In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

botkinPolicycritic writes: You need to read this, Anthony. He dismantles the IPCC 2014 report for Congress. Botkin’s bio:

“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

Indeed, and I’ve made the full written testimony available, plus a video showing Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA) poses questions to the witness panel at the Full Committee hearing titled, “Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process.” where he grills Daniel B. Botkin with idiotic questions like: ‘Doctor,  do you look both ways before you cross the street?’


 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014

From: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf

DANIEL B. BOTKIN

Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC 2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

The IPCC 2014 report is actually a series of reports, each long, complex in organization, and extensive in scope. Since it’s not possible to discuss the Summary Reports for Policymakers in detail today, I will highlight some of my thoughts for you here as they relate to the reports, hoping to bring a saner, more sober approach to this highly charged issue.

To characterize where we are with this report and this issue, I would like to quote James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Energy Secretary, who said: “We have only two modes — complacency and panic.”—commenting on the country’s approach to energy (1977)

Now to my major points.

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.

6. IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Yes, a great deal of it.

7. ARE THERE GOOD SCIENTISTS INVOLVED IN THE IPCC 2014 REPORT? Yes, the lead author of the Terrestrial (land) Ecosystem Report is Richard Betts, a coauthor of one my scientific papers about forecasting effects of global warming on biodiversity.

8. ARE THERE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENTS AT PLACES IN THE REPORT? Yes, there are.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically unproven.

Figure 1: Climate model forecasts compared to real world temperature observations (From John Christy, University of Alabama and Alabama State Climatologist. Reproduced with permission from him.)

clip_image002

13. The reports suffers from the use term “climate change” with two meanings: natural and human-induced. These are both given as definitions in the IPCC report and are not distinguished in the text and therefore confuse a reader. (The Climate Change Assessment uses the term throughout including its title, but never defines it.) There are places in the reports where only the second meaning—human induced—makes sense, so that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be applied.

In those places where either meaning can be interpreted, if the statement is assumed to be a natural change, then it is a truism, a basic characteristic of Earth’s environment and something people have always know and experienced. If the meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the report, the available data do not support the statements.

14. Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.

For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation.1

The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”2

According to Dr. Susan Crockford, “out of the 13 populations for which some kind of data exist, five populations are now classified by the PBSG [IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group] as ‘stable’ (two more than 2009), one is still increasing, and three have been upgraded from ‘declining’ to ‘data deficient’. . . . That leaves four that are still considered ‘declining’‐ two of those judgments are based primarily on concerns of overhunting, and one is based on a statistically insignificant decline that may not be valid and is being reassessed (and really should have been upgraded to ‘data deficient’). That leaves only one population – Western Hudson Bay – where PBSG biologists tenaciously blame global warming for all changes to polar bear biology, and even then, the data supporting that conclusion is still not available.3

Polar Bear Status (Source: Polar Bear Science Website.)

clip_image004 clip_image006

15. Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations. For example, the Terrestrial Ecosystems Report states that “terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems have sequestered about a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by human activities in the past three decades (high confidence).” I have done the first statistically valid estimate of carbon storage and uptake for any large area of Earth’s land, the boreal forests and eastern deciduous forest of North America, and subtropical forests in Queensland, Australia. The estimates of carbon uptake by vegetation used by IPCC and in major articles cited by the reports are based on what can best be called “grab samples,” a relatively small number of studies done at a variety of times using a variety of methods, mainly in old- growth areas. The results reported by IPCC overestimate carbon storage and uptake by as much as 300 percent.4

16. The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats

the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks.

Surprisingly few species became extinct during the past 2.5 million years, a period encompassing several ice ages and warm periods.5 Among other sources, this is based on information in the book Climate Change and Biodiversity edited by Thomas Lovejoy, one of the leaders in the conservation of biodiversity.6 The major species

known to have gone extinct during this period are 40 species of large mammals in North America and Northern Europe. (There is a “background” extinction rate for eukaryotic species of roughly one species per year.)

17. THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require environmental change.7

19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible. The past confirms this. Glaciers have come and gone repeatedly. The Northwest Passage of North America has gone and come again. The average temperature has greatly exceeded the present and forecasted and has declined only to rise again.

a. Implicit in this repeated use of irreversible is the belief that Earth’s environment is constant — stable, unchanging — except when subjected to human actions.

This is obviously false from many lines of evidence, including the simple

experience of all people who have lived before the scientific-industrial age and those who live now and so such work as farm, manage rivers, wildlife and forests.

20. The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century. The Terrestrial report in a sense acknowledges this, for example by stating: “Climate stresses occur alongside other anthropogenic influences on ecosystems, including land-use changes, nonnative species, and pollution, and in many cases will exacerbate these pressures (very high confidence).”

clip_image007

21. Do the problems with these reports mean that we can or should abandon any concerns about global warming or abandon any research about it? Certainly not, but we need to put this issue within an appropriate priority with other major here-and-now environmental issues that are having immediate effects.

22. The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White House’s National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the draft White House’s National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated:

“The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers.”

“Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn’t new to say it is ‘already affecting the American people.’ This is just a political statement.”

“It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or another about persistent climate change.”

WHAT HAS GONE WRONG, AND HOW TO FIX IT

1. Rather than focus on key, specific and tractable aspects of climate-change science, the long-term approach throughout the 20th century was to try to create de nova a complete model of the climate.

2. This approach has been taken despite a lack of focus on monitoring key variables over time in statistically and scientifically valid ways, e. g. carbon sequestering by forests; polar bear population counts. As a result, there is an odd disconnect between theory and observation. The attempt to create complete models of every aspect of climate has meant that many factors had to be guessed at, rather than using the best scientific methods. Too many guesses, too little checking against real, observed effects.

3. The IPCC reports are the result of a very large number of people doing long reviews of the scientific literature. This easily leads to people being so overburdened that they misinterpret specific papers, fail to understand where the major observational gaps are, and have trouble making an accurate list of citations and all sources of information. The fundamental IPCC and White House Climate Change Assessment approach has been to gather a huge number of scientists from a large number of disciplines, on the assumption that a kind of crowd approach to what can be agreed on is the same as true scientific advance. While this might seem a reasonable and effective approach, there is some danger in relying on this “crowd-sourced” model of information sharing. Groups of people, particularly when credentialed “experts” are involved, are very prone to a condition called an “information cascade” in which error is compounded by group think, assumptions become unchallenged “fact” and observations play second fiddle to unchallenged models. The excellent scientists involved with the IPCC reports are no less prone to this than the excellent scientists who relied on Aristotelian models of a geocentric universe. Entrenched beliefs are hard to extricate, even amongst supposedly rational thinkers. This is probably in part responsible for the problems listed with the White House Climate Assessment report’s table of Biological Effects, discussed in my document reviewing that report.

4. What a scientist discovers is different from what a scientist says. The first is science, the second is opinion. Have small groups of scientists work on this problem, no more than can easily argue with one another, that is less than 20 and preferably even smaller, representing the primary disciplines. Divide the problem into areas, rather than try to answer all questions in one analysis. I have used this approach in my own work and found it to be successful.8, 9

5. The desire to do good has ironically overridden the desire to do the best science.

6. Under the weight of this kind of crowd rule and approach, some specific alternative approaches to the science of climate change, have not been allowed to rise to the surface.

7. Among the approaches that would improve climate science:

a. Return to the former reliance on science done by individuals and small groups with a common specific interest and focus.

b. Change the approach from trying to make a complete, definitive model of

every aspect of climate to a different level. See kinds of models that explore specific possibilities and phenomena.

c. Get out of the blame game. None of the above suggestions can work as long as global warming remains a moral, political, ideologically dominated topic, with scientists pushed into, or at least viewed as, being either for or against a single point of view.

9. We need to focus again on major environmental Issues that need our attention now (see the list above).

10. ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF RESEARCH I BELIEVE WE NEED MORE OF? YES.

a. NASA Carbon Monitoring System (CMS)

b. Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study

c. Whooping Crane monitoring, e.g. of an endangered species

d. In-place monitoring on carbon flux, being done by the USGS in the Great Cypress Swamp, Florida.

e. Many others.

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

NOTES

1. IUCN Summary of polar bear population status per 2013 http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status‐table.html

2. http://www.mmc.gov/species/pdf/ar2000polarbear.pdf P. 91.

3. Crockford, S., 2014. Polar Bear Science website http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03/20/polar‐bear‐status‐changes‐in‐2013‐deconstructed‐with‐a‐map‐to‐the‐g ood‐news/

4. Botkin, D. B. and L. Simpson, 1990, Biomass of the North American Boreal Forest: A step toward accurate Global Measures: Biogeochemistry 9:161-174;Botkin, D. B., Simpson, L. G., and H. J. Schenk, 1992, Estimating Biomass, Science Letters. Vol. 257, No. 5067. (Jul. 10, 1992), pp. 146-147; Botkin, D. B., Simpson, L. G., and R. A. Nisbet, 1993, Biomass and Carbon Storage of the North American Deciduous Forest, Biogeochemistry 20: 1-17;Botkin, D. B., Ngugi, M.R., D. Doley (submitted) “Statistically Valid Estimates and Accurate Forecasts of Forest Biomass and Carbon Sequestration: A Forty-Five Year Quest.” Keynote speech at IUFRO Forest Biomass Conference, October 7, 2013, to be published in Drewno (Wood) Journal.

5. Botkin, D. B., Henrik Saxe, Miguel B. Araújo, Richard Betts, Richard H.W. Bradshaw, Tomas Cedhagen, Peter Chesson, Margaret B. Davis, Terry P. Dawson, Julie Etterson, Daniel P. Faith, Simon Ferrier, Antoine Guisan, Anja Skjoldborg Hansen, David W. Hilbert, Craig Loehle, Chris Margules, Mark New, Matthew J. Sobel, and David R.B. Stockwell. (2007). “Forecasting Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity.” BioScience 57(3): 227‐236.

6. Lovejoy, T. E., Lee Hannah, editors. (2005). Climate Change and Biodiversity. New Haven, Yale University Press.

7. Botkin, D. B., 2012, The Moon in the Nautilus Shell: Discordant Harmonies Reconsidered

(Oxford University Press, New York, hardback and ebook, September 14, 2012).

8. Botkin, D.B., W.S.Broecker, L. G. Everett, J. Shapiro, and J. A. Wiens, 1988, The Future of Mono Lake, California Water Resources Center, University of California, Riverside, Report #68.

9. Botkin, D. B., Henrik Saxe, Miguel B. Araújo, Richard Betts, Richard H.W. Bradshaw, Tomas Cedhagen, Peter Chesson, Terry P. Dawson, Julie Etterson, Daniel P. Faith, Simon Ferrier, Antoine Guisan, Anja Skjoldborg Hansen, David W. Hilbert, Craig Loehle, Chris Margules, Mark New, Matthew J. Sobel, and David R.B. Stockwell. 2007 “Forecasting Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity.” BioScience 57(3): 227-236.

REVIEW OF Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program

Jerry M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds. 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

By Daniel B. Botkin: May 29, 2014

[Note regarding my connections with Jerry M. Melillo, one of the three primary editors of this report: When I was on the faculty of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Jerry Melillo was a graduate student working on his doctorate and we interacted frequently.

Beginning in 1975, Jerry Melillo and I worked at the Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, and we published four scientific papers together, listed at the end of this document.1

COMMENTS ON THE ASSESSMENT GENERAL COMMENTS:

The opening statement of the Assessment (p.1), reproduced here, is characteristic of the entire Assessment in that it violates one of the basic principles of good climatology --- never use short-term weather changes as proof of climate change. Climatologists I have worked with over the decades have said this repeatedly. In 1962, when I was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin working under a science writing fellowship, I spoke with Reed Bryson, said to be the father of the International Geophysical Year and the person who persuaded Richard Keeling to begin measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. At that time Earth had been undergoing a global cooling since about 1940. At first Professor Bryson said “if present trends continue, we are entering a new ice age.” But when I drafted a press release that quoted him so, he thought about it carefully and told me that we could not make that statement, because this was just a short- term weather event.

In the 1980s, I worked closely with climatologist Stephen Schneider and we often gave talks at the same events. Steve, one of the leaders of the modern concern about a possible human-induced global warming, also said that you should never use short-term weather events to infer climate change. I agreed with these experts, and therefore was taken aback by the overall tone of the new White House Climate Change Assessment, which begins: “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska. This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.

Based on what my climatologist colleagues had always told me, the Assessment should

have begun instead by stating: Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing weather-related changes” outside of their personal recent experience. So, too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from Phoenix to New York, and Native peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska.”

The Assessment concludes that opening paragraph by stating: This National Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.

Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods (p.1).

These opening paragraphs and several that follow directly communicate to the reader, both lay and professional, that human-induced global warming in an immediate disaster. For example:

Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.

Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth’s climatic trends. Long-term, independent records from weather stations, satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all confirm that our nation, like the rest of the world, is warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing (p. 1).

To be scientifically accurate, these paragraphs should instead have been written (my changes noted by underlining): Other weather changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.

Scientists who study weather and climate change point out that short-term, including several decades and longer, changes in weather do not confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth's climatic trends.

These opening statements are directly followed by: Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities. The observed warming and other climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every region of our country and throughout our economy. Some of these changes can be beneficial over the short run, such as a longer growing season in some regions and a longer shipping season on the Great Lakes. But many more are detrimental, largely because our society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have had, not the rapidly changing climate we now have and can expect in the future. In addition, climate change does not occur in isolation. Rather, it is superimposed on other stresses, which combine to create new challenges (p. 1). The assertions in this paragraph are based on the forecasts from climate models and from temperature records. However, Figure 1 shows that the climate models greatly exaggerate the rate and amount of temperature change and are not making forecasts that come even close to fitting the data. Furthermore, Figure 1 also shows that the average Earth temperature in the past 30 years has changed very little if at all, contradicting the assertions on the first page of the Assessment.

Figure 1: Climate model forecasts compared to real world temperature observations (From John Christy, University of Alabama and Alabama State Climatologist. Reproduced with permission from him.)

clip_image008

The Assessment further attributes the supposed climatic warming to human activities that are releasing greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. Therefore the claimed disaster is our fault. But recent evidence shows that temperature change is not tracking the increase in carbon dioxide. The gas has increased from 370 ppm to just over 400ppm, 8 percent, between year 2000 and year 2014 (Figure 2), while the temperature has changed either only slightly or not at all, depending on how one does the analysis (Figure 3). Instead, temperature change tracks closely changes in the energy output from the sun (Figure 4).

Figure 2. Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 measurements

clip_image010

Figure 3. Earth Surface Temperature Departure from 1950-1980 Average

clip_image012

Figure 4. Correlation Between Solar Irradiance and Poleward flux of energy.

Thus the Assessment’s early statements about the dangerous climate change have to do with a hypothetical, not a real, world.

clip_image014

The current evidence from scientific observations show that Earth’s temperature has not changed very much, if at all, since the start of the new century, while carbon dioxide has increased considerably.

Given these facts, the basic opening assertions of the new U.S. Climate Change Assessment are about a hypothetical world, not a real world, and must be taken as a “what if” rather than “what is”. Therefore the dire consequences forecast in the Assessment cannot be taken as reliable, nullifying many, if not most, of the ecological and biological implications the Assessment makes heavy use of.

The time available to write and the space available to publish as written testimony prevent a comprehensive, detailed review of the entire White House Climate Change Assessment. As a result, I have used as an example of the kinds of problems throughout the Assessment the table appearing on pages 204-5, Biological Responses To climate Change. As an ecologist, I have taken that table and reorganized it. This reorganization follows.

Although the document is titled “Climate Change Assessment,” the term “climate change” is not defined and is in fact used with two meanings, natural and human-induced. There are places in the Assessment where only the second meaning makes sense, so that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be applied. In those places where either meaning can be interpreted, if the statement is assumed to be a natural change, then it is a truism, a basic characteristic of Earth’s environment and something people have always known and experienced. If the meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the Assessment, the available data do not support the statements.

For example, the Assessment’s section titled CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE begins with the statement: Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience.

If this is to be interpreted as natural, then people have frequently in history experienced

“climate-related changes that are outside of [their] recent experiences,” as the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age demonstrate,2, 3, 4 and therefore it is not unusual nor unexpected in ordinary life. If this is to be interpreted to be human-induced, then the evidence just discussed demonstrates that this kind of change cannot be attributed to human actions and therefore the statement is false.

ANALYSIS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT TABLE OF

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS (Assessment’s pages 204-205)

Biological responses to climate change

The Assessment presents a list of 30 biological responses to climate change. Since this is my particular area of expertise, I have analyzed this list and sorted the items into the following categories: Where the Assessment is wrong based on my understanding (10 items); Improvements (12 items); Declines (which can be taken as worsening) (No items); Predicted from Climate Models, Therefore Not Fact, especially given the failure of climate models to forecast with any reliability Earth’s increase in temperature since the 1990s (see figure 1) (3 items); and Unlikely or Unsupported Statement (5 items). Within the context of the Assessment, this table comes across as meaning to demonstrate more very negative effects of a human-induced global warming, but since upon analysis none of the 30 appears to be a legitimately supported decline that might occur under a hypothetical global warming or have been directly observed, this table in fact is an argument against the overall message of the Assessment.

(The number that appears at the beginning of each entry is the number in the Assessment’s list. The numbers following each of the Assessment’s entry are the citation number as listed in the Assessment. The Assessment’s statements are in italics; my comments appear in plain font.)

ASSESSMENT IS WRONG

1. 21. Seedling survival of nearly 20 resident and migrant tree species decreased during years of lower rainfall in the Southern Appalachians and the Piedmont areas, indicating that reductions in native species and limited replacement by invading species were likely under climate change.134 Since the climate models are admittedly weak about changes in rainfall, this statement has no relevance to purported human-induced global warming.

2. 27. Water temperature data and observations of migration behaviors over a 34-year time period showed that adult pink salmon migrated earlier into Alaskan creeks, and fry advanced the timing of migration out to sea. Shifts in migration timing may increase the potential for a mismatch in optimal environmental conditions for early life stages, and continued warming trends will likely increase pre-spawning mortality and egg mortality rates.87 Salmon have evolved and are adapted to environmental change.

3. 3. Conifers in many western forests have experienced mortality rates of up to 87% from warming-induced changes in the prevalence of pests and pathogens and stress from drought.118 Important causes of the mortality of trees in western forests are: fire suppression, which promotes insect and disease outbreaks, and from introduced (invasive) insects and diseases.

4. 8. Warmer and drier conditions during the early growing season in high-elevation

habitats in Colorado are disrupting the timing of various flowering patterns, with potential impacts on many important plant-pollinator relationships.77 “Disrupting” is a politically loaded term. The scientific term would be “changed” and this is a good sign, showing the adaptability of species to changing environments.

5. 12. Variation in the timing and magnitude of precipitation due to climate change was found to decrease the nutritional quality of grasses, and consequently reduce weight gain of bison in the Konza Prairie in Kansas and the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Oklahoma.124. Results provide insight into how climate change will affect grazer population dynamics in the future. This is stated in a way that is not open to scientific evaluation. No doubt lower rainfall has negative effects, but the statement is “variation.” In fact, the publication cited (Craine et al., 2008)5 states that “Greater late-summer precipitation increased bison weight gain . . . “greater midsummer precipitation decreased weight gain.” This is a scientifically interesting result for those focused on wildlife in grasslands, but it is neither a negative nor positive in terms of global warming, because the forecasting models are weakest in forecasting rainfall even annually, let alone seasonally. Therefore these results cannot be taken as negative (nor positive) effects of a global rise in average temperature.

6. 10. Cutthroat trout populations in the western U.S. are projected to decline by up to 58%, and total trout habitat in the same region is projected to decline by 47%, due to increasing temperatures, seasonal shifts in precipitation, and negative interactions with nonnative species.8. Stresses on Cutthroat extend considerably beyond climate change and have to do with fishing intensity, water diversions and other habitat changes, such as competition from introduced, invasive species such as lake trout and rainbow trout.6

7. 28. Warmer springs in Alaska have caused earlier onset of plant emergence, and decreased spatial variation in growth and availability of forage to breeding caribou. This ultimately reduced calving success in caribou populations.138 The implication is that warming will necessarily have a negative effect on caribou, but the paper cited (Post et al., 2008) actually is much more cautious, stating “it is highly relevant to herbivore ecology to consider the manner in which warming will alter spatial patterns of plant phenology at more immediate spatial scales than that of the regional landscape. The paper concludes, cautiously: “ Large herbivores prefer newly emergent forage, presumably owing to the high digestibility and nutrient content of young plant tissues . . . future warming could conceivably impair the ability of herbivores such as caribou to forage selectively, with adverse consequences for their productivity.We suggest, therefore, that it is highly relevant to herbivore ecology to consider the manner in which warming will alter spatial patterns of plant phenology at more immediate spatial scales than that of the regional landscape.”7

There is again an inherent assumption that a steady-state between living things and climate is natural and necessary for a species’s persistent. Wildlife population can and do adjust to changes, but this can take some time. See the examples of current adjustments, which I have added below this table. Give the populations a little time to adjust.

8. 26. Changes in female polar bear reproductive success (decreased litter mass and numbers of yearlings) along the north Alaska coast have been linked to changes in body

size and/or body condition following years with lower availability of optimal sea ice habitat.137. There is evidence that polar bears are adjusting by feeding more on terrestrial prey. Contrary to the publicity about polar bears, there is little information demonstrating any statistically, scientifically valid decline in polar bear populations. I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of change in the population is possible. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation.8

9. 7. Quaking aspen-dominated systems are experiencing declines in the western U.S. after stress due to climate induced drought conditions during the last decade.122 Anderegg,

W. R. L., J. M. Kane, and L. D. L. Anderegg, 2012: Consequences of widespread tree mortality triggered by drought and temperature stress. Nature Climate Change, 3, 30-36, doi:10.1038/nclimate1635. Given the failure of the climate models to predict temperature change and the observed lack of a significant recent rise in temperature, it is incorrect to refer to this as a “climate induced’ drought. Moreover, a thousand year tree- ring study shows that deep droughts are characteristic of California. Meteorologist Martin P. Hoerling wrote on March 8,2014 that “At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.” Hoerling is a research meteorologist, specializing in climate dynamics, at the Earth System Research Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the White House’s National Climate Assessment cites many of Hoerling’s papers, including figure 20.4 “Longer Frost-free Season Increases Stress on Crops,” so his work is respected by the authors.

10. 9. Population fragmentation of wolverines in the northern Cascades and Rocky Mountains is expected to increase as spring snow cover retreats over the coming century.123 The paper cited, Dawson et al. (2011)9, does not mention wolverines. And contrary to making a highly negative statement, the paper states Populations of many species have persisted in situ at individual sites since the last glacial maximum (toleration) and many have undergone habitat shifts, moving short distances (1 to 10 km) to sites with different aspects, slopes, elevations, and other attributes as the environment changed. Migrations of 100 to 1000 km are well documented for many species.

IMPROVEMENTS

1. 2. Northern flickers arrived at breeding sites earlier in the Northwest in response to temperature changes along migration routes, and egg laying advanced by 1.15 days for every degree increase in temperature, demonstrating that this species has the capacity to adjust their phenology in response to climate change.117

2. 11. Comparisons of historical and recent first flowering dates for 178 plant species from North Dakota showed significant shifts occurred in over 40% of species examined, with the greatest changes observed during the two warmest years of the study.75

3. 14. Migratory birds monitored in Minnesota over a 40-year period showed significantly earlier arrival dates, particularly in short-distance migrants, indicating that some species are capable of responding to increasing winter temperatures better than

others.126.

4. 15. Up to 50% turnover in amphibian species is projected in the eastern U.S. by 2100, including the northern leopard frog, which is projected to experience poleward and elevational range shifts in response to climatic changes in the latter quarter of the century.127

5. 16. Studies of black ratsnake (Elaphe obsoleta) populations at different latitudes in Canada, Illinois, and Texas suggest that snake populations, particularly in the northern part of their range, could benefit from rising temperatures if there are no negative impacts on their habitat and prey.128

6. 17. Warming-induced hybridization was detected between southern and northern flying squirrels in the Great Lakes region of Ontario, Canada, and in Pennsylvania after a series of warm winters created more overlap in their habitat range, potentially acting to increase population persistence under climate change.129

7. 18. Some warm-water fishes have moved northwards, and some tropical and subtropical fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico have increased in temperate ocean habitat.130 Similar shifts and invasions have been documented in Long Island Sound and Narragansett Bay in the Atlantic.131

8. 23. Over the last 130 years (1880-2010), native bees have advanced their spring arrival in the northeastern U.S. by an average of 10 days, primarily due to increased warming. Plants have also showed a trend of earlier blooming, thus helping preserve the synchrony in timing between plants and pollinators.135

9. 24. In the Northwest Atlantic, 24 out of 36 commercially exploited fish stocks showed significant range (latitudinal and depth) shifts between 1968 and 2007 in response to increased sea surface and bottom temperatures.55

10. 25. Increases in maximum, and decreases in the annual variability of, sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean have promoted growth of small phytoplankton and led to a reorganization in the species composition of primary (phytoplankton) and secondary (zooplankton) producers.136

11. 29. Many Hawaiian mountain vegetation types were found to vary in their sensitivity to changes in moisture availability; consequently, climate change will likely influence elevation-related vegetation patterns in this region.139

12. 5. In response to climate-related habitat change, many small mammal species have altered their elevation ranges, with lower-elevation species expanding their ranges and higher-elevation species contracting their ranges.120

DECLINES

None.

PREDICTED FROM CLIMATE MODELS, THEREFORE NOT FACT

1. 30. Sea level is predicted to rise by 1.6 to 3.3 feet in Hawaiian waters by 2100, consistent with global projections of 1 to 4 feet of sea level rise (see Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate, Key Message 10). This is projected to increase wave heights, the duration of turbidity, and the amount of re-suspended sediment in the water; consequently, this will create potentially stressful conditions for coral reef communities.140

2. 6. Northern spotted owl populations in Arizona and New Mexico are projected to decline during the next century and are at high risk for extinction due to hotter, drier conditions, while the southern California population is not projected to be sensitive to future climatic changes.121

3. 19. Global marine mammal diversity is projected to decline at lower latitudes and increase at higher latitudes due to changes in temperatures and sea ice, with complete loss of optimal habitat for as many as 11 species by midcentury; seal populations living in tropical and temperate waters are particularly at risk to future declines.132

UNLIKELY CORRELATION OR UNSUPPORTED STATEMENT

1. 13. (a and b) Climatic fluctuations were found to influence mate selection and increase the probability of infidelity in birds that are normally socially monogamous, increasing the gene exchange and the likelihood of offspring survival. 125

2. 20. Higher nighttime temperatures and cumulative seasonal rainfalls were correlated with changes in the arrival times of amphibians to wetland breeding sites in South Carolina over a 30-year time period (1978-2008).133 Of course. The time period precedes any possible effect of human-induced global warming, and the effect is a truism. Rainfall will affect amphibians. Since the climate models are admittedly weak about changes in rainfall, this statement has no relevance to purported human-induced global warming.

3. 22. Widespread declines in body size of resident and migrant birds at a bird-banding station in western Pennsylvania were documented over a 40-year period; body sizes of breeding adults were negatively correlated with mean regional temperatures from the preceding year.85 The citation for this statement is NatureServe, cited 2012: Ecosystem- based Management Tools Network. [Available online at www.ebmtools.org]. This is a general website. I used its search option and did not find bird-banding nor Pennsylvania, nor any reference to a study of bird-banding in Pennsylvania.

4. 4. Butterflies that have adapted to specific oak species have not been able to colonize new tree species when climate change-induced tree migration changes local forest types, potentially hindering adaptation.119 . The citation 119 in the Assessment is Aumen, N.,

L. Berry, R. Best, A. Edwards, K. Havens, J. Obeysekera, D. Rudnick, and M. Scerbo, 2013: Predicting Ecological Changes in the Florida Everglades Under a Future Climate Scenario, 33 pp., U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Sea Grant, Florida Atlantic University. [Available online at

http://www.ces.fau.edu/climate_change/ecology-february-2013/PECFEFCS_Report.pdf]. I searched this report and found no mention of butterflies. This is probably an inadvertent editing error and the authors of the Assessment meant to refer to some other paper, but since this is the actual listing, the statement is unsupported.

5. 1. Mussel and barnacle beds have declined or disappeared along parts of the Northwest coast due to higher temperatures and drier conditions that have compressed habitable intertidal space.116. The citation listed is Burke, L., L. Reytar, M. Spalding, and A. Perry, 2011: Reefs at Risk Revisited. World Resources Institute, 130 pp. [Available online at http://pdf.wri.org/reefs_at_risk_revisited.pdf]. I searched this citation and did not find any mention of the words mussel or barnacle and the only mention of

“northwest” was “northwestern Hawaii.” Again this is likely a typographic error, but no other statement in the Assessment brought me to a relevant paper either, so the statement is unsupported by the report.

SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC STATEMENTS THAT ARE INCORRECT, OR OVERSTATED, OR LIMITED TO A FEW SPECIFIC CASES, OR OTHERWISE OF DOUBTFUL GENERALITY

Given the length of the just-released White House Climate Change Assessment and the time available to review it, I am able to consider only a few examples of other specific problems with the Assessment. I have focused on those that have to do with biological factors. These, however, are representative of problems throughout the Assessment. (Once again, the material in italics is quotes from the Assessment; the material in standard font is my text.)

Cores from corals, ocean sediments, ice records, and other indirect temperature measurements indicate the recent rapid increase of ocean temperature is the greatest that has occurred in at least the past millennium and can only be reproduced by climate models with the inclusion of human-caused sources of heat-trapping gas emissions (p. 559). As we saw earlier, the climate models are not coming even close to forecasting air temperature change, and therefore could not be expected to forecast accurately changes in ocean temperature, so it is not correct to say that something “can only be reproduced by climate models with the inclusion of human-caused sources of heat-trapping gas emissions.”

Warmer air and ocean temperatures are also causing the continued, dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice during the summer (panel D) (p. 560). We published a paper comparing Arctic sea ice extent in the nineteenth century, using historical records from ships hunting the bowhead whale, with those in recent times.10 In this paper we wrote, “Records from May indicate that

end-of-winter sea-ice extent in the Bering Sea during the mid-19th century closely resembled that in the 1972–82 data. However, the historical data reveal that sea ice was more extensive during summer, with the greatest difference occurring in July. This pattern indicates a later and more rapid seasonal retreat.” While the statement in the White House Climate Change Assessment is not contradicted by our paper, the limited statement (about the summer) in the Assessment once again paints a dire picture to the average reader, whereas our work suggests that in fact the sea ice extent recovered over winter, and changes in arctic sea ice are more complicated than the Assessment implies. The problem here is a matter of tone and communication.

Key Message 4: Seasonal Patterns: Timing of critical biological events—such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations—has shifted, leading to important impacts on species and habitats (p.201). The implication here is that this is entirely negative for life on Earth and will forever be so. But on the contrary, the environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things have had to adapt to these changes.

Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require environmental change, including salmon and sequoia trees. 11 12

Two of the longest studies of animals and plants in Great Britain show that at least some species are adjusting to recent weather changes in “timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering.” For example, a 47-year study of the bird Parus major (one of the longest monitoring of any bird species) shows that these birds are responding behaviorally to recent weather changes. A species of caterpillar that is one of the main foods of this bird during egg-laying has been emerging earlier as spring temperatures have risen. In response, females of this bird species are laying their eggs an average of two weeks earlier.13

The second study, one of the longest experiments about how vegetation responds to temperature and rainfall, shows that long-lived small grasses and sedges are highly resistant to climate change. The authors of the study report that changes in temperature and rainfall during the past 13 years “have had little effect on vegetation structure and physiognomy.”14

Of course with any environmental change, not all species will do well. This has always been the case, and is consistent with Darwinian evolution and with ecological knowledge. Black guillemots (Cepphus grylle), birds that nest on Cooper Island, Alaska, illustrate that some species are having difficulties adjusting to climate change. (However, black guillemots in their entire range are not a threatened or endangered species. It is only their abundance on Cooper Island that has declined.)

The problem has been that temperature increases in the 1990s caused the sea ice to recede farther from the island each spring. The parent birds feed on Arctic cod found under the sea ice and must then return to the nest to feed their chicks, who are not yet mature enough to survive on their own. For the parents to do this, the distance from feeding grounds to nest must be less than about 30 km, but in recent years the ice in the spring has been receding as much as 500–800 km (300–500 mi) from the island. As a result, the black guillemots on the island have lost an important source of food. The birds have sometimes targeted sculpin, which is not as abundant as cod.15

But the real problem these Cooper Island birds face today is egg predation by polar bears. With less sea ice during this time period, bears have gone ashore and eaten young birds. In 2009, of the 180 guillemots that hatched, only one on the island fledged (flew away).The solution to this has been to build bear-proof nesting boxes for the birds. In 2010, bear-proof nesting boxes resulted in about 100 birds that fledged.

Two points emerge here. One is that living things do in fact often adjust to changes in the timing of climate events; if not, there would be little or no life on Earth. The second is that the real problem black guillemots face is here-and-now predation, which can be and has been dealt with and does not require a single focus on whether on not the climate change was human- induced.

Chapter 7, Forests, opens with this:

Key Messages

1. Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of many forests to ecosystem changes and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks.

As I noted before, the Assessment suffers from the use of the term “climate change” with two

meanings: natural and human-induced. The implication in this key message is that the forest problems are the result of human-induced climate change, but as I have made clear, both the failure of the models and the failure of temperature change to closely track CO2 make this key statement false. Furthermore, it is well known that (1) forest wildfires are largely due to long- term suppression of fires in the twentieth century, which allowed the buildup of excessive fuel; and (2) that insect infestations and disease outbreaks are heavily the result of introduced species and the failure to remove dead and decaying timber from forests. In addition, this key statement is another example where recent weather patterns are said to represent and prove human-induced global warming, which I pointed out at the beginning is incorrect.

Key Message 2. U.S. forests and associated wood products currently absorb and store the equivalent of about 16% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. each year. Climate change, combined with current societal trends in land use and forest management, is projected to reduce this rate of forest CO2 uptake.

As explained in my review of the IPCC 2014 report, the estimates of carbon uptake by

vegetation used by IPCC and in major articles cited by the reports are based on what can best be called “grab samples,” a relatively small number of studies done at a variety of times using a variety of methods, mainly in old-growth areas. The results reported by IPCC overestimate carbon storage and uptake by as much as 300%.16 Therefore this is an unreliable statement.

As I stated at above, these are representative examples of problems that exist throughout the Climate Change Assessment.

NOTES

1. Publications by myself and J. M. Melillo: Aber, J.S., D.B. Botkin and J.M. Melillo, 1978, Predicting the effects of different harvesting regimes on forest floor dynamics in northern hardwoods, Canad. J. Forest Research 8: 306 – 315.; Aber, J.D., D.B. Botkin and J.M. Melillo, 1979, Predicting the effects of different harvesting regimes on productivity and yield in northern hardwoods, Canadian J. Forest Research 9: 10 – 14.; Aber, J.S., G.R. Hendrey, D.B. Botkin, A.J. Francis, and J.M. Melillo, 1980, Simulation of acid precipitation effects on soil nitrogen and productivity in forest ecosystems, Brookhaven National Laboratory Publications BNL 28658, Associated Universities, Inc,

N.Y. Botkin, D.B., J.M. Melillo and L.S. Wu, 1981, “How ecosystem processes are linked to large mammal population dynamics,” pp. 373 – 387.In: C.W. Fowler and T. Smith, eds. Population Dynamics of Large Mammals, John Wiley and Sons, NY.; Aber, J.D.,

G.R. Hendrey, A.J. Francies, D.B. Botkin and J.M. Melillo, 1982, Potential effects of acid precipitation on soil nitrogen and productivity of forest ecosystems, pp. 411 – 433, In:

F.M. D’itri, ed., Acid Precipitation: Effects on Ecological Systems. Ann Arbor Science, MI.

2. Le Roy Ladurie, E., Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000,. 1971, Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday & Co. 426pp.

3. Botkin, D. B., 2012, The Moon in the Nautilus Shell: Discordant Harmonies Reconsidered (Oxford University Press, New York, hardback and ebook, September 14, 2012)

4.Botkin, D. B., and E. A.. Keller, 2014.Environmental Sciences: Earth as a Living Planet (John Wiley, New York).

5. Craine, J. M., E. G. Towne, A. Joern, and R. G. Hamilton,2008: Consequences of climate variability for the performance of bison in tallgrass prairie. Global Change Biology, 15, 772-779, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01769.x.

6. Vos, D., “Going Native.” Wildlife Reviews, 2006. Spring: p. 25-28.

7. Post, E., C. Pedersen, C. C. Wilmers, and M. C. Forchhammer, 2008: Warming, plant phenology and the spatial dimension of trophic mismatch for large herbivores. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2005-2013, doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0463. [Available online at http:// rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1646/2005. full.pdf+html]

8. IUCN Summary of polar bear population status per 2013 http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

9. 1. Dawson, T.P., S. T. Jackson, J. I. House, I. C. Prentice, and G. M. Mace, Beyond predictions: Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. . Science, 2011. 332: p. 53-58.

10. Mahoney, Andrew R., John R. Bockstoce, Daniel B. Botkin, Hajo Eicken, and Robert A. Nisbet. 2011, “Sea Ice Distribution in the Bering and Chukchi Seas: Information from Historical Whaleships’ Logbooks and Journals,” Arctic. 64, (4): 465 – 477. (DECEMBER 2011).

11.Botkin, D. B., and E. A.. Keller. 2014. (9th edition) Environmental Sciences: Earth as a Living Planet (John Wiley, New York).

12. Botkin, D. B., 2012, The Moon in the Nautilus Shell: Discordant Harmonies Reconsidered

(Oxford University Press, New York, hardback and ebook, September 14, 2012).

13. Charmantier, A., Robin H. McCleery, Lionel R. Cole, Chris Perrins, Loeske E. B. Kruuk, Ben C. Sheldon, Adaptive Phenotypic Plasticity in Response to Climate Change in a Wild Bird Population. Science 2008. 320(5877): p. 800-803.

14. Grime, J.P., Jason D. Fridley, Andrew P. Askew, Ken Thompson, John G. Hodgson, and Chris R. Bennett, Long-term resistance to simulated climate change in an infertile grassland. PNAS, 2008. 105(29): p. 10028-10032.

15. Divoky, G. 2011. Black Guillemots in a melting Arctic: Responding to shifts in prey, competitors, and predators. Transcription, pages 125–130 in R. T. Watson, T. J. Cade, M. Fuller,

G. Hunt, and E. Potapov (Eds.). Gyrfalcons and Ptarmigan in a Changing World, Volume I. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.4080/gpcw.2011.0112

16. Botkin, D. B., and L. Simpson, 1990, Biomass of the North American Boreal Forest: A step toward accurate Global Measures: Biogeochemistry 9:161-174;Botkin, D. B., Simpson, L. G., and H. J. Schenk, 1992, Estimating Biomass, Science Letters. Vol. 257, No. 5067. (Jul. 10, 1992), pp. 146-147; Botkin, D. B., Simpson, L. G., and R. A. Nisbet, 1993, Biomass and Carbon Storage of the North American Deciduous Forest, Biogeochemistry 20: 1-17;Botkin, D. B., Ngugi, M.R., D. Doley (submitted). “Statistically Valid Estimates and Accurate Forecasts of Forest Biomass and Carbon Sequestration: A Forty-Five Year Quest.” Keynote speech at IUFRO Forest Biomass Conference, October 7, 2013, to be published in Drewno (Wood) Journal.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC, IPCC AR5 Report, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

222 Responses to In House testimony, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

  1. Pamela Gray says:

    A very polite way of saying FUBAR. Now that’s what I call an elevator statement that would pass Leif’s 10 second elevator ride smell test easily. Except he doesn’t cuss as much as I do I am guessing.

  2. cnxtim says:

    Reason prevails, enlightenment follows..

  3. NothingToSeeHere says:

    One of the more coherent breakdown of the skeptical viewpoint that I have seen in the past few years. Many thanks for posting!

  4. Bob Weber says:

    Tremendous across-the-board even-handed refutation and repudiation of CAGW hysteria. Good job Dr. Botkin for being part of the real climate debate tipping point, the unabashed evidence-based pushback against clearly deceptive UN and White House agendas. Thank you for stepping up to plate.

  5. Prof. Botkin has produced a testimony that can be read and understood by an average 14 -year – old (so he obviously knew his audience). There’s hardly a word wasted, and the whole has a clarity which is often sorely missing in Climate Science. No doubt the Thermageddonites will be after him for daring to tell the truth about their nice little earner.

  6. sleeping bear dunes says:

    One of the best posts ever. Lots of good stuff worth reflecting on.

  7. Latitude says:

    Great read….

    d. In-place monitoring on carbon flux, being done by the USGS in the Great Cypress Swamp, Florida.

    …the shallow water is going to make measurements usless…unless you’re only interested in swamps

  8. Pete says:

    Per Rep Joseph Kennedy, as quoted: “… where he grills Daniel B. Botkin with idiotic questions like: ‘Doctor, do you look both ways before you cross the street?’ ”

    With such astonishingly juvenile behavior, it’s no wonder so many voters have little or no respect for our Dear Leaders.

    The chairman of that House committee hearing should have summarily ejected Rep. Kennedy from any further participation in that hearing. The fact that the Chairman didn’t adds to the disrespect for Congress.

  9. AleaJactaEst says:

    and a testimony that will be completely and utterly ignored by every single one of the myopic leaders of the free world. Except Russia and China who just giggle a little bit more.

  10. Jim Hunt says:

    Whilst I agree with Dr. Botkin on the odd point, I can’t help but think that he was merely performing in a pantomime:

    http://econnexus.org/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

    “What a scientist finds out is science. What a scientist says is opinion. Science is not a consensus activity. Science is innovative and invention and discovery.”

  11. Dave says:

    Great testimony, one I concur with wholeheartedly. But of what use is it if the clowns in charge simply close their eyes and scream “I see nothing!”, cover their ears and scream ” LALALALALA I can’t hear you!”

  12. F. Ross says:

    Many House conservatives will heed and learn from Dr. Botkin’s well reasoned testimony.
    Most liberals, on the other hand, will continue to put their collective fingers in their collective ears while thinking “not listening, no, not listening” ad nauseum.

  13. Theo Goodwin says:

    Return of the Scientists! There are not words to describe the excellence of Botkin’s testimony. Richard Tol gave equally powerful testimony. Given President Obama’s speech, the important question now is why is Obama anti-science.

  14. Bob Tisdale says:

    I give his testimony about the IPCC a WOW!

  15. Typhoon says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    May 31, 2014 at 9:04 am

    “Given President Obama’s speech, the important question now is why is Obama anti-science.”

    John Holdren, a disciple of the perpetually wrong doom porn peddler Paul Ehrlich, has his ear as the “Science” Advisor.

  16. JimS says:

    Talk about question begging from carrot top, eh?

  17. Nik says:

    I predict a “Dana the eco warrior” attempt to rubbish this testimony in The Guardian very soon. I’ll bet he’s already working on it.

  18. Michael D says:

    Excellent testimony backed up by unimpeachable credentials.

  19. noaaprogrammer says:

    I wonder if Representative Joe Kennedy “looks both ways” when considering climate change.

  20. DHR says:

    Kennedy was appallingly rude. He is a Congressman therefore he works for us and should show respect for the citizens who are testifying. He behaved like a childish poorly-raised delinquent.

  21. Jim Hunt says:

    Dr. Botkin speaks highly of Richard Betts from the UK Met Office. Here’s a video in which Richard gave his own views about the IPCC process just a couple of weeks ago in the Transformational Climate Science conference at Exeter University:

    In all the circumstances one cannot help but wonder why Richard Tol was flown across the Atlantic to testify before Congress, rather than Richard Betts?

  22. Excellent summary of the difference between politics of the issue, and science of the issue.

  23. Michael D says:

    Kennedy’s aggressive and impudent question is familiar. Warmist reasoning goes like this: “If there might be a problem, should we not take action, even if that action may not be helpful?” This is akin to the old medical practice of bloodletting: “If you have a fever, should we not bleed you, even if that action may not be helpful?”

  24. Theo Goodwin says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    May 31, 2014 at 9:35 am

    Betts does seem to be a first rate scientist. However, when the topic turns to computer models or the UK Met Office, he seems to become a bit shy. Also, at this time, he does not have the high profile of Tol. Finally, they might have invited him only to learn that he is not willing to suffer what happened to Bengtsson.

  25. Joel O'Bryan says:

    Even the contrary words of an eminent ecologist like Dr Botkin will not change the minds of the believers. Theirs is a religion of CAGW based on faith alone, not unlike those who reject Darwinian evolution in favor of biblical accounts of creationism (or whatever they call it now… Intelligent design or something). And the other deceivers like John Holdren have their entire careers and reputations tied to the Climate Change fabrications, so they will never alter their public views regardless of how much evidence is put before them.

    Further Dr. Botkin’s testimony won’t get reported by the Liberal press. In fact, outlets like the LA Times, NY Times, CNN, NBC, and ABC will do everything they can to not cover Dr Botkin’s testimony. Call it cognitive dissonance, call it intellectual dishonesty, or call it biased journalism, but they still won’t report it.

  26. John Coleman says:

    Dr. Botkin delivers a truly reasoned presentation that respects the scientists involved while refuting the alarmism that headlines their documents, shows great care in considering and presenting the detail of each event, region and species and reaches reasonable conclusions. Thank you, Thank you, thank you.
    We all must remember or learn that in this forever changing environment in which we live flora and fauna will be forever changing as it adapts and species will forever be fading away as new ones emerge.
    It is my fervent hope that other reasonable scientists will pull back from the alarmism campaign and join Dr. Botkin’s effort to have a calm, reasonable discussion in place of the loud, exaggerated claims and non-reasoned extremist positions that dominate the media today.

  27. Daniel B. Botkin is a “climate scientist” who looks to be a real scientist. I am gobsmacked to discover that there are real people in the business of looking at climate who actually think that facts and observations come first and that the scientific method should be the golden rule in this debate. Unbelievable.

    And they let this guy talk to congress? Double wow.

  28. Alec Rawls says:

    Botkin is an old guy. The young guys are mostly a) cowards and b) left-wing ideologues who owe their positions to their eagerness to help fabricate a “scientific” indictment of fossil fuel use. They are not just the majority in academia now, they are a 95% majority that uses its power to only hire more of the same. They will NEVER be ousted from control of our universities, which means that it is the universities that are going to have to cease to exist, and I believe they are going to disappear as rapidly as paper publishing.

    The information needed for on-line self-education is already available, or rapidly becoming available, and it will rapidly improve in coming years. The only thing needed for the supplanting of our current university system is a new system of credentialing based entirely on testing. We need a cheat-proof system where bio-identified individuals enter rooms effectively butt naked and take whatever tests they want to take to demonstrate their ability to answer questions in various fields.

    This transformation is coming in any case, and we are lucky for it, given how our existing system has been unalterably infected with and captured by radical leftism, even in the sciences. The limb needs to be cut off, and luckily it is naturally going the way of the appendix anyway.

  29. Pat says:

    Brains were never a Kennedy strongpoint…the irony of a Kennedy asking someone about road safety…

  30. Theo

    I had the great pleasure of meeting Richard Betts at the Exeter climate conference a week or so ago.

    I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he struck me as being much more sceptical than you would expect, bearing in mind the official line coming from the Met Office, as exemplified by Julia Slingo.

    tonyb

  31. strike says:

    One of the best posts I ever read on WUWT. Great!

    The only thing I criticize is the poor format: Bold, numbering, upper- lower-case mainly in the first part.

  32. bevothehike says:

    Excellent job of cutting through the obfuscation, misinformation, and politics of the CAGW movement. There is hope.

  33. HenryP says:

    ja, ja
    I always wonder when they will ever find out that, indeed, the climate is changing,
    naturally,
    especially the how and why…
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  34. Theo Goodwin says:

    climatereason says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Yes, I believe that he is a first rate scientist. I have read his comments at Andrew Montford’s website for some years.

  35. john robertson says:

    Alex Rawls 9.50am, good comment.
    However I now regard the bureaucracy that is academia as more akin to a child holding its breathe and wondering why it cannot breathe.
    University is truly the opposite of intellectual diversity.
    I suspect they will fade faster than paper publishing as they are diminishing their products value daily.

  36. Theo Goodwin says:

    bevothehike says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Yes, I especially liked his item “13″ in which he disambiguated the phrase “climate change.” Like all good Leftists, Alarmists wage semantic warfare and exploiting the ambiguity in “climate change” is one of their best efforts.

  37. Sparks says:

    Figure 3 looks suspicious, the rest looks like a spin off. The 1930′s apparently didn’t exist nor did the 1970′s conclusion of the data they had back then.

    Just a thought! why are politicians and climate scientists trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes and why the aggression?

  38. Brian says:

    The video was a great example of a politician protecting his gravy train. Ideology is the enemy of science, on both sides of the aisle.

  39. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: climatereason says: May 31, 2014 at 10:04 am

    What do you object to in “the official line coming from the Met Office”? Surely Dame Julia is an admirable pillar of the Great British Establishment?

  40. CC Squid says:

    God Bless Botkin! He is the antithesis of Bengtsson.

  41. NikFromNYC says:

    The blurry graph of a solar irradiance correlation is a surprising resurrection of one that Art Robinson was criticized for since recent data was cut off after 2000 when the correlation evidently broke down.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/clip_image0145.jpg

    Here it is not cut off and the reference is Soon & Legates 2013:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf

    “Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG).”

    So this isn’t temperature but a gradient value. Yet they conclude with a temperature claim too:

    “We assert that strong evidence exists to support the reality of a physical Sun–climate connection, as manifest in the multi- decadal co-variations of TSI and EPTG. A similar relationship also exists between fluctuations in TSI and other regional-scale climate variables such as surface air temperature.”

    A bit confusing what this implies for recent warming then lack of it. A big version of the chart is extracted here:

    http://oi59.tinypic.com/2danbe0.jpg

  42. Sandi says:

    Speaking to the other nine environmental issues: Botkin was honored as the John C. Pritzlaff Conservation Award recipient.

  43. Sparks says:

    NikFromNYC says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Think TSI and then think x-ray and UV, higher and more powerful energies react by producing increased levels of lesser energies such as inferred, It’s not accounted for in any solar/budget I have ever looked at. keep this one quiet ;)

  44. Skiphil says:

    Superb presentation with reasoned assessments of evidence. He is a heretic from the Church of Climate Science. Therefore he must be destroyed. Just watch Dana N., Joe Romm et al. get to work…. unless they decide that Botkin is so dangerous that he must be ignored and quietly ostracized.

    What the Alarmists will not do is to engage with Botkin’s analyses in reasoned discussion.

  45. Botkin dealt very well with the aggressive questioning from Kennedy. It was great to hear him say there are 9 more serious environmental problems than global warming.

    I also like his sense of humour, faint praise for the IPCC in his Q&A 7 and 8!

  46. Winston says:

    “I wonder if Representative Joe Kennedy ‘looks both ways’ when considering climate change.”
    Of course not, which is why calling his committee the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is such a farce. It’s the Committee on Dogma and Lobbyist Bribes. If he’d actually read Prof. Botkin’s written testimony, he could have asked some intelligent questions, but he’s an ignorant politician, so he sticks with the dogma that his party loves so much.

  47. HenryP says:

    @sparks

    I think it is because there is just too much money riding on the “clean green” machine, i.e. “non fossil fuels” , in fact our pension money is probably even (still) on it.

    btw

    did you see from those pictures that you showed me of the planet configuration and sunspots that in a few years time the balance of the weight of the planets will be more to the one side? Do you agree with me then that it must be a gravitational pull that causes the switch between the cooling (more sunspots) and warming (less sunspots) phase of the sun?

  48. Winston says:

    Sorry, “ignorant politician” was redundant.

  49. albertalad says:

    One will never read this in the MSM which is why WUWT is the go to site to understand real science in action world wide. Brilliant report, devastating for the global warming apocalypse side. Which I shall be using for years to come. It is that astonishing to read so much information and knowledge in one report. Thank you Dr. Daniel B. Botkin, and thank you WUWT.

  50. Eliza says:

    All the scientist there were wrong. There is no global warming no, not even natural to date within a 300 year time frame anyway. None of the reliable measurements show this neither CET and Armagh Surface (reliable rural only) or current RSS and AMSU. All the rest are adjusted trash data(GISS, HADCRUT etc.). affected by UHI and Mann handling. If I was testifying my first statement would be the opposite to that made ie “First let me say right upfront that I do not believe that there is any significant warming occurring probably since 1640.” LOL

  51. Winston says:

    “I think it is because there is just too much money riding on the “clean green” machine, i.e. “non fossil fuels” , in fact our pension money is probably even (still) on it.”

    That and this:

    “The global market for carbon credits could reach €2 trillion by 2020 ($3.2 trillion U.S. dollars) from about €46 billion ($72 billion) this year (2012), and it is all, quite literally, based upon nothing but hot air.

    Everything about Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credit Trading is virtual, non-existent, and imaginary, except the billions of dollars to be made from the trades. That is very real and explains why there is a stampede amongst the greedy financiers to get a piece of the action.”

    The Possibility of Carbon-Trading Fraud Elbows Into Senate Climate Debate

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/25/25climatewire-the-possibility-of-carbon-trading-fraud-elbo-90802.html?pagewanted=all

  52. HenryP says:

    sparks says
    Think TSI and then think x-ray and UV, higher and more powerful energies react by producing increased levels of lesser energies such as inferred, It’s not accounted for in any solar/budget I have ever looked at

    henry says
    you are close to figuring things out but I think you have the mechanism wrong:
    more UV-C means more ozone and peroxides and nitrogenous oxides being formed TOA.
    This is a defence system that earth has to prevent UV-C reaching the bottom (of earth) or else we would all die.
    More ozone & others TOA means more of the incoming normal light deflected to space…..
    Hence the paradox: a hotter sun causes a cooler earth and vice versa.

  53. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    Was that Joseph P. Kennedy? The same who came up with the idea: ‘I believe this country was founded on a simple idea: that every person deserves to be treated fairly, by each other and by their government’?

  54. Gary Pearse says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    May 31, 2014 at 8:59 am

    “Whilst I agree with Dr. Botkin on the odd point, I can’t help but think that he was merely performing in a pantomime:”

    Jimmy, what qualifications do you have that allows you to disagree on most of his points? The trouble with the cheering section is they are obliged to rely only what they are told and their education tells them who they must listen to. Education these days is designed to make it unnecessary to think – a greats stride in easing the burden of scholarship by handing you the ‘correct’ points of view to adopt (I suppose this is truly the politically correct ones) .

    Skeptics have had essentially the same sorry education but have retained enough individualism and healthy doubt about aspects of what they were told or taught that they are harder to co-opt into the ‘rightfully thinking’ consensus. Before you answer from your approved list of rejoinders, let me try to give you thought experiment to stave your rejoinder off: imagine in modern day Medieval times disagreeing with the main or even small points of accepted science or even politics of the day (only secretly to yourself, of course because the Med. consensus had ways to silence you quickly), what are the chances that you would actually be correct (its another thing to offer alternatives)? They would be very high that scientists and politicians of the day were wrong. In the 19th Century, scientists like Kelvin opined (in 1900) that physics was finished except for refined measurement. He said there were two issues (to which the first part of his statement relegates to minor details) – inability to detect the luminous “ether”, and the “ultraviolet catastrophe”. It must have been near impossible in those heady days (a lot like the 1990s climate science era) for a skeptic to disagree, but Planck in the same 1900 solved the ultraviolet catastrophe with is black body radiation theory which introduced quantum theory. A mere 5 years later, Einstein not only finished off the luminous ether “problem”, but he finished off some of the biggest ticket items classical physics as well. Jim, it’s admittedly hard, lonely work going about disagreeing with the consensus in any age (each believing itself to be the modern age) and there is a certain attraction for a book of Psalms on the science to obviate this hard work. However, the world you enjoy today and will tomorrow would not be possible without us unpleasant trouble makers. How about a fresh considered reply?

  55. Peter Taylor says:

    As an ecologist trying to talk to other ecologists, this text will be of immense value – I will study it carefully…most ecologists have simply swallowed the general ‘consensus’ about model predictions especially in relation to biodiversity, ignoring their own experience of slow change and adaptation.

  56. Dr. Botkin did a fine job of briefing the Congress that would have been improved had he disambiguated the words “prediction” and “forecast.” In the literature of climatology, each word is polysemic.

  57. lsvalgaard says:

    NikFromNYC says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:37 am
    The blurry graph of a solar irradiance correlation is a surprising resurrection of one that Art Robinson was criticized for since recent data was cut off after 2000 when the correlation evidently broke down….Here it is not cut off and the reference is Soon & Legates 2013:
    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf

    Uses the TSI reconstruction by Hoyt & Schatten, which has long been out-of-date and was dubious from the beginning.

  58. Sparks says:

    HenryP says:
    May 31, 2014 at 11:13 am

    “did you see from those pictures that you showed me of the planet configuration and sunspots that in a few years time the balance of the weight of the planets will be more to the one side? Do you agree with me then that it must be a gravitational pull that causes the switch between the cooling (more sunspots) and warming (less sunspots) phase of the sun?”

    I’ve read your comments Henry, I think it’s more of a basic interaction regarding planetary magnetic field polarity interaction with our local star, I’m not convinced with the role of gravity although it is a fact gravitational tidal effects do take place, they seem minor and sometimes an after effect, if that makes any sense! maybe there is a mutual connection. I enjoy the subject.

    The Climate nutters usually bombard our solar thread on WUWT so I hope Anthony doesn’t mind us solar nutters bombing this thread. :)

  59. This event will not make it into this Kennedy’s bio in any form at any time without major edits/deletions.
    Sitting in his retirment center, looking back on his life and the things he did, he will have to deal with the fact of being made the fool by an old man with wisdom. He can pay others to edit the truth out of the history, he can delete it from the family disscussions at Christmas dinner, but it will be attacted to his soul now and forever. Might be he will never understand honor or truth, but it is now in the real history.

  60. Jeff D. says:

    Boy is he gonna be off the White House Christmas Card list this year.

    I do enjoy seeing hard cold reasoning focused so well on this pile excrement. Thanks Professor.

  61. Jake J says:

    Someone needs to proofread the posting. The copy-editing is all over the place.

  62. policycritic says:

    Dan Botkin NY Nightly News. WNBC interview with ecologist Dr. Daniel B. Botkin.

  63. schmoe1nose says:

    i synchronized the questioning by Joe Kennedy with “Have a Cigar” by Pink Floyd. its amazing.Joe Kennedy is still a tool.

  64. shano says:

    “Dr. do you look both ways before crossing the street?”
    Answer: As I approach the intersection I notice that oncoming traffic is moving at the same pace as grass grows. So I simply make adjustments to my stride to avoid any inconvienience. There’s no need to build a multi billion dollar crosswalk. That way I have plenty of mon ey left to tackle the 9 real problems we face.

  65. Brute says:

    It’s evident that there is an internal struggle among climate scientists.

    On the one hand, it is normal and to be expected (it is one of the health signs of any field of inquiry).

    On the other hand, it is a response to the political maneuvering of some of its members. This last point is reflected in the evolution of the IPCC reports. Without internal clashing forces, these reports would only have become more and more irrational.

    It’s clear many are fighting the good fight, that is, they are fighting for science and, in particular, for climatology to survive the crisis of delusional hysteria it is currently deep in.

  66. TimO says:

    Great stuff, but the Congresscritters eyes probably glazed over. You can’t pry money out of the taxpayer’s wallets if you dont have a sexy immediate deadly emergency to solve…

  67. HenryP says:

    sparks
    I’m not convinced with the role of gravity although it is a fact gravitational tidal effects do take place,

    henry
    ok
    you are still sitting on the fence there
    I still hope my planets will come in time (around 2015-2016) as otherwise we will all freeze up here;
    the implication of my theory would be that a catastrophe with -or on – another planet will not go unnoticed on earth…..

    what about my comment here?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/#comment-1650730

  68. gregole says:

    Two thumbs up! And I agree with previous comments scoring this as among the best posts at WUWT. Details and data. What we know. What we don’t know. How we know it. The How we know it part is particularly interesting, at least to me. If a given polar bear population, for example, is allegedly at risk from Man-Made CO2 caused Global Warming – ask the question “How do we know it?” From his point 14. above:

    “For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.
    In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation.1″

    My bold. Indeed. How do we know it (polar bear population decline). Actually, we know very little if this is our source of information on polar bear population. But hey, it’s (very) easy to just imagine what would happen to the poor, poor, polar bears if all their ice was melted by Man-Made CO2 so photoshop a bear stranded on a tiny ice chunk surrounded by a visually seemingly infinite empty ocean. Poor lonely abandoned bear. Mankind bad. CO2 bad. Yes, I realize this imagery is infantile, not to mention idiotic, but that is what real scientists are up against. And this crap is all over the media – polar bears falling from the skies, soda pop commercials featuring cute polar bear mascots, all threatened by Mankind and his CO2. It is myth. And as such, is powerful because powerful images can be formed from them; images that speak to us on a deep pre-rational level. But until someone can show me the data, and how it was generated, it’s all just conjecture; perhaps even reasonable conjecture, but not fact, not truth. That conjecture is by some people magically transformed into myth is not surprising – but making conjecture into myth doesn’t make the conjecture true. Doesn’t matter how “sciency” it sounds.

    Dr. Daniel B. Botkin clearly has a professional interest in Man-Made Global Warming and that he stays true to the scientific method, maintains his honesty and integrity in what must be a horribly poisonous professional environment is further to his credit.

  69. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    Well stated and well reasoned. Dr. Botkin seems obviously an environmentalist, the real kind, not an alarmist. He also seems deeply concerned about human caused global warming, but he sees it as a very low current priority. I also agree with his assertions that we have to take the morals and politics out of it. We need honesty, of course, but calling someone bad, or simply calling them bad names, because the disagree must stop. We need truth, not consensus.

  70. Sparks says:

    HenryP says:
    May 31, 2014 at 11:33 am

    “…more UV-C means more ozone and peroxides and nitrogenous oxides being formed TOA.

    More ozone & others TOA means more of the incoming normal light deflected to space…..
    Hence the paradox: a hotter sun causes a cooler earth and vice versa.”

    Oh you mean the sun interacts with our planets atmosphere at the magnetic poles producing ozone flux, yes of course, apparently it does.

    Now Henry, I have a problem with this “hotter sun” terminology you’re using, are you suggesting that the sun is cooler when it has sunspots and hotter when no spots are present?

    Also Henry, There is no paradox, I understand what you’re saying, sunspots appear cooler but they are actually formed from faculae and this increases is the amount of energy that is apparent in sunspots

  71. Gunga Din says:

    Nice to see that not all scientist have contracted the “CO2 Flu”.

  72. Sparks says:

    Henry,

    RE: this increases is the amount of energy that is apparent in sunspots

    Meaning the rate of magnetic energy built up is the same rate as it is released, there is no hot or cold, just different amounts of energy discharge.

  73. Off the subject but more on the motion of events of facts:
    200,000,000 bbls of light crude sitting in storage near the Gulf of Mexico coast in the U.S..
    The refineries are refining the cheaper sour crude they have bought and will continue to use.
    Fracking has natural gas prices going down.
    The over supply is real, the banks can not make money trading puts and calls on the energy markets. The other tranders can not also. They will have to sell this 200,000,000 bbls soon.
    More price going down to include this above oil soon. Something has to give.
    Same with this nutter climate change fraud. It can not hold back the weight of the truth much longer. Someting is going to give.

  74. Sparks says:

    Gunga Din says:
    May 31, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Nice to see that not all scientist have contracted the “CO2 Flu”.

    Ha… ha…ha… Ah chew..! lol

  75. > seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

    I assume he means “Biodiversity – Status and Trends of Polar Bears” (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report11/biodiv_polar_bears.html). Which states “The status of polar bear populations has been assessed at both national (5 national assessments) and international level, and 7 of 19 of the World’s polar bear sub-populations are found to declining in number, with trends in two linked to reductions in sea ice.”

    How does B turn that into the report saying the decline is an illusion?

    > Daniel B. Botkin is a “climate scientist” who looks to be a real scientist.

    No he isn’t. As he says himself, he’s an emeritus ecologist. Which makes the way he goes on about the climatology rather odd; you’d expect him to focus his criticism on the ecology.

  76. Jeff L says:

    Kudos to Dr. Botkin !
    Spoken like a true scientist , vs a political alarmist ! Hopefully this will give other scientists the guts to do science w/o political influence. This is the essence of the skeptical position – science w/o politics

  77. Claude Harvey says:

    Think back to the time when WUWT was just beginning its long trek toward the skeptical gathering place it is now. Think how enraged we all were that factual evidence against AGW theory was almost never making its way into either the popular news media or the legislative process.

    Then consider the situation today. WUWT regularly scores high marks for popularity and influence, Congregational testimony such as Botkin’s has become commonplace (not to diminish his stellar job in that regard) and Mother Nature has sided decisively with the skeptics. As a result, AGW proponents have in desperation thrown caution to the winds and resorted to propaganda so blatant that even the New York Times begins to question.

    When John Kerry asked in effect, “Even if we’re wrong, what’s the harm?”, you could plainly hear “the fat lady singing”. Although our President seems deaf to the fat lady’s rendition, I think the folks who count over the long haul can hear her very clearly.

    CH

  78. gregjxn says:

    In the category of things to say that you think of too late: When asked if he looks both ways before crossing the street, Dr Botkin might have said, “Yes, but I don’t stay home and hide under the bed”.

  79. RACookPE1978 says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    Of the 17,000 Wikipedia entries that you deleted and destroyed, which 3 of your edits were correct?
    /sarcasm (There were actually 4 correct edits.)

  80. george e. smith says:

    Was it his bootlegger Grandfather who is his namesake; or am I off by a generation ??. They do seem to have no end to the Kennedys of Massachusetts. I wonder if he can sing while drunk, like the late departed Sen. Ted. But I hope for his continued good health, that he himself does look both ways.

  81. RACookPE1978 says:

    To answer the question about the (false and misleading) polar references made by B. Connolley above….

    Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/scientists-admit-polar-bear-numbers-were-made-up-to-satisfy-public-demand/#ixzz33KMlkmRP

    This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.

    Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

    Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other subpopulation estimates.

    PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.

    “Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG ‘global population estimate,’” Crockford wrote on her blog.

    “These are guesses, to be sure, but they at least give a potential size,” Crockford added.

    PBSG disclosed this information to Crockford ahead of the release of their Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan in which they intend to put a footnote explaining why their global population estimate is flawed.

    “As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says in its proposed footnote. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

    Notice that Connolley’s false rebuttals are a bit more difficult in situations where “HE” is not the editor nor the “eraser” nor the ultimate “decider-of-facts” …

  82. george e. smith says:

    I must say, that I was disappointed that the good Dr. B still thinks it is worth monitoring CO2.

    What’s the point, when it doesn’t seem to have any connection to either weather or climate.

    And since it is well mixed in the atmosphere; or that is what they claim, why measure it anywhere else but ML. Seems like a waste of resources, and a duplication of effort to measure it all over the place. Same as sea level. If it’s “level” you only need one point to measure it; and what could be more level (gravitationally), than the sea.

  83. Tonyb says:

    Jim hunt

    The official line from the met office is very much the Hockey stick version of the last thousand years. Climate stability until man apparently messed things up in the last hundred years

    Tonyb

  84. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: Gary Pearse says: May 31, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Well Gary, it was many moons ago now but I have studied physics and once upon a time I did have a paper or two published in peer reviewed academic journals. Does that count?

    For a stale considered reply please see my original link. To summarise:

    “How could we possibly come to a consensus? It’s been obvious for a long time… We are more and more sure about the obvious.”

  85. ossqss says:

    That was outstanding. Bravo!

  86. Sparks says:

    Ignore William Connolley’s comment he’s being censored. lol

  87. Adam Gallon says:

    A real scientist has spoken.
    Let’s see how the fake ones respond.

  88. HenryP says:

    sparks
    Henry, I have a problem with this “hotter sun” terminology you’re using, are you suggesting that the sun is cooler when it has sunspots and hotter when no spots are present?

    henry
    Sorry, yes. However, the sun looks definitely brighter now to me, with less sun spots, whether it is hotter now I cannot say. It feels hotter to me?
    It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening, more energetic particles (esp. UV-C) are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA (earth).

    http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png

    In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).

  89. philincalifornia says:

    As an aside, early in the video, Oppenheimer says “Very hot days. Those have definitely increased. We are sure about that”. What’s he talking about – global, US ? Anyone have a link to the data he’s “sure about” ?

  90. R J Randolph says:

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.

    REPLY: While you are at it, please go demand the same things of Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Michael Mann, neither of whom have a “PhD in climate science”.

    James Hansen Education:
    BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
    MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
    Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
    Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967

    Source: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansencv_201308.pdf

    Michael Mann education:

    Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.

    Source: http://ploneprod.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

    I look forward to you demanding this, we’ll be happy to publish your correspondence here – Anthony

  91. Latitude says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    , and 7 of 19 of the World’s polar bear sub-populations are found to declining in number, with trends in two linked to reductions in sea ice.”
    ====
    get a grip Billy….
    Those same two are not in danger from too much ice….
    They made a bad choice choosing to live where they do

  92. Jim Hunt says:

    @Phil – How about this bit from para E.1 of the IPCC WG I Summary for Policymakers:

    “It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase.”

    See: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

  93. ‘Doctor, do you look both ways before you cross the street?’ ”

    A possible answer:
    “Yes. I look more than ‘both ways.’ As a scientist, I look left, right, up, down, forward, backward, upside down, inside-out and top to bottom. As a surviving scientist in this day and age, I’ve also learned to ‘Check Six.’
    It is with my experience and perception that I conclude that anyone who holds either the IPCC AR5 SRP or the 2014 National Climate Assessment in high regard predominantly [LOOKS TO THE LEFT]. There is no other explanation for why they do not see counter evidence and uncertainty directly in front of them.”

  94. Sparks says:

    HenryP says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    You need to work on your terminology a bit, solar minimum should have a cooling effect when considering energy output, at solar maximum there is a huge increase in x-ray and UV. This cycle shows that overall intensity of x-ray and UV is lower compared to previous solar cycles. Earths temperature at the moment is a bit of funny business, so I don’t know.

  95. A minor edit to my 2:57 pm above:
    ….conclude that anyone who holds either the IPCC AR5 SRP or the 2014 National Climate Assessment in high regard predominantly LOOKS TO THE LEFT.

  96. PRD says:

    So. The White(wash) House ClimAte Change Assesment is CACA?

    Whodathunkit?

  97. HenryP says:

    Sparks
    This cycle shows that overall intensity of x-ray and UV is lower compared to previous solar cycles.

    henry@sparks
    True, when you measure at sea level. So where do you measure, at TOA or at sea level?
    You must be able to predict what this graph
    http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
    will look like for the next 46 years?

    ozone is increasing since 1995, exactly when we crossed from plus (warming) to minus (cooling), looking at energy coming through the atmosphere (maximum temps.)

    Earth’s temp. is currently cooling

    e.g.
    see here
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    lower fieldstrength of the sun appears to allow more particles of the most energetic type (UV-C, mostly) to escape. Dead stop expected to be reached in 2015-2016, for field strengths to become stronger again. Perhaps we will see another pole reversal?

  98. Resourceguy says:

    Excellent!

  99. Steve Lohr says:

    Dr. Botkin knows well how to grade a paper. Thank you WUWT for presenting the testimony. Excellent!

  100. Chad Wozniak says:

    An important contribution to sanity in the climate debate, and one that will be very difficult for the criminal reactionary leftist AGW bullies to challenge.

    Alec Rawls – I agree that the CRL-AGW element is firmly lodged in our institutions of lower learning, but there may be hope in one aspect: when enough graduates incur huge debts and then come out of these institutions and find themselves unemployable, there will certainly be a backlash. The increasing waste of university resources on majors like “intergender studies” can only go on for so long before graduates start suing their institutions for ill-advising them to pursue such useless stuff. I think that might draw attention to the failures in the hard sciences which are certainly underlying the global warming meme.

    I do suppose it’s too much to hope for, that these malefactors can simply be swept out of the system.

  101. Jimbo says:

    17. THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

    One thing I will bet my last dollar on is this: A 2C rise this century is not a disaster.

    PS Green turtles “are one of the few species so ancient that they watched the dinosaurs evolve and become extinct.” [NatGeo], yet we are told by Attenborough that they are at risk from global warming! They must have gone extinct during during the PETM, they are no more, we are only seeing green Ninja ghost turtles.

    http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/green-turtle/
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/432.short

  102. Jimbo says:

    19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible.

    Sometimes we only think they are extinct. See Lazarus taxon.

    “Top 10 Species Rediscovered This Century”
    http://listverse.com/2012/01/17/top-10-species-rediscovered-this-century/

    Will ‘severe’ global warming be an absolute catastrophe for life on Earth? The past might give us a few clues.

    Abstract
    Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
    Kathy J. Willis et al
    4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
    How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 °C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
    DOI: 10.1080/14772000903495833
    ======================
    Abstract
    Carlos Jaramillo et. al – Science – 12 November 2010
    Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
    Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1193833
    —————-

    Abstract
    Carlos Jaramillo & Andrés Cárdenas – Annual Reviews – May 2013
    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
    Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective

    There is concern over the future of the tropical rainforest (TRF) in the face of global warming. Will TRFs collapse? The fossil record can inform us about that. Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene. We analyzed the paleobotanical record of South America during the Paleogene and found that the TRF did not expand toward temperate latitudes during global warm events, even though temperatures were appropriate for doing so, suggesting that solar insolation can be a constraint on the distribution of the tropical biome. Rather, a novel biome, adapted to temperate latitudes with warm winters, developed south of the tropical zone. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403
    —————-

    Abstract
    PNAS – David R. Vieites – 2007
    Rapid diversification and dispersal during periods of global warming by plethodontid salamanders
    …Salamanders underwent rapid episodes of diversification and dispersal that coincided with major global warming events during the late Cretaceous and again during the Paleocene–Eocene thermal optimum. The major clades of plethodontids were established during these episodes, contemporaneously with similar phenomena in angiosperms, arthropods, birds, and mammals. Periods of global warming may have promoted diversification and both inter- and transcontinental dispersal in northern hemisphere salamanders…
    —————-

    Abstract
    ZHAO Yu-long et al – Advances in Earth Science – 2007
    The impacts of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)event on earth surface cycles and its trigger mechanism
    The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event is an abrupt climate change event that occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The event led to a sudden reversal in ocean overturning along with an abrupt rise in sea surface salinity (SSSs) and atmospheric humidity. An unusual proliferation of biodiversity and productivity during the PETM is indicative of massive fertility increasing in both oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. Global warming enabled the dispersal of low-latitude populations into mid-and high-latitude. Biological evolution also exhibited a dramatic pulse of change, including the first appearance of many important groups of ” modern” mammals (such as primates, artiodactyls, and perissodactyls) and the mass extinction of benlhic foraminifera…..
    22(4) 341-349 DOI: ISSN: 1001-8166 CN: 62-1091/P

  103. Jimbo says:

    And here is some more fly in their ointments – new species are being discovered all the time. Whooopeeee. Even the alarmists at the Guardian says so.
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/series/new-to-nature+world/animals

  104. Yirgach says:

    Legal 101: Always answer a questions with a question.
    Doctor, do you look both ways before you cross the street?’
    Answer: I don’t know, do you?
    Next question please.

  105. kcrucible says:

    “I must say, that I was disappointed that the good Dr. B still thinks it is worth monitoring CO2.
    What’s the point, when it doesn’t seem to have any connection to either weather or climate.”

    Because that’s actually science. People can monitor, compare/contrast with various factors and maybe come up with interesting ideas to study specifically. That it seems irrelevant to global temperatures doesn’t mean that no one should bother keeping an eye on it, it just means we shouldn’t trash the world economy to “do something about it.”

  106. Harold says:

    Aside from that do you see anything wrong with AR5?

  107. NikFromNYC says:

    R J Randolf protested: “Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.”

    To round out Tony’s list:

    James Hansen: astronomer
    Michael Mann: mathematician/geologist
    Phil Jones: hydrologist
    Peter Gleick: hydrologist
    Stefan Rahmstorf: oceanographer
    Al Gore: divinity major
    Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
    Rajendra Pachauri: railroad engineer
    Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
    David Suzuki: geneticist
    Paul Nurse: geneticist
    Eric Steig: geologist
    John Cook: bachelor of physics
    Bill McKibben: journalist
    Joe Romn: physicist
    John Holdren: plasma physicist
    Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physics
    Dana Nuccitelli: masters degree in physics
    Antony Watts: meteorologist

    Only the last has a degree related to computer modeling of the atmosphere upon which all alarm is based, and he has indeed published in peer review.

    As far as the fringe goes, I only see a few people here sporting doomsday sandwich boards based on supercomputer model amplification of the old school greenhouse effect, long after such models have been bluntly falsified. Given that traffic to this blog utterly dwarfs that of the hockey stick team site RealClimate.org by a factor of 13, which is site-registered to the same notorious PR firm that was behind both the silicone breast implant scare that bankrupted Dow Corning who merely made the silicone, and the promotion of the junk science claims behind the autism/vaccine scare that has sickened thousands of kids, I’m afraid “fringe element” is now on your side, RJ, as you follow the scare propaganda posted by Fenton Communication’s Environmental Media Services web site.

  108. William The Con’,

    You make much bad medicine, or you took your own medicine with no prescription. Your persons of intrest such as Micke Mann would not have found a good place in the tribes at the time of the Clovis Point. Took lots of common thinking, took lots of actual work in the trade, took lots of test and trial, took many changes to test the theory of the points usefulness, took more that snake talk, took more than pork kick back to an elected tribe member of a clan in power.
    Easy the finger fight herein upon someone elses paid for platform, still yet you fail to see yourself as you are the brunt of your own misplaced jokes on your own limping /staggering blubbering.

    You are with a knowing doing a long, long trail of a fool which for 1,000′s of years all that see to see.

  109. DirkH says:

    Sparks says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:58 pm
    “You need to work on your terminology a bit, solar minimum should have a cooling effect when considering energy output, at solar maximum there is a huge increase in x-ray and UV. This cycle shows that overall intensity of x-ray and UV is lower compared to previous solar cycles. Earths temperature at the moment is a bit of funny business, so I don’t know.”

    See here from 26:00 on about influence of UV variation

    context, linking to the video above:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/prof-vincent-courtillot-speaks-with-clarity/

  110. NikFromNYC says:

    Note from James Hansen’s resume posted above that similarly ironic to how Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones now uses a Saudi Arabian university as his official attribution in his latest papers, that Hansen is now located not above Tom’s Diner any more but in the Interchurch Building here in the Columbia University area. Divinity major, tobacco farmer and now half *billion* dollar oil kingdom profiteer Al Gore would fit right in there too, hanging out with mere multi-millionaire Hansen, a lowly Venus specialist whose NASA mission was cancelled.

    “The Interchurch Center is a 19-story building which houses offices and agencies of various religions, and of ecumenical and interreligious organizations.”

    In 2009, two weeks before Climategate, Global Warming was even declared to have the same belief protections as religions, in Britain:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

    -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  111. Jimbo says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:09 pm
    ………….
    > Daniel B. Botkin is a “climate scientist” who looks to be a real scientist.

    No he isn’t. As he says himself, he’s an emeritus ecologist. Which makes the way he goes on about the climatology rather odd; you’d expect him to focus his criticism on the ecology.

    So what are you doing here since you are not a climate scientist?

    Can I also dismiss the astrophysicist Dr. James Hansen from talking about Earth’s climate?

    Look deep into the IPCC and you will find Greenpeace and the WWF. Why are they there? 2035 Himalayan melt is the result.

  112. Jimbo says:

    R J Randolph says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.

    I hope the rebuttals from our host and Nick have put you right. Look into the IPCC and you will find may kinds of scientists there. Should they be removed? I have come accross your lame argument time and again. And time and again it is rebutted by referring people like you to Dr. James Hansen et al. None of whom are climate scientists! Think again before using that line of argument. It is lame.

  113. mem says:

    For those of you in America that are concerned about the lack of (or bias) of media coverage relating to climate science don’t worry anymore because in the near future this will be addressed. America like Australia (Japan and UK) will have its own independent Science Media Centre with a panel of experts to interpret scientific news and supply briefings and even quotes to journalists and policy bodies. It will remove much if not all the controversy of a warming planet and provide a level of independent that can be relied on.
    In reality, as opposed to the model, in Australia (and I would maintain in the other countries) this body operates as a climate propaganda unit by filtering and re-interpreting science. It spoon feeds lazy journalists with leftist interpretations and criticises anything that doesn’t fit the UN /warmist agenda. I have noticed that in recent times it has been less active, perhaps as a consequence of the change in our federal government. (Note it is located in South Australia where the left remains in power and the State Premier chairs the Board). I would strongly recommend that scientists and policy makers in the US that do not want to see scientific debate controlled or the release of scientific material filtered take a much stronger interest in the establishment of this body. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Beware.
    Science Media Centre of the United States here http://www.sciencemediacenter.org/usa/
    Science Media Centre Australia http://www.smc.org.au/2014/04/rapid-reaction-government-releases-white-paper-on-direct-action-expert-responds/

  114. Jean Parisot says:

    Ouch, I know somebody who isn’t getting invited to good cocktail parties anymore.

  115. Jimbo says:

    R J Randolph says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.

    Here are some authors from the IPCC AR5 who don’t have a PHD in ‘climate science’. I can spend the next one hour getting you a fuller list, but I have better things to do with my time. The list is just to illustrate the error of your thinking.

    IPCC AR5
    http://ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg1-ar5-authors.pdf
    Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
    Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
    Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors
    • Ian ALLISON (Ph.D., Meteorology)
    • Georg Kaser, Dr, (Glaciologist)
    • Tingjun Zhang. (Ph.D. Geophysics)
    • Olga SOLOMINA (Ph.D., Hydrology)
    • Dean ROEMMICH (Ph.D., Oceanography)
    • Don CHAMBERS (Ph.D. Physical Oceanography)
    • Richard A. Feely, (Ph.D. Chemical Oceanography)
    • Sergey GULEV (Ph.D., Oceanography)

  116. James Ard says:

    The Kennedys surely understand honor and truth, they just don’t care to abide by them. Doubtful Joe will have any regrets about his loutishness, most likely he’ll pat himself on the back for disassembling so hard for the team.

  117. Jimbo says:

    R J Randolph, here is something for some of your frightened friends. We are not going to roast.

    Sir John Houghton
    Atmospheric physicist
    Lead editor of first three IPCC reports
    There is no possibility of such runaway greenhouse conditions occurring on the Earth.”
    [Full paper paywalled]
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/68/6/R02

  118. philjourdan says:

    He should have answered Joe’s snark with a question of his own. Does he have a food tester? After all, you never know when food can poison you.

  119. philincalifornia says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    @Phil – How about this bit from para E.1 of the IPCC WG I Summary for Policymakers:

    “It is virtually certain that there will be more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes over most land areas on daily and seasonal timescales as global mean temperatures increase.”

    See: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
    ————————————————————————

    Yeah, thanks. I suspected it might be that, but that’s not what he said, of course. He said that very hot days have “definitely increased”. So I’m wondering if he just pulled it out of his rear end, or if there may actually be some data from the past (up to the present?) and not the usual “science” bullsh!t that only exists in the future (and then doesn’t when you get there, e.g. Arctic ice being gone in x years).

    Come on Jimbo ? Hot days increasing data ? Global, US, Michael Oppenheimer’s patio ?

  120. Go Whitecaps!! says:

    Re: James Ard

    Joe Jr died in a secret mission he did not have to be in.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Jr.

  121. F. Ross says:

    R J Randolph says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take (sic) seriously by anything other that (sic) fringe elements.

    So, Mr/Ms/Mrs./Miss Randolph you are not in direct disagreement with Dr. Botkin’s findings; you just will not consider them because his field of specialization does not meet your high standards. That about right?

    You don’t have to be a fireman to tell someone his house is on fire.

  122. Jeff Alberts says:

    henry says
    This is a defence system that earth has to prevent UV-C reaching the bottom (of earth) or else we would all die.

    Backwards. We evolved based on the conditions. The conditions weren’t put in place to “protect” us.

  123. Aphan says:

    Pat….Pat….Pat…
    I choked when I read your post and cannot stop chuckling.

  124. noaaprogrammer says:

    Joe Kennedy: Dr. Botkins, do you look both ways before crossing the street?
    Dr. Botkins: Not if it’s a one-way street!

  125. Chris4692 says:

    R J Randolph says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.

    You can’t find anything wrong with what he says, then?

  126. Gary Pearse says:

    Kennedy only looks left and is unaware of right.

  127. Watch next how Botkin will be delegitimized, marginalized and framed as “outside the scientific mainstream”.

  128. lee says:

    Re William Connolley- You guys should leave him alone.

    He may have good point.

    Perhaps he can expand on how to determine a trend from a single data point?

  129. Frank in Scarsdale says:

    A great critique of the current state of climate alarmism. Thanks for posting.

    Hey, we all wish we could go back in time after a heated conversation and make a better point, a more witty comeback. Here’s what mine would look like responding to the “Do you wear a seatbelt? question, if I had been Dr. Botkin. “Do you wear a seatbelt, Dr. Botkin”

    “Yes, congressman. For a number of reasons. 1) Because it’s the law. I follow the law. 2) Because we know from real life evidence that car crashes are, in fact, dangerous. 3) Because we know fastening a seatbelt actually works. 4) Because it is so simple and easy to do. 5) Because there’s no downside risk. Nothing bad will happen to me because I take this precaution.

    I have just listed five reasons why I buckle my seatbelt. Your analogy “should we mitigate climate change” fails to meet ANY of those five reasons. (i.e., 1) It’s not mandated (thank goodness). 2) We have no good reason to believe that climate change is dangerous. All predictions have been wrong. 3) We have no reason to believe we could actually prevent climate change. In fact, the notion is frankly silly. 4) The solutions are complex, arduous and not worth the trouble. 5) The prescribed cure is worse than the alleged disease – it would damage our economy and standard of living.

    The fact that you equate putting on a seatbelt with “mitigating climate change” shows that your understanding of this issue is a shaky as your metaphors. A better analogy would be “Do you wear a helmet when you drive, keep it under 20 miles per hour on the highway, and chant magic spells because some people say there are invisible leprechauns coming to crash your car?”

    In the case of this more appropriate question… my answer is, ‘No. Do you?”

  130. ATheoK says:

    “grumpyoldmanuk says: May 31, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Prof. Botkin has produced a testimony that can be read and understood by an average 14 -year – old (so he obviously knew his audience). There’s hardly a word wasted, and the whole has a clarity which is often sorely missing in Climate Science. No doubt the Thermageddonites will be after him for daring to tell the truth about their nice little earner.”

    Grumpy in UK; excellent summary! Plus it explains Rep. Kennedy’s lack of understanding so well…

    Rep. Kennedy plays the subtle questioning hand by first asking a semi-intelligent question of a warmist who glories in CAGW disaster predictions. Then Rep. Kennedy slams Dr. Botkin with a complex looney traffic caution based question and demands a yes/no answer.

    Well done Rep. Kennedy! Talk about stupid; surely even a rich spoiled lout can understand that the caution response he is looking for is a caution paradox when it is based on theory without proof.

    Climate, blame CO2; reverse civilization progress and prohibit CO2 generation until mankind returns to primitive splendor. That is the caution paradox so desired by warmists!

    Look both ways; implies being careful before crossing the street. Apply the same CO2 caution paradox logic and a person would never cross the street; they might never get out of bed again. Ooh, fear the changes, fear the…

    An excellent presentation Dr. Botkin!

  131. ImranCan says:

    Its a shame he didn’t reply to that stupid question by saying “a more intelligent question would be, would I wear a seatbelt if it cost me 100 dollars every time I buckled in ?”

  132. Not sure If this video has ever been posted on WUWT. Forgive me if it has been, but Don Easterbrook gave testimony in WA state which brings up a lot of the same points. I think he gave a very commendable presentation, based on data, to these WA state politicians:

  133. Sceptical Sam says:

    Joe Kennedy: Dr. Botkins, do you look both ways before crossing the street?

    Dr Botkin: Yes I do Senator. Every time I look to the left I see a band-wagon.

    I also do it whenever I’m crossing a railway line. Only then, when I look to the left, I invariably see a gravy train.

  134. philincalifornia says:

    ……. or – “Excuse me, am I in the right room ? I came to answer questions on purported anthropogenic climate change, not to be in a road safety quiz.”

  135. norah4you says:

    While it’s good that Botkin dismantles the IPCC, for all that it’s worth,
    on the same time he of all show that Theories of Science isn’t among the best known theories in the science called “Ecology”.

    That’s sad. Being one of the few in this world who lived with Theories of Science in Ecology studies since my own childhoow, that show the difference between the old experts no matter title. back in the 50′s the Ecology-experts didn’t use to work or do their studies at Universities.)
    I myself participated in my first air-/water study as an assistent to my own father who collected data for studies up to mid 80′s. I know first hand that it’s impossible to use satellit data meassuring reflexion instead of correct temperatures 1 m resp 3 m and so on over and under “waterlevel”. Long before I myself was one of those who brought Human ecology up on the table here in Sweden, in 1970′s, I also learnt that one chemical sample taken from a point A could and usally always show other figures than an example taken 100 meters from the first testing point. Same goes for temperatures. Facts, not fiction, regarding figures for for example Temperatures around the world is more complex question than been discussed up to now. Not even in this wonderful blog where most but not all been discussed.

    Being a IT-specialist from 1971 (System programmer June 1971) studying not only Theories of Science, Statistic, Mathematic, Geology and a lot other subjects I had to check correct levels for waterlevels in Oceans from Stone Age up to year 1000 AD to reach as correct historic levels in the Baltic Sea on the coast of Ostergotland (Sweden) It took 43 parameters all from landrise speed to sea streams in Ocean, all from ph-levels found on land and in sediment from archaeologic excavations on land and in sea, all from erosion to movement in techtonic plates, all from suneruptions to temperatures that show correct values for facts found during biologic analyse to be needed for flora and fauna found in spots around the Arctic to be growing in period A to Z. And so on. None of all so called studies presented by alarmist have enoung parameters nor reaching acceptable levels in computer analyse skill. Sad to say but up to now I haven’t found one presented study by anyone of them that should have passed back in 70′s. Theories of Science and soundness in usage of so called facts are lacking. More and more.
    Facts not corrected fiction values are needed for a study or presentation to “hold water”

  136. Sleepalot says:

    “Doctor, do you look both ways before you cross the street?’
    That could be a threat.

  137. Chris says:

    “Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues.”

    Can someone point me to the web site for The Center for The Study of the Environment? I can’t find it, only his personal web site.

  138. M Simon says:

    Winston says:
    May 31, 2014 at 11:18 am

    There are other large scale green scams going on.

    http://classicalvalues.com/2014/05/an-auto-you-cant-refuse/

  139. HenryP says:

    Jeff alberts says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/#comment-1651045
    henry says
    that would be the position of those not believing in intelligent design
    however, most here are aware that I do believe in intelligent design?
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/

  140. sinewave says:

    Since Botkin’s testimony was before Congress, it’s perfectly valid to use as a reference in scholarly publications. Could come in handy….

  141. Farmer Gez says:

    You would have to have legal training to be that ignorant. The Kennedy dynasty is not in safe hands.

  142. Cal65 says:

    There’s too much money and power involved to allow Dr. Botkin to influence policy.

  143. rogerknights says:

    Botkin wrote in his assessment of the NCR:
    “Important causes of the mortality of trees in western forests are: fire suppression, which promotes insect and disease outbreaks, and from introduced (invasive) insects and diseases.”

    He should have added “invasive grasses”:

    richard says:
    April 26, 2014 at 3:58 am

    adding to the chances of more fires in the US is the spread of Non-indigenous species.

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/01/environmental-and-economic-costs-associated-non-indigenous-species
    “Similarly, European cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is dramatically changing the vegetation and fauna of many natural ecosystems. This annual grass has invaded and spread throughout the shrub-steppe habitat of the Great Basin in Idaho and Utah, predisposing the invaded habitat to fires (Kurdila 1995; Vitousek et al. 1996; Vitousek et al. 1997). Before the invasion of cheatgrass, fire burned once every 60 – 110 years, and shrubs had a chance to become well established. Now, fires occur about every 3 – 5 years;”

    http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/7/677.full.pdf
    “An example of a widespread invader that has caused tremendous changes in fire regimes and other ecosystem properties is the alien annual grass Bromus tectorum in western North America. Its invasion across this vast landscape has increased fire frequency to the point that native shrub–steppe species cannot recover”

    http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/05-2-1-13_FSBrief107.pdf
    “Exotic annual grasses and weeds have increased fire risk across the western U.S. and constitute one of the greatest hazardous fuel concerns in this arid region. They out-compete the more fi re-resistant, perennial native vegetation by germinating in the fall or winter, and consuming soil moisture and nutrients early during the subsequent growing season. When they set seed and die in late spring they create a continuous carpet of dry, fine fuel that can ignite easily and carry fire rapidly. In contrast, native vegetation tends to grow in separated clumps and remains green much later into the summer, resulting in lower potential for fire spread.

  144. Leo G says:

    Who would bare the whips and scorn of AR5,
    When he himself might his Quietus make,
    With a bare Botkin.

  145. andywest2012 says:

    Despite being a regular reader here and at other climate blogs, I’ve not before come across the correlation between solar irradiance and poleward flux that Botkin puts up, which I assume is related to the (paywalled) paper below (all I could find on a quick search). Any opinions on this?
    Thanks. (apologies if this appears twice, my browser crashed).

    Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales: Willie Soon and David R. Legates, 2013.

  146. arfurhaddon says:

    I wonder if John Kerry would class Dr. Botkin as a ‘shoddy scientist’?

  147. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: Theo Goodwin says: May 31, 2014 at 9:41 am

    If the committee really wanted to hear evidence from an American expert on the IPCC process in general and working group 2 in particular surely the obvious candidate is not Richard Tol or Daniel Botkin but Chris Field? Chris is co-chair of IPCC WG II, and founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology. Here’s what he had to say to the Great British Public a fortnight ago:

    http://youtube/y6-x0JS95YM

  148. rogerknights says:

    barrybrill says:
    April 7, 2014 at 5:48 am

    The WG2 report is based on the unadjusted results of CMIP5 simulations. At the Stockholm meeting last September, WG1 decided not to accept CMIP5 outputs and replaced them with “assessed” projections of future temperatures which are about 40 percent lower.

    At that point, the well-advanced WG2 process should have been halted and recommenced on the basis of the new projections. But that didn’t happen and WG2 simply soldiered on to report on impacts of the now- discredited model outputs.

  149. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: philincalifornia says: May 31, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    Since DYOR seems to be beyond you, that SPM entry refers you to table SPM.1, which refers you to section 2.6 of the full WG I report, the whole 375 Mb of which is available from:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

    You will find lots of references to extreme temperature observations mentioned on page 208 et seq.

  150. toorightmate says:

    We should await Prince Charles’ commentary on Prof Bodkins assessment before we jump to conclusions.
    The Prince’s knowledge in these things is unsurpassed.

  151. rogerknights says:

    Oppenheimer said that as a rule of thumb on the US East Coast, every one foot of vertical rise of sea level results in a loss of 100 feet horizontally, due to submergence and erosion. I’ve read that the actual rule of thumb is that three feet are lost horizontally. I hope someone nails him on that, if he was stretching the truth.

    I wish someone would also check out his claim that there’s been an increase in notably hot days (worldwide or in the US?–it was unclear) and that temperature levels that used to be reached only 10% of the time are now reached 18% of the time. If this was for the US, then the biased US temperature record might be the cause, and the gold-standard comparison reference network might not show such an increase.

  152. Coach Springer says:

    I doubt that Congress will use this testimony to reign in the EPA and its political minders on cap and trade or anything else.

    Separately but relatedly, this subsidence thing seems to be a global problem. Stop Global Subsidence!

  153. rogerknights says:

    Here’s what Botkin should have said in response to Kennedy’s we-should-take-precautions argument:

    Anything we do to mitigate CO2 that is affordable will be ineffective; anything we do that is effective will be unaffordable (and unenforceable outside the West). Instead, we should pursue “no regrets” policies, especially:

    Promotion of Nuclear power;
    Promotion of fracking;
    Conversion of home heating from oil to natural gas;
    Conversion of the auto and light truck fleet to natural gas;
    Addition of insulation to homes and buildings.

  154. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: rogerknights says: June 1, 2014 at 6:19 am

    1. This is obviously only a personal opinion, but I rather hope someone nails Lamar Smith, if he was stretching the truth:

    http://econnexus.org/the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/#News

    2. It seems as though my helpful hints about extreme temperature records were invisible when you typed in your second paragraph?

  155. Thanks, Anthony. An excellent post, much to learn from it.
    Dr. Botkin was very good, but I fear that few who heard him, or read him, will reconsider their AGW beliefs.

  156. Theo Goodwin says:

    Field talks adaptation rather than mitigation. However, he accepts “projections” from computer models. Tol knows better and says so.

  157. Juice says:

    “Do you look both ways before crossing the street?”

    “Yes, but I don’t call City Hall and tell them to shut down all traffic in the city so that I can cross the street, which is what you’re advocating.”

  158. Jimbo says:

    R J Randolph says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.

    To recap. You have been shown an example of someone central to the modern global warming debate – Dr. James Hansen. He is not a climate scientist and he has published in the peer review.

    You have also been shown non-climate scientists with PHDs who have published in the peer review and who are authors in the IPCCs AR5.

    I now need to remind you that authors in the IPCC have said they CANNOT write the IPCC reports WITHOUT referencing GRAY LITERATURE. Also read about the Himalayan 2035 melt debacle. As you can see you are in a bit of a pickle with your attempted high-ground claim.

    Our host, Nick From NYC and I have you in a check mate. Why was it so easy to get you in a check mate? Because we have been at this CAGW [trimmed] for years. You are hardly the first to try this angle. I am also armed with oil and tobacco rebuttals, yet they keep them coming.

    IPCC insiders provided to a questionnaire distributed by an InterAcademy Council committee that investigated the IPCC in 2010.

    Inter-Academy Council

    Non-peer-reviewed literature should obviously be minimized but cannot be totally avoided. (page 2)

    …the length of the [IPCC report] was constrained, so the number of citations was constrained. Hence, reviews (including those in the “grey” literature) were strongly favored if those reviews cited the primary literature. (p. 7)

    In some fields non-peer reviewed is the way the science is done. It just has to be carefully used and identified clearly. (p. 22)

    There cannot be any assessment of impacts and possible response strategies to climate change on peer-reviewed literature only. (p. 48)

    My WG III chapter depended heavily on non-peer reviewed literature and I have yet to hear a complaint about its quality. (p. 52)

    Governments want the chapter to cover questions of current relevance for which there [is] often “grey literature” but little peer reviewed literature. (p. 68)

    …to address some of the policy topics it is necessary to use non-peer-reviewed literature. (p. 69)
    ………………………….
    PDF – 678 PAGES
    http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf

  159. Jake J says:

    Thanks for the copy editing, but you’ve still missed some boldfacing on the lists. Also, under “WHAT HAS GONE WRONG, AND HOW TO FIX IT,” you omitted or misnumbered #8. Please be assured that I’m pointing this out in the most constructive possible way. This is one of the most outstanding articles I’ve seen on this website, and I’d like it if the typography was entirely correct.

    REPLY: Dude, let’s get something straight. I didn’t make any mistakes. The submission in PDF form here: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf

    …was converted by Adobe.com to MS-word and from that converted to HTML. It isn’t perfect in this, but you know what? Nobody helps me. I don’t have a copy editor, assistant, or even a volunteer to help me produce what I do 24/7/365 (moderators are the exception of course). I could spend days dealing with pedantry in comments here.

    Read the PDF if you have a pedantic eyeball fit, but just once, I’d like somebody to step up and offer to help me with editing these pedantic issues instead of whining about them by giving me directives.

    I’m going to go fix these issues that are not of my doing. Please don’t ask again, I’m offline the rest of the day. – A

  160. steve mcdonald says:

    Climate has become brute force politics totally devoid of science.

    Self-serving propaganda spewed out by manipulated computer models has been substituted for observed results scientific integrity.

    The next move is pure demented psychology.

    If you as much as question what we demand you believe you have decided in a psychopathic way to destroy the planet and kill your 1year old grandchild.

    This is what happens when politics trumps science.

  161. David in Texas says:

    “Rep. Kennedy asked, ‘Doctor, do you look both ways before you cross the street?’”

    Kennedy stumbled into the truth. Yes, you look both ways before crossing the street. You adapt to the situation. You don’t eliminate all traffic or build a bridge at every possible intersection in the world. You don’t mitigate.

    When and if a temperature raise becomes a problem, we simple adapt.
    See the 50 to 1 Project:

    (BTW, the 50 to 1 Project used the Stern report for the costs associated with a temperate raise. These were wildly high as the recent UN report confirmed.)

  162. T-Bird says:

    “Reason prevails, enlightenment follows..”

    No, knowledge follows. “Enlightenment” is what you get sitting under a tree chanting “om mani padme hum” all day. Reason does not always prevail, even on its own terms.

  163. empiresentry says:

    Kudos to NikFromNYC for giving the connect the dots on Fenton Communications and Environmental Media Services, a for-hire service that’s sells fear for profit.
    Another example of the rich elitist greedy people the leftists always scream about.
    I seriously wonder why these people have not been sued outside of the Alar fraud.

  164. The very name of the group, the “Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change”, gives the fraud away. The whole thing was set up to find “climate change”, so they “found” it. To virtually any “transnational”, humanity is the source of all problems, so they found that humanity was the “cause”. They needed some way to blame it on humanity. Carbon Dioxide and fossil fuel seemed to be the perfect tool. Crushing fossil fuel would also “crush” the West, and capitalism – two birds with one stone.

    Only nature didn’t cooperate.

    I’m glad this scientist has shown the integrity to demolish this house of cards.

  165. policycritic says:

    Chris says:
    May 31, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    Can someone point me to the web site for The Center for The Study of the Environment? I can’t find it, only his personal web site.

    [Try DuckDuckGo next time. Google has lost its mojo.]

    The Center For The Study Of The Environment is in Santa Barbara. It’s Botkin’s non-profit organization. As his bio shows his faculty positions have been:

    Faculty Positions
    • Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
    • University of California, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology; Chairman, Environmental Studies Program
    • George Mason University, Director of Program on Global Change.
    • Research scientist, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory.

  166. gatortrapper says:

    I’m amazed at the level of hostility and vitriol displayed be commentators here. It’s pretty sad commentary about the state of human affairs that civility cannot be co-exist with differences of opinion on a matter of great importance.

    If advocates are correct the costs to adapt are great and remediation greater. Remediation has little chance of success given the reasonable demands of developing nations that they have a right to inexpensive energy enjoyed heretofore by the developed ones and the apparent unwillingness of the biggest contributors to the target du jour, CO2, who are adding coal fired energy generation at a rapid pace.

    If they are wrong then there will enormous costs incurred at remediation efforts including policies implemented that will permanently reduce potential beneficial growth compared to their more productive use elsewhere. But the biggest cost is the loss of civility; that appears to be incalculable.

    Like it or not when a witness hurts their credibility on the witness stand with the trier of fact the road to redemption is a long one. When that harm is perceived as being deception the damage may be irreparable. That those who raised the alarm spoke as one voice the effect is to impeach them all, even those who have solid data and interpretations that are logical. At this point they should stop being alarmist and concentrate on answering the questions with patience: they no longer have the standing to rebuff anything as being irrelevant and not worthy of their time.

  167. bobl says:

    Actually,
    97% of people adapt to roads, if you are crossing a multi lane road, then you will look to the right ( or left for those who drive on the wrong side of the road) until you reach the centre median after which you will watch the opposite direction. For a one way street, one would look only one way. On a multiway intersection one might look in many directions. On a two way street one might check both directions for a relatively uncommon overtaking scenario, but save that, it would only be required to follow a condensed version on the multilane example to remain safe. One also tends to use other senses such as hearing. So no senator, I do not look just left and right crossing the street.

    Of course one could also remain safe by checking all directions all the time, and constantly imagining non-existant threats such as trucks appearing out of thin air and maintaining a constant decision not to cross the road, but that would be stupid Senator. Besides, why bother paying to much attention to your right, when all the threats to life, liberty and Justice are emerging to your left?

  168. Jeff Alberts says:

    HenryP says:
    June 1, 2014 at 12:45 am

    Jeff alberts says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/#comment-1651045
    henry says
    that would be the position of those not believing in intelligent design
    however, most here are aware that I do believe in intelligent design?

    Yes, I know, which is why I ignore much of what you say, since you’re not arguing science.

  169. David Ball says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    June 1, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    You can support a “god doesn’t exist” stance?

    HenryP says:
    June 1, 2014 at 12:45 am

    You can support a “god does exist” stance?

    IMHO, neither position is tenable with our current scope of knowledge. Both are “faith” based.

  170. David Ball says:

    This is not the place for this discussion anyway.

  171. philincalifornia says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    June 1, 2014 at 5:37 am
    Since DYOR seems to be beyond you ….
    and
    Jim Hunt says:
    June 1, 2014 at 7:31 am
    It seems as though my helpful hints about extreme temperature records were invisible …..
    ———————————————————————-
    Jim, you might want to consider some down-modulation of the snark. It’s considered collegial discourse where I come from to point people in the direction of exact specific science they’re asking about, thereby saving them hours of DYOR, which is why WUWT can be such a great resource. In my own field of specialization of over 25 years, I will cheerfully do it to educate a colleague (and do it even more cheerfully if a consultancy fee is involved, ha ha).

    Well thanks anyway. I read (actually reread) where you sent me and my question still stands.

    “Very hot days. Those have definitely increased”. That’s what he said.

    I don’t equate that with “High confidence: Likely overall for Warm Days”, or “Medium confidence for Heat Waves/Warm Spells”.

    Maybe you missed my point. It wasn’t really about the science. It was about the switch from IPCC weasel words to a lie in front of Congress by a Professor at Princeton University. The word “definitely” is in the IPCC Report twice and not in this context at all.

    BTW, I don’t doubt for a minute that a warming world could lead to increases in heat waves and warm days that may rise out of statistical insignificance one day but, when a climate parasite says “definitely” or “overwhelming evidence”, I want to see it.

    …… and then of course, relate it on a causative basis to CO2 going from ~300ppm to 400ppm, which is a whole other story …. a bridge too far after his first bridge too far.

  172. Botkin’s “Discordant Harmonies” is a great book.

    “Nature changes over essentially all time scales, and in at least some cases these changes are necessary for the persistence of life, because life is adapted to them and depends on them.”

  173. Stupendus says:

    Days after his testamony and not one article in MSM WHY ??
    WHY does Kennedy attack this person who is obviously qualified to give an unbiased appraisal of two major reports that world leaders are using to develop policy.
    We need to ,look into their motivation, there has to be a reason and once we find it….

  174. dbstealey says:

    gatortrapper says:

    I’m amazed at the level of hostility and vitriol displayed be commentators here.

    Examples, please. We’re not mind readers.

    Speaking for myself, I couldn’t understand the rest of your comment, or what, exactly, your complaint is.

  175. CMD says:

    “14. Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.

    For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.”

    Help me out here: the “article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011″ can be found at: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report11/biodiv_polar_bears.html

    Maybe I’m just blind, but where in that article does it say or even imply that “the “‘decline’ is an illusion?”

  176. BruceC says:

    rogerknights, June 1 @ 6:19am says;

    I wish someone would also check out his claim that there’s been an increase in notably hot days (worldwide or in the US?–it was unclear) and that temperature levels that used to be reached only 10% of the time are now reached 18% of the time. If this was for the US, then the biased US temperature record might be the cause, and the gold-standard comparison reference network might not show such an increase.

    Steve Goddard, May 31st;

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/one-thing-is-very-clear-michael-oppenheimer-lied-to-the-house-science-committee/

  177. philincalifornia says:

    BruceC says:
    June 1, 2014 at 6:23 pm
    Steve Goddard, May 31st;

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/one-thing-is-very-clear-michael-oppenheimer-lied-to-the-house-science-committee/
    —————————————————-
    Yep.

    As I mentioned above, he might even be given the benefit of the doubt if he was talking about his own patio, but Princeton or the environs thereof …….. naaaaah, not even that.

    What a sorry state of affairs. Princeton Professors lying to [trimmed] Members of Congress …. for what …. their glory and legacies. Yikes !!!!

  178. Chris says:

    policycritic says:
    June 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm
    Chris says:
    May 31, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    Can someone point me to the web site for The Center for The Study of the Environment? I can’t find it, only his personal web site.

    [Try DuckDuckGo next time. Google has lost its mojo.]

    The Center For The Study Of The Environment is in Santa Barbara. It’s Botkin’s non-profit organization.

    Thanks, I’m aware of that. But the organization has no web site, if you click on it, it just jumps to his personal web page. So from what I can see, this “Center” is just Botkin writing down his personal thoughts on topics ranging from ecology to global warming to nuclear power.

  179. sinewave says:

    After Botkin’s testimony will he be excommunicated from CAGW? If so, will we start seeing 96.9% rather than 97%?

  180. Jake J says:

    I’d like somebody to step up and offer to help me with editing these pedantic issues instead of whining about them by giving me directives.

    I’d be very happy to help. How do I do so? I’m not trying to hector you at all. This was a good faith effort, and I thought it’d be best to be specific. If you want me to just shut up, fine, I’ll do it. But this really was constructive. As for “pedantic,” I plead guilty. Anyone who makes corrections is subject to that accusation, as I’m sure you realize.

  181. Jeff Alberts says:

    David Ball says:
    June 1, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Jeff Alberts says:
    June 1, 2014 at 4:41 pm

    You can support a “god doesn’t exist” stance?

    HenryP says:
    June 1, 2014 at 12:45 am

    You can support a “god does exist” stance?

    IMHO, neither position is tenable with our current scope of knowledge. Both are “faith” based.

    You’re putting words in my mouth.

    My stance is evidence based. I see no evidence for Henry’s position. Henry’s position, as he’s stated before, is that god controls all aspects of the earth. We have no evidence for that.

  182. Julian Willias in Wales says:

    I am sure his science is good, but the senator had him looking thrown and confused. He comes across in the clip as a bit bumbling and this reduces the impact of what he is saying tenfold. A man in the street would not register him as smart….until he thought about his answer, but by then the conversation had moved on.

    I am not blaming him, it takes a lot of guts to snap back – “that is a juvenile question, please ask something sensible about science and I will give you a sensible answer.”

  183. HenryP says:

    @Tim, @Jeff

    obviously I did consider these things, as comprehensively stated here:
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/07/23/why-do-i-believe-in-god/
    From the quote here (and I would advise you to read the preceding text)

    “Now I will ask you: never mind the question about how life came into being and how incredibly small the chance is that you are alive today. What about the next question: where does matter itself come from? Where did all the atoms that form the person that you are and the earth that you are living on and the air that you are breathing,came from? If you believe there is no God, then obviously in the beginning there must have been absolutely nothing. Good for you if you believe in the BigBang theory. But the question still remains: where did all the matter that forms the universe, originate from? You see what the problem is? It does not make sense to believe that there is no God because it is not logical. In fact, if you believe there is no God, you are actually saying that you believe that out of absolutely nothing and guided by absolutely nobody, an incredible intelligent and intellectual person (like yourself) with a material body came into being. Now, for you to believe that such a miracle could have happened, you must actually have a much bigger faith than that of a person simply believing and admitting that there is a Higher Power, a God who created him for a specific plan and purpose!”

    it follows that Tim is correct, you need to have faith to promote either position.
    OTOH, Jeff is also correct for wanting evidence. The evidence is there. Even researching the weather I found the fingerprint of God.

    Namely, relating to global warming I found clear evidence that everything about the weather is predictable and follows mathematical curves like, for example, this one, for the drop in global maximum temperatures:

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    once you figured out the dates for the natural cycles that are in place, you can even begin to forecast the (sometimes chaotic looking) weather….
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/the-effect-of-gleissbergs-secular-smoothing/#comment-1646077

    The evidence shows that uncontrolled “global warming” is only possible up to a point and should we now fall in an ice age trap, man will have reached the intellectual state to defend ourselves from it. God is (too) good.

  184. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: philincalifornia says: June 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm

    You misunderstand my “snark” Phil. I was referring to the fact that for some strange reason my ( apparently not very helpful) comment was held in moderation for a considerable period of time and hence literally “invisible”.

    Regarding Oppenheimer, Rohrabacher told him at one point something along the lines of “any scientist worth his salt ought to be able to explain the position in 10 seconds”. That’s not long enough to explain to somebody who apparently cannot even speak the Queen’s English about the subtle differences In “IPCC speak” between “likely”, “very likely”, “virtually certain” and “unequivocal”. Oppenheimer’s actual words in response to Kennedy’s question included both “global” and “we have a lot of confidence in that”.

    According to the IPCC WG I SPM which I referred you to “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”. Using your definition Lamar Smith would seem to be guilty not only of “a lie in front of Congress” but also of libeling the President of the United States of America!

  185. Eamon Butler says:

    Mr. Kennedy: Do you look both ways before you cross the street?
    Mr.Botkin: Well, if you want to discuss ”observations” I think you might want to fasten your seat belt.

    Yet another exceptional post. Another one that should find it’s way to the masses, Someone earlier made the point that he (Mr. Botkin) does not have a Phd. Surley, if you disagree with what he says, it’s got to be based on the content and it’s merits. Show where he is wrong or telling lies. If the content is sound then it doesn’t matter who says it or what their credentials are.

    Thanks WUWT.

    Eamon.

  186. Tom O says:

    With respect to Rep. Kennedy’s performance – I was amazed at the stuttering, nearly incoherent nature of his questioning, his obvious lack of equal respect for far more learned people then himself, and how obviously far he has gotten in politics on the strength of his last name. Hopefully this will be his last tour of duty in the House or any other governmental institution. I have heard 6 years old ask more cognizant questions and shown more respect for those they are questioning.

  187. Yakfarmer says:

    Good Lord! “Do you wear a seatbelt?”

    A good reply might have been – “Sir, if installing the seatbelt in the vehicle required you to mortgage all of your property and take out a part-time job to pay for it, would you choose to do so?”

    How incredibly banal – Rep. Kennedy clearly did not actually read Dr. Botkin’s written testimony.

  188. rogerknights says:

    The last commenter of Steve Goddard’s thread said that Oppenheimer’s 18% hot days figure comes from GISS. I asked him there to provide a lead to the GISS source–and I ask people here to look for it too.

    Jim Hunt says:

    Oppenheimer’s actual words in response to Kennedy’s question included both “global” and “we have a lot of confidence in that”.

    According to the IPCC WG I SPM which I referred you to “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”.

    But he also used the past tense in conjunction with a specific 18% figure (not just “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”), which aren’t in the IPCC document, as far as I can see from what you quoted in another comment, which was a projection. (I tried to load that 360 meg document you linked to but my browser choked on it.)

  189. Jim Hunt says:

    My apologies Roger. I mentioned the size to indicate the sheer volume of information and to indicate that attempting to download it was not necessarily a good idea. The information is also available for download one chapter at a time from:

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

    Note that chapter two states “There are some exceptions to this large-scale warming of temperature extremes including central North America, eastern USA and some parts of
    South America” so as per usual Goddard is spouting BS rather than “Real Science” in his US centric condemnation of Prof. Oppenheimer.

  190. philincalifornia says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    June 2, 2014 at 2:39 am
    ——————————
    Maybe we have a disconnect here. I wasn’t speaking about his written testimony or what he had said previously. I was speaking about his comment that he made as an aside regarding number of hot days “definitely” increasing. If he had said globally previously (unfortunately, the video now seems to have disappeared), I believe you, but that is not borne out by the Table (2.13) that you pointed me to on Page 211. Switching of language from “Likely overall increase” to “definitely increased” is not something that I think you can justify just because he’s speaking to a bunch of scientific bozos. We can agree to differ, but I think it reeks of the continuing malevolence and disregard for science that seems to have terminally infected these (former) scientists.

  191. Resourceguy says:

    You know it’s science policy fraud when Kennedy cherry picks his way around the graphic on climate change model forecast error. It boils down to that.

  192. Glenn says:

    I guess Botkin is just another anti-science fascist and an apologist for the fossil fuel industry – he’s a denier. He should be locked up with the rest of you. Lol – just kidding.

    I predict this will have no influence in the policies Obama and his feral nutjobs at the EPA propose, nor on most of the “activist” community. These CAGW hysterics love this cause way too much – it’s a huge payoff for them. And many have wrapped their entire lives and identities and ability to make a living around the CAGW hysteria meme.

    The real problem is that the “revolutionaries” are now in power – they do the same kind of hysterical victim mongering with every issue now. CAGW just gives them another club in the bag. On their own, anyone of the crazy ideologies (and don’t doubt that CAGW has become an ideology for many people, shaping their views on everything) they peddle – feminism, critical race theory, Rawlsian Social Justice theory, Queer Theory, Chicano Studies, all victimologies that identify the same villains. White men, capitalism, patriarchy, racism – and all of the Social Justice Warrior causes are aimed at that villain.

    I mean, you guys here get that many CAGW types will admit privately that they may be wrong, but they think the policies they recommend are so morally superior that they think they are worth pursuing regardless. In other words most a intellectually corrupt to their very souls.

  193. phlogiston says:

    The true character of the administration will be shown by how it reacts to this devastating exposure of sloppyness, incompetence and outright fraud in the ecological parts of the IPCC report – which are likely representative of the whole thing.

    Prof Botkin restores my faith in the science of ecology and suggests encouragingly that parts of the biology – ecology establishment remain uncorrupted by CAGW.

    The powerful light that Botkin shines sends the cockroaches and rats of corrupted CAGW (populations benefiting hugely from climate change) scurrying into dark corners.

  194. Jake J says:

    In a previous life, I worked as a reporter in Washington, D.C. and routinely covered congressional hearings while I was there. I have a strong memory of a hearing at a committee where this Kennedy’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy II (this one is Joe III, on of Joe II) was reprimanded by the committee chairman

    Joe the 2nd, along with then Rep. Charles Schumer (now a senator from New York), were chatting and laughing so loudly during the hearing that they had to be gavelled into silence. It was the only time I ever saw anything like that happen at a hearing. When Joe II did speak, he was just as rambling and inarticulate as his son.

    I eventually lived in Massachusetts, and lived in Joe II’s district. Even though I’m a lifelong Democrat, I didn’t vote for Joe II because of what I’d seen on Capitol Hill. That, plus the many first-hand stories I’d heard about the Kennedy family’s abysmal behavior on Cape Cod. Joe III’s performance in that hearing didn’t surprise me one bit.

    [Addendum to Anthony -- I'm presuming you can see the e-mail addresses of commenters. I would like to help you with copy editing, etc., but I just don't know how to get hold of you given that you've got a note saying you don't answer e-mail. If you will contact me, I'd be very happy to lend a hand with your endeavor.]

  195. Bill says:

    Mr. Kennedy: Do you look both ways before crossing the street?
    Mr. Botkin: The jerk store called and they’re running out of you!
    Just as off base as George’s comment, but at least he would’ve gotten to that Kennedy is a jerk.
    Thanks for all of your work, Anthony!!!

  196. Bill says:

    Typo above–shoulda said “…gotten to imply that…” Drat

  197. rogerknights says:

    @Jim Hunt
    The Oppenheimer statement I and others are objecting to comes at the end of the Botkin 4:20 video, which can be found by hitting Home and then Page-Down. It doesn’t have anything to do with other statements he may have made.

    One thing that’s not clear, besides where GISS made this 18% claim, is what period of time this increase from 10% occurred over. If it was 40 years, since 1976, then it’s reasonable, maybe. The impression I got, though, from context about the Pause, was that Oppenheimer was implying that this rise had occurred during the Pause–which seems implausible.

    Incidentally, Kennedy’s aggressive style forced Botkin into making an overstatement that will be used against him. He said that he considered GW to be less of a problem than the nine other environmental threats in his list. But in his WNBC interview (above), he said that he considered it less important only than the top three or four items on that list.

  198. Jim Hunt says:

    @Roger – Sure, that’s what I’ve been quoting him from. Oppenheimer doesn’t mention GISS. He doesn’t mention a timeframe. He does however mention “global average”.

    As I mentioned previously, one has to question why Botkin was there at all. The hearing was supposed to be about “The UN IPCC process”, in which Botkin has not been involved as an author. If you want to hear from an ecologist about “the process” then Chris Field is the obvious candidate. See the video above.

    Oppenheimer’s written testimony does at least addresses “the process”, unlike Botkin’s. Amongst other things he says “Government representatives are not always as knowledgeable about the technical assessments as the experts, nor as free of political considerations”. I wonder where he got that idea from?

  199. Bob Kegs says:

    I have serious concerns about the
    author, or possible alterations to the text made by a third party. There are several misuses of words, leaving out articles,
    subject-verb number disagreement, and the term, “experts…say…the…models…are
    little if ANY validated” These are not errors expected of a competent
    scientist in a serious paper. More like a non-English speaking person
    writing a “Nigerian Scam Letter.” I gotta disallow the entire thing unless
    I find others going back to the original sources and validating this. I suspect changes made before posting for an unknown reason.

  200. dbstealey says:

    Bob Kegs,

    Why would you want to sound so foolish? Prof Botkin’s credentials are not being questioned, so your comment sounds like the typical ad hominem attack made when someone is unable to refute what was said. You’re playing the man, not the message.

  201. Jake J says:

    @CMD, you’re right, the link you cited does not “state that the decline is an illusion.” The word illusion appears nowhere in the link you gave. The material in the report provides plenty of ammunition to doubt the whole polar bear/global warming idea, but Botkin’s testimony seems to have overstated the case.

  202. rogerknights says:

    <Bob Kegs says:
    June 2, 2014 at 6:37 pm
    I have serious concerns about the author, or possible alterations to the text made by a third party. There are several misuses of words, leaving out articles, subject-verb number disagreement, and the term, “experts…say…the…models…are little if ANY validated” These are not errors expected of a competent scientist in a serious paper. More like a non-English speaking person writing a “Nigerian Scam Letter.” I gotta disallow the entire thing unless I find others going back to the original sources and validating this. I suspect changes made before posting for an unknown reason.

    Perhaps, because he was in a hurry, he dictated some of his paper and had someone else, or a software package, transcribe it. Or maybe he had false starts when writing and didn’t have time to go back and clear out the leftover or out-of-sync words and phrases.

  203. HenryP says:

    for anyone interested, my latest results show that globally, earth has cooled at an average rate of -0.014 degree C per annum since 2000…..If other data sets show different results it is because they are most probably not properly balanced and they donot realize the cooling is happening from the top latitudes downward, e.g.
    my results from the arctic show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska, at a rate of -0.55K per decade since 1998 (Average of ten weather stations).

    http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg

    That is almost one whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better. NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133

    All my current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting arctic ice and NH glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.

    Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

    Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had already observed that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back.
    I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. As shown above, antarctic ice is already increasing.

    To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.

    It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

    I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.(error: plus or minus one year)
    Obviously, from now onward, with global cooling in effect, it will become drier and drier at the >[40] latitudes, especially northern america.

    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……

  204. Dr. Strangelove says:

    One of the species that became extinct in the last 2.5 million years is the Neanderthal man. But that happened during the cold glacial period. Cold climate is a bigger threat than warm climate. The warm interglacial period gave rise to agriculture and civilization. Global warming is good.

  205. rogerknights says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    June 2, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    @Roger – Oppenheimer doesn’t mention GISS. He doesn’t mention a timeframe. He does however mention “global average”.

    Re GISS: Well, commenter “dmh” on Steve Goddard’s site said that such a claim was made by GISS, so it’s good to know what Oppenheimer was apparently basing his claim on.

    Yes, Oppenheimer twice mentioned “global average”: But in between them he said, “For instance, take a city like Washington DC.” That is going to convey the impression to some listeners of something affecting the US, although he was speaking hypothetically, of a place where 90 degrees might once have occurred 10% of the time and now occurs 18%. (Regarding the US: IIRC, NOAA has a chart somewhere of record high temperatures in the US increasing in recent decades. The reliability and import of this was challenged by a WUWT thread a year or so ago, I think.)

    Re the Timeframe: Oppenheimer said, “With a change in temperature of somewhat less than one degree centigrade, the number of extremely hot days … one extreme that we’re sure of is the number of very hot days … the number of 10% hottest days now represent 18% of days … and so we’re moving to a hotter and hotter climate where we have more and more extremes.” The first italicized phrase implies that the timeframe is from the start of the century. (Or perhaps from 1976, although I thought the rise from then til now was about half a degree.)

    The “we’re moving” in the second italicized phrase implies , or at least strongly suggests, that this IS happening right up to the present, or at the least throughout most of the 21st century. It is certainly what his listeners will take away. But that inference is wrong, because the “moving” has slowed to a crawl or less in the last 17 years.

    The overall take-away from those claims is that Global warming is happening REAL–It is happening HERE and NOW. That takeaway is wrong. “Global warming WAS happening and may resume–or may not” is all one can say.

  206. Jim Hunt says:

    @Roger – The consensus opinion of all the scientists and politicians that had input into the IPCC working group one summary for policymakers reads as follows:

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”

    The changing climate may not be apparent in your neck of the woods, but it sure as hell is in mine. Would you prefer to read about the observations:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27635564

    or the projections?

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/extreme-summer-rainfall

  207. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    The only impact President Obama’s EPA Anti Fossil Fuel Regulations will have is to create more poverty and stifle economic growth. Time for people to realize that the Democratic Party is all about power to the elites. The Democrats don’t give a damn about the negative impact their policies have on the poor.

  208. IPCC states clearly that its mandate is only, exclusively, anthropogenic forces impacting the climate. Natural forces are only considered where man is involved. Take a look at TS 6, it’s amazing how much they admit they do not know. The team that wrote this section obviously did not compare notes with the authors of the SPM, the tone of confidence and certainty is 180 degrees apart.

  209. Frank Brus says:

    Here is a video of Dr Botkin’s testemony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra59EcEVkRk

  210. > IPCC states clearly that its mandate is only, exclusively, anthropogenic forces impacting the climate. Natural forces are only considered where man is involved.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-3.html

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

    And so on.

  211. Regarding the second link & “Hockey Stick Illusion” Tree ring widths vary for a lot of reasons, rain, physical damage, drought. I consider the connection between tree rings and temperature speculative and tenuous at best. Proxies are not far removed from tea leaves.

  212. Jake J says:

    Perhaps, because he was in a hurry, he dictated some of his paper and had someone else, or a software package, transcribe it. Or maybe he had false starts when writing and didn’t have time to go back and clear out the leftover or out-of-sync words and phrases.

    I haven’t yet been through the entire pdf file that Anthony linked, but what I’ve read so far is kind of choppy. This surprises me. As someone who, as a reporter, covered scores of congressional hearings where prepared testimony was handed out, it’s reasonable to expect a higher level of care than Botkin applied.

    Together with his false characterization pointed out by CMD, he’s left himself open to the impression of being a quirky eccentric. I realize how unfair this might seem, but in Washington, D.C., “form” matters more than in many other places. I’m going to take a closer look now, but thus far the manner of his presentation and the significant error give me pause.

  213. Duster says:

    george e. smith says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    I must say, that I was disappointed that the good Dr. B still thinks it is worth monitoring CO2.

    What’s the point, when it doesn’t seem to have any connection to either weather or climate.

    And since it is well mixed in the atmosphere; or that is what they claim, why measure it anywhere else but ML. Seems like a waste of resources, and a duplication of effort to measure it all over the place. Same as sea level. If it’s “level” you only need one point to measure it; and what could be more level (gravitationally), than the sea.

    We are all “carbon based life forms.” Dr. Botkin is an ecologist. As such, he has a profound interest in how carbon based life forms in nature work. Ecology follows the flows of energy and matter from their capture by primary producers through the transformations they under go as various levels of “consumer” dip into and pass them along. Energy is fixed as carbohydrates are produced by green plants. SO, quite obviously carbon is of great ecological interest, even if you are not trying to establish any effects it may have on climate. The short of it is that various environments have different carbon cycles and if you don’t have a any knowledge of those different cycles, then you don’t have any scientific basis. So ideally not only is the carbon cycle monitored in swamps but in deserts, forests and marine environments as well.

  214. Duster says:

    R J Randolph says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Have Mr Botkin get his PhD in climate science and submit his findings to a peer reviewed journal in order to be take seriously by anything other that fringe elements.

    Actually, it is “Dr. Botkin.” His Ph.D. is in a profoundly more complex discipline than mere climate science, or even climatology.

  215. Stephen Pruett says:

    Outstanding post and comments. Where are the usual trolls? It’s hard to refute someone who is a bona fide environmentalist who cites loads of peer reviewed science to back up his anti-alarmist claims, isn’t it? It amazes me, as a scientist in another field, that there is a core group of climate scientists who are so convinced they are right that they defend models and conclusions derived from them, even when they diverge dramatically from reality. At least you would think they would soften their certainty a bit, if they were basing their conclusions on science. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.

  216. rogerknights says:

    Jim Hunt says:
    June 3, 2014 at 2:41 am

    @Roger – The consensus opinion of all the scientists and politicians that had input into the IPCC working group one summary for policymakers reads as follows:

    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”

    The changing climate may not be apparent in your neck of the woods, but it sure as hell is in mine.

    Strawman. I didn’t deny that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”. I parenthetically raised an eyebrow at NOAA’s claim that there has been a rising number of record hot days in the US, which is quite a different matter:

    (Regarding the US: IIRC, NOAA has a chart somewhere of record high temperatures in the US increasing in recent decades. The reliability and import of this was challenged by a WUWT thread a year or so ago, I think.)

  217. rogerknights says:

    PS: Of course, I denied that the global temperature has risen much in the the past 17 years. But again, that isn’t a denial that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (since the 19th century).

  218. If you look at the land based NOAA CO2 towers it’s clear that CO2 is not well mixed and uniform. Some of the land based records went past 400 ppm years ago and have very large annual swings. They also don’t show as steep a trend as MLO or Barrow or SPO. IPCC AR2 TS6 expresses a low confidence in the magnitude of CO2 feedback especially over land.

  219. Read IPCC AR5 TS 6, it’s three full columns of “We have not got a clue about some really important systems.” The team that wrote key uncertainties has an entirely different perspective from the SPM authors. Guess they weren’t comparing notes.

  220. Murray B says:

    This Professor Botkin is presenting too many facts and nothing anyone can profit from. Without a carbon tax how will any government be able to transfer funds from taxpayers to environmentalists? Contrary to what this man says it is easy to show all scientifical like that the sky is fa … I mean the climate is changing, and will soon ROAST US ALL ALIVE!

    It is really quite simple. The sky is what keeps the vacuum of space away and it is held up by the atmosphere. The atmosphere used to be composed of the regal gasses O2 and N2 which are good molecular-elements and strong enough to hold the sky in place. Then human breathing and flatulence created the evil bastard-gas CO2 which is a terrible pollutant and is too soft and squishy to hold up the sky. This has caused the sky to fall dramatically in just a few short years. Unless we give a whole lot more money to environmentalists to stop the decline it will fall far enough to suck out our brains. That will turn everyone’s children into zombies so we need to take strong action against the bastard gases NOW!

    P.S. Oh yeah, I forgot, as the sky falls it compresses the atmosphere in what is called the diesel effect and it is the heat of this compression that causes global warming.

  221. HenryP says:

    murrayb says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/#comment-1653610

    henry says

    that was funny

    LOL

    however, the tragedy is that this is indeed the truth that many people have come to believe.
    they see the climate changing, which we know is for good (natural) reason, see
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
    and now they believe the rubbish that comes from the politicians and a few un-informed scientists.
    Note that the drier climate coming to north america at greater than 40 latitude is unavoidable and we should take some steps, i.e.
    moving farming further south.

  222. Jim Hunt says:

    Re: rogerknights says: June 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    I was quibbling about your “overall take-away” in your final paragraph. The unfortunate side effects of the unequivocal “warming of the climate system” are “happening HERE and NOW”. If you doubt that please see the pretty pictures at the end of:

    http://econnexus.org/a-conversation-between-sceptics/

Comments are closed.