Notes from a ‘mole’ in Al Gore’s Climate Leadership Training

climate-reality-leadership-corps-190x240[1]A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.

For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.

The ‘mole’ writes:

I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.

(I took copious notes)

a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted.  I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc.  Very bizarre.

b) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.”  Quite honestly, there is nothing new here, EXCEPT that there is no trace of the “hockey stick” graph that was so central to “An Inconvenient Truth”!! Amazing, considering how central that was to their arguments!

c) Instead, Al lumps data together year-by-year or decade-by-decade to show an ever increasing rise in temps.  He poo-pooed measurement inaccuracies, specifically mentioning UHI effects and saying that the scientists determined these were insignificant.

d) A couple graphs stood out – one showed the documented rise in temperature PRECEDES the rise in CO2 which he brushed aside as “typical variation.”  The only hockey stick was one that projected atmospheric CO2 over time, jumping up drastically in coming years.  I didn’t have time to write units down, but it was a big jump.  It could be a realistic rise with China & India bringing new coal plants online, I’d have to check any citations.

e)  Al’s presentation was heavy on his new concept of “dirty weather,” see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/24-hours-of-reality-dirty-weather_n_2130344.html

To summarize, I didn’t see anything new or ground-breaking in this mess.  Most slides were BS, typical “this is due to climate, not weather” type stuff we kick around on WUWT all the time.  Hurricane Sandy, torrential rains in Pakistan etc.

Personal observations:

a) We skeptics ain’t liked much with them folks.  The “d” word (denier) was used liberally, and I queried several participants, some of who were very cool folks, about it.  Al Gore and his speakers used “Denier,” “Denial Industry” and other terms I found objectionable. Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

b) Nothing new was presented, technically speaking.  This thing was “An Inconvenient Truth” redux, with much of the controversial stuff (hockey stick & drowning polar bears) deleted.  Al got our message, he doesn’t seem to want to engage folks like us.

c) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power.  He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima).  He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.

d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon.  Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.

Quick summary: 

Al is a polished speaker, and looked trim & in shape.  Very impressive command of his speaking material.  Decent speakers lined up, including some sustainability folks from private industry.  I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.

==============================================================

UPDATE: Since many of the Gore followers are arriving here, I welcome you to answer this question that nobody would ask Mr. Gore this week:

If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page).

You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

For the few of you brave enough, thanks for taking the time to answer that question – Anthony

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

350 Responses to Notes from a ‘mole’ in Al Gore’s Climate Leadership Training

  1. AndiC says:

    Yep, I attended a session in New Zealand given by one of Al’s “Graduates” – long on rhetoric sorely missing on factual content. An appeal to emotion not logic.

    Glad mine was only an hour

    Andi

  2. temp says:

    So that slide show should hit the internet soon as its for public/cult follower use on the public?

    Was their free buffet? If so free bacon?

    REPLY:
    There are no plans to leak Al’s slide show. From what I hear, there’s not much there that isn’t already widely available. – Anthony

  3. Hari Seldon says:

    erm…just one thought…they don’t want to catch any flies. They want the flies to be ‘disapeared’ .

  4. Latimer Alder says:

    Reading some of the tweets by other attendees, the ‘cult’ idea seems true. Example

    ‘Al Gore made me cry three times today :-)’

    I am just reminded of PG Wodehouse’s ‘Roderick Spode’.

  5. temp says:

    “REPLY: There are no plans to leak Al’s slide show. From what I hear, there’s not much there that isn’t already widely available. – Anthony”

    from this section

    Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.”

    I assumed the cultists plan to release it themselves. More of a question of did they give a date when they plan to do it… always good to have the rubber boots out for the incoming flood of stupid.

    REPLY: Actually, from what I’ve read, Al Gore tightly controls those slides, and will take legal action against any of the followers that release them into the public domain. As we saw in AIT, most of it isn’t his original work, just window dressing the work of others, so his claim for intellectual property rights might not hold up. – Anthony

  6. Steve Case says:

    I had to Google BWR to find out that it meant Boiling Water Reactor.

  7. A.D. Everard says:

    Well done! I wonder if there were any more hidden skeptics in there, or how many were checking it out (rather than full-blown alarmists)? I wonder how many he turned off.

    What was the turn-out, by the way? I heard Al was having trouble getting the numbers he wanted. I also understand the newspapers sometimes (cough, cough) exaggerate the numbers to various protests. Al certainly has exaggerated his viewing number when he did that 24 hour thing some time ago, so he will no doubt exaggerate now.

    Thank you for going in there and giving us all a peek.

  8. HenryP says:

    yes, the climate is changing
    Al Gore is right about that.
    it is just not man made
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  9. Did you go in the toilet cubicals and swob them with a test kit to see if you could find any traces of CoCaine.

  10. temp says:

    “REPLY: Actually, from what I’ve read, Al Gore tightly controls those slides, and will take legal action against any of the followers that release them into the public domain. As we saw in AIT, most of it isn’t his original work, just window dressing the work of others, so his claim for intellectual property rights might not hold up. – Anthony”

    So little confused are they handing the slides out to the foot cultists to display in closed door forums then? Or are they going to use some other presentation as the push? I’m assuming its the closed door setup and they will ban ppl from taking pictures of the slides and so forth.

    So then the question is is this kind of an al-gore proxy cultist rally they will hold behind closed doors for the faithful? Normally propaganda you want to throw far and wide. Maybe he’s getting scared the faithful are losing the faith… or its just another way to cash in.

  11. Kev-in-Uk says:

    My immediate thoughts are that this is probably similar to the pressure sales technique used in the past for Timeshares and holiday ‘clubs’, etc. Slick punchy presentation with little chance for debate or discussion! All of which is entirely the mantra of ‘cultist’ type organisations.

    If people (sheeple?) want to be treated that way, that is their choice! I guess when they are finally herded into fuel poverty pens and sit awaiting their slow freezing demise, they may wish they had taken a more rounded view?

  12. X Anomaly says:

    Thankyou very much for this. Very interesting. My personal believe is that people like Gore (and the administration associated with him), who have gone out on a limb on this issue, are in fact the greatest barrier to scientific progress.

    1) Did you have to pay for the event? Because Al Gore really does know how to make cash and I’m just wondering if he “volunteered” his precious time. or did you pay for his sermon?

    2) Were the people there generally of the “educated elite class”?

    3) Age groups, gender, religion?

    4) Where there any republicans? Y’know, like Richard Alley?

  13. Tucci78 says:

    I’m told the health/climate breakout session was terrible & am glad I took a pass on it.

    Hrm. That’s precisely the session I would’ve taken pains to attend. I suspect the “epidemiology” aspects of AGW catastrophism are – if anything – even more gormlessly projected than are their contentions about atmospheric physics.

  14. Dodgy Geezer says:

    I like the ‘Spode’ video.

    But a more subtle literary reference might be G K Chesterton’s ‘The Man who was Thursday’.

    You will recall that in that book, dealing with the infiltration of a gang of anarchists by a police spy, the entire gang turns out to be comprised of police spies, with the chief of police as head of the movement….

  15. Were there any questions allowed?

  16. morgo says:

    it is return of the Hitler youth program never thought gov;t would allow it to happen again very sad

  17. Wow! I wonder if they are giving away any of those super cool Al Gore “Blubber Suit’s”?
    If so, I am in baby!!! “Al…Al…Al…Al…Al…Al…!!!”

  18. DirkH says:

    Dodgy Geezer says:
    August 2, 2013 at 1:00 am
    “You will recall that in that book, dealing with the infiltration of a gang of anarchists by a police spy, the entire gang turns out to be comprised of police spies, with the chief of police as head of the movement….”

    Sorta happened in reality in Germany in the last 10 years. As usual, the state wanted to abolish a nationalist party, I think the NPD. The procedure failed in court because the party was able to prove that 15% of its members were spooks and that therefore any activities counter to the constitution of Germany might have been implanted by the state’s spooks themselves.

  19. mike fowle says:

    Dodgy geezer – Amazing! That is precisely what I was thinking just before I read your comment. Great minds etc.

  20. Dodgy Geezer says:

    …Sorta happened in reality in Germany in the last 10 years. …
    Amazing! That is precisely what I was thinking just before I read your comment. Great minds etc….

    GKC is a much underrated author, and completely out of fashion at the moment.

    Which is a shame, because he’s one of the best there is….

  21. ironargonaut says:

    Just don’t drink the cool aid while there. Literally.

  22. Brian H says:

    Saw a down-revised attendance figure of 800 somewhere, in a PR-sounding blurb. Sorry, linklost.

    “Don’t undertake vast projects with half-vast plans.”
    ;)

  23. Village Idiot says:

    No need for us to worry about that bunch of amateurs then.

    But over our shoulders looming from the ‘weather becomes climate’ dept. there are a few embarrassing heat waves for us to field this year (China, Italy, temp record on Greenland etc.) And what about when that pause stops pausing? (sorry I mean if, of course)

  24. Dodgy Geezer says:

    …And what about when that pause stops pausing?…

    To answer that, we need to know what the ‘right’ temperature is for the Earth.

    I have seen no one ask any policy makers that question. “What is the right temperature we should keep to, and will you stop taxing us when we achieve it?” would be a good one to start with…

  25. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Interesting to see Al Gore is open to nuclear.
    Last night on the ABC in Australia,7.30 report there was a long ‘expose’ of the new Australian laser enrichment technology for uranium, of which I had never heard.
    Apart from the creator of the technology, the rest was a Green explaining how this would lead to more nuclear weapons, more wars and more children would die or be horribly maimed or disfigured.Lots of horrific pictures.
    The object lesson and the reason for this ‘morality play’ was the impact of depleted uranium on the lives of children after the Iraq war.
    The fact that you need advanced optics and plenty of power to do this enrichment was expressed.Its unlikely the average Jihadist or rogue state could do the enrichment.
    The concept that it ‘may save the planet’ from AGW was never uttered.Lots of nuclear power plant cooling towers against the sunset looking evil and polluting.
    Perhaps the split in the Greens is greater than imagined, with the ABC greens on one side opposing enrichment and Gore and Lovelock in some other corners,either accepting nuclear or not wanting to degrade energy infrastructure to replace it with windmills.

  26. knr says:

    St Gore may be a failed politician but his still got the ‘taste ‘ for leadership and if that means a cult then that is fine with him .
    Which leave us with a problem , should St Gore decide to he ‘needs’ leave his earthly body to return to his godhood , do we morn or laugh ?

  27. Ryan Stephenson says:

    It is interesting that the purpose of this meeting seems to be aimed at creating a kind of cult with Gore as its Messiah and a “them and us” mentality as far as “deniers” are concerned. This is rather different from a political movement where the approach is to try and remain as open as possible to people that might be willing to change their minds.

    Does make you wonder where Gore is going with all this. He’s starting to look more and more like a David Icke character in the making.

  28. Txomin says:

    +1 Bernd Felsche

    I am curious too. Did any kind of exchange take place or was it just a delivery of instructions?

  29. Larry Kirk says:

    @ Lewis P Buckingham

    The share price of the company that has the technology you spoke of, Silex Systems, rose by 20% yesterday and another 6% today. I feel a capital raising may be in the offing. This is Australia, after all..

    The Gore cult reminds me of a horrible thing that a girlfriend tried to con me into joining once: The Landmark Forum. Mad people. I shudder to remember it!

    Watch the feet; they follow the money, as ever..

  30. David L. says:

    Isn’t all this just a modern version of the hippie movement of the ’60s: get back to nature, change society, live in communes, etc,?

  31. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ David L., hardly. The hippie movement was quite benign, whereas this one is purposely destructive. Indeed, the Greenie movement has many of the same elements as fas*ism, using fear and propaganda as tools. The hippies were anti-establishment, but primarily by dropping out, whereas these folks are part of a giant multi-$billion machine with malevolent intent.

  32. Gary Pearse says:

    This sucker is going for another Nobel Prize. The little shoulder patches and soon young troubadours with balalaikas ….

  33. David L. says:

    @Bruce Cobb August 2, 2013 at 4:18 am

    Good point. That raises a question for me: I wonder if this AGW movement is more closely related to Marxism, rather than f@scism (or any of the other varieties of -isms of the era!) With the idea of wealth redistribution (under the guise of saving the planet) I’d propose it’s more in line with Marxism.

  34. Rick K says:

    And that, my dear Watson, was how I solved the Case of the Missing Heat.

    Fascinating, Holmes! Wherever did you learn this well-honed tradecraft of yours?

    University, my dear Watson! University!
    The fine points of clear, unfettered thinking supported only by facts and data is a skill not mastered by many. It requires a trained mind, Watson. Trained by pure logic to see nothing but the facts and the underlying data that supports them. Data and facts are truth, Watson, my good man!
    Odd, is it not, that one must use truth to catch a thief, a murderer or a simple liar?

    Quite right, Holmes. Quite right. But when did you develop this interest… this passion of yours for…

    High School, my dear Watson! High School!
    There was this Professor there… a man possessed of brilliant insight and knowledge — or so they said. He challenged us, Watson. He challenged us every day to…

    Seek the truth?

    No, Watson! He challenged us to believe every bloody thing he uttered from his well-stuffed pie-hole. The man was an absolute buffoon! Born into privilege, he became accustomed to having the weak-minded of every social strata believe his every prognostication as if it were from Moses himself.

    Holmes! I remember hearing stories of a Professor Gore who was singularly attracted to himself and was quite enamored with his intellectual acumen.

    One and the same, Watson! He was a large man with a small mind who fancied himself intellectually well-endowed. Pity the ladies who could find no evidence to support his claims of intellect. Or endowment, for that matter.

    Yes, quite. As I remember the man was shamed…

    Shamed by real men and women of quiet dignity who simply wanted the truth, Watson!

    Holmes… wasn’t Professor Gore eventually found guilty of fraud of some sort? As I recall, the only level of education he actually succeeded at was…

    Elementary, my dear Watson! Elementary!

    Holmes. You are brilliant.

    Carry on, Watson.

  35. TimO says:

    Hey the religion thing worked for L. Ron Hubbard. He just hasn’t figured out a way to identify himself as Pope Al yet….

  36. philjourdan says:

    [snip - while I disagree with Mr. Gore, that's over the top - Anthony]

  37. Jason Calley says:

    For those who have commented that Al has not presented a welcoming approach for sceptics who might convert, I doubt that Al wants any former sceptic in his ranks. When you run a scam, having a possible thinker mixed in among the victims is far too dangerous to justify any additional revenue. There is a reason why many cults have some unbelievable gateway doctrine that must be swallowed by new converts; it keeps out the non-gullible.

  38. jeanparisot says:

    It will be interesting to see how far and wide your friendly mole’s personal information is spread to other related political organizations. An update in a few months detailing all the new solicitations for funds would be interesting.

    For any future moles, when you sign up for these things include a slight misspelling of your name or address, use a new email address (not Richard Windsor!), etc. That way you can quickly separate out the spawn from your efforts. Do it a few times, its interesting to see who is sharing with who.

  39. wws says:

    You’re a far better man than I am, Temp! I would rather go to a series of Time-Share sales presentations than have to sit through the dreck you exposed yourself to.

  40. more soylent green! says:

    I just don’t think I could do this. I could not keep a straight face or keep my mouth shut long enough to complete the training.

    Did you have to do some sort of desensitizing training beforehand? Maybe like they did in “A Clockwork Orange?” When I went to POW training in Air Force Survival School, we had several days of classroom orientation and prep work first.

  41. Resourceguy says:

    Basically, it sounds like a political science junkie event especially for the rising students looking for connections, all under the theme of politician science. Think networking not science.

  42. michael hart says:

    It sounds like an episode from The Twilight Zone. Probably the one with Dennis Hopper in.

  43. John says:

    Two points.

    1. The health stuff is an important selling point, wrong as usual. One thing you won’t hear about health is that CO2 allows more food to be grown per acre, AND allows less water to be used per acre, AND allows more northerly areas to be warm enough, long enough to grow crops. Food is your #1 priority in a world with more people. Many enviros really, really don’t want a world with more people. I don’t want much more population growth, either, but starvation isn’t the right policy to achieve it (economic growth and self interest is: when people in the developing world move up the economic ladder, they no longer have 5 to 9 kids, they tend to have a number they can take nurture and care of, as in the developed world).

    2. ORNL nukes: they are small and modular, meaning they can be built at a factory with a standard design. No more custom building at the site with lots of high priced labor and the opportunity for something to go a bit wrong in construction. They should be safer and cheaper per amount of electricity produced, and if you don’t need as much electricity as the standard huge nuke that requires economies of scale to even begin to be economic, you can order a modular nuke that produces 1/10 the power at (hopefully) something like 1/15th the cost.

  44. DCA says:

    “Actually, from what I’ve read, Al Gore tightly controls those slides, and will take legal action against any of the followers that release them into the public domain.”

    So they’re on releasing the data…..How Mannian of them…Go figure.

  45. James Evans says:

    Dodgy Geezer,

    “But a more subtle literary reference might be G K Chesterton’s ‘The Man who was Thursday’.

    You will recall that in that book, dealing with the infiltration of a gang of anarchists by a police spy, the entire gang turns out to be comprised of police spies, with the chief of police as head of the movement….”

    I read that years ago. Loved it. But I could never remember what the book was called, or who it was by. So thanks for that.

    I seem to remember that when the IRA disbanded, it turned out that at least one IRA cell was composed entirely of informants.

  46. Ox AO says:

    David L:

    Fascism was born out of Marxist theory. The only difference is under Fascism the state controls property rather then owning it.

    The documentary “the Soviet Story” elaborates on this some.

  47. What did anonymous Gore-botter expect at a training camp for crusaders? It was evangelical: “Spread the Word”. It is written:

    >>The science is settled. Our planet is heating up, and carbon pollution from Dirty Energy is to blame. Gore.

    Francis Bacon took a couple of decades to insert causation in physical sciences. He created Modern Science by inserting scientific deduction into Aristotle’s scientific method. That was 1620. Between 1934 and 1963, Karl Popper managed to remove scientific deduction from MS to create Post Modern Science, free from Cause & Effect (causation) and from the principle of causality (the cause must precede its effects). Thus where the effect (temperature) can precede its cause (CO2), the subject is a matter of faith. It is PMS.

    Where a model’s predictions fail, i.e., AGW, that model is PMS. Take two Tylenol and call me in the morning.

    Is this one more case where criticizing one man’s faith makes another feel big?

  48. Pamela Gray says:

    The shoulder patches are just too close for comfort. The man has no concept of history.

  49. Ox AO says:

    Mongo said, “it is return of the Hitler youth program”

    Socialists have always been big on cults. Jim Jones following from San Fransisco and this older one:

  50. Pittzer says:

    These people work this information into anything they can. I once attended a sales training that was given to my employees by one of the “initiated”. This guy was pretty smooth and worked the material into his sales training program. Of course, afterward I asked him, innocently, if he really thought that was true. I was treated to a ton of slides that were at the ready: Polar bears on ice in the middle of the ocean, sat photos of ice free NW Passage, Hockey Stick, etc.

    It’s just so underhanded and dishonest it makes me ill.

  51. There are ocean scientists among the climate leaders that have created slides about the author’s focus topic on ocean acidification due the mass absorption of C02. Now that he/she is an insider, they have access to most of the 200 scientific academies of the world and all of their published and peer reviewed scientific journals from 170 countries. The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
    http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    http://www.ceres.org/ The Ceres Company Network presentation which the author attended includes more than 70 members from two-dozen industries; including technology, footwear and apparel, food and beverage, oil and gas, electric utilities and financial services. More than one-third of the companies Ceres works with are Fortune 500 firms.all the businesses that have signed onto combating this issue.

    Insurance in Florida has skyrocketed and may become unobtainable.
    At hearings before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee on July 18, 2013, Mr. Frank Nutter, President of the ReInsurance Association of America repeated the longstanding concerns that the Insurance industry has about climate change.

    The salient point is, that Insurance companies live and die by their ability to estimate risks. To that end, they hire the world’s smartest number crunchers to figure out how much exposure they have to things like extreme weather exacerbated by climate change.
    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/24/insurance-industry-sees-risk-of-climate-fueled-extremes/

  52. mpainter says:

    d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ocean acidification is nothing worth anyone’s interest; it is a fabrication that is intended as another CO2 bogeyman but it is too absurd to frighten anyone. Don’t waste your time.

  53. hunter says:

    We all owe a debt of gratitude and much admiration for this brave person.
    The mole is quite brave. The Goreon true believers will not be pleased.
    Keep up the excellent work and tell us more.
    Sincere thanks,

  54. Col Mosby says:

    I object to the claim that nuclear financials are poor, Fukashima or no Fukashima. Also, the characterization of nuclear technology as “BWR” (boiling water reactor) is absurdly misleading.
    Gen 3 BWR reactors are rated thousands of times safer from core meltdown than earlier generations (also BWR) and generally require no human intervention to prevent same. SMRs are safer still, although they do not achieve the economies of scale. Anyone who worries about current generation nuclear plant safety is wasting their time, and ours. The rest of the world is rushing to build hundreds and thousand of nuclear plants, even Arab countries bathed in solar sunshine. Only the most anal countries – ours and Germany, primarily, are so energy confused and rampant with false claims and bad data. I’ve heard nonsensical figures of “over $16 billion” to build a single GW nuclear plant, while South Carolina and Georgia are right now building, under fixed price contracts , Gen 3 nuclear plants that are costing less than $4 billion per GW.

  55. Legatus says:

    He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima).
    Number of people killled or hurt (according to all press, mainstream or otherwise), or according to a panel of the worlds top nuclear medicine experts at the UN, even endangered by Fukishima, exactly zero. ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, NADA.
    Study of millions of people who work with radioactive meterials, and who recieve 10 times the radioactivity of the populace at large, showed, even over five decades, exactly ZERO health effects (including incidence of cancer, occording to a report released this Febuary by the UN showing zero evidence of any health effects of small amounts of radioactivity, such as at Fukishima). Repeat, , MILLIONS, OVER FIVE DECADES, ZERO EFFECT.

    Now, do you wish to continue to believe in fairy tales and myths, or do you wish to believe the evidence?

  56. Ox AO says:

    Jeff Glassman

    OH my gosh, I have to read up on Karl Popper now after you pointed out he was the start of empirical falsification over deductive logic. He was also the start of the Open Society and “intolerance should not be tolerated” and other Looney Toon ideas we have today.

    Thanks

  57. arthur4563 says:

    The idea that nuclear plants have a “financial problem” are pretty nonsensical. Nuclear energy
    actually became cheaper than coal several years ago. Nuclear plants also pay fee to the govt fund that pays for taking care of nuclear wastes and decommissioning at the end of the plant’s life, which is typically over 60 years for Gen 3 designs. The fund is actually over endowed, and when fast reactors come on board, the cost of taking care of nuclear wastes will practically disappear, along with those wastes. As for build costs, you can laugh out loud at the bogus claims of the anti-nuke crowd – they will cite “over $15 billion” while two plants currently being built in Georgia and South Carolina are on fixed price contracts , at less than $4 billion per GW.
    China has the capability of building Gen 3 plants for less than $3 billion per GW.
    And referring to designs as “BWR” is rather monstrously misleading – current Gen 3 and Gen 3+ designs (many BWR) are thousands of times less likely to experience a major failure. They can protect themselves against core meltdowns without any need for human intervention, or even electricity or coolant pumps. It is extremely unlikely that any of the thousands of these plants that will be built will ever experience a major accident. As it is, over 60 years of operation of nuclear plants in the Western world has resulted in exactly two major accidents – Three Mile Island and Fukashima, neither of which resulted in the death or serious injury to a single person, at the time or in the future. If those plants had been Gen 3 designs, it would have been impossible for the accidents that occurred to have happened. Totally impossible.

  58. Richard M says:

    Let’s see … if I wanted to educate the public of an impending disaster I would want to distribute the information far and wide. One might think Gore realizes his slides are nonsense and would be destroyed by skeptics in a heartbeat. What this tells us is Gore knows he is lying. It isn’t a case of trusting scientists, the man is deliberately passing misinformation to gullible recruits.

  59. Alberta Slim says:

    Rick K says:
    August 2, 2013 at 4:58 am
    “And that, my dear Watson, was how I solved the Case of the Missing Heat……… etc.”

    Rick. You missed your calling. To me, that is a great piece of work. Thanks.

  60. MattS says:

    temp,

    “or its just another way to cash in.”

    Ding…Ding…Ding You win the prize.

  61. Todd says:

    “Actually, from what I’ve read, Al Gore tightly controls those slides, and will take legal action against any of the followers that release them into the public domain.”

    Gorentology?

  62. Alberta Slim says:

    arthur4563 says:
    August 2, 2013 at 7:57 am
    Thanks for that.
    It is unfortunate that politicians [even conservatives] refuse to accept this info.
    Afraid of losing votes, if suggested, I suspect.

  63. Steven Mosher says:

    ‘ Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

    try dead squirrels if you are into fly catching

  64. Sandra says:

    I’m amazed how this ‘mole’ heard the same words I heard, but came away with a totally different message/feeling. This was not a crowd of coerced people with carefully timed applause. We are not “Gore-bots.” We are sincere, passionate people who know we have to do something about climate change and fast. There are conservative-minded people who recognize the facts about climate change. The conference was free and attended by 1,400+ amazing individuals from all 50 states and 70+ countries, young and old, all walks of life from artists and ministers, teachers and mothers, and more.

  65. milodonharlani says:

    Jeff Glassman says:
    August 2, 2013 at 7:13 am

    Re: Francis Bacon:

    Induction, not deduction.

  66. milodonharlani says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:05 am

    Rotting fruit or similar moist, fermenting material works for fruit flies.

  67. Science is hard to deny says:

    funny that all of you [snip] sit here and validate the [snip] out of each other…frothy in your “see? we’re so much better than those people” while not at all realizing the irony of calling the “other side” a cult…nope, the [snip] wouldn’t see the irony there.

    [Please read the Policy page. ~mod.]

  68. Mary A. Colborn says:

    Interesting. Attempt to rebrand the attendees as cultists and you believe that you have effectively diminished their message. All the while extreme weather events happen around the world with increasing frequency. Temperatures reach into the high 90′s in Alaska in June. Fires devastate the state of Colorado, super storms flood Manhatten. You wonder who the real cultists are here. Climate leaders or you, who are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.

  69. Upsidedowner says:

    It is likely that Gore’s free programs are funded by tax dollars – as was likely the means by which An Inconvenient came into being (grants).

  70. Skiphil says:

    Sandra,

    Please give us some idea of what was conveyed in terms of important climate information. I’m sure there will be a lot of interest here in discussion of the latest updates from Mr. Gore and his colleagues.

  71. Anthony Watts says:

    I see the Gore faithful have arrived to defend the crusade.

    Welcome, here is your first question. (Mary A. Colborn is nominated to answer).

    If the position and science is so strong, why did Mr. Gore have to fake the results of his experiment in the Climate 101 video (which you may have seen and is still on the climate reality web page)

    You can see the experiment recreated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

  72. Amanda says:

    Thank you for taking the time to attend the training. Unfortunately, most of the information you wrote about is a complete fabrication. I am no hippy, never was, I am a government official and I can tell you this was no kum bye ya gathering. People that went to this training were teachers, government officials, business leaders, parents , etc. We want to learn to present the information we already know about climate change. I want to make my community and my state a safer and greener place to live. If you choose to deny science (I have an environmental science background and its simple chemistry to understand what is happening to the atmosphere from all the carbon we are pumping into the air), then that’s ok. But just know that our society is heading towards more sustainable development and you either get with it, or move out of the way.

  73. Fun thing to consider about AGW’ers crashing any skeptic presentations such as those put on by the Heartland Institute: there would be too great a risk that the Gore followers would absorb all that plausible skeptic material and turn into skeptics themselves, asking tough questions about why Gore’s narratives don’t line up right.

  74. Mr Lynn says:

    Sandra says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:08 am
    I’m amazed how this ‘mole’ heard the same words I heard, but came away with a totally different message/feeling. This was not a crowd of coerced people with carefully timed applause. We are not “Gore-bots.” We are sincere, passionate people who know we have to do something about climate change and fast. There are conservative-minded people who recognize the facts about climate change. The conference was free and attended by 1,400+ amazing individuals from all 50 states and 70+ countries, young and old, all walks of life from artists and ministers, teachers and mothers, and more.

    [My emphasis]

    And exactly how do you know you have to do “something about climate change” (by which I assume you mean ”global warming” caused by people burning fossil fuels and generating CO2).

    Are you aware that there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature? Are you aware that predictions of warming are based entirely on computer models that simply replicate the assumptions programmed into them? Are you aware that even if we could make the Earth a little warmer, that would be a good thing, extending the range of arable land for crops and temperate places for people to live? Are you aware that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere (with human contributions a small portion of it) that is essential for all life on Earth?

    If you are not aware of these facts, and many others (e.g. that geo-historically, temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, or that atmospheric CO2 has been much higher even in glacial periods), then if you are not ‘coerced’ you are certainly misled by pseudo-scientific ideology. And unquestioning acceptance of such ideology is the prime indicator of cult thinking. You don’t have to be coerced to be members of a cult.

    /Mr Lynn

  75. The fact that they use “denier” tells you that you are dealing with a fundamentalist religion. The only reality they are promoting is an alternate reality that has no basis on the objective and physical world.

  76. Tim Clark says:

    Anthony,
    I need a patch. Change the word Leadership on big Als above with Readership, and put WUWT at the bottom.

  77. Tucci78 says:

    d) Stuff I’m interested in, like ocean acidification, were only briefly touched upon. Al didn’t discuss the diplomacy challenges of engaging China and India, although he did mention their growing carbon output.

    Anent this, at 7:34 AM on 2 August mpainter had commented:

    Ocean acidification is nothing worth anyone’s interest; it is a fabrication that is intended as another CO2 bogeyman but it is too absurd to frighten anyone. Don’t waste your time.

    This could well be a very good reason why the “mole” originating this post had been “interested in…ocean acidification.”

    “Go straight to the heart of the enemy’s greatest strength. Break that and you break him. You can always mop up the flanks and stragglers later, and they may even surrender, saving you a lot of effort.”

    – L. Neil Smith

  78. Zeke says:

    Actually, I myself am not paid by the fossil fuel industry. The poster above has got that in reverse. I pay the fossil fuel industry for affordable gas and reasonable electricity to my home on demand and use it as I see fit. This gives me economic and physical mobility not enjoyed by many people in the world.

    Now consider whether these necessities, pleasures, and conveniences of everyday life in America should be restricted only to certain classes. Because that is what these heartless environmental activists are offering you: class restrictions on chariots, weapons, art, and innovative technologies, just like Plato’s Republic. There’s absolutely nothing noble in creating a ruthless, privileged aristocracy with the ability to pass laws that are separate for separate classes.

  79. Science is hard to deny says:

    Mr. Lynn….you try so hard to sound informed but your understanding of atmospheric science is about Jr High level…”You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

    for the rest of you…this article is silly at best. This “mole” is voicing an opinion…the fact that you all came to suckle on it and treat it like some sort of gotcha grail is demonstrates a complete and utter lack of critical thinking.

    REPLY: for an exercise in critical thinking why not answer why Mr. Gore had to fake the results of his climate 101 video in post production? See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

    I’d say that is rather “hard to deny”.

    - Anthony

  80. Val says:

    I attended the Chicago Climate Reality Leadership conference. It was by no means free however, there was no charge incurred resulting from agreement to participate. There were personal sacrifices made by the self-funding participants – 1500 from over 50 countries and every state of the United States also represented. There ages, occupations, and educational backgrounds were as diversified as they come. There were mothers, fathers, children, students, soldiers, scientists, biologists, professors, teachers, lawyers, ministers, government, and corporate representatives and many other walks, both conservatives and liberals, coming together with one shared interest – the well-being of our natural world and a strong desire to induce positive changes in the ways and means that we live, consume, and operate at personal, commercial, and industrial levels. It was a message of hope and solutions. There was no “timed-applause” but rather response to a very passionate message that any caring human being can relate to – which is the legacy of the planet that we will leave behind for our children. Any individual with reasonable intelligence, logic and reason would be hard pressed to hold a convincing argument that the exponentially growing population and industrial developments in emerging countries are not placing extreme demands on our precious natural resources. I have never been a follower. I am of strong mind, independence, and conviction that is it critical for today’s leaders to implement sustainable practices which generate positive impacts towards healthier people and a healthier planet. I choose a path of teaching my children these lessons and am inspired by the number of humanitarians and environmentalists that share Al Gore’s passion, mine, and the 1498 other compassionate human beings that heard the same message as I over the past three days. Time well spent in pursuit of personal growth towards my two greatest passions – our children’s future (your future too) and our natural world.

  81. Zeke says:

    Oh but then again, simple peasants have always needed religion to cling to, so that will be provided later. But right now, the environmental/globalist activists are not officially cultists.

  82. Ox AO @7:49 am wrote:

    >>OH my gosh, I have to read up on Karl Popper now after you pointed out he was the start of empirical falsification over deductive logic. He was also the start of the Open Society and “intolerance should not be tolerated” and other Looney Toon ideas we have today.

    Not quite. Popper like Bacon 300 years earlier rejected induction as empirically impossible, representing as it does infinite regression. Bacon replaced that philosophical/mathematical precept with Cause & Effect, which I call scientific deduction when used to predict. (Note, esp. milodonharlani @ 9:11 am: switching from induction to deduction because infinite regression is gone.) Popper seems to have been unable or unwilling to grasp Bacon. Popper needed infinite regression because he thought science consisted of propositions like All Crows Are Black, and because Popper held, “Definitions do not matter.” He must have thought all scientists fools.

    Falsification was the capstone of Popper’s PMS, added last to satisfy the need for some way to test his models. He saw it as a separate clause, which seems never to been realized in any scientific model. A Modern Scientist can rationalize an existence for falsification as the validation of predictions. A Post Modern Scientist is lost because his model of science has no C&E by which to make a prediction.

    Maybe I help you decode Popper because only a masochist would want to search everything he wrote.

    PMS has five tenets, documented by the US Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow, affirming (1) – (4) and denying (5). They are found in Popper as follows:

    (1) Falsifiability. Popper, K. R., Science: Conjectures and Refutations, 1953 (Ge)/1963 (Eng), p. 7.

    (2) Peer-review/Publication. Popper, K. R., The Open Society and Its Enemies [OSE], 1945, pp. II-213, II-225-6.

    (3) Single error rate decision making. Popper, K.R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (Ge)/1959 (Eng), p. 256.

    (4) Consensus.Popper (1945), p. II-205.

    (5) Political Correctness. Popper (1945), p. II-220.

    Observe the absence of C&E in PMS. None of these five tenets of PMS, including in particular AGW, is valid in MS. The two models of science are mutually exclusive.

  83. JY says:

    Val says: ” Time well spent in pursuit of personal growth towards my two greatest passions – our children’s future (your future too) and our natural world.”

    Your time would be better spent in engineering and science books, doing hard work and coming up with viable solutions to make current energy sources obsolete. I can tell you now handing out billions in tax payers money to private corporations for weak solar panels and wind farms does nothing toward positive change to future generations. What you think should happen isn’t real, what happens is real.

  84. Peter in MD says:

    To Science is hard to deny:

    What Science??? Models? that’s not science, it’s psuedo-science at best

  85. Val says:

    JY – I’m not a scientist but I raised one! Big smile. I diligently feed my intellectual growth as well…should you have wrongly assumed otherwise.

  86. Bruce Cobb says:

    How quaint, a bunch of clueless Gore-bots have shown up, all spouting the same mindless drivel. If only they’d bother to stick around, they might actually learn something. True to form though, they won’t.
    A pity.

  87. Zeke says:

    We are now informed in Val’s post that the activists participated at personal expense “to induce positive changes in the ways and means that we live, consume, and operate at personal, commercial, and industrial levels,” but that also coincides perfectly with the stated purpose of…NGOs.

    Not only that, “cultists” may indeed be an appropriate, precise, and accurate term for Al Gore and his training of “Climate Leadership Corps.”

    Gaia paganism/environmentalism as religion:

    “Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, echoes this view “Prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today’s religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation…swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania.”

    Gore then quotes deChardin, “‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth…” ” http://www.green-agenda.com/gaia.html

  88. milodonharlani says:

    Mary A. Colborn says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:16 am

    “Extreme” weather, however defined is not happening around the world. If anything, weather has been less extreme recently. Please show the data upon which you rely to come to this conclusion so at odds with observed reality.

    In a warming, more equable world, weather ought to become less “extreme”, since the engine of so many atmospheric phenomena is energy or temperature differentials. The colder the world, the more violent its storms, as a general rule.

    Besides which, earth has not warmed statistically significantly for up to 23 years, depending upon data set (& of course the surface sets have been “adjusted” to make recent years warmer & older decades cooler). So what human activity do you imagine is causing this supposedly “extreme” weather?

    In any case, is weather now climate?

  89. Chad Wozniak says:

    @David L -
    Fascism is actually Marxist as well, from two perspectives: Mussolini was an ardent Marxist before he founded the Italian Fascisti, while the Nazi Party in Germany was founded by one Anton Drexler, another doctrinaire Marxist, six months before Hitler joined it, and Drexler equated the Marxist bourgeois class enemy with the Jews – hence, Nazi anti-Semitism.

    @morgo -
    The Hitler Youth analogy would also seem to apply to the IRS’s line dancing videos . . .

    @JY -
    Wind and solar are more than weak – they destroy habitats, despoil landscapes, emit a who new generation of pollutants – and most ironically of all, they force more fossil fuels to be burned in order to accommodate them, than if there were no wind or solar.

    The thing all of these have in common, and in common with AGW, is the impulse to tyranny and regimentation.

    And today’s green is different from the hippie era, as regrettable as that was in so many ways – it is intentionally, wantonly destructive of civilization and of all the advances made over the last millennium. Honest science is always the first casualty of tyranny.

  90. philjourdan says:

    @ Sandra – how much did you get paid to post that?

  91. milodonharlani says:

    Jeff Glassman says:
    August 2, 2013 at 10:16 am

    (Note, esp. milodonharlani @ 9:11 am: switching from induction to deduction because infinite regression is gone.)

    Please explain how Bacon, the advocate of induction, is in your mind now an adherent of deduction because infinite regression is gone. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but such a 180 degree shift in Bacon’s thought IMO requires explication in more detail than this offhand comment. Taking Bacon’s name in vain in this way isn’t to me intuitively obvious.

    The philosophical distinction is important. Darwin’s geology mentor Sedgwick attacked “development” or “transmutation of species” for not being, in his mind, inductive, hence, not scientific. Interestingly, Popper also initially regarded natural selection as unscientific, since not falsifiable, although eventually changed his mind when biologists educated him on the fact & theory of evolution (“rabbits in the Cambrian” would falsify the fact of evolution, in which case the theory wouldn’t matter).

  92. philjourdan says:

    @(non)Science – you cannot deny what does not exist. Unfortunately for you, there are no deniers here. Just skeptics. But that does escape your religious fervor.

  93. Resourceguy says:

    It would be nice to have an ACORN-style recording next time.

  94. KevinM says:

    Legatus, update your search. One dead, an old plant manager. Media ran with it for a few days then stopped. Sounded to me like he’d been “on the way out” beforehand, but lets not split hairs. One is the same as zero from a narrative perspectrive. “Less dangerous to humans than Mexican tomato imports”.

    Chernobyl stands as the worst human nuclear tragedy, with a few dozen short term dead, a few thousand sick liquidators dying early, a generation of Belyorussians born within a year or two of the incident with higher than average lymphatic cancer rates, and an extrordinary proportion of the country claiming some form of ill effect for financial benefit.

    You can blame human stupid for it, but you also have to admit that human stupid persists. “Never again” is delusional.

  95. milodonharlani says:

    philjourdan says:
    August 2, 2013 at 10:45 am

    @ Sandra – how much did you get paid to post that?
    ———-

    Clearly, Rev. Al was preaching to the choir, so no evidence was wanted or needed, just congregational clapping & swaying along to the hymns, with metaphorical snake handling to go with the snake oil peddling.

  96. Mr Lynn says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:59 am

    . . . Any individual with reasonable intelligence, logic and reason would be hard pressed to hold a convincing argument that the exponentially growing population and industrial developments in emerging countries are not placing extreme demands on our precious natural resources. I have never been a follower. I am of strong mind, independence, and conviction that is it critical for today’s leaders to implement sustainable practices which generate positive impacts towards healthier people and a healthier planet. . .

    Perhaps you should direct your “strong mind” to looking more closely at the question of resources, population, and development. Here’s a good place to start:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    I sometimes think ‘sustainability’ may be the dirtiest word in the English language. The proponents of ‘sustainability’ would drive us back to dung fires, dibble sticks, and squatting in the bush. That’s still how a lot of humanity lives. The key to their emergence into 21st-century civilization is energy: vast amounts of cheap, plentiful energy; and the key to that is ‘fossil’ fuel: coal, oil, natural gas (with nuclear as a plus). Raise the cost of energy and you condemn most of mankind to abject poverty. As far as I can see, that’s the aim of those who constantly spout the ‘sustainability’ mantra.

    They’re militant, and threatening about it, too:

    Amanda says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:31 am

    . . . But just know that our society is heading towards more sustainable development and you either get with it, or move out of the way.

    Sorry, where you’re heading is the opposite of progress, the opposite of compassion, and will lead to nothing but poverty, misery, and despair for all of humanity. I’ll have none of it.

    /Mr Lynn

  97. OldWeirdHarold says:

    I’d be interested in what non-climate issues came up. Any anti-GMO talk? Vaxxers? Anti-fluoridation? I noticed those things tend to come up in the same circles. Raw veganism*?

    *For those of you who’ve never heard of it, raw vegans believe that cooking food causes ‘toxins’. Nothing above 118 degrees F. Why 118? Elifino.

  98. Tom Cotter says:

    [As you can see, repeatedly labeling people you disagree with as "deniers" gets your comment snipped. — mod.]

  99. Val says:

    And if millions around the world simply committed to live and act daily with sustainable practices thereby resulting in declining CO2 levels, I feel pretty confident based on the majority mindset here that your consensus and agenda would be persuading that human beings also could not impact the positive changes. Fine with me. Achieving the desired result would be satisfying and rewarding result in itself. Optimistic. At least consider the possibility that our human demands and developments do have an impact and our actions and simply changing a few of our habits can be positive….unless the mind is closed to just agree that we are all human beings on one world. What harm could possibly come from being more friendly to the earth?

  100. Zeke says:

    What harm could possibly result from transforming the economy? It has been done before, during China’s Great Leap. Lysenkoism also destroyed crops and this resulted in starvation for millions of people. Scientists in league with governments have historically been quite lethal to the people in many countries in the last century. Now you know what harm could possibly result.

  101. Val says:

    Is it possible to put the argument aside? We’ve stated our positions. We have our convictions. I urge you to visit a nature sanctuary, national park, or other escape to our natural world and find a way to be appreciate the beauty and along with that perhaps an idea of how to be more earth-friendly. If you struggle for ideas, I can give you a few personal sustainability ideas that we as individuals can practice. Again, what harm could come from that?

  102. philjourdan says:

    @ Science is hard to deny says: August 2, 2013 at 9:53 am

    Gee Mr.(non)Science, that is all you have been spouting – your opinion. But at least we recognize the difference.

  103. philjourdan says:

    What is most amusing is that all the Gorebots are basically saying the same thing! As if they were given talking points with worthless statements to make (e.g. men, women and children, the hardships of attending, the cost, etc.).

    If the cost was so high (in time and travel), why did you waste your time? Only a true devout Gorebot would do so.

    How many Hindus make the pilgrimage to Mecca?

  104. Zeke says:

    What harm could come from destroying the energy and agricultural sectors of our economy? This is precisely the problem with progressives who decide to use science for the public good. They do not make observations of the destructive results of their own policies, and they do not acknowledge the role of scientists in the worst episodes of human history, which I sited above. Now Karl Popper, if he were here, would insist that the ghastly results of these social and economic experiments carried out in the UK and Spain at least be acknowledged. You will not get that from the “Climate Leadership Corps.”

  105. Val says:

    Zeke. Since you rephrase the “what harm can come,” I just want to clarify. Is it your intent to imply that personal sustainability choices and living more environmentally friendly will lead to the destruction of an economy? If not, might you have anything positive to contribute or must you always be on the defensive? What’s your story? What does the future look like for you? Do you have any children?

  106. Guy Lancaster says:

    as i commented to a kool-aid drunk friend, better a denier than a liar (like the uea cru, and mann

  107. Rob Crawford says:

    “I wonder if this AGW movement is more closely related to Marxism, rather than f@scism”

    Both are socialism; the difference was an argument whether to be international (Marx/Stalin) or national (Mussolini, et. al.).

  108. Rob Crawford says:

    “Science is hard to deny” — so why do the catastrophists keep doing so?

  109. Rob Crawford says:

    Oh — and “blood and soil” “f@scism” was big on what we’d today call “green” issues because, well, pollute the soil, pollute the blood, right?

  110. Zeke says:

    I consider my careful, specific answers to your question “What harm could possibly come?” and my simultaneous answer to the historical revisionism of Popper to be very very positive contributions.

    And I have also shown that these worthless sustainability policies in reality only set up a ruthless, unaccountable aristocracy that has sole class privileges to the necessities, conveniences, and pleasures of modern life brought by fossil fuels and a humming economy. That was another positive contribution I made on this thread.

  111. Tim Clark says:

    { Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:03 am
    And if millions around the world simply committed to live and act daily with sustainable practices thereby resulting in declining CO2 levels, I feel pretty confident based on the majority mindset here that your consensus and agenda would be persuading that human beings also could not impact the positive changes. }

    You’re visiting and haven’t seen threads that ellicit other types of responses. There are many of us that are earth-friendly.

    I work for a agricultural soil and conservation agency
    I recycle
    I volunteer to pick up trash in state parks and along the roadside
    I conserve water
    I have a programmable thermostat
    I have upgraded to energy efficient heating and cooling
    I grow and eat my own produce

    What I haven’t done is seen any empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that increasing CO2 will cause catastrophic consequences, or seen evidence that Al Gore is intelligent, honest and believable. That is why many ridicule him and by association, the true believers in CAGW.

  112. @Tucci78 9:46 am
    “Go straight to the heart of the enemy’s greatest strength. Break that and you break him. …”

    That didn’t work out so well for George Pickett and Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg.
    The second sentence is provisionally true: If you can break it, you win. However, failure to break it can lead to disaster.

    Back on topic, this leads to questions for the mole and other attendees:
    What is/are the key points of the “Leadership Corps” presentation that most easily countered and neutered?
    What are the gaps in the presentation most easily exploited.

  113. temp says:

    Sandra says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:08 am

    “This was not a crowd of coerced people with carefully timed applause. We are not “Gore-bots. ”

    I’m confused…. the doomsday culti of global warming as always been a doomsday cult… sure they tried to rebrand themselves as something as… but that doesn’t mean they were successful.

    Science is hard to deny says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:14 am

    “funny that all of you deniers sit here and validate the shit out of each other…frothy in your “see? we’re so much better than those people” while not at all realizing the irony of calling the “other side” a cult…nope, the denier cult wouldn’t see the irony there.”

    No irony in this post at all since its well know that pro-cult sites heavy censor anti-cult comments. Yet your allowed to post here.

    I find this propaganda line interesting.

    “There were mothers, fathers, children, students, soldiers, scientists, biologists, professors, teachers, lawyers, ministers, government, and corporate representatives and many other walks, both conservatives and liberals, coming together with one shared interest – the well-being of our natural world and a strong desire to induce positive changes in the ways and means that we live, consume, and operate at personal, commercial, and industrial levels. ”

    This is of course a direct quote from val… but Amanda says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:31 am and Sandra says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:08 am

    also say roughly the same thing. Is this the new talking points designed to humanize the cult? Didn’t jonestown and the hitler youth, stalin, mao and countless others use an almost exact similar phase?

    Now I know from propaganda 101 that this is a great appeal to emotional affects and also an appeal to authority as well as normalcy. One can also say its an appeal to consensus/the mob as they wish to appear to be “everyone”.

    That aside… the problem with talking points propaganda if when 3 ppl post the near exact same phase it tends out them very quickly. Before the internet and in a live audience this stuff works great because the people only hear it once… but written done…. repeatedly tends to out the propaganda quickly.

  114. Bruce Cobb says:

    @Val, it’s hard to tell whether you are that seriously delusional or just purposely lying. Do you actually think that this all about “personal choices” or “living in a more environmentally friendly” manner?
    This is about our C02 supposedly causing dangerous climate change, or extreme weather, or whatever the meme du jour is with you people. That’s it. So, stop trying to conflate things.
    The inconvenient fact for you folks is that the “human fingerprint” on climate has not been shown. If there is one, it is inconsequential.

  115. chainsaw says:

    Discoverers in science occur on a near daily basis. To suggest that “the science is settled” begets that notion thereby correctly attributing the nomer “cult” to all those who refuse to look and understand any new facts so conceived since the origin of “the science is settled”.

    Btw, since the “science is settled”, why do we, through tax supported government grants, continue to fund this “settled science”?

  116. Anthony Watts says:

    Hey Val,

    I have an electric car, solar on my home, put solar on local schools, LED lighting and timer switches to conserve electricity. Besides preach to us about “sustainable living” what have you actually done? Show your work.

    here is mine: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/

  117. temp says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:12 am

    “Is it possible to put the argument aside? We’ve stated our positions. We have our convictions. I urge you to visit a nature sanctuary, national park, or other escape to our natural world and find a way to be appreciate the beauty and along with that perhaps an idea of how to be more earth-friendly. If you struggle for ideas, I can give you a few personal sustainability ideas that we as individuals can practice. Again, what harm could come from that?”

    Val why do you wish to sterilize the poor? Why do you wish to find a humane way to put down the “less civilized” among us.

    You belief system is based in eugenics and mass murder. You throw around your buzzwords without having the slightest clue what they mean or what they have “accomplished” in the past. If you spent half as much time learning about sustainability from historic accounts as you did in the modern day account you would be scared to death of a “sustainable future”.

  118. Mr Lynn says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:12 am
    Is it possible to put the argument aside? We’ve stated our positions. We have our convictions. I urge you to visit a nature sanctuary, national park, or other escape to our natural world and find a way to be appreciate the beauty and along with that perhaps an idea of how to be more earth-friendly. . .

    Val, I’m about to take the dog out to the state park for a walk in the woods. This weekend my wife and I will probably take the canoe out for a paddle in the Great Meadows Wildlife Reserve. We enjoy and treasure the natural world, in a way that is difficult for people in mud huts, scrabbling in the dust for a meagre living. You romanticize poverty, and that to me is a great sin, and with this ‘sustainability’ you would condemn us to the same fate. It is the progress of civilization that generates the wealth necessary to properly husband our natural heritage, and that progress depends on energy: cheap, plentiful energy. And fortunately, the fabricated worry over CO2 was a complete fraud, just an excuse to tax us back into the stone age.

    /Mr Lynn

  119. There were mothers, fathers, children, students, soldiers, scientists, biologists, professors, teachers, lawyers, ministers, government, and corporate representatives and many other walks, both conservatives and liberals, coming together with one shared interest ….

    Point of order… How do you know who was there and what interests they had?
    I don’t doubt thre were mothers and fathers. Lawyers certainly. But to imply there were equal numbers of conservatives and liberals all with the same shared interest is to defy credibility.

  120. milodonharlani says:

    IMO liberating CO2 from the ground & putting it back in the air whence it came is a good thing. Vegetation & phytoplankton flourish as a result. Soot & old-fashioned real pollution are bad, but carbon dioxide is good, up to maybe around 1000 ppmv of dry air, ie true greenhouse concentration. More than that starts to give some people headaches, as noted before.

    Going from three molecules of CO2 per 10,000 air molecules (not counting water vapor), as in 1850, to ten would IMO make the world a better place. No catastrophic consequences can scientifically be shown to result. The heating effect of CO2 is close to being maxed out at present four molecules.

  121. philjourdan says:

    @ temp says: August 2, 2013 at 11:44 am

    I noted early on the eerie similarity to Jim Jones and Jonestown and the Gorebots. Apparently I am not alone in seeing the patterns.

  122. @Val:
    [To Zeke] I just want to clarify. Is it your intent to imply that personal sustainability choices and living more environmentally friendly will lead to the destruction of an economy?

    No. “Personal sustainability choices” are not a danger and, at least for me, are welcomed.

    Regimented, Authoritarian, National or Global Policy Decisions imposed upon the public will lead to a destruction of economies and deaths of millions, impoverisment of billions. Agenda 21 is not about individual choice.

    China’s “Great Leap Forward” is an overture to the economic destruction we potentially face if sustainability policies are imposed against a public

  123. motogeek says:

    So, a counter-point to “what harm does it do…”?
    I live in a home built in 1943. About 5 years ago, I had all of the original single-pane glass replaced with energy-efficient thermal windows.
    Sure enough, my energy bills did go down… but nothing compared to the $23,000 price tag of the new windows. And that price was the best of more than 2 dozen quotes. Along with a new furnace, all of my heating costs would be paid in 12 years at that rate… and I’m talking maybe a 20% difference after getting new windows… so basically pretty much they will not be cost effective until well after I die…
    I actually live in an area where most of the power generated comes from hydro-electric. What harm would it have done to leave the original windows intact? Had I been making more sensible economic choices back then, I would have saved the money for something else. (wow, I could really use 23 grand right now… I mean REALLY).
    Now, the goverment steps in and start subsidizing poor economic choices like that – based on questionable science that CO2 is going to destroy the planet.
    I think I got some small subsidy somewhere because of the improvements (which actually amounts to I made my neighbors pay for my bad choice). I think the subsidies are much more now (see, I should have at least waited). But if the whole premise is faulty, why bother?
    New homes can be made energy efficient when they are built, which is a lot more cost effective than making knee-jerk decisions based on faulty science.

  124. milodonharlani says:

    philjourdan says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    IMO the main difference between Jones’ followers & Prince Albert’s is that the former killed themselves, while the Gorebots want to eliminate other people.

  125. philjourdan says:

    @Milodonharlani – remember Leo Ryan.

  126. Ox AO says:

    [snip - this conversation is getting too far off topic - Anthony]

  127. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Sandra, Amanda and all the other alarmist skulkers here -
    Obviously you don’t know squat about CO2 (doubling it increases greenhouse effect maybe ~ 1%; higher CO2 = higher crop yields, more drought resistant crops) or about solar cycles (99% of the cause of climate change) or even about water vapor (30 to 140 x CO2 in the air at any given time, 3.5 times as effective as a GHG).
    Have any of you ever visited a commercial greenhouse? 1200-1500 ppm CO2 (3 – 4 x atmospheric) and no runaway warming there.
    And of course you don’t consider what kind of world will be left to your grandchildren if you wreck the world economy. But then, I guess you could say that burning shit to cook your food, like poor Africans have to do, is getting back to nature.
    Taken to its logical end, your agenda means there would be no life on Earth. No CO2 = no life.
    And finally, if the world you envision comes to pass, you won’t be attending any more El Gore (gore, as in “bloody mess”) neo-Hitler Youth rallies, because you would need cheap energy to do that.

  128. Roy says:

    What on earth has happened to the Gore Effect? Has it been destroyed by the increase in CO2 levels?

  129. milodonharlani says:

    philjourdan says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Good point. They were willing to make human sacrifices, too, as well as take their own lives.

  130. temp says:

    milodonharlani says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    philjourdan says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    “IMO the main difference between Jones’ followers & Prince Albert’s is that the former killed themselves, while the Gorebots want to eliminate other people.”

    Thats not completely true much like hitler really only planned to enslave the jews and others until they died “naturally”. Jones’ boys only did the whole killing themselves as a “last” act. I have no doubt if push came to shove and the goracles people were put into a jonestown set choice of being jailed and made to pay for the crimes they have committed, intend to commit and wish they could commit they would make one last “final” “stand”.

    Plus useful idiots are always disposed of after they have been used to the fullest. Thats just SOP for these types of movements.

  131. Lucy Kalinin says:

    Bruce Cobb you say
    I think you should read this article from Earth System Research Laboratory http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/. It explains how exactly scientists determine which carbon dioxide comes from carbon cycle and which from fossil fuels, the secret is isotopes! As undergrad chemistry student, I can tell you, it’s not magic.

    This link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8#at=89
    is one of the Climate Reality Projects. I really like it and thought to share it with everyone.

  132. KevinM says:

    If somebody out there is paying other people to write comments on blog articles for more than a dollar a piece, please give me a call. I’ll write prolifically for either side.

    What a tired supposition that is.

  133. dbstealey says:

    Mary A. Colborn says:

    “…extreme weather events happen around the world with increasing frequency. Temperatures reach into the high 90′s in Alaska in June. Fires devastate the state of Colorado, super storms flood Manhatten. You wonder who the real cultists are here. Climate leaders or you, who are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.”

    Note the usual ad hominem attack: scientific skeptics “are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.” That is the canard that skeptics get when the climate alarmist crowd has no credible scientific arguments.

    Mary Colborn gives her examples of routine events that happen every year, and that have happened whether CO2 was low, or high. In fact, CO2 has nothing measurable to do with global warming. Most of the rise in CO2 is emitted due to natural global warming, not vice-versa: ∆CO2 is the result of ∆T, it is not the cause. Mary probably doesn’t understand that fact. But most of us here have seen the chart that records that cause-and-effect relationship.

    Each event cited by Mary Colborn can be easily deconstructed: Alaska’s record high temperature was set at 100ºF, back on June 27… 1915. Fires “devastate” Colorado and other states every year. And Tropical Storm Sandy was a “superstorm” for only one reason: it hit right in the middle of a very densely populated, expensive area — which also happens to be the center of the broadcast/news industry. Three examples hardly make a credible scientific case. Ms Colborn is ruled by her emotions no less than Chicken Little was [Chicken Licken to our Brit friends].

    And of course, Ms Colborn does not identify her “climate leaders”. Might she be referring to Prof Richard Lindzen, who heads M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Sciences department, and who would surely disagree with Ms Colborn? Or more likely she is referring to Doctor, um… Professor um… Mr. Al Gore, who flunked Science. Is that her “climate leader”?

  134. pkv says:

    You’re right. I’m pretty sure that everyone writing here sincerely believes what they’re saying and I commend them for discussing the issue even if so much of what is posted here is unnecessarily vitriolic and, quite frankly, incorrect. Is your church, school, country, sports team, etc. a cult? If not, then please explain why you listen respectfully, watch avidly, and/or clap enthusiastically when their leaders/members say something you agree with and/or do something you like? Or are you a fill-in-the-blank-bot? Let’s move away from the name calling and discuss the issues. For starters, why not check out this article from today’s New York Times (unless of course, you refuse to read things published in the “liberal media”…even when written by self proclaimed Republibots, err, conservatives). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html

  135. Bruce Cobb says:

    @Lucy, the extent to which man is responsible for the increased C02 is debateable. It is also moot. It doesn’t matter one iota, except to you Alarmists. There is no real evidence that the increased C02 has affected our climate, though, in theory at least, it should have some effect. The problem is that climate is about the real world, not models. And unfortunately for you climate clowns, the climate isn’t reacting the way that the models say it should. The reason for that is that they are all fatally flawed, being based on wrong assumptions.

  136. Gunga Din says:

    AndiC says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:28 am

    Yep, I attended a session in New Zealand given by one of Al’s “Graduates” – long on rhetoric sorely missing on factual content. An appeal to emotion not logic.

    =======================================================================
    Reminds me of this quote:

    The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling. – Thomas Sowell

  137. philjourdan says:

    @ temp says: August 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Pol Pot demonstrated your thesis very well.

  138. Jon Jewett says:

    David L. says: August 2, 2013 at 4:46 am

    @Bruce Cobb August 2, 2013 at 4:18 am
    Good point. That raises a question for me: I wonder if this AGW movement is more closely related to Marxism, rather than f@scism (or any of the other varieties of -isms of the era!) With the idea of wealth redistribution (under the guise of saving the planet) I’d propose it’s more in line with Marxism.
    ***************************************************
    This subject is of interest to me and I’d like to bring a little clarity. The terms Fascist, Communist, and NAZI seem to be partly misunderstood. For the below, I have used Wikipedia as it is easy and I am lazy.

    Fascism is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    When people talk about Fascism, they usually mean the National Socialist (NAZI) German version
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism

    And finally “Communism” in its many variations, Marxist-Leninism being the earliest application.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

    From reading the foregoing, some generalizations are possible:

    National Socialism and the NAZIs. An all-powerful leader and a personality cult. Total control of the state and the people, i.e. totalitarianism. Setting the focus of the state on militarism. Subjugation of other countries to advance the ideology, e.g. Western Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc. Control of the media and education to be used as a propaganda tools. Extermination of groups to advance the ideology, e.g. some 12.5 million Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, and others.

    Marxist-Leninism. An all-powerful leader and a personality cult. Total control of the state and the people, i.e. totalitarianism. Setting the focus of the state on militarism. Subjugation of other countries to advance the ideology, e.g. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Finland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, China, and North Korea. Control of the media and education to be used as a propaganda tool. Extermination of groups to advance the ideology, e.g. some 120 (to 170) million Ukrainians, Cossacks, “counter-revolutionaries, intellectuals (2,000 writers, intellectuals, and artists were imprisoned and 1,500 died in prisons and concentration camps), civil servants, prisoners of war, peasants, Trotskyites, “semi-Trotskyites, quarter-Trotskyites, one-eighth-Trotskyites”, Mensheviks, Jews, “degenerate fascists”, “ex-kulaks” (Kulak Operation was largest single campaign of repression in 1937-38, with 669,929 people arrested and 376,202 executed), other “anti-Soviet elements”, and finally Christians (85% of the 35,000 members of the Russian Orthodox clergy).

    Curiously enough during the Terror, Stalin had tens of thousands of Communist party members slaughtered to “encourage the rest”: On October 15, 1937, for example, the Politburo passed a secret resolution increasing the number of people “to be repressed” by 120,000 (63,000 “in the first category” and 57,000 “in the second category”); on January 31, 1938, Stalin ordered a further increase of 57,200, 48,000 of whom were to be executed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

    The Great Helmsman Himself, Mao, the Great Hero of the Left, murdered over 40 Million just during the Great Leap Forward. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

    Of course, WWII started when the Soviet Union with their ally NAZI Germany attacked Poland; the NAZIs on 1 September 1939 , followed by their ally, the Soviet Union, on 17 September 1939. Some 50 to 80 million died in that war which should be added to the (various) Socialist murders: 120 (to 170) million for the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist etc. Socialists . and 12.5 (to 25) million for the National Socialists. That brings the total up to 180 to 280 million murdered by socialists of various stripes in the last century.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

    But, there are some important differences: NAZIs had total control of the economy i.e. “means of production” by using regulations, crony capitalism, threats, and confiscation of property in “the name of the people” but small business and home ownership was left mostly alone. The Communists, on the other hand, confiscated EVERYTHING “in the name of the people” and kept it all for themselves. Second, the National Socialist Third Reich was to last 1,000 years. On the other hand, the Communist Utopia was to be SO perfect that there could be no further change possible. The achievement would mark the end of history. And, of course, the NAZIs murdered some 12.5 (to 25) Million while the Communists murdered 120 to 170 million plus war dead for the two of them.

    Hope this clears up some of the haziness in the concepts.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  139. milodonharlani says:

    dbstealey says:
    August 2, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Here in the Pacific NW, we still recall the Tillamook Burn of 1933 (355K acres) in Oregon & the Big Burn of 1910 in Washington, Idaho & Montana (over three million acres), which killed at least 85. Also the Big Blow of Columbus Day, 1962.

  140. Ox AO says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    “I have an electric car, solar on my home, put solar on local schools, LED lighting and timer switches to conserve electricity. Besides preach to us about “sustainable living” what have you actually done? Show your work.”

    Doesn’t matter… Tell me who is the bad guy in this example:

    Bush W’s house (fully sustainable for water, electricity, cooling, heating, waste and on a ranch having it’s own food)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch#House

    Al Gore’s homes:
    first home and still owns:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/

    Second home and still owns:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91230

  141. philjourdan says:

    @ pkv says: August 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    YOu seem to have a problem distinguishing between a republican and a conservative. It was written by a republican. Not a conservative (that is not to say that no conservative believes in AGW, or CAGW or CC or DCC).

  142. Dodgy Geezer: “GKC is a much underrated author, and completely out of fashion at the moment.
    Which is a shame, because he’s one of the best there is…. ”

    Agreed! Could I suggest reading “The Flying Inn”, based around prohibition coming to England through the influences of a crazy prophet getting the ear of ‘the great and the good’ , written in 1913 but extraordinarily prescient of today. It is also extremely funny.

  143. temp says:

    pkv says:
    August 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    “Is your church, school, country, sports team, etc. a cult?”

    Do you live in the real world? Have you seen some of the rioting when some teams win championships? Yes many sports teams have cult and cult like followers, yes many religions have cult and cult like sects. Things like eugenics and global warming belief though are pure cult.

    ” For starters, why not check out this article from today’s New York Times (unless of course, you refuse to read things published in the “liberal media”…even when written by self proclaimed Republibots, err, conservatives). ”

    Can’t I not read the new york times for covering up genocide through much of history? Can’t I not read the new york times for purposely and knowing spiking stories that hurt democrats or “like minded” collectives. Can’t I ignore self proclaimed republibots and those damn dirty centrists.

    Why is it that i must refuse to read the new york times based solely on them being socialist? So many reasons to ignore them why just limit myself to one?

    Jon Jewett says:
    August 2, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    “but small business and home ownership was left mostly alone.”

    This is a very common myth. Jews and millions of other non-approved groups had their small businesses and homes along with their lives “socialized” via national socialism.

    Both national socialism and communism are basically the same. The easiest way to define them as different is to say that in national socialism/fascism the government pretends that you have “rights” as an individual until those “rights” are removed as the government see fit for any reason it sees fit and you have zero recourse. In communism the government never pretends your an individual at all. That’s really the only difference between them.

  144. Chad Wozniak says:

    @dbstealey, mary colborn -

    More of the height of alarmist hypocrisy – alarmists get a huge multiple of the funding from Big Oil (BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell) that skeptics do – in fact skeptics get almost NO monies from energy companies, while alarmists get billions. Big Oil promotes AGW because it has committed itself to making money on trading carbon credits, that worthless increment to energy costs that is paid by consumers and skimmed off by these speculators, thereby redistributing wealth from working lower income people who produce real goods and services to idle rich people (like Al Gore & Co.) who produce nothing but lies and waste.

  145. Bart says:

    Vivian Groves Fulk says:
    August 2, 2013 at 7:31 am

    “The salient point is, that Insurance companies live and die by their ability to estimate risks.”

    The salient point is that insurance make more money charging higher premiums. They are only limited in being able to do so by their competition. Imagine the gravy train that rolls in when you all increase your rates together!

  146. Ox AO says:

    [snip - this conversation is getting too far off topic - Anthony]

    I don’t believe I am alone in the idea that Al Gore’s group is another of history’s dangerous cults.
    How dangerous we don’t know. History might help a little, I don’t know.

    It is your site… and I will respect your wish’s

    Thank you for a wonderful site and allowing me to post here.
    Steve Van Dorne

  147. Tucci78 says:

    At 1:14 PM on 2 August, Bruce Cobb had written:

    …the extent to which man is responsible for the increased C02 is debateable. It is also moot. It doesn’t matter one iota, except to you Alarmists. There is no real evidence that the increased C02 has affected our climate, though, in theory at least, it should have some effect.

    Well, no. If there’s no evidence to support the supposition that anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 have had any significant effect upon the global climate, it’s not even possible to say that “in theory…it should have some effect.”

    Remember, scientific conjectures, hypotheses, theories and laws are intellectual models created to explain observed phenomena. The anthropogenic global warming conjecture, predicated upon carbon dioxide “greenhouse gas” effects and somehow fantastically exacerbated by alleged positive feedback mechanisms (for the existence of which there is also no evidence whatsoever), hasn’t even achieved the strength of a testable hypothesis, much less “theory.”

    Catastrophic AGW is a blithering idiocy cobbled up back in the 1970s by a cadre of third-rate incompetents with second-rate academic credentials to perpetrate a first-rate fraud.

    And the word “fraud” is used advisedly, for theft of value by way of deception – in the writing of those applications for billions of dollars’ worth of research grant funding especially – is nothing other than the perpetration of criminal fraud.

    Let’s no longer call them “the consensus.” How about “the usual suspects” instead?

  148. M Courtney says:

    Col Mosby says at August 2, 2013 at 7:36 am..
    Forgive me if below you have expounded. I am new to this thread and it is too late in the UK to read it all.

    But I am genuinely keen to know more about how nuclear has become cheaper even than coal as a power source. I don’t see that as obviously false. Nuclear energy is an order of magnitude greater than chemical energy. And it’d reliable, unlike solar or wind.

    But I hadn’t heard the argument before. I mean the risks and insurance are real issues… as are the disposal of waste (although dropping the waste in a tectonic plate subduction zone sounds reasonable),

    Seriously, tell me more. Get Anthony to publish a pro-nuclear paper and let us attack it.
    You might win.

    I ask this in a friendly adversarial manner.

  149. M Courtney says:

    philjourdan says @ August 2, 2013 at 10:45 am

    @ Sandra – how much did you get paid to post that?

    No!
    There is no reason to think she is not sincere.
    She is obviously wrong. The failure of the models and Ben Santer’s editing of the Summary for Policy Makers proves that. And more besides.

    But there is no reason to call her a hypocrite.

  150. jchang says:

    has anyone done a proper assessment of the Gore heat lamp experiment? I see several issues in what he is attempting to demonstrate. Lets assume the earth atmosphere has 30,000 ft of air at 1 atmosphere (I could probably lookup what the air column mass is). Lets further assume CO2 concentration is 330ppm (for simplicity of math) = 1/3000. Then there is 10ft of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. A doubling of this to 600ppm should cause 1.7W/sq m equivalent, and I have that this should contribute perhaps 1C of warming. In the Gore experiment, he at most 6in of pure CO2, or 1/20th the total CO2 of earth, so his warming should be 0.1C not several.
    Second is the choice of a heat lamp which I assume to be an incandescent lamp, which emits most of its radiation in the IR, meaning more of it will be absorbed in the CO2, not reaching the surface of the “earth ball”. I think he should use an LED light that emits mostly in light. TSI is 340W/sq m, so if the target ball is 10cm2, we need 0.34W incident on the ball. What is the energy efficiency of an LED? perhaps 1W could be equivalent to TSI?

  151. Keith says:

    Village Idiot says:
    August 2, 2013 at 2:18 am

    No need for us to worry about that bunch of amateurs then.

    But over our shoulders looming from the ‘weather becomes climate’ dept. there are a few embarrassing heat waves for us to field this year (China, Italy, temp record on Greenland etc.) And what about when that pause stops pausing? (sorry I mean if, of course)

    By “us” and “our”, do you mean humanity? I guess not. You’re speaking as though you’re a sceptic addressing like minds, but your previous posts suggest you’re very much signed up to the anti-science that is the CAGW movement. Why the painfully transparent pose? Oh I see, you’re just equivalent to the writer of this post. Course…

    What on earth is embarrassing about heatwaves? That’s what happens when you get blocking patterns in the summer, which are more likely when the jet stream meanders, which is more likely when the sun is relatively ‘quiet’. Give it a few months and these same patterns would be causing seriously cold weather. Would that be embarrassing for warmists? It shouldn’t be, as it’s just weather. However, meridional jets are more indicative of a cooling world than a warming one.

  152. Keith says:

    Among the general public, there’s typically two ways of coming to an opinion on most matters. One type of person takes an emotional approach, weighing up any arguments they hear on the basis of how the debates and debaters make them feel. The other type of person takes a logical/rational approach, following the arguments through to their conclusions to assess their real-world impact.

    It’s clear from the posts here, and thousands of articles elsewhere, that the non-expert CAGW adherents tend to take the emotional approach, while CAGW sceptics tend to take the rational/logical approach.

    Now which of these approaches is closer to the scientific method and which is closer to political persuasion?

  153. Chad Wozniak says:

    @tucci78 -
    “The usual suspects” – I like it!

  154. Tucci78 says:

    In response to my earlier quotation from L. Neil Smith’s “Tactical Reflections” (“Go straight to the heart of the enemy’s greatest strength. Break that and you break him. You can always mop up the flanks and stragglers later, and they may even surrender, saving you a lot of effort”), at 11:43 AM on 2 August we have Stephen Rasey remarking:

    That didn’t work out so well for George Pickett and Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg.

    Whereas it emphatically did “work out” for Grant at Missionary Ridge, through the Overland Campaign and the siege of Petersburg that effectively ended the war, not to mention the campaigns of Sherman and Sheridan.

    The lesson is that you work with your resources to pursue the strategic initiative.

    In the attack upon the preposterous bogosity of “man-made global warming” (and remember that it is always the contention that anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 increases had been “trapping” heat by way of the greenhouse gas effect that is supposed to have been causing the climate change seen on our planet since the Little Ice Age finally abated circa 1850), there is no benefit to be gotten from chopping at the bloody nonsense sprouting peripherally when the rotten root at the base of this poisoned tree is so eminently amenable to fulguration.

    Burn out the heart and the beast will die.

  155. CRS, DrPH says:

    Dr. Richard Lindzen gave an excellent talk about the “religious” aspects of the CAGW movement in this presentation to Fermilab, so this all sounds very believable. This is a great lecture, it’s very high-level science! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

  156. James Schrumpf says:

    A couple of notes after reading the comments above: First off, I learned of Karl Popper’s “falsification” requirement from reading Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.” I would never have imagined that anyone would argue that the ability to prove a hypothesis to be false would be unimportant in science. Isn’t one of Einstein’s most famous quotes “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”? Isn’t that Popperian at its most basic?

    Secondly, I hope our visitors have appreciated their ability to post here without being blocked or banned for being “off-topic” or “argumentative.” I speak for my self, and I’m sure for many others, when I say that I didn’t receive such a tolerant welcome at some of the CAGW sites I in which I attempted to participate.

    No information can be exchanged when one side won’t listen to the other. Perhaps more of “the other side” will participate here now that they’ve learned that they won’t be cut off for not toadying to the “local opinion.”

  157. Babsy says:

    JY says:
    August 2, 2013 at 10:21 am

    “What you think should happen isn’t real, what happens is real.”

    Money quote.

  158. A Chemist says:

    Mary A. Colborn says: @ August 2, 2013 at 9:16 am

    Interesting. Attempt to rebrand the attendees as cultists…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And the rest of your post, being devoid of actual facts proves the label is correct.

  159. Gail Combs says:

    Zeke says: @ August 2, 2013 at 10:39 am
    ….Gaia paganism/environmentalism as religion:

    “Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, echoes this view “Prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things…. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today’s religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation…swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania.”

    Gore then quotes deChardin, “‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth…” ” http://www.green-agenda.com/gaia.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I am all for retuning to a goddess religion as long as it is run in along the same lines as the prehistoric Celts:

    Bog bodies are kings sacrificed by Celts says expert

    An expert has stated that the latest bog body found in Ireland has proven that belief that the Celts ritually sacrificed their kings to the Gods.

    The body also proves they underwent horrible deaths, if the times turned bad under their reign.

    The latest Iron Age bog body dating back to at least 2,000 BC was discovered near Portlaoise in the Irish midlands by an alert bog worker and it bears the same hallmarks of ritual torture that two other famous bodies have.

    Ned Kelly, keeper of antiquities at the National Museum of Ireland told the Irish Examiner that a clear pattern has emerged in each case…..

    Think Al Gore and his pal Maurice Strong ( Crestone/Baca) would volunteer? Or will they just walk off with all the wealth and prestige and keep changing the message.

  160. Gail Combs says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:03 am

    …. At least consider the possibility that our human demands and developments do have an impact and our actions and simply changing a few of our habits can be positive….unless the mind is closed to just agree that we are all human beings on one world. What harm could possibly come from being more friendly to the earth?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    We have considered it. This site has over fifty scientists and engineers who loved to tear things apart in discussions.

    “What harm could possibly come from being more friendly to the earth?”
    I do not think this is more friendly to the earth:
    (wish I could post photos)
    These images are the result of mining for the components of your Wind Turbines/Solar panels: link

    And this is what your (self-snip) wind turbines do to the wildlife link

    Finally this is what your ideas of ‘Sustainability’ (enforced via tyranny) does:

    DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
    169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

    128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
    61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
    35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
    20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
    10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

    Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5′, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century.

    ,,,This is my fourth book in a series on genocide and government mass murder, what I call democide.,,,

    After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom. ~ Dr. R.J. Rummel

    Don’t try to tell me this is not what will happen because the bodies are already piling up thanks to your ‘Green Sustainability’ stupidity

    24,000 die in winter as fuel poverty climbs: New figures show more pensioners have to choose between heating and eating

    Those are REAL DEATHS of REAL PEOPLE not some mythical number from a computer ‘simulation’

  161. Part I. milodonharlani @ 10:48 dares,

    >>Please explain how Bacon, the advocate of induction, is in your mind now an adherent of deduction because infinite regression is gone. I think I understand what you’re trying to say, but such a 180 degree shift in Bacon’s thought IMO requires explication in more detail than this offhand comment. Taking Bacon’s name in vain in this way isn’t to me intuitively obvious.

    One must read the Novum Organum heeding a Bacon-to-Modern English translation ([.]). The 180º turn was his, not mine.

    >>In establishing axioms [models], another form of induction must be devised than has hitherto been employed, and it must be used for proving and discovering not first principles (as they are called) [axioms] only, but also the lesser axioms [models], and the middle, and indeed all. For the induction which proceeds by simple enumeration is childish; its conclusions are precarious and exposed to peril from a contradictory instance; and it generally decides on too small a number of facts, and on those only which are at hand. Bacon (1620) N.O., 1–CV, p. 30 of 107.

    >>For a true and perfect rule of operation [axiom or model], then, the direction will be that it be certain, free, and disposing or leading to action. And this is the same thing with the discovery of the true form [Cause]. For the form of a nature is such, that given the form [the initial condition], the nature [Effect] infallibly follows. Therefore it is always present when the nature is present, and universally implies it, and is constantly inherent in it. Again, the form [Cause] is such that if it be taken away the nature [Effect] infallibly vanishes. Therefore it is always absent when the nature is absent, and implies its absence, and inheres in nothing else. Lastly, the true form [Cause] is such that it [the axiom or model] deduces the given nature from some source of being which is inherent in more natures, and which is better known in the natural order of things than the form itself. Bold added, Bacon (1620) N.O., 2–IV, p. 41 of 107.

    Thus you see Bacon’s other “form of induction”, as he said, deduces things, i.e., is actually deduction. Remembering that Causes are provisional propositions pending validation of their predictions, scientific models represent pure deduction via Cause & Effect. Perhaps in the 17th Century, Bacon advocated induction; now he stands for deduction.

  162. Gail Combs. says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Is it possible to put the argument aside? We’ve stated our positions. We have our convictions. I urge you to visit a nature sanctuary, national park, or other escape to our natural world and find a way to be appreciate the beauty and along with that perhaps an idea of how to be more earth-friendly…..
    <<<<<<<<<<<<
    The people here ARE conservationists and that is one of the reasons we are LIVID at the thought of bird slicers in our national parks.

    My niche is bats (and caves.) I was doing 'conservation' probably before you were even born!

    I have never worked for or received funds from an oil company which is more than either Maurice Strong, chair of the first earth summit and father of Kyoto can say or Al Gore.

    Ever heard of 'Projection'??? Well Strong was the President of Power Corporation of Canada and CEO of Petro-Canada. Al Gore's wealth is originally from Occidental Petroleum. ( It was Occidental, via Hooker Chemical, that brought us Love Canal.)

    So tell me again just WHO is in the pay of BIG OIL. Oh and don't forget that Maurice Strong is a trustee for Standard Oil money (Rockefellers) and a senior advisor to the World Bank.

  163. Part 2. milodonharlani @ 10:48 explains,

    >>The philosophical distinction [deduction vs. induction] is important. Darwin’s geology mentor Sedgwick attacked “development” or “transmutation of species” for not being, in his mind, inductive, hence, not scientific. Interestingly, Popper also initially regarded natural selection as unscientific, since not falsifiable, although eventually changed his mind when biologists educated him on the fact & theory of evolution (“rabbits in the Cambrian” would falsify the fact of evolution, in which case the theory wouldn’t matter).

    Sedgwick wrote to Darwin,

    >>You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. … .

    >>As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact. For you do not deny causation. I call (in the abstract) causation the will of God: & I can prove that He acts for the good of His creatures. He also acts by laws which we can study & comprehend— Acting by law, & under what is called final cause, comprehends, I think, your whole principle. You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent. ‘Tis but a consequence of the presupposed development, & the subsequent battle for life.—

    >>This view of nature you have stated admirably; tho’ admitted by all naturalists & denied by no one of common sense. We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about? Here, in language, & still more in logic, we are point blank at issue— There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause, link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Punctuation added, Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin, 11/24/1859.

    To Sedgwick’s credit, he at least discerned two prongs in Darwin’s model: I, the mutability of the species (the fact of evolution), and II, the force called Natural Selection. However Sedgwick’s criticism was porous on each. Darwin’s contribution on mutability was not a revelation for biologists, as Sedgwick futilely implies, but a novel, monumental collection of observations, uniquely sufficient to sway many who subscribed to the dogma of immutability, a position likely held at one time by Sedgwick himself.

    The induction Sedgwick found deserted by Darwin was not the silly enumerative induction reversed 180º by Bacon, nor the philosophical/mathematical induction of Popper that necessitated a falsification clause in his version of scientific models. It was the “moral or metaphysical” purpose in nature, the “final cause”. It was the hand of God, which Sedgwick could actually “prove” existed for a “good of His creatures”, and which the reader might infer that Sedgwick thought he witnessed if not measured.

    Sedgwick tried to insert God into Darwin, but failed to realize that Darwin had, in general, already done the deed. Darwin proved he believed in Intelligent Design, assigning its attributes to his Natural Selection. It had a “certain definite direction”, a “given direction”, a “right direction”, and a “useful direction”. It had the intelligence to recognize and add good changes and to reject bad ones, and preserving good individuals and terminating bad ones. Darwin didn’t argue by appeal to the Supreme Being as Sedgwick would have him do, but instead was satisfied to argue by analogy to well-known human breeding programs. Natural selection was intelligent design, sufficient with a lower case “i”.

    By his criticism of Darwin, Sedgwick overlooked the scientific principle that denies reliance on any supernatural being, force, or will, a principle contrary to Sedgwick’s beliefs and one that invalidates Darwin’s Natural Selection.

    Popper’s rejection of Natural Selection was closer to the mark:

    >>Because I intend to argue that the theory of natural selection is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme; and although it is no doubt the best at present available, it can perhaps be slightly improved. Popper (1992) p. 175.

    but nonetheless confused:

    >>Similarly, if a species has been eliminated it must have been ill adapted to the conditions. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this. Id., p. 199.

    All niches are finite, and when they near a maximum in some essential for life, e.g., potassium, nesting spaces, or some amino acid, mathematics obliges a normalizing of the population growth rates which take all factors into account. Some rates necessarily become negative, leaving their owners “naturally selected” for extinction, and so on until the end game when only one species occupies the niche, and does so at its capacity. Species become extinct in evolution not because they were ill-adapted, but rather because they didn’t win the race. Extinction due to being ill-adapted happens as a consequence of an environmental change, in the extreme causing the occasional mass extinction, and which imposes a new set of initial conditions for evolution when novel species flourish until niches refill.

    The precambrian rabbit is a hypothetical creature to test Popper’s falsifiability criterion applied to Darwin. That criterion derived from Popper’s equally fantastic model for science as Universal Generalizations, compounded by his inability to respect definitions, even the ones he invented. The precambrian rabbit is to evolution as ocean acidification is to natural global warming.

    Credit for AGW regularly goes to Arrhenius, J. Fourier, Tyndall, Callendar, Revelle, and Keeling. Popper deserves to head the list.

  164. Tucci78 says:

    At 3:56 PM on 2 August, James Schrumpf had written:

    No information can be exchanged when one side won’t listen to the other.

    But what gives you to think that the “We’re All Gonna Die!” (or should that more properly be “I’m Taking Over Everything You Live For!” instead?) Watermelon bastiches are to any extent whatsoever interested in the exchange of information when the whole of their “settled science” is nothing but suppressio veri, suggestio falsi?

    What information have they to offer in any exchange that isn’t overt proof of their criminal mens rea?

  165. Gail Combs. says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:24 am
    …..What does the future look like for you? ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
    It looks like the return of serfdom/ company towns. People will be denied the right to own property, businesses or the means of travel. Cornell University is already doing research on ‘Food Sheds’ The amount of food that can be grown locally. This means the number of people in a Transit Village will be closely controlled. I suggest you read this link by a California bureaucrat and social activist.

    Obama’s science czar, John Holdern was already writing of this back in 1977.

    A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born…

    Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.….Page 942-3

    The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

    …Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution… Page 837

    ….If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns…. Page 838

    ….Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals… Page 787-8
    link

    Thanks to funding by the USDA the ‘sterilant’ has been developed. link
    In 2001 scientists at the Epicyte bio-lab in San Diego created John Holdren’s sterilant, a ’contraceptive corn’ Researchers discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. They isolated the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and inserted them into corn.

    At a press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants and announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.” Since then the company was sold to Pittsboro, N.C. based Biolex, another privately owned biotech company. Shortly after the 2001 Epicyte press release, all discussion of the breakthrough vanished and nothing more was heard in any media about the development of this spermicidal corn….

    Eugenics is also alive and well in the UK.
    Children placed on controversial ‘death pathway’: Sick children are being placed on a controversial end-of-life “pathway” previously only thought to have been used for elderly and terminally-ill adult patients.

    [Liverpool] Care Pathway scrapped after damning report reveals how relatives were shouted at by nurses for giving loved ones a drink
    ….The LCP – which recommends that in some circumstances doctors withdraw treatment, food and water from sedated patients in their final days – has come under intense scrutiny.

    Reports have suggested that doctors have been establishing ‘death lists’ of patients to be put on the pathway but some hospitals have been accused of using it to cut costs and save bed spaces.

    The review recommended scrapping the LCP after finding doctors used it ‘as an excuse for poor-quality care’.

    They concluded that there were ‘too many cases where the LCP was simply being used as a ‘tick box’ exercise.’…..

    The only reason LCP is being scrapped is because of the huge stink that was raised by the media.

  166. Just Steve says:

    My question to Val and the other warmists visiting is quite simple; explain to us why it is apparantly axiomatic that warming is bad?

    I’ve never heard of anyone losing a limb or ear to “heatburn”, but know a few people who have lost same said because of frostbite. Heatstroke can be avoided with some simple and cheap methods, like find shade and drink lots of water. Then try to escape the effects of -10F with a 30 mph wind….cheaply and simply. My Carhartt insulated coveralls and coat cost well over $300 total, and even they wont keep you alive if exposed too long.

    So the sea level rises a foot or two. What exactly does that harm other than some overpriced ocean front real estate where people with more money than sense built a little too close? Or a bunch of government morons built an airport too close?

    And who, other than someone promoting wholesale eugenics could argue against longer growing seasons in northern climes?

    And please, spare us the “do you have children” emotional clap trap. Anyone I’ve ever engaged in conversation with who pulls that card has been driven totally and completely by emotion, which leads to knee jerk decisions. Save that for the ladies social, not a serious discussion about the science (or maybe better put, NONscience) of climate and man’s dubious role in affecting it.

  167. Bart says:

    Gail Combs. says:
    August 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    “The people here ARE conservationists and that is one of the reasons we are LIVID at the thought of bird slicers in our national parks.”

    A-MEN! It is beyond outrageous. Those damned bird blenders are killing the most beautiful and rare birds that exist. I am furious about it.

  168. Gail Combs. says:

    motogeek says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    So, a counter-point to “what harm does it do…”?
    I live in a home built in 1943. About 5 years ago, I had all of the original single-pane glass replaced with energy-efficient thermal windows…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A version of Frederic Bastiat’s BROKEN WINDOW FALLACY

    Actually CAGW is just a gigantic version of the Broken Window Fallacy where the vandals are encouraged to break windows so the glazier’s trade is encouraged. The net result for society is the transfer of THEIR wealth to the glaziers with no net benefit to them except poverty, or in the case of some Brits death.

  169. Gail Combs. says:

    temp says: @ August 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    ….Plus useful idiots are always disposed of after they have been used to the fullest. Thats just SOP for these types of movements.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes they should read up on what happened to the Russian Intelligentsia (I have learned more history since reading WUWT then I ever did in class.)

  170. Ric Werme says:

    Mary A. Colborn says:
    August 2, 2013 at 9:16 am

    All the while extreme weather events happen around the world with increasing frequency. Temperatures reach into the high 90′s in Alaska in June. Fires devastate the state of Colorado, super storms flood Manhatten.

    Don’t forget Cat 3 hurricanes in New England! Oh, that was in the 1950′s. Gee, we haven’t had a Cat 3 hurricane in the US in years. There’s a chance this year will have some decent storms, but there are also forces working against that.

    You wonder who the real cultists are here. Climate leaders or you, who are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.

    That’s completely unfair. You have no evidence to support that because if you think you do, you’ll find it’s either wrong or miniscule compared to what the oil industry has contributed to the warmists.

    philjourdan says:
    August 2, 2013 at 10:45 am

    @ Sandra – how much did you get paid to post that?

    That is equally unfair – you offer nothing to support that claim. If you can’t disprove her statements, and can only attack the person or be silent, be silent.

  171. Gail Combs. says:

    Lucy Kalinin says:
    August 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm
    …. It explains how exactly scientists determine which carbon dioxide comes from carbon cycle and which from fossil fuels, the secret is isotopes! ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That topic has been done to death here and elsewhere. For example: The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

  172. mindabmedia says:

    I’m new to this issue, and even though I attended the Chicago training, I certainly do want to do my homework, consider all evidence, and make a well-informed, reasoned conclusion. We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of. Would any of you point some out? What should I be reading to get what I must be missing? Thanks!

  173. Ric Werme says:

    Val says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Is it possible to put the argument aside? We’ve stated our positions. We have our convictions. I urge you to visit a nature sanctuary, national park, or other escape to our natural world and find a way to be appreciate the beauty and along with that perhaps an idea of how to be more earth-friendly. If you struggle for ideas, I can give you a few personal sustainability ideas that we as individuals can practice. Again, what harm could come from that?

    That’s fine, there are a lot of conservationists here. It’s just that we see the evidence for CO2 as a demon gas to be lacking. Worse, we see climate science as as severely politicized, taxed, and misspending resources.

    I’ve helped the New Hampshire Audubon Society lay the first boardwalk through the Ponemah Bog and presented a slide show I created tracking the bog through the four seasons. I’ve been a member of the Society for the Protection on NH Forests, the Nature Conservancy, and other organizations. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    For my first bicycle tour out west I set the initial route to go between several national parks. At the time I lived in Pittsburgh PA when the steel mills were active – parts of Yellowstone reminded me of home. Some of those parts are also the most amazing places on the planet.

    I’ve even written posts here about the E-Cat, which is either the fraud of the century or will be the replacement for much of the fossil fuels we burn now.

    And none of that changes the fact that climate science is the most abused and misused branch of science in history. I used to say the next couple of decades will be very interesting. I now say the next decade. And heat or CO2 won’t be the problem.

  174. Zeke says:

    Gail says, “I am all for retuning to a goddess religion as long as it is run in along the same lines as the prehistoric Celts: Bog bodies are kings sacrificed by Celts says expert”

    Thanks for the hilarity Gail. (: Obviously these were a very wise, patient, and longsuffering people and we could all learn a great deal from such a wisdom tradition.

    Of course, Al Gore, having become so proficient in handling data and understanding Earth’s weather systems, naturally would want to go into Comparative Mythology and interpret all religion for the rest of us.

    ref: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1379032

  175. Gail Combs says:

    pkv says: @ August 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    …..For starters, why not check out this article from today’s New York Times (unless of course, you refuse to read things published in the “liberal media”…even when written by self proclaimed Republibots, err, conservatives)….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    HUMMMmmm, New York Times home of Walter Duranty… Checkout Martin Cohen: New York Times has vested interest in climate alarmism We do our research unlike some who just repeat things like Mary A. Colborn who says“…You wonder who the real cultists are here. Climate leaders or you, who are paid so well by the fossil fuel industry.” with out facts to back her up.

    CAGW gets more funding from oil that Climate skeptics do. Heck Shell Oil and BP provided part of the initial funding for CRU! Check out Ged Davis VP of Shell Oil and his connection to the IPCC scenarios and the Climategate e-mails.

    And yes there are a few who do work for oil companies. Generally they say so up front unlike Dana Nuccitelli.

    By the way I could really use that Big Oil paycheck, Mary. How about asking Al Gore what is holding it up. /snark

  176. Gail Combs says:

    Jon Jewett says: @ August 2, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    ….This subject is of interest to me and I’d like to bring a little clarity. The terms Fascist, Communist, and NAZI seem to be partly misunderstood…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks for the clarification.

  177. Ric Werme says:

    mindabmedia says:
    August 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of. Would any of you point some out? What should I be reading to get what I must be missing?

    Ah, finally someone curious to understand our side.

    One problem with climate science is that the whole field is so complex and interrelated is that there’s ideal source to recommend. My first essay on the subject touches on several things and has some good links that still work. I really do need to get back to it. It’s at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html .

    Around the same time Lucy Skywalker wrote an essay that is both introduction and describe her transition from being alarmed by Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to well respected skeptic. It’s pretty long, but it’s probably exactly what you’re looking for. Yikes, nearly forgot the link, http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm . BTW, there are a lot of people here who were concerned about the future climate until we found the claims are overstated. Including Anthony.

    Beyond that, here at WUWT, there are some great reference pages on the top nav bar that you can get to by clicking “Reference Pages.” They have a lot of minimally processed scientific data, but they’re great places to find the most recent information available. Don’t try to absorb more than one a day!

    If you have any questions, you can write me directly – Google |contact Ric Werme| an you’ll find my Email address.

  178. Gail Combs says:

    jchang says:
    August 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    has anyone done a proper assessment of the Gore heat lamp experiment?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes Anthony. See: Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

  179. John Norris says:

    I remember seeing the WUWT experiment replication post headline but didn’t read it at the time, so I reviewed it in detail tonight. Aside from Anthony’s diligent work, the best part was in the comments with the true confession.from Bill Nye. I think he came up with a new name himself – Bill Nye the voice-over guy.

  180. Gail Combs says:

    mindabmedia says:
    August 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    I’m new to this issue….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Try this new peer-reviewed paper for starters: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    For the other ‘controversy’ (all discussing peer-reviewed papers)

    The alternate theory: The Antithesis
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/

    New Geologic evidence of very very quick climate changes.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    and the newest: Can We Predict the Duration of an Interglacial
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/
    The Bipolar see-saw
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/15/model-data-comparison-hemispheric-sea-ice-area/

    We are at the half precession point and solar insolation is declining (See NH Summer Energy: The Leading Indicator: link )

    WUWT at the top has reference pages:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/

    and Resource Pages:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/

    And the Climate FAIL files:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/

    Ric Werme does an index for WUWT:
    http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/index.html

    Pop Tech has a listing(with links) of 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    (You spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed papers on this site)

  181. Chad Wozniak says:

    @minabmedia -
    Here’s a reading list for you:
    READING LIST – ON LINE
    • Oregon Petition website (accessible through Google; lists the names and credentials of all of the more than 31,000 signers). Particularly important in this website is the letter from Dr. Frederick Seitz.
    • Other important websites (also accessible through Google) are the Global Warming Policy Foundation, in the United Kingdom; WUWT “Watts Up With That?” hosted by Anthony Watts; CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow); Climate Audit; Climate Depot; JunkScience.com; Bishop Hill (in the UK); International Climate Science Coalition (in Canada); JoNova (in Australia); Competitive Enterprise Institute; and the Heartland Institute. More information is also available on line by Googling the following people: Czech Republic President Dr. Vaclav Klaus; Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin; former UK Energy Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, Nigel (Lord) Lawson; Richard Lindzen; Steve McIntyre; Ross McKitrick; Christopher (Lord) Monckton; Steve Goreham; Professor Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia; meteorologist William Gray; Harold Ambler; past president of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Frederick Seitz; professor of physics, Princeton University, Dr. William Happer; Dr. Tim Ball; to name a few. President Klaus’s comments are particularly worth reading, as he draws the connection clearly between the environmentalist religion and tyrannical impulses.

    READING LIST – BOOKS (available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Abe Books)
    • Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, by Brian Sussman
    • The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, by A. W. Montford
    • The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, by Roy W. Spencer
    • The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, by US Senator James Inhofe
    • Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America, by Brian Sussman
    • Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What is Endangered, Climate or Freedom?, by Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus
    • Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, by Paul Driessen
    • Climatism!, by Steve Goreham
    • Don’t Sell Your Coat, by Harold Ambler
    • Climate: The Counrter Consensus by Robert M. Carter
    • The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism, by Steve Goreham

  182. dbstealey says:

    mindabmedia says:

    “We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of.”

    ‘Tons’ of evidence?? Actually, there is no testable scientific evidence produced by Al Gore or anyone else, proving that man-made global warming exists. MMGW is a conjecture, nothing more.

    Per the Scientific Method, those proposing a hypothesis have the burden of proof. Here is the problem:

    There is no testable, falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None. Scientific skeptics are not required to prove a negative; to prove that man made global warming does not exist. Rather, the onus is entirely upon the climate alarmist crowd to demonstrate conclusively that human emissions are the main cause of global warming. But they have failed.

    There is no testable, measurable scientific evidence showing that X amount of emissions cause Y amount of temperature change. None at all. Even arch-alarmist Phil Jones admits that the very same warming trend has occurred repeatedly, regardless of CO2 levels. Therefore, CO2 cannot be having a measurable effect on temperature, can it?

    In fact, the natural rise in global warming has remained on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years. Global warming has not accelerated — whether CO2 was low, or high. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half, even as CO2 levels continue to rise.

    That disconnect has caused former global warming believers such as the NY Times and the Economist to reverse course, and admit that global warming has stopped.

    The steady, natural rise in global temperatures since the Little Ice Age [LIA] remains on the same long term trend line, with no acceleration. How can that possibly be if, as Al Gore claims, CO2 is the primary cause of global warming?

    As William of Ockham states in Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer is almost always the correct answer: CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming. This is empirically demonstrated in this chart, which shows that the rise in global temperature is the cause of the rise in CO2 levels.

    The alarmist crowd started out with their premise reversed. But the correct premise is that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice-versa, as they originally believed. When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong.

    At this point there is far too much government money, and there are far too many careers, and there are far too many big egos tied up in the man-made global warming conjecture to reverse course overnight. Scientific truth is taking a while to emerge.

    But the truth is emerging: CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. Once you accept that basic scientific fact, everything else thenn falls into place.

  183. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    mindabmedia commented on Notes from a ‘mole’ in Al Gore’s Climate Leadership Training.

    in response to Anthony Watts:

    I’m new to this issue, and even though I attended the Chicago training, I certainly do want to do my homework, consider all evidence, and make a well-informed, reasoned conclusion. We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of. Would any of you point some out? What should I be reading to get what I must be missing? Thanks!
    This is a most vexed question. If the experts don’t agree then where do I stand.
    My own experience started after seeing Al Gore’s movie and realizing that it looked like a propaganda piece.
    Up until then I was happily sure that CO2 was a greenhouse gas,yes I did Chemistry hons at high school and was sure of that, and that if you increase CO2 then of course we must get warmer, and it was getting warmer.
    But then if things were so clear why bother with a whole lot of dubious theory as in Gore’s effort?
    Didn’t the facts speak for themselves?
    Now this is where I differ from the philosophers that pen on these pages.
    However far you go down the proving a theory road, in the end you have to make a critical judgement, in the real world.
    For the warmists they have made theirs.
    For me something that is intellectually self evident cannot be proven.
    And after some years I have decided that the earth is not warming because of our burning of fossil fuels. I regard that as self evident.
    How to start. Wade through Plimer’s book.
    As you go you will find all sorts of editing mistakes and transposed numbers.
    Search for the official Australian rebuttal.
    Discover that the learned professor found all the same mistakes, but failed to address the thesis.
    The earth is its own test tube. The experiments with CO2 in the atmosphere have already been done in the paleoclimate.
    There is enough known to form a ‘null hypothesis’ that the earth warms as it emerges from the LIA.
    It was this process that made me start looking__ the ‘searching stage of grief’.
    This site is very helpful.
    The way I think of this warming problem is the same way one might think of an internal medicine problem.
    Limited information,a primary homeostatic mechanism,inbuilt negative and positive feedbacks, but the opportunity of numerous lines of evidence to get diagnosis.
    Like in all things, you start where you are, and read for a couple of years the bits you don’t understand, then start asking the hard questions.

  184. renewable guy says:

    JY says:

    August 2, 2013 at 10:21 am

    Your time would be better spent in engineering and science books, doing hard work and coming up with viable solutions to make current energy sources obsolete. I can tell you now handing out billions in tax payers money to private corporations for weak solar panels and wind farms does nothing toward positive change to future generations. What you think should happen isn’t real, what happens is real.
    ##################

    Speaking of engineering and science books.

    Matching Utility Loads with Solar and Wind Power in North Carolina
    Dealing with Intermittent Electricity Sources
    by

    John Blackburn, Ph.D.

    Professor of Economics Emeritus, Duke University

    The conclusion, to summarize, is that a high-penetration solar and wind utility
    system is possible, that it requires supplementation of about 6% of electricity demand,
    from sources now used for peaking purposes. A corollary observation is that the concept
    of baseload generation is more or less irrelevant to its successful operation of such a
    system.

  185. RoHa says:

    “Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

    So you will agree that the insane reds-under-the-beds rants about socialists, liberals (whatever that means), watermelons, etc., that regularly pollute the comments sections of sceptic blogs are not doing a lot to help spread Global Warming scepticism?

  186. renewableguy says:

    What I haven’t done is seen any empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that increasing CO2 will cause catastrophic consequences, or seen evidence that Al Gore is intelligent, honest and believable. That is why many ridicule him and by association, the true believers in CAGW.

    ##############################
    In my time on the internet in discussions with other skeptics its quite easy to see that they don’t understand or want to understand that co2 is the main reason for the earth’s warming in the last 150 years.
    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

    How do we know humans cause global warming?

    Many are still asking is this global warming human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, ‘is this global warming natural’? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
    1.Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy.
    2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
    3.We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
    4.The models and the observations match.
    5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.

  187. Sweetcry20 says:

    So, just so I understand. You went to a climate conference held by Al Gore’s initiative to what….bash it? The dates on their website indicate that it was a 3-day shindig. Did you actually go through a whole process of applying and traveling to Chicago to attend this thing so you could ride your superiority soap-box on this website?
    Do you not have a job?
    Or anything better to do?
    Regardless of what anyone thinks of Al Gore, it’s pretty easy to surmise that you’re just pathetic.

    REPLY: This person went through all three days, is a certified engineer with a job, is actually “green” in deeds, and found the idea necessary because Al Gore keeps these things in secrecy, not allowing the press, not sharing the materials to allow the outside world to examine their validity.

    Just look at the agreement you signed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-climate-reality-project-online-training-agreement2.pdf

    It reads like a gag order. – Anthony

  188. jeanparisot says:

    John, said wrt ORNL nukes:

    “They should be safer and cheaper per amount of electricity produced, and if you don’t need as much electricity as the standard huge nuke that requires economies of scale to even begin to be economic, you can order a modular nuke that produces 1/10 the power at (hopefully) something like 1/15th the cost.”

    In the context of the “AGW/climate change” discussion, the importance is that these units may not require work in progress financing for the regulated utilities. As such, they don’t need a “price for carbon” to fluff up the costs of fossil fuel alternatives in the trade-off studies. This would undercut a key promoter of AGW and funding for the climate change crowd – the utilities.

    Additionally, the construction on ORNL provides some legal cover and government contractor defense – which has a positive cost and schedule effect.

  189. renewableguy says:

    The alarmist crowd started out with their premise reversed. But the correct premise is that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — not vice-versa, as they originally believed. When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will necessarily be wrong.

    #########################

    There are equations that point out just say doesn’t. There is a lag caused by the oceans which are incredibly slow to heat up.

    Strangely enough there is so much evidence that co2 is the cause of the warming, it is the skeptics that need to prove through the scientific process that it is something else. There in lies a cosmic black hole of nothing accomplished by skeptics. The best explanation wins and a very poor explanation fails.

    ##########################

    This is just from today’s co2. Tomorrows co2 can be a lot more or hopefully a much much lower amount.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
    CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig)
    5.35 ln (400/280) = 1.9 watts/meter*2

    Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number

    Climate sensitivity is .75*C/ watts/meter*2
    1.9watts/meter*2 ( .75*C/ watts/meter*2) = 1.4 *C

    We have warmed .8*C so far and have .6*C left in the pipeline of fast feedbacks. Slow feedbacks are also mostly positive and will take several hundred more years adding a little more to the surface temperature.

  190. rogerknights says:

    Here’s what I’ve added to my house in Seattle to avoid energy-intensive air conditioning.

    • A thermostatically controlled exhaust fan, at one end of the attic, with weighted louvers on the outside.
    • Fiberglass insulation in the rafters.
    • Blown-in wall insulation.
    • Wide “Sunsetter” awnings, high on the sunny sides of the house.
    • Lexan (or Plexiglas) outer-window-covering.
    • An in-wall exhaust fan, in the dormer.

    If the gov’t wants to cut the use of energy, reduce joblessness, and stimulate the economy, why not offer homeowners long-term, zero-interest loans for such improvements? And why not also offer loans for earthquake-resistant improvements such as I’ve made, namely:

    • Half-inch plywood sheathing, using many long screws in every stud and sill, around the upper basement wall.
    • Metal roofing, which reduces an earthquake’s impact.

    These all add value to your house beyond their cost.

  191. Scott says:

    @ Chad – Wow… Plenty to read up on there. I dunno how many books I’ll be able to digest, but I’ll read up on some of Dr. Seitz’s and Pres. Klaus’s material online as you suggest. Thanks!

  192. renewableguy says:

    Try this new peer-reviewed paper for starters: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html

    Humlum’s work seems to be easily debunked.

    REPLY: We aren’t talking about Humlum or the SkS kidz, we are talking about Al Gore. Of course if he wasn’t such an intellectual coward, he’d make his slides available for critique, but he can’t risk doing that. – Anthony

  193. renewableguy says:

    In fact, the natural rise in global warming has remained on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years. Global warming has not accelerated — whether CO2 was low, or high. In fact, global warming has stopped for the past decade and a half, even as CO2 levels continue to rise.

    ############################

    93% of the heating goes into the oceans and it is showing. When this finally gets to the atmosphere, we will feel the heat.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

    New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

    Posted on 25 March 2013 by dana1981

    A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
    •Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
    •As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
    •Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
    •The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

  194. renewableguy says:

    REPLY: This person went through all three days, is a certified engineer with a job, is actually “green” in deeds, and found the idea necessary because Al Gore keeps these things in secrecy, not allowing the press, not sharing the materials to allow the outside world to examine their validity.

    Just look at the agreement you signed: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/the-climate-reality-project-online-training-agreement2.pdf

    It reads like a gag order. – Anthony
    ###################################

    I have signed and am not worried in the least.

  195. renewableguy says:

    There is no testable, falsifiable scientific evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None. Scientific skeptics are not required to prove a negative; to prove that man made global warming does not exist. Rather, the onus is entirely upon the climate alarmist crowd to demonstrate conclusively that human emissions are the main cause of global warming. But they have failed.

    #############################

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109

    In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:

  196. CRS, DrPH says:

    This was the event for Al Gore’s “Climate Un-Reality Project” – interesting, the “Gore Effect” visited Chicago when he was here, as it was unseasonably chilly!

    http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/al-gore–the-climate-reality-project-welcome-1500-new-climate-leaders-217769101.html

  197. jeanparisot says:

    There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
    1.Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy. OK, why is CO2 more important then water vapor?

    2.The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
    Cool, who cares

    3.We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
    Wow. We’ve departed from natural cycles we can’t define or explain – how do we know that, whats the “natural” temperature for 2015 supposed to be in Norway or India?

    4.The models and the observations match.
    Your going to have to define how your using the terms observation and match here, because they aren’t coincidental with my understanding of those terms. Do the models “match” themselves?

    5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.

    I went outside today, you know the big blue room with the really bright light, and I looked up and saw clouds, then the sun, and it was humid — hmmmm.

  198. jeanparisot says:

    Hey look, its been dark outside for a few hours – its about time the renewable batteries flatline.

  199. temp says:

    RoHa says:
    August 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    “Lousy salesmen, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.”

    “So you will agree that the insane reds-under-the-beds rants about socialists, liberals (whatever that means), watermelons, etc., that regularly pollute the comments sections of sceptic blogs are not doing a lot to help spread Global Warming scepticism?”

    The truth is never liked by those who don’t want it spoken…

  200. temp says:

    To renewableguy

    I’m sorry but the SkS posts you make make alot of claims which are simply not supported… you as well.

    First you claim the heat is going into the oceans… we have little data on this and thus its a near impossible thing to say. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that this is correct…. THIS COMPLETELY DISPROVES global warming. At no time until after the pause to find the “missing” heat did anyone say the heat would go into the oceans outside of the standard “everything goes up at the same time”. This means that global warming was proven wrong even if we argue that heat really did go into the oceans as it was not predicted to do as such.

    Then we have the

    “In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:”

    The SkS piece you post claims alot about sat data but the sat data doesn’t support those claims. Once again even if we assume for the sake of argument that the sat data does showing CO2 warming… its only inline with the concept of tested in lab CO2… aka ZERO FEED BACK. Thus we are only looking at tops a 3 degrees of warming for about 10k ppm CO2.

    sks has a habit of twisting info into supporting an argument neither those that support global warming made until after the fact or debunking strawman that never existed in the first place.

    Add in that due to the fact cultists have literally made millions of claims/predictions/said everything proves global warming…. even the rare times they are right is meaningless. If the science is settled then you should be able to predict before something happens… not 5 years after it happens such as with the oceans “suddenly” sucking up all the heat.

    Add in the fact the south pole for some reason isn’t sucking up any heat into its oceans kind of makes that argument worthless on its face.

    I ask you a simple question… explain to me what would prove global warming wrong? The IPCC supposedly the bible of the cult has had its predictions proven wrong. So what else is left to prove wrong?

  201. renewableguy says:

    [snip - off topic as warned before this isn't a thread about what skeptical science thinks - mod]

  202. renewableguy says:

    climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

    The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming.

    This is a pretty extensive summation of the science of the recent warming to the earth. If you choose open the link and read on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]
    …increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
    …global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
    …increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that “[most] of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”[2] The IPCC defines “very likely” as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.[3]

    Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
    A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]

    Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]

    Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]

    Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

  203. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Scott -
    I recommend you start with Steve Goreham’s Climatism, then go to Bob Carter’s The Counter Consensus. These will give you a graded start, as it were, with the issue and prepare you to dig deeper. Dr. Klaus is more on the political aspect of CAGW, and is also an important read here. And if you really want to get PO’d at the alarmists and the greens generally, read Paul Driessen’s Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death. It made me want to do something to those worms with my hands.

  204. Val,

    The Soviet Union and every other bloody brainwashing totalitarian regime in the world stood upon the shoulders of people “passionate do-gooders” like you.

    When I read posts like yours, I feel ashamed of being human.

  205. knr says:

    renewableguy the day the IPCC says its not man to blame is the day before there is longer an IPCC for without this its got no reason to exist . Think about that before you take anything they say without question.

  206. Bruce Cobb says:

    @renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.

  207. Gail Combs says:

    renewable guy says: @n August 2, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Speaking of engineering and science books.

    ……The conclusion, to summarize, is that a high-penetration solar and wind utility
    system is possible…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh great, they want to make my state another guinea pig but didn’t bother to take a look at the fiasco in the European Union.

    Of course this has always been about power and money and nothing else even as the Elite speak of ‘Social Justice’ ‘Global Governance’ ‘Interdependence’ and efficiency hampered by the Westphalian order and the primacy of sovereign nation-states that comes with it…

    From the IMF

    ….New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)….

    In the 20th century, they tried the brute force method of totalitarian government (The Soviet Union and others) and the people never accepted their serfs collars so now they are trying to institute a system similar to that of the EU where ‘Governance’ is given a glaze of legitimacy. WTO Director-General Lamy identified “the three pillars of governance — leadership, efficiency and legitimacy — are split among various structures. Where the UN has an undeniable comparative advantage is in terms of legitimacy. “ He also states the decision to have a world government was made in the 1930′s

    ….Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?….

    Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence…..
    http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

    “Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?”

    Sounds great until you think about it. What is being said is the elite think the ordinary citizen in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU have too much wealth and they want to take it from us under the guise of providing others with a ‘decent living standard’ Decent by whose measure? The starving African in a mud hut or the soccer mom in the suburbs? Of course the Elite with the tripling of their wealth really don’t care what the soccer mom thinks.

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill

    We have been trying these ‘experiments in socialism’ since 1600s.

    …In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

    In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death….

    After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

    This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.”

    …To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

    link

    It didn’t work then and it didn’t work in the Soviet Union. But that is all right, the elite are sure to get it right this time….

  208. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 2, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    ….How do we know humans cause global warming?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Because that was the original IPCC mandate.

    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/

    Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the ‘facts’ needed to hang the human race. This is why water vapor is not a ‘Forcing’ but a ‘Feed back’ otherwise CO2 would be a non starter. The IPCC assumed the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.

    Of course the bankers control the media link And the bankers have a vested interest in ‘Global Warming’ so much so that a world bank employee, Robert Watson was chair of the IPCC.

    The banker’s stake in CAGW

    World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007
    The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020

    This is a fraud that produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth and instead acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization.

    Wall Street has always been behind ‘Socialism’ Robert Minor’s cartoon Dee-Lighted! makes that clear. It shows Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers such as John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Right behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, of the Progressive Party. Minor was a member of the American Communist Party. link

    Just for the record, as a civilized being I think we should take care of our fellow humans. That is what makes us civilized. My beef is with the financiers who use ‘Socialism’ as a long con for lining their pockets from the sweat of the poor.
    Mother Jones and OPedNews have two very good articles showing exactly what I am talking about. So does this socialist.

  209. Tucci78 says:

    At 2:48 AM on 3 August, Bruce Cobb had written:

    @renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.

    Hm. When I’d run through this schmuck’s cut-and-puke, I’d had precisely the opposite reaction, thinking that they’d “trained” him rather less effectively than the average pet owner housebreaks the family pooch.

    Which same he’s been screwing repeatedly.

    I can’t read something like this Watermelon serial spew of stupidity without having Wolfgang Pauli’s remark come to mind:

    “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig,
    es ist nicht einmal falsch!”

  210. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm

    climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

    The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And we should hope like heck that is the case.
    From Peer-Reviewed papers.
    Older:

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    ….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

    Within the past year:

    Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
    P. C. Tzedakis, J. E. T. Channell, D. A. Hodell, H. F. Kleiven & L. C. Skinner
    Affiliations
    Contributions
    Corresponding author
    Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1358
    Received 23 May 2011 Accepted 28 November 2011 Published online 09 January 2012 Corrected online 10 January 2012
    ….The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing…..
    [ABSTRACT only]

    I emphasized the quote “was not subdued by radiative forcing”. What is meant by this is since this interglacial was at a minimum node of eccentricity and precession index oscillation, insolation did not go down to as low a level as one normally expects to be needed to set off glaciation. But glaciation started anyway.

    (The actual paper without corrections?)

    Determining the natural length of the current interglacial
    P. C. Tzedakis, J. E. T. Channell, D. A. Hodell, H. F. Kleiven & L. C. Skinner

    Past interglacials can be used to draw analogies with the present, provided their duration is known. Here we propose that the minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum, suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued radiative forcing7 . Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240 ± 5 ppmv….

    ….Climate modelling studies show that a reduction in boreal summer insolation is the primary trigger for glacial inception, with CO2 playing a secondary role3,5 . Lowering CO2 shifts the
    inception threshold to higher insolation values….

    Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
    “…Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”

    And if you forget the decadal wiggles and look at centuries:

    Norway Experiencing Greatest Glacial Activity in the past 1,000 year
    …..recently there was a nice study in Quaternary Research that did a study on glacial activity in Norway for the past ~8,000 years….

    ABSTRACT:
    We explore the possibility of building a continuous glacier reconstruction by analyzing the integrated sedimentary response of a large (440 km2) glacierized catchment in western Norway, as recorded in the downstream lake Nerfloen (N61°56′, E6°52′). A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) reveals a strong common signal in the 15 investigated sedimentary parameters, with the first principal component explaining 77% of the total variability. This signal is interpreted to reflect glacier activity in the upstream catchment, an interpretation that is independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~3400, 3000-2700, 2100-2000, 1700-1500, and ~900 cal yr BP.

    The authors simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years.….

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    ….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent

    The real controversy is will the Holocene be ending now (we are near the half precession point) or will the Holocene be a double precession interglacial. You can find a synopsis in a comment from WFM (William McClenney?) http://www.cejournal.net/?p=3305#comment-7191

    … 5 of the last 6 interglacials all lasted about half of a precessional cycle… Well that 6th one was MIS-11…. MIS-11 has long been shown to consist of at least two insolation peaks, a fairly sharp one soon after glacial termination, and a long, fairly broad one after an interval of cooling. But if you take the time to closely inspect all of the figures presented here, you will likely note that they are not all the same everywhere and in every study.
    At the risk of repetition from “The Antithesis”, Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) state:

    “Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with 18O values below 3.6o/oo for 20 kyr, from 398-418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6o/oo for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398-418 ka as from 250-650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.”

    link

    Also MIS-19 appears to have had at least 3 abrupt warming events during the descent into glaciation so a ‘warming spike’ doesn’t mean diddly squat.

    Now tell me why ‘the fact CO2′ is keeping us out of glaciation is not making front page news. Could it be because you can’t use that to scare the masses into giving up more of their wealth and freedom?

  211. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    ….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
    Wikipedia’s Climate information is ruled by William Connelley. Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues

    He was banned but it did not stick.
    Posted on October 13, 2010 Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again

    October 14, 2010 William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia

    You can put Wikipedia in the WUWT search engine for the other posts on Wikipedia mangling science.

  212. Jonathan Abbott says:

    I find the vapid, repetitive emotional appeals of the warmists posted above genuinely terrifying. It is a salutary reminder that the sort of useful idiots that supported the murderous, genocidal totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century are still being churned out.

  213. Gail Combs says:

    Jonathan Abbott,
    That was the goal of Fabian Socialist John Dewey, Father of Progressive Education. link

    …Kengor spoke at the America’s Survival conference at the National Press Club on October 21, 2010. “The Bolsheviks wasted no time getting John Dewey’s works into Russian,” Kengor writes in his book Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. “In 1918, only three years after it was published in the United States, Dewey’s Schools of Tomorrow was published in Moscow.”

    “Given what was happening in Russia at the time, this is staggering.” To wit: the Soviets, broke, were fighting a bloody civil war.

    “Only a year after Schools of Tomorrow was published came a Russian translation of Dewey’s How We Think (1919) and then, in 1920, The School and Society,” Kengor relates. “These, too, came during the misery of the Russian Civil War (1918-21), which, according to historian W. Bruce Lincoln, snuffed out the lives of seven million men, women and children.” [Italics in original]

    “Dewey’s ideas were apparently judged as crucial to the revolution as any weapon in the arsenal of the Red Army.” Kengor did much of his research in the archives of the Communist International, about as primary a source as you can get….
    http://www.academia.org/john-dewey-soviet-progressives/

    ….He [Lenin] ordered the schools to adopt Dewey’s educational philosophies, and the test scores at the end of the semester were so abysmal, that he instituted the strictest form of European standards education, kind of a mix between the German and French forms. Rigid classrooms…

    So after trying Dewey’s educational system and finding it was useless the Soviets tossed it. The USA however has kept it which is why our educational system is one of the worst in the world.

    …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….
    Source

  214. renewableguy says:

    Bruce Cobb says:

    August 3, 2013 at 2:48 am

    @renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they? You are simply spouting disinformation and junk science, which has turned your brain (if you ever had one) to mush. You obviously have no clue what you are even talking about. The obvious reason the climate models can’t explain the warming, much of which has been exaggerated, is that they are junk. They are not based on reality.
    ##############################
    In essence I am a normal person like you are. I have a family to help raise, go to work every day, go to church to help celebrate life on earth.

    Al Gore hasn’t really influenced my science knowledge. Its really just for the networking.

  215. renewableguy says:

    Hi Gail,

    Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress stated:
    “…Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…”

    ###########################

    That fits right in with that the earth should be cooling naturally.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/LIG2-1906.html
    Milankovitch cycles are taking us in the cooling direction.

    This is part of the knowledge that the recent warming is not natural variation.

  216. renewableguy says:

    Jonathan Abbott says:

    August 3, 2013 at 5:13 am

    I find the vapid, repetitive emotional appeals of the warmists posted above genuinely terrifying. It is a salutary reminder that the sort of useful idiots that supported the murderous, genocidal totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century are still being churned out.
    ###########################

    Hi John,

    We are ordinary people organizing to reduce carbon emissions.

  217. Gunga Din says:

    mindabmedia says:
    August 2, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    I’m new to this issue, and even though I attended the Chicago training, I certainly do want to do my homework, consider all evidence, and make a well-informed, reasoned conclusion. We heard tons of evidence from climate scientists themselves that climate change is real, and caused by man, but based on the views here, there must be plenty of equally (or more) compelling science to the contrary that I’m not yet aware of. Would any of you point some out? What should I be reading to get what I must be missing? Thanks!

    ========================================================================
    I’m sure you’ve been given many suggestions and links. There’s a multitude of informational gems to be mined here on WUWT on the title and side bar.
    I’m a “layman” so I’ll leave it to the experts to direct you to specifics. But you can help them help you by listing a few specific areas you’d like to explore.
    My only other suggestion would be to look at what the the CAGWers were saying 10, 20 years ago, and the certainty with which they said it. They’ve changed their rhetoric faster than they’ve claimed the climate has changed since Ma Gaia hasn’t cooperated with them.

  218. Latitude says:

    This is part of the knowledge that the recent warming is not natural variation.
    ====
    So, you think we would be a 1/2 degree cooler…instead of a 1/2 degree warmer

    …and that anyone would notice

  219. renewableguy says:

    Humans were tried and found guilty BEFORE the IPCC ever looked at a scientific fact. The IPCC mandate is not to figure out what factors effect the climate but to dig up the ‘facts’ needed to hang the human race. This is why water vapor is not a ‘Forcing’ but a ‘Feed back’ otherwise CO2 would be a non starter. The IPCC assumed the role of prosecution and and the skeptics that of the defense but the judge (aka the media) refuses to allow the defense council into the court room.

    ##############################

    CO2 supports the present increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. H2O is a by product of our emissions holding even more heat in from escaping from our atmosphere.

  220. renewableguy says:

    This is a fraud that produces nothing but poverty. It does not produce a single penny of wealth and instead acts as a short circuit across the advancement and wealth of an entire civilization.

    ###############################

    If energy independence is achieved with fossil fuels it will be very short lived. Once the renewable energy infrastructure is in this century, it would be an extra trillion dollars circulating at home rather than it leaving our shores. Millions of people with good jobs.

  221. Latitude says:

    CO2 supports the present increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
    ====
    You really believe that crap you’re spewing, don’t you?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/new-paper-on-global-water-vapor-puts-climate-modelers-in-a-bind/

  222. renewableguy says:

    “Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?”

    ########################

    All the 100% renewable plans I have read aren’t about socialism. Its all on a capitalistic path.

  223. renewableguy says:

    Latitude says:

    August 3, 2013 at 7:44 am

    CO2 supports the present increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
    ====
    You really believe that crap you’re spewing, don’t you?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/new-paper-on-global-water-vapor-puts-climate-modelers-in-a-bind/
    #################################

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-stratosphere-global-warming.htm

    This is very basic to global warming in that the earth’s surface is 70% water. As co2 increases so does h2o. This translates into more energy held back from escaping from our atmosphere.

  224. Latitude says:

    you moron….what’s “basic” is that it didn’t happen
    your link was 2010…..

  225. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 7:29 am

    Hi Gail,

    ….This is part of the knowledge that the recent warming is not natural variation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    You missed the rest of it. You get WARM SPIKES when going in or out of glaciation according to Dr. Richard B. Alley. Alley of the U.Penn. was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. for well over a decade and in 1999 was invited to testify about climate change by Vice President Al Gore. In 2002, the NAS (alley chair) published a book “Abrupt Climate Change:
    Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises ( 2002 )
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1

    . From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:

    Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most
    of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age.

    This goes along with Dr Brown of Duke University’s bi-stable climate. When you hit the transition area you are going to get wilder climate.
    ANOTHER QUOTE:

    Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments – Axford et al. (2012)
    ….As summer insolation declined through the late Holocene, summer temperatures cooled and the local ice sheet margin expanded. Gradual, insolation-driven millennial-scale temperature trends in the study area were punctuated by several abrupt climate changes, including a major transient event recorded in all five lakes between 4.3 and 3.2 ka, which overlaps in timing with abrupt climate changes previously documented around the North Atlantic region and farther afield at ∼4.2 ka…..”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112004209

    And more from the Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, ‎National Research Council

    Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step (Figure 1.2) of about 8°C in about 10 years and was accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years; most of the accumulation-rate change occurred in 1 year. (This matches well the change in wind-driven upwelling in the Cariaco Basin, offshore Venezuela, which occurred in 10 years or less [Hughen et al., 1996].)
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=27

    As I said the current minuscule warming means nothing.

  226. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 7:45 am

    “Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?”

    ########################

    All the 100% renewable plans I have read aren’t about socialism. Its all on a capitalistic path.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    RIGHTTTT…
    And that is why MY TAXES are going to pay for companies started by Obama’s cronies who have since bankrupted. So far, [thats] 34 companies It would be interesting to see how much the net worth of the originators has gone up.

    The Department of Energy Report 2009

    A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….

    These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

    Don’t want smart meter? Power shut off
    The rollout of smart electric meters across the country has run into a few snags: one woman doesn’t want one, and ended up in the dark as a result.

    You might not think that would be an issue. But it is, because Duke Energy is now beginning to disconnect any homeowner who refuses a new electric meter.

    Other electric companies are not pulling the plug…yet…..

    And what is the take of the Financiers?

    We see an attractive long-term secular trend for investors to capitalize on over the coming 20–30 years as today’s underinvested and technologically challenged power grid is modernized to a technology-enabled smart grid. In particular, we see an attractive opportunity over the next three to five years to invest in companies that are enabling this transformation of the power grid.
    http://downloads.lightreading.com/internetevolution/Thomas_Weisel_Demand_Response.pdf

    It isn’t “Capitalism’ when you are forced to buy ‘Products’ you do not want at a much higher cost that the products you did want that have been ‘outlawed’ due to corporate influence.

    I really suggest you read the Article at Mother Jones It explains how this ‘Corporatism’ or what every you want to call the unholy merging of mega-corporations and government works. The losers are always the little guy.

    I would also suggest How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis The elite don’t give a rats behind who they hurt or how many they kill as long as more money goes into their pockets and they accumulate more power.

    Agenda 21 is all about POWER and CONTROL

  227. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says: @ August 3, 2013 at 7:51 am

    This is very basic to global warming in that the earth’s surface is 70% water. As co2 increases so does H2O. This translates into more energy held back from escaping from our atmosphere.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have it half right. WATER is the critical factor not CO2. If the oceans warm CO2 is out gassed.

    If the cloud cover changes in amount or type the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface changes.

    One of the links is the changes in the sun’s UV and solar magnetic field causing changes in the height of the atmosphere and changes in the ozone. This effects the cloud cover and winds which in turn effect the oceans.

    However it would be tough to make water into a bogeyman so CO2 was chosen instead even though it is a flea compared to water’s elephant.

  228. Babsy says:

    Gail Combs says:
    August 3, 2013 at 8:40 am

    Gail,

    The real reason they chose CO2 is so they can control the energy market and thereby, the economy.

  229. Babsy says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 2, 2013 at 11:17 pm

    Dear Sparky,

    Mull this over for a while and then get back to us. Mmmmmm’K?

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

  230. Gail Combs says:

    Babsy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 9:32 am

    The real reason they chose CO2 is so they can control the energy market and thereby, the economy.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    YUP, It has always been political . That is why the IPCC mandate was never about actually trying to figure out what controls the climate.

    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/

    From Pascal Lamy of the WTO we get the WHY.

    ….First, legitimacy at the international level is much weaker than at the national level. This is not surprising as legitimacy is inversely proportional to distance. The specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance is to deal with the perceived too-distant, non-accountable and non-directly challengeable decision-making at the international level….

    Second, efficiency is hampered by the Westphalian order and the primacy of sovereign nation-states that comes with it — sovereign nation-states that often have differing interests; that often lack coherence, arguing one position in an international organization, and its opposite in another. Sovereign nation-states that often resist transferring or sharing jurisdiction over certain matters within an international setting….

    As for leadership, the intrinsic difficulty of global governance is to identify the leader.

    As for legitimacy, I see two avenues to strengthen it. First, domestically, by increasing the visibility of international issues and giving citizens a greater say. By incorporating them into the public debate at the national level. Presidents, prime-ministers, parliamentarians, trade unions and civil society movements need to engage more actively in global issues and institutions. Instead of globalizing local issues, we should be localizing them. Global institutions need to be held more accountable to national parliaments and voters. The UN could play an important role in this regard given its remarkably positive perception by citizens. Second, internationally, by enhancing the UN system as a legitimation process…
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/globalization/globalization-of-politics/global-governance-and-the-three-sisters-2-17/50398-lamy-urges-raising-un-ecosoc-profile.html?itemid=id#951

    This is why NGOs were invented (control of course is kept by the elite through funding and non-voting membership) and why a ‘Crisis’ was absolutely necessary.

    Again from lamy:

    …In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared…..

    At the same time, globalization is blurring the line between national and world issues, redefining our notions of space, sovereignty and identity. As we saw during the recent financial crisis, economic turbulence in one country now sends shockwaves worldwide.

    And finance is not the only area where domestic issues are turning into global concerns. Countries claim the right to use national resources as they see fit. But the byproduct can be greenhouse gases or disappearing fish stocks or raw material shortages — which impact the interconnected world we share…..

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty….
    http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

    The financial crisis and the global warming crisis were both engineered “… to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed….”

    Al Gore of course is also all about “INTERDEPENDENCE” another code word like “SUSTAINABILITY” Daily Kos: A Declaration of INTERdependence

    Many years ago I saw a listing by Gore on what the regional specializations were going to be. This is why when Gore was VP he told a kid to get out of farming. My USDA extension agent was an eye witness at that presentation and in the extension office is where I first heard about this.

    “While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.”
    http://showcase.netins.net/web/sarahb/farm/

    More on interdependence: http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f99/Papers/wang.html
    http://www.iatp.org/files/Global_Governance_Why_How_When.htm

  231. Latitude says:

    Gail, just one post from you….and I get more information than I’ve ever had…

    Thanks a million!!

  232. Jonathan Abbott says:

    Dear renewableguy,

    You recently attended a conference organised and hosted by a multimillionaire who has made a fortune sucking taxpayers money into his big-green companies, and yet you claim to represent ordinary people who just happen to have all joined together to fight the monsterous evil of climate change?
    Seriously?
    Stop insulting our intelligence.

  233. HenryP says:

    henry@amanda, renewable guy etc

    the climate is changing but it does not come from man, it comes from God (‘s creation)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

    H2O and CO2 is the reason why we are alive today
    No, it has not been warming, it has started cooling, according to all major data sets, including my own,
    and be aware of the fact that this global cooling will not stop..until about 2038

    things are not so “simple” as you think

  234. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:

    However it would be tough to make water into a bogeyman so CO2 was chosen instead even though it is a flea compared to water’s elephant.

    ############################

    The knowledge of the relationship of co2 to water is very extensive. H2O is a very short lived atmospheric gas while co2 is lasts for centuries in the atmosphere. What supports the water vapor is co2. That is why co2 is considered the thermostat of the earth. More co2 = warmer. Less co2 = cooler.

    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

  235. renewableguy says:

    HenryP saysH2O and CO2 is the reason why we are alive today

    #################

    Agreed we are in the goldilocks zone. Just right.

    See co2 is the thermostat of the earth.

  236. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:

    I really suggest you read the Article at Mother Jones It explains how this ‘Corporatism’ or what every you want to call the unholy merging of mega-corporations and government works. The losers are always the little guy.

    ########################

    Germany has benefitted the little with their feed in tarrifs. They are now up to 25% renewable energy and are schedueled to easily hit 35% by 2020. They have employed 350,000 people in their green industry.

  237. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs says:
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=27

    ################################

    There is a differentiation between Younger Dryas and Todays warming. We are in temperature imbalance and younger dryas was internal dynamics.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/revisiting-the-younger-dryas/

    Unlike changes in global temperature (such as modern day global warming) which can be understood as a result of perturbations to the planetary energy balance, the millennial-scale climate changes during the last glaciation are viewed primarily from the lens of internal dynamics, including ice retreat and re-organizations of ocean circulation. They are not dominated by changes in global mean temperature but rather changes in temperature distribution, explained by changes in oceanic or atmospheric heat transport. In particular, proxies of deepwater formation show large reductions in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) coincident with the start of the YD. This suggested weakening of overturning circulation provides immense explanatory power for the onset of the YD although no consensus has emerged concerning the trigger of the AMOC reduction. There are some radiative changes associated with millennial-scale climate change induced by the ice-albedo effect, extra dust loading out of Asia during cold snaps, as well as greenhouse gas feedbacks– although they are relatively small. However, pinning down the exact sequence of causes and effects is rather difficult since precise chronologies and global-scale reconstructions are difficult to come by prior to the Holocene.

  238. renewableguy says:

    renewableguy the day the IPCC says its not man to blame is the day before there is longer an IPCC for without this its got no reason to exist . Think about that before you take anything they say without question.

    ###############################
    Humans have changed the earth in this manner. Do you agree?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[1]
    increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
    global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
    increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

    ####################

    Do you think any of the natural mechanisms below have caused this warming?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, variations in the Earth’s orbit, and volcanic activity.

    ######################

    When scientists put out a statement like this, they have done a great deal of homework because they don’t like to be wrong. This is a big statement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:[4]
    A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
    Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
    Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
    Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

  239. Latitude says:

    ROTFL….

    “Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.”

    You don’t even realize it’s all computer games, every bit of it, every prediction, every past reconstruction, every replication….it’s all computer games

    and the computer games have not been right about one single thing….nothing, nada, zippo

  240. renewableguy says:

    @renewablegorebot, they have trained you well, haven’t they?
    ######################
    I knew 98% of it before I got there. Seeing that you don’t like what the data in science says, do you just go with anything that isn’t AGW.

  241. Tucci78 says:

    Anent “Computer-based climate models,” at 3:42 PM on 3 August, Latitude had accurately observed:

    You don’t even realize it’s all computer games, every bit of it, every prediction, every past reconstruction, every replication….it’s all computer games

    and the computer games have not been right about one single thing….nothing, nada, zippo

    Oh, for pity’s sake. Those hacked-up computer simulacra can’t even “predict” the remote or recent past, much less the potential global climate ten or twenty (much less a hundred) years from now.

    If the hallmark of sound science is the ability to reliably anticipate future developments on the basis of lucid and honest observations of past phenomena, then the “settled” bilge of the Watermelon cabal has not even the proverbial nitrocellulose dog’s chance in hell of ever coming close to scientific validity.

  242. renewableguy says:

    Latitude:

    You don’t even realize it’s all computer games, every bit of it, every prediction, every past reconstruction, every replication….it’s all computer games

    and the computer games have not been right about one single thing….nothing, nada, zippo
    ######################

    Human changes are included in the models and excluded from the models. When excluded, the models show that the earth would be mildly cooling over time. With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#.22Fingerprint.22_studies
    For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see graph, opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.[7]

  243. Babsy says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    You wrote: “Human changes are included in the models and excluded from the models. When excluded, the models show that the earth would be mildly cooling over time. With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.”

    Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you so badly, but whether the ‘human changes’ are included or not, it’s still just a model.

  244. Latitude says:

    With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.
    ====
    Are you from another planet?….

    The computer games have failed at every prediction they have made….

  245. _Jim says:

    renewableguy says August 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Germany has benefitted the little with their feed in tarrifs

    One word: Unsustainable. (HEY! You’re the ‘renewable guy’!!!!!)

    Here we just use SNAP cards or fund Solyndras … say, didn’t we bail Europe (incl Germany) out in, oh, say, the 40′s?

    .

  246. gnomish says:

    renewableguy:
    germany has nearly the highest prices for electricity in europe.
    http://www.energy.eu/ 0.26 euros per kwh. in usd, that’s 0.33 cents – oh, only just 3 times the usa price you say? why might that be, you wonder?
    could it be due to the cultish pursuit of the least efficient enegy production possible?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
    they are waking up, though- and that’s why they are building more coal fired plants:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/08/31/germany-insane-or-just-plain-stupid/

    there’s not a single thing you have said that isn’t regurgitated from the warmunist church.
    and not a single thing you’ve said that bears a correspondence with reality. how dare you pollute the planet with your very breath. are you insane or just plain stupid?
    are you trying to prove it’s not an XOR function?

  247. TStewart says:

    I have followed the articles found here, the comments and the links. They are all very interesting. However I have found nothing greater than humans short recorded history to influence my thoughts on the “global warming” or “climate change” hysteria. It was 1100 years ago that Eric the Red sailed to Greenland with his family and found Greenland. An area with a good climate and rich soil. The winters were not too harsh and farming was excellent! His son Lief Ericsson went further and found Vinland (Newfoundland). A wonderful area covered with grape vines and more rich soil and mild winters. As the decades and centuries past these areas fell to climate change and became colder and more hostile to man. Today Greenlands’ near 10 month winter makes agricultural sustainability more than difficult. All this historical climate change without the aid nor malfeasance of man. Shy of an asteroid hitting the earth or a nuclear or volcanic winter, I will be more concerned with “weather” than climate change. When Greenland becomes green again, call me.

  248. TStewart says:

    PS: in the meantime I will resist any governments’ tax initiatives that will claim to “save the world” if only they have more of my hard earned dollars! Right now economic slavery to government is a larger concern! But that’s a different web page. ;-)

  249. milodonharlani says:

    Jeff Glassman says:
    August 2, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    I see how you understand Bacon.

    You misunderstand both Sedgwick & Darwin. Sedgwick recognized that what he & others called “development” had occurred. It is an incontestable observation of the fossil record. He however attributed the phenomenon to successive acts of creation. He objected to “transmutation”, ie the evolution of new species from old.

    Previous attempts to explain “development”, is what would now be called the observed fact of evolution, by entirely naturalistic means had not been satisfactory, such as Lamarck’s inheritance of acquired characteristics. By discovering natural selection, Darwin & Wallace succeeded where their predecessors had failed.

    Science has since discovered other means by which evolution occurs, aided by comprehending the processes of inheritance, cytology, population genetics & microbiology. Natural selection is as far removed from the contemporary absurdly, laughably anti-scientific doctrine of “Intelligent Design” as is possible. One reason he delayed publishing over 20 years after his insight in 1837 was because he knew natural selection obviated the need for Design. Darwin regretted adding the eloquent but misleading final paragraph to editions two through six of Origins, as he did elsewhere in the book using “creation”, loaded with religious significance, instead of the neutral, precise & more scientific term “appearance”. He also understood that readers might conflate the appearance of life with the origin of species, as to this day do even smart people like Ben Stein.

  250. renewableguy says:

    Babsy says:

    August 3, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    You wrote: “Human changes are included in the models and excluded from the models. When excluded, the models show that the earth would be mildly cooling over time. With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.”

    Sorry dude, I hate to break it to you so badly, but whether the ‘human changes’ are included or not, it’s still just a model.
    #########################
    The models get the trends correct, then the cooling and warming are good indicators. This is one of the human fingerprints

  251. Latitude says:

    The models get the trends correct, then the cooling and warming are good indicators. This is one of the human fingerprints
    ===
    you are from another planet….
    The computer games did not get the trends correct….they couldn’t even hidecast correct

  252. renewableguy says:

    lattitude

    With the human influence, they proceed to simulate the warming we are in.
    ====
    Are you from another planet?….

    The computer games have failed at every prediction they have made….

    ###########

    There Is such a thing as close enough. NOt perfect but it works. A higher accuracy is achieved with co2 than without. Without human co2 the models are much more inaccurate.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
    There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800 without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming..

  253. renewableguy says:

    jim

    One word: Unsustainable. (HEY! You’re the ‘renewable guy’!!!!!)

    Here we just use SNAP cards or fund Solyndras … say, didn’t we bail Europe (incl Germany) out in, oh, say, the 40′s?
    ######################

    Germany Is quite successful along with the UK now built the largest offshore wind park in the world.. In Minnesota there is 25 more times energy potential in wind than the grid usage they have. Most of the grid can be RE.

  254. Latitude says:

    There Is such a thing as close enough.
    ====
    LOL……you’re hopeless

  255. renewableguy says:

    renewableguy:
    germany has nearly the highest prices for electricity in europe.
    http://www.energy.eu/ 0.26 euros per kwh. in usd, that’s 0.33 cents – oh, only just 3 times the usa price you say? why might that be, you wonder?

    ####################

    They are also the strongest economy in Europe.

  256. Babsy says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    You wrote: “The models get the trends correct, then the cooling and warming are good indicators. This is one of the human fingerprints”

    Don’t you mean “if” the models get the trends correct? You don’t seem to be able to grasp that there’s no experimental data to confirm the model. If the data doesn’t match the model, then the model is wrong.

  257. renewableguy says:

    Tucci78

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

    If you plug in contrarian projections based on their talking points, the IPCC wins hands down. The computer models give the contrarians a pretty low score.

  258. renewableguy says:

    Latitude
    you are from another planet….
    The computer games did not get the trends correct….they couldn’t even hidecast correct

    ###########################

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

  259. Latitude says:

    the computer games in use now were initially developed in the late 1980′s…they have been constantly “improved” since then…..and still managed to get half of their predictions on temperature dead wrong…CO2 or no CO2….human or no human
    17 years of no warming

  260. renewableguy says:

    Latitude

    If its 50% or 90% right, there is a difference. I would go with the 90% correct.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

    Contrarian stands on climate plugged in are completely. And yet the IPCC is much more accurate. This is a clear indicator of contrarians stances are pretty far off.

  261. Latitude says:

    don’t link to something over a year old…that everyone has seen…please try to stay current

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

  262. Latitude says:

    If its 50% or 90% right, there is a difference. I would go with the 90% correct.
    ====
    it’s 100% fail…..computer games..human or not, CO2 or not…..predicted a consistent “forcing” and consistent rise in temps

  263. renewableguy says:

    Babsy
    Don’t you mean “if” the models get the trends correct? You don’t seem to be able to grasp that there’s no experimental data to confirm the model. If the data doesn’t match the model, then the model is wrong.

    #####################
    We have the temperature record. The IPCC is fairly accurate.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

  264. dbstealey says:

    renewable guy says:

    “There Is such a thing as close enough.”

    The problem is not one of being ‘close enough’. The problem with GCMs [computer climate models] is that not one of them predicted the stopping of global warming beginning a decade and a half ago. Not one of them predicted that. The problem is that they were ALL 100% wrong. All of them.

    You are arguing with everyone here, and worse yet, you are using the pseudo-science blog Skeptical Science as your “authority”?? That really takes the cake!

    It’s Saturday night — and you’re still writing blog comments from your moim’s basement? There’s more to life than the climate nonsense you’re posting. Get out. Try to have some fun for a change, because you’re not convincing anyone here with your nonsense.

  265. Latitude says:

    We have the temperature record. The IPCC is fairly accurate.
    =====
    You’ve been had Bambi….
    They lined up temps and projections at 1990….to hide how bad it was
    …do you realize that means they couldn’t have hindcasted the models to tune them?

  266. renewableguy says:

    Latitude

    the computer games in use now were initially developed in the late 1980′s…they have been constantly “improved” since then…..and still managed to get half of their predictions on temperature dead wrong…CO2 or no CO2….human or no human
    17 years of no warming

    ############################
    At 14 years 6 out of 8 temperature sets show a warming trend with high uncertainty.
    At 19 years 8 out of 8 temperature set show a warming trend with much lower uncertainty.
    This is telling me that there is a really high certainty we are going to continue warming.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
    …………………………….1998t…to.2012…………………… 1993 to 2012
    giss Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)……..….Trend:1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
    NOAA Trend: 0.43 ±1.49 °C/century (2σ)………Trend:1.45 ±1.02 °C/century (2σ)
    hadcrut v3 Trend: -0.05 ±1.55 °C/century (2σ)Trend:1.32 ±1.14 °C/century (2σ)
    hadcrut v4 Trend: 0.83 ±1.72 °C/century (2σ)..Trend:1.78 ±1.11 °C/century (2σ
    Best land Trend: 1.59 ±3.84 °C/century (2σ)….Trend:3.24 ±2.26 °C/century (2σ)
    NOAA Land Trend: 1.24 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ).Trend:2.86 ±1.60 °C/century (2σ)
    rss Trend: -0.41 ±2.73 °C/century (2σ)…………..Trend:1.22 ±1.76 °C/century (2σ)
    UAH Trend: 0.54 ±2.89 °C/century (2σ)………….Trend:1.83 ±1.79 °C/century (2σ)

  267. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Gail Combs says:

    However it would be tough to make water into a bogeyman so CO2 was chosen instead even though it is a flea compared to water’s elephant.

    ############################

    The knowledge of the relationship of co2 to water is very extensive. H2O is a very short lived atmospheric gas while co2 is lasts for centuries in the atmosphere….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh, Good Grief! Try selling that bupkis to someone who is not a caver and a chemist. Rain absorbs the CO2 in the atmosphere and forms a weak solution of carbonic acid. This acidic water dissolves limestone and forms caves. Every time it rains CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere and thunderheads can build to heights of 70,000 feet. The height of the storms is controlled by the height of the troposphere.

    The Oceans absorb and emit CO2 according to Henry’s Law and the preferential precipitation of calcium carbonate. Green plants on land and at sea will grab any CO2 in their vicinity and drag the ambient CO2 down to ~ 200 to 300 ppm

    …The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

    (This was a C3 plant that can not drag the CO2 levels down as far as C4 plants)

    From farmers who have no reason to lie:

    Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusionSource

    On top of that CO2 is not ‘Well Mixed’ in the atmosphere.

    Significant Findings from AIRS Data
    1. ‘Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed
    2. ‘The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere
    3. ‘There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models
    4. ‘Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/

    And then there are the Japanese satellite images.
    http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2012/12/img/20121203_ibuki_05_e.gif

  268. renewableguy says:

    Latitude :
    it’s 100% fail…..computer games..human or not, CO2 or not…..predicted a consistent “forcing” and consistent rise in temps
    ###################

    Your perception of AGW is inaccurate. There is an average out of balance at the top of the atmosphere due to increased co2 forcing. Combined with natural variations there is variation in the temperature record but slowly increasing over time.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    Contrarians like the blue lines and climate reality folks are looking at the red line. Long term the temperature record shows warming mixed in with natural variation.

  269. renewableguy says:

    dbstealey:

    Try to have some fun for a change, because you’re not convincing anyone here with your nonsense.
    ##############

    I agree no one here is going to be convinced:)

    But who is closer. Contrarians or climate reality folks. It is very clear where the reality of climate is understood.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html

  270. renewableguy says:

    Latitude:
    You’ve been had Bambi….
    They lined up temps and projections at 1990….to hide how bad it was
    …do you realize that means they couldn’t have hindcasted the models to tune them?
    ###################
    Very creative.

  271. Gail Combs says:

    _Jim says: @ August 3, 2013 at 5:15 pm
    … say, didn’t we bail Europe (incl Germany) out in, oh, say, the 40′s?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually it was a heck of a lot more recent than that.
    Remember the Bank Bailouts most US citizens were against?

    Remember how the FED refused to tell Congress what was done with the tax payer money?

    06/12/2011
    Courtesy of the recently declassified Fed discount window documents, we now know that the biggest beneficiaries of the Fed’s generosity during the peak of the credit crisis were foreign banks, among which Belgium’s Dexia was the most troubled, and thus most lent to, bank. Having been thus exposed, many speculated that going forward the US central bank would primarily focus its “rescue” efforts on US banks, not US-based (or local branches) of foreign (read European) banks…
    In summary, instead of doing everything in its power to stimulate reserve, and thus cash, accumulation at domestic (US) banks which would in turn encourage lending to US borrowers, the Fed has been conducting yet another stealthy foreign bank rescue operation, which rerouted $600 billion in capital from potential borrowers to insolvent foreign financial institutions in the past 7 months. QE2 was nothing more (or less) than another European bank rescue operation!
    source

    As far as Germany and its renewables they are running into trouble.
    A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
    “Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”

    Well Germany is now running into the reality the power systems engineer was talking about.

    04.11.2011 Czech electricity grid company ready to block German wind power

    Czechs and Poles on the verge of sending disruptive flows of German wind-produced electricity back down the lines to the sender

    The Czech Republic is facing the growing prospect of being forced to block disruptive and volatile flows of German wind-produced electricity through its power network in what would be a powerful signal to Berlin to sort out its internal energy market.

    Large amounts of wind-produced electricity from northern Germany are now being shipped through the Czech Republic to German customers in the south of the country — and onwards towards Austria — because of the insufficiencies of the north-south German electricity grid.

    But Poland, with the Czech Republic close behind, is getting increasingly angry and concerned at providing the solutions for Germany’s energy problems….

    29/12/12 Poland And Czech Republic Ban Germany’s Green Energy

    In order to boost Germany’s ‘ecological wonder’ and its green energy transition, the Federal Republic has used power grids of neighbouring countries – without asking for permission. For this short-sighted policy, the German government is now being punished.

    Germany considers itself the environmental conscience of the world: with its nuclear phase-out and its green energy transition, the federal government wanted to give the world a model to follow. However, blinded by its own halo Germany overlooked that others have to pay for this green image boost and are suffering as a result.

    For example, Germany’s ‘eco-miracle’ simply used the power grids of neighboring countries not only without asking for permission but also without paying for it. Now Poland and the Czech Republic have pulled the plug and are building a huge switch-off at their borders to block the uninvited import of green energy from Germany which is destabalising their grids and is thus risking blackouts….

  272. dbstealey says:

    “renewableguy” makes lots of assertions:

    If you plug in contrarian projections based on their talking points, the IPCC wins hands down.

    Wrong, and wrong, and wrong, and wrong. Did I mention you were wrong? You were wrong. Yes, folks, renewableguy is wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG.

    I could post more charts showing how wrong the IPCC has been. But I would only post them if someone else asked, because ‘renewableguy’s’ mind is made up and closed tighter than a drumskin. He says:

    The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity.

    Another false assertion. There is no verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that anthropogenic CO2 has any measurable effect on global temperature. None. There simply is no such evidence. And:

    There is a differentiation between Younger Dryas and Todays warming.

    Yet another assertion. Just because an incredible blog like SkS makes an assertion, it does not mean anything without verifiable, testable scientific evidence to back it up. Once again: there is no testable, empirical evidence showing any measurable ‘human fingerprint of global warming’. You can believe that nonsense, or you can demand testable scientific evidence. That is the difference between a True Believer, and an honest scientist. And:

    “…co2 is the thermostat of the earth.”

    Says who? That is just another baseless assertion. Global warming has stayed on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years — whether CO2 was low, or high. There has been no acceleration in global warming [in fact, global warming stopped about 16 years ago]. Thus, CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature. QED

    H2O is a very short lived atmospheric gas while co2 is lasts for centuries in the atmosphere.

    Wrong again! The residence time for CO2 is only about 5 – 10 years. And the residence time of H2O does not matter, because it is always ≈1% to ≈4% of the atmosphere.

    ‘renewableguy’ is wrong about almost everything. But that is the expected result, when your “authority” is a cartoonist’s propaganda blog.

  273. renewableguy says:

    Latitude::::

    In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010).

    ##########################
    Low climate sensitivity is what the contrarians are hoping for. Its not a 10 thank god, but its honing in around 3 or slightly lower from the next 100 years point of view. For the next several hundred years it gets higher. Hansen has it around 4.5.

    This scientist is a conservative who goes with the science. Spencer is a scientist who writes to please his masters. I have read many a criticism of his work in his papers.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

  274. gnomish says:

    lol – i remember the word ‘deprogramming’ which came about from the toxic proselytizing of the ‘children of god’
    now it’s the ‘children of gore’
    welcome to the premier deprogramming site on the net, noobledude.
    rotsa ruck.

  275. renewableguy says:

    dbstealey
    Positive feedbacks are stronger and outnumber the negative feedbacks. Spencer argues for low climate sensitivity, but yet the deck is stacked against what he is saying. That is what science is about. As much as can be these are what are in the climate models.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

    1 Positive
    1.1 Carbon cycle feedbacks
    1.1.1 Arctic methane release
    1.1.1.1 Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs
    1.1.1.2 Methane release from hydrates

    1.1.2 Abrupt increases in atmospheric methane
    1.1.3 Decomposition
    1.1.4 Peat decomposition
    1.1.5 Rainforest drying
    1.1.6 Forest fires
    1.1.7 Desertification
    1.1.8 CO2 in the oceans
    1.1.9 Modelling results
    1.1.9.1 Implications for climate policy
    1.2 Cloud feedback
    1.3 Gas release
    1.4 Ice-albedo feedback
    1.5 Water vapor feedback
    2 Negative
    2.1 Carbon cycle
    2.1.1 Le Chatelier’s principle
    2.1.2 Chemical weathering
    2.1.3 Net Primary Productivity
    2.2 Lapse rate
    2.3 Blackbody radiation

  276. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says: @ August 3, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    ….Germany has benefitted the little with their feed in tarrifs. They are now up to 25% renewable energy and are schedueled to easily hit 35% by 2020. They have employed 350,000 people in their green industry.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    At What Cost?

    Germany Faces Green Energy Crisis [Round-up of news from Germany]
    Last winter, on several occasions, Germany escaped only just large-scale power outages. Next winter the risk of large blackouts is even greater. The culprit for the looming crisis is the single most important instrument of German energy policy: the “Renewable Energy Law.” The economic cost of a wide-scale blackout are measured in billions of Euros per day…. —Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt, 10 May 2012

    Old coal power plants need to stay in operation or Germany’s power grid faces collapse. That is the warning of Germany’s national grid agency…. “Closures of more conventional power plants are currently not feasible in Germany,” it says literally in the grid agency’s report: “Given the present and future tense situation, it is necessary to suspend closures due to the emissions reduction law.”—D. Wetzel und D. Siems, Die Welt, 10 May 2012

    Winfried Kretschmann (Green Party), the prime minister of the state of Baden Wuerttemberg, is urging Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) to encourage the construction of new gas-fired power plants. Especially in southern Germany energy security is at risk, according to Kretschmann.—Nikolai Fichtner, Financial Times Deutschland, 3 May 2012,…

    Green Energy Disaster Sinks Siemens CEO
    Siemens, Europe’s largest engineering company, has lost patience with its CEO after Peter Loescher’s expansion into green energy and expensive acquisitions led to a fifth profit-forecast cut. Supervisory board officials have asked for the 55-year-old Austrian native to be ousted….

    The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience
    …To understand the fallacy of the government creating green jobs through subsidies and regulations, we have to refer to the writing of French economist Frédéric Bastiat. Back in 1850, Bastiat explained the fallacy that underlies such thinking in an essay about the unseen costs of such efforts. He called it the “broken window” fallacy.

    The fallacy works as follows: imagine some shop-keepers get their windows broken by a rock-throwing child…. Did the child therefore do a public service by break- ing the windows? No. We must also consider what the shopkeepers would have done with the money they used to fix their windows, had those windows not been broken….

    It is well understood, among economists, that governments do not “create” jobs; the willingness of entrepreneurs to invest their capital, paired with consumer demand for goods and services, does that. All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others. In the green case, it is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector–and most likely in other industrial sectors–through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition….

    Spain has long been considered a leader in the drive to renewable power….

    In March 2009, researchers Gabriel Calzada Alvarez and colleagues at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos released a study examining the economic and employment effects of Spain’s aggressive push into renewables. What they found confounds the usual green-job rhetoric:[5]
    * Since 2000, Spain spent 571,138 euros on each green job, including subsidies of more than 1 million euros per job in the wind industry.
    * The programs creating those jobs destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy (2.2 jobs destroyed for every green job created).
    * The high cost of electricity mainly affects production costs and levels of employment in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing, and beverage and tobacco industries.
    * Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs elsewhere in the economy on average.
    * These costs do not reflect Spain’s particular approach but rather the nature of schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

    Spain has found its foray into renewable energy to be unsustainable. Bloomberg reports that Spain slashed subsidies for new solar power plants….

    Italy

    A similar situation has played out in Italy, also a leader in wind and solar-power deployment. A study performed by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found an even worse situation…..

    In the USA

    Obama’s Green Jobs Promise Carries A High Cost
    … The most recent analysis shows that his administration has created only 2,298 permanent green jobs, according to the Institute for Energy Research, which used data from the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office to reach this conclusion.

    And that scattering of jobs has cost dearly. IER says Washington has spent $26.32 billion to create those few positions. That means each job has cost taxpayers $11.45 million.

    Report: Energy Dept. Spent More Than $11M Per Green Job Created
    Two companies produced zero jobs: Solyndra Inc., which received $535 million, and Abound Solar, which got $400 million. In contrast, Georgia Power Company has received more than $8 billion to create 800 jobs.

    “As the astronomical cost of the DOE’s loan guarantee program indicates, subsidizing renewable energy is not a good deal for taxpayers,”

    Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail
    President Obama’s Department of Energy helped finance several green energy companies that later fell into bankruptcy — but not before the firms doled out six-figure bonuses and payouts to top executives, a Center for Public Integrity and ABC News investigation found….

    Energy-backed firms award bonuses, file bankruptcy – Huffington Post

    Tracking President Obama’s Green Energy Failures A listing of bankrupt or failing green corporations.

  277. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs :

    We will know if this works when these timelines play out. As problems get ironed out, even more can open up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#Renewable_energy_targets

    German government announced the following new ambitious energy targets:[12]
    Renewable electricity – 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, and 80% by 2050
    Renewable energy – 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050
    Energy efficiency – Cutting the total energy consumption by 20% from 2008 by 2020 and 50% less by 2050
    Total electricity consumption – 10% below 2008 level by 2020 and 25% less by 2050

  278. dbstealey says:

    renewableguy did not read a thing I wrote. How could he, when he was busy responding to someone else? Check the time stamps. Thus, as I stated: his mind is made up and closed tight. He parrots nonsense as fact.

    But for the benefit of anyone else reading his nonsense, note that he merely cuts and pastes a bunch of Wikipedia crap, as if that gives him legitimacy. It doesn’t.

    The ‘feedback’ canard is used to try and cover up the plain fact that the “carbon” scare has been falsified by the real world. As the link I posted showed [but that renewableguy did not click on], global warming has been on the same long-term rising trend line for hundreds of years. That trend has not accelerated, thus the 40% rise in CO2 cannot be having any measurable effect.

    renewableguy is long on his baseless assertions, and his cut ‘n’ paste — but very short on logic. He obviously cannot follow the train of logical thought that I laid out for his edification. Why not? Answer: because his mind is made up, and closed tight. He don’t need no steenking facts.

  279. renewableguy says:

    Gail Combs :

    Hmm and yet the concentrations continue to climb. It is an interesting read, but if rain washes it out, why does the concentration keep going up?

    Richard Alley who is a registered Republican gave a great lecture on co2 the thermostat of the earth. Water vapor is expected to increase 7% for every 1*C temperature climbs. That is why there are republicans saying it is time for a carbon tax.

  280. dbstealey says:

    renewableguy says:

    “Hmm and yet the concentrations continue to climb. It is an interesting read, but if rain washes it out, why does the concentration keep going up?”

    Wow. Wrong AGAIN! How long can renewableguy’s streak last??

    You’re batting 0.000, renewableguy! Where do you get your ‘facts’? Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science, the cartoonist’s propaganda blog?

    And make a note, RG: IANAR, but being a Republican has nothing to do with honest science. Truth is truth, buster. That’s something you need to learn.

  281. Gail Combs says:

    What I could never understand is why anyone in their right mind would be worried about “Global Warming’ given we are sitting in the middle of an ice age and the ‘Solar Forcing’ (Lord I hate that term) has dropped ~ 35W/m2 since the Holocene optimum and the value is sitting pretty darn close to the same value as seen during the Wisconsin glaciation.
    GRAPH

    As far as a ‘Green house effect’ goes all it does is modify the temperature making days cooler and nights warmer. (Based on actual data) Some how everyone seems to forget the effect of ‘Green house gases’ on incoming sunlight during the day….

  282. Gail Combs says:

    renewableguy says:
    August 3, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    Gail Combs :

    Hmm and yet the concentrations continue to climb. It is an interesting read, but if rain washes it out, why does the concentration keep going up?….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Henry’s law and big arse oceans covering 70% of the surface that have been warming. CO2 FOLLOWS temperature.

    New Paper: (Jan 2013)

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    Abstract
    Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale….
    We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high

    This is why I consider WATER the forcing and CO2 the feedback.

  283. HenryP says:

    henry@renewable guy

    I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.

    It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

    I subsequently took a random sample of 47 weather stations, balanced by latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

    0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

    That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.

    deforestation (also) causes cooling, as my records in these areas will show (Tandil, Argentina)
    http://phys.org/news/2011-11-deforestation-cooling.html

    here you can that it is globally cooling
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    you better check the real reasons why the climate is changing?
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  284. chris y says:

    Murtaugh and Schlax published an article in Global Environmental Change (Vol 19, 2009, pp 14-20) that concluded each US child adds 9441 tons of CO2 poison to the carbon bootprint of its mother, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions.

    Every freshly minted female Gorator who has children or plans to have children is the most execrable sort of carbon sinner. Not only are you deliberately destroying the climate with your progeny’s mountains of carbon poison, but you are doing this while preaching to everyone else that they must zero their own carbon spewage.

    You should be ashamed of yourselves. The persistent cognitive dissonance and self-righteous hypocrisy must give you constant migraines.

  285. dbstealey says:

    chrys y says:

    “Murtaugh and Schlax published an article in Global Environmental Change (Vol 19, 2009, pp 14-20) that concluded each US child adds 9441 tons of CO2 poison to the carbon bootprint of its mother.”

    If that is what Murtaugh and Schlax wrote, then they should be disregarded as eco-alarmists. We already have seen far too much written about ‘the children’ to pay attention to those two assholes.

    Amiright? Or wrong? Readers can inform me of their views, and I will abide by their decision.

  286. Gail Combs says:

    chris y says: @ August 3, 2013 at 11:08 pm

    Murtaugh and Schlax published an article in Global Environmental Change (Vol 19, 2009, pp 14-20) that concluded each US child adds 9441 tons of CO2 poison…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    CO2 POISON???
    CO2 is no more of a poison than water is. Calling CO2 a poison and a pollutant is one of the most vicious lies I know because it directs attention away from the REAL poisons and pollutants. As a chemist and a farmer I find this the most offensive lie made by politicians.

    CO2 along with the other ‘Greenhouse Gas’ water, are the primary building blocks of life on the earth!

    Photosynthesis
    Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, some bacteria and some protistans use the energy from sunlight to produce glucose from carbon dioxide and water. This glucose can be converted into pyruvate which releases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by cellular respiration. Oxygen is also formed.

    Photosynthesis may be summarised by the word equation:

    …………………………………..Sunlight
    carbon dioxide + water===========>>glucose + oxygen
    ………………………………..chlorophyll

    The conversion of usable sunlight energy into chemical energy is associated with the action of the green pigment chlorophyll…..
    http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/photosynthesis.htm

    Not only is CO2 NOT A POISON, it has gradually become too rare in earth’s atmosphere. The response was the recent evolution of C4 Photosynthesis. Today fully 95% of all plant species are of the C3 variety. These are our trees and vegetables. C4 Photosynthesis is found in plants such as
    the grass family and the sedge family.

    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

    …Here we report on delta13C of Juniperus wood cellulose, and show that glacial and modern trees were operating at similar leaf-intercellular [CO2](ci)/atmospheric [CO2](ca) values. As a result, glacial trees were operating at ci values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation. In addition, we modeled relative humidity by using delta18O of cellulose from the same Juniperus specimens and found that glacial humidity was approximately 10% higher than that in modern times, indicating that differences in vapor-pressure deficits did not impose additional constrictions on ci/ca in the past. By scaling ancient ci values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period.….

    C4 photosynthesis, atmospheric CO2, and climate

    ….All C4 plants have a signifcant advantage over C3 plants under low atmospheric CO2 conditions and are predicted to have expanded signifcantly on a global scale during full-glacial periods, especially in tropical regions. Bog and lake sediment cores as well as pedogenic carbonates support the hypothesis that C4 ecosystems were more extensive during the last glacial maximum and then decreased in abundance following deglaciation as atmospheric CO2 levels increased….

    Plants can be categorized photosynthetically as falling into one of three categories: C3, C4, and CAM. On a global basis, C4 biota account for approximately 18% of the total global productivity, which is largely due to high productivity of C4 monocots in grasslands (calculated from data in Melillo et al. 1993). Most plant species globally are characterized by C3 photosynthesis, but the C4 and CAM pathways represent evolutionary advancements over the ancestral C3 pathway that result in superior carbon-gaining capacities under particular environmental conditions (Osmond et al. 1982; Monson 1989; Ehleringer and Monson 1993). The performance of each pathway is signi®cantly in ̄uenced by climatic conditions….

    Thus, in C4 dicots, we have a photosynthetic pathway whose distribution is both taxonomically uncommon and phylogenetically widely dispersed among only advanced families. Additionally, there are C3±C4 intermediates in genera which at present do not have C4 photosynthesis. This taxonomic distribution pattern is consistent with the notion that C4 photosynthesis may have evolved recently among the dicots. Later we will suggest that C4 photosynthesis in dicots may not have been evolutionarily favored until atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached the low levels that characterize glacial maxima. These low atmospheric CO2 conditions may not have occurred until the Quaternary…..

    Agriculture: Positive Effects Of CO2

  287. Bruce Cobb says:

    I see renooblebot is still here spouting his anti-science, disinformation, and lies. He obviously has no interest whatsoever in learning or in truth, which is what makes him such a good little gore-bot. Brainless and subservient is how they like ‘em.

  288. HenryP says:

    Those of you living in New Zealand, might be interested to learn that I tested the theory that the great droughts on the Great Plains
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
    was due to global cooling.

    The theory is that as we are cooling from the top, the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, less clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes (>[40]) it will become both cooler and drier.

    I chose New Zealand as a random sample, lying on the edge of the > [40] latitude zone, because it has good precipitation records.
    I found that in Wellington, New Zealand, for the decade 1930-1940, average annual precipitation was 14% lower than the average between 1940 and 2005.
    I think that is significant?

  289. Mike N says:

    @renewableguy
    “The above are natural variations of the climate and all are tending toward cooling. What is left is human influence on the climate which is completely responsible for the warming.”

    ——————————
    You could convince me if you could show the numbers. Would you mind taking each of the “natural variations” that are tending towards cooling, and show their effect — watts per square meter would seem to be a reasonable unit — with error bars, and just do a little bank-statement-like reconciliation (yes, my checkbook comes complete with estimates of the error ;-) to observed change in heat in the climate system (with error bars)? Could you also provide references that show how these values are calculated (that don’t refer to computer simulations, as I am rather computer illiterate)? Also, is there something that shows that these “natural variations” are orthogonal (note: I’m not saying you asserted that they are, but, of course, to be able to isolate and attribute a single factor as “causing” any kind of net change in temperature, that factor must either be orthogonal to the others, or you need to quantify the interaction among them — either one of which must have been done for you to make your assertion with such certainty.)

    As I am not very intelligent, it is hard for me to wade through tons of graphs, equations, assertions made without substantiation, jargon and such, so if you could just simplify the numbers into a single column with contributions to warming shown as positive, and contributions to cooling shown as negative, I think you could quell much of the debate.

    Thanks!

  290. Mr Lynn says:

    Mike N says:
    August 4, 2013 at 4:48 am

    You want observations? How crass of you! The models say that natural factors can’t account for late-20th-century warming, and that should be enough. We won’t tell you what assumptions about the effect of natural factors went into the models, of course. Just rest assured that those assumptions were carefully constructed to get the proper results, namely that anthropogenic CO2 is an evil pollutant that requires world governance to control. Wouldn’t it be nice if our illustrious Goracle were to become the First Imperitum Illuminatus of this New World Order?

    /Mr Lynn

  291. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says: @ August 4, 2013 at 4:47 am

    …The theory is that as we are cooling from the top….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    HenryP, if you have not done so already, you need to read the information at John Kehr’s The Inconvenient skeptic

    At the bottom of the page click on
    Chapters 1-3
    Chapters 4-5
    Chapters 6-7
    Chapters 8-10
    Chapter 11
    Chapter 12: The Earth’s Atmosphere
    Chapters 13-14

    This gives you all the charts from his book with a brief explanation. ( Nothing like an engineer for spotting errors. )

    The critical points he makes is “The flow of water in the water cycle is similar to the flow of energy in the energy balance for the Earth.”(Chapter 11) He adds Evaporation and Convection to the 6 main components of the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect. “Buried in a table the KT08 paper shows the correct value for the LW R[adiative] H[eat] T[ransfer] from the surface, but they failed to show that value in the main diagram” (63 W/m2) AND “Unmodified KT08 energy balance. It shows the Earth’s surface losing 306% more energy to the atmosphere than it gets from the Sun. This misdirection is accomplished by using radiative flux instead of energy transfer…” ( (Chapter 11)

    Then read Seasonal Variation of the Greenhouse Effect

    …The approach I have taken is different because I have focused on the Earth’s temperature instead of the temperature anomaly….

    Instead of looking at the GHE and assuming it is a constant 33 ºC, I have applied the monthly blackbody temperature of the Earth to the actual temperature of the Earth and from that have the monthly blackbody temperature of the Earth….

    … the GHE is highly variable over the course of the year….

    ….I have discarded the forcing model because it is incapable of explaining the GHE of the Earth over a 12 month period, I had to find a model that could explain both the current behavior of the GHE and the one 20,000 years ago and the one 50 million years ago (and the snowball Earth 570 million years ago, more importantly how to recover from and snowball Earth).

    This is how I came up with the energy transfer model for the GHE. It explains how different situations with the Earth’s surface end up with different values for the GHE. This is observable on a yearly basis…..

    He makes the point that the amount of energy escaping to space is
    1) dependent on the ACTUAL TEMPERATURE.
    2) As the solar insolation changes from increasing to decreasing over the Milankovitch cycle, the NET amount of energy also changes from a gain as the earth is warming out of a glacial to a cooling as the solar insolation starts decreasing after the high point in the Milankovitch cycle is reached.

    We are now in a cooling phase with a positive net outgoing energy as the data shows.

  292. chris y says:

    dbstealey says:
    August 4, 2013 at 1:04 am

    “If that is what Murtaugh and Schlax wrote, then they should be disregarded as eco-alarmists. We already have seen far too much written about ‘the children’ to pay attention to those two assholes.”

    I totally agree. I think the Murtaugh and Schlax study is complete garbage. I also think it is orders of magnitude more credible than anything Gore presented in Chicago.

    “You should be ashamed of yourselves. The persistent cognitive dissonance and self-righteous hypocrisy must give you constant migraines.” – This comment was addressing the members of the Chicago flock who are female and have children.

    I am waiting for the Gorests to defend their personal choice of having children, after they have been repeatedly scolded that it is the worst possible sin against Gaia.

  293. chris y says:

    Gail Combs says:
    August 4, 2013 at 1:07 am

    “CO2 POISON???
    CO2 is no more of a poison than water is. Calling CO2 a poison and a pollutant is one of the most vicious lies I know because it directs attention away from the REAL poisons and pollutants. As a chemist and a farmer I find this the most offensive lie made by politicians.”

    I agree completely. It is reprehensible that the EPA has decided to label CO2 a poison.
    Ironically, water kills far more people every year than CO2.

    “You should be ashamed of yourselves. The persistent cognitive dissonance and self-righteous hypocrisy must give you constant migraines.” – This comment was addressing the members of the Chicago flock who are female and have children.

    I am waiting for the Gorests to defend their personal choice of having children, after they have been repeatedly scolded that it is the worst possible sin against Gaia.

  294. gnomish says:

    heh. warmists gonna give themselves ulcers. ;-}

  295. HenryP says:

    @gail
    I am not sure if you got what I am saying. Perhaps read my previous comment again.
    I don’t believe there is any warming effect from (more) CO2
    which you know why:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
    Namely, nobody has brought me a convincing balance sheet……no tests… no results…just pure speculation .= climate models…
    I think people finally caught up with the fact that the net effect of more CO2 could be cooling rather than warming,
    http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/
    but more likely, the net effect of more CO2 is just around zero, seeing that the amount of CO2 in the air is so tiny :400 ppm = 0.04%, \anyway.
    Al Gore and them preached that CO2 causes warming, and he had the graphs to prove it
    (remember the ladder that he stood on?)
    but he had it the wrong way around, did he not?
    there are giga tons of bicarbonate in the oceans, so heat causes more CO2
    - just like boiling water removes CO2 from the water:
    (more) heat + HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH-

    As you said, CO2 follows the heat curve, it does not cause more heat due to entrapment.
    Smoking causes cancer, but cancer does not cause smoking….
    more CO2 is the cause of more warmth, not the other way around,
    the fact that humans add CO2 to the atmosphere is only co-incidental….

    However, global warming is now over. The Milkankowitch cycles are working on much longer time scales. We are globally cooling because of a change in the output of the sun, not so much in W/m2 but more in >E-UV – a slight shift in the distribution of energy coming from the sun, most probably due to planetary movements. In turn the varying output changes the composition TOA,
    leading to more deflection of SW to space, instead of going into the oceans.

    This seems to follow on a predictable 88 year sine wave,
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    which has some delays on earth, making it look more like a 100 year weather cycle, from our perspectives.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  296. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    August 4, 2013 at 8:14 am

    @gail
    I am not sure if you got what I am saying. Perhaps read my previous comment again.
    I don’t believe there is any warming effect from (more) CO2…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I realize that Henry, however John Kehr pretty much agrees with that. He is saying it is water that is the big player not CO2. Remember he is including in his Greenhouse Effect. link
    80% – Evaporation
    18.1% – Water Vapor

    17% – Convection
    3.3% – CO2
    1% – Ozone
    .7% – other gases
    These are “[t]he 6 main components of the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect. The total energy for them is the 120 W/m2″

    He is then saying this Greenhouse Effect is temperature dependent and changes over the time of the year.

  297. HenryP says:

    @gail
    Trenberth mentioned that ozone is responsible for ca. 25% of all that is being back radiated (to space) and it seems he forgot about the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying TOA, as does your man. Without a balance sheet showing me how much W/m2 cooling and warming for each GHG, what can I say?
    We know that ozone is increasing now, corresponding with a cooling period, from 1995 + 44= 2039.
    Unfortunately, as we reach the bottom 2017-2023 of the a-c wave
    1) moisture will decrease
    2) cooling acceleration will stop
    3) no temp difference= no pressure difference
    hence the prediction of droughts similar to 1932-1939 at latitudes >[40]

  298. Antonio Gracia says:

    I’m also a skeptic about the climate thing but I really don’t know what’s wrong with the “mole” and with you Anthony Watts, or how much money you’re making from writing this stuff. I happen to have attended the training myself and I didn’t get the “religious cult” feeling that the mole talks about. Not one single applause was faked or manipulated by anybody. All the opposite, the whole event, I thought was pretty informal and casual. There was virtually no security, and people were free to do whatever they wanted.

    As much as I try to understand the hardcore skeptics, I just don’t understand why so many of you hate Al Gore or his clean energy agenda. Is it because you’re jealous of him? Is it because you don’t care about the fact that wildlife is disappearing at an extraordinary rate, that we’re polluting the oceans, running out of fresh water, and overfishing? What’s wrong with you guys? I’m not sold on the whole temperature change, but there is no question in my mind that we’re raping Mother Nature and that we’re paying a huge price. I believe in American exceptionalism, and if there is one nation who can lead a clean energy revolution that’s America. I’m tired of being taxed by Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Let’s switch to clean energy now and I don’t care if we do it because of climate change, or for security or economic reasons. But let’s do it now.

  299. HenryP says:

    @ antonio
    Remember the ladder up the graph?
    Al gore lied
    He never apologised

  300. Wendy says:

    1) Did you have to pay for the event? Because Al Gore really does know how to make cash and I’m just wondering if he “volunteered” his precious time. or did you pay for his sermon?

    It was completely free and included most meals and all materials.

    2) Were the people there generally of the “educated elite class”?

    I met a very large variety of people, many without college degrees and many with graduate degrees.

    3) Age groups, gender, religion?

    Seemed like everyone from 18-80! Very good balance of male to female. I didn’t discuss religion with anyone but I did meet a pastor from MA.

    4) Where there any republicans? Y’know, like Richard Alley?

    I met one Chevron employee. Didn’t discuss how he voted but discussed a lot of his thoughts on oil and its future.

  301. Wendy says:

    “Did any kind of exchange take place or was it just a delivery of instructions?”

    There was a lot of time for discussion, but the day Al Gore presented since all 1500 people wanted to ask questions, they had us text in one per table. There were about 150 tables. He answered several questions but there wasn’t time for all 150. The other two days anyone could just get up and go to a microphone and ask something. It was exhausting – very full days.

    Not marching orders, that’s silly. It was nothing like Landmark. An ex boyfriend of mine dragged me there. I told those freaks off – they were really using those victims and stealing their money. This was free and nothing like Landmark. A criticism I guess could be that it was a little like a rally at times, but that was all audience driven. Al Gore quieted it down ASAP and looked annoyed and it stopped happening. I’m an MIT trained scientist. I thought the science presented was adequate and I believe in man-made climate change. I took several courses on it while there.

  302. Scott aka mindlabmedia says:

    OK – just ordered both books suggested by Chad Wozniak, plus a slew of others. I’m probably going overboard here, but here’s my overly ambitious reading list, courtesy of Amazon and a lot of used bookstores:

    The Inquisition of Climate Science – Powell, James Lawrence
    The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change – Gore, Al
    Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan
    Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – Hansen, James
    Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic – Goreham, Steve
    The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Alley, Richard B.
    The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) – MONTFORD, A.W
    Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) – Lomborg, Bjorn
    Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition – S. Fred Singer
    The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines – Mann, Michael E.
    What We Know About Climate Change (Boston Review Books) Emanuel, Kerry
    Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam – Sussman, Brian

    I’ll report back in, what, a year or two? :)

  303. milodonharlani says:

    Wendy says:
    August 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Would you please say what evidence convinced you to believe in man-made climate change? Do you also consider that MMCC will lead to catastrophe?

    Thanks.

  304. RACookPE1978 says:

    Scott aka mindlabmedia says:
    August 4, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    OK – just ordered both books suggested by Chad Wozniak, plus a slew of others. I’m probably going overboard here, but here’s my overly ambitious reading list, courtesy of Amazon and a lot of used bookstores:

    Let me trim that long list down a little bit by removing lies, exaggerations, propaganda, and distortion.

    The Inquisition of Climate Science – Powell, James Lawrence
    The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change – Gore, Al
    Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming – James Hoggan
    Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – Hansen, James
    Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic – Goreham, Steve
    The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future – Alley, Richard B.
    The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) – MONTFORD, A.W
    Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) – Lomborg, Bjorn
    Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition – S. Fred Singer
    The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines – Mann, Michael E.
    What We Know About Climate Change (Boston Review Books) Emanuel, Kerry
    Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam – Sussman, Brian

    8<)

  305. rogerknights says:

    Here are some quotes I’ve gleaned from WUWT on the sustainability of sustainables:

    Reality check says:
    November 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    @Roger: Most statistics on renewables are based on capacity factor, not actual output. A quick check of IEA statistics shows the actual percentage of wind/solar/renewables Jan through August was closer to 14% of the electrical generation in Germany this year. Wind is not separated out.

    Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012:

    Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five.

    Neil Jones says:
    The Cost of Green Energy is really biting in Europe


    In Spain http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-27/spain-suspends-subsidies-for-new-renewable-energy-plants.html

    In Germany http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,809439,00.html

    In the UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/9037810/Government-loses-legal-bid-to-cut-solar-panel-tariff.html

    ****
    Poland is switching off solar/wind electricity imports from germany because its unrelability/variability is overwhelming their control systems http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/12/poland-plans-to-ban-german-solar-and.html

    Pingo says:
    Germany has a big problem. They need two ramp ups of gas turbines each day. You have the morning peak, which solar can’t cover. You also have the evening peak, which again solar can’t cover. The middle of the day is fine, and energy prices approach zero due to huge amounts of solar generation. But how do you cover the cost of gas fired plants having to ramp up twice a day…

    Oh yeah, the consumer pays. And then ends up blaming the “energy monopoly” (or something like that). Therefore the government has to intervene and do something. . . .

    outtheback says:
    Depending on how one does the numbers I think that Germany will find that they have to increase the levels of subsidies even further in about 5 years as the solar panels installed pre 2007 will start to reduce their output and will need to be replaced if the output per panel is to be kept up. The earlier wind turbines will come to the end of their life also, if any of those early ones are still going by then.

    For anyone to replace their existing panels/turbines the current subsidy will not be enough to be viable as they won’t have made real money yet of the original installation. Although I am sure that on paper you can make it appear so that it looks like one made a euro or two.

    The good news is that the manufacturers of panels and turbines are looking forward to those times as it will mean an increase in demand, replacement and new installations. More work for installers also.

  306. RACookPE1978 says:

    Wendy says:
    August 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Not marching orders, that’s silly. … A criticism I guess could be that it was a little like a rally at times, but that was all audience driven. Al Gore quieted it down ASAP and looked annoyed and it stopped happening. I’m an MIT trained scientist. I thought the science presented was adequate and I believe in man-made climate change. I took several courses on it while there.

    So you entered as a believer in his CAGW catastrophic religion, got trained even deeper in his catastrophic religion, and left as a believer in his catastrophic religion.

    What “science” do you do you practice/did you practice at MIT when you are not attending revivals run by Al Gore? What is the source of your salary, and do you admit that your own salary is both a provider of your prejudices and a supporter of your prejudices and belief system?

  307. Mr Lynn says:

    Antonio Gracia says:
    August 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    I’m not privy to Anthony’s bank balance, but I very much doubt if he’s made any money on this blog. Algore on the other hand has made several fortunes pushing his litany of CAGW, aided and abetted by academic, political, and enviro elites—and probably banks, too.

    Just out of curiosity, pray tell: What connection do you see between so-called ‘clean’ energy (by which I assume you mean wind and solar, neither of which is really ‘clean’ and certainly not cheap) as opposed to coal, oil, and natural gas, on the one hand, and all the putative ills you evince (“wildlife is disappearing at an extraordinary rate . . . we’re polluting the oceans, running out of fresh water, and overfishing”) on the other? Some may or may not be problems worth addressing in their own right—wildlife is certainly not “disappearing”—but what’s the connection with energy?

    Then you throw in energy independence. Surely the quickest route to that is the revolution in shale oil and natural gas, not mostly ineffective wind and solar farms.

    What I hear is not thinking, but a litany of ‘feel good’ mantras.

    /Mr Lynn

  308. Gail Combs says:

    Antonio Gracia says: @ August 4, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    …..I just don’t understand why so many of you hate Al Gore or his clean energy agenda….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because he is one of the group selling the US citizen in to serfdom and getting rich in the process.

    I for one am not interested in living in a miro-min apartment in an Agenda 21 Transit Village with my freedom of movement, my freedom to own property and my free choice in employment has been removed. THAT is Al gore’s and friends ultimate goal. A return to medieval feudalism with Corporations instead of lords.

    See Bill Clinton’s sell out and link

    The USA has an 22% unemployment rate and growing since Obama took office and this high unemployment was KNOWINGLY and purposefully hidden by the Clinton Administration by changing how the statistics were manipulated. This was done so the American people would not reject the World Trade Organization further down the road when they realized their jobs had been sold out from under them by the US government. The WTO is an organization who’s leader, a friend of Clinton’s, OPENLY is talking of getting rid of National Sovereignty (The US Constitution) link

    Al Gore is a mover and shaker in the Interdependence Movement that targeted the livelihoods of American farmers. While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World. (My Ag extension agent was at that ceremony and hear Gore. He was livid)

    The IMF has this to say:

    World Economy: Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence

    ….New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012)….

    New convergence
    The world economy entered a new age of convergence around 1990, when average per capita incomes in emerging market and developing economies taken as a whole began to grow much faster than in advanced economies….

    For the past two decades, however, per capita income in emerging and developing economies taken as a whole has grown almost three times as fast as in advanced economies….

    The delinking of the trend growth rate of emerging market countries from the 1990s onward, and that of developing countries in the past decade, is quite striking…..

    The attached chart 1 and chart 2 shows the ‘Advanced Economies’ started tanking at about the time that China joined the WTO at Clinton’s urging. Actually there is a downward trend since the mid-eighties leveraged buyout feeding frenzy under Reagan.

    I suggest you read America’s Ruling Class and Jo Nova’s Regulating Class and a well documented description of how the elite work link.

  309. philjourdan says:

    @bart – when they all raise their rates in unison, it is called collusion and is illegal. However if you are the single source, you cannot collude. So government can raise rates whenever it wants to,. and it is not colluding.

  310. philjourdan says:

    @M Courtney – except it was virtually identical to the other Gorebots. IN other words, she may be sincere, but apparently not bright enough to come up with her own sincerity instead of regurgitating talking points.

  311. Kevin Kilty says:

    ) Al gave some insights into his own choices for low-carbon technologies, with a focus upon photovoltaics & wind power. He doesn’t like BWR nukes and objects because of financial reasons, which I agree with (particularly post-Fukishima). He mentioned that Oak Ridge National Labs in TN is testing a variety of nuclear reactor designs which sound promising (thorium maybe?) but didn’t elaborate.

    Al is mis-informed, as usual. Fukishima were old, probably first generation plants, that were very poorly situated. Poorly situated doesn’t really describe the problem. The Japanese knew, absolutely knew, of historical tsunami that had inundated the site, but chose to ignore them by drawing a study period that excluded them. Need I say “willful disregard”?

    Third generation reactors are immensely more safe. People toss around numbers like a thousand times more safe, which is very difficult to quantify, but suppose they are only ten times more safe. That would put the recurrence time for an accident like Fukishima out at several centuries.

    Someone in a posting above said that only the most anal of societies ignore the advancements in design to eschew all reactors, and put Germany and the U.S. on the list; the U.S. hasn’t earned a spot on that list yet, but ironically, Japan has.

  312. Kevin Kilty says:

    After re-reading the quote that illicited my response, I realize it was not Al Gore speaking of Fukishima, but rather the “mole”.

  313. Suzanne says:

    Hi Anthony,
    I was an attendee of the conference. Honestly, I have a Masters degree in Biology and worked in a lab studying climate change in college. I am a teacher now and a parent. I vaccinate my kids and can see situations where GMOs might be considered. The gentleman sitting next to me at the conference was a Chemical Engineer who is retired now, but worked for Monsanto. Since I teach science, I encourage skepticism and questioning. From my personal experience, the problem I see is that the science being discussed requires a complex knowledge of ecology as there are so many interactions to consider. The majority of the public does not have this background. The reason I attended this training was in the hopes that I would better be able to simplify this science in a way that people can understand. I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I have been studying the science for about 10 years now. As a parent, the evidence is enough to send me to that conference while taking a week away from looking after my small children. I think there are multiple solutions to this problem, but I am tired of pseudo-scientists telling people who have studied Organic Chem, Chem, Physics, Atmospheric Chemistry, Plant Physiology, Ecology, and Calculus that they are wrong.

    Regarding the experiment that you are asking about, could you please post the links to the original experiment?

  314. Anthony Watts says:

    @Suzanne

    Thanks for the note. You asked:

    “Regarding the experiment that you are asking about, could you please post the links to the original experiment?”

    Well that’s just it, Gore never posted the actual experiment methodology or results. All we have is the Climate 101 Video which you can watch here:

    I provide all methods, measurements and results in my experiment, including proof that Mr. Gore faked the results in post production.

    See my experiment here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

    The thermometers were never in the glass jars, but edited to make it appear so, and the scales was edited to show a rise where there was none. This is probably because when the production team tried the experiment, it didn’t work as expected, and as I show, it never possibly could.

    So my question to you is: Do you think it is OK for Mr. Gore to fabricate and outright lie about science experiments to make a political point, and to leave such videos in place months after it has been pointed out to him? Both he and Mr. Nye are aware, but have done nothing to take the video down, or to even provided a caveat.

    The problem I have with Mr. Gore’s trainees, is that they refuse to even look to see if what Mr. Gore is telling them is factual. Scratch the surface of Mr. Gore, and you’ll find a pandora’s box of lies, as we have shown time and again.

    If you are truly a scientist, and embrace skepticism you’ll look. if you are a blind follower, you’ll just argue about why I’m wrong and Mr. Gore is some sort of planetary saviour.

    -Anthony

  315. Friends:

    I write to thank all the AGW-faithful who have posted to this link and, thus, assisted debate. In particular I appreciate the many (each mistaken) posts from “renewableguy” which have prompted the informative posts from several people notably D B Stealey and especially Gail Combes.

    Anybody wanting a wide range of factual, referenced information on the realities of AGW can use the links from the posts of D B Stealey and Gail Combs in their posts provided in rebuttal of “renewableguy” in this thread.

    However, there is one assertion by “renewableguy” which has not been answered and all the other assertions of “renewableguy” each relies on it. Hence, I also write to provide that answer because it demonstrates the falsity of all the other assertions of “renewableguy”.

    In several posts “renewableguy” claims that climate models provide evidence for the existence of AGW. He clearly states what he considers this evidence to be when, for example, he/she/they writes at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1379552

    5.There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.

    Several people have pointed out that – in reality – there is NO “significantly altered climate path”. Indeed, DB Stealey provide links to several graphs which show there has been no discernible alteration to global temperature rise from the Little Ice Age in his post at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1380297
    where he writes

    Global warming has stayed on the same long term trend line for hundreds of years — whether CO2 was low, or high. There has been no acceleration in global warming [in fact, global warming stopped about 16 years ago]. Thus, CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature. QED

    However, if there were a “significantly altered climate path” then that would not say anything about the cause of the observed effect.

    “renewableguy” asserts

    There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.

    In times past people claimed with equal validity

    There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered weather and crop failures other than human causes from witches.

    Ignorance is a reason to determine the true cause of an observed trend.

    The use of ignorance as evidence for whatever superstitious belief is fashionable should be condemned. And the two superstitious beliefs I have cited each calls for actions to kill people. They are both despicable.

    There is no evidence for discernible AGW; none, zilch, nada. And that is why AGW-believers cite ignorance as being evidence. The effect of the use of ignorance as evidence for AGW threatens constraint to the use of fossil fuels when such constraint would kill billions of people.

    Richard

  316. Mr Lynn says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 6, 2013 at 1:02 am

    . . . However, if there were a “significantly altered climate path” then that would not say anything about the cause of the observed effect.

    Ah yes. It was a happy coincidence back in the ’70s, when people like Margaret Mead and Maurice Strong were looking for a devil to spur an errant humanity to world governance, that we entered upon a period of warming that coincided nicely with increased CO2 emissions. “Ah-ha! Unprecedented global warming! It must be man-made CO2!” Here was a villain that would take a worldwide movement to defeat. Thus was born the IPCC, to give institutional imprimatur and scientific gloss to the imagined dangers of the devil CO2, and we were off to the international “climate change” races.

    As Richard Courtney says, it’s no different in principle from rallying the populace by pointing to invented witches and yelling, “Burn them!”

    /Mr Lynn

  317. James B says:

    I attended the Climate Reality Leadership Training in Chicago, my home city.

    Let me disabuse you of a few exaggerated mistakes. There was no “kool-aid,” no idol worship, self-delusion or mass-hypnosis. The number of people attending was not exaggerated. I know crowds – I worked in the meetings and conventions industry – there were easily +1500 people there. The facebook page for the Chicago Training had more than 1000 members world-wide before the training started on July 30. I doubt that Al is going to give you his slides, but they are not “secret” or distorted. My guess is that no WUWT reader would find them surprising. If you want to see them, go to any free, public Climate Reality presentation near you.

    There is overwhelming historic scientific evidence (not computer climate-modeling projections) that our climate is warming due to pollution from human activities. 97 percent of top climate scientists and every major National Academy of Science in the world have reached that conclusion. When we burn dirty fossil fuels like oil and coal, and when we cut down forests that store carbon, we pollute our atmosphere and warm our planet. This is no longer marginal or controversial: It’s a reality understood by the majority of climate scientists for decades.

    And we’re starting to feel the effects now. Nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. Extreme weather events like heat waves, heavy rains and drought are becoming more common and more severe. Coastal communities all over the world are preparing for the impacts of sea level rise.

    Sorry WUWT readers, but the debate over the basic science of climate change is over. You can focus on conspiracy theories, baseless accusations (Mr. Gore is getting rich lying about climate change), marginal trivia (example: Mssrs. Gore and Nye faked their science-class illustration of how CO2 stores solar energy, invalidating decades of international atmospheric climate science research by thousands of scientists world-wide), or you can accept . . . Climate Reality.

    For example, the 2009 State of the Climate report of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean.” The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.

    The very accessible 10-page summary (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdf) examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease are decreasing.

    The 10 indicators are:
    1. Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. If you think this whole discussion is invalid because Indicator 1. is only about land surface air temperature – suspend your judgement until after you’ve reviewed the other nine indicators.
    2. Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
    3. Air temperature over the oceans.
    4. Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000′s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
    5. Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans — contributing to a rise in …
    6. Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
    7. Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
    8. Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
    9. Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
    10. Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.

    Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (e.g., land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming.” To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them — but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.

    To paraphrase the late Senator Patrick Monyhan – like everyone, here at WUWT you are certainly entitled to your own opinions . . . but not to your own facts.

    James B
    Chicago

  318. richardscourtney says:

    James B:

    Your long post at August 8, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1384781
    contains far, far too many falsehoods for refutation of them all.

    However, one is exceptionally egregious because it alone demonstrates how you have presented untrue propaganda. You assert

    There is overwhelming historic scientific evidence (not computer climate-modeling projections) that our climate is warming due to pollution from human activities.

    1.
    No, there is clear evidence that the Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries.
    2.
    There is no evidence of any kind – none, zilch, nada – that human activities are affecting or have affected that natural warming in any discernible way.

    If you have any such evidence then publish it. You will certainly be awarded a Nobel Prize for having found some such evidence because three decades of research costing over $5 billion per year has not found any.

    And much evidence which refutes discernible man-made global warming has been found.

    You say you spent a day in Al Gore’s indoctrination camp. Take 12 minutes to watch this: it may initiate your needed deprogramming.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CiGa82CthU&feature=player_embedded

    Richard

  319. Mark Bofill says:

    James,

    Thanks for your comment. If I may briefly respond, it appears that you have offered an argument from authority as if it were actual evidence, and that you have named ten indicators of warming as if that constituted an argument of substance.
    The argument from authority is a well known logical fallacy and is not actual evidence.
    There are indeed many indicators that warming has occurred. This fact is not generally disputed here. However, observing that some warming has occurred does not demonstrate that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming.
    Obviously, we are all aware of the arguments, and I in no way mean to suggest that anyone trying to make a serious case couldn’t find evidence to suggest that CO2 is responsible for the warming. Unfortunately, you have made no such argument and referenced no such evidence. Under normal circumstance I’d invite you to make your case more thoroughly, but I’ve got dinner plans tonight. If you’d like, I’d be pleased to discuss this with you at length tomorrow.

  320. jamesboley11 says:

    Mark – Thanks for your reply. I understand the distinction you’re making. I’ll be glad to supply evidence of AWG – it is plentiful. For example, the link I provided was for a past NOAA report, it is here with more: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/

    Can anyone posting here supply scientific evidence to support a substantive and credible scientific consensus for any other cause of warming?

    James B
    Chicago

  321. dbstealey says:

    jamesboley11,

    First things first:

    Your link contains observations of natural climate variability. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented in that data, therefore I refer you to the climate Null Hypothesis.

    Next, the conjecture that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming is the hypothesis that must be defended. Scientific skeptics do not have the onus of, in effect, proving a negative [cf: the climate 'Null Hypothesis']. Everything currently observed has happened many times before, and to a much greater degree.

    But to put your mind at rest, there is considerable scientific evidence showing that the ≈40% rise in CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg

    http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Fieldings-chart.gif

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-HadCrut15-years.gif

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    Empirical evidence proves conclusively that CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. Since that is the central tenet of the “carbon” scare, then to see that falsified conjecture deconstructed should be enough for any thinking human being to question all the rest of the “carbon” nonsense, no?

  322. HenryP says:

    @James
    You might be interested to know I found that from around the start of the new millennium, earth has started to cool globally. My own data set on maxima shows this very clearly. However, even without my own results (in case you do not trust them or me): the four major data sets measuring the average global air- and sea temperatures, also show that we have started cooling down for the past 11 years (this is the equivalent average time of one full solar cycle). Clearly you can see that the trend is negative from 2002:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    From the above simple compilation of linear trends in these 4 major global data sets, you can see that before 2000 we were still warming and that after 2000 we started cooling….Obviously , a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.

    As the people in Alaska have noted,

    http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1

    the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. 2013 we had a record for the delay of the breaking of the ice of the Nenana river. And it seems NOBODY is telling the farmers there that it is not going to get any better.I think most of you guys have no idea what is coming in the next 2 to 3 decades.
    So, we find that indeed the climate is changing, but it is not our fault….
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  323. richardscourtney says:

    jamesboley11:

    I notice that at August 8, 2013 at 4:29 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1384908
    you have replied to a later post but not to my post
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1384808
    which was addressed to you.

    I write to help you formulate a simple reply to me which would prove me wrong and, thus, enhance your credibility among impartial onlookers.

    In reply to your having written

    There is overwhelming historic scientific evidence (not computer climate-modeling projections) that our climate is warming due to pollution from human activities.

    I wrote

    1.
    No, there is clear evidence that the Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries.
    2.
    There is no evidence of any kind – none, zilch, nada – that human activities are affecting or have affected that natural warming in any discernible way.

    To prove me wrong – and to substantiate your assertion – you only need to provide one single, solitary piece of evidence which shows that human activities are affecting or have affected the natural warming from the Little Ice Age in any discernible way.
    If you cannot find such a scrap of evidence then perhaps you will recognise your need to expand your knowledge by watching the short video I commended to you

    To save you needing to find it, I again provide the link to the video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CiGa82CthU&feature=player_embedded

    Richard

  324. philjourdan says:

    With people like James B, I no longer wonder why Al Gore has gotten so rich. As P.T. Barnum said, there is one born every minute. And as Ben Franklin said, a fool and his money is soon parted.

  325. Mark Bofill says:

    James,

    jamesboley11 says:
    August 8, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    Mark – Thanks for your reply. I understand the distinction you’re making. I’ll be glad to supply evidence of AWG – it is plentiful. For example, the link I provided was for a past NOAA report, it is here with more: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/

    Respectfully James, you have linked a 258 page document as evidence of AGW and apparently wish for me to search through it and identify arguments with which to refute my position. This is often called ‘assigning homework’ in the blogosphere and is generally frowned on. For my part, I have no interest in doing this work for you on this fine Friday afternoon, although again, I will be glad to discuss any specific points you are interested in talking about.

    Further, I do not believe the 2012 State of the Climate Report is the source you are looking for. I took the trouble to read the first 20 odd pages of the report. As might be expected from the title, it focuses on observations for the year 2012. Since the fact that some warming has occurred is not disputed, I speculate that this source you’re looking at isn’t going to give you the evidence you want here; evidence that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 are responsible for warming.

    I’m willing to save you some trouble and cut to the chase. For my part, I understand and accept the radiative physics that suggests that a doubling of CO2 will raise temperatures by about 1.2C. It is my position that feedbacks have been insufficiently examined (particularly cloud feedbacks), and that we have no basis for confidence regarding any significant amount of warming. I can support an argument which suggests that our understanding of the climate is still in it’s infancy, and that we are still encountering surprises that have the potential to fundamentally alter our expectations regarding climate change. This should do for starters, although there is much more to my position than this. If you are interested in engaging on one of these points, feel free to so indicate and I will support my position with detailed argument and evidence.

    Can anyone posting here supply scientific evidence to support a substantive and credible scientific consensus for any other cause of warming?

    Stealey answered this as well as I could in my view. It is not my burden to provide an alternative explanation of warming. I would only add that consensus is a non-starter here. It may have meaning in the field of motivating support for public policy, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the science.

    Looking forward to your considered reply.

  326. James B says:

    @richardcourtney –
    Are you a climate scientist? Please provide your credentials.

    Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and the opinions of climatologists have consistently shown a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming. Starting with Dr. Naomi Oreskes’ (Science, 2004) essay “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes), the fairness and credibility of the scientific community’s support for AGW findings and respect for dissenting science has been upheld. Oreskes’ work has been recently reproduced, expanded and again validated by Dr. James Powell, published online at the ‘Science Progress’ website (http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/), and by John Cook, founder of the ‘Skeptical Science’ website (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm).

    Dr. Powell surveyed 13,950 articles published over a 21-year period, finding that only, “24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.”
    Mr. Cook’s team studied 12,000 article abstracts and also emailed 8,500 authors of other studies asking them to rate their own papers using his criteria. They received responses from 1,200 scientists self-rating a total of over 2,100 papers. Final result: just over 4,000 of the papers reviewed by his team expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

    Dr. Powell wrote, “Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.”

    Three summaries of the scientific evidence showing that recent human activities are the only credible cause of global warming, are provided in the posts listed below. All present the same
    argument with similar evidence. All cite scientific studies providing the empirical data supporting them. You may not agree, but I believe it is fair to say that the evidence and the studies provided, are entirely credible and substantial.

    1. The best is first: “The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism” –
    A simple, comprehensive presentation of the entire case, by John Cook, climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
    This study has also been transformed into a website – The Consensus Project.
    Same info, graphic presentation: http://theconsensusproject.com/

    2. From the “OSS – Open Source Systems, Science, Solutions” website: (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused)
    A great one-page presentation, summarizing scientific proof of AGW. With citations.

    3. TMI – from the U.S. EPA website, with citations:
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/index.html
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

    4. The final word goes to Dr. Naomi Oreskes – the final page of her essay,
    “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”

    “Contrarians have tried to suggest that the climate effects we are experiencing are simply natural variability. Climate does vary, so this is a possible explanation. No one denies that. But
    is it the best explanation for what is happening now? Most climate scientists would say that it’s not the best explanation. In fact, it’s not even a good explanation—because it is inconsistent with much of what we know.

    Should we believe that the global increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has had a negligible effect even though basic physics indicates otherwise? Should we believe that the correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature is just a weird coincidence? If there were no theoretical reason to relate them and if Arrhenius, Callendar, Suess, and Revelle had not
    predicted that all this would all happen, then one might well conclude that rising CO2 and rising temperature were merely coincidental. But we have every reason to believe that there is
    a causal connection and no good reason to believe that it is a coincidence. Indeed, the only reason we might think otherwise is to avoid committing to action: if this is just a natural cycle in
    which humans have played no role, then maybe global warming will go away on its own in due course.

    And that sums up the problem. To deny that global warming is real is precisely to deny that humans have become geological agents, changing the most basic physical processes of the earth. For centuries, scientists thought that earth processes were so large and powerful that nothing we could do would change them. This was a basic tenet of geological science: that human chronologies were insignificant compared with the vastness of geological time; that human activities were insignificant compared with the force of geological processes. And once they were. But no more. There are now so many of us cutting down so many trees and burning so many billions of tons of fossil fuels that we have indeed become geological agents. We have changed the chemistry of our atmosphere, causing sea level to rise, ice to melt, and climate to change. There is no reason to think otherwise.”

    (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/resources/globalwarming/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf
    From: ‘Climate Change,’ by DiMento & Doughman. Chapter 4, pp.92-93. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-04241-X)

    There is no reason to think otherwise, Richard. Good luck.

  327. Tucci78 says:

    At 1:31 PM on 9 August, addressing richardcourtney, James B starts off:

    Are you a climate scientist? Please provide your credentials.

    Apart from the fact that this (as almost everything else James B spews) is logical fallacy – in this instance both argumentum ad hominem and argument from authority – there’s the homely aphorism about how one doesn’t have to be a poultry farmer to know when an egg is rotten.

    Mr. Courtney has been quite correct all along. James B hasn’t proven a goddam thing by way of reasoned, supported argument yet, persisting instead in the Alinsky-playbook strawman yammer (“To deny that global warming is real is precisely to deny that humans have become geological agents, changing the most basic physical processes of the earth”) while evading the alarmist’s responsibility to prove that “global warming” is to any significant extent – in other words, to any extent greater than the error bars inescapably incidental to methods of observation and analysis – induced by the anthropogenic fraction of increase in a trace component of the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Indeed, James B (like unto the rest of the catastrophist malicious clowns blathering their thuggish policy predations against the lives, liberties, and property of innocent fellow human beings) hasn’t yet shown cause for anyone to conclude that “global warming” – if ever we’re to experience it in our lifetimes, if ever it’s to achieve global average surface temperatures anything like what had prevailed in the historically verified Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima – would or could ever have an adverse effect upon our civilization.

    In those two historically well-established climate optima we have examples of what “global warming” (definitely not anthropogenic by way of any human “geological agents” roles) has actually done.

    So why the hell do these malodorous Watermelon idiots like James B keep “blanking out” consideration of the alleged horrors of “global warming” when they’ve got prime examples of mankind’s survival therein?

  328. CRS, DrPH says:

    The comparison of the “training” to an Amway recruitment event rings true to me…I was once invited to an Amway event by a high school buddy, and the tools they employed are very subtle and compelling. The Gorebots responding on this thread don’t even realize how much they were likely manipulated during this training.

    http://www.baskeptics.org/basis/2007/january-march/050-amways-recruitment-tactics-similar-those-cults

    On the face of it, the recruiting meeting seemed simple and straight forward. It was designed that way but truly it was remarkably complex and was arranged so that multiple cognitive and emotional forces were at play. The meeting was a setup for those poor recruits and very powerful forces were at play to get people to buy the introductory sales packages.

    ….oh, by the way, “James B” isn’t an individual, but a team collaborating to write a unified response on WUWT. Same for several other of the “trainees.”

  329. Tucci78 says:

    At 9:32 PM on 10 August, CRS, DrPH had observed:

    ….oh, by the way, “James B” isn’t an individual, but a team collaborating to write a unified response on WUWT. Same for several other of the “trainees.”

    Interesting. Being myself something of a naif in these online exchanges of honest opinion in contention against the canned crap of paid shills masquerading a real human beings, I’d like to understand something about how one can determine that the production of spew such as that of James B and the other Watermelon puckers we’ve seen in this thread is concerted under false identities used in common.

    I’ve written on behalf of co-authors in academic publications and educational activities over the years, but such collaborative efforts (even when I’ve “ghosted” without credit as a fix-up guy for colleagues who can’t assemble a lucid paragraph to save their lives) necessitate such self-abnegation in terms of style as to seem bereft of affect.

    If these “Liberal” fascist mamzers are getting paid for perpetrating these futile Nixonian rat-rapings, who’s paying them, and – with Obamacare thundering down on the national economy – is any one of them on the clock more than 29 hours a week?

  330. richardscourtney says:

    James B:

    I am replying to your long-winded and content-free blather at August 9, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1385859

    Firstly, you ask for my “credentials”. As others have pointed out, they are not relevant to whether or not I am right or wrong. Any authority can be wrong; e.g. the letter from 100 scientists to Einstein, the plate tectonics story, the Helicobacter pylori story, etc..

    All I have said is that there is no evidence of any kind for discernible AGW.

    I told you how to prove me wrong in my post at August 9, 2013 at 2:29 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1385267
    where I wrote

    To prove me wrong – and to substantiate your assertion – you only need to provide one single, solitary piece of evidence which shows that human activities are affecting or have affected the natural warming from the Little Ice Age in any discernible way.
    If you cannot find such a scrap of evidence then perhaps you will recognise your need to expand your knowledge by watching the short video I commended to you

    To save you needing to find it, I again provide the link to the video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CiGa82CthU&feature=player_embedded

    Onlookers will have noticed that
    1.
    you have failed in attempt to prove me wrong because you have provided no evidence of any kind
    2.
    you have resorted to the logical fallacy of ‘argument from authority’
    3.
    you have made no comment on the video so you have shown no willingness to engage with information which refutes your mistaken and superstitious belief in AGW.

    You are posting anonymously, and it has been suggested that you are a Team of propagandists and not a person
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1386760 .

    Please state your identity to confirm that you are not the suggested Team. This is necessary because if you are such a Team that you have an undeclared conflict of interest.

    Richard

  331. Babsy says:

    Dear Richard.

    They ain’t got nothin’!! Anyone who has six neurons to rub together can determine rather quickly that James B, renooble dude, et al., simply make appeals to authority (press releases, really) to convince ignorant folks of their position. That doesn’t work very well on us who can think for ourselves. James B asked if someone (you?) was a climatologist. Algore, who achieved immortality by inventing the Internet while having his second chakra optimized, isn’t a ‘climatologist, either.

    PS: This is really fun!

  332. CRS, DrPH says:

    The “Climate Un-Reality Project” is basically an attempt at grass-roots organizing, with heavy use of social media. Check out the “Reality Drop” tool, no. 1
    http://climaterealityproject.org/put-the-heatondenial/

  333. richardscourtney says:

    Babsy:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at August 11, 2013 at 9:33 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1386991

    Yes, I know all that you say, but I am writing mostly for the benefit of onlookers and not only James B.

    Also, there are few qualified climatologists. Tim Ball is probably the most academically qualified in the specific field of climatology and he is a AGW sceptic.

    Richard

  334. James B says:

    @richardscourtney, @CRS, DrPH, @Tucci78, et al.

    Ha! James B here – only one man, not a committee, not paid.
    I notice that the comments here at WUWT have been filled with misinformation and – no surprise – hostile slurs against all that deign to disagree with you. Textbook Ad Hominem attacks – why aren’t they policed? The lack of integrity and egregious double-standards here at WUWT are disgusting.

    I’m an architect and green building and corporate sustainability professional in Chicago, and a new volunteer (unpaid) for Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality organization – as I mentioned in earlier posts. I hold a Master of Architecture Degree from the University of Illinois Chicago, a Master of Arts in Communications from Northwestern University, and Bachelor of Arts with High Honors from Eastern Washington University.

    Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality training in Chicago was for volunteers. The training was free – the 1500+ who attended paid for their own travel and lodging. No one paid Al Gore anything, and he bought the meals while we trained. There is no vast cabal of AGW flacks paid to write on WUWT – don’t flatter yourself. The good doctor of philosophy was wrong. BTW, his login didn’t present his identity or bona fides. Neither did the hilarious and impotently vitriolic, racist screed from sex-with-watermelons obsessed academic Tucci78.
    Really subtle racial slurs, Tuch’ – are you proud of this?

    Dear @CRS, DrPH – Perhaps you were projecting in accusing me of being a secret employee paid to write hostile warming screed on WUWT. It would not be surprising – given similarity of your login names – that the good doctor of philosophy CRS (wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, say no more) is a second voice for you, Courtney, Richard S. Isn’t it also plausible because you continue to infamously appropriate a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) you did not earn – as in your listing on the ICSC’s “Climate Science Register, your signature on the “Manhattan Declaration,” or on the dissent letter to the Kyoto Protocol addressed to the Hon. Paul Martin, and so forth. According to info from a google search on your login name, you actually earned a Bachelor of Arts degree and a DipPhil – a Diploma in Philosophy – from Cambridge, correct? Why do you need to exaggerate your credentials?

    It is true that I provided links to authoritative scientific studies on warming as proof of AGW. But citing them is not the logical fallacy, ‘Argument from Authority,’ because making decisions about requires unbiased, specialized authoritative knowledge outside typical expertise (including yours and mine), and because I am citing scientific information that represents the consensus in this field (citation below). You and I are intelligent and have experience with scientific topics and information, but we are not trained, experienced and practicing climatologists. Citing clear documentation of a 97% agreement by the experts in this complex scientific field is NOT a logical fallacy. If 98% of structural engineers told you a bridge was NOT SAFE, and 2% said the others were dead wrong, trust us, it IS SAFE – would you drive across that bridge?
    You can believe what you like @richard, but in the recent, valid and transparent academic studies I cited, that reviewed thousands of peer-reviewed and internationally published scientific papers by climate scientists, 97-98% of the scientists said that climate change was real and caused by a number of human activities. The warming effects of manmade greenhouse gasses are unequivocally scientifically validated as a primary cause of the world-wide temperature increase. I have given you many examples in the links I provided in previous posts. I provided links because the info is long and complex, and because, as you know all too well, it is difficult to provide one single cause for AGW because all of the causes are systemic, and because that is not how science works. Science doesn’t “prove” knowledge, it interprets it. Scientific information cited on WUWT is trumpeted as if any single example that can be interpreted as if one contradictory exception to warming disproves all of it. That is not true because that is not how real scientific work is done.

    Facts are, to be credible; your camp does have to come up with scientific work that providing a better explanation for the prevailing global climate data sets that all climate science is using, a better explanation than the dominant, prevailing view – the 98%, remember? Just citing exceptional, short-duration examples, institutional/global conspiracy theoretical fantasies, and venomous name-calling won’t prove you right. Only solid, conventionally presented scientific work that is replicable will be accepted. If any of the cases the ‘deniers’ have made to date could stand up to typical professional standards, it would have been included in the work done over the past decades on this topic. Your work isn’t good enough – get to work!

    Gentlemen, no one wants our children and grandchildren to live in the planetary future we see in front of us, if we are unsuccessful at dealing with what we have created. That is why Al Gore, the Climate Reality staff and over 1500 volunteers who paid their own way came to Chicago for three days, from all over the US and the rest of the world. Is there a movement on the ‘denier’ side that can summon those numbers of volunteers from around the world, that much positive energy focused on helping all of us. On WUWT, the nasty, superior, petty, childish and undeserved comments – the “Gore-bots”, the Amway taunting, the stupid mistaken assumptions, painting Al Gore as a greedy villain, all of the disgusting petty vitriol spewed on this site – will have no effect on us. If we are wrong and you are right, we will celebrate that you found the solution to a huge global nightmare.

    GET A CLUE! NO ONE LOVES GLOBAL WARMING – EVERYONE WANTS TO STOP IT!!
    REMEMBER:
    The UN IPCC and Mr. Al Gore were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their service to mankind.
    Join the global effort to find a solution. When you have a credible replicable scientific solution indicating that AGW is not real, you will be famous, rich world-wide heroes, beloved by billions world-wide. You could win the Nobel too.

    If you believe it, get to work and prove it!

    James B, Chicago

    Fallacy – Argument from Authority:
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

    (Reply: You accuse Richard Courtney [a published, peer reviewed author] and others of sockpuppetry. Let me assure you that as a moderator, we have ways of verifying if that accusation is true. It is false. ~ mod.)

  335. dbstealey says:

    Among many mis-statements, “James B” writes:

    “GET A CLUE! NO ONE LOVES GLOBAL WARMING – EVERYONE WANTS TO STOP IT!!”

    Like much else he writes, that is a false statement. I personally love global warming, which is natural and normal. I do not want it to stop. A warmer world is a healthier, better-fed world with a more diverse biosphere.

    And following your long rant about how you are an unpaid volunteer, you mention that “I’m an architect and green building and corporate sustainability professional…”

    I don’t believe you. I think if you are a building architect, that you are paid. And thus, you are making self-serving comments.

    This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. We want verifiable scientific facts, but your comment was all assertions. That is what you have to use for your arguments, because there is no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support the AGW conjecture. If “carbon” causes any warming, its effect is too small to measure.

    If you want to be a member of the Algore Chicken Little Brigade, that is your business. But if you are going to comment here, produce some testable evidence to support your arguments. True Belief just isn’t enough.

  336. richardscourtney says:

    James B:

    I read your silly and abusive drivel at August 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/#comment-1388918

    A suggestion was made that you had a conflict of interest and you were requested to refute it.

    You have refuted that accusation – thankyou – but your refutation declares a different conflict of interest; i.e. you say

    I’m an architect and green building and corporate sustainability professional in Chicago, and a new volunteer (unpaid) for Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality organization – as I mentioned in earlier posts.

    OK, so you make a living from ‘green’ and ‘sustainability’ scares so you have joined a propaganda organisation to promote the false scare of AGW. I give you credit for admitting that.

    But I condemn your usage of Alinsky propaganda techniques in your post; i.e.
    1.
    You begin by making the untrue accusation of ad hom. attacks against you then provide a barrage of ad hom. attacks on this site and those who refuse to swallow your propaganda.
    2.
    You pretend that you have provided evidence – indeed, you say “proof” – when you did not. And later you admit that “Science doesn’t “prove” knowledge”.
    3.
    You have failed to provide one single scrap of evidence of AGW despite repeated requests, and have failed to admit that you have no such evidence (nobody does).
    4.
    You assert that our “side” has “to come up with scientific work that providing a better explanation for the prevailing global climate data sets that all climate science is using” when – being scientists – we only have a responsibility to falsify the explanation being used.
    5.
    You use the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to the mob.
    6.
    You pretend some kind of moral activity on behalf of “the children” when – in reality – you are promoting a false scare which supports your paid employment.

    Frankly, reading your despicable screed gave me the same emotion as cleaning something nasty from the instep of my shoe.

    Richard

  337. James B says:

    Moderator –
    Thank you for that correction. I apologize to you Mr. Courtney.
    James B

  338. Tucci78 says:

    At 3:04 PM on 13 August, the sexually perverted James B (Honi soit qui mal y pense, putzele) blunders:

    Neither did the hilarious and impotently vitriolic, racist screed from sex-with-watermelons obsessed academic Tucci78.

    Meaning that this schmuck is as the beasts that perish with regard to the colloquialism “Watermelon” in reference to ostensible ‘viro clowns whose real priority is the advancement of vicious authoritarian government destructive of individual human rights and the market economy in which those rights are manifest (said market being the mechanism on which a division-of-labor society depends both for its moral justification and its prosperity), carrying the connotation of:

    “Green on the outside, but red to the core!”

    What, the use of the word “watermelon” is in your fascistic fatuity nothing more than an inveterate race-card player’s dogwhistle denigrating negritude?

    Cop a clue, you contemptible ignoramus.

  339. James B says:

    Thank you for comparing me to a great leader in Chicago, Saul Alinski, a great compliment.
    Once again, Mr. C, your ineffective actions are reactive and tactical: superior dismissive comments, then repeating the same counter attack, without the heart or stones to engage in any good faith inquiry.
    Your engage in the false logic of another Ad. Hom abusive attack with: OK, so you make a living from ‘green’ and ‘sustainability’ scares so you have joined a propaganda organisation to promote the false scare of AGW. I give you credit for admitting that.”
    I do not admit that. I claim the foresight to pursue and earn LEED professional credentials in 2004, and now use it in design and teach it. The green building sector is the fastest-growing building market in the US and many other countries. The training I did is called CLIMATE REALITY with good reason – to inform people of what is real about climate change so they can make up their own minds.
    I wrote in my first post who I was, where I was and why. I made my position clear. Then I put my professional information on the table at your request. For you or anyone to be indignant now is only drama and posturing – seems there is a bit of that on WUWT.
    I challenge you to follow my example, and acknowledge your own significant professional conflicts of interest. The ones in listed my post are freely available on the internet. I note that they are conveniently absent from your post. Bottom line – you are not a disinterested party. Will you own it?
    As for your misrepresenting your academic achievements, and appropriating an academic degree that you did not earn, that is a matter of public record.

    James B.
    Chicago

  340. James B says:

    Oh please forgive me, Ma Tuch la Gooch – I missed the reference – hahahahahhaaaa!
    I was wrong – it was only a red-baiting slur, not a racial one. I confess, its all true.
    You have style I grant you that you hyper-syllabic yiddisher tukhes lecher…
    Best -
    James B.

  341. James B says:

    @ richardscourtney
    Corrections –
    1.) You are not a scientist.
    2.) You have chosen the minority position. It is correct that nothing requires you to prove your assertions (which makes my work easier, btw) however, you have a decision to make.
    How will you make a difference in the world with what you know?
    Will you settle for just being right, or will you use your knowledge to serve everyone?
    You could save lives and economies by proving that AGW is not true. Will you take that on, or just be superior?
    3.) As you know, emissions from coal-fired electrical plants kill people and make them sick. They increase deaths downwind from lung cancer, and increase asthma and other respiratory diseases, accompanied by higher medical costs for those families downwind for approx 25-50 miles.
    We know this in Chicago, because until the last decade, half of our electricity was produced by coal-fired plant, the other half by nuclear energy. The last speaker at Climate Reality was a Chicago neighborhood organizer that succeeded in closing a coal-fired plant here.
    If Global warming science is wrong, we still need to replace coal-fired electrical generation.
    “European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year in Europe” a study published 12 June 2013 in The Guardian showed. “Burning coal also costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days,”
    Will you join us in this campaign – global warming or not?

    James B.
    Chicago

  342. Tucci78 says:

    At 5:15 PM, “Liberal” fascist Alinsky-suckler James B cackles with psychotic pointlessness, exulting in his own stupidity:

    I missed the reference – hahahahahhaaaa!

    Yeah, you did, didn’tcha, jackwad?

    For the sake of accuracy (not that a professional grifter like you – a “green building and corporate sustainability professional in Chicago” battening on the ‘viro Big Lie propagated by socialist political predators perpetrating pillage – is ever interested in that quality), my family roots trace back to Sicily and Holy Mother Church. As had been observed by economist Thomas Sowell in his work Ethnic America (1981), we just tend reliably to work and play well with the Children of Abraham.

    And frankly, you grasping fraudsters being what you are and therefore manifestly too stupid and lazy to puzzle out invective in the dialects of il Mezzogiorno, I’ve enjoyed exploiting the wealth of pungencies brought to these United States by the Ashkenazim as yet a more readily appreciable way of expressing in public discourse the hatred you and your feculent ilk so richly warrant.

  343. HenryP says:

    James says
    GET A CLUE! NO ONE LOVES GLOBAL WARMING – EVERYONE WANTS TO STOP IT!!

    @James
    it is already globally cooling
    so you can stop worrying about that now
    It will not stop globally cooling until 2038
    in fact, if I were living on the great plains, I would start worrying about that:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  344. James B says:

    [cut]
    James B

  345. Richard S Courtney says:

    James B:

    Concerning your untrue and unfounded attacks on me.

    I repeatedly asked you to substantiate your falsehoods about AGW.
    Your replies only consist of falsehoods about me.

    I do not rely on climate science, environmentalism and the AGW-scare for anything.
    You say you rely on climate science, environmentalism and the AGW-scare for your income.

    In light of these facts, I observe that you obtained inadequate “training” at the ‘Al Gore’ event you attended.

    Richard

  346. philjourdan says:

    @James B – you should spend less time in indoctrination and more time in research. That “97-98%” figure (at least you are honest enough to include the falsely reported figure and the accurate figure) has been thoroughly trashed – by the authors of the papers themselves!

    You may be everything you claim to be. But then knowledgeable on the subject is not one of the things you are.

  347. Suzanne Lewis says:

    Hi Anthony, did my comments on your experiment make it to you? I do not see them posted. I commented regarding the fact that you did a great job at showing that visual effects were used in the video you posted from Bill Nye and Al Gore. I admit I have not watched Bill Nye before and am not sure if this is typical or not. However, you did not actually conduct the experiment. Have you or your readers considered actually trying the experiment? If you try the experiment and it does not work, your point would be more valid. I am going to see if the college I teach at has the materials. If it does, I will happily have my students video the experiment and we will post it. One thing to be careful of if you do try it is that you bought oral thermometers and not air thermometers. You cannot use oral thermometers to measure air.

  348. HenryP says:

    henry@suzanne lewis
    essentially by asking if you can evaluate the GH effect from a closed box experiment,
    you admit to not having a clue, just like Tyndall and Arrhenius did not understand 100 years ago,
    But we must forgive them, because they did not know then what we know now.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
    I hope you will read it and at least try to understand, a bit,
    I am sure James B is not interested in even trying to understand ….

  349. CRS, DrPH says:

    James B says:
    August 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    @richardscourtney, @CRS, DrPH, @Tucci78, et al.

    Dear @CRS, DrPH – Perhaps you were projecting in accusing me of being a secret employee paid to write hostile warming screed on WUWT. It would not be surprising – given similarity of your login names – that the good doctor of philosophy CRS (wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean, say no more) is a second voice for you, Courtney, Richard S. Isn’t it also plausible because you continue to infamously appropriate a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) you did not earn – as in your listing on the ICSC’s “Climate Science Register, your signature on the “Manhattan Declaration,” or on the dissent letter to the Kyoto Protocol addressed to the Hon. Paul Martin, and so forth. According to info from a google search on your login name, you actually earned a Bachelor of Arts degree and a DipPhil – a Diploma in Philosophy – from Cambridge, correct? Why do you need to exaggerate your credentials?

    Dear Sir, you continue to display your ignorance to this forum. A simple Google search of “DrPH” shows that it stands for “Doctor of Public Health,” the public health equivalent of the M.D. degree. My background is in environmental science, and I have worked in alternative energy since the grim Jimmy Carter years. I’ve known about the “global warming” argument since my undergrad days in the 1970′s and find that alternative hypotheses to Mr. Gore’s have merit and should be openly discussed by professionals, scientists, policy-makers and lay folk before society is re-engineered by force. You may categorize me as a “lukewarmer light.”

    WUWT has proven to be one of the most accepting places on the web where all sorts of folks, even extremists to both positions, can mingle, trade ideas and debate in a highly moderated and open environment. Please treat us with respect, you may be a LEED architect and I appreciate your work in this space, as energy conservation is important for many reasons. However I and many others on WUWT have numerous professional reports, textbooks, peer-reviewed publications, patents and other equally impressive backgrounds. We are here for discussion and debate, not lectures upon the merits of Mr. Saul Alinsky.

Comments are closed.