about AGW.

  28. George E. Smith (11:19:06) : . . .
    I have been taking SA for something like 40 years; but I am likely to stop any time soon, because in recent years, SA editors have fully intoxicated themselves on the looney left coolade; and the Mag has tended to become more of a political rag, than a scientific mag.

    Scientific American has long been in the loony left, “nuke bomb = evil = nuke power” camp. Back in ’84 or ’85 they had an article by Herbert Lin proving that anti-ballistic missiles would never work because computers would never be fast enough to calculate all the trajectories in a full scale attack. I think they were also fretting about how computers would soon be burning up a huge percentage of the world’s electric power.

    It’s unfortunate that its editors are letting Politics burn up a huge percentage of SA’s page count.

  29. Where’s the cow? Where’s the dyke?

    Oops, wrong SF illustration… :)

    Best,
    Frank

  30. Nice Book to fix the short leg on the coffee table. I starting reading the salon piece and stop and commented on it under my real name regarding the misinformation on the Pine Bark Beetle.

    I hate reading the recycled mantras that the Forestry Services in the USA and Canada adopted to hide their incompetence in managing the threat.

  31. Anthony,

    You’re gonna love this!
    The following was from 1997 — in the case you may have missed it:

    http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

    Excerpt:
    Study says sun getting hotter
    WASHINGTON (AP) – The sun is getting hotter, adding heat to an Earth already thought to be warming from greenhouse gases.

    Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

    Blah, blah, blah and then they talk about AGW. BUT the THRUST IS: THE SUN!

  32. dhogaza: don’t appeal to authority… actually check the data.

    That “authoritative” piece you linked to was actually published in 2003. And, yes, lake water levels HAD decreased compared to the previous few years. But, if the changes in lake water levels were actually due to additional human release of CO2, one would expect to see steadily declining water levels over time. That is NOT what has been observed. Water levels have increased from 2004 to the present. And, values from 2005 to the present are ALL greater than the values that existed throughout ALL of the 1960s.

    Bruce

  33. Just remove the c, m and d from the author’s name for a clearer picture of the quality of the science.

  34. Visual propaganda like this is absolutely outrageous. I recall a recent image, of a wallaby in snow, being used to misdirect in this way.

  35. Yep, that picture of Lake Powell goes in the same collection of the picture of those two polar bears clinging to that melting iceberg that was photographed by that student… because she was just passing by and thought it was cute.

    If a picture can tell a thousand words, a deceptive picture can tell a thousand lies.

  36. dhogaza may site what claims to be an authoritive article about extended drought being the cause of lower water levels at Lake Powell, but anyone who was familiar with the draw down of Lake Powell as I was (I have a second home at Lake Powell), knows that the power shortages in Cailifornia several years ago was the real cause. Because California would not allow new power generating plants to be built, they were trying to buy power from anywhere. So, the operators of Lake Powell were releasing more water than they should for several years to sell the generated electricity to California.

    That is why Lake Powell went from 90 percent full to 35 percent in a few years. Lake Powell receives most of its water from the snow melt on Colorado, and snow pack in Colorado was only slightly below normal during those years.

    The blame for low water levels in Lake Powell can be attributed to the California legislature and their refusal to allow power plants to be built.

  37. The answer to the question in this thread’s title is probably “Yes”. I can’t be certain because I haven’t seen the book, though I visited the website in an attempt to check it out.
    What predisposes me to believe that it is anti-science is the observation that, in the mountains of alarmist imagery and verbiage, there is never any good that can come of climate change; it is always catastrophic and especially so for the oppressed and exploited peoples of the Earth.
    Even if you know nothing of “The Science”, this is a highly improbable scenario, as we know.
    The question that intrigues me is the degree to which the authors of this stuff believe their own hyperbole and to what extent it is a conscious decision to manipulate their audience’s emotional response; I believe certain space scientists are on record as saying, to paraphrase, “it takes manure to grow a garden”.

  38. Doesn’t anyone in the climate community read the book “Reconstructing Large-scale Climate Patterns from Tree-Ring Data” by Harold Fritts? It’s from the University of Arizona Press, published in 1991. There are some great charts in there going back to 1600. I read it years ago, but as I remember, the latter part of the twentieth century looked like a real departure from normal. The recent drought years are far from abnormal, from what I remember.

  39. Are the cliffs in that picture of Lake Powell limestone? If so, maybe the implication we should take from the picture is that any CO2 that makes it into the atmosphere is predisposed to be sequestered as carbonate rock. Once it gets locked up as limestone it’s there until it weathers out. Judging by the amount of limestone we see in the world around us, it’s fair to conclude that any CO2 that happens to make it into the atmosphere is strongly inclined to be removed – permanently.

    There’s a reason there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere. The biological world is starving for more. The faster we put CO2 into the atmosphere the faster it gets gobbled up. It looks to me like the picture of the cliffs at Lake Powell is a picture of thousands upon thousands of layered years in which CO2 has been continually and inexorably pulled out of the atmosphere.

  40. Oliver Ramsay,

    “The question that intrigues me is the degree to which the authors of this stuff believe their own hyperbole and to what extent it is a conscious decision to manipulate their audience’s emotional response;”

    I wouldn’t rule out coercion of the authors at this point, either.

    But that’s just me speculating.

    Andrew

  41. Highlander (12:53:47) :

    Anthony,

    You’re gonna love this!
    The following was from 1997 — in the case you may have missed it:

    http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

    No one ever claimed the Lubbock AJ was a paragon of journalistic wonderment. Of course, where is there good journalism these days? Oh yeah, on the blogosphere, where good people like Anthony, Michelle Malkin and the like have taken up the mantle. Long time lurker, seldom poster due to inability to add much to the conversation. Great site, great commenters, keep up the work!

  42. @ Barry Foster

    But more than that, he constantly allows “Deniers” with all its connotations as acceptable. I drew the conclusion that realclimate is an odd place, with odd perceptions, and run by an odd person.

    RealClimate censors posts it will accept only a certain amount of contrary opinions and generally when Dr Schmidt and the others can pitch in. It also seems to be engaged in mutual masturbation?

    It advertises itself as part of The Guardian Environment network yet at least the Guardian refrains from crass censorship.

    The front cover of Dr Schmidt’s book is only relevant in so far as these so called scientists will do anything to gain publicity for ideas that are so bereft of value that if their ideas were not affecting our lives they would be ignored.

  43. Hmmm ……

    Climate Science for Dummies – An Illustrated Guide

    You too can be fashionably chic without knowing a thing about mathematics or science or mental discipline.

  44. Hank (13:57:16) :

    Are the cliffs in that picture of Lake Powell limestone?

    This is from memory…But i think the majority of those rocks are sandstones and shale. I don’t think the Kaibab or Redwall Limestones are exposed there.

    I think there are some great outcrops of the Navajo Sandstone it the Glen Canyon area…The Navajo Sandstone (Upper Glen Canyon group) is an aeolian sandstone; it was deposited in a vast Jurassic desert in massive sand dunes.

    So…Dr. Schmidt must be right…“climate did not used to change”…Since there was a desert sitting there back in the Jurassic…And there’s still a desert sitting there…;-))

  45. Is the book peer-reviewed?

    Reply: As a repeating theme, that’s kinda funny. ~ charles the moderator

  46. dhogaza (11:18:42) :

    What were the very low levels in the 60s due to?

    This all reminds me of the twisting and turning regarding Great Lakes water levels. Haven’t heard too much about those lately, have we?

    BTW, non-peer-reviewed is OK as long as it’s “authoritative”?

  47. Dead on. Completely encapsulates the media perspective (or lack thereof)….

  48. dhogaza (11:18:42) :

    You are not that stupid, [snip] nor are most of us here. Get some integrity.

  49. dhogaza (11:15:56) :

    I challenge you to find any place in the book where the claim is made that climate did not change in the past.

    We’ll have to take word for it as most of us stopped reading picture books a looong time ago. I’m still recovering from seeing Ben Santers attempt at a Nobel prize wining documentary.

  50. “Further, what you are going to find, in the next decade, is that global temperatures are going to remain flat (as they have since 1998) and/or start to decline. What you are also going to find is that science writers in the American media establishment are going to peel off, one by one, from the AGW heterodoxy.”

    I’m bothered by this, not only because it’s likely that the reader will dismiss the email after reading that part. But also because you are not differentiating yourself too much from the people you are indicting. Climate alarmism is based off of poor assumptions; what are your statements above based upon? Probably something very similar.

  51. Good letter – heartily support the comments re: journalism.

    dhogaza (11:18:42) : as others have noted that article does not have enough information to support your claim of its “authority”. Where are the graphs to present day of inflow and outflow? From elsewhere I recall graphs showing major rises in water consumption and I think this year was above average for snowfall which becomes inflow to the system.

  52. This book, Climate Change-Picturing the Science could be followed up with a second book by anagrmming the title of the first book,

    Anti-Science, The Peer-Clutching Magic

  53. Frank K. (12:04:08) :

    “Ah yes. The book. Schmidt uses his time at GISS to write coffee-table books, and even gets the government to advertise them:”

    I looked at it on google books review. Schmidt has not written the book whatsoever. He coauthored only a short introduction and contributed one essay of 20 pages on prognosis of future climate. All book consists of essays of various people on various topics, often having little to do with climate science, including Oreske’s comical essay on so called “consensus of climate scientists”. Book is a joke. I hoped to see Schmidt’s book, and to see his arguments, but this is huge disappointment. Usual, uninformed fear-mongering with wild exaggerations, theoretical assumptions not supported with anything except guessing and pure propaganda.

    Compare that pathetic level of scientific rigour with say Michaels’s or Spencer’s popular books on climate change and you shall see why nobody believes alarmists anymore.

  54. In response to some of the comments above:

    The extended release from Lake Powell in 2008 lowered the lake about 3 feet.

    Looking at the input and output chart at:

    http://lakepowell.water-data.com/index2.php

    It seems that above average inputs occur during El Nino years and lower than average inputs occur during La Nina years. It also looks like they try to release a little over 10,000 feet per second regardless of Lake level. Since all the water goes through the turbines the electrical generation is fairly constant and so the claim that the lake has been lowered to accommodate California’s energy problem, looks doubtful.

    The average electrical energy generated is between 400 and 500 megawatts. About the same as Hoover Dam, downstream.

    Inflows have been increasing since 2003 and the lake has been rising since 2005.

    The very low levels in the 1960s were due to the fact that the dam had been completed in 1962 or 1963 and it took about 20 years to completely fill. See the linked chart above.

    If La Nina’s predominate over the coming years, as some predict, then it looks like Lake Powell will recede once again.

    Richard Hanson

  55. MartinGAtkins (15:40:34) :

    That video was very painful.

    I’m so glad, when the plane states were
    black with buffalo, we wiped them out
    before they destroyed the Earth with “The
    Power of Poop.”

  56. When the Colorado River Compact apportioned water rights to the upper (CO, NM, UT, WY) and lower (AZ, CA, NV) basin states, it over-estimated (16.4 maf/yr)
    the annual flow. The average is actually 13.5 maf/yr, with a minimum of
    4.4 maf/yr.
    Water scarcity is built into the system.

    Jerry Haney (13:23:57) ………..Here’s something from the present, that will help raise water levels in Lake Powell.

    DUST STORMS SPEED SNOWMELT IN THE WEST

    “An unusually high number of the (spring dust) storms has left a film of dust on the Rocky Mountain snowpack…This could be the new normal, scientists say.”
    “The storms leave a dark film on snow that melts it faster by hastening its absorption of the sun’s energy. That, coupled with unseasonably warm temperatures, has sped up the run-off here…”
    “…dust can speed up snowmelt by as much as 35 days.” i.e., 35 days earlier.
    “Even without the dust storms, forecasts predict that global warming will reduce the soil quality in the western United States to dust bowl levels by 2050, said…a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The Southwest’s temperatures are expected to rise by 10 degrees…!…by 2100.” 5-24-2009

    Cattle were blamed back in the Dust Bowl 1920’s; so Congress reduced cattle grazing. Today, the blame extends to, “off-road vehicles, mountain bikers or energy exploration”.

  57. Well, there you go. AGW believers are looking at Picture books….. What! Can’t they read?

    Me, I prefer my science in a written form. So I’ve been reading Ian Plimer’s book, ‘ Heaven + Earth. Global warming: The Missing Science.’

    It’s a good read which points out all the science and how it pertains to climate.

  58. dhogaza (11:18:42) :

    Here’s an authoritative piece on the lower of water levels in Lake Powell.

    It’s not due to changes in water use or management, it’s due to extended drought.

    And so there was a Mega Drought in the Southwest in the late 15th Century.
    It caused great upheaval, lands abandoned.
    There was no AGW then, and there isn’t much more than a fraction now.
    As they say, One man’s feast is another man’s famine, ditto for climate change, then and now.
    The book’s cover is key to it’s sincerity, or lack therof.

  59. And so there was a Mega Drought in the Southwest in the late 15th Century.
    It caused great upheaval, lands abandoned.
    There was no AGW then, and there isn’t much more than a fraction now.
    As they say, One man’s feast is another man’s famine, ditto for climate change, then and now.
    The book’s cover is key to it’s sincerity, or lack therof.

  60. If climate and weather can be differentiated by time-lapse metrics as in weather to being, merely, a badly-behaved, short-term aberration and thus irrelevant to the certainty of multi-decadal computer-modelled projections then I have a question for GavS!

    Why are you using the photographic equivalent of Weather – the ‘cherry-picked’ still-photograph -when the multi-frame picture clearly demonstrates that that the Climate follows a different tack?
    Gavin- What U doing wee man?

  61. If you were to look at a picture of “Lake Powell” fifty years ago it would have been empty. Back then it was Glen Canyon and at the bottom was the Colorado River. Lake Powell was not full until 1980. How can anyone draw conclusions about the effects of climate change using a man-made lake and a period of less than thirty years?

    Guess again Gavin.

  62. Gavin’s picture of the low water level on Lake Powell is proof of man made global warming, as are the pictures of the Red River flooding this year- you have a problem with that?

  63. At this U.S. Bureau of Reclamation web site, you can (among other things) create historical graphs of the water level of Lake Powell as measured annually during March of each year from 1963 to date:

    http://www.usbr.gov/uc/crsp/GetSiteInfo

    Scroll down to select Lake Powell as the Location and click on Choose Dates. That takes you to the next page where the full date range (1963 – 2009) is set as the default. Click on “View Charts by Selected Date” and then on “Pool Elevation” on the next page. It takes a few minutes (and I have a very high speed connection), but a nice historical graph of Lake Powell’s water levels is created.

    Now compare that graph to the U.S. Drought Index graph posted by nofreewind (12:08:27) at:

    Clearly, there is a very strong correlation between droughts and changes in lake levels. It appears that droughts are indeed the dominant factor affecting lake levels, but if you dig deeper into the Bureau of Reclamation web site and start reviewing the “Consumptive Uses and Losses Reports”, you quickly learn that much, much more is going on (as other commentors have noted.)

  64. John Galt (12:23:47) :

    > I remember when some people sued to keep 2-cycle watercraft out of Lake Mead. The exhaust was destroying the natural environment, you see. But Lake Mead is a man-made lake.

    Yes, and one that already destroyed the natural environment. I never visited there, but did see some of the books about Glen Canyon and knew about the controversy about flooding such a wonderful area.

    Heh – there’s a book out about the reemergence of Glen Canyon, see http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Glen-Canyon-Vision-American/dp/0898867711 and the photos at http://www.glencanyon.org/photos/beforelp.php

    I was quite surprised when I hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon in 1974 or so and found that the Colorado was not “too think to drink and too thin to walk upon” as the National Geographic liked to describe the muddy water. Instead it was cold and clear and Bright Angel Creek was a trout stream.

  65. Amazing. Who would ever use a water level, determined by people opening the spigot on a damn, to say anything about climate? Makes about as much sense as saying it’s dry and rainfall is down because I stopped watering my lawn.

    “But the AGW industry still ahs a huge amount of social capital, and it will take a few years for it to dissipate.”

    I think that was supposed to be “HAS” …

  66. That NASA page has a comment submission form at the end, but apparently they dont actually display any comments, despite stating moderation rules. Who are they moderating for?

    Also, they continue to claim the LIA was restricted to Europe, when we know from speleotherms that the LIA happened as far away from Europe as New Zealand (A. Lorrey, 2008).

    I would say this article is a typical piece of damage control spin.

  67. DJ (14:32:41) :
    The most odd thing about climate change is that all the “sceptical experts” seem to lack any evidence of expertise.

    But DJ you don’t need any particular scientific expertise to completely understand that AGW is a rort.

    Sorry I shouldn’t feed the trolls but…..

  68. MikeN (11:36:30) : How do you know temperatures are going to decline

    PDO flip. Sun on holiday. Ocean temps dropping. Jet stream gone loopy taking the cold air way south. Ozone levels dropping letting the heat out. CR flux rising so according to Svensmark’s theory cloud cover increasing.

    Oh, and if you like the barycenter solar system angular momentum Shiny Thing, the configuration of the planets are moving the sun in a particularly stable non-perturbing way that lets the solar energy go down leading to some mix of lower TSI, more clouds, volcanic particulate increase, electrical stimulation of the planet with who knows what effects, etc. etc. including a paper that correlates the PDO with solar angular momentum. But it isn’t proven yet…

    Pick any or all of the above that makes you happy.

    Oh, and the existence proof that we’ve had a “failure to advance” to the upside. That oscillator which ceases to advance, retreats…

  69. “…the AGW industry still has a huge amount of social capital…”

    That capital is following the real capital into the dumper…

  70. DJ (14:32:41) :

    If I was Gavin I would have put a dead tree on the cover – http://www.pnas.org/content/106/17/7063.full

    In reading through the paper you referenced I came across the following:

    Therefore, we suggest that higher respiratory loads associated with warmer temperatures incited differences in mortality, reflecting carbon starvation, not sudden hydraulic failure as the causal mechanism required to predict tree mortality differences in a future warmer world. Such results are consistent with inferences from recent observational and modeling assessments (30, 31, 35).

    I may be misinterpreting, but it seems to me that they are indicating that the mechanism of tree mortality was not climate change induced drought, carbon STARVATION. Given that the pinon trees they were studying are an old species, which have persisted in semi-desert environments for quite a while, might not the heightened vulnerability the paper seeks to demonstrate, be evidence that the tree has acclimated to higher level of CO2 throughout its’ long history on the planet and is having problems now because even at the recently elevated levels CO2 is still in deficit to long term average levels the planet has experienced?
    ,

  71. I think we should review a picture a week from this book. I have a very strong feeling that they would be shredded one by one, as the cover photo has been here today. It would only bring satisfaction to those of us who enjoy what WUWT has to offer. Those who follow AGW refuse to look deeper than a photo that someone tells you represents Global Warming. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mike Bryant, loved the anagrams. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Frank K, great questioning of Gavin’s time management skills. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ozzie Jon, tasteless but very, very funny.

  72. Barry Foster (11:04:30) :
    LOL
    I drew the conclusion that realclimate is an odd place, with odd perceptions, and run by an odd person.

    pain full but close!

  73. This book is currently ranked #8,969 in Books at amazon.com, but it’s ranked #4 among Climate Changes books. The first three?

    1. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
    2. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg
    3. Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know by Patrick J. Michaels

    At the end of this month, I expect it will drop to at least #5, behind this one…

    Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science by Ian Plimer

  74. DJ (14:32:41) :

    BTW, in browsing through the references to that paper it seemed to me that quite of few of these lads and lassies have latched on to “global climate change” as the “open sesame” for access to funding and publication. They sure are laying it on with a trowel. Of course, I’m sure that all that wonderful stuff was thoroughly peer reviewed.

  75. “” Highlander (12:53:47) : Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, “”

    Don’t get so excited! That’s just data! ;-)

    (That’s a joke by the way.)

  76. What next? Gavin’s Global Warming Coloring Book? He could even include a few crayons… Endangered Polar Bear White, Dying Tree Green, Rising Sea Blue and Fire Alarmist Red.

    No Science… No Conscience… All Con…

  77. dhogaza (11:15:56) : Defending Schmidt’s book

    “Lake Powell hit the low point for the year on April 17th at 3609.7o feet above sea level, roughly 90 feet below full pool. Saturday to Sunday this week saw the biggest vertical increase, which was 2.64 inches in 24 hours…..Spring runoff typically starts slow and then ramps up nearing the end of June. From now until the middle of July Lake Powell should see an increase of 30 vertical feet of water….”

    http://www.lakepowellrealty.net/2009/04/29/april09-lakepowell-levels/

    Gee Schmidt could have got a good water skiing shot if he had waited a few weeks.

  78. This might have a bit more credibility if Ambler was able to get the writer’s name right (it’s Peter Dizikes), and if anyone had actually managed to read the book they are so exercised about. What, for instance, is the caption to the cover photo? What might the book have to say about Lake Powell and the southwestern drought? (hint, p 105-106). And of course, jokes about Schmidt’s name are the epitome of wit and erudition…. not.

  79. Anthony

    What about providing a link to Gavin’s book (via Amazon?) and in return ask him to supply a link and background to the free pdf of the new sceptics rebuttal?

    I am sure he will play fair on this and provide good publicty to an alternative viewpoint.

    Tonyb

  80. Even if all the images in Gavin’s picture book indeed show evidence of a warming planet it of course says nothing about the cause. It does not provide proof that CO2 has caused any of the implied warming and it definitely does not link human generated GHGs to warming.

    The book is has no scientific basis and is meaningless.

  81. Hank (13:57:16) :

    There’s a reason there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere. The biological world is starving for more. The faster we put CO2 into the atmosphere the faster it gets gobbled up.

    That is exactly right, as Prof. Freeman Dyson also points out. There is no evidence that CO2 is harmful, and plenty of evidence that CO2 is beneficial. Gavin Schmidt is being dishonest by pretending otherwise.

  82. From Charlotte, NC:

    This is a little OT but if memory serves me during a La Nina cycle the Southeastern US is supposed to be “drier than normal.” If that is the case, then somebody forgot to tell the rather frequent deluges we have been getting since the Spring. It is again raining here. At one point we had seven straight days of weather with at least some measurable precipitation in May. Today marks the 2nd of three straight days that rain is in the forecast. It’s been raining hard enough for the past 15 minutes or more here so that one could take a shower (pun not intended) outside if so moved. We haven’t cracked 90 degrees but maybe once or twice – and that with probably a suspect MMTS depending on Anthony’s findings. It’s going to be below 80 degrees today, and for the rest of the week it is in the mid to upper 80s. Perhaps that seasonable given the records, but it’s much cooler than the past few years (particularly 2005-2006). I’ve only been here three years, granted, but it’s the rainiest and coolest summer I’ve experienced thus far.

  83. Dan Lee (20:18:48) :

    Sheesh, why not take a picture of a half-empty bathtub?

    Ha ha, perfect as I was remembering coming home on Sunday nights from weekend camping trips when my 3 kids were 9, 5 and 4, we would fire all 3 through the bathtub if rapid order and when you let the water out, the rings left behind were something to see!

    About the same amount of science shown by that photo, and just as relevant.

  84. Mike Bryant (16:00:38) :
    This book, Climate Change-Picturing the Science could be followed up with a second book by anagr[a]mming the title of the first book, Anti-Science, The Peer-Clutching Magic.

    Excellent! Can that possibly be a coincidence?

  85. If you look reeeeally close and squint just right you can almost see the CO2 in each picture ;o)

    H.R.
    P.S. Looked through EVERY picture in the book and never found Waldo… oops! My bad. Wrong book.

  86. Lake Powell is a hydro dam. Inflows vary from year to year (obviously).

    It’s purpose is to store water to be released through the turbines when the energy produced is most beneficial; whether in terms of revenue or community benefit – I don’t know. However, I believe it is a USBR plant and is probably operated according to some government rules.

    The point is that it is a regulated storage and trying to draw conclusions from lake levels without undertstanding the power system into which it is feeding (or the river hydrology), is sheer and utter nonsense.

    If you shut down any more coal fired plants, you may find that lake levels will never rise because of the desperate need for replacement energy.

  87. There once was a man from Belgrave
    Who kept CO2 in his cave
    He said I’ll admit
    I’m a bit of a Schmidt
    But I think of the credits I crave

  88. Does anyone else find it ironic that the dam at Lake Powell has the potential to generate 1.296 kw of EMISSIONS-FREE energy

    That would be 1.3 MW of power – the energy depends on the available water

  89. Water Flow into lake Powell in the last three years has been good, average, and this year it could be good to excellent. The snowshed areas for lake powell had suffered from a serious drought for about 8 years prior to these last three years, and a consequence the lake level dramatically decreased. However about a month ago the lake was reported to be 2/3 full, and the depth was increasing about 10 inches/day. The lake Powell snowhead area, has had, a very unusual wet period these last two weeks, which coupled with the snowmelt, should help to accelerate the inflow into the lake. I’ll check the gauging stations for cataract canyon (Just below the confluence of the Green and Colorado River). I expect the water flow through the cataract canyon to be above above 40,000 second feet, which should give a wild wide through big drop rapid (big drop rapid together with crystal, and lava falls in the grand canyon are classed as #10 rapids on the Western Rivewr Guides Rating System).

    Gavin Schmidt’s Timing for his choice of cover for his book is pathetic!!!

  90. DJ (14:32:41) :
    If I was Gavin I would have put a dead tree on the cover – http://www.pnas.org/content/106/17/7063.full

    Skeptics on WUWT have many interests. Mine happens to be plant physiology and I hadn’t read this paper. Thanks for the link, but sorry I did.

    After 30 min. of analysis I have “peer reviewed” the paper and found the following glaring errors.

    1. Fig. 1, Page 2, “figurettes” C (maximum annual temperatures) and D ( minimum annual temperatures) show the calculated long term mean depicted for the years 1940 to 2004, including the states AZ, NM, CO, and UT. The trend for both min or max temp is flat or slightly negative (cooler), respectively. From your graph, temps. were as warm or even warmer in the 1950’s. The current drought lasted three years versus the comparative 1950ish drought of less duration. Therefore any attribution of effect to increasing temperature should be removed.

    2. Mortality from current results are compared to different sites in the 1950’s and the assumption that current mortality is greater when bark-beetle infestation and soil water availability was not recorded at disparate site is inappropriate.

    3. Pre-drought stand counts were unavailable. Mortality may be related to increased tree density in response to previous wet years (from your graphs).

    4. Soil moisture was only recorded to a depth of 20cm. for a tree specie. Insufficient data to ascribe bark-beetle mortality to temperature versus drought.

    5. Previous papers linking bark-beetle mortality and warmer temps are invalid as insect population was not determined. The beetle population may fluctuate on longer term time scales.

    I could find more, but why waste my time. Authorship does not include a plant physiologist. DJ, you can now say that this paper has been “peer reivewed” referencing this post.

  91. Thanks to Freddy for the correction on Mr. Dizikes’ name. I had composed my letter as a private e-mail initially and looking up at his email address I saw peterdizikes and mistook it as peterdzikes.

    (Moving too fast again.)

    I have sent a corrected version of the post to Anthony, iceagenow, icecap.com, and climatedepot.com

    I have also sent an apology to Mr. Dizikes directly.

  92. Harold Ambler,
    Wouldn’t it have been easier to just have his name legally changed? Just joking, people with integrity admit it when they make a mistake.
    Thanks for your quick action,
    Mike

  93. I don’t know if the book ever explicitly says that “climate didn’t used to change”, but the title “Climate Change” itself implies that change in climate is new and noteworthy.

  94. The most odd thing about climate change is that all the “sceptical experts” seem to lack any evidence of expertise.

    -DJ

    If one can’t evaluate an argument or weigh evidence on one’s own, that is, if one is incapable of critical thinking, then I can see how looking for letters behind a name saves one a lot of pointless effort.

  95. DJ,

    Do you regard Prof. Richard Lindzen as lacking “any evidence of expertise”?

    When you’ve answered that question, I have the next name ready, so let’s get it on.

    Also, what particular level of “expertise” would you assign to your HE-RO, Al Gore?

  96. Go on Freddy, tell us what it said on p105-106 of Gavin’s book. I’m so excited I can’t bear to wait for the book to arrive from Amazon.

  97. I’m relatively new to all this scepticism stuff, and I actually started out on Realclimate looking for an intro to climate change science. I then started to read the blogs and was particularly struck by Dr Schmidt’s comments. Now I can understand (to an extent) his attitude to those who expressed sceptical views, but I found unforgivable his impatience with contributors who had a simplistic view of climate science or who simply misunderstood topcs.

    I have a question for any meteorological professionals who may actually know Dr Schmidt – is he really as unpleasant and arrogant as he comes across on his blog, or is he just being aggressively defensive?

  98. Smokey (12:28:38) :

    Free gift for the first one hundred people to buy Gavin’s Picture Book.

    Does it come with a complete assortment of “cool” blues, or only “hot” red?

  99. George E. Smith (11:19:06) :

    I have been taking SA for something like 40 years; but I am likely to stop any time soon, because in recent years, SA editors have fully intoxicated themselves on the looney left coolade; and the Mag has tended to become more of a political rag, than a scientific mag.

    I’ve recently allowed my subscription to Skeptical Inquirer to lapse for much the same reason. Funny how a skeptical rag could become so un-skeptical.

  100. Ivan says:

    I looked at it on google books review. Schmidt has not written the book whatsoever. He coauthored only a short introduction and contributed one essay of 20 pages on prognosis of future climate.

    Yeah…I would say he was more in a coordinating editor role than the author of the book, although I think there is at least one other essay that he was a co-author on that you missed.

    Book is a joke. I hoped to see Schmidt’s book, and to see his arguments, but this is huge disappointment. Usual, uninformed fear-mongering with wild exaggerations, theoretical assumptions not supported with anything except guessing and pure propaganda.

    I looked at the book in Barnes & Noble and actually found it to be quite good. For example, Tim Hall’s essay on the forcings is very good. And, the introduction by Gavin makes cogently some of the same points about how science actually works as I have constantly been making here.

  101. Am I the only one that finds it interesting that although all the GCMs that provide the basis for the AGW hypothesis, require that rising temps from rising CO2 generate an increase in atmospheric water vapor and clouds to justify their predictions, the warmists seem very eager to leap on any random occurrence of drought as validation of their theory, and, aside from sea level rise and melting icecaps, drought is the propaganda image of choice for projecting fearful consequences of CO2. I realize that elevated cloud cover won’t eliminate, or even necessarily reduce the occurrence of droughts, but to suggest that it will cause droughts to increase seems awfully counterintuitive to me.

  102. I first started reading Scientific American in the early 1960s. (I think it was an issue about how lasers worked.) Anyway around 2000, after 40 years, I quit my subscription as the magazine took on a lefty political agenda which can never be a part of scientific search for truth. I look forward to the day when the AGW crowd join the flat earthers and others in chapters on discredited movements in history of science books. (In 50 or 100 years from now, will Scientific American print a blurb about AGW in their 50 or 100 years ago column? Will the magazine even be around then?)

    REPLY: Your experience parallels mine, I don’t bother with SciAm anymore either. – Anthony

  103. Joel Shore:
    the introduction by Gavin makes cogently some of the same points about how science actually works as I have constantly been making here.
    Please do explain “how science actually works”. I think I may have missed that lecture, and perhaps others here as well. We are your willing pupils. Thanks.

  104. A picture is not an argument. Which is why the hockey team uses emotion and not reason. A well written response by Mr. Ambler.

  105. Dave Wendt (19:49:18) : said:

    Am I the only one that finds it interesting that although all the GCMs that provide the basis for the AGW hypothesis, require that rising temps from rising CO2 generate an increase in atmospheric water vapor and clouds to justify their predictions, the warmists seem very eager to leap on any random occurrence of drought as validation of their theory, and, aside from sea level rise and melting icecaps, drought is the propaganda image of choice for projecting fearful consequences of CO2. I realize that elevated cloud cover won’t eliminate, or even necessarily reduce the occurrence of droughts, but to suggest that it will cause droughts to increase seems awfully counterintuitive to me.
    ……
    It’s my impression that the GCM’s are supposed to provide validation of the ‘Science’ of AGW, not the basis. It’s just that they haven’t yet been successfully ‘tuned’ to capture and redirect all atmospheric phenomena to point towards disaster. The modelers are working diligently on this, but it seems to get quite complicated. Reverse- engineering your own emotionally originated hypothesis and coming up with facts and physics to explain it takes a lot of effort, especially if non-believers are chuckling or jeering over your shoulder.
    Astrologers have been doing it for centuries and have produced some lovely charts with circles and arcs and pretty colors. The image of the steer skull in the desert is a proven classic; why wouldn’t they want to claim it as their own?

  106. Dave Wendt:

    First of all, while more water vapor is a robust prediction of the models, I am not sure more cloud cover is. One might imagine as a first approximation that because the increase in water vapor is supposed to be such that relative humidity remains approximately constant, cloud cover might too. In fact, I think many of the models do predict some increase in high cloud cover; I think there is considerable variation in what they predict for low clouds.

    Second of all, I believe that the prediction of drought is based on two things: One is shifts in the weather patterns. And, a second is that the greater warmth will lead to more rapid drying out of soils and such. Also, it may be that rainfall when it occurs is expected to be heavier but that it is expected to be more variable in occurrence.

  107. Bruce Cobb says:

    Please do explain “how science actually works”. I think I may have missed that lecture, and perhaps others here as well. We are your willing pupils. Thanks.

    Well, Gavin’s point and mine in a nutshell is that any scientific theory will have at any given time several areas where there are puzzles…i.e., some data that doesn’t seem to agree with the theory and so forth. To say that the theory is disproven because of this is silly. What it means is that one has to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on.

  108. Bruce,
    It is really so so simple, when the data and the theory don’t really fit it means it’s time to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on. In the “old school” science, the theory was discarded if it did not fit the data, however in climate “science” data is alive! It is vital. In this new age of computers, computer modeling and data homogenization and workovers, the data has become a product. This product must fit the theory or careers are at risk. The really neat thing is that you could write a program today and it will continue to improve all the data every time new data is loaded in. Nothing could be simpler.

    I think that EM Smith compared it to a food product. Today, instead of having a ham and cheese sandwich, the better choice is spam and velveeta. It tastes the same every time and it is so so yummy.

    So Bruce man get with the program.
    Mike

    PS Also in chat rooms you can be any age you wish and also slim and good looking. Computers are really grand.

  109. Joel,
    In your answer to David above, I couldn’t help noticing that your answer was a little equivocal.

    1st sentence- Not sure
    2nd sentence- Might imagine, might
    3rd sentence- I think, I think
    4th sentence- I believe
    5th and final sentence- It may be

    Is that the new Scientists Creed?

    Mike

  110. Mike Bryant:

    It is really so so simple, when the data and the theory don’t really fit it means it’s time to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on. In the “old school” science, the theory was discarded if it did not fit the data, however in climate “science” data is alive! It is vital.

    Mike,

    There is nothing new and unique about this. Have you ever wondered why if the problems with AGW are so apparent to you, they are not to the National Academy of Sciences and the analogous societies in the other G8+5 nations, the AAAS, the councils of the AGU, the APS, the AMS, etc., etc.? Might it in fact be that they understand the scientific process better than you?!?

    Oh, never mind, this couldn’t possibly be! It must be that they are all either deluded or part of a conspiracy!

  111. Mike,

    As for my “equivocal” statements, that is because I actually try to state things cautiously and carefully and not to say things with absolutely certainty that I don’t know for certain. That approach might not be so popular here but I do think it is the wisest one to take.

  112. Odd.

    The liberals/democrats/national socialists/extremists who DO control the world’s economies, energy production and food production and distribution DO say things with extremism, hatred, and filtered by rigorous censorship of ABCNNBCBS news and ALL the world’s publicity.

    Yes, those (politcally-funded) organizations hold an extremist AGW view, but tens of thousands of their actual members do NOT hold the same view. The MEMBERS, however, have been locked out of the decision process and the voting – like at the IPCC and the World Congress – where trillions are at stake in taxes.

  113. Joel Shore says:
    Well, Gavin’s point and mine in a nutshell is that any scientific theory will have at any given time several areas where there are puzzles…i.e., some data that doesn’t seem to agree with the theory and so forth. To say that the theory is disproven because of this is silly. What it means is that one has to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on.

    Well then Joel, the scientific theory that climate change is simply a natural phenomenon (which is in fact the default theory) does indeed have several areas where there are puzzles…i.e., some data that doesn’t seem to agree with the theory. But, to say that the default theory of naturally-driven climate change is disproven because of this is silly. What it simply means is that one has to look more carefully at the data and the theory and try to understand what is going on.
    Meanwhile, can we please put a halt to all of the alarmism, the hype, and the rush to demonize an entirely beneficial gas, passing legislation against it and spending $trillions? That’s all we ask. Is that so much?

  114. Dave Wendt (19:49:18) : said:
    …the warmists seem very eager to leap on any random occurrence of drought as validation of their theory, and, aside from sea level rise and melting icecaps, drought is the propaganda image of choice for projecting fearful consequences of CO2.
    ……
    Oliver Ramsay (08:07:51) : …The image of the steer skull in the desert is a proven classic; why wouldn’t they want to claim it as their own?

    It is an image that comes quickly to mind:
    Warm weather -> hotter climates -> drier and less rain -> deserts -> we all die.
    Deserts -> less rain -> salt and bad soil -> we all die.

    It is a natural image of doom and death: very carefully promoted.

  115. OT:

    Climate Progess blacklisted me for this comment….

    I’m not a dem or a repub, but the dems are in control of the WH and Congress. SO you will get all the LEGISLATION that you want. Have fun being run by the GOV.!! GOV MOTORS, GOV HEALTH CARE, GOV BANKING, GOV SHIPPING, GOV RETIREMENT, GOV SUBSIDIES TO FARMERS, OIL COMPANIES, ALT ENERGY CO’s., ETC…..THE LIST NEVER ENDS. In 2020, IMHO, we won’t be talking about global warming, we will be talking about a bankrupt United States. As the saying goes, so goes California, so goes the U.S.

    By the way, in California. We have hundreds of wind mills littering our hills that don’t work. They look ugly in our beautiful hills. Lots and lots of dead birds too!!!!!!!!

    REPLY: CAPS never works well, it labels it as “SHOUTING”. Try editing and resubmitting. – Anthony
    GOOD LUCK!!!

  116. Just noticed today that Lake Powell has recovered half the water level it lost between 1999 and 2004. Guess that drop wasn’t forever after all.

    So was it global warming or just people downstream sucking all the water out to keep their lawns green?

    Reply: Duncan! I didn’t notice you posting here before. But now I see you’ve been hanging out. Give me a call at home. ~ charles the moderator aka jeez

    (for those confused as to how I spot a friend from a first name, I recognize the email address).

Comments are closed.