Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change

Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.

UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore leaves a comment, see below.

Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

February 25, 2014

“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.

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

For that chapter, please see the PDF of his testimony, here: 22514HearingWitnessTestimonyMoore

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

UPDATE: 2/27 3PM PST Dr. Moore adds this comment:

Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)

Submitted on 2014/02/27 at 2:53 pm

Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.

For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/

I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7

OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.

If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op

About these ads

420 thoughts on “Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change

  1. Brilliant, well spoken, and the heart of why we a re skeptical over the math of the IPCC and people who are afraid of a warmer climate.

  2. No wonder the Greenpeace politburo are spitting nails about Patrick Moore.

    One of its founders has seen the light and spoken out. His statement is riddled with common sense and facts, both are things which are abhorred by the Greenpeace hierarchy.

    However, he will be outnumbered by alarmist stooges at the hearing, who will be primarily interested in preserving their comfortable lifestyles and basking in their own fame, rather than providing any scientific objectivity.

  3. Excellent.

    “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

    Well, that’s debatable.

    No, wait, no it isn’t – the debate is over!

    [Vinnie Barbarino]I’m so confused![/Vinnie Barbarino}

  4. Seems reasonable to me from what I’ve read of paleontology and paleo-anthropology for the past 50+ years.

  5. The dirty trick brigade will be out with lies and innuendos in no time. Best to ignore until they step over the line and then back Patrick Moore with funds to sue.

  6. “Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970.”

    Uh, no. Then there was a 30 year cooling trend that caused many to raise the alarm over global cooling due to burning fossil fuels that has since been adjusted out of the record confounding any attempts at pattern recognition analysis.

  7. I am glad to see that Dr. Moore takes the viewpoint of Geology, and recognizes the magnitude of time that we have to work with. Such a perspective results in his observation that “warmer is better” for life in general. The lush and verdant Earth we see in the geologic record was a result of average global temperatures at least 10 degrees Celsius warmer than the present.

  8. An absolutely first-class exposition of the skeptic viewpoint from someone with a scientific background who witnessed at first hand the left’s politicisation of global warming and other issues. Keep this essay to hand and send it to people who ask you as to why you do not share the “consensus” on global warming.

    As ever, thank you to Anthony for publishing this on his website. Polite, calm and factual is the only way to go.

  9. He obviously reads WUWT. Often ;)

    The primary problem – his, ours and all those yet to discover the extreme crapulence embedded within the-climate-nonsense – is that many have stated exactly what he states, multiple times. It is nauseating and wears us all down.

    Governments, the once-venerated societies and the meeja will turn a deaf eye. Yet again.

  10. Dr. Patrick Moore gave a well reasoned presentation of the scientific evidence on climate.
    PS Correction Re: “This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists”.
    Those were 31,478 signatures were by persons with university degrees in science, including 9,029 with PhDs. They were collected by the Global Warming Petition Project . Those signatures were appended to the 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered as Appendix 4, The Petition Project.

  11. Ossqss says:

    February 26, 2014 at 8:13 am

    Of those qualified readers of this blog, how many would be accepted into the program referenced in the last paragragh of this blog post? http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2637

    How many would be accepted?

    Answer: None

    Why?

    “…goal of bringing scientists and their local communities together for real dialogue on climate science that speaks to citizens’ current and future well-being and responsibility as members of a community and democracy.’

    Real “dialogue on climate science” would probably be boring to most and other than “be prepared” for changes in weather (a service provided by most TV networks already), what else needs to be said to the general public? Well, other than ignore the alarmism.

    Besides, wouldn’t most of us here in the US want folks to be responsible members of a community and a republic?

  12. Excellent chain of logical arguments for a sustainable result. “Warmer is better” fir mankind. Sure is, we are the only living species (living in the atmosphere) without feathers or furs, Our life depends on the availability of green plants.

  13. Lovely to hear him speak as a real scientist would, furnishing perspective and readily admitting lack of sufficient data to draw the conclusions that so many politicians have done – and many so-called ‘scientists’ as well.

  14. David L. Hagen says:

    February 26, 2014 at 8:21 am

    Dr. Patrick Moore gave a well reasoned presentation of the scientific evidence on climate.
    PS Correction Re: “This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists”.
    Those were 31,478 signatures were by persons with university degrees in science, including 9,029 with PhDs. They were collected by the Global Warming Petition Project . Those signatures were appended to the 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered as Appendix 4, The Petition Project.

    Even if only signed by one “scientist”, these words:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    bear repeating early and often.

  15. An excellent concise summary of the skeptic’s position. All the arguments are there, even challenging the ridiculous 95% probability that the warming is caused by humans.

    I am especially pleased that Patrick Moore explained that when you look to the IPCC report for the calculation behind the 95%, there is none. This fact alone is enough to blow the probability assertion out of the water.

    Look, you can say for example that you have a 1/14 million probability of winning the National Lottery and know that it is based on the number of possible combinations of numbers that exist. You can even bring in real probability values for natural events such as being killed in a car accident. This would be a function of the number of fatal car accidents and the number of journey’s made.

    But how would you go about finding the probability that the current warming is mostly caused by humans? If it could be done, you would need to know the number of ways that the planet could warm and by what proportion each of these ways would account for the total warming. There would also be the number of ways that the planet could cool which would act in the opposite direction and all these values would need to be combined with each other. It is clear from our present understanding that we have little idea about any of these things so it is impossible to supply a probability value to any particular one, including human causes.

    The claim that they have such a figure and it is 95% is the greatest lie of the climate scam.

  16. Amen Dr. Moore. Could not have said it better myself. I read your book and agree with most of what you say in it. It is so refreshing to see someone like you giving us the scientific facts today about climate and environmental protection rather than the campaigns of lies and scaremongering we are getting from the eco-left. Climate and environmental protection need to be based on science, facts, logic and reasoning — and nothing else.

    If you were an American rather than Canadian, I couldn’t think of anyone better than you to head up the EPA. You would be a major improvement over the woman in charge of it now. God bless you sir.

  17. Good to hear that some folks are honest and simply seek the truth.
    Patrick Moore will now face extermination by the AGW Nazis and our GOVERNMENT media. He will disappear from public view . Recall that some newspapers have decided they will PROHIBIT any articles or op-ed that counter the AGW Nazi propaganda. Expect very soon that the Government propaganda TV “news” networks will do likewise. Also, the Harvard Crimson ( soon to be renamed Die Sturmer) is agitating that all research not “socially responsible” be terminated at Harvard, where the definition of “socially responsible” is determined by those who declare themselves ” socially responsible progressives.” This, of course is in the spirit of the Bolsheviks who declared that the ” kulaks” be exterminated or the policies of Hitler, in which his National-Socialist party DEFINED the untermensch and their role in society ( i.e., be killed ).

    We ALL must understand that the AGW mindset is IDENTICAL to that of the Nazis or Bolsheviks, and neither of those two ideologies was beneficial to mankind. It is very disheartening to see that the major scientific organizations have jumped on the AGW wagon and have remained silent as the AGW Nazi thugs destroy any skeptic of the AGW thesis. The mainstream scientific organization wiill rue the day they chose to join hands – explicitly or, via their silence, implicitly , with the AGW thugs.

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

  18. Patrick Moore: “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see.”

    That, for me, says it all. I shall use it on many occasions, I am sure. And the first occasion is when I send a copy of this to my MP with a request that he pass it on to David Cameron and Ed Miliband – who has said in Parliament that “Climate change deniers should not be allowed in to positions of power within government” (PMQs, 12:25-ish, 26 Feb 2014)

  19. A wonderful development, the ‘rats’ are jumping ship!! Now let’s remove their tax free foundations and seize their money!!:)

  20. i knew someone who was on the original boat for a short time and he said on the boat they had a form of autocratic democracy. Often they would have a meeting where they would discuss everything that needed doing and have votes then at the end an intimidating earth mother type would over ride all that and then proceed to TELL them what they all were ‘really going to do’ lol

  21. Sean P Chatterton says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:48 am
    Do we know what the response is to this yet?

    Yes, Sen. Whitehouse said something about the bay by his house being really deep. I didn’t see it, but that’s what happened.

  22. Great Essay! Hits upon several ignored facts.

    “these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report”

    The money line right there. I still can’t believe we’ve come so far on so little evidence!

  23. So simply and yet so brilliant even a politician can understand. His words resonate, and linger in your mind – that is their awesome power. They linger and disturb – and come back at you ringing with a beauty and elegance that is at the very heart and soul of science itself. Indeed we are that tropical species – “The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

    I know exactly what that means here in my Northern Alberta climate – its special elegance is talking to me where I live. The first time any scientists of today reminded me of how I can live in a beautiful country like Canada. As he did with every sitting member in that room. These words linger long after the speaker leaves. That is their power.

  24. By now we all know that climate never was a problem but only one of the many means to change the world in a police state. For the State we no longer are humans we now are reduced to a number and numbers don’t have human rights.

  25. I live in the Fraser Valley near Vancouver and it has been cold. The Daily weather app that I have on my palm device and Environment Canada are reporting 4 Degrees C. The thermometer is telling me 1 Degree C. It feels like freezing so I will trust the Themometer and my good sense. I wonder if these inflated temperatures are the ones that are used to calculate the year average.

    The high yesterday was predicted to be 12 Deg C yet it was observed to be about 4-5 Deg C. today they have given the same 12 deg high predicted. No way we will see 12 degrees out here today.yet this is what they are reporting.

    In other laughable news The Vancouver sun is saying that the Acidity of the ocean is killing scallops. This is the Bold headline across the top of the newspaper. Very scary stuff.

  26. If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?

  27. Checkmate:
    “We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.”

  28. Thanks to Dr. Patrick Moore. That CO2 was 4000 ppm in the past and the seas did not boil is a fact most people have never heard of. It really does make a mockery of the whole idea that we may be on the verge of some dramatic “tipping point” at around 400 ppm.

    I myself was a registered GreenPeace supporter in the early 80s. That involved sending a regular payment. I left in the mid 80s, when I realised that they were becoming more interested in glossy merchandising than the inspiring and courageous direct action with which Patrick Moore and his group caught the public imagination and inspired a generation.

    I can only imagine that when he looks at what has become of the movement he started, he must feel like a parent whose teenage son gets arrested for mugging an old lady and stealing her purse.

    I hope some day to become what he calls a “sensible environmentalist” but right now I’m more inclined to spit and curse when I hear that word.

    I felicit him on his courage, past and present and on getting this message where it matters.

  29. That’s it Mr. Moore, thank you!
    And:”Hello Ms. Costello of CNN, any more questions why science is not settled!”

  30. Re Jauntycyclist at 9.40 am. Thank you for correcting a misapprehension of mine. I have obviously been more confused than I usually am,

  31. Well said Dr. Moore: As a geologist I have been dismayed for decades by the mad race to sub-categorize our time of Earth history and to aggrandize our own little sliver of time. I particularly like the bit about NOT being out of the Pleistocene yet. IN fact I have blogged about it several times. If you are interested:

    http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2009/08/holocene-well-perhaps.html

    http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2011/10/anthrop-obscene.html

    http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2009/08/make-mine-on-rocks.html

    There are few other related posts in the main blog page as well, but in those few I address the whole Pleistocene/Holocene thing directly.

    Enjoy

  32. I’ve been debating with folks for years now, using as much science and expert opinions as I can dig up in order to give them a head’s-up that they’re being scammed. To many though, it matters not what the science actually says or shows, since for many everything in life is a political issue. For those, no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. But, this is encouraging and rational people don’t like being hoodwinked and do keep an open mind, unlike the so-called tolerant ones who treat CAGW as their ersatz religion.

    Let CAGW die from a million pin stabs then, as it seems that’s the only way some will ever change their brainwashed minds. An ice age might change their minds too, but I can picture President Obama and his merry advisers still ignoring the obvious for political reasons only—something they’re really good at.

  33. “This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.”
    I thought they were slowly increasing, not accelerating?

  34. Peter Kirby says:
    February 26, 2014 at 9:32 am

    “If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?”
    ****************

    I think you are getting your Patrick Moores confused. The one you are thinking of was a British actor: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601716/

    This Patrick Moore is a Canadian from Vancouver. He has a PhD in ecology/environmentalism.

  35. This is an impressively succinct summary of the important points of the climate debate. I will definitely forward to folks I know, on both sides of the isle

  36. The 1910 to 1940 near identical warming is the fly in the ointment. The 16+ year temperature standstill is the doggy doo in the ice cream. “It is extremely likely” that the longer the standstill the hotter the debate, yet they tell me the debate is over. Really? LOL.

  37. Vince Causey at 8:39 am.
    Yes, the best description of the probability estimate is Cargo Cult Statistics (CCS).

  38. As I have pointed out elsewhere the climate change worry is not new. People have worried about changes in the climate before 1950 and they noticed the early 20th century warming too.

    Camperdown Chronicle 1903
    THE ENGLISH CLIMATE. IS IT CHANGING?
    “In the face of the facts it seems hardly worth while to answer the question, Is the climate changing? Every one knows that we hardly ever have a real old-fashioned, snow-clad Christmas in these times that fires are often welcome on Midsummer Day, and that September— after the cricket season—often turns out to be the best month of the year…”
    ____________________

    Examiner (Launceston, Tas.) 1906
    IS THE EARTH GETTING WARMER?
    That the earth is growing temporarilly warmer is shown by the mountain gla-ciers….The latest report includes 90 glaciers in the Swiss Alps, in Norway, Greenland, the Caucasus, the Pamir, the North West United States, Western Canada. and Africa, and practically all are grow-ing smaller. In the Savoy Alps and the Pyrenees small glaciers have quite dis- appeared.
    ____________________

    Cairns Post 1923
    TEMPERATE ARCTIC
    “The discovery by American seal fishers that of late there has been a remarkable increase in the mean tem-perature of the Arctic, and that in some parts of the Polar basin no ice has been seen less than 9 degrees from the North Pole, agrees with the ex- perience of many Arctic explorers in recent years…”
    ____________________

    The Sydney Morning Herald 1926
    CHANGING CLIMATE. AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. RECORDED FACTS
    “Although the temperature year by year fluctuates widely from the average, there is an underlying upward trend in the northern United States and Canada like a slowly rising tide, while in the south of the United States the trend is the other way. Thus the con-trast between the weather of the north and south is diminishing, and the climate ot the country as a whole is ameliorating…”
    ____________________

    The Register News-Pictorial 1930

    WARMER WORLD Weather Physicist Looks Ahead
    The world is growing warmer. Dr. J. W. Humphreys, physicist of the Weather Bureau,…..”There is evidence, however, that the world as a whole is very slowly growing warmer,” he said. “The evidence is that glaciers in all parts of the world have been on the average slowly retreating since the culmina- tion of the Ice Age, and they are still slowly retreating….”
    ____________________

    The Courier-Mail 1934
    WORLD’S CHANGING CLIMATE Unsafe To Generalise
    “The fact that during last year 81 of 100 Swiss glaciers decreased in size did not in any way indicate that the earth was becoming warmer and drier, said professor H. C. Richards, Pro- fessor of Geology at the Queensland University, yesterday, commenting on a message from Geneva concerning a world-wide drought. Even if the ob-servations of Swiss glaciers were con-tinued over a period of 50 years, he said, the data obtained could not warrant any general statement that the world as a whole was becoming drier or warmer…”
    ____________________

    Camperdown Chronicle 1937
    THE WARM ARCTIC!
    “We are usually inclined to regard the Arctic as a region where it is always cold. Actually, this is an erroneous belief. In the summer quite a large part of the continental Arctic has temperatures of 80 degrees F. in the shade
    ____________________

    The Courier-Mail 1939
    WORLD CLIMATE CHANGING Scientists Puzzled
    “Scientists’ investigations show that the world’s climate is changing. But whether it is becoming wetter, warmer, drier, or colder they can’t say with certainty. Dr. F. W. Whitehouse, University geologist, said this yesterday in an ad- dress to the Constitutional Club…”
    ____________________

    Western Mail 1941
    Impending Climatic Change.
    “The report was made by Halbert P. Gillette, of Chicago, to the association’s geology section….”Three of the long climatic cycles.” he reports, “have produced a downward trend in rainfall in many regions, cul-minating in a series of droughts begin-ning about 1920. This series of cycles probably will continue until about 1990. In many regions these droughts bid fair to be more severe than any long series in the last 20 centuries. It will therefore prove futile to continue the present policy of relief in the dustbowl regions. Wholesale migrations from these regions seems advisable.”…”

  39. Thank you Anthony for sharing this wonderful submission by Dr Patrick Moore with us. He was in South Africa a few years ago and made some very significant contributions to the debate on nuclear energy. He was forthright in admitting that in the early days Greenpeace had got it all wrong when they associated the nuclear concept with bad things like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead of good things like electricity generation and nuclear isotopes used for medical diagnosis and treatment and many other peaceful and very useful purposes. South Africa is today an important manufacturer of medical treatment and diagnostic radio-isotope products that are exported around the world. The South African government remains committed to building new nuclear electricity generation capacity, but the high costs of doing so remain a concern for some, while others are suggesting that our proposed nuclear build could be delayed while the huge finds of natural gas in our neighbouring Mozambique are channelled into electricity generation.

    Regrettably the organisation that Dr Moore helped to found has become a rather pathetic and ignorant bunch of green activists in this part of the world. Our local chapter of Greenpeace last year dumped a truckload of coal on the doorstep of our national electricity utility, Eskom. They said this was to protest Eskom’s bad behaviour in burning lots of coal and so catastrophically changing the climate, but also because Eskom’s two new coal-fired power stations would use vast quantities of cooling water, which Eskom would steal from the poor citizens of the country. Somebody at Greenpeace did not do their homework: both new South African power stations (called Medupi and Kusile) are dry-cooled and do not use lots of water at all. And when I tell people that Germany is building more coal-fired power stations than South Africa to back up their renewable energy largesse, their eyes glaze over in disbelief. Thank you to Dr Patrick Moore! It takes a lot of courage to tell the world that your mind has been changed by a new perspective on things you once believed in.

  40. Tim Churchill says:
    February 26, 2014 at 10:18 am
    “This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.”
    I thought they were slowly increasing, not accelerating?

    I think he misspoke; it’s common enough to see people confuse “accelerate” with “linear upward trend”. Actually if you go to WoodForTrees and plot the Mauna Loa numbers from 2000 to present, take the derivitive and then the linear trend from that, there is a very slight negative trend. This means that although the CO2 is still increasing, the increase is starting to slow, at least based on this particular data set and time interval.

  41. Nice presentation…
    2 suggestions though. For maximum effect, he should have mentioned the failure of the models to predict the pause when he first discusses them. More compelling that way.

    Second, he should have attacked the supposed 97 percent consensus. This is a false belief, perpetrated by dishonest, agenda driven people. And it’s quite damaging. It needs to be challenged at every opportunity!

  42. Henry Galt sez :

    >> The primary problem – his, ours and all those yet to discover the
    >> extreme crapulence embedded within the-climate-nonsense

    ‘crapulence’ : “sickness caused by excessive drinking”
    However, we know what you mean !

  43. chinook says:
    February 26, 2014 at 10:04 am
    … An ice age might change their minds too, but I can picture President Obama and his merry advisers still ignoring the obvious for political reasons ….

    waving hands in front of glacier, “There is no glacier in DC…”

  44. Great testimony Dr. Moore! I wonder where HAARP and Chemtrails fit in the non-debate of climate change? :)

  45. It’s going to be sad to see such a nice, well-spoken man deal with all those IRS investigations and audits that are certainly on their way.

  46. I try to stay out of politics on the left leaning Facebook, but I had to share this on my timeline. One of the best things I have read on WUWT. Easy for the uninformed to understand. Their eyes glaze over with some of the things I try to post to my friends.
    People just don’t want to get into the weeds in this fast and furious world of information.

  47. Now he is really gonna qualify as an “Unperson”.
    Very coherent presentation.
    I am proud to be on side, with Dr Moore.
    Science.
    Believe whatever you want,but prove your policy.
    No amount of posturing, intimidation and emotional blackmail, can override the cruel cold facts of reality.

  48. Dr. Patrick Moore – not only everywhere spot on, but a brave voice facing a pack of hyenas in the Senate committee meeting. Kudos and more kudos.

    @John Tyler –
    Excellent followup comments on Dr. Moore’s presentation.

    @David G –
    And take their money, and use it to pay for removing the blight of “renewable” energy installations and for compensating the poor people who suffered from the resultant needlessly high electric rates.

    @Jimbo –
    As I understand it, the 1910-1940 heatuing was much more than the 1980-1996 heating.
    BTW – the newsbytes are great!

    And just about everyone else here, as well – this thread has been a tour de force. Now if only we can make the Climate Nazis pay attention. And well done, Anthony!

  49. His intro on Wikipedia is far from neutral,luck for Wikipedia, he isn’t Micheal Mann:
    Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian greenwasher, whose PR firm is often hired to obfuscate wrongdoing. He capitalizes on his former membership of Greenpeace, in an attempt to give him legitimacy. Today he is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, a greenwashing firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.
    He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[2] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[3] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.[4]

  50. This is the most readable and succinct overview of the Earths climate change and the place of CO2 in it that I have ever seen. Thank you Dr.Moore. And thanks WUWT for posting it.

  51. There is no debate. The computer model predictions were wrong. It did not warm by as much as they said it would due to CO2 increasing despite the fact that CO2 did increase. It is true, there really is no debate anymore. They laid out a hypothesis and said “wait and see”. Well, we waited, and now we can see. What is left to debate?

    What a shame that all of the major universities have stuffed themselves with “Professors” who still believe that the models were correct even in the face of the indisputable fact that they were incorrect. At best it can be described as “embarrassing”. At worse?

  52. Thank you Dr. Moore! A wonderful summary of why there might not be much reason to worry about “carbon pollution”. I posted a link on my Facebook wall in the interest of both skeptic and warmist friends.

  53. Excellent sticky post.
    Some observations:

    1) try an internet search on “Patrick Moore Senate Testimony” or something similar –
    Not a single MSM outlet reporting this — fascinating bit of self-censorship!
    Perhaps his testimony was “too inconvenient” for the MSM — but wouldn’t it be a treat to have Patrick Moore debate David Suzuki or Al Gore?

    2) ref. the IPCC assessment (of 95%+ certainty that most of late 20th century warming was due to [human GHG emissions]): not only is this not supported by any evidence, it it patently incoherent with the IPCC’s OWN statement on probable Climate Sensitivity range (approx. 1.5-4.5 or possibly higher). How can one have 95% certainty in anything where you admit a probable range of a factor of three (or more) in a key input parameter! Additionally, any blaming of the current ‘pause’ on natural oscillations begs the question whether the prior warming wasn’t also the consequence of natural oscillations, which of course reduces the relative strength of the anthropogenic signal.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  54. Anthony – Please also add or link to the chapter that was added to the testimony by Dr. Patrick Moore. Thank you. He ended with the following:

    “Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”.
    I would request it be made part of the record.”

    REPLY: It’s right there, see it in the PDF – Anthony

  55. Peter Kirby says:
    February 26, 2014 at 9:32 am

    If I am not mistaken Patrick Moore died on 9th December 2012. According to this post he gave evidence to a committee on 25th February 2014. How?

    Interestingly the other Patrick Moore, who actually did die in 2012, was sceptical of man-made CAGW. I don’t know how he survived at the BBC for so long.

  56. “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.” -Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace.

    That’s an impressive quote. It should be used often in the ongoing public climate discourse.

  57. Oh, and I just tweeted a link to this post to that CNN gal Carol (who I’d never heard of before reading about her here at WUWT today), Carol the “why are we still debating” gal. I suggested that perhaps one reason we’re still debating is that we’re a “tropical species.” Seems like a pretty good reason to me, among the many ….

    Of course another reason why we still debate is that we’re a sentient species. Some of us, anyway …

  58. Dave in Canmore says:
    February 26, 2014 at 9:06 am
    Great Essay! Hits upon several ignored facts.

    “these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report”
    The money line right there. I still can’t believe we’ve come so far on so little evidence!
    —————————————————————————————————-
    I am reminded:
    “One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
    Mark Twain
    cn

  59. It always kills me that IPCC only claims major human influence for the last 50 years, but the hockey stick gets it kick by showing temperature rise over 150 years!

  60. Bernd Palmer says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:28 am
    Excellent chain of logical arguments for a sustainable result. “Warmer is better” fir mankind. Sure is, we are the only living species (living in the atmosphere) without feathers or furs, Our life depends on the availability of green plants.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Only species living in atmosphere without fur or feathers? Not so much: lizards (most reptiles), insects…assume you meant mammals (even there you have a problem with elephants)?

  61. Dr Moore said “we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. ”

    I agreewith him completely

    Unfortunately in North America the planning focus seems to be on global warming only. However it is the winters that we should be focused on for the next 30 years.

    Winters have been getting colder for 15 years now in North America. Winters like we used to have 30 years ago are returning as we have seen with this severe winter This colder winter weather spills over into a colder spring in Canada and colder spring in United States . Fall is also getting colder in United States. In summary the weather is getting colder for 7 months of the year, flat for another two and only slightly warming during three months. This cooler weather means a potential for more winter crop damage, winter snow and ice storms, more snow, floods from spring snow melts and significant thunderstorms, wind storms, tornadoes and power outages as the cold and warm fronts meet more often and at bigger amplitudes. The net result is many areas are unprepared for the current and more importantly the upcoming colder weather in terms of emergency planning, snow clearing infrastructure , heating fuel stocks( propane and natural gas) , local winter budgets , transportation needs , need to switch to more winter hardy crops , power outage repair capability and impact on local economy .
    It is time to get off this global warming only focus and concentrate on the planning of real problems that confront us today. The cooler weather that we had 1880-1910 and again 1945-1979 is returning , not global warming .

  62. Greg says:
    February 26, 2014 at 9:41 am
    I myself was a registered GreenPeace supporter in the early 80s. That involved sending a regular payment.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thank you Dr. Moore. And like Gary, I was a supporter of you and Mr Hunter before Greenpeace was born. My wife and I were at the Amchitka protest at the Peace Arch (Douglas) border crossing (Vancouver-Bellingham). We supported Greenpeace until it went Bolshevik a few years later. And like, Albertalad – thank goodness for carbon based fuels. Time to throw another log on the fire and wonder out into the snow and start the tractor to feed livestock. It’s a bluebird day outside but 20 below C.

    Meanwhile, thanks for an enjoyable read. Next time into town, I shall buy your book.

  63. By no means is Planet Earth “locked into a Pleistocene Ice Age”: Over approximately the last 12,250 – 14,400 years, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch has been a wholly normal remission in an unremitting 2.6-million year period, wherein Ice Ages lasting on average 102,000 years have occurred regularly as clockwork due to geophysical (plate tectonic) factors interfering with global East-West atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.

    Since the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary some 65-million years-before-present (YBP), Earth has experienced five major geological eras lasting 12 – 16+ million years apiece. This means that,
    for whatever reason, this Pleistocene Era has anywhere from 12 to 14 million years to run, during which time Gaia will experience recurrent continental glaciations until North and South American landmasses “drift” sufficiently apart to unblock Eastern from Western hemispheric interactions.

    Climatologists ignorant of astro-geophysics may preach pro or con, but absent long-term scientific context and perspective they may as well be casting necromantic runes.

  64. Thank you Anthony for this great post. It is a perfect setting out of the true scientific point of view. Dr. Patrick Moore has witnessed, from the inside, at first hand the politicisation of the global environmental and ‘catastrophic’ warming. The Stalinists would have been proud of the recent disappearing of Dr. Patrick Moore from early Green Peace documents
    I particularly liked the quote from Patrick Moore, regarding the powers of CO2: “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see.” It is not.

  65. This is a good thing and nicely worded. Some have quibbled with a bit of the phrasing and precise statement of facts. These are not of much importance.
    It makes a good link-to statement because it is clearly stated, was presented to a US Gov. hearing, and done by a well-known activist / scientist. Many people will know of this and the “streisand effect” may even show up. The issues and concepts are not new here on WUWT. I could list (but won’t) a dozen posters, including the local host, and commentors (and some other blog hostesses/hosts) that have written quite similar things. We should all thank these lesser known folks for their contributions. I do. Thanks.

  66. Lucid, easy for anyone to understand. I am sure this crystallizes the thoughts of many people who question CAGW.

  67. Moore’s prominence in Greenpeace has been downplayed for years. Here’s what some old newspaper clippings say.

    WHALE CONSERVATION. (1976, May 28)
    The president of the Greenpeace Foundation, Mr Bob Hunter, right, and Mr Patrick Moore, in Vancouver oh Tuesday with the foundation’s new ship, the James Bay, a former Royal Canadian Navy minesweeper, which with a crew of 28 will be used to harass Soviet and Japanese whaling fleets in the North Pacific. —

    Harpoon ‘fired over’ dinghy. (1977, August 1)
    Dr Patrick Moore, Greenpeace’s president who is aboard the James Bay, had said the whales killed had been under the nine-metre min imum set by the International Whaling Commission of which the Soviet Union is a member. [SEE IMAGE]

    WORLD NEWS. (1978, March 16))
    The anti-seal hunt campaign was also halted on Tuesday, with Mr Patrick Moore, head of the Greenpeace Foundation, which is leading the protest campaign, accusing the government of intimidating two helicopter …

    Greenpeace leader arrested. (1978, March 20)
    ST ANTHONY, Canada, Sunday (AAP UPI). — The President of the Greenpeace Founda tion, Dr Patrick Moore, was arrested in Newfoundland yesterday after throw ing his body over a seal pup to protect it from a hunter’s club.

    And more (these are just from Australian newspapers) …

    11 March 1980
    Dr Patrick Moore, head of Canadian Greenpeace

    1 March 1983
    Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of the Greenpeace movement,

    13 July 1985
    A world director of Green peace, Dr Patrick Moore

    10 July 1995
    Dr Patrick Moore, founding father of Greenpeace,

    22 July 1995
    Dr Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace

  68. It’s extraordinarily important for scientists of all political stripes to follow the data. Thanks Dr. Moore!

  69. I hate to keep saying this until I’m green in the face, but, the good doctor failed to mention the Carbon Dioxide is plant food. You know the rest…

  70. When I read the “throwing bones” comment I spit my coffee all over the PC monitor. He must have been referring to Mikey Mann’s method to retrieve his data for the “Hockey Stick”, throwing bones at a chart.

  71. It is not just a matter of how articulate Moore is (and the above was one of the best arguments I have read in the climate debate), it is his credibility. The alarmists will find it much harder to cast the usual smears at him. If they try, their own credibility will suffer.

  72. Thanks, Dr. Moore for presenting your convictions.
    I agree with most of what you said, but the role of CO2 is the ecosystem still seems to elude you. Please give this some more consideration.

  73. Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some. Take a bow, Canada. You rock. The boat.

  74. “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

    My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

  75. Dr. Moore’s statement to Congress should be a headline item on the Drudge Report.

    The more Drudge hears about it, the more likely he will feature it.

  76. Great presentation. I hope it has a lasting and positive impact on the debate, but since the whole issue is now one of partisan politics (not science), I am not too optimistic.

  77. An excellent summary by Dr. Moore.
    But there are entirely too many “skepticals” in the posts. As a matter of clear and correct communication this summary is an excellent summary of the scientific position. Being scientifically skeptical is the proper approach. Not relying on skepticism but on consensus is scientific nonsense.

    The skepticals or deniers are the ones who deny the geologic record, deny the problem of computational limits in computer modelling, deny the problem of using equilibrium calculations to model non-equilibrium systems, deny the limited knowledge we have of all the climate processes, deny that the behavior chaotic, non-linear systems cannot be reliably predicted, deny that chaotic systems can have multiple semi stable states(i.e. ice ages and interglacials at least), and etc.

  78. Bravo Patrick Moore, Ph.D!

    What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”

    Interesting comment, as we must have had the same physics instructor (1960’s) who exclaimed man is not sufficient in capacity to affect climate. We see the urban heat island and where does it spread? By definition it is a local affect.

    Where is MSM on this?

  79. David Ross says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:49 pm
    It is not just a matter of how articulate Moore is (and the above was one of the best arguments I have read in the climate debate), it is his credibility. The alarmists will find it much harder to cast the usual smears at him. If they try, their own credibility will suffer.

    David,
    I heartily agree! Moore has ‘green’ street cred, making his statements hit the AGW crowd like a door knob loaded sock. They really have no defense…. that doesn’t also diminish their own credibility.

    Distribute Dr. Moore’s congressional testimony widely, often, and to all sides of the issue, especially to your national and state Representatives and Senators.
    Mac

  80. Sean says:
    February 26, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    No doubt the democrats did not listen to a word he said.

    I would think the opposite. A well oiled machine listens closely, then defines a strategy to respond…if at all.

  81. garymount says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    I hate to keep saying this until I’m green in the face, but, the good doctor failed to mention the Carbon Dioxide is plant food. You know the rest…

    Well, with enough said, he might at this point be wearing a bullet proof vest…imagine the hate mail he will receive, the condemnation, … use your imagination. How many out there are of such to take his path.

  82. @Espen –
    Not to worry about “carbon pollution” but plenty to worry about from those who still believe in it.
    BTW – as far as I can determine, the MSM completely ignored Dr. Moore’s testimony, and of course now CNN (presumably apropos to Ted Cruz’s cleaning Dana Bash’s and John Kerry’s clocks) says it will not allow any more discussion of the skeptic position – marking themselves as climate Nazis and dictator lovers for sure.

    I’ll be watching Fox to see if they weigh in. They have hosted Climate Depot’s Marc Morano fairly regularly – let’s see if they mention it.

  83. Dr. Moore,

    “The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis.”

    This is correct. Using statistical analysis, the temperature anomaly data from 1880-2013 show no warming that passes the 95% confidence level, if you include the margin of error in the data. All warming since 1880 are within the range of “random noise.”

    “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

    Ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles. It’s possible to have ice age and high atmospheric CO2 at the same time. We are still in an ice age so it’s also possible to have global warming in an ice age.

    “Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages”

    This proves global warming can occur in an ice age and greenhouse gases can cause global warming. The GHE theory is sound.

    “It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species.”

    If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.

  84. The debate is over, among real scientists, that is.

    The arm chair types can proceed, though. Bloggers are a gullible sort, so you can put your “brilliant analysis” in front of them, rather than a Journal, for example. Bloggers deeply wish to believe it’s all a hoax. I do too. But, I can’t.

    Hey, it worked with Big Tobacco. There’s good money in this, I don’t doubt.

  85. In Europe GreenPeace has become an Official Government Contract Partner driving our entire civilization back to Medieval times. It would be appreciated of the dear Dr. would take the trouble and convince our totally brainwashed political establishment they have it totally wrong and his beloved GreenPeace has turned into Green Poisson for modern civilizations causing damages to our economies on a scale comparable to the Hydrogen Bomb the dear Dr. protested in his early career.

    The Dutch, the British and the German governments have the highest priority for now.

    I gladly offer him a place to stay since I have a spare room left and if necessary I will personally drive or fly him to Berlin, The Hague and London.

  86. BEST EVER!
    IMHO this article is the best article that has ever been written on WUWT or probably anywhere for that matter. Sums up all the bickering and statistical points that each side uses to advance their beliefs into a bottom line “this is the big picture” of the earths climate an what we DON’T know… since all the scientific papers try to show you what we do.

  87. More today, from the AGW Ranch:

    Science academies explain global warming reality
    Associated Press
    By SETH BORENSTEIN 4 hours ago

    http://news.yahoo.com/science-academies-explain-global-warming-reality-001622461.html

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.

    The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.

  88. jfreed27 – Dr. Patrick Moore is not a real scientist? Instead of addressing Dr. Moore’s arguments you throw out cheap shots about AGW skeptics being armchair critics. Economist Martin Armstrong is developing a computer model that he says will be more accurate than anything out there, Armstrong thinks it is nonsense that human can affect such a huge system as the earth’s climate, he thinks the sun’s 300 year cycle has a lot to do with the climate which another woman scientist has detailed. go to armstrongeconomics.com and search global warming in his blog section.

  89. Mac the Knife says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:44 pm
    More today, from the AGW Ranch:

    Science academies explain global warming reality
    Associated Press
    By SETH BORENSTEIN 4 hours ago

    http://news.yahoo.com/science-academies-explain-global-warming-reality-001622461.html

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.
    ——————————

    Jeeez, did you all read the comments on this ?

    I read about 30, and it ain’t pretty for the climate parasites. Bye bye Seth. Have a happy retirement.

  90. I have now had a chance to download and read the PDF with the chapter from his book. There are plenty of references in that chapter to the CO2 benefits to plant growth. Never the less, it would have been nice to have at least one reference in the rest of his statement to one of the primary benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps an acknowledgment that so far the world may have benefited with an additional trillions dollars of extra wealth as a result, with a 10 trillion benefit expected by… I forgot when.
    While I’m here; I have often read that the rich or advanced in development societies should pay billions of dollars to non as advanced nations because of our past use of fossil fuels. However, that usage created the advanced technologies that are now common place and saving lives in these still developing societies, making there lives far better off than they otherwise would be. In other words, we’ve already paid.
    Also, a lot of the fossil fuel I use is for heating my home in winter, and fall and spring. Many of the still developing locations live in warm climates that do not require this type of energy use, so the claim that they will use the quantity of energy that I use once they get to my standard of living just doesn’t make sense, they don’t need much winter, spring and fall heating.

  91. Henry Galt. says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:19 am

    He obviously reads WUWT. Often ;)

    The primary problem – his, ours and all those yet to discover the extreme crapulence embedded within the-climate-nonsense – is that many have stated exactly what he states, multiple times. It is nauseating and wears us all down.

    Governments, the once-venerated societies and the meeja will turn a deaf eye.

    Not to mention a blind ear! :D
    Heh-heh.

  92. Dr Patrick Moore is in agreement with Professor David Bellamy as well as a whole host of excellent scientists, engineers and other fine intellects. Now that’s what I call a “scientific consensus”.

  93. Chad,
    Dr. Patrick Moore is scheduled to appear on Fox soon on Hannity’s show which is on at 10:00 PM EST.

  94. Patrick Moore says –

    “As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.”

    that’s the bottom line. great presentation. MSM will ignore.

  95. I’d be interested in a poll of those who would describe themselves as “environmentally concerned” and a “CAGW skeptic”. To my mind the CAGW debate is a huge distraction from many real green issues and the “greens” will rue the day when they so firmly embraced the CAGW religion. Who will listen to them in 10 or 20 years time? Even if then they make a valid point?

  96. Excellent presentation Patrick and thanks to Anthony for posting it.
    Hopefully more “deniers” will come forward to inform governments that logically a 0.002% increase in CO2 is not going to destroy the planet, that the computer models that predict this are also wrong (as demonstrated by the Met Office’s total ineptitude at predicting the weather, and that CAGW has become a belief rather than a science. If, as Dr Moore states, we continue down the path of drastically cutting CO2 emissions we will have destroyed our economies for no reason and jeopardised our food production by concentrating on a warmer climate opposed to the possibility of a cooler or even a stable climate.
    Despite the predictions of 20 years ago, I am still unable to grow Chardonnay grapes in NE England and there is still plenty of water and inhabitants in Southern Spain and Morocco!

  97. Mac the knife – whilst browsing, I recently came across NASA’s reference and acceptance of the P.T Doran and M.K. Zimmerman ‘97%’ paper to which you’ve supplied a link. As you imply, a good example of what’s going on in the warmist camp.
    I am amazed (to say the least) that an organisation such as NASA endorses such a – let’s be blunt – blatant and rubbishy fiddle as this (and for any warmists who are seething at this comment, yes, I have the the paper and have read it in detail).
    It makes me wonder about the calibre of some so- called scientists, and what is really going on in the world of what professes to be science these days.

  98. Dr. Moore is alive and well. Please read his website at http://www.ecosense.me. He has some very interesting things to say. I thoroughly enjoyed his take on many subjects related to the environment and environmentalism and the Big Green Monster. I need to purchase his book.

  99. I forwarded Patricks statement today to the UK’s opposition leader, Ed Miliband. Ed was using the ‘denier’ word in Parliament yesterday and I suggested he should desist and use a more measured and mature approach to the issue as per Patrick. Some lackey in his office will no doubt respond on his behalf, I’m sure the word ‘concensus’ will feature prominently!

  100. Previously posted at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/life-in-a-climate-cataclysm-box/#comment-1453028

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/steven-schneiders-1992-argument-against-balance-in-science-reporting/#comment-1083265

    Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.

    The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.

    When this worm turns, and it will, we can expect the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws will be put to good use.

    As we confidently stated in 2002 at

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist “

    Earth has not warmed for 10-15 years. Continued absence of global warming or global cooling will finally put an end to global warming hysteria, after trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered…. and then the wheels of justice will begin to turn… Watch for early signs of climate rats leaving their sinking ship.

    __________________

    http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

    The Rise of Eco-Extremism

    Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.

    Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

    These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

    • It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

    • It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

    • It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

    • It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

    • It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

    • It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.

    • It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

  101. jfreed27 says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    “I don’t doubt.”

    That phrase is the heart of the problem with the CAGW hypothesis.

    You should read the words of an honourable scientist who explained the role of doubt in science. I shouldn’t have to tell you his name:

    The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think.

    Our freedom to doubt was born of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle. Permit us to question — to doubt, that’s all — and not to be sure. …

    ….it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of the possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown.

    It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress and great value of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress that is the the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom, to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed, and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.

  102. Dr. Moor, a truthful scientist. thank you.

    But i disagree that both poles were ice free during the cretaceous. The altitude of Antarctica would mean that some ice would remain at this time. There were evergreen forests on the Antarctic Peninsular, witness the cretaceous coal found there, but ice inland.

  103. heysuess says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some.

    Lawrence Solomon; Rex _______ (a broadcaster)

  104. I read the report of Dr. Patrick Moore’ s evidence on Fox News.
    Question: Do the other main stream media carry any coverage of this evidence? Where are the New York Times , the Guardian etc.
    Not newsworthy ,I suppose ,they would claim but the MSM are prepared to cover any alarmist scientific paper no matter how preposterous.

  105. Excellent piece. A copy of this submission should be sent to Ed Miliband, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Davey and all the CAGW fanatics in the UK House of Commons.

  106. The Fox News morning show covered this briefly just now, mentioning that there was no evidence and that he was a founder of Greenpeace, as a picture of cloud producing windmills was shown. They will likely feature it several times throughout the day.

  107. Moore has been milking his long-ended involvement with Greenpeace Canada for over 25 years now.

    By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia. Following is the complete list of Moore’s research output regarding any aspect of climate change:

    Update as required.

  108. The “climate change” killer for me is the fact that all inhalers for people with chronic bronchitis, asthma or COPD have been switched by legal means to a product that does not emit any greenhouse gases from the propellant in the canisters. Those of us with chronic respiratory ailments were obviously at the top of the list of major offenders, most likely just ahead of internal combustion engines, volcanoes, and natural emissions from livestock. Our “deadly” asthma rescue inhalers must have been a formidable threat, indeed, because the change came swiftly, and without much warning. The result of this “environmental rescue” has been devastating to sick people. First, the medications no longer work as they used to, since there is no real or effective propellant forcing the medication into a patient’s lungs. Also, because there are countless “new” medicines, there aren’t any generic alternatives to reduce the cost of the inhalers (I take Combivent, which WAS approximately $140-150, has now increased to well over $300 and near $400+, effectively pricing it well above my limited budget. In fact, the hospital from which I was getting my medications through a charitable insurance program for indigents, the poor, and the disabled began refusing to stock Combivent, as it was just too expensive. I have been lucky enough to have recently acquired an insurance policy through Humana, but the medication is still a tier 3, fairly expensive prescription (around forty dollars or more). For a few months, I was receiving the medicine gratis from the pharmaceutical company (or getting the Mexican version on the rare occansions I could find someone willing to make a trip to down to one of the less violent border towns like Reynosa (which despite military guards, I still won’t visit). The second major problem with these “politically correct” replacements is that they DO NOT WORK. The government’s propulsion solution simply doesn’t have enough force behind it to get the medication deep enough into a patient’s lungs, resulting in the need for more uses and unsatisfactory medical results. Obviously, this travesty was brought about by lobbyists and special interest groups on a mission to increase pharmaceutical revenues under the guise of being “planet-friendly”. Of course there are more crimes being perpetrated upon the American people and the rest of the world by the elites like Holder, Obama, Clinton and Pelosi. The republicans are certainly not without blame in the problems facing our great nation, not by a long shot, but the four I mentioned are easy targets and pose dire threats to our (ourselves and our children’s) future survival. I feel terrible for young children who will experience food shortages, dirty water, martial law, rolling blackouts and marauding gangs in the camps and slums set up by FEMA once the U.S. has become a third-world nation. The beginning will be when Obama circumvents Congress and the Supreme Court to do away with the term-limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment in order that he may continue to rule America as Putin does in Russia. If enough Americans have firearms left at this point, there will be a Revolution, but we just don’t have the firepower to stand against the American military machine (though we might get quite a lot of help from those very heroes that refuse to cut down their own people).
    I realize that this has taken quite a turn from the initial complaint about medications, but you will see that the destruction of our medical infrastructure will only be a precursor to even greater evil deeds we will be powerless to stop, if only because we will have become so used to these injustices that any new outrage will be met with nothing more than snorts of derision, as we roll over and submit willingly to the whims of charlatans that have been elevated to god-like status by folly, laziness and the ridiculous fear that we might offend someone or some group by objecting against what we see as legitimate concerns.
    It’s quite possible that I may disappear off the street into a dark SUV with govt. plates in the very near future, so as a last admonishment, I beg of thee America: Do not back down, do not flinch. Be unwavering in your struggle to save this great nation. To be certain, there are things and groups on both sides of the political spectrum that are maddening in their stupidity, but though irritating and intelligence-insulting, they are not inherently, not intrinsically evil. They are merely a distraction. The current administration and his lackeys, as well as many of the so-called “opposition”, are much more than distractions, they are malevolent and threaten to unravel the very fabric of our society.

  109. rogerknights says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:40 am

    heysuess says:
    February 26, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    Lemme see, that’s Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise, Tom Harris – who am I missing? – oh yeah. Patrick Moore. I’m sure I’ve missed some.

    Lawrence Solomon; Rex _______ (a broadcaster)
    ————————————-

    Rex Murphy, a CBC (gasp!) broadcaster and now also National Post columnist.

    Patrick Moore is a thinking and principled man whose presentation should serve as a model to the rest of us. Thanks for the concise, excellent testimony!

    +++++++++++++
    James at 48 says:
    February 26, 2014 at 11:14 am

    I am an Earth First! drop out.

    —————-

    Cryptic, but good news. I am glad to know that this is possible. What deprogrammed you?

  110. Moore’s piece may be the scientific proof that alarmists have been waiting for – that there really is a need for state-controlled speech. After all the money, all the international conferences, all the press coverage, all the school indoctrination, all the Nobel prizes (and non-prizes), all the academy awards and Hollywood boosterism, all the edicts from Presidents, governments and non-governments, all the money (did I say that already?), all the peer pressure in the science related organizations …. after everything – and they mean everything honest and dishonest – skeptics will keep pointing out the obvious fact that alarmists are 97% full of sh*t.

    And don’t forget all the money.

  111. Pippin kool says:
    My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

    That may go some way to explaining your inability to make a point?

  112. This post brings up an interesting question in my mind.

    Suppose you have 1,500 words maximum, and no more than 3 graphs or graphical images, how would you try to disprove the alarmist’s catastrophic predictions?

  113. Dr. Moore,

    You demonstrate both your integrity and courage by giving such testimony. How much easier would it have been to remain silent, as many others have done? I don’t know how big a target you’ve painted on your back, but I expect Dr. Judith Curry has some idea.

    Obviously, the gratitude of those of us who oppose the AGW apparatus wasn’t your motive. Still, you’ve got my sincere thanks, respect, and admiration for speaking the truth.

  114. But, if the Earth is not really cooling…I mean warming…I mean if the climate is not changing due to mankind…then maybe we shouldn’t be focused on global wealth redistribution after all?

  115. Pippin kool says:
    My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

    Too bad we can’t get your postdoc mentor to do that with the CAGW supporting “peer reviewed” papers.

    I suspect many, if not most, of them would never see the light of day, assuming your mentor has enough ink to write “LOGIC” and “Xs” on all of them.

    :)

  116. Way too much common sense and real science there, Dr. Moore. I think you will soon be the target of an IRS audit.

  117. markstoval says:
    February 27, 2014 at 5:46 am
    This post brings up an interesting question in my mind.

    Suppose you have 1,500 words maximum, and no more than 3 graphs or graphical images, how would you try to disprove the alarmist’s catastrophic predictions?

    We all know should know the burden of proof is on the other side. Refer to the Null Hypothesis for more details.

    Of course, the alarmists have turned the null hypothesis on it’s head by claiming man-made climate change disaster is the accepted standard, when in fact it’s only conjecture.

    I would show the graph of estimated world temps going back 100,000 years or so. That same graph can contain an estimate of the CO2 levels. There will be no visible cause and effect there; the graph shows the correlation that warming proceeds CO2 increases.

    I would also compare the GCM (climate model) output vs the actual climate. It’s a point of order that if the facts don’t match the results predicted by the hypothesis, then the theory is wrong.

    My last point would be there is no evidence that increasing greenhouse gases will lead to any type of catastrophe, at least not at any of the projected levels we’re talking about. No evidence whatsoever that a warming climate is a more dangerous climate. If I could find a suitable graph, I would use that to show that extreme weather is worse during cold periods, not warm periods.

  118. I was so annoyed by Magma’s attempts to denigrate Dr. Moore “By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia” that I looked up his qualifications. According to Wikipedia:

    “Moore obtained a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia.”
    and, amongst others:
    “As chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance he spent ten years developing the Principles of Sustainable Forestry, which were later adopted by much of the industry.”

    It seems to me that Dr. Moore has a broad scientific background which certainly qualifies him to opine on changing climate. He is far better qualified than, say, that leading “climate scientist” Gavin Schmidt, whose academic background in mathematics and modelling is not superior to my own. And I would not even pretend to be more than an interested, but ignorant, layman in “climate science”.

    It appears that every time a scientist writes a piece querying GAGW some troll or other attempts to rubbish his or her qualifications. Last week I looked up Dr. Tim Ball’s academic background because I saw him described on a website as “a fake” for allowing himself to be described as a climatologist, since his professorship was in geography and his PhD in historical climate change. I cannot imagine better qualifications to discuss past climate and how future climate might play out.

    But I suppose that to be accepted as a true Climate Scientist these days one must place one’s hand on The God Delusion and swear an oath of allegiance to uphold the dogma of CAGW for better or worse until parted by death.

  119. Wayne Delbeke says:
    February 26, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thank you Dr. Moore. And like Gary, I was a supporter of you and Mr Hunter before Greenpeace was born. My wife and I were at the Amchitka protest at the Peace Arch (Douglas) border crossing (Vancouver-Bellingham).

    The Peace Arch crossing is Blaine, not Bellingham. Bellingham is a fair distance south of that.

  120. Solomon Green says:
    February 27, 2014 at 6:55 am
    I was so annoyed by Magma’s attempts to denigrate Dr. Moore “By the way, his Ph.D. was on mine waste and tailings disposal in British Columbia” that I looked up his qualifications.

    Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable. (Tim Ball? Sorry, but no.)

  121. Solomon Green, you raise a question I have thought about quite a bit: Why do the climate obsessed consistently trash the CV’s/education of the growing list of qualified people who conclude the climate crisis is not credible?
    The working answer Ihave developed is that for the climate obsessed it is not actually about CV’s or education- it is about agreement that there is a climate crisis. To not agree with the idea of a climate crisis is be disqualified from holding an opinion. To agree with the climate crisis, no matter the education or experience, is to be an expert.
    As was pointed out in the post regarding Ms. Costello at CNN, the edifice of belief the climate obsessed have constructed is fundamentally and deeply flawed.

  122. And, on cue, here is “Magma”, proving my point: the climate obsessed are not able to rationally discuss the issue. They simply dismiss all experts who disagree, and then ask, almost sincerely, “Where are the experts?”

  123. hunter says:
    February 27, 2014 at 8:19 am

    “And, on cue, here is “Magma”, proving my point: the climate obsessed are not able to rationally discuss the issue. They simply dismiss all experts who disagree, and then ask, almost sincerely, “Where are the experts?””

    You do know that line about ‘statistics’ was originally about ‘experts’ don’t you?

  124. Why aren’t we planning for cooling, indeed!

    Besides, crops and sea defences don’t care what the global average is, the regional variations are what a government has to deal with—so what if flood, drought, snow, and heat are all “consequences” of climate change? That doesn’t help. What do you plan for?

    If we are “already” seeing the effects of climate change, and any and all unusual events are “linked”, and so much warming is already locked into the system, bringing more ice/snow/rain/fooding/drought/heatwave/wind/frogs, then what exactly are you trying to mitigate with carbon reduction?

  125. “Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable. (Michael Mann? Sorry, but no.)”

    FTFY.

  126. Magma says:
    February 27, 2014 at 3:50 am

    “Moore has been milking his long-ended involvement with Greenpeace Canada for over 25 years now.”
    Magma, if you want to really join the discussion here, why don’t you bring up some facts to refute some of Dr. Moore’s testimony…such as the fact that you are extremely hot, several million degrees…is that degrees F or C?

  127. What is good about the article is the fact that Patrick Moore discusses the subject without apparent bias. He is objective from the outset; stating his view on the matter with nothing more or less. He refers to our well understood temperature and Co2 record. There is nothing forceful or assertive about his statement. This is a policy that many on both sides of the debate would do well to adopt. Telling a person something and suggesting it are 2 different things. It’s just a shame that most discussion of man made climate change degenerates into mud slinging. Skeptical Science is the worst example of climate change propaganda I have ever read, along with Gareth Renowden’s Hot topic, or Nucitelli’s blog in the Guardian ( a voice for SkS). I note Skeptical Science are even translating their site into foreign languages so that they can spread their message to an even wider audience. I even see regular links to SkS on weather forums like UKWW for example from certain ‘folk’ who are involved with both sites and simply do not tolerate alternative opinion, throwing their toys out of the pram each and every time a person dares to question them or their motives. It’s one huge propaganda machine and heaven help you for not conforming to consensus.

    Sooner or later, if it continues not to warm, or not at the rate predicted we will have all committed ourselves to the biggest lie of all time. The problem is, once you commit to something it is very difficult to admit you are wrong. We will see what happens.

  128. The pdf doesn’t say anything we haven’t heard before but it does put the various arguments in context.

    It’s easy to get tangled up in arguments about this or that and lose sight of the big picture. For that reason I would say that the pdf is worth reading. An effective BS filter relies on having a well rounded and reasonably deep knowledge of the subject area and Dr. Moore clearly has that.

  129. Lloyd Martin Hendaye says:
    February 26, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    By no means is Planet Earth “locked into a Pleistocene Ice Age”: Over approximately the last 12,250 – 14,400 years, our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch has been a wholly normal remission in an unremitting 2.6-million year period, wherein Ice Ages lasting on average 102,000 years have occurred regularly as clockwork due to geophysical (plate tectonic) factors interfering with global East-West atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.

    Climatologists ignorant of astro-geophysics may preach pro or con, but absent long-term scientific context and perspective they may as well be casting necromantic runes.

    Your geology appears to be read from an English literature view point. You seem to be arguing over wording that was presented to congress, where one would be hard put find a politician with adequate education to follow a more detailed and comprehensive explanation. That is, Dr. Moore very politely talked down to the level he believed a congressman could follow. The argument he made was that there is no significant difference between the current interstadial, commonly referred as the Holocene, and the preceding 2-million years of glacial epochs and interstadials that are referred to by professionals as the Pleistocene, and by the public as “the Ice Age,” since the entire period is often conflated in the public mind into a single long span of glacial ice covering good ski areas. Also, the length of the intervals between glacial epochs increased in the middle and later Pleistocene from a period of about 40 thousand years to the rough 100 thousand year span you mention.

    Dr. Moore also mentioned, without much elaboration, the pattern of very long-term warm versus cold “climate” patterns that have characterized the planet over the last 600-million years or so. These shifts are referred to as “Ice House” and “Green House” (or “Hot House” which is less confusing) states or modes. These periods have run very roughly 50-million years in average span and there have only been five such paired (warm/cold) shifts over the Phanerozoic. (BTW, that leaves us with another potential problem since we are now likely – in geological terms – closing in on the end of the latest “Ice House” mode.) The earth only has ice at the poles during the “Ice House” states – and there is geological evidence that during the Jurassic-Cretaceous period the Ice House period lacked polar ice but did have mountain glaciers that reached the ocean (see Frakes et al. 1992, Shaviv and Veizer 2003) for lengthier discussions. Shaviv and Veizer use the terms “:Ice House” and “Green House” for the two states. It is in this very long term view that plate tectonics may actually be an important driver of climatic patterns. The last major tectonic event that had any important effect on global weather patterns was the closing of the Isthmus of Panama during the Tertiary Pliocene epoch. The Quaternary, which follows, consists ONLY of the Pleistocene and Holocene.

    I suggest care in casting those “necromantic runes.”

  130. Pippin kool says:
    February 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

    My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

    LOGIC. Read the quote again and discuss what you did not understand in it, and why the quote, while toned down for congressional capacities of comprehension, is in fact a logical argument.

  131. Duster says:
    February 27, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Pippin kool says:
    February 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    “The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

    My old postdoc mentor would just write in large red letters “LOGIC” next to a statement like this, usually with a large red “x” through it all. No more.

    LOGIC. Read the quote again and discuss what you did not understand in it, and why the quote, while toned down for congressional capacities of comprehension, is in fact a logical argument.””

    Dr. Moore’s statement is totally logical: “both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.”

    Having 10 or 20 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long ago during both a ‘greenhouse’ era and a ‘icehouse’ era shows that with the greenhouse eras heat and extremely high carbon dioxide this shows that Earth got warm without humans and as Dr. Moore’s chart from the pdf book chapter above shows for a more recent time, the warming preceded the carbon dioxide not visaversa as Al Gore said and got a Nobel Prize for!

    For the ice age era 450 m.y.a., the fact that carbon dioxide was 10 times higher (4000 ppm) than today did not stop an ice age from taking hold.

    So why are we worried about 400 ppm of co2 now when 4000 ppm 450 million years ago did not stop an ice age??? This is evidence that co2 levels will not stop Earth from cooling, that there is something else that is driving these cycles – perhaps the Earth’s orbital variation in combination with the sun’s output as Dr. Sallie Baliunas says – “Ice core samples were taken going back thousands of years and what was discovered is that the sun is indeed a thermal dynamic system that beats like your heart and there is a 300 year cycle between maximum and minimum. Do not confuse short-term trends or local observations for a few decades and assume we have altered the entire planet.” http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/13/global-warming-why-it-is-nonsense/

  132. philincalifornia says:
    February 26, 2014 at 9:28 pm
    Mac the Knife says:
    February 26, 2014 at 8:44 pm
    More today, from the AGW Ranch:
    Science academies explain global warming reality
    Associated Press
    By SETH BORENSTEIN 4 hours ago

    http://news.yahoo.com/science-academies-explain-global-warming-reality-001622461.html

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world’s leading scientific organizations.
    ——————————
    Jeeez, did you all read the comments on this ?
    I read about 30, and it ain’t pretty for the climate parasites. Bye bye Seth. Have a happy retirement.

    phil,
    I did – put a grin on my face! But my point of the 8:44pm post and the 3:15pm post was to show how persistent the drumbeat of AGW is in the popular media! Tell a lie a thousand times…. or a million (closer to reality), and it becomes increasingly difficult to uproot from the cultural psyche. We are gaining converts…. but we are a long way from driving the wooden stake through this AGW vampire!
    Mac

  133. With the Global Precipitation Mission being launched today it is timely to note that precipitation holds the key to the answer to the trillion dollar question which is “Does gravity induce an autonomous temperature gradient in all solids, liquids and gases?”

    Josef Loschmidt first postulated that it would in the 19th century. Dr Hans Jelbring worked on it for his PhD and published a paper about a decade back. Now physicists are starting to realise that it is indeed a reality, and this can be shown using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in conjunction with Kinetic Theory.

    And no, the article in WUWT did not disprove the Loschmidt effect, because the wire outside the cylinder also develops a temperature gradient and no perpetual circulation of energy occurs.

    But, most compelling of all is the empirical evidence which I have presented in a book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” being released late April. Temperature and precipitation records are used to show that regions with higher precipitation do in fact have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

    This means water vapour cools.

    And this is evidence that gravity produces a “dry” gradient (aka lapse rate) at the molecular level (not requiring a hot surface or upward convection) and water vapour then reduces that gradient (as is well known) due to inter-molecular radiation (not well known) and this leads to lower surface temperatures.

    The greenhouse is smashed.

  134. Interestingly, one can run a search on “Patrick Moore” on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and not find a whimper about this stunning news.

    A respected champion of the environment just urinated in John Kerry’s and Barry’s Cheerios and not a single peep! WOW.

    The only on-line MSM site covering this is Fox.

    The rest of the MSM? Well, apparently they only print the news that the fascists allow them to print.

    The freedom of the press is the first thing to go in an autocracy. We’re almost there…

  135. Nice to see so many positive and informative comments. It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited. It was largely written by my enemies and it is very difficult to change as the editors don’t like people to write their own biographies. I trust Wiki only for non-political entries, Boron, for example.

    For a factual account of the founding of Greenpeace see: http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace-2/

    I have placed my testimony and the three supporting graphs/tables in Dropbox. They can be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s65ljwrbuetrrny/PadEn_XjT7

    OK Climate Warriors, I’t’s time for serious discussion to separate Fact from Opinion, Fact from Inference, and Fact from Prediction. One would hope the average Grade 9 mind could make the distinctions.

    If you wish to read my full text on climate it is the last chapter of my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” available on amazon.com as ebook or print here: http://goo.gl/E4M5op

  136. There is one clear-cut reason why the greenhouse conjecture (supposedly linking temperatures with carbon dioxide levels) is wrong, and that is that real world temperature and rainfall data clearly indicate that more water vapor means lower temperatures. IPCC writers have tried to hide this fact by claiming deserts have colder minimums at night, but the evidence is that they don’t. A study was published about a year ago proving this point with statistical significance.

    The whole concept of radiative forcing and “calculating” Earth’s surface temperature from radiation is invalid, because the Earth’s surface does not act like a true blackbody. It absorbs solar energy, much of it well below the ocean surface where the warming has no effect on the surface temperature or that of the air just above which we measure for our climate records, because the warmer water takes its extra energy down into the colder depths of the oceans. The ocean surface itself clearly does not warm to the sort of temperatures you feel under your feet on a hot black road surface. It is not a blackbody, or even a grey body because it transmits.

    Fundamental to the greenhouse theory is an assumption that, without water vapor, carbon dioxide and other radiating gases, the troposphere would have had equal temperatures at the top and bottom. But this would mean that all molecules would have the same kinetic energy, and then, any that moved upwards after a collision with another, would have to create extra potential energy. As that is impossible, it follows that the greenhouse theory is based on an impossible assumption, and is thus impossible itself.

  137. Dr, Moore,

    Well back in the early days 1975 or so up in Washington state for a meetup. As I had been sort of a help person with Greenpeace on the nuke questions they did allow me for a time. Yet as I was not a antiwar Vietnam Vet. and due to the fact I was a rather dark skinned person of they did not understand my problem with the way way left aka “red” way of the leadership and getting more red all the time. The fact I was proud of my time in the service was a real problem to them. So they at a meeting they called myself and one other to we got the message loud and clear. You guys are not on board with the message, you are disruptive and now you must understand we will have to move forward without you and if you cause any more problems you will understand better after we take “action”.

    Clear it is the agenda is altogether not what it should have been then and for sure now.

  138. Magma says
    “Perhaps you could avoid similar annoyances in future by trying to support whatever position it is you are trying to defend on the basis of research from competent scientists who are actually working in a field related to climate. I’m sure there must be one, possibly even two, somewhere, that might be suitable”.
    My understanding of research from so-called competent climate scientists is no different from snake-oil salesmen at best and pigs in the trough(£££$$$€€€) at the worst. Do you really think that proper scientists would have a problem discussing their theories? Did Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Durac, Mendel, Feynman call those who disagreed with their theories, “deniers” ; a name that is dismissive of any argument, rational or not, that contradicts their theories?
    18 years of no warming, the medieval warm period, Dalton and Maunder Minima! Please tell me how these recorded and documented phenomena can be accounted for in AGW. One more thing, please answer a question, that has never been answered satisfactorily. How can a rise in CO2 attributable to mankind of 0.002% cause climate change?

  139. Nicely put together. For every layman, with minimal to none scientific understanding to understand the fallacy of the (C)AGW.

  140. Hmm. Reading Dr. Moore on Twitter and I see this from Windy:

    Your intentional twisting of what the science says puts you in the “N” camp.

    What’s the “N” camp?

  141. jfreed27 says:
    February 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    The debate is over, among real scientists, that is.

    The arm chair types can proceed, though. Bloggers are a gullible sort, so you can put your “brilliant analysis” in front of them, rather than a Journal, for example. Bloggers deeply wish to believe it’s all a hoax. I do too. But, I can’t.

    Hey, it worked with Big Tobacco. There’s good money in this, I don’t doubt.
    ======================================================
    ??? Was there a coherent, logical counterargument to Dr. Moore’s testimony in there somewhere? If so, I missed it and would appreciate it if someone would be so kind as to point it out. TIA
    .
    .
    .
    I’m with Dr. Moore on this one. Glaciers have buried the 40-meter deep Devonian limestone deposits in my backyard under a mile of ice and retreated to the Arctic many times over the past couple of million years. And all the while the best CO2-Temperature reconstructions available show CO2 lagging temperature. I’ve known this since fourth grade, well, except the lagging CO2 part which Al Gore was so kind as to display in that nice graphic in his movie. CO2-based CAGW is a non-starter right there.

    But hey! Why would a reasonably literate blog commenter believe what he can read with his own lying eyes at the age of ten over a consensus of 97% of 76 climate scientists? I know, know. It makes no sense. Maybe I should go talk it over with the Vikings when Greenland warms up enough for them to move back to their farms, I hear their farms are beginning to emerge from under the permafrost so they might be moving back.

    OMG! (Oh My Gaia!) What did I just write!? I need to go talk to a Climate Priest and sort this all out; perhaps buy a few carbon offsets while I’m there. Yeah. That’s the ticket… indulgences… yeah…
    .
    .
    .
    .
    DANG! I think I screwed up. Now I’ll never get a check from Big Oil ;o)

  142. Jfreed27 says:
    Just about every cliched fallacy in the book…

    It’s just weird. I mean, if I was to go and post on the number-one alarmist site in the world (since the common sense side has the number-one overall slot locked up when it comes to climate discussions), I would want to come armed with facts to back up my counterarguments. Generally, however, most far-left greenies, such as the human excrememnt known to us as Jfreed27, just spew the same tripe, always repeating the same strawmen, almost like they’re chanting. (And of course, they must capitalize the key players: Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Green…oh, wait…)

    Even when you put them on the spot by presenting actual observations and fact, the most mature response I’ve seen is the logic of “well, it COULD happen, so what’s the harm in preventing it?” Yet, people buy into it. I don’t get it; it kind of makes me question my hope in humanity.

    I will give them points though for living by the creed of recycling: they appear to be using the same four or five unfounded talking point ad finitum. I guess I’m just not smart enough to tangle with the prowess of someone like Jpeedonmyfootandtoldmeitsraining.

  143. Hello, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, and thus the ‘take away message’ coming from that, made by Dr. Moore. Quoting him here:
    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors. [end quote].

    Clear to me that Moore is presenting that “as if” it is something to be surprised about. The tone of his overall statement would mislead one to assume that the above is ‘little known’ and/or has been ‘covered up’ by the IPCC and others. If this is what some people believe, then they are incorrect based on the facts.

    Moore’s IPCC quote in his statement comes from Page SPM-12 of the IPCC’s SPM. On Page SPM-2 it says, and I quote [CAPS my emphasis]:
    “The NARRATIVE is supported by a series of overarching highlighted CONCLUSIONS which, taken together, provide a concise SUMMARY.”
    [note: A narrative is not the physical scientific evidence - the IPCC does not claim it is - the SPM is a "summary" not a peer reviewed scientific paper with a null hypothesis. There is a seriously huge difference here.]

    “The degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the AUTHOR teams’
    evaluations of UNDERLYING SCIENTIFIC understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood. ”

    “Confidence in the validity of a finding is BASED on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of EVIDENCE (e.g., DATA, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert JUDGEMENT) and the degree of AGREEMENT.”

    “Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of UNCERTAINTY in a finding are based on STATISTICAL ANALYSIS of OBSERVATIONS or model results, or BOTH, and expert JUDGEMENT. Where appropriate, findings are also formulated as statements OF FACT without using uncertainty qualifiers.”

    “The BASIS for SUBSTANTIVE paragraphs in this Summary for Policymakers can be found in the CHAPTER sections of the UNDERLYING report and in the TECHNICAL SUMMARY [2216 pages long sourced from 9,000+ published papers]. These references are given in curly brackets.”

    I am all for people coming to their own opinions and beliefs about anything. However, it is not appropriate for people to create their own “facts”, nor is OK to misrepresent what others have actually stated and is available in writing for anyone who chooses to look at said “facts”.

    Dr. Moore has completely misrepresented what the IPCC SPM is, by intimating his quotes from that are being promoted by the IPCC to be “science” when they are not, and that the IPCC is saying it is when they are not.

    Quoting Dr. Moore again:
    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods. [end quote]

    This is sophistry and illogical. It does not follow (a non-sequitur). Moore switches the priory half way though this paragraph. It’s a bait and switch and very woolly thinking that cannot be supported as being factual nor truthful. It presents a false image of the facts as they really are by shifting from “past tense” related to the his IPCC quote into “future tense” about GCMs being able or not to predict future climate trends, and then going on to suggest they are one and the same thing. They are not.

    SPM-2 says, and I quote:
    “(AR5) considers new evidence of climate change based on many independent scientific analyses from observations of the climate system, paleoclimate archives, theoretical studies of climate processes and simulations using climate models.” plus “Observations of the climate system are based on direct measurements and remote sensing from satellites and other platforms.”

    Climate models are only ONE tool used to make scientific determinations – the IPCC admits GCMs are not 100% perfect – yet still a useful tool if the limitations are understood of how they work, and where these are used in the IPCC process.

    Future GCMs do NOT determine the scientific basis for the statements in the IPCC about the past climate observations and conclusions: “Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1).” from Page SPM-12

    Now feel free to totally reject what the IPCC says, this is not my point at all. My point is that Dr. Moore is MISREPRESENTING to you and the Senate what it is that the IPCC have ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

    This statement by Dr. Moore: “These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate”, is factually FALSE. It is a mis-statement of the real truth of the matter.

    Dr. Moore goes on to claim that: “… and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

    That is a PERSONAL OPINION, a JUDGEMENT without any scientific foundation whatsoever. The very thing that Moore is criticizing the IPCC for doing. This is hypocritical of him to do this so blatantly. The IPCC references peer-reviewed science papers. Moore does not. It is grossly disingenuous, and obvious sophistry here designed to win an argument, versus to present the Facts of the matter for due consideration by all.

    203 comments so far and yet not person picks up this flagrant logical flaw in Moore’s own argument. This is unconscious cognitive dissonance at work.

    http://www.uncommon-knowledge.co.uk/articles/stop-lying.html

    If anyone has a problem with the IPCC process or findings, then that’s your choice. I am simply pointing out the actual facts on a few points. The facts upon which all claims made by anyone and everyone should be held accountable to. This is what I believe is a key issue for all to remember, but no one ever goes and checks the actual facts for themselves.

    If people would actually read the IPCC reports themselves they might notice that they REPEATEDLY ADMIT THEY: “cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.” Just as Moore points out, whilst pretending that this is what the IPCC actually does. It doesn’t.

    It would HELP EACH PERSON if they also knew exactly what was meant by the words used in the IPCC reports, such as predictions, forecasts, projections etc. For those who don’t see here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf

    I also believe that it would useful for the Politicians to actually read the IPCC SPM and the rest of the material BEFORE they go holding Committee Hearings and asking questions. Clearly many have never done so since the FAR in 1990. That is what politicians are paid to do. KNOW the FACTS first, then make further inquiries and debate what if anything can be done about it. But they do NOT do this. They play politics instead.

    Unfortunately there are mountains of scientific evidence and facts everywhere to be found, but so little critical thinking and almost no common sense to be found on all sides of this “debate”. Pro-AGW climate science scientists included!

    Luckily, “You don’t need a PhD in climate science to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is talking nonsense. You simply need a bit of science, a bit of critical thinking and objectivity.”

    Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.

    Thank you. Have at it!

  144. Walter K,

    What’s your point? That the IPCC is anything but a taxpayer-funded organization pushing an agenda? As I understand it, that is at least some of what Dr. Moore is saying. Further, Moore has seen the politics from the inside, and he has seen both sides. You have seen only one side.

    Finally, criticizing as you do what is “completely misrepresented”, all of your holier-than-thou pontificating about the IPCC founders upon the words of the IPCC’s own Ottmar Edenhofer, who has, in a rare moment of candor, admitted the true motivation of that statist, anti-human organization:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”

    Thus, the IPCC has “completely misrepresented” their behind-the-scenes remit, which is to redistribute the world’s wealth.

    Instead of defending the IPCC, you would be much more appreciated if you supported freedom around the world, by calling for the disbandment of that wretched organization. We do not need them, or their enablers.

  145. I believe he is on Hannity on FoxNews right now. (I don’t watch TV that much so I can’t confirm)

  146. Walter (anonymous) K (and dbstealey)

    Suppose, Walter, that I produced a study like that referred to above which showed (with >99% statistical significance) that higher levels of water vapor lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures (that is, water vapor cools, rather than warms as the IPCC would have you believe) would you then be prepared to acknowledge that such a study establishes (with 99% probability) that the greenhouse hypothesis is false?

    Or would that just be too hard to take, Walter?

    Because I would bet that, for just $5,000 or less, such a study of existing temperature data could be funded and would produce the same conclusion as the somewhat lower-budget study to which I referred, that you will find on a recent post on Dr Roy Spencer’s blog.

  147. Walter,

    There’s a lot to disagree with in your post. Reserving the right to return to other issues, I will take exception to your rant about predicting the future.

    AR4 WGI SPM reads as follows:

    Projections of Future Changes in Climate <
    A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include SRES[14] illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000 to 2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100.

    For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}

    Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}
    Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century. {9.4, 10.3, 10.5, 11.2–11.7, Figure TS.29}
    Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century. {10.3}

    Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimates and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected warming for different emission scenarios. Results for different emission scenarios are provided explicitly in this report to avoid loss of this policy-relevant information. Projected global average surface warmings for the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) relative to 1980–1999 are shown in Table SPM.3. These illustrate the differences between lower and higher SRES emission scenarios, and the projected warming uncertainty associated with these scenarios.

    A projection is nothing more or less than a conditional prediction. If scenario X is realized, warming Y will result. These conditional predictions were made by GCM’s that are central to a significant amount of research and a lot of peer reviewed papers, they are not some irrelevant side line of the science. These crystal balls were indeed used to attempt to conditionally predict the future, your attempts to qualify and obfusicate notwithstanding.

  148. Hopefully Dr Moore is still keeping tabs on this post by A.W., as I just came across this MediaMatters post today written by Denise Robbins (at the time of posting, the article was ~4 hours old);

    Who Is Patrick Moore? A Look At The Former Greenpeace Member’s Industry Ties And Climate Denial

    Patrick Moore’s Climate Misinformation Is Nothing New

    Conservative media are latching on to the climate change denial of Patrick Moore, who has masqueraded as a co-founder of Greenpeace. But Moore has been a spokesman for nuclear power and fossil fuel-intensive industries for more than 20 years, and his denial of climate change — without any expertise in the matter — is nothing new.

    ———–

    Patrick Moore Is Not A Co-Founder Of Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace, a title often repeated by the media. But Moore was not a co-founder, as explained by Greenpeace:

    Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year. A copy of his application letter and Greenpeace’s response are available here (PDF). [Greenpeace, 12/7/10]

    http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/02/27/who-is-patrick-moore-a-look-at-the-former-green/198266

  149. I just got through watching to Dr. Moore’s appearance on Hannity, on Fox News. His presentation was, if anything, even more devastating than his article here. Hannity is on again at 10 p.m. California time, 1 a.m. EST. Well worth staying up for, if you missed it!

  150. And yes, of course, there’s the Walter K’s and Bruce C’s that can’t accept defeat. Get over it – you’ve lost the argument, and Dr. Moore’s statement is the final nail in your coffin.

  151. I think you are mistaking me as being against Dr Moore. I am all for what Dr Moore has spoken about and stood up for. FYI, the above article was sourced from Mann’s twitter feed.

    Your apology will be accepted, if and when you decide to make it.

  152. Dr. Strangelove says: February 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    “If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.”

    That notion is a very common misconception and misunderstanding in the public domain. Some would label it a “strawman” because it is totally disconnected from the actual argument being made by the other side. If you wish to prove someone’s arguments and claims are false, it always helps to get those accurate from the get go.

    When they speak of 2C it refers to an increase in the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST), or the average temp across the planet, which is less scientific a term, but good enough for here.

    It is NOT referring to “local temperatures … all over the world” rising by a flat 2C. Every local environment has it’s normal range of temperatures, of minimums and maximums, from one season to another. These all range much greater than 2C already. This would be obvious.

    For the GMST to rise 2C means that across the planet local environments will experience increases in temperatures far greater that 2C alone. While their yearly average temperature may may or may not rise by 2C. The important thing to realize about the 2C average is that for this to be a Global increase it means that some days, some weeks, some months different locations o the globe would need to have temperature increases of a much higher order.

    Take Las Vegas, if 40C is their maximum summer temp, then this may rise to 50C for days on end. This has impacts upon the locals there, including increasing air conditioning (electricity), medical emergencies, and water costs

    Take Helsinki, maybe their maximums in summer go to 23C. It will make a huge difference to them if they rise to 30 degrees for several weeks to a month. The effects will have an impact because their built environments were not made for such high temperatures.

    Take Australia already. Let’s assume GMST have only risen 0.7C the last 100 years. Yet in 2012 and 2013 Australia has broken their maximum (and Minimums) recorded temperatures by locations and the average across the whole continent. If you live in a bearable environment with 42C maximums now and then, and these rise to be 50C+ maximums over weeks on end, with associated changes in the intensity of bush fires and decreases in seasonal rainfall, then the effects are far greater than a simplistic 2C increase. The place becomes unlivable or more expensive to be there, and perhaps uneconomic.

    It is known that the greatest natural disaster killer across the globe is in fact Heatwaves. Not tornadoes, or floods, or hurricanes, or earthquakes, but Heatwaves. And they are happening more now than ever known before. So it;s a hard fact.

    Now whether or not this has to do with AGW is another debate entirely. I am simply pointing out the facts involved in the arguments actually being made by climate scientists and IPCC about the current climate changes already present, and those expected to come if their science is sound.

    Whatever people choose to believe about that is their business. But at least get the facts right about what the arguments really are, and what they mean on the ground for people living everywhere over the long term. Should they actually be correct then 2C (another 1.3C more than now by 2050) has very serious implications.

    Given the IPCC Reports from 1990 to 2007 have under-estimated EVERYTHING in their “forecasts” to 2013 except SLR should be some cause for concern and raise serious doubts about the basis for their models as well as their data collection ability. Yet already SLR science “experts” who actually published Papers are again claiming the IPCC scenarios are under-estimating SLR too in the AR5.

    The IPCC estimate for total Arctic Sea Ice loss in the AR5 already appears to be 25+ years out from the current reality. Estimates for CO2 ppm are no better. Not supposed to hit 400 ppm until post ~2022, yet that has already been passed last year.

    Worst of all the 2C cumulative increase by 2100 on BAU many scientists have been complaining to others about the conservative scenarios of the IPCC summaries saying it’s more like looking to be 4C or higher, and 2C before 2050.

    Absolutely nothing of any effect has been made to decrease Fossil Fuel emissions from 1990 to now, which steady rise exponentially higher than the IPCCs RCP 8.5 which is BAU, Business as usual projections. All the other RCPs which “assume” moving to renewables and nuclear are worthless fantasy at this point in time, for none of those are anywhere close to being realistic.

    So to those who believe that there is no AGW, or no climate change, or that if there is then it is no big deal, then you better hope you are right. But all you have on your side at present is “hope”. That’s it.

    As to this by Dr. Moore: “It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

    Besides the obvious that past climate changes were caused by all manner of things totally disconnected from burning of fossil fuels and GHGs of today. Those climate’s beginning and end points were all totally different than today’s global climate in which we actually have to live. The present one is the ONLY one that counts or matters. That’s the reality which Moore is evading here.

    Bringing this up in such a “narrative” of what came before about the “past” is pure sophistry. It isn’t science. It’s simplistic rhetoric that’s meaningless waffle. It’s an “opinion”, a “political view” not based on the whole gamut of already known facts.

    In all these periods of the past that Moore points to there was no Bangkok on a river with 18 million people. No Mumbai or Philippines. There was no New York City, no Detroit or St Louis in the mid-west. There was no London nor a Moscow. There wasn’t 1.3 billion people living in China either. There wasn’t 7 billion on the planet as a whole all needing to be fed. There was no towering buildings or The Palm Island at Dubai. No IMF, no WEF, no UN, no global financial system.

    There was no Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, or North Korea. No OECD. No electric power generators, no nuclear power plants, and no nuclear armed ICBMs. It’s a different world. Dr. Moore should be dealing with this world today, and leave the bullshit to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Thanks, that’s what I think. I bet there are many who’ll disagree. Fine by me. Believe whatever you want to believe. I believe after 25 years the IPCC and the UNFCCC has been a total waste of time and effort. It lacks credibility for all kinds of reasons that are justified, and some that are not. But essentially nothing has changed, nothing is about to change either.

    The IPCC crowd has lost, and the WUWTs, the Monckton’s and the Tea party brigades all over the world have won. Congratulations are in order.

    Thanks, Walter

  153. Slightly off topic, and apologies for being such.

    It’s some time since Dana Nuccitelli’s conflict of interest was disclosed wrt. Tetra Tech.

    http://omnologos.com/guardians-nuccitelli-linked-to-leading-alternative-energy-company/

    He gets regular page space in the Guardian, and I don’t know if people realise how the U.K. has become an epicentre of propaganda promulgation, not least with the leftist statist BBC operating in tandem with the Guardian. In many ways this is where the U.K. deviates from the U.S. because in the U.S. conservatives were alerted and opened their minds in the aftermath of Climategate, whereas the “conservative” government in the U.K. is headed up by David Cameron, who (rather foolishly) pledged to lead the “greenest government ever” prior to his election in 2010.

    Anyway, on reflection, and in seeing Dana’s columns and comment sections for his articles I wonder how he has been let off the hook with his conflict of interest. Are we not ruthless enough, because the alarmists would sure be if they found something related to a key figure amongst “sceptics”. I note that any commenters for his articles who try to raise his conflict of interest are rapidly censored. Surely the Guardian should be forced to include a statement of disclosure within his articles, that would only be right from a journalistic integrity point of view. So just wondering, how we, as a community allowed him to get off so easily when his conflict of interest was discovered? Is there a basis for a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission on the basis that there is no disclosure of his conflict of interest? I find the hypocrisy stunning from the Guardian, as no one would stand for someone who worked for a military contractor writing articles to put forwards the case for military intervention somewhere across the world.

  154. Walter K… If IPCC has lost then why did you just write an essay saying that Dr. Moore is wrong and that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?

    If co2 is responsible for the warming then why did the ice age 450 million years ago have 10 times as much co2 as today, how did the earth go into an ice age with so much co2?

  155. Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    Mark please READ what I was referring to explicitly

    Moore says: (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

    Findings and Judgments made about the PAST to date.

    Moore then says: “These ****judgments**** are based, ***almost entirely***, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the ****future**** of global climate.”

    Mark, you say this:
    “I will take exception to your rant about predicting the future.”
    AR4 WGI SPM reads as follows:
    Projections of Future Changes in Climate <"

    I was explicitly speaking of the PAST, as per what Moore actually said, and I quoted him. That is what I focused on regarding Dr Moore. That is the context and the content of my comment. He was MIS-representing the facts, and he was mixing the evaluation and judgments of past observations, with the FUTURE evaluations and "projections" done by the IPCC.

    Two different things entirely. I made no comment about future GCMs in the AR5. Moore was speaking about the AR5 finding s about the 20th Century. I stayed on topic. If you have something to say about that, then go ahead.

    And it was NOT a "rant". These matters are complex. Please deal with the complexity as it is, which requires detailed explanations and quotes, and stop mislabeling it as a RANT. I find that kind of default response as unnecessary, untrue, tiresome, a typical ad hominen insult, and offensive. It just makes you look bad. I won't wear it.

    Thanks. I hope that sorts out any confusion there.

  156. Walter, could you put down the crack pipe for a second?

    Heatwaves are the biggest killer? Can you support that? It’s not my field, but a quick search seems to imply that the floods in China in the 1930’s had the biggest natural disaster death toll in modern times. Other floods, earthquakes, and cyclones look to rank behind that.

    First the SPM’s don’t make predictions, now heatwaves are the biggest natural disaster killers.
    .
    ..

    I’m going to bed now.

  157. Walter,

    I see we cross posted.

    You know Walter, I think I understand your point now. But you are focusing on a detail that really doesn’t seem to be relevant in any way shape or form. I don’t think whether or not the IPCC drew their conclusions about certainty from models or from some other process is anything that remotely resembles a necessary foundation for Dr. Moore’s argument. It’s an irrelevant detail to obsess about, in my view.

  158. Alex Hamilton says: February 27, 2014 at 7:22 pm
    “Walter (anonymous) K (and dbstealey)
    Suppose, Walter, that I produced a study like that referred to above …..”

    Alex, I leave such matter to the scientists who have the ability and resources to work out such matters scientifically and have them peer reviewed. Over time the truth, like cream, floats to the surface. Even Einstein doubted at one point that nuclear fission and making a nuclear bomb was possible. Facts proved him wrong. No one is perfect, nor needs to be.

    Common sense tells me that the onus is on Roy Spencer (and others) to convince his peers in the field of the rightness of his conclusions. It’s not for me to say, one way or the other.

    Of course if your conjecture is correct, and if I understood the basic point being made, then one might expect GMSTs to fall in the near term. I stand ready with my trusty thermometer. :-)

    Meanwhile, if anyone believes the past and current yearly GMSTs as put out by various bodies and the IPCC are accurate and represent the reality then that would be most unwise indeed. Lot’s of water still to flow under that bridge.

  159. Walter,

    You may want to be seen a “sensible” and “not going on a rant”, but, if you want to talk “facts”, then I think any person with a dictionary would say you are ranting. Just wanted to clear THAT up for you.

    Also, when you finish up said rant with sarcastically thanking tea party groups, it hardly makes you look apolitical, either. I’m not in it to “win” anything. I just want reasonable discourse to return to the environmental agenda.

    Lastly, you claim that we don’t have a leg to stand on. Yet, you spew un-sourced soundbites, claiming that the IPCC’s previous reports have underestimated “everything” except sea level rise (I believe was your general wording). You also claim that heatwaves are the largest killer of humans. Then, you go onto “scientifically” (maybe in climate science circles…) say that 43C will just turn into around 50+C in parts of the world. Yeah, that’s scientific. Just throwing out scary scenarios and then building off of that to somehow make a case…tsk tsk.

    I think almost everyone here believes that the world has become warmer. I believe that humans have contributed some to it. However, it’s not all one or the other. I can also see that the coming apocalypse that has been predicted for decades hasn’t arrived. There is no increase in hurricanes (in fact, in the USA, we are in a drought with regards to them), tornadoes, or plagues of locusts. There is still snow and children laughing and playing. The IPCC has even toned down their climate sensitivity range.

    Everyday, the climate establishment seems to be grasping at any possible straw to blame it on climate change, with nothing to back it up but “models”. I work with models constantly in my field. It’s so funny to hear my boss, an ardent believer in the CAGW scare, say “this model is terrible” at work…not even understanding the irony, holding up the infallibility of climate models. They’re just programs made by fallible humans, only as good as the people who program them.

    Honestly, you have to read what you wrote. You are screaming that you speak as an authority on matters and, yet, seem to be winging it. I think if you could point out how the IPCC underestimated everything and how heat waves kill more people than any other natural disaster, then we may be a bit more amicable to your point. Until then, can you blame people if they think you’re ranting?

    And thank you! But trust me, we have more than hope. They’re called “recorded observations”.

  160. Walter K. says:
    February 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    ‘Yet in 2012 and 2013 Australia has broken their maximum (and Minimums) recorded temperatures by locations and the average across the whole continent. ‘

    Can you please provide a reference for broken maximum temperature records by location and date?

    I have seen articles where temperature equalled or nearly equalled, but not broke. Although in a warming world records are there to be broken.

    Should we exclude real data before 1910?

  161. Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 8:38 pm
    Is the “crackpipe” really necessary? Or is this merely your brilliant sense of humour at work. WUWT?

    A Correction is due: (thanks for mentioning it)
    Heatwaves kill more Australians than any other natural disasters. They have received far less
    public attention than cyclone, flood or bushfire – they are private, silent deaths which only hit the media when morgues reach capacity or infrastructure fails.

    http://www.pwc.com.au/industry/government/assets/extreme-heat-events-nov11.pdf

    So I don’t have facts to hand globally to confirm what I wrote earlier, I was obviously muddled from too much crack, but seeing you did ask ………… not saying one can necessarily take all the following figures to the bank. But here is a starting point for further personal research of what the facts might be. Up to you. Just saying, there is a mountain of hard evidence out there. Also do check the very good medical records from France over recent years.

    BTW An absence of to hand available evidence does equate to clear evidence of absence.

    2011 Toward a Quantitative Estimate of Future Heat Wave Mortality under Global Climate Change http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.1002430

    4000 people who were killed in the Indian state of Andra Pradesh in 2003 after 27 consecutive days of temperatures up around 47 degrees Celsius.

    https://theconversation.com/more-deadly-heat-waves-coming-climate-scientists-warn-1290

    In Russia last year, and in western Europe in 2003, “mega-heatwaves” meant that their summer was most likely hotter than any summer for at least 500 years.
    More than half of Europe broke the 500-year record twice in the one decade. Both these heatwaves caused tens of thousands of deaths. The last decade has truly been the decade of unprecedented heatwaves.

    https://theconversation.com/record-heatwaves-not-just-a-lot-of-hot-air-1335

    Russia 2010 – Munich Re estimated 56,000 people in all died from the effects of the smog and heat wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires

    The intense heat wave that centered on western Russia last summer was truly a record breaker. It surpassed even 2003’s scorcher in western and central Europe — which has been blamed for 70,000 deaths.
    From late July until the second week in August 2010, record heat settled across 772,204 square miles (2 million square kilometers) in Russia and Eastern Europe. In Moscow, the daytime temperatures reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 degrees Celsius), in Kiev, nights reached 77 F (25 C), crops were destroyed, fires swept across western Russia, and preliminary estimates now put the Russian death toll at 55,000.

    http://www.livescience.com/13296-european-russia-heat-waves-climate-change.html

    Heatwaves are also on the increase worldwide, with severe heatwaves affecting many countries and regions in the last 10-15 years. One of the most severe was the European heatwave of July and August 2003, with France and Switzerland particularly affected. This heatwave was followed in 2010 by an even more intense and widespread heatwave, which scorched large swathes of Eastern Europe, including western Russia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

    Long-term temperature reconstructions show that these were the hottest summers that Europe has experienced for at least 500 years. North America has also experienced several recent heatwaves, with a major heatwave affecting the state of Texas in July 2011 and a heatwave covering a greater area of the country in 2012. (Plus CA 2013/14) [links inside the article]

    https://theconversation.com/climate-council-heatwaves-are-getting-hotter-and-more-frequent-23253

    The European heatwave of 2003 resulted in between 22,000 and 45,000 deaths in excess of those expected for that time of year. Similarly, in Victoria in 2009, there were 374 “extra” deaths beyond what would have been expected over the summer.

    https://theconversation.com/death-in-a-hot-climate-southern-heatwave-to-take-its-toll-22039

    another telling example:
    This summer we have seen one of the most dramatic animal die-offs ever recorded in Australia: at least 45,500 flying foxes dead on just one extremely hot day in southeast Queensland, according to our new research.

    https://theconversation.com/killer-climate-tens-of-thousands-of-flying-foxes-dead-in-a-day-23227

  162. lee says: February 27, 2014 at 9:25 pm
    “Can you please provide a reference for broken maximum temperature records by location and date?”

    Yes, start here and don’t stop looking

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/

    You will also find the broken “minimum” overnight temps as well. As in not lower than normal, but *minimums* that were record highs for that time of year.

    People normally speak of climate change as something of future concern. It is affecting Australia already in significant ways, and has done so for the last decade at least, being more pronounced now than ever.

    Argue all you wish as to “why” that is so, but it doesn’t change the reality on the ground. If 30 years of recorded weather adds up to a location’s “normal climate” then the climate across Australia has changed significantly and noticeably since 1984 and before. Natural variability aside.

    No one who is living in the same region they were 30 years ago needs the IPCC or a climate scientist to tell the that or to prove it to them.

  163. HGW xx/7 says: February 27, 2014 at 9:09 pm
    “I think if you could point out how the IPCC underestimated everything …”

    How? Go to the IPCC website, download the reports 1 thru 5.
    Read them, and note their “forecasts” … then compare those to actual real world data records made in later Reports, and also via other published Papers all the way to 2014. Also secure actual fossil fuel energy use figures from the IPCC and bodies like the EIA, and the IEA, or whoever, as well as any current real world data for ice, ghg ppm, extreme weather events, temperatures, slr, whatever you can find that relates back to any and all IPCC “forecasts”.

    That’s how you do it. See you a few months then.

    Or, go ask any climate scientist or an IPCC rep and ask them why they haven’t already published this in a way that anyone in the public could readily understand it.

  164. Walker,

    My friend, you really are a riot. That’s your big answer? Go look? As though, we haven’t already? As though we don’t know what a “max-min” temperature is? lol

    Clearly, you don’t come to this site very often and see the actual excerpts of the IPCC that have been analyzed and shown to be incorrect or at least overblown, the revisions and changes over the years. Clearly, you haven’t seen study after study of poorly temperature gauges and the effect of UHI.

    Clearly, if you’re such a scholar and are trying to observe a veil of scientific impartiality, you know as well as anyone, that tomes as large as the IPCC can be taken out of context by BOTH sides of the debate. Watch, I can do the same thing! “Walter, go read the IPCC and check out weather stations! You’re wrong! You’ll see…in a few months!” See how authoritative I sound? BWAHAHA!

    I think you should chill out a bit and enjoy the beautiful night or day, wherever you may be. :)

    Namaste.

  165. Ok I’ve seen that. And as I said records are made to be broken.

    ‘No one who is living in the same region they were 30 years ago needs the IPCC or a climate scientist to tell the that or to prove it to them.’

    It was 0.5 degrees hotter than 14 Jan 1939. So they could tell the difference if they were alive then? Or did they really need someone to tell them?

  166. Walter K- What do YOU make of the IPCC’s less than 5% level of certainty on their short term prognstications; shown as a footnote on Summary for Policymakers Table SPM.2?

  167. Walter K. says:
    February 27, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    “If 30 years of recorded weather adds up to a location’s “normal climate” . . . ‘

    That’s a joke , right Walter?
    Please tell us that you were just joking, and that there is absolutely no way that 30 years of data “adds up to a location’s “normal climate” . . . ‘
    The idea is clearly preposterous.
    You do agree , don’t you?

  168. Mark Bofill says: February 27, 2014 at 8:53 pm
    “I don’t think whether or not the IPCC drew their conclusions about certainty from models or from some other process is anything that remotely resembles a necessary foundation for Dr. Moore’s argument.”

    Well that’s a problem for you then. Because if you cannot see how Moore framed his “argument” and how flawed it is even after I point it out in black and white, you (and who doesn’t it’s very common) have a problem following logic and critical thinking processes.

    Id such overt errors in basic logic and fact doesn’t undermine his credibility and perception other might have about authority in being able to form a coherent argument from establish truth, then that’s an added problem. Like, if can’t get that simple statement accurate and correct, I doubt his ability to even begin to get his head around the complexities of global climate processes.

    His opinion may be correct, it may be true, but his argument is seriously logically flawed. It does not stand up. It is pure sophistry, false assumptions, conjecture, and mere opinion, not fact. Far from it. Leave you with it.

    Lastly if Dr. Moore has the view that the scientific theory of the eGHE is false, then everything else is easy and doesn’t really matter. It’s what underpins everything else. It’s the fundamental core issue.

  169. lee says: February 27, 2014 at 10:07 pm
    Walter K- What do YOU make of the IPCC’s less than 5% level of certainty on their short term prognstications; shown as a footnote on Summary for Policymakers Table SPM.2?

    (without even checking assuming that’s what it says)

    CRAP .. next question?

  170. HGW xx/7 says: February 27, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    You have absolutely no idea what I have seen. Nor do you want to know. Which is fine by me. I don’t care. I am simply not going to give away my work to rude arrogant pricks on an internet forum for nothing.

    If you have not “seen” the under-estimates in the IPCC ‘forecasts’ vs real world data then you have not seen what I have seen. Simple really. I don’t need your OK to tell my eyes what I already know. Believe whatever you wish. Say whatever you like. I don’t care.

  171. I think we should go easy on Walter, everyone. He’s not having a good day.

    [rest trimmed. Cut it out, both of you. Discuss the numbers, the facts, the measurements. Nothing else. Mod]

  172. Walter K, in all fairness, you have been giving way too much of your self to our internet forum, which is by the way the number one most visited for all things climate-debate related. So, if you’re going to have a meltdown, this probably isn’t the best place.

    Although, please feel free to tell up what you’ve seen. Paint us a picture!

  173. farmerbraun says: February 27, 2014 at 10:08 pm
    “The idea is clearly preposterous.”

    Hello Farmer Braun,

    Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval. The 30 year interval was selected by international agreement, based on the recommendations of the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933.

    http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.1

    Climate Normals are the latest three-decade averages of climatological variables, including temperature and precipitation.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html

    You’re flat out wrong farmer.

    So, what else don’t you know?

  174. “Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says:
    February 27, 2014 at 10:27 pm

    Who is Walter K. ? Seems to have a lot to say.”

    I have no idea. Might be a bored Al Gore or something of the sort.

    Kudos to you, though, Mr. Moore. You clearly are getting under their skin. I am not much a fan of 24-news regardless of the political persuasion, but I hear you did a knock-out job. You’re making a great show for common sense and a more sensible environmental approach. Well done! You’re giving me, and millions more, hope for the future! :)

  175. Mod…apologies. Just getting tired of emotion overriding actual facts. I let myself fall prey to that.

    Sorry. I will tone it down and stick to the facts.

  176. Russ Browne says: February 27, 2014 at 8:34 pm
    “Walter K… If IPCC has lost then why did you just write an essay saying that Dr. Moore is wrong and that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?”

    What I actually said was QUOTE:
    “I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, and thus the ‘take away message’ coming from that, made by Dr. Moore.”

    Please don’t twist that into something different. Use my words, not yours if you wish to critique my comments.

    I mentioned with quotes where he misrepresented the actual facts about the IPCC, about past and future, and where and why his argument/s were fundamentally flawed and not logical. His opinion overall may be right, but his ‘argument” presented to the Committee was sophistry, rhetoric, opinion and not science. That’s MY opinion. It’s as valid as anyone’s, except I have backed it up with hard evidence and a well reasoned argument to support my case.

    I believe Moore could have done better, but then comes the other obvious fact that given the IPCC and others have failed the last 25 years and the WUWT crowd have won the “public/political debate” then who cares anyway what is said to the Senate?

    RE “that all those who don’t believe co2 is the culprit for most of the warming over the past 100 years are wrong?”

    Not sure where you get that from. I never said anything like that. I think you’re making it up. Hang on I will check. …… NO, I said nothing like that anywhere. I really don’t like having words put in my mouth. It’s a real time waster. It’s a very bad look for those that do it. Kind of undermines their credibility publicly if they do it a lot.

  177. Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says: February 27, 2014 at 10:27 pm
    “Who is Walter K. ?”

    I AM

    “Seems to have a lot to say.”

    But you do not?

    I have two eyes that can read, besides my fingers that can type.

    Prove to me if anything I have said is incorrect or in any way flawed. I will acknowledge it.

    If you cannot, then acknowledge your own errors as specifically detailed in my original comment.

    It’s not rocket science Patrick. Good luck with it.

  178. Walter K. says:
    February 27, 2014 at 10:15 pm

    lee says: February 27, 2014 at 10:03 pm
    “Ok I’ve seen that.”

    You are a LIAR – I am not an idiot. Jerk someone else’s chain.
    BYE

    What I meant was I saw the readings for Hobart and Sydney. Not sure about either “You are a LIAR – I am not an idiot” claim.

  179. From Mann’s tweets:

    @MichaelEMann well as the evidence in favour mounts then the denial becomes more and more last ditch, doesn’t it?
    12:21pm – 27 Feb 14

    Unless he’s talking about his denial of Mother Nature, what evidencd is he talking about?

  180. note the disclosure:

    27 Feb: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Global Warming Basics from the U.S. and British Science Academies
    The National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, the Royal Society, have published “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes,” a fresh primer on greenhouse-driven global warming that is a useful update on past reports from both organizations. You can find helpful summaries of the findings on the National Academy of Sciences website…
    Disclosure | I’ve been working with the National Academies Press to develop an online primer on global warming, similar to the “What You Need to Know About Energy” website. That work is unrelated to today’s events.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/global-warming-basics-from-the-u-s-and-british-science-academies/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    28 Feb: International Business Times: Investments in Renewable Energy Being Questioned Following Hiatus of Global Warming
    by Esther Tanquintic-Misa
    With the world now experiencing a slowing global warming, sceptics have started questioning the importance and necessity of the investments made into renewable energy by all member nations of planet Earth. But science bodies in the U.S. and UK assured the investments remain well in track as the warming hiatus is just temporary…
    While there has been a short-term slowdown in the warming of Earth’s surface since the exceptionally warm 1998, that “does not invalidate our understanding of long-term changes in global temperature arising from human-induced changes in greenhouse gases,” according to a report by Britain’s Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
    Scientists continue to find the case for the warming hiatus. Some attributed it to the shifts in the oceans that are absorbing more heat from the atmosphere. Others suggested the sun-dimming volcanic eruptions or a lower output from the sun contribute to the slowdown.
    If the Pacific winds were to be believed, the current hiatus could persist until nearly 2020…
    Thirteen out of the 14 warmest years on record had been since 2000.
    “I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/541008/20140228/renewable-energy-hiatus-global-warming-climate-change.htm

  181. Walter K. says:
    February 27, 2014 at 10:30 pm
    “Hello Farmer Braun,

    Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval.
    You’re flat out wrong farmer.

    So, what else don’t you know?”

    So the phase change of the PDO (every 30 years or so) makes no difference to the climate?
    Or the climate changes every 30 years or so?
    Have it whichever way you like.

    I know what a difference it makes in my operation.
    So how does one decide when to start the 30 year period?

  182. ***nice timing!

    27 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Ted Thornhill: Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is ‘no scientific proof’ climate change is manmade
    Patrick Moore has poured cold water on manmade global warming theories
    The Canadian said that a hotter earth would actually be better for humans
    He said that there’s ‘no actual proof’ of manmade global warming
    Moore was a member of campaign group Greenpeace for 15 years
    ***His latest comments came as two of the world’s leading scientific organisations warned that man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society.
    The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, which is the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom, are releasing an unusual plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.
    ‘People do have persistent questions all about climate change,’ said study author Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. ‘This is a one-stop shop for many of those questions.’ …

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html

  183. Walter K. on February 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm
    Dr. Strangelove says: February 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm
    “If local temperatures in cities all over the world increase by 2C, why would that be catastrophic? Las Vegas temperature reaches 40 C and people are too busy gambling to notice. But rising sea level could be a problem. Expensive but not catastrophic.”

    That notion is a very common misconception and misunderstanding in the public domain. Some would label it a “strawman” because it is totally disconnected from the actual argument being made by the other side. If you wish to prove someone’s arguments and claims are false, it always helps to get those accurate from the get go.
    ————–

    Actually Walter, Dr. Strangelove is correct: you talk about the average global temperature as if it’s some sort if magical talisman. As a statistician leg me explain to you that it’s only a convenient mathematical construct to describe the central tendency of a distribution of data. On fact the average is only relevent if the data is normally distributed, which I could argue is not the case for temperatures on earth. Hear you’re dealing with at least a bimodal distribution of perennially hot regions and cold regions. I would argue it’s multimodal. So “average” actually is being incorrectly used.

    However, let’s assume it is permissible to use the average as a measure of global “health”. It, just the central tendency of the entire distributiion; one still needs to keep in mind a measure of variance like the range or even better the standard deviation.

    Meaningful shifts in the mean are essentially determined by their magnitude relative to the standard deviation. In other words, the variability within the distribution is still much larger than between the distributions (I.e the collection of temps before Human CO2 and the collection of temps after human CO2, which by the way hadn’t shifted for the past 17 years)

    One thing often seems odd to me. People often play the “you’re not a climate scientist so they trump your ideas on climate by definition”. I can say the same thing; climate scientists aren’t statisticians so on any issue with differing opinion of statistics my option is correct and their’s isn’t. In fact it’s documented some of them don’t even know how to use excel.

    In other words, statistically speaking (and here you have to simply trust my credentials as you simply trust climatologist credentials) Dr. Strangelove is correct and you are not.

  184. 27 Feb: Wall St. Journal: Pete Du Pont: Global Warming Heats Up

    The public could use an honest debate.

    Global warming is back. Not actual global warming, as the decade-long trend of little to no increase in temperatures continues. But the topic of global warming is back in the news. From Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent climate comments in Jakarta to the White House’s 2014 “year of action” plan on carbon emissions, global warming has garnered more ink and pixels than we’ve seen in a while.

    It’s an open question whether this renewed emphasis reflects sincere concern about global warming or is just the Obama administration playing to part of its base prior to the midterm elections. Either way, the White House and the eco-left must be disappointed by polls that continue to show Americans do not share their sense of urgency. Even though many believe some warming exists and is at least partly anthropogenic, the vast majority consider it a low priority…

    The warming alarmists might earn more support if they acted less like they had something to hide and actually allowed open debate. Perhaps they could respond to their critics rationally instead of reflexively branding them heretics, suitable for whatever is the modern university and research center equivalent of burning at the stake. Real science does not fear those who challenge it, does not work to have challengers’ articles banned from science journals, and does not compare skeptics to Holocaust deniers or, as Mr. Kerry did in Jakarta, members of the “Flat Earth Society.” …

    A movement with confidence in its scientific theories would be able to admit there are many climate factors beyond carbon dioxide that are not yet well understood, and that some climate models have been shown to be unreliable. Such a movement would not downplay or whitewash leaked emails evincing the possibility of massaged data. When it criticizes its skeptics as hired guns of the fossil-fuel industry who are influenced by money, it would be willing to acknowledge that it thrives on government and private funding that would shrink if its research did not continue to say warming is here and getting worse. And there would be more confessions such as Al Gore’s belated acknowledgment that his support for ethanol was misguided…

    All that might not be easy, but what comes next would be downright difficult. The alarmists must admit that every policy decision involves an equation and that polices directed at reducing carbon emissions come with costs. Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, just issued a study that points to European Union climate polices (renewable energy subsidies and mandates, as well as a carbon cap-and-trade scheme) as a significant reason the 27 EU nations pay on average more than twice what we pay in the U.S. per residential kilowatt-hour of electricity, with Germany paying three times as much. Following such policies in the U.S. would shrink our economy as it would cost more not just to run our homes, but to power our offices and factories and operate our schools and hospitals. It’s fine if the alarmists feel these higher costs and the impact on jobs and our economy are worth bearing, but they need to admit these negative impacts and justify them to the public…

    Finally, the alarmists must admit that it is not certain their policies would significantly reduce the rising temperatures they predict. They need to admit that, for some of them, their policy prescriptions are really about control of our economy. Many want government control of the energy sector because they ideologically prefer it to free markets. Some want to stifle economic growth in America in a foolish and counterproductive attempt at achieving global economic equality…

    The alarmists need to acknowledge their policies would sentence more of our world’s poor to poverty, disease and premature death.
    To be sure, the science is not settled. The alarmists may be correct about projected warming. They may be correct that the costs of their proposed policies would be worth it if those policies avoid some of the negative impacts of that projected warming. If they truly feel they are right, they have an even greater responsibility to drop their insular and defensive attitude and debate these issues openly.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304709904579408950141040072?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304709904579408950141040072.html

  185. “Walter K. says:

    February 27, 2014 at 9:41 pm”

    Linking to the BoM is as much use as linking to Wikipedia and SkS, if you want any relaible information that is. We know the BoM changed the way they “measure” temperatures in Australia in 2013 and the way the BoM calculates a national average (Which is a completely meaningless. ~112 thermometers used to calculate that national average, 1 thermometer for every ~68,500 square kilometers). And 2013 was a record year. Well, in actual fact it wasn’t. Of course most of those “records” were readings at airports or in the middle of cities.

  186. Ugh… Please excuse the typing and grammar mistakes in my prior post. This is why I hate blogging from my iPhone. Autocorrect and one finger typing are disasters.

  187. During the warming, the cult asserted Alaska was a leading climate indicator. If Dr. Moore says the average global temp is 14.5 C and Alaska has cooled 2.5 degrees in the last decade doesn’t that indicate an ice age?

  188. Walter K
    You are wrong on Australia heat wave. I quote: In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.

    In 1897, Perth had an 18 day heatwave with a record of 43.3 degC. Other heatwaves were reported at Winton, 1891, Melbourne 1892, Boulia 1901, Sydney 1903, Perth 1906 and so on.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/20/australian-heatwaves-are-nothing-new/

  189. Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    It does pain me to see my Wikipedia entry cited.

    Patrick, you have several Wikipedia entries, in a number of languages. Most of them are properly encyclopaedic and neutral; they all cover some aspects of your story at varying levels of detail. The Latin entry is the most succinct: It just presents you a “naturae defensor” who has recently written much against “defensionis nature societates”. Comparing national Wikipedia entries is always fun.

    I don’t know what the Suomi article says (it’s the only language that is completely opaque to me). Of all the rest, the English entry is the only hostile one, but I want to tell you something: to me, it reads like an accolade.

  190. albertalad,
    No I am not. The ref is irrelevant to the reality now. It’s you who doesn’t understand.
    “heatwaves (add any other term) are nothing new” is a meaningless statement. claims of no temps pre 1910? equally wooly thinking. means nothing, disproves nothing. waste of time bringing it up.

  191. Patrick,
    That’s just irrelevant tin foil hat level talk. Not interested. Try it on someone else, won’t work on me, “refuting is futile” so said the Borg. thx anyway.

  192. “Walter K. says:

    February 28, 2014 at 3:31 am”

    Can you refute anything in my post with actual fact? Did you “see” it? My guess is, like the BoM and “climate scientists”, IPCC, Wikipedia, SkS et al and you is that you can’t.

  193. David L says: February 27, 2014 at 11:50 pm
    “you talk about the average global temperature as if it’s some sort if magical talisman.” No, I did not. That’s your own misinterpretation of what I actually said. Doesn’t fit, won’t wear it.
    “a convenient mathematical construct”, thanks but I knew this in junior high school. no biggy. I also know the difference between a mean and an average ok ….
    ““average” actually is being incorrectly used.” and yes, thanks but I spelled that out in my comment, have another look. “good enough” for my purposes re Strangelove’s presentation.
    “Dr. Strangelove is correct ” no he isn’t. What he said in his post was 100% guaranteed falsehood. The climate does not work like that, neither do GMSTs nor location temperatures. Take your arguments elsewhere. Statistics, lousy arguments, sophistry, media spin, Mother Teresa, Al Gore, as well as climate scientists and the IPCC reports do NOT determine reality. It is what it is.

  194. Pat & 27 Feb: Wall St. Journal: Pete Du Pont: Global Warming Heats Up
    “The public could use an honest debate.” [...] “If they truly feel they are right, they have an even greater responsibility to drop their insular and defensive attitude and debate these issues openly.”

    I, for what it is worth, 100% totally agree with those sentiments. Simply because it is true.

  195. Patrick, no it’s not tin foil hat stuff. It’s real and very true, mixed with liberal doses of humour, ass kicking, and multiple references to relevant evidence and facts. Fine if it isn’t your cup of tea though. I read the 2216 pages of the AR5 WGI TS last October, and the rest by mid November, does that count as a book? It took some RC scientists until December to just get through the SPM, and then they didn’t like it. Go figure! Refs on my blog, check it out if you’re up to some intense critical thinking and psychology. :-)

  196. “Walter K. says:

    February 28, 2014 at 4:11 am”

    Post what you have “seen”, rather the bloviate. Simples! Your blog is a waste of internet space! But hey…

  197. Gene Selkov says:
    February 28, 2014 at 12:47 am
    ‘I don’t know what the Suomi article says (it’s the only language that is completely opaque to me).’
    I can assure you that the short Wikipedia entry on Dr Moore in Finnish (=Suomi) is absolutely neutral, in no way hostile.

  198. farmerbraun says: “Or the climate changes every 30 years or so?”

    No where did I, nor the referecned sites state that. So why do you make this stuff up now by presenting manipulative leading questions? You really believe I am going to answer? I said what I said, I quoted what “official” others say, if you have an issue why don’t you go argue with them? I don’t make the rules of the game.

    You said to me when I mentioned the actual truth that: “Please tell us that you were just joking, and that there is absolutely no way that 30 years of data “adds up to a location’s “normal climate” . . . ‘ The idea is clearly preposterous.”

    And still you refuse to admit what I said originally was true? Why is that?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance maybe? Or conscious intentional belligerence? Good luck with it, whatever it is, because it is not my fault.

  199. Patrick, rather the bloviate?
    When in Rome …………
    You have not read much of the blog yet have you? It’s designed to keep the riff raff away, not invite them in to stay and never leave.

  200. Patrick says: “Can you refute anything in my post with actual fact?”
    Yes, but it is old news to me, and I don’t go over old territory again, and again and again. You said nothing I had not seen before and thoroughly researched. Like over 6 months ago now. Enough is enough, I have nothing to prove. Believe what you wish. My comments stand even if you don’t like them.

  201. pat, nice refs. TY
    ““I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.”

    This “With the world now experiencing a slowing global warming, ” isn’t English nor intelligible either. “Scientists continue to find the case for the warming hiatus.” is gobbledygook, even if case is changed to “cause”. Newspapers and online media are all useless today. Scientists et al are not much better and often worse.

    This part is the worst of all::
    Thirteen out of the 14 warmest years on record had been since 2000. “I would not call that a pause in global temperature increases,” Michel Jarraud, head of the WMO, said.

    If that’s an accurate quote the guy is incompetent in communicating accurately to the public. That is simply “illogical”, a non sequitur of the highest order (if he was quoted correctly, which is rare). Can none of these folks ever quote some hard facts, and genuine conclusions from science papers instead of making it up as they go? Apparently not. No wonder the public are so confused.

    What is “global warming” defined as?

    Roger A. Pielke Sr. dialogue with Gavin Schmidt Oct 2011

    RP: Also, if there is large amounts of heat being stored at depth in the ocean, this means that the global annual average surface temperature trend is not sampling this heat. This surface temperature trend would be underestimating global warming.

    GS: Response: Semantics: You are redefining ‘global warming’ to something different to what anyone else thinks and then claiming that the standard measure of global warming (as understood by everyone else) is not being properly sampled. [...] Words do not mean just what *you* say they mean. – gavin]

    RP: The issue of why you persist in retaining the surface temperature trend as the primary metric of global warming is a puzzle to me. We, of course, need surface temperatures for a wide variety of other reasons. However, if significant heat is being transported to deeper depths, I assume you would agree that the surface temperature trend would underestimate global warming and influence the calculaiton of “climate sensitivity”. But let us know if you disagree and why.

    GS: [Response: “Climate sensitivity” is classically defined as the change in surface temperature as a response to radiative forcing. It is an equilibrium concept that is almost completely divorced from the flux of heat into the deep ocean. [...] Thus, the standard climate sensitivity remains the focus of attention. I would suggest that if you want to change that, you should embark on the steps I gave above rather than simply co-opting language and changing standard definitions. So, to directly answer your question, since surface temperature changes DEFINE global warming, they CANNOT UNDERESTIMATE IT [emphasis by Walter]. If you really mean to say that surface temperature increases don’t tell you much about deep ocean heat content changes, then this is of course true. But in that case I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. – gavin]

    RP: Gavin – You write
    “surface temperature changes define global warming”.
    Here is where we have a fundamental disagreement. Global warming is defined by the accumulation of heat in the units of Joules. Surface temperature changes by itself is not heat.

    GS: [Response: I am well aware that temperature is a different quantity than heat, and have no objection to people tracking the accumulation of heat, but 'global warming' is simply not defined in this way. This is not a 'fundamental disagreement', this is simply you redefining the term 'global warming'.
    For me (and almost anyone else you care to ask) global warming refers to the INCREASE in global surface temperature anomaly. Indeed, 'warmth' is not a pure function of Joules - ice and water at 0 deg C have the same 'warmth', but very different heat contents.
    The very NATURAL definition of WARMING IS in terms of TEMPERATURE; when people say that something has warmed, it means that the temperature HAS RISEN. You would be much more effective at communicating your scientific points if you used words in ways other people were already used to. - gavin]

    For the context see this short series of comments start here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-2/#comment-216420

  202. Walter,

    Let’s back up and take this in slow easy steps. Do I understand what you are saying? I’ve misunderstood you once already, so I think it’s worthwhile to be methodical.

    Mark please READ what I was referring to explicitly

    Moore says: (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

    Findings and Judgments made about the PAST to date.

    Moore then says: “These ****judgments**** are based, ***almost entirely***, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the ****future**** of global climate.”

    Okay. We are discussing Dr. Moore’s testimony here:

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

    You are objecting to the part in bold, because the evaluations of probability are not in fact based on the models, is that correct?

  203. lee, i must have misunderstood you before, sorry, I’ll take that back.
    Here, knock yourself out on australian climate records and means.

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/stationdrill.jsp

    This is researched and written by working academics, not hacks.
    Oct 2013 – “Australia has experienced its hottest September on record, as well as rewriting the records for the hottest 12-month period…”

    http://theconversation.com/sweaty-september-smashes-records-with-more-heat-to-come-18649

    July 2013 – The more significant records for this period include: Australia’s hottest day on record, hottest week on record, hottest month on record, hottest summer on record, hottest September to June (10 months) on record.

    http://theconversation.com/2013-shaping-up-to-be-one-of-australias-hottest-years-on-record-16295

    It got even worse post July 2013

    3 January 2014, 8.00am AEST 2013 was Australia’s hottest year !!!

    http://theconversation.com/2013-was-australias-hottest-year-warm-for-much-of-the-world-21670

    Jan 18 2014 – Australia has started 2013 with a record-breaking heat wave that has lasted more than two weeks across many parts of the country. Temperatures have regularly gone above 48°C – Australia has always experienced heat waves, and they are a normal part of most summers. However, the current event affecting much of inland Australia has definitely not been typical. The most significant thing about the recent heat has been its coverage across the continent, and its persistence. It is very unusual to have such widespread extreme temperatures — and have them persist for so long. http://theconversation.com/whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628

    Dec 2013 – Drought conditions return to Australia’s eastern states
    The so-called “Millennium Drought”, which affected much of the Murray-Darling Basin between 2001 and 2009, was of this type, with two severe drought years (2002 and 2006) and the remaining years recording near-to-below-average rainfall. While the individual years in 2002 and 2006 were very dry, it was the failure of recovery during the intervening period which set this event apart from most of the past.
    2010 and 2011 were extremely wet years through large parts of Australia, and drought had disappeared from the map of eastern Australia by early 2011.
    Over the last 12 months, drought has returned to substantial areas of inland eastern Australia.

    http://theconversation.com/drought-conditions-return-to-australias-eastern-states-21149

    Now Feb 2014, it is crisis time again. The above isn’t “weather” it is climatic. More than half (?) the localities in Eastern half Australia have been in official drought conditions for 12 of the last 18 years. That is not normal.

    $320 million for drought relief – in some places once in 25 years or a century drought? some say it is a only a “normal” once in a decade drought? The latter sounds implausible given the last major drought didn;t break until 2011. One finds “spin” everywhere they go. [short video]

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-28/320-million-for-drought-relief/5292174

    It doesn’t matter what any climate scientists, the IPCC, nor anyone else says – this IS the reality. Climate Models are irrelevant too. Saying that Australia has always had droughts and heatwaves is equally irrelevant and meaningless.

    El Niño events are often associated with drier than normal conditions across eastern and northern Australia. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/

    There has NOT been a strong El Nino since 1998 (yes that year!) that would normally relate to such dry, hot continent wide climatic conditions as the last 15 years and most recently becoming even more extreme. What is the prognosis (crystal ball gazing) for when the next strong El Nino does occur? That may well be answered in a year from now.

    Meanwhile, Dr. Moore’s comments to the US Senate make no difference to reality either.

    Words have no effect upon the Climate.

  204. Walter K. seems to study words produced by Michael Mann and others and then he repeats them with a flourish.

    Myself I study people a lot, part of my work, have to judge people rather fast and a lot depends on how good my work comes out.

    Seems to me the “tell” on Walter K. is where he goes to the population statistics .
    He has the “Billions” problem many of the left have, and seems that is the long term basis for the need for this “redistribution” of the earth by the use of fudged data.

    Walter K. does not want to know, he is tied total to the false idea that there are to many humans on the earth, and he will never allow facts, reason, or the truth change his believe system.

  205. Walter,

    I’m still mystified. I gather from reading and re-reading your objection that I’ve missed your point. Here’s where my poor critical thinking skills must be messing me up, maybe you can enlighten me.

    If I trusted the GCM’s, could I use them to gain insight about the behavior of the climate in the past and to date?
    If I trusted the GCM’s, could I use them to gain insight about the future behavior of the climate under specific conditions?
    Does it make any difference if I say the computer models were designed to predict the future of climate? Such a statement may well be factually wrong, but in what way is a dispute about what the GCM’s were designed for relevant to the two points I made above?

    To summarize the point I am confused about, in one line:
    Couldn’t I use a computer model, designed to make projections about the future, to gain insight into past or present behavior?

    I think if you could clarify that, I might be able to follow you.

  206. Mark, thx for asking.
    “You are objecting to the part in bold, because the evaluations of probability are not in fact based on the models, is that correct?”

    Not really. I’ll go slow too. In your specific quotes above, is Moore and his Dyson ref addressing future predictions or not?

    Let’s start there.

  207. Mark Bofill says:

    February 28, 2014 at 6:13 am

    Couldn’t I use a computer model, designed to make projections about the future, to gain insight into past or present behavior?

    I am just trying to follow along with the discussion here, but I would answer that question “yes”, if, and only if, the projections about the future turned out to be correct.

    Remember, you are saying “to gain insight”.

  208. Thanks Walter.

    In your specific quotes above, is Moore and his Dyson ref addressing future predictions or not?

    Here is his Dyson reference:

    As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model ….

    Yes. The Dyson reference is addressing future predictions.

    JohnWho,
    Yes, I agree with you. I don’t think the GCM’s are in fact useful for that purpose, but apparently there are those who do, so let’s pretend for the sake of argument I’m one of those people, in order to explore the issue in question.

  209. fobdangerclose, that’s just idle guesswork and presumption on your part. My ref to ‘billions’ was very specific and quite simplistic in relation to Moore’s ref back to 100,000 years to 500 million years ago and the global climate status at that time. Then he was drawing very ‘unscientific’ and illogical conclusions that life was great when it was warmer and promagnon man (or whoever) walked out of the African jungles, and so if it was warmer now then life would be bliss today. Such long bow analogies ignore today’s present real world conditions (population included) and a list of hard facts too many to list on a Tb hard drive. It’s a poor argument because it is not rational nor evidence based. It’s a short-sighted opinion that “feels good” but doesn’t even have an imperfect computer model supporting it. .

    Your conclusions and opinions about my beliefs, ideology and thinking are not at all well grounded and premature. I ought to know.

  210. Mark, OK thx.
    Your answer was: “Yes. The Dyson reference is addressing future predictions.”

    Now, please tell me to what is Moore referring to when he uses the words *** These judgments ***

    I’ll leave the fancy html for you to line up anyway you wish.

  211. Walter,
    Dr. Moore is referring to this:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment

    He is referring to the judgement that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th centutry.

  212. Actually, to be more precise, he is referring to the confidence level assigned, extremely likely of the idea that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20-th century.

  213. Having gone this far, let’s not trip now. In fact, there are ~two~ phrases that these judgements could refer to.
    1 – “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment
    2 – these numbers (“extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability) … have been “invented” as a construct … to express “expert judgement”

    There may be some semantic difference between these. Is the judgement referred to the evaluation of probability itself or is it the expression of the evaluation of probability that is being referred to? It’s not clear that this matters, but I mention this in good faith, since we are being thorough and going slowly and carefully. Does this matter to your argument?

  214. As of now the Walter K’s of the Climate Change, CO2 danger zone, Redistribution Cult are a rear guard action to save the front line liars from being total over run with facts so total even the base cult voters will see they too are paying to much for gas, electric, taxes, food, ect.

    They try to buy time for a new redistribution scheme to come into the msm narrative and save the tax and spend fraud operation.

    Misdirection, cloudy papers written to hide all the decline, and the rest of it will continue for a time then the new age scheme’s will be plugged in and played on PBS, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and reviewed glowing terms from Penn State PHD’s of ill repute and all that will be used to change the subject.

    Changing the subject is one of the main legs of the fake stool they sit so cult like upon.

  215. albertalad, “I quote: In the great heatwave of 1896, with nearly 200 deaths, the temperature at Bourke did not fall below 45.6 degC for six weeks, and the maximum was 53.3 degC. Bushfires raged throughout NSW and 66 people perished in the heat.”

    People look for and then cherry pick those things that suit them, and when it gets spread far enough to enough people (today’s bogs etc) and for long enough it can easily become the only truth. One news report doesn’t make a true history nor carry all true facts. Journos made as many mistakes back then as now, maybe more. The reliability of multiple readings of thermometers from different locations noted in 1896 relative to today’s system is questionable. Not to discount them out of hand either. In 1896 there were Colonies, and things changed slowly after 1901, to 1910 when “standards” changed in locations and record keeping. The data pre-1910 has not disappeared, there is no conspiracy there to hide anything. But apples need to be compared with apples for statistical purposes. If any old record was used today there would be complaints made about that as being unreliable. The BOM can’t win such nebulous debates. No one can.

    The 2014 temp 48.3C at Bourke is above the 45.6C mentioned above. There is only one report of 128F or 53.3C …. others report the max at 118F or 47.7C for several days, an avg over 3 weeks at 112F or 44.4C. The 128F could be a typo, it happens, or it may be right. Jan 22nd report has it at 120F in the shade in Bourke. All very hot for sure.

    One puts Bourke as having 66 deaths from heatwave, the 1929 reprint news report, the only one to put the heatwave at 6 weeks and 128F. Others have it by 26th January about 500 people perished all up due to the heat. The heatwave in January lasted 3-4 weeks from south QLD into NSW going south of Sydney and across to central & South Australia, south to melbourne 112F in the City plus Perth SW Western Australia too with Geraldton maxing at 125F one day.

    But most places in Jan 1896 were *reportedly* maxing at 105 to 115F or 46C. Many locations only peaked for 3-4 days and went back to normal. There’s far more info than may have been covered by the climate folks.

    So YES, overall conditions “appear” quite similar to January 2014, if that’s what you’d like to hear me acknowledge. No problem, done. What conditions were like for the year before and the previous 15 years or after I have no idea. Clearly 1896 was extreme heat in January.

    Shouldn’t the real question still be “why” was that so? And wouldn’t that need to be researched with some detailed scientific vigor as opposed to simply saying “it’s been this hot before”?

    Obviously CO2 etc gets taken out of that equation, but everything else would be in play until proven otherwise, yes? El Nino, Solar output, planetary movements, failed monsoon, I don’t know myself, but all those “could” have an effect too. I am not sure it even matters now. We have no idea what the temps were in Australia pre-1788 are either. Or Antarctica. See what I mean? Sooner or later one comes up against a wall of an absence of evidence. What is today’s data and evidence, probably it’s more useful with or without the past.

    Co-incidentally, the “Greenhouse Effect” was defined by Arrhenius’ in 1896, and in August there was a full solar eclipse too. Weird huh? Will keep things shorter from now on, sorry about that.

  216. fobdangerclose says: February 28, 2014 at 8:11 am
    “As of now the Walter K’s ………..”

    Feel free to make up any story that you want, but please LEAVE ME OUT out of the fantasies, OK? Not interested. I have had enough of every whacko on every side of this crumby little climate war. Really it’s quite pathetic, all the paranoia, the endless put downs, irrational thinking, lousy communication, and shoving people into to tiny little boxes. I’m over it. When will you be?

    http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/i-am-sick-to-death-of-climate-wars.html

  217. Walter K,

    Dear Sir,

    It being the case you have had enough from every side, it being it is a crumby little climate war, and your “over it” why all the never ending post and rehash of the same data points over and over.

    I will never be “over” being lied to by clowns like Michael Mann etal. You go your way I will go mine. It is my considered opinion that it is not about the science but rather about the well planned lies to enable a political agenda. You do what you feel you need to do, after all it is free speech here in the U.S.A..

  218. Walter,

    I hardly see how mentioning a heatwave that occurred in the past that is similar to the one experienced recently is cherry-picking. Its staying exactly within the bounds of your topic. Also, its not denying the recent one either, just as I can’t deny the amazing winter we’ve been having in the US.

    As for name-calling, I do my share and I apologize for that. However, I’m not sure you’re in a position either to preach on debate ethics, either.

  219. Sorry Walter K for putting words in your mouth. I assumed that was your position since you have expressed great fear that we are all going to fry in the future.

    Your overall view seems to be concern that the climate is going to just keep getting hotter and hotter killing off humans but on the other hand you say that Dr. Moore might be right (about most global warming not being caused by humans). So that is confusing, with all that you know, you are still not sure what is going to happen, Dr. Moore has said the same thing, he does no know if its going to get warmer or colder in the future.

    Walter K. said…”His (Dr. Moore) opinion overall may be right, but his ‘argument” presented to the Committee was sophistry, rhetoric, opinion and not science.”

    That is interesting because Dr. Moore accused the AGW camp of something similar when he said the IPCC’s calls are a ‘judgment not science’…

    “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see.

    No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors. These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate.”

    It has been stated by economist Martin Armstrong – armstrongeconomics.com (who has computer engineering training from the RCA institute and built an AI computer model of the whole world’s economy with at least 32,000 variables which internet users will soon be able to directly access and talk to) that 95% of the climate computer models have been wrong, they did not see the temperature going mostly sideways to down since 1998. Armstrong was the chairman of the foundation for the study of cycles, he has a project going on now to build a climate model that he says will be more accurate than anything out there as it will have a different design.

  220. good attack article towards the AGW camp detailing how wrong they have been on many issues…

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/26/alarmists-lame-outrage-highlights-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/

    Snip…
    “This leads one to wonder when the science became “settled.” Was it seven years ago when alarmists claimed global warming would reduce the frequency and severity of Arctic cold fronts reaching the United States, or this winter when they blame an increase in such repeated Arctic cold fronts on global warming? Was it three weeks ago when Time claimed global warming is bringing an end to snowfall, or two weeks ago when every state but Florida had snow on the ground and alarmists blamed it on global warming? Was it in 2007 when alarmists claimed global warming was melting Antarctic ice sheets, or in 2013 when they said global warming is causing record Antarctic ice extent? Was it in 1998 when alarmist computer models predicted dramatic warming during the following 16 years, or today after no such warming has occurred?”

  221. Walter K says:

    “People look for and then cherry pick those things that suit them, and when it gets spread far enough to enough people (today’s bogs etc) and for long enough it can easily become the only truth. One news report doesn’t make a true history nor carry all true facts.”

    Psychological projection at it’s finest. Walter then carefully cherry picks the following items:

    4000 people were killed in the Indian state of Andra Pradesh in 2003 after 27 consecutive days of [warm] temperatures…

    In Russia last year, and in western Europe in 2003, “mega-heatwaves”…

    More than half of Europe broke the 500-year record twice in the one decade. Both these heatwaves caused tens of thousands of deaths…

    record heat settled across 772,204 square miles (2 million square kilometers) in Russia and Eastern Europe. In Moscow, the daytime temperatures reached 101 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 degrees Celsius), in Kiev, nights reached 77 F (25 C)…

    Heatwaves are also on the increase worldwide…

    these were the hottest summers that Europe has experienced for at least 500 years. North America has also experienced several recent heatwaves, with a major heatwave affecting the state of Texas in July 2011…

    at least 45,500 flying foxes dead on just one extremely hot day in southeast Queensland, according to our new research…

    And so on. But Walter posts zero reports of killing cold, which we all know has been rampant around the world this year. Did Walter completely miss the endless reports of below average cold throughout the U.S., or at the Winter Olympics, or other unusually cold regions recently? Or, is Walter being disingenuous?

    Walter’s selective cherry-picking of natural regional temperature fluctuations is fine to support his scary propaganda and his demonization of “carbon”. But the central debate is over global warming, and there hasn’t been much of that for quite a few years now. And Walter, FYI: the planet is currently at the low end of it’s temperature range. It has been much warmer in the past, with no ill effects for the biosphere in general.

    Despite his fake veneer of science-y facts, Walter K. has lost the debate here, because real world evidence simply does not support his True Belief. Despite a rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, temperatures have not followed, as predicted incessantly by people like Walter. Planet Earth is simply not doing what Walter believes it should be doing.

    So, who should we believe? Planet Earth? Or Walter? Because they cannot both be right.

  222. Mark Bofill says: February 28, 2014 at 7:30 am

    Aha, good Mark Bofill. You’re making things much clearer for em now. We’re looking at this item slightly differently, and I so was Dr Moore (i assume – at some risk). I also understand now why I made so little sense to you, and why i didn’t know why.

    I need to run along, so I’ll do this all at once, and pray you can follow my thinking here
    (it’s ok to disagree about the bottom line – too many issues lurking – I believe I understand precisely why most ‘unbelievers’ reject what the scientists/IPCC say. I do not blame them for that. It’s quite understandable actually. )

    I need to cover the whole section from here —————–

    There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods. ————— [end]

    You are applying the “these judgments are based” to the “….” items in the paragraph above only. OK, that’s reasonable, and I can see what that is so.

    However, I was going back another paragraph as well, where the “….” are being used by the IPCC and the FULL sentence. To me that is a “judgment” as well in toto. That is there conclusions of their “expert judgement”.

    The way I viewed it (rightly or wrongly) is that it was a judgment about the PAST observed warming. And attributing their “judgment” of the “dominant cause” of that.

    However as Moore’s opening paragraph says, he is dismissing that out of hand immediately as a given in his view/opinion. [but that's another story]

    To stay on focus, in his last paragraph Moore then switches to using “future climate models” and “cannot predict the future” as being the basis for “these judgements”.

    In your perspective, I still do not agree that this can/could apply to either “Extremely likely” nor a “95-100% probability” nor their “expert judgment”.

    Nor could it apply to their “expert judgment” of the “dominant cause” for the 20th century observed warming.

    I do agree with Moore that confidence levels and probabilities “HAVE been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.”

    He cannot have it both ways, imho.

    I also take issue with his phrase “almost entirely” which also overstates the reality, in my view.

    And to an earlier question you put, yes I get the point about “models used to make forecasts” of future climate scenarios eg GCMs and ESMs can and are useful in determining PAST dynamics and for “testing” their accuracy. But in these cases I suggest that the initial work is don’t on the PAST with efforts to match the “broad” accuracy of the models with real world observations and data over time. That they have to get that right BEFORE them being useful for future modelling. This is my understanding of the process, from memory over the years.

    So this passage by Moore really jumps around the place above, and thus ends up being a dog’s breakfast. It just doesn’t follow, one thing after the other logically. It doesn’t actually represent what the modelers themselves say they do and the order they do it, and it doesn’t follow what the IPCC actually does when the teams get together and go through the scientific papers and the evidence either and how they go about making the “judgments”.

    At the heart of this is Moore’s initial declaration that: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years…. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

    With that kind of starting point, it makes the rest of it moot anyway. Moore seems to be dissing out of hand all the evidence and physics and more that informs the CS work external to computer models as far back as the 1950s. The computers make life easier and provide more detailed analysis but they are not the primary basis for “actual proof, as it is understood in science” accepted by many even if Moore et al does not.

    Pretending this doesn’t exist (as part of the pro-agw arguments) and that everything comes down to “future climate models” alone is simply not accurate. He needs to refute all of it – not cherry pick one log and call it the whole house with gold fittings.

    He also uses “minor” (warming) as a planted trigger word, that ignores the theory which makes note of the “rapid geological time-frame” is far more telling than the number itself. The IPCC put it as 1950 and not the last 100 years. and then in the next sentence: “Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record.”

    Moore does another bait and switch by changing the phrase “Extremely likely”, with a particular set meaning and intention, into trigger words of “extreme certainty” – which is another thing entirely and is never used like that in a IPCC report. Anyway, it is just plain wrong and inaccurate.

    So if Moore has some issues with the “accuracy” of the IPCC reports, he could start getting his own house in order and using the very same language / semantics in the very same way .. and then pull their ideas apart.

    In Moore’s own defense however, I see this mixing of words, phrases being convoluted all the time by climate scientists, IPCC representatives, by agw/cc advocates, by journalists, by politicians all the time too. And I dislike it just as much. It causes unnecessary confusion for poor old Joe Public. The subject is complex enough without turning discussions into an alphabet soup daily.

    The responsibility for this I can only lay upon the climate science community and the IPCC themselves. The onus has always been on them to be CLEAR, and to educate effectively in a way people could grasp understand. They have not been, and far from it. This is irrespective of the validity of their science. That’s another issue.

    End of story, done, and thx Mark. Good stuff, much appreciated.

  223. dbstealey says: February 28, 2014 at 10:12 am
    “Psychological projection at it’s finest. Walter then carefully cherry picks the following items:”

    That’s not fair, because for year I have shared links to whole materials, even online books, on all kinds of subjects and it my personal preference when possible to include a doc title and some “key text” which shows the reader what is behind the link.

    And that’s it. If I wanted to simply cherry pick, I would write an essay, inlcude such “short extracts” as if I was saying it, and present it as the WHOLE bottom line to the story / concept / belief I was pushing.

    fact is I am NOT pushing anything …. the links were given in response to another’s comments who was refuting the realty on the ground in Australia …. I knew where to find that info, and quickly pulled together what fell into my lap.

    The links are there, there are other links insoide the artciles, there are other artciles on that site, there are links to published academic and science papers ..and anyone can decide for themselves what they make of it.

    If there is ANY Psychological projection going on here, I know for a fact that it is me doing it. But it is so predictable like all human psychology is. and especially online forums … a total drag to be honest.

    dbstealey , I didn’t read much at all past the above quoted sentence. I got the picture, I know this game. I’m sure your supporters will be entertained by it. Me? I totally don’t care what you believe about me. Make up anything you like. Knock yourself out.

  224. Russ Browne says: February 28, 2014 at 9:41 am
    “Sorry Walter K for putting words in your mouth. I assumed that was your position since you have expressed great fear that we are all going to fry in the future.”

    That is simply BULLSHIT – stop making false accusations and laying them at my feet – You can shove it.

  225. my confession : i’m having trouble with “Climate Change”
    my reasoning : with reports of death by heat or death by cold. It’s all part of the ‘climate’ a word that describes a ‘range’ of temperature and weather events. Due to death being a problem for people (all are affected) then we can try to change it (not recommended other than heating and cooling of your local environment. e.g. your house) by moving or building and if successful then that would be the ‘change’ during and after the climate has happened.
    I think that ‘climate change’ is the wrong way to look at it (is it a construct?) because the change (i.e.temps up or down, storms, volcanos, emissions, etc…) is changinig things from an existing ‘climate’ and the change happens, has its affect and all the while in the background the ‘ climate ‘ is basically the same. Have the changes not happened before ? or is it that now plants/animals have grown into a climate and are noticing ‘the climate’.
    No matter what we are along for the ride and must adapt .
    Even if my neighbor turns up the heat and my house starts getting warmer, to some that might be a benefit to others (maybe those who ride skyrockets) it might not be.
    Thanks for the interesting articles and comments

  226. I apologize if I’m not supposed to post like this, but comments like Walter K’s irk me.

    Walter K. says:
    February 27, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    “Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.”

    Please.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1yj3o7/science_ama_series_im_michael_e_mann/

    I am author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and I have written two books including Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming, co-authored with my colleague Lee Kump, and more recently, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”, recently released in paperback with a foreword by Bill Nye “The Science Guy” (www.thehockeystick.net).

    Replies to posters:

    To darkenedgy:
    I’ll just point out that I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times recently about precisely this question (“If You See Something, Say Something”)

    To MoreBeansAndRice:
    As I describe in my book (HSCW)

    I recently wrote a Huffington Post commentary about this very issue. So I’ll just past the link here :-)

    To FluidFlow:
    As I describe in HSCW,

    To Planktic:
    coincidentally enough, I recently published a commentary at Huffington Post that addresses this very issue:

    To nopenictesla:
    I did comment on this matter recently in a commentary at Huffington Post:

    And I’ll have more to say in an upcoming article in a leading popular science magazine ;-)

    To supercore23:
    I discuss this in my book HSCW in the section “It’s the Anomalies, Stupid!”

    To nuclear_is_good:
    I might add that I’ve actually highlighted, in my own recent work, the potential impact of a different possible problem with tree-ring data. See this RealClimate piece:

    OK. Yes, I actually wrote a Huffington Piece on that particular topic :-) link here:

    I actually wrote about this precise matter at Huffington Post last fall:

    I will have something to say about it in the peer reviewed literature in due course. Will refrain from comment for now…

    To EarthSciLife:
    We know longer have to fear the “Serengeti Strategy” that I describe in HSCW…

    To IceBean:
    I discuss this quite a bit in my book, and allude to it in my recent NY Times op-ed

    To The_Write_Stuff:
    I tackled that question at length in this Huffington Post piece, so I’m going to take the liberty of just steering you there:

    To pnewell:
    That is really the point of my book (HSCW).

    General to all:
    Please check out my book (now out in paperback w/ a foreword by Bill Nye “The Science Guy”), The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars for a more in-depth discussion of many of the issues discussed today in this forum

    Pease also consider following me on Facebook:
    and on twitter

    To UnfrozenCavemanMD:
    I’ve actually commented on the matter of equilibrium climate sensitivity at some length recently. See these commentaries: (links deleted) and will have more to say about the matter in a fairly high profile venue a couple weeks from now. stay tuned!

    To Metros98:
    a topic I have published on, e.g.:
    and many more here:

    To toorroot:
    Here are 15 articles I’ve authored/co-authored over the past decade looking at solar impacts on climate (all available here:

    To recentlyunearthed:
    I discuss all of this in my Penn State world campus course Meteo 469 (“From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming”):

    You mean self-promotion like that? Is that an issue worthy of wise consideration?

  227. HGW xx/7 says: February 28, 2014 at 9:39 am
    “I hardly see how mentioning a heatwave that occurred in the past that is similar to the one experienced recently is cherry-picking. Its staying exactly within the bounds of your topic. Also, its not denying the recent one either, just as I can’t deny the amazing winter we’ve been having in the US.”

    No “context” given, no appropriate framing relegates one-off billboard items as “cherry-picking” in my book. I gave an reasonable reply to another about the 1896 …. that’s what I call CONTEXT and meaningful information. Yeah, I have many refs, but am keeping them for now.

    If all one has is Bourke was in a 6 week heat wave and hit 128 degrees …. it doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. If people want to make a real point they need to fill that out with cross referecned broad based information that extends far further and tells a real story – a narrative that stacks up with supporting historical evidence. Hot then , hot now, same temps, means nothing, and it should mean nothing to everyone.

    But a multi-week heat wave avg 105-115F maximums from eastern Australia to western Australia, from central QLD down to Melbourne, with bushfires here and there, 500 deaths all up, that is such big news it is a story carried internationally in the 19th century press, then you might just have something to take someone’s attention. Especially when January can be one of the wetter months in the east and north. Follow?

    Now HGW whatever, go LINK all that with a 1896 nth hemisphere january/february winter above average temps in Alaska, drought in California west coast, freezing conditions in the mid-west, east, florida, canada …. floods i the UK western europe, sailing cutters (ships) being sunk or gone missing forever in atlantic storms …. an open NW passage or warm siberian arctic conditions the summer of 1895, and then you might just be cooking wiht gas.

    But no, all too hard I guess. Drop out the one liner, and it;s all good. Job done. Don;t think so, think critically works better Go the extra yard and don;t believe a single thing anyone, and I mean ANYONE, tells tells you on the internet.

    Ya never know who you might be speaking to.

    Have to run along. excuse typos, best to all.

  228. NRG22 says: February 28, 2014 at 10:59 am

    WTF does what M Mann do somewhere else I have never been to, have to do with ME, besides nothing?

    I don’t have twitter (never will), nor Facebook, (never will), I don’t follow him (or anyone) like a junkie all over the internet.

    NRG22 asks: – “You mean self-promotion like that?”

    ……… well what do you think?

    Take a stab at it, toss a coin or make your best GUESS.

    As if you actually give a toss what I think. Stand up and speak for yourself. Don’t lean all over me like a drunk at 3am in a nightclub crying for a lift home from someone you don’t know. What crap.

  229. Walter,

    First, thanks for taking the time to try to explain your argument to me. I appreciate it.

    Unfortunately, I’m still not following you. When you say:

    You are applying the “these judgments are based” to the “….” items in the paragraph above only. OK, that’s reasonable, and I can see what that is so.

    However, I was going back another paragraph as well, where the “….” are being used by the IPCC and the FULL sentence. To me that is a “judgment” as well in toto. That is there conclusions of their “expert judgement”.

    (emphasis added)

    I see you saying that I’m looking at the items in the paragraph ‘above only’, but that you are going back ‘another paragraph’.

    Okay, so the paragraphs are as follows:

    (1)Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

    (2)In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

    (3)After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

    (4)There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

    (5)The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

    (6)“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

    (7)These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate.

    (paragraph numbers added in bold for reference purposes)

    So I am saying that the words These judgements in paragraph 7 refer to the judgements discussed in paragraph 6. If you are going back another paragraph, that would be paragraph 5, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

    Am I understanding you correctly?

    I have no substantial quarrel with this, although I fail to grasp why you are making the distinction. I mention this because again, I don’t want to misunderstand you.

    At any rate, you continue:

    The way I viewed it (rightly or wrongly) is that it was a judgment about the PAST observed warming. And attributing their “judgment” of the “dominant cause” of that.

    in his last paragraph Moore then switches to using “future climate models” and “cannot predict the future” as being the basis for “these judgements”.

    Perhaps we are getting to the heart of the matter here.

    Are you saying:

    1) That Dr. Moore is saying that the fact that climate models cannot predict the future is the basis for ‘these judgements’ (extremely likely that humans have caused warming etc)? Because while I understand how one could grammatically parse his words that way, that’s not actually what he’s trying to say. At worst, we’re talking about whether or not Dr. Moore made a grammatical error in this case.

    or

    2) That Dr. Moore is incorrect to dismiss ‘these judgements’ (extremely likely that humans have caused warming) on the basis that the models can’t project the future? If this is what you are saying, I understand your point. That ‘no model can project the future’ doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether or not you can use models for attribution of the past.

    If #2 is the case, I understand your point. I understand, but I don’t particularly agree. While it is not necessarily true that if models can’t predict the future they cannot be used for past attribution, I think it happens to be true. If a model shows no predictive skill in a certain metric, then I think reasonable people would doubt the results of that model applied to attribution of past events.

    Really, looking at it back from the top down, I think you’re being rather hard on Dr. Moore over minor details in phrasing. He was addressing a non-technical audience, trying to make high level points clear.

    Anyway, once again, I appreciate your having taken the time to clarify your position.

  230. Walter K appeared here yesterday, determined to set everyone straight about the IPCC. He refers to the IPCC’s “expert judgement” as if it were scientific evidence. But it isn’t.

    Furthermore, that “expert judgement” has been shown to be about 40% NGO/QUANGO propaganda [much of it supplied by the WWF], but portrayed as if it is scientific evidence. It is not.

    Scientific ‘evidence’ consists of raw data and empirical observations. Neither computer models, nor peer reviewed papers and the IPCC’s pronouncements are scientific ‘evidence’. They are at best, conjectures. Opinions. Beliefs. But there is no credible supporting evidence showing that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. None at all.

    Where does that leave us? It leaves us at the stage of evidence-free conjecture. Now, Walter and others may believe that “carbon” causes runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But we cannot argue with belief, any more than we can argue with religion. We see throughout Walter’s comments that he believes that human CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Just so we understand where the lines are drawn. Walter believes. But scientific skeptics need testable, measurable evidence. If Walter has any, now is the time to post it.

  231. hmm. I said ‘grammatical error’. That’s not the case. The error would be in sentence structure somehow in case #1, but it’s not incorrect grammar.
    Whatever. This isn’t particularly important, but I said that wrong in my post above.

  232. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0&referrer=

    I would love to provide endless links that call into question the events you listed as being linked to climate change.

    Many of these have been recently discussed here, such as the uk floods. Not only have they occurred in a river that they stopped dredging a few decades back, but even the Met Office disagreed with Slingo saying that her statement that the floods were certainly linked to climate change couldn’t be verified.

    I did find one link for you about the California drought. Its from green-loving Justin Gillis of the NYT (see link at top of post).i hope you find it of interest.

    Regards

  233. Aaaah, bugger, I need to go …. you’re a machine! I was in a hurry and weary, so some words I screwed up (again)

    Am I understanding you correctly? YES. More an addition, than a distinction.
    It is simply how I read the article right from the beginning. When I read his “these judgments” I applied that to ALL the above, not just the not “extremely likely” bits.

    Then I went “twang” when I saw him talking about future models, when he was actually addressing past conditions and the attribution for causation. It all made no sense to me.

    But now I do see how you looked at it, and understand that angle too. Which is fine.

    I also can accept that “that’s not actually what he’s trying to say.” as you describe. I don;t make a distinction between being confused by grammar, or the maths btw. But I can get an unintended confusion too. And if that is all it is, then hey, I;m happy chappy on this point about what he meant.

    Very pedantic, sure, but it is how I read it … it is how it was said as much as how I read it or “viewed it” myself. I take half the blame no problem.

    There’s a kicker still about option 2) … I hear what you’re saying and that’s all fine and reasonable,. no arguments. There’s models and then there’s models. Not going there. My biggest grips on this aspect was the “almost entirely,” .. I really don’t buy that. That models play a role sure … but if that was ALL they had they would have nothing to design and run a model for.

    Sure, some maybe all here would say that’s right, they “have nothing”. …. and that ain’t worth discussing except between real scientists modelers etc who know what they are talking about in detail.

    Thx a lot,

  234. Sorry, but having invested this amount of time already:

    That Dr. Moore is saying that the fact that climate models cannot predict the future is the basis for ‘these judgements’

    That wasn’t what he was saying, and that’s not what his sentence structure suggests, either.

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment….
    These judgements … are based on computer models, designed to …”

    You can rewrite without changing the meaning:

    “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment….
    These judgements … are based on computer models. These computer models are designed to …”

    the ‘desgined to’ clause modifies the computer models, but not the judgements. All he said about the judgements were that they were based on the computer models. He then proceeded to say that the computer models couldn’t predict the future. Back in case #2 – I still think it’s reasonable to say that models that show no predictive skill probably aren’t a good basis for estimating past attribution.

    Ok, I’ll let this go now.

  235. HGW xx/7 says: February 28, 2014 at 11:47 am
    “…. the events you listed as being linked to climate change”

    Seems like you take 1+1 and come up with 37 most times HGW. I did NOT “list them as being linked to CC”

    I listed a few top of mind weather events, occurring at the same time as heatwaves in Australia now 2013/14…. and put an honest straight idea to you to have a look for what was the climate elsewhere at the time of 1896, before and after, including the nth hemisphere.

    If you found similar events as are happening now also in 1896 or summer 1895 you have hit the jackpot.

    I personally never touched the issue of CC or events linked to CC in my reply to you …… I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. or trying to win an online debate, I have my ideas, and I know a few things, and that’s all that’s to it. (believe it or not)

    Don’t care what people believe. I’m over it, and have NEVER really bothered arguing about CC etc etc, not for a ages anyway. well bar a few jabs now and then to keep my strength up for fun. Me, I’m just passing through, not looking for a career here.

    [ there was typo earlier ... I forgot the NOT ... ]

    db stealy dude
    “If there is ANY Psychological projection going on here, I know for a fact that it is NOT me doing it.”

  236. dbstealey says: “He refers to the IPCC’s “expert judgement”

    Oh man, some of you guys are dead set bent out of shape …. jumping at SHADOWS everywhere you go …… the IPCC calls it “expert judgment” … read the damned SPM ……

    OH f****************!

    OK, I’ll prove it to you then, not that it will make a dint in anyone’s thick head …. here’s the QUOTE

    “Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement” IPCC WGI AR5 SPM-2 27 September 2013

    It’s called using the CORRECT terminology and jargon, and semantics ….. that others use when one is “discussing THEM” …. aaaaarrrrrrhhhhhhhhhh

    Do I have to provide the URL link as well?

    ha, go fish, try google

    GOT IT GOT IT GOT GOT IT YET?

    Probably not …

  237. Mark B: said “That Dr. Moore is saying that the fact that climate models cannot predict the future is the basis for ‘these judgements’”

    Nope, Dr Moore was saying that climate models that are designed to predict future climate are “almost entirely” the basis upon which those judgments are made = confidence levels and probability.

    I think that’s pretty weak argument.

    eg co-incidentally ….
    “Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement” IPCC WGI AR5 SPM-2 27 September 2013

    You’d be amazed what one will find in the 1990 FAR …. many a climate scientist has forgotten!!!

  238. Walter K says:

    “You’d be amazed what one will find in the 1990 FAR.”

    Yes. The FAR was almost reasonable in it’s confidence estimate. Subsequent AR’s are not.

    Walter also claims: “If there is ANY Psychological projection going on here, I know for a fact that it is NOT me doing it.”

    Wrong again, just like Walter was wrong when he cherry-picked all his examples of local, natural temperature rises. Both faults come from the same mind that has been colonized by global warming propaganda.

  239. Mark, I see this and agree you got that especially right ….. not grammar, (can’t think of the term, but I know what you mean here…. “parsed”?
    RE
    the ‘desgined to’ clause modifies the computer models, but not the judgements. All he said about the judgements were that they were based on the computer models.

    YES, makes more sense ./…. I think SOME judgments, parts of some judgments are indeed being influenced by the climate models.

    But not so much the judgements about “certainty/likelihood/attribution/probability’ judgments of PAST observations … future very much so …. but not the past.

    It’s this sense I particularly felt it was not at all clear, and was misrepresenting the state of affairs, the way he said it …. he may not have “meant it either”, but only he can say now.

    Words and sentences huh? Drive one to drink almost. TY very much Mark B, very good and helpful all round. Now can I go?
    Walter

  240. dbstealey says: February 28, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    “Wrong again, just like Walter was wrong when he cherry-picked all his examples of local, natural temperature rises. Both faults come from the same mind that has been colonized by global warming propaganda.”

    Thanks for confirming you’ve totally lost the plot and off on a happy joy ride through Psychosisland. – BYE give my best to the fairies

  241. Mark B, sorry an error .. “certainty/likelihood/attribution/probability’ judgments of PAST observations …

    take out “attribution” where they DO very much rely upon past history models to determine the attribution for CO2e forcing component.

    Which is precisely why they will never go above “extremely likely @ 95% confidence” because NO computer is “real world perfect”. always some doubt involved as to “quantity”

    I say as simply passing on what the IPCC and modelers “say” … not to convince anyone it is true. That’s up to you.

    With Moore, well, it’s a “judgement” as to how much is required for “proof” … that is an issue in all science, medical especially … with similar levels of uncertainty involved every time they release a new drug/treatment.

    If you are up to it please check this note: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#comment-1578852 regarding warming and temps.

    For ~5 years or so I have heard working climate scientists and online material pushing the view that despite a slowing rate of temps, the “warming” was continuing apace anyway. Equivocation after equivocation. recently I found that 2011 comment … and blew my stack for 24 hours.

    I checked the IPCC glossary and Gavin Schmidt appears to be correct .. but who knew besides him, is the question? To blame Peilke for this “misunderstanding” was pathetic imho.

    You’re good with words and meanings .. what do you make of it?

    Walter

  242. Walter,

    Are you talking about this?

    global warming refers to the INCREASE in global surface temperature anomaly. Indeed, ‘warmth’ is not a pure function of Joules – ice and water at 0 deg C have the same ‘warmth’, but very different heat contents.
    The very NATURAL definition of WARMING IS in terms of TEMPERATURE; when people say that something has warmed, it means that the temperature HAS RISEN. You would be much more effective at communicating your scientific points if you used words in ways other people were already used to. – gavin]

    I’m not familiar with that dialog, but I hope to research it when I’ve got a minute. And actually, I’ve got to run now :) I’ve spent way more time messing around on blogs today than I really ought to have. Not that that’s likely to deter me in the future.

  243. Walter K says:

    “Thanks for confirming you’ve totally lost the plot and off on a happy joy ride through Psychosisland. – BYE give my best to the fairies”

    That is what someone writes when they cannot refute the specific points raised.

    What is your CV, Walter? You keep arguing with a PhD, as if you are as knowledgeable.

    But I very much doubt that.

  244. I want my gases separated.

    IPCC
    It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century

    Every time I breath out my influence I feel a sense of relief. Influence is an important greenhouse gas I’ve been told.

  245. A PhD? Wow, amazing! Who knew? And here I thought you were a psychic mind-reader. Silly me. Certainly wasn’t a PhD in respect for your fellow man, nor in reading comprehension:101 that’s for sure. But so long as you are happy with yourself, who am I to judge?

  246. “Walter K. says:

    February 28, 2014 at 4:30 am”

    You’ve not presented any facts at all, just the usual alarmist PoV and links to the BoM (LOL). You claim to have “seen” data/information, apparently unavailable to lesser mortals, but you won’t publish here at WUWT, you’ve “over it” and “not interested”, go figure. Fact: In 2013, the BoM changed the way it “measures” temps on the Australian continent. And 2013 became the “hottest” year on record. And yet, their own online records, and non-BoM historical records, disputes that claim! I’ve done my research too, and I cannot be bothered, like you, to publish it here for you to see (Another postie already linked to an article here at WUWT which demonstrates 2013 was not unusually “hot” for an Aussie summer).

  247. Mark Bofill, yes that specific comment from Oct 2011.

    Since then RealClimate, IPCC, and everyone else have been chasing this illusive “missing heat” not showing up in GMSTs, whilst saying at the same time that “warming has NOT slowed at all” as per “assumptions” of SLR, arctic ice glacier losses, extreme weather events, it’s being absorbed by the oceans (but the last decade it wasn’t?), and of course the old chestnut “natural variability” (which is reasonable imho given only 0.2C per decade variation).

    Recent published Papers now have several “reasons” for the slowing in temps which adds up to 3 times the total amount supposedly missing .. and so the new “argument” has become well the GMSTs have been “under-estimated” and there is not even a slowing in “real” temps anymore as per Cowtan & Way especially.

    It’s not the ‘science’ of all this that i am interested in — it is the flawed “cognitive thinking” and excuse making and equivocation of “slippery slopes” that is a thorn in my side here. I can handle errors in methodology and natural variations, but not the mis-representations of what is warming and what is not … then for years on end cherry-picking to suit whatever the latest ‘denier’ complaint might be…. and claiming (or rather intimating it) that is now a “scientific based” opinion or fact…. with a note saying to the “public” you go read the “published papers”.

    Like almost every paper written about on real climate in 2012-2013 relates back to explaining away this so called “hiatus” suggesting it was not really real at all …. and was a “mis-representation and mis-understanding” by all these non-climate scientists.

    Now, Gavin Schmidt is from NASA GISS ….. ok? This shows up recently and is NEW News to me, and yet again it’s a different “story” all over again.

    QUOTING Official NASA figures
    Many people think the hiatus is many years “old”. Two decades, or at least 15 years old …
    Not at all … It is actually only three (3) years old, too short a period to produce what you mention it should. Following list, taken from NASA, shows “sliding” decades, and corresponding temperature changes:

    1991-2001: +0.12ºC
    1992-2002: +0.43ºC
    1993-2003: +0.42ºC
    1994-2004: +0.25ºC
    1995-2005: +0.26ºC
    1996-2006: +0.26ºC
    1997-2007: +0.19ºC
    1998-2008: -0.12ºC
    1999-2009: +0.25ºC
    2000-2010: +0.30ºC
    2001-2011: +0.02ºC
    2002-2012: -0.04ºC
    2003-2013: +0.02ºC

    Apart from the decade starting in the exceptional year of 1998, ONLY last thee ending in 2011, 2012 and 2013 show no clear warming. [end quote]

    Cheers

  248. Patrick says: — to have “seen” data/information —

    yes, of the 1896 heatwave not previously published on climate related blogs. You got a problem with that?

    Since when was I your slave to your bidding? I have other things to do in my life. I gave the highlights ….. you can accept that, or go search yourself. It’s free, try google if you are talented enough to find it. Look on it as a personal “challenge”.

    RE “demonstrates 2013 was not unusually “hot” for an Aussie summer)”

    not unusually? over the entire continent … two summers in a row, the whole of 2012 with record breaking temps, followed by all of 2013 with record breaking temps, warmest winter in 2013 since Noah built an Arc, worst bush fires in living memory in multiple regions early SPRING 2013, then early summer, then mid-summer all over the continent in 2013/14, and yet here you are you happily believing someone (an expert?) on the “internet” who tells you it wasn’t that “unusual” …. and that the BOM have fudged the figures / changed their system and that’s why dumb people think it is unusual because the TV news with stiff in a white jacket from BOM says it was a record? Otherwise no one would have noticed it was HOT?

    F******** Bullshit, that is simply insane, honestly it is utterly disconnected from reality. .. and from plain common sense.

    Did you bother to ask a volunteer firefighter whose being doing it for 40 years maybe? No, well they are not as expert as a pixeled report in words given on WUWT .. no way. And I am just making it up because I’ve been brainwashed and can’t look out my own window and see which way the breeze is blowing?

    Did you go look at ONE of those reports from The Conversation written by completely separate universities who are experts in their field? Nope. Probably was written by the sister of someone who works at the BOM and part of the world takeover I suppose.

    Like how dumb do you really want to be in your life, before some simple common sense cracks your skull open (metaphorically speaking) ?

    LOL

  249. “When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today,.. Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages”

    Dr. Moore,
    The fact that when CO2 was 10x higher (4,000 ppm) temperature was 22 C demonstrates the GHE theory is correct. This actually translates to 2.3 C increase in temperature for every doubling of CO2. Meaning 400 ppm to 4,000 ppm = 14.5 C to 22 C

    This is consistent with the observed temperature and CO2 rise in the 20th century, which translates to 2.4 C for doubling of CO2. Derived by extrapolating the actual data. But this can also be due to other factors or to chance.

  250. Dr. Strangelove, how do you explain that 450 million years ago during an ice age co2 was 10 times as high as now? This shows that high co2 will not stop an ice age from taking hold. So what is the mechanism that can cause that?

  251. “Walter K. says:

    February 28, 2014 at 7:11 pm”

    You were the one claiming to “know” and have “seen” data/information etc, so show it. 2012 and 2013 were not unusual for Australia. Remind us all again how the BoM measures temperatures over the entire continent od Australia (With ~180 sites/stations)? And tell us again why the BoM changed the way they “measure temps over the entire continent” in 2013? The most reliable temperature records won’t be found at the BoM, sadly! I could tell you, but I am so over it… BYE!

  252. dbstealey, wanted to let you know I have no idea what you’re talking about at all now. Letting it go may be the easier solution.

    My CV? An “appeal to authority” is your preference I see. You would only find another BOX to stick me in I suspect, given your track record thus far.

    Just assume I am in the top 6 to 2 percentile in all intelligence modes. My most challenging and complex business experience was General manager running an $80 million per year (2013 values) turnover, 24/7 with a staff of over 900 including 130 management personnel. Later National Marketing Manager and PR for major corporation with 10,000 staff nationwide. Shit easy. Real world experience and responsibilities equiv to MBA with Distinction today.

    A Google Master, SEO expert, multi-Webmaster, Internet Marketing and Internet Security software expert & sales into the mid-2000s. Part-time Historian on my days off. Philosopher and all round nice guy with a great sense of humor and my two feet on the ground who won’t take shit from anyone and who calls a spade a spade.

    I suggest you simply address the ‘content’, cross check it with published papers and sound reasoning, logic, cognitive thinking skills, and common sense. A little courtesy never hurts either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

  253. Walter K. said…. “So to those who believe that there is no AGW, or no climate change, or that if there is then it is no big deal, then you better hope you are right. But all you have on your side at present is “hope”. That’s it.”

    If that is not a statement of fear of the future then what is? My saying you were expressing that we were all going to fry in the future was perhaps an exaggeration but your above statement puts you in the AGW camp at least and maybe into the CAGW camp, but then you also said that Dr. Moore might be right. You are waffling to my eyes, but that’s okay, its a complex field as you noted.

  254. “Walter K. says:

    February 28, 2014 at 7:55 pm”

    Remind us all again how the BoM can reliably measure temps across the entire continent of Australia now and how temps were measured when records began? Yes, I do suffer from dyslexia, but it does not make me arrogant.

  255. The pompous windbag is giving dbstealey advice on winning friends?

    Another keyboard commando desperate for visits.

  256. Russ,
    could you not see the difference between an “emotive fear” being vented and expressing an opinion about the lack of reason, the lack of substantive facts or evidence to support a logical argument that X is true.

    It is one thing to pick away at the arguments and flaws and gaps in the evidence of a group of scientists who ‘conclude’ based on their assumptions, research evidence, and judgments that Y be true…. but another thing altogether for a “group/s” to assert either
    1) there is no AGW, or
    2) there is no man-made climate change it is all >95% natural, or
    3) or if there is climate change then it isn’t dangerous it is good for us & civilization, or
    4) that if there is AGW with CC then it is no big deal anyway

    …… only to then likewise fail to meet the very same standards that are being set for and expected of the pro-climate change group and subsequently fail “prove that beyond reasonable doubt” that any item related to Y is true.

    Can you not see this is in fact an accurate state of affairs? Pronouncements that X is untrue even with some evidence that raises “doubts” will never prove that Y is therefore true.

    That is a false dichotomy. Everyone on all sides keeps insisting that their “logical fallacy” is better than the others. This approach is fundamentally flawed, logically and cognitively. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, or pot kettle black applies.

    Science is (or used to be) not about “opinion” or “personal values”. It is about establishing the actual facts based upon researched evidence according to the ‘scientific method’. This goes all the way back to the Ancient Greeks starting with Pythagoras, and of course others in the region before him. Nothing has changed in this system, except that it has been overlaid with modern media propaganda and advanced marketing techniques mis-using what’s been learnt about human psychology in the 20th century.

    Everyone is guilty here, no one is innocent. All are to blame if that’s important to some people.

    At the moment the disparate partisans for 1 thru 4 are all ganging up on the pro-AGW science 5th group. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This will not last, it never does. History proves this repeatedly.

    Fact is, and the evidence is there to see for those who are awake, is that this primary target, the 5th group is itself fracturing apart right now, and moving in different directions over the issue of AGW and potential threats/danger of present and future climate change implications.

    There are professional jealousies, political values, personal ethics, beliefs, and differing thinking process ambitions involved here. But falling apart it is, and fast behind the scenes and away from the public’s eye. Subtle nuances can be noticed publicly if one was aware of it, and think to look for it. Not many are, so involved in their own “thing” are they.

    The way I look at this now, there are two fleets terrorizing the citizenry of the world with RHETORIC trying to win the hearts and minds of the populace. This childish “war” needs to stop, because it is serving no one anywhere.

    If by way of example only, the likes of Roy Spencer ‘climatologist’ is unable to convince his own peers as to the rightness of his arguments on the strength of his scientific evidence then this is HIS own personal failing, and he better own that.

    On the other hand if the likes of Gavin Schmidt ‘climatologist’ (who btw refuses to even talk to or listen to Roy) is incapable of convincing his own peers as to the rightness of his arguments on the strength of his scientific evidence then this is HIS own personal failing, and he better own that too!.

    Now, I have very serious reservations about publicly and privately funded research universities and institutes, of Government Bodies like NASA GISS, EPA, IPCC et al, and their employed academics and climate scientists (and others or teaching professors) and department heads (some of whom are officially public servants) and yet who REFUSE OUTRIGHT to actively engage in mature dialogue with all others in their field, especially those with a different view, and who also might REFUSE OUTRIGHT to make a constructive effort to inform the citizenry of the world of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as it is presently known – instead of lurking in the shadows playing mind games through the “media”.

    There is something seriously wrong when a leading climatologist who presents himself PUBLICLY as a “communicator and educator” of that science and yet is either too afraid, too incompetent, or simply feels it is beneath his high almighty status, to sit in a TV interview etc. with another genuine climatologist but who disagrees with him and argue his scientific case IN PUBLIC venues and stand up for what he ‘claims’ he believes in and knows is TRUE.

    It’s pathetic imho.

    Does this clarify my actual personal opinions better Russ? I hope it does. Best I can do.

    And no, I do not expect any one here to care what I think either. It is what it is. Take it or leave it, I have nothing to prove. Others do.

    Walter

  257. I also assert that there is absolutely no room in this “scientific debate disagreement” or “war” for the many people sticking their noses into it such as like Al Gore or Monckton. The sooner they piss off the better for all.

    Let them stick to the ‘politics’ of what to do once the UN of nations have got their shit together enough to agree on what the REAL evidence based supported science actually is telling us .. and sign off it.

    Time for the scientists themselves to get their shit together FIRST, and cut the endless crap and their nonstop ego head trips and GROW UP.

    Until then, everything else is a total waste of pixel dust on a billion computer monitors. That’s what mean by “totally I am over it”.

    This is my personal SHOT ACROSS THE BOWS ….

  258. Robert in Calgary,
    Imagine you’ve walked into a saloon bar for drink. There’s two guys sitting on their bar stools about 10 feet apart having a bit of terse conversation. Go go stand between the two of them. You turn to one and say: “The pompous windbag is giving advice on winning friends? Another saloon bar commando desperate for attention.”

    What happens next Robert?

    Maybe you have heard of a ‘flame war’. This isn’t one yet, but if you wish to start one the best thing to do is throw are tin of gasoline on the embers and stick your nose into things that do not concern you.

    Everything you need to learn about this was being taught in kindergarten. For those who missed the lessons there is the saloon bar. For those who missed the lessons in the saloon bar there is always the Internet.

    One of my other hats I wear is a teacher.

    Have a great day there in Calgary. Always wanted to go there and see the stampede etc. Knew a hot singer from there in the 80s. Used to have a nice ex-Hutterite as an online buddy many years ago now. Nice people. Please don’t spoil the images I have kept. :-)

    Gold star for anyone who can pick up the implanted chiastic aphorism.

  259. Walter , just so that you can rest easy , the view that is shared by the majority on this site is set out below. It’s not clear whether you agree with it or not. But your last couple of posts suggest that you may not have picked up on this :-

    “Unless our understanding of radiative physics is wrong then increased
    greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the air must induce some additional warming , all things being equal.

    But the climate system is constantly changing : “all things being equal” never happens.

    We do NOT KNOW to what degree human activities have altered GHG ratios in the atmosphere .

    We do NOT KNOW to what degree altered GHG ratios in the atmosphere have contributed to the present natural global warming (which is the recovery from the Little Ice Age).

    Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.

    What CAN be said is that, to date, there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”

  260. Walter K. says:
    February 28, 2014 at 11:25 am
    NRG22 says: February 28, 2014 at 10:59 am

    WTF does what M Mann do somewhere else I have never been to, have to do with ME, besides nothing?

    I don’t have twitter (never will), nor Facebook, (never will), I don’t follow him (or anyone) like a junkie all over the internet.

    NRG22 asks: – “You mean self-promotion like that?”

    ……… well what do you think?

    Take a stab at it, toss a coin or make your best GUESS.

    As if you actually give a toss what I think. Stand up and speak for yourself. Don’t lean all over me like a drunk at 3am in a nightclub crying for a lift home from someone you don’t know. What crap.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    My post was in response to you saying, “Moore’s own self-promotion in direct marketing his book sales here is another telling ethical issue worthy of wise consideration, no matter how much he believes in his own omniscience of the very complex subject matter.”

    If you’re as intelligent as you say you are (when you sang your own praises further up the thread) you should realize that your statement is a weak argument and pedantic.

    The guru of the hockey stick, the hero of AGW, whose examples of self-promotion I supplied for you is never in question by the AGW crowd, but Moore plugs ONE book and he’s somehow unethical. That’s typical in your crowd, they try to claim the skeptics are in it for the money. The facts I presented don’t align with that thinking.

    You seem like an intelligent guy, but you also seem to be a bore. I’d rather listen to a room full of less intelligent people that are nice, than one intelligent person who is nasty. I don’t want to turn this into a pissing contest, particularly because I’m a woman, so I’ve had my say and you can have yours if you like, but I’m done speaking to you. Have a nice day.

  261. Russ, I already answered that in my previous post. Ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles. Not everything that happen in the climate are caused by greenhouse gases. If you want to disprove GHE theory, don’t cite ice ages. Cite the fact that ice core data reveal that CO2 rise lags temperature rise by 800 years. That reverses the causality. Warm climate increases atmospheric CO2 due to outgassing of CO2 in the ocean. But that doesn’t prove causality flows only in one direction.

  262. Double posting, I apologize. My above post reminded me of something I want to comment on even though this may not be the best place to do it in.

    I’ve been skeptical of “man made global warming” since the beginning, but I was open to the data proving the case one way or the other. I do believe there is climate change, it’s pretty obvious, but I’m not convinced mankind is the cause. Yet. If the data is conclusive, versus consensus, I can accept it.

    Now and then I’ve had my doubts about being a skeptic. What if I’m wrong? What if I just refuse to see the truth? What if they’re right? I buy into the bully pulpit and doubt.

    But then I inevitably remember how all the conversations I’ve read by skeptical scientists and skeptical non-scientists are conducted in a respectful, calm, factual manner. And I remember how the CAGW conversations are almost always ad hominem attacks, elitist attitudes, emotional arguments, and I come back to reality. If the facts are on THEIR side, why the hostility? Why the bullying? It does not compute.

    So, I’m still firmly in the skeptical camp, go Team Skeptics, and I will be until the CAGW crowd can calmly, rationally, emotionlessly prove their case.

  263. “NRG22 says:

    March 1, 2014 at 12:56 am”

    Well said. Genuine scientists will, almost always, state that “they don’t know”. This is a fact! It seems only *climate* “scientists”, the IPCC, economists, propagandists (Cook et al) and politicians who clearly state they are 97% CERTAIN of anything. And then we have the “pissing” contests and contestants…*sigh*…

  264. Walter K. says:
    February 28, 2014 at 10:41 pm

    Robert in Calgary, blow me! Ya can lead a horse to water ……….
    …..but you can’t make it think.

  265. NRG22 again goes off half cocked. saying : “If you’re as intelligent as you say you are (when you sang your own praises further up the thread) you should realize that your statement is a weak argument and pedantic.”

    ACtually I wasn’t making any kind of argument. THe coment I made there was irrelvant to anything else. It was in fact a personal opinion that I was expressing. I said what I felt and thought about it. I said in a “smart assed way” that even iof he was 100% perfect in in his own estimations that this still did not chnage my opinion about the books sales thing. It was already mentioned by Mr Watts at the top of the thread anyway … my feelings are that peole can work out for themselves he write a book and buy it anytime wihtout being told ona “discussion” forum about a shoirt speech he gave to Congress .. either do this as public service or don’t. Buy all means write a book and sell , seel a milion but don’t mix the two.

    Now you ahve a problme with that me saying that? I should have also had mentioend Mann and everyone esle in the world who does this? No, .. and I repeat, I had serious reservations about the LOGIC, the facts in his presentation to congress .. I have not judged the man personally.

    IF you ahve an issue with Mann .. which has nothing to do with me at all .. you should go tell him .. he has an email address via Penn state .. use it!

    Just leave me out of it … this is simply silly. and yeah I am intelligent. You want me to apologise for that too? IF you were intelligent (or not so emotionally bent out of shape) you’d realise already I was NOT making an argument regarding the book promo, weak or otherwise.

  266. farmerbraun, thx for the information. appreciated.

    I accept there are many variations in peoples views, which is fine. I try avoid any broad brushed conclusions, but have been know to put my views on specifics …. eg unusual climate/weather in australia as being a hard fact, not an opinion. the evidence is there IF one wishes to look at it with a clear head and no ideology or strong beliefs behind it.

    I’ll say something about the following though
    “What CAN be said is that, to date, there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”

    The conclusion at the end may be right (or wrong) the logic is flawed, it simply does not follow rationally. so someone should look at that and revise it imho. You can’t prove a negative such as “no evidence”; for an absence of evidence does not and cannot mean evidence of absence. Therefore one has to be able to prove scientifically that any evidence provided FOR human influence is flawed .. AND convince the scientists who say it isn’t.

    That requires published science papers, peer reviewed, and strongly promoted and then supported and referenced by others over time. That isn’t happening. so just saying “there is no evidence for discernible AGW” is really meaningless – why? Because it changes nothing anywhere. Even if it is true, it is still meaningless .. see?

    and this line “so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”’ is very irrational, and needs re-thinking. IF it exists then it needs to be measured and quantified scientifically, AFTER than is when one can judge how significant or trivial it is. This is only common sense.

    The general public and interested parties are irrelevant here, such as “the CAGW crowd” etc – to the extent of a group who support one side or the other they (we) don’t amount to a hill of beans. The real power resides in the Institutions of the world, be it NAS, Universities, government bodies, UN nation states etc.

    Most people forget or overlook that the IPCC is in fact a body that is controlled by national Governments, including the reports they publish. Yes the scientists and volunteers work hard over years to pull the reports together choosing which papers are “ok” to use and so on, to arrive at their “expert judgment” as to what the “scientific consensus” according the IPCC system …. but at the end of the day representatives of each national government turns up .. it is THEY who have the final say of what gets printed and released, and not the IPCC people.

    Much is arranged and decided behind closed doors before they turn up. It is a “geo-political forum” to get those reports out, not much different than the UNFCCC COP meetings iow,

    Public opinion is an interesting beast. It is not grass roots bottom up kind of animal at all. It is always orchestrated by those who reside in and have a degree of “institutional power” .. every one in the public are merely cannon fodder … being played like a violin. Every now and then the audience quits and walks out …. usually onto the streets.

    The climate is what it is …. whatever it is humanity has to live within its bounds or suffer the consequences. No scientific evidence nor peer-reviewed papers required to prove that one. Is there? Who then has the resources and skills to determine what is going on in the climate and how it operates? The scientists as a body of individuals. If the people can do one thing it is only to keep pressure on the political system to ensure there is NO interference in the genuine work of scientists and that they are supported in that. It’s a very imperfect system. Think rationally. Don’t buy any wooden nickles. use one’s common sense as much as possible. People do lie. A lot.

  267. NRG22, well said. Team Skeptics, neat.

    I have a lecture vid on my site “Critical Thinking: Separating Skepticism from Denial”
    It suggests, among other things that: “You don’t need a PhD in climate science to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is talking nonsense. You simply need a bit of science, a bit of critical thinking and objectivity.”
    “But you need to see distinctions. Between the basic science and the advanced science. Between real skepticism and denial which often calls itself skepticism. Between good science and bad science. And between science and politics. If you understand these four distinctions a lot becomes clearer.”

    http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/critical-thinking-top-10-dos.html

    or go direct to youtube:

    “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.” Albert Einstein 1879-1955

    Every where we go, whatever we do, good science has been consistently telling us all, and for a very very long time, that we are not as ‘smart’ as we believe we are.

    We are consistently Biased towards ourselves, our beliefs, our own opinions and values.

    University of California Television (UCTV) Nov 2005
    Professor George Lakoff: Moral Politics
    Framing, Metaphorical Thought, Rationality, Morality Metaphors, Thought.
    UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff explores how successful political debates are framed by using language targeted to people’s Values instead of their support for specific government programs.

    New America Foundation 2008
    UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff is a New York Times bestselling author of “The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Mind”

    The way we perceive ourselves and others can influence how we respond to contested issues, including climate change. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.269/pdf

    However, these perceptions are subject to cognitive biases or distortions as we attempt to make sense of the world around us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    Research shows these Biases extend far beyond our political opinions, scientific knowledge, or climate change issues. Most of us tend to think we are always better than others. As if it was ‘hard-wired’ into us and out of our control. The “better than average effect” describes our predisposition to think of ourselves as exceptional, especially among our peers.

    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/38/2/209.short

    The effect reflects our tendency to think of ourselves as more virtuous and moral, more compassionate and understanding, and ironically even less Biased than other people!
    In a famous example, when people were asked to assess their own driving ability relative to peers, more than three-quarters of people considered themselves to be safer than the average driver.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691881900056

    Exploring the Psychology of Wealth: The ‘Pernicious’ Effects of Income Inequality
    “Higher social class predicts increased unethical behaviour”
    PNAS approved January 26, 2012 Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109

    with Video – In a series of startling studies, psychologists at the University of California at Berkeley have found that “upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.” Ongoing research is trying to find out what it is about wealth — or lack of it — that makes people behave they way they do. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365029352/

    Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?
    It seems not. A short video about basic mathematics and common sense being used to understand “exponential growth” as a fundamental driver of global warming, environmental destruction, peak oil and natural gas, water and arable land shortages, social decay, loss of ocean fish stocks, population growth, mass refugees, asylum seekers, resource wars, climate wars, etc. etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE

    Enjoy a weekend in out of the cold. :-)

  268. I didn’t realize the video links would display above, sorry if that’s a problem, won’t do it again. also skip to 4mins in the first video which touches on the best points there (if you are interested or skip all of them)

  269. Walter K. says:

    March 1, 2014 at 5:03 am

    I’ll say something about the following though
    “What CAN be said is that, to date, there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”

    The conclusion at the end may be right (or wrong) the logic is flawed, it simply does not follow rationally. so someone should look at that and revise it imho. You can’t prove a negative such as “no evidence”; for an absence of evidence does not and cannot mean evidence of absence. Therefore one has to be able to prove scientifically that any evidence provided FOR human influence is flawed .. AND convince the scientists who say it isn’t.

    That requires published science papers, peer reviewed, and strongly promoted and then supported and referenced by others over time. That isn’t happening. so just saying “there is no evidence for discernible AGW” is really meaningless – why? Because it changes nothing anywhere. Even if it is true, it is still meaningless .. see?

    and this line “so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”’ is very irrational, and needs re-thinking. IF it exists then it needs to be measured and quantified scientifically, AFTER than is when one can judge how significant or trivial it is. This is only common sense.

    Bold is mine.

    Note the first says “discernable”. That is the key. Since it isn’t discernable, calling it “trivial if it exists” is more than reasonable.

    The 3rd bold line is a big “IF”: I believe we are all still waiting for it to be measured and quantified scientifically. I propose that it can be neither until it can be observed. Until that time, the following remains appropriate:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Thanks to Petition Project)

  270. The big picture, if average global temperatures went well above the 25 Celsius area then we should be worried, but at the current level of about 14 having just come off of the floor of 12, how does this justify ringing the alarm bells? And yes the earth still managed to go into an ice age with co2 in the 4000 to 7000 ppm range, a hell of lot higher than the current 400 ppm.

  271. Walter K. says:
    March 1, 2014 at 5:03 am

    “That requires published science papers, peer reviewed, and strongly promoted and then supported and referenced by others over time. That isn’t happening. so just saying “there is no evidence for discernible AGW” is really meaningless – why? Because it changes nothing anywhere. Even if it is true, it is still meaningless .. see?

    Right .
    That’s why the statement was ” TO DATE (my bold) , there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities ,”.

    The things that you list as requirements are in fact happening , but slowly. Give it another decade or so, and some surety may emerge, or it may not.

  272. Walter K says:

    My CV? An “appeal to authority” is your preference I see. You would only find another BOX to stick me in I suspect, given your track record thus far.

    Ah. I see. No formal education in anything climate related. Next, Walter says:

    Just assume I am in the top 6 to 2 percentile in all intelligence modes. heh

    Walter appeals to authority:

    “…published papers…” “…IPCC…” &etc. But papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations. The alarmist crowd never seems to have any real evidence to support their beliefs.

    Walter would be much easier to take, if he simply responded to straightforward questions from the scientific skeptics here, such as: Do you have any measurable, testable scientific evidence showing the causality of CO2 on global temperatures?

    That would go down a lot easier than telling other commenters, like the always polite NRG22:

    “NRG22 again goes off half cocked”

    And: “Blow me,”

    And: “Thanks for confirming you’ve totally lost the plot and off on a happy joy ride through Psychosisland. – BYE give my best to the fairies”

    And: Maybe you have heard of a ‘flame war’. This isn’t one yet, but if you wish to start one the best thing to do is throw are tin of gasoline on the embers and stick your nose into things that do not concern you. <–[This is Walter trying to start a flame war, no?

    And: Don’t lean all over me like a drunk at 3am in a nightclub crying for a lift home from someone you don’t know. What crap.

    And: That is simply BULLSHIT… You can shove it.

    And numerous similar insults. Take away the insults, and Walter really doesn’t have much to say, does he? Robert in Calgary says this about Walter:

    The pompous windbag is giving dbstealey advice on winning friends? Another keyboard commando desperate for visits.

    Doubled and squared, Robert.

    Walter says he was a manager. I can guess why he doesn’t say he is a manager. Because managers don’t last long treating others like dirt. Walter is clearly insecure. How could he not be, needing to put everyone down like that, in post after post? Well, that is Walter’s problem, and it’s a big one. But the problem we have here is getting Walter to calm down, and try to post measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is the cause of the current global warming — if he has any such evidence. If he does, he will be the first.

    To mitigate Walter’s fear, looking at this chart I can count at least twenty other ‘hockey stick’ shapes that are indistinguishable from Michael Mann’s. The obvious conclusion is that the current climate is not unusual at all. Walter, of course, is frightened of the “carbon” scare. But it is obviously a false alarm. There is no scientific evidence that there is any kind of problem. None at all. Of course, I stand corrected if anyone can post verifiable evidence showing that X amount of CO2 causes Y temperature rise. But so far, no one has been able to find any such evidence. And of course CO2 has been much higher in the past, with no ill effects.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Finally, farmerbraun says:
    February 28, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    “…there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities , and so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.”

    That’s it in a nutshell. That is what the entire “carbon” scare is about. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. And thanks to John Who for quoting the correct conclusion of the tens of thousands of OISM co-signers: CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. There is no evidence for any global harm or damage from the rise in that beneficial trace gas. It’s all good.

  273. Here is a quick story;

    I had a neighbour. Unbelievable I.Q. I’m talking 160’s. We lived shoreline on a beautiful bay.
    It was fall and the ice was freezing over the bay. I watched as this “genius” walked out to the edge of the ice in the middle of the bay. His significant other, who stayed well back ( I guess she wasn’t as smart), watched in horror, as did I. I mentally went over my checklist as to how to retrieve Mensa-dude safely. Fortunately, as soon as the water started rushing towards him, he turned and ran towards shore (right past his incredulous missus) at full gate.
    I guess even the incredibly intelligent can look but not see.
    Sadly, he was also socially incapable, to be kind.

  274. dbstealey says:
    March 1, 2014 at 11:10 am –

    The quote is attributable to another well- known frequent poster on here. I did alter it slightly.

  275. Dr. Moore before the US Senate states, the CO2 emission has no provable connection to climate change, so fuck CO2-reduction. On the other hand he promotes nuclear, because it is “the only reasonable way” to help reduce CO2 emission.

    His company ‘Green Spirit’ is by it’s on definition a PR-consultancy.
    He’s on the payrole of NEI and AP&P
    – draw your conclusions.

  276. The thing about Greenpeace and all the other environmentalists is this, they started us becoming aware of what we humans were doing to our planet. We by nature are polluters, and getting us to all be aware of what we had/ have been doing and started a movement to clean up our act is the most important thing to remember. Take politics out of the environment should allow us to concentrate on furthering a realistic approach to a sustainable energy that does not pollute our environment. Get this away from the politicians who only use things like this for their own politician gain, right or wrong, it is not important to them, only the power they are able to gain.

  277. David Ball, it would be beneficial for you personally, if you believe the conclusions in those two books referenced, to educate yourself about the nature of logical fallacies, thinking critically, rational skepticism, evidence based argument versus manipulative rhetoric & pure sophistry, cognitive neuroscience, philosophy + logic + ethics, the advances in human reasoning since the enlightenment, and thus teaching yourself how to recognize, in an instant, the intellectually dishonest and the incompetent narcissistic attention seekers of this world. Yours, Walter.

  278. Kim D M Simmons says:

    The thing about Greenpeace and all the other environmentalists is this, they started us becoming aware of what we humans were doing to our planet.

    What was being done was known long before Greenpeace ever existed. My father was a member of Ducks Unlimited [DU]since the late 1930’s. DU was started by hunters, who were the original conservationists. They bought and preserved wetlands because without them, ducks disappear.

    Maybe you only became aware of environmental issues since Greenpeace appeared. But that does not mean there weren’t plenty of environmentalists and conservationists in America. You could read up on John Muir and others.

    Greenpeace has simply lost it’s way. It became infiltrated by those cast adrift when the Berlin Wall came down. The “greens” are controlled by the FSB [which used to be the KGB before the Soviet empire imploded].

    Environmentalism has been hijacked. It is now political. You don’t see Greenpeace members getting out and restoring wetlands. That is still being done by conservationist groups like Ducks Unlimited.

    If you want to take politics out of the environment, you can stop supporting Greenpeace. They care about as much for the environment as the average East German commissar did.

  279. dbstealey says: March 1, 2014 at 11:10 am
    Walter K says: My CV? An “appeal to authority” is your preference I see. You would only find another BOX to stick me in I suspect, given your track record thus far.
    — “Ah. I see. No formal education in anything climate related. ”

    Really? I sit at the table throwing you crumbs and you believe it and then draw unfounded conclusions based on what someone said to you on the “internet”.

    Next point, and if I presented a hard and fast CV listing multiple expertise in climate this would still be rejected anyway by dbstealey, who ahs already rejected out of hand the 9,000 climate related sceitists who wrote the Papers that informed the summary provided by the IPCC in Sept 2013.

    One more “climate scientist” will make difference to dbstealey’s opinions and faulty thinking processes. He cannot even manage an intelligent dialogue on WUWT, or work out what is being said. Some ‘intelligent expert’ is he.

    I have it on good authority dbstealey that despite your own narcissistic beliefs about your own superiority in thinking skills and expertise level that in fact you are as dumb as dirt. The authority for this statement of fact is your very onw self, who has provided all the evidence required to draw such a self-evident conclusion. Yet here he is on WUWT presuming he has something of value to share or teach others. This is exactly what self-delusion looks like in practice. Well done dbstealey for succinctly exposing your own short-comings here.

    RE : Next, Walter says: Just assume I am in the top 6 to 2 percentile in all intelligence modes.
    “heh Walter appeals to authority:”

    Yet dbstealey linking to his own “background” via his name, and then ASKING FOR MY CV is some how NOT not “appeal to authority” when it is the exact same thing. You really area stupid little child who is totally out of your depth here in this conversation.

    Work out what it is you wish to do here dbstealey – do you want to know my background and level of lifetime expertise, IQ functioning skills and education level or do you not. You cannot have it both ways by then criticizing one for partly doing so to only BITCH about it and RIDICULE IT PUBLICLY. Were you drunk dbstealey when you wrote your response? It sure appears as if you are. If you are not, then god help you.

    RE – “…published papers…” “…IPCC…” &etc. But papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations. The alarmist crowd never seems to have any real evidence to support their beliefs.” —

    Well well, now that is totally INSANE and disconnected from reality. The evidence for the conclusions set out in the Abstracts are in the Papers which detail the research of the “raw data and empirical observations” in every climate science related Paper ever done. Anyone who had completed an undergraduate course even slightly climate science related would already KNOW THIS IS THE CASE .. and would not be on WUWT lying though their teeth, being intellectually dishonest and sprouting disingenuous untrue crap about the Science.

    For example the IPCC AR5 WGI reports alone drew upon and summarized the the finding of all the accumulated EVIDENCE contained in ~30,000 Papers researched and prepared by ~9,000 individual scientists. That is the truth of it.

    The dumb as dirt dbstealey then proceeds to LIE about this FACT by falsely claiming that: “papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations.”

    WHICH IS TOTALLY, PROVABLY, SELF-EVIDENTLY FALSE – THIS IS PUBLICLY LYING ABOUT THE TRUTH OF IT. It is mythology at work, cultist thinking at work, denial at work. For this is not Skepticism nor Scientific evidence thought at work here. It is discarding the factual evidence in favour of self-delusions and emotional Biases. It is fabricated BULLSHIT being sprouted by an abject “climate moron” incapable of thinking for himself, let alone guiding others. This is provably so, this is not ad hominem based but the HARD FACT of the matter.

    Walter would be much easier to take, if he simply responded to straightforward questions from the scientific skeptics here, such as: Do you have any measurable, testable scientific evidence showing the causality of CO2 on global temperatures?

    dbstealey, given you have already abandoned over 100 years of accumulated scientific evidence presenting another atom of it here is a waste of every’s time. Are you stupid or something? Maybe you just love the attention living on an internet blog pretending you are far smarter than you are gaining the kudos from equally disingenuous narcissistic ideological fools who know as little as you do, have abandoned the scientific method as you have, but still imagine you have the MIRACLE answers for everyone else in the world.

    Yes, apparently you are stupid, clearly you are. I am not playing your childish little games here …. I am in charge of this tete a tete, and it is I whom is writing what I choose to write and when I write it, and how I write. You sir, am not in control here. Not by a long shot.

    So dbstealey “Blow me!”

    RE “Walter says he was a manager. I can guess why he doesn’t say he is a manager. ”

    Again this shows the limits of your cognitive thinking skills. Zero squared. Making shit up and living your life in a fantasy land of make believe and presumption and delusions is your free choice. Likely, you have no way of understanding what I just said there either. C’est la Vie.

    RE “Walter is clearly insecure. How could he not be, needing to put everyone down like that, in post after post?”

    wow, deep! Not. You are not used to people standing up to your incessant inanities and manipulations and calling you on it to your face. Not here and not in your normal life either. You are not used to someone who responds to ridicule and insults and other kinds of mind games by going for the throat whilst calling it for what it is – knowing exactly what he is doing and why.

    Don’t confuse the man behind the pixels, but of course you will anyway. As I said dbstealey, man, you are totally out of your depth here, you’re drowning and I am not going to throw you a life jacket. Drown man, you will drown in your own bullshit here without any help from me.

    RE “…getting Walter to calm down”

    ROTFLMFAO …… don’t kid yourself. Oops, too late already.

    Climate change related scientists do climate science for a living. Surprise! Articles. Presentations. Workshops. Conferences. Staying late at night to work for science. Working on the weekends for science. All of those crappy holidays like Presidents’ Day? The ones you look forward to for that day off of work? Those are not holidays for most scientists. Those are the days when the undergrads stay home and the scientists can work without endless distractions.

    Now take a second before you drop your knowledge bomb on this page and remind me again… What’s your day job? When was the last time you read through an entire scholarly article on climate change? How many climate change journals can you name? How many conferences have you attended? Have you ever had coffee or a beer with a group of colleagues who study climate change? Are you sick of these inane questions yet, or should I keep going?

    I’m a scientist that studies how ecological systems respond to climate change. I would never presume to tell a climate scientist that their models are crap. I just don’t have the depth of knowledge to critically assess their work and point out their flaws. And that’s fair, because they don’t have the depth of knowledge in my area to point out my flaws. Yet, here we are, with deniers and apologists with orders of magnitude less scientific expertise, attempting to argue about climate change. There’s so much nonsense here almost anyone could intellectually drown in it within 3 minutes.

  280. When I made my last post Friday night I decided a good way to deal a “Walter” type – go have a fantastic weekend ( -40C with the wind, in contrast to his threat to “flame” me – so scary!) and give Walter the worst punishment possible – ignore him.

  281. FYI

    “(a) Sherwood et al (2014) and Fasullo & Trenberth (2012) show that the most likely value for ECS is about 4.5 degrees C instead of the assumed mean value of 3 degrees C; therefore, you should multiply the old projections by a factor of about 1.5, due to the low amount of cloud cover near the equator.

    (b) Pistone et al. (2014) shows that the decrease in Arctic albedo (including land snow, sea ice and black carbon effects) beyond that previously assumed results in additional radiative forcing equal to ¼ of the CO₂ in the atmosphere.

    (c) Schuur & Abbott (2011) shows that the permafrost emits about 2% of its carbon emissions as methane instead of as CO₂ (as assumed by AVOID), and as over a one hundred year period, methane has a global warming potential at least 35 times that of CO₂, this means at least a 70% error in the carbon emissions from the permafrost degradation. See also Monday et al. (2014) and Isaksen et al. (2011).

    (d) Cowtan & Way (2013); England et al. (2014); Santer et al (2014); and Rosenfeld (2014); all provide solid evidence that the current mean global temperature has been masked by such causes as: limited data; the negative phase of the PDO cycle; volcanoes, and aerosols, respectively. Furthermore, once corrections are applied to the GCM projections to account for these masking mechanisms, one will find that the ECS is actually higher than previously assumed, which supports my points (a), (b) and (c).

    (e) Hansen et al. (2013) and Previdi (2013) show that the inclusion of slow-response feedback mechanisms can cause Earth Systems Sensitivity to be as high as 6 degrees C (while work such as Pistone et al. (2014) shows that the “slow response” feedback mechanisms are occurring very quickly).”

    That’s called science. It’s being done by real trained scientists. There work the raw data, the assumptions, the theory, the analysis, the conclusions is always being checked by others. It is never “perfect”, it doesn’t have to be. It does not have to be all inclusive of every aspect about everything climate nor everything scientific ever written or that might be written. It doesn’t have to be forever true until hell freezes over either. Science builds upon itself over time, both from errors and from being right. All other genuine scientists learn from the prior work of others. They advance that previous work with MORE evidence and good science, or they undermine the validity of past science in the very same way. Over time all of this is shared between scientists and they continue their individual work.

    Then one day the IPCC (which I consider to be somewhat flawed in it’s structure and practices and resources provided – along with the fact that it’s work gets interfered with by national governments part of the UNFCCC) draws a time-line in the sand and begins a process of reviewing and collating all recent science papers on climate science produced since their last report, and try and make a summary out of it for the benefit of Policy Makers in National Governments who set up the system in the first place. AS such the IPCC is a governments created body that is intrinsically a part of the Geopolitical system. That’s where self-interest bashes up against self-intertest.

    Ya wanna learn about the evidence for climate change – go read the individual papers upon which it is based upon, stop being a lazy gullible fool and simply cut out the middle men.

    IOW go direct to the source yourself and see what they say and why they say it, and use your own common sense.

    Cross check the claims made by the IPCC, the talking heads online, the Dr Moore’s who rock up Senate hearings, the intellectually challenged like dbstealey et al here, plus ignore the politicians (pro or con) and PR media hacks most of whom have NEVER read an SPM let alone the 2,216 pages of the AR5 WGI Technical Summary!

    Well if ya want to, but I suspect most do not, or you wouldn’t be wasting all your time here to begin with.

    Walter

  282. Walter K makes the same mistake over and over again: Papers are not scientific evidence. Computer models are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence consists of raw data and empirical [real world] observations.

    There is no scientific evidence proving that X amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere causes Y degrees of global warming. None at all.

    But there is plenty of scientific evidence showing that X degrees of temperature change causes Y change in atmospheric CO2. I can prove it. But why bother? Walter’s religious Belief will not allow him to accept it. Walter even believes that CO2 is pollution. As if! heh

    Climate alarmists like Walter began with an incorrect premise. Therefore, their conclusion will necessarily be wrong. Simple logic. ∆CO2 does not cause ∆T. Rather, ∆T causes ∆CO2. The alarmist crowd has confused causality, so they arrived at the wrong conclusion.

    When you cut out all the swivel-eyed pseudo-scientific nonsense and personal insults, it is clear that Walter believes in pal-reviewed papers and computer models, over real world observations. Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. It is completely different than what Walter believes. They cannot both be right.

  283. FYI

    You, yes you, have never, not once in your life, ever learnt something new that was really worthwhile (such as learning to ride a bicycle), and has served you for the rest of your life unless you were pushed far beyond your comfort zone!

    Another hard fact is that every human being faces the challenges of dealing with their own Biases and their own Cognitive Dissonance. It’s unconscious purpose and reason for being is to keep YOU inside your *comfort zone*.

    The older to live the more powerful the Cognitive Dissonance. This isn’t just a fanciful theory, it is pure Cognitive Neuroscience and deeply researched Psychology. It’s been knows for many decades that it exists and how it works within the psychological and emotional make up of human beings.

    To learn about this, is in your own personal benefit. To be aware of when Cognitive Dissonance is occurring, to recognize it and then take appropriate action to look deeper at the triggers can only help you and those you love and may care about personally. Wiki is entry level research – start there and continue to more advanced scientific papers about this in Google Scholar and elsewhere and also any books that take your fancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    SUCCEEDING ON DISCUSSION FORUMS – HOT TIP
    November 2013 Radio Interview – Writer and critic Richard King believes that people have become too quick to take offence. Richard argues in his new book that there is a new mood of self-pity and self-righteousness. People are now more likely to parade their hurt feelings in public, which is poisoning debate. Richard says freedom of speech means nothing without the freedom to offend. His book: “On Offence: The Politics of Indignation” is published by Scribe.
    Review: The offence offensive http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/09/19/3852063.htm
    1 hr Audio Podcast: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/11/18/3893227.htm

    We are always Biased towards Ourselves. In fact we are consistently Biased towards ourselves, our beliefs, our own opinions and values. The way we perceive ourselves and others can influence how we respond to contested issues, including climate change. However, these perceptions are subject to cognitive biases or distortions as we attempt to make sense of the world around us.

    Our mis-perceptions about what others think about climate change extend to mis-perceptions about what others do. Research shows these Biases extend far beyond our political opinions, scientific knowledge, or climate change issues. Most of us tend to think we are always better than others. As if it was ‘hard-wired’ into us and out of our control.

    The “better than average effect” describes our predisposition to think of ourselves as exceptional, especially among our peers. The effect reflects our tendency to think of ourselves as more virtuous and moral, more compassionate and understanding, and ironically even less Biased than other people!

    In a famous example, when people were asked to assess their own driving ability relative to peers, more than three-quarters of people considered themselves to be safer than the average driver. Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals.

    Successful people tend NOT to place the reasons on their success upon their birth circumstances, nor the opportunities and benefits not afforded to others, nor the degree of wealth of their parents. Primarily wealthy successful people state that it is their own personal skills, work ethic, and dedication to their goals that is substantially responsible for their own success and that anyone else could have done this. They believe that those who fail or are poor is because of their own bad choices and their lack of personal drive and so on.

    Ongoing research is trying to find out what it is about wealth — or lack of it — that makes people behave they way they do. Every where we go, whatever we do, good science has been consistently telling us all, and for a very very long time, that we are not as ‘smart’ as we believe we are.

    Science References:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.269/pdf

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

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1743.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201304

    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/38/2/209.short

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691881900056

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109

    http://video.pbs.org/video/2365029352/

    How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful:
    Noam Chomsky & Glenn Greenwald Oct 2011

    How can we come together to address this challenge which has become a partisan political issue in the United States in a way it has not elsewhere in the world? Professor Dan Kammen, an internationally recognized energy policy expert, and Mr.Tom Steyer, business leader and investor, discuss where we are now, the solutions at hand, the barriers we face, and what must happen to “overcome the partisan divide” to speed the transition to a sustainable planet. – 1h30m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uua_OEW2QY

    You are more than welcome. We all live and learn. Well maybe not ‘all’, after all.
    Walter

  284. As I said, ‘Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. It is completely different than what Walter believes. They cannot both be right.’

    I’ve been posting here about Festinger’s Seekers for years. The cognitive dissonance exhibited by Mrs. Keech appears to be no different than that displayed by current believers in the “carbon” scare.

    When Planet Earth tells me that CO2 causes global warming, I will listen and accept her verdict. But it must be based on evidence, not on Belief.

  285. Re. Walter, et al:

    These are interesting times. Not since emperors backed competing Christologies have ideological battle lines been so clearly drawn. Darwin versus Genesis never came close. Now we have heathen against heathen, Christian against Christian, Moor against Moor and Jew against Jew. Heresies and counter heresies are marshaled and published. Because salvation hangs in the balance. I failed to stand up for the polar bears and now there’s nobody left to stand up for me.

    Who are the creationists now? Hansen and Gore, with their 5m SLR by 2100 or the BAU bunch with their 3mm forever? Time and tides will tell and are telling. Climate doom and destruction used to be fodder of prophets of a bygone morality. The new morality is…is…what is it? Drive less? Fly less? Not really. Nobody drives and flies like Gore and Mann and Jones and all the other exponents of doom. But the messengers must have their wings. But what is the new morality if it does not encompass some identifiable behavior? Is it merely confession? Troth, as Eve’s offspring I share her guilt. I am evil by birth, inclined by nature to burn the remains of ancient ferns and cycads.

    May I have my ticket now, or must I pedal my bike to Patagonia? Is there no sacrament beyond confession, no penance to make straight my wayward soul? How may I know I am saved, or must I be damned with all humanity? How can I wash away my loathsome carbon footprints?

    I will pedal my bike to Patagonia. No, I will paddle my kayak to Sitka and fish and burn firewood and forsake my former evil ways. If a lost and hungry polar bear finds me I will let him eat me. That should save my soul. I will die a martyr for the cause.

    But I digress. Heterodoxy beckons. Heresy even. North of Sitka GIA is an inch per year–10 times the rate of SLR–fastest in the world. It’s recovering from the LIA, you see, like Exit Glacier up near Anchorage, and Jorge Montt Glacier down in Patagonia. Of course the catechism of climate doom taught me my bad breath and dirty exhaust were responsible for all this melting. I’m beginning to doubt. Help me. –AGF

  286. AGF,

    Whenever they try to scare me, I remember this:

    “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

    ~Prof R. Lindzen, Climatologist
    Dep’t Head, Atmospherics
    Mass. Inst. of Technology

    Relax. Global warming isn’t gonna getcha.

  287. dbstealey carries on with the bible bashing rhetoric that makes zero rational sense. “.. over real world observations. Me, I listen to what Planet Earth is clearly telling us. It is completely different than what Walter believes. They cannot both be right.”

    Yes they are both right. It’s you dbstealey and your co-believers who are clinically blind to the world and intentionally choose to see nothing. Ostrich syndrome:101

  288. [snip - rephrase and resubmit sans the anger and insults please - Anthony]

    It’s called ‘mocking up’ emotional vigor Anthony. No anger involved, pointed disrespectful insults towards the disingenuous lightweight, yes. Not worth resubmitting, besides I don’t know which one you deleted out. I will do better, even though some people (both pro/con CC) really do need a slap to the face to either wake them up and stop them being hysterical over nothing. :-)

    I really have issues with people who put words in my mouth and cannot read simple English. A stone in my shoe, but anger? Nope. I deal with passive aggressiveness overtly. I like to get things out in the open so they can be seen by all for what they really are.

    RE : March 2, 2014 at 8:23 pm Cognitive dissonance looks like this:
    [trimmed] Have you no self respect nor any self-awareness left?

    That, Anthony is extremely unfair and unjustified editing. [Note: there are other moderators here. Anthony signs his comments. This mod is also different from the one who 'trimmed' your comment above. Perhaps you should look at why you are being continually corrected. —mod.]

    The Airbus A380 did fly as a direct result of computer models. That’s science in action. Doesn’t mean GCMs etc are perfect …. and can’t be improved, but they do not need to be 100% perfect on every single minute thing that occurs in the global climate to present a scientific verified PROOF of X. They are STILL VALID SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.

    Denying computer models are not science is taking humanity back to the Dark Ages and witch burning. It’s dbstealey untruths and disinformation that require editing.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion under the Law, but they are NOT entitled to their own FACTS nor the public defamation of others based on such untruths. That is not how life or science operates. Or the Law. The USA system does not determine my (and others) personal legal rights under the Law of Libel and Defamation etc either. You should make your users aware of this legal fact.

    Thanks Anthony, all in all, good site and well served by you. You’re far more competent than Schmidt at RC is. That would be easy. LOL Thanks Walter.

  289. Walter says:

    I really have issues with people who put words in my mouth and cannot read simple English. … Denying computer models are not science is taking humanity back to the Dark Ages and witch burning. It’s dbstealey untruths and disinformation that require editing.

    Let’s parse that.

    Walter is projecting. He is actually putting words in my mouth: I never said that models are not science. In fact, I have written many times that models are at the conjecture stage of the scientific method [Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law]. What I wrote was that models are not scientific evidence. That is entirely different than what Walter is claiming.

    A model is not evidence! Evidence consists of raw data, and empirical [real world] observations. Those are scientific evidence. Models are not. Anyone can program a model. Anyone can write a paper. But neither is evidence.

    When/if Mother Earth gives us evidence that humans cause measurable global warming, I for one will sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, there is no such measurable evidence.

    Skeptics have a job, per the Scientific Method: attempt to falsify all conjectures and hypotheses. One method is to show that there is no evidence of catastrophic AGW [and no evidence of AGW for that matter — even though I personally think that CO2 probably has some small effect at current concentrations].

    Walter’s ‘issues’ stem from his projection: accusing others of his own faults. He is putting words in my mouth — the very thing he pretends is happening to him. And it is all based on the fact that there is no measurable evidence for any human-caused global warming. None at all.

    Sorry Walter, that’s a fact.

  290. agfosterjr, that was really entertaining. seriously it was. YOu have a goo sense of humour about al this. Good.

    RE “Who are the creationists now? Hansen and Gore, with their 5m SLR by 2100 or the BAU bunch with their 3mm forever?”

    That is a very good point to raise. Gore’s AIT movie caused unnecessary problems and distractions. I wish he never did it. It wasn’t sanctioned by the IPCC nor other bodies. How he chose to present it was his own call and those who encouraged him. The fact remains though no matter what he put in that film has any co-relation to the actual science as found in the work of the thousands of scientists who have recorded their research and conclusions in published Papers. That is far more complex, far more nuanced and well thouhout out than a simple film or series of lectures by Al Gore or anyone, from whatever angle.

    Far more expert and well balanced and sanguine documentaries about various aspects to the climate have been done since 2007. Gore, Hansen, et al have no impact on the validity of those.

    RE “The new morality is…is…what is it? Drive less? Fly less? Not really. Nobody drives and flies like Gore and Mann and Jones and all the other exponents of doom. But the messengers must have their wings. But what is the new morality if it does not encompass some identifiable behavior?”

    OK, then. Here is a real life example of genuine climate scientists walking their talk for over a decade. Quietly and clearly while their peers carry on like jackasses.

    “Acknowledging our contribution to the problem isn’t enough — otherwise it’s just rhetoric. We must act and model the behavior we hope for ourselves and others. ”

    By way of example for those who haven’t seen it, here is Kevin Anderson & Alice Bows-Larkin example (i’view at COP19): (links go direct to video time)

    KA “I haven’t flown in 8 years”
    – they both caught the train from Manchester to Warsaw

    – about KA’s train trip to China and back

    Alice Bows-Larkin responds to an Al Gore comment on individual action:

    An out-take of James Hansen from 2009 about civil resistance, moral responsibility, inter-generational injustice, and comment by KA on the scientific community thus far:

    KA on historical responsibility of USA, UK, EU nations:
    “We knew about this in the mid-80s and at the Rio Summit of 1992, now 21 years later we have done absolutely nothing about it”

    Walter

  291. Sorry, what a screw up technology can be. I used url links to specific video timing, but all the above just start form the beginning. Can you please fix this for me? as in delete the last post and redo it?

    I’ll try again, hopefully the moderator can fix these to appear properl? Thanks very much if you can. Walter

    I am breaking the links apart with single spaces

    KA “I haven’t flown in 8 years”
    – they both caught the train from Manchester to Warsaw
    http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=1m4s

    – about KA’s train trip to China and back
    http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=21m21s

    Alice Bows-Larkin responds to an Al Gore comment on individual action:
    http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=14m0s

    An out-take of James Hansen from 2009 about civil resistance, moral responsibility, inter-generational injustice, and comment by KA on the scientific community thus far:
    http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=15m50s

    KA on historical responsibility of USA, UK, EU nations:
    “We knew about this in the mid-80s and at the Rio Summit of 1992, now 21 years later we have done absolutely nothing about it”
    http://youtu .be/gEQ7cOUjwgM ?t=19m55s

    [All links are present and understandable. Mod]

  292. dbstealey “Skeptics have a job, per the Scientific Method: attempt to falsify all conjectures and hypotheses.”

    Sorry dbstealey , that is the job for scientists working in the specific field. It’s NOT your job, nor anyone else’s to be part-time “skeptics”.

    If you are a qualified scientist, then do the research and publish your own paper that scientifically proves where all the rest are wrong. Using the scientific method which currently you only giving lip service too. Sounds lovely, but it remains meaningless illogic nevertheless.

    All you are doing is playing politics. That’s it. In the process you consciously and unconsciously ignore the actual science. That isn’t being skeptical — that’s only denial and ideological politics and myth making. Leave the science to the scientists. The politics then decides what should be done about it, if anything. There everyone has an opinion and it’s valid to offer one up.

    BUT, you do not get to decide what the science actually presents as based upon the evidence. Ever. That isn’t the scientific method at all.

    Ignoring evidence does not make it go away just because you or Monckton or even Linzden says it does. That ain’t science. . Individual radical outlier scientists who publish papers that no body reads nor accepts is not a valid counter-argument to the other 30,000 papers that support each others findings on multiple lines.

    The exception however does prove the rule. The difference in this following example is that their proof was overwhelming and it was almost immediately accepted as valid across the globe by ((% of all other scientists and doctors working in the field of “stomach ulcers”. The drug companies took much longer to come around. They lost an entire ready made market eventually.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4304290.stm

    Truth travels slow. Lies move as quick as lightening.

    Walter

  293. dbstealey: “He is putting words in my mouth”

    If this is so, please provide direct quotes where this is the case. Show me where I have done this and I will withdraw, and correct the record. But do provide the evidence for it. Clearly and simply as possible.

    Walter

  294. “Perhaps you should look at why you are being continually corrected. —mod.]”

    continually? Oh please, two rain drops doesn’t make a flood. I was corrected, and I accepted it with no problem and explained with some “humour”. The second one is as I have said “extremely unfair and unjustified editing”

    Yet you only wish to mention and complain because I made the egregious error of wrongly assuming it was Anthony again. I am so very sorry about that -mod. Won’t happen again -mod.

    I’ll look at the site to find where I report people who insult me, but are not ‘moderated’ at all.

    Best, Walter :-)

  295. RE “Walter even believes that CO2 is pollution. As if! heh”

    If you really want to put me on the spot, well I believe that pollution is pollution. Pollution can contain CO2 or not contain CO2, but it is still pollution.

    Denying pollution is really pollution, relabeling pollution as suddenly being “beneficial” is how much reality and reason is being turned on it’s head in the 21st Century. You’d think people would automatically know better, but this is actually not the case. Be it over Iraq and WMD, removing financial regulations to open the way for a global financial crisis that almost sent civisation over the edge in 2008, or today’s newest version lies that the gases pouring out of power stations, jet engines and motor cars is miraculously no longer pollution anymore.

    This is the neo-world of a dbstealey et al reside in today. They will never convince a chinaman that what engulfs Beijing and other cities is not pollution but something which is beneficial to the environment. They know better. Not that it matters. So long as the big lie is repeated and repeated, all is well in Neo-World Land.

    In this new-world Healthy Forests means cutting down trees and clear felling old growth forest. Clear Skies means hamstringing the EPA and allowing more pollution. Energy Independence means destroying the landscape and farming communities, interfering with underground aquifers and poisoning the natural environment forever. Nothing to see here.

    It’s all good, everything is beneficial in a Neo-World addicted to New Speak and infested with nefarious Propaganda of the powerful and rich. dbstealey eats this for breakfast every day and loves it.

    About dbstealey – Retired from a 30 year career working in a metrology [science of measurement using physical standards traceable to N.I.S.T.] lab, calibrating temp, humidity, data logger and similar instruments.

    Equivalent of a dental assistant, or a maker of dentures, or an IT Technician in a Government Dept., or an electronics technician who checks that security systems for Banks. I am sure he worked hard, paid all his bills and taxes, and hope he is now enjoying his retirement and the fruits of his long labor. Maybe he ended up as the senior Manager of his “lab”.

    Don’t know. Doesn’t matter either, as it’s my own CV which is dubious and questionable see, because I am no climate scientist and shouldn’t be listened to. I didn’t wear a “lab coat” see, I only wore an Italian Suit and Tie and flew first class!

    What is “metrology”? Calibration and Metrology Training Courses
    http://us.flukecal.com/training?geoip=1 will tell you and teach you. Almost anyone can do it.

  296. Robert in Calgary, ignoring the content and the context of what I wrote says: “…in contrast to his threat to “flame” me – so scary!”

    This is another of many examples of ‘putting words in mouth” that were never said. Which was: “Maybe you have heard of a ‘flame war’. This isn’t one yet, but if you wish to start one the best thing to do is throw a tin of gasoline on the embers and stick your nose into things that do not concern you.”

    Since when did education about someone else’s behavior and missteps become a “threat” in Robert’s mind?

    Whilst Robert in Calgary is perfectly OK, by the -mods standards, to say “pompous windbag” and Poor Walter attached to a *blowhard*.jpg url … totally side-stepping all the content actually addressed to the ‘misrepresentations’ and faulty logic in Dr Moore’s piece and open for mature discussion or questioning as proven in the thread already.

    To wit Walter K. says: February 28, 2014 at 10:41 pm
    Robert in Calgary, *blow ;;;!* Ya can lead a horse to water ……….

    Meanwhile … the -mod says: [Note: More comments like this and your posts will be deleted. ~mod.]

    That simply does not look rational nor fair or equitable to me. Seems awfully biased and totally ignores the original perpetrator, bully and insults given.

    If one has NO RIGHTS to defend themselves against egregious insults, offensive behavior and childish ridicule here .. IN KIND … then by all means delete my posts, because it just goes to show what little value truth and honesty and reason and the facts are afforded here.

    Bias Reigns Supreme. Do as we say, not as we do.

    Walter

  297. Maybe the `-mods and Andrew may like to discuss among themselves constructive ideas to get commenters making comments about the actual material content, references, and meaning contained in people’s posts, as opposed to the non-stop ad hominem gutter sniping going on?

    There’s a tip from a 18 year veteran of online discussion groups. It’s a freebie. Use it wisely. :-)

    No point attacking the victim and blaming them for responding in kind (to a far higher standard of quality insults and satire) while the gutless bullies in the school yard get off scot free.

    Unless you like it like this, and well then of course have at it. :-)

  298. Wally sez:

    …that is the job for scientists working in the specific field. It’s NOT your job, nor anyone else’s to be part-time “skeptics”.

    Who elected you to be the judge, Wally?

    Scientific skepticism is open to anybody. No one insisted on skeptic qualifications from a Swiss patent clerk, who wrote to a group of Russians disputing his Theory of Relativity: “It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, but only one fact.”

    And:

    “I didn’t wear a ‘lab coat’ see, I only wore an Italian Suit and Tie and flew first class!”

    Ooh. With an exclamation point, too. And I’m just sure nobody called you a pompous ass behind your back. Certainly not the employees you treated like crap before you were put out to pasture…

    And:

    What is “metrology”?

    Hint: It’s not the same as meteorology. But I’m sure you’ll say you knew that. ☺

    Wally, you are a parody. Your ‘arguments’ amount to nasty name-calling, insinuations and projection. You make fun of people due and insult them because of your insecurity. Yes, I wore a lab coat, and I am proud of it. And no, I didn’t wear italian suits except to weddings and funerals or dates with my wife, because I am not insecure or trying to impress people who don’t matter. See, I did the metrology work, and I did a very good job designing, calibrating, testing and fixing all manner of weather related scientific instruments.

    I learned a lot over the decades, and the test instrument manufacturers sent our lab all the latest information. We watched as the scare du jour went from global cooling, to global warming. But interestingly, the planet acts exactly as if everything observed is natural and well within past parameters. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening, despite all the wild-eyed Chicken Little arm-waving.

    You can win this debate, Wally me boi. Just post verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing the specific, measured degree of global warming that results from X molecules of human-emitted CO2 added to the atmosphere. Easy-peasy… if you have measurable scientific evidence. If you do, you will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize. So, good luck…

    Otherwise, you lose the debate.

  299. “mirroring” intentionally using “mock ups”. Ever heard of it?

    When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

    What to do when the Romans then complain about all this “roman like” behavior?

    A weird quandary to be in.

    ————————————

    Walter K. says: February 27, 2014 at 6:49 pm
    Hello, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy of some statements, …..

    ————————————-

    Misc Romanesc responses include:

    your holier-than-thou pontificating
    Walter (anonymous) K
    take exception to your rant
    the final nail in your coffin.
    put down the crack pipe
    you are ranting.
    screaming that you speak as an authority on matters

    Can you please provide a reference for broken maximum temperature records by location and date? I have seen articles where temperature equalled or nearly equalled, but not broke. [data sources were provided in full] – Ok I’ve seen that. And as I said records are made to be broken.

    BWAHAHA!
    The idea is clearly preposterous.
    MOD – [rest trimmed. Cut it out, both of you. Discuss the numbers, the facts, the measurements. Nothing else. Mod]
    Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) says: “Who is Walter K. ? Seems to have a lot to say.”
    to have a meltdown
    Might be a bored Al Gore
    you talk .. as if it’s some sort if magical talisman.
    You are wrong on Australia heat wave.
    irrelevant tin foil hat level talk
    Post what you have “seen”, rather the bloviate.
    going to keep digging
    does not want to know
    CO2 danger zone, Redistribution Cult
    cult voters
    the fake stool they sit so cult like upon.
    As for name-calling, I do my share and I apologize for that
    Sorry Walter K for putting words in your mouth.
    all going to fry
    posts zero reports of killing cold
    selective cherry-picking
    scary propaganda and his demonization of “carbon”
    fake veneer
    comments like Walter K’s irk me.
    Walter, First, thanks for taking the time to try to explain your argument to me. I appreciate it.
    Walter believes. But scientific skeptics need testable, measurable evidence.
    mind that has been colonized by global warming propaganda.
    What is your CV, Walter? You keep arguing with a PhD
    You’ve not presented any facts at all
    a statement of fear of the future
    we were all going to fry in the future was perhaps an exaggeration
    The pompous windbag
    keyboard commando desperate for visits

    a weak argument and pedantic.
    seem to be a bore.
    Ah. I see. No formal education in anything climate related.
    Walter appeals to authority
    Walter is clearly insecure
    getting Walter to calm down
    Walter’s fear
    frightened of the “carbon” scare.
    The anti-human stance is what is illogical.
    his threat to “flame” me – so scary!
    ignore him.
    Climate alarmists like Walter
    cut out all the swivel-eyed pseudo-scientific nonsense and personal insults
    Walter is projecting.
    Walter’s ‘issues’ stem from his projection
    He is putting words in my mouth

    Goes around comes around.

    Must have been all my fault!

    Walter

  300. dbstealey I don’t do debates. I say what I would like to say about a subject, and along the way bat away the flies. When someone like mark comes along has something to offer I listen intently, and usually benefit from that.

    Online discussion forums? I know all the games and the tricks and the unconscious goings on inside out and backwards in the dark. Been there done that, bought the T-shirt factory. Academics are now writing science papers on this and social media. I was one of the pioneers online .. no one gave us a guide book.

    I do this merely as a ‘pass it on” — people will come past here and recognize something in what I have said, and they will nod. They are the one’s for whom I take the time to write, occasionally.

    I have nothing to prove and no debate to win.

    I do not care WTF happens with the co2 or the climate or the IPCC nor WUWT. Nor what happens to the US when the Dow goes under 10,000 again. Nor what happens to people in the US when the US$ is no longer the world’s reserve currency. Don’t care if the world economy disappears overnight, or if Obama cares works or doesn’t. Nor who wins ww3.

    Whatever will be will be. My opinion is irrelevant. Freedom is Power.

  301. You two need to get a room. BTW, who were peers to the likes of Einstein, Faraday and Newton?

    Walt comparing computer models of the known physics of flight (A380) to the computer models of the climate. Priceless!

    Advice to Walt! When in a hole, stop digging!

  302. dbstealey says: “And I’m just sure nobody called you a pompous ass behind your back. Certainly not the employees you treated like crap before you were put out to pasture…”

    HAHA, yes, no one did, there was no reason too. For I was well respected by superiors (unquestionable integrity), by peers and my subordinates alike, thank you very much. No one put me out to pasture either, you old sad sack.

    RE “Wally, you are a parody. Your ‘arguments’ amount to nasty name-calling, insinuations and projection, as you try to make fun of people due to your insecurity. Yes, I wore a lab coat, and I am proud of it. And no, I didn’t wear italian suits except to weddings and funerals or dates with my wife, because I am not insecure or trying to impress people who don’t matter. See, I did the metrology work, and I did a very good job designing, calibrating, testing and fixing all manner of weather related scientific instruments. I learned a lot over the decades, and the test instrument manufacturers sent our lab all the latest information.”

    And I bet, as sure as there’s frozen ice at the north pole right now, everybody called you a pompous ass behind your back. And still do.

    Your only problem with me dbstealey, is that I say it right to your face. Bugger!

    Walter

  303. Patrick, it is dbstealey saying “computer models” are not science that is priceless. Check the record. It’s known (and some unknown) physics the drives the climate, from the bottom up. Using computer models is not only basic science, it is plain common sense and efficient. Only the likes of a 8th century Monk would label it the equivalent of the devil’s work.

  304. “Walter K. says:

    March 3, 2014 at 4:04 am”

    You failed the moment you compared aircraft models with climate models. The A380 was built and then tested in actual flight using all the KNOWN and TESTED physics of flight. You cannot compare that with “climate models”. And if you want to talk about “seats of ya pants” flight, talk to a Vulcan bomber pilot!

  305. dbstealey says:
    “Wally sez: (no that should be ‘Walter says:’ .. sticks and stones and all that jazz)
    …that is the job for scientists working in the specific field. It’s NOT your job, nor anyone else’s to be part-time “skeptics”. — Who elected you to be the judge, Wally?”

    I was appointed by the same god that gave you this JOB : “Skeptics have a job, per the Scientific Method: attempt to falsify all conjectures and hypotheses.” — Ahem, sorry but.

    RE: “” Scientific skepticism is open to anybody. No one insisted on skeptic qualifications from a Swiss patent clerk, who wrote to a group of Russians disputing his Theory of Relativity: “It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong, but only one fact.” “”——-

    You’re not Einstein. neither is Monckton, Spencer, Carter, or Dr Moore

    Even worse for the scientific illiterate and the global activated denial machine that disputes the scientific facts contained in the ~30,000 papers by ~9,000 scientists referenced in the IPCC reports. hey some are actuallly crap and rejected by their peers as not good enough. That’s a fact. However in La La Neo-World Land retired machine calibrators believe they know better without being capable of presenting one single FACT from one single accepted Paper.

    Here are two of Dr Moore’s BELIEFS …… read it, let it sink in, NO scientific facts here:

    “…. there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.”

    *reason to believe* ??? That ain;t science, it’s a motherhood statement, an opinion, a belief with zero backing up the claims.

    What is human reason absent of facts that amounts to an absence of evidence that provides insight into causation? It’s Belief, Witchcraft, Mythology or Black Magic.

    Please present even one published peer-reviewed substantive and broadly ACCEPTED Climate Science Paper with just one evident fact EACH to support each one of Dr Moore’s above claims that:

    1) a warmer climate (IE of 2C, 4C, 6C GMSTs) would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL for humans and the majority of other species.

    2) It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

    3) history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future

    4) the fact (?) that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

    5) we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C.

    6) there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.

    7) There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

    Please present the Scientifically VALID evidence and research data upon which Dr Moore’s opinions and advice to the US Senate rely upon.

    That would be great. See how I am able to easily circumnavigate back to the purpose of my original comment by riding on the comments of naysayers, no matter who says what or why like it was a moving wave?

  306. Patrick says: March 3, 2014 at 4:16 am
    “You failed the moment you compared aircraft models with climate models.”

    I never fail Patrick, I am like the eveready bunny. :0)
    You screwed up … I never compared what you believe I did. I always spoke of “computer models” – that’s the fulcrum. That’s the point, that’s what dbstealey spoke about and that’s what I spoke about. Computer models in aircraft. Computer models in GCMs. All computer models in science. I also said GCMs are not perfect, but that they do not need to be – unlike aircraft which had better be spot on or the test pilot dies. But I NEVER compared the two.

    http://whatsupwithrealclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/critical-thinking-top-10-dos.html

    When it comes to climate computer models there is no test pilot because there is no test flight. You and I are already on board. Now you might want to again assert that I am comparing aircraft models with climate models. But actually, I am not.

  307. FYI

    1) a warmer climate (IE of 2C, 4C, 6C GMSTs) would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL for humans and the majority of other species.

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    2) It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    3) history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    4) the fact (?) that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    5) we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C.

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    6) there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    7) There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

    Thousands of independent Science Papers present evidence of the complete opposite

    This Dr Moore’s Dilemma

    Not mine. :-)

  308. Using cognitive dissonance to change people’s beliefs
    If a person is induced to do or say something that is contrary to their private opinion, there will be a tendency for them to change their opinion to bring it in line with what’s been said or done.

    The key is to use only a small amount of pressure to get someone to do something. Using more pressure than is needed will actually make it less likely that they will change their mind about it.

    Conditions needed for changing beliefs:

    Behavior appears chosen (Freely reject the scientific evidence)

    Behavior blatantly violates belief (state they believe in science, but reject it out of hand)

    Behavior cannot be undone (Refusal to change – entrench beliefs on like-minded blogs)

    An extraneous justification is blocked (My opinion belief is paramount – all related evidence and analogy is dismissed outright)

    People change their cognitions because they feel they don’t have enough reason/ justification for acting the way they did.

  309. dbstealey says: “If you do, you will be the first, and on the short list for a Nobel Prize.”

    Eats away at you, does it, that Al Gore and the IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize?

    ROFL

    Let me know if there’s any science issues you may have on the horizon anytime soon.

    Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii was hitting 400 ppm (beneficial?) CO2 again last week.

    Total cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions between 1750 and 2011 amounts to 365 ± 30 PgC
    (261 years = 1.4 PgC per year avg)

    Projected/expected trend BAU between 2012 and 2100 is for another ~1700 PgC +/-
    (88 years = 19.3 PgC per year avg)

    That is 5 times above the 365 PgC cumulative total of 1750 to 2011

    That is at a rate of emissions almost 14 times higher than 1750 to 2011 period.

    CO2 of atmosphere would then be circa ~900 ppm @2100 not including additional climate feedbacks of methane/co2 being released from the biosphere/environment.

    No body, no computer model can accurately predict exact how things will unfold from now. Too many variables are involved from the state of the economy to volcanic eruptions and regional climate instability, solar radiance, and normal geopolitical unknowns.

    For those who accept that increasing CO2 (and other GHG) levels has no discernible affect upon the climate, then there’s nothing to see here.

    We may even end up in another mini-Ice Age at any time they claim. Let’s hope not, for cold is a killer. And if that doesn’t get ya, then old age will. But not AGW climate change because that is a total myth.

    I know this because other people told me. And they couldn’t be wrong, because they told me they were right. They would be mistaken nor lie to me. No need to check the original sources for myself. Nothing to see here.

    “3 bells and all is well.” called the town crier.

  310. Just wow!

    I can’t believe so many folk are wasting time in “discussion” with Walter K.

    This comment from Dr. Patrick Moore:

    ““There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

    gets to the root of the problem,

    Walter K can, and probably will, continue to rant his belief here and elsewhere. When asked to show evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years, he will rant on about everything – rising sea level, rising atmospheric CO2 levels, rising atmospheric temperature since the end of the LIA, etc. – but will not, because he can not, show proof that even the last 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 has any discernable, measurable effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.

    As a reminder, none of the following are proof:
    -Arctic Ice disappearing
    -Glaciers retreating
    -Coral reef bleaching
    -Mt Kilimanjaro losing snow
    -Polar bears doing anything anywhere
    -Some creature or plant facing extinction
    -A change in cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons
    -Droughts
    -Floods
    -Dry rivers
    -Computer models or simulations
    -A “consensus”
    -Al Gore’s movie
    -Etc. causing etc. by etc. reported by etc., etc

    Much of Walter K’s “mean-spiritedness” here appears to be projection, as already noted.

    Indeed, I’ve now projected my opinion here. I may join in responses again if, and only if, Walter K provides the proof requested.

    Although if he, or anyone does, I suspect it will be in a properly peer reviewed paper and a main post rather than be buried in blog responses.

  311. I second JohnWho:

    1) SLR does not correlate with T.
    2) T does not correlate with CO2.
    3) Ergo, no way does SLR correlate with CO2.
    4) We are recovering from the LIA.
    5) If CO2 can raise T (which it can’t), that will be good. 5m SLR is preferable to an LIA.
    –AGF

  312. Walter K. says:

    I don’t do debates… I have nothing to prove and no debate to win.

    Good thing, too, since you would lose. You only rant and insult. You are afraid to debate the lack of scientific evidence, that is why you have no debate to win.

    Wally says:

    Patrick, it is dbstealey saying “computer models” are not science that is priceless.

    Wally, why do you continue to misrepresent what I wrote? That is thoroughly dishonest, and by now I can only assume it is deliberate. You are trying to frame the argument in a way that would allow you to win it. Your problem is that I’m holding your feet to the fire.

    I have told you more than once that computer models are part of science; that they are the first step in the hierarchy ‘Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law.’ But they are no more than a conjecture. FYI, computer climate models are consistently wrong. Not one GCM [computer climate model] was able to predict the 17+ year halt in global warming. Not one. Climate models are just not very good. They are a tool. But they do not compare with observation and measurements.

    You keep getting conjecture and evidence confused. Models are conjectures. They are not scientific evidence. And peer reviewed papers are not evidence. Scientific evidence consists of raw data, and empirical [real world] observations. All available data and empirical observations show that there is no problem with CO2 rising from about 3 parts per 10,000, to 4 parts per 10,000. It is simply not a problem.

    Walter, there is no evidence supporting the “carbon” scare. None at all. Your “thousands of papers” are no more than an Appeal to Authority fallacy. That’s all you’ve got to support your ridiculous assertion that a colder planet is better than a warmer planet.

    You claimed that “thousands of independent Science Papers” say that “a warmer climate would be ANYTHING BUT BENEFICIAL for humans and the majority of other species.” Walter, history falsifies that belief. Warmer times are always better for the biosphere — including humanity — than cold times.

    Claiming that cold is better than warmth is crazy talk, Walter. Just like your assertion that CO2 is “pollution”. It is a fact that warmth is good, and cold kills. You really pick some strange positions to try and defend, Walter. No wonder you feel the need to insult and belittle people who disagree with your crazy claims. Because that’s the only kind of argument you’ve got.

  313. “The Airbus A380 did fly as a direct result of computer models. That’s science in action. Doesn’t mean GCMs etc are perfect …. and can’t be improved, but they do not need to be 100% perfect on every single minute thing that occurs in the global climate to present a scientific verified PROOF of X. They are STILL VALID SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.”

    No! Clearly you know nothing about avionics. It flew because we know ALL variables regarding powered mechanical flight and it was tested in the real world after those computer simulations. No aircraft goes into service simply “as a direct result of computer models”. NONE!

  314. Patrick, look up cognitive dissonance and cherry picking and logical fallacies
    ” it was tested in the real world AFTER those computer simulations.”
    DOH said the Homer. Twist and mis-compute what others say all you wish, it doesn’t change a thing. Makes you look silly, that’s all.

  315. Science Class begins again for dbstealey who says: March 3, 2014 at 9:34 am
    “Wally, why do you continue to misrepresent what I wrote? That is thoroughly dishonest, and by now I can only assume it is deliberate.”

    Yes DB it is deliberate. This doesn’t make it ‘dishonest’ by default, let alone ‘thoroughly’. Leave it you to work that out all by yourself, for the variables are manifold.

    As I said, if you can show me where I put words in your mouth I would acknowledge that and withdraw. This I do now, I withdraw, and note that at no time did DB ever say here that — “computer models” are not science —

    See, I did, and see how easy that is to do? Try it one day yourself. Your integrity quotient and your personal trust rating will both immediately rise significantly.

    A critical aspect of valid science, and dialectics too, is the rational application of human logic and reason, and applied objectively and not subjectively.

    Therefore, it is true that DB did not say “computer models are not science”.
    DB also did not say that “computer models are not a valid application of the scientific method”.
    DB did not say that computer models cannot be used in science in order to present scientific evidence and test the assumptions of the scientists and to test their hypothesis using that raw data evidence of real world observations.

    Human reason suggests that the repeated strong denials by DB that he never said “computer models are not science” it follows that he personally would accept and AGREE THAT:

    “the use of computer models are a valid form of science, often used by scientists to test their theories, to analyze the results based upon the evidence in question, can be a key component in forming the conclusions and judgments of a scientific work being published, and that the use of “computer models” are a firmly accepted valid long proven tool used within the scientific community across the board.”

    IN fact DB has stated above in his last post here, verbatim, that:
    “I have told you more than once that computer models are part of science”

    As Popper established long ago now:
    “Philosophers, such as Karl R. Popper, have provided influential theories of the scientific method within which scientific evidence plays a central role. In summary, Popper provides that a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. Popper’s theory presents an asymmetry in that evidence can prove a theory wrong, by establishing facts that are inconsistent with the theory. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.”

    On this score, Dr Moore’s testimony to the Senate, and his reliance upon the prior ‘work’ of others who may personally agree with his beliefs, falls down purely on the standards set by Popper and reaffirmed by all.

    As I understand the current situation, there has been NO falsification of the theory that human influence mainly though the use of burning fossil fuels since 1750 but particularly since 1950 and their emissions are partly responsible for the ongoing trend of rising GMSTs aka Global Warming Theory. (or by any other name essentially meaning the same thing)

    Computer Modelling does in fact form a PART of the scientific work done that substantiates the Hypothesis made, and has been thoroughly peer reviewed, gained massive acceptance by peers, and has subsequently been confirmed by others in their Scientific Papers on multiple lines of scientific inquiry using multiple forms of research, observations and data/evidence.

    As to DR Moore’s alternative view, there appears to be an abject lack of published Papers that could support the beliefs and opinions as stated in his brief to the US Senate. This I outlined the core issues in a separate post here above.

    DB has two other key issues that I may address:
    1) “computer climate models are consistently wrong.”

    That depends on what one means by the word “wrong”.

    2) And peer reviewed papers are not evidence.

    That depends on what one means by the word “evidence” and what that is being used for.

    The above two points also depends on is one speaking as a scientific purist, or is one speaking about normative society and communication in the public domain.

    These matters matter. Therefore one needs to be clear about their context, their intentions and their meaning and the semantics that apply and do not apply. Simply worded short statements do not cut it should one wish to be really clear so that all others can understand their meaning from the get go.

    This is why the AR5 WGI TS was 2216 pages long, and the SPM 36 pages long, and why they used many diagrammatic presentations, and referenced every single Science Paper they drew their EVIDENCE from. AT least this is my understanding of what is true and correct.
    ——

    Still, DBs issue seems to be focusing upon the truth or falsity of:

    “Are ‘computer models’ scientific evidence or not?’ DBs claims is that they are Not.

    Now, here is the essential statement by DB about this matter — quoting
    “But papers are not scientific evidence. Neither are computer models. Evidence consists of raw data and empirical observations.”
    see the original post url here to confirm I am NOT putting words in his mouth

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#comment-1579848

    Now, I have some serious reservations about the accuracy and truth of those statements, and I will take that up later and see what DB then has to say about it and if he is able to argue his case and convince me his claims about science and what denotes “evidence” are in fact true and correct, or not. But this is another issue that can wait.

    Walter

  316. Wallyworld says:

    “Science Class begins again for dbstealey”

    “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.”

    I’ve probably forgotten more than this noob will ever learn about the subject. [Noob, because Wally showed up here for the first time only a few days ago. So unless he violated site rules and changed his monicker, he's still getting up to speed.]

    For one example, I know what scientific “evidence” is. Wally still doesn’t understand it.

  317. For myself I shall seek counseling for my act of checking to see if this ranting and raving was sill ongoing.

    Walter you need to seek even more help than mere counseling.
    If your are just being an a$$ then all the more so and quick.

  318. RE “Claiming that cold is better than warmth is crazy talk, Walter.”

    Yes DB you are correct there. That I never made such a claim again shows you putting words into my mouth by INFERENCE. Isn’t that ***thoroughly dishonest** according to your own ethical standards DB?

    I tell you this also DB claiming that warmth is better than cold is extreme crazy talk. Meaningless gibberish iow. That ain’t science, that’s bullshit walking.

    Your claim here is more of the same “Walter, history falsifies that belief. Warmer times are always better for the biosphere — including humanity — than cold times.”

    Your graph falsifies nothing. It is a graph. What you and Dr Moore need is a fully fledged series of published Peer-reviewed science Papers that present valid hypotheses using valid evidecen that a warmer world of 2c, 4c, 6c or 8 c GMSTs is “beneficial” and a “better biosphere” than the present and recent history.

    Yes the MWP was great for humans living on Greenland. That would be true. However at the very same time it was not better, it was not beneficial for fauna, flora or humans living in the mid-west of the North America.

    What Dr Moore and you need to show beyond doubt is that such a warmer world is and would be BETTER for the 330 million people living in the USA today and into the future. Better for humans living in Australia, and the Philippines, and in Bangladesh and India and China and Africa, and Saudi Arabia and Russia as well.

    This has not been done. I know of no such papers using sound evidence that suggests such a thing. None. If you know of any, then feel free to inform me better. You need more than a single simplistic graph that presents the ups and downs of ice core temps alone. What else did Richard Alley have to say in his Published Paper which included this graph DB? Did you READ the whole thing, or merely cherry pick those items you BELIEVE supports your current Beliefs?

    You have zero credibility in criticizing nor impugning the “beliefs” you believe others hold. You should ask them first before making wild claims about others.

    I suspect the latter, for if you had read it, you would NOT be overtly referencing that particular lest someone here actually goes to THE SOURCE and reads that paper in full for themselves.

    If you actually took a moment to VIEW that Graph you’d notice that it suggests we are at present smack bang in the 5th coldest period of that time-frame. I do not see people dying from the cold very often. Do you? I do not see civilization on it’s knees due to this current “cold spell” relative to other periods shown above the line. Do you?

    Why do you think it is fine for Dr Moore to “scare monger people” about the dangers of a cold climate? LOL

    Round and round we go, but where we’ll end up, no one knows! Don’t believe everything you read on the internet that FITS your own beliefs like a hand inside a rubber surgical glove DB.

    Walter ~ Class Dismissed

  319. Walter,

    For what it’s worth, I’d be arguing against you right alongside Stealey if I could bring myself to do it. Arguing with you isn’t fun, though, it’s tedious. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, maybe you feel that from the lofty vantage of your godlike intellect you don’t have to worry about it, but you don’t express yourself very clearly to us mortal folk with our puny little brains. I don’t think you impressed anybody with your arguments regarding Dr. Moore. I know you didn’t impress me. The endless back and forth with Stealey shows me an idjit who’s in love with his own voice and who’s got to have the last word.

    I did you the courtesy of ending our discussion earlier in a civilized way, the least you could do is extend that same courtesy to others.

  320. Hey, Walter,

    Check out the top thread just now. You can follow Anthony and reg. as Pres. of M.I.T. call yourself in the top 1% of the top 1% and all that and get known all over the internets.
    “Reddy Wiggle Watt The Facts”

  321. Since:

    1. No one here agrees with Walter, and since

    2. Walter is what Anthony labels an “internet coward” who hides behind an anonymous screen name, I think I’m done with Walter. He’s way too easy anyway.

    So, as I use my given name, and as I have posted my CV regularly over the past 6 – 7 years here, and since “Walter” hides behind a fake screen name, I feel like I’m beating up on a twelve year old boy who sits in his mom’s room furiously typing on her computer.

    So if Walter wants to debate [oh, that's right, "Walter" says he will not debate; he only rants], then “Walter” will have to use an identifiable name if he wants a response. [I think he's an anonymous coward, but we shall see.]

    Post your true, verifiable identity here, “Walter”, or I will presume you are that 12-year old. Until you post a verifiable identity, your rants will be entirely one-sided, and ignored.

    Finally, “Walter” really needs to learn the meaning of scientific “evidence”. So far, and despite anything “Walter” claims to the contrary, he doesn’t understand the term at all. Probably never will.

  322. [snip - OK you're done, reprinting entire copyrighted passages from books might be something you can do on your own website, but not here - Anthony]

  323. “Walter K. says:

    March 3, 2014 at 4:34 pm”

    I’ll will pass on any vehicle tested only in a computer simulation (Your claim the A380 flew as a direct result of a computer model. Well, that’s not fact in the slightest. It was tested in the real world). So yeah, that is my “D’oh!” moment!

  324. [Snip]

    Denier advocates like Monckton, like Heartland, like Fox, and those who run websites like WUWT continue spreading this UNTRUTH anyway. Why do you, the reader, keep believing in such manipulations and deceptions…

    [...Snip. You know better than to refer to our host like that, and you are violating site Policy by labeling others "deniers". Anthony says you're done here. Unless he reverses that, you're done. ~mod.]

  325. At last, whew! What a trainwreck that guy is.

    Time to celebrate and sip on some Domaine De Canton.

Comments are closed.