Heartland comments on FRONTLINE 'Climate of Doubt'

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”

(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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!).

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?

“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.

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 .

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?

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.

That only matters for Post-Normal Scientists, not actual empirical ones. KR you are a mucking fuppet

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.

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 !

KR says:
October 24, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“Waiting … crickets…”
=============
You’re not asking the right question.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Correction… where I typed 0.77 deg C in two places above, it should have read 0.73 deg C.

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.

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.

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? :

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/

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?

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% .

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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

stefanthedenier;
Wrong! Myrrh is closer to the truth than you would like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On that note:
set/stefanthedenier=ignore

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!

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

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.