Quote of the week – always happy to help

At WUWT, one thing we pride ourselves in is helping visitors learn about the issues and the science, even if those visitors should already know what these things mean. Take for example, Michael Tobis proprietor of “Only In it for the Gold” and “Planet3.0″, both heavily pro-warming sites. Readers may remember Mr. Tobis from his famous F-word Fusillade.

Mike came to WUWT to ask a simple question, and of course, we are always happy to help him out.

Original comment asking to define “CAGW” here.

Honestly, I thought most everyone (especially the bloggers) in this debate knew this term, but apparently not. So, this post will make sure everyone does now.

CAGW is an abbreviation for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

For more abbreviations, see our WUWT Glossary Page

About these ads
This entry was posted in Quote of the Week and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Quote of the week – always happy to help

  1. Colin says:

    Thats just plain wrong, those of us on the right side of this argument know that it stands for Cash And Grants Weekly

  2. Beesaman says:

    So it doesn’t stand for
    Crazy Al Gore’s Weather?

  3. Garacka says:

    Alternatively, “CAGW” could be an abbreviation for Collectivist Army of Global Winghuts

  4. Andrew says:

    On par with the Rachael Maddow Jeopardy Oops!

  5. capt. dallas says:

    I wonder if he can connect the dots? CAGW = Hansen AGW=Manabe

  6. Tom in indy says:

    Just heard today that 30 people died in the Ukraine from record cold. At the same time, no deaths have been attributed to the unseasonably mild weather in the midwest U.S.A. Maybe Mike wants somebody to explain the ‘catosrophic’ part of CAGW to him.

  7. Doug Cotton says:

    Gee – I thought the ‘C’ stood for “Censored” as in Climategate.

  8. Jenn Oates says:

    I feel smart, now!

    Yeah, already knew that, heh heh heh

  9. Randy says:

    Is there any other kind?

  10. William McClenney says:

    Not unusual Anthony, there have been a blizzard of anthroglowarmie buzzwords pumped into the blogosphere in recent years. I think of them as GHGs (GreenHouse Globules) gradually morphing from global warming to sustainable development, increasing the heat of the blogosphere commensurately.

  11. perlcat says:

    Come And Get Wealthy?

  12. Damn you guys are good……

    just about spit my water all over the keyboard on that second one from Beesaman.

  13. Jeff (of Colorado) says:

    Didn’t Mick Jagger sing that in, “Can’t Always Get What you want….!”

  14. Warrick says:

    I thought it was Computer Aided Global Warming.

  15. Latitude says:

    …irritable climate syndrome

  16. Anything is possible says:

    Can’t Allow Growing Wealth

  17. David Falkner says:

    I have a nomination for the next quote of the week:

    “But we are now looking to draw a line under the Greenland controversy and move on.”

    http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

  18. Jason Calley says:

    Well, I for one am glad that Mr. Tobis asked. I try to always use “CAGW” in discussions, posts and conversations. I have a friend who is a strong believer in CAGW, and the term was one of the few things that we agreed on. Here is why it is important. The entire reason why people who believe in it are worried is that they think future events will have all four characteristics. It has to be catastrophic. If it is NOT catastrophic, then there is nothing to get so worried about and why controll CO2? It has to be humanity’s fault. If it is NOT anthropogenic, but rather is natural, then man-made CO2 has nothing to do with it. It has to be world wide. If it is NOT global, but rather is a case of some local places warming while others do not, or cool, then again, we are not talking about catastrophe, and it becomes difficult to assign CO2 as the causative factor. And lastly, it has to be warming. If it is NOT warming, well, then we are talking about something completely different, and something that controlling and limiting CO2 does not have much to do with.

    The entire case for CO2 control is a stool that balances on four legs. If even one of those legs fails, then the entire case for controlling CO2 falls apart. I always use CAGW, no matter how much they say “climate change” or “climate disruption” or “global weirding.” I refuse to let them weasel out of their belief by changing the terms and hence moving the goal posts.

  19. Graeme M says:

    Jason Calley, that’s a neat, no, brilliant paragraph. Do you mind if I use that whenever I am arguing the case?

  20. Rosco says:

    Can Anyone Guess Why ?

    Calling All Ghouls Wednesday ?

    Can Anybody Guess Where ( – the missing heat is) ?

  21. Rogelio says:

    Phil Valentine’s An Inconsistent Truth No. 1 Movie in America by Per-Screen Average. Is this significant

  22. You know the way Warmists usually get things back to front?
    I reckon deep down Tobis knows that it’s CAGW that’s fuc<ed!

  23. FergalR says:

    I can’t believe ppm isn’t in your glossary. It stands for Pachauri’s perverted manuscript.

  24. bazza says:

    he knew what it meant. he was just being a smart ass.

  25. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I always figured it stood for “Computer Assisted Global Warming” …

    w.

  26. Dale says:

    And here I thought it was Commies Are Going Wild!

  27. Ian says:

    Those swivel-eyed global cooling deniers should all be locked up.

  28. H.R. says:

    perlcat says:
    January 31, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    Come And Get Wealthy?

    AND…

    Jason Calley says:
    January 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    (Excellent condensation of the political and economic aspects of CAGW.)
    ==================================================================

    I declare a tie (Not that anything I write here means Jack-Spit, but those two comments are super!)

  29. Wow, lots of great ones here! None of mine can compete, but here they are anyway…

    Corrupt
    Audits
    Guarantee
    Worthlessness
    _______________________

    Catastrophes
    Always
    Grow
    Wealth
    _______________________

    Conspirators
    Allow
    Gobbledygook
    Writings
    _______________________

    Conform
    Always
    Get
    Wealthy
    _______________________

    Create
    Algorithms
    Gape
    Wonderingly
    _______________________

    Consequences?
    Awful
    Grants?
    Without end…
    _______________________

    Completely
    Asinine
    Green
    Wretchedness

  30. Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer says:

    Seconded, you guys are good! Seriously, it’s actually stunning that Mr. Tobis doesn’t know the term. Good on ya for assisting him, and here’s hoping that he sees the light someday. Also, here’s hoping that one of the three people likely to be the President next term can pull us out of our nosedive….what am I saying?

  31. Mac the Knife says:

    CAGW: Conning A Gullible World

  32. JohnWho says:

    Con Artists Going Wild?

  33. T.C. says:

    Jeez, I thought it always meant “Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming?”

  34. Pamela Gray says:

    Can’t Access Giss Wildassguesses

  35. Jim D says:

    Part of the reply is wrong. Not runaway global warming which few think possible. It stops when the CO2, and perhaps methane, rise stops, and would only be runaway if there was a much larger source of these released from somewhere.

  36. Mac the Knife says:

    Cooling Ain’t ‘Green’, Watts!!!!
    };>)

  37. Latitude says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 31, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    I always figured it stood for “Computer Assisted Global Warming” …
    w.
    =================================
    Willis, I’m using this one from now on…………………..LOL

  38. Roger Sowell says:

    Conditions Aren’t Getting Warmer

    Careless Analysis Garners Wealth

    Can’t Anybody Go Wrong (by sounding the warming drums and collecting grant funds)

    Calling Attorney; Got Whacked (by yet another FOIA request)

  39. Rob Dawg says:

    Honest. I am embarrassed.

    AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    CAGW = Computer Algorithmic Global Warming.

    I didn’t even ever stop to think there were alternative definitions.

  40. polistra says:

    Civilization Atrophies, Goldman Wins.

  41. Al Gored says:

    Carbon Attacking Good Weather.

    The weather was always good, everywhere, all the time, before evil Carbon (which in today’s world means CO2) started on its rampage.

  42. Brian R says:

    Sound like one of those late night TV video commercials.

    I hope Michael Mann doesn’t get naked.

  43. dwright says:

    Conspiracy Among Greedy Watermelons

  44. JDN says:

    Can Anyone Guess Wattsupwiththat?

  45. randomengineer says:

    He asked this on curry’s site 8-10 months back. He wants to craft an image of being professorially aloof akin to braniacs who can’t drive, etc. He’s being a douche.

  46. Noelene says:

    Crazies against Growth Worldwide?

  47. Interstellar Bill says:

    Comments Are Great – (you’re) Welcome

  48. RockyRoad says:

    Under this Administration, “CAGW” means: “Can’t Always Get Work”.

    In fact, change the acronym to “CNGW” and it means” “Can Never Get Work”.

  49. Kevin Cave says:

    Communist Agenda Getting Whupped

    Calamity! Argh! Gasp! Wail!

    Corrupted Arithmetic Gives Warming

  50. Steve Oregon says:

    Chicanery Achieved Global Warming

  51. Jason @ 6.08 –
    “The entire case for CO2 control is a stool that balances on four legs. If even one of those legs fails, then the entire case for controlling CO2 falls apart”.
    an appropriate analogy, perhaps improved with a 3 legged stool.
    taking the 3 legged idea further, cagw might rely on 1 corrupt scientists 2 corrupt governments 3 corrupt media. get rid of one and the rest falls. are there legs (a 4th leg) I’ve missed ?
    I’m looking forward to a day when computer assisted government warmists cop it !

  52. Werner Brozek says:

    Can Al Gore Win?

    Did you have any further questions? : -)

  53. old construction worker says:

    Michael Tobis : CAGW
    See: George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&feature=related

  54. Smokey says:

    Here is a fine quote of the week.

    America is still great because of people like this, not climate charlatans like Michael Mann, Michael Tobis, and the climate catastrophe promoters.

  55. pat says:

    Climate Alarmism Generates Wealth!

  56. RockyRoad says:

    William Martin says:
    January 31, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Jason @ 6.08 –
    “The entire case for CO2 control is a stool that balances on four legs. If even one of those legs fails, then the entire case for controlling CO2 falls apart”.
    an appropriate analogy, perhaps improved with a 3 legged stool.
    taking the 3 legged idea further, cagw might rely on 1 corrupt scientists 2 corrupt governments 3 corrupt media. get rid of one and the rest falls. are there legs (a 4th leg) I’ve missed ?
    I’m looking forward to a day when computer assisted government warmists cop it !

    Yet when milking cows, one uses a one-legged stool (your two legs serve as the other two). That means we’ll have to knock out the last remaining wooden leg and let the CAGW proponent fall on his butt before he realizes what’s wrong.

  57. James Sexton says:

    Beautiful responses. Though the first 3 are the grabbers….
    Colin says:
    January 31, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Thats just plain wrong, those of us on the right side of this argument know that it stands for Cash And Grants Weekly

    Beesaman says:
    January 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    So it doesn’t stand for
    Crazy Al Gore’s Weather?

    Garacka says:
    January 31, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Alternatively, “CAGW” could be an abbreviation for Collectivist Army of Global Winghuts

    But, I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Willis’ contribution….Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 31, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    I always figured it stood for “Computer Assisted Global Warming”

    Beautiful.

    Jason, of course, nails it!
    Jason Calley says:
    January 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm

  58. Hoser says:

    Calling All Geeky Wankers
    Climate Activists Get Women
    Copenhagen Abruptly Got White
    Cosmic Activity Giving Willies
    Carbon Assets Giant Wipeout
    Creepy Al Galavants Worldwide
    Convinced Always Getting Worse

  59. mAx says:

    Dang, I thought it was a nod to Steve McIntyre and stood for Climate Audit is Getting Wise.

  60. Dale says:

    The Team is really starting to panic over the Come And Go Warming.

  61. Corrupted Algorerhythm Gets Worse

  62. Terry Jackson says:

    Constantly Adjusted Glowball Warming
    Continuously Adjusted Glowball Warming
    Corruptly Adjusted Glowball Warming
    Copiously Adjusted Glowball Warming
    Catastrophically Assumed Glowball Warming

  63. pwl says:

    CAGW = CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture.

    Someone who promotes CAGW = CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture Soothsayers.

    Really what difference between a CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture Soothsayers and Harold Camping? Nothing since no independently verifiable evidence/experiments to back up their wild claims.

  64. Andrew says:

    Their entire premise for stealing trillions from the people and causing countless deaths in the process…base upon…COULD ALWAYS GET WARMER….

    …apologies it that was already tossed into the ring…no time to read everything…busy releasing some carbon into the atmosphere…exercising my First Amendment rights…protesting CAGW…by burning my storm damage. If one can burn the flag…I can sure as hell burn some twigs…and if the fire department comes by…I got stuff for S’more’s!

  65. Terry Jackson says:

    Crazy Asholts Grabbing Wampum

  66. Mickey Reno says:

    Tobis isn’t familiar with the CAGW acronym. He thinks it’s FCAGFW.

  67. KenB says:

    Corrupt
    Armageddon
    Gaming
    War
    or

    Computer
    Armageddon
    Gaming
    War

    Now
    Corny
    Armageddon
    Gaming
    Wishwash.

  68. I know what the letters stand for. I do not know what the proposition I am supposedly defending actually is. This first crossed my field of vision about eight years ago, and I said I neither believe nor disbelieve “it”, because it is not coherently expressed as a hypothesis. To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.

    I find it interesting that nobody has actually come up with a definition as yet. I would like something in the form “advocates of CAGW believe that … “. Please be specific. Then I can tell you whether I am or am not a CAGW advocate.

  69. wermet says:

    CAWG…
    Causes All (or Any) Goofy Weather
    Condemning All Global Wealth
    Caused by Abundant Gaia Worship
    Committee Against Good Weather
    Constrained to Al Gore’s World-view
    CO2 Attributed Global Wretchedness

  70. Jennifer says:

    This is a spectacularly inane post. It must have been completely obvious that the question was “define what you mean by catastrophic in this context” and not “what does the C stand for?”. I suppose you thought you were being funny; well, no, it wasn’t funny, it was a tiresome, boring “joke” of the same standard as “What’s on TV? A plant and a picture frame” and that kind of thing.

  71. Jeff says:

    Computer Analyses, Generally Wrong
    Continually Annoying Greedy Watermelons
    Cash And Grab Wamistas

  72. Nigel S says:

    One important omission from the acronyms list link

    TLA = Three Letter Acronym

  73. Andrew says:

    @ Jennifer

    Poking a little fun as some folks that have been caught lying and faking results for their own personal gain are now free from public mocking? Or did I misconstrue your comments? (It’s entirely possible, what do I know anyway)

    I say get the tomatoes and lets meet at the town square…metaphorically, that is!

  74. FergalR says:

    Tobis,

    You’ve said that “The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”

    Which you’ve later explained as meaning that the type of de-industrialisation being set in motion by you and your swivel-eyed eugenicist cohort will necessarily kill billions of people.

    My country has signed up to 80% GHG emission cuts by 2050. That’s not enough to run our agricultural production even if every human in the country dropped dead. So I believe you might not be exaggerating for once in your wasted life.

    Now you’re saying that this ongoing mother of all genocides isn’t even being carried out to prevent a catastrophe?

    I cordially invite you to get your tiny twisted mind checked out by a mental health professional you foul-mouthed imbecile. You’re a menace.

  75. david says:

    “advocates of CAGW believe that … “.
    ..by promoting a coming global disaster, that only a world government can deal with, they can concentrate power into an omnipotent governing elite. It is essentially a socialist ideal. CAGW is purely a political construct. It is also an attempt by these people to save their ideology from oblivion after the failure of the socialist and communist states in the former east block.

  76. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm): “I do not know what the proposition I am supposedly defending actually is.”

    I think we can take this as the “elevator definition” of CAGW.

  77. Mickey Reno says:

    [quote] Michael Tobis said: I find it interesting that nobody has actually come up with a definition as yet. I would like something in the form “advocates of CAGW believe that … “. Please be specific. Then I can tell you whether I am or am not a CAGW advocate.]

    You’re a coy rascal, aren’t you. You recently made a somewhat colorful statement that veritably screamed a very specific understanding of the definition. So YOU tell US exactly what is it that you think you’re f%^#!ng saving the f%&*#ng world from, and there’s your answer.

  78. Ian E says:

    CO2 a gaseous weapon?

  79. Shevva says:

    @Michael Tobis says:
    January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    I wouldn’t worry about the AGW part as it is only the C part that matters, if the C part does not come to fruition then the rest is chicken little screaming. So where do we go to check the C part, well that’s easy use your search engine of choice and search for ‘IPCC’ and ‘Computer models’ and you will be able to assess for yourself if the C part is any good.

    Hope this helps.

    And I always thought the CAGW was the title of these Enviro jolly’s they have in Rio and any other hot country they can, Come And Get Wasted.

  80. max says:

    Mr. Tobias;

    if you are looking for a definition for 8 years then you are probably asking the wrong question. The biggest and most common dispute is over what level of warming effect is required to distinguish CAGW from plain ol’ non-catastrophic AGW. That’s a difficult question and one can distinguish the two by by saying CAGW justifies drastic actions while plain ol’ AGW only justifies non-drastic actions (that doesn’t help much and shifts to differentiating drastic from non-drastic action, but I repeat that’s a difficult question). There might be some other point of confusion, but if you want to know what distinguishes CAGW from AGW , then ask that question.

  81. Otter says:

    “The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”

    Gore: We need a definition for CAGW.
    Mann: I’m not gonna try it – you try it!
    Gore: I know! Let’s get Mikey! He hates Everyone!

    (but here’s the bit left out of the commercial)

    Mikey: f*^* f$&^ f&^%!
    Gore: that works!

  82. Andrew says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    “To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”

    Michael, with all due respect (granted I have seen little to demonstrate your level of knowledge, but what do I know)…but I digress…I think I might be able to enlighten you on CAGW usage:

    http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ

    Andrew

  83. Jennifer, the answers may have been a little bit “beside the point” but there were some real corkers among them. Certainly brightened my day! Thanks to all above.

  84. Agnostic says:

    An excellent discussion of possible scenarios is taking place over at Judith currys:

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/31/climate-scenarios-2015-2050/#more-6931

    It is the C in CAGW that skeptics maintain is not supported by the science, and that the extent to which the A in the GW (which few skeptics dispute) can be actually be attributed. The post I linked is as good a rational assessment of what to make of potential climate change (including possible cooling as well as warming) as any I have seen.

  85. Merrick says:

    Actually, I think this would be better described as an acronym table. But I am very concerned that the IPCC is described as the, “physical basis for climate change.” I think it would simply be described as the, “intergovernmental panel on climate change,” and leave it at that. For me that description is both misleading and unnecessarily honorific.

  86. Dale says:

    Michael Tobias:

    Defining CAGW is easy. If you fear being locked up forever for the lies you spread when it all goes public, then you are a worshiper of CAGW. You and your people are costing countries billions of dollars each year, you advocate the dispossession of people’s lands for corrupt and wasteful carbon markets, you force Govts to extract more and more taxes out of ordinary people to pay for the demands, you force energy prices so high that people can’t even feed their own children, you brainwash large segments of the population, demand the wholesale slaughter of billions of people, and destroy honest science that will result in science and technology being set back for decades.

    I hope you don’t mind that I wish you would be the first volunteer in your genocide program.

  87. William M. Connolley says:

    Jason Calley> …It has to be catastrophic. If it is NOT catastrophic, then there is nothing to get so worried about

    Obviously. No-one ever worries about things that are short of catastrophic. Things that are merely bad, or unpleasant, you just ignore I suppose?

    mt>> “To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”
    Andrew> http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ

    Not a substitute for thought I’m afraid. Your link points mostly to “skeptic” sites but not to any scientists that I could see.

    Perhaps you could accept mt’s challenge and actually find an actual usage by actual scientists?

  88. neill says:

    Climate Armageddon Goes Wobbly.

  89. Moebius says:

    I think this tale illustrates very well what CAGW means (chicken little -1943)

  90. Mardler says:

    dwright:- January 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm: Conspiracy Among Greedy Watermelons

    david:- January 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm:
    “advocates of CAGW believe that … “.
    ..by promoting a coming global disaster, that only a world government can deal with, they can concentrate power into an omnipotent governing elite. It is essentially a socialist ideal. CAGW is purely a political construct. It is also an attempt by these people to save their ideology from oblivion after the failure of the socialist and communist states in the former east block.

    Brilliant, guys: those two go together so well. One is a very amusing definition of the acronym and the other fully describes its fundamental meaning. Can’t be bettered for an answer to MT himself.

    Thinks: say MT out loud and that describes his argument(s)!

  91. Tamara says:

    Mr. Tobis,

    The definition is explicit in the meanings of the individual words. It isn’t code for anything. You really need it defined???

  92. Jason Calley says:

    @ William N. Connolly
    Jason Calley> …It has to be catastrophic. If it is NOT catastrophic, then there is nothing to get so worried about
    Obviously. No-one ever worries about things that are short of catastrophic. Things that are merely bad, or unpleasant, you just ignore I suppose?

    Hi William! I think you have what is called a “false dichotomy”. My actions are not limited by two choices; catastrophic worry, or inaction. Just like you, I am faced with events that are bad or unpleasant; I just deal with them — no worries. None of those bad or unpleasant things require me to impose restriction, regulation, taxes, rationing or legal and social sanctions on the use of energy for the entire industrialized world. None of those bad or unpleasant things require that I support the death of billions of people.

  93. Tamara says:

    Crackpot Academics’ Green Waffle

  94. Mardler says:

    dwright:- January 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm: Conspiracy Among Greedy Watermelons

    david:- January 31, 2012 at 11:52 pm:
    “advocates of CAGW believe that … “.
    ..by promoting a coming global disaster, that only a world government can deal with, they can concentrate power into an omnipotent governing elite. It is essentially a socialist ideal. CAGW is purely a political construct. It is also an attempt by these people to save their ideology from oblivion after the failure of the socialist and communist states in the former east block.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————–
    Brilliant, guys, these fit perfectly: one gives the meaning of the acronym whilst the other states its fundamental purpose and together they answer Mr. MT in full.

    Thinks: say MT out loud – it says what his arguments are!

  95. Agnostic says:

    “Perhaps you could accept mt’s challenge and actually find an actual usage by actual scientists?”

    Well, Judy Curry uses it:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/

  96. William M. Connolley says:

    JC> Your original assertion amounted to “if it is not catastrophic, do nothing”. You’ve now realised that is wrong; good. Now you’re inventing strawmen about “support the death of billions of people”. So we’re faced with the prospect of global warming, and we need to have a rational discussion about what we might wish to do about it. We’ll need to know how large the temperature change is likely to be, and what effects that might have. Caricaturing it as CAGW and inventing gigadeaths is a way of avoiding rational discussion.

  97. John says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    January 31, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    “To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”

    Lead squirrel, James Hansen, predicted that Manhattan would be under water by now.
    But then again, not everyone would define that as catastrophic.

  98. “You’ve said that “The only way to simplify ourselves out of the present mess is by cutting our population 80%, unfortunately.”

    That was in response to a suggestion that we reduce our technological level to that of the nineteenth century. It was against “simplification” in that sense.

    Without context, this is basically a (yet another, I might say) misattribution.

  99. Mardler attempts an actual definition, in that he says “advocates of CAGW believe that…”

    Under Mardler’s definition I am not a CAGW advocate. Nor is anyone on the RC board, I would venture, nor anyone in the Obama administration. I suppose people who believe this sort of thing exist but I don;t know any by name.

    Does someone have an alternative definition which people actually advocate?

    The problem here is that you are using this expression without defining its limits. It’s difficult to discuss a proposition that is undefined.

  100. “Lead squirrel, James Hansen, predicted that Manhattan would be under water by now.”

    Really? Reference please?

  101. TerryMN says:

    Tobis: To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.

    Books by:
    James Hansen: Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity

    Michael Mann: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – The Illustrated Guide to the Findings of the IPCC

    Archer and Rahmstorf: The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change

    Tyler Volk: CO2 Rising: The World’s Greatest Environmental Challenge

    Need more “knowledge” ??

  102. Jeff Alberts says:

    I created a computer model to determine what CAGW stands for. I ran the model 1000 times and averaged the results. CAGW means: Orange Water Given Bucket of Plaster. See? Perfect!

  103. Since y’all are such expert hairsplitters, I should not have said “Does someone have an alternative definition which people actually advocate?” after admitting that such people probably exist.

    Does someone have an alternative definition which influential people actually advocate?

    I am not saying that there isn’t a useful concept in here somewhere. I just would like to know whether we are discussing an extremist position of no influence, or a position which actually includes the bulk of scientific consensus opinion, or something in between. Otherwise it is just a rhetorical device.

  104. Bob Moss says:

    @Tobis

    The last IPCC report is the definition of CAGW.

    I agree with you that it has never been “coherently expressed as a hypothesis.”

  105. Jeff Alberts says:

    I am not saying that there isn’t a useful concept in here somewhere. I just would like to know whether we are discussing an extremist position of no influence, or a position which actually includes the bulk of scientific consensus opinion, or something in between. Otherwise it is just a rhetorical device.

    You’re so right, Michael! Climate Change is just a rhetorical device for mass governmental control, and to keep poor countries poor.

  106. Jeff Alberts says:

    Tobis:

    Does someone have an alternative definition which influential people actually advocate?

    How about Maurice Strong? Actually I don’t know if he really believes there is a climate catastrophe going on, but he certainly wants to use the meme to de-industrialize the west. Don’t bother asking for a cite, I’m sure you know it already. There are others who are influential who believe the same thing; Al Gore, David Suzuki, You (though how influential you are remains to be seen).

  107. TerryMN seems to capture the sense of many of you with the list of book titles from climate scientists.

    Would it be fair to suggest that “CAGW” means “the proposition that continued accumulation of greenhouse gases at or above current (ca. 2010) rates over the next century is sufficiently disruptive to climate that it would produce widespread, unambiguously catastrophic consequences”?

    If that or something similar is the definition, without any additional political baggage, I think it represents a legitimate and reasonably objective scientific hypothesis. I believe that the consensus of informed opinion would show that such a proposition is deemed much more likely than not to be true.

    The key poitn for me is that this makes no statement about preferred policy other than the obvious implication that we ought to find some way to avoid such an outcome. Further, I think we could agree that most of you disagree with me about the likelihood that the proposition is true. This would help separate the political from the scientific aspects of the conversation.

    If you accept that definition, why not add it to the list of acronyms so we can properly nail down what we are talking about when people around here use the term?

    If not, what do you propose?

  108. go4mars says:

    CONTROL ALL GLOBAL WEALTH.

    I’m serious.

  109. The IPCC report is a literature review, not a hypothesis.

    As for “Control All Global Wealth” Count me (and everybody I know) as opposed.

    Nobody is cutting climate scientists into this hypothetical cabal anyway, so it doesn’t explain our motivation. I know some of you think it’s possible to take, e.g., NSF grant money and just stuff it in your pocket, but it really doesn’t work like that. Talk to an actual scientist, in any field, and ask them.

    Or read this:

    http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/

  110. G. Karst says:

    Andrew says:
    February 1, 2012 at 2:15 am

    Thank-you so much for the “let me google that for you” animation construction page. I didn’t know of it’s existence. GK

  111. Roger Knights says:

    John says:
    February 1, 2012 at 6:55 am

    Lead squirrel, lemming James Hansen, predicted that Manhattan would be under water by now.

    “Lemming” adds alliteration.

    Christian Bultmann says:
    December 9, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    It is amazing…’People running around with signs saying ‘the world is coming to an end’ are considered the sane ones by the MSM
    ———–

    Richard S Courtney says:
    August 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    We all know that the books of the IPCC are the Bible of man-made global climate change. And – according to the books of scientific revelation in that Bible – the atmosphere was in a state of Eden before human industrial civilization. Then humans began to consume the forbidden fruit of fossil fuels, so the atmosphere became contaminated with an excess of carbon dioxide. Humans continue to practice the sin of industrial civilization and, therefore, the contamination of the atmosphere continues to increase. As a result, our civilization is doomed by our sin as surely as Sodom and Gomorrah.

    The world will warm with the result that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are set to roam the world spreading pestilence, war, famine, and death. We can stop them from destroying the world as we know it by turning from our sin of industrial civilization. But the sins of the fathers are weighed upon their children even unto the seventh generation because our sin has already added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and it will continue to wreak its havoc for centuries to come. We must repent and turn from our consumption of the forbidden fruit to avoid its worst effects on our children and our children’s children.

    That is the prevailing faith which is being spread by many proselytes and has been adopted as the State Religion in many places, notably the European Union.

    But I am here to proclaim the message in the song. “The things that you’re liable to read in the Bible; it ain’t necessarily so.”

    ———————
    [Re Stern Report unacknowledged revision; the Stern Report is a good example of CAWG:]
    Richard (13:36:08) :

    They fudged the data, fudged the score
    When it didn’t add up, they fudged some more
    The seas will rise, the winds will roar
    Floods and waves will ravage the shore
    Just sell the doom to those silly men
    But if challenged, simply divide by ten
    ——————–

    Josh (14:06:43) :

    AGW = Alarmists Gone Wild

    POUNCER (13:44:37) :

    AGW = Al Gore’s Whoppers

    Robert E. Phelan says:
    December 29, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Close enough for government work.

    On April 16, on WUWT, commenter Thom Scrutchin suggested a new acronym:

    “I would like to make a suggestion. We should stop using the acronym AGW since it is becoming clearer and clearer that AGW doesn’t exist. The new acronym should be AGWA for Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism. Since that is not a scientific claim, I can appeal to the new consensus to prove that AGWA really does exist.”

  112. Roger Knights says:

    Here’s a summary of the catastrophes that catastrophists have warned us about:

    John from MN (13:19:01) :

    On of my favorite made up things caused by AGW is the mass exticttion of millions of species. Even though nothing much lives in the Artic and Billions of life-forms thrive at warm equator. Or http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
    A Complete List Of Things Supposedly
    Caused By Global Warming
    Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid’s health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move from animals to humans, diseases move north, dog disease, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish head north, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration, footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, health risks, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers’ income increased (surprise surprise!), lawyers want more, legionnaires’ surge, lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, Lopsided Earth, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains taller, mortality lower, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf, polar bears drowning, polar bears eating themselves, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, prostitution, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, Salmon Decline, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted – 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, violin decline, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine – harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine – more English, wine – England too hot, wine -German boon, wine – no more French , wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

  113. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (February 1, 2012 at 8:36 am): ‘Would it be fair to suggest that “CAGW” means “the proposition that continued accumulation of greenhouse gases at or above current (ca. 2010) rates over the next century is sufficiently disruptive to climate that it would produce widespread, unambiguously catastrophic consequences”?’

    Not bad, although it should be amended to blame humanity for the greenhouse gasses. Otherwise there’s no “A” in “CAGW”. Of course it’s not as sexy as “…the f**king survival of the f**king planet is at f**king stake.”*, but at least it’s just as wrong. :-)

    *http://init.planet3.org/2011/04/moshers-team.html

  114. Andrew says:

    @ William M. Connelley

    mt>> “To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.”
    Andrew> http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ

    “Not a substitute for thought I’m afraid. Your link points mostly to “skeptic” sites but not to any scientists that I could see.

    Perhaps you could accept mt’s challenge and actually find an actual usage by actual scientists?”

    William,

    Surely you jest…(and don’t call me Shirley)…If offended…lighten up…this is a funny thread…heck Tobis last post at his low traffic website mocks Fox News with some Muppet clip…so the ‘gloves’ are off…or in ‘mt’s case, I guess the hand puppets are on.

    I most certainly will accept ‘mt’s’ F*#king challenge…I actually find it “Sofa King” easy as SNL is known to say…(google it if you are confused)

    But before I do, William, allow me do make a few statements…

    The basic premise you and the good doctor assert is somewhat of a Red Herring wouldn’t you say?

    Think about it…its all marketing…let Hansen and Gore be the bombastic blowhards bloviating ad nauseam all the while the “Real (Climate) Scientists do the ‘science’. We have all read about how this ‘science’ is conducted thanks to a few of those Brilliant ‘Peer Reviewed’ tenured climate scientists at UEA not having a F…ing clue about stuff that is actually FACT. The FACT is…and you don’t have to be very intelligent to know this William…EMAILS are FOREVER, lol.

    Also, I assume you are aware of Googles ‘secret formulas’ that are used to…search for stuff…I ain’t saying they are overtly doing anything nefarious William, I am stating facts. Google customizes searches based on how they track you. Keywords are often used…results may vary…combine that with the ‘Red Herring’ above.

    Therefore, if the challenge is to “find an actual usage by actual scientists?” I had already done it before I opened my big yapper, lol. You see William, I am not a ‘Real Climate’ scientist…I actually do original research, publish it and defend my assertions publicly. http://bit.ly/wVS3AZ results for you to try to reproduce my results (I don’t want to sit through one of Steve ‘Climate Audits) I argue it is a very good example of the Scientific Process. Please correct my assertions if you can.

    When I searched Google I found this on the first page yesterday, but it seems to be on the second page today…if I graphed it…it might look something like…a “Hockey Stick” upside down. But I suck at Excel…so you can if you want. I have heard Phil Jones knows a thing or two about Excel…so I am in good company…I think.

    Ever heard of this guy?

    Richard Lindzen

    He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change.

    “In this recently presented paper by Dr. Richard Lindzen, published here in its entirety, he describes
    the origins of global warming alarm, the political agenda of the alarmists, their intimidation tactics,
    and the reasons for their success. Also, in painstaking detail, he debunks their key scientific claims
    and counterclaims.”

    http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD/LINDZEN_Expose_30Sept2008.pdf

    Now…feel free to respond, ‘mt’ as well. However, I think you should just ‘go away or I shall taunt you a second time…’ http://youtu.be/A8yjNbcKkNY?t=1m58s

    Andrew

  115. Babsy says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 8:36 am

    You do understand that temperature leads CO2, right?

  116. Tobis: To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.

    That is like saying con men do not refer to their “proposals” as “scams” when trying to sell it to the mark.

    It is a simple phrase that summarizes the intended message presented by the accumulated scare stories trotted out over the last couple decades so we don’t have to refer to a list the size of a phone book.

    He is playing you guys. He knows full well what it is, and is trying to build up a red herring argument about nothing. The question what is he trying to distract everyone from?

    Larry

  117. I think most people stipulate that the accumulation is anthropogenic.

    I plead guilty to being extremely angry at the people who keep trying to find earth-shattering or even mildly relevant scandals in the mundane stolen emails when nothing remotely relevant to the scope and scale of the problem was revealed.

    I’m not alone. Somebody had to come out and start yelling. Admittedly, “…the f**king survival of the f**king planet is at f**king stake” is a bit exaggerated for effect. But you guys indeed had better be really sure of yourselves that we are completely wrong. Otherwise you are being hugely irresponsible.

    You all can keep bringing that up if you want. Or you can engage on substance. Your call.

  118. “You do understand that temperature leads CO2, right?”

    That’s a long story. I’ll put it on my list for a serious article. I have not been happy with any popular expositions on the subject.

    Short version:

    If warming causes CO2 releases on a glacial cycle time scale, as it indeed appears, that is an amplifying feedback. And indeed, we need an amplifying feedback, because the direct forcing and ice albedo effect don’t seem to be enough to account for the quaternary glacial cycle.

    That does not constitute good news.

    However, how temperature increase causes CO2 releases on that time scale is not nailed down (to my knowledge). It is among the biggest open questions in physical climatology.

    Perhaps the mechanism is tapped out somehow in the interglacials, which would make the prognosis on a multi-centruy time scale somewhat less severe. Understanding the glacial cycle is incomplete and this is a major reason to keep working at it.

    hth

  119. Andrew says:

    @ Michael Tobis

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 9:20 am
    “The IPCC report is a literature review, not a hypothesis.

    As for “Control All Global Wealth” Count me (and everybody I know) as opposed.”

    Michael Tobis…please please please I sincerely beg you to look away from the trees and step back and look at the entire forest.

    Sir, I respectfully submit to you my hypothesis, or one of them anyway…

    Please note, snark and sarcasm is being filtered as much as I can for this comment.

    The scientists…the VAST majority are good people…trying their best to do what they love, be it in academia, business or government. The problem as I see it is this:

    Lets assume the ‘scientist’ are actually doing good ethical science.

    Who is the science for? Who is the end user? In some cases it gets into the hands of politicians and Wall Street folks correct? What do they do about it? Do you trust them? Do you trust Goldman Sachs? Do you trust the Chicago Merc? Do you trust Warren Buffett? Do you trust BP? What about George Soros?

    How about when we mix politicians and business people…Do you trust Al Gore? Either Bush? Is Obama the same guy you voted for? Has he done everything you hoped he would? Look, Michael, I tried to balance out the political spectrum to be fair. Heck, everyone saw the video of Newt and Nancy stroking each others Speakers gavels a few years ago in a AGW PSA and now they are fighting again. What gives?

    Here is my point Professor, the scientists…at least most of them are but pawns for the Chess Masters but you guys don’t even know it!

    I think…prove me wrong.

    Andrew

  120. Babsy says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 11:41 am

    It isn’t a long story. One of three things can happen; temperature can lead CO2, temperature can lag CO2 (the basis for alarmism), or temperature and CO2 are independent of one another.

  121. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: Michael Tobis says: February 1, 2012 at 9:20 am

    The IPCC report is a literature review, not a hypothesis. As for “Control All Global Wealth” Count me (and everybody I know) as opposed. Nobody is cutting climate scientists into this hypothetical cabal anyway, so it doesn’t explain our motivation. I know some of you think it’s possible to take, e.g., NSF grant money and just stuff it in your pocket, but it really doesn’t work like that. Talk to an actual scientist, in any field, and ask them.

    Please don’t be so disingenuous – or open your eyes, as the case may be. I daresay not one scientist would claim that increased availability of grant funds isn’t a boon to their field and the scientists in it. Every scientist knows full well that their very career and therefore livelihood depends on grant money – and the more the better their life will be. Just ask James Hansen who has apparently gained, on top of his six figure government salary, something like an additional $1.6 million over the past few years ($1.3?).

    Every professor knows that difficulty obtaining grants means a very stressful work environment with the department head and possibly dean constantly riding your back. That conversely, increased grant money means the ability to do the research you want, to hire more grad students thus making success more likely even if you have to rework the starting hypothesis to the point it’s almost unrecognizable from the original. Which means it will be that much easier to get future grants, be invited to contribute to other researchers papers, etc., etc., etc. All of which means more citations, quicker and easier route to tenure, enhanced respect and recognition in your field (what scientists doesn’t yearn for that?). Even more, everyone knows it also means that there is more money available to fund trips to professional conferences which are typically held in sweet vacation spots.

    It’s tendentious to play the ‘can’t stuff the money in your pocket’ meme, when even the majority of grad students know increased grant money means ability to buy better equipment (which can later be used for other research too of course), enhanced career and greatly enhanced earnings, salary, trips, respect, success, and even huge opportunities should one decide they want to transition out of academia.

    So no, unless one is willing to commit a crime and misuse funds (which of course some do), liberal grant money doesn’t mean you can directly grab the actual funds to stuff ones’ pocket – but everyone knows that one stands to make huge gains in virtually every aspect if one can pull in grant money.

    If they work hard, and the research is conducted using sound scientific technique, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this – it’s a good thing. However, I seriously doubt there’s a scientist alive who doesn’t also know that some display far more integrity in terms of how they apply grant funds, while others are master at finding ways to word the grants or finagle the funds such that they skate the edge of legality, just staying legal, and yet using more of the money for pleasurable aspects rather than hard research.

    Meanwhile, MSM article and after article along with the words of top ‘climate scientists’ as displayed in Climategate 1 & 2 put paid to your implication that scientists (especially ‘climate scientists’) have no interest in global control. Are you really claiming that a push to limit human CO2 production isn’t a massive control on every human it’s imposed on? Please. It even extends past energy to the very diet we eat, type of house we live in and virtually everything in that home, right down to the very light bulb we use.

    Trying to imply that there’s no financial gain or power or control involved in all of this for the scientist – and that supposedly all scientists would agree if asked – or that this would require some nefarious secretive ‘cabal’ rather than simple human nature and the facts of the system, all while using weasel words that give you wiggle room if someone calls you on it, is just, well, disturbing and ridiculous.

  122. Power Grab says:

    I’m not sure this whole question-and-answer period isn’t simply an excuse for getting the WUWT faithful to come up in search engines associated with pro-CAGW verbage…let alone giving Mr. Tobias the chance to be found on the world’s favorite science blog.

  123. Power Grab says:

    Oh yeah – one more thing – if the pro-CAGW folks aren’t successful in their scheme to kill off 80% (or more) of the world’s population, don’t they realize that keeping the poor countries poor is the best way to keep them producing babies? Talk about your unintended consequences!

  124. Andrew says:

    @ Power Grab

    Read up on the Progressive Movement in the 1890’s through the 1940’s. Read up on the rise of the Eugenics movement and how it manifested itself into medical care, psychiatric care…as the Kennedy Clan about lobotomy’s.

    Note how Eugenics were applied in various countries. Look at the US Progressive Movement of the 30’s and there views on what was going on in Europe.

    Look at who is behind the restrictions placed on GMO foods and the use of DDT in Africa.

    Now…what were you saying about ‘your unintended consequences!’

    Lose the ‘un’….(wow ironic..un…UN…now that was truly UNintended, but rather sardonic…I think)

  125. Sparks says:

    Michael Tobis,

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) infers that Anthropogenic (human) sources of trace atmospheric gases are and will cause the Warming of the Globe, that in turn will have Catastrophic consequences for all life on the entire planet.

    The weak hypothetical case of CAGW can be defined further by reading questions like yours and the various nonsensical dribble from those who are proponents of CAGW and their constant re-branding of it.

  126. thelastdemocrat says:

    I thought AGW = Anthropotomac Global Warming.

  127. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (February 1, 2012 at 11:30 am): “I think most people stipulate that the accumulation is anthropogenic.”

    Which is why the explicit accusation belongs in any definition of the term “CAGW”.

    “But you guys indeed had better be really sure of yourselves that we are completely wrong. Otherwise you are being hugely irresponsible.”

    Pascal’s Wager again, AKA “The Precautionary Principle” AKA “The f**king sky is f**king falling!” Given the religious nature of Pascal’s original argument, it’s quite fitting that CAGW believers resort to it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

    “You all can keep bringing that ["...the f**king planet..."] up if you want. Or you can engage on substance. Your call.”

    Actually, it was Michael Tobis who brought that up (referenced above). If Mr. Tobis has some substance to offer, perhaps Anthony can provide space for a guest article on the “science” behind CAGW.

  128. thelastdemocrat says:

    Andrew has good advice. If all of us education-loving “progressives” are so smart and open-minded, we need to start investigating these totalitarians.

    Obama has appointed Superior Human Being John Holdren to be our science czar. Holdren co-authored “Ecoscience.” Go google that and you will find all of the Brave New World ideas in the crazy heads of tese elitist intellectuals: birth control in the water supply, requiring people to apply for approval to be parents, etc.

    When nominated,this 1970s “text” was noted. Holdren’s defense of these ideas was that the text merely presented issues for discussion and consideration.

    THese elitist totalitarians fit in well with the authoritarian marxists. They all want to control society from the top-down.

    Reading Margaret Sanger can cover the 20s and 30s.
    Harrison Brown can be read to bridge you into the 1950s.
    From there, you can begin with Paul Ehrlich, Holdren’s buddy, writing at end of 1960s.

    Read the opening of Paul Ehrlich’s best-seller “Population Bomb.” Abt how unpleasant it was for him to be in urban India – now, it comes across as pure classism and racism. Back then it was seen as “modern progress,” and so wonderful.

    You can google and find the “original port huron statement” and begin to see how the marxists joined up strongly with the elitist totalitarian intellectuals. the ‘students for a democratic society” evolved then, The marxists at that time really began their move into academia. This includes yet another buddy of Obama, William Ayers.

    Ronald Radosh’s book “Commies,” abt his personal experience in the present era is a very readable book on marxist politics in the U.S.

    Yes, you should start googling and read up for yourself what these ppl have in mind. They sell their ideas to us based on reasonable things, such as we all recognize that pollution and racism is bad.

    totalitarians like Hilter of course are going to out a smiley face on things. Do you think they are gonna walk up and reveal their true intent?

    Go read yourself, everyone. Marxistinternetarchive.org has tons of stuff.

  129. John West says:

    Michael Tobis
    Congratulations on being one of the first CAGW advocates to start the inevitable backpedaling process.

    Would it be fair to suggest that “CAGW” means “the proposition that continued accumulation of greenhouse gases at or above current (ca. 2010) rates over the next century is sufficiently disruptive to climate that it would produce widespread, unambiguously catastrophic consequences”?
    If that or something similar is the definition, without any additional political baggage, I think it represents a legitimate and reasonably objective scientific hypothesis. I believe that the consensus of informed opinion would show that such a proposition is deemed much more likely than not to be true.

    Compared to the “incontrovertible” and “on the brink of consequence” assertions of the recent past, “much more likely than not” and “over the next century” is a sizeable step in the direction of reasonableness. Many such steps will be required in order to bring “climate science” back into the realm of evidentially supportable science. The trick will be doing this in such a way that few notice the shift in order to maintain credibility throughout the process. Over the course of many years “much more likely than not” can become “more likely than not” then just “likely” while “catastrophic” can be replaced with “unpleasant” and eventually the whole hypothesis may read something like: Continued accumulation of greenhouse gases at or above modern rates over the next century will have a barely measurable effect on climate and that effect will be largely beneficial to most organisms as well as humanity.

    I wish you good luck on your journey through this maze of incremental recantation.

  130. diogenes says:

    Michael,
    I might have been superseded because of the time I have taken to post this. So you, backed up by the evil Connolley, are trying to re-frame the debate so that you can deny there is such a position as CAGW. I cannot understand why. So perhaps you have never used the convenient term CAGW, therefore it is not an accurate description of your beliefs. Let us parse it.

    W = warming. You believe that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm until such a time as it starts to cool.

    G = global. You believe that this warming is happening over the whole surface of the planet.

    A = anthropogenic. you believe that the only driver of the warming we have experienced since about 1980 is due to human emissions of CO2 and , possibly, other GHGs, although this possibility is rarely alluded to.

    C = catastrophic. You believe that, if nothing is done to stop or slow down human emissions of CO2, that there will be terrible consequences – flooding in Bangladesh killing thousands of people etc.

    Do you accept that this is a fair summary of your views?

    If so,. why do you shrug away from the characterisation of your views as “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”? CAGW is a useful shorthand notation of these beliefs.

    Now I know that people such as you and the egregious Connolley like to categorise people who disagree with you as “denialists”. But that is shallow and beneath you – although not beneath Connolley.

    Do your opponents deny that warming is happening? Yes, some people deny this. The thermometer record is patchy. large areas of land are unmeasured – central Africa, the Chacos, Antarctica, central Asia. 2/3 of the planet is covered by water, and the measurements are paltry, to say the least. However, for 30 years we have had satellites measuring something close to temperature. So some?a lot of sceptics, me included, can agree that the planet is warming. Although the satellites show less warming than the sparse thermometers…fancy that..

    Is it global?….perhaps. Same caveats. we have a global temperature index or set of indices that do not agree very well. the overall trend is up and the satellite measurements show less warming than the thermometers.

    Is it due to human emissions of something? Who knows. If there were a simple relationship between emissions and temperature rise then the record would look different. it seems to have stalled, although GHG emissions have increased during the 2000s. Is it more complicated than you experts (including the egregious Connolley) pretend? The temperature trend is certainly running lower than the models…are the models in any way reliable? Have the various IPCC reports discovered new feedbacks to explain these discrepant results? Maybe sulphates can be blamed for the new divergence. Are nitrates properly modeled now?

    is it catastrophic? No, Malthus. The next generation, unless taught by Connolley, will be smarter than us. Solutions will be found for the problems. If you had a PC 30 years ago, the gold on the circuit board would have had a worthwhile value. Now you have to harvest hundreds or thousands of mother-boards to get a recoverable amount of gold. Silicon is abundant.

    Should we take measure to stop polluting the planet? yes, of course. However, we should not prevent the painful process of economic development. let us help the Chinese develop beyond one bowl of rice per day by giving them access to cheaper and less polluting technology..

    Does this help, Michael? (knows that Connolley is out of his depth).

  131. Andrew says:

    @thelastdemocrat

    Yeah…what he said!

    …btw I thought the last democrat was ‘Scoop’ Jackson…I guess I was wrong…again.

  132. Michael Tobis says:

    “You believe that, if nothing is done to stop or slow down human emissions of CO2, that there will be terrible consequences”

    Yes. I would be very surprised to find out otherwise.

    But the key here is the conditional: “IF nothing is done”. So I would be happy to agree that I hold a position of “potentially catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” which at least has the flavor of a hypothesis. I believe that the more policy action is delayed, the more likely and sever the consequences will be.

    Indeed I think we have already delayed long enough to drive up the probable costs both of needed action and of unavoidable consequence.

    And I think we’ve already seen a catastrophe or two. Ask my neighbors in Bastrop, Texas, for instance. And we still haven’t seen much in the way of climate change consequences on a global scale. Spikes in commodity prices driven in part by heat and drought-driven crop failures, perhaps, feeding into instability in poorer countries. But you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    I am not comfortable with the idea that I “advocate” Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Indeed, from where I’m sitting, it’s y’all that are advocating it. Personally I remain opposed to catastrophes.

    So I don’t care for the name, but I can’t control what you guys say or do. All I’m asking for here is a definition. You use the term as if you knew what it meant, but nobody outside your circles has a clear idea.

    So how about this, then?

    CAGW: The hypothesis that if nothing is done to stop or slow down human emissions of CO2, that there will be terrible consequences.

  133. Smokey says:

    Michael Tobis says:

    “The hypothesis that if nothing is done to stop or slow down human emissions of CO2, that there will be terrible consequences.”

    First, that is a conjecture, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is testable. And all your “what if” scenarios are either assigning blame to CO2 for droughts [a classic argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy], or outright speculation.

    Study up on the climate null hypothesis. Nothing unusual is occurring. Temperatures are completely normal. The incidence of floods, tornadoes, droughts and hurricanes is not increasing. If anything, unusual weather events are becoming less frequent.

    CAGW doesn’t have “the flavor of a hypothesis”, it has the flavor of mass hysteria based on ignorance. And saying “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet” is about as anti-science as you can get, considering that we haven’t seen any global harm that has been confirmed as being attributable to the rise in CO2. [While you're at it, define "terrible".]

    But there is plenty of verifiable evidence showing that CO2 is harmless, and very beneficial to the biosphere. You need to face the fact that you’ve been sold a bill of goods. “Carbon” isn’t a problem. In fact, the increase in CO2 has been an unmitigated good thing. More is better, not worse.

    Ask yourself: who benefits from climate alarmism, and from the demonization of “carbon”? A relatively small subset of the population is making $Billions every year off the CO2 scare. And it is based on a conjecture, with zero verifiable supporting evidence.

  134. Andrew says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    “So how about this, then?

    CAGW: The hypothesis that if nothing is done to stop or slow down human emissions of CO2, that there will be terrible consequences.”

    Sorry can’t accept that as a ‘hypothesis’. You as a professor should recognize when you make errors like you just did. I will assume it was simply an error of grammar. You left out NULL.

    If that was by intent, then let me know…and I will give you a lesson in logic.

    Andrew

  135. The Pascal’s wager analogy is clever but I think it misses the mark. Here’s why.

    Pascal’s wager is based on the truth or falsehood of a particular religious doctrine, for which the only evidence is the traditions of the place and time of Pascal’s life. We now understand that there have been many religious beliefs over time, and that whatever else you may say about religion, the wager itself offers no guidance in selecting among them.

    In the case of AGW, we have a longstanding estimate of the sensitivity of the system to CO2 doubling of 3 degrees C +/- 1.5 C. How much confidence one chooses to give the estimate is arguable. I would argue that there was no motivation for bias at the time of the Charney report in 1979 and nearly none now except perhaps to cluster around that first estimate in a sort of herding instinct. You may disagree.

    But still, what we are talking about is an estimate. The midpoint sensitivity appears to be enough to indicate major climatic shifts. Again you may disagree, but again you need to provide an estimate and confidence bounds.

    The policy you advocate requires not only a low sensitivity but tight confidence bounds around that sensitivity.

    This isn’t a wager on a hypothesis that is true or false. It is a wager on a number that is in the opinion of most experts somewhere between 2.5 and 3, while you ask us to behave as if it were certainly smaller than 1.

    That is, the number you implicitly propose is inconsistent with the opinions of the best of American science in the 1970s, as well as on the opinions of all leading scientific bodies today. Not only are your estimates implicitly much lower than theirs, your confidence is implicitly much higher! Those of us trained formally in the field do not understand the basis for your claimed confidence that the number is near zero, which implies far greater precision than we believe is warranted.

    And yet it is mainstream science that stands accused of overconfidence!

  136. Babsy says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    It is important that you understand that temperature leads CO2. It is important for you to understand that the world’s oceans are a buffering system for CO2 whether emitted by man or whether naturally occuring.

  137. PJB says:

    These days, in all of the warmist camp model factories and peer-review redefinition centers, CAGW actually stands for:

    Can Anyone Generate Warming …. please?

  138. Andrew says:

    @Michael Tobis

    Dr, thanks for your response. I don’t have time for a well reasoned reply at this time…sometimes I don’t let that stop me…but I have dinner to cook, so I hope to read your reply carefully before I spout off. I will be honest with you, I didn’t know of Pascal’s wager analogy. I took Philosophy 101 Intro to Logic my last quarter of my Senior year in ’91…and all I needed to do was pass to graduate…and I was honestly nervous at the graduation ceremony, not knowing for sure if I did indeed pass. So you will understand my desire to check a few facts before I respond.

    You clearly must know more about Pascal and Null Hypothesis than I.

    Thanks!

  139. Babsy says:

    Bob Moss says:
    February 1, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    The Texas record is 120 and was set at Seymour in 1934 (I think). That has since been matched at another location which I don’t recall. It is interesting that Seymour is 100 or so miles east of the Caprock which serves as a ‘dry line’ where the dew points are much higher to the east and much lower to the west. It takes more energy to heat wetter air to 120 than it does dry air.

  140. Michael Tobis says:

    Bob Moss, “Bastrop TX ? It was warmer in the 1930s ”

    maybe so, but the Lost Pines forest did not burn to the ground for ten thousand years until last summer.

  141. Michael Tobis says:

    My Pascal’s wager thing was not in response to Andrew but to Gary Hladik. Sorry for any confusion.

  142. Jeff Alberts says:

    A question for messrs Tobis and Connolley:

    If, as you have admitted, you believe we’ve catastrophically altered the global climate, why are you still using computers and presumably a host of other modern conveniences? Why haven’t you resorted to a subsistence lifestyle in order to lead by example? Or are you hoping for some magic bullet “free and clean” energy breakthrough? I don’t think your Club Of Rome and like-minded buddies would like that, except for them, of course.

  143. Anthony Watts says:

    @ Michael Tobis “..maybe so, but the Lost Pines forest did not burn to the ground for ten thousand years until last summer.”

    Irrelevant, the cause was not global warming, nor climate change nor climate disruption. Nothing related to climate at all:

    On September 20, 2011, fire officials reported that the likely cause of the blaze was sparks from electric power lines. 30-mile-per-hour gusts of wind on September 4 apparently toppled trees which tumbled into electrical lines at two locations, creating sparks that fell onto and ignited the dry grass and leaf litter below.

    Source: Austin, Texas Statesman http://www.statesman.com/news/local/bastrop-fires-apparent-cause-trees-hitting-power-lines-1869910.html

    In a nutshell Mike, there were no power lines in the forest for the last 9,900 years, but there were plenty of droughts and heat waves during that time.

    Your argument is therefore denied.

  144. Jeff Alberts says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Bob Moss, “Bastrop TX ? It was warmer in the 1930s ”

    maybe so, but the Lost Pines forest did not burn to the ground for ten thousand years until last summer.

    And you think that’s because of too much CO2? If so, again, why are you still part of the problem?

  145. Alan Watt says:

    So many good ones here. How about

    Create Al Gore’s Windfall

  146. Andrew says:

    @ Alan Watt

    I believe we have a winner! At least my vote!

  147. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (February 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm): “That is, the number you implicitly propose is inconsistent with the opinions of the best of American science in the 1970s, as well as on the opinions of all leading scientific bodies today.”

    Argument From Authority (AFA). Politics is about opinions, science is about proof. Alarmist claims, including the 3 degree climate sensitivity, have been shot so full of holes here at WUWT and elsewhere that “swiss cheese” is an acceptable dictionary definition of the term “CAGW”. I don’t know the value of “CO2 climate sensitivity” (or even if it’s a constant), but I’m “overconfident” that nobody else does, either. (I also doubt that even the “consensus”–i.e. political–value of climate sensitivity would lead to catastrophe, but that’s another subject.)

    “Pascal’s wager is based on the truth or falsehood of a particular religious doctrine, for which the only evidence is the traditions of the place and time of Pascal’s life.”

    Exactly. In his ignorance, or will to believe, or whatever, Pascal accepted the prevailing AFA that the cost of declining the wager would be so “catastrophic” as to outweigh any possible cost of accepting, despite a lack of proof. Michael Tobis, for whatever reason, believes the CAGW AFA, despite evidence to the contrary, perhaps because it’s been sold as “science” instead of snake oil. CAGW and Pascal’s Wager aren’t that different after all, are they?

    Perhaps a good subject for Michael Tobin’s (hopefully) upcoming article at WUWT would be climate sensitivity, and the evidence for his “opinion” that the number is around 3 degrees C. In a follow up article, perhaps he could show why that particular sensitivity, if roughly correct, would lead to “catastrophic” consequences under a business as usual scenario.

  148. Anthony: “In a nutshell Mike, there were no power lines in the forest for the last 9,900 years, but there were plenty of droughts and heat waves during that time.”

    Michael, if you please, not Mike. Or just “mt”.

    Yes, that is to some extent a fair argument. Lightning strikes were few and far between at the peak of the drought and would have been so if there were ever comparable heat-droughts in this part of Texas in the past.

    On the other hand, we don’t know of any, and the (happily receding at the moment) recent summer drought and heat was an extreme outlier in the instrumental record.

    And things can have more than one cause. Had the forest not been so stressed by the drought, the fire could have been more easily contained and surely would not have been so extraordinary.

    Nevertheless the point is sound.

  149. Gary Hladik, frankly, much of the evidence presented at this site is misleading or confused in one way or another. It is difficult to rebut. The number of people equipped to rebut most of it is unfortunately small, and we are otherwise occupied. There is the problem of selective moderation as well.

    I see that you believe otherwise, and consider the barrage of complaints here definitive. In that case I am no more arguing from authority than you are. You’ve just picked some unusual authority figures.

    I think, however, that I know what I am talking about and that I am among the authorities in the sense you mean. But there’s no simple proof of that. So let’s just say we trust different authorities and move on, for the present.

    For myself, my earliest training was as an engineer, I consider myself an engineer, and I approach the climate problem as an engineer.

    I see nothing close to a satisfactory demonstration that the system is robust to the way that we are treating it.

    I think that given unprecedented inputs to an existing critical system, the burden of proof would be on the people who advocate such inputs. Specifically, those indifferent to continuing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere ought to be able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that those changes are safe and do not endanger the entire world.

    You cannot do this. Therefore the behavior you advocate is enormously risky and extremely ill-advised.

  150. Baa Humbug says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Hi Michael
    You stated..

    CAGW: The hypothesis that if nothing is done to stop or slow down human emissions of CO2, that there will be terrible consequences.

    If nothing is done? Nothing has been done since man started emitting industrial quantities of CO2 about…what…160 years ago.
    Nothing has been done since the acceleration of these emissions immediately after WW2 66 years ago.
    Nothing has been done since the industrialisation of some 4 billion people in Asia and SE Asia from about 20 years ago.

    Now I’m supposed to believe “there will be terrible consequences” if nothing is done.
    Sure, I’ll go along with it, as soon as I’m shown some solid proof that the last 160 years, the last 66 years and the last 20 years of reality will be different and different in a “terrible” way.

    You got any?

    regards

  151. baa, quantities matter.

    There’s a nice graph in this article that answers your question:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/06/04/the-entire-planet/

    There are multiple lines of evidence that this rapid increase is likely to be a problem.

    “Proofs” in earth science are as rare as those in the military. You still have to come up with a strategy that is the best one given the information at hand.

  152. Baa Humbug says:

    Michael

    There’s a nice graph in this article that answers your question:

    I don’t see how a graph of Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations answers my question.
    I didn’t cast doubt on increasing CO2 concentrations, in fact I stated as much by drawing attention to historical emissions.
    What I stated was that all those increases have thus far not caused “terrible consequences” and asked for evidence that despite the lack of past “terrible consequences”, there will be future “terrible consequences”.

    Taking your military analogy, I can point to thousands of past factual events (e.g. half a million Huns at your door step with blood dripping from their swords and a trail of scrched Earth behind them) that point to an inevitable “terrible consequence”.
    Where is the blood dripping sword of CO2 in a 4.5 billion year historical context? Where can I find a single instance of CO2 induced “terrible consequence” in the past 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000 years?

  153. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (February 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm): “Gary Hladik, frankly, much of the evidence presented at this site is misleading or confused in one way or another. It is difficult to rebut.”

    Michael Tobis and I agree on the second point. I could opine that the first point more appropriately applies to MT’s site(s), but I won’t. :-) MT could of course attempt to make his case with a guest post at WUWT (hint hint).

    “I think that given unprecedented inputs to an existing critical system, the burden of proof would be on the people who advocate such inputs. Specifically, those indifferent to continuing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere ought to be able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that those changes are safe and do not endanger the entire world.”

    Au contraire. There is nothing unprecedented about the current situation, including CO2 levels and temperatures. Given the indisputable benefits we gain from these precedented inputs, and the indisputable harm that would result from curtailing them, the burden of proof is on those who warn of a hypothetical and–given our abysmally incomplete understanding of the earth’s climate system–currently unprovable disaster to come.

    BTW, since it’s impossible to prove that MT won’t be accidentally killed when he leaves his domicile (after all, some people are), I have to wonder if he ever does. Which leads me to wonder if extreme agoraphobia correlates with fear of CAGW.

    http://panicdisorder.about.com/od/agoraphobia/a/fearleavinghm.htm

    But I digress. My point is that we’re back to Pascal’s Wager again, what with MT’s (Pascal’s) requirement to either “demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt” the safety of CO2 emissions (the non-existence of God, Heaven, and Hell) or mend our ways (accept the wager). No doubt Pascal would be proud of his pupil MT.

  154. Shevva says:

    MT:“But you guys indeed had better be really sure of yourselves that we are completely wrong. Otherwise you are being hugely irresponsible.”

    Arh, the good old post normal science, blessed be the day that branch of science dies, you cannot simply take the worst case scenario and say this is why I need all your money.

    To use another alarmist’s straw man, you don’t go to the dentist with a wobbly tooth to be told they all need to be pulled out just in case.

  155. oeman50 says:

    I just found an alternate designation for CAGW in my newsfeeds for the day, it’s, “Citizens Against Government Waste .”

    http://www.cagw.org/

    Speaking of waste, there may be some mission overlap here.

  156. Babsy says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 2, 2012 at 12:30 am

    I’ve challenged mt about temperature leading CO2 to which he so far has refused to address other than indicating it’s a ‘long story’.

  157. Jeff Alberts says:

    He’s also not responded to why he’s still using computers and taking advantage of the huge fossil fuel infrastructure.

  158. Babsy, I did respond. I said I would write a long article about it, and gave you a summary of what it would say.

    Jeff, this is also an interesting question. I have raised it on Planet3.0 and will do so again. My short answer is an analogy. I am overweight and trying to cope with it. But I have not stopped eating.

    Shevva, that is exactly my point. I am not taking the worst case. I am not even taking the risk-weighted case. Just the best estimate. **You** are taking the best case, or really, the best case and then some.

    As for Gary H’s latest point, “There is nothing unprecedented about the current situation”, that is ridiculous. Of course the earth experienced very high CO2 levels in the distant past. But it had a dramatically warmer ice-free climate at those times.

    That said, there is indeed something unprecedented about the current situation.

    What is unprecedented is the **rate of change** of radiatively active gases. We can expect the transition to be very rocky. People live in the wrong places, borders are in the wrong places, biomes are in the wrong places, and fertile soil is in the wrong places.

    The Paleocene/Eocene transition is the closest analogy. A very large carbon release, probably from clathrates, happened very quickly, probably over thousands of years. The fossil record is very clear that there was a major extinction event in the ocean due to ocean acidification as the ocean chemistry adapted. Land extinction was minor, but it probably was a slower event than the present one. Also, there weren’t billions of people constrained to stay where they are by border guards.

    Finally, and this is a point that I make more than others do, in engineering we know that a sudden transition in a system is accompanied by “ringing”; all major modes get excited, and things break. On the time scales of the ocean and the ice, the transitions we are undertaking are extremely sudden, and we can expect huge adjustments to occur that are only beginning. This all is very hard to predict. I would call it outside our current modeling capabilities, though I know some glaciologists working on their side of the puzzle furiously. What it will mean on the ground is huge year-over-year and decade-over-decade swings, much to the detriment of agriculture. We are seeing signs of this already.

    The idea that carbon fertilization is good for agriculture is not actually supported by evidence. There are three major issues that complicate the picture. First of all, crop growth is not limited by availability of CO2 but by other nutrients. Second, CO2 fertilization in many cases promotes the growth of the woody parts of plants rather than the seeds and leaves which we and our livestock eat. Third, CO2 fertilization also helps weeds.

    Is Gary H in a position to offer me a guest posting? I’d like to hear it from Anthony.

    REPLY:
    Huh? Sentence makes no sense, clarify -A

  159. Babsy says:

    mt, temperature leads CO2. This can be demonstrated in the laboratory. If there was experimental data, not from a computer program but from a lab, showing how CO2 *LEADS* temperature rises, the warmists would be shouting it from the rooftops.

  160. Anthony, are you offering me a guest post?

    Else, is Gary H in an editorial position to do so?

    REPLY: Why not both? I’ll combine both essays into a point-counterpoint post then. – Anthony

  161. Babsy, I responded twice. The second time I said “Babsy, I did respond. I said I would write a long article about it, and gave you a summary of what it would say.”

    (I am willing to keep playing this game if the moderators allow it. It might be fun to write some code to automate it.)

    Of course there is laboratory evidence of the greenhouse effect. That is 150-year-old news.

  162. Babsy says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 2, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Really? Why haven’t we been bombarded with this information? I don’t believe you can take any volume of air, inject CO2 into it, and cause the temperature of the air to increase. That is the central premise of AGW. If you could do this, I believe you would be in line to get a Nobel Prize! It *CAN* be demostrated that a volume of sea water, or Diet Coke, for that matter, can be made to lose its CO2 to the atmosphere by simply raising its temperature, and it doesn’t require eons for the change to occur. No radiative forcing, or references to ancient earth history, or any other hocus pocus involved. The planet warms by that big yellow ball in the sky and the CO2 in the atmosphere increases without any interference by us humans and our quest to live somwhere other than in a cave. Have a great weekend!

  163. Babsy says:

    mt, here’s a paper for you.

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf

    Very clearly, the solubility of CO2 in sea water is a function of temperature and salinity.

  164. Sparks says:

    Michael Tobis

    Your ignorance is incredible, while you’re discussing CAGW and trying to semantically weasel in a redefinition of how much WARMING from the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause and still, you suggest that this will endanger the entire world, And your arrogant demand to see proof that it wont is an insult.
    WOW!! just freaking WOW!

    I’ll point out some recent developments in Europe,
    the death toll went up to160 as PEOPLE struggled to cope with temperatures that plunged to record lows. Tens of thousands of PEOPLE have headed to shelters to escape the freeze.
    In the Ukraine 63 PEOPLE died “Most of them literally froze to death on the street, with only a handful making it to hospital before succumbing to hypothermia”
    In Serbia, the cold has killed seven PEOPLE and trapped 11,500.
    Hundreds of PEOPLE are in hospital suffering from hypothermia and frostbite.

    More than 1,000 schools remain closed in Bulgaria after 16 towns reported their lowest temperatures since records began 100 years ago.
    The mercury also plunged below zero in central regions, with -14C (7F) recorded in Berlin, -8C (18F) in Paris and -20C (-4F) in Warsaw.

    Now Tobis, As Anthropogenic production of Co2 (a trace gas) has gone up, would you like to further add insult to injury to all those PEOPLE shivering and hungry and literally freezing to death? Would you like to redefine CAGW for them? would you like reveal to the world how much of a complete moron you really are and redefine CAGW as Anthropogenic Climate change, Climate disruption or any other way that you can dream up that fits your cause?

    :)

  165. “the solubility of CO2 in sea water is a function of temperature and salinity.”

    Stipulated. Nice review of the chemistry, thanks. The first author you cite has an interesting and accessible article at:

    http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeNGS11.pdf

    wherein he discusses, among other things, the sensitivity of global temperature to CO2.

    ===

    “Why haven’t we been bombarded with this information? I don’t believe you can take any volume of air, inject CO2 into it, and cause the temperature of the air to increase. ”

    Not as such, no.

    A couple more features are necessary. For the complete effect, you have to heat it from below (sunlight hitting the surface) and cool it radiatively from the top (outgoing infrared radiation), and the system has to have multiple temperatures at multiple layers. This is how all atmospheres work. It’s not shouted form the rooftops because it was established long ago. It’s commonly called the “greenhouse effect” and there are numerous expositions of it.

    There are YouTubes of children shining infrared light into bottles of CO2 enriched air vs normal air and finding that the CO2 enriched ones warm more. This is pretty elementary stuff. It’s a five dollar experiment to make it entirely clear that CO2 absorbs infrared. The rest follows logically, and as is well known, the Swede Arrhenius worked it out in 1898. All satellite-based measurements of temperature are based on related principles.

  166. Well, Sparks, thanks for letting me know about this interesting event. Cold outbreaks have not gone away yet.

    Indeed, as climate shifts around, they may show up in previously unlikely places. It is the global energy balance that is the driver of all this. Climate shifts are the consequence. And with a shifting climate system we see unfamiliar weather. So, with regard to the current cold outbreak in Europe, consider :

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/grain-europe-weather-idUSL5E8D24QJ20120202

    ===
    No actual damage has yet been reported in top producers France, Germany and Britain but if the cold snap continues there will be increased worry next year’s harvest will suffer.

    Grains can survive frosts as deep as minus 20 degrees centigrade if they have protective snow to insulate them. But unusually warm winter weather up to the start of this week means snow is scarce in west Europe’s grain belts.

    Soft wheat is about 2 to 3 weeks in advance of normal growth for the start of February and it is hard to say if plants are more vulnerable to frosts in their current advanced growth phase, observers said.

    “We cannot say what will be the impact of the cold spell (on soft wheat) because it is a situation that we have never seen,” said Jean-Charles Deswarte of French crop institute Arvalis.
    ===

    So part of the reason for concern is that the snow cover is absent amd that winter wheat is ahead of schedule. “Situation we have never seen” is the thing to watch for.

    And the situation is indeed quite remarkable.

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2024

    These are deep and extensive anomalies.

    (I believe these anomalies are re: 1980-2010. If so, much of the global warming is factored out.)

  167. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (February 2, 2012 at 10:31 am): “Anthony, are you offering me a guest post?

    Else, is Gary H in an editorial position to do so?”

    I’m not affiliated with WUWT except as a reader and occasional commenter. I assumed Anthony would accept a guest post that meets WUWT’s standard criteria. I suggested a guest article as a good way to inject the “substance” that MT called for earlier in the thread. Discussion threads are fine, but tend to have a low signal-to-noise ratio despite the occasional gem.

  168. mkelly says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    “There are YouTubes of children shining infrared light into bottles of CO2 enriched air vs normal air and finding that the CO2 enriched ones warm more.”

    You missed Anthony’s example of this here on WUWT. Suggest you go back and review the thread. Also you are ignorant of the specific heats (Cp) of air and CO2 or you would know that for the same Q (heat input) and same volume CO2 cannot get to the same temperature as air.

  169. Gary Hladik says:

    Michael Tobis says (February 2, 2012 at 8:34 am): “As for Gary H’s latest point, “There is nothing unprecedented about the current situation”, that is ridiculous. Of course the earth experienced very high CO2 levels in the distant past. But it had a dramatically warmer ice-free climate at those times.”

    In which life on earth thrived, right? Which didn’t tip the planet into irreversible thermageddon, right? So, figuratively speaking, we’ve been here before and didn’t die, right? Pascal’s Wager would seem to be busted, not once, but multiple times in the earth’s history.

    “That said, there is indeed something unprecedented about the current situation.

    What is unprecedented is the **rate of change** of radiatively active gases. We can expect the transition to be very rocky. People live in the wrong places, borders are in the wrong places, biomes are in the wrong places, and fertile soil is in the wrong places.”

    Well, I guess he has me there. Atmospheric CO2 has rapidly increased to 140% of pre-industrial levels and the effect on the temperature trend since the Little Ice Age has been a staggering…er…zero? OK, but all that CO2 has increased the rate of sea level rise by…uh…zero? How about extreme weather, surely that’s getting more extr–no? Droughts! Droughts are getting wor–no? Hah! Then floods must be incr–no?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities/

    But I forgot, all that bad stuff is still in the future. We know this, because the crystal ba–I mean, models–tell us so. I guess the climate apocalypse is like Max Headroom: always 20 minutes (years?) into the future. :-)

  170. Gary Hladik says:

    mkelly says (February 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm): “You missed Anthony’s example of this here on WUWT.”

    mkelly beat me to it. But here’s the link, courtesy of Rick Werme’s Guide to WUWT:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

  171. Babsy says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 2, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Stipulated? I would not have chosen stipulated.

    Definition of STIPULATE

    intransitive verb

    1: to make an agreement or covenant to do or forbear something : contract

    2: to demand an express term in an agreement —used with ‘for’

    transitive verb

    1: to specify as a condition or requirement (as of an agreement or offer)

    2: to give a guarantee of

    Dr. Zeebe stated in the commentary you cited that ‘a large mass of carbon was released into the Earth’s surface reservoirs, and and temperatures rose by 5-9 degrees C in a few thousand years’. How did he establish the carbon release was prior to the warming? We know that warming Diet Coke drives the CO2 out of solution. It is entirely possible that the carbon came before the warming(and he has no way of knowing) as he made several references to the uncertainty in the ‘proxies’ (the uncertainties are still significant).

  172. John West says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    “You still have to come up with a strategy that is the best one given the information at hand.”

    Can you explain why mitigation (CO2 emission reduction) would be a better strategy than adaptation? Seems to me the best strategy is the one that works over the greatest range of possible outcomes. Adaptation works if it gets warm or cool or nothing at all happens, it’s cheaper than mitigation for any particular scenario, and as long as we don’t waste our resources on mitigation efforts it’s actually affordable.

  173. Tobias acting dumb about CAGW is a denial of degree.
    Policies rely on CAGW, but even the most alarmist “evidence” points to a more moderate view. There are no accelerations in temperatures, sea levels, storms, droughts, floods etc. There is plenty of evidence of slowing down, with more limited evidence of continuing trend. But it is only if CAGW is certain and imminent that one can justify reducing living standards and covering every hilltop with wind turbines. Emphasising CAGW shows how untenable the warmist position actually is.

  174. Sparks says:

    Michael Tobis,

    You have put your self in a remarkable position, when you say,

    “It is the global energy balance that is the driver of all this. Climate shifts are the consequence.”

    Are you in fact implying that Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (a trace gas) is disrupting an “energy balance” of Earth on a global scale and Climate shifts are the consequence of this?

    Yes/No?
    So, In fact you have yet again redefined “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”, (a very predictable Modus operandi from proponents of CAGW) as “Anthropologically Induced Climate Shifts”.

    You now wish to assert that Freezing European winters are the result of “Anthropologically Induced Climate Shifts” WOW, Tobis, I don’t wish to cause you offense and do take attitude towards you lightly but, my built in Idiot Meter (common sense) just went off the scale, I originally thought that you were just a potential Moron and a bit misguided, uninformed, but you keep climbing up that scale towards being a complete village idiot.

    All joking aside, how would you go about informing all those people battling Freezing temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere this winter that they are producing Carbon Dioxide to heat their homes to stay alive from the freezing cold and that in doing so this causes “Anthropologically Induced Climate Shifts” and as a result they will be battling Freezing temperatures in winter?

    You’ll find that, in a desert, selling sand for camels doesn’t work either.

    Definition of CAGW is similar in nature to you belief in “Anthropologically Induced Climate Shifts”

    We’re all delighted you asked!
    :)

  175. Michael Tobis says:

    re: stipulated. Yes, I used the word erroneously. It seems a common error per Google. I have the sense there is a ten dollar word I am not coming up with, but maybe I’ve just been wrong about “stipulate” for a long time. “Concede” seems wrong, when the other person makes a point with which I fully agree.

    I will just use “agreed” in future. Thanks.

  176. Michael Tobis says:

    Re the Nye experiment, did you use 780 ppmv CO2 at 1 atm? I would expect the radiative effect of that in such a small jar to be undetectable with a homebrew setup.

  177. RACookPE1978 says:

    When politicians – as Tobias claims – exaggerate the understated and modest claims “true scientists” make about CAGW and CO2 levels, please name ONE unbiased “scientist” who stands up in public and CORRECTS the false and misleading IPCC summaries and political speeches that are responsible for the world’s continuing economic crisis due to (artificially high) energy restrictions? It is, after all, Pelosi’s CAGW beliefs and processes that directly increased the US energy prices in 2007 and 2008. It IS CAGW dogma that maintains those prices worldwide through propaganda and outright lies. By your supposed impartial “scientists” who are manipulating the data and massaging their conclusions for press time, profit, and personal gain.

    Do you personally deny you yourself are not responsible for immediate and continuing deaths of millions of innocents due to lack of food, fuel, clean water, sewage treatment, proper and inexpensive pesticides, proper fertilizers, better irrigation, reliable power and efficient food preparation, shipping and storage?

    Get government corruption out of the way and the world’s poor and starving WILL be better off. You – personally and intentionally – are maintaining their poverty, illness and death rates in the name of CAGW.

    In the past 140 years of the instrument record,
    CO2 has been steady. And temperatures fell 1/4 of one degree.
    CO2 has been steady. And temperatures rose 1/3 of one degree.
    CO2 has been steady. And temperatures were steady.
    CO2 has been rising. And temperatures fell 1/4 of one degree
    CO2 has been rising. And temperatures were steady
    CO2 has been rising. And temperatures rose 1/3 of one degree.
    CO2 has been rising. And temperatures were steady.

    The only measurements that show warming are those manipulated by climate “scientists” … The raw data in unaltered locations worldwide show no trend.

    Yes, we are warming out the cold period of 1650. And you can’t tell us why. You have no idea why the Roman Warming Period happened. Why the cooler Dark Ages occurred. Why the Medieval Warming Period occurred. You – climate “scientists” collectively – have no idea and no explanations why the earth’s temperature behaves as it does.

    By the way, the DMI summer temperatures at 80 north since 1958 – where the Arctic Ocean actually has ice coverage during the months when the sun actually shines up there – have been steadily decreasing. And that rate of cooling has been increasing as CO2 levels have increased.

  178. Jeff Alberts says:

    Jeff, this is also an interesting question. I have raised it on Planet3.0 and will do so again. My short answer is an analogy. I am overweight and trying to cope with it. But I have not stopped eating.

    Bad analogy. Either you believe we’re on the verge (or in fact in the middle) of global catastrophe or you don’t. If you do, and you have such a lackadaisical attitude about it, why should we listen to you? Being a little overweight would not be a reason to stop eating. But, the only way to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels is to cease ALL industry right now. Why aren’t you on board?

  179. u.k.(us) says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 2, 2012 at 10:31 am
    Anthony, are you offering me a guest post?

    Else, is Gary H in an editorial position to do so?

    REPLY: Why not both? I’ll combine both essays into a point-counterpoint post then. – Anthony
    #########################
    Michael Tobis has nothing to say, Anthony.

    Don’t do it !!!!!!!

  180. jonathan frodsham says:

    [SNIP: Not really appropriate, even with some of the letters changed. -REP]

  181. “But, the only way to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels is to cease ALL industry right now. Why aren’t you on board?”

    That is a straw man. I don’t know or know of anybody who believes anything like that.

  182. Jeff Alberts says:

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 2, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    That is a straw man. I don’t know or know of anybody who believes anything like that.

    Again, you should read up on Maurice Strong’s thoughts on the matter.

  183. Babsy says:

    Babsy says:
    February 2, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Dr. Zeebe stated in the commentary you cited that ‘a large mass of carbon was released into the Earth’s surface reservoirs, and and temperatures rose by 5-9 degrees C in a few thousand years’. How did he establish the carbon release was prior to the warming? We know that warming Diet Coke drives the CO2 out of solution. It is entirely possible that the carbon came before the warming(and he has no way of knowing) as he made several references to the uncertainty in the ‘proxies’ (the uncertainties are still significant)

    My bad!! I meant to write “It is entirely possible that the carbon came” *AFTER* the warming…

  184. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: Michael Tobis says: February 1, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Bob Moss, “Bastrop TX ? It was warmer in the 1930s ”

    maybe so, but the Lost Pines forest did not burn to the ground for ten thousand years until last summer.

    I seriously doubt there is any reasonable scientific support for that claim. What is your basis for the statement?

    Plus, as the 2011 fire was apparently started by trees falling on electrical lines which gave off sparks igniting dry grass and litter, where were the electrical lines to provide similar opportunity for fires over the past 10,000 years?

  185. Gary Hladik says:

    Rational Debate says (February 3, 2012 at 1:46 pm): “I seriously doubt there is any reasonable scientific support for that claim. What is your basis for the statement?”

    I did a real quick search and found this about the Lost Pines Forest at Wikipedia:

    “It is thought to have originated as part of a much larger pine forest that shrank in size during the last glacial period of the Pleistocene era.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Pines_Forest

    Wiki says the Pleistocene ended about 12,000 years ago. This or something like it may be the basis of MT’s claim. Of course, the continued existence of the forest over millenia says nothing about how many times it burned down, partially or completely, and grew back. I doubt this particular forest has been investigated in enough detail to settle the issue, but it would be an unusual forest indeed to have gone 10,000 years without a major fire.

    Fire and its use in managing loblolly pines:

    http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p160

    Modern history of the Lost Pines Forest, including the factoid that loblolly pines live about 3-400 years:

    http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryl04

    So far MT’s claim seems to be the usual long-on-hype-but-short-on-facts climate alarmism.

Comments are closed.