Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance

Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball

A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”

In climate science, those who employ this rhetorical tactic attack individuals who ask probing scientific questions. The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.

People who challenge the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled “global warming skeptics”. Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.

The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics. The word skeptic has markedly different public and scientific connotation; negative for the former and positive for the latter. Scientists act as skeptics by trying to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming skeptics are acting appropriately.

The IPCC hypothesis was untested. Professor Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that consensus was claimed before the research even began. The IPCC tried to prove the hypothesis, putting them in the untenable position of eliminating, ignoring, or manipulating anything that showed the hypothesis was wrong. They had to shoot the skeptics who were the messengers of the problems.

Evidence showing that the hypothesis was wrong continued to emerge. But the IPCC and the vast majority of mainstream media simply ignored it. IPCC projections were wrong because the hypothesis was wrong. That the skeptics were correct was verified as CO2 levels continued to rise, while temperatures leveled and declined. But instead of amending the science, as is proper science, alarmists simply changed the terminology. They stopped talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit for 2004 explained:

Asher Minns, Communication and Centre Manager at the Tyndall Centre:In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

Bo Kjellén, former Chief Climate Negotiator, Sweden; senior research fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute: “I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labeling than global warming.”

Climate change was an ideal label because activist scientists could use it to explain any weather event; hotter, colder, wetter, drier, it was all climate change. The public would not know that such events are normal, so alarmists would have an endless supply of frightening examples. The public also does not know that climate change in general is normal. It has often occurred more quickly and with greater magnitude than most people are aware. Current conditions are well within normal.

Those who knew how much climate changes naturally were those previously called global warming skeptics. They now became climate change deniers with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The fallacy is that they were anything but deniers. Indeed, they spend their careers educating people about the amount of climate change that has and is occurring.

Next time you witness personal attacks on scientists, call the attacker to answer for this despicable tactic. Ask them to address the outstanding science questions only. A hand wave toward the IPCC in response is insufficient.

Soon, when someone calls a person a global warming skeptic or climate change denier, informed observers will come to see it as conclusive proof that the abuser knows nothing about climate or scientific method. Then, the attacker, not the scientist being attacked, will be shunned

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

214 Responses to Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance

  1. GlynnMhor says:

    In Science, theories are tested against their predictions.

    When the predictions FAIL, theories are normally revised, re-evaluated, reconsidered, re-examined, recalculated, or just plain re-jected.

    The principal forces keeping the AGW alarmism theory from being seriously re-examined are those of political correctness.

  2. Mario Lento says:

    A refreshing cogent state indeed! Thank you for sharing your words of wisdom with us. It’s helpful. For the past several years I have been outspoken against the tide of pure ignorance of the general public in California. People say they have opinions, and I routinely say that they do not in fact have opinions, they parrot the opinions of others. They spread misinformation in much the same way as the folks who believed in witches. The outcome of the “witches” was to be hanged to prove their innocence. If they lived, they were a witch and then killed. If they dies, well, a small price to pay to rid the word of witches.

    Today, people in poverty are being killed… and for no good reason. You all here know what I mean. Enough said.

    Mario

  3. John Mason says:

    I’ve always thought the ‘climate change denier’ label was most absurd. The only climate change deniers are the global warming activists that imply or teach that the climate would be stable if not for human activity. These people are logically, denying natural climate change.

    By flipping the label to the skeptics that do believe (as if belief is required rather than a simple observation of facts) in natural climate change, the activists are removing the label from being applied to them.

    The reality is the only climate change deniers around are the people that think the climate would not be changing without human involvement.

  4. The more accurate word is heretic or blasphemer, but they are not suitable for a secular belief system.

  5. tango says:

    most global warming sceptics are proud of the names they are calling us .to me it is like being back in my school days when I was called names which I cannot say on this post. the old saying sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me fits very well in the age we now live in

  6. Patrick says:

    Their ignorance is even more evident when they call you a “climate denier”!

  7. Velcro says:

    Right on!

  8. Brian says:

    C’mon… Maybe you guys had reasons to complain before, but you guys throw everything and the kitchen sink at your rivals now.

  9. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:

    Dr. Tim, I sure hope you are exactly right about ‘soon’. But the ‘climate’ of ad hominem is the rhetoric of politics, and it’s the politicians who reward the climate club with their tenure. So in essence it is not about science, and what’s more, explicitly so. Hence the remarks of some UN apparatchik at Cancun: “it’s not about climate, but about wealth redistribution”.

  10. CodeTech says:

    I used to discuss the whole thing with people who went on about “Global Warming”. I’d show them temperature charts, discuss the “adjustments” to older temperature data, demonstrate that actual records show warmer times 1000 and 2000 years ago as well as cooler times, show them that there have been worries about Arctic melting in the past, etc.

    Lately, people I encounter are just not open to discussion. I’m seeing a complete refusal to look at any evidence, and a blind belief in humanity’s destructive influence on the planet. The attempts to reframe the discussion have largely been successful. Which is, actually, sad. A whole generation’s understanding of Science has been severely damaged as the result of a relatively small group of very well financed activists.

    And, let’s face it, this is not likely to get better very soon. The disconnect from reality is growing. It’s impossible to correlate CO2 levels to temperature for the last 16 years, there is no “accelerating sea level rise”, so instead we hear the decidedly unscientific excuse that “this is the warmest decade EVERRRRR”. The gap between Science and Belief simply grows wider.

    I know that a lot of “climate change researchers” earnestly believe the Climate Change narrative, and that’s even sadder. They will not easily realize they have been manipulated by a small team of dedicated anti-Science people, because they can’t comprehend that as anything other than a “conspiracy theory”.

  11. Dave Wendt says:

    I have always maintained that the term “climate change denier” is a clear case of the psychological phenomenon known as projection. As Dr. Ball pointed out, those who have been skeptical of IPCC dogma, have always attempted to emphasize the continual natural variability of the long term climate, while the alarmists have just as persistently maintained that, absent humanity’s profligate use of fossil fuels and the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 it supposedly creates, there is no way to explain the present day climate. To my mind that is the ultimate in “climate change denial”.

  12. Mario Lento says:

    @Brian: Maybe you have an explanation for us? Could you explain yourself?
    @Will Nitschke: Your use of adverbs makes it unclear who you are suggesting is a heretic or blasphemer. Please enlighten us with some wisdom sir.

  13. TomRude says:

    As if to confirm Tim Ball’s column, the Vancouver Sun daily dose of global warming agitprop used King Tides to offer some UBC Oceanographer a “global warming” tribune:

    “Oceanographer Susan Allen said that in coming years, the flooding seen in parts of Metro Vancouver’s waterfront could occur outside a “coincidence” like Monday’s heavy wind and rain that combined with the so-called king tides, which are nearing the end of their month-long peak in British Columbia.
    “In the future we won’t have to have quite so high a tide at the time of a storm surge to get exactly what we had today because the water will be a little higher,” Allen said. “The important thing is “and.”
    “If you get global warming and a big tide and a storm surge then we (have) problems.”

    Darn, what the good oceanographer forgets to tell, is that in the past 100 years of “unprecedented” global warming, sea level rise in Vancouver has been about 1.2 in! Considering that “King tides, also known as a perigean spring tide, are formed twice a year when the gravitational pull of the sun and moon reinforce each other. Usual water levels at high tide are 3.4 metres to 4.3 metres in the Vancouver area, but a king tide can reach five metres, as it did (almost 5.5 m) at 9 a.m. Monday.”, the Moon still wins!

    Perhaps Susan can mount a research project on the influence of global warming on Lunar Mare and get a grant? LOL At least the Vancouver Sun reporters would gobble this one just like the gobble the self serving alarmism from SFU and UBC.

    http://www.eos.ubc.ca/about/faculty/S.Allen.html
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Metro+Vancouver+storm+surge+climate+change+preview+expert+says/7709174/story.html#ixzz2FTVn8Z8z

  14. TomRude says:

    As a follow up, it is hilarious to read the photograph comments: “Massive waves hit the seawall as storms surges on West Vancouver’s Ambleside beach area at high tide, flooding the local John Lawson Park, on December 17, 2012.” and watching the size of waves versus people, barely 2 feet high swell on the photograph. Of course what they forget to mention is that it is the stray logs crashing on sea walls that did the damage…http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Delta+prepared+floods+from+high+tides+winds+this+morning/7709174/story.html?tab=PHOT

    Ah alarmism and journalists…

  15. Steven Mosher says:

    Ball:

    “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”

    “This is driven by a political agenda, not science,”

    Hmm. Looks like you are attacking their motives.
    Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.

  16. Mario Lento says:

    @Mosher: It’s hard not to attack your belief even though you are brilliant. The belief you have is shared by many who are only politically motivated… so unfortunately, people are getting sick and tired of the attacks we face through the economically harmful policies created in an attempt to curb CO2. Science has been struck a sad blow by most of the CAGW meme.

    You are quite a gentleman in how you respond. I hope that can rub on of me… still, I disagree that there is good evidence that CO2 is driving climate to an extent that can even be measured… I could be wrong, but I am waiting to see something compelling and honest that sheds light on the hypothesis.

  17. King of Cool says:

    A Climate Change Denier! Is that all? How about questioning climate science being like advocating paedophilia, abetting mesothelioma and pushing drugs to teenagers?

    No, this was not in the blogosphere. This was on the tax funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Show. If Ad hominem attacks are a sign of losing the argument on logic, then the global warming movement led by front organisations such as the ABC must be in the death throws:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/maurice-newman-fights-back-no-slur-is-to-vicious-for-robyn-williams-and-the-abc/

  18. AndyG55 says:

    If Hansen et al had not so mutilated the land temperature record, we might actually have some idea what has really happened to the temperature.

    If Mann was not a total ignoramus when it comes to dendrochronogly and statistics, the hockey shist would never have existed.

    If Al Gore lived as he preached

    If McKibben didn’t weep

    If Jones knew what a spreadsheet was

    If…………………

    If…………………

    And they blame us for being skeptics ??????

    The very people that are the CAGW priests, are the ones that change so many people to being skeptics by their BLATANT data manipulation and/or hypocracy.

  19. manicbeancounter says:

    The assumption that the global warming hypothesis was a correct in magnitude was a particular problem in the longer term. Climate is incredibly varied, so short-term here were plenty of examples that could fit the theory. Now the “consensus” are left with ever more obscure explanations, such as the recent cold winters here in Britain are a result of global warming.
    The scientific way to sort out the wheat from the chaff in complex theories, is to look at predictive ability of the theories. That is to predict novel events or trends from the theory that cannot be explained by simple extrapolation of existing trends. A bold theory makes itself vulnerable to being falsified. An established theory is one that still stands despite being vulnerable and but having successfully made predictions. Now the odd failed prediction does not falsify a theory – climate is chaotic after all. But consistent failure does.
    The collapse into dogma is shown by a failure to confront the failures, nor to improve the quality of the predictions. Instead it is to move on to other areas, rely on ex-post explanations and think of any reason to shut out the critics. The best way is to think of the critics as a lower order of person. Climatologists are far from unique in this, and are far from being the nastiest.

  20. Richard D says:

    Mosher: the science is settled and AGW is falsified, period. It’s only about motive: money, power, politics and has nothing whatever to do with science.

  21. AlecM says:

    Because the lower atmosphere is near black body in the main GHG bands and the Earth’s surface is near a black body over a much wider range, the two radiation fields cancel each other out at radiative equilibrium. That means there can be very little, if any, CO2-AGW.

    The main IR emitted from the surface to be absorbed in the lower atmosphere is in water vapour sidebands. The climate models exaggerate warming by at least 5.8 times, hence imaginary positive feedback. They do so by wrongly using the two-stream approximation to calculate heat absorption when only net energy can do thermodynamic work.

    They justify this by imagining pyrgeometers measure a net energy flow. But a pyrgeometer reading is always an artefact of the shielding behind the detector; it measures the temperature radiation field in its view angle no matter what the real net energy flux between the Earth and the lower atmosphere.

    This is a 50 year long major experimental mistake originating from meteorology which teaches ‘DLR’ or ‘back radiation’. This does not exist as an energy flux and they had better get used to accepting this truth.

  22. Mark and two Cats says:

    Steven Mosher said:
    December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    Ball:
    “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
    “This is driven by a political agenda, not science,”
    Hmm. Looks like you are attacking their motives.
    ——————————————————————-
    Hmm. Looks like he is describing their actions.

  23. squid2112 says:

    @Steven Mosher ..

    I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.

    that’s the problem when you try to associate science with a “belief” .. science is not a “belief”, it is observable fact for which no “belief” system exists.

  24. Peter whale says:

    Steve Mosher what you believe or what I believe fortunately has no bearing or influence on what the truth is. Facts are facts let them be discussed not beliefs.

  25. Pieter F. says:

    Steven Mosher says:December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    “I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.”

    Mr. Mosher: A “belief in AGW” means one concurs with the IPCC’s program. A study of Maurice Strong’s writings and speeches prior to and including the Stockholm, Villach, and first Rio Conferences reveals that the politics came first. AGW in the world of the UN was always meant to be a pretext to a political philosophy of redistributing wealth under the meme of “social justice” or in Strong’s parlance, “environmental justice.” The IPCC’s entire purpose was not to discover the condition of the climate, but to put a convincing scientific argument behind the pretext so as to convince compliance in the scheme. During the more than 40 years of the movement, the projections and scenarios simply did not match direct observations. The tortured explanations attempting to keep focus on the projections rather than the observations became absurd and strengthened the skeptics.

  26. Peter Hannan says:

    Agree with Steven Mosher to a limited extent: in rebutting ad hominem attacks, it’s important not to fall into the same thing, but to stick with the content / science / argument; however, the quote from Tim Ball is not an ad hominem attack in itself, but an attempt at explaining the motive of these ad hominem attacks. He may be right or wrong, but he’s not doing the same thing. That is, in an ideal debate, if one person makes an ad hominem attack, how should the other person respond? If one continues with the principled argument / recitation of evidence, one is not necessarily dealing with the capacity of the other to really hear all that. Maybe (not always) it’s necessary to pause, and question directly the basis of the ad hominem, as part of the process of the debate. All this is complex, and if we want a reasoned discussion we have to be aware of the different levels and styles involved in the whole debate.

    If I say something, and the other person says, ‘You’re stupid!’, there are many possible valid responses. One might be, ‘On what basis do you claim that I’m stupid?’ Another might be, ‘You know nothing about my intellectual / educational background, so how can you say that?’ Another might be, ‘It seems that you’re making presuppositions that I don’t share.’ It seems to me that Tim Ball’s comment (even if it could have been expressed more carefully) falls under the third type of response, questioning the presuppositions of the ad hominem attack. I think that’s valid, and not the same.

  27. gnomish says:

    dr. ball distinguishes between demagoguery and objectivity, mr. mosher.
    it sure would be odd to connect your belief in agw to libertarianism.
    he didn’t do that, so rest easy.

  28. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Mosh’s fly by to admit his belief in AGW? I’m aure he meant to say ‘acceptance of the science behind AGW’? The trouble with that is that for there to be reasonable acceptance, the science has to be sound and demonstrable – something AGW is finding increasingly hard to achieve!

  29. Huth says:

    AndyG55. Yes. It’s the priestliness that is most off-putting. Anyone who implies that you are bad if you don’t have complete faith in something they say is worth avoiding. The sadness is how difficult it is to avoid them.

  30. Pieter F. says:

    The skeptics chipping away of AGW theory goes all the way back to Ångström’s 1900 taking apart Arrhenius’s and Eckholm’s work from the 1890s and Chamberlin’s acquiescence to the weakened CO2 climate hypothesis in the 1920s.

    When Maurice Strong got his way and presented the IPCC, skeptics continued to chip away at the AGW science, even through the absurdities and scandals. It’s become relatively easy to refute much of the AGW argument. The liberal use of basic propaganda techniques (cherry picking, appeal to authority, logical fallacies, band wagon, etc.) and the abject defense of the flawed theory should be sign enough that something else is going on. However, we skeptics continue to focus on the science with little attention or effort to dissect, reveal, and understand the political game behind the movement. At its core, AGW is an “orchestrated crisis,” designed to force major political change (particularly a move to socialism/collectivism) as described in “The Nation” in 1966.

  31. eyesonu says:

    Dr. Ball,

    Well stated.

  32. omnologos says:

    In 19 years of interwebs I’ve been personally attacked only by rabid creationists, CAGW alarmists and chemtrailers, ie True Believers convinced theirs is the Truth and everybody else a fraud or an idiot. A totally anti-democratic principle.

    Ad-homs are the mark of the (censored)

  33. Arfur Bryant says:

    All…

    Here are a few examples of Steven Mosher’s confusion over ‘belief, science and politics':

    “By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.
    Some things to note: several ‘skeptics” have stupidly forecast cooling
it [sic] should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps go up.”
    (Steven Mosher, July 6 2012)

    “When the warming resumes, as it must, this pause will be dropped from the playbook.” (Steven Mosher, October 22 2012) Emphasis mine.

    “I am a man of faith.
    I put my faith in the best explanation we have.
    We reason properly when we reason to the best evidence.
    So, yes I put my faith in science.”
    (Steven Mosher, October 22 2012)

    So, how do you think the world of ‘stupid forecasting’ and ‘reasoning to the best evidence’ is currently working out for Steven Mosher?

  34. Stefan says:

    CodeTech says:

    Lately, people I encounter are just not open to discussion. I’m seeing a complete refusal to look at any evidence, and a blind belief in humanity’s destructive influence on the planet.

    In a documentary about wind farms, a green resident found himself objecting to a proposed wind farm in view, and earshot, of his home. But on the subject of climate change he said, “I simply will not discuss it.” He still fought tooth and nail against the 100m towers though.

    And I also get the, “well yes you have a view, why don’t you take it somewhere else? I’m quite happy listening to the consensus of experts.” So you also eat GM food because you believe the scientific consensus that it is safe? I never get a reply to that one.

    I guess they won’t discuss it because they’ve found they don’t have a leg to stand on anymore. But as it was never about the science, just using science as a way to make “objective” their subjective values and politics, they’re stuck.

  35. I hope “sceptics” are just as sceptical of views or theories put out by their own “side” as they are of those from the “opposition”. As a self-confessed “sceptic” I see far too much uncritical acceptance of some anti-AGW and anti-alarmist views. After all, scepticism is at the heart of the scientific method; selectively abandon it and we open our selves to criticism, valid or not.

  36. I find it very difficult to understand why educated people generally don’t look at the evidence. With most of my friends (who tend to be liberal and left-of-centre) I can’t now discuss the whole issue of AGW, without irritating them, and potentially damaging the friendships. It’s a bit like travelling by train with strangers: it’s fine, but just don’t talk politics or religion!

    Many are caught in what I call a political trap; they need to align themselves with their side of politics. Allied to this is the social trap: what do my peers/friends/social circle think? And many of those schooled back sine the 1980s, have been conditioned to the view that humans are responsible for most things that have gone wrong in the world, and here’s yet another! We also think we can fix a lot of problems (as we can, and sometimes, as we do), but the presumption is that we can fix the climate. Really?

    As for those scientists still caught in the AGW saga, some are so close to their own field they can’t see the broader picture. Some are just caught up in their models, and work hard to make sure their own conclusions generally fit the prevailing consensus (and are therefore self-defeating). And some are caught by the funding crunch; they can get support for AGW research, but certainly not for anything that might challenge the consensus.

    It’s a poor juncture we’ve reached, and much angusih lies ahead. Scientists, politicians, journalists, and the educated public, many have failed themselves and society.

  37. izen says:

    [snip. Enough with the 'deniers' commentary. — mod.]

  38. MrX says:

    Yeah, this is what boggles the mind when a alarmist asks a skeptic “Why don’t you believe in climate change?” It’s ridiculous. I was on reddit and had to inform several people that I’m a skeptic and by definition believe in climate change. It blew their minds. I had to tell them that the person who brought the term “climate change” into the vernacular was none other than George W. Bush and that the global warming proponents at the time were up in arms for this “redefinition”. They flipped out. I had to inform them further that at the time, it was unprecedented man-made global warming that was all the rage. The hockey stick graph is what this is about. Stable climate for thousands of years and then unprecedented global warming in the 20th century. Climate change and unprecedented global warming are mutually exclusive. If you have climate change, then it’s not unprecedented. So it was skeptics that fought to have the MWP and RWP acknowledged as being global. That skeptics have been proven right that climate change was known to occur all over the world. Again, they were incredulous at what I was saying. Their entire argument had fallen flat and were surprised to find themselves on the other side of their own argument. They didn’t know what they were arguing anymore. I had to remind them. I tell them “You’re arguing that humans are responsible for the current warming despite no warming in the last 16 years all the while CO2 levels going up and arguing that this somehow implies a correlation between CO2 and temperatures.” At this point, they call me names. Ok, they called me names before, but they stop trying to argue any points.

    This is not a single occurrence. But rather the exact same discussion every time a proponent of AGW tries to say I don’t believe in climate change whether online or in person.

  39. Kaboom says:

    PhD candidates are called up to defend their thesis for a reason. Science advances by the two steps of setting up a hypothesis and then poking it with pointy sticks to see if it holds up, then improve upon the hypothesis again by using the parts of the wreckage that held up to scrutiny until another smart mind, ANY smart mind, can topple it again.

  40. Charlie says:

    Since the 1960s there has been a large increase in the science budget in N America and W Europe. At the same time there has been a large increase in post 16 education but the average standard of maths,physics and chemistry teaching has probably gone down. If one looks at the bottom 10 % in ability of those undertaking post science education in the late 90s it is probably lower than in the 1950s. Where science education has particularly increased at post 16 and at university level is in environmental science – biology, ecology, earth sciences where the standard of maths, physics and chemistry education is particularly low compared to engineering, physics,maths and chemistry degrees.

    In the 1950s many people entered engineering or physics having spent a youth making/repairing radios, motorbikes and cars and therefore had a practical expertise.Many scientists used to make their own equipment.

    The expansion of environmental science needs government funding and AGW is good for increasing it.

    Those proposing the AGW hypothesis appear to lack experience in engineering/applied science and in the design and construction of structure and objects which require a knowledge of calculating fluctuations and uncertainty .

    How many people would to work or invest in mines or oil fields designed and constructed by those proposing the AGW hypothesis? There appears to be a major problem in accurately and precisely measuring present and past fluctuations in the Earth and energies which enter it .

  41. SamG says:

    Like raising Somalia to refute anarchism.

  42. [snip. Read the site Policy. — mod.]

  43. JazzyT says:

    Calling someone a “denier” not only frames them as reflexively contradicing a position, without thinking it through, but also portrays their opinion as being irrational and unworthy of consideration. When enough people join the argument, it’s inevitable that you’ll see some actual deniers on every side. But when you start painting an entire group with that brush, you’ve given up any hope of a reasoned debate. If that’s truly how you see them all, you won’t worry about that since you wouldn’t have thought it possilble anyway.

    Namecalling may serve some strategic purpose in the debate, such as wooing the undecided, or energizing your own side. And again, if you think your opponents simply can’t, or won’t, debate reasonably, you won’t worry about the fact that throwing names at them makes them less likely to consider your arguments.

    I fully expect people to keep throwing the invective in every direction. It can be effective, to some extent, and, let’s face it, it’s fun. And, not everybody believes that any sort of dialogue is possible. But really only a few would stand to gain by keeping people from being able to discuss it. These might include UN apparatchiks bent on world domination through endless fright, or crafty fossil-fuel company operatives trying to muddy the waters to extend profits indefinitely. Or, if you’ve achieved a rare level of paranoia, both. Everyone else would, in the end, like to have us all figure out what’s going on.

  44. pat says:

    ***Dr. Beaman’s tries out “parochial” as a new insult:

    19 Dec: Australian Geographic: :AAP with Alyce Taylor : Aussies unfit to care for Great Barrier Reef?
    Australia will be scrutinised by world environment bodies for its guardianship of the Great Barrier Reef.
    In June 2013, the United Nations’ environmental arm UNESCO will decide whether to list the reef as a World Heritage site in danger…
    Such a listing would be a massive blow to Australia’s environmental credentials, its international reputation, and Queensland’s tourism industry…
    Dr Robin Beaman, a marine researcher from James Cook University, says it is important to take UNESCO’s threat seriously.
    ***“We should not be so dismissive of the UNESCO concerns about the health of the Great Barrier Reef, to do so is such a parochial response,” Robin says. “The World Heritage listing for the Great Barrier Reef, and its continuing health, is vital for the marketing of the area for tourism and the numerous people who derive income from the reef.”
    Professor Terry Hughes, a coral reef expert from James Cook University, says the decline in coral cover highlights UNESCO’s concerns…
    Australia has until February 1 to convince UNESCO it’s making substantial progress on the reef’s environmental management. UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee is due to meet in Thailand in June to decide if reef should be listed as a World Heritage Site in Danger…
    http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/aussies-unfit-to-care-for-great-barrier-reef.htm

  45. Oso Politico says:

    I ran across this u-tube video which is about as definitive a rant against ‘deniers’ as one can find, I believe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8&list=PL9E20C4BE37DEBC70. Who is this Richard Milne anyway? I couldn’t find much in Google. Maybe some of our friends from Scotland can help me out.

  46. Stefan says:

    Peter F Kemmis says:

    I find it very difficult to understand why educated people generally don’t look at the evidence. With most of my friends (who tend to be liberal and left-of-centre) I can’t now discuss the whole issue of AGW, without irritating them, and potentially damaging the friendships.

    There is an argument from developmental psychology that people and culture can move through several stages, and they chart about 7 or so main stages so far. Take it with a pinch of salt, but since the 60s in the West we’ve had the postmodern cultural stage which is also a set of values. It values, for example, inclusivity (and thus also denies the notion that you could rank culture into stages –– developmental psychology is not favourite with them). Tied in with this stage is this deep interest in and valuing of inclusivity and the deconstruction of any oppressive systems. It is the stuff of postmodern philosophers.

    But a point from the psychology models is that people at earlier stages can also adopt the ideas of later stages, but without understanding them. So a person who tends to value a more black and white kind of orientation to the world, can adopt the ideas of inclusivity and deconstruction from the PoMo philosophical world, but apply those ideas in a fundamentalist way.

    For example, PoMo typically deconstructs authoritarian institutions, saying “there are no grand narratives.” But the same should equally apply to global warming / save the world ideas: there are no grand narratives. So the idea that you personally are going to save the world by making everyone buy carbon credits, stop buying commercial products, and light their homes with a bit of wind power, is as much a grand narrative as is the idea that advanced Western industrial power sustaining democracy is a progressive force for good in the world. Now a good PoMo thinker would be able to deconstruct both ideas. But the more lack and white thinking merely uses PoMo to deconstruct their opponent’s ideas, not their own. So we get this odd mixture of people who have come to detest Western industrialisation, but can’t question themselves on what it is they propose to replace it with. And because activists tend to be this more black and white thinking –– us versus them, good versus evil –– it tends to have this sort of back-to-nature Rousseau simplicity to it, quite conservative and rural in many ways. Modern life for them is just too… modern. But they can still use post-modern notions to “deconstruct” the parts of modern life they don’t like, whilst privileging and valuing unquestioningly the quiet village life they are more comfortable with. Not unlike using a computer, with a chip manufactured in a billion dollar facility, to spread ideas that big industry is evil.

    The key from the dev psychology is to see which particular stage or value system you’re dealing with, not the particular ideas and rhetoric they’ve happened to adopt to justify that values system. Until you actually get down to the core value and worldview, you don’t really know what the conversation is about.

    Unfortunately “climate change” is such a vague notion that there’s lots of values involved, each looking to use it to further their own outlook for what they consider to be a better world. But maybe because the pretence is that climate change is SCIENCE, then everyone can avoid being honest about their core values, what they really want.

  47. izen says:

    @- Tim Ball
    ” The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.”

    Wrong.
    Many scientists since the 1890 have said that warming is produced by rising CO2. This understanding is based on the physical properties of CO2 and basic thermodynamics, NOT a political agenda. Now confirmed by the measured energy imbalance in the downwelling and outgoing LWIR.

    @-“But instead of amending the science, as is proper science, alarmists simply changed the terminology. They stopped talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. ”

    Wrong.
    Scientists have always used the terms interchangeably. It was a PR advisor for G W Bush and the GOP who promoted the use of ‘climate change’ by the Republicans because it sounded less ‘alarmist’ than global warming. This is well documented, the advisor has since ‘recanted’ and trying to ascribe it to the IPCC is nonsense.
    The name change doesn’t change the fact that it was the warmest year in the US in the instrumental record and the globe has not had a month below the century average for a decade.

    @-“Soon, when someone calls a person a global warming skeptic or climate change denier, informed observers will come to see it as conclusive proof that the abuser knows nothing about climate or scientific method. Then, the attacker, not the scientist being attacked, will be shunned.”

    There are no scientists being attacked as skeptics or {term deleted} because there are no scientists who are skeptics or {term deleted}. Even Lindzen and Spencer accept the basic physics of human produced CO2 causing warming of the globe over e last century with all the accompanying ice melt, sea level rise, and extreme drought/flooding events. They may quibble about the severity or amount of warming that will eventually occur, but they are arguing about the price, not the fact that producing CO2 has a climate cost.

    Post modified to remove unacceptable words!

  48. lemiere jacques says:

    sure and when they changed from global warming to climate change they should have noticed that global temperature was not a right parameter to check..And for sure, it is not…
    Then where is the evidence of climate change?

  49. LazyTeenager says:

    Tim Ball says
    Next time you witness personal attacks on scientists, call the attacker to answer for this despicable tactic. Ask them to address the outstanding science questions only.
    ——–
    Thanks Tim. I do that all the time here. It makes me incredibly popular, and worshipped by thousands.

    BTW Tim are you the same guy that’s getting sued for defamation? If so I am sure your defamation was totally justified, along with all your other legal troubles.

  50. LazyTeenager says:

    Tim Ball says
    Soon, when someone calls a person a global warming skeptic or climate change denier, informed observers will come to see it as conclusive proof that the abuser knows nothing about climate or scientific method.
    ———
    Uhhh? Climate skeptic is a term of abuse now! And after all the trouble you guys went to rebrand yourselves as climate skeptics that must come as a bitter disappointment.

  51. Paul Clark says:

    Seven Mosher:

    Hmm. Looks like you are attacking their motives. Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics

    The quote you give is where Ball is criticing the IPCC’s approach to science. Are you part of the IPCC? (For all I know you are.)

  52. Rhys Jaggar says:

    The lesson that needs to be learned from this and other similar denouements is this: the greatest jewel in the crown of education is learning what traits you must recognise before you are able to trust individual sources of information.

    ‘The text book says so’ must never be seen by children or adults as proof per se.

    ‘XXX says so’ must not be taken as proof per se either.

    It’s amazing how incompatible such an attitude is with working nowadays.

    The BBC’s HR department actually has a list of traits which are ‘not sought': it includes, laughably ‘not challenging or confronting’.

    I’m sure they’ve applied that rigorously to climate change, haven’t they?

    Yeah right.

    I might write them a job application soon, including an analysis of the traits they abhor and demonstrating how many of their senior employees display them.

    But then I wouldn’t get an interview as I would be ‘challenging’ without bringing stakeholders around.

    Interesting how you bring round those ‘resistant to change’ isn’t it? (that’s another trait inconsistent with being hired at the BBC too, lest you wonder)

  53. glenncz says:

    I’m reading Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000.
    The chapter on changes in glaciers is huge and filled with literally hundreds of historical accounts and pictures showing the glacier advance during the LIA from the 1500’s to 1880. It’s a coincidence that that is about the time when thermometers came into widespread use, and photography too. One interesting account is of a European gold mine that was uncovered in the 1500’s after the glaciers receded during the MediEvil warming. Then was covered again by as the glaciers advanced during the LIA.

    Brian Fagan wrote a short and more readable book on the Little Ice Age and others on the MediEvil Warming. Also, his book on the Nino’s are very interesting. The Climate has always changed. We have descended into an age of ignorance.

  54. Carter says:

    I think it is OK to use the ‘D’ word when people are ignoring the bleeding obvious. For instance there has been a lot of made of the last 15/16 years of ‘no warming’, but that is not allowing for other factors that have not been taken into consideration! For example ocean oscillations that will add/subtract to the overall figures. These are often ignored by the casual observer. For instance perhaps somebody is been evicted today for not keeping up with their mortgage, but it is they happiest day, because last night they won the big one on the lottery and are mega bucks better off, in a couple of days So see by not looking at what’s going to happen in the future, a false impression remains!

  55. Alan the Brit says:

    It never ever was about climate science, climate change, global warming or whatever. It was always about Global Socialism & Global Guvment! When Kyoto was signed Mitterrand said to the press that this was the first step on the way to Global Governance! They’ve have all at one time let the cat out of the bag. Ask yourselves two questions, 1) What is the final solution to AGW? & 2) what is the ultimate idealogical objective of Marxist Socialism? The answer is Global Guvment. Oh sure they may not all be raving hard leftists out to smash the evil capitalist system & bring down the Aristocracy & elevate the workers brothers & sisters types, but the intellectual lefties dominate, what we used to call in the UK the “champagne socialists”, all from wealthy middle/upper class backgrounds, who have wealth in their own right, who wish to dictate to the rest of us how we should live our lives! Climate Change was just the bandwagon they wanted, it was perfect, nothing to do with politics, but real life woe is me gloom & doom. When you get Hugo Chevez turning up at Copenhagen in Dec ’09, declaring that capitalism has caused Climate Change, one just knows the level of scientific argument being used, i.e. none! The developing nations appear to want the poor people in rich countries to be taxed to the hilt, & the money handed over to rich people in poor countries, usually corrupt as hell in their politics & leadership!

  56. DirkH says:

    Brian says:
    December 18, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    “C’mon… Maybe you guys had reasons to complain before, but you guys throw everything and the kitchen sink at your rivals now.”

    What are you talking about, Brian?

  57. Bob says:

    Mosher a libertarian, Hehe. Burke, von Hayek wouldn’t employ him as there shoe-shine boy. Imagine if you will, Mosher explaining his climate policy prescriptions to Milton Friedman. He’d be sliced and diced as the young Michael Moore was – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

  58. philjourdan says:

    @ Will Nitschke says: December 18, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    The more accurate word is heretic or blasphemer, but they are not suitable for a secular belief system.

    Indeed, but what do you call a faith that is unproven, unproveable, and explains everything? It seems that some have crossed the line and created a secular belief system since every event is explained by the belief.

  59. philjourdan says:

    @izen – since 1890? Perhaps you can link to those studies that blamed CO2 for AGW back in 1890.

  60. Jim Ryan says:

    there are no scientists who are skeptics

    Would anyone care to list any scientists who are skeptics about AGW?

  61. TimC says:

    While I quite agree with the main premise of this article I find it sad that scientists appear to have rather a thin skin about being called the names as cited here, and feel impelled to expend time and energy writing these articles. Wouldn’t it be better just to get on with the real work of deducing the true causes of change in regional and global climate – particularly where 1st Amendment rights in the US and freedom of speech constitutional rights elsewhere in the world (but in the UK possibly now to be under political control following Leveson – ugh!) mean that in these countries one can’t do anything about any name calling, anyway.

    And dare one ask Dr Ball how the “state pen” case is progressing – any truth in the rumour that the man(n) may withdraw to avoid discovery? Good luck with it, anyway.

  62. tadchem says:

    Science, logic, and rhetoric are three often mutually exclusive methods of developing a conclusion.
    Science concerns itself with the empirical verifiability of a statement on the assumption that Nature is the Ultimate Arbiter of Truth.
    Logic concerns itself with developing statements with mathematical rigor within a framework of accepted assumptions and axioms.
    Rhetoric concerns itself with the art of persuading someone to accept a statement regardless of whether its veracity can be established by logic or experiment.
    Ad hominem attacks are a tool of rhetoric, not science or logic.

  63. David says:

    Good article, Dr Ball. Couldn’t have put it better myself..

  64. Jim Ryan says:

    Raising an opponent’s motives during argumentation can have an evidential role, albeit a minor one.

    Suppose you have thoroughly refuted an opponent’s position. You have demonstrated that his arguments are unsound and his thesis false, and your case is beyond reasonable doubt. Suppose that your audience is nevertheless hesitant to accept that he has been refuted. They wonder, “How could he hold such a thoroughly untenable position? Why would he, as an authority in his field, hold such a demonstrably false view?” They may think that perhaps he has good reasons that he is poor at articulating, or they may think that they have misunderstood his arguments and been taken in by your refutation of them. Then, when you explain his position as arising from non-evidential reasons (greed, lust for power, what have you) and demonstrate that this explanation itself has evidence to support it (he gets a lot of money and power if and only if he holds the position), then you might give the audience good reason to lay their doubts to rest. You will have shown that no facts warrant any doubt that your opponent’s position is false.

    This is a small role and it is not permissible at all until you have refuted your opponent’s position, but it is a role.

  65. richardscourtney says:

    izen:

    I am replying to your long, untrue and unreasonable rant at December 19, 2012 at 3:42 am.

    I will not provide justification of my statements because I have repeatedly provided them to you in the past so I can’t be bothered to do it again and you can look them up to – at last – take note of them.

    You are wrong to dispute that IPCC so-called “science” is politically driven to promote AGW. The IPCC’s charter defines that it is.

    Scientists have assessed the AGW-hypothesis proposed in the 1890s to determine if it is correct. And the real world has given them the answer;
    i.e. at existing levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration it is not possible for increases to the concentration to have any discernible effect on climate.

    The terminology of the climate scare HAS been changed to suite as circumstances changed. First it was global cooling, then it was global warming, after that it was climate change, and now it is weather wierding.

    Of course recent global temperatures are high because warming from the LIA has been happening for centuries. But so what? There has been no global warming discernible at 95% confidence for the last 16 years while atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.

    The abuse heaped on climate realists has been horrific. Entire web sites have been established to do it. Climate scientists have been sacked for not toeing the AGW line. And Journals and Institutions have been usurped to further this.

    There are NO discernible effects of AGW and there is no reason to suppose there will be or could be.

    Richard

  66. John W. Garrett says:

    Dr. Ball,
    You, sir, have written an excellent essay. Thank you.

  67. Andy says:

    IPCC …. It has always intrigued me that when global warming was the consensus they already had climate change as their identity. Preconceived hidden agenda anyone?

  68. DirkH says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 3:42 am
    “Many scientists since the 1890 have said that warming is produced by rising CO2. This understanding is based on the physical properties of CO2 and basic thermodynamics, NOT a political agenda. Now confirmed by the measured energy imbalance in the downwelling and outgoing LWIR.”

    What measurements that have “now” confirmed this are you talking about, Izen? Do you have a link? Did the measurements measure the entire spectrum or only the CO2 absorption band? If they detected a decline in outgoing radiation in the CO2 absorption band, what did they detect in all other bands? If they didn’t measure the entire spectrum, why not? How long did they measure? When was the mission launched?

    Thanks for your reply.

  69. andywest2012 says:

    Unfortunately, I’m not so sure the ‘soon’ will come to pass. This post, and many of the responses, reveal that CAGW is primarily a social phenomena, not a climate one, and a powerful social memeplex can take a long time to fade. My free Science Fiction / Climate novelette ‘Truth’ exposes this angle, and sets up a counter-narrative to CAGW. See WUWT post here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/15/wuwt-spawns-a-free-to-read-climate-sci-fi-novel/
    or grab the pdf direct from here:
    http://wearenarrative.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/truth.pdf
    This story is freely distributable under creative commons. You may send it where you will, no need to link back to my site or anywhere else.

    Nice summary of the position and great post, Dr. Tim .

    Andy.

  70. izen says:

    @- Rhys Jaggar
    “The lesson that needs to be learned from this and other similar denouements is this: the greatest jewel in the crown of education is learning what traits you must recognise before you are able to trust individual sources of information.”

    One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.

  71. Dr T G Watkins says:

    Few here would argue against Tim Ball’s well written article. We all know this is all political and of course making money for a select few.
    It is well worth a visit to Bishop Hill’s excellent blog and reading ‘Yeo’s Speech’ (Tim Yeo is an MP and influential advisor to the UK government on energy policy).
    I draw your attention to the comments by ‘not banned yet’ at 1.36am listing the considerable earnings this high minded gentleman of Parliament makes from his various connections to energy companies. Of course, he denies any conflict of interest despite essentially calling for energy rationing via smart meters to make up for the intermittent supply of electricity frrom his beloved renewables.

  72. richardscourtney says:

    Carter:

    You begin your post at December 19, 2012 at 4:22 am by saying

    I think it is OK to use the ‘D’ word when people are ignoring the bleeding obvious. For instance there has been a lot of made of the last 15/16 years of ‘no warming’, but that is not allowing for other factors that have not been taken into consideration!

    OK. I understand that. You are saying the ‘D’ word should be applied to you.

    Of course, you are entitled to that opinion, but we climate realists do not use such offensive language so we will not be be applying it to you.

    I trust you will accept this explanation of why we are not willing to apply the ‘D’ word to you as you request.

    Richard

  73. Dave Sivyer says:

    Perhaps those of us who are branded as “deniers” might want to wear a black armband with a bright yellow D on their sleeves.
    It maybe goes to the core of denigrating those who are misfits in the brave new world of AGW orthodoxy?

  74. T. G. Brown says:

    The following appeared a few years ago but it remains more relevant than ever in light of so many climate ‘science’ embarrassments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QHatDvoWjU

  75. Mark Bofill says:

    izen says:

    …One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.
    ———————
    Come on, seriously. Are you just looking to kill time or something? Just bored? Mixing an appeal to authority with an appeal to popularity doesn’t make either of them any less a logical fallacy. Why waste your time (not to mention the blogreaders time) with this?

  76. Stefan says:

    izen says:

    One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.

    But this is circular reasoning when the inquiry is into whether the consensus got it wrong.

    Scientist X makes an analysis and finds the consensus in error. Well he is obviously a crank / shill / contrarian / mistaken. Why? Because the consensus is very likely to be right. But what if it isn’t? Science is self correcting and consensus can be trusted. But here is scientist X trying to contribute to a correction…? No we ignore him because he is a crank. How do you know? Because he disagrees with the consensus.

    You are basically saying that there is a point of no return in science where self-correction stops and thereafter all facts and errors are fixed forever. Even George Soros wrote a whole book about the problems for society when society forgets its own fallibility. Once you deny fallibility, you are open to any dogma and oppressive power structure. You can impose any oppression you like because it is for the greater good and this is never questioned. Apartheid lasted in the minds of whites because to the question, “the world has sanctions against you”, they simply replied, “the world doesn’t understand South Africa”.

  77. G. Karst says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.

    Steven – it might have been more helpful to declare what porportion of the GW signal, you believe is anthropogenic in nature. Does that agree with the IPCC, James Hansen, and the Mann made warming conjecture. If not, then you are a heretic and are guilty of Climate denial, just like the rest of us.

    Everyone accepts the IR properties of CO2, but some disagree that signal is of sufficent size to be detectable on the century scale or anything more than a technicality.

    Just how much purple coolade have you drank. Hopefully not as much as Mr. Izen. GK

  78. ferd berple says:

    Whether one “believes” in a scientific theory or not is a question of philosophy. Belief has nothing to do with science.

    Science has only one purpose. To predict. Many believe science exists to explain, but it doesn’t. Religion explains. Science doesn’t tell you why the sun shines, only the process by which it does shine. Religion tells you the sun shines because it was god’s will to separate the dark from the light.

    When a dog chases a rabbit, they are both practicing science. The dog cannot head for the rabbit if it hopes to catch the rabbit. The rabbit will have moved by the time the dog arrives. Instead, the dog must predict where the rabbit will be when the dog arrives. This is science in action, though we may not at first recognize it for what it is.

    At the same time, the rabbit is also practicing science. It is predicting what path will be the hardest for the dog to predict, and doing its best to follow an unpredictable path. And over thousands and millions of years, evolution has gotten rid of digs that could not predict the path of rabbits as well as rabbits that could not follow unpredictable paths.

    Human science is simply a formalized extension of the example of the dog and the rabbit. We have found principles and methods that allow us to improve the accuracy of prediction and thereby gain survival advantage. However, at the point where science delivers unreliable predictions, is decreases our survival advantage.

    This is the situation we are seeing in climate science. The predictions for the magnitude and direction of climate change have not proven reliable. Given that the predictions are not proving reliable, how likely is it the proposed remedies will be any more reliable?

    The halt in warming with increased CO2 cannot be explained by current AGW theory – without a recogmition that natural variability is much greater than previously assumed. However, if natural variability is greater than assumed, then how can one be confident that what we have seen previously was not simply natural variability? The simple answer is that you cannot.

    The evidence for AGW is weaker and weaker each year the halt in temperature rise continues. 15 years was the published limit by which AGW would be falsified. We are now past that limit.

  79. Neill says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    Ball:
    “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”
    “This is driven by a political agenda, not science,”
    Hmm. Looks like you are attacking their motives.
    Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.

    Steven, would you then say that “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain” IS more likely driven by science, rather than politics? For surely there is a motive for such ttacks, either way.

    Referring to your “belief in AGW” reveals that you have taken some sort of a leap of faith to arrive there. Your politics would seem to inform your “belief” at least equally to an accumulation of scientific fact. And if your “belief” turns out to have been simply wrong, what is the opportunity cost of the hundreds of billions that have already chased your “belief”? Trillions upon trillions? Hopefully, not too late, Mankind will realize your “belief” may well be unaffordable.

    Future generations may well find puzzled amusement in whatever rude shelter can be obtained with the telling of the tale of the goose that laid the golden egg, who was eventually killed because the golden egg was believed to cause the seas to rise or the sky to fall in the distant future.

  80. Steven Mosher says:

    No Mr Ball is correct. My belief in AGW is all based on politics. It’s us damn conservatives.
    He is not unlike mann who tried to argue that skepticism was driven by Oil Shills.
    Shame. I will tell you this. Reading the motives of people is something which climate audit
    would not allow, especially in a top post. Steve Mc, understands that reading peoples hearts is not a ‘science’. But you all go believing that the science of reading peoples motives is settled.
    Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.

  81. richardscourtney says:

    izen:

    At December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am you write

    One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.

    Yes! And the opposite is also true; i.e.
    One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to THE ABSENCE OF AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.

    There is no evidence for discernible AGW; none, zilch, nada.

    But there is much evidence which refutes the existence of discernible AGW; e.g
    missing ‘hot spot’
    missing ‘Trenberth heat’
    lack of accelerated Antarctic warming,
    missing ‘committed warming’
    failure of all modeled AGW predictions
    lack of warming for 16 years despite continuing increase to atmospheric CO2
    etc.

    Richard

  82. Robert Orme says:

    Dr. Ball, an interesting article which points out the failure of the basic premise: whilst CO2 levels have risen average temperatures have not. So there is no scientific reason for a tax on carbon in some form or another so obviously it is due to a political agenda. But politicians will never admit they are wrong, they just change the subject, global warming to climate change etc.

  83. garymount says:

    Izen:
    You have forgotten or neglected the benefits of CO2 which may outweigh the costs by an order of magnitude.

  84. ferd berple says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am
    One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.
    ==========
    Actually, you are ignoring the most basic of scientific principles. That no amount of evidence “proves” a theory correct, because you can always find positive examples of anything you wish to prove. No matter how many tall, red-headed men I find, it doesn’t prove red hair makes men tall.

    On the other hand, one short red-headed man proves that red hair does not make men tall. This is the case will all scientific theories. They exist because you cannot find a single contrary example.

    In the case of AGW however, there are contrary examples. The current lack of temperature rise being only one of many. Under the principles of science, it is these contrary examples that hold sway, regardless of how many positive examples one might find.

    The problem is that many people lack fundamental scientific training and don’t understand this principle. The founding principles of science have been largely undermined by the principles of “political correctness”. It has become socially unacceptable for science to make public finding that are not “politically correct”.

    Truth has become subordinate to politics. It has become socially acceptable to publish a lie so long as you do so for “a good reason”. Thus, facts are suppressed and science suffers because there is no way to determine what is truth and what is “a good cause”.

  85. richardscourtney says:

    Steven Mosher:

    With respect, you misunderstand the political issue because you are conflating it with the American situation.

    Only in the US are views on AGW divided on a left-right basis and (as you say) that division is not exact there. Elsewhere, people of all political persuasions are found on both ‘sides’ of the issue so, for example, I am a left-wing socialist who is absolutely certain that the AGW-scare is dangerous bunkum.

    However, continuance of the AGW-scare as promoted by the IPCC is completely political.

    The IPCC was established to promote the AGW-scare (as its charter says). And a scientific issue would not plough-on like AGW if it was refuted by much empirical evidence and supported by none (as is the case for AGW).

    Richard

  86. Tim Clark says:

    { richardscourtney says:
    December 19, 2012 at 6:18 am }

    LOL-Good tongue in cheek.

  87. Jeff Alberts says:

    AndyG55 says:
    December 18, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    If Mann was not a total ignoramus when it comes to dendrochronogly and statistics, the hockey shist would never have existed.

    What makes you think Mann didn’t know perfectly well what he was doing? “Censored” folder ring any bells?

  88. Jeff Alberts says:

    Science has only one purpose. To predict. Many believe science exists to explain, but it doesn’t. Religion explains. Science doesn’t tell you why the sun shines, only the process by which it does shine. Religion tells you the sun shines because it was god’s will to separate the dark from the light.

    Religion doesn’t “explain”, it proclaims, without facts. Your last sentence is a perfect example of that. There is no explanation there, just a proclamation.

  89. Arfur Bryant says:

    @Steven Mosher

    “Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.” (Steven Mosher Dec 19 2012)

    Was it your falsification that led to this prediction, Steven?

    “By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.
    Some things to note: several ‘skeptics” have stupidly forecast cooling
it [sic] should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps go up.”
    (Steven Mosher, July 6 2012)

    Only 12 days to go…

  90. izen says:

    @- Mark Bofill
    “Mixing an appeal to authority with an appeal to popularity doesn’t make either of them any less a logical fallacy. Why waste your time (not to mention the blogreaders time) with this?”

    Pointing out the consilience of the evidence is neither an appeal to authority or popularity. It is the objective measurable evidence that I am pointing out is overwhelmingly supporting AGW. It is an attempt to remind posters here that there is over a century of scientific endeavour behind AGW which, despite monthly claims on this website to the contrary, has NOT been refuted by any credible contradictory findings.

    I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompatible with rising CO2.
    Wrong.
    During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is STILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events.
    The rate and degree of warming are entirely in accordance with the CO2 effect as is shown by this well known skeptic –

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/

  91. jayhd says:

    To Steven Mosher and other CAGW alarmists –

    To date, there has been no proof of man’s influence on the climate through CO2 emissions. In fact, there has been no global warming for over a decade. So it is pretty safe to say the CAGW theories have been falsified, and should be rejected. Many of the advocates of CAGW have been shown to be hypocrites, charlatans, cheats and frauds. They have cost society hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Yet the hoax goes on. So Mr. Mosher and friends, as far as I am concerned, there are no words harsh enough for the CAGW advocates. If you choose to side with the likes of Mann, Gore, Hansen and friends, you’ll be painted with the same brush strokes.

  92. Nerd says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am

    I wouldn’t call John Nielsen-Gammon a skeptic… More of lukewarmer…

  93. RockyRoad says:

    Will Nitschke says:
    December 18, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    The more accurate word is heretic or blasphemer, but they are not suitable for a secular belief system.

    An even more applicable term would be “dissident”, since what we are opposing is religious belief rather than scientific rationale.

    dis·si·dent adjective \-dənt\

    : disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief

    So regardless of what else you might be politically or theologically, if you disagree with the Anthropogenic component in AGW, you are an Anthropogenic Global Warming dissident.

    Another term you might call yourself is simply “scientist”, for if the AGW crowd can’t show, demonstrate, or identify their supposed anthropogenic component in global warming and yet they continue to run with that meme in a blind, irresponsible manner, they are obviously not scientists.

  94. izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 3:42 am
    “Many scientists since the 1890 have said that warming is produced by rising CO2. This understanding is based on the physical properties of CO2 and basic thermodynamics, NOT a political agenda.

    Historically it has been shown that it is the warming that forces an increase in CO2, not the other way around.

  95. Carter says:

    FAO richardscourtney

    ‘OK. I understand that. You are saying the ‘D’ word should be applied to you.’ it doesn’t compute. Because I go with the accepted science. But ‘frankly I don’t give a damn’, what you call me! I’ve been called a lot worse for upholding to the AGW theory! ‘but we climate realists [?] do not use such offensive language’ if you think that is offensive, then you are too sensitive and perhaps gone too far down the PC path!

  96. Mark Bofill says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am

    If you are not appealing to popularity or authority, then you need to particularize. ~shrug~

    Specifically, what measurable evidence do you refer to, ‘that you are pointing Further, it is not clear how this relates to your argument about the weight of scientific evidence.out overwhelmingly supports AGW and that has not been refuted by any credible contradictory findings?’ If you don’t give specifics, you can’t reasonably expect to persuade anyone, unless you are hoping that readers will fall victim to the logical fallacies I referred to above.

    Further, it is not clear how the rest of your post relates to your argument about the weight of scientific evidence.

    See, when you state:

    ‘I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompat ible with rising CO2.
    Wrong.
    During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is ST ILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events .
    The rate and degree of warming are entirely in accordanc e with the CO2 effect as is ..’

    You are not supporting your assertion that the weight of the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW and that it has not been refuted by any credible contradictory finding s. By failing to specifically address this digression (some here), it’s unclear to what post/s you are referring where you say ‘some here are claiming’.

    It appears to me that you are stitching together two completely separate arguments without segue. Pardon me for suggesting it, but this has a ‘cut and paste’ feel to it…

    Here – let me help you out. Come back and answer me with a post summarizing some dozen pieces of solid evidence from this overwhelming stockpile you mention, that cannot credibly be refuted and that demonstrate the validity of AGW, and if your summary is indeed irrefutable, I will cheerfully concede my error and thank you for helping to correct it. Perhaps in the process you will persuade others that AGW is valid. Everyone’s time would be better spent that way.

  97. DirkH says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
    “I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompatible with rising CO2.
    Wrong.
    During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is STILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events.”

    Izen, you sound like you believe the sun influences the climate. Careful there, your fellows might think you’re switching sides.

    Now, what with the evidence for the “measured energy imbalance in the downwelling and outgoing LWIR.”. I’m really interested in your source.

  98. Mark Bofill says:

    oops – mangled up my response. Sorry about that.

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
    ….

    If you are not appealing to popularity or authority, then you need to particularize. ~shrug~

    Specifically, what measurable evidence do you refer to, ‘that you are pointing out overwhelmingly supports AGW and that has not been refuted by any credible contradictory findings?’ If you don’t give specifics, you can’t reasonably expect to persuade anyone, unless you are hoping that readers will fall victim to the logical fallacies I referred to above.

    Further, it is not clear how the rest of your post relates to your argument about the weight of scientific evidence.

    See, when you state:

    ‘I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompat ible with rising CO2.
    Wrong.
    During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is ST ILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events .
    The rate and degree of warming are entirely in accordanc e with the CO2 effect as is ..’

    You are not supporting your assertion that the weight of the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW and that it has not been refuted by any credible contradictory finding s. By failing to specifically address this digression (some here), it’s unclear to what post/s you are referring where you say ‘some here are claiming’.

    It appears to me that you are stitching together two completely separate arguments without segue. Pardon me for suggesting it, but this has a ‘cut and paste’ feel to it…

    Here – let me help you out. Come back and answer me with a post summarizing some dozen pieces of solid evidence from this overwhelming stockpile you mention, that cannot credibly be refuted and that demonstrate the validity of AGW, and if your summary is indeed irrefutable, I will cheerfully concede my error and thank you for helping to correct it. Perhaps in the process you will persuade others that AGW is valid. Everyone’s time would be better spent that way.

  99. Gail Combs says:

    Brian says:
    December 18, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    C’mon… Maybe you guys had reasons to complain before, but you guys throw everything and the kitchen sink at your rivals now.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    People are DYING because of this idiocy.

    [UK for 2010] Fuel poverty deaths three times higher than government estimates
    The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.

    Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day….

    Figures published on Monday warned that there will by 9.1m households living in fuel poverty by 2016

    You expect us to be very polite and continue imitating a rug while CAGW activists say:

    “The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

    “If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

    “If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

    “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
    source

    And if you think that is an idle threat you are nuts.

    FBI Testimony: The Threat of Eco-Terrorism
    Good morning Chairman McInnis, Vice-Chairman Peterson, Congressman Inslee and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you and discuss the threat posed by eco-terrorism, as well as the measures being taken by the FBI and our law enforcement partners to address this threat….

    …..During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars

    Be darn glad that skeptics are a heck of a lot more civilized that the run-of-the-mill eco-freak activist.

  100. Henry Galt says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am

    The scribbling of a troll.

    “One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.”

    Cite a single piece of said evidence. You know the one. The one that “… points conclusively to AGW …”. Not evidence of warming – of which there appears to be an endless supply. Not model output.

    Empirical evidence pointing to the Anthropogenic component of Global Warming toward the end of the 20th century.

    Just one. It should be very easy for you.

  101. Henry Galt says:

    Sorry Mark Bofill. What with dinner and the kids running amok I was late to the party, covered your points and lowered your bar for izen from a dozen to just the one. I don’t feel like I shot myself in the foot.

    Much ;)

  102. David Larsen says:

    We may be climate deniers but they are climate morons. Greenland was green because of the medieval warming period. Wisconsiounian glacier was down to Racine and Kenosha counties and melted back to above the arctic circle. How do you spell idiot? Climate morons.

  103. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    izen,

    There was no solar “grand maximum” in the 1960s. There was, however, one in the 1990s, which is precisely why it was so warm then. CO2 had very little (if anything) to do with it.

  104. RobW says:

    Stephan
    “So you also eat GM food because you believe the scientific consensus that it is safe?”

    Not only is it safe but after 16 years(interesting number coincidence) there has not been a single documented case of harm by any world food safety authority. That after three trillion meals. Ergo SAFE food.

    Now of course if yo want to quote the internet for contrary “evidence” well we all know it is not vetted information so anything goes in that forum.

  105. richardscourtney says:

    Carter:

    re your post addressed to me at December 19, 2012 at 8:51 am.

    Please don’t try to be clever. It does not suit you and you can’t do it.

    Richard

  106. Gail Combs says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
    … Personally as a libertarian, I find it odd that people would try to connect my belief in AGW to my politics.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That just means you are a follower not a leader. Do you think the behind the scenes politicking is transparent so we can see what the movers and shakers are really up to?

    Why the heck do you think Obama’s transparent EPA Czar Lisa Jackson named her internal email account “Richard Windsor”? Was it just for yucks, or was it to avoid FOIA as has been repeatedly done by all those involved with CAGW.

    Why the heck do you think the US Congressional Committee on Science, Space and Technology is demanding the Administration Release Secret Data Behind Looming Air Rule and sent follow-up letters to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson and to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, once again requesting records related to the use of dual, secondary, or non-public email accounts.

    Ignoring Elites: Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History – Steve Fraser, Gary Gerstel (2005)
    … Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II.

    Mosh, I really really recommend you read the very well researched article on US food and agricultureby Nicole Johnson. It is a real eye opener about the behind the scenes manipulation playing in the USA from 1945 to today. Five of the ten pages are references BTW.

  107. DaveG says:

    TomRude says:
    December 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    As if to confirm Tim Ball’s column, the Vancouver Sun daily dose of global warming agitprop used King Tides to offer some UBC University Oceanographer a “global warming” tribune:

    Tom your so right, not a day goes by without an Vancouver Sun BS global warming rant – were all going to die soon (maybe) article in that warmest rag = Its a pathetic paper! My only revenge is I never pay for it.
    What do you expect when David Suzuki has a water front mansion here and Green Peace was born here.

  108. The writer, C S Lewis, wrote a paper on this attitude at Oxford many years ago called ‘Bulverism’. It’s on the web such as here:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture/c-s-lewis-on-bulverism/
    Tim rightly reminds us that it must be challenged or science is dead.

  109. Werner Brozek says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am

    I notice some here are claiming that the recent slowdown in warming is incompatible with rising CO2.
    Wrong.
    During a strong La Nina period and a solar minimum the global temperature is STILL higher than during the solar grand maximum in the 1960s and most of the past El Nino events.

    Perhaps you need to set NOAA straight on this! According to NOAA, it is NOT BEING WARM that matters, but it is WARMING that matters. And yes, the last decade was warm. But RSS shows no warming for 16 years. Also with RSS, 2012 ranks 11th so far and 2011 will then be the 13th warmest, an 2008 is 22nd. So if things do not change here, three of the last five years will not even be in the top ten!

  110. Gail Combs says:

    Peter Hannan says:
    December 19, 2012 at 12:19 am

    Agree with Steven Mosher to a limited extent: in rebutting ad hominem attacks, it’s important not to fall into the same thing, but to stick with the content / science / argument
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And that is why we are losing. Sticking to the science means the other side has to also stick to the science but as the Climate-gate e-mails and other statements show it is not about science it was never about science.
    The IPCC even states that very clearly.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    Science was the strawman the UN set-up for us to attack while they steamed ahead determining “options for mitigation and adaptation” aka Global Governance and since they have no real believe in what they say they can shift the ‘science’ target as they will.

    The statement in an e-mail by Dr. Trenberth “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.” is not the statement of a scientist who is truly worried about the earth warming but the statement of a spin-meister masquerading as a scientist who is worried his spin maybe falling apart.

  111. TRM says:

    There is hope. My son’s school had to watch Gore’s movie but the science teacher actually told the kids to find the errors so some quick googling and at least the smart kids don’t buy it anymore.

  112. Dan in Nevada says:

    @Mosher and Izen: As a libertarian, I’m predisposed to believe that pretty much anything that is being used as a pretext to accrue more power to the rent-seeking classes is either a complete lie, or, more effectively, a gross exaggeration of something of much less consequence.

    For example, I had no problem believing Saddam was a vicious tyrant, but thought it completely unlikely that he was either behind 9/11 or possessed WMDs. In that situation the D****rs included Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. Interestingly, Ritter was originally as true a believer as Hansen, Mann, or Trenberth but was ultimately persuaded by the evidence.

    It’s amazing to me that after all this time, my “hooyah” acquaintances still argue that Saddam “had to be taken out” and, like Madeleine Albright, the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children (before the invasion) was “worth it”. I’m made out to be an apologist for Saddam for thinking otherwise, the ultimate d****r, whereas they must be right because they agree with the consensus.

    In the case of CAGW, there is a hypothesis and, in my mind, a very small amount of evidence that CO2 may have a modest effect on our planet’s temperature. From that, the true believers argue that standards of living must decline by orders of magnitude in the developed world, that the undeveloped world must revert to even more primitive, barbaric conditions, and (coincidentally)
    trillions of dollars need to be funneled to politically connected purveyors of solar panels and wind farms. Not to mention the global governance it will require to make sure that money is well-spent, meaning it ends up in the “right” hands.

    Given that much of the “evidence” for CAGW has been exaggerated or even manufactured (Himalayan glaciers, temperature “adjustments”), and the price of “mitigation” so high, why would anyone find it unbelievable that a large proportion of us just aren’t buying it? You can believe whatever you want, but the rest of us shouldn’t be expected to pay for your beliefs.

  113. Gail Combs says:

    Charlie says:
    December 19, 2012 at 2:51 am

    Since the 1960s there has been a large increase in the science budget in N America and W Europe. At the same time there has been a large increase in post 16 education but the average standard of maths,physics and chemistry teaching has probably gone down….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It has gone down at least in the USA.

    August 23, 2004 No teacher, but every textbook, left behind
    …For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.”

    I gave up hiring any lab techs under the age of 35. Worse think of the Civil Engineers who grew up with calculators and not slide rules. Dr. Robinson mentioned a guy designing a bridge on his farm that made mistake by an order of 100X and could not even see it. Heck just ask random youngsters six times nine and see how many wrong answers or hesitations you get.

  114. A problem here: “The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics.” We do not probe stuff, anything using science that is left to courts and lawyers who are arrogant enough to think they can prove stuff. We don’t disprove wither. We do falsify i.e. demonstrate that something is wrong or in error. And once you can no longer falsify and the preponderance of empirical data points to something we call it verified. So the IPCC’s claim is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

  115. Carter says:

    FAO richardscourtney

    ‘Please don’t try to be clever.’ what do you mean? Is it because I said you were too sensitive?

  116. Mark Bofill says:

    Henry Galt says:
    December 19, 2012 at 9:18 am

    :)

    I don’t want to be unfair in demanding a substantial amount of evidence, but as I see it Izen was the one who put forward the claim in the first place by saying ‘…if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW…’. If this is the case, I wouldn’t think 12 pieces of irrefutable evidence would be that hard to come up with. Maybe I’m wrong. I simply think the burden of supporting a statement falls on the person making the statement.

  117. DGH says:

    Dr. Ball,

    It would be difficult to determine which camp is losing the argument based on the use of the ad hom fallacy. People on this site are “deniers” and “skeptics.” And it’s very common to call the people who believe in catastrophic AGW, “chicken little.”

    See here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/18/the-mayan-end-of-the-world-prediction-and-climate-catastrophe/ for example.

  118. Gail Combs says:

    TimC says:
    December 19, 2012 at 5:01 am

    While I quite agree with the main premise of this article I find it sad that scientists appear to have rather a thin skin about being called the names as cited here, and feel impelled to expend time and energy writing these articles. Wouldn’t it be better just to get on with the real work of deducing the true causes of change in regional and global climate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    You can’t as the treatment of Zbigniew Jaworowski showed.

    ….”This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”

    Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

    The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

    If a world renown scientist like Dr. Jaworowski was treated in that way do you really think any of the lesser scientists would attempt to buck the system?

  119. Peter F Kemmis said @ December 19, 2012 at 2:26 am

    And many of those schooled back sine the 1980s, have been conditioned to the view that humans are responsible for most things that have gone wrong in the world, and here’s yet another! We also think we can fix a lot of problems (as we can, and sometimes, as we do), but the presumption is that we can fix the climate. Really?

    As Bert Large said in an episode of Doc Martin: “For every problem, there’s a solution… And vice versa.”

  120. JohnWho says:

    Labeling People ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Merely Reveals the Attacker’s Ignorance.

    From what I’ve gathered, supporting the CAGW concept displays one’s ignorance as well.

  121. gnomish says:

    “By the end of 2012 the stupid meme of “global warming” stopping will be over.
    Some things to note: several ‘skeptics” have stupidly forecast cooling it [sic] should be interesting to watch them respond as the sun goes quiet and the temps go up.” (Steven Mosher, July 6 2012)
    only 12 days to go
    arfur can read the palpitations quite plainly.
    flopsweat!

  122. Maus says:

    Stephen Mosher: “Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.”

    A ‘Libertarian’ being an appellation for a political philosophy (set of beliefs) that do not state that Group/State control or other Social Contracts (Locke, Rousseau) are invalid, but that only certain manners of joining members to the contract are.

    Nothing at all prevents a Libertarian from believing in the benefits of a contract that places limitations and restrictions on its members and/or that hands the arbitration, management, and oversight of the contractual content to a third party. This is either a prevarication demonstrating your terrible ignorance of this Political Philosophy, or a wholly irrational and contradictory argument to make.

  123. James Allison says:

    Izen. Do you agree that the world has been slowly warming at a reasonably steady rate since the LIA? Do you also agree that since about the 1880’s thermometers have recorded less than 1C temp increase? Do you agree that the thermometer measured temp increase appears to reflect about the same rate of temperature increase as since the LIA? Do you agree that while CO2 levels are showing a steady increase the world has apparently not shown any statistical increase in temperature during the last 16-17 years? Do you agree that historically CO2 levels follow temperature? Do you agree that the current increasing CO2 levels makes plants grow better? Do you agree with the research that shows extreme weather and precipitation during the last 30 years is well within normal historic variation?

    Can you understand why an increasing number of interested but non scientific people like me “believe” our increasing CO2 levels does not cause any significant warming and is not in any way dangerous?

    If you have any hard evidence that refutes any of the above please cite it here.

  124. Gail Combs says:

    izen says:
    December 19, 2012 at 6:04 am
    ….One important lesson is that while individual sources may be suspect, if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW then rejecting this comprehensive consensus in the EVIDENCE is foolish.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So what do you do when science has collected evidence about the climate over the last several centuries that show nothing much is happening?
    graph

    graph

    graph

    graph

    graph

    temp graph 91 proxies

    graph

    NH summer Insolation vs temperature graph

    20th C movement of Koppen climate boundary – graph

    When put into the context of the age of the earth CAGW falls completely apart.

  125. Bruce Cobb says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    December 19, 2012 at 7:02 am
    But you all go believing that the science of reading peoples motives is settled.
    Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.

    So tell us, Steven, what could possibly be the motives of someone who uses a strawman, which is what you just did? I’ll be kind and assume you didn’t mean to, or are just having a bad day, like you were on another thread recently. We all have those. Still, perhaps you could explain yourself. If not too much trouble, that is.

  126. Gail Combs says:

    RobW says:
    December 19, 2012 at 9:31 am

    …Not only is it safe but after 16 years(interesting number coincidence) there has not been a single documented case of harm by any world food safety authority. That after three trillion meals. Ergo SAFE food….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Don’t bet on that.

    From the International Journal of Biological Sciences

    Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests
    . The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary…
    The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.

    In other words humans in the USA have been guinea pigs in a nation wide trial with “nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies” we have absolutely no idea of what GMOS have done to the US population so you get stuff like US babies mysteriously shrinking and no method to determine the cause.

    Genetically Modified Foods Position Paper::The American Academy of Environmental Medicine
    safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of “substantial equivalence” such that “if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food.”4 However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

    There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility.5 The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.2,6,7,8,9,10,11

    As a chemist I am neutral on the subject of GMOs. As a Quality Engineer I want them subjected to the same exacting standards that drugs are in the USA before they are released for general use. That was not done thanks to Monsanto’s pet Lawyer Michael Taylor who while at the FDA ruled GMOs were safe based on the idea of “substantial equivalence” and no testing was needed.

  127. mwhite says:

    Climate change denier, the Green Ahnenerbe are calling me a Nazi.

  128. john robertson says:

    Thanks Dr Ball great post, 2nd paragraph says it all.
    Behaviour of climatology as defined by IPCC team, is not rational, its emotive.
    Hence I believe, dominates the conversation as opposed to, the data suggests this hypothesis and we can test the hypothesis by..
    Motives, intentions? Actions speak louder.
    For me the give-away behaviour is that, it is identical to that of a true-believer, when they start to realize their religion has flaws and the high priests are just men.
    Naturally the messenger is an agent of the (faiths) dark forces, so they shoot the messenger.

  129. Gail Combs says:

    DaveG says:
    December 19, 2012 at 9:41 am

    TomRude says:
    December 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    As if to confirm Tim Ball’s column, the Vancouver Sun daily dose of global warming agitprop used King Tides to offer some UBC University Oceanographer a “global warming” tribune…

    What do you expect when David Suzuki has a water front mansion here and Green Peace was born here.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Even Green Peace cofounder,Patrick Moore, can’t stomach the spin anymore.

    …That’s why I left Greenpeace: I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call “pop environmentalism,” which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level….
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/12/a-renegade-against-greenpeace.html

    Seems he agrees with Dr Ball.

  130. AndyG55 says:

    @izen
    “if the overwhelming majority of the knowledge that science has collected on the climate over the last century all points conclusively to AGW ”

    But it doesn’t, it points the other way, and it is STUPID to ignore this fact.

  131. Thanks, Dr. Ball.
    Climate has always been changing, it will keep on changing till the end of our planet. There is nothing we can do about it.

  132. Ken Harvey says:

    The trouble that I have with climatologists is that they are experts. That is to say that they are in the main, people who know a tremendous amount about a very narrow section of some wider field, and in the case of climate almost no field is wider. It is a weakness that all disciplines suffer from to some degree and from which economics and the soft disciplines in general tend to be vulnerable. As I see it, experts tend to be loath to descend to the level of bare basics and apply raw logic to any given problem within their field.

    When it comes to climate, I am sceptical. Not sceptical of just the AGW promoters, but equally sceptical of the position of the majority of the sceptics. Not having any worthwhile scientific knowledge I have been obliged to study over a few years the roots of physics to apply my mind in a logical manner. What I found, from nought but common sense, a much underrated commodity, is that to accept the position of either side, I had to reject the second law of thermodynamics. Not being myself an expert (not in climatology that is) I am not wedded to the law. I am prepared to accept some other mantra in its place, but if I am to do that I am entitled to some authoritative and logical explanation from at least one highly regarded physicist. I have found none and thus I continue to believe that the transfer of thermal energy from colder to warmer is impossible. Without even proceeding to the first law of thermodynamics which puts the matter beyond all reasonable doubt, I can say that a greenhouse gas, as is commonly understood by that term, cannot exist. Water vapour is said to be the “most powerful of greenhouse gases”. To accept that, I have to ignore the fact that any non transparent molecule placed between a heat source and a cooler target, has a cooling effect. Were it not for the water vapour we would all have cooked long ago – ask any dweller in a particularly humid summer area as is the one that I happen to live in currently. In summer Arizona is less uncomfortable than Florida but only while there is power for the air conditioning.

    What climatologists have failed to do, is to ask the physicists for two new laws of thermodynamics to replace those which are presently totally ignored by almost one and all.

  133. Kasuha says:

    Maybe we should also change terminology and instead of calling them alarmists, we should call them Climate Change Terrorists. I can’t think of more fitting name for someone who’s trying to hold the whole world hostage.

  134. Jimbo says:

    Tim Ball,
    Here are a few more quotes for ya.

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1120593115.txt

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU – 13 February 2010
    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

    At least he acknowledges the temperature standstill since 1998.

  135. Henry Galt says:

    Mark Bofill says:
    December 19, 2012 at 10:27 am

    :)
    It’s a wonderful evening (here already). We could listen to the crickets while we await izen’s no doubt comprehensive citations.

  136. AndyG55 says:

    “But you all go believing that the science of reading peoples motives is settled.
    Guess what? The theory that AGW is all about politics? as a theory? falsified by this libertarian.”

    Its a political agenda, and “left” oriented people seem to be the ones falling most for the spin.

  137. 4eyes says:

    I thought the IPCC was set up on the assumption that CO2 was going to cause lots of horrible greenhouse effects and they were going to provide guidance on how to deal with this obvious problem i.e. it was assumed the science was settled. It wasn’t set up to prove that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. It seems that there’s been a lot of confusion caused by this leap from a hypothesis to a settled conclusion without much action in between. I think the scientists who have made their fortunes out of talking up climate change have been pretty savvy, like lots of other people who have made money out of the ignorance of stupid politicians who just don’t know enough or really care enough to ask hard questions of their government advisers. But the biggest leeches of all have been the lazy media.

  138. AndyG55 says:

    Ken Harvey says:
    “The trouble that I have with climatologists is that they are experts.”

    Many are self-named only. they are mostly NOT experts !!!

    Take Mann for instance…. Very little knowledge of climate, very little knowledge of dendrochronology, very little knowledge of statistical procedures….. Yet he throws these inadequacies together and comes out as a climate scientist.

    And the “attribution” programmers, basically zero knowledge about how the atmosphere works, or about climate in general, no wonder the climate models don’t get anything anywhere near reality !!

  139. Arfur Bryant says:

    TRM says:
    December 19, 2012 at 10:02 am

    ['There is hope. My son’s school had to watch Gore’s movie but the science teacher actually told the kids to find the errors so some quick googling and at least the smart kids don’t buy it anymore."]

    “So shines a good deed – in a weary world.” Willy Wonka, 1971

    You are right, TRM, there is hope.

  140. Bruce Cobb says:

    Perhaps we shouldn’t be so hard on Warmists. After all, they do pretend to practice science very well, just as Milli Vanilli were very good at pretending to be actually singing. For that, they should get a round of applause.

  141. Gail Combs says:

    Kasuha says:
    December 19, 2012 at 11:50 am

    Maybe we should also change terminology and instead of calling them alarmists, we should call them Climate Change Terrorists. I can’t think of more fitting name for someone who’s trying to hold the whole world hostage.
    _____________________________________
    The FBI already labels the more violent ones eco-terrorists.

  142. Gail Combs says:

    Ken Harvey says:
    December 19, 2012 at 11:47 am

    The trouble that I have with climatologists is that they are experts….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Try reading a very simple real world set of observations.
    It is three comments
    comment 1
    expanded in comment 2 and in comment 3

    Actually the whole thread may be of interest.

  143. DirkH says:

    AndyG55 says:
    December 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    “And the “attribution” programmers, basically zero knowledge about how the atmosphere works, or about climate in general, no wonder the climate models don’t get anything anywhere near reality !!”

    Maybe not even knowldege about the limitations of modeling. It’s possible. Maybe they are not liars but that incompetent.

  144. Gail Combs says:

    Bruce Cobb says:
    December 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Perhaps we shouldn’t be so hard on Warmists. After all, they do pretend to practice science very well, just as Milli Vanilli were very good at pretending to be actually singing. For that, they should get a round of applause.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    For that you should be forced to listen to this. (My husbands favorite for driving me nuts.)

  145. Doug Proctor says:

    “The IPCC hypothesis was untested.”

    In the beginning, true for all sides. The warmists say it was untested but now has been tested and is no longer a hypothesis. The skeptic says either the hypothesis has not been tested OR is untestable because it is unfalsifiable.

    No common grounds. This is why there is no skeptic-warmist discussion.

    GCMs in the warmist camp are accurate, proven models. You can’t have a discussion on probable outcome if you can’t agree on the factors that go into creating your scenarios.

  146. RockyRoad says:
    December 19, 2012 at 8:37 am

    An even more applicable term would be “dissident”, since what we are opposing is religious belief rather than scientific rationale.

    dis·si·dent adjective \-dənt\: disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief

    A slyer term would be “deviationist,” suggesting that the belief we are opposing has Stalinoid characteristics.
    The near-synonym for “dissident” that has caught on more is “contrarian,” which I use because it is the most neutral + accurate (I think) term. (We’re not merely “skeptical”–we’re not just doubtful.)

  147. RobW says:
    December 19, 2012 at 9:31 am

    Stephan
    “So you also eat GM food because you believe the scientific consensus that it is safe?”

    Not only is it safe but after 16 years(interesting number coincidence) there has not been a single documented case of harm by any world food safety authority. That after three trillion meals. Ergo SAFE food.

    Now of course if you want to quote the internet for contrary “evidence” well we all know it is not vetted information so anything goes in that forum.

    Stefan (sic) wasn’t questioning the safety of GM food himself, he was pinning enviro-nuts with their subjectivism in choosing to believe or disbelieve in a scientific consensus.

    He Stefan, good to see you back again. We’re old-timers now!

    Ken Harvey says:
    December 19, 2012 at 11:47 am
    The trouble that I have with climatologists is that they are experts. That is to say that they are in the main, people who know a tremendous amount about a very narrow section of some wider field, and in the case of climate almost no field is wider. It is a weakness that all disciplines suffer from to some degree and from which economics and the soft disciplines in general tend to be vulnerable. As I see it, experts tend to be loath to descend to the level of bare basics and apply raw logic to any given problem within their field.

    Check out Brian Martin’s wonderful online booklet Strip the Experts,

  148. At least we do not need to put up with a bunch of new Kuhn inspired foolishness. This is out and out get down and dirty politics. Reminds you of the recent elections in the US. The political types believe with some justification that simply labeling something with a loaded word or phase and keep repeating it often enough and people will believe. Well some of them anyway. No this kind of labeling demonstrates ignorance to rational science types. It is part of a well through out, if sometimes poorly articulated, approach to shutting down debate and bolstering the orthodoxy. Hum, does the inquisitions of middle ages come to mind?

  149. Greg House says:

    Dear moderators, one comment of mine has been probably lost or swallow by the spam filter. if it is lost, here it is again, please, publish it:

    Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball: “Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, “
    =============================================================

    Really? OK, let us put aside the question, why you in fact indirectly call the skeptics, who are skeptical about the alleged “warming occurred in modern times” deniers. I just would like to know, what scientific reason you personally have to consider the alleged “warming occurred in modern times” to be a scientific fact. Let me guess: consensus? IPCC? What else?

    Is it possible that you just do not know anything about the “methods” to calculate the so called “global temperature”? Do you know anything about “extracting temperatures for large areas” from a single or a few weather stations, or about “temperature reconstructions” etc.?

  150. AlecM says:

    Doug Proctor: ‘GCMs in the warmist camp are accurate, proven models.’

    Simply not true.The apparent agreement is because the models are calibrated against the past. however, they are built on fundamental mistakes in the physics so cannot predict climate.

    The reason is that climate science makes the dreadful mistake of imagining that the temperature signal of the lower atmosphere and of the Earth’s surface in the other direction obtained by pyrgeometers are real energy fluxes.

    This is not and can never be the case; the signals are artefacts of the construction of the pyrgeometer. You MUST use the difference to give net flux, as specified by the manufacturers: http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx

    Subtraacting the thermal GHG IR spectral power from the black body surface IR spectrum, it’s easy to show there is virtually no 15 micron CO2 band IR to be absorbed. The attenuation at TOA of that same band is nothing to do with lower atmosphere attenuation – it’s the self absorption of TOA thermal emission.

    There is an unknown bit of physics here so the story is not complete. However, CO2-AGW and the positive feedback are artefacts of incorrect modelling and no competent professional can consider the heat transfer in the models to be correct.

  151. noaaprogrammer says:

    After Ted Kennedy publicly impugned the character of Judge Robert Bork, effectively denying him a position in the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Bork admitted that he made a mistake in not publicly responding to the false charges, thinking that they were so outrageous the public would recognize Kennedy as being over the top. But those character-assassinating words were picked up by others and repeated often enough to be taken as fact. A tactic of the left is their skill at using words to follow one of their mottos: “Words are used to shape reality, not report it.” Replace the first word of that motto with the word “Numbers” and you have the basis for computer-modeled climatology.

  152. Gail Combs says:

    Greg House says:
    December 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Really? OK, let us put aside the question, why you in fact indirectly call the skeptics, who are skeptical about the alleged “warming occurred in modern times” deniers. I just would like to know, what scientific reason you personally have to consider the alleged “warming occurred in modern times” to be a scientific fact. Let me guess: consensus? IPCC? What else?…..
    ___________________________________________
    The little Ice Age and the historic record. Tony B. has been doing a lot of research on the subject. Records of snowfalls, frozen rivers, planting times, harvests, that sort of thing. The paper
    On the recovery from the Little Ice Age (see the linked pdf) goes into a lot of it.

    Dr Joan Feynman did a really interesting bit of research using the historic record of the nile floods in Egypt and Aurora records from else where in the world. link More on The Oldest Records of the Nile Floods

  153. Greg House says:

    Gail Combs says, December 19, 2012 at 5:41 pm: “The little Ice Age and the historic record. Tony B. has been doing a lot of research on the subject. Records of snowfalls, frozen rivers, planting times, harvests, that sort of thing.”
    ======================================================

    Gail, even a cold winter is not an evidence for an “average cooling”. Because it can be compensated by a much warmer summer. Of course, it is a crazy idea to put summer and winter temperatures together, what “climate scientists” are doing, but it is much worse, if you can not stay logical even within this concept.

    And what about Africa, Australia? Does not matter?

    I am sorry, but such a fallacy of generalisation is not acceptable even at elementary school.

    Or do you have calculations of “global temperatures” from the so called “little Ice Age”? No? I thought so.

    How on Earth can you compare a “global temperature” with a “frozen river”? Unbelievable.

  154. Poptech says:

    Steven Mosher says: Shame. I will tell you this. Reading the motives of people is something which climate audit would not allow, especially in a top post. Steve Mc, understands that reading peoples hearts is not a ‘science’.

    More attempts by Mosher to undermine WUWT. Will Mr. “B.A. in English Literature” please stop trying to tell Anthony what he can post to his website. Editorials are a nice break from pure science posts and add to the discussion here.

  155. Poptech says:

    OT:

    Dan in Nevada says: For example, I had no problem believing Saddam was a vicious tyrant, but thought it completely unlikely that he was either behind 9/11 or possessed WMDs.

    You can still be against the war and not be intellectually dishonest about the irrefutable fact that Saddam did have WMDs,

    500+ Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says (U.S. Department of Defense, June 29, 2006)

  156. TimC says:

    Gail Combs said “If a world renown[ed] scientist like Dr. Jaworowski was treated in that way do you really think any of the lesser scientists would attempt to buck the system”?

    Thanks, but I wasn’t really talking in my comment of scientists (particularly known contrarians) having difficulty obtaining funding for new research (which is a different topic in its own right, but rather a long way from “Labeling people Climate Change Deniers” as in this article); I was rather more talking of them just getting on with the day job properly – following the scientific method, objectively reporting results even contrary to hypothesis, sharing data and methods (particularly statistical methods) for others to scrutinise, etc, etc.

  157. Gunga Din says:

    I’m getting to this post late. I’ve only skimmed the comments.
    “Labels” are sometimes needed and properly used to identify a group or person’s position/viewpoint/opinion etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but even “purely scientific” context such verbal shorthand is used. A “label”, is a quick and easy identifier. When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.
    The politcalization of the theory of greenhouse gases goes back at least as far as Wirth and Hansen.

  158. Jeff Alberts says:

    Gail Combs: Heck just ask random youngsters six times nine and see how many wrong answers or hesitations you get.

    42!

    What did I win? What did I win??

  159. Ted says:

    There once was a fellow named Clyde
    global warming he always denied
    he said : “What’s-a-matta? When you look at the data,
    the decline has no place to hide.”

  160. Brian H says:

    Calling the very people who acknowledge continual climate change (natural) ‘climate change deniers’ is of a piece with the rest of the One Worlder/Warmist position: assert a blatant untruth loudly and repetitively to enforce acceptance. It one-ups the Goebbels tactic, graduating from the Big Lie to the Flood of Big Lies.

  161. D Böehm says:

    Jeff Alberts,

    You win 54 quatloos!

  162. Gunga Din says:

    “When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.”

    I should add that labels are used sometimes to misidentify a position.

  163. Jeff Alberts says:

    D Böehm says:
    December 19, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    Jeff Alberts,

    You win 54 quatloos!

    Aww, I was hoping for an all expense paid trip to Magrathea.

  164. philincalifornia says:

    Henry Galt says:
    December 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    Mark Bofill says:
    December 19, 2012 at 10:27 am

    :)
    It’s a wonderful evening (here already). We could listen to the crickets while we await izen’s no doubt comprehensive citations.
    —————————————–
    Come on Izen, there’s a crowd gathering for you.

    If you can’t come up with twelve, why not shoot for three ??

    .

    One ??

  165. AndyG55 says:

    Arfur Bryant says:
    Only 12 days to go…

    And if the current and recent temps in Russia, Ukraine and other parts of the NH actually get the proper balance in the “global average”, there should be quite a DROP in the global temperature for December. (temperatures don’t just happen in the US, y’know).

  166. AndyG55 says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    42!

    I bet that took some “Deep Thought” !

  167. AndyG55 says:

    philincalifornia says:
    Come on Izen, there’s a crowd gathering for you.

    Seems he has taken leave….
    .
    .
    .
    .
    of his senses.

  168. AndyG55 says:

    Dr. Tim Ball: “Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, “

    The satellite record shows basically a single step change at the 1998 El Nino.
    Before that 1979-1998, the recorded is really pretty darn flat.

    So, the question as to “if” there has been warming is down purely to that step change.

    Unfortunately, because the land temps and the calcuation of global average land temperatures have been in the hands of the wrong people for so long, they are now TOTALLY UNTRUSTWORTHLY. (We have rabid warmist/alarmists in change of most record keeping and major calculations, not sensible). No one of rational mind could take any real credence in them. We know they have had any relationship to REALITY adjusted and manipulated amd homogenised into thin air.

    So the question of how much warming,?? some, maybe, in little steps, …

    ..but I suspect that the real amount of warming would be FAR. FAR LESS than Hadcrud, Gush etc show.

  169. AndyG55 says:

    AndyG55 said “Before that 1979-1998, the recorded is really pretty darn flat.”

    badly worded

    I meant that the trend is basically flat in the satellite record from 1979-1998 before the ElNino.

    And we know what happened to the “land temp”.. it got urbanised, homogenised, adjusted and Hansenised.

  170. izen says:

    A lot of responses and questions after a nights sleep !
    Too many to answser each in detail, but the demand to support my claim that the science exhibits
    consilience is justified, and easy to do.
    The history is described overall in Spencer Weart’s site. It provides a good overview, but lacks the
    fine detail perhaps –

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

    The weekly flow of research is also monitered at some sites, here is a typical example. I suspect
    that some here are unfamiliar with the sheer weight of evidence that is published weekly in the
    field.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/

    But the responses reveal another problem with this essay. the division is not a neat binary split
    between those that accept the qaccuracy of the AGW theory and those that reject it.

    Both ‘sides’ divide into many factions. there is at least one ‘sky dragon’ here who thinks the 2LoT
    refutes the GH effect. then there are those that hold that all the science is wrong or fraudulent
    implying a level of hoax that would make faking the moon landings a mere bagattelle. I expect there
    are some here that are closer to Lindzen and Spencer, they accept the basic science, but are holding
    out for as yet undiscovered details that will ameleorate the severity of the projected effects of
    AGW.

  171. Arfur Bryant says:

    AndyG55 says:
    December 19, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    Yes, AndyG55, I agree. That’s why I felt comfortable challenging the prediction! However Steven Mosher tries to spin it, the official datasets are likely to demonstrate that, as Niels Bohr said, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”.

    Oh, and by the way, I’m not in the US! :)

  172. richardscourtney says:

    izen:

    Thankyou for your post at December 20, 2012 at 1:42 am.

    It confirms that you are not able to provide any evidence that AGW exists at a discernible degree.

    We all knew that, but your confirmation of it is appreciated.

    Richard

  173. AndyG55 says:

    Arfurm ,
    Much as I would like a bit more warming, to the benefit of the planet, I will also have much fun laughing at attempts of the AGW bletheren to justify the more probable cooling over the next several years, as the models and their CO2 forcing diverge even further from reality :-)

  174. Bruce Cobb says:

    izen says:
    December 20, 2012 at 1:42 am
    the division is not a neat binary split
    between those that accept the qaccuracy of the AGW theory and those that reject it.

    Who is rejecting the theory? This is just another strawman, as is your idiotic “implying a level of hoax that would make faking the moon landings a mere bagattelle’.
    Surely you can do better than that! Perhaps you didn’t get a good nights’ sleep?

  175. Bruce Cobb says:

    In theory, I should be a millionaire by now. Wait! Maybe I am! Excuse me while I go crunch some numbers. Some of them may need “encouragement”.

  176. G. Karst says:

    Bruce, if the alarmist are able to enact even 50% of their proposed actions (agenda) – We will all be millionaires. The problem is that a million dollars will be required to buy a loaf of bread. This will be an opportunity to invest in wheel barrows, to replace wallets. GK

  177. izen says:

    @- richardscourtney

    That you are unable to perceive the overwhelming consilience and support for the AGW theory in the history of the theory’s’ development and the weight of contemporary research relegates you to the tiny minority, less than 10%, who are scientificly literate but reject the AGW theory.

    I predict that within a decade you will join the other footnotes of history who rejected the role of SOx emissions in acid rain, lead in IQ damage, CFCs in ozone destruction and tobacco in cancer/heart disease.

    Of course, three years in succession with temperatures below the century average and I would at least doubt, and would be looking for alternatives to the AGW theory.
    Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to doubt or reassess your position ?

  178. Andy Wehrle says:

    “When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.”

    Many who claim they are skeptical of CAGW are guilty of this premise. If you use terms like alarmist, warmista, Climate Change Terrorists, etc. it seems to me you have trespassed the same principle.

  179. izen says:

    @- philincalifornia
    “Come on Izen, there’s a crowd gathering for you.
    If you can’t come up with twelve, why not shoot for three ??”

    I think you are missing the point of consilience. It is not a case of a few specific bits of research, its the overwhelming majority of all or it pointing in one direction, AND the consistency of that research with the established knowledge in all other fields of scientific study that convinces.

    Think of it like an army. it is not twelve, three or thirty particular soldiers that convinces you there is a war, its thousands all advancing in the same direction with the same intention.

  180. DirkH says:

    izen says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:42 am
    “I think you are missing the point of consilience. It is not a case of a few specific bits of research, its the overwhelming majority of all or it pointing in one direction, AND the consistency of that research with the established knowledge in all other fields of scientific study that convinces.

    Think of it like an army. it is not twelve, three or thirty particular soldiers that convinces you there is a war, its thousands all advancing in the same direction with the same intention.”

    Izen, all the thousands of computer users in the warmist institutes (granted, they are thousands; whether we shall call them scientists or whatever – pour a few billion a year into ANYTHING and you get some job creation, it’s hard to avoid) – use the same computer models to prognosticate the future, and they ALL suffer from the same principal problems (can’t simulate chaotic systems with finite precision models, should better start with a correct starting state, have never been validated, are fudged with invented aerosol histories to reproduce 20th century, can’t simulate the QBO, can’t simulate local processes like cloud formations,, don’t get latittudinal distribution of clouds right (ever), …)

    So by multiplying these research jobs you just achieve to squander the potential productivity of more young people. Scream loud enough and it becomes true?

    Must… try … even … harder… does it become twice as true when you double the amount of young people forced to use the same climate models again?

    You could try by giving twice as many Nobel peace prices for a start. That’s pretty cheap.

  181. Gunga Din says:

    Andy Wehrle says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:41 am
    “When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.”

    Many who claim they are skeptical of CAGW are guilty of this premise. If you use terms like alarmist, warmista, Climate Change Terrorists, etc. it seems to me you have trespassed the same principle.
    ===============================================================================
    None of us are lily white. I have used “alarmist”. I haven’t used the other terms you’ve listed. I have used terms you haven’t listed. (Mannequins, etc.) But I’m not a journalist or scientist. And, for the most part, I’ve only used them here on WUWT and they did identify the PR/political positions of those I was refering to as well as implying my position regarding climate “science” and how it has been used.
    PS Would you say Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball or any of his other lawsuits are scientific endeavors?

  182. Dan in Nevada says:

    Poptech says:
    December 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm
    “`Dan in Nevada says: For example, I had no problem believing Saddam was a vicious tyrant, but thought it completely unlikely that he was either behind 9/11 or possessed WMDs.’
    You can still be against the war and not be intellectually dishonest about the irrefutable fact that Saddam did have WMDs”

    Thanks for the response, Poptech. I was aware of this “amazing find”. From your link, “The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended…”, so I don’t think I was being dishonest. The international weapons inspectors were completely correct that there was no ongoing research or development in WMDs and certainly nothing that threatened the United States.

    My point, of course, was that we were scammed by our rulers over Iraq in exactly the same way that the establishment is attempting to scam us with CAGW. I wasn’t trying to be deliberately provocative using Iraq as an example – I know there are strong feelings on the part of those who have served in the military or have loved ones who have (or are). However, the parallels are just too strong to ignore. Start with a nugget of truth (Saddam’s an a**hole; CO2 is a greenhouse gas), stir in exaggerations and outright lies (Himalayan glaciers; yellowcake uranium), and top it all off with lots of hysteria and pretty soon you’ve got a lot of people convinced that ‘something needs to be done, dammit’.

    A trillion dollars, ~4500 US military deaths, and ~120,000 civilian deaths later, all we’ve got is a place where al quaeda has free reign, where they didn’t before, and a region with an intense hatred of all things American. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and others made out just fine, thank you very much. Following the warmists’ agenda will cost a heck of a lot more in both lives and treasure for average people while at the same time a select few, many of whom will be the same folks that profited from Iraq, will accumulate much more power and wealth.

    Getting back on topic, you labeled me as intellectually dishonest, which could be paraphrased as someone who denies the evidence, and this was the subject of Dr. Ball’s post. I don’t think I was dishonest at all – others can follow your link and decide for themselves. The point is that societies can be, and are, hoodwinked into spending vast sums by establishing an “everybody knows” meme based on willful lies and distortions. When those untruths start becoming evident, ad hominem attacks (unpatriotic, denier, etc.) replace real argument.

    Just so we’re clear, I voted for G.W. in 2000, back when he purported to be against “nation-building” and for free markets. Also, you were polite and not hostile to me – I hope my tone is the same.

    Mods – sorry if this is a double post. First attempt appeared to have failed miserably.

  183. Greg House says:

    izen says, December 20, 2012 at 8:28 am: “That you are unable to perceive the overwhelming consilience and support for the AGW theory in the history of the theory’s’ development and the weight of contemporary research relegates you to the tiny minority, less than 10%, who are scientificly literate but reject the AGW theory.”
    =======================================================

    This is so not true.

    The Doran&Zimmerman study (2008) demonstrates that 70% of the more than 10,000 Earth scientists polled refuse to confirm AGW: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119

  184. john robertson says:

    Say it izen so, That you are unable to perceive the Emperors beautiful new clothes…They are so magnificent, airy and bright……
    Izen please keep up the fine work. I have been ignoring your posts but now I read them for the humour. Are you sure you are not working for the Big Oil Demons?

  185. Andy Wehrle says:

    “None of us are lily white. I have used “alarmist”. I haven’t used the other terms you’ve listed. I have used terms you haven’t listed. (Mannequins, etc.) But I’m not a journalist or scientist. And, for the most part, I’ve only used them here on WUWT and they did identify the PR/political positions of those I was refering to as well as implying my position regarding climate “science” and how it has been used. PS Would you say Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball or any of his other lawsuits are scientific endeavors?”

    Those lawsuits are, drum roll please, lawsuits.

    My point is that if you use the terms alarmist or warmista or whatever, then according to Dr. Ball you have merely revealed your ignorance. His conclusions apply to all individuals engaged in public discourse – not just those we don’t agree with – indeed Dr. Ball is hoist on his own petard for he uses the term warmista.

    If we don’t want to be painted with the same brush as those with whom we disagree then we should refer to them without the perjoratives. I’m just sayin…

  186. Carter says:

    FAO richardscourtney

    ‘It confirms that you are not able to provide any evidence that AGW exists at a discernible degree’ well watch this.
    Global warming and co2

  187. Rob Crawford says:

    “I think you are missing the point of consilience. It is not a case of a few specific bits of research, its the overwhelming majority of all or it pointing in one direction, AND the consistency of that research with the established knowledge in all other fields of scientific study that convinces.”

    But what does any of that matter when the theory fails to predict reality?

    You could likely find 10,000 people who will tell you — with supporting documentation — that the sun will not rise on any given day. When the sun rises that day, they are quite simply wrong.

    The failure of the “consensus model” to predict what we’re seeing in reality means that the “consensus model” is wrong.

  188. Dan in Nevada says:

    Andy Wehrle says:
    December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am

    I understand your point, but believe that labeling isn’t inherently wrong as long as it doesn’t mischaracterize your opponents’ position or attempt to associate them with disagreeable ideas they don’t necessarily hold. “Denier” does both; it explicitly identifies skeptics as denying obvious truth or facts and implicitly (and deliberately) associates them with Holocaust deniers.

    I kind of like “warmist” as an easy to grasp label that only characterizes, er, warmists as people that believe the planet will inevitably warm due to CAGW. It’s not insulting and serves as an easy shorthand that is readily understood. “Alarmist”, well, that depends on who you’re talking about. Al Gore, for example, certainly is attempting to raise the alarm about global warming. To skeptics, who doubt Al’s sincerity and grasp of science, “alarmist” is more accurate than “scientific spokesman”.

    I’m a fairly ardent pacifist, believing force should always be a last resort. If somebody wants to call me a “peacenik”, I’ve got no problem with that even if they mean it pejoratively. “Pinko commie bastard”, on the other hand, is both inaccurate and insulting.

    Clearly, “skeptic” is a word that is easy to use and that adequately and fairly describes people who have doubts, rightly or wrongly, about a position such as CAGW. Using denigrating words like “denier” completely demolishes any claim to holding the high ground. Warmists can use terms like “misinformed” or “mistaken” if that’s what they mean.

  189. Gunga Din says:

    Andy Wehrle says:
    December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am
    Gunga Din: “None of us are lily white. I have used “alarmist”. I haven’t used the other terms you’ve listed. I have used terms you haven’t listed. (Mannequins, etc.) But I’m not a journalist or scientist. And, for the most part, I’ve only used them here on WUWT and they did identify the PR/political positions of those I was refering to as well as implying my position regarding climate “science” and how it has been used. PS Wo
    uld you say Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball or any of his other lawsuits are scientific endeavors?”+++++++++
    Andy: Those lawsuits are, drum roll please, lawsuits.
    ===================
    Me: So were they scientific endeavors?
    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Andy: My point is that if you use the terms alarmist or warmista or whatever, then according to Dr. Ball you have merely revealed your ignorance.
    ====================
    Me: I reveal my own ignorance far for often than I’d like.
    My favorite secular quote:

    “Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”
    Will Rogers
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Andy: His conclusions apply to all individuals engaged in public discourse – not just those we don’t agree with – indeed Dr. Ball is hoist on his own petard for he uses the term warmista.
    If we don’t want to be painted with the same brush as those with whom we disagree then we should refer to them without the perjoratives. I’m just sayin…
    ===================================================
    “Public discourse.” Is that PR? Political? Shouldn’t the science actually be settled before the public is forced to pay for the supposed remedies? (How’s Al Gore’s porfolio been doing since CAGW became political?)
    Dr. Ball has been thrust into the PR/political side of this by those who brought and finance the lawsuits against anyone who dares to disagree with CAGW.
    If scientific discussion is to bring a bit more certainty to any hypothesis, then why the lawsuits?
    So, I ask again, “Would you say Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball or any of his other lawsuits are scientific endeavors?”
    Or are thy political?

  190. AndyG55 says:

    izen “Think of it like an army. it is not twelve, three or thirty particular soldiers that convinces you there is a war, its thousands all advancing in the same direction with the same intention.””

    Ahh, the drone army..or is it the clone army……. or maybe the zombie army ………..approaches. :-)

  191. philincalifornia says:

    izen:

    Thankyou for your post at December 20, 2012 at 1:42 am.

    It confirms that you are not able to provide any evidence that AGW exists at a discernible degree.

    We all knew that, but your confirmation of it is appreciated.

    phil

    (Apologies for the blatant plagiarism Richard)

  192. Poptech says:

    Dan in Nevada says: “Thanks for the response, Poptech. I was aware of this “amazing find”. From your link, “The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended…”, so I don’t think I was being dishonest. The international weapons inspectors were completely correct that there was no ongoing research or development in WMDs and certainly nothing that threatened the United States.”

    I am well aware many people are completely ignorant of the irrefutable fact that WMDs were found in Iraq. And you are now changing your argument. Nice cherry picking the article, here is the rest,

    …the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

    This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.

    “Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

    Though about 500 chemical weapons – the exact number has not been released publicly – have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

    I am sure you will volunteer your children to determine the lethality of such weapons?

  193. James Allison says:

    izen says:
    December 20, 2012 at 1:42 am

    You are funny. A quick look at your second link shows what seems to be a huge collection of papers containing opinions, individual perspectives and policy implications derived from computer modelling. Many written by members of The Team. LOL – Why don’t you sift through your pile of papers and cite one showing evidence of CAGW.

  194. Brian H says:
    December 19, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Calling the very people who acknowledge continual climate change (natural) ‘climate change deniers’ is of a piece with the rest of the One Worlder/Warmist position: assert a blatant untruth loudly and repetitively to enforce acceptance. It one-ups the Goebbels tactic, graduating from the Big Lie to the Flood of Big Lies.

    Here’s a funny quote wrt that:

    TerryS says: April 3, 2011 at 6:47 am

    One day they might apply the term “climate-change deniers” to the correct people.

  195. izen says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:42 am
    “I think you are missing the point of consilience. It is not a case of a few specific bits of research, its the overwhelming majority of all or it pointing in one direction, AND the consistency of that research with the established knowledge in all other fields of scientific study that convinces.

    Think of it like an army. it is not twelve, three or thirty particular soldiers that convinces you there is a war, its thousands all advancing in the same direction with the same intention.”

    But most of that consensus stuff isn’t in dispute or is irrelevant. I.e., there’s lots of proxy studies that indicate the world is warming, there’s studies showing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there are studies showing that increasing CO2 will cause increasing temperatures, and there are studies showing that this or that effect will happen if things continue warming. But we don’t deny those things. (Well, we think that a lot of the “impact” studies are overstated.) Warmist proselytizers often (intentionally?) mislead the public into thinking that we contrarians deny those things. We don’t, generally.

    The dispute is about the sensitivity of the climate to increases in CO2 (that’s what the furor over Nic Lewis’s paper is about) and about the amount of positive feedback, if any, that will occur if temperatures rise. The warmist case there is much thinner and shakier.

  196. Andy Wehrle says:
    December 20, 2012 at 8:41 am

    “When a label is used, not to identify a position, but, to paint the holder of that position in an unfavorable light, then we’ve entered the PR/political arena.”

    Many who claim they are skeptical of CAGW are guilty of this premise. If you use terms like alarmist, warmista, Climate Change Terrorists, etc. it seems to me you have trespassed the same principle.

    “Warmista” is a venial sin. It’s a diminutive intended to indicate that warmists are just “fans” of warmism, without any real depth. which is true in most cases. As long as it’s not used to poison debate with an opponent in the public sphere, but just for in-house use in our echo chamber, it’s not an offense against civility. (I haven’t used the term myself.)

    “Alarmist” easily fits people like McKibben, Gore, Hansen, the folks at the Potsdam Institute (authors of the recent World Bank report), Monbiot, Kongressman Murkey, etc.

  197. Poptech says:

    izen says: The weekly flow of research is also monitered at some sites, here is a typical example. I suspect that some here are unfamiliar with the sheer weight of evidence that is published weekly in the field.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/

    You seem to be unfamiliar with the sheer weight of peer-reviewed evidence supporting skeptic arguments,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
    http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
    http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html

    I expect there are some here that are closer to Lindzen and Spencer, they accept the basic science, but are holding out for as yet undiscovered details that will ameleorate the severity of the projected effects of AGW.

    You seem really confused as both considered themselves skeptics,

    “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” – John R. Christy

    “Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.” – Richard S. Lindzen

    Dishonestly trying to associate them with your position is a desperate tactic.

  198. Poptech says:

    Andy Wehrle says: Many who claim they are skeptical of CAGW are guilty of this premise. If you use terms like alarmist, warmista, Climate Change Terrorists, etc. it seems to me you have trespassed the same principle.

    “Alarmist” is an accurate description of an AGW proponent who insists on action to prevent [insert climate related disaster]. You can recognize an alarmist by their use of the words “consensus” and/or “denier” when trying to make an argument.

  199. Poptech says:

    OT:

    Dan in Nevada says: The international weapons inspectors were completely correct that there was no ongoing research or development in WMDs and certainly nothing that threatened the United States.

    My point, of course, was that we were scammed by our rulers over Iraq in exactly the same way that the establishment is attempting to scam us with CAGW.

    My point is your analogy is completely invalid as not only were over 500 WMDs found in Iraq but there is evidence that WMDs were moved to Syria prior to the invasion,

    CIA can’t rule out WMD move to Syria (The Washington Times, April 27, 2005)
    Former Top Military Aide to Saddam Reveals Dictator’s Secret Plans (Fox News, January 26, 2006)

    “Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq and the regime used them against our Iraqi people. It was used against Kurds in the north, against Arabs — marsh Arabs in the south. [...] up to the year 2002, in summer, they were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors are coming on the first of November and the Americans are coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was broken. So he announced to the world that he is going to make an air bridge. [...] I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. [...] They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.” – Georges Sada, former Iraqi National Security Advisor and retired general officer of the Iraqi Air Force

    Next time use a better analogy.

  200. Gail Combs says:

    Poptech says:
    December 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    ….You seem to be unfamiliar with the sheer weight of peer-reviewed evidence supporting skeptic arguments,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Let me extend to you a heartfelt thanks for all the work you have done compiling that list and defending it against the slurs and arrows.

  201. Dan in Nevada says:

    Poptech says:
    Dan in Nevada says:

    Poptech, I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you when it’s obviously important to you to believe that Saddam was a genuine threat to the United States. Who knows, maybe you’re right, although it would seem the powers-that-be would have been trumpeting this to justify the money and lives lost. I stand by everything I said, but it’s too tiring to argue the point.
    -Dan

  202. Poptech says:

    Gail, you are welcome.

    Dan, I made no claim regarding his threat status to the US, rather my problem is specifically when it is claimed he did not have WMDs when he clearly did.

  203. Andy Wehrle says:

    Gunga Din, PopTech, Roger Knights,

    All I’m saying is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are going to say CAGW advocates arguments are nullified by their use of perjoratives, then we should hold ourselves to the same standard.

    Merry Christmas one and all.

    Out here.

  204. izen said @ December 20, 2012 at 8:28 am

    I predict that within a decade you will join the other footnotes of history who rejected the role of SOx emissions in acid rain, lead in IQ damage, CFCs in ozone destruction and tobacco in cancer/heart disease.

    At http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/Images/tobacco.gif you will find a chart showing the curves for tobacco consumption and lung cancer rates in the population. Clearly, from the chart it’s possible to predict the rate of lung cancer from the rate of petrol usage by that population. It is also clearly impossible to predict the lung cancer rate from the rate of tobacco consumption. Elsewhere in Athol Robinson’t book Driving into Danger he demonstrated that the curve for ischaemic heart disease is almost identical to that for lung cancer.

    See also:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030698779190263X

  205. Henry Galt says:

    izen. Although surprised by your bothering to return ;)

    I am not surprised by your counters.

    There is no there, there. You are not even wrong. Etc.

    The evidence we all need is missing. Utterly missing. As I have said before, the very first piece of evidence showing that mankind’s addition to the carbon budget of planet Earth caused the slight, benign warming at the end of the 20th century will become the most cited piece of science in the history of, well, science itself.

    It does not yet exist. Claiming that it does does you no favors.

    The only field where all agree is full of sheep.

  206. Gail Combs says:

    Poptech says:
    December 20, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Gail, you are welcome.

    Dan, I made no claim regarding his threat status to the US, rather my problem is specifically when it is claimed he did not have WMDs when he clearly did.
    _____________________________________–
    For what it is worth, I often entertain at birthday parties for the children of soldiers at Fort Brag. A friend who was Blk Ops mentioned the WMDs were moved across the border to Syria.

    Let’s face it the USA was not exactly silent about what they were [planning].

    Was he telling the truth? Don’t know.

  207. D Böehm says:

    Here is a photo of Iraqi trucks hauling WMD’s to Syria in early 2003. [Sorry, I don't remember where I got it, but that's what it was said to be showing].

  208. philincalifornia says:

    Given what’s going on in Syria right now, if true and the WMDs are still intact, this creates quite a conundrum for the current administration, no ? Could this be why Hillary’s looking so aged all of a sudden (although I’m guessing that there’s probably a medical reason too)?

    Whatever, I do wish her well, while wondering how her “dumb as a box of rocks” successor is going to handle it.

  209. Dwayne Kellum says:

    Are you kidding? The majority of posting on this blog falls prey to the exact thing you complain of. Have you read half of the stuff here? It personally attacks working climate scientists over and over again. This is the definition of hypocrisy.

  210. D Böehm says:

    Dwayne Kellum,

    Your content-free comment is nothing but an appeal to a largely corrupt authority. “Working climate scientists” — by which you obviously mean the climate alarmist, “carbon” demonizing crowd — are the true hypocrites. They hide out from any debate, they hide their data, their metadata, their proxies, and their methodologies, and they actively block honest skeptics from peer reviewed publications and funding [haven't you ever read the Climate gate emails??? It's all there]. They squeal and cry like spoiled children whenever someone disagrees with them. If Michael Mann had to delete all the pejoratives from his comments, his articles would be about one paragraph long.

    You really do have some despicable HE-ROES. Run along now back to your thinly trafficked echo chamber blog. You need some new talking points.

  211. RACookPE1978 says:

    Dwayne Kellum says:
    December 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Are you kidding? The majority of posting on this blog falls prey to the exact thing you complain of. Have you read half of the stuff here? It personally attacks working climate scientists over and over again.

    No (successful) climate scientist has been criticized at any time in the writing in the thread.

    The unsuccessful, hypocritical, lying, and money-wasting so-called “scientists” who ARE wasting our time and money have, however, been criticized……

  212. Poptech says:

    Dwayne Kellum says:

    Are you kidding? The majority of posting on this blog falls prey to the exact thing you complain of. Have you read half of the stuff here? It personally attacks working climate scientists over and over again. This is the definition of hypocrisy.

    What are you talking about? WUWT has never attacked Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Christy, Dr. Michaels or Dr. Spencer.

  213. Dwayne Kellum says:

    and I rest my case.

Comments are closed.