Heartland comments on FRONTLINE ‘Climate of Doubt’

By Joe Bast – Executive director, Heartland Institute via press release

OCTOBER 24 – On October 23, PBS’s “Frontline” program broadcast a special titled “Climate of Doubt.” The Heartland Institute had circulated a commentary prior to the program’s broadcast, which appears below, which said in part, “We hope the program is accurate and fair, but past experience with PBS and other mainstream media outlets leads us to predict it will be neither.” We offered some “facts to keep in mind when watching this program.”

So what did we think of the actual show? It wasn’t as bad as we had feared, but it wasn’t as good as it should have been. The following statement from Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution.


It appears host John Hockenberry spent enough time with global warming “skeptics” to know we are sincere, honest, and effective, but not enough time to learn we are right on the science. Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.

The first half of the program consists mostly of short clips from global warming skeptics and political activists who helped convince majorities of the public and elected officials that man-made climate change is not a crisis. Included in this part of the show is footage taken during Heartland’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change and interviews with Heartland Senior Fellows S. Fred Singer and James M. Taylor and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell and Chris Horner. This part of the program is generally fair, though surprisingly light on interviews with scientists other than Dr. Singer. More than 100 scientists have spoken at Heartland conferences, nearly all of them skeptical of claims that man-made global warming is a crisis. It’s surprising and disappointing that Frontline didn’t seek interviews with any of them or even show excerpts from their presentations, except Dr. Singer.

The quality of the program starts to deteriorate at about the 20-minute mark. Notorious global warming alarmists Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph Cicerone are presented as representative of the mainstream scientific community, which they are not. Rather than use the program to put an end to the myth of scientific consensus on this complex issue, Hockenberry repeatedly invokes the discredited myth of a 97 percent consensus. Evidence in support of that claim is farcical. The issue of what role, if any, consensus should play in science is not addressed at all.

The second half of the program also speculates on the role that corporate and philanthropic funding plays in the debate … but it only addresses the funding of skeptics, not of alarmists. Once again this was a missed opportunity. Why didn’t Hockenberry end the myth, started by Ross Gelbspan but never documented, that global warming skeptics were or are currently being funded by oil companies to “sow doubt”? The Heartland Institute certainly was never part of such a plan, nor were any of the scientists we work with. Yet this libelous smear is repeated without rebuttal by Hockenberry and by the alarmists he interviews.

A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate. This technique, typical of propaganda films such as “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” cheapens and discredits an otherwise thoughtful program.

No scientist interviewed for the program offered proof that any of the climatic events shown at the end of the program were caused by human activity, nor could they. One suspects this ending was tacked on after production to address the expected criticism and disappointment of environmental activists who object to anyone in the mainstream media treating skeptics with respect.

About these ads

100 thoughts on “Heartland comments on FRONTLINE ‘Climate of Doubt’

  1. The title of the piece should be enough to show the bias:
    “Climate of Doubt.
    FRONTLINE investigates how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus”

  2. Long past time to defund PBS. Not to mention Mickey Mann.

    When will a genuine news channel blow the lid off the 97% lie & the “consensus” in general? Even the laziest of reporters already have all their investigation work done for them by Anthony, Steve, Ross & real scientists.

  3. (1) The consensus is anything but a myth – multiple studies and any examination of published science shows that. If any significant fraction of scientists took ‘skeptic’ arguments seriously, there would be peers and publishers sufficient to put those papers out – the widely discussed mythical ‘Team’ couldn’t control all outlets (cf. conspiracy theories here).

    (2) Funding connections between skeptics and industry _have_ been documented – see among others John Mashey’s documentation in http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake.pdf, including Heartland.

    Joe Bast’s protestations don’t hold up.

  4. Frontline carefully reported details of the “Oregon” statement signed by over 1000 scientists; why not a similar report on the over 1000 scientists somehow reduced to around 75 in order to arrive at the infamous 97% figure?

  5. I agree with Joe Bast. Having just watched the Frontline piece, the folks at Frontline won’t admit the propaganda side of their program. They also won’t admit that the science has been questioned NOT because skeptics just like to sow doubt, but because there is hard evidence out there that shows the science is questionable. This program is libelous, and Heartland should consider a lawsuit, even if the standard for proving libel is high. The sheer gall of Frontline to unquestioningly accept the so-called funding source issue, along with the bogus idea of a “consensus” in the science, when the truth is quite the opposite is proof enough of malice for me.

  6. KR says:

    “The consensus is anything but a myth”

    The ‘consensus’ is a total myth. The climate alarmist crowd has tried time after time to generate as many signatures as the OISM Petition Project, and they have failed miserably.

  7. Remind me… how long has CO2 been rising with no corresponding rise in temperature? Close on to 17 years, you say? Nahhhh… no reason for Joe Average to be skeptical. [/sarc]

    (And where’s my check from “Big Oil?”)

  8. KR:

    When journals and media deliberately prevent opposing views from being published, it’s no wonder there’s an apparent “consensus”. Regardless, science doesn’t work by consensus so the point is moot. Any arguments about funding are also moot; no amount of money can alter truth, and even if money was a valid argument, that alarmist movement is funded vastly more than any skeptics.

    “Joe Bast’s protestations don’t hold up.”

    Yours don’t hold anything at all.

  9. KR says:
    October 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    Yeah? Where’s my funding money from industry? CRU’s funding ok with you then? Come back when you have a clue. Don’t be quoting a failed blog as “proof”. Everybody is funded by somebody, or do you refuse to see that?

  10. Nevertheless, “better than you expected” is a big step by a media outlet. It is even more noteworthy coming from a “liberal” broadcaster. Of course they had to dip back into the alarmist well at the end – they have already been attacked by the most foaming-at-the-mouth representatives among them for the earlier program and they will be bracing for more. Certainly it was a refreshing contrast to the jack-booting you would have got at the BBC, CBC, NYT, Aussie ABC, etc. that some sceptics have received. I think in the future we might look fondly on the PBS’s brave gesture that marked the beginning of the serious cracking off of pieces of the orthodoxy the size of a fifty Manhattans. Watch for the CAGW media darlings to begin to shuffle, hum and haw and then turn about and march the other way, probably even casting derision on the synod of Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Bradley, Hansen, and their flock. You will see this accomplished by some retirement and fresh faces to take up new directions. You’ll probably see the same kinds of face change to turn CO2 climate bishoprics around and steer them back into science faculties, carbon bibles around and turn them into scientific journals, even politicians might take up serving the best interests of their constituents. Finally, the green establishment will need to be renewed as donations dry up. Good work PBS.

  11. D Böehm – The OISM petition includes (if I remember correctly) a grand total of 39 people working in climatology, all motivated to express their views, a self-selected group. What percentage are they of those who actually study the data?

    The IPCC 2007 report was written by and reviewed by ~2000 scientists, if you want to compare raw numbers. For percentages, the 2009 Pew study of the AAAS found that 84% agreed that climate disruption is human-caused – and the AAAS has 10 million members, perhaps 6000 in atmospheric/hydrology fields. The OISM petition represents a _tiny minority_ of active climate scientists.

    The consensus is real. Heartland is following the advice of Frank Luntz: “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate…”. In other words, manufacturing doubt to prevent public recognition of the existing scientific consensus on this issue.

  12. How would “corporate and philanthropic funding” for skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming be any more suspicious or harmful than “corporate and philanthropic funding” of PBS i.e. Frontline? Is there a process to run a counter program taking this show to task? I think skeptic organizations should approach Frontline with the idea if for no other reason than to force them to say no.

  13. I also noticed the lack of science–the “looking under the hood”.

    Maybe they were/are afraid to examine the actual science and can only rely on the failed “97% concensus”.

  14. KR is obviously not a scientist and/or has very few aquaintances who are, otherwise he would recognize how ludicrous the claim of consensus is.

  15. KR – listen – instead of being some kind of alarmist troll who can contribute no real science or valued comment you may as well scoot off back to the hole from whence you originated (think about it!). I’d like to be polite and I’m not generally one to make personal attacks, but your post is seriously misguided and ill-informed and is clearly designed as flaming and troll derived. Yes, you have had your minute of fame, and have had lots of negative responses – do you feel better now? That makes you a saddo in my book.
    You are acting like a muppet and troll of the first order, and as one human to another, I’d recommend that you desist and return to some semblance of credibility……(yeah, guys, I know it will not help, but it sure makes me feel better!).

  16. KR,

    The oft referenced “consensus” is a supreme shifting of goal-posts. There may be a consensus on basic physics and observations, but there is certainly no consensus on an alarmist conclusion or a need for action..

    Most people here will agree that:
    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
    2. humans have increased its concentration in the atmosphere, and
    3. there has been some amount of warming due to the additional greenhouse gases.

    However, that’s pretty much where the “consensus” ends. People can agree on all of this and not come to an alarmist conclusion that necessitates policy action.

    There is most certainly no consensus on:
    4. the amount of natural variability underlying the human GHG forcing,
    5. the total amount of feedback (net positive and negative) to be expected,
    6. the time lag that those numerous feedback mechanisms operate on,
    7. the total amount of warming to expect from past and assumed future GHG emissions,
    8. the effects any future warming may have on diverse regional environments and weather,
    9. the biological and physical impacts (both positive and negative) of those effects, and
    10. the net social and economic costs of those biological and physical impacts,
    11. the cost of adaptation responses and their probability of success,
    12. the relative cost of abatement policies and their probability of success.

    All nine remaining items need solid answers before any sort of intelligent policy direction can be taken, and every single one of them remains clouded by uncertainty at best, and controversy or obfuscation (around data and models) at worst.

    So, you can’t claim a “consensus” that policy actions are needed, since this requires consensus on all twelve above items, when all you’ve got is a consensus on the first three.

  17. KR says: October 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    “… (2) Funding connections between skeptics and industry have been documented … ”

    And this means what, exactly? Until you or anyone else is able to prove the paltry amount of funding received from industry was NOT simply because the industries liked what they heard, or until you or anyone else is able to prove the paltry amount of funding was given by industry in exchange for specific demonstratively false fabricated science papers or assessments, then your accusation is BASELESS as an excuse for the public to ignore skeptic scientists.

    What part of that do you not understand?

  18. Sorry for hijacking this thread for an off topic comment.
    .
    I guess it hasn’t sunk home what the Italian verdict means for predictive sciences that lack any interpretative basis .but I am certain a lightbulb will go off in somebody’s head

    Scientists can’t defend the convicted ‘experts’ as it would mean admitting that ‘predictive’ sciences,up to including global warming are not certain when they have been promoting their predictions as certain and that society must act on that certainty.

    You can’t make this stuff up !!!!.

  19. “A third strike against the program occurs at the very end, when the off-camera voices of alarmists assert scientific confidence in predictions of an impending climate apocalypse while images appear of deserts and extreme weather events. Gone is any pretense of a balanced view of the scientific debate.”
    =========================
    No surprise.
    The program starts out seemingly unbiased.
    Then as it progresses, it works its way around to the storyline as intended all along.

    And here we are, again, defending the bulwarks against propaganda.
    Not science, propaganda.

  20. KR,

    There is no ‘consensus’ that says CO2 will cause catastrophic AGW. And you cannot cite anywhere near 30,000+ scientists and engineers that say it will. Because there is no such ‘consensus’.

    You cling to your silly consensus belief like a drowning man clings to a stick. But is is only a baseless belief, it isn’t reality. And your implication that someone must be a climatologist to understand climate science is ridiculous. Any physicist, engineer, chemist or geologist can easily understand the subject matter.

    I challenge you to produce a list of climate alarmists to match this:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

    That is the true consensus.

  21. KR, Funding connections between CRU and IPCC and fossil fuel and other industry have been documented, ,usual on their own web sites , so I take it you will now reject all they tell you now to ?
    And the 97% fails even a basic maths terms , its really is nonsense with no real scientific bases even if its sounds right for a ‘faith ‘ based approach .

  22. KR;
    The IPCC 2007 report was written by and reviewed by ~2000 scientists, if you want to compare raw numbers.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yup. And when pressed for an opinion on “Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing” they ranked the level of scientific understanding in 9 of 14 categories as “low” or “very low”.

    Could you please explain to me KR, how the scientists can proclaim that their understanding of the bulk of radiative forcing is “low” or “very low” while at the same time proclaiming with certainty what the result will be?

  23. KR, which part of the IPCC report, the AR4 which was written by the number of scientists you mentioned, or the SPM which was written by one and differs almost 180 degrees from the AR4 section?

    KR, you have either not done your homework, or do not understand that the people who post on WUWT? are not your average bears. Better step up your flaccid game.

    Perhaps you are the new Spawn character; “The Obfuscator”.

  24. D Böehm – Regarding petitions: We could get equal numbers of signatures on petitions both for or against theories of global warming, UFO’s, legalizing gay marriage, or demonic possession as a cause of disease. What would any _one_ of these petitions say about percentages, about consensus, on that issue?

    Absolutely nothing, either way. Because petitions are self-selecting; those who disagree just don’t sign. A survey can tell you about percentage agreement, about possible consensus – a petition is the wrong instrument for that.

    Russ R. – A worthwhile question, here are my views: 1-7 have a strong consensus (with some bounds for sensitivities and responses). 8-9 have widely varying effects depending on which region, which aspect of the climate. While there is a lot of ongoing work on the details, the net effect in 8-9 is expected to be adverse, but with much less consensus on particulars. 10-12 are economic questions, with strong dependence on the economic assumptions involved (economic voodoo, anyone?), though the average of the studies I’ve seen show adaptations costs 5-10x that of mitigations.

    There are uncertainties – but the existence of uncertainty does not mean a complete lack of knowledge. If you throw a baseball you don’t know exactly where it will land (uncertainty) – but you can be pretty certain it won’t be at your feet, or behind you (knowledge).

    Back on topic – yes, there _is_ a consensus, if you talk to a lot of climate scientists a high percentage agree on strong anthropogenic causes of climate change. And skeptics (Singer) and skeptic think-tanks receive considerable (and documented) monies from industry, and/or in the case of Heartland from ideologically driven individuals like their Anonymous Donor (likely Barre Seid?), who promote a particular viewpoint completely aside from the _scientific evidence_.

    This is important – as Frank Luntz noted, the public takes consensus of the experts into consideration when framing policy decisions. Unfortunately for groups like Heartland, that consensus exists.

  25. KR says:

    “Regarding petitions: We could get equal numbers of signatures…”

    BZ-Z-Z-Z-ZZZT!! WRONG.

    But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you on your way out.

    In fact, the relatively small climate alarmist clique has attempted to gather signatures on their anti-carbon petitions, but they have done poorly. No alarmist petition has come anywhere near the OISM numbers.

    The true consensus is contained in the OISM language:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    There you have it: CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That is the consensus, and it trumps your mere assertions.

  26. D Böehm – Counting petition signatures (again, self-selection, not a cross-section) tells you _nothing_ about percentage agreement in a population. Particularly when a petition (like the OISM) doesn’t check for topic-specific knowledge about the evidence. I would weigh a mechanics opinion over my dentist’s when considering car repairs, after all.

    Again – petitions tell you _nothing_ about population percentages.

  27. If folks feel that there is not a consensus of opinion in climate science regarding anthropogenic influences on climate change, then show it. Do surveys (not self-selected, non-representative petitions), check publications and/or publication submissions, show your data.

    Waiting … crickets…

    The evidence shows a consensus among those who have studied the evidence and the science behind it.

  28. KR,

    You’re just full of assertions, aren’t you? But you’re only hand-waving. I have solid numbers, and the fact is that the alarmist crowd tried, but failed to get anywhere close to the OISM numbers.

    I know reality bites, but the fact is that your side does not have a consensus. That’s entirely in your imagination. Face it, the Michael Manns of this world don’t want a lot of competition for federal grant dollars. They claim ‘consensus’ just like you’re doing, with assertions rather than with hard numbers. But there is not a consensus that believes Mann’s scare stories. And there probably never was.

    There are more co-signers on other petitions, too:

    See here and here and here and here.

    I suggest you move on from your failed ‘consensus’ argument. The real numbers are killing you.

  29. Why make Fred Singer the centerpiece of this science smear ? Simple !

    The PBS propagandists got dear Fred on tape saying the Freon ban was a hoax, that the Oxone hole was a hoax, that acid rain was a hoax, that second-hand smoke is a hoax…AND…that global warming was a hoax. Fred is the white-bearded Santa Claus of LIBERAL ICON DENIAL !

    Next cut-and-paste the evangelical Hayhoe-Beisner hot-cold faction. Give Happy Andy of TAMU a plea for presidential pardon from FOIA requests, show a few seconds of Roy Spencers chin and a finger waging from the Big Bird of science thought from the National Journal. What an Afront to Reason to have an “Energy and Environment” reporter, from preppy Smith College with an English degree and fresh off the restaurant review and Politico beat lecture humanity on science. Methinks she chose the English major because science and math were….LIKE SO HARD.

    It was hard for Frontline to live down to my expectations….but they succeeded !

  30. KR says “1-7 have a strong consensus (with some bounds for sensitivities and responses)”

    You might argue that “climate models have strong consensus”. Or equivalently, “most climate models demonstrate positive feedback”. But the feedback is programmed in, a function of parameter settings for convection and other processes that cannot be modeled. The results of the models are extremely varied. It is obvious when using any of them to forecast ENSO; not only do they fail miserably but there are as many forecasts as there are models. Since you have probably not read Tisdale’s book, you probably don’t realize that ENSO is not a cycle and can result in warming or cooling over multi-decade periods, a great example being the 80’s and 90’s.

  31. KR says:

    October 24, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    “Waiting … crickets…”
    =============
    You’re not asking the right question.

  32. KR;
    Keep battling buddy. Scream all you want about surveys and consensus and what majority of who believes what.

    But don’t say anything about the fact that IPCC AR4 WG1 2.9.1 in one simple chart makes a complete mockery of your claims. You haven’t addressed my point, nor the points made by others about the science itself. You just keep asserting that there is a consensus. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself, and I suspect, not even that. You’re just reciting your lines like a good paid for troll.

  33. Roy Spencer exposes a Climate of Doubt about PBS’s Objectivity

    As I recall, I spent at least an hour with the PBS film crew outlining the skeptics case and why we speak out. None of it was used…except the small clip above, with the apparent intent to deceive the viewer.

    Shame on PBS. They have now joined, along with BBC, my blacklist of news organizations to never do an interview with again. Fool me once….

    Then see the following valuable advice for being interviewed:

    Richard says: October 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM

    I work in the media,
    this is what you do, and for all the other scientists who want to be interviewed,
    you request that you either want to have access to the rushes of your interview to use as you choose or you take along someone you trust to film the interview, the quality of the camera pic is not important, sound is more important.

    If they refuse this request or say that your man will be in the way – insist!!!!! or walk away. if they say you refused the interview then print your letter and what requirement you requested on your blog.

    Have a release form that states what your man shoots can be used in any way you see fit and in any media. and then put the full interview unedited on your site.

    If you do not do this then stop bleating about miss -representation, come on and fight!!!!

  34. KR says:
    October 24, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    If folks feel that there is not a consensus of opinion in climate science regarding anthropogenic influences on climate change, then show it. Do surveys (not self-selected, non-representative petitions), check publications and/or publication submissions, show your data.

    Waiting … crickets…

    The evidence shows a consensus among those who have studied the evidence and the science behind it.
    ======================================
    Is selecting for someone better than self-selecting? I’m more than willing and able to go through each supposed study of consensus and demonstrate how each one is wrong. If and when there is a legitimate study or survey, I’ll reconsider whether there is a consensus or not.

    Ironically, I used to believe there actually was a consensus. I thought they were all horribly wrong anyway, but, nonetheless, I thought there was a consensus. Until I looked at their garbage papers so desperately trying to prove one. They are laughable and horrible works of sophistry. Take you’re pick, we can discuss one at a time, because they each have their ……. issues.

  35. Apologies as I posted a very similar statement in another post on a related thread.

    The whole process of gathering and sifting words from sceptics and scientists (the real ones) for the right takes. Then planning who rebuts, in what order, interspersed with pitiful views, words of disappointment about how this small meager well funded group has managed to block such worthy climate gag men and ladies. Frequently mentions of wrong information coupled with ad-hominems against that tiny group of anti-CAGW rogues. And so on…

    This took weeks of planning with input from climate team members who were not part of the interviews. PBS is open to FOIA. Perhaps it is time for the public to request copies of all messages between certain climate team members and PBS, copies of all edit takes, copies of any dialog or notes about the process of this broadcast from the time it started.

    Two things caught my interest and had me wondering.

    The first was the similarity in a number fly by troll visits with many haranguing about which survey Mr. Watts included in a topic (by a guest author no less, Anthony didn’t choose which survey). The only substantive difference I could really see between the surveys was who got paid for the garbage.

    Next, I find it suspicious that this sham of a frontline show occurred almost concurrent with Manniacal’s lawsuit filings. Especially since there were a number of insistances included about exonerations, replications. Gee, I wonder who insisted those parts got mention on the show.

    Lewpy may scream on (I have this wonderful mental image of Lewpy face in Edvard Munch’s painting, and another with Gleick and another with Manniacal), about conspiracies; but this rather common CAGW consensus, exonerbations, false replications, Dessie baby impugning Doctor Singer,climate team thread seems to include a number of non-interviewed climate team statements.

    Collimate all the odd pieces of information makes this buffoonline show along with panned Manniacals lawsuit announcement and the troll droppings seeding disruption and how can anyone blame us for wondering just what went on behind the scenes in preparing for this show? Seriously, just check KR’s posts to see someone trying make mountains out of mini marshmallows.

    Perhaps it is time for the public to FOIA copies of all messages between certain climate team members, certain journalists and PBS, copies of all edit takes, copies of any dialog, dialog notes, scripting or notes about the process of this broadcast from the time it started. Anyone wonder how high PBS can squeel when FOIA might expose them as in bed with CAGW activists?

  36. D Böehm says: ”Any physicist, engineer, chemist or geologist can easily understand the subject matter”

    Yes they can, but they don’t. Because most of them become ”populist Skeptics” believing that the planet’s temp goes up and down as a yo-yo. .
    D Böehm, you didn’t say what’s the temp on your planet. Do you belong to the majority, who believe that: the planet is warmer by 12C at noon, than before sunrise?

    bottom line: CO2 doesn’t produce catastrophic, or non catastrophic global warming. Saying: ” it will not be ”catastrophic” is loaded comment, helping the Warmist. People on the street know that: if it can happen, probably will happen. Your not catastrophic is as big lie as their catastrophic, only more destructive – because you pretend to be skeptical. Skeptical about WHAT?

  37. Come on guys, stop feeding the troll. Anybody in this day and age, after all the climate science ‘revelations’, climategate, etc, etc – who still thinks there is a 97% consensus is seriously deranged. FFS, the ‘study’ has been discredited a million times, in a thousand different ways. The alarmists cling to it like some magic floating piece of flotsam that they hope will save them from drowning in the sea of sh*t they created! Let them swim through the sh*t to get to the good ship ‘Science’ and be rescued, otherwise leave the buggers to drown! (Hey, there’a a cartoon in there for Josh, I’m sure!).
    regards

  38. Yow, that’s really “damning with faint praise”: better than expected. It was trash, but not quite blatant full-throated idiocy? Not sure I agree. I think it was malevolent misdirection.

  39. Readers on both sides here can’t seem to see the relevance of the verdict in Italy where the ‘experts’ were convicted for their ‘predictions’ which lacked any interpretative basis.The outrage of the community is that predictions cannot be proposed as scientific certainty hence the criminal conviction was unjust yet in matters of global warming,the predictions were proposed as certain and the rest of the world is convicted for irresponsible behavior which is driving the prediction of global warming.

    The issue was never really about global warming or,the morphing of that particular agenda into the intellectually suicidal ‘climate change’ based on human control over planetary temperatures,for a sane society would have made a decisive effort to stop that nonsense by pointing out that interpretation is of paramount importance over speculative modeling and predictions.Instead the argument has moved sideways into personal attacks based on social ideologies and nothing could be worse for the future citizens of this planet.

    The curtain is supposed to rise on the real problem – the limitations of the vicious strain of empiricism that give rise to this nonsense of human control over global temperatures which is at the heart of the discussion.Very few have ever understood that an imbalance even exists between narrow predictive modeling and true science which widens its views when encountering atrocities like the current one.There were once people who wrote about it but as the centuries have shown,few really understand the true nature of the problem but Von Homboldt certainly did –

    “This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the arrogance of a narrowminded spirit. Physical philosophy, on the other hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to investigate, distinguishes between that which is certain and that which is merely probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by extending the circle of observation. “This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another— this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions.” Homboldt ,Cosmos

    To arrive at a decisive conclusion requires a different approach and one readers here haven’t entertained as there is a false satisfaction from knowing each other’s points of view and throwing graphs across at each other.

  40. I don’t think the Heartland’s word-doc-turned-pdf ends the argument on the consensus paper. It is filled with 4 conjectures that have no evidence of any kind, only value judgements that can be made about any consensus, of any kind.

    PBS are perfectly entitled to cite a paper from the PNAS saying 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW. As a pubic broadcaster, they are obliged to cite papers from the US’ premier scientific institution – especially a paper that has no criticisms in the scientific record. May I remind you that PBS does not live on Bullshit Mountain, where PNAS is an activist organisation and the peer-review process a rubberstamp of fraud.

    However I agree with the post about linking individual extreme weather events to global warming – the media should be careful about this. The scientific record has plenty of proof that climate change has increased the likelihood of, for instance, floods and droughts and many scientists at the NOAA have given qualified, non-published opinions that the heatwave in the US was at least exacerbated by global warming – but linking specific events is still beyond the abilities of the scientific community today. However, leading into droughts and floods may be interpreted in several ways, so….

  41. GW claims remind me of Irving Langmuir’s description of Pathological Science, which are;
    • The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
    • The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
    • There are claims of great accuracy.
    • Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
    • Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
    • The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
    Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation.

  42. KR, you need to be careful when conducting a meta-analysis of these various sources you cite. Studies have shown that meta-analysis of discordant studies (ie combining some white papers, some grey papers, tweets, interviews, and different types of polls) will produce spurious results. It’s kind of like a stew. Yes, you can cook it up from all kinds of ingredients. But you cannot then call it roast beef. It starts out as a stew and ends up as a stew. Another way of looking at it would be trying to bake and ice a yummy birthday cake made from gravy, sawdust, turnips, sugar, and yeast. Yes, you can label it a cake, but no one will eat it and fewer still will call it a cake other than you. I recommend a graduate level class in research critique, especially in the area of survey research.

  43. davidmhoffer“…don’t say anything about the fact that IPCC AR4 WG1 2.9.1 in one simple chart makes a complete mockery of your claims. You haven’t addressed my point, nor the points made by others about the science itself.”

    What I’ve discussed in this thread are primarily the skeptic claims that ‘there is no consensus on the science showing anthropogenic causes of global warming’. There certainly is a consensus of anthropogenic warming among those who study the climate, with only a tiny minority disagreeing – claims otherwise are incorrect and unsupported.

    The mostly empty lecture rooms at the Heartland conference, as shown in the Frontline episode, demonstrate that clearly: 300 attendees total? When the AGU fall meeting sees ~20,000, with 82% agreement (Doran 2009) on human influence? And multiple surveys showing >90% among those who study climate directly? IMO efforts such as Heartlands to dismiss that consensus are just rhetorical, ideological misinformation intended to slow public acceptance of expert opinion – and blunt any policy changes based on the science.

    WRT the science discussed in the section of the IPCC report you refer to, look at the numbers. The uncertainties in levels of radiative forcing are explicitly shown in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html – anthropogenic drivers of +1.6 W m^2 with a 0.6 to 2.4 W m^2 90% confidence range. And a 0.2% chance of zero or below; if you want to make a 1/500 bet, go right ahead – but I won’t.

  44. And to not put too fine a point on it KR, taking a cross-section of various types of sources and performing a meta-analysis is standard meta-analysis procedure in what research manual?

  45. KR.

    Thanks for the courteous response. I will respectfully disagree with your assertion that “1-7 have a strong consensus”. That is only true for 1-3. For 4-7 that’s beyond wishful.

    Consider this… if there was such strong “consensus” on items 4-7, how is it possible that none of the model projections were able to anticipate the ongoing lull in warming, despite relentlessly rising CO2 levels? As Kevin Trenberth wrote in 2009: ““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” That sounds like the exact opposite of consensus to me. (Yes, I’m aware Trenberth was specifically referring to ocean temperatures in his email, but given the relative heat capacity of the oceans vs. the atmosphere it’s a distinction without a difference.)

    Basically, the sellers of “consensus” were unanimously wrong on item 7…i.e. “the total amount of warming to expect from past and assumed future GHG emissions”. If they are right on items 1-3 (and I believe they are), then it only means they must have erred on one or more of items 4-6 as follows:

    4. They don’t fully understand the natural variability in the system, and the GHG driven warming was offset by unanticipated non-anthropogenic cooling.
    5. They don’t fully understand the feedback mechanisms (e.g. clouds!), and they overestimated the amount of warming from a given increase in GHG forcing.
    6. They don’t know how long they should have to wait before the supposedly inevitable warming arrives, resulting in claims that warming is indefinitely “in the pipeline”.

    If they had gotten all of these right, then there would be no discrepancy between the warming they project and what has been observed.

    Moving on…. You wrote “8-9 have widely varying effects depending on which region, which aspect of the climate. While there is a lot of ongoing work on the details, the net effect in 8-9 is expected to be adverse, but with much less consensus on particulars.”

    The net effect is negative because the majority of the research has focused exclusively on negative outcomes. There is no incentive to conduct research into the positive impacts of warming. Any “consensus” here is attributable to publication bias. (As a quick aside, I live in Toronto, which was covered by glaciers only 15,000 years ago. One doesn’t need a PhD to understand that a warmer planet comes with a number of obvious advantages.)

    Lastly you wrote: “10-12 are economic questions, with strong dependence on the economic assumptions involved (economic voodoo, anyone?), though the average of the studies I’ve seen show adaptations costs 5-10x that of mitigations.”

    Any estimates on 10-12 depend entirely on the results of items 7-9, which are riddled with problems. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Nonetheless, this economic experiment has already been run once, over the last 150 years, and the evidence points exactly in the opposite direction of what alarmists recommend today.

    The world has warmed nearly 0.8C since the beginning of the HadCRUT4 data series. Zero concerted effort was made towards abatement; instead, adaptations were made at the individual and local levels when and where required. Yet, by every economic measure, we are immensely better off than we were in 1850.

    So, to sum up…. I’m part of the 97% consensus on items 1-3… (CO2 is a GHG; humans have raised it’s concentration in the atmosphere; some amount of warming is man-made). But I don’t see sufficient evidence on items 4-12 to arrive at an alarmist conclusion.

    I won’t speak for others here, but I’d imagine that most rational people who look objectively at the available evidence and are justifiably skeptical of untested projections coming out of a computer model, would come to similar conclusions as I have.

    Best regards,
    Russ

  46. Russ R.“…if there was such strong “consensus” on items 4-7, how is it possible that none of the model projections were able to anticipate the ongoing lull in warming, despite relentlessly rising CO2 levels?”

    Please keep in mind that projections given by the IPCC and others are for climate averages, not particulars. As in http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/, where the often-shown average is displayed along with the 2-sigma (95%) range of variation from that average – and showing that the last dozen years are well within that range estimate. Those predictions and model projections have _not_ been invalidated by the last decade.

    Climate predictions (as a boundary problem on energies) can tell you about average behavior over the years, but not whether a particular Tuesday (initial value problem) will be at a particular temperature.

    Also worth noting is that with artificial data of known characteristics: data which has a given positive trend, exhibits ARMA(1,1) autocorrelation and noise levels as the climate does – you can see 15-18 year periods with negative trend estimates (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/fifteen/) within 100 years of data. That’s the effect of variability. Such lulls (and corresponding steep jumps, too) are entirely expected with the observed variances.

    So yes, if you understand the natural variability, you shouldn’t expect monotonic behavior from the climate. Likewise, the total observed warming over the last century is just about what we would expect from the physics, and the forcings, and the time lags. I’m going to have to disagree on just about all points in your post.

    And again, thank you for a reasoned discussion.

  47. KR;
    WRT the science discussed in the section of the IPCC report you refer to, look at the numbers. The uncertainties in levels of radiative forcing are explicitly shown in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-2.html – anthropogenic drivers of +1.6 W m^2 with a 0.6 to 2.4 W m^2 90% confidence range
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Congrats on bothering to read, and even getting to the next page in the report. From 2.9.2 (which you just quoted) it also says:

    “combined aerosol direct and cloud albedo effect exert an RF that is virtually certain to be negative, with a median RF of –1.3 W m–2 and a –2.2 to –0.5 W m–2 90% confidence range. ”

    Can you explain how one arrives at a 90% confidence level for a factor that, on the previous page, was assigned a level of scientific understanding of “very low”?

    Clearly there is no consensus from one page of the IPCC report to the next!

  48. I note that KR has wisely avoided trying to defend the ridiculous 95/97 ‘consensus’ argument. That was always an indefensible position to take. Now he’s off hand-waving about other beliefs.

  49. “If folks feel that there is not a consensus of opinion in climate science regarding anthropogenic influences on climate change, then show it.”

    Actually, I don’t give a rip about “consensus”. I care what actual evidence shows — and CAGW ain’t it.

  50. stefanthedenier:

    At October 24, 2012 at 10:25 pm you make a series of illogical questions and statements to D Böehm. I write to address the nature of that post. It begins saying:

    D Böehm says: ”Any physicist, engineer, chemist or geologist can easily understand the subject matter”

    Yes they can, but they don’t. Because most of them become ”populist Skeptics” believing that the planet’s temp goes up and down as a yo-yo. .

    D Böehm, you didn’t say what’s the temp on your planet. Do you belong to the majority, who believe that: the planet is warmer by 12C at noon, than before sunrise?

    The majority know that on this planet it is both “noon” and “before sunrise” all the time but not in the same places.

    However, it is true that the global temperature “goes up and down”. It rises by 3.8 deg.C from June to January and falls by 3.8 deg.C from January to June every year, but I suspect that is not known by most physicists, engineers, chemists and geologists.

    The remainder of your post is similar.

    Richard

  51. KR,

    Fair enough… I’ll grant you that 16 years of flat temperatures may be within the modeling margin of error. So, let’s look at a longer time period… to avoid cherry-picking, let’s go all the way back to the start of the modern temperature record… 1850.

    According to HadCRUT4, global mean temperature was 0.75 deg C lower then than today (http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut4gl/trend), and atmospheric CO2 was at ~280ppm, vs. today’s ~394ppm.

    Some quick calculations on an excel spreadsheet tell me that an increase in CO2 from 280 to 394 ppm represent a smidge less than half a doubling (0.492769 doublings to be precise), And if we were to attribute that 0.75 deg C of warming to the increase in CO2, that gives a climate sensitivity of 1.52 deg C for a full doubling of CO2, which is only half of the supposed “best estimate”.

    The only ways to explain the 0.77 deg C long term warming deficit are to:

    a) assume that additional warming is still “in the pipeline” (there’s some justification for this argument, since some time is required for the system to settle into a new equilibrium state, but it doesn’t account for anywhere near an additional 0.77 deg C of warming).

    b) assume the existence of a very large man-made aerosol cooling effect (however, this would result in greater warming in the southern hemisphere where there is less aerosol pollution… the exact opposite of what’s been observed);

    c) assume a natural background cooling trend which offsets some of the man-made warming (and there’s no greater justification for an assumption of natural cooling than warming);

    A more plausible explanation that doesn’t rely on such assumptions is that climate sensitivity just isn’t high enough to cause alarm. And this explanation would be entirely consistent with billions of years of the earth’s history, during which there are exactly zero instances of “tipping points” or “runaway greenhouse warming” despite evidence that both mean temperatures and CO2 levels were at various times both much higher and much lower than they are today.

    So, if I’ll grant you that 16 years of flat warming can be consistent with climate models, would you accept that 162 years of meteorological observations and 4 billion years of geological evidence are consistent with an argument for low climate sensitivity?

    P.S. You still have yet to square Trenberth’s statement with your claim that there is a consensus beyond items 1-3.

  52. KR says:

    In trying once again to gin up a ‘consensus': The AGU meeting of “~20,000, with 82% agreement (Doran 2009) on human influence?”

    Your ‘82% of 20,000′ comes to only about half of the OISM co-signers, so your claims of ‘consensus’ fail once again. Bad question, anyway, because it does not quantify ‘human influence’, which could mean a very minuscule amount of warming, or land use changes, or badly sited temperature stations, etc.

    They need to ask exactly how much warming since the LIA could be anthropogenic, and how much is natural. But they will not ask such a question, because it could lead to a spirited debate, including the fact that the long term global warming trend has not accelerated despite the large rise in CO2.

    The membership’s ‘consensus’ would show that most members do not think that AGW is a problem — especially since the planet is to a large extent deconstructing the AGW argument. Therefore, they will not ask the right questions. Because they fear the answers.

  53. Russ R. – Between the ~0.2 C drop in temperature we would have expected from natural forcings (primarily solar decreases, CO2 isn’t the only forcing) and ocean inertia (transient/20-year response is ~2/3 that of equilibrium), we’re right about on schedule.

    1.7 W/m^2 forcing change since 1750, or 46% of a 3.7 doubling, gives an expected 1.3C equilibrium warming. Subtract the 0.2 cooling giving 1.1C, if that’s equilibrium then transient response is ~0.7C. Or look at the transient response given recent forcings: 20 years ago CO2 (and approx. scaled forcings) were at 356ppm, a forcing of 1.25 W/m^2, 0.75C response gives a 20-year transient sensitivity of 2.15C [ 3.7 / 1.25 * 0.75 = 2.15C ], and an equilibrium sensitivity of roughly ~3.2C.

    You have to consider the time lags – it takes time for the oceans to warm, and we’ve conservatively added ~0.6W/m^2 of forcing in just the last 20 years (20-year running mean of GISS net forcings from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/, 2010-1990 difference of 0.58).

    There was a discussion on Skeptical Science on this topic regarding some of Dr. Lindzens claims (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm); if you’re interested those include calculating full range uncertainties – most likely value 2.4C/doubling, 1.2C/doubling min, no max.. Please – check their math.

    I don’t see any contradiction there. There are _many_ estimates of climate sensitivity (Knutti and Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf) including models, response to volcanic activity, paleo data from ice age changes, solar cycle response, etc., and they give 2-4.5C, most likely 3C/doubling. And the 0.75C observed warming over the industrial age is consistent with that estimate.

    Trenberth’s statement was regarding _tracking_ the energy budget, and in reference to “An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy (Trenberth 2009)” (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf). As he’s stated repeatedly, he was frustrated that the observation network is insufficient to track all of the warming locations as accurately as he would like, such as the oceans below 900m.

    A complaint about missing observations due to insufficient equipment is absolutely not an observation of missing energy, much though his statement has been (mis)portrayed in that fashion.

  54. D Böehm – One last time. Raw numbers of one opinion, self-selected, with no check on the numbers of other opinions, mean _absolutely nothing_ regarding consensus. There’s no scaling for the effort in collecting such petitions, in the case of OISM no control for the expertise involved (veterinarians, dentists, anyone with a BS in a technical field???), nothing whatsoever showing what percentage of informed people agree.

    You need sampled surveys for that – Anderegg 2010 (97-98% of climate experts concur), Doran 2009 (82% of all scientists, 97.5% of publishing climatologists concur), Oreskes 2004 (75% of all peer-reviewed abstracts on “global climate change” between 1993-2003 explicitly agreeing with the consensus, and zero [0] publications found rejecting anthropogenic climate change) are all surveys looking at the people who study this. Or look at the fact that every national academy of science across the globe that has expressed an opinion agrees with that consensus.

    Petitions provide no data about population statistics. Unless/until you can present a sampling survey that includes both +/- answers to determine statistical representation, you’ve presented no argument whatsoever regarding consensus. You’ve presented nothing relevant, and I will not respond further to you unless that changes.

  55. KR,

    Keep digging. Your misguided belief in a mythical catastrophic AGW “consensus” has no basis in the real world, as your comments prove. The consensus is entirely on the side of those who know that any putative AGW is at most a minor event, and as such it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. If you have any scientific, empirical evidence to the contrary, post it. Otherwise, you lose the debate.

  56. KR,

    I won’t dispute your argument that over 20 years, the oceans will warm only 2/3 of the way to equilibrium. That said, your subsequent math raises two concerns:

    “1.7 W/m^2 forcing change since 1750, or 46% of a 3.7 doubling, gives an expected 1.3C equilibrium warming. Subtract the 0.2 cooling giving 1.1C, if that’s equilibrium then transient response is ~0.7C.”

    First,If you’re using 1750 (or even 1850) as a start date, you have to expect more than just 2/3 of the equilibrium warming as it’s a lot longer than 20 years.

    “Or look at the transient response given recent forcings: 20 years ago CO2 (and approx. scaled forcings) were at 356ppm, a forcing of 1.25 W/m^2, 0.75C response gives a 20-year transient sensitivity of 2.15C [ 3.7 / 1.25 * 0.75 = 2.15C ], and an equilibrium sensitivity of roughly ~3.2C.”

    Second, if you’re only looking at the last 20 years for forcing, then you can’t multiply it by the last 162 years of warming.

    I might be misinterpreting your approach here, but something doesn’t make sense to me.

    Lastly, even if Trenberth was in fact complaining about a lack of equipment and observations, how does that in any bolster your argument for some sort of “consensus”? In fact, it weakens your argument significantly.

    Look, I’ll happily grant you your “consensus” on items 1-3… basically the only questions that were addressed in the Doran survey, (and later in the Anderegg paper) were if temperatures had risen, and if human activity was a significant contributing factor to warming . Had I been surveyed, I myself would have been part of that consensus.

    However, your attempt to extrapolate that narrow consensus into a broader consensus that covers items 4-12 is not supported by any similar survey that I’ve ever seen… If you’re aware of one, I’d invite you to link to it.

    In other words… show me where the “consensus” of experts say that anthropogenic global warming will result in a global catastrophe that can only be avoided by immediate emissions reductions. I can point you to plenty of intelligent, rational scientists who would disagree with this. Which pretty much puts a fork in your expanded claim of “consensus”.

  57. Russ R. said: ”the oceans will warm only 2/3 of the way to equilibrium. That said, your subsequent math raises two concerns: “1.7 W/m^2 forcing change since 1750, or 46% of a 3.7 doubling, gives an expected 1.3C equilibrium warming. Subtract the 0.2 cooling giving 1.1C, if that’s equilibrium then transient response is ~0.7C.” First,If you’re using 1750 (or even 1850) as a start date, you have to expect more than just 2/3 of the equilibrium warming as it’s a lot longer than 20 years. “Or look at the transient response given recent forcings: 20 years ago CO2 (and approx. scaled forcings) were at 356ppm, a forcing of 1.25 W/m^2, 0.75C response gives a 20-year transient sensitivity then you can’t multiply it by the last 162 years of warming. I might be misinterpreting your approach here, but something doesn’t make sense to me”
    .

    1] not all oceans warm up extra, simultaneously; even some oceans are warmer than normal on one part, but not on other.

    2]Talking ”the temperature in the oceans 1750 – 1850…” without stating: who was monitoring regularly the temp on every part of every ocean for you = it tells about your credibility / honesty / intelligence, not about the ocean’s temp.

    3] when on part of the ocean temp gets warmer than normal ( which is usually because of increased activity of submarine volcanoes and hot vents) -> evaporation increases = evaporation is cooling process. b] more evaporation -> more clouds; clouds are the ”sun umbrellas” for the land and sea -> more sunlight is intercepted high up, where cooling is much more efficient. c] moire clouds -> more rain; rain brings coldness from high up and cools the land and water

    4] you talking about: ”0,75C” That’s precision in one hundredth of a degree; nobody knows the temp in +/ – of 3C, you know in one hundredth of a degree…?! do you want some truth? :

  58. Russ R. says: October 25, 2012 at 12:54 pm: ”Correction… where I typed 0.77 deg C in two places above, it should have read 0.73 deg C”

    Russ, you know the difference between 0,77C and 0,73C?!?! precision to one hundredth of a degree…?!…

    On 99,9999999999% of the area on the planet nobody monitors! b] where is monitored, is taken only the hottest minute of the day – but ignored the other 1439 minutes; in which, the temp doesn’t go up and down as the ”hottest” minute! c] spacing between .two monitoring places of 100km temp goes up by a degree – but spacing between other two of 1300km goes down by 0,5C, is it gone warmer or colder planet, by your ”statistic”?! People like you that leave in Cuckoo’s Land are guilty for a trillionth dollars rip-off and brainwashing the kids in school and university… http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/

  59. richardscourtney says: ”stefanthedenier: However, it is true that the global temperature “goes up and down”. It rises by 3.8 deg.C from June to January and falls by 3.8 deg.C from January to June every year, but I suspect that is not known by most physicists, engineers, chemists and geologists”

    Richard, Richard… the laws of physics say that: ”overall GLOBAL temp cannot .stay warmer, or colder than normal for more than 8-9 minutes! Self adjusting mechanism is infallible! Part / parts of the planet are always warmer than normal / can go to extreme – but simultaneously other parts MUST be colder””

    Your 3,8C getting colder; would make even the biggest liars in IPCC blushing. It appears colder in the southern summer; because are LESS monitoring places. Same as: if my and yours salary goes up by 10%, but Bill Gates salary goes down by 2% -> in your ”statistic” would have shown that overall all three of us have more money…?! because more monitoring places on the N/H than on the S/H, deceive

    Richard, looks like that you are more ignorant than most; get lots of correct information; so you don’t sound so ignorant: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

    Don’t be scared from real proofs; arguing against me is: arguing against the laws of physics! Your pagan believes are the precursor of today’s rip-off

  60. stefanthedenier,

    You won’t get your views across with your angry, insulting attitude. It makes sense to be hostile to those pushing the CAGW agenda, because they’re using it to rob us blind. But when you attack your own side there is clearly something wrong. Why all the hatred?

  61. D Böehm,

    Probably because he is actually a warmist posing as a skeptic to make skeptics look bad.

    Note: I dont know this for a fact, but it sure fits the fact that he seems so similar to the warmist caractures of what skeptics believe.

  62. D Böehm says: ”. It makes sense to be hostile to those pushing the CAGW agenda, because they’re using it to rob us blind. But when you attack your own side there is clearly something wrong”

    here are only few of the reasons: warming of the WHOLE planet cannot happen / the laws of physics prove that -> therefore, the Warmist don’t have a case. But deluding, so called ”skeptics”. use localized warmings and localized ice ages as GLOBAL; to cover up the Warmist shame for lying about the phony global warming and rip-off..

    2] fake Skeptics aknoweledgement of the misleading data about the GLOBAL temp as real -> therefore they a giving credibility to the Warmist lies. Taking temp on few places, only for the hotest minute and calling it ”GLOBAL temp” is the precursor of all evil. Most of the activist from ”my side” are nothing more than ”Warmist’s Fig Leafs”; covering up the Warmist shame, for all the misleading and rip-of

    3] most of the ”Fake Skeptic’s proofs” as LIA, many other ”warmings 1000, 2000, 6000 years ago; were NEVER GLOBAL, Warmist know that; many of those lies the skeptics use have being invented by people that are now in the Warmist camp – they know it’s crap; but the Warmist are exploiting the Skeptic’s Achilles’s Hill – Leading ”Skeptics” EGO is too big, to admit that they have being duped – honest people cope it.

    Your ”small” global Warming, not catastrophic” is same as saying that: man can get pregnant, but only little bit. 99% of the people on the street know that: nobody can predict past next Monday – therefore; somebody ”predicting” little bit or little more than that, are the same caliber liars. Because human attitude is: better safe than sorry – the Warmist are wining by using lies… Skeptics can use the laws of physics and have 100% proofs, to put leading Warmist in jail , unfortunately, between the bingo players populism is important, not the truth, not success. I’m on your side; you are against yourself – unless the Skeptics aknowledge that their proofs are not proofs – Warmist will pull them by the nose and fleece them forever. Here are some of the ”Skeptic’s” phony proofs, that are their Achilles’s Hill, don’t run away from constructive advice, every skeptic should read it, then susses is guarantied: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/

    Otherwise, one cannot bit lies, with different lies. Prof Mann resonantly said on OZ TV: ”the planet 1000 years ago was cooler by 1C than today”’

    It’s easy to prove that: nobody knows what was the GLOBAL temp 1000y ago = Mann is lying. But the ”Skeptics” pretend to know to a hundredth of a degree what was the GLOBAL temperature for every year of those 1000years… and 2000, and 6000 years ago LOOK AT THEIR ”GLOBAL” TEMP CHARTS, Mann and the rest are exploiting that -> as ”code of silence about the truth ”Skeptics” are assisting the Warmist in robbery and oppression. Skeptics are using same lies as the Warmist; only the skeptics are using much more lies and much less convincing lies. I can always prove what I say. All your proofs are similar as: ” only small warming in 100years” Mate, truth and real proofs are not popular in the blogosphere now; but people on the street that are not fed crap every day, prefer real proofs; they are the 99% .

  63. “JOHN HOCKENBERRY: A few suspicious-seeming emails, taken out of context, would become “climate-gate.” Even though nine subsequent investigations would find no tampering with data, the impact of these emails would live on”

    No mention of illegaly avoiding FOI requests, as usual from the believers.

  64. stefanthedenier;

    Whoa up bud, take a deep breath. You’re ranting and it is nearly impossible to follow your logic from one sentence to the next. I’ve no idea what you mean in several sentences, making it impossible to provide you with a detailed response.

    That said, your response to richardscourtney is inacurrate. While I will grant that both defining and measuring a “global temperature” is a difficult task, the earth does warm and cool over the course of a year. Contrary to you assertion, the laws of physics require this to be true.

    The earth’s orbit is elliptical. The earth is closer to the sun and gets more insolation over all during the northern hemisphere winter (southern hemisphere summer) than it does when the seasons are reversed. On the other hand, the northern hemisphere has most of the earth’s land mass while the southern has most of the ocean. As land heats up and cools off faster than ocean, this also changes the equation.

    We can indirectly see that this is happening without making a single temperature measurement. Over the course of a year, CO2 levels rise several ppm, and then fall again. This is due to the rate at which CO2 is both absorbed into the oceans and outgassed from the oceans depending upon temperature. Sure, there are other possible explanations for this, I just haven’t found one yet that I consider more credible.

    For the record, I’m a skeptic. But that doesn’t mean I believe all of the physics relied upon by warmists is wrong. Much of it is entirely accurate, and I think you’ll find, if you stop ranting and start discussing the science instead, that richardscourtney is both skeptical of alarmist claims and rather knowleadgeable of the science. When he makes the kind of statement that he did, it is usually with just cause, and you’d be better off asking questions rather than popping off.

  65. D Böehm says: ”Matt, I’m beginning to think you’re right. Either that, or stefan hates everybody equally”

    Wrong again! I’m not in a business to hate people; but to expose lies – and that’s what I’m doing. With my limited English, if I didn’t have real proofs b] if the Warmist & Fakes didn’t bark up the same wrong tree – I would have being fishing today; love fishing / hate computer.

    See Böehm, same as you cannot point that I’m wrong; same with the Warmist. They would have started spiting the dummy. But, the Warmist are using the Fakes as a shield / buffer, not to face the reality / real proofs and facts. Warmist know that the Fakes are shooting blanks at them, it’s Viagra for the Warmist, to screw the innocent public. But with their phony proofs, the ”Skeptics” are shooting themselves in the foot by machine-gun, instead of pistol. When a ”Skeptic” pretends to know the correct temp 300, 500y ago – even though nobody knows what was last year’s global temp… Warmist know that they have bigger liars than themselves for opponents. Fakes become Warmist’s geldings, riding on the fake’s backs. The truth will win, Fakes like you are prolonging the Warmist robberies – it’s up to the victims to decide who is to hate and penalize more. (when the policeman is helping the thieves, the cop gets bigger penalty) Cheers and happy insomnia.

  66. “CORAL DAVENPORT: I came up with the idea to ask every Republican member of Congress three simple questions about climate change. They were very simple. They were basically, you know, “Do you think that climate change is causing the earth to become warmer?””

    And here I thought “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century” and some scientists feel this is changing the climate “Climate change is occurring and is largely caused by human activities and poses a significant risk for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

    How is it that climate change is now causing the warming?

  67. “ANDREW DESSLER, Climate Scientist, Texas A&M University: Climate change is coming. It means drought. It means fire. It means suffering.”

    Certainly no consensus about that.

  68. How skeptical science views the 97% consenus

    “Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
    “In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.” http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

    In fact neither surveys states this…

    ” Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
    mean global temperatures?
    97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
    Nothing about changing the climate and it doesn’t even mention CO2

    “Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate
    scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary
    conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible
    for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average
    global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”

    Nope, nothing catastrophic there.

  69. “KR says:
    October 24, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    D Böehm – The OISM petition includes (if I remember correctly) a grand total of 39 people working in climatology.”

    Scientific American calculated 200, a respectable number according to them.

    ” The OISM petition represents a _tiny minority_ of active climate scientists.”

    If 200 is a tiny minority, Dorans 75 is even tinier

    Besides the 75 were handpicked by Peter Doran, they were sent emails inviting them to participate.
    They could have included James Hansen, Phil Jones, Peter Gleick, etc. etc.
    They are all anonymous, at least the OISM can be verified.

    And the OISM states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”.

    The Doran survey doesn’t state otherwise, it claims 75 scientists believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

    That’s it, no catastrophe predicted, CO2 isn’t even mentioned.

  70. davidmhoffer says: ”stefanthedenier; Whoa up bud, take a deep breath”

    David, you are good to ”rant” but non-existent on facts.. parroting Plimer’s fairy-tales is not knowledge, but proof of ignorance

    a] elliptical path… if you know about the ”self-adjusting mechanism” would have known how ridicules you sound. When the atmosphere warms up, for ANY reason -> oxygen & nitrogen (troposphere) expand INSTANTLY -> . as enlarging radiator on vehicle -> releases extra heat and equalizes in a jiffy.

    Warmist physics….Warmist don’t use any physics for guidance; otherwise they would have known that real proofs exist; they wouldn’t have even started with the scam. Warmist castle is built on the ”Skeptic’s” fairy-tales.

    3]You are molesting the CO2, SAME as the Warmist, here:: ”Over the course of a year, CO2 levels rise several ppm, and then fall again. This is due to the rate at which CO2 is both absorbed”

    CO2 has nothing, NOTHING to do with regulation of the global temp!!!” Shame, shame!!! oxygen & nitrogen are 998999ppm, CO2 is only 270-500ppm in the troposphere. Q: if you put an elephant on one side of the scale, and 380 flies on the other side… who regulates / controls?

    When is a solar eclipse; the moon prevents lots of sunlight from coming here; but doesn’t get colder, not for one day, not for a millionth of a degree. Because O&N shrink appropriately for the duration -> waste less heat and keep same temp ALL THE TIME.

    Same when it gets warmer, for ANY reason! a] atom bomb explosion releases millions of degrees heat – O&N expand instantly -> waste the extra heat and start SHRINKING after 3 minutes. They wouldn’t shrink unless they have cooled!!! You and Richard should go to the post I pointed to him; see how real proofs sound. Your ”believes” are blindly religious, not scientific. Science wouldn’t ignore: a] increasing vertical winds, when gets warmer than normal b] instant expansion of the troposphere. Warmist castle has being built on the pagan fairy-tales that you and Courtney warship. Shame, shame!!! go and read some real proofs, Now it doesn’t make sense to you; because you are comparing my comments against the outdated paganism; whatever I say, I can substantiate with REAL proofs. Cheers!!!

  71. stefanthedenier;
    When a ”Skeptic” pretends to know the correct temp 300, 500y ago – even though nobody knows what was last year’s global temp… Warmist know that they have bigger liars than themselves for opponents.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No one is pretending to know exactly the temperature last year, last decade, last century or last millenium. There are multiple ways to define “global temperature”, and each one has challenges associated with measuring it. That doesn’t mean that the data which results is meaningless.

    For example, we commonly accept that the temperature of the human body, as measured by a thermometer placed under the tongue, is 98.6 F. This of course is not true. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that as long as we maintain a consistant method of measurement, this provides us with a usefull standard by which we check for variation from the norm and draw conclusions that are of value as diagnostic criteria. Despite being “not true” the information is of immense value.

    Similarly, ice core data by no means provides us with an exact measure of the “global temperature” of earth for any given time period. But it does provide us with excellent data from which we can draw conclusions about global temperatures in general that are sufficiently accurate to be of value. No, we don’t know “exactly” what the temperature was last year or 400 years ago. We do have a high degree of confidence however, that is was, over all, colder then than it is now.

    Before you hold yourself one more time to be superior to both warmists and skeptics, you may want to re-examine your belief system which seems to revolve around this one single issue.

  72. stefanthedenier;
    a] elliptical path… if you know about the ”self-adjusting mechanism” would have known how ridicules you sound.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh my. Just when one thinks that nobody will ever outdo the misguided advtentures of Myrhh into the world of physics…. one discovers that such drawing such conclusions is an error. Stefan, I’m not going to explain Stefan-Boltzmann Law to you in this thread, but I strongly recommend that you obtain an explanation in your native language and become familiar with it.

    stefanthedenier;
    CO2 has nothing, NOTHING to do with regulation of the global temp!!!”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If you will take the time to read my words again, you will see that I was giving an example of CO2 levels being driven by temperature, not the other way around.

    stefanthedenier;
    When is a solar eclipse; the moon prevents lots of sunlight from coming here; but doesn’t get colder, not for one day, not for a millionth of a degree. Because O&N shrink appropriately for the duration -> waste less heat and keep same temp ALL THE TIME.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well having witnessed a solar eclipse, I can attest that the local temperature in fact did drop, and noticeably so. I’m not certain where you got your ideas about O&N shrinking and expanding to maintain the temperature, but they evoke that oft quoted quip of Albert Einstein’s: That’s not right, that’s not even wrong.

  73. davidmhoffer says: ”Just when one thinks that nobody will ever outdo the misguided advtentures of Myrhh into the world of physics”

    Wrong! Myrrh is closer to the truth than you would like.
    2] when the thermometer under the armpit say that is gone up by 2C = the whole body is warmer by that much. If you don’t know that: the rest of the planet’s temp doesn’t go up, or down SIMULTANEOUSLY as body temp. When English or US temp goes up, or down; the rest of the planet’s temp doesn’t = you are more ignorant than a 5y old. b] if you don’t know that: you cannot compare one unknown with another unknown; you are drowning in confusion and lies.

    3] ”Well having witnessed a solar eclipse, I can attest that the local temperature in fact did drop”
    That’s where the biggest problems you guys have: pretending that localized warmings / coolings are GLOBAL!!! I have being in solar eclipse, but I know the rest of the truth: ”as soon as the shadow from the eclipse starts -> gets windy / air from areas outside the shadow comes, to PREVENT VACUUM. Those ”other places with LESS air -> release / waste LESS heat; overall ALWAYS is same warmth units in the troposphere

    4] ”If you will take the time to read my words again, you will see that I was giving an example of CO2 levels being driven by temperature” ======== well David when I read one sentence of yours; I know all the rest you can say – repeating Plimer’s fairy-tales; the most predictable people. In other words: I know what you know, but you don’t know what I know – that’s why I have unfair advantage on you. Be a good sport, be fair to yourself and read the few posts on my homepage; all of it – then we can debate. Your: ” we don’t know, but we believe, but we don’t know but we know” HAS BEING ALL EXPOSED LONG TIME AGO!!!

    P.s. you will discover there: why: reading old temp ”in the old ice” is the biggest con since the Homo Erectus invented the language

  74. Russ R. – What I was showing is that even a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation will (if you consider thermal inertia and total forcings) show an expected result quite near observations – with a climate sensitivity of ~3C/doubling of CO2. The last 35 years have shown a roughly linear increase in temperature, which requires a roughly linearly increasing forcing, and the 20-year lag of transient climate sensitivity matches observations; with equilibrium sensitivity being somewhat higher. More complete accounting of the physics shows the same – looking at the climate response against recent forcings indicates that our physical models of the climate are reasonably accurate (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html).

    Re: Trenberth – I cannot see how his complaints about insufficient instrumentation in any way demonstrates any disagreement with human forced climate change. I dare say he would be quite (ahem) put out by such a suggestion. I can only consider such interpretations of that out of context statement to be misinterpretations.

    Lastly, I have an objection to your terminology – “catestrophic”. Oddly enough, that’s a term frequently used by skeptics, and only rarely by anyone who agrees with the consensus. I would therefore have to consider that a “strawman” characterization. Personally, I don’t expect any catastrophic tidal waves, or firestorms, or whatever – but I expect that change will induce costs. It always does.

    Just two examples of ‘adaptation’ costs:

    (1) Agriculture: shifting growth zones and water. The California Central Valley produces ~8% of all USA agricultural output. They expect to lose 20-50% of their mostly snow-pack fed water (for the extensive rice fields) and 50% of the $9B annual fruit and nut crop (just too warm) by 2100. Perhaps we need to move production to Canada? That’s not going to be cheap, and it’s worth pointing out that current permafrost regions, let alone the glacially scrapped northern parts of Canada, don’t have the topsoil required. $$$

    (2) Sea level. The Dutch have shown that it’s possible to adapt to sea level changes, but it’s expensive. The Thames Barrier cost ~1.3B pounds (2001 inflation adjusted), and it’s likely that sea level rises over the next 100 years will require a complete rebuild of that structure. Expand those costs to every coastal city, every port? $$$

    The cost of adaptation is estimated at 5-10x that of mitigation – mitigation actually spurring innovation, benefiting GDP and jobs (http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29337/m1/1/, http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43084.de/diw_wr_2005-12.pdf, http://policyintegrity.org/documents/OtherSideoftheCoin.pdf, http://www.google.org/energyinnovation/). That makes mitigation, reduction of our CO2 output (think the Montreal Protocol for CFC’s writ large), the economically sensible approach. “Business as usual” will be _far_ more expensive; economically draining.

    Mitigation of climate change (because change always costs $$$) is a far more economically sensible policy. Choosing ‘adaptation’ is (IMO) just foolish.

    But that’s far off topic for this thread. Despite protestations by Heartland, there _is_ a strong consensus of anthropogenic climate change among those who study the climate, with the strength of the consensus directly related to expertise.

  75. KR:

    Your post at October 26, 2012 at 5:53 am begins saying

    Russ R. – What I was showing is that even a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation will (if you consider thermal inertia and total forcings) show an expected result quite near observations – with a climate sensitivity of ~3C/doubling of CO2. The last 35 years have shown a roughly linear increase in temperature, which requires a roughly linearly increasing forcing, and the 20-year lag of transient climate sensitivity matches observations; with equilibrium sensitivity being somewhat higher. More complete accounting of the physics shows the same – looking at the climate response against recent forcings indicates that our physical models of the climate are reasonably accurate (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html).

    That is so wrong it would require writing a book to detail all its errors. I provide a few refutations.

    A wrong result almost always results from conducting a “rough back-of-the-envelope calculation” about the behaviour of a complex and incompletely understood system.

    “Observations” do NOT show a “a climate sensitivity of ~3C/doubling of CO2”, but some climate models do.

    Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf

    and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf

    In fact, they each show a climate sensitivity of ~0.4deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent but I am being conservative in my statements.

    The models are NOT “reasonably accurate”. They are plain wrong. At most only one (probably none) of them emulates the climate of the real Earth, and none of them projected the lack of warming for the last 16 years. Indeed, as the IPCC AR4 reported they predicted 0.2deg.C rise per decade (~+/-20%) averaged over the first two decades from year 2000. The rise over the next 8 years to achieve that is probably a physical impossibility because of ocean thermal inertia. This rise was predicted (n.b. NOT projected) because of “committed warming” from greenhouse gases already in the system. If the improbable jump of 0.4deg.C in global temperature were to occur in the next 8 years then that would not explain where the “committed warming” has been hiding until now.

    You then say

    Re: Trenberth – I cannot see how his complaints about insufficient instrumentation in any way demonstrates any disagreement with human forced climate change. I dare say he would be quite (ahem) put out by such a suggestion. I can only consider such interpretations of that out of context statement to be misinterpretations.

    That is silly. Trenberth makes an excuse to hand-wave away why data does not agree with his assertions and you say you cannot see “any disagreement with human forced climate change”. No, you can’t, but you can’t see any evidence for “human forced climate change” either.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

    And you follow that illogicality with this

    Lastly, I have an objection to your terminology – “catestrophic” (sic). Oddly enough, that’s a term frequently used by skeptics, and only rarely by anyone who agrees with the consensus. I would therefore have to consider that a “strawman” characterization. Personally, I don’t expect any catastrophic tidal waves, or firestorms, or whatever – but I expect that change will induce costs. It always does.

    That ignores the above post from tolo4zero who says at October 25, 2012 at 9:25 pm of SkS (i.e. a group of warmunist fanatics)

    How skeptical science views the 97% consenus

    “Several independent studies have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, that CO2 is causing global changes to the climate, and that the consequences could be catastrophic. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

    You then provide two “examples” of “costs” of adapting to catastrophic climate change effects without recognising your examples refute your claim that “catastrophic” is a “strawman”.

    And your examples are silly. What matters is whether the changes would be a net benefit or a cost. Examples selected to show examples of benefit or of cost only indicate a change. And, despite your illustration, more CO2 in the air and longer growing seasons provide a net benefit to agriculture.

    You conclude with a claim that there is a consensus of AGW catastrophism among the cognoscenti of climatology. That is plain wrong. The only consensus is that those making a living from the AGW-scare want to keep the scare running as long as possible.

    Richard

  76. richardscourtney – As usual, you change the subject. On the claims of the opening post:

    * Heartland claimed that there is no consensus on anthropogenic warming – incorrect. The Wikipedia discussion sums that up nicely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).

    * Heartland claimed that there isn’t funding of skeptic claims – Mashey has documented that to be absurd, there’s lots of industry funding attempting to denigrate the scientific consensus (http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/23/fakery-2-more-funny-finances-free-tax and http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax), I can hardly add to that compendium.

    As to the particular claims in your post:

    * I gave the math for back-of-envelope numbers on lagged climate response to forcings – it’s consistent with temperature observations and a climate sensitivity of ~3C/doubling of CO2. More extensive physical models match forcings (inputs) and temperatures (outputs) as well, but only with anthropogenic forcing and sensitivities around 3C – not because they’ve been ‘tuned’, but because the physics don’t add up otherwise. We’re right on track for expected warming if you actually pay attention to the fact that there are multiple forcings in play (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf), that you need to look at a statistically significant period, and that energy continues to accumulate in the oceans (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/). I don’t see any math on your part…

    * I’m not even going to bother with the ongoing out of context misinterpretations of Trenberth’s statement.

    * Idso’s 0.1C sensitivity is complete nonsense, single point derivations extrapolated to the globe (if so, we would never have had an ice age), Lindzen’s papers have been widely and repeatedly debunked (having repeated the same claims in 2001, 2009, and 2011, never answering key criticisms – as evidenced by farming out the 2011 paper to a minor journal rather than addressing PNAS reviewer points), and I’m just not going to take a “Friends of Science” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science – a lobbying group) opinion piece seriously.

    I would suggest reading Knutti and Hegerl 2008 (http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf) for a comprehensive overview of experimental, paleo, model, and physics based estimates of climate sensitivity.

    * I don’t believe I (personally) have ever cried “catastrophy” – from what I’ve seen “CAGW” is a ‘skeptic’ strawman argument, raised as a rhetorical target. But climate change will have costs, and those adaptation costs look to be an order of magnitude higher than mitigation costs (I noted multiple examinations of those relative impacts in a previous post). BAU is just economically foolish.

    I think I’ve made my points clearly – and outside of Russ R. there haven’t been (IMO) any cogent discussions of those. Adieu

  77. stefanthedenier;
    Wrong! Myrrh is closer to the truth than you would like.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    On that note:

    set/stefanthedenier=ignore

  78. KR’
    I think I’ve made my points clearly –
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You appear to be suffering from delusions of clarity.

  79. KR:

    Your reply to me at October 26, 2012 at 9:49 am begins saying

    richardscourtney – As usual, you change the subject.

    Say what!!?
    My post at October 26, 2012 at 7:06 am quoted verbatim from your post at October 26, 2012 at 5:53 and rebutted each of YOUR statements in turn.
    And you accuse ME of changing the subject!? Unbelievable!

    And the rest of your reply is equally ridiculous. It is complete nonsense in defence (excuse?) of your nonsense which I rebutted.

    The undeniable fact is that empirical measurements obtained by three independent analyses from three different data sets each provides a climate sensitivity of ~0.4deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. And your reply to that is nonsensical rubbishing of two of those analyses together with this

    More extensive physical models match forcings (inputs) and temperatures (outputs) as well, but only with anthropogenic forcing and sensitivities around 3C – not because they’ve been ‘tuned’, but because the physics don’t add up otherwise.

    The elegance of a theory and/or how that theory is modeled are not relevant when empirical data indicates the theory is wrong.

    And you conclude with an attempt to change the subject from your claim that wamunistas don’t talk about “catastrophe” to a claim that you have not. So you began with a false accusation that I changed the subject and ended by changing a subject you had lost.

    Richard

  80. davidmhoffer says: ”set/stefanthedenier=ignore”

    So, you don’t have a bit of dignity; to apologize for contradicting me, + for being wrong, but accusing me as being wrong === specifically that: ”planet is not colder even by a millionth of a degree after solar eclipse” I have proven you wrong, step by step, BY REAL PROOFS. Not the fairy-tales you use. David, difficult to argue against real proofs, isn’t it?

  81. davidmhoffer says: ”set/stefanthedenier=ignore”

    David, you came with all guns blazing; tracing me and Myrrh; to prove that you can win by using the outdated lies. When you faced real proofs -> David is running for cover. That’s how effective and efficient your lies are…. shame, shame. Did you discover why the MISLEADING about ice core old GLOBAL warmings / coolings is the biggest ever lies === proven WRONG %, by me. verdict: you can only con the selective zombies, full stop. Therefore: David, you are just another trophy on my wall. you are getting embarrassed off your own knowledge. Not having dignity to admit THAT YOU HAVE BEING PROVEN WRONG 100% you are puting yourself down, LOWER THAN THE SNAKE’s BELLY!

  82. It would be good to know what the real percentage of CAGW-believing scientists is.
    Does anyone know?

  83. davidmhoffer:

    re your post at October 26, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Point taken. Will do. Thankyou.

    Richard

  84. richardscourtney says: ”davidmhoffer: re your post at October 26, 2012 at 10:02 am Point taken”.

    Richard and David are running under their rock; when facing real proofs… same as cockroaches, when you turn the lights on / pooped their diapers. That’s what happen, when they have being harvesting data from thin air, for too long. Anybody else wants to silence them; the real proofs are on my website.

    I wish I will be the one, when the time comes; to put them on a witness stand / under oath – Their lies only work on brainwashed zombies. Richard and David are suffering from ”Truth-Phobia”

  85. Friends:

    stefanthedenier says at October 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    I wish I will be the one, when the time comes; to put them on a witness stand / under oath – Their lies only work on brainwashed zombies.

    Oh how can I control my fear? /sarc off

    Myrrh
    Eric Grimsrud
    Gary Lance
    stefanthedenier
    etc.
    I wonder from whence they come. I suppose it is good they are here so we won’t find them together beside us on a bus.

    Richard

  86. richardscourtney says: ”Friends: stefanthedenier Myrrh, Eric Grimsrud, Gary Lance”

    Richard, I didn’t know exactly what those guys stand for; but if you are badmouthing and blacklisting them = they must have lots of truth.

    You and your mate, as Flatearthers are suffering from Truth-phobia… gives a clear picture. Here is my experience with you guys: DISPUTING that I’m wrong for saying that: ”in solar eclipse .the earth doesn’t cool even for a millionth of a degree / not for one day” ====== you guys found out that: where is the eclipse -> gets colder -> must be the WHOLE planet colder” WRONG! Instead of learning from me; how to use the laws of physics as guidance – you are running for cover and trying to silence ME, the truth.

    Here is the truth: when the partial eclipse starts -> winds increase -> by the time of full eclipse; where the shadow from the moon is -> becomes complete darkness – people turn the lights on in town, looks as if is 9pm, even though is close to noon. It gets much COLDER -> the air in the shadow shrinks by 30%, because of becoming much colder -> to avoid vacuum -> lots of air from outside the shade surges in the shadow = outside 30% less air. With less air outside gets much HOTTER, than when is no eclipse in the neighborhood.

    Here is why, example: daytime on the moon is much, much hotter than daytime on the earth; because the moon doesn’t have troposphere / no 0&N to spread the heat and waste it === because outside the shadow of the eclipse is 30% less air = starts to resemble ONLY by 30% like on the moon warming. ”EXTRA COLDNESS in the shadow is equal to EXTRA heat created outside the shadow -> when eclipse is over -> winds equalize = the planet doesn’t have enough extra coldness, to cool one beer.

    But for the Flatearthers like Richard and his gang of ignorants; is enough to see that is colder, or warmer where they are; to declare colder or warmer the WHOLE planet…? It’s same as: ”planet is warmer at noon by 12C, than before sunrise” ====That’s how all the phony GLOBAL warmings and localized ice ages have being declared as global = the precursor for the Warmist lying that is going to be warmer planet in 88year.

    Shonky science doesn’t want public to know the truth. Good people, rely on what is reliable; on the laws of physics – they were same laws 150y ago, 800y ago, 2000, 6000, 15000y ago as today = if they don’t aprove of something = must be a lie. I have all the proof, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt; lease help me to expose the scam People like Courtney are the Warmist Fig Leafs = covering up the Warmist shame, for lying that big / small localized climatic changes and the phony GLOBAL are one and the same thing….?! Richard, it’s prudent for you to learn, from me, instead of stacking the truth. Happy insomnia!!!

  87. KR.

    Sorry for the delay in responding. We’ll agree to disagree on the context and implications of Trenberth’s off-the-record statements vs. what he and his colleagues say when on-the-record. You might dismiss it as immaterial… I see it as a serious lack of scientific integrity, but it’s fair to put it to rest.

    You point to AR4 Figure-9-5 as an demonstration that models are, as you say “reasonably accurate” when “hindcasting” the past, and therefore should be seen as reliable for 1) calculating man-made warming, and 2) projecting future warming. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

    Hindcasting with multiple parameters is an exercise in curve-fitting with many degrees of freedom. Imagine the following scenario. Let’s say I devise an economic model with a number of macroeconomic inputs (interest rates, tax rates, government spending, inflation, minimum wages, etc.) and feed them into the model to hindcast historical unemployment rates, which we’ll say rose from 5% in 2006 to 10% in 2010, before falling to 8% in 2012. The model assigns a weight to each parameter to give me a good fit to the historical unemployment record. Then I remove one factor… perhaps holding government spending constant, and run the model again. The new model results show that instead of peaking at 10%, unemployment would have risen above 12%. Can I thus conclude that government spending was responsible for a 2 point decrease in unemployment and millions of jobs “created or saved”? No I can’t, because that 12% unemployment scenario I’d be pointing to as “what would have happened” never actually happened. It isn’t evidence of anything… it’s a figment of my model’s imagination… not an experimental result. It also assumes that the X number of parameters I chose were a full account of all of the relevant factors actually at work… that I didn’t accidentally include irrelevant factors, or exclude other relevant ones.

    And in this specific case of climate models, it’s even worse than that. Ask yourself how it is possible that a multitude of models, each of which arrived at different values for climate sensitivity, all managed to hindcast with a high degree of accuracy the same temperature history, while using the same GHG levels as inputs? It’s only possible because the models have other parameters that get dialed-up or dialed-down to come up with a hindcast that matches the past. I could just as easily fit a model with a low climate sensitivity to the historical data by adjusting up or down the other parameters.

    Now, let’s turn to costs. (Finance and economics happens to be my professional field).

    First, you give a great example of the broken window fallacy. Or in your words: “The cost of adaptation is estimated at 5-10x that of mitigation – mitigation actually spurring innovation, benefiting GDP and jobs”. You’ll have to explain how a dollar spent on adaptation instead of mitigation will not spur innovation, will not be counted toward GDP, and will not create any jobs. If you’re going to count broken window benefits for mitigation, you would have to count those same broken window benefits for adaptation, Economically speaking, it’s a mistake to include them at all, so you should count them for neither case. (See Bastiat or Hazlitt). Try running the math again without broken-window “benefits”.

    Second, you make a fundamentally wrong assumption about the effectiveness of abatement policies… you ignore carbon leakage. Let’s particularly look at the paper on Economic Benefits from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU Law (ironic that you would cite a law school on an economic matter). It begins with an assumed cost of implementing a cap-and-trade program in the US, and compares that cost to assumed benefits, or more specifically to costs not incurred from carbon emissions and global warming. The flawed assumption is that cap-and-trade in the US, which would likely reduce US emissions, would result in a decline in global emissions. This is outright naive. When the cost of emissions in the US is increased, industries respond by relocating to other jurisdictions without carbon constraints (e.g. Mexico, China, Brazil, etc.). This does nothing to reduce global CO2 emissions… it just shuffles them around.

    Account for this and you’ll find that an emissions reduction scheme that exempts any country or emitter (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol), is effectively self-defeating if its objective is to reduce global emissions. Proof… the emissions of the Annex I Kyoto countries have declined marginally, but any reduction was more than offset by increased emissions from non-Annex I countries. End result… much higher global GHG emissions today than when Kyoto was implemented. Self-defeating, ineffective policy that was all costs, no benefits (broken windows aside).

    In closing, I’ll cite for you a “100% consensus” opposed to the Kyoto Protocol because the economic costs would outweigh the benefits. In 1997, the US Senate voted 95-0 on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which stated “the United States should not be a signatory” to the Kyoto Protocol as drafted (exempting developing countries) as it “could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs..”. You can read it here: http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

    I invite you to square that with your broad “consensus” argument.

    Regards,
    Russ

  88. The sensitivity of about -0.4°C sounds about right.

    The lukewarmist position of ceding some warming effect of CO2 and some anthro contribution, “however small” is a temporizing quibble, trivially “true” in the sense of the butterfly wingflap’s potential potency. In reality, it is an attempt to have it both ways, and hide from Warmist attacks.

    Pfagh.

  89. Thought I’d bring this back to the topic- “Climate of Doubt”. Some stuff I sent to PBS Front Line:

    The climate of doubt is due to the fact that the whole construct is a result of a political framework designed to institute some sort of global control over energy- the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). Such actions cause a LOT of doubt amongst many people, countries, and industries.
    “Dear Sirs:

    I watched the 10/22/12 presentation on “Climate of Doubt”. I was deeply disappointed with the shallowness of this show in discussing the evolution of Global Warming/Anthropogenic Global Warming/Catastrophic Global Warming/Climate Change/Catastrophic Climate Change/Climate Disruption.

    There was not mention of the genesis of the entire subject. Beyond a few articles in a number of journals over 100 years discussing the possible effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, the genesis was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro in 1991-

    “The Parties to this Convention, ~1991

    Acknowledging that change in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind,

    Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind,

    Noting that the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs……….(paragraphs of verbiage)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
    ……………..Noting that there are many uncertainties in predictions of climate change, particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns thereof,

    Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions,

    Recalling the pertinent provisions of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,…………………………………………………………….
    ……..Recalling also the provisions of General Assembly resolution 44/206 of 22 December 1989 on the possible adverse effects of sea-level rise on islands and coastal areas, particularly low-lying coastal areas and the pertinent provisions of General Assembly resolution 44/172 of 19 December 1989 on the implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification,…………………….
    ………….. (g) Promote and cooperate in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research, systematic observation and development of data archives related to the climate system and intended to further the understanding and to reduce or eliminate the remaining uncertainties regarding the causes, effects, magnitude and timing of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various response strategies;
    ……………………”

    Note the convention refers to an earlier Climate Change Conference in 1989.
    Note too, that in August of 1988 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) made a presentation to Congress on their research into global temperatures. On one of the hottest days of that summer, with the airconditioning turned off(on purpose), he presented his findings showing that global temperatures had risen ~ 0,6deg C. since 1880. Later Hansen continued to be a global warming activist. His presentation included projection of future temperatures ranging from minimal to drastic over the next 50 years. Unfortunately, the only one close to reality was based on a UN scenario that assumed all increase in CO2 would cease about the year 2000.

    An honest assessment would have indicated that most of the global temperature/climate research in the intervening years was in response to a political document that assumed that carbon dioxide was the primary cause of a global increase in air temperature since 1850.
    ,
    Most of the research was based on air temperatures, but any climate change is caused by the movement of heat, not air, and the biggest sink for heat in the world is the oceans, followed by land, with the air running a distant third.

    A little further digging would have exposed the fact that the International Panel of Climate Change, another United Nations organization created to summarize the causes of global warming in order to produce policy recommendations for governments committed many egregious errors over the years. The most famous one is a graph that appeared in the IPCC AR4 report from FAQ 3.1, to be found on page 253 of the WG1 report. They used the “cherry picking” mentioned in the program to purportedly show global warming at faster and faster rates in the 20th century by drawing lines covering different periods. This is nothing but a complete falsehood. The technique is guaranteed to show an increasing rate of change any graph that has cycles in it.”

    The UN is still pushing more and more control by the UN over individuals, countries and industries.

  90. ferocious20022002, you state the following…”Most of the research was based on air temperatures, but any climate change is caused by the movement of heat, not air, and the biggest sink for heat in the world is the oceans, followed by land, with the air running a distant third”

    Sea Level is Rising

    Annual averages of global sea level. Red: sea-level since 1870; Blue: tide gauge data; Black: based on satellite observations. The inset shows global mean sea level rise since 1993 – a period over which sea level rise has accelerated. More information: Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise (USGCRP) and Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.\

    Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.

    Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising

    Time series of seasonal (red dots) and annual average (black line) of global upper ocean heat content for the 0-700m layer since 1955. More information: BAMS State of the Climate in 2009.

    While ocean heat content varies significantly from place to place and from year-to-year (as a result of changing ocean currents and natural variability), there is a strong trend during the period of reliable measurements. Increasing heat content in the ocean is also consistent with sea level rise, which is occurring mostly as a result of thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.

Comments are closed.