Why don’t we all just agree on Global Warming?

devil-handshake-agreementGuest Essay by Kip Hansen

David Victor, in a presentation in January at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as part of a seminar series titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say”, fairly recently highlighted here at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog in the online International New York Times, made several very important points that I think that maybe we can, and should, all agree on, as a starting point to all of our subsequent discussions on “global warming/climate change”.

First, let it be said that David Victor, in his speech, self-describes himself as follows: ”I consider myself part of the mainstream scientific community on climate change, and I do all the things that the mainstream does. I teach about climate science and policy; I participate actively in the IPCC; I publish in all the normal journals.” He is a dyed-in-the-wool, self-proclaimed, practicing, Global Warming believer. He uses the term “believer” in his speech to describe adherents to the IPCC consensus. In any case, he cannot be mistaken for any kind of a climate change skeptic.

Each of the five following points of agreement is quoted directly from his speech, though not in sequential order, with some with emphasis added, each quote is followed by some comments by myself, in italics like this, to clearly differentiate them from Victor’s quoted words:

1. “First, I’d like to suggest that calling people who disagree “denialists” is clouding our judgment. If you really want to understand what motivates these people and what motivates the captains of industry and voters who listen to them, stop calling them denialists.”

The word “denialists” is offensive in its connotation, intended or not, of Holocaust denialism, and is, in any case, incorrect, no one (“nutters” excepted), denies “climate” or that climate changes. Later in his speech, he uses a better word which I will suggest here for all of us, if we must separate people with a binary system denoting disagreement with IPCC climate change science consensus: climate change consensus DISSENT and DISSENTERS.

I will add that though Victor seems comfortable referring to climate change consensus supporters as “Believers”, if I were a professional scientist, I would find this very distasteful. It sounds way to much like something skeptics often accuse them of. I would propose they settle for consensus SUPPORTERS, which doesn’t imply slavish following of every line of a doctrine-like set of beliefs.

2. “We in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable.”

Dr. Judith Curry , who hosts the Climate Etc. blog, is the goto expert on the issue of climate change uncertainty, and has written extensively on the subject; and its known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

3. “The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty.” … “We all agree, you say, on some basic facts—that CO2 concentrations are approaching a mean of 400ppm, a value far above the 280 or 290ppm of the pre-industrial value. We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere, that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era, etc. etc. That zone of agreement is impressive, but we must face the reality that those aren’t the questions that really matter for policy.”

Nearly all believers and skeptics alike agree on these basic points of the science (I place emphasis on the percentage of human contribution, many serious scientists still hold this bit in question, but in the end most agree that the exact percentage probably doesn’t really matter that much for policy). Before quibbling about radiative balance, note he says brute force radiative balance – not the nitty gritty picky details…we agree that this is not yet settled and is still a moving target for many.

4. “but [the science is] not [“in”] for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty. I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did last night in the State of the Union Address, where he said the “debate is over”—because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a “Flat Earth Society” (as he did last June). But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are.“

This simply has to be acknowledged on both sides of the climate divide – and not over-emphasized by skeptics. Some things are fairly well understood and some are still basically mysteries – surrounded by error and uncertainty — and some are in-between and require more study – clouds, ocean currents and overturn, effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation – there is quite a known list – and then there are the as-yet unknowns.

5. “…in the scientific world, there are no bright lines and the whole idea of “consensus” is deeply troubling. There is a consensus that 2+2=4. After that, we are in shades of grey. “ …“The instinctual unease with consensus helps to explain why some of the world’s greatest scientists have been climate skeptics and why the public has such a hard time understanding why these people are so disagreeable. They are disagreeable because the selection mechanisms in science demand it. If you want to find people who agree then hire an accountant. Nobody has caused bigger trouble than Freeman Dyson whose skeptical views on climate first came into focus through a 2009 New York Times Magazine profile. How do you dismiss perhaps the most accomplished physicist of his generation as an uninformed imposter? You can’t.

This applies to many other world class Climate Scientists, Physicists, Meteorologists, and other professionals (and serious citizen scientists as well) who are regularly trashed, thrashed, dismissed as frauds, Big Oil shills, and uniformed imposters by those who should know better on the Support’s side of the Climate Divide and in a far too-cooperative mainstream media. Likewise, some skeptics label some serious climate scientists as crooks, criminals, and frauds because they produce mainstream climate science which they find disagreeable.

Let’s agree to agree with David Victor: How do you dismiss these people? “You can’t.”

(Has there been misbehavior and are there some bad apples? Yes, maybe so—but if so, then let’s honesty admit, in both apple barrels. )

If you go on to read David Victor’s full January speech, understand that he does not follow his own admonition not to call dissenters “denialists.” It gets grating very quickly. He uses other disagreeable words as well. There are interesting things in Victor’s speech about where climate fight money comes from and whom it goes, admissions you won’t see elsewhere. I’m sure you will find things to agree with and many other things that David Victor says to disagree with as strongly as I do. Truthfully, it doesn’t seem to me that he agrees with himself much of the time: he’d do better if he stuck to the basic points above and worked from these. But, as I have said so many times it annoys even me, “Opinions Vary.”

I do agree with David Victor on these five simple points. Maybe we can at least all try to agree on #1, and let’s refer, if and when we must, to those who don’t agree with the IPCC Consensus as “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” Consensus DISSENTERS and to the subject as Climate Change Consensus DISSENT, and encourage others to do so. I think it’s a pretty good alternative though I’d be glad to hear your suggestions. I’m sure none of us like being called deniers or denialists.

Thank you.

# # # #

Authors Replies Policy: I will be glad to discuss why I agree with these five points made by David Victor.

I cannot, of course, speak for David Victor as to why he made these statements in the first instance. If you wish to understand his position better, read his original speech and place it, and David Victor, in their original contexts (see the first few paragraph of this essay). I have not listened to his latest , May 15th, presentation.

This is not a technical thread and I am not prepared (or able) to discuss, defend, or even generally talk about technical points such as brute force radiative balance or percentage of human contribution to CO2 concentrations or observed warming.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate reconciliation. Bookmark the permalink.

197 Responses to Why don’t we all just agree on Global Warming?

  1. Nick Stokes says:

    The key questions for policy aren’t issues like who is responsible for what warming as a result of the 350 or so Gtons carbon we have burnt so far. It’s what happens when we burn the next 1000 Gtons. And the next.

    And yes, there are uncertainties. That doesn’t mean it is safe to do it. Anything but.

  2. This echoes a piece I had printed in the Scotsman newspaper: Mike Haseler: No place for name-calling in debate.

  3. ConfusedPhoton says:

    “The instinctual unease with consensus helps to explain why some of the world’s greatest scientists have been climate skeptics and why the public has such a hard time understanding why these people are so disagreeable.”

    I think the unease comes from the fact that consensus is only opinion and most end up being wrong (e.g. Earth being the centre of the solar system). The reason that the “believers” use it is to publcally appeal to authority and avoid scientific debate.

    Why are they trying to “explain” a scientists natural sceptical outlook?

  4. hunter says:

    We on the skeptic side are winning. David Victor is basically saying we should just be ignored, and we will all go away.
    Eff him and his arrogance.
    The link to Revkin’s site raises the question as to why you worked so hard to make Victor, a complete arrogant schill, look better?
    Look at how the cliamte kooks like Nick Stokes respond as a go by. The only way to win is to continue to let the facts speak for themselves and to point out how the climate obsessed work so hard to hide the facts.

  5. Gerard Flood says:

    Kip,
    this is a much appreciated ‘start’: civilised discourse is helpful to real debate leading to clarification, deeper research, and , we all hope, new usable knowledge.

    Re your suggested label, “Climate Change Consensus DISSENT” . I would prefer “IPCC CCC Dissent” because the IPCC has an identifiable aggregation of ostensibly “agreed” documentation. I do not see why I should accept the definitive status of CC “Consensus” for any other group of documentation etc, [unless [until?] ‘someone’ assembles the necessary materials and obtains sufficient common agreement to ‘ratify’ the Supporter side].

  6. Leonard Weinstein says:

    Nick,
    You seem to miss the fact that if about half of the warming over the last 150 years (coming to about 0.4C contribution) is due to human activity, this small increase is not an indicator of a problem (keep in mind the increase followed a particularly cold period, which was much more a problem). Also the positive effects of increased CO2 (greening of the Earth and increased crop production) has been a major boon. The key questions for policy should not how to prevent the next 1000 Gtons from being used (they will be unless nuclear comes on line faster), but how to get past the eventual using up of cheap fossil fuel energy without hurting everyone, especially the poor.

  7. John West says:

    “We in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray.”

    There wouldn’t be dissenters if they had been honest about the uncertainty and not engaged in Zohnerism from day 1.

  8. Charles Nelson says:

    Cracker from Nick Stokes there. A tacit admission that the entire climate alarm campaign of the past twenty years is entirely without foundation. I’m getting a lot of that from Warmists now, they’re stepping back from their ‘certainty’ and taking a ‘precautionary’ stance.
    Too little too late I’m afraid. The damage to the credibility of ‘science’ has been done and when the backlash against Warmism gets into full swing i.e. post Obama, there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth…and for those who have no teeth?….Teeth will be provided!

  9. Even when the olive branch is proferred for consideration and conscious thought, we have that same attitude from the same people making the exact claims that have yet to be proven beyond doubt. We know that CO2 exudes from the planet after the heat has been applied, but the first word is that nothing will be gained actually stating or believing just that. Great start Mr Stokes.

  10. phlogiston says:

    I agree with Anthony’s agreement with David Victor’s 5 points. These are wise words, to disspiate unneeded vitriol from the climate debate.

    While respecting Anthony’s comment that this is not a technical thread, I came across an article describing a Nature Communication on ice age short term warming spikes that shows that grounds for robust skepticism of the CO2 driven theory/paradigm of climate can be found in the mainstream literature, not only in a skeptic wilderness. Here is the study in question:

    Paleoclimate
    “Too Short to Show”
    H. Jesse Smith

    During the last ice age, the climate of Greenland (and much of the Northern Hemisphere) jumped between cold intervals (called stadials) and warm ones. Records from ice cores show that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose during the longer stadials, but how it may have changed during the shorter ones was unclear due to a lack of highly time-resolved CO2 measurements. Ahn and Brooks constructed a detailed time series of atmospheric CO2 from an ice core in Antarctica, which shows that CO2 concentrations changed during the longer stadials but not during the shorter ones. The authors therefore suggest that during short Greenlandic stadials, changes in ocean circulation large enough to cause the transfer of large amounts of CO2 from the deep ocean to the atmosphere did not occur, unlike during longer stadials when the effect is clearly apparent. This, in turn, may imply that the climate links between the Antarctic and the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere could have been controlled by shallow oceanic or atmospheric processes, whereas CO2 changes were controlled by deep oceanic and Southern Ocean ones.
    Nat. Commun. 10.1038/ncomms4723 (2014).

    This is quite significant. Here it is clearly shown that CO2 cannot always be the driver of warming – instead CO2 increases from oceanic sources as a response to warming. This is not what some of the more shrill proponents of CAGW would accept but is here given solid experimental grounding.

    A path out of the erroneous CO2-centric climate paradigm is to be found in the best quality climate literature.

  11. Bill Illis says:

    The theory sounds good on paper.

    But is it accurate?

    Climate science won’t even let the question be asked, let alone try to answer it.

  12. John Peter says:

    To a non “climate scientist” like me the whole discussion boils down to ATTRIBUTION. Here we have David Victor echoing others saying that we (mankind) are responsible for at least 50% of a temperature rise of around .8C since the pre industrialised area or say 0.4C. This is a judgement as no scientific proof has been delivered that this is a fact. But assuming this is in the “ballpark”, then with CO2 effect being logarithmic then the max effect of a doubling is probably no more than 0.8% and way below the latest climate sensitivity estimates of between 1.3 and 2%. To reach Nick Stokes’ 1000ppm some people say we will run out of fossil fuels well before then, so this is a non starter. So whichever way you look at it, from this basic premise of 50% attribution of .8C so far, we will never be able to increase temperatures by more than 1 to 1.5C. In the meantime nobody has a clue as to what natural variability will do our Mother Earth. Where is the problem that we need do do anything about?

  13. Mike Jonas says:

    If David Victor wants to be taken seriously in his statements about what those who challenge mainstream climate science actually think or might actually agree to, then the first thing that he should do is to contact some such people and work with them on the topic. Instead of doing that, he has delved into his own biased mind, and invented stuff. I can assure him that there are plenty of suitable and willing people for him to work with. Until he does that, he has nothing.

  14. Jared says:

    Nick Stokes, it doesn’t mean it’s unsafe either. It’s most likely a positive as the current warming has been a major positive.

  15. Caleb says:

    Nick Stokes,

    Considering Kip made it clear he wished to discuss five specific points, your initial comment makes it look like you didn’t have the courtesy to read the thread before commenting. I’m afraid this defeats your purpose of high-jacking the thread into the very technical details Kip wanted to steer clear of.

    You see, Kip was attempting to reintroduce civility into a debate which has grown heated. Through your boorish behavior, you become a parody of civility, if not a perfect example of incivility.

  16. c1ue says:

    The sad fact is that the uncertainty is the problem.
    Simply stating that something ‘might’ happen is an utterly worthless argument.
    The precautionary principle requires analysis of the likelihood of an outcome, the costs of alternative actions, and the cost of doing nothing.
    Thus far, the path chosen has been entirely unsuccessful because it is the most expensive as well as economically damaging and least successful in terms of overall policy compliance and acceptance.
    Rather than brandish the stick of forced compliance, the right path is to create a better option. Lower or equal cost alternative energy.

  17. John West says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    “That doesn’t mean it is safe to do it.”

    Is it safe to drive to work tomorrow? Of course (depending on how you define “safe”) it’s not yet we’ll do it anyway because the risk is tolerable. That’s what this debate is missing, any sort of reasonable risk analysis.

  18. garymount says:

    I believe that over the next few years the science will get settled and it will be proven that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is good for the planet, as it’s plant food, and the more the better.

  19. Nick Stokes says:

    Leonard Weinstein says: May 18, 2014 at 5:49 am
    “Nick,
    You seem to miss the fact that if about half of the warming over the last 150 years (coming to about 0.4C contribution) is due to human activity, this small increase is not an indicator of a problem (keep in mind the increase followed a particularly cold period, which was much more a problem).”

    We’re not dependent on the “experiment” of burning 350 Gt C to know the effects of CO2. That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century. We do know that we burnt 350 GT and it warmed. That is consistent with what the physics said. We need to work out what the next 1000 Gt will do, as best we can. And then some.

  20. Daniel G. says:

    “believer”, believe it or not, is a rather neutral adjective. It’s not distasteful at all.

  21. garymount says:

    @phlogiston says:

    May 18, 2014 at 5:57 am
    - – -
    Our blog host did not write this post.

  22. TAG says:

    I see the issue presented in this posting is the current “we-they” confrontational positioning in this issue. The posting pointed out that here are certain non-controversial results that both sides could agree upon. However, the adversarial name-calling ethos that prevails prevents even that and inhibits any real chance to come to a decision on how to act in response to the issue.

    Today, we have a debate whose only completion is with the total loss of credibility and loss of power of one side or the other. Such a debate can never end. it is futile.

  23. urederra says:

    As soon as they realize they were losing the scientific debate, warmist changed the semantics. They stopped talking about global warming and they started talking about “climate change” as the two concepts were the same thing.

    So, why don´t we all just agree that they pulled a straw man fallacy?

    Because they do not want to admit that they lost the scientific debate. CO2 levels are rising, temperatures are not. Get over it and admit you have lost.

  24. garymount says:

    @Nick : Half the warming since pre-industrial occurred before humans could have had anything to do with it. You should know that. The other half could have, but we just don’t know, and it matches the nature amount of warming, so could very well have been natural also. Once again you should know that.

  25. Jeremy Das says:

    My default term is warmist, since it is non-pejorative and general, and it allows for the possibility that a warmist might also be a sceptic in the normal sense of the word. I prefer to reserve pejorative terms such as believer and alarmist for for those who belong to the appropriate subsets.

    I think the term dissenter is inappropriate because its use would tend to legitimise, in the minds of the ignorant, not only the idea that science is conducted by consensus, but also (indirectly) the idea that the supposed 97% consensus among scientists on the subject is an established fact.

    Insisting on more precise terms might seem politically correct, to some, but I think it gives alarmists less opportunity to misrepresent us sceptics if they cannot pretend that our lax terminology excuses their wilful misuse of language.

    On a slightly different matter, I – and other left wingers – have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the catch-all phrase “the left”, here and on other sites. Even “much of the left” would be a better label, in my opinion. There is nothing intrinsically left wing about scientific fraud, incompetence and ignorance. I remain puzzled that C-AGW seems, in much of the world, to have captured the imagination of a higher proportion of prominent non-totalitarian left wingers than right wingers. (My own country, the UK, seem to an exception to this pattern).

  26. Leon0112 says:

    Nick – Billions of people have been lifted from poverty by cheap energy generated by the burning of fossil fuels. The known path for the remaining poor out of poverty is the burning of fossil fuels. To oppose people rising out of poverty is anti human. The precautionary principle is anti human.

  27. When scientists overstep the line between science and politics, which appears to be the golden rule for a majority of climate scientists, the discussion from a scientific point of view becomes irrelevant. Because of the lack of global warming, or its hiding in deep cool places, or the mixing of weather events with climate disruption calling for climate restoration or preservation and ending with name-calling (deniers and the like) shows clearly enough in what kind of moral and intellectual swamp we live by desperately following “the party line” as has been outlined here over the years. The coming ( 2nd of june) ruling of the EPA on carbon emissions is again a coming out.

  28. Alan Robertson says:

    Thanks to Andrew Revkin for having the courage to bring David Victor’s cogent analysis to a wider audience. My take on Mr. Victors excellent comments:
    >The debate isn’t being lost to a well- funded anti- science effort, but to ordinary citizens interested enough in the truth and their future to point out the flies in the ointment.
    > Efforts to deter those voices have only served to harden the opposition.
    > The science is weak.
    > The efforts must shift to telling scary stories and invoking the precautionary principle.

  29. Col Mosby says:

    Nick Stokes fears are backwardly irrational : what’s for certain unsafe, and more deadly that 100 world war twos, would be a return to pre-industrial levels of CO2, below 270 PPM, which Stokes apparently is in favor of. If so, Stokes now becomes an accessory to mass murder on a scale never contemplated by anyone. Stokes has his sights set firmly in the wrong direction, and can in fact provide zero plausible arguments that future emissions can ever reach his feared levels.
    One can only wonder where Stokes got the idea that the world is rushing to build more coal fired plants,or oil fired residential heating systems. Even China is building far more hydro and nuclear power plants than coal fired units, and those natural gas plants are stopgap until more nuclear comes online, now planned to reach 1600 by the end of the century. China’s desire is to remove air pollution, not carbon emissions, although that will happen as a side effect.

  30. Gregory says:

    Step1: Stop calling me a denier. I am a skeptic.
    Step2: Stop lying about my intentions. I am seeking the truth and I do not believe you have it.

  31. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

    I would ignore nickey stokes, for you will never get a straight answer or acknowledgement from him. It is like arguing with piranhas as they descend upon you – they ain’t hearing you, too busy feeding.

  32. Gregory says:

    “…, that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era, etc. etc. That zone of agreement is impressive, but we must face the reality that those aren’t the questions that really matter for policy.”

    No, I don’t agree

  33. Gamecock says:

    Leonard Weinstein says:
    May 18, 2014 at 5:49 am

    The key questions for policy should not how to prevent the next 1000 Gtons from being used (they will be unless nuclear comes on line faster), but how to get past the eventual using up of cheap fossil fuel energy without hurting everyone, especially the poor.

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

    ABSOLUTELY NOT!

    Policy regarding future conditions, “the eventual using up of cheap fossil fuel energy,” are for the FUTURE. Our making decisions today for what may happen 100 years from now is like telling kids they have to eat their carrots, because of all the starving children in China.

    “You can’t drive your car, because people a 100 years from now won’t have any gasoline.”

  34. ffohnad says:

    I disagree, “believer” brings to mind a dogmatic approach that requires belief on the basis of faith. I am a believer in the use of the scientific method, alarmists(my preferred description) believe in conclusions of an incomplete use of the scientific method. Conclusions made on incomplete evidence are generally wrong in my experience .

  35. Tom Asiseeitnow says:

    I am sorry, but the idea that one ought to give any credence to a junk science political driven agenda makes no sense. It is as if we are being asked to say that what Hitler did in killing Jews was sort of okay. This is not about a meddling of philosophies. This is about truth nd scientific integrity. As long as there is a suggestion that saying its okay to say that CO2 is a real climate driver and that but tweaking its level we can change the climate, then that idea serves as a basis for bad political policy. There is no middle ground for a consensus, unless you are willing to call bad good. That is my belief, my position and I will not compromise.

  36. JohnWho says:

    “We” probably won’t ever agree on “Global Warming” partly because “we” don’t even agree on what the phrase “Global Warming” means.

    Is it:

    a general warming of the earth’s atmosphere?

    a warming of the earth’s atmosphere caused by what we term the “Green House Effect” (note: “we” don’t all necessarily agree on that phrase, either).?

    a warming of the earth’s atmosphere caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere?

    a warming of the earth’s atmosphere caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere?

    a warming trend in the atmospheric temperature that shows warming since the end of the LIA?

    a short term warming trend in the atmospheric temperature since the mid-20th Century?

    a short term warming trend that has essentially stopped for the last 15-17 years?

    or, something else?

    “We” certainly don’t agree that whatever is causing “Global Warming” requires some sort of action either.

    If “we (skeptics)” could at least agree on the following, it would be a good beginning IMHO:

    “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.” (Oregon Petition Project)

  37. Nick Stokes says:

    Caleb says: May 18, 2014 at 6:09 am
    “Considering Kip made it clear he wished to discuss five specific points, your initial comment makes it look like you didn’t have the courtesy to read the thread before commenting.”

    I read what he said. I couldn’t read the comments; there weren’t any.

    I was responding to his commendable effort to frame the debate in terms of what is relevant to policy. I just point out that you can’t do that without looking at what is coming down the tracks.

  38. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Thank you, but I do not need a guide for my path through the global warming topic, nor a title.
    People are still making some very fundamental errors.
    It is not sufficient to agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    It is also necessary to learn whether significant grenhouse heat is retained as a hotter atmosphere.
    There is still no single, accepted, quantitative, replicated paper that derives a useful link between atmospheric temperature changes and GHG concentrations.
    The most fundamental possible paper to show AGW is yet be written. It is too hard an experiment, so we have to resort finally to a guess that the GHG do heat the atmosphere significantly.
    Good science does not progress by guesses. It responds to good data.
    So no, one should NOT consent to an endorsement of a set of guesses.

  39. Latitude says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 18, 2014 at 6:14 am
    We need to work out what the next 1000 Gt will do, as best we can. And then some.
    ====
    oh for crying out loud…
    This is what it’s done Nick…..nothing!

    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png

  40. Col Mosby says:

    If you want to turn the “science” of climatology upside down, and rid the world of a continuous
    stream of warnings of looming catastrophes, simply vote the Dems out of the White House,
    which controls the research grants and start doling out grants to those who question the wisdom and evidence for carbon hysteria. Problem solved. People will start wearing “I love carbon” T-shirts, and, best of all, Michael Mann gets booted out of yet another university position and is selling apples on the streets of New York, something he can do competently.
    And no one will be able to remember exactly what all the hoopla about carbon was all about, amongst that prior, obviously dopey and frightened and economically incompetent generation of iPoders, a device now dispayed in the Smithsonian as a relic of bygone days.

  41. Greg says:

    1. “First, I’d like to suggest that calling people who disagree “denialists” is clouding our judgment. If you really want to understand what motivates these people and what motivates the captains of industry and voters who listen to them, stop calling them denialists.”

    The key word of this phrase is OUR judgement and it is a very good point that seems to have been missed.

    Calling those who disagree with what you _believe_ is a nice easy way to avoid addressing their arguments and blatantly ignoring anything they say, and this is the true motivation behind the name-calling.

    Failing to question their own position, as any honest scientist is constantly doing, is how they cloud their OWN judgement.

    Like refusing to debate, attempting to silence opposing opinion through gatekeeping, media censorship (not posting “denier” comments, and suppressing “false balance”) and peer pressure (Bengtsson) , all these are signs of insecurity and lack of confidence resulting form a weak position.

    They are not the ways of someone with solid scientific proof.

  42. Greg says:

    Hey mods how about dropping the D-word ban here? It’s going to be hard to discuss and article discussing the D-word without using it !

    [There is a short delay until posts are approved. You can always use a "!" in place of the i in denialist. ~mod]

  43. John Bowman says:

    ‘Supporters’… ‘Dissenters’… new euphemisms do not address the underlying problem, that a small core group of scientists suddenly and probably to their surprise, became the founding fathers of a new Great Cause and World Threat to replace Communism and Nuclear Armageddon, to keep exercised and justify the existence of politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs, the environment industry, increase taxes, and to be exploited by business and a godsend for those seeking research funding, and a nice little earner for business interests.

    What they started soon went way beyond their control and stopped being a scientific debate as soon as it was out of nappies and became a new religion and all religion is about political power.

    It is not then evidence based, but faith and ideology based; it is about saving face, protecting bottoms (because surely many must know there is no, never was, any evidence) and keeping the gravy train going

    It is wrong to assume ‘Supporters’ are rational actors and it really is no good saying some or most of them are ‘honest’ because Public Choice Theory explains why that is a misguided assumption.

    This is not an issue that will be decided on the evidence because the evidence and the platform from which it would be delivered is owned by the ‘Supporters’ and their powerful political and media allies, which means the evidence will be filtered and the ‘message’ spun and controlled…. and don’t we know that!

    And if as we constantly hear, the evidence from observation cannot be accepted as refuting the hypothesis and the models because ‘it is too soon to tell’ and is likely always going to be ‘too soon to tell’ until all those whose interests it serves to keep this boondoggle on the rails have either got too old to care or have died.

    I don’t want to be called a denier, dissenter, sceptic or any other name because I will not connive in making myself a victim of those whose self-interest is being served.

    Don’t accept a label… we are the normal, the unlabelled.

    Label the other lot with whatever you like, if you must, but not me.

    Anyone who imagines there can be an honest, scientific debate if only we all play nicely together, is deluding themselves or been in a coma over the last 15 years or so.

    There is just too much for the ‘Supporters’ to lose for them to come clean and admit the game is up.

  44. Richard Ilfeld says:

    We don’t agree because we can’t find a common reality.

    Our local Newspaper is editorially pro-warming. They buy into the whole package of FUD, and immediate remediation through major government tax, spend, and control policies. They happily emit all of Monkton’s Aristotlian fallacies.

    They sponsor an arena on the seafront. They support rebuilding a major tourist attraction that is on a pier over the ocean. They want to close a local private airport, on the seafront, so they can claim the land for major public development. They support to public seafront airports as major local assets and happpily pour money into them. Their relatively new main printing plant is 13 ft above MSL. A good part of the editorial staff enjoys waterfront housing (and we know a home is likely to be ones largest investment.) Their entire operation is powered by coal. One could go on for some time…..

    They are perfectly content to disqualify a politician for office solely because he doesn’t support immediate and overbearing climate change legislation.

    I find it hard to have a civil conversation about climate; when I am sitting on the patio of a home on the water, which suffers from a 30 year mortgage, and listen to the owner promote with certainty a package on nonsense that includes catastrophic flooding in less than 20 years.

    We usually talk sports & grandkids because I don’t want to hate my neighbors. I no longer subscribe to his paper, and he no longer asks why.

    Perhaps he’ll recover when this cause fades as a vote-lever for the left, and become didactic about something else. I can hardly wait.

  45. John Judge says:

    The argument isn’t about science, it’s about money and power and how much we can feed at the government trough. It we were sincere about the problem and sincere about finding a solution there would be alternatives to the ridiculously destructive single solution being pushed. How about investigating other solutions such as a way to reduce the earth’s albedo/

  46. elmer says:

    How about 3% of the 1 degree of warming since the industrial revolution?

  47. Paul Carter says:

    Nick Stokes says: May 18, 2014 at 5:20 am
    “It’s what happens when we burn the next 1000 Gtons. And the next. And yes, there are uncertainties. That doesn’t mean it is safe to do it. Anything but.”

    … and that doesn’t mean it is safe NOT to do it either … especially from an economic and policy perspective which is what David Victor was focussing on.

  48. mebbe says:

    Nick Stokes says;

    “We’re not dependent on the “experiment” of burning 350 Gt C to know the effects of CO2. That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century. We do know that we burnt 350 GT and it warmed. That is consistent with what the physics said. We need to work out what the next 1000 Gt will do, as best we can. And then some.”

    ————————————

    Yea, verily, the Ancient Ones of over a hundred years ago knew their “radiative physics” and the Ancient Ones of over two centuries ago knew their “combustion physics” .

    Our humble task is to “work out” what will happen next, by combining “radiative physics” and “combustion physics” and adding a little “evaporative physics” and some “convective physics” with a dash of “mensuration physics” thrown in according to taste.

    In the meantime, while we’re still figuring, let’s cower under the spreading, green canopy of the Sanctimony tree.

  49. Gajim says:

    “Ich bin ein Denier!”
    I deny that Anthropomorphic Global Warming has any significant impact on climate.
    I deny that Global Climate Change has a net negative impact on life on Earth.
    I deny that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is a pollutant.
    I deny that alternative energy sources have Socialist solutions.
    I deny that any Science is Settled.
    I deny that those funded by Politicians seek Scientific truth.

  50. chris moffatt says:

    “…Climate Change Consensus DISSENT..”

    There must first be a consensus and there isn’t one. All we can say at present is that the science is completely uncertain because we simply don’t understand, or even know, many of the factors affecting climate. So much of the work has yet to be done. Let’s all call it what it is – “climate change uncertainty”.

  51. TRBixler says:

    Leonard Weinstein says:
    May 18, 2014 at 5:49 am

    Nick,
    You seem to miss the fact that if about half of the warming over the last 150 years (coming to about 0.4C contribution) is due to human activity, this small increase is not an indicator of a problem (keep in mind the increase followed a particularly cold period, which was much more a problem). Also the positive effects of increased CO2 (greening of the Earth and increased crop production) has been a major boon. The key questions for policy should not how to prevent the next 1000 Gtons from being used (they will be unless nuclear comes on line faster), but how to get past the eventual using up of cheap fossil fuel energy without hurting everyone, especially the poor.

    Leonard
    Your point is correct but the thought of policy dictating anything is how we have ended up with a government dictating CO2. When the government becomes involved it unceremoniously harms the very people that you worry about. It is the idea that somehow the government can make good policy when they are imbued with power and influenced by personal greed.

  52. It is not about science, this agw debate is political. Always was and always will be.

  53. heysuess says:

    The ‘supporters’ continue, and will continue, to receive this kind of attention in the media. Human use of fossil fuels is cited at the bottom. This is up as the main on CTV’s website, as of this writing. http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/unprecedented-melt-of-b-c-glaciers-adding-to-u-s-climate-change-concerns-1.1827072

  54. John Peter says:

    Nick Stokes is an intelligent person with a lot of knowledge. For some reason he is wedded to the IPCC conclusions in the document written for politicians by mostly bureaucrats assisted by a few CAGW scientists. As a non scientist I am not convinced by his arguments and dire predictions. I view the arguments for the medieval period as being as warm as now for sound. I look at global atmospheric temperatures that have not risen for 15-17 years. Anthartic sea ice is at its maximum since records began. Arctic sea ice has not disappeared as predicted by numerous CAGW prophets. There is no acceleration in sea level rise. The idea of the warming having gone into the deep ocean is a bit of a red herring as measurements over time are rather unreliable. Meanwhile CO2 continues to rise and rise unabated. The longer this goes on the less likely CAGW becomes. It makes a lot of sense to wait and see before we are ruined by the actions of CAGW advocates and their followers determined to fill their pockets with taxpayers money. Perhaps Nick Stokes can enlighten me with some predictions on when the various indices will begin to show a detectable acceleration that will lead to his and his ilk’s dire predictions and what “hidden” physical powers will facilitate this acceleration. Referring to models will not impress me.

  55. Old'un says:

    An interesting viewpoint from Rod Liddle in the (UK) Sunday times today, entitled ‘We’re all doomed if we treat climate sceptics as Nazis’:

    ‘I am not a climate change denier, although I am a weather change denier. This means simply that when some pirouetting halfwit on the BBC tells me that tomorrow sarcomas are going to start popping up all over my body as a consequence of the relentless searing heat, I get out my wellies and my Windcheater and start placing sandbags by the door. It has worked pretty well for me so far, this “denial” stance — maybe you should try it. If the meteorologist Tomasz Schafernaker insists this evening is going to be pleasantly balmy, make sure you’ve got some candles in and masking tape for the windows. Stay away from trees.

    Climate change denying is different, however, although the two “denying” concepts are of course linked. If the weather is very wet for a while and a low-lying village in the middle of a marsh floods, the Met Office will announce that this is an “extreme weather event”, which is consistent with the effects of “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW), rather than an unfortunate manifestation of that old-fashioned and discredited concept “winter”.

    More than about a week’s worth of the same weather and the Met Office will tell you it’s “climate change” and all the polar bears will die and the world will come to an end. With their dire threats and warnings, the climate change lobby are rather like those people hunkered down in caves awaiting deliverance according to a calendar drawn up by some primitive pre-Columbians 5,000 or so years ago. They seem to yearn for this annihilation, which they insist is being visited upon us by our horrible affluence and wilful profligacy.

    It is not surprising, when you think about it, that the idea of the end of the world as occasioned by greenhouse gases started to really pick up traction soon after that other vision of apocalypse, nuclear annihilation, receded from view, in about 1991.

    I suspect there is, within the international middle-class left, a self-flagellating tendency that sort of hungers for mankind’s imminent destruction — nuclear weapons, a warming planet — and thinks it is in possession of the facts and everyone else is ignorant or complicit, and either way fundamentally evil.

    Hence that phrase, capped up, “Climate Change Denier”, which equates anyone who doubts the imminent destruction of the planet with a Nazi sympathiser. It is an odious misuse of language by deranged absolutists.

    But still, I’m not a denier, any more than is Professor Lennart Bengtsson, of the University of Reading. He believes man-made climate change is happening, but has some doubts as to the effect this will have on the planet. The trouble is this doubt makes him, in the view of the absolutists, a denier — even though he palpably isn’t.

    He has resigned from a mildly sceptical climate change think tank because of the furious opposition from within his profession, the repugnance at the notion that he could think differently from the majority.

    Furthermore, a paper he co-authored with four other climate change experts was denied publication because, Bengtsson claims, it was not helpful to the climate change cause. He reports that an eminent scientist said precisely those words — “not helpful” — when presented with the paper.

    You expect science to be disinterested, to be aloof and pure? You have to be joking — we saw just how pure and aloof and disinterested with the Climategate scandal, in which pro-AGW scientists were accused of repressing dissenting views.

    I suspect that partly they do this because, for an awful lot of scientists and researchers, their livelihood depends on AGW not merely existing, but being a clear and present danger, and the more dangerous to mankind the better. And partly because of the absolutist mindset, familiar to many who watch the faux left at work, that opposition simply cannot be tolerated’.

  56. ATheoK says:

    “…If you go on to read David Victor’s full January speech, understand that he does not follow his own admonition not to call dissenters “denialists.” It gets grating very quickly. He uses other disagreeable words as well. There are interesting things in Victor’s speech about where climate fight money comes from and whom it goes, admissions you won’t see elsewhere. I’m sure you will find things to agree with and many other things that David Victor says to disagree with as strongly as I do. Truthfully, it doesn’t seem to me that he agrees with himself much of the time: he’d do better if he stuck to the basic points above and worked from these. …”

    Interesting statement Kip. You are definitely entitled to your opinions and beliefs.

    I thank Anthony for allowing you to publish your article here as you do push thought provoking questions.

    I’m more than a little confused with your decision to cherry pick statements that you consider choice from someone’s speech.

    I call it cherry pick because you seem to be missing David Victor’s own personal slant towards us CAGW consensus doubters. Pay attention to the old adage “Actions speak louder than words.” A person who mentions some points that are moderate or centrist if you will to everyone overwrites those gentler words when they resort to ad hominems or declarations of climate absolutism. Especially when they fall into the classic CAGW denigration in the same speech.

    Yes, the comments are closer to what I would like to hear for discussion. No, I do not accept that they are David Victor’s true attitudes. Platitudes do not calm me down nor make me happy or even content.

    “…The word “denialists” is offensive in its connotation, intended or not, of Holocaust denialism, and is, in any case, incorrect, no one (“nutters” excepted), denies “climate” or that climate changes. Later in his speech, he uses a better word which I will suggest here for all of us, if we must separate people with a binary system denoting disagreement with IPCC climate change science consensus: climate change consensus DISSENT and DISSENTERS…”

    Now about this first item on your list.

    From my standpoint, all that is proven is the basic concept of CO2 IR absorption. I’ve yet to see proofs that demonstrate exactly how excited little CO2 molecules heat up other atmospheric gases or emit their little IR photon?

    Yes, there is conceivably a delay in IR’s ultimate emission to deep space; exactly how long? Exact by measurement and controlled tests, that is!

    That concept doesn’t make me a dissenter by any stretch of the imagination; instead I and many others represent believers in the null condition. Demonstrate by replicable experiment CO2 effects!

    Somehow, I doubt the ability of anyone to truly demonstrate CO2′s impacts until they can concurrently demonstrate what all those atmospheric molecules behave; when the sun rises, when the sun sets, when storms swirl in, when the earth tilts towards or away from the sun…

    Theories are great! Theories are only developed ideas until demonstrated by experiment.

    Frantically drumming up scare stories about an uncommon molecule and weak IR photons reverberates from the shadows as ‘wolf… wolf”. Claiming that science is already explained and casting smoke in our eyes is far from proof or proper science.

  57. Gregory says:

    Greg: “If you want to turn the “science” of climatology upside down, and rid the world of a continuous stream of warnings of looming catastrophes, simply vote the Dems out of the White House, which controls the research grants and start doling out grants to those who question the wisdom and evidence for carbon hysteria. Problem solved.”

    I disagree with you brother. There are plenty on both sides of the isle ready to use this issue to gather power, tax citizens, tax business. There are also corporations ready to rake in the revenue (remember ENRON) aligned with their lobbyists. Return this issue back to the legitimate scientific method and most goes away.

    IMO, it is the direct connection between scientists and policy makers that creates ravenous political bedfellows. It has infected the host. This is the source of the name-calling.

  58. One can no more argue with a believer than one can argue with faith. Argument MEANS to present the facts of the real world and logically deduce the consequences of those facts. Yet no facts are necessary for one to believe or to have faith. Thus, no argument is possible.

    If you do have the facts and have reasoned correctly to the logical conclusion neither belief nor faith is necessary or operative. You simply assent to the fact of what is, is what it is. It follows that belief and consensus (*meaning only the collection of individuals believing in the same thing) are not a part of the practice of knowing (aka science). That is unless you believe as Kant taught that you really can’t know anything. In which case, why all the fuss one way or the other because none of us, including Kant, can know anything.

    Question: if what Kant taught is true, how can you know that it is true?

    Answer: You can’t. All you can do is believe but you can’t even know that you truly believe.

    Question: how could we mere mortals, incapable of knowing, have built a planet wide and solar system spanning high technology civilization? Apparently, it just happened totally by accident as manna from heaven. Then we equally accidentally are using it without really knowing what we are doing. This notion has a long way to go to be as good as a psychosis.

    Yet, this is exactly that the true believers are asking us to believe and to submit to their superiority as masters of the universe. They expect us to return ourselves to the status of a 20,000 BC hunting and gathering tribe based upon that self evident fact (to them) of their infinite superiority.

    Remember the fable of the frog taking a scorpion across the stream? Ultimately the scorpion stung the frog and said “After all, I am a scorpion and I do what scorpion’s do.”

    Conclusion: Trust what they say to mean what they said at your own risk. It will most likely come back to bite you. That bite can easily be fatal.

  59. JamesS says:

    I think we’re allowing the warmists to get away with saying that extreme climate change is occurring at all. When I look at the Palmer Dought Severity Index, and tornado occurrence graphs, and hurricane data, and pretty much every other weather/climate index, I don’t see anything that’s out of the natural variation we’ve seen so far.

    My question to the warmists is how can they look at these records, many over a hundred years’ in length, and claim that there is any severe climate change going on anywhere? I read news articles saying things like “Balkans hit by worst flooding in 120 years,” and know this will be trumpeted as being more “proof” of climate change, while it’s ignored that there were floods just as bad 120 years ago, long before there was any possibility of AGW.

    For my part, I always admonish people to go look at the data for themselves and not just believe the press releases. The resource pages here are invaluable for doing just that, as they provide links to the original sources. The best argument is the truth, and the more access to the real data people have, the closer to the truth they can get.

  60. Alex says:

    Because i understand basic radiation physics, I don’t accept that a partial increase in CO2 will increase atmospheric temperature. However, If the atmospheric density increases then there would be a temperature increase. I have found nothing in any literature that can prove otherwise. This probably goes against the ‘beliefs’ of sceptics on this blog. I never was a believer in anything, I was always an accepter or non accepter, never a rejecter.

  61. Darren Potter says:

    “Why don’t we all just agree on Global Warming?”

    I’ll be glad to tell you why. We were (and still are being) lied too by supposedly trusted professionals. Supposed GW scientists who have knowingly used unscientific methods, manipulated data, tweaked results, fabricated graphs, used bad models, colluded with peers to hide contradictory facts, and played politics. We were and are being scammed out of Billions of our Tax dollars for so-called Climatologists of AGW to keep them needless employed.

    We were and are being ripped off by AGW Alarmists pushing needless Greenie products that to often have a bigger “C” foot print. How many birds have to be chopped and fried before they admit their Greenism is doing more harm? We were are dealing with several progressive/socialist groups who have banned together to drive a political agenda that revolves around power, control, money, and regulated redistribution of life and riches.

    Take heed folks, agreeing with Greenies, Alarmists, Believers, GW Scamers, MannBearPigs, and IPCC/UN on AGW is a serious mistake. Even agreeing there is “Climate Change” without detailed context is a mistake with aforementioned. To AGWers, acknowledging there is “Climate Change” is to them akin to admitting every change in weather, every change to climate was and is caused by Man and Man’s use of Carbon.

    Take a lesson from NRA’s experience with anti-second amendment / anti-gun crowd. If you give even an inch on what seems like a reasonable point, the nose of camel is under the tent. The fanatics will be back demanding feet and concessions. Give in on those, and fanatics will be back insisting on miles and capitulation.

  62. Bruce Cobb says:

    “We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere, that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era”
    No. That is mere conjecture and opinion. The fact is that, although certainly possible that we have caused some exceedingly small amount of warming, it can not be shown. The “human fingerprint” is a myth.
    Science isn’t about “agreeing”. That belongs in the political realm.

  63. Henry Clark says:

    “The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance

    Radiative forcing in W/m^2 gives an amount of temperature change only utterly, utterly dependent on the climate sensitivity figure.

    “humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era”

    Nope. Even for the warming in the 20th century, the natural contribution from CRF+TSI (mostly CRF) change was around 0.5K of the around 0.6K observed global warming over the previous century; http://tinyurl.com/nbnh7hq

  64. AlecM says:

    Curry: ‘“The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy.’

    This is where the IPCC ‘consensus’ breaks down. it’s because the SW part of ‘forcing is real** but the LW part, ‘back radiation’, isn’t.***

    **Because the Earth’s temperature is very low compared with the Sun’s, the error arising from not subtracting the Earth to Sun Irradiance from the Sun to Earth value, essential to get net energy flux, is negligible.

    ***The real net IR emission from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere is the surface to atmosphere IR Irradiance minus the atmosphere to surface IR Irradiance: 396 – 333 = 63 W/m^2. This is the catastrophic science failure at the heart of Climate Alchemy. Until it’s fixed, there can be no progress.

  65. Man Bearpig says:

    No, no no!
    I am not a dissenter I am a sceptic. The term ‘supporters’ makes it sound like a gamer team.

    I am sceptic, they are not sceptics. The only Antonym term in http://www.thesaurus.com for ‘Sceptic’ is ‘Believer’ whether they like it or not, they are believers – it is official.

    http://thesaurus.com/browse/sceptic

    The term ‘supporter’ takes us back to the starting block.
    Antonyms: enemy, opponent, opposition, adversary

    http://thesaurus.com/browse/supporter

    So what’s changed ?

  66. Alan Robertson says:

    Many thanks to Kip Hansen for this informative thread.

  67. Darren Potter says:

    “I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did last night in the State of the Union Address,”

    So can I. Obama has no hesitation about lying to achieve his political aspirations and goals.
    If you look at some of the key people who have been behind AGW sham, you will find one thing in common. Most of them have been caught being dishonest, and have shown no remorse. One Mann and a ManBearPig particular come to mind.

  68. HankHenry says:

    David Victor should have quit at 4. Item 5 is dubious. Freeman Dyson has articulated his points, and if you disagree with what he says, you should take him up point by point rather than remarking on the psychology behind his motives. It’s thinking of the debate as a beauty pageant. Furthermore, it’s inappropriate to discuss the mathematical uncertainty of the question of whether 2+2 = 4 in comparison with scientific uncertainty. The shortcomings of climate science are not comparable to the doubts embodied in Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

  69. MarkW says:

    The only part I disagree with is the claim that humans are responsible for at least half of the warming seen. I believe it’s closer to 1/4th. Prior to the satellite era, the data is to corrupted by micro-site and UHI issues to tell much of anything from. The satellite era is too short to be meaningful and has only covered the warm phase of the PDO at a minimum we need to wait until the cool phase of the PDO completes.

  70. Hank Zentgraf says:

    Can anyone provide me with references of scientific work that quantifies how much of the 400ppm of CO2 is attributable to man? So many variables need to be accounted for; CO2 exchange in oceans, soils, plants, etc.

  71. Darren Potter says:

    JamesS says: ” and know this will be trumpeted as being more “proof” of climate change, while it’s ignored that there were floods just as bad 120 years ago, long before there was any possibility of AGW.”

    Prime evidence of the absolute dishonesty AGW Alarmist Climatologists.
    On related note; Real scientists, true scientific professionals, are making a serious mistake by not vehemently calling out their AGW Alarmist peers on such matters. Their silence is ruining the reputations of true scientists and putting a dark cloud over fields of science. The same goes for journalists, news reporters who fail to question and point out things like 120 years ago there was flooding as bad or worse, and that was before the shammed AGW could have been cause.

  72. csanborn says:

    All the IPCC ilk need do is successfully float the word consensus (which is of course political, not science), and they’ve mostly won opinion. But science is not about opinion.

  73. Kip Hansen says:

    I’m sure none of us like being called deniers or denialists.
    ——————-

    I don’t mind at all being called a denier …… simply because I call myself that ….. and because I am a vocally adamant denier of the “junk science” claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). CAGW is not based in/on logical reasoning, intelligent deductions and/or actual, factual scientific evidence and proofs.

  74. Darren Potter says:

    Gregory says: “Return this issue back to the legitimate scientific method and most goes away.”

    As in be fair on topic of AGW? Sounds good.

    How about we take all research funding that has been spent thus far in favor of AGW, and fund equivalent in research disproving AGW over next two decades. With said funding coming out of existing AGW funding budget, with no overall increase in the budget.

  75. garymount says:
    May 18, 2014 at 6:26 am

    @Nick : Half the warming since pre-industrial occurred before humans could have had anything to do with it. You should know that.
    ——————-

    Actually, 98+% of the warming since pre-industrial occurred before humans could have had anything to do with it. Said warming began some 22,000 years ago at end of the last Glacial Maximum.

    And said Interglacial Global Warming (IGW), …. with all of its “ups n’ downs”, ….. is still in progress as far as I know because the next Ice Age has yet to begin.

    And just because the proponents of CAGW have “high jacked” all of the IGW from 1880 to present does not prove their “junk science” claims that human emissions of CO2 is the culprit that is causing their “fuzzy” math calculated “high jacked” temperature increases.

  76. Steven Mosher says:

    I welcome the challenge to use the supporter and dissenter.
    Ive suggested supporter and critic, close enough.

    Anthony can do a lot to encourage people to use these terms.
    from little things like changing the blog roll descriptions, to other things like working with the mods
    to enforce a policy, to leading by example for other blogs. To writing an Essay, “why I dissent”

    Its not enough to tell people to stop using the word denialist

  77. james says:

    Rule for radicals was dedicated to Lucifer the people at the very top off this actually believe that they must bring about a one world government .Then Lucifer will appear to lead them into and age of glory

  78. Anthony Watts says:

    Actually Mosh, I’ve been wanting/intending to do a “my position” piece for a long time, this would be a good impetus to do so.

  79. ATheoK says:

    “Nick Stokes says: May 18, 2014 at 5:20 am

    The key questions for policy aren’t issues like who is responsible for what warming as a result of the 350 or so Gtons carbon we have burnt so far. It’s what happens when we burn the next 1000 Gtons. And the next.

    And yes, there are uncertainties. That doesn’t mean it is safe to do it. Anything but.”

    Nick:
    I was fine with your statement till you slipped in that “Anything but.”
    Prove the harm. Dances will not sway. Yes, the CO2 molecule is called a ‘greenhouse gas’; so are many other molecules.

    So just how many gigatons of CO2 do you think are still available for burning? Forgetting the CO2 residual rate or earth’s CO2 capture rate and even as the percentage of energy converted to work increases. If 350gtons raised CO2ppm by 100ppm, what is the worry for the next 350gtons? Is 500ppm a real worry?

    Geological evidence points to other epochs where atmospheric CO2 were higher and life flourished, including mankind and mankind’s ancestors.

    Indeed, plant life flourishes when greenhouse CO2 levels are raised to over 1000ppm. Exactly how high? Well, commercial growers have their own experiments and results that they have no intention of sharing. Specific CO2 levels for each type of plant are as important to them as secret formulas for sauces. You do owe some of the better flavor to high greenhouse CO2 levels for winter greenhouse fruits, berries and vegetables.

    When Earth’s plant life flourishes so does all life dependent on plants. After all, just what is your view of the ‘Garden of Eden’? Walking on ice looking for roots or walking amongst abundant harvests wearing…, well the clothes CAGW climate emperors are wearing.

    There is no doubt that there is a significant safety cushion for CO2 levels. There is no proof whatsoever for CAGW fears. Observations to date do not help the CAGW cause.

    Nor does the knowledge that history provides substantial proof that cold spells are disastrous for mankind. Warmth can be uncomfortable and sometimes inconvenient, but is only deadly to the unprepared man?

    Are cities hot and uncomfortable? I think so and I’m quite curious why research in this area is so weak? One would think that in this day and time, we’d have calculated UHI for every day in every city.

    In any case, there appears to be quite sufficient evidence that mankind has time to truly develop next generation energy solutions.

    I’ve favored nuclear for decades and invested in green tech while it was hot, but sold out of it over a decade ago. No, I didn’t have inside knowledge; I didn’t like the answers for generating hydrogen, alcohol supplies or storing intermittent energy. Energy solutions that are incomplete or contrived worry me. I’ve spent enough time as a Budget Manager to recognize when money is thrown at solutions looking a problem and disavow myself from their convolutions.

    I’m still waiting for that thorium generator powering my neighborhood. Perhaps Tesla’s atmospheric energy transmission ideas will be re-investigated for personal vehicles? Why not, after all of the largesse granted to the doomers it is time to devote some to true research again…

  80. davidmhoffer says:

    Nick Stokes;
    And yes, there are uncertainties. That doesn’t mean it is safe to do it. Anything but.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What are the uncertainties associated with mitigation? What are the impacts of denying the vast majority of humanity access to electricity, sanitation, transportation, food production, refrigeration, air conditioning, central heating, cost effective clothing and shelter?

    Is denying humanity those things safe Nick? Or anything but?

  81. davidmhoffer says:

    Nick Stokes;
    We’re not dependent on the “experiment” of burning 350 Gt C to know the effects of CO2. That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yes, the radiative physics have been known for a century:

    1. The direct effects of CO2 are logarithmic
    2. The cooling response of the planet is exponential
    3. The feedback effects are unlikely to be anything more than slightly positive, and likely to be slightly negative.
    4. The direct effects can have no other option but to even out temperature differences on the planet, hence resulting in less severe weather.

    These are the known physics of the last century Nick. These are commensurate with the observations of the last century Nick.

    If the debate was restricted to the known physics Nick, there never would have been one.

  82. strike says:

    @Nick Stokes

    “We’re not dependent on the “experiment” of burning 350 Gt C to know the effects of CO2. That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century. We do know that we burnt 350 GT and it warmed. That is consistent with what the physics said. We need to work out what the next 1000 Gt will do, as best we can. And then some.”

    Don’t be so sure. We burnt around a third of Your 350GT(I thought this number to be larger since we put in 30 GT in 2010 alone, but never mind) during the last 15/17 years and it didn’t warm. Negative feedback or low natural warming or something else you name it. But You will have to proof it….

    David Victor/Kip Hansen
    I regard this thesis “Man burning Co2 is responsible for past and future global warming” as falsified and until there is no new theory there will be no compromising with warmists. The scientific respect for climatology is gone, as far as I am concerned.

  83. kim says:

    Resistor. Even the electrical analogy works.
    =======

  84. ATheoK says:

    “Steven Mosher says: May 18, 2014 at 8:26 am

    I welcome the challenge to use the supporter and dissenter.
    Ive suggested supporter and critic, close enough.

    Its not enough to tell people to stop using the word denialist”

    Good grief! I find myself completely agreeing with Steve Mosher and mostly agreeing with Nick Stokes in the same thread!

    Small caveat though Steve, while I accept that critic is far better than many of the other terms; I tend to think that the title critic is a little strong for many if not most of us.

    Critic is sufficient though and especially beneficial in that it is a term of respect. Both of the terms you propose are terms of respect and I definitely agree with your suggestion that all of us pursue discussions using only terms of respect.

    I certainly have lowered myself many times, (e.g. above posts) to utilizing demeaning terms and I am probably going to revert when the tone I’m disagreeing with is not professional.

    Thank you for the hope though!

  85. Theo Goodwin says:

    Kip, you have outed David Victor! He will suffer the fate of Bengtsson! /sarc

    You make him seem to be a good scientist. How does he remain in good standing with the “climate consensus?”

  86. dbstealey says:

    How can an otherwise intelligent person like Nick Stokes believe in something that has no supporting scientific evidence, and plenty of contrary evidence?

    I think the media barrage has colonized his mind to the extent that he actually believes there is a looming catastrophe.

    Some folks just cannot be objective enough to admit that every alarmist prediction has turned out to be wrong. All of them, no exceptions: CO2 is rising, but temperature is not. Oceans are not ‘acidifying’. Sea level rise is not accelerating. The Arctic has plenty of ice. All measurements show that rising CO2 is caused by rising temperature, but there is no evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of rising T. And so on.

    Nick Stokes should admit that when all predictions of catastrophe are wrong, that maybe the original premise was wrong. If he can’t admit that much, then the planet will make him look increasingly foolish.

  87. Pamela Gray says:

    I also prefer “critic” of several theories related to the greenhouse gas CO2, such as runaway anthropogenic caused warming, anthropogenic driven weather extremes, anthropogenic driven polar ice trends, anthropogenic glacier trends, etc…

    Why? First, the additional energy made available by just the anthropogenic portion of total CO2ppm isn’t sufficient to cause any of these large energy intensive climate/weather conditions. Second, of the CO2 in the air, only a small portion is anthropogenic, yet AGW enthusiasts ascribe half to all of a temperature trend to anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That is a false statement and completely unsupported by the known physics of instrinsic climate and weather drivers.

  88. emsnews says:

    Excuse me but we are NOT ‘dissenters’…we are REALISTS.

    This is a key point and giving it away to the warmists is strange, not to mention, destructive.

  89. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    There are so many human sin attributed disasters around not limited to Tartarus. Cannot possibly take them all seriously or be labelled by absence of the related fears. How about everyone keeping their fears to themselves until presenting a proof of a quantifiable risk verifiable with scientific methods?

  90. Colorado Wellington says:

    Gregory says:
    May 18, 2014 at 6:34 am

    Step1: Stop calling me a denier. I am a skeptic.
    Step2: Stop lying about my intentions. I am seeking the truth and I do not believe you have it.

    Step3: If willing to agree to step1 & step2, I’m ready to ignore your past insults and discuss step4, step5, etc. If not willing, I will take you even more seriously. I will conclude you do not want to have a discussion and look for agreement and solutions. You are the aggressor, you started a war and you limited the range of my responses. I have too much life experience with people like you. Nothing good ever came out of appeasing your kind.

  91. Willis Eschenbach says:

    First, my thanks to the author for bringing up these issues. I was doing well until I came to point number 3.

    Number 1, which says don’t go out of your way to insult your opponents after they have repeatedly requested that you refrain, is a measure of just how cosmically foolish the AGW supporters are. Nobody gains points by that kind of demonization.

    Number 2 says the science is not yet settled … duh. Again, like number 1, the fact that someone on their side actually has to point these things out is depressing.

    But in number 3, the story goes off the rails.

    3. “The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty.” … “We all agree, you say, on some basic facts—that CO2 concentrations are approaching a mean of 400ppm, a value far above the 280 or 290ppm of the pre-industrial value. We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere, that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era, etc. etc. That zone of agreement is impressive, but we must face the reality that those aren’t the questions that really matter for policy.”

    Nearly all believers and skeptics alike agree on these basic points of the science (I place emphasis on the percentage of human contribution, many serious scientists still hold this bit in question, but in the end most agree that the exact percentage probably doesn’t really matter that much for policy).

    I strongly dislike this approach. In the guise of looking for agreement, he is making (and the author is supporting) the very fundamental (and undecided) argument for his point of view—that the change in temperature is a linear function of the change in forcing. Or as he says, “We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere …”

    Sorry, David and Kip, but you can’t slip in your claims like that. You’ve just agreed that the science is not settled, and then you try to list things as “settled” when they are not. I hear this bogus form of discussion all the time, things like “Well, we might disagree on the minor issues, but we all know that warming is bad.” … Well, no, we don’t all know that, and more to the point, you don’t get to assume that. On my planet, claiming that “climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added” is as dumb as claiming that “human core temperatures will warm in equilibrium when radiative forcing is added”, and for the same reason—both statements ignore the existence of homeostatic mechanisms.

    Nor do I agree that “humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era”. We have far, far too little understanding of the climate to make that claim, and Kip and David trying to slip that in under the guise of “we all agree” is just more of the underhanded nonsense I’ve grown to expect.

    Regarding #4, the author says:

    Some things are fairly well understood and some are still basically mysteries – surrounded by error and uncertainty — and some are in-between and require more study – clouds, ocean currents and overturn, effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation – there is quite a known list – and then there are the as-yet unknowns.

    The problem with this formulation is that it assumes that we can tell which things are understood and which are mysteries. Heck, if we knew mysteries from beliefs, then there wouldn’t be any issues … as the saying goes,

    It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

    Climate science is in that position. As a result, I find this whole idea that we find areas of agreement to be alluring, but treacherous … just what is it that the AGW supporters are assuming that we agree to? Because I sure don’t agree with what the authors of this article seem to think is common ground … well, other than the idiocy of gratuitously insulting your opponents …

    Finally, #5 was rolling along fine when the author said:

    Likewise, some skeptics label some serious climate scientists as crooks, criminals, and frauds because they produce mainstream climate science which they find disagreeable.

    Whoa, there, Skippy. I’ve labeled certain mainstream climate scientists as crooks, criminals, and frauds because they are condemned by their own words and actions. There would have been criminal proceedings in Climategate if the Statute of Limitations hadn’t run out.

    But I don’t know of any serious player on the skeptical side who has accused a mainstream climate scientist of being a crook, a criminal, or a fraud simply because they disagreed with their science. Please either supply some evidence for that most unpleasant charge, or retract it.

    (Has there been misbehavior and are there some bad apples? Yes, maybe so—but if so, then let’s honesty admit, in both apple barrels.)

    Sorry, not buying that argument at all. Your claim of moral equivalence, that somehow “both sides do it”, is just an attempt to excuse the actions of the AGW supporters. As far as I know, there is not and has never been any group of scientists on the skeptical side who did a tenth, a hundredth of what the unindicted Climategate co-conspirators did. There is no one on the skeptical side who did anything like what Peter Gleick did. The AGW supporters just hounded a man off of the GWPF Board. I don’t recall skeptics ever doing something like that.

    So your claim that there are “bad apples in both barrels” is true in the sense that most every barrel has at least a few.

    But the AGW barrel is full to the brim with either a) rotten apples, or b) apples who don’t say a word about rotten apples. Stop trying to pretend that there is some moral or ethical equivalence between the two sides. The facts don’t agree. The AGW side has said, more than once, and has demonstrated by its actions, more than once, that it’s OK to exaggerate, hide data, lie, cheat, and steal, if one is Saving The World From Disaster™.

    Skeptics in general don’t agree. So no, the two sides are NOT morally equivalent.

    The thing that all of these “let’s make our communications better” folks don’t understand is that we were lied to. We were cheated. We were denied opportunity to have our voices heard. AGW supporters acted in concert to subvert the IPCC rules, see the “Jesus Paper”. They pressured editors. They dismissed each others work in private as being rubbish, and at the same time defended it strongly in public. They destroyed evidence of their wrongdoings, and when their wretched actions came to light, NOT ONE OF THEM APOLOGIZED. Not that I know of.

    And now, folks on the AGW side say “well, let’s just see what we agree on and move on” … sorry, guys, the world doesn’t work that way. Once you’ve lied to people, once you’ve done your best to alarm them and scare them with terrifying predictions, when the lies become evident and the predictions fail time after time, when you are found lying and cheating and you refuse to even apologize, much less change your ways … at that point, dear friends, you have lost the people’s trust.

    You don’t get it. We don’t trust mainstream AGW supporting climate scientists, and for damn good reason. You could earn that trust back … but you don’t regain that trust by saying there are bad apples in both barrels to try to establish a false moral equivalence. You don’t get trust back by trying to find areas of common agreement.

    So while in general I applaud the attempt by Kip Hansen and David Victor to get out of the pit they’ve dug for themselves … I fear that attempting to improve communications, while laudable, does not even begin to address the underlying problem.

    w.

    PS—AGW supporters, through their mad desire to increase energy prices, are condemning millions around the world to further poverty, disease, and death. Please don’t lecture us on morals while you are doing that …

  92. Michael Larkin says:

    Aha! The bargaining phase. To heck with that. Roll on with the depression and acceptance.

  93. phi says:

    Nick Stokes wrotes :

    “That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century.”

    Radiative physics does not define the extent of surface warming because it depends on the behavior of the convective flux in presence of an increase in greenhouse gases.

    About this convective flux (denoted qc), we read in Ramanathan et al. 1974:

    “Here we will be mainly concerned with the formulation for the convective flux. An exact treatment for qc would require the solution of equations of motion and contunuity in addition to the solution of the energy equation. This ambitious task has not been attempted by any of the radiative-convective models, qc is accounted for by semiempirical or empirical techniques.”

    In this respect, the situation has not changed since 1974. This means that we ignore the effect of increased CO2 on surface temperatures. To get, after all, results, modeling pose a thermodynamically unacceptable condition : it is assumed that the temperature gradient is independent of radiative phenomena.

  94. Ralph Kramden says:

    It sounds like a step in the right direction to me. But I don’t think the politicians or news agencies will buy into it.

  95. dynam01 says:

    Leonard Weinstein sez (parenthetically): “keep in mind the increase followed a particularly cold period, which was much more a problem”

    Indeed, cooling is the greater problem, one that receives little to no attention. Why is this? There’s ample evidence that certain species, e.g. corals, would thrive in a warmer environment, while the iconic polar bear has survived in a climate significantly warmer than present. I’d mention homo sapiens, but nobody seems to care about this evil creature…

  96. Jeff Id says:

    Kip,

    Of all of the hundreds of papers I’ve read, I know of no good supporting evidence for this statement:

    “that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era, “

    Can you provide even a single reasonable reference?
    Perhaps you would reconsider?

  97. crosspatch says:

    The regulations being imposed in the name of “fighting global warming” are extremely expensive. This is money that comes out of the pockets of people and can not be put to other economic use. It is money that can not be set aside for education, a home, a car, a medical need, etc. It also has the impact of being an extremely regressive tax. When energy costs rise by some percentage it hits the poor and the elderly highest because they pay a greater portion of their income for energy. Also, in many cases huge amounts of federal money are used for various projects and subsidies. This is money borrowed from our future earnings and our children’s future earnings.

    If we, globally, are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this, we have a responsibility to future generations to ensure that it is not being wasted. As it stands right now, these projects are a great redistribution of wealth within countries from the people to the entities that control “alternative” energy production. Internationally, there is a great transfer of wealth from the developed industrial country to the developing countries, most often run by corrupt despots, whose countries are exempt from CO2 and other environmental regulations.

    If we are going to pick our grandchildren’s pockets, lets make sure we have good cause.

  98. Bill Parsons says:

    Dr. Judith Curry , who hosts the Climate Etc. blog, is the goto expert on the issue of climate change uncertainty, and has written extensively on the subject; and its known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

    Note that a lot of people set themselves up as the arbiters of the “middle ground”. I suggest that until we have a better grasp of what the middle ground is, we should be just as skeptical of these self-appointed moderates as of catastrophic global warmers. If something is unknown it’s unknown.

    We see at the top of this thread, and reiterated elsewhere, the erroneous assumption that we already know that human-produced CO2 has produced “x” amount of global warming. We don’t know this because we don’t know the amount of CO2 created naturally by our world. We don’t know what percent of CO2 is itself a product of warming. We don’t know what the sensitivity of our atmosphere is to CO2. And we don’t have an exact idea of what the warming is, thanks to the fallibility and agendas of the record-keepers.

  99. Bill Parsons says:

    Nick Stokes: Keep repeating it. You may be able to elevate this idea to the status of truth.

  100. Latitude says:

    “The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy.
    =====
    Kip, this is total hogwash……don’t tell people to play nice…and then post something this absurd

    Temps have flat lined and gone down….and no one knows why

    Face it……no one knows squat

  101. J Martin says:

    ” Likewise, some skeptics label some serious climate scientists as crooks, criminals, and frauds because they produce mainstream climate science which they find disagreeable. “

    Plainly Victor needs educating. Unjustified adjustments to data sets galore and even upside down graphs (Tiljander). Yes I do find those things “disagreeable”, though my choice of adjective would be much stronger.

  102. crosspatch says:

    I believe this post by Bill Whittle also applies to the global warming issue. Don’t believe your lying eyes or your lying thermometer. Pay attention only to what the government says.

  103. Bruce Cobb says:

    Here is my list of things skeptics/climate realists and Warmists probably can agree on;
    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas which, under laboratory conditions has been shown to have a warming effect.
    2) The earth is not a laboratory, nor does it behave like one.
    3) CO2 has increased by some 120 ppm in the past century or so, and a good portion of that increase is probably due to man.
    4) That increase has had a beneficial effect on plant growth, and is responsible for much of the greening up of the earth, and increased food supplies.
    5) There has been a warming of some .7C the past century or so.
    6) In general, life, including humanity flourishes during warmer periods, and suffers during colder ones.
    That’s about it, I think.

  104. Rob Dawg says:

    One side says “the facts and observations don’t agree with your models or conclusions.”
    The other side responds with “you are not just stupid but evil as well.”
    Tell me where there’s common ground?

  105. Eliza says:

    A great one liner as response to Daily Mail article UK (below link) about Bergsson ouster.
    “Any sensible person knows global warming and man made climate change do not exist and have been invented to steal more tax off you”. My father an eminent atmospheric physicist (published 3 papers in Nature in the 40′ s and 50′s and studied with Einstein Max Planck Institut fur physik now deceased of course)” told me this exactly 20 years ago.He did not even bother to explain the physics (I would not have understood anyway) wow this made my day LOL

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631477/Revealed-How-green-zealots-gagged-professor-dared-question-global-warming.html#ixzz325YHpd5J

  106. HelmutU says:

    I don’t agree that the preindustrial CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 270 -290 ppm. As the late Prof. Jawurowski has shown CO2-concentration in ice-core are in no way a reliable source for the CO2-concentration in the atmosphrere. Stomata-data of leafs on the other hand show that the CO2-concentration in the atmoshere were much higher as the ice-core data.

  107. crosspatch says:

    Rob Dawg says:
    May 18, 2014 at 10:04 am

    I think the fundamental problem is one of corruption. Barack Obama was elected President. As soon as that happened, many of his donors suddenly set themselves up in the “alternative energy” business (Solyndra, et. al). The were then the recipients of huge tax breaks (e.g. Solyndra received an exemption from the state of California from sales tax on all of their equipment purchases to outfit their factory in Fremont, California), government guaranteed loans, and outright government grants. These entities quickly burned through that cash, declared bankruptcy, and were off the hook for the repaying with the taxpayers left to absorb the loss. Meanwhile the political cronies walk away with pockets full of cash paid out in the form of inflated salaries and bonuses.

    What has Al Gore done in his lifetime to amass the wealth to own TWO mansions on either side of the US and fly around the world constantly on a speaking circuit? What did his father do before him to amass any wealth handed down through the family?

    The problem is that we are being robbed and they are using “global warming” as the vehicle to get people to agree with parting with money out of their pockets to put into theirs.

  108. JunkPsychology says:

    Victor’s gestures are way too little, way too late.

    It’s been an entire generation since a few climate scientists saw a path to power opening up. They took that path, recruited and trained others to follow it, and they aren’t about to abandon it now.

    The political hard core will have to be publicly discredited and will have to lose many of its positions of influence before the rest of the relevant scientific community will admit they were privately a little uncomfortable all along with what the hard core was doing.

    Genuine science will survive the crackup.

    But a crackup is what it will take.

    The way universities presently work, Mann will not end up unemployed. Unless Penn State declares “financial exigency” (low probability over the next decade, though it can’t be ruled out), he will finish out his career overpaid and under a cloud.

  109. Jay Currie says:

    Dead on Willis!

    The warmsters bad behaviour began the day they turned off the air conditioning and closed the window at the early Senate hearing on global warming.

    From there through the list of corruption you cite right to the present day Mau-Mauing of elderly Swedish scientists, the warmsters have proven they lack scientific or ethical integrity.

    Why would we meet them half way? Wars against honourable enemies can be ended by compromise; wars against totalitarian thugs can only be ended with unconditional surrender. Roosevelt and Churchill understood that.

    The fact is that warmster’s policy and propaganda, based on shakey science, has cost billions of dollars and, arguably millions of lives. Finding points of agreement with these unscientific zealots is like discovering Pol Pot’s compassionate side or Boko Harum’s social justice agenda: adorable but utterly beside the point.

    At the moment the only agenda skeptics should have is a relentless demand for facts, observation based science, validated models and no policy prescriptions without proof that a) they will make a measurable difference to b) a well specified and serious problem. Hammer the warmsters on the basic science and the absolute absence of proof that any carbon dioxide emissions reduction scheme is going to make any difference to temperature whatsoever.

    This is scientific and policy war with real stakes: the mis-investment of billions of dollars in windmills and solar (not to mention idiocies like offsets) has literally killed people directly through fuel poverty and indirectly because the money wasted could have been used to help people who have now been left to die because there is no money to pay for clean water or anti-malaria programs or vitamins.

    Those deaths are on the hands of the warmsters and we must not rest until their bad science and malignant economics can no longer kill the poor, the sick and the elderly.

  110. Pamela Gray says:

    Bruce, most CO2 is natural, including natural greening oscillation trends and natural rebound from mini-ice ages. Of the smaller anthropogenic part, a portion is fossil fuel and the rest of the anthropogenic portion is because of increased greening related to agriculture and human connected population growth in the animal kingdom.

  111. “Critic is sufficient though and especially beneficial in that it is a term of respect. Both of the terms you propose are terms of respect and I definitely agree with your suggestion that all of us pursue discussions using only terms of respect. ”

    What has the self anointed rulers of the universe done to deserve that respect? They have all but destroyed the concept of science by their “hiding the decline” and other sleazy unscientific tactics. All while cashing in on countless billions of tax payers hard earned wealth.

    I have more respect for Bonnie and Clyde. At least they put THEIR lives on the line when they robbed banks and killed people. They eventually paid for their crimes with their lives. Our so called “rulers of the universe” have used government as a screen for their crime and have added to that crime by claiming that “it is for the children”. Then they have the chutzpa to come back at us to say “the science is settled”, “no you can’t have the data you paid for”, “that we say so IS proof”, and “send us more money” with the same breath. That it all goes through the countless dirty hands of governments does not make it one wit better.

  112. Pamela Gray says:

    But back to the descriptive word, I much prefer “critic”. It is an intelligent descriptive used in other topic areas. Movie critic, food critic, political critic, etc…

  113. john robertson says:

    Do we need to agree at all?
    I remain skeptical of scaremongers of any breed.
    I lived through the Mutual Assured Destruction Meme, an ideology sure to produce a generation of Nihilists. I was sold on the belief that man is a cancer, destroyer of all that is good, as a young man,…Utter Rubbish but you do need to think it through for yourself.
    Human nature however seems far more consistent than the doom of the week prophesy.
    There will always be freeloaders, persons more than happy to watch you work and then “share” the proceeds with you.
    The coordination and cooperation of our government bureaucracies in creating and promoting the Doom by Magic Gas, message, is there for all to see.
    Follow the money indeed.
    There is no reason to compromise, I did not set out to mug you.
    I do not have a history of lying to promote my cause.
    Nor do I live by parasitic means, at the expense of the taxpayer.
    Nor do I advocate using the raw power of government force, to impose my belief in a future upon you.
    I hold to the scientific method, belief is for religion.
    Rational debate must follow the rules.
    What the alarmed ones believe, in no way excuses their behaviour.
    The Cultism of the believers in the power of the magic gas, has overflowed of late, in outbursts of vile projection and small minded vindictiveness.
    Its group think and carries its own destruction from its inception.
    Why agree or compromise with these failures?
    The sceptics true skill has been holding up the mirror so that these believers, in the end justifying the means, may view themselves.
    Of course some, like Racehorse Haynes, will still preen in this mirror as any attention is better than self reflection.

  114. Michael says:

    GOOD. For what it’s worth those five points are “agreeable” to me. Real science can in time figure out the gritty details.

  115. brent says:

    Mike Hulme has already written a book titled
    Why We Disagree About Climate Change
    Climate change is not ‘a problem’ waiting for ‘a solution’. It is an environmental, cultural and political phenomenon which is re-shaping the way we think about ourselves, our societies and humanity’s place on Earth
    http://www.cambridge.org/ca/academic/subjects/economics/natural-resource-and-environmental-economics/why-we-disagree-about-climate-change-understanding-controversy-inaction-and-opportunity?format=PB

    Mike Hulme is living proof that possessing knowledge of what CAGW really is, i.e. a huge cultural phenomenon, does not neccessarily protect one from being simultaneously immersed in that culture. Check this quote
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/

    Lindzen quotes from Mike Hulme’s book “Why We Disagree about Climate Change”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/

  116. crosspatch says:

    Do you realize how many careers of people with celebrity status would be destroyed if there were no “global warming”? Do you realize how small the market was for “climate scientists” in 1980 compared to today? There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk. I will give one small example:

    BLM goes into the solar energy business in Nevada with what are called SEZs (Solar Energy Zones) as part of the Western Project. Harry Reid is from Nevada. Harry Reid just had one of his closest advisers placed as head of BLM. Before he was head of BLM, the new director was head of the Western Project.

    Warren Buffett buys the primary electric utility in Nevada. Warren Buffett is a huge megadonor to Harry Reid’s political party. Harry Reid’s son gets involved with solar energy projects being built in Nevada to feed power into Warren Buffett’s electric company.

    Now lets have a look at one of those projects: Dry Lake SEZ. That area has a lot of desert tortoises Before they can build that project, they need to do something with those tortoises (or at least they THINK they do). So a mitigation plan is drawn up (don’t take my word for it, find the Dry Lake SEZ mitigation plan yourself, it’s at the BLM website) which decides to move all of the tortoises to Gold Butte (an area that has been used for cattle grazing for about 150 years and is considered to be the very best tortoise habitat in the state of Nevada). They plan to move the tortoises to Gold Butte (but they will miss some and the tortoise population is likely to rebound anyway at Dry Lake). But there’s a problem. There’s a guy named Cliven Bundy who grazes several hundred head of cattle at Gold Butte and he is a stubborn bird who has refused to stop grazing there. His insistence on continued grazing at Gold Butte is holding up the Dry Lake project and is delaying millions in revenue to political cronies of Harry Reid. The very day Harry Reid’s protege takes office as head of BLM, Mr. Bundy’s cattle are rounded up by BLM.

    This is huge money and it all relies on the people believing that if they don’t do it, they are going to boil or drown their grandchildren. You are being lied to, manipulated, and robbed.

  117. brent says:

    corrected links
    Mike Hulme is living proof that possessing knowledge of what CAGW really is
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/#comment-1558534
    Lindzen quotes from Mike Hulme’s book “Why We Disagree about Climate Change
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/#comment-1558581

  118. Alec Rawls says:

    Everybody agrees that humans are responsible for at least half of warming from the pre-industrial era? This is an extreme alarmist position almost unheard of before AR5. The “consensus” position of AR3 was that a human warming signal was not just theoretically expected but had become detectable (if enough unwarranted assumptions are made) .

    Sorry but the position taken in this post, that the only point of contention is what the best policy response to very substantial human caused global warming, is NOT correct.

  119. crosspatch says:

    Harry Reid also has another trick up his sleeve to get the cattle out of Gold Butte so that the solar energy projects that will enrichen his political cronies can go forward if the BLM can’t get the cattle off the land.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/reid-introduces-bill-create-gold-butte-national-conservation-area

  120. john robertson says:

    @Michael Larkin 9:14
    Exactly.
    Bargaining with bandits.
    Or negotiating with parasites.
    Must be a real good time inside the TEAM, ™ IPCC.
    Over at Jo Nova, a posting on the times, some of the media has actually noticed the money trail, that odd fact that the propagandists have far more money than their critics..
    When the media starts their retreat from alarmism and their search for a scapegoat for they complicity in this charade, this theme will dominate.

  121. gnomish says:

    ahhh. more with the synthesis and compromise, is it? because half a shaft is better than none?
    “You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. But if you take the purple pill, you get a strong, powerful erection and can go make more policy”
    do not let the policy camel’s nose under your tent.
    global warming is the red flag for the bull- and that’s why the matador almost always wins – the bull has no idea he’s he’s chasing a cape while looking totally stupid until the sword slides between his shoulder blades and rewards his perspicacity.

  122. hunter says:

    What is great is that the troll showed up to derail the thread, did a typical climate obsessed trash-without-reading bomb toss and found out that the skeptics are largely ignoring his bs, when they are not giving him the laughter and ridicule he deserves.

  123. hunter says:

    Kip,
    The more I think on your post, I do sympathize with your sentiment, but now is not the time to give the climate kooks half: They will steal it all.
    There is no reason to believe that the CO2 we have added has done anything unusual or dangerous to the climate.
    There is every evidence that the climate obsessed and fear mongers have lied and misrepresented the evidence, in a rent seeking and moral hazard display of historical proportions.
    They are backing off.
    Until the climate obsessed start openly admitting that their boorish bigotry and self-deception is real there is no reason to agree on anything.

  124. jfreed27 says:

    And yes, despite Nature’s warnings, the billion dollar fossil fueled doubt machine grinds on. Their army of flying monkeys is ever on the attack, and suicidal morons dismiss our most trusted messengers (NASA, NOAA, every science academy in the world, Nobel Laureates by the score) to carry water for the fossil industry. Go figure.

    Deniers/delayers/scoffers are complicit in the climate change deaths of hundreds of thousands per year, 88% of them children (World Health Organizations).

  125. Zeke says:

    crosspatch says:
    May 18, 2014 at 10:40 am “Harry Reid also has another trick up his sleeve to get the cattle out of Gold Butte so that the solar energy projects that will enrichen his political cronies can go forward if the BLM can’t get the cattle off the land.”

    Nevada and the BLM are also involved in trying to build a $15 billion water pipeline** in Northern Nevada, on Indian land, to bring more water to…wait for it…Las Vegas.

    In the same area, a potash mine is being blocked by environmentalists over a historic wagon trail:

    “This group the (OCTA) reminds me of all the others that want to dictate how to manage our ancestral land,” said Jason Walker of the Northern Shoshone….Indeed many in the native American community liken environmental groups efforts to maintain “wilderness” as just another form of colonialism or as one Ely Shoshone said after a coal fired electric plant was shut down: “The whites are telling us again what to do in our own country.” http://www.coyote-tv.com/2013/12/13/goshutes-join-fight-for-new-potash-mine-jobs/

    **ref: http://www.goshutewater.org/index.php/las-vegas-pipeline.html
    “The Southern Nevada Water Authority, the water agency for Las Vegas, Henderson, and N. Las Vegas has applied to pump up to 200,000 acre-feet annually from eastern Nevada and send it through 300 miles of 8 foot diameter pipe to support the area’s uncontrolled growth. The cost is currently estimated at $15 billion dollars. Just how much water is 200,000 acre-feet annually? It is more than 65 billion gallons of water – every year.”

  126. Jim Francisco says:

    Thanks to John Bowman for clearly stating what needed to be said.

    Jim

  127. dbstealey says:

    Alec Rawls says:

    Everybody agrees that humans are responsible for at least half of warming from the pre-industrial era? This is an extreme alarmist position almost unheard of before AR5.

    Exactly right. I am part of the set “everybody”, and I do not agree. I will readily agree that humans cause global warming — just as soon as credible scientific evidence is produced. Until then, I’m skeptical.

  128. crosspatch says:

    Zeke says:
    May 18, 2014 at 11:06 am

    The owner of the potash mining operation must not be large Democrat donors or they would experience no problems — or maybe they are a company that competes with another potash operation that IS a large Democrat donor.

  129. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    In case anybody missed it, I write to commend reading all of the excellent post by Willis Eschenbach at May 18, 2014 at 9:11 am.

    This link jumps to the post to help those who missed it.

    Richard

  130. Alan Robertson says:

    Jim Francisco says:
    May 18, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Thanks to John Bowman for clearly stating what needed to be said.

    Jim
    _________________
    Jim,
    A small suggestion, if I may: it would be a time saver and more helpful to the readership to copy/past the name and time stamp of any mentioned, or quoted comment.
    Thanks,
    Alan

  131. Liberal Skeptic says:

    5 Billion Dollars is an insanely large budget for a country the size of Australia to put into just one area of science.

    Has the money been reshuffled or removed from the science budget entirely?

  132. Londo says:

    Why don’t we all just agree on Global Warming? Very simple to answer: because it is no longer a science. If it was, it would be very simple to identify the things we agree on and those that we don’t but even for those, we would agree on what it would take for us to come to an agreement.
    If it was a science, there would certainly not be any blog entries that we shouldn’t engage in name calling. A mutual respect would be a given. In fact, if it was a science, we would welcome challenges because, in the end, we all would like to know how it works just out of curiosity.
    Now that climate has become a religion, nobody cares how it works. It’s all about prestige and money and fame.
    The corruption of climate research has gone so far that a bad analysis that produces a result that fits the political agenda leads to an illustrious career while any solid work that disturbs the consensus leads to a one way street. And, I’m afraid that the enrichment of ignorance and piety will continue unless the we have another decade without increasing global temperatures and even the most ignorant will see that the climate emperors have no clothes.

  133. Stephen Richards says:

    You seem to miss the fact that if about half of the warming over the last 150 years (coming to about 0.4C contribution) is due to human activity

    This is a guestimate. It is not a real number neither is Nick’s do something just in case a valid strategy.

  134. Stephen Richards says:

    crosspatch says:

    May 18, 2014 at 10:36 am

    Do you realize how many careers of people with celebrity status would be destroyed if there were no “global warming”? Do you realize how small the market was for “climate scientists” in 1980 compared to today? There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk. I will give one small example:
    Been my point for years, yet when I get really angry I get shouted down for being rude. I cannot express my anger at these people strong enough without the emotion.

  135. Matthew R Marler says:

    Nick Stokes: That doesn’t mean it is safe to do it. Anything but.

    There isn’t much evidence on the “anything but” side. Surface plant life will almost all grow better (but nutritional concentration in food crops may decline as fiber content increases.) Hydrological cycle will probably increase, but the case has flaws. A little temp increase will probably be good for plant growth, but the case has flaws. The time course of cloud cover can not be reliably predicted,but there is a case that cloud cover will increase. Increased CO2 in seawater will probably enhance marine plant growth, and growth of other marine life, but the case for the latter is equivocal, and depends on other sources of acidity.

  136. Kip Hansen says:

    Author’s replies ==>

    ==> Theo Goodwin David Victor has taken his presentation on the road – see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/webcast-on-now-re-thinking-climate-denialism/
    I missed this latest one, but the promo for the May 15th webcast referred to the January presentation from which I took the items in my essay.

    ==> Steve Mosher, Pamela Gray, ATheo There seems to be some support for “critic”, which I agree with as well (remember, it is Victor, of IPCC fame, who suggests originally, “dissenter”) but I think we’d need an adjective or a subject. A “something” critic or maybe a critic of “something”….. Global Warming Critic? IPCC Critic? Critic of ????

    ==> emsnews There are some scientists who have publicly dissented and “jumped” the IPCC consensus “ship”. Apparently not yourself, though.

    ==> Jeff Id The bit you quote — “that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era, “ — is David Victor speaking. In my follow-up comments in included the caveat ? “(I place emphasis on the percentage of human contribution, many serious scientists still hold this bit in question, but in the end most agree that the exact percentage probably doesn’t really matter that much for policy) “. I have no opinion on the matter and state so in my Author’s Replies Policy section: “This is not a technical thread and I am not prepared (or able) to discuss, defend, or even generally talk about technical points such as brute force radiative balance or percentage of human contribution to CO2 concentrations or observed warming.”.

    ==> Latitude Here again, the bit quoted is David Victor speaking. You may have misunderstood what he is saying here. It is simply that we pretty much understand how much CO2 has been emitted over the last couple of centuries, what the CO2 concentrations have been over the same period, what the “brute force radiative balance” is (not very detailed, but the gross figures)….and I think that is generally true…if you’ve read the comments this far down, you would have seen only a few objections to his point.

    ==> Pamela Gray You could be, however, a critic of global warming skepticism, so we might need an adjective or other descriptive word to go along with it.

  137. Stonyground says:

    Sorry if someone has already said this, I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but I have to pick up on this part:

    ” But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are.“

    Isn’t this exactly what the ‘consensus supporters’ have been doing for the past 24 years? Things were apparently so certain that anyone who has even a single doubt about a single detail was denounced as a heretic and labelled as some kind of flat earth believing loon. I suggest that this new, more tolerant, approach is a direct result of reality being shown to be a bit of a dissenter.

  138. Louis says:

    “We do know that we burnt 350 GT and it warmed. That is consistent with what the physics said. We need to work out what the next 1000 Gt will do, as best we can. And then some.”

    Nick, how much of that 350 GT was burnt over the past 17 years? The best you can say is that it warmed for a time and then stopped warming. That behavior has yet to be explained. It is very possible that there are delayed feedbacks that counteract additional warming from CO2. There are just too many unknowns to work out what the next 1000 GT will do. When you say to work it out “as best we can. And then some.” What does that mean? How can we go beyond the “best we can” without just making stuff up? Or is that an admission of what you are doing?

  139. NikFromNYC says:

    Remember guys, Nick Stokes is the *best* the hockey stick team has who is willing to post on an uncensored forum. He’s merely acting like a skilled defense attorney rather than a inquisitive scientist, or a seasoned judge. You wonder though, why a makeshift lawyer is all they have to offer.

    From a lawyer you will not get fair consideration that includes proper perspective, such as the obvious fact that first of all there is a much bigger immediate risk of re-entering a world of untreatable plagues and toxic hospitals due to antibiotics resistance as research funding is diverted *away* from biochemistry into premature green energy, and that hobbling the economy now will sabotage the rapid technological advances needed to *cheaply* geoengineer away any real threats a century or two away, when Stoke’s boogey man finally arrives. That he is on the side of genocide is no different from a good lawyer giving a murderer a fair defense.

  140. Kip Hansen says:

    Author’s replies ==> [ This should have posted long ago, but I think it was blocked as it used forbidden words. ]

    Many thanks for the 113 replies so far. Sunday mornings for me are always reserved for the important things in life — Family and Church — so I’m checking in a bit late.

    ==> Nick Stokes starts off the controversies by poking at the question of whether or not adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere is “safe” – David Victor probably would have classified this as one of the questions that is fairly well understood but whose details are not settled and which are still surrounded by error and uncertainty. To Nick, I have no reply, as I am not qualified to discuss such a topic.

    ==> Daniel G. “Believer” would only be distasteful to a Scientist in regards to a scientific topic. For instance, a Scientist would not want to be referred to as “believer “ in mathematics – as mathematics is not a matter of belief or disbelief.

    ==> Alan Robertson If you were to listen to Victor’s complete speech [I have just discovered that Andy Revkin’s online transcript of Victor’s presentation is no longer available online] you would find that he admits openly that the PR money flow in the Climate Wars is vastly uneven – with the lion’s share going to the pro-GW side and almost nothing to the skeptic side.

    ==> JohnWho and Darren Potter — The blog article title was assigned by the blog hosts/editor and was not my (the author) choice. I only hope we can agree about the five points picked out of David Victor’s presentation, despite the fact that he is an IPCC Lead Author and very much a dyed-in-the-wool Believer.

    ==> ATheoK Thanks for your comments. Consider this: Victor is a card-carrying IPCC Lead Author, a virulent promoter of AGW – yet, in a presentation on Climate Change Den1al1sm, he freely calls for IPCC/AGW supporters to stop calling skeptics “den1ers”, admits that “the science is NOT in”, not settled, on global warming as far as policy setting goes, that much of climate science remains unknowable, and that they (the IPCC believers) cannot dismiss people like Dyson (and other world-class scientists) who disagree about climate. That’s some heavy stuff for a guy like Victor. Stuff guys like me can agree with.

  141. RACookPE1978 says:

    Several readers have offered guesstimates of how much the CAGW religion is extorting from the world’s poor and innocent victims to feed the CAGW’s rich and powerful elites.

    Above, Australia’s 5 billion AU budget is mentioned (as a target of cuts by Abbott’s new government), but what is the accepted US “cost” of its CAGW obsession with destroying the economy? I understand 200 billion is most often used, but over period is that 200 billion assigned?
    Is the 200 billion only including the “direct government money” paid to its CAGW supporters and promoters and beneficiaries?
    What is the economic “cost” of just the US-UK-UN-AUS-NZ-Canada attempts to “control” energy “because” of the CAGW religion?
    Does the US 200 billion dollar budget include the 4% – 8% of the economy damaged by CAGW dictates and arbitrary rules and restrictions over the past 8 years? (2 under Bush-Pelosi-Reid and 6 under Obama-Pelosi-Reid’s dictatorship.)

    What is the worldwide budget for supporting and feeding the CAGW religion?

  142. Go Whitecaps!! says:

    Here is my take on the “50% of warming is anthropogenic”. The consensus believe that 100% of the warming up to 1940 is natural. They believe that 100% of the warming from 1980 is AGW. The proof is that their computer models don’t work unless the above is maintained.
    However, as the earlier trend is close to the same as the latter trend, I would postulate the AGW after 1980 is 0% up to 100%. As an average I will presume that AGW is 50% responsible for the latter warming. Therefore out of .8°C of 20th century warming AGW is responsible for .2°C. If the consensus can separate the natural v human effect then this figure can be adjusted.

  143. James McCown says:

    Nick Stokes says: May 18, 2014 at 6:14 am

    “We’re not dependent on the “experiment” of burning 350 Gt C to know the effects of CO2. That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century. We do know that we burnt 350 GT and it warmed. That is consistent with what the physics said. We need to work out what the next 1000 Gt will do, as best we can. And then some.”

    So why don’t you review that well-known radiative physics and compare the absorption spectrum of CO2 in the infrared bands with that of H2O? You will see that most of the radiation emitted by the earth would be absorbed by the water vapor, regardless of the concentration of CO2.

  144. Latitude says:

    Kip Hansen says:
    May 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    ==> Latitude Here again, the bit quoted is David Victor speaking. You may have misunderstood what he is saying here. It is simply that we pretty much understand how much CO2 has been emitted over the last couple of centuries, what the CO2 concentrations have been over the same period, what the “brute force radiative balance” is (not very detailed, but the gross figures)….and I think that is generally true…if you’ve read the comments this far down, you would have seen only a few objections to his point.
    ====
    “We agree……………….., that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era,”
    ===============
    Well, I don’t agree……not only have the temps been “adjusted”, so we don’t work with “observed warming” that has any relation to reality…….there is not one thing “certain” about that statement.
    First someone would have to claim that “humans” produce some sort of magic CO2 and it accumulates at 2ppm a year, and is overwhelming the system…….that is about the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever heard……………….well, that’s what they are claiming

  145. Kip Hansen says:

    Author’s replies ==>

    ==> Stonyground “Isn’t this exactly what the ‘consensus supporters’ have been doing for the past 24 years?” Of course it is….that is what is so noteworthy about this IPCC lead author and AGW uber-promoter admitting that they have been and that they have to cut it out – and he admits it very publicly.

    ==> John Robertson In his full presentation, David Victor goes on to admit that since the turn of the century at least, the pro-AGW propagandists have had far more untraceable political money (nearly all of it) than the skeptic side.

    ==> Hunter You should read carefully the admissions Victor does make – they are rather incredible for a man in his position.

    ==> dbstealy Once again I remind readers that these are David Victor’s words….and of course, he means generally. I include a caveat in my comments that this point is still quite controversial.

    ==> Londo Let me remind you that the title was chosen by the blog editors, not myself, the essay author. I have not asked you to agree about global warming. But you might be able to agree in general about the five points brought up by David Victor, despite the fact that he may otherwise very likely seem to be 180 degrees opposed to your general views on AGW. Also let me remind you that Climate Science is not the first scientific endeavor that has seen public name calling and infighting – and it will not be the last. There have been many famous scientific squabbles – think of the “Source of the Nile” and Sir Richard Burton.

    ==> Latitude Yes, Victor makes the attribution statement (50% etc) in the same paragraph. Since it is not *really* true that “everyone” agrees or that it is “all but certain”, I included a caveat in my comments noting that this portion of his claim was still controversial amongst climate scientists – particularly the % of human contribution. You are perfectly welcome to your opinion. Everyone else involved in climate science has one.

  146. crosspatch says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    May 18, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    You seem to miss the fact that if about half of the warming over the last 150 years (coming to about 0.4C contribution) is due to human activity

    I haven’t seen any evidence that ANY of the warming is due to human activity. It has STILL not fully recovered to what it was before the Little Ice Age. The modern thermometer was invented toward the end of the LIA. Global temperature records record the recovery from that event. The temperature rose by the same amount at the same rate from 1910 to 1940 as it did from 1975 to 2005. Humans could not have caused the earlier rise and there is no evidence (only speculation fed by some computer models) that humans have contributed to the second rise.

    It was cold for a very long time, about 600 years. It takes a long time for the oceans to warm up after such an event. It takes about 800 years to ventilate the oceans. You can cool a body of water from the top much faster than you can warm it (cooling from above works WITH convection, warming from the top works against it).

  147. Gary Hladik says:

    richardscourtney says (May 18, 2014 at 11:20 am): “In case anybody missed it, I write to commend reading all of the excellent post by Willis Eschenbach at May 18, 2014 at 9:11 am.”

    Indeed. Anthony, moderators, may I suggest that you add an “UPDATE” to the original article with a direct link to Willis’s excellent rebuttal? That would save latecomers the trouble of browsing the entire comment thread and possibly missing Willis’s comment or Richard’s link to it.

  148. Pamela Gray says:

    Kip, you would be right in that I am a critic of other extrinsic drivers of global warming, such as solar connections. Given that our climate is a complicated process, one title for each side paints with too much of the same color. I still prefer that it be said that I am a critic of anthropogenic CO2-driven climate warming. But to enlarge it, I would also say I am a critic of extrinsic solar driven climate warming and cooling trends. Neither of these say I am a critic of the greenhouse effect.

  149. BioBob says:

    Why don’t we all just agree on Global Warming?

    erm – because science is all about the fact that We do NOT know anything with complete certainty ?

    Simple ? yes

    Everything in climate science boils down to the massive problem of warmist’s dismissive treatment of uncertainty, error and their refusal to improve their science in that regard.

  150. Paul Jackson says:

    Ah-ha, last big climate post I waded through on slashdot seemed to have new warmist talking points, now I see where they came from. At least now we can say their science is soft.

  151. It is a very interesting and illuminating development that this sort of approach to ‘den!ers’ is now being put forward. Pesonally I feel that in general, more open and honest debate about the science is a good thing, but at the same time many alarmists are far too extreme to be allowed under such an umbrella. The danger is that through compromise the gravy train will be encouraged to keep rolling.

  152. KNR says:

    The word “denialists” is offensive in its connotation, intended or not, of Holocaust denialism,
    There is no ‘or not ‘ from day one the intent was to liink AGW sceptics to Holocaust deniers has part of the pathological need some feel to label those do agree with them as not merely wrong , but bad or mad. It is a type of approach is common enough in religion or politics ,however is has no role in science. That some of the people working in the area have an addiction to it , shows how little science they are doing.

  153. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Michael Larkin says: “Aha! The bargaining phase. To heck with that. Roll on with the depression and acceptance.”

    Whew. I am encouraged to see this therapeutic progress.

  154. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Solyndra says it all, just like the Harry Reid scam.

    Solyndra had about 1 billion of funding. The Govt gave another 500 million (which sloshed around some bank accounts and has now certainly ended up in various campaign war chests, along with all of the other unaccounted 100s of millions thrown around by the current administration).

    The story is that there are promising industries and companies out there, if only they can get a helpful push off the starting line by some investment money.

    So, the govt took my money and gave Solyndra the push.

    Think abt this: if there were investors willing to commit a billion, Solyndra must have been a worthwhile business. If not, then it is a gamble – so the only reason to put in money is in hopes of a long-shot pay-off.

    If Solyndra were other than a gamble, the final third of financing should have been out there.

    If not, then it was a gamble all along, not a push-start, and the govt should not have been involved.

    If it was a fairly sure thing or a gamble, the private money should have been out there.

    If so, the govt took away some person’s or group’s open-market opportunity to participate in commerce. They lost out on the 500 million sure thing or gamble.

    Either way, they were deprived of their right to pursue happiness. The govt took it by fiat.

    If the govt really wanted to give Solyndra a push-start, they could have done this:

    one: help set up a bunch of meetings to play match-maker with investors and Solyndra. Maybe back some investments to some certain extent, or offer some tax break on eventual losses.

    two: help Solyndra by committing to have Solyndra panels on the next 20 federal buildings where this would be feasible.

    The investors would see that obvious early-business cash-flow, and make the move to invest.

    If the business is viable, the govt contract would be the push-start. If not viable, at least some solar panels would get made and put into action, though at some relative loss versus China panels.

    Finally: China is solving the solar-panel problem for the U. S. Better us buy Chinese working, value-laden panels as well as the Walmart knick-knacks we buy from China.

    Building a native solar-panel company that cannot compete might be a bit too protectionist for our own good.

    There you have it. It is all political. Obvious alternatives to financing a company are obvious. The cvompany was so lousy, it folded soon after serving its money-laundering purpose.

  155. Merovign says:

    “Claiming the middle ground” is a common tactic.

    “Hey, now that we’ve taken all that time, money, and energy from you, let’s call it even!”

    How about no? Not even, never was. Glad to see much later that Victor admits at least the gross money imbalance, too bad the rest of “the team” keeps asserting the reverse is true.

    I can’t agree with the claim on the middle ground. I won’t. There’s no ethical way to surrender that. In an angry confrontation between a homeowner and a burglar, the burglar doesn’t have the standing to say, “hey, we both made mistakes, let’s call it even!”

    The mediator’s habit is to try to find middle ground, but the middle ground isn’t in the middle of this one, it’s waaaay off to one side in terms of money, coverage, and political power, and in addition, as Eschenbach pointed out in some detail above (albeit in the form of a summary of a tiny portion of events), the “two sides” are simply not comparable on ethical grounds.

    And it’s unlikely the powerful side is going to admit that.

    Finally, I’m willing to let them live the way they want to and believe what they want. They do not hold to that position with regards to me.

    It’s not going to be settled by mediation. It probably won’t be settled at all, eventually the subject will change, but the unstated goal will, as always, be Power and Control.

  156. Kip Hansen says:

    Author’s replies ==>

    ==> Pamela Gray – You too see the rub with a one word label — as I always have. I appreciate on-topic your input today.

    ==> BioBob – See my many replies on “the title was added by WUWT editors” not chosen by me, I only ask that you consider agreeing with the five points I quote from David Victor. In regards to “massive problem of warmist’s dismissive treatment of uncertainty, error”, that is David Victor’s admissions/points #s 2 and 4 ==
    in which he says “The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable” and then “but [the science is] not [“in”] for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such — are surrounded by error and uncertainty.” These two admissions by an IPCC Lead Author (January 2014) are the central point of this essay.

    ==> Jonathan Abbott – It is unfortunate that much of the science is being done by persons who are also way too politically [scientific politics] involved, in my opinion. I am no expert, but this is how it appears to me, but I have only followed the field since 1980–30 years may not be enough time to discern the political trend ;-). You can see from some of the above comments that this is true in both apple barrels, on both sides of the climate divide. I assume by gravy train you mean funding….and if that is the case, nothing is likely to change too quickly….only internal pressure, inside the climate science field itself, will bring things right quickly. Judith Curry has the right idea, and those who speak out bravely now…their influence is felt amongst the honest at heart, I believe. [end of sermon].

  157. Kip Hansen says:

    ==> Pamela Gray – …your on-topic input…

  158. Chuck Nolan says:

    No!
    Here’s what I’d agree to.
    Tell the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    Show your work.
    Keep you research journal online for all to see.
    Explain why you chose location ABC instead of DEF.
    Explain what you expect to find from this research.
    Everything should be online for free.
    If it’s tax money or tax free money we should see what we paid for.
    Oh yeah, plus you can knock off the name calling.
    cn

  159. FrankK says:

    Semantics – doesn’t fundamentally change the respective positions whatever they happen to be.

  160. JunkPsychology says:

    Kip Hansen says,

    ==> Alan Robertson If you were to listen to Victor’s complete speech [I have just discovered that Andy Revkin’s online transcript of Victor’s presentation is no longer available online] you would find that he admits openly that the PR money flow in the Climate Wars is vastly uneven – with the lion’s share going to the pro-GW side and almost nothing to the skeptic side.

    ****
    I appreciate David Victor’s willingness to make this admission on the public record.

    But he will actually have an impact when he and others in the climatological world call out everyone around them, including all of the biggest names, whenever they pretend that the funding is the other way around.

    Every time Michael Mann does it, every time any of the others do it.

    Can he reverse the trend that got Naomi Oreskes a job at Harvard?

    More to the point, will he try to?

  161. Londo says:

    Kip Hansen “Let me remind you that the title was chosen by the blog editors, not myself, the essay author.”

    I will not say that David Victors essay is not without merit but just as every other guy on the AGW bandwagon, sitting on his high horses he has lost contact with reality and I totally resent the tone of it. He essentially treats everybody outside of the IPCC party line as part of a herd that needs to be classified in order to be brought into the church of AGW in the most efficient manner.

    Though, why should we be surprised. He is a political scientist. Unless he buys into the AGW dogma, nobody would listen to him just as nobody would listen to the like of Oreskes. It is a prerequisite to be invited.

  162. hunter says:

    @ jfreed27 says:
    May 18, 2014 at 10:57 am
    Hey, twit: Skeptics are not complicit in your delusions.
    There are none, zip, zero climate caused deaths occurring due to CO2.
    Anyone who actually believes that makes a sack of rocks look brighter by comparison.
    If you want to understand why you think there is a climate catastrophe occurring, go see a psychiatrist.
    Your beliefs have nothing to do with reality.

  163. aletho says:

    Why not “climate agenda conformists” since their views perpetually adapt to the establishment narrative of the hour?

    As to the rest, how about “climate naturists”? Oops, I guess that’s already taken.

  164. JunkPsychology says:

    Kip Hansen said:
    ==> Alan Robertson If you were to listen to Victor’s complete speech [I have just discovered that Andy Revkin’s online transcript of Victor’s presentation is no longer available online] you would find that he admits openly that the PR money flow in the Climate Wars is vastly uneven – with the lion’s share going to the pro-GW side and almost nothing to the skeptic side.

    I tried to respond, but when I hit “Post Comment” it went straight to the great bit bucket…

    So here’s another try.

    I appreciate David Victor’s willingness to admit in a public forum where the money’s been flowing.

    But to have any impact Victor (and others in the climatological community) will have to call out those who keep pretending it’s the other way around—every time they pretend it.

    Will Victor et al. have anything like the guts needed to call out Michael Mann and all of the other big names? And to take the reprisals that will inevitably be coming their way?

  165. JunkPsychology says:

    Sorry about sending a near-duplicate post.

    It looks like there is a delay of at least half an hour.

  166. hunter says:

    And by the way, that hobbyist shill promoting global warming hysteria for fame and fortune, Andy Revkin, is really on a roll: Wallowing in his ‘den^er’ dehumanization of skeptics, acting as smarmy in his own way as Lewandowsky, and arrogant as only the truly ignorant can be.
    Peace?
    With slimeballs like Andy Revkin infesting the public square? He is to climate reporting what Walter Duranty was to reporting on Stalin.

  167. Kip Hansen says:

    Author’s replies ==>

    ==> JunkPsychology – David Victor seems to be taking his presentation “on the road” — repeating basically the same talk in different venues. Maybe the word will get out sufficiently to gain traction with the MSM.

  168. Kip Hansen says:

    Author’s Wrap Up ==>

    Thanks to all those who read my essay and commented on its contents. I was surprised to get only one strong contender for alternatives to den1er/dissenter: critic. I like it myself. Although I asked if we couldn’t get some adjectives or modifiers for “critic”, none came forth. Maybe critic’s supporters will feed in some more suggestions following on.

    I have worries that some of the commenters here may have commented only based on the title, which was unfortunate and, as I have stated several times above, was assigned by WUWT editors. My original title was simply “Why don’t we all just agree?”

    I was mildly amused that fewer readers did not comment on the oddity of an IPCC Lead Author making these admissions publicly. Not only are they rather astonishing admissions but they are things that I thought most of us could agree with pretty readily.

    Lastly, I’d like to thank J. Romm and his friends for stoppin’ by,

    Kip

    PS: “Wrap up” means that this will be my last comment on this essay.

  169. BioBob says:

    Kip Hansen says: May 18, 2014 at 3:55 pm “I only ask that you consider agreeing with the five points”

    Why should I change my normal standards for science ? NO
    - THEY should start being scientists instead on con-artists, shills, corrupt, rent-seekers.
    - THEY should start gathering data that conforms to the minimal sampling required needed to understand the source and magnitude of errors and variance like those employed by all other rigorous scientists.
    -THEY should employ anecdotal quality ONLY to derive anecdotal estimates which are employed to investigate the quantitative nature of the issues which arise.

    Otherwise, just go away. This well has already been thoroughly poisoned.

  170. Kip Hansen says:

    A full transcript of David Victor’s full January 2014 presentation can be found at http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/victor-on-climate-denialism-29-jan-2014

    – Kip Hansen

  171. William McClenney says:

    6. And then there’s the possibility that this is all a silly-buggers game:

    “In summary, the lesson from the past suggests that the insolation minimum at 397 ka BP terminated interglacial conditions (as indicated by pollen data) at least in Central and SE Europe. Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene.

    “The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these
    early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”

    http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/mueller_pross07.qsr.pdf

    If CO2 has anything substantial to do with climate, in particular warming, why would anyone want to remove such a climate security blanket that may have delayed onset of the next glacial inception for thousands of years already? Would you prefer to tip us into the next glacial?

    Really?

    7. And then there’s another possibility that this is all a silly-buggers game:

    “The geology of the last interglacial in the Bahamas records evidence of short-term sea-level events that invite an interpretation of climatic change considered catastrophic in geologic terms. The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!””

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249518169_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_(substage_5e)_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology/file/9c96051c6e66749912.pdf

    Honestly folks, how are you even going to detect the AGW “signal” amidst the climatic “madhouse” that tends to attend the ends of the most recent interglacials?

    Isn’t it interesting how easy it is to turn an argument on its head? CO2 is a heathen devil gas. It has prevented glacial inception for thousands of years now. If both of these ‘truths’ are true, what do we do?

    a) remove it so that nature can resume her course into the next ice age? Or,

    b) Take action now! Discussing the Late Eemian Aridity Pulse (LEAP) at the end-Eemian:

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

    There’s got to be something………..anything!!!!!, that H. sapiens could deploy to at least span the next 4,000 years?

    You know, like maybe GHGs et al etc………….???

    The thing is if you like your climate you probably can’t keep it. Period. The only, repeat only way we may be able to cheat glacial inception (like we have apparently already been doing) is to strengthen, not diminish, the supposed anthropogenic climate security blanket!

    Especially for the next 4,000 years or so……..

    Isn’t it ironic that if the AGW hypothesis is correct, and if Ruddiman’s Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis is correct, stuffing the late Holocene atmosphere with GHGs might actually be the right thing to do?

    And by “extreme weather/climate” does anyone mean something substantially different from “climatic ‘madhouse’”?

    Kukla (2000) provides this:

    “There were four interglacials in the last half million years and ours is the fifth one. Past interglacials invariably ended with the increase of solar energy income to low latitudes in boreal spring, compensated by decrease to high latitudes in autumn. The change was caused by orbital shift. A qualitatively similar shift is taking place now (Kukla et al., 1992). The question is whether the current interglacial will :

    “I) -last into foreseeable future, maintained by increasing levels
    of greenhouse gases,

    “2) -end suddenly with a catastrophic breakdown of thermohaline
    circulation, or

    “3) -gradually turn into a colder world following the orbitally
    driven blueprint of past interglacials, only in part modified
    by the artificial increase of greenhouse effect.

    http://geolines.gli.cas.cz/fileadmin/volumes/volume11/G11-009.pdf

    And that’s how science works.

  172. Dave Wendt says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 18, 2014 at 6:14 am

    “We’re not dependent on the “experiment” of burning 350 Gt C to know the effects of CO2. That comes back to radiative physics that has been known for over a century.”

    From the Wikipedia entry for Photon

    “Nomenclature[edit]
    Standard model of particle physics
    CERN LHC Tunnel1.jpg
    Large Hadron Collider tunnel at CERN
    Background[show]
    Constituents[show]
    Limitations[show]
    Scientists[show]
    v t e
    In 1900, Max Planck was working on black-body radiation and suggested that the energy in electromagnetic waves could only be released in “packets” of energy. In his 1901 article [4] in Annalen der Physik he called these packets “energy elements”. The word quanta (singular quantum) was used even before 1900 to mean particles or amounts of different quantities, including electricity. Later, in 1905, Albert Einstein went further by suggesting that electromagnetic waves could only exist in these discrete wave-packets.[5] He called such a wave-packet the light quantum (German: das Lichtquant).[Note 1] The name photon derives from the Greek word for light, φῶς (transliterated phôs). Arthur Compton used photon in 1928, referring to Gilbert N. Lewis.[6] The same name was used earlier, by the American physicist and psychologist Leonard T. Troland, who coined the word in 1916, in 1921 by the Irish physicist John Joly and in 1926 by the French physiologist René Wurmser (1890-1993) and by the French physicist Frithiof Wolfers (ca. 1890-1971).[7] Although the name was suggested initially as a unit related to the illumination of the eye and the resulting sensation of light and lateron in a physiological context, although Wolfers’s and Lewis’s theories were never accepted as they were contradicted by many experiments, the new name was adopted quite immediately by most physicists after Compton used it.[7][Note 2]”

    “In 1896 Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[10] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 °C).”

    Given that Old Svante was doing his work about a quarter century before a fundamental element of radiative physics was either described or named, and in his second bite at the GW apple came fairly close to what many skeptical observers posit for a CO2 sensitivity factor, he should probably be commended, but it is a bit of stretch to suggest that we “know” anything about the energy balance of the Earth based on his work.

  173. hunter says:

    Kip,
    Thank you for an interesting post. That yet another IPCC lead author is off the consensus reservation is very interesting and I for one apologize for allowing the low hanging fruit like Revkin and Stokes to distract from that.
    I think over time we will see a lot more of lead author level scholars leaving the consensus complex.

  174. Chad Wozniak says:

    Until I see something that overturns the correlation between solar activity and earthly temps, on the macro scale including the geological record and the four prior historically documented warm periods, or on the micro scale overturns the simple combination of physical pacts that is the relative temps in the 1930s versus the latest, much lower peak temps of 1996 and the subsequent cooling even as CO2 increased by 40 percent over this same 80-year period – I will give no credence whatsoever to the notion that man’s activities or CO2 have any significant effect on climate

    The entire global warming meme is so contaminated with unscientific process that it can never hope to be accepted by anyone who is not ignorant of the facts or possessed of an antilibertarian political agenda. The reliance on empty assertions, in the form of computer models, and unproven a priori assumptions, including the claim that CO2 is the master determinant of climate, can never produce an accurate or truthful conclusion. The entire process and output of so-called global warming “research” is pure witchcraft, nothing more, and only thinly disguised in technical jargon. It is as though astrology, phrenology and Lysenkoism were all rolled into one,

    For me, I am as certain that man’s effect on climate is nugatory, as I am that the Earth is not flat

  175. Doug Allen says:

    Kip, yes I agree that it is very welcome that an IPCC lead author and CAGW warrior admits some of the weaknesses in their formally “settled science,” the well regarded critics such as Dyson, the great disparity in funding, and the incivility of using the term denier or denialist. Take it on the road. YES! Thank you also Kip for your many, many wise posts to the Dot Earth Blog.

  176. George W Childs says:

    I accept with glee that I am considered a “heretic” by the high priests of the church of global warming, and have been so since about 1988 when they first told me that I would be burning in hell by 2008. Wait, it’s 2014 already? Well, the temperature here dropped about 15 degrees F this evening when the sun went down. It must be time to go to bed. Sleep well all!

  177. dbstealey says:

    Kip writes:

    ==> Nick Stokes starts off the controversies by poking at the question of whether or not adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere is “safe” – David Victor probably would have classified this as one of the questions that is fairly well understood but whose details are not settled and which are still surrounded by error and uncertainty. To Nick, I have no reply, as I am not qualified to discuss such a topic.

    Since there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is harmful, “harmless” should be the default. Further, it has been clearly demonstrated that CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. At both current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better.

    Until Mr Stokes provides testable evidence showing that CO2 is harmful in any way, his position is based only on vague “what-ifs”. That is not science. That is just religious belief.

  178. David A says:

    Gregory says:
    May 18, 2014 at 6:34 am
    Step1: Stop calling me a denier. I am a skeptic.
    Step2: Stop lying about my intentions. I am seeking the truth and I do not believe you have it.
    ==========================================
    Bingo. Let me add…
    It is fair if I call you an alarmist.
    Your theory is not “Climate Change” It is CAGW. (The operative word is “catastrophic”)
    Climate always changes. Stop saying I deny something that has happened for 4.5 billion years.
    You want to change the economic and social structure of the world.
    You are an alarmist.

    The observations indicate you are wrong.
    The beneficial effects of CO2 are known and measured in thousands of real world experiments.
    The catastrophic harms are only modeled, and the models are failing to match observations.

  179. CodeTech says:

    I’m a lot less tolerant.

    From where I sit, the over-funded Believers have declared war… on me. Personally. They call me stupid, unscientific, ignorant, creationist (as if), idiot, uneducated. They call me right-wing nutjob, unaware of the scientific method, and any number of other derogative names. So no, I won’t play nice now that they’re starting to lose the massive advantage they lied and cheated to get in the first place.

    In my experience, there are two kinds of AGW believers:
    1. Those who genuinely believe that the data they are seeing is valid, and that the conclusions being drawn are valid. I consider these ones “the deluded”
    2. Those who are pulling the strings. They are WELL AWARE that the whole thing is a load of crap. They adjust temperatures, current and past. They come up with amazing (and inane) explanations for what the dishonestly call “the pause” (if they admit it at all). They are desperately trying to avoid being exposed for the lying cheats they are. Consider these ones “the deluders”.

    Whatever value a “consensus” is in emerging science is completely destroyed by the politicization of something that is, frankly, a ridiculous hypothesis and a stupid thing to scare children and the gullible with.

  180. A great commentary by Willis E, ….. and I liked this portion of it so much that I decided to re-post it so that everyone could read it a 2nd time, to wit:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 18, 2014 at 9:11 am

    And now, folks on the AGW side say “well, let’s just see what we agree on and move on” … sorry, guys, the world doesn’t work that way. Once you’ve lied to people, once you’ve done your best to alarm them and scare them with terrifying predictions, when the lies become evident and the predictions fail time after time, when you are found lying and cheating and you refuse to even apologize, much less change your ways … at that point, dear friends, you have lost the people’s trust.

    You don’t get it. We don’t trust mainstream AGW supporting climate scientists, and for damn good reason.
    ———————–

    And “NO”, I will not trust the “folks on the AGW side” ever again. They “sold their soul to the Devil” for money and fame …… and I truly believe they will do it again if they get the chance.

    They have been found guilty of “cooking the (science) book” and should be treated accordingly.

    Josephus said it best when he said, to wit:

    Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.” (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)

  181. rogerknights says:

    Climate critic doesn’t make sense–it sounds like a critic OF the climate.
    Climate contrarian is OK–It sounds like one who is a contrarian ABOUT the climate.
    That’s one reason I like contrarian, which has begun to catch on.

    Believer doesn’t necessarily mean one who believes based on faith. Dictionaries say it means one who holds an opinion.
    Disbeliever would be an OK term (to parallel Believer)–except that, again, Climate disbeliever doesn’t make sense.

  182. Steve P says:

    dbstealey says:
    May 18, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Since there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is harmful, “harmless” should be the default.

    Yes, indeed.

    In the absence of any hard empirical evidence of harm from the CO2 molecule, either now or in the past, claiming that this atmospheric trace gas could be the agent of global calamity is a vivid exemplar of the logical fallacy known as Special Pleading.

  183. dorsai123 says:

    you sound like an intelligent and reasoned person sir … Why in the world would want to try and have a reasonable conversation with these people who spew hate every chance they get in public, in writings and in speeches …? Do you think they intend to beat you fair and square ? They have no such intention … their livelyhoods and sanity depend on winning this fight and it is you who would be the crazy one to assume they will “play nice” …

    Do not ascribe motives or arguments to them that they themselves have not articulated … don’t play the “bad apples on both sides” nonsense …

    trip them and step on their throat when they are down and don’t ever think about letting them up again … they hate you … don’t hate them back, destroy them with the science and make sure they never raise their heads again above the parapet … THEY are con men and frauds …

    you nice guys have finished last for too many years in this “debate” … If you won’t win this fight then get out of the way and let someone else man the frontlines … this AGW nonsense should have been shutdown years ago …

  184. Steve P says:

    And to be completely precise, I must add that a c1.2 km3 bubble of CO2 erupted from Lake Nyos in 1986, creating ground-hugging cloud of the gas that suffocated c1700 people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

    Beyond the potential danger of almost anything in high concentration in the wrong place at the wrong time, we can also appreciate this incident because it illustrates nature’s capacity to add surges of CO2 to the atmosphere in erratic, unpredictable, and probably unrecognized ways.

    Of course it all gets its photons shooting in the right direction, cleverly eludes convection on the way, and rushes on over to Mauna Loa to get itself allWell-Mixed

  185. Matthew R Marler says:

    Willis Eschenbach: In the guise of looking for agreement, he is making (and the author is supporting) the very fundamental (and undecided) argument for his point of view—that the change in temperature is a linear function of the change in forcing. Or as he says, “We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere …”

    That was a good post. I’ll stifle my few quibbles.

  186. Matthew R Marler says:

    Kip Hansen: PS: “Wrap up” means that this will be my last comment on this essay.

    Thank you for your post, followup comments, and links.

  187. mediamentions says:

    You see this is why I love the global warming debate: it’s damn near impossible to have a full, objective perspective, and that’s exactly why topics like scientists waving the red flag at Obama’s study, for instance are important. I’m particularly fond of the debates happening on PressReader (http://www.pressreader.com/profile/Spotlight/bookmarks/global_warming). To date, it’s one of the most educated/insightful platforms I’ve found and it’s worth checking out.

  188. dbstealey says:

    mediamentions,

    I especially liked the headline in your link: Extreme Cold Is Part Of Global Warming

    War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, etc.

  189. Lars P. says:

    Charles Nelson says:
    May 18, 2014 at 5:52 am
    … A tacit admission that the entire climate alarm campaign of the past twenty years is entirely without foundation. I’m getting a lot of that from Warmists now, they’re stepping back from their ‘certainty’ and taking a ‘precautionary’ stance.
    Too little too late I’m afraid. The damage to the credibility of ‘science’ has been done and when the backlash against Warmism gets into full swing i.e. post Obama, there will be much weeping …

    I agree – also with most of the commenter above.
    Too little and too late.
    There has never been a proper debate. Why?
    Because the warmista did not allow for it. And the skeptics tried again and again and again.
    Years after years of insults, hyper “adjusting” data always one sided and pseudo-science papers to support “the cause” demands a bit more explanation about how did we got here instead of a simple: why don’t we all …
    This all went too far. It did great damage to science and still does. It did damage to society as a whole. Character assassination to a generation of skeptical scientists who dared ask questions. Vicious name calling.
    There has never been a proper theory and proper arguments, the whole CAGW argument is a series of not clearly formulated hypothesis – like the first post above by Nick Stokes. That summarises CAGW. Add to it a lot of smoke screen, appeal to authority and bullying. It is not proper science but activism mixed with urban legends and spoiled child complexes.

    Australia shows the proper way how to deal with it:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/18/finally-real-climate-refugees-funding-axe-down-under-may-force-climate-scientists-to-leave-the-country-in-order-to-find-work-elsewhere/
    5 billion yearly savings for a country of 20 something million. And a loooong way to go in many other countries.

  190. john robertson says:

    @ Kip Hansen 5:26.
    Why be amused? There is nothing remarkable about conmen seeking to negotiate once their scam is exposed.See Michael Larkin 9:14.
    CodeTech states my feeling well. As does Willis.
    There is no motivation to negotiate with known liars and thieves, how do you propose to negotiate in good faith with persons who have established a lack of honesty, ethics and personal integrity.
    As for your assertion that David Victor acknowledges the fiscal imbalance between state funded alarmist propaganda and those who criticize such, later in his commentary… I read the transcript, so much verbiage , very little substance.
    Just another parasite, panicking now that the host has recognized their ravages.
    Too little too late.

  191. James at 48 says:

    For sure, the onset of the current interglacial set into motion a number of mechanisms of varying time scales. Some of the mechanisms are such that we are still in the long tail and experiencing a warming component. Within the interglacial there have been a number of warm and cold periods. The most recent transition was from the LIA to the present warm period. We may still be in the warming portion of that cycle. Meanwhile, the growth of human population and recent implementation of mass technological advancement and development have altered the albedo of vast areas of Earth and ramped up the amount of thermal flux being dumped into the area near the Earth’s surface. On top of all this, the atmosphere has been modified via matter introduced by human activity, resulting in both warming and cooling forcings.

  192. E.M.Smith says:

    W. Pretty much covered it.
    No, I do not agree that CO2 does any warming.
    And that bad apples bit… like saying “Sure we peed on you for years, but everybody pees.”
    Just some of us didn’t do it to others…
    So nice to see some clue setting in, and hoping for a bit more civility. But this is one “Honest Truthseeker” who has no room for any of the pigeon hole labels offered. Once the warmers stop “believing” and start seeking truth, we won’t need labels

  193. donaitkin says:

    I agree with Steven Mosher (way above) about agreeing on terms. I have been using ‘orthodox’ and ‘dissenter’ for some years now. The orthodoxy is the IPCC and the AGW disposition, while ‘dissent’ for whatever reason is a better term than ‘sceptic’. I am ‘agnostic’ about AGW (still waiting for good evidence) but completely sceptical that things like carbon taxes are good for society or that they will reduce temperature in a discernible way. Moreover, the agnostic in me wants to see strong evidence that warming is bad for the planet and for those who sail in it.

  194. Theo Goodwin says:

    Just had a chance to read Willis’ post. Willis, you are right on the money. Thanks much.

  195. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    May 20, 2014 at 8:41 am

    Just had a chance to read Willis’ post. Willis, you are right on the money. Thanks much.

    Thanks, Theo and others who commented on my response to Kip Hansen and David Victor’s attempt to re-write history …

    Regards,

    w.

  196. Brian H says:

    Willis;
    Right on. I was about to observe that one would have a hard time finding rotten apples in any but the Supporters/Believers/Troughers barrel, and your rejection of the faux moral equivalence covers that nicely.

Comments are closed.