Australia: No longer a carbon tax nation

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Gore Effect has struck again. Al Baby recently visited Canberra accompanied by his usual blizzard to try to convince the tiny band of eccentrics that held the balance of power in the Senate to vote to keep the “carbon” tax that has been pointlessly crippling the Australian economy.

He failed. The Senate upheld the vote in the House to bring the doomed CO2 tax to a timely end. The Australian Labor Party, which had unwisely introduced the hated tax for the sake of clinging on to office for a few more months with the support of the now-decimated Greens, is belatedly trying to whip up support from a skeptical nation for a repeal of the repeal.

Bob Carter, whose measured, eloquent and authoritative lectures all over Australia putting the minuscule global warming of the 20th century into the calming perspective of geological time helped to see off the tax, sends me the following image that the ALP are desperately circulating to their fanatical but dismayed supporters.

clip_image002

The propaganda graphic was accompanied by the usual mawkishly syrupy message from the Labor loonies to useful idiots everywhere:

“Just hours ago, Tony Abbott made Australia the only country in the world to reverse action on climate change.

“Not satisfied with hurting Australians through his cruel Budget, he’s now hurting future generations.

“Labor fought hard to put a price on carbon, and Labor fought hard to move to an emissions trading scheme. Through our climate action policies, investments in renewable energy topped $18 billion and 24,000 jobs in the sector were created. Houses with rooftop solar increased to 2.1 million, and wind-generated energy tripled.

“The Abbott Government and the crossbench in the Senate have taken a wrecking ball to Labor’s action on climate change.

“Let’s show Tony Abbott that we won’t stand for this. We will not give up the fight to securing a clean energy future for our children.”

The Prime Minister’s supporters have not been slow to respond. In no time, they were circulating the following take on the message.

clip_image004

Meanwhile, the tourist postcard industry has not been slow to sense the opportunity for combining celebration of the demise of the tax with some hearty Australian humor. Enjoy!

clip_image006

228 thoughts on “Australia: No longer a carbon tax nation

  1. There are a lot of folks celebrating over at Joanne Nova’s. But of course a couple of wet blankets, unaffected by the tax, are whining about its demise. Notably the butcher of Wiki.

  2. “Just hours ago, Tony Abbott made Australia the only country in the world to reverse action on climate change.”

    That’s funny, I seem to remember a few other countries who have recently ‘reversed action on climate change’, usually by ending government support for renewables, closing nuclear power plants in favor of coal ones, abandoning Emission cap plans, and that kind of thing.

    Maybe I just imagined it?

  3. I’ve been feeling we’re winning now for a while.

    Now I KNOW we’re starting to prevail. :)

    The first major nation repeals the Carbon ? idiocy. :)

    Good on Ya Cobbers !!

    My cup runneth over, my cold tube definitely doth not :)

  4. Thanks for that, Lord Monckton, and Bob Carter, Joanne Nova, and Australian skeptics deserve much of the credit.

    Hilariously, I find this:

    It will go down in Canberran folklore as a myth, but it most certainly happened.

    The very moment the carbon tax was repealed, after three parliamentary attempts, several years of political warfare and the killing of a leader or two, a rainbow appeared over Lake Burley Griffin.
    God tends not to take political sides, but when it comes to the carbon tax, She does seem to be trying to tell us something via celestial signs.

    Best to all,

    w.

    • @Willis Eschenbach – I will put that one down as myth. Rainbows require a steep sun angle, and they repealed it around 11am local time. Makes for a good story though.

  5. The enemies of mankind lose again. How much more punishment can they take? Let them cry their crocodile tears.

  6. I haven’t stopped grinning since the news came in. I look forward to reading the comments over at Jo Nova’s. I like to wait until the comments have fattened up over there (they are tiered), so I don’t miss any. I quite enjoy the bun-fights.

    By the way, it’s snowing here in New South Wales.

    Thank you for this article, Lord Monckton, it’s great to see Aussie humour so quickly out there, and great to see you show it to the world. Cheers, mate! :D

  7. I’m not (yet) fully convinced that the government in the lower house (House of Representatives) will accept the upper house (Senate) amendments. They might yet reject them and keep it as a double-dissolution election trigger. I’ll believe the Carbon Tax is gone when they pry it from the cold, dead hand of the Greens and Labor and my electricity bill falls.

  8. Accountability and responsibility….. who takes that for such lunacy to implement a carbon tax. Price hike on everything without achieving a thing to reduce the CO2 ‘problem.’ You should hear the carry on of the greens and the left in our land of no carbon tax. They don’t live in the same place as I do, they can’t!

  9. Now that folks in the Land of Oz have awoken,
    will the rest of the world listen?

    Regardless, to rational Aussies, “good on ya”.

    Wonder if you could send some of your rational thinking to the powers that be here in Obamaland.

  10. There were several comments by knowledgeable non-skeptical people on ClimateEtc recently Taken together they illustrate a carbon tax problem (and other “climate science” problems) beautifully . I’ll paraphrase what they wrote; text in parentheses is what they omitted.

    (We got a Nobel prize, partly for a popular graph that turns out not to be very kosher.) The skeptics are trying to keep the Hockey Stick alive. (Let bygones be bygones).

    That is a dream of a successful bank robber. No apology, no admission of guilt. No wonder that people don’t trust them. This dream is difficult to share.

  11. If only we had spent the billions on roads, hospitals and proper stuff. What a waste! (of my money). Good on you Tony. Keep up the decent work and thanks to all the campaigners for their dedication, honest discussion and perseverance, and Anthony for this wonderful site..

  12. On an entirely different matter. You should get your thyroid attended to before it causes you physical problems.

    But in any case, keep up the good fight. We need science in this field, not religion and superstition that have combined into an escathological cargo cult of the CAGW.

  13. Now we have to make sure that an ETS isn’t bought in via the back door.

    This would be the obvious aim of Al Gore and his meeting with Palmer.

    There is money to be scalped from the Australian public, and you can bet Gore and Palmer want some of it. !

  14. Labor didn’t fight hard to put a price on CO/2 (carbon).
    The labor government under Gillard deceitfully introduced it after explicitly denying they would on national television just days before the election.
    That they had “purchased” both houses of our parliament with financial promises to key independants and its coalition partners, the greens.
    Gauranted there would be no “fight”.
    I really do hope this is a lesson to America and the rest of the world that the people will hit back at governments lies and deceit to the majority.
    In America you really do have serious problems with Obama’s “scorched earth” policys in relation to global warming.
    Like Gillard and her “purchased” government, he is introducing his policys against the will of the majority by way of his executive powers.
    He will condem so many to abject poverty just by way of increased utility prices.
    For what.
    Look closely America at what your “leader” is doing.
    WE DID!

  15. Very fine day when parliament finally stopped defying the voters of Australia.Election after election they have voted against the tax only to be stymied by the Greens tail wagging Labor’s dog. Labor is controlled by unions and they see global warming as a means to fill their pockets with renewable energy contracts.
    The Greens openly admitted they wanted a One World Government, where their “wisdom” would be dropped like gentle rain on the rest of us new cave dwellers.

  16. Don’t forget the Germans. Actions speak loudly.

    “The plant is the first new hard-coal-fired generator in Europe’s biggest power market since 2005. It marks the start of Germany’s biggest new-build program for hard coal stations since its liberalization in 1998. Ten new hard-coal power stations, or 7,985 megawatts, are scheduled to start producing electricity in the next two years, according to information from German grid regulator Bundesnetzagentur and operators.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/steag-starts-germany-s-first-coal-fired-power-plant-in-8-years.html

  17. Here’s a better idea for Australia and the U.S. and most nations to deal with the climate change problem in a way that minimizes government intrusion, maximizes mitigation response, maximizes personal liberty and choice, maximizes the marketplace. http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html

    Whether it is recognized on some level or not, as skeptical science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ points out, scientific skepticism is good. Simply deciding that something is hooey, and so immediately seeking to discredit that argument with whatever argument can be grabbed (right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, misrepresented or incomplete or not, etc) in order to do so, and then with whatever argument can be grabbed (right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, misrepresented or incomplete or not, etc), seeking to support any argument or idea that discredits climate science, is not good; it may feel like science, but it’s the opposite of science, leads away from the truth, and towards misinformation and further misconception. That then in turn FURTHERS the same tendency toward wanting to simply discredit something to begin with, and reinforces the process.

    Realized or not, this is what inadvertent man affected expected climate change denialism (denial of the fact that geologically massive amounts of long lived greenhouse gases have been pumped into the air, and of the basic science (and slowly, minor casual observation over time) that says this will lead to geologically significant change in the climate patter), or “refutation,” has become all about.

    Many of the things that drive fear of climate change redress (as distinguished from climate change science itself), may be warranted or unwarranted. In both cases, those seeking to advocate for sensible climate change redress would be helping rather than hindering discussion and accuracy of information, to not just ignore the fears or concerns of others, simply because they believe them to be unwarranted or not a concern of their own. And to also not immediately assume and assert that those who have them (and thus perhaps leading to the promulgation of poor information or science assumptions, with this recent thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/what-an-engineer-finds-extraordinary-about-climate/ being a good example, as I’m sure are others), are only doing so to “deceive.” Following these tendencies in a world in which keeps telling me “everyone knows how huge a problem climate change is” (when everyone clearly does not, and most people, including many politicians, still don’t know the basics http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-climate-issue-in-nutshelll.html – and it’s done a lot – has only further entrenched the beliefs that climate change is half hooey, made advocates look less credible than they really are, and increased the zeal to simply discredit it and simultaneously simply credit anything which seems to so do, as described above.

    That being said, the simple lowest cost highest freedom lowest government intrusion and probably by far most effective and efficient solution to our radical atmospheric additions (that are (as a matter of physics, “not climate change science,” or “models,” or arguments) increasing the net energy balance of the earth) and that is offered above (again, here http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html ) is offered for the reasons listed in support of it.

    However, at the same time it also serves to address some of the perhaps more warranted fears of perhaps excessive government entanglement, individuals not being allowed to do this or that, possibly too much U.N. control, etc. And, again, while misplaced resistance to certain otherwise neutral tools, simply due to otherwise irrelevant but strong association, can sometimes get in the way of initially seeing this clearly, it is by far the most efficient. This – loss of efficiency (which is really what a big part of what economics is all about) – is another solvable, in fact (net) improvable, impediment to not only sensible redress, but sensible discussion.

  18. “The Gore Effect has struck again. Al Baby recently visited Canberra…”
    =====================
    “Al Baby” ?
    The rest of the post went unread, other than some skimming.

  19. Sorry – wet blanket time.
    Tony Abbot’s party dumped the tax as it was a redistributive measure – not a free market (voluntary) measure.
    Just a good old fashioned right/left scuffle.

    They still have the commitment to the belief that AGW is net harmful – which is unproven.
    Restoring the primacy of empiricism over idealism has not happened.

    They still don’t think that ‘things you see‘ are more important than ‘things that “experts” ‘ opine.

  20. I tried to put up the following post at the Australian propaganda site in response to their “obituary” for the “carbon” tax. It was deleted thrice. I wonder why?

    “It looks as though Australian academe is at odds with the Australian people. Global warming to date, as the mean of the RSS and UAH global-temperature datasets, has occurred at half the central near-term rate (equivalent to 1 K in 35 years, or two-thirds of a Kelvin by now) predicted by the IPCC in 1990. After close to two decades with no global warming distinguishable from the measurement uncertainties (or 26 years on the RSS dataset), it may be wise to rethink the policy before calling for the introduction of another CO2 tax or an ETS. Better to redeploy the $1 billion a day now being spent by Western nations on climate change toward solving the real environmental problems: deforestation from Indonesia to Haiti, over-fishing of the oceans, encroachment on the habitats of endangered species.”

  21. I hope this becomes a trend. The global economy is sitting on a tipping point and needs a nudge away from the precipice the current policy of madness has brought us to.

  22. Moderator – please snip Vicomt Monckon’s comment. He represents old times and ideas of politically incorrect opinions. Those times are gone. Progressives – full steam ahead!

    [Jim, let me be clear on your request: no, and hell no, especially when you yourself hide behind a fake name (you are neither curious, nor George) while espousing that your own political viewpoint is superior. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony Watts]

  23. In reply to Mr Worrall, I’ll be in the Land of the Eructating Camels from 10 Sep to 3 Oct. And I’ll happily have a tinny of XXXX. On my last but one visit to Australia, one Flannelly had been flannelling about the drought that would never see flowing water in the Murray-Darling basin ever again. Within a day or two of my arrival, the clouds gathered, the heavens opened, and so much rain fell on Australia that the sea-level fiddlers blamed it for having caused an unpredicted fall in global sea level. It’s the Monckton Effect.

  24. John Carter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    Here’s a better idea for Australia and the U.S. and most nations to deal with the climate change problem…

    What “climate change” problem would that be specifically?

  25. I may well be reading far too much into this but is it intentional that the poster above shows the Antarctic landmass just as dry, dusty and ice-free as Australia?

    Oh, and all cracked up as well if my eyes serve me…

  26. John Carter says (July 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm): “Here’s a better idea for Australia and the U.S. and most nations to deal with the climate change problem…”

    What “problem” would that be?

    “…in a way that minimizes government intrusion, maximizes mitigation response, maximizes personal liberty and choice, maximizes the marketplace.”

    Is to do Nothing–with a capital N–about it. There, fixed that for ya. :-)

  27. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    The propaganda site to which I was referring was “The Conversation”.

    What a delightful name, too bad they only allow some to converse.

  28. “AndyG55 says:

    July 17, 2014 at 3:00 pm

    Now we have to make sure that an ETS isn’t bought in via the back door.”

    Indeed. I refered to a comment I heard on a newscast in another thread that one of Palmers conditions for supporting the repeal of the carbon tax was to leave an ETS “framework” in place (Which apparently *IS* in place for the, planned, switch from a tax to an ETS in 2015) but set a price of $0, until all other countries play along too. This was when he spoke along side Al Gore when he was here. Clive Palmer is a business man, a good one at that, and can see easy money, easier than digging stuff up out of the ground when he can leave it there and get rich on “carbon credits”.

  29. John Carter, Citing discredited sources does you no credit.

    From the WUWT blogroll…

    Unreliable*

    Skeptical Science – John Cook

    * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

  30. In original article above
    Bob Carter, whose measured, eloquent and authoritative lectures all over Australia putting the minuscule global warming of the 20th century into the calming perspective of geological time

    Christopher, do you know this sentence is sort of meaningless? The issue isn’t the current temperatures, and the change over from a semi high approximation of the last 800,000 year CO2 levels, to a much higher level,not seen in over two million years, amplified by simultanous geologic spike in the othr two main long lived atsmospheric greenhouse gases, is very geologically relevant. Here’s why http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-climate-issue-in-nutshelll.html We also evolved under the conditions that existed under the last few million years and less (as did the specie, plants and waterways systems we rely on,)

    The idea that addressing climate is some form of “spending” is mistaken
    The idea that is is pointless spending, even more. But it seems it is this fear of lots of spending that drives a lot of the disbelief (and belief in any representation, accurate or otherwise, that advances this, and disbelief in and discrediting of any representation, accurate or otherwise, that goes agains it) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/what-an-engineer-finds-extraordinary-about-climate/#comment-1686136

    The other photo, the burping camel, is hilarious. But it sort of reinforces the basic ignorance of the issue, doesn’t it? That is – let’s put even more methane into the air. This is a problem. Just because one can’t see it, feel, it, touch it, and it is largely in the future (though already in part caused in the past, and being heavily amplifed now) and involves ranges and uncertainties – and its thus, if one wants to, easy to find ways to seemingly pick apart – doesn’t change this fact.

  31. In New Zealand, I scanned the TV news for a hint of the carbon tax repeal. Nada!

    I went through my morning paper assiduously…and there on page 10, 2 column inches, about 50 words…was the news.

    If that isn’t tail between legs…what is? If CAGW is a planetary disaster you would think it would warrant more coverage? Yeah nah!

  32. JohnWho says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm
    Now that folks in the Land of Oz have awoken,
    will the rest of the world listen?

    Jack says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    Very fine day when parliament finally stopped defying the voters of Australia.

    Yes, in one sense, but, speaking of the land of Oz, and whether the world should listen to Australia, what about the equally serious problem of the voters of Australia being incredibly misinformed on the issue of Climate Change?
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2013/sep/26/climate-change-denial-ipcc-report-australia Here are the basics of the issue, http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-climate-issue-in-nutshelll.html unconnected to politics, which some knowledge of is needed to make any kind of assessment on the issue at all. And what is really the problem. http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-really-problem-and-how-bad-and.html
    How many Australians know this? How many Americans?

    dp says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:06 pm
    I hope this becomes a trend. The global economy is sitting on a tipping point and needs a nudge away from the precipice the current policy of madness has brought us to.

    The current madness of avoiding an extremely serious and compounding problem that is forfeiting enormous and compounding net world gains to not Australian Ostrich on (again, see bottom paragraph http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html ? Or the alleged madness of trying to solve climate change by ‘wrecking’ the economy?

    Good solutions do not do the latter, or have almost anything to do with it. Changing the structure of our GDP *(Or the world’s) is not an economic harm, it is a change. So how do we do that, to a better structure with better growth (not radically atmospherically impacting) in a way that doesn’t cause real net economic harm or loss? The best solution, very concisely laid out in the link just provided, accomplishes this, and also, in terms of the economic issue, very specifically addresses why, at the end.

  33. “This is a problem.”

    The only problem is that anyone takes this seriously.

    Do you have any idea how funny the AGW Alarmists are going to look to our descendants a century from now? ‘Hey, kids, get this. Back in 2014, people were really worried that the world was going to be destroyed by… camel farts!’ ‘Get real?’ ‘Yeah, look, I found all these posts on the Internet archives, it’s hilarious’.

  34. “Changing the structure of our GDP *(Or the world’s) is not an economic harm, it is a change”

    You’re probably one of those people who say ‘Dying is not the end, it’s just a change’, aren’t you?

  35. only Reuters has captured the true significance of the repeal.

    the many, many years & tens/hundreds of billions of $$$ invested in CAGW, at the expense of the scientific method & the credibility of politics & the MSM, only made sense if a multi-trillion dollar CO2 derivatives market had got off the ground. thankfully, that is now less likely than ever and, consequently, “A new global (climate) agreement is highly unlikely to be reached any year in the future”, according to one insider***

    17 July: Reuters: Global carbon market hopes fade as Australia dumps CO2 trading
    The goal of a global carbon market to tackle climate change, once touted to reach $2 trillion by 2020, received a major setback when Australia on Thursday scrapped its planned carbon trading scheme, which would have been the world’s third biggest…
    “There’s a realisation that linking … is not going to happen within the 2020 timeframe,” said Andrei Marcu, head of the Carbon Market Forum at the Centre for European Studies in Brussels, referring to when a new global treaty on emissions reduction is expected to begin…
    ***A new global (climate) agreement is highly unlikely to be reached any year in the future. I’d rather see more room for national or regional mechanisms spreading all around in the short-term,” said Matteo Mazzoni, carbon analyst at Italy’s Nomisma Energia…
    Last month, China launched the seventh and final regional pilot carbon market, but plans to set up a national trading scheme remain fraught with uncertainty…

    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4N0PK2I720140717

  36. “John Carter says:

    July 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    The other photo, the burping camel, is hilarious. But it sort of reinforces the basic ignorance of the issue, doesn’t it? That is – let’s put even more methane into the air. This is a problem.”

    Talk of ignorance. Termites and healthy forrest emit more CH4 than all wild and domestic animals combined. Even so at ~1.8ppm/v, I am not worried at all.

  37. clipe says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    John Carter, Citing discredited sources does you no credit.

    From the WUWT blogroll…

    Unreliable*

    Skeptical Science – John Cook

    * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

    Not clear here. If you mean referencing the WUWT, it was a source for the point it was supplied for. (A very good one, in fact. See the original comment you’re referring to and the the link)

    As for Skeptical Science, errors can be found with any website, it’s a question of how many, what type and how central. Skeptical science is far past most sites in accuracy and objective assessment (rare on climate change these days.) Calling it unreliable doesn’t make it unreliable. Believing it to be unreliable (because if it was not, it would be hard to continue in good faith to so easily discredit basic climate science and most climate scientists) doesn’t make it unreliable.

    But regardless, the general point that Skeptical Science made (see, again, their home page http://www.skepticalscience.com/ ), and that I re-stated above, is still centrally relevant here. And it is that:

    \Scientific skepticism is good. Simply deciding that something is hooey, and so immediately seeking to discredit that argument with whatever argument can be grabbed (right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, misrepresented or incomplete or not, etc) in order to do so, and then with whatever argument can be grabbed (right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, misrepresented or incomplete or not, etc), seeking to support any argument or idea that discredits climate science, is not good.

    ———

    Gary Hladik says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    John Carter says (July 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm): “Here’s a better idea for Australia and the U.S. and most nations to deal with the climate change problem…”

    What “problem” would that be?”

    Re the same
    clipe says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    What “climate change” problem would that be specifically?

    This Problem: http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-really-problem-and-how-bad-and.html

    And the issue shouldn’t be called climate change. It confuses the issue, and conflates current climate conditions (or changes) with the problem.

  38. John Carter,

    I went to your link.

    Would you be so kind as to tell us what your solution actually is? I’m afraid all I see is a bunch of rambling words that seem to at least be spelled correctly.

  39. I have to come clean. Carbon taxes are dumb as a bag of doorknobs but as a BC resident who uses very very little gas and since the BC Carbon Tax is offset by drops in income tax rates, it means someone else pays taxes I used to pay,

    So as stupid as the BC. Carbon Tax is, I like it.

    • @D.B.Cooper – Exactly! The “revenue neutral” BC carbon tax is merely a redistribution tax. The problem with all redistribution taxes is that you have to rely on the “rich” to keep paying for no benefit to themselves. Once they pull the plug, the ponzi scheme collapses.

      As long as you do not make it too painful, they will stick around.

  40. Monckton of Brenchley
    In reply to Mr Worrall, I’ll be in the Land of the Eructating Camels from 10 Sep to 3 Oct. And I’ll happily have a tinny of XXXX. On my last but one visit to Australia, one Flannelly had been flannelling about the drought that would never see flowing water in the Murray-Darling basin ever again. Within a day or two of my arrival, the clouds gathered, the heavens opened, and so much rain fell on Australia that the sea-level fiddlers blamed it for having caused an unpredicted fall in global sea level. It’s the Monckton Effect.

    Dear Lord Monckton, if you make it to Brisbane (or beautiful Hervey Bay, where I live) it will be my pleasure to buy you a pint or 10. Its the least I can do for someone who has done so much to save my country from carbon madness.

  41. Mr Carter is worried about CO2 levels higher than in 800,000 years. In fact, there is some evidence they may be higher than in 20 million years. But the correct response, on the evidence to date, is “So what?”

    To trees and plants, CO2 is plant food. Experiment suggests that they would flourish best at concentrations of 2000 ppmv, or five times today’s concentration. Yet at four times today’s concentration we shall run out of affordably recoverable fossil fuels.

    If CO2 were a major driver of global temperature, there would have been some global warming in the past couple of decades. There has not been any to speak of.

    And CO2 cannot acidify the oceans because they are powerfully buffered by the basalt basis in which they live and slosh and have their being. Besides, the corals evolved when there was 10-20 times today’s CO2 in the air.

    So where’s the harm going to come from? Best to wait and spend our scarce resources on dealing with real and far more urgent environmental problems.

  42. John Carter (of Barsoom?) – you do know that atmospheric CO2 is increasing naturally, and that even if we contributed nothing the atmosphere would still have reached 400ppm in our lifetimes. I’m not convinced our contribution is a radicalization of our atmospheric composition. I think it is quite natural, in fact. Regardless, there is yet to be proven that 400ppm is anything but a blessing to plants, and what little surface temperature that has occurred in the last 100 years has served to expand the range of land that can be used for farming. As the population continues to expand so too must our agriculture. What better way than by adding harmless amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere? And we know it is harmless amounts because all IPCC prognostications have failed to materialize.

    Regarding changing the GDP – nearly 48% of Americans are no longer contributing, so the individual productivity is certainly changing for the worse. Another global climate collapse from pointless and punitive economic policies will certainly impact our contribution to the global GDP.

    I don’t think either of us can convince the other, but it’s a slow day.

  43. Curious George, progressives uncritically supported the most murderous regimes of the 20th century: Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR (60 million peacetime murders), Mao’s PRC (100 million peacetime murders), Hitler’s Germany after Ribbentrop and before Barbarossa, Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam (at least 100000 peacetime murders), Pol Pot’s Cambodia (2 million peacetime murders), Castro’s Cuba (at least 14000 peacetime murders), and progressives still unashamedly lionize Che Guevara, a known pathological sadist and murderer.

    You folks have a lot to answer for. Nevertheless it’s clear progressives as a group are aggressively unrepentant and have avoided any and all introspection concerning their vile alliances and criminal inclinations.

    I’m no lover of the religious right either, but the testimony of history says that during the 20th century progressive polities have been more murderous and more dangerous than any known right-wing authoritarianism.

    And let’s remember that it was under Woodrow Wilson’s government — the quintessential progressive administration in the US — that the sedition act was passed, forbidding criticism of the government – right in keeping with the standard behavior of states run according to the progressive ideal.

  44. “As for Skeptical Science, errors can be found with any website, it’s a question of how many, what type and how central”

    Its not a question. Their “errors” as you call them were deliberate attempts to censor opposition opinion and revise history with stealth edits. That means Skeptical Science does not act in good faith and cannot be trusted. I mean really, if they are this corrupt re something so trivial as blog posts, why would you have any faith in them re more serious issues?

  45. Patrick says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    “John Carter says:

    July 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    The other photo, the burping camel, is hilarious. But it sort of reinforces the basic ignorance of the issue, doesn’t it? That is – let’s put even more methane into the air. This is a problem.”

    Talk of ignorance. Termites and healthy forrest emit more CH4 than all wild and domestic animals combined. Even so at ~1.8ppm/v, I am not worried at all.

    This is good stuff Patrick, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the issue, which is net emissions. That is, something externally being added to the system (namely, into the air) which re-balances (as we have seen for a few hundred years now, more precisely over a slightly more modern time period), into some being absorbed and re-balanced throughout the system, with much of it leading to much higher (but still low) amounts in the atmosphere.

    Those low, but relativelymuch higher, amounts in the atmosphere -, because it now re radiates a lot more earth surface emitted thermal radiation (same process by which the earth is not a ball of ice), is a big deal in geological terms. Not for warmer atmospheres, which it will do as well (and is a little, as over time we can start to kind of chart, and feel) but for it’s increased net earth atmospheric energy affect (this is incontrovertible by the way), and which would then start to slowly (at first, anyway) change the main current climate stabilizers (massive permafrost, massive sea ice, relatively constant ocean temperatures, all of which on net are both changing, and showing slowly accelerating changes, over time. (Not year to year, which is meaningless.)

    Ruminants are a pretty comical part of the problem (who knew that burping farting camels were a significant contributor). But worldwide, in part because methane, though it breaks down into CO2, is a pretty powerful “greenhouse” molecule, they’re a pretty relevant contributor to the issue, as they’re numbers have been greatly expanded. (including, though well behind a few of the others, camels, of whom there are a surprisingly large number. All name Joe and smoking cigarettes.Kidding on that last part.) Your point is still well taken that part of this is unavoidable. It’s the additional part, and in combination with other additions as well, that is the issue, as there are several other major methane contributors (ruminants are not the main) that are new. And of course this is a problem not just because of methane, but in conjunction with the other long lived gaseous additions.

  46. “John Carter says:

    July 17, 2014 at 5:59 pm”

    NASA states CH4 is dropping. So “we’re” adding nothing.

  47. John Carter states about SkS “Calling it unreliable doesn’t make it unreliable”, and he’s right. What makes SkS unreliable is that when you point out that something in one of their articles is provably wrong they edit the article without noting it, then make fun of your post because you “didn’t understand” the article.

  48. John Carter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    And the issue shouldn’t be called climate change. It confuses the issue, and conflates current climate conditions (or changes) with the problem.

    Now that we’ve cleared that up, what is the “problem”?

  49. Hello, before too much Rah, rah , the wicked carbon witch is dead stuff, remember this is only stage one. We still have stage two of the carbon tax, the 20% of renewables by the year 2020. Its accepted that both solar and wind are erratic and with a very poor output most of the time. They cause problems with the steady state running of the coal fired stations, causing both more CO2 for those who still think that is a problem, but also inefficiencies, thus a higher price for the consumer of that electricity.

    Then we have the Green Bank, one of the Land Mines that sweet Julia left lying around. Now as I understand things, the present government cannot tell this Green Bank what to spend the taxpayers money on, but only to keep giving them money.

    Only when the governments, both Federal and State pass legislation so that the Utilities can refuse to accept the high priced electricity from both wind and solar will we be truly free of the curse of the Green Lobby.

    Snag is a lot of the rooftop solar would be from Liberal voters, the Labor voters could not usually afford it, so will Tony have the Ticker to go against his own voters in the name of the Greater Good of the Country.

    Also Windmills are big business, again Liberal supporters, one has to feel sorry for Tony Abbott, what a mess.

    Michael John Elliott.

  50. John Carter:

    How many thousand people do you want to kill to justify a 10 ppmv decrease in the world’s CO2 level?

    YOUR favored – demanded! – current energy and propagandist bombastic economic policies killed 25,000 people in the UK alone last year, and have pushed the world into a economic spiral that has directly harmed billions economically, physically, and even more billions emotionally through added stress and worry.

    Let us begin a conversation:
    What is the probability of a 0 to -1 decrease in global temperature by the year 2100?
    There will be ONLY HARM from that decrease.
    What is the probability of a 0 – 2 degree increase in global average temperature by year 2100?
    There is NO HARM in that increase, and ONLY GOOD results, by the way.
    What is the probability of a 2-4 degree increase in global world temperature by the year 2100?
    There also is no established harm in that increase, and only speculation about possible harm. There is, on the other hand, much GOOD from that increase – primarily in more food production, more forage, more fodder, more fuel (for those still burning wood), more sea growth, etc.

    Above 4 degrees, there is speculation about harm – but nothing established in the tends of thousands of papers. Only speculation.
    Above 6-10 degree increase, there will be some harm, but all of the GOOD above remains. Thus some few thousands suffer (may have to move), but many more billions of real, living people win.
    Above 10 degrees increase, MOST research predicts harm, and thus REQUIRES the condemnation of billions of real people to extreme suffering and actual death … just in case.

    Now. Try again to justify killing 25,000 people this year. Again. Just so YOU can “feel good” about a deliberately failing energy and economic policy that promises – AS ITS CENTRAL THEME – 86 more years of killing people.

  51. I now realise what the “problem” is. The lack of warming.

    John Carter spelled it out.

    And the issue shouldn’t be called climate change. It confuses the issue, and conflates current climate conditions (or changes) with the problem.

  52. John Carter,

    You are making a problem where there is none. Let me explain it this way.

    1. Satellites show that the planet is 11% greener from when we first started taking coloured photos from space. This means that the environment is improving, not getting worse.
    2. At 180ppm for CO2 concentrations, it is game over, for everything. At a mere 400ppm we are living dangerously close to the edge. We need to go away from that precipice, not towards it.
    3. Cold is an order of magnitude worse than warm. The best periods in human history have been during warm periods and the worst have been during cold periods.
    4. There is no observed causality link between CO2 and temperature other than the other way where temperature can affect CO2 levels after a lag of between 500 and 800 years probably due to ocean outgassing of CO2.
    5. If the current solar minimum depends and we go into a cold period, then large areas of grain production in Russia and Canada stop producing grain. Take food away from people and see how bad things can get.
    6. This alarmist mentaility has taken billions of dollars away from energy and other infrastructure that we will need for the next cold cycle. Current and future generations will suffer more than they needed to due to the waste that this alarmism have caused. Their suffering will be increased by the alarmist dogma that seems unable to see the obvious natural cycles that our climate has.
    7. The solution for this any every other issue is cheap energy. Making energy cheap allows adaptive solutions to be put in place quickly. Making energy more expensive makes all problems worse and harder to solve.

    Nothing you have said here has any validity or is supported by any observational evidence.

  53. The Carbon (SIN) Tax has nothing to do with Australia’s economic situation. Australia’s loss of competitiveness is directly due to vastly overvalued dollar that has been gamed by various central banks as the ultimate sucker’s bet. The Australia Reserve Bank is staffed by hardline economic ideologues who won’t respond in kind to the excessive foreign purchases of a limited amount of Australian dollars. Rather than do what the Swiss have done to protect their local economy from an overvalued Swiss Franc – Australia has simply bent over and taken one for the “team”. That no other western economy has allowed it’s currency to be gamed like Australia’s has – appears to have escaped the dear Lord’s analysis of the Australian economy.

  54. To all of you who think that this repeal of the ‘carbon tax’ is a great breakthrough, you should be aware that it was done for all the wrong reasons. The current ‘liberal’ Government with a few exceptions are firm believers in CAGW due to CO2 emissions. They want to take the perceived moral high ground away from Labor by introducing their own CO2 emission reduction scheme. Meanwhile, both sides are likening people they don’t like to internet trolls and climate skeptics.

  55. “””””…..TimiBoy says:

    July 17, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    Proud Aussie right here. <—-……"""""

    Well Mate; we're proud to have you as our neighbours, on the Big Island. But you still talk kinda funny.

    I'll be asking John Key to tag along with your lead.

    George

  56. what exactly are you people celebrating?

    Mr Abbott said he did not accept that with the carbon price now abolished, and legislation needed for Direct Action yet to pass the Senate, his government was leaving Australia without a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    “We are a government which absolutely appreciates that we have only got one planet and we should pass it on to our children and grandchildren in at least as good shape as we found it,” he said.

    “So we are a conservationist government and we will do what we think is the sensible thing to try to bring emissions down.”

    Mr Abbott expressed confidence the government could still find support for its plan to pay polluters to reduce their emissions, despite a hostile reception from Labor, the Greens and crossbenchers to Direct Action.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/carbon-tax-is-gone-repeal-bills-pass-the-senate-20140717-3c2he.html#ixzz37mSlJ0Th

    How are you going to “pay”?..that money is going to come from what?

  57. John Carter, your blog post that you link to is titled:

    “By Far the Easiest, Simplest, Most Efficient, Least Intrusive, Least Governmentally involved, Almost Entirely Market Driven Solution to Mitigating and Ultimately Ending Further Extreme Additions to our Radically Changing Atmosphere”

    As if that alone wasn’t eye-rolling enough after wading through your post I finally come to your Solution, and it’s this:

    “And it is, to simply levy a user fee on the energy sources and processes that contribute heavily to the problem”

    And any way I try to read that, it just sounds like a ‘Carbon Tax’

  58. “””””…….CodeTech says:

    July 17, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    HEY you looney twits!

    CANADA BAILED ON KYOTO. So WE get bragging rights, NOT YOU……”””””

    Hold on there. It was us Pacific Islanders wot done it. We of the Shaky Isles, and our Asian pals of the even Shakier Isles; well they’re sort of Tsunami Experts; well that’s a Japanese word anyhow, ain’t it ?? Well ok; Canuckistan did step up also !

  59. John Carter;
    but for it’s increased net earth atmospheric energy affect (this is incontrovertible by the way),
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Well John, let me begin by saying welcome to the forum. We get our share of warmists dropping in from time to time, but few as articulate and knowledgeable as you appear to be. Stick around, I urge you, you might learn something and we might too.

    But you’re off to a bad start with your explanation above. The net atmospheric energy increase as a consequence of increased CO2 is limited by the heat capacity of the additional CO2. At just 400 parts per million of a substance with a low heat capacity in the first place, this is just a rounding error in terms of “atmospheric energy affect”. Rounding off to a few decimal places….zero.

    Energy flux is the issue you are no doubt trying to get at, and the manner in which the energy flux changes across the atmospheric air column. This is what results in a cooler upper atmosphere and a warmer surface temperature. If you are going to lecture others about the physics, I urge you to get it right yourself first.

    As for it being incontrovertible by the way, I don’t think you understand what the full scope of the debate is about. For those of us who have studied the matter, an increase of one degree for each doubling of CO2 is a reasonable approximation. This however is rather unremarkable. At current rates of consumption which raise CO2 levels by about 2 ppm per year, it will take, starting from today, 200 years to get a single additional degree out of CO2. In fact, that sensitivity number is calculated against the effective black body temperature of earth, which is -18 C. Based on Stefan Boltzmann Law, and calculated against the average surface temperature of earth, that doubling only results in just over 0.6 degrees, hardly the stuff of nightmares.

    Here is where the debate not only becomes “controvertible”, but exceedingly so. The question is not, and never was, what the direct effects of doubling of CO2 were. They are too small to get excited about. The debate is, and always was, about the feedbacks from additional CO2. This is a matter that is hotly contested, and even the United Nations IPCC, the supposed repository of the world’s best and most up to date climate science knowledge, admits that they cannot nail this down with any degree of accuracy, and also admit that the climate models are clearly far too sensitive in terms of feedbacks. That admission being made, your claim not only turns out to be an improper explanation of the physics, but the very models which rely on the physics you were no doubt trying to explain, have proven to be a bust by their biggest promoters, the UN IPCC themselves.

  60. philjourdan says:
    July 17, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    There are a lot of folks celebrating over at Joanne Nova’s. But of course a couple of wet blankets, unaffected by the tax, are whining about its demise. Notably the butcher of Wiki.
    ========================================================================
    Shouldn’t that be the ‘Butcher of Wiki’? He at least deserves to have his nom de guerre properly capitalized.

  61. A happy day here in Oz, but it should be seen in perspective. We’ve still got a superstitious Prime Minister who believes in scarey imponderables like anthropogenic global warming, greenhouse gases and carbon pollution – even when some of his backbenchers could put him right. Even worse, we’ve got many ‘green’ businesses that will lobby to keep their incentives in one form or another.

  62. Margaret Smith says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:53 pm
    “John Carter says

    There is no such word as ‘specie’
    ==========================

    …. and I think maybe you meant “effect” not “affect” in your link John. I almost tuned out right there, but any time someone appeals to authority and that authority turns out to be himself, it’s worth the amusement value.

    People have asked you “what is the problem?” To which you have responded with the conjecture about something bad that’s going to happen in the future.

    Are you going to continue evading the question John by linking to the “authority” that happens to be yourself? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM ? Please state it clearly with data. People have asked nicely.

    I live in the present, which happens to be going on 30 years and half a doubling’s worth of CO2 “problems”, into this disproved-by-nature conjecture. Your blathering about the conjecture is kind of a joke on here, as is your evasion of the question asked.

    If you can’t answer the question asked, then your posts have no standing in the real world. If you can’t say what is the problem, then why would anyone waste time listening to your blathering about the solutions? Solutions to what?

    The conjecture(s) turned out to be wrong after 30 years, so stop whipping the dead horse.

  63. John Carter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    … Skeptical science is far past most sites in accuracy and objective assessment

    Greetings John. I don’t mean to distract you from Davidmhoffer’s excellent post above, so please do not be distracted by my post if you time or interest in responding is limited. Still, I was curious. On what evidence do you base your claim that Skeptical Science provides an objective assessment of … much of anything?

    adjective: objective

    1.
    (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    as·sess·ment
    əˈsesmənt/
    noun
    noun: assessment; plural noun: assessments

    the evaluation or estimation of the nature, quality, or ability of someone or something.

  64. The Australian climate and weather is known to be highly variable: ‘land of droughts and flooding rains’.

    The Australian left bureaucracy is known to be rigid, unimaginative, unchanging and slow moving.

    Whenever these two interact it becomes a shambles.

    By the time they ever get any policies in place to react to bushfires, or drought, or floods, or climate, it’s more than likely the weather or climate has already changed again. That’s why we have things like desalination plants left idle by too much water, and academics and politicians claiming accelerating temperatures well after they have flatlined. It’s also partly why we have a mining tax implemented after most of the boom has passed.

    There is an approximate 5-15+ year time lag in Australia between climate and weather and when politicians and legislators try and make a useless attempt to change it. But on the bright side, seeing as the temperatures have now flatlined, it is likely there wont be any further carbon tax for at least 15 years.

  65. Margaret Smith says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    “John Carter says

    There is no such word as ‘specie’

    Not in the sense Carter was using it. But the word exists for other uses. Googling define specie brings up ^money in the form of coins^ (I think gold or silver coins was meant) and ^in similar kind.^

    [Is there no room for puns in a climate catastrophistic’s mind? .mod]

  66. Aussie Jack says
    ” The carbon tax has nothing to do with Australia’s economic situation.”
    One would assume then that taxing heavy industry with the intention of making it locally and globally expensive and thus uncompetitive with subsidised green alternatives has nothing to do with Australia’s economic situation.

  67. (subscription required)

    18 July: WSJ: Australia’s Carbon Tax Message
    Tony Abbott shows that climate absolutists have a problem: democracy
    Tony Abbott scored a big win Thursday when the Senate repealed Australia’s carbon tax, fulfilling the Prime Minister’s most prominent promise from last year’s election. The global intelligentsia is now making Mr. Abbott public climate enemy number one, but he deserves applause for honoring his campaign pledge and removing a burden on the Australian economy. As the first developed nation to rebel against the cost of climate scare-mongering, Australia could start a trend that has greens worried….

  68. omitted WSJ url in previous comment:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/australias-carbon-tax-message-1405616207

    NYT & the inevitable focus on the Koch Brothers!

    17 July: NYT: Australia Tax Repeal Is Big Blow to Fight Against Emissions
    By MICHELLE INNIS, STANLEY REED and CORAL DAVENPORT
    Australia’s system was of particular interest to other countries because it was to have been linked with a similar trading program in Europe.Beginning next year, Australian businesses were to be able to buy European emissions allowances to use under the Australian program. A full two-way link between the two systems was to be in force by July 2018.
    This arrangement would have connected Europe’s program, the world’s largest, to what looked likely to be the third-largest.

    ***The deal might have served as a pilot for linking other systems emerging around the world, including those in China and California.
    “It is quite a setback to the global discussion of linking schemes and moving toward a global carbon market,” said Marcus Ferdinand, an analyst at Point Carbon, a research firm based in Oslo.

    ***The Australian vote also further complicates long-running efforts by the United Nations to forge a global climate change treaty in 2015, aimed at committing the world’s largest economies to making deep cuts in their carbon pollution…

    In Europe, officials expressed disappointment at Australia’s action.
    “The European Union regrets the repeal of Australia’s carbon-pricing mechanism just as new carbon-pricing initiatives are emerging all around the world,” said the European climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard. “The E.U. is convinced that pricing carbon is not only the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions but also the tool to make the economic paradigm shift the world needs.”…
    The Australian vote resonated in the United States, where environmental advocates have tried and failed for years to enact legislation that would put a price tag on carbon pollution. Opponents of carbon pricing, led by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, have sought to make the issue politically toxic, and groups financed by the brothers’ company, Koch Industries, have run aggressive campaigns against lawmakers who support climate change policy.
    “We are drinking Foster’s and putting shrimp on the barbie,” said a celebratory Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group that receives financing from Koch Industries. It is running television ads ahead of the November midterm elections to try to unseat lawmakers who have supported carbon pricing…
    Mr. Pyle predicted that other nations with carbon-pricing policies would follow Australia. “Europe is going to be the next one to do wholesale reversals of these policies,” he said. “It’s like salmon heading upstream.”…
    Mr. Vitter (Republican Senator David Vitter) said Australia’s vote would give strength to Republicans’ efforts to repeal those (Obama’s) regulations…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/business/international/australia-tax-repeal-is-big-blow-to-fight-against-emissions.html

  69. Good job Australia, God bless. In the US we are doing our best to keep are heads above water on this and hoping the tied turns against the progressive left. People are starting to understand that this all about control and not the children. We will keep up the fight with the help of blogs like WUWT.

  70. A sincere vote of thanks to courageous people like Anthony Watts, Bob Carter, Jo Nova, Lord Christopher Monckton, Andrew Bolt, Michael Smith, Jennifer Marohasy and all the other dedicated voices and their supporters who have fought for reason against the powerful odds and incessant preaching of the ABC, the Guardian, the Sydney Herald, the Age and the Left climate academia’s disgraceful fear campaign whatever the cost, whatever the truth.

    Unfortunately this well earned victory is only one small step in the global scene and will now be lost by the media in the terrible Malaysian Airline shoot down story over Ukraine. As will the fact that the Australian snowfields are recording bumper snow falls and the SE is freezing contrary to the predictions of the Greens that from 10 years ago, unless we followed their dogma we were all going to fry.

    And while this magnificent victory should be savoured, this is not the end of the war; it is not even the beginning of the end and it is probably not even the end of the beginning. But I am sure that right, justice and Mother Nature will finally prevail over propaganda. Onwards!

  71. It is excellent news that the Australian Carbon Dioxide Tax has been canned.

    If only there was a chance ours, here in the UK, would also be scrapped.

    Living in hope…

  72. John Carter says (July 17, 2014 at 5:37 pm): “This Problem: http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/whats-really-problem-and-how-bad-and.html

    Thanks for the link, but it would have been a lot easier just to state the one-sentence “problem” instead of linking to an entire page of (mostly) irrelevant stuff. For the benefit of those still reading this thread, here’s the “problem” in full:

    “That is, atmospheric concentrations of the long lived greenhouse gases that ultimately determine how much of the heat reaching the earth and re emitted gets re radiated back to the rest of the atmosphere and back downward, rather than out into space, have now reached levels not collectively seen on earth in several millions years.”

    Which is pretty much what I expected. Other commenters have shown why you’re unduly pessimistic (and rather gullible if you think SkS is a reliable site), so instead I’ll offer you some cheer:

    So-called “carbon taxes” will not actually curtail emissions of so-called “greenhouse gasses” (that’s not their real purpose) and some nations (China, India, Russia) won’t even try to curtail their emissions. That means emissions will continue unabated, so if you live long enough, you’ll see for yourself if your fears are justified. Congratulations! :-)

  73. Folks are missing J. Carter’s message: “It’s time to move the Goalposts, come up with another name for “the Problem”, introduce new language, etc.” Different “problem”, same solution(s).

    The Beat must go on.

  74. Ed, Mr. Jones says:
    July 17, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    Folks are missing J. Carter’s message: “It’s time to move the Goalposts, come up with another name for “the Problem”, introduce new language, etc.” Different “problem”, same solution(s).

    The Beat must go on.

    *

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. :)

  75. fascinating, and accurate:

    17 July: Market Oracle: Andrew McKillop: Carbon No Longer Captures Australia
    (Andrew McKillop, Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission.)

    The previous Labour government moved in 2007 to set a “price on carbon” – that is a carbon tax – claiming the new tax would slash emissions by 160 million tons over 13 years, by 2020. It offered voters billions of dollars in compensation for higher energy prices. The “carbon tax offsets” ranged through every nook and cranny set by Keynesian-thinking, from tax breaks and aids to companies and corporations, to welfare payments even including aid for womens’ associations, gay couples, illegal immigrants and to be sure, Australia’s massive environment protection and green business sector. This spending program, as well as the internationally-trifling and tiny amount of CO2 emissions that would be saved (world emissions are around 30 billion tons per year) were openly derided all through his 2013 election campaign by today’s prime minister, the pugnacious “unreconstructed male” who likes sport, beer and nice looking females, Tony Abbott…

    The World Bank in May 2014, in its “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing” report on carbon pricing in 40 countries, with an estimated US$30 billion annual value, singled out the Abbott government’s solid opposition to carbon pricing as one of the biggest international threats to “rolling out similar programs” in other developed countries, and much further down the line, in the emerging economies.
    Tony Abbott made a campaign “pledge in blood” to voters and business to prioritize growth above climate laws, taxes and supposed “energy transition”, and has delivered on his promise – but the Senate vote also showed that independent senators, with deciding votes in the upper house, also sided with his Liberals. For Labour and the Greens, this was a massive and outright defeat…

    While carbon finance and taxation have merely added one small additional brake on the European economy and a further small decline in living standards, the rejection of the Australian proposals by Labour and the Greens may have quite rapid economic effects. Australia’s troubled but massive potential LNG development program and its high-cost infrastructures was directly threatened by the proposed new carbon pricing mechanism. Unlike all other major LNG producers and exporters, the proposed additional energy taxation would have made Australian LNG exporters compete in global markets against suppliers who pay no such tax at all. Many huge spending plans in LNG were on hold, awaiting the result of the vote.
    Australia’s coal sector, heavily affected by international trends for coal demand and imports, had also delayed or canceled investments and the mining sector in general – fingered as a “carbon pariah” by Labour and the Greens – was heavil apprehensive about the proposed measures…

    Some other major energy users outside the power sector, like national airlines were seriously affected by existing and proposed carbon taxes – Virgin Airlines said in a statement that existing taxes had cost it $27 million in the first 6 months of 2014, pushing it into lossmaking. To be sure, losers will include several Australian power producers who were receiving tax aid and payments to offset increased electricity prices to final consumers, and aid to financing the previous “20% by 2020” Labor government plan – copied on the European model – for massively raising the role of renewable electricity in national power supply by 2020…

    The major impact of the Australian decision will however be political. The US Brookings Institution, along with the IPCC, IEA, IBRD and other “climate friendlies” previously described Australia as an “important laboratory and learning opportunity” for “thinking about climate change and energy”. With Japan and Canada, it had been one of the first major countries outside Europe to adopt a carbon price, and Australia was also comparable – in some ways – with the US concerning its energy-intensive lifestyles, industries and commerce, and its CO2 emissions. Australia’s Labour and Greens had however taken “Mother Country” England as a role model, especially when in 2008 the UK Labour party made its rash commitment to “slashing” UK emissions by at least 80% (from a 2005 base) in the 42 years to 2050.
    Tony Abbott, who shares the present Canadian government’s antipathy to carbon finance, and always identifies himself as a “climate sceptic” said during a recent visit to Ottawa and Washington that climate change was “not the only or most important problem that the world faces”. This is sure and certain.

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article46484.html

  76. I am very pleased to see this silly tax, which does not in itself reduce CO2 emissions globally, and at best merely redistributes where those emiisions come from has been scrapped.

    No doubt there will be repeated attempts to re-introduce this tax over the next few years. I suspect that if there is no global temperature rise between now and 2020, there will not be another IPCC report since it will be impossible for the IPCC to keep a staright face and not to accept that (i) that observational evidence suggests that eclimate sensitivity is less than 2 degC per doubling, and (2) that the models upon which all past projections were made significantly over project the warming. In these circumstances, the upshpot will be that the claimed certainty will be diminished and fear of excessive warming will be scaled back.

    If Australia can keep its nerve for the next 5 years (and I presume that there will not be a change in government before late 2018/early2019) , and if there is no further warming, then things will look good. Particularly, if the Ozzie economy strengthens in relation to Europe which is shackled to uncompetitive practices and high energy costs.

    What should be circulated in Australia, and I would suggest that Lord Monckton (as well as other leading Aussie Sceptics) should try and get this airtime, is the annalysis that Willis did on the the findings of the Japanese IBUKI satellite CO2 data. See his article on the Revenge of the Climate reparations: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/#more-112572

    The data from that satellite showed that Australia was not a net emitter of CO2, but was in fact a carbon sink. In fact, on a per country basis, it ranked the third largest!

    The upshot is that as far as the world is concenred, Australia can stand proud. It is not a net emitter of CO2 but rather a net sink. It is extremely ‘clean’. This message has not yet got through to the public, and I suspect that the ‘greens’ and labour would have problems dealing with it.

  77. On cue, in Sydney today it is absolutely freezing. No daiquiris to celebrate, it will have to be the “Fukushima Meltdown” instead. Recipe- quality instant coffee, cocoa , honey and a bit of cinnamon in half a cup of milk. Bring to boil in microwave. Add a couple of marshmallows and reboil. Add maximum of 3 of the following compatible liqueurs-Frangelico, Galliano, Baileys, Kahlua, Mozart(rich chocolate) ,Tia Maria ,Amaretto. Top with cold milk that has been shaken severely in its bottle for extra froth.
    Alas, the fireplace has bad cracks in the brickwork that have to be fixed before we have an open fireplace. This is because I chopped a big supply of firewood a while back that would normally last us 2 years(since Sydney does not get that cold) which is all bone dry now. Typical. Run out of milk, so will have to brave the cold to get some more to make the celebratory meltdowns.
    Time to celebrate.

  78. “What “climate change” problem would that be specifically?”

    The one in which climate deniers who have invented a theory that doesn’t match reality, but are in denial of that fact, dominate the economies of over half the developed world.

  79. About “reversing action on climate change”
    Spain has stopped all subsidies for new renewable energy instalations (wind and sun) two years ago when the right-center Rajoy was elected, over previous left wing PM Zapatero.
    They run out of money.

  80. Lord Monckton,

    I bet that your debates and speeches “down under” helped a lot with this result. I hope you plan to keep up that work because the war is far from over. Kudos to JoNova as well of course.

  81. “Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:

    July 18, 2014 at 3:49 am”

    There was no coverage here in Aus unless you were reading WUWT or Jo Nova etc. So almost nothing!

    Australian Federal Govn’t, state Govn’t, local council, the MSM and all “authorities” (Maybe not the “fireies”) are in bed with CaGW, hook, line and sinker.

  82. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:00 pm

    The propaganda site to which I was referring was “The Conversation”.
    ==
    Oh Dear Lord(M) :-)
    none but the approved and certain few get anything posted there.
    It’s a waste of pixel time to even bother penning a Q or response.
    but good onya for having a go!
    :-)

    I am one of the very pleased its been canned,
    still dont trust Clive though

  83. After 9/11, Tony Blair stood up and made an incredibly eloquent speech, one that galvanized the planet and made us all proud that someone, somewhere was feeling the pain of the US. It certainly wasn’t Canada’s PM at the time, who was likely hiding under his bed the whole time. Later I had many people point out to me the many ways that Tony Blair was completely opposite me politically, but it didn’t matter. He said the right words, at the right time, and earned my respect.

    From above:

    Tony Abbott, who shares the present Canadian government’s antipathy to carbon finance, and always identifies himself as a “climate sceptic” said during a recent visit to Ottawa and Washington that climate change was “not the only or most important problem that the world faces”. This is sure and certain.

    I don’t know much about Tony Abbot, and to be honest the politics of Australia and New Zealand appear nothing but convoluted, backward, and plain weird. But to me this position (which is a brave position in today’s world, unfortunately) earns my respect.

    In the future, people WILL look back on these pushbacks against the “climate establishment” as brave, principled, the RIGHT THING TO DO, although maybe a little late to stop most of the damage. History will not be kind to those who, deluded by charlatans and convinced of an imminent climate disaster, literally gave away our future and our children’s futures. And worse: they gave the future away to transparently stupid people like al-Gore and his followers.

  84. Curious George says:
    July 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    Moderator – please snip Vicomt Monckon’s comment. He represents old times and ideas of politically incorrect opinions. Those times are gone. Progressives – full steam ahead!

    [Jim, let me be clear on your request: no, and hell no, especially when you yourself hide behind a fake name (you are neither curious, nor George) while espousing that your own political viewpoint is superior. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony Watts]

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

    I could have sworn CG’s comment was satire.

  85. John Carter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    If you had a point, you managed to obscure it with writing that would embarrass a Sociologist.

  86. “mosomoso says:

    July 18, 2014 at 5:53 am”

    No! Compare to those…games? Or footballything…I mean what? It’s like being “alternative”…

  87. “God tends not to take political sides, but when it comes to the carbon tax, She does seem to be trying to tell us something via celestial signs.” Amazing ! Now God is a ‘SHE’. The problem with that comment that anyone that has any idea what ‘God’ is about would already know that he is neither a he or a she but only God. That comment would only be promoted by either a cretonic feminist or someone who has absolutely no idea what the scriptures teach. Either way, it is a truly offensive piece of propaganda that demonstrates the unworthiness of the person even making mention of it.

  88. Mr Carter expresses concern that the somewhat increased methane concentration, coupled with the significantly increased CO2 concentration, will somehow upset the presumed equilibrium of the climate in a dangerous way. Well, the IPCC in 1990 estimated that by 2014 the total forcing from all anthropogenic sources since 1750 would be 4 Watts per square meter. However, by 2011 there had been only 2.3 Watts per square meter of manmade forcing. And global warming is occurring at half the rate the IPCC had predicted in 1990. None of the IPCC’s projections, on the basis of which doom had been predicted, are coming true. Relax: this has turned out to be a non-problem, though it will take some time for the profiteers of doom to realize it.

  89. Many thanks to Willis Eschenbach, Mark Stoval and the King Of Cool for their kind words. Of course the usual suspects will bid their time until, in the course of events, the Left regain control in Canberra. But by then, with luck, it will have become impossible for the usual suspects in the media to conceal the fact that global warming is not occurring at anything like the predicted rate. Gradually, even on the habitually-unthinking Left, there will be a change in priorities to bring the focus closer to the real world. This is a great victory, but, as Churchill used to say, it is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but at least it is the end of the beginning.

  90. Monckton of Brenchley says:

    July 18, 2014 at 6:08 am

    Relax: this has turned out to be a non-problem, though it will take some time for the profiteers of doom to realize it.

    Uh, they will realize it as soon as there is no profit to be taken.

  91. Shame, Australia, shame on you. You missed the opportunity to save something like 0.000463933% of the world’s CO2 output.

  92. D. B. Cooper says:
    since the BC Carbon Tax is offset by drops in income tax rates, it means someone else pays taxes I used to pay,
    =========
    your analysis is incomplete. the tax increases the cost of production in BC, discouraging exports and encouraging imports. this cuts employment which erodes the tax base, meaning that government has less funds for road building, schools and hospitals. The end result is toll bridges, school closures and long wait times for medical treatment. Which are likely to affect you or your family.

    the net effect of the carbon tax is to export jobs to countries such as china, that are buying BC coal as fast as we can ship it to them. they sell back to us finished goods, arriving by the container load in Vancouver. And the CO2 from BC coal and lost BC jobs? It is carried back to BC for free by the wind. So for a net loss of jobs, we see no difference in CO2, maybe even an increase because China uses coal for electricity, while BC uses mostly hydro power.

  93. @ferdberple
    Yes, the holistic view is a better perspective on policy fail and related appearance management styles

  94. The next step is to watch and see how much energy and voter respect is lost as Greens and Labor focus efforts in restarting the tax. That will really sap them while also showing off their inability to lead the country.

  95. taxation for social purposes such as CO2 reduction rarely works as intended. the tax paying public eventually wakes up to this reality, and given an alternative will vote with their wallets.

    taxes exist to raise revenue for the state. as such they are a necessary evil, but an evil just the same. the notion that you can somehow use this mechanism to do good is like asking the devil to save the world. what may look good on paper will eventually turn out bad.

    taxes should never be used as a mechanism to “do good”. they are a necessary evil, but an evil just the same. otherwise, we could end poverty by taxing the poor and raise people’s IQ by taxing stupid. you cannot use an evil mechanism to do good, without unexpected consequences.

  96. John Carter, I followed the link to your blog article. You’re barking mad if you really think government imposed CO2 caps and imposition of emission allocations are “free market solutions.” Free markets occur when parties enter a market voluntarily and are not compelled by government. But perhaps you don’t value freedom. Perhaps you think command economies work better than free markets. If so, perhaps you’re incapable of learning from history.

  97. “…the fact that geologically massive amounts of long lived greenhouse gases have been pumped into the air, and of the basic science (and slowly, minor casual observation over time) that says this will lead to geologically significant change in the climate patter)” – John Carter
    ——————————————————————-
    I hope that this doesn’t seem rude because you seem like a fairly reasonable guy by warmist standards.

    1. Should we be more worried because you consider anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be “geologically massive” ?

    2. Even your climate gurus state CO2 warming isn’t significant enough. That’s why the rube goldberg scheme of positive feedbacks was invented. You seem to gloss over this.

    3. You seem to be upset that Australia ditched the carbon tax. You being the logical guy that you are surely realize that Oz’s carbon tax couldn’t have any impact on global climate whatsover?

  98. In their response to the repeal of the carbon tax labor stated:

    “Labor fought hard to put a price on carbon, and Labor fought hard to move to an emissions trading scheme.”

    Rather contradicts Julia Gillard when she stated “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”

    In one sense she was right, there is no carbon tax but then again she doesn’t lead the government either.

  99. @Pat
    Your description of the carbon tax redistribution in Australia is interesting. It is the same sort of voter-block influence peddling formula that was proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill in the U.S. The similarity helps demonstrate that the carbon fight is really a grand money bag effort to arrange voter blocks in order to manipulate elections and preserve power. None of that has anything to do with science process, science model validation, environmental adjustment, or rational policy in the good government sense.

  100. Looks like a big speed bump.
    The Australian says that Abbott’s government will refuse to accept the Senate’s amended repeal because it retains the spending that was based on the carbon tax revenues.
    It’s all or nothing on mining tax. Premium content, unfortunately, only the beginning is available for free.
    Bolt has a longer extract from the article in his post Idiotic: Senate scraps the tax, still spends the money.
    I’ve had trouble finding further information on this.

  101. @John Carter – are you paid by the word? In which case you must be pretty well off.

    What a load of verbose, unfounded waffle and arm waving.

    To everyone else – don’t feed the (wealthy) troll

  102. Okay, here’s more:

    Members of the Opposition, the Greens and crossbenchers combined to preserve many of the spending initiatives associated with the tax.

    and

    The amended bill now returns to the Lower House, but Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has indicated the Government will not accept the changes.

    and

    He says if Senators insist on the amendments, the mining tax will stay in place.

    Senate passes Government’s mining tax repeal legislation with several amendments, bill returns to Lower House
    Was that the opposition plan all along? In the US we call it a “poison pill” – a change added to make a legislative bill unacceptable to the bill’s backers. Maybe Al Gore was in on it and wasn’t so stupid to be standing next to Clive Palmer a week or two ago, on the occasion when Palmer announced his support of the carbon tax repeal repeal.

  103. The statement by both the front and back ends of the camel is the translation into camel of the labour party’s press release. The camel is a loyal green party member.

  104. Unfortunately not all climate spending has stopped. We still have the Renewable Energy Target and the Climate Commission and other groups that are spending taxpayer money. Hopefully they go soon.

  105. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    Mr Carter is worried about CO2 levels higher than in 800,000 years. In fact, there is some evidence they may be higher than in 20 million years. But the correct response, on the evidence to date, is “So what?”
    To trees and plants, CO2 is plant food. Experiment suggests that they would flourish best at concentrations of 2000 ppmv, or five times today’s concentration. Yet at four times today’s concentration we shall run out of affordably recoverable fossil fuels.
    If CO2 were a major driver of global temperature, there would have been some global warming in the past couple of decades. There has not been any to speak of.
    And CO2 cannot acidify the oceans because they are powerfully buffered by the basalt basis in which they live and slosh and have their being. Besides, the corals evolved when there was 10-20 times today’s CO2 in the air.
    So where’s the harm going to come from? Best to wait and spend our scarce resources on dealing with real and far more urgent environmental problems.”

    Monckton of Brenchley, thanks for the thoughtful response to my comment. I think “so what,” is a great expression. I use it a lot. I also know a person who’s destroyed their life and harmed others with self destructive addictive behavior; and the more logical the point made, the more apt the “so what” response is to be had. I’m not sure that “so what”to climate change isn’t somewhere in the middle?

    George Bush in his 2006 State of the Union Address said America, at least, is “addicted” to oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/world/americas/01iht-state.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    Your suggestion why it’s a “so what” issue isn’t accurate:

    “if co2 were a major driver of temp, there would ahve been some global warming in the past couple decades.”

    The ocean is absorbing heat 1500% faster than at any time in the past 10.000 years. http://www.voanews.com/content/oceans-are-buffers-for-climate-change/1781090.html Even if that is off by a few factors, the relevance doesn’t much change. Oceans ultimately drive climate. A net energy imbalance (solar radiation in > thermal radiation out) would increase retained ocean temperatures. Increased atmospheric trapped heat is not only going to heat the atmosphere a little bit more, but the oceans. And all but assuredly, given global rates of net melting, ice sheets and cover, which are also increasing in energy (warmth).

    The atmospheric (non ocean) temperature has also been rising at probably the fastest rate in 11,000 years, or just about. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0307/Global-temperature-rise-is-fastest-in-at-least-11-000-years-study-says A tendency is to look year to year on this. Year to year or several years of mild oscillations to trends don’t dictate, the trend in total does, huge increases in the 90s followed by moderate to some flatlining but still far above 80s and 70s does not mean a trend stopped, or even yet suggests it. The common conclusion or assertion otherwise isn’t accurate, and just about every non ideological climate scientist on the planet would say the same thing.)

    There unequivocally has been warming, and it’s not been completely ho hum. But in terms of what we would consider bad global warming, there has to be a lag. Maybe this is the most confusing part of the issue, and also something a lot of the the media routinely botches. (What else is new.) The earth is a relatively stable system. Those words mean nothing without context. What I mean is relative to our time scale. Ocean temperatures, enormous ice caps and sheets, permafrosts (though less)etc, are extremely stable relative to what we would consider “significant time.”

    The major change here is not just the ongoing increase in atmospheric heat trapping, but it is also the increasingly cumulative (and non linear) affects of increasingly self reinforcing changes, in these systems. Changes which of course continue, and thus themselves, start to affect or affect the drivers of climate more and more, which as a matter of basic science has to lag well behind any major increases to begin with. And this process is concurrent along side continuing increases, rather than reductions to, net atmospheric long lived gg levels! (not alarmist ! but an emphasis !).

    Even hot temperatures over a week, year or decade or eve more, don’t just melt ice sheets, but start to build up energy as they begin to melt, cracks form, the process slowly continues, all while the earth system is under the same much higher atmospheric heat trapping effect, which continues to drive the process, and in this case, also under a continually increasing atmospheric heat trapping effect.

    The facts are real. Calling them otherwise doesn’t change that. And while significant is a relative term, they are what most people would very comfortably consider “significant.”.

    It seems there is a desire here to come up with ways, regardless, to help one not find them significant? Rather than actually assess them from all angles?

    Again, the most notable one is the oceans. Trying to disprove the idea of rising ocean heat is not trying to find out what is happening. Which means conclusions drawn are not objective, but tailored to fit a goal. That may be good politics, but it leads to and then reinforces mistaken notions on science. Which is what is happening here.

  106. John Carter says (July 18, 2014 at 2:56 pm): “Which means conclusions drawn are not objective, but tailored to fit a goal. That may be good politics, but it leads to and then reinforces mistaken notions on science. Which is what is happening here.”

    Wow! A very apt description of climate alarmism! This guy has definitely been to the SkS site!

  107. John Carter,

    The article you linked to is alarmist nonsense. But I did take their quiz to see if I could be considered scientifically literate. My score:

    50 Correct
    0 Wrong
    100% You answered 50 of 50 questions correctly for a total score of 100

    So I am not writing from ignorance. I doubt if the authors could come close to 100%. BTW, how did you do?

    The author ends his article by noting:

    Researchers may have to look as far back as the last interglacial period, the Eamian period 125,000 years ago, to find comparable absolute warmth

    Therefore, only 125,000 years ago the planet was as warm [actually, warmer] than it is now. That happened naturally, with no human industrial emissions. We are currently in another interglacial period, and it’s happening again. So what?

    Even more to the point, the article you posted says
    Global temperature rise is fastest in at least 11,000 years…

    That means that 16K years ago temperatures were higher than now, no? [That’s wrong, but then so is the premise of the article].

    In addition, global T has begun to decline, which contradicts your article’s predictions. You need to do better than using the C.S. Monitor as your authority. And if you ever use SkepticalScience as a resource, no wonder you are so far off-track.

  108. Ed, Mr. Jones says:
    July 17, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    Folks are missing J. Carter’s message: “It’s time to move the Goalposts, come up with another name for “the Problem”, introduce new language, etc.” Different “problem”, same solution(s).
    The Beat must go on.

    This is an interesting comment. It’s posted July 17, 11:02 pm (PST?)

    Here is what I wrote, 19:44 Australian Time (I don’t know what that is, but was very early A.M. July 17, half a day before Ed, Mr. Jones’ post.

    I also strongly think that calling this issue climate change – regardless of possibly setting up fuel for more far right gimmickery that “the AGW crowd” is “changing the name because the facts aren’t working” http://www.skepticalscience.com/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics.html#105467
    Not a bad call, huh? A little different framing – maybe Jones’ is better – but same essence.

    Remainder of the sentence is kinda key: – [CC moniker] “has really added to major confusion on and misunderstanding of the issue. (Remember, most of America  for example, and Australia does not have the knowledge of a lot of readers of this site.)  It causes people to conflate what is observable right now as climate with the actual problem, when it’s not remotely.”

    Phlogiston
    Thanks for the added symbol issues on the camels, Didn’t know that, it makes the pic even better (Real methane issues aside)

    Patrick says:
    July 17, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    “John Carter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:59 pm”
    NASA states CH4 is dropping. So “we’re” adding nothing.

    Methane’s half life is (~7?)years. So its concentration can vary, quickly. (It also breaks down into CO2, so stays a gg gas, just far less potent.)

    Over the past 800,000 years methane has never gone above 700 or so ppb. (Go here http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/ghg-concentrations.html click on chart right below that says methane.) In 1950 it was around 1100 In 2012 Methane levels reached a new high of 1819, and a 260% rise over pre industrial levels http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_980_en.html

    In the early 2000s it was flat (meaning we’re still adding large net amounts, but not enough net to cause it to go up even more) – and maybe if something minorly changes (or camels and cows stop chewin’ tobacca – er, I mean their cud, how most CH4 leaves ruminants), it decreases slightly in 2013. Dunno.

    Also, bigger methane problem is in the northern permafrost. That layer is mostly thin. Right now it is helping keep earth’s albedo way up. ( So as it warms, and snow softens – which has a lower albedo – and fully opens – as tundra has a far lower albedo still – that would cause the earth to absorb a lot more heat.)

    Point made in above comment to Lord Monckton and in answer to other questions about what the problem is, that atmospheric temperatures are not the main issue, it’s the increased heat retention, or warming, of the earth itself. Oceans, http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/heat-around-and-below.html major ice sheets, land,etc. Permafrost is an example, where the ground is heating up also, and faster than the arctic air temperatures http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130610.html#.U8mhG_ldUpo

    There’s a huge amount of carbon stored in it – more than twice the amount in the entire atmosphere http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6129/183.abstract ) , a good portion of which would not come out as CO2, but methane. If it comes out in huge amounts, even though it won’t stay as methane for too long, the additions would trap a huge additional amount of radiated heat in the atmosphere during that time it was methane (and it is likely to be emitted in ongoing increasing amounts, which would hasten short term acceleration of the same permafrost, and other things.

  109. Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. A simple equation using only those very accurately explains the reported up and down measurements since before 1900. The coefficient of determination, R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95). The equation provides credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

    R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.
    R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.
    The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, demonstrates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.
    The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured. R2 > 0.9 is excellent.

    The calculations use data since before 1900 which are official, accepted as valid and are publicly available.

    Solar cycle duration or magnitude considered separately fail to correlate but their combination, expressed as the time-integral of solar cycle anomalies, gives excellent correlation. A solar cycle anomaly is the difference between the sunspot number for a year and an average sunspot number for many years.

    Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.

    The method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037) are provided at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and references.

  110. John Carter;
    Again, the most notable one is the oceans.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I see you just skipped right by the very factual explanations by myself and others upthread. Can’t refute the arguments so you just ignore them?

    Let’s talk about the oceans though. The heat capacity of the oceans (and I would urge you to find out what “heat capacity” actually means since you keep throwing out terms like “heat trapping” where they are inappropriate and a clear indication that you don’t understand the physics involved) is about 1200 times that of the atmosphere. As you noted in your own comment, the temperature increases we’ve seen in the last few decades are by no means alarming. So, you start talking about lag and ocean heat content. But if the “missing heat” is in fact going into the oceans, the fact that they are warming faster than ever becomes meaningless for the simple fact that the amount they are heating is still minor (regardless of speed), and the fact becomes that the oceans become a gigantic buffer in which it will takes 1200 times as much energy to raise the world’s temperature by one degree as previously thought. Your point means that there is even less reason for alarm than if the oceans were not heating.

    But even the argument that they are heating faster than ever before doesn’t hold water (if you’ll pardon the expression). I refer you to one of many threads on this forum that go into excrutiating detail on ocean heat content:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/ocean-heat-content-0-to-2000-meters-why-arent-northern-hemisphere-oceans-warming-during-the-argo-era/

    And since you seem determined to talk about the physics regarding the greenhouse effect, I suggest also that you read these articles in detail to get a firmer grasp of your own side of the argument:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/07/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-light-and-heat/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/

  111. John Carter,

    You’re scaring yourself, John. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with the global climate. In fact, we have been living in a true “Goldilocks” climate for the past century and a half. In the past 15K years before now, global temperatures have fluctuated by TENS of degrees, within a decade. That is scary. But the 0.7ºC fluctuation over the past century+ is not. It is normal and natural.

    Next, methane is not a problem. It never was; that is why it is only mentioned sporadically, and only by the Chicken Little clique. If it was a problem, there would be plenty of papers written, and lots of hand-waving over it. But there’s not. ‘Methane’ is a non-starter: credible people don’t dwell on it, because if they do, they lose their credibility. You would be wise to not go down that road, unless you can produce verifiable global harm due to methane. And if you do, you will be the first to show any substance behind the methane scare.

    Also, you are fixated on “carbon” [by which the scientifically illiterate refer to carbon dioxide, a tiny trace gas]. You should know that the “carbon” scare is running out of steam, as we see in the comments under numerous climate articles in the media: skeptical comments outnumber alarmist comments by about 10 – 1. You are on the losing side of the debate.

    Finally, disregard SkepticalScience. That is strictly a propaganda blog. Everything written there has an agenda behind it. SS is not credible – see Anthony’s comments on the sidebar. SS is in a class by itself.

  112. I wish California government would take a hint from this move. Unfortunately, they only deal in fantasy. (See Hollywood, who has the only truly acceptable vocations in California except government.)

  113. dbstealey says:
    July 18, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    John Carter,

    The article you linked to is alarmist nonsense. But I did take their quiz to see if I could be considered scientifically literate. My score:

    50 Correct
    0 Wrong
    100% You answered 50 of 50 questions correctly for a total score of 100

    So I am not writing from ignorance. I doubt if the authors could come close to 100%.

    The author ends his article by noting:

    Researchers may have to look as far back as the last interglacial period, the Eamian period 125,000 years ago, to find comparable absolute warmth

    Therefore, only 125,000 years ago the planet was as warm [actually, warmer] than it is now. That happened naturally, with no human industrial emissions. We are currently in another interglacial period, and it’s happening again. So what?

    In addition, global T has begun to decline, which contradicts your article’s predictions. You need to do better than using the C.S. Monitor as your authority.

    At the end of my comment to Lord Monckton I suggested “It seems there is a desire here to come up with ways, regardless, to help one not find them significant? Rather than actually assess them from all angles?

    The comment by Dbhealey in response, is a perfect example.

    First, my link to the piece about current warming being the fastest in 11,000 years was, and clearly laid out as such, in direct response to L. M.’s suggestion that If CO2 were a major driver of global temperature, there would have been some global warming in the past couple of decades. Not only warming, but possibly to probably (the study authors say it is) the fastest in at least 11,000 years, is definitely some global warming.

    That is all that link was provided for. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130 And it should have been obvious to any reader – particularly one smart enough to score a perfect 50 out of 50 on the CSM “scientific literacy” test.
    Yet the above commenter turned it into something else entirely. Why? The only plausible suggestion is in order to come up with ways to discredit the idea of climate, change, not consider but simply find ways to attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science, or find what almost non ideological atmospheric and climate scientists find very significant, to yet be insignificant.

    As I pointed out in the first comment near the beginning of this thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1688378 that is not what science is, and only leads to and reinforces highly erroneous conclusions, and bad science.

    Second, the commenter calls the Christian Science Monitor’s article “nonsense,” and then by way of support. proffers his excellent (and impressive) score on their scientific [not climate change] literacy test. Of course calling it nonsense is fine; yet also, coincidentally enough, is another easy way to not consider but attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science. Then points out from the same article that 125,000 years ago, the earth was as warm if not warmer than today. And uses the same “so what” response the original comment was addressing. First off, 125,000 years is a pretty long time, and having similar warming right now at the same microscopic geologic moment we have and are radically increasing long term concentrations of atmospheric gg gases, is pretty odd.

    But again, the point is not the current temperature, but that the current temperature is extraordinarily unlikely to just happen to be a “random fluctuation” but a function of what here it’s a likely reflection of, and incontrovertible. The atmosphere is trapping more radiated heat, because it suddenly has a (LOT) higher long lived gg gases concentration. This hasn’t just warmed the atmosphere a little bit (which is some bit of climactic change), as some sort of random fluctuation that is going to maybe randomly go back down or level out (and again,”ten years = climate” is really bad science), but is changing the net energy balance of the earth, and changing the systems that drive climate. This issue is a function of what is happening to the system due to very basic (again, multi million year) changes over an extraordinarily compressed geologic period. Not the current temperature, And that on top of that, and most critically, the net atmospheric levels of long lived heat trapping gases are still rising, and rapidly – super fast from a geologic perspective.

    Lastly, charting through the many temperature charts, to find a random one that supports the largely scientifically discredited notion that temperatures re falling, the commenter found this chart 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 not the ones used by NASA and everyone professionally studying this issue.

    An odd chart, because it doesn’t chart the graph, it breaks it up. A neat trick to make an “argument.” And one that – a person who was also Climate Change, not just scientifically literate, would or should know- is extremely misleading, since such short term variations don’t establish anything in terms of the broader trend. So again, why was the largely meaningless (and incorrect, but that’s besides the point) idea that over a couple years temperatures have moderated down from the previous highs even postulated? The same chart, in addition to breaking up the trend line, and to further exaggerate the affect, also only goes back to 1985. Is this chart designed to talk about weather? Or Long term climate? Or designed for the purpose of somewhat conflating the two, and so find ways to not consider but attack or dismiss any relevant points to the issue: Here, being the clear warming trend, and one that has been very rapid in terms of recent geologic time.

  114. John Carter;
    but is changing the net energy balance of the earth,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    At equilibrium, the net energy balance of the earth changes by precisely zero in response to a doubling of CO2. If it doesn’t:

    a) you’ve invented perpetual motion, and;
    b) you’ll be awarded a Nobel prize for discovering it.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath on either.

  115. John Carter;
    Here, being the clear warming trend, and one that has been very rapid in terms of recent geologic time.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Are you quite certain?

  116. Mr Carter says the world has been warming at a rate faster than in 11,000 years. No: the central England temperature record, a good proxy for global temperature, shows warming from 1694-1733, entirely before the industrial revolution began, at a rate equivalent to 4.33 K/century. The fastest supra-decadal warming rate since 1950, when Man might first have influenced climate, was during the 33 years 1974-2006, at 2.01 K/century equivalent.

    Mr Carter also says ocean heat content is increasing. However, the best evidence we have, the Argo bathythermograph buoys, shows warming of the oceans at around one-seventh of the predicted rate. However, since this network has so poor a resolution that it is the equivalent of taking a single measurement to represent the whole of Lake Superior less than once a year, we cannot tell whether the oceans are warming at all, for the change is well within the measurement uncertainties. Nor can we tell why the oceans are warming: there are, for instance, 3.5 million seabed volcanoes, not one of which is properly or routinely monitored.

    Mr Carter also says I am trying to minimize the dangers posed by our minuscule influence on the climate. On the contrary: I merely examine the official data and find that air temperaure is warming at half the predicted rate, and the oceans are accumulating heat at one-seventh of the predicted rate. At the measured rates of warming, it is self-evident that we are not causing any significant climatic effect: nor, on the mathematics, are we likely to do so. The scientific literature agrees with both Mr Carter and me that if we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere some warming will result: but the small quantity of papers considering the only question that matters – how much warming will we cause – are now moving firmly in the direction of 1 K per CO2 doubling, not the 3.3 K that is the IPCC’s central estimate. Best to wait and see, and spend precious resources on real environmental problems.

  117. rogerknights says:
    Not in the sense Carter was using it. But the word exists for other uses. Googling define specie brings up ^money in the form of coins^ (I think gold or silver coins was meant) and ^in similar kind.^

    Similarly, if one were to Google “d e n i e r”, one finds that Wikipedia refers to an old French coin. ;-)

    Greetings from a Carbon Tax free Australia.
    I’d also like to thank Anthony along with other well known Lords, ladies and gentlemen of good common sense who must rightly share in our small victory. Congratulations to you.
    Cheers.

  118. John Carter,

    Appparently I touched a raw nerve, going by your lengthy reply. Sorry about that. I suppose you took the science quiz you posted.   How’d you do? ☺

    Regarding your statement, taken from the article, where you say that warming is…

    …possibly to probably (the study authors say it is) the fastest in at least 11,000 years…

    We see here that 11,000 years ago there was no global warming like we see now, as the article claims. That’s why I labeled it ‘nonsense’. The author did not bother to fact check. They got that wrong; so much for their credibility.

    Next, you denigrated the data based Wood For Trees chart I posted. OK, here is another chart, by the Washington Post — hardly a skeptical publication. Global warming has stopped, John, and not just a few years ago.

    Next, here is a chart showing that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 is steadily rising, but global temperature is flat to declining. That chart alone deconstructs the alarmism over runaway global warming.

    Finally, you make no further mention of the methane menace. Good. That was a baseless scare anyway. And no more SkepticalScience nonsense, either. Very good! The quality of your comments is improving.

  119. @John Carter
    If your screed didn’t sound so much like the ramblings of the drunken beggars beside the subway stations I’d take you more seriously.

  120. Bill Shorten, the Labor opposition leader now says he wants to go to the next election with the ETS as a policy. Right folks, we have 2 years to educate the public about the ETS being a way of making traders rich by dealing in thin air and that 10% of ETS payments go to the UN, the very ones who promulgate the myth of AGW. If enough people can be woken up to the grand scam of catastrophic man-made global warming, Labor will be toast. Hopefully the electorate, on finding that the Left openly supported blatant lies, fraud and ttreachery will be thoroughly discredited and shown up for evil traitors they are.

  121. dbstealey says:
    July 18, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    John Carter,

    Appparently I touched a raw nerve, going by your lengthy reply. Sorry about that. I suppose you took the science quiz you posted. How’d you do? ☺

    Regarding your statement, taken from the article, where you say that warming is…

    …possibly to probably (the study authors say it is) the fastest in at least 11,000 years…

    We see here that 11,000 years ago there was no global warming like we see now, as the article claims. That’s why I labeled it ‘nonsense’. The author did not bother to fact check. They got that wrong; so much for their credibility.

    Perhaps you should carefully read that “lengthy” reply, which was lengthy in order to correctly articulate the points, and not simply conclude.

    In that I pointed out, from one comment in response to mine (In response to L.M.), you made three critical claims,all of which were a perfect example of finding ways to discredit the idea of climate change, and not consider but simply find ways to attack or dismiss any points that don’t serve to discredit the great bulk of climate science.

    Re above, I think you mistook some stuff. The point was not that it was as warm 11,000 years ago (though maybe it was) but that the earth right now is warming faster than at any point in at least the last 11,000 years. Warming faster (or, as I perhaps clumsily pointed out, “probably” warming faster, since the study could have missed something, and certainly had to use some chosen standard to arrive at this), than at any time in the past 11,000 y ears is a strong indication of very rapid warming.

    This article gives a little more information, a little more clearly stated http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/

    Re your other comment above, where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years? That’s interesting stuff. (also,, kind of a short time frame so hard to put into context.) But my Gawd, if the earth can shift that radically without an external radiative forcing, imagine what it can do in response to a rapid (and huge) external radiative forcing that has suddenly changed the collective atmospheric long lived gas heat trapping quotient to its highest level in several million years? I kid, of course. But re that same comment above, if by “scared” of climate change you mean I think it is extraordinarily counter productive (and very unfair to our kids and grand kids) to radically change the long term (heat trapping, which is, despite Davidhoffer’s constant attempts to finagle, is pretty relevant) [gg] of the atmosphere, then yes.

    If you mean “scared,” then no. I’ve paddled Great Falls outside of Wash DC (a National Park and 55 foot total drop rapid on the Potomac that’s a class V-VI) backward (ok, I warrant part of the backward part wasn’t “fully” intentional”) so extreme water, weather, flooding, and ocean rise isn’t scary. I just think it’s terribly counter productive. And aside from the money that will be spent on it, which will dwarf anything imaginable to shift over now (rather than later, with far less to gain, but no choice and probably a lot of over reactive and ill thought out government dictate) to better modes of production and agricultural practices, there will be a lot of harm to a lot of nations and peoples.

    And I think other things, including a propensity to inherently believe that man doesn’t have the ability to inadvertently radically reshape our world in ways that might not be in our interests, or believe that whatever we do is by definition “good” (i.e, or even in our interests), as well as I think (speaking of fears), way overblown fears of economic duress, and excessive government entanglement, (hence why I think this is relevant http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/by-far-easiest-simplest-most-efficient.html and a belief that there is an inherent right to use of the common resource whatever can be gotten, no matter how it infringes, PLUS a lot of energy industry backed intense misinformation on a subject that is easy to wrangle on (see most of Davidhoffers posts on this thread), all of which is driving an unrealized desire to discredit the bulk of climate change science, and attach to anything that serves to discredit the bulk of climate change science.

    On the science quiz, I didn’t take it. I did the first two (silly stuff), then balked on amplitude. Was gonna guess it, but wasn’t sure, and went back to what I was doing. So you prolly beat me.

    • @John Carter – Did you read dbStealey’s response at all? Did you even bother with a link or 2? Your rebuttal indicates you either did not, or could not understand what he wrote. He cites raw data, you cite opinion pieces at news sites.

      Try reading what he wrote the next time – and following the links. You made a fool of yourself by ignoring them this time.

  122. Mr Carter continues to insist that the world is warming faster now than at any previous time in the past 11,000 years. This is not true. The world warmed more than twice as fast from 1694-1733, before the Industrial Revolution began, than it has warmed over any similar period since. Furthermore, it is not scientific to say the world is currently warming fast – or at all – given that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades.

    Science is not a belief system. Approaching these questions aprioristically is a mistake. We already know what the Party Line on the climate is. The Party Line, in all fundamental respects, is plumb wrong.

  123. TomB says:
    July 18, 2014 at 9:04 pm
    @John Carter
    If your screed didn’t sound so much like the ramblings of the drunken beggars beside the subway stations I’d take you more seriously.

    I actually had one write two of my last three. (Only cost me a half pint, too – his subway beggar ghost comment writing prices were certainly reasonable..) But, seriously, I notice, not a lot of on point substantive response. Aside. “somewhat” from Davidhoffer, (whose interest and time I respect and appreciate, it’s just too much to get back to this moment, but will try, but there’s a lot of errors),though a lot of that isn’t on point, and some of the other stuff is wrong.

    David, let”s just focus on this one thing for now:

    davidmhoffer says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    John Carter;
    but is changing the net energy balance of the earth,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    At equilibrium, the net energy balance of the earth changes by precisely zero in response to a doubling of CO2. If it doesn’t:

    a) you’ve invented perpetual motion, and;
    b) you’ll be awarded a Nobel prize for discovering it.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath on either.:”

    ———-
    I don’t really see how what you write, despite all the intimations, is actually addressing my comment(s). The earth’s energy balance (meaning, total net energy) is not increasing? You’re really claiming this?

    The claim that the earth can not increase in total energy from a doubling of CO2 levels is ridiculous,and it doesn’t matter how many big words and bigger phrases and equations you use. So, what’s your point? Is this sort of the ultra sophisticated version of the two separate commenters who decided to take issue with substance by trying to teach me that species has an s at the end of it, or just remind me and all other readers of the phenomenon known as the typo; but that – sophisticated version – really has nothing to do with the substance but has managed to convince that it somehow does? Because I’ve seen that a lot.

    Maybe we need to get our terms straight. What do you mean by yours? Where do you teach or practice physics? Because while I’m not the brightest physics student on the planet, I’m not the worst, and I don’t follow some of your points. And many of those I do I find to be mistaken. (Will get back to as time allows), or having badly misconstrued mine. Very badly, given the level of erudition your comments seem to aim for.

    The earth is always in equilibrium, at least under “street physics.” In the sense that maybe the whole universe is, as I understand it. E = MC squared and all that. Energy comes in, it goes somewhere. Energy in = energy out + net energy retained or lost. According to you, Is this correct or not? Not the symbology I chose, but the meaning.

    If you are half the physicist you seem to suggest you are, you know exactly what I mean.

    The solar radiation that comes in has to go somewhere. The earth emits heat back into space. the amount emitted back into space is not always equal to the amount that comes in.

    If the net energy balance is changing over a given time period, that means that amount emitted back into space is either a little more on average per unit of time, or a little less per unit of time, than is entering in to the system via incoming solar radiation.

    My statement was that that -what I here call the net energy balance of the earth – is changing, and in a positive direction; meaning that the amount of energy going out of the system per unit of time (on average) has been less than the amount coming in per unit of time.

    Agree or disagree? And why. Without the mumbo jumbo. If possible.

  124. Monckton of Brenchley

    Thanks for the comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689260 I’ll try to reply to each of your three points.

    First, I said probably and possibly warming at the fastest rate in (or at least) 11,000 years, based on a recent study. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/ I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.) They took the last decade on record, 2000-2009, and compared its ave temp with one a century earlier, 1900-1909, which happened to be a very cold one; they couldn’t replicate at least that difference between any decades a century apart, going back at least 11,000 years.

    Its not dispositive (time frames and parameters have to be defined, plus we re inferring past records from methodologies, not direct same time measurements.) But the only point was, as the comment made clear, to point out that the statement that we have not seen global warming for the last few decades, was not accurate.

    I presumed by warming, you meant warming. If you meant the phenomenon referred to as Global Warming, that’s not about current global temperatures. I think my earlier comment gave some framework for what that entails, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130 (also see below). But it is the earth response over time to a radical increase in the atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases, and subsequent trapping of thermal radiation, respectively, which would ultimately affect climate in a dramatic way.

    But that study,again, though interesting, isn’t really necessary to the point, which is that contrary to the original comment I was responding to, earth has warmed the last few decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world.

    As for oceans (second point), “best evidence” we have? Whose one seventh??

    This is what is concerning: The belief that on climate change, scientists professionally studying it, going against the opposite of what science is, are engaged in some massive fraud or (more reasonably) error (which on some secondary level I imagine they are.) Fine, but re’ almost all the very scientists who claim against (spencer, christy, etc.) he basis of what is widely accepted among scientists – and in particular the scientists who study this – most of the “information” they provide is deceiving, often centrally (not peripherally, a key difference) incorrect, and very manipulated. (A couple quick examples, and some perspective, here http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-poorly-named-climate-change-thing.html I suppose if one doesn’t want to believe that climate change is a problem, it is more appealing, but that doesn’t change, to outside observation.

    What it is.a good case for a minuscule actual science minority is when they consistently do the opposite of this; not when their science is, instead, far worse than the massive main scientific community that they seek to disparage, or, more professionally, merely refute.

    Most have also all but identified that they are ideologically driven. Awful for science. Spencer even said he views his role to help taxpayers “limit government.” A fine role. But a terrible role for a scientist then trying to manufacture studies that he thinks will lead to that.

    The general mainstream scientific consensus that our radical change to the heat trapping atmospheric quotient will likely lead to radical (or at least, extremely bad) climate changes, makes sense here; a lot of sense. And is pretty rigorous and ongoing . (And a challenge is good; but not for the purpose of just clinging to anything that seems to discredit the bulk of climate science as the guiding reason to cling to it. That’s the opposite of science.)

    I think the idea that we can’t tell why oceans are warming is again a perfect example of clinging to any idea to discredit the bulk of mainstream science. Solar radiation in is what it is. Suddenly, over a several hundred year period, much of it in the last 50 -100, man inadvertently effects a massive external forcing sufficient to change atmosphere levels of gg gases (and thus of thermal radiation that is absorbed and re emitted) to wallop us back at least several million years in terms of being able to find similarly high collective levels, and does so in a near instant of geologic time. This would lead to far more re radiated heat, some warming, and a massive build up of energy as ice sheets warmed (and then started to melt) , surface permafrost warmed (and then started to melt), and in particular, oceans, the main driver of climate long term, warmed. And, lo and behold, we are seeing oceans warming.

    A lot. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/ocean-heat.html http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/where-global-warming-going-ocean-20140205 and they have accumulated energy at a massive rate. As the link above notes, over the past 55 years, at a rate of about 136 trillion joules per second. (That’s 11,750,400,000,000,000,000 per day), or as they suggest, about “the amount of energy released by two Hiroshima atomic bombs – every second. [That’s about 172,800 per day, and over 63 million approximate Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of energy every year]
    In more recent years, that pace has quickened to about 250 trillion joules per second, or roughly four atomic bombs per second. And in 2013, that pace accelerated even more, roughly tripling to about 12 atomic bombs per second.

    Picking at the accuracy of pinpoint predictions (for example, I tend to doubt the just mentioned acceleration in 2013 by 300%, but I don’t know on what time frame they measured), in what is a massive geologic event, over time framed onto what is, by its nature, volatile – and probably made more so for a while by radical energy changes – has nothing to do with the underlying dynamics of the issue. It’s not a discredit of the basic theory. It is, however, widely being confused for that. And leading to a lot of confusion misunderstanding, and misconception on the issue.

    Your last point I have more trouble addressing. Specifically Mr Carter also says I am trying to minimize the dangers posed by our minuscule influence on the climate I don’t think, but I really don’t know, that you are actively trying to minimize or maximize anything. I think you think, or thought, the issue was overblown. I also think there’s a huge amount of spin in that statement, (where, while it does of course pop up (I’m sure I’ve inadvertently done it to try to advance a point) spin really shouldn’t be). Namely, in the idea of “minuscule” influence. There is nothing to support that idea. And an excessive amount of presumption reflected that man can’t, or wouldn’t inadvertently be able at this point to have a massive effect on the ecology (and ultimate climate) of the world in which we live, or that he is not deeply in the process right now. (I also think it’s more of a reluctance to acknowledge that last fact, or idea,, as if it’s some bad thing. It’s not. It is what it is.)

    As far as “best wait and see,” if you’re being genuine, it is not a wait and see issue by the very nature of it, it is an issue that when you see, the issue is past, the effect is already had. It’s not “oh, we have a radical climate now, this is awful, Arizona (inland U.S.) will soon be beachfront, let’s fix it.” It doesn’t work like that, nor anywhere remotely close. Any solid non ideological climate scientist will tell you the same.

    Climate change is a little like rolling a large, almost stuck, train (massive stabilizing and albedo magnifying sheets of ice, etc.)a bit away from a slightly increasing downward incline. Huge amounts of energy are only going to get it rolling a little bit. Same huge amounts of energy (far worse if the energy is then increased on top of that) are then going to effect a far greater real change in its movement, then it’s rolling, until a new general equilibrium or stases is finally reached. The earth is not instantaneous reacting in terms of energy > climate, but is like that train. (And much of the time barely movable, or much less so: just not so when the extra energy being suddenly poured in is on the measure of a geologically radical, multi million year and still rapidly increasing shift in total atmospheric levels of the gases responsible for keeping energy from being released back out to space.)

    Also, the idea of changing practices to not radically alter the atmosphere is not a bad thing. This idea that in order for us to thrive we have to damage (from our perspective, and probably that of many species) our planet or world in a way that significantly harms our own interests, ultimately seems inane. And the idea to deal with it (“it” being, fear of addressing and working to improve production practices having a high accumulating negative effect), by coming up with ways to instead “convince” that we’re in fact not likely effecting radical negative (for us) long term change, while certainly understandable, is also ultimately very counter productive as well.

    Seems to me. Doesn’t it to you?

  125. Way upstream:

    John Carter says:

    July 17, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    JohnWho says:
    July 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm
    Now that folks in the Land of Oz have awoken,
    will the rest of the world listen?

    Jack says:
    July 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    Very fine day when parliament finally stopped defying the voters of Australia.

    Yes, in one sense, but, speaking of the land of Oz, and whether the world should listen to Australia, what about the equally serious problem of the voters of Australia being incredibly misinformed on the issue of Climate Change?

    You are correct, the voters of Australia had been incredibly misinformed on the issue of “Climate Change”, but now, as they are recognizing the correct information, they are rejecting the CO2 Taxation plans.

    Give people the proper, correct information and they will make the rational conclusion most of the time, but feed them false information and half-truths and they will not.

  126. Can we get Tony Abbott on a temporary transfer to help sort team UK out please ?
    Has he got an agent ?
    What would be the transfer fee ?
    Whatever it was it would be worth every penny !

  127. John Carter;
    Energy in = energy out + net energy retained or lost. According to you, Is this correct or not?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It is correct for the transient state and incorrect for the equilibrium state. The terminology that I use is not mumbo jumbo. It is standard terminology that has specific meaning, and if you don’t understand the terminology, then you had best learn it before claiming to be proficient at physics.

    In two scenarios, one with 1X the CO2 and the other with 2X the CO2, at equilibrium, the energy in and the energy out of both systems are all equal. There is no change to net energy. There is a period of time beween CO2 doubling when net energy changes, but the amount is mniscule as it is bounded by the heat capacity of the additional CO2 which is an amount so small in this context that it can effectively be treated as zero anyway.

    Your confusion comes from accepting at face value the repeated use of the words “heat trapping gasses” which you don’t seem to understand is a misnomer. The amount of heat trapped is not what causes the greenhouse effect. What causes the greenhouse effect is that as CO2 increases, the height of the mean radiating layer increases. The mean radiating layer being higher, temps below it increase and temps above it decrease. But the average temperature from top do bottom if the atmospheric air column doesn’t change at all.

    So, while you have been proceeding on the assumption that CO2 is a “heat trapping gas”, this isn’t what the main issue is. By analogy, you could think of it as a teeter totter that is level. Meansure it every foot along its length and find its average height above the ground. Now, push one end of the teeter totter down to the ground so the other end goes up in the air. Measure its height every foot and determine the average. You will get the exact same number. Which, if the high end represented temperature change at earth surface, would certainly represent a higher temperature even though the average hadn’t changed.

    So, at 240 w/m2 in, the earth has an effective black body temperature of 255 K and radiates 240 w/m2 out.

    CO2 doubles.

    Since this doesn’t affect albedo, we still have 240 w/m2 in, and at equilibrium, a black body temperature of 255K and it radiates 240 w/m2 out. 240 in = 240 out in the first case, and in the second case, 240 in = 240 out.

    BUT, at equilibrium, the surface is warmer and the upper atmosphere colder, like that teeter totter tipped at an angle, the average may be the same but if you’re on the high end of the teeter totter you have an entirely different perspective than someone who is on the low end. Nevertheless the average across the atmospheric air column remains the same, in accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann Law. In accordance with any of the IPCC reports. In accordance with any text book explanation of the SB Law.

  128. asybot says:
    July 19, 2014 at 2:41 am
    I am starting to think John Carter is an AI ( that means addled intelligence).

    Well, it’s either that, or re evaluate your entire position on climate change, so probably easier to suggest AI. Or do what DBhealey does, just keep coming up with more and more irrelevant (as my original point about fealty to anything that serves to discredit the great bulk of professional climate science suggested), incorrect, or misleading points, or dwelling on peripheral mistakes and somehow conflating them with having disproven the main substance, ’cause you know, that’s what’s done. The search for anything to find to discredit climate science, under the guise, the belief, that it is the search for what the real nature of the climate change issue is.

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 19, 2014 at 3:45 am

    Mr Carter continues to insist that the world is warming faster now than at any previous time in the past 11,000 years. This is not true. The world warmed more than twice as fast from 1694-1733, before the Industrial Revolution began, than it has warmed over any similar period since. Furthermore, it is not scientific to say the world is currently warming fast – or at all – given that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades

    Science is not a belief system.

    As I wrote in my comment awaiting moderation for a while now, I never insisted any such thing:

    “I said probably and possibly warming at the fastest rate in (or at least) 11,000 years, based on a recent study. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/ I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.) They took the last decade on record, 2000-2009, and compared its ave temp with one a century earlier, 1900-1909, which happened to be a very cold one; they couldn’t replicate at least that difference between any decades a century apart, going back at least 11,000 years.

    Its not dispositive (time frames and parameters have to be defined, plus we re inferring past records from methodologies, not direct same time measurements.) But the only point was, as the comment made clear, to point out that the statement that we have not seen global warming for the last few decades, was not accurate.”

    Also, that time frame you reference is much shorter. The longer the time frame, the more relevant, hence why the CNN study is more relevant. But again, that really doesn’t matter one way or the other.

    You say be guided by the science, yet say “there’s been no global warming for the last two decades.” First off, the issue of Global Warming does not mean a rise in our temperatures concurrent to the rise in atmos’ CO2 and other greenhouse gases. It raises this question. I do warrant that a lot of people don’t know that, but if one doesn’t know it, how can one have any real opinion on the subject, let alone one so deeply and passionately (zealously?) felt?

    As for the temperatures warming, a couple of decades does not make a climate, though I imagine it could start to be mildly suggestive towards one. Regardless, the statement that the temperature is not warming, or that it has not warmed over the past two decades, or that there has not been a statistically significant trend of warming, are all incorrect. So is the statement that there is no global warming the last “two decades” (not to mention the much larger relevance of more than two decades) guided by the science, or is it being guided by belief?
    Here’s science. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world 1880 – 2010. 1980 to 2010 shows the sharpest rise. But again, the shorter the time period, the less relevant.

  129. John Carter says:

    …where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years?

    It is here:

    What is “incorrect, or misleading” about that? It is what you asked for. R.B. Alley’s peer reviewed paper records the abrupt change in global temperature 11,000+ years ago. And Lord Monckton notes:

    The world warmed more than twice as fast from 1694-1733, before the Industrial Revolution began, than it has warmed over any similar period since.

    Now that your central argument has been deconstructed, what will you do? Will you admit that the current warming is nothing unusual or unprecedented, and thus is most likely a completely natural event?

    Or will you move the goal posts again, disregarding all the evidence presented? Will your evidence-free belief trump reality? Or will you man up and admit that the alarmist crowd has nothing but baseless assertions for their arguments? Because there is no scientific evidence supporting any measurable human-caused global temperature rise.

    The main question for you, John Carter, is this: what will it take to convince you to be a skeptic? Or is that even possible? All honest scientists are skeptics, first and foremost. What are you? Will you decide based on the evidence? Or are you one of those closed-minded individuals who could watch glaciers descend over Europe and the U.S. again, and still believe in catastrophic AGW?

    Which are you? A skeptic, or a true believer? Because you can’t be both.

  130. Carter says:

    The longer the time frame, the more relevant, hence why the CNN study is more relevant.

    Here is a long time frame. Note that there is no acceleration in global T, which is rising within clear parameters since the LIA. Nothing happening now is unusual or unprecedented, yet you insist that there is.

    The planet is warming from the LIA. Here is another chart to show you. And another. See? Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. Only a True Believer would assume that these normal and natural events are caused by human activity. But there is no empirical evidence to support that belief. Why do you Believe, based on zero evidence??

    Look at the Holocene, and tell us that the current warming episode is any different from about twenty other rapid warming episodes before that. But somehow I think that no matter how much real world evidence is presented, you will react the same way. Your belief in cAGW is religious, therefore it is impervious to reason.

    I would like to think I am wrong, that you are amenable to reason. But I have encountered so many closed-minded individuals on this issue that I have little hope. There is about as much chance to convince a Jehovah’s Witness that he’s wrong, as to convince a global warming True Believer that he is wrong. Some things are simply impossible.

  131. John Carter;
    I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So you simply parroted the conclusion that was reported and didn’t read the paper for yourself. If you’re relying on CNN to tell you what the paper says, you’re in trouble from the get go. Start reading these papers for yourself, you’ll soon find that what they actually say is rather different than what is reported in the media.

    Case in point being the UN IPCC reports themselves. Read them for yourself. Among other things, you’ll find that they agree with the physics as I have been trying to explain it to you, and they agree that the models are exhibiting much higher sensitivity than observational evidence can support.

  132. philjourdan says:
    July 18, 2014 at 6:37 am

    @Willis Eschenbach – I will put that one down as myth. Rainbows require a steep sun angle, and they repealed it around 11am local time. Makes for a good story though.

    Thanks, Phil. While in general that is true, if conditions are right you can see a rainbow near noon. Bear in mind that at local noon the sun may be a long ways from the zenith. Remember that Canberra is at 35° south, plus we’re in the middle of Australian winter, so the sun at solar noon in Canberra would only be at 90° – 35° latitude – 23° inclination = 32° above the horizon, and it wasn’t solar noon, it was 11 AM.

    So it is more than possible, it is quite likely that a rainbow could be seen under those conditions.

    All the best,

    w.

  133. davidmhoffer says:
    July 19, 2014 at 8:41 amJohn Carter;
    I don’t know if they simply looked back 11,000 years and didn’t find anything, or looked back until they did and at 11,000 found the same or stronger. (I think the former though.)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So you simply parroted the conclusion that was reported and didn’t read the paper for yourself. If you’re relying on CNN to tell you what the paper says, you’re in trouble from the get go. Start reading these papers for yourself, you’ll soon find that what they actually say is rather different than what is reported in the media.

    This is ridiculous. It’s tactic number 7 in the arsenal to discredit. (Your last air physics post, I’ll get to it later, combined tactics numbers 5 and 6. And you also still didn’t answer the main question. And you should be able to write on science so that people can follow you. Yet you didn’t. Why?)

    Tactic no. 7: Find peripheral stuff and make it seen like that somehow undermines the substance of the point made, or mislead on peripheral stuff and make it seem like it is all less credible.

    Now, you seem like a smart enough guy to be able to read, so, no more b.s. First off, it was a CSM link. It was only cited for the point that a study suggested the earth has warmed more quickly recently than in a really long time (in fact, I very specifically used the word “probably.” You can quibble, originally I had “probably or possibly”; made for awkward reading, and my sentences are long enough. I did not assert it as fact.) I re-posted in response, found the CNN link, better explanation. And yes, as I noted, it seemed like they simply went back up to 11,000 years, but I wasn’t delivering a report on the article, and it really didn’t matter. And yes I usually read studies (and agree media often botches), but I can also cite news sources as can you and everybody on here for the point it makes. And it was cited correctly for the context, and was sufficiently relevant, and certainly interesting. Problem was, it didn’t help discredit the bulk of professional climate science, so, hence, tactic no 7. .

    So, before I write anything more, and this is being asked in rather stronger form, to try and emphasize this: Here is the original comment in response to Lord Monckton’s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1689130 Now please read it carefully and you tell me, in light of how it was first used and the specific point I was clearly addressing, what is really the point of your comment above (unless you just got distracted and sort of mistook things – I know that happens) if not to just find ways that look nice, to discredit.

    Maybe I’m not leaving you an “out” here (other than maybe to just repeat tactic no. 7, or, go with no. 9 maybe), and, if so, sorry for that. I’m exhausted. But your comment above seems picayune, and misplaced. Let’s save that for the physics. where’ I’m going to read up when I can, and we can really have it out in layman’s terms (mine) and terms no one can follow (yours) so that your arguments appear more authoritative. And you can show me if you are just leaving stuff out on purpose, or are just kidding yourself and using fancy teeter totters to do it, and ultimately just arguing that the earth is not gaining in net energy, or that simply because the radiating layer shifts, GG gas concentration levels really aren’t that relevant to climate (another huge coincidence given the clear 100 year plus and fairly strong warming trend, and increasing ocean heat). And thus hence why all the, sorry, but, “mumbo jumbo.” Because it’s an asinine proposition. And if it’s not, you can explain it in a way someone as dumb as me can understand,right? And then you can explain it to most of the world’s atmospheric physicists, who apparently don’t know it either. Or you can come on over to the dark side (or, really, leave the dark side, grin) and not have to do this delicate physics contortion dance you are doing.

  134. Carter says:

    ‘Tactic #7? Tactic #9?

    Geez, I don’t even know the secret handshake! How am I supposed to know the tactic numbers?

    Carter, you are always avoiding the central issue: global warming has stopped. And not just recently. It stopped many years ago. But harmless, beneficial CO2 continues to rise. How does that compute on your planet?

    Those facts debunk all the wild-eyed alarmist nonsense that you post. The entire alarmist premise was based on runaway global warming causing climate catastrophe. But those things have not happened — and there is zero indication that they will happen.

    So tell us: what would it take to convince you that the alarmist crowd is wrong? Is there anything that would do it? Or are you such a religious True Believer that nothing could possibly convince you that you are on the wrong track?

  135. @John Carter – wrote

    ” the earth right now is warming faster than at any point in at least the last 11,000 years.
    […]
    where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years?”

    John – as I understand you have a data about global temperatures extending as far back as 15k years ago, that are presented with a resolution precise enough to catch every possible 10-years spike? Where is that data?

  136. John Carter;
    And you should be able to write on science so that people can follow you. Yet you didn’t. Why?)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. I had high hopes for you when you first showed up. Turns out you’re just a garden variety troll who doesn’t understand the science.

  137. davidhoffer says:

    [Carter is] just a garden variety troll who doesn’t understand the science.

    Even Carter admits he doesn’t understand science:

    On the science quiz, I didn’t take it. I did the first two (silly stuff), then balked on amplitude. Was gonna guess it, but wasn’t sure, and went back to what I was doing.

    “Silly stuff”, eh? Carter got through 3 questions, but he was stumped by the one asking what “A.M.” meant in radio [hint: ‘amplitude’].

    We are dealing with someone who has no science knowledge — but who pontificates as if he understands. He doesn’t. Carter gets his talking points from alarmist blogs, but he does not understand the subject. No wonder he is losing the debate.

    Posting from ignorance.

    Take the quiz you posted, Carter. Report back. Then we can decide if your comments are worthwhile or not.

  138. dbstealey;
    “A.M.” meant in radio [hint: ‘amplitude’].
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I didn’t take the quiz, but once might forgive John Carter for not knowing that AM stands for Amplitude Modulation, for I assume he is of a different generation than you and I. Heck, even FM (Frequency Modulation) has gone out of the public consciousness now that we live in a digital world. We live in a “plug and play” world where people just expect that they turn things on and they work, the how they work part has become “magic”. I expect he is too young for terms like AM and FM to be relevant to his generation.

    For someone who purports to have expertise in physics however, such ignorance is telling. Someone who refers to terms like equilibrium, transient, heat capacity, energy flux, Stefan-Boltzmann, heat capacity as gobbledy gook clearly has no background in physics at all. By his standard, everything Kevin Trenberth ever wrote would be considered gobbledy gook, ad so are all the IPCC AR reports including the most recent one. Mr Carter is inadvertently attacking the very science he purports to represent.

  139. Is Carter still going? I gave up on him the moment he talked about methane and then linking to SkS.

  140. Mr Carter appears confused about the temperature record. So let us state the facts:

    The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from September 1996 to June 2014. That is 50.2% of the entire 426-month satellite record.

    The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

    The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

    The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

    Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.

    The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

    In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction.

    The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

    In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to only 1.7 Cº per century. Even that is proven exaggerated by events.

    Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

    The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

    The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing temperature in 1950.

    Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the mean of 5 datasets is nil. No warming at all for 13 years 5 months.

    There has been no warming distinguishable from the combined measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties for close to two decades (mean of all datasets), or more than 26 years (RSS satellite dataset).

    Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any recent global warming. It is as simple as that.

    Bottom line: The climate scare was based not on observation (for no unprecedented consequence of rising CO2 concentration has yet been observed. It was based on predictions. The above data demonstrate that the predictions of future temperature rise have been shown to be very considerably exaggerated. Remove the exaggeration and the supposed climate problem disappears.

  141. Thank you Lord Monckton, especially for the giggle over the Gore effect. Yes. It is true. It happened just like it happened in Copenhagen. We had extreme cold weather because Al Gore was in town… and of course it is winter. Up until Gore arrived in our country we were having a mild winter.

    Yes, we did it. The carbon tax is gone…. may it always be R.I.P… and I say NO to an ETS. This is just another money-making scam that will make the rich get richer and the rest of us will suffer.

  142. John Carter says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    Patrick says:
    July 17, 2014 at 5:36 pm
    “John Carter says:

    July 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    The other photo, the burping camel, is hilarious. But it sort of reinforces the basic ignorance of the issue, doesn’t it? That is – let’s put even more methane into the air. This is a problem.”

    Talk of ignorance. Termites and healthy forrest emit more CH4 than all wild and domestic animals combined. Even so at ~1.8ppm/v, I am not worried at all.

    ‘This is good stuff Patrick, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the issue, which is net emissions.’ JC.
    Coming late to this thread and having a full time job I admire J C’s persistence, but as an Aussie must cry ‘halt’ to the ‘problem of Methane’.
    The fact is that the Australian continent is a net carbon sink and mops up more CO2 and Methane than it produces.
    We, the benighted Aussie taxpayer are waiting for the ‘big Emitters’, like the US,China and India to send us compensation cheques for all the ‘climate damage’ they cause us.
    Don’t ignore the humble termite in Australia.
    An efficient methane producer in dry lands, she competes with cattle for dry matter, and for all we know, our cattle reduce the net amount of Methane produced, being poorer emitters.
    So There! Save the Camels!
    Increased CO2 is now making our arid areas bloom because the stomata of desert plants do not have to remain open so long to transpire CO2, so they lose less water and grow bountifully and store more carbon being more drought adapted.
    Now that a little sanity has come, the Green money aimed at adaption could well grant our CSIRO to test this whole area.
    Just a small point, John Carter.
    Many of us have children, especially here in Australia.
    We are not demographically constrained as is Japan,most of Europe and latterly China.
    That is why we seek a better world for them.
    We are bombarded with disaster movies, threats, bombings, aircraft disasters and ‘wars and rumours of wars’ through MSM.
    ‘Climate Change’ is another ‘dismal science’, it sells newspapers and puts a floor under ideologies.
    There is no need to be alarmed.
    Don’t waste your time on this blog.
    Look after your children as well as you may.
    Come back in a couple of years, the debate will not have changed.

    Just an anecdote.
    The final year economics class was handed the final year exam.
    One student looked at the paper, there had to be a mistake.
    Asking the examiner ‘This is the exact same paper as last year?
    ‘Sure’, came the answer, ‘Same paper, different answers’.

    In Australia we have grown up.
    We found another answer, adaptation.
    We are no longer alarmed.

  143. This is borderline deceitful. Whether you realize it is another matter. (So I guess it’s not really deceitful as defined, since you need the intent; but it has near the same effect.):

    davidmhoffer says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:56 am

    For someone who purports to have expertise in physics however, such ignorance is telling. Someone who refers to terms like equilibrium, transient, heat capacity, energy flux, Stefan-Boltzmann, heat capacity as gobbledy gook clearly has no background in physics at all.

    I figured it might break down into something silly like this. It doesn’t seem like you have been able to really address, or even realize, my basic points. Thus prompting the same pattern of adhering to anything that discredits, attacks or find fault with most Climate Scientists, Climate Science, and any advocacy that the threat presented by what we call “Climate Change” is very significant.

    I never purported anything, other than what I’ve specifically written. None of which you have refuted in substance; just, condescendingly, in terminology and a lot of writing irrelevant to my points, or really, the point. Though next you’ll probably find an otherwise substantively peripheral or similarly misleading exception to that too, right?

    You don’t have to bother to answer. If you could see it you probably wouldn’t be trying to refute basic climate science. That is, It seems that when belief strongly drives a view, it causes anything that supports it to appear logical and credible, and anything that does not, to then, appear not logical, and not credible:

    Including, for example,the fairly ridiculous yet obviously believed projection that concluding that climate change presents a very significant threat is really driven by a non fact oriented belief, contorting the facts to then fit it. Rather than, quite specifically, the other way around. And what I have repeatedly pointed out examples of. Here’s a good one. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comments And the commenter (DB) from his responses, didn’t even seem to “get it.” (Or, more reasonably, be able to openly acknowledge it. But did then ironically ask me to “man up” and acknowledge that assertions in support of Climate Change posing a significant threat to us, are baseless.) Do you?

    I also, more directly, did not refer to any of the terms you mention as gobbledygook. Just the writing, or much of your responses, in particular largely peripheral, and, non substantively responsive comments, in response back to mine.

    I say that because while I welcome well detailed explanations, it seems the degree of highfalutin expression varied inversely with the degree of relevance to what I either originally wrote, or what I suggested you got wrong or were construing incorrectly. (As, by the way, I notice to be a frequent pattern. Classic example is this recent article on here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/15/what-an-engineer-finds-extraordinary-about-climate/ ) Hence, gobbledygook.

    But at any rate, to conflate the two – is either outright deceit, or, again ,a product of the same highly reinforcing focus on finding ways to discredit anything, anyone, any idea or any thought that supports the general idea that Climate Change poses a significant threat. (And thus keeps you from seeing in the first place that calling your responses, or some of your explanation in direct response, gobbledygook, is in fact not anywhere near calling basic science concepts like equilibrium etc., “gobbledygook.”)

    I guess calling some of your response(s) gobbledygook wasn’t the best way to phrase it. But I welcomed, and still welcome, a coherent and accurate explanation, that a dumb guy like me (or maybe a smart guy like me) can understand, as to how the net energy balance of the earth, as I defined it in comments previously – and regardless of how it is technically defined or you wish to define it – is not increasing.

    And if it is, then specifically – not peripherally, not with lectures on physics equations, not with address of other otherwise largely irrelevant points but expressed in such eloquent physics terms such that that fact gets lost on most objective readers (and probably yourself) – what it was about the basic substance of the point I’ve made as to why “Climate Change” poses very significant and reasonable probability threats, that you claim is incorrect, and therefore, makes my claim incorrect.

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    July 19, 2014 at 4:40 pm
    Mr Carter appears confused about the temperature record. So let us state the facts:

    Mr. Carter and NASA and most of the world’ climatologists, and all of the world’s leading climatologists. The record above speaks for itself. Additionally, none of my centrally substantive points have been accurately addressed, if addressed at all; but regarding the temperature record, the claim was made that there was no warming for the past couple of decades. If this referred to the phenomenon we call “Global warming” it evinces a misunderstanding of what the “Global Warming phenomenon” is, as pointed out several times. If it refers to actual, literal “warming,” as in temperatures getting warmer, it is also incorrect, and something not in dispute.

    Saying otherwise in a multiple of different ways, doesn’t change that, but is apparently fairly common.

    Or, what dbstrealy did (though like you, and unlike Hoffer, he is always polite, so I always like and appreciate both of your comments), which was to say the earth is cooling, then provide a half to quarter term then itself bifurcated chart, all for the attempt of trying to show a different pattern than the longer term trend (see above comment on). And then in response to that point, provide a “Washington Post” chart (from a WP blog) that only covered the past several years. A short term shift (and it wasn’t even that by most charts, which I imagine vary because the time period is super short, and the changes from the previous decade are very slight), off of by far the highest temperature decade in modern record, is only relevant in the context of the full, longer term pattern. Otherwise on its own, as supposition for what the climate is or how it’s starting to change in response to a huge and – several hundred year but geologically near instantaneous – spike in total long lived greenhouse gas concentrations, is nothing but misleading.

    GTR says:
    July 19, 2014 at 10:08 am

    @John Carter – wrote

    ” the earth right now is warming faster than at any point in at least the last 11,000 years.
    […]
    where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years?”

    John – as I understand you have a data about global temperatures extending as far back as 15k years ago, that are presented with a resolution precise enough to catch every possible 10-years spike? Where is that data?

    You seem to have read it wrong. See the original comment again. First. I only said that the claim the earth was not warming the last few decades was incorrect. I gave a link to a piece citing a study (a few links now provided) that concluded that during the recent warming trend, the earth has warmed faster than at any point than in 11,000 years. Since it seemed hard to categorize such a thing, I included a “probably.” The 11k thing was a secondary point. Then I linked to the basic graphs showing the modern temperature record.

    Someone else then responded and said in the last 15k years, there have been 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period. Seems a short time window, but I asked where those links were, as I would have liked to see them. So, no it wasn’t me, it was someone else, and I was asking about it. And while finding 10d spikes in a 10 yr period doesn’t mean we had to catch every possible 10 year spike or window, I share your general concerns over that (at least without seeing the study) and hence in part, and in part because whatever it derived from it may be really interesting, why I asked the question.

    (if on the other hand you’re saying I have no data on a ten year period as a basis for refuting the study I cited, a period an order of magnitude larger – that study looked at century differences – is far more significant, and all ten year period shifts are subsumed into an examination of all 100 year shifts.)

  144. DavidMHoffer

    I’m not trying to make you look like an idiot.You’re clearly not, and even if, so what. I’m an idiot for even trying to help show some of the many other facts on the climate issue

    What I am trying to show is that you are incorrect on Climate Change.

    Not incorrect in the sense that Climate Change is absolutely certain to create what we would consider a wildly problematic to devastating net rise in average ambient temperatures over time (and or an attendant and sufficiently detrimental change in general precipitation patterns, intensity, and volatility). But in the assertion of near the exact opposite.

    Namely, that with a radical, multi million year change in the concentration of the molecules responsible for “trapping” (excuse me) radiated heat, to levels not seen for several million years, for very precise, super rapid, and “external” reasons, and that thus absorb and re radiate far more thermal radiation — the very process that keeps the earth from being a ball of ice — are nevertheless absolutely not going to have a major affect now, or the chances are so low it doesn’t warrant being much concerned over.

    There seems to be a LOT of confusion over this basic idea. Sure, temperatures have changed a lot over earth’s history. And that’s why they are not “bad.” (Nor is what we are doing “bad.”) But we didn’t evolve under them or with the precipitation patterns that accompanied them. A couple of million year climactic shift, more or less, in ambient temperatures, and much of Florida,U.S.A. and a large amount of the rest of our globe’s exposed land, will be under water.

    This isn’t conjecture. It’s more plausible than not. If anything, the argument is stronger for a slightly more powerful affect than than a slightly weaker one, due the large stabilizing capacity of all our (the earth’s) current snow fields and ice sheets, which are showing increasing signs of melting, and are melting, on net, and almost every major affect is almost unavoidable reinforcing (at least until a new stases is reached) other than possibly water vapor, which to the extent it is a negative reinforcement, will probably mean an even more extreme (or at least, extreme in the dry direction, which is bad) precipitation shift.

    What’s not plausible is to assume the earth just fine tunes, as if it was some giant GAIA only looking out for mankind’s interests, to keep things within some ridiculously narrow geologic range, and regardless of the incredible magnitude of the breathtakingly rapid (in geologic terms) external forcing indisputably being occasioned.

    Note, what is kind of critical to realize, and many people, regardless of Climate Change perspective, etc, don’t seem to (Former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson does, however http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html ) Harm here equal various ranges of outcome times their chances, added together. Assessing this on the reasonable and objective – not ideologically driven scale – indicates that strategically, not redressing the issue, as I (and most of the world’s leading scientists on the matter) have suggested, is extremely counter productive, and against our interest.

    Nor, I want to emphasize again, does addressing it have to be so burdensome, nor in the long term is it a meaningful cost.

    Or, ultimately, a real one. Shifting to a far better production and energy system is a benefit. Not a cost. It’s just a challenge to do. A good challenge. One that is in line with why we have to grow our economies in the first place. Namely, produce, thrive, always grow, always build, have nobs available (here, building new energy production and utilization capabilities,among other things) always be “moving forward.” Not a bad challenge, such as dealing with this (climate) issue after the fact, when due to the lag there will be no catch up.

  145. Carter says:

    Someone… said in the last 15k years, there have been 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period. Seems a short time window, but I asked where those links were, as I would have liked to see them.

    Observe cognitive dissonance: I posted this peer reviewed chart showing exactly that, after Mr Carter questioned it the first time. He did not acknowledge it the first time, and he seems just as clueless now. That is because it flatly contradicts the nonsense he is trying to sell here, so he cannot acknowledge it.

    Carter’s comments are full of similar nonsense. When Lord Monckton pointed out that other warming episodes have happened in the recent past, Carter ignored it, and stated just the opposite. Carter shows all the signs of being a religious fanatic. He is scientifically illiterate, but he posts his cut ‘n’ pasted comments to try and look educated. He is not.

    Carter says, “This isn’t conjecture,” then he goes on to baselessly conjecture about water vapor. Carter doesn’t understand anything about water vapor; relative humidity has declined over the past several decades, contradicting all the predictions made by the alarmist clique that R.H. would rise due to global warming. It hasn’t. But Carter doesn’t care; he believes, and that is enough for him to invent ‘facts’.

    Next, Carter says: …the claim the earth was not warming the last few decades was incorrect.

    Say what?? Is Carter actually saying that global warming is continuing? That is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance. Earth to Carter: global warming has stopped. But of course, if you admit that then your entire premise is shot down. So you must continue with your fantasy.

    Finally, I posted this chart: http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg It shows at least twenty rapid warming events during the Holocene. They are no different from the current natural warming. But Carter cannot acknowledge that. If he did his entire belief system would be debunked. So he makes up phony ‘facts’ to support his belief.

    Instead of Carter rambling all over the map, I would like it if he would pick one point, whatever he likes, and debate it to conclusion. But he will not do that, because that is how alrmists lose debates. So Carter will continue posting his pseudoscience, trying to convince readers of his wacky world view. That may work at thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs like SS, but it doesn’t work here. WUWT readers are educated and scientifically literate. Carter could learn a lot from them. But he won’t. His mind is made up, and closed tight.

  146. davidmhoffer says:
    July 18, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    John Carter;
    Here, being the clear warming trend, and one that has been very rapid in terms of recent geologic time.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Are you quite certain

    Your link purports to show the amount of warming relative to longer periods of time in the past. I guess my question is, interesting as the link is, why you failed to see that it’s irrelevant to my statement you recited above – namely, that there is a clear warming trend, and one that has been very rapid in terms of recent geologic time.

    By a guy, no less, who is later “logical and smart” enough to conclude I’m not science smart enough to be able to talk physics with,

    Sudden selective breakdown in logical capacities suddenly? Or just an extreme bias driving interpretation.

    Or a way around both, from your perspective anyway, and continue belief: i.e, undermine the person making the point here, or find another way to angle around it, as is repeatedly done, following the same pattern over and over and over. Then convince yourself that your point above somehow is relevant (let alone relevant enough for the “”are you quite certain?” added after the link provided to discredit the two stated points – clear warming trend, and one that is very rapid in terms of recent geologic time – that is in fact irrelevant to both. That is, even if there is a greater century of warming over the last few thousand years — which, according to the recent study cited by CNN, etc. major sources, there isn’t — it does not mean the current one is not also very rapid.

    See what I mean by the pattern yet? It is what is happening, I can assure you.

    Also, the data set that little otherwise irrelevant concoction relies upon, relies upon a large mistake (or again, confusion of facts produced by a fealty to the pre-determined underlying idea), and is incredibly misleading, if not ultimately, manipulative.

    As one of the more well reputed climate sites in the world points out:

    Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core…[and] defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

    This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. …. a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

    The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland.

    [Yet] the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. . emphasis in bold added here http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

    So the person whose data Easterbrook actually took to make his chart even pointed out that Easterbrook had it wrong, yet he continued to insist otherwise.

    The above is pretty straight forward. It is not fraud, it is that someone who doesn’t understand the issue concocted something. Then never fixed it. Why would that be? Because fixing it would undermine the purpose it was first designed for?

    I’ll add another one. Even using what Easterbrook (mistakenly but then stubbornly? Deceitfully?) postulates as the present, appears to skew the graph he makes, as it cuts off most of the hottest years on record since modern recording began, including the hottest decade, and a followup decade of a few more new top ten global ambient temperature years. (And the trend continues. 2013, depending on what data sets are used, is actually between the top 2 and top 6 on record while also continuing the seeming appearance of a lot of volatility and intense precipitation events http://time.com/1358/snowpocalypse-or-not-2013-was-one-of-the-warmest-years-on-record/).

    I noticed several comments dismissing skepticalscience.com out of hand. Why? Is it possibles skeptical science sometimes get things right? Possible that the drive to find whatever negative can be found (or manufactured) about skeptical science comes from the same pattern I’ve been referencing, namely, if unwittingly, to find ways to discredit, undermine or attack anything that supports the bulk of professional climate science, and adhere to anything that does so discredit, or that seems to so do?

    Could it be possible, while I’m sure everyone and every site makes mistakes (skeptical science included I imagine), that there a lot of climate myths out there? And that skepticalscience is specifically writing about trying to correct those myths, and correcting those myths sort of undermines much of the case adhered to in order to “rationally” dismiss the climate change issue?

    Which, I suggest is not rational to do once there is an (often lacking) fuller understanding of the issue. Which, in turn, is something constant misinformation not only prevents, but continually self reinforces; while then only further strengthening the near automatic tendency to dismiss anything that might not be misinformation, but that serves to support the general bulk of professional climate science.

    Skepticalscience also seems to use this very widely known site (named after my own favorite expression), as the source for a lot of its myths. So isn’t it then just easier and more natural to instead believe that skepticalscience is therefore so unreliable as to not even be worth considering, based upon whatever arguments can be gotten? And thus, skeptical science, and its large body of often accurate data and information – though of course as a result it is now not “viewed” as such – voila, is dismissed.

    It’s also an interesting article to check out, for the last main paragraph, which is a long quote by the scientist whose work Easterbrook used. http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

  147. John Carter
    But I welcomed, and still welcome, a coherent and accurate explanation, that a dumb guy like me (or maybe a smart guy like me) can understand, as to how the net energy balance of the earth, as I defined it in comments previously – and regardless of how it is technically defined or you wish to define it – is not increasing.

    John,
    The physics I am trying to explain to you is actually your side of the argument. It comes right out of papers from the leading climate scientists in the world. Hanson, Trenberth, Jones, and others. It is in all the IPCC reports. I suggest you begin by reading at least one of them, the most recent being AR5

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

    You won’t get very far because most of the terminology will be way over your head. So, to understand what the leading climate scientists in the world are actually saying, you’re first going to have to learn what all the terms mean and how the physics works. I suggest you start with an understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    From there you will need to expand your knowledge to understand the difference between a black body temperature and an effective black body temperature of a body with a planet. You’ll also need to understand the difference between an equilibrium response and a transient response, and what heat capacity means.

    This is not to avoid your argument, but to explain to you that your argument is predicated upon assumptions about the science that are incorrect, and not just by my measure of things, but by that of the official climate science of the world and the leading climate scientists of the world.

  148. Carter says:

    I noticed several comments dismissing skepticalscience.com out of hand. Why?

    Comments that I have made at SS have been changed by deleting parts of them, which resulted in an entirely different meaning. No notice was posted of that underhanded action. Other coments that I made, usually just posting a chart like this, were censored out of existence without comment.

    SS does not want readers like you to see both sides of the debate. You are being controlled, and you don’t even know it.

    Many others here have reported similar censorship and deletions. Now SS has its own sidebar classification: “Unreliable.” They are simply dishonest. Why would you keep visiting a dishonest blog? They are feeding you propaganda. Please stop linking to SS. WUWT is an honest site, and we do not need to see more climate propaganda. There is already too much.

    Next, your TIME link repeats the preposterous meme that a colder climate is caused by global warming. They must think you are extremely gullible to believe that. Maybe they’re right.

    Finally, you can make your points using half the words. Try it.

  149. John Carter, here is your proposal:

    And it is, to simply levy a user fee on the energy sources and processes that contribute heavily to the problem (and higher fees for higher contributions or additions, lower fees for lower additions), and thereby put them on a much more even playing field with all the energy sources and processes which don’t.

    There are several huge difficulties with this idiotic plan.

    1. Neither you nor anyone else to date has provided any evidence that CO2 is a “problem”, in your terminology.

    2. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence that CO2 is the secret mystery knob that controls the climate. Indeed the current pause in warming is good evidence that it does NOT control the climate. The failure of the vaunted Tinkertoy climate models to predict the pause is also evidence that CO2 is NOT a big factor in the temperature.

    3. Driving up the cost of energy impoverishes, harms, and kills the poor. If the cost of gasoline goes up, you and I can live with it. Our unlamented ex-Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, following your foolish lead, seriously said he wanted gasoline prices to go up to European levels of $8.00 per gallon. He didn’t care, he had his government car and driver and enough money to buy all the gas he needs.

    On the other hand, a single mother living twenty miles from her job with no public transit and three kids will be harmed by any fuel cost increase. She’s already living on the edge. Any money that goes to fuel comes out of her kids’ mouths … hope you feel good about that, because that’s what you are proposing.

    A single mother in India may see her children killed by your mad war on carbon. Already, your brand of lunacy has led the World Bank to refuse to fund coal fired power plants in India, and without cheap energy, rural clinics don’t have refrigeration for vaccines. One guess what that means …

    I saw the cost of expensive fuel in the Solomon Islands during the time when fuel prices went through the roof around 2008. Fresh fish disappeared from the market because the fishermen couldn’t afford to fish. And fish is often the only protein in the islands. As a result, the kids suffered.

    What you are proposing is to impoverish, sicken, and kill the poor today, in the HOPE, not the certainty but the hope, that it will make their lives better tomorrow.

    I find this attitude supercilious, thoughtless, cruel, and despicable. It astounds me that someone of your education would propose such a destructive path for even one instant.

    History will not be kind to those who, like you, propose driving the poor deeper into poverty today by driving up energy costs, merely so that you can play at science. Folks like you will be seen correctly as being both stupid and heartless.

    Like I said, I hope you feel good about the damage and deaths that your proposed policies have already caused. You are killing the poor, and you think you’re the good guy? Get a clue, my friend. The problem is not CO2.

    The problem is you.

    w.

  150. Mr Carter’s posts here are predicated on the notion that there is a “consensus” among “mainstream” scientists in climate and related fields to the effect that manmade global warming will prove dangerous unless very large sums are spent on shutting down most of the world’s generating capacity and transport systems.

    First, he should know that argument from consensus is a species of feeble-mindedness condemned by Aristotle 2350 years ago as one of the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse. The reason why arguing from consensus is fallacious is that just because we are told that a great number of people say they believe a thing is so, that statement does not demonstrate that there are a great number, or that they say what they are said to have said, or that, even if they do say they believe it they believe what they are said to have said they believe, or that even if they believe what they are said to have said they believe they are correct in their belief.

    The mere assertion that there is a consensus, therefore, tells us nothing about whether the proposition to which the consensus is said to adhere is true or false.

    Nor does it help to say, as Mr Carter does, that the consensus is a consensus of experts. For the argument from appeal to the authority of the person making an assertion, rather than to the merits of his argument, is another of the dozen feeble-mindednesses codified by Aristotle.

    With that necessary minimum of philosophical background, let us review the facts about the supposed “consensus”. First, it is necessary to formulate the proposition to which the “consensus” is said to adhere. Mr Carter says the consensus adheres to the propositions not only that the world is warming but that we are the primary cause and that the rate of warming, if unchecked, will prove dangerous.

    The proposition that the world is warming requires greater specificity. There has been no warming to speak of, over and above the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties, over the past couple of decades. Mr Carter says the consensus does not think this statement is right, but offers no evidence for the existence of any consensus on his point. He may care to follow my monthly updates on the global temperature data, where he will find the basis for the facts about recent global temperature change that I presented earlier in this thread.

    I have already demonstrated, for instance, that the warming of the 20th century (around 0.8 K since 1900) is not unprecedented even in the instrumental temperature record. I determined this fact by examining the Central England Temperature Record, after first establishing that it is a reasonable proxy for global temperature change. The CETR shows a rate of global warming from 1694 to 1733 of 4.33 K/century equivalent. That is well over twice the fastest supra-decadal rate of global warming since the Industrial Revolution began. Mr Carter may prefer in future to obtain his science directly from the data, or from the learned journals, rather than relying on reports in the news media.

    The world has in fact been cooling since the medieval warm period, which was in turn cooler than the Roman warm period, which was in turn cooler than the Minoan and Egyptian Old Kingdom warm periods, which were in turn cooler than the Holocene Climate Optimum (optimum because it was warmer). During at least two-thirds of the past 11,400 years, the weather was warmer than the present. Therefore, there is nothing unprecedented either about the rate of global warming or the absolute global mean surface temperature. These are the facts.

    Next, the vexed question of the extent of Man’s contribution to the warming of the 20th century. At the recent Heartland climate conference, an informal survey of the 650 participants by show of hands demonstrated 100% support for the proposition that some of the global warming since 1950 may have been caused by us. However, there is little support in the scientific literature for the IPCC’s notion that most of it was caused by us. A recent survey by the people who write the “Skeptical” “Science” propaganda blog found that out of 11,944 scientific papers reviewed only 64, or 0.5%, said recent warming was mostly manmade. Yet the paper in which the authors published their results did not record this inconvenient truth, and a subsequent paper by one of them said they had found 97.1% “consensus” in support of that proposition, when in fact they had found only 0.5% consensus for it. You may like to read Legates et al. (2013), in which the artifices by which 0.5% consensus was falsely turned into a 97.1% consensus are meticulously explained.

    Finally, the question whether the manmade contribution to the small warming since 1950 is likely to prove dangerous if we continue to add CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the air. Here no one has tested the scientific consensus. The “Skeptical” “Science” team were careful not to ask that question, because they knew perfectly well that there is no consensus in the scientific literature on that point. Of the 64 papers saying that more than half the warming since 1950 was manmade, only half a dozen – call it 0.05%, or 1 in 2000, of the entire sample – went on to say it was dangerous.

    Mr Carter, therefore, holds passionately to a belief that only an insignificant minority of those writing in the reviewed journals express. He is, of course, entitled to his belief, but he may begin to suspect from some of the facts that have been given to him in this thread that in many material respects his belief may be ill-founded. It is certainly not as widely shared among scientists publishing in the learned journals as he may until now have imagined.

    The unassailable fact is that the climate scare is founded chiefly not upon observations – which show very little occurring that has not occurred before – but upon predictions: in particular, the prediction (made by James Hansen before Congress in 1988 and by the IPCC in its first assessment report in 1990) that global warming would have occurred in the quarter-century since then at a rate at least double that which has actually been measured. Indeed, warming has occurred over the past 25 years at a rate appreciably below even the lowest rate then predicted by the IPCC. The computer models on which the panic was based were wrong. As John Maynard Keynes used to say, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”

  151. Hello everyone, late to the party.

    I see in one post John Carter touting that CNN report on…..Marcott? That piece of garbage!

    JC, you need to upgrade your research skills.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=marcott

    http://climateaudit.org/?s=marcott

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

    “The latter was an apparent discovery that 20th-century warming was a wild departure from anything seen in over 11,000 years. News of this finding flew around the world and the authors suddenly became the latest in a long line of celebrity climate scientists.

    The trouble is, as they quietly admitted over the weekend, their new and stunning claim is groundless. The real story is only just emerging, and it isn’t pretty.”
    ——–

  152. dbstealey says:
    July 20, 2014 at 5:15 am

    Carter says:

    Someone… said in the last 15k years, there have been 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period. Seems a short time window, but I asked where those links were, as I would have liked to see them.

    _____

    Observe cognitive dissonance: I posted this peer reviewed chart showing exactly that, after Mr Carter questioned it the first time. He did not acknowledge it the first time, and he seems just as clueless now.

    I did not “acknowledge it the first time, and…? Here is what I originally wrote btw, in contrast to how you characterized it above “Re your other comment above, where is the link on 10 degree shifts in a 10 year period in the past 15 k years? That’s interesting stuff. (also, kind of a short time frame so hard to put into context.) 

    But regardless, even though it really wouldn’t be relevant to anything if I had, ever possibly dawn on you I had not seen it?

    Ditto for the next comment, when I did in fact reference it. But, again, either way, so what. It wasn’t remotely relevant to my response to GTR. See near end of comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690318 Was only pointing out to him that I didn’t make claims re’ a 15K year period; but had only asked about an interesting link some one else (you) had referenced.

    Why would someone possibly turn a non issue into an issue, attack and write extremely negatively about it, and be wrong, all at the same time?

  153. Sorry about bold all over last comment. Unintentional.

    dbstealey says:
    July 20, 2014 at 5:15 am 

    When Lord Monckton pointed out that other warming episodes have happened in the recent past, Carter ignored it, and stated just the opposite. Carter shows all the signs of being a religious fanatic. He is scientifically illiterate, but he posts his cut ‘n’ pasted comments to try and look educated. He is not.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Didn’t ignore anything. Also didn’t state the opposite, or anything like it. More importantly, am not debating what warmings occurred, haven’t occurred, or how to define them. It sidesteps the real issue, which raises questions why you and Monckton keep trying to turn it into the issue. I was responding to his claim that there hasn’t been any “global warming” the last couple decades. Global warming, though I agree it is often misconstrued as our current temperature trend by people who don’t know a lot about the issue (and sometimes the media), is not about that.

    As for just pure “warming” as in temperatures, NASA states that nine of the ten warmest years in modern times have occurred in the 21st century. That is, since 2000. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13 (I’m sure others state a little different. Again, doesn’t matter, so don’t go – as has been the pattern – turning that into yet another false litmus of whether “CC” – meaning the significant threat of a marked shift in response to a marked geologic forcing – exists. )

    I posted a chart of temperatures showing the clear trend up, also a link re’ a study that tried to put the current (most relevantly “current,” not last ten or forty years) warming trend into some sort of recent context. (Iffy conclusion without a time frame, with the longer the time frame – up to matching the current warming frame – the more relevant the conclusion. But now as you and Hoffer do you are going to take the word “iffy” out of context, misrepresent on that, and once again try to denounce the idea of a significant threat of a geologically significant shift over time in response to the current geologically powerful external forcing, with something that isn’t the issue, and or simply castigate or discredit anyone trying to advocate any such consideration. As, I have repeatedly pointed out, and you keep actually doing in response, has been the consistent pattern.)

    That study concluded that the earth has warmed faster than at any point in the last 11,000 years or more. Whether or not that’s technically wrong or right I don’t really care. (That comment’s not now going to be also taken out of context or misrepresented also, right?) It was just pointing out that not only has the earth warmed the last 100 years, but that it’s a relatively strong amount in comparison to most (if not all, according to that study at least) 100 year periods. If Monckton has better data than the CNN and Christian Science Monitor referenced study, great, it doesn’t matter. “One of the faster warming 100 year periods” in the last 10,000 years is still significant. Anyway, was also, and more importantly, peripheral. (That bold intended.)

    That is, and was only (and very clearly) responding to the claim that there’s been no warming the last couple decades. I don’t know what charts you’re getting your information from, or why, or from where (re charts, see my above(?) posted comment to Davidmhoffer that references Don Easterbrook’s, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690348 it’s pretty enlightening and raises the question why Easterbrook would blatantly misrepresent data to get a far different impact, and keep doing it), but the 90s were the hottest decade on record since we began global temperature record keeping in the late 1800s. (Gonna also pick issue with the phrase global temperature record keeping now, too, or something else such, as if that is relevant to the issue of CC, sort of like the pattern of everything else?)

    Then, many of the hottest years since 1880 record keeping began, have occurred since then, in the 2000s. So overall, yes, the last couple of decades have “warmed.” And the longer term trend illustrates that more consistently. But again, I don’t care. (Another phrase to cherry pick and misconstrue on and once again turn the issue into something it’s not.) Don’t try to turn minutiae of small proportions in 2000-2010 average ambient temperatures – several years of which happened to still be among the top 10 warmest years since modern record keeping began – into the Climate Change issue. (Which you first did with a chart that halved to quartered the overall period, and then was bifurcated again, then misleadingly – or manipulatively – castigated that observation as “denigration,” then did with a Wash’ Post blog chart of only several years.)

    Somehow, no matter what I do or say, you have turned that 11,000 warmest period secondary, and peripheral, point into “THE” debate on whether on not Climate Change is a significant threat or not. Which means you are either not being entirely honest, or are misconstruing what the real issue actually is. The issue not as defined by you, but why the climate scientists who are concerned are concerned; and, in commenting in response to me, why I am concerned.

    Regarding the projection of religious fanaticism – it’s yet another way to dismiss climate science. And the fact that some people who think CC is a problem may say silly things or not have a lot of knowledge, is an extremely poor reason to then castigate strong concern as anything other than what it is, let alone for what it has been repeatedly castigated as. And which you ultimately resorted to as well. Ironically, any zealotry here, let alone fanaticism, has been exhibited in some of the comments in response to mine. Maybe yours, I dunno. That’s for you to consider in light of the evidence.

  154. John Carter says:
    July 20, 2014 at 11:21 pm
    I think what is being got at is that the earth’s lower atmosphere is warming at the moment but not nearly as fast as the IPCC models predicted, so this falsifies the models.
    Those on this site tend to think that we are warming anyway after the little ice age, so hot temperatures,all in a row, means that we have now plateaued, not that we are going to burn.
    That’s what always happens when you reach a plateau.
    The models have a lot of problems.
    I started with Plimer’s book on this.
    He apparently has written another.
    It’s really interesting reading.

  155. dbstealey says:
    July 20, 2014 at 5:15 am

    DBstrealey
    Next, Carter says: …the claim the earth was not warming the last few decades was incorrect.

    Say what?? Is Carter actually saying that global warming is continuing? That is a sure sign of cognitive dissonance. Earth to Carter: global warming has stopped. But of course, if you admit that then your entire premise is shot down. So you must continue with your fantasy.

    Aside from all the hysteria, I think you managed to get every single sentence wrong;, many, ludicrously (if not a little ironically – see last paragraph of last comment – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/17/australia-no-longer-a-carbon-tax-nation/#comment-1690771 )

    The fact that our current temperature trend just happens to be one of the rare fairly rapid warming (and as far as the longer – by far the more relevant – term trend goes, a generally increasing one) periods in recent geologic time, is certainly not inconsistent with the underlying phenomenon, and likely a mild corroborative reflection of it. [Though I warrant it’s being confused for IT.]

    But again, CC or GW (or AGW) is not that; it’s not about current temperatures, or 10 or 20 or even 30 years in isolation,;or the current state of conditions; or some idea that conditions now reflect what has and will change (or some abstraction therein mixed in with normal long term randomness) and that will then in turn (again mixed in with normal long term randomness) go up in arithmetic proportion therein with any increasing net atmospheric [gg] levels.

    If you don’t know this, then there is no way to have a valid opinion on the issue, since (as is common and yet ironic in a world full of – as you put it – full of not just opinion but almost religious like “conviction” of a perception in lieu thereof), you don’t really know what the real issue is.

    You say you do. But if you do, then your comments in response (of which the above quote in italics is only one example, albeit a very strong one) are either disingenuous, or completelly illogical. (Both of which would then beg the original question as to why, and for which I’ve suggested a pervading reason.)

    Yet I see not only opinion, but such self righteous zeal that, for example, you have been writing almost anything (no matter how mis-constructed) to dismiss or attack my points, supposedly, and me. Rather than instead, simple reflection and consideration of them, and what they mean.

    And as for temperatures, here is the temperature chart from 1880, back when record keeping began. Notice how it goes upward. http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world (But an effective way to to attack CC, but a manipulative or ill informed one otherwise, is to quibble with that, too.) Also, as for recent periods, the 90s were the hottest decade in modern record, and since then, again, several (up to nine if NASA’s data is used) of the ten warmest years on record have since occurred.

    Including last year, which was somewhere between the 2nd and 6th warmest year on record..(Again http://time.com/1358/snowpocalypse-or-not-2013-was-one-of-the-warmest-years-on-record/ ) (4th according to NASA). And, though year to year meaningless, interesting to note, seemed to have continued the trend of increasing volatility.

    Which volatility, by the way, would also mean more temperature period changes and extremes. Yet in otherwise irrelevant response to that Time article link (being linked to just to show the point that 2013 was also one of the very warmest on record) you mocked the idea that “Climate Change” is at all relevant to a period of bitter cold a large region experienced around the time of the article, illustrating that you don’t really know what Climate Change is: Yet not only have an opinion on it, but a fervently held one. Maybe instead of always finding ways to reassess (or, well, really, attack) Climate Science, and my comments, it’s time to actually re-assess (not attack) your own views. Speaking of your “manning up,” as it’s a man up thing to do. Hard, which is what makes it so.

    By the way, aside from confusing “climate” with “cold front” (which is sort of like confusing bathtub with ocean) you called the idea of increased weather volatility “preposterous.”
    Next, your TIME link repeats the preposterous meme that a colder climate is caused by global warming.
    Maybe the idea of increased weather volatility is “preposterous,” and the coincidental (not probative, but certainly somewhat corroborative) increase in actual weather volatility, is also, if you really believe all the things you’ve written and that appear in here. And “preposterous” is an adjective. But it still seems very misapplied here, don’t you think?

    You might believe that a geologically radical external forcing, sufficient to change the level of long lived gg gases in the atmosphere to levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years, and do so in a period of time which is almost all but geologically instantaneous, would not lead to increased volatility as part of the developing longer term climate; but to view the very idea as preposterous, is another matter altogether.

  156. ‘you don’t really know what the real issue is.’
    For some on this thread the issue is that the default hypothesis, so the one you must choose as the norm or the ‘null hypothesis’, is that the atmosphere is warming naturally at the moment
    So it is expected to warm.
    So it will be hotter.
    Only the IPCC predictions say it will be bad.
    They rely on mathematical models that have,so far, proved useless at prediction.
    So the Null Hypothesis stands.
    The warming is explainable naturally.
    If we cause warming then it is not alarming.

  157. Mr Carter appears to be laboring under the misapprehension that a long-term warming trend is present in the temperature data. It is not. A warming trend is evident over the past 104 years, but that (in geological terms) is the very near term and (in IPCC terms) is the medium term. The long-term trend over the past 10,000 years has been a definite cooling trend. This is best demonstrated in the GISP2 ice-core record in Greenland, which shows the summit of the Greenland ice sheet to have been 2.5 K warmer 8000 years ago than today: and yet the Greenland ice sheet did not melt (except at the coastal margins). For an understanding of why it did not melt, study the thermal inertia of ice masses and, in particular, the very large amount of energy required to achieve a phase-transition from the solid to the liquid phase of H2O.

    Allowing for polar amplification, the world may have been about 1.5 K warming 8000 years ago than today, and the GISP2 record shows a gentle decline since then. Precisely because there was a decline, periods of warming such as the 20th century are rarer than periods of cooling such as the 16th century. However, they are still frequent. Ljungqvist et al. (2010) show a reconstruction of the global temperature record from the peak of the Roman warm period to the present warm period. From the onset of the Dark Ages cold period in 400 AD until the peak of the medieval warm period there were five warming periods similar to those that terminated the Little Ice Age and the Victorian minimum. There is, as I have said, nothing in the least exceptional about the rate of warming in the 20th century, nor about its absolute magnitude.

    Mr Carter says many of the past ten years have been among the warmest in the instrumental record. Well, after more than 300 years of global warming, where would he expect the warmest years to come? This, too, is not a surprising circumstance. What is surprising is that, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration, there has been little or no warming distinguishable from the measurement, coverage and bias uncertainties in the global temperature datasets for approaching two decades. To demonstrate this, Mr Carter may like to take the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite anomalies over the 20 years ending in May 2014. He will find that the trend is one-sixth of a Celsius degree: and that is barely outwith the measurement uncertainties.

    Since Mr Carter seems readily impressed by what he considers to be a “consensus”, and since we are told that the IPCC represents that consensus, he may like to know not only that the IPCC’s original projections of 1990 exaggererated the global warming to date by 100% but also that the IPCC has itself realized that it got its sums wrong. Between the pre-final and final drafts of its Fifrth Assessment Report, it responded to suggestions by expert reviewers such as me by cutting drastically its near-term global warming projection. It has also almost halved its estimate of the amount of anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1750. In 1990 it projected that there should have been 4 Watts per square meter by now. In 2013 it acknowledged that the forcing had been only 2.3 Watts per square meter.

    More significantly still, it accepted one of the most important points established over and over again by paleoclimate analysis (see e.g. Scotese, 1999; Petit et al., 1999, Zachos et al., 2001; Jouzel et al.., 2007): namely, that in recent geological time global mean surface temperature has varied by not more than 1% (or 3 K) either side of the 810,000-year mean. Accordingly, and again at the suggestion of expert reviewers such as me, the IPCC has revisited its estimate of the feedback-sum to equilibrium, cutting it from 2 Watts per square meter per Kelvin to 1.5 W/m^2/K. That, in turn, should have mandated a cut in climate sensitivity from the previous report’s 3.26 K (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2) to just 2.2 K. However, instead of admitting the startling fact that the previous central estimate of climate sensitivity had been too high by half, the IPCC instead said that it was not willing to give a central estimate – yet that is the chief purpose of its multi-thousand-page reports.

    Further examination of the IPCC’s models by Monckton of Brenchley et al. (2014, submitted) shows that a more realistic central estimate of climate sensitivity is in the region of 1 K (see also Monckton of Brenchley, 2008, 2010; Lindzen & Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2010, 2011) and a host of other papers in the reviewed literature, where the trend is moving inexorably towards settling on a climate sensitivity of only 1 K per CO2 doubling. Is that going to bring Thermageddon about our ears? The answer, sir, is No.

  158. John Carter [a sock puppet who also posts under the name Ivan Steele] is apparenty riled by comments I made, because he has responded with multiple verbose replies.

    To boil Carter’s arguments down to their essence, he seems to be saying that:

    1) Global warming is continuing. As support for that wrongheaded belief, Carter says that recent decades have been warmer than ever. Well, I am 6’2″ tall, and I am taller now than I have ever been. But I suppose next week I could be 7’2″ tall, you never know.

    2) The Consensus is that skeptics are wrong. Global warming is continuing:

    “It is what is happening, I can assure you.”

    Carter doesn’t understand that assertions made on the basis of appeals to authority are only valid if the authority is legitimate. Carter’s ‘authorities’ are self-serving alarmism by people with an agenda, and are thus they are illegitimate.

    John Carter is either an evil person [per Willis, above], or he is completely deluded, and impervious to reason. I don’t like to think of him as evil. Rather, he is a religious fanatic whose mind is made up and closed to anything but cherry-picked items that support his preconceived confirmation bias. He believes in the so-called Consensus, but the universal consensus here is that Carter is flat wrong — another example of his confirmation bias: one Consensus is A-OK because it supports Carter’s belief, but another Consensus is wrong, because it doesn’t.

    Carter refuses to acknowledge what everyone here knows: global warming has stopped. Because if he admitted to that fact, his entire argument is debunked.

    John Carter is a case study in cognitive dissonance. His arguments are crazy, and they convince no one. I doubt that Carter can understand that the cAGW scare is running out of steam, because the real world contradicts it. Glaciers could once again cover temperate latitudes, but Carter would still be making his lunatic arguments. His mind is made up, and no facts can change it.

  159. John Carter says:
    July 21, 2014 at 12:24 am
    Including last year, which was somewhere between the 2nd and 6th warmest year on record

    RSS came in 10th and Hacrut4 came in 8th.

    RSS
    1 {1998, 0.550},
    2 {2010, 0.472},
    3 {2005, 0.33},
    4 {2003, 0.32},
    5 {2002, 0.315},
    6 {2007, 0.256},
    7 {2001, 0.246},
    8 {2006, 0.231},
    9 {2009, 0.222},
    10 2013 0.218
    11 {2004, 0.202},
    12 2012: 0.187

    Hadcrut4

    1 {2010, 0.547},
    2 {2005, 0.539},
    3 {1998, 0.531},
    4 {2003, 0.503},
    5 {2006, 0.495},
    6 {2009, 0.494},
    7 {2002, 0.492},
    8 2013 0.486
    9 {2007, 0.483}
    10 2012 0.448,

  160. philjourdan says:
    July 21, 2014 at 8:48 am
    @John Carter – Did you read dbStealey’s response at all? Did you even bother with a link or 2? Your rebuttal indicates you either did not, or could not understand what he wrote. He cites raw data, you cite opinion pieces at news sites.

    Try reading what he wrote the next time – and following the links. You made a fool of yourself by ignoring them this time.

    A fool of myself to who? The world for thinking that any main commenter on this site might actually reasonably consider any of the many centrally relevant and often pretty reasonable points I’ve made? Agreed

    To those who don’t want to believe anything other than CC does not pose a significant threat, and so therefore will find any way to view me as a fool and what I write, or the concerns I raise thus nonsense? Agreed?

    I did read what he wrote, did follow the links. Didn’t ignore a thing, and responded to them, peripheral as they were, when I did see them. But this tactic (unrecognized as such) is common, constantly turning the CC issue into something it is not. Which your comment here above only continues as well as another tactic, find any way possible to take issue with someone making substantive points you obviously don’t want to consider, since I have not seen any substantive consideration of them, or any reasoned, substantive response back that either goes to a peripheral issue, or gets things mistaken.

    Stealey cites raw data which is selected from amongst a lot, most of it is peripheral, to chart a particular view, and I’ve cited plenty of data, you just ignore it.

    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.

    • @John Carter – no a fool of yourself. You may believe anything you want. But in a debate/argument/discussion, you have to REPOND to what is written. You have failed to do so at every turn. So much so that I have stopped reading your responses. I really do not care if you believe in sky dragons and unicorns. But the only thing you are convincing others of is that you are either dishonest or severely disabled in your reading comprehension.

      Again, keep your faith. But do not pretend you are in a discussion or you are doing anything other than making yourself look foolish.

  161. John Carter;
    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    ROFLMAO, gasping for breath, tears rolling down cheeks, might lose consciousness…

    • @DavidMHoffer

      John Carter;
      Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      ROFLMAO, gasping for breath, tears rolling down cheeks, might lose consciousness…

      Actually he is being honest for once. To him it is a matter of faith, not science.

  162. Sorry, Anthony. Could I at least say that Monckton has no right to call Al Gore ‘Al Baby’? In many minds, that kind of disrespect has nothing to do with the science. If this is an impartial forum for climate debate, then why is one side allowed to disrespect, and the other side is ad-hom?

    [try using your argument on why climate sceptics should not be called “deniers” without cause -mod]

  163. Mr Carter says “Climate change is not a data-driven issue.” In fact, however, the physical sciences, including climatology, are inescapably data-driven: for the scientific method starts with observation and measurement, applies pre-existing theory to them, and thereby improves the theory.

    It is true that many who take an apocalyptic view of the consequences our altering a mere 1/2500 of the composition of the atmosphere over the next 100 years are belief-driven rather than data-driven. But the science is data-driven: and the data to date do not show the world warming at anything like the predicted rate. Nor is there any sound theoretical reason why we should expect the large warming predicted by the computer models or by the IPCC. Expect little more than 1 K manmade global warming this century. There are many more pressing environmental problems than a littler warmer weather.

  164. davidmhoffer says:
    July 21, 2014 at 4:56 pm
    John Carter;
    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    ROFLMAO, gasping for breath, tears rolling down cheeks, might lose consciousness…

    It may be completely data driven in the mainstream public’s eye, but perception of the issue does not define what the actual problem is, only how people most easily relate to it. And since science is observation > theory, driven with then > observation and data, scientists also, understandably, look to data; and should, as part of our understanding. Unfortunately here we’re not trying to understand CC after the fact — which is when the issue becomes data determinative — but understand it before the fact, so we know what most sensibly to do (if, in theory, anything), in response. (And again, the most important data is not temperature changes, but changes in more stable earth systems.)

    If the issue was a concurrent (immediate) change in total climate in response to any change in gg levels, then it would be a data driven issue. But that’s not the issue, though this idea keeps getting completely pushed aside. Ultimately, again, this issue may be predominantly data driven after the fact. But after the fact is largely irrelevant, isn’t it?

    What’s relevant is in understanding how the general climate is likely to respond over time. Not how it has, though looking at how it has so far can help further hone understanding.

    My suggestion, and again the one also agreed with by the great bulk of professional atmospheric physicists who study the issue (which does not make the argument, but supports consideration of it), is that radically changing the long lived greenhouse gas concentrations of the air to levels not seen in millions of years on earth presents a significant threat of increasingly radical affect on the climate, until the new climate more accurately reflects the fact that the same processes responsible for warming our globe, now re radiate far more heat that would otherwise emit out to space, and which is slowly warming the earth as a result (see, for instance, the oceans, increasing net melt of enormous reservoirs of ice, etc.), and the earth comes into a new balance.

    Yet that idea has been labeled crazy and worse by a few commenters, one in particular, who keeps taking issue with me, calling me all sorts of names, and continues to misconstrue my comments.

    The concurrence thing is not only central to the issue, it is essentially THE issue:

    Climate can not immediately change over to whatever general new stases level it is going to ultimately be at, in instantaneous response to any forcing or radical externally induced (such as anthropomorphic) change to long lived atmospheric gg concentration levels. There are stable systems which over the long term help shape what climate is (ice caps, permafrost, oceans) that simply can not change instantly, or, even – at first anyway – very quickly. (Particularly in geologic terms, which is seemingly glacial to us in the 10 second twitter age.)

    But they would change over time, in very likely long term trend increasing and accelerating fashion. (The phrase long term is italicized because decade to decade keeps getting mistaken as an arbiter on what CC: rather than just something that serves to increase the relevance of what total long term data information we do have – because there is more of it, and over more time.) That is, they would likely do so in response to an increase in net outer earth surface heat (or loosely put, earth/lower atmosphere system), which is exactly what is slowly happening in the permafrost surface and subsurface, and in the oceans, and probably in the huge polar sheets of ice that make up much of our two poles.

    Central to this, commenter and apparent WUWT insider dbstealey says I keep ignoring his points. I haven’t. I have sometimes pointed out when they are erroneous, or when they misconstrue my points. The latter of which has occurred in nearly comment he has written in response to mine, and I haven’t even had time to respond to many of them.

    And the concurrence idea has been central to this as well. In order to disregard anything I’ve (and others, outside of this site) suggested (raising the question why it has to repeatedly be called such pretty outlandish names as is exhibited in a few of the comments above)as this commenter does here and numerous places elsewhere, there’s been a singular adherence to the fact that over a climatically irrelevant period of time (recent year) temperatures have been well above recent geologic historical ambient norms but have not shown a consistent year to year short term rise.

    Again, this largely misconstrues what climate is, and more particularly, how – in an earth /lower atmosphere system that continues to accumulate energy decade by decade and has underlying relatively stable, but changeable, and now slowly changing, climate determinative systems (ice caps, oceans) – any sort of geologic shift in response to a large external forcing over time would take place. Again, it would not be concurrent, but lagging. (While at the same time we would expect to see some rise in general ambient temperatures at first, along with large rises in the levels of the long lived atmospheric gases that re radiate heat, which has now been seen over an increasingly relevant (i.e, longer) term period.)

    Again, since this is not even being considered, but seemingly labeled with all sorts of pejorative adjectives, it is worth emphasizing that almost every professional non ideological climatologist professionally studying this issue generally agrees with that assessment.

    That does not itself make the assessment (in direct contrast with what commenter Lord Monckton, in beautifully written prose, so eloquently otherwise argues above), but it does warrant the idea that instead of being simply dismissed out of hand, it be legitimately considered.

  165. John (Carter), thank you for responding to many people’s objections to your claims. I note that you haven’t replied to mine, so I thought I repeat part of it:

    John Carter, here is your proposal:

    And it is, to simply levy a user fee on the energy sources and processes that contribute heavily to the problem (and higher fees for higher contributions or additions, lower fees for lower additions), and thereby put them on a much more even playing field with all the energy sources and processes which don’t.

    There are several huge difficulties with this idiotic plan.

    1. Neither you nor anyone else to date has provided any evidence that CO2 is a “problem”, in your terminology.

    2. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence that CO2 is the secret mystery knob that controls the climate. Indeed the current pause in warming is good evidence that it does NOT control the climate. The failure of the vaunted Tinkertoy climate models to predict the pause is also evidence that CO2 is NOT a big factor in the temperature.

    3. Driving up the cost of energy impoverishes, harms, and kills the poor. If the cost of gasoline goes up, you and I can live with it. Our unlamented ex-Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, following your foolish lead, seriously said he wanted gasoline prices to go up to European levels of $8.00 per gallon. He didn’t care, he had his government car and driver and enough money to buy all the gas he needs.

    On the other hand, a single mother living twenty miles from her job with no public transit and three kids will be harmed by any fuel cost increase. She’s already living on the edge. Any money that goes to fuel comes out of her kids’ mouths … hope you feel good about that, because that’s what you are proposing.

    A single mother in India may see her children killed by your mad war on carbon. Already, your brand of lunacy has led the World Bank to refuse to fund coal fired power plants in India, and without cheap energy, rural clinics don’t have refrigeration for vaccines. One guess what that means …

    Please understand that I don’t think that you are a bad person for your support of a plan that inevitably harms, impoverishes, and even kills poor people, and is doing so today as we speak.

    I think you haven’t thought it through.

    When I was a kid, cheap electricity was seen as the savior of the poor farmer and the poor housewife.

    And rightly so, because it is that. It has lifted us out of poverty, allowed enterprise, taken the load off of the farmer, and made it so we don’t spend a day a week bent over a washboard. Cheap electricity is the reason our lives are not dark, brutish, exhausting, and short.

    That is my objections to this mad war on fossil fuels. You claim the solution is to make electricity cost MORE? What part of cheap electricity saving the farmer and housewife are you not seeing? Truly, my friend, always remember that driving up the cost of energy has a corresponding human cost in pain, suffering, and death.

    Call me crazy, but I want all kinds of fuels to cost less …

    w.

  166. philjourdan says:
    July 23, 2014 at 5:27 am
    @DavidMHoffer

    John Carter;
    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    ROFLMAO, gasping for breath, tears rolling down cheeks, might lose consciousness…

    Actually he is being honest for once. To him it is a matter of faith, not science.

    And

    philjourdan says:
    July 23, 2014 at 5:20 am
    @John Carter – no a fool of yourself. You may believe anything you want. But in a debate/argument/discussion, you have to REPOND to what is written. You have failed to do so at every turn. So much so that I have stopped reading your responses. I really do not care if you believe in sky dragons and unicorns. But the only thing you are convincing others of is that you are either dishonest or severely disabled in your reading comprehension.

    Again, keep your faith. But do not pretend you are in a discussion or you are doing anything other than making yourself look foolish.

    Regardless of the science of the matter, the fact the personal attacks, are, again, unwarranted. Putting it mildly.

    It’s also not a matter of faith, but quite the opposite: I try to explain as best as I can in the comment above. If you are being legitimate about the discussion thing, please consider it. If you aren’t, and it is really just another way to attack me, then I guess it doesn’t matter. There is a huge pattern with finding ways to take issue with anything I write, by nearly any way possible, I can assure you of that, and it is obvious to any objective observer, outside of this site. (It is also not discussion.)

    I can’t respond to everything Phil. It is one person, I have other things to do, with all sorts of people here pilling on, who have enormous amounts of help from others, and who themselves only have to respond to one person. To say I don’t respond is extremely misleading, and unfair. (Though fair doesn’t seem to be the word that would describe most of the comments in response to mine.)

    I suggest, quite strongly, that my main substantive points have not been responded to. Variations on the idea that Climate Change means an immediate response to an increase in GG gases (which is not what CC is), or that CC means the earth has to warm in a unit by unit increase, without the large and fairly unpredictable volatility that is part of climate in general, and would even far more likely be part of a geologically radical shift, upon an otherwise (relatively) stable system, in total re radiated atmospheric energy, is not really a response.

    Nor, of course, is all the name calling and other overly pejorative stuff: Let alone this comment that past hysterically assumes agreement that moving from fossil fuels, the very thing George W. Bush called us “addicted to” (SOTA, 2006), let alone in the most efficient, market oriented way possible, and specifically raising funds in the process to again specifically help businesses and workers in transition, as well as again specifically the poor who might be unduly burdened, and let alone that replacing energy with better energy is not ending energy, and let alone that volatile weather has helped lead to massive and statistically unusual flooding In Europe and Asia that has caused 10,000s of deaths, and which is consistent (whether caused by or not) with climate scientists’ calls that radical atmospheric GG increases would lead to increasingly volatile and intense weather patterns and precipitation events, is not only bad, but “cruel and despicable.” No one even pointed out the wild illogic of this.

    You call that reasonable?

    Regarding more civil substantive response, repeatedly arguing about whether the last 100 years of warming have occurred once, never, three times, etc., over the last 100-1000 plus such periods, is also not proof that CC is not having an affect right now: The fact that the climate could be changing on its own this way (statistically unlikely as that is) is not proof that CC does not exist, and not even very good evidence that it probably doesn’t – but just theoretical evidence for the idea that in theory, “it could” have, anyway, though we are seeing the general pattern we would expect, and which, on its own, was statistically very unlikely to have happened.

    If the discussion here on this site could be focused on, in response to my comments, the points I make and showing where the basic points are in error or misplaced (or that other option, agreeing with them or taking issue in part), and that mean that CC is something other than what I suggest, rather than constant attacks on me and my comments in nearly every form imaginable, then it would be more of a discussion.

    (Lord Monckton, though I disagree with all of his posts, and believe he has misconstrued mine in some key respects, it seems is the only one discussing, and I respect that.)

    • @John Carter – no one has misconstrued your points. You have the faith of your beliefs, but not the knowledge, so you have articulated them poorly. And personal attacks? Claiming that this issue is faith to you is an observation, not an attack. YOU SAID it was not data driven. If it is not data driven, then it is faith based. That is why religion is not science and science is not religion.

      I will be honest. I did not read your whole diatribe. I told you I do not read your posts because you do not respond to the questions or points raised. I do not need a sermon. I get those from the Priest on Sundays. And until you respond to the questions and points made, I see no point wasting time reading your long soliloquies that are rambling and non-factual.

      So again, if you want a discussion, answer the questions. An answer of “I don’t know” is still an answer. But when you answer “I don’t know” you cannot say that everyone giving you an answer is wrong – because you have admitted you do not know the answer!

  167. John Carter says:

    scientists also, understandably, look to data; and should, as part of our understanding. Unfortunately here we’re not trying to understand CC after the fact — which is when the issue becomes data determinative — but understand it before the fact, so we know what most sensibly to do (if, in theory, anything), in response. [my emphasis]

    John Carter, you are a lot of things. But you are no scientist. If you were, you would not make ridiculous and unsupportable statements like this:

    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.

    Without testable, verifiable measurements, there is no science. It’s that simple. Without data, we’re back to witch doctors.

    Next:

    To those who don’t want to believe anything other than CC does not pose a significant threat…

    Since you are unable to post any scientific evidence showing that a “significant threat” is occurring, your assertion means nothing. If climate change poses a significant threat, why is there no evidence of any threat? Rational folks don’t ‘believe’ in something for which there is zero evidence.

    Finally, despite your protests it is a fact that you don’t answer questions. Your last two posts were rambling nonsense. If you want to start answering, then answer Willis’ comments above. Why are you so willing to condemn poor folks to permanent poverty, based on your “what if” beliefs? You really do come across as a heartless scoundrel.

    This is your chance to answer. Don’t blow it, like you have everything else.

  168. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 23, 2014 at 4:35 pm Please understand that I don’t think that you are a bad person for your support of a plan that inevitably harms, impoverishes, and even kills poor people, and is doing so today as we speak.

    I think you haven’t thought it through.

    Willis,
    Thanks for clarifying that a little.

    Labeling me a bad person or anything in that category for my earnest belief about a reasonable threat we all face or may face, is ridiculous, and evincive of the idea that people are not entitled to their own perspectives on real issues when they don’t agree with someone else’s, whether it be a minority perspective (here) the majority (most climate scientists), or the state (where it becomes fascism).

    I’m taking issue here with the arguments and rationales being offered, and trying to give another view on what the issue is, one that doesn’t seem to be considered here, but that reflects the concern I have and that I think most scientists who have studied the issue and thought deeply about it, also have; and what I suggest, though it hasn’t been so well articulated in a world that keeps conflating weather with climate, and current climate (whatever it is) with climate change, is the real CC problem. And most “disparagement” of climate change refutation is in fact taking issue with the characterization of the climate change issue, as well as the arguments and rationales. When it comes to calling all climate change refuters deceitful (which I think is both erroneous and counter productive and further needlessly polarizes us all and trivializes others), as some people who are very concerned about the issue have done, I generally argue against that, unless something specifically has been.

    That aside, I agree that we see it differently.

    I don’t think the plan harms and impoverishes and even kills poor people. And I think that response is a little extreme. Particularly given what weather is doing right now, the threats it poses, and the lives lost to cancer and other diseases as well as decreased health just to pollution alone, from things that cause us harm but that we can’t as directly see.

    I do, more importantly, think relying on modes of production and energy sources that do us great harm in the short and long run —- (most of the health affects, on everybody, for instance, of air pollution, in a world where we have super scientific biological knowledge yet take disease as almost the normal state – and to which coal btw adds tremendously, as well as to why what is possibly the healthiest protein source on the planet now has be carefully monitored and restricted due to a long standing neurological toxin at all doses), and that is harmful to the rich and to the poor, just maybe not the short term interests of very wealthy industries that have come to rely upon, if understandably, the huge hidden public subsidization in the form of massive but often hidden external effect — is far, far more damaging to the poor, and to everybody. But particularly the poor in low lying countries, and also potentially drought ridden areas. A lot of the poor in Australia, for instance, where whether just coincidental (at this point) but strategically very unusual water (and all over the place temperature patterns, i.e. – volatility) patterns, have hit farmers really hard.

    Also, the idea that because something “may” not happen (and climate is already changing, and, see above comment, it is very unlikely to be mere statistical coincidence) but yet presents an enormous threat to mankind, isn’t really, I suggest, a sound reason to not consider sensible means of redressing it.

    I also think that the climate impact is likely to ultimately be very significant. (Some say it’s getting somewhat significant now, in terms of just measurable hard costs, and hardship to the poor due to extreme weather events and increased drought patters off statistical norms; but that’s hard to isolate out.)

    Yet, though I think the issue is huge and presents a significant threat to us all and for some people to be scared of it, for them, is reasonable; the argument for sensible response isn’t one of alarmism, but one that is strategic. It is due to the fact (or based on the idea, if you like), that many of these processes need to be changed and improved anyway (though agriculture presents some real problems, but also many areas for simultaneous improvement) and, more importantly, that the chance of the ultimate climate shift being high is reasonable (to high), and the damage of that affect significant enough – that not acting is not only unwise, but extremely so, and extremely against our interests. Even if the chances were lower than I assess, it would still be extremely against our interests, in terms of the ranges and probabilities of harm, times what that harm (or harm within each range) would entail.

    By the way, drought may threaten the poor the most, just based upon the generally expected (and so far even seen a little already), increase in precipitation volatility (longer periods on average between intense events, with far more lost to runoff than thus soil and root absorption) and likely regional changes; which for everybody, but particularly the poor, is often problematic, since they can’t just get up and go.

    But it could also be greatly exacerbated if there was a net reduction in precipitation as well. Just about the only well qualified atmospheric physicist who specifically doesn’t think the issue is that big of a deal is Richard Lindzen, who I think has not thought it through. (And likes to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. I think he also famously went against the idea that cigarette smoking was connected to lung cancer.)

    His latest theory is (or was, I think he’s backed off it) that the sky would open up like the “iris” of an eye, losing cloud cover, sufficient to allow enough extra radiation to emit through in the absence of long term average ambient water vapor. Most atmospheric physicists have rejected this idea, and what little short term data there has been since is apparently inconsistent with it even as just a lesser, but significant effect. (To the extent Lindzen proposed it, it also strongly seems an ill though out and somewhat self contradictory idea as well.)

    In part the water vapor issue is a conjecture. But water molecule levels in the air serve to both cool – albedo up – and retain heat energy – heat re-radiation up. The heat re-radiation effect, I think, may be dominant (and what seems to be the general view. though we don’t really know), or at least comparable, since it is day and night both, whereby albedo is just day. And if it is less dominant (far less water vapor for both day and night time re radiating is present, sufficient to offset the earth heat increasing affect of greatly lower overall albedo from lack of atmospheric water vapor and clouds), then the loss of rainfall — the key, and absolutely critical, limiting factor in plant [food] growth, unless artificially irrigated (which still requires sources of that water, which is already a problem in many areas of the world) — becomes especially problematic. Even more so in likely combination with more volatile precipitation patterns. And particularly for the world’s poor; and in a major, major, way.

    As for energy, I believe that keeping the prices of the most long term damaging fuels artificially low in comparison to other possible methods and productions of energy that could be implemented or developed, is not helping anybody in the long run (but for I suppose those industries entrenched in the pattern) and is quashing any real change to what we are capable of in terms of better means of energy, and we are doing far more harm, without real market motivation and reward relative to other energy means. ( I also think cheap energy, if it is also harmful or having external affects that aren’t integrated into its price, only prompts and then perpetuates and reinforces enormous inefficiencies and inefficient patterns; and I also think motivating the market toward better energy development, rather than just throwing government money at it rather than what really drives innovation, will keep energy a lot less expensive in the long run, as well, and probably, more importantly, provide more jobs, not less.)

    But again, I think the issue of how to redress the problem of Climate Change most sensibly is completely separate from an objective examination of just what Climate Change is, and the climatic related threats it presents, and I believe the two may be somewhat heavily conflated here.

  169. Wrong word, in comment just posted, typed out strategically where meant statistically.

    “A lot of the poor in Australia, for instance, where whether just coincidental (at this point) but statistically very unusual water (and all over the place temperature patterns, i.e. – volatility) patterns, have hit farmers really hard.”

  170. John, nothing measurable has happened after almost 30 years of bullshitting about AGW/CAGW and a half-doubling (mathematically speaking) of the purported negative effects due to CO2 going from 280 to 400ppm. Why do you think that the next half-doubling is going to be any different, given that any number multiplied by zero = zero?

    If you could show some parameter where there’s been a real quantifiable effect (which you were asked repeatedly to do, but couldn’t), then I’m sure there would be some discussion with you about where that might lead but, as it stands, it’s pretty clear that you, not being a scientist, have no idea what you don’t know, even though you should by now.

    I tuned out when you quoted Marcott et al. as an accurate reflection of the temperature record. It’s an accurate reflection of the level of scientific fraud to which your heroes will stoop to con useful, clueless, pretend-scientific idiots like you.

    Sorry if the truth hurts.

  171. John Carter’s latest long rant is a bunch of free-association mental confusion. He can’t keep a coherent thought in his head before he launches into another, unrelated burst of anti-science. He still has not answered Willis’ point: that by supporting climate alarmism, poor people are seriously hurt, and some starve. Carter does not care in the least if the poor housewife has to pay her skyrocketing gasoline and utility costs. Rather, Carter just emits his usual emotional nonsense, trying to justify his “carbon” scare. He really is heartless.

    Carter also opines about Prof Richard Lindzen, the internationally esteemed climatologist who heads M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department…

    …Richard Lindzen, who I think has not thought it through….

    Here is Prof Lindzen’s C.V. It lists twenty dozen peer reviewed papers. Prof Lindzen’s accomplishments makes Michael mann look like a grade school tyke. Yet, Mr Carter presumes himself to be qualified to judge Lindzen’s work. As if.

    I challenge Carter to post his own C.V. — if he even has one. If he refuses, that means he is probably just a high school graduate, if that, with no training in the hard sciences. From his comments, that is certainly the impression he gives. Prove me wrong, Carter. Post your C.V.

    It is tiring dealing with an unqualified blowhard like Carter. He could learn, if he wanted to. But he prefers to parrot the nonsense he reads at alarmist blogs. It is obvious he is totally unschooled in science. Worse, if adopted, his position would certainly cause death and misery today, in the forlorn hope of heading off some vague, nebulous ‘climate threat’ far in the future, and for which there is exactly zero real world evidence today.

    It is scary that people like Carter are allowed to vote. That goes a long way toward explaining why the world is in such a miserable state. We can thank scientifically ignorant folks like John Carter for that.

  172. John Carter,

    Climate is always changing. This interglacial is already 11,500 years old. You don’t think its going to last forever do you?

    Approx. 14,000 years ago Calgary was under a couple of miles of ice.

    14,000 years from now, Calgary will likely be back under a mile of ice. So much for CAGW and so much for CO2 hysteria.

    Here’s an offer. Provide Anthony with a genuine mailing address.

    I’ll provide the funds for him to send you a copy of this book. You need it.

  173. John Carter says:
    July 23, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    where meant statistically.

    “A lot of the poor in Australia, for instance, where whether just coincidental (at this point) but , have hit farmers really hard.”
    Farmers in droves voted against the carbon tax.
    They could not see how a tax of $24 a tonne escalating to $40 a tonne could change the climate of Australia.
    It would have put them out of business.
    I note that you referred to your own blog about the poor and adaptation.
    The important thing is to get the science right, not speculate.
    That needs data, its all data driven.
    The planet is not interested in opinions however strongly held.
    Harking back to my exam analogy, it does not matter in a written exam, marked by an independent person,that you have laughing blue eyes and represented in the Cricket team.
    What you put down and demonstrate what you actually know is what counts.
    You have not responded to my earlier comment that we are emerging from the LIA and the warming we have would be expected.
    The reason that there is so much emphasis on ‘the pause’, which you point out is short for climate time scales, is not that we are actually discussing Climate, except peripherally.
    The reason is that we are discussing Climate Models, which by design, if AGW is real, should accurately predict Climate over a long span.
    They don’t.
    They are too high.
    They don’t show an extended ‘pause’.
    In statistics,to be honest, the person who designs the analysis decides, BEFORE, the analysis is run, what he regards as significant.
    The IPCC did that, its seventeen years for the GCM’s, and they have not hit once.
    So the Null Hypothesis still stands, the warming is natural.
    So no need to panic or be concerned about the children.
    The poor are always with us.
    Better not make their lives worse.
    Best give them cheap power.

  174. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    …the Null Hypothesis still stands, the warming is natural.

    Exactly right. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. It is a corollary of the Scientific Method, and to ignore it is to ignore basic science.

    Global warming is natural. There is no measurable evidence to the contrary.

  175. dbstealey says:
    July 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    You are not discussing, or anything near discussion. You have exhibited, in this and in particular the other, subsequent thread I wrote several comments on, such vitriole, such name calling, such constant misconstruction and misrepresentations, all you really want to do is discredit anything I write.

    These are comments on a forum, not scientific papers. Yet you will take out any sentence, any paragraph, any idea, that you didn’t follow, or that wasn’t perfectly written, and then turn that into the issue. For a while you turned the fact that I (stupidly, not knowing the depths of your ability and willingness to take anything completely out of context and then continue to get increasingly hysterical about it) asked for a link regarding 10 year temperature swings into a series of wildly self centered comments and assertions that my whole theory was now worthless, when it had nothing to do with my theory; but that didn’t change no matter how many times I pointed that out (as I have in several of the earlier comments above.)

    dbstealey writes:

    then answer Willis’ comments above. Why are you so willing to condemn poor folks to permanent poverty, based on your “what if” beliefs?

    This is extremely manipulative, but the question is whether you even realize it.

    So someone asks you why you want to harm little children, because maybe (though probably more reasonably than from simply moving to better and less harmful energy sources) future flooding as a result of far more volatile and intense weather (already showing up a little), not to mention starvation from drought, will harm children.

    Then postulates that as your goal, which in a way is a pretty wicked thing to do to somebody, as it is either deceitful, or worse, and then asks “why do you want to harm little children.”

    When you don’t want to harm little children. You just believe (I presume) or want greatly to believe and so do believe, that CC is not a big deal. That the flooding we’ve already seen that is statistically unusual, is also completely “coincidental,” and that CC — which is not an immediate response to more re radiated heat, but a shifting response over time as energy accumulates in the earth/lower atmosphere system (oceans have warmed, permafrost regions have increased in temperature even more than the ambient air, etc. net polar, and sea ice has been increasingly melting) — won’t in the future lead to more volatile and intense precipitation weather patterns and events such as terrible flooding, or bad drought, etc.

    You can believe that, it doesn’t mean you want to hurt children. So it would be highly manipulative for someone to write “you don’t answer questions.” Which is what you did again. (As if I’m being paid to answer all your questions and not giving of my time as it is for nothing in return but mainly grief, and IF I saw it, IF I had time, and it was not just attacking again or trying to turn the CC change issue into something it’s not, I’d try to respond.) And then add. “So answer this one, why do you want to harm children.”

    It’s incredibly manipulative, and posits a completely false pretense. And it’s the same as what you just did above. (Your logic may even be more misplaced, since probably most non ideological economists don’t believe that switching to more, broader, and cleaner (not just CC related) energy sources “condemns poor people to permanent poverty,” and that the notion is somewhat far fetched.)

    Every one of your comments in response to me, in total, illustrates this more general tendency, since you have attacked, misrepresented, misconstrued, and disparaged in nearly every way imaginable.

    I can only think that you work for or all being paid by the oil or coal industry, or (maybe and), that on some level you are experiencing serious cognitive dissonance (the same idea you keep projecting out in your comments) and don’t want to consider anything I’ve written because you think on some level it may make some sense, or at least some of it; and so cling, like to a life raft, to the idea that because climate is not what we would consider unacceptable or out of control right now, that CC as a legitimate risk range of serious threats, therefore can’t be real, or even a reasonable assessment.

    And now I’m gonna get more of your excellent pop psychology back and more name calling, right? I mean, if I’m an idiot, why do you spend the bulk of your day (wherever I have posted, there appears dbstealey, with the ongoing and sometimes pretty vile name calling disparagement and near constant misconstruction and misrepresentation of my comments), attacking and disparaging me? I’m not a particularly good writer, that should be evident. So if my posts are the nonsense that you (when you’re being relatively “nice,” and not vile) say they are, why all the constant disparaging. C.D.; fervent belief that you are confusing for reason (and thus why, ironically, you also constantly accuse me of being impervious to reason when I just don’t buy your reasoning, and I’ve repeatedly, and reasonably, told you why); oil/coal industry employ, or all?

  176. dbstealey says:
    July 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Regarding the rest of your comment just above, you write,

    John Carter, you are a lot of things. But you are no scientist. If you were, you would not make ridiculous and unsupportable statements like this:

    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.

    Without testable, verifiable measurements, there is no science. It’s that simple. Without data, we’re back to witch doctors.

    Again, on data (rhetorical question, since you’re not willing to discuss, which parts do you specifically disagree with, and why, which parts — as again, it’s a comment, not a long scientific article — did you not understand.. The measurements and observation are the observations and measurements of geologically radically altered long lived GG gas levels. This is a lot of science, and incorporates not just global atmosphere analysis, but some sort of loosely attempted reconstruction of past geologic history, which has involved an enormous amount of science. Not exactly witch doctor stuff.

    You just want to only label data that which proves what the affect is, when that is but one small part of the data. Also, the only way data can prove it, is after the fact, which belies the entire point. And means you don’t understand the issue, are unwilling to try to understand the issue, or simply don’t want to. And instead of trying to, since you don’t understand it or don’t want to, you try to come up with more and more ways to attack me. Particularly in some of the other comments you’ve posted.

    As far as current data goes, it is also supportive. You then confuse, or want to confuse, this with the mistaken notion that if there is a large climate affect, that we could chart and predict it precisely. In advance. Rather than just expect climate over time to shift with a lot of volatility. And which is generally what we’ve seen; and tried, gathering more data as we go, to increasingly model it to try to add some more concrete framework.

    That framework, is not the problem. It is an attempt to capture and quantify the problem; Something that is hard to do. Exceedingly hard to do when it comes to climate; and even more so in terms of the volatility that may increase in terms of something that over time, would tend to shift and change the longer term climate. Yet you confuse that (on purpose?) with whether the phenomenon itself exists, or can be known with some degree of reasonableness as presenting a risk range. Which is, ultimately, what the whole Climate Change issue/challenge is.

    You then immediately quote me again and write

    To those who don’t want to believe anything other than CC does not pose a significant threat…

    Since you are unable to post any scientific evidence showing that a “significant threat” is occurring, your assertion means nothing. If climate change poses a significant threat, why is there no evidence of any threat? Rational folks don’t ‘believe’ in something for which there is zero evidence.

    If it’s a threat it’s not occurring, it’s in the future. You are again conflating the ultimate results of any long term CC affect, with any ability to have any insight into it beforehand.

    You also confuse evidence with proof, as from the geologic record of gg levels, to basic atmospheric dynamics (molecular absorption and re radiation of surface emitted radiation), to past geologic conditions, to consistent ice melt to permafrost temperature to net ocean change, to now 100 plus years of accumulated ambient temperature changes — plus the most remarkable one of all, a multi million year, geologically super fast, increase (or I should say increase to levels not seen in several millions of years) – much of it in the past 50 years alone – in the concentration of the same long lived gases, that in only very small numbers, capture and re radiate enough surface heat to keep the planet ultimatelyabout 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be in its absence — there is a lot of evidencee, and has been for a while, by which to articulate a sound scientific theory and risk assessment. (Theory doesn’t mean speculation, by the way.) But “Zero” – your word above – to you. Who needs (or pretends to need) proof of the CC result, before any of it, to you, is real. It’s a logic trick: If the threat is future, but we can see some signs of change now but would have no way of isolating those out from what “could have happened,” no matter how statistically unlikely that would have been otherwise, then since we have not seen the future itself – the only possible way to prove this – “there thus can be no threat.” And, of course, by definition, no evidence of it.

    Whether you did all this above on purpose or don’t realize it – from the responses back – it really doesn’t matter, it’s ultimately the same thing by this point. You will also write anything that sounds good or disparages me in nearly any way possible, so there’s really NO point in discussing with you.

  177. Dammit, sorry. Format edited, To Eds – if you catch this before the above comment posts, you can just replace it. Thanks.

    dbstealey says:
    July 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Regarding the rest of your comment just above, you write,

    John Carter, you are a lot of things. But you are no scientist. If you were, you would not make ridiculous and unsupportable statements like this:

    Ultimately Climate Change is not a data driven issue, by the way.

    Without testable, verifiable measurements, there is no science. It’s that simple. Without data, we’re back to witch doctors.

    Again, on data (rhetorical question, since you’re not willing to discuss, which parts do you specifically disagree with, and why; which parts — as again, it’s a comment, not a long scientific article – did you not follow. The measurements and observation are the observations and measurements of geologically radically altered long lived GG gas levels. This is a lot of science, and incorporates not just global atmosphere analysis, but some sort of loosely attempted reconstruction of past geologic history, which has involved an enormous amount of science. Not exactly witch doctor stuff.

    You just want to only label data that which proves what the affect is, when that is but one small part of the data. Also, the only way data can prove it, is after the fact, which belies the entire point. And means you don’t understand the issue, are unwilling to try to understand the issue, or simply don’t want to. And instead of trying to, since you don’t understand it or don’t want to, you try to come up with more and more ways to attack me. Particularly in some of the other comments you’ve posted.

    As far as current data goes, it is also supportive. You then confuse, or want to confuse, this with the mistaken notion that if there is a large climate affect, that we could chart and predict it precisely. In advance. Rather than just expect climate over time to shift with a lot of volatility. And which is generally what we’ve seen; and tried, gathering more data as we go, to increasingly model it to try to add some more concrete framework.

    That framework, is not the problem. It is an attempt to capture and quantify the problem; Something that is hard to do. Exceedingly hard to do when it comes to climate; and even more so in terms of the volatility that may increase in terms of something that over time, would tend to shift and change the longer term climate. Yet you confuse that (on purpose?) with whether the phenomenon itself exists, or can be known with some degree of reasonableness as presenting a risk range. Which is, ultimately, what the whole Climate Change issue/challenge is.

    You then immediately quote me again and write,

    To those who don’t want to believe anything other than CC does not pose a significant threat…

    Since you are unable to post any scientific evidence showing that a “significant threat” is occurring, your assertion means nothing. If climate change poses a significant threat, why is there no evidence of any threat? Rational folks don’t ‘believe’ in something for which there is zero evidence.

    If it’s a threat it’s not occurring, it’s in the future. You are again conflating the ultimate results of any long term CC affect, with any ability to have any insight into it beforehand.

    You also confuse evidence with proof, as from the geologic record of gg levels, to basic atmospheric dynamics (molecular absorption and re radiation of surface emitted radiation), to past geologic conditions, to consistent ice melt to permafrost temperature to net ocean change, to now 100 plus years of accumulated ambient temperature changes — plus the most remarkable one of all, a multi million year, geologically super fast, increase (or I should say increase to levels not seen in several millions of years) – much of it in the past 50 years alone – in the concentration of the same long lived gases, that in only very small numbers, capture and re radiate enough surface heat to keep the planet ultimatelyabout 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be in its absence — there is a lot of evidencee, and has been for a while, by which to articulate a sound scientific theory and risk assessment. (Theory doesn’t mean speculation, by the way.) But “Zero” – your word above – to you. Who needs (or pretends to need) proof of the CC result, before any of it, to you, is real. It’s a logic trick: If the threat is future, but we can see some signs of change now but would have no way of isolating those out from what “could have happened,” no matter how statistically unlikely that would have been otherwise, then since we have not seen the future itself – the only possible way to prove this – “there thus can be no threat.” And, of course, by definition, no evidence of it.

    Whether you did all this above on purpose or don’t realize it – from the responses back – it really doesn’t matter, it’s ultimately the same thing by this point. You will also write anything that sounds good or disparages me in nearly any way possible, so there’s really NO point in discussing with you.

  178. John Carter says:

    …all you really want to do is discredit anything I write.

    But John, you make it so easy! Refuting nonsense is a piece of cake. You say:

    You believe…. that the flooding we’ve already seen that is statistically unusual, is also completely “coincidental,” and that CC… won’t in the future lead to more volatile and intense precipitation weather patterns and events such as terrible flooding, or bad drought, etc.

    That is correct. Extreme weather events have been moderating for decades, which is contrary to your predictions. ALL of the crazy, wild-eyed alarmist predictions have turned out to be flat wrong. When that happens, reasonable people will correctly assume that there is something wrong with the alarmists’ basic premise. Because when someone is 100% wrong in their predictions, it means they are not credible. You are not credible, John.

    Next, you repeat your old canard:

    …you work for or all being paid by the oil or coal industry

    Right. My first check will arrive any day now.  ☺

    Next, you point to the change in CO2 as being evidence of runaway global warming. That is wrong. It is only evidence that CO2 concentrations have changed, nothing more. You are making an unsupportable leap from a change in a minor trace gas, to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. I have explained to you, with data based charts, that the change in CO2 is the result of rising T; it is not the cause of rising temperature. But since that explanation does not fit your belief system, it went right over your head. You cannot accept that fact, because if you did, your argument would fail.

    Your arguments are no different than a Jehovah’s Witness’s arguments: you Believe, therefore you will cherry-pick anything that feeds your confirmation bias. You will argue incessantly, while never answering pointed questions or challenges. You are not arguing in good faith; you are merely asserting what you believe.

    You still have not answered why you want to cause massive grief to Willis’ poor housewife by making her living costs skyrocket, based only on your evidence-free belief that your predicted climate catastrophe might happen, far in the future. That is your conjecture.

    Your conjecture fails. The housewife needs help now, while you want to cause her major grief based on your unfounded, evidence-free belief. You are a scoundrel, John. If you don’t think so, let’s ask the housewife to decide. It is her life that you intend to make miserable, based only on your cAGW false alarm. But I suspect that you don’t want her to have any say in the pain you want to cause her.

  179. John, when scientists like us have a good old belly laugh at the saying “Some people will do anything to save the planet …..

    ……. except take a science course”, it’s people like you we’re laughing at.

    What really bugs me though is that you don’t know the correct usage of the words “affect” and “effect”. Could you work on that please and, when you’ve figured it out, could you tell Steven Mosher. At least try to make some contribution.

  180. John Carter says:
    July 23, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 23, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    Please understand that I don’t think that you are a bad person for your support of a plan that inevitably harms, impoverishes, and even kills poor people, and is doing so today as we speak.

    I think you haven’t thought it through.

    Willis,
    Thanks for clarifying that a little.

    Labeling me a bad person or anything in that category for my earnest belief about a reasonable threat we all face or may face, is ridiculous, and evincive of the idea that people are not entitled to their own perspectives on real issues when they don’t agree with someone else’s, whether it be a minority perspective (here) the majority (most climate scientists), or the state (where it becomes fascism).

    John, you have ignored, and continue to ignore, the fact that your plan is already hurting, impoverishing, and killing poor people around the planet. You seem to think that because your belief is “earnest” that somehow absolves you. You seem to believe that you are “entitled” to advance policies that harm, impoverish, and kill people.

    Cheap electricity is the savior of the poor farmer and the poor housewife. Conversely, expensive electricity harms and kills the poor farmer and the poor housewife. If you don’t know that by now, then you are blinder than I feared.

    Like I said, history won’t be kind to people who take that arrogant “father knows best” path without acknowledging what it is doing to others. A person dying in the Third World because their village clinic can’t afford to refrigerate vaccines will not be impressed in the slightest with how earnest you are. She will condemn your plan, and likely you as well, in terms not nearly as nice as mine …

    Your choice, but at least now you can’t say you didn’t know your plans come with a huge human cost. Before, I said you weren’t a bad person, just someone who hadn’t thought about the effect of his plans on the poor.

    Now, it appears that actually you are refusing to think it through.

    I also note that you haven’t discussed my other two objections … ah, well. Do what you want. I’m not the one who has to live with the destruction and the human sorrow and suffering caused by expensive energy. I want to see cheap energy. Clearly your lucky status as part of the global 1% has gone to your head. You’re living rich, screw the rest. You can afford expensive energy, so the people in India living on $2 a day, they should only have expensive energy they can’t afford, so let’s not allow them to have coal-fired power plants.

    Your proposals to increase the price of energy and its siblings are actively harming the poor today, in the name of a POSSIBLE benefit to the poor a century from now.. Do you not see how mad that is?

    US power is something like 30% from coal but nooo, we can’t let the people in India have cheap electricity. So the World Bank is refusing to fund coal plants in India. John Carter says that cheap electricity is wrong, he wants to make electricity cost MORE, and he doesn’t pay any attention to the poor farmer or the poor housewife.

    I said you weren’t a bad person before, John, based on one of my rules—never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance and error. Can’t say I’ve always followed it, but then who can say they’ve always acted correctly by their own lights? Anyhow, based on that I said you weren’t a bad person. And while I’m reluctant to change that judgement … dang, my friend, you’re making it hard …

    In closing, let me thank you for a couple of things. First, I get the sense that you are working to explain the reasons for your beliefs and ideas. Second, your tone is measured, rather than hysterical. Third, I think you are honestly putting forward what you believe.

    Anyhow, John, the truth is that expensive energy comes with a large human cost in pain, suffering, and death. Ignore that at your own cost, it’s not good for the soul to be burdened with that.

    w.

  181. If you’re still here John, could you point us to the graph where you got this data please:

    “future flooding as a result of far more volatile and intense weather (already showing up a little)”?

    I’m looking forward in anticipated amusement at the y-axis for this graph. How does it go ?

    Quite a bit really

    A tad more, honestly

    A tad

    Showing up a little

    A smidgeon

    Immeasurable dammit

    The square root of f*ck all

Comments are closed.