This book, Climate Change: The Facts of which I’m a co-author, is becoming a powerhouse on Amazon, here are the latest numbers as they compare to Dr. Michael Mann’s new book.
#1 in Environment! and #74 in All Books!
Details here
And #1 in Climatology too!
#82,090 in Books
Get your copy here: (available on Kindle, backordered AVAILABLE AGAIN in hard copy)
Way To Go!
Well done. It’s a very informative book. The more of us order it, the better. . But shouldn’t Mr Mann’s magnum opus be in the fiction section? 🙂
Well played
Jay Hope — Good one — Eugene WR Gallun
I notice that Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” is number 5.
Saint Rachel pls.:-)
Anti-human, anti-African, anti-poor, anti-capitalist, trough-feeding bureaucrat, Lesbian (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), mass murderess of global proportions, so Mikey Mann is in good company.
Also anti-Asian, of course, but anti-human most of all.
http://www.cfact.org/2013/08/11/ddt-ban-linked-to-population-control/
Her sexuality is neither relevant nor well-defined.
Stick to criticisms of her work. It is well-defined and has had a net negative effect on the world.
@sturgishopper
Agreed above, you wouldn’t use the label if you weren’t trying to infer suspicion and negativity with it. Doing that is degrading to everyone. As sceptics of AGW we should be familiar with the unfairness of narrow minded, lazy broad-brush stigmatisation and ‘poisoned wells’ and you should know better.
Can’t seem to get the book in the UK yet – anyone have any idea of a release date?
Oh yeah? Well, I have a suspicion that you are hetero! Ha! Yup, I outed you. 8D
M Courtney
June 10, 2015 at 1:09 am
[…] Stick to criticisms of her work. It is well-defined and has had a net negative effect on the world.
I haven’t read Silent Spring in its entirety, but my recollection is that she did not call for an outright ban on DDT, but rather recommended its wise use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
With words like “irrevocably” and “contaminated the entire world,” Carson reminds me of climate alarmists. It would be hard for me to believe that a person who believed such things did not want to ban DDT outright.
Ah, Wikipedia as a source of verity. And I assume that the ban on DDT was just another example of implementation of the precautionary principle.
Louis Hunt
June 10, 2015 at 8:55 am
If you are going to quote Rachel Carson, please use her words, and not the words of the reviewer.
As it happens, The chapter you mentioned “A Fable for Tomorrow” is available online, although with a couple typos, errant pastes, and such, but I could not find the word “irrevocably” in there, nor the phrase “contaminated the entire world,” even though the first part of the chapter is an acknowledged “fable,”
http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI3222/carson.html
Rachel Carson did write this, in the referenced chapter:
M Courtney
June 10, 2015 at 1:09 am
Carson’s sexuality is not irrelevant. As a non-breeder, it was arguably easier for her to accept the deaths of tens of millions or more people if that disaster would, as she imagined it, save the planet’s other life forms which she loved more than her fellow humans.
sturgishooper, that’s a long stretch.
It’s not clear she ever knew she was a non-breeder or that she wanted to be.
Or that, if she did, she would have any more empathy for birds than her friends’ babies.
Psychoanalysis is hard to do on someone in front of you. This is asking for too much faith in our ability to know the woman.
I’m sceptical. Stick to what we know.
MC,
When she wrote Silent Spring toward the end of her life, she knew she was a non-breeder and had already adopted the attitude toward humanity which her book helped spawn more widely.
She and her last lover burnt most of their letters, a la Eleanor Roosevelt and hers, but enough of them survive to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt what her sexual orientation was.
not sure how people are saying she’s not calling for a ban… Steve P wiki post is pretty clear she wants an outright ban but doesn’t think she could be successful… thus crouch the language to still ban it but make it seem a reasonable ban.
If blacks were banned from votes except as little as possible people would say its a bad and racist… but yet she’s not calling for a ban…. yeah right its clear she wants a complete ban.
“The effects of DDT removal on Sri Lanka, for example, were devastating. After less than twenty years of DDT use, Sri Lanka had lowered malaria cases from 3 Million to a mere 17. DDT killed mosquitoes and other carriers of malaria as well as lowering food prices by protecting crops from pests. In spite of these gains in food production and life expectancy, DDT was branded a danger rather than a savior and was banned. Within five years after the ban, Sri Lankan malaria deaths had climbed all the way back up to 2 million per year.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=NjPhv02qvbMC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=P.+J.+O%27rourke+DDT&source=bl&ots=uNOs-fM3lp&sig=hp2LRWb4Ak0qIAS9ajiAsy71zO8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OapxVZqvL8OBygSq-4HoDQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=P.%20J.%20O'rourke%20DDT&f=false
2 million a year, just in Sri Lanka? Multiply that by X years and then chuck in untold millions in countries impacted by malaria in the rest of the world to reach an unimaginably high total: is there a case for saying Rachel Carson is responsible for more human deaths than any other single person who ever lived?
Wikipedia states population of Sri Lanka is approx. 20 million. The quoted figure of two million deaths per year is clearly wrong (P J O’Rourke being his usual and delightful provocative self) as Sri Lanka would be entirely depopulated in eleven years
P.J. O’Rourke cites zoology professor Dixy Lee Ray’s book “Trashing the Planet” for a figure of about 1,000,000. The UN puts the figure at 500,000 for the worst year. Back in the 1990s the maximum was about 210,000. The death rate has been decreasing since then. Sri Lanka is on the path to totally eliminating malaria.
The population of Sri Lanka is about twenty million. Two million malaria deaths would be ten percent of the population. If that were the real rate, Sri Lanka would be almost completely depopulated by now.
Notwithstanding the above, the folks responsible for the DDT ban do have the death of millions of children to account for.
imho, not “malaria deaths” but “malaria cases” …
I found these numbers so spectacular that I looked a bit furher … this is also part of the human sciences, and numbers don’t mean the same thing as in the exact sciences …
see e.g. also http://www.malariajournal.com/content/13/1/59 with different numbers …
In Sri Lanka, malaria deaths went from 2.8 million in 1948 down to 17 in 1964 due to the use of DDT.
Following the ban DDT by 1969, death rates were back up to 2.5 million. In addition DDT was replaced by pesticides that are often much more toxic to humans. Many environmentalists dismiss or minimize these concerns. For example, Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was asked if the DDT ban led to loss of human life. His reply was “Probably … so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them.” He has since retracted his statement.
“Silent Spring” got me interested in pollution and pesticide control 50 years ago. One of the first term papers I wrote was on “organophosphate” issues rather than “organochlorines” (eg. DDT). Many people worried about the “persistence” of organochlorines rather than the toxicity of organophosphates (eg. Sarin).
The positive aspect of “Silent Spring” , in spite of much of its incorrect information, is that it made people aware of the need for careful use of pesticides and herbicides. I believe almost all of the compounds are still being used though generally restricted to agriculture and professional use as it generally should be. (I am not against the use of these products by the way. I have several types in my farm shed along with proper personal protective equipment.)
Hmmnn…….
WHO figures, which are a bit rubbery, estimate total world wide deaths from malaria at between 470,000 and 790,000 in 2012. 90% of deaths were in Sub-Saharan Africa
http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/
Official deaths from malaria in Sri Lanka in 2011 …….none
http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/ghg/country-briefings/sri-lanka.pdf
It’s a bit more complicated than use, or not, of DDT
Note – morbidity means ill or diseased, not death
AFAIK, DDT is not even an insecticide, but a repellant which operates by disabling the scent-localizing circuitry of the antennae, such that insects avoid its influence (by departing). It is thus not actually a poison.
I presume you mean in the “Books > Engineering & Transportation > Engineering > Civil & Environmental > Environmental” section (where its actually #6 right now). Which has a very tiny sales number (and Anthony’s book is not in competition there – or in any subsection of Amazon, for that matter). You forgot to mention that it is #1 and #2 – in two of the enviro-cult sections.
In All Books – its sitting at #2,542; far below Anthony’s. (Now, considering that the half-life of an Amazon ranking would, if it were radioactive, have me getting out the lead shielding and waldos – that’s not too bad. I’d be interested to see what it would rank at if released today, though.)
Thank you for the info.
Since you seem keen on numbers… how do you get your head around the fact that this website is so popular and yet we are told it runs on a shoestring budget? I mean, shouldn’t ads be bringing in thousands of dollars?
I’ve been wondering for a while about this and would appreciate some light on the issue.
Brute
You say
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this website can bring in “thousands of dollars” from advertising.
Many would like to know and I am certain that the host of this website would appreciate the information.
Of course, I am asking for practical information that anyone can understand, and I am NOT asking for more arm-waving assertions about what some anonymous idiot on the web cannot get his/her/their head around.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Please don’t flip out. There is already enough paranoia going around. I am asking a question.
There are ads on this site and there are supposed to be more than a million visitors per month. It has to bring revenue. A lot of revenue. I don’t know how much. That’s why I’m asking. My guess is based on my experience with much less popular sites and thousands of dollars is a low figure. I could be wrong, of course. Please feel free to provide a better figure.
Brute, no-one knows that answer except those for whom it is personal information, so I googled it.
It seems that you can make $100,000 a year from ads if you have 100,000 distinct visitors a day.
I doubt there are near that many distinct visitors each day – from the distinct number of commenters I see. But the earnings per ad may be higher than average as this is a distinctive site catering to those who are well educated.
So my guess is that this site takes in about $100k per annum (less costs to run it).
Being the biggest means that it probably does provide a nice little earner.
But not enough to change your lifestyle unless you were on the breadline in the first place.
@M Courtney
Thank you.
[ based on the URL in the email, you might ask if “Brute” would like to share his earnings info from the “tens of thousands” of users that have downloaded his software -mod]
Brute – Try clicking on “About these ads” up on the top right. The explanation there might enlighten you.
TMLutas, good spot.
I feel stupid.
Brute
You say to me
You provided a smear and not a question. Others have refuted that smear.
I did ask a question of you; viz.
As anticipated, you responded with arm-waving assertions.
Please answer my question or apologise for having presented an unfounded smear.
Richard
So if Anthony chose a WordPress “paid” plan for $300 he could eliminate these offensive ads? I’ll chip in… But does this also mean Anthony doesn’t receive dollars for these ads, just free space?
carbon, I believe it is based on volume. For low volume sites, accepting the ads just gives you free service.
As your volume increases, you get a cut of ad revenue, the greater the volume, the greater the cut.
how long has that been around ? I think it has cobwebs around it by nowl.
Rachel Carson’s book has been around since 1967 or so- 47 years.
As far as ads go I see one on this page for the book announced in the headline.
The real point is that people are obviously visiting this site and buying the book to learn something. With Climate Change: the Facts at #1 in category and Mann’s book down around 82.000 it tells me that facts are much more sought after than paying for propaganda- I get that everyday from the news media and the government. Shades of George Orwel’s book Animal Farm. It still does quite well on Amazon considering its age and subject. It’s pretty to the point on the current political climate.
September 1962
RexAlan — Millions have died because of that book — Eugene WR Gallun
Like, totally awesome, dude!
Way to go!
Mikey is not going to like that.
I’m just hanging this here so there’s some reply buttons…
Context: the precautionary principle as loosely related to Pascal’s Wager, both of which suggest avoiding distant future doom by obeying an Authority right now.
sturgishooper says “Protestant theology values the act of faith. If the existence of God and divinity of His Son were obvious based upon reason and evidence, belief would have no value.”
Some sects place excessive weight upon “blind faith” but I suggest it is not actually part of the religion but rather a strategy designed to avoid too-close inspection of any particular doctrine or sect. Global warmists do manifest a similar theme expressed eloquently in Wizard of Oz: “Ignore than man behind the curtain.”
The brand of religion I favor places emphasis upon action; charity specifically. What is in your mind is invisible and irrelevant; what matters is what you DO. If that suggests “Mormon” to your mind; give yourself a golden star. Attitude certainly has a place, but I will be judged by what I do. It is fortunate that I will not be judged on blind faith, for mine is not blind; I know some things for sure. None of my faith is blind.
So it is with the more intelligent among both warmists and skeptics — the “show me” crowd. These can still be misled by careful choice of what is shown, but at least they are willing to be shown and will look at the evidence.
The book being discussed (on the rare occasion the thread returns to topic) shows aspects of the debate less frequently shown. It reveals the man behind the curtain.
Actually “justification by faith alone” is at the center of Protestant theology, as per Luther’s reference to blinding your reason. Calvin carried it even further.
Protestantism was founded in the moment of Luther’s “blinding” insight into passages in Romans, which led him to formulate the doctrine of “sola fide” (by faith alone), which still distinguishes most Protestant denominations from the beliefs of Roman and Orthodox Catholicism, which emphasize “works”, as per your belief.
Although sola fide is arguably less central to Mormonism than to Protestant denominations, it nevertheless is an LDS doctrine:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55881-is-sola-fide-consistent-with-mormonism/
Watts vs Mann……mmmmmm……bit of a no brainer when it comes to credibility does it?
Congratulations for the authors of “Climate Change The Facts”. But don’t forget: The real contest is not “Watts & co vs Mann” but “Watts & co vs Naomi Klein”. Her book “This changes everything” is not far behind in the climate ranking and will have a big impact on the radicalization of the true CAGW believers.
Thus, the battle is not over yet. Keep ready for a long fight…
I have a feeling that being an approved intellectual and marxist, Naomi’s book is being purchased by students that are forced to read it.
You lil beauty
Glad my Kindle purchase of this book helped obtain a great statistic.
Mann O Mann, what is he going to do now? Looks like he will be left with a lot of paper for fire starter or did he do the right thing and published only in E format?
I bought “Climate Change, the Facts”, as edited by Alan Moran. Have just now compared that with Michael Mann’s book, as shown in the Amazon list. In that book (correct me if I am wrong) I can find no scientific references; only “Glossary, Index and Picture Credits/Author Acknowledgements”; whereas Moran’s book has 50 pages of references to scientific papers behind statements in each chapter.
Doesn’t that indicate a lot??
Wash your mouth out…eh, I mean, rinse your pen, no, scrub your fingers, beg forgiveness…..Mann considers himself a deity, far beyond any requirement to supply a bibliography. Since when do pulpit bangers need refs particularly as we’d likely not have got through them by the time the end is nigh?
Mann is a legend in his own mind, he doesn’t need references, his word is enough.
I’m sure the Mann book has several “peer reviewed” syllables.
Um, what? My hard copy of Michael Mann’s book has its Notes section beginning on page 265 and ending on 371. That’s over a 100 pages, and much of that is for giving references.
Nevermind that comment. I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago. I haven’t even looked at the newer one.
Brandon Shollenberger
You say
Congratulations! On WUWT you have long last admitted to have done something sensible; i.e. you have not bothered to read a book by the ludicrous Michael Mann.
Richard
Brandon,
You said; “I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago.”
I’d like to reassure you as regards your apparently terrible memory.
You didn’t forget that it was about his new book, you never took in that detail in the first place.
Possibly, haste caused by zeal.
I couldn’t find the comment leader for this so I’ll hang it here…
Context: discussion of who “we” are than can know with certainty the Earth will warm by 2030 (if it does anything that is, a separate discussion).
Brandon says “there are plenty of people who could count as ‘we.’ For instance, there is myself and everyone else who agrees we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030.”
I am fascinated by this phenomenon. A we-ist cannot help himself. He’s a drone in a hive-mind. Even while explaining “we” he uses “we”. We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. You have no idea how many people, if any besides yourself, are in any instance of “we” nor does it matter. I am corresponding with Brandon and you are corresponding with me. Whether anyone else on Earth believes exactly as you do, or as I do, is irrelevant. Stay focused — right here, right now, just you and me.
Brandon writes “we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030″
Then let me give all of you a few reasons:
1. Asteroid collision — could make Earth a LOT cooler!
2. Nuclear winter
3. Sufficient volcanic activity; but the added CO2 competes with SO2 so its hard to say the net effect.
4. Solar variation.
5. Running out of fuel so the whole idea of “business as usual” is absurd on its face.
And so on. Doubtless more exist. Now you have some reasons to allow for the possibility of the Earth cooling in 2030. Unlikely; but possible.
Brandon continues: “As for whether or not we can know this to be true, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge”
There is no “we”. I know some things with absolute certainty. Cogito ergo sum for starters. The word “know” has meaning and it is silly to suggest that what it means cannot exist. But it is probably true that what has not yet happened also cannot be known; for it does not exist, and only that which exists can be known. I do not know that you exist. I know that I exist. I cannot say “we exist” because at least one member of the set “we” is not known for sure to exist. I can say “I exist” and then I can say “we probably exist”.
Brandon continues: “…and more than we can ‘know’ the sun will rise tomorrow. But aside from semantics like that, yes, we can know it will not cool by 2030.”
Are you deliberatly using “we” in every sentence or is that just dronish?
“We” cannot know anything that has not happened. “Know” is for things that (1) have happened and are observed or (2) are defined and thus instantiated in the instant of definition. In that sense you can know as many things as you wish to know, the moment you think it into existence.
It is possible the sun won’t “rise” tomorrow; although for that to happen the Earth must stop rotating or the sun exploded or some such thing. Highly unlikely and in either case we won’t argue about it.
The probability the Earth will be cooler, on average, over a ten year moving average centered on 2030 as compared to a similar thing centered on 2010, exists but I do not know what is that probability. My own sense or “wag” is about 5 percent probability.
IMO the odds that the 20 years 2016-35 will be cooler than 1996-15 are pretty good.
Hmmmmm
M. Mann … the word that comes to mind … irrelevant
Wow, this is very surprising.
Who would have guessed a paperweight would get all the way up to 82,090?
Menicholas
Paperweight. Liked it. Was waiting for someone to make a toilet paper comment but you made the humor fresh and new with paperweight. It is said that there are only 7 jokes in the world and all humor comes from how you tell them.
Eugene WR Gallun
Strange, I thought Mann was a cert. for No. 1 in the fiction category
Not a chance.
As a Science Fiction fan for decades, his work never even rises to the level of Ben Bova.
Whats wrong with Ben Bova?
Granted i don’t read him these days, but he was one of the early writers (along with Heinlein and Andre Norton) that got me interested in SF in the first place.
Everyone has their own tastes, and it’s easy to forget that just because you don’t care for a particular author, others don’t agree.
I was never able to get into Turtledove, but he’s counted as one of the greats. Don’t understand it myself, but it doesn’t bother me.
Mann Kump. Says it all. Good to see that Mann’s book is going down in flames and contributing to CO2 levels. I would not be surprised if they printed 100,000 copies(to become a carbon sink.)
high treason —- Carbon sink! I never want to have a duel of wits with you! — Eugene WR Gallun
Yes but if you adjust 82,090, by say removing the last 3 digits, you arrive at a respectable # 82.
They are ‘climate scientists’ after all!
With error bars you could be straddling first place!
Don’t forget to divide the # sold by the sqrt of all books sold to reduce the error bars.
I am reminded of the old Soviet-era joke. An American athlete and a Soviet athlete have a race. The American wins. Pravda reports “Soviet runner comes in second! American finishes next to last!”
And infill the number of books that would have been sold in the areas of the world lacking Internet access.
>>I am reminded of the old Soviet-era joke.
‘Tis no joke. The BBC is doing the very same thing as we speak. When the Wall came down, PRAVDA simply moved its offices to London…….. /sarc
charles nelson — This is Mann’s “New” book. Therefore climate science says that all the data on it has been adjusted up. — Eugene WR Gallun
As an initial contributor to this book my smug factor just went up a major notch.
🙂
Don’t buy a Prius, otherwise the smug quotient may reach deadly levels.
Have bought five copies – a couple of my siblings have birthdays coming up. Not that they will read it, alas, as ‘true AGW believers’, but must keep up the good fight.
Awesome mate 🙂
How about sending complementary copies to President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, Ban ki Moon, Green Peace, Friends of the Earth, et al, and each of those scientists who are still struggling to justify why we have had no warming for 19 years.
No use if their are “sums” in it!
I have to confess, I am one of the people who purchased Mr. Mann’s book; I needed a door stop. The dog had a go at chewing it too be didn’t like the taste at all.
Say, phaedo, when I needed a door stop I picked up a Rock outside. Didn’t pay a penny. But hey, common sense and all that, WUWT?
Humour! WUWT?
I may have mentioned this before, you could not even use this for toilet paper as, in my opinion, it is already full of s***
^^^ Mann’s book that is, not the one in the main subject — Just thought I had better clarify before getting dismembered 🙂
Man Bearpig — This seems a corallary to Godwin’s Law –Talk about books long enough and someone is sure to mention toilet paper — Eugene WR Gallun
AFAIK, DDT is not even an insecticide, but a repellant which operates by disabling the scent-localizing circuitry of the antennae, such that insects avoid its influence (by departing). It is thus not actually a poison.
If MM had been the author, the title might have been ‘Climate: Change the Facts’.
+10
;.)))
Excellent choice of punctuation + several thousand
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Keynes said “When the facts change, I change my mind”.
Climate Science says “When the facts change, change the facts”.
Excellent
+100
David — Too funny! On a scale of ten that is an eleven. — Eugene WR Gallun
+ one googalplex
googolplex, is that a google site that shows movies?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Eh? With the constant retreat to statements of faith when cornered (precautionary principal, peak oil etc.), highly selective reading of evidence (minutely cherry picking and misrepresenting data), mingling and blurring fact with speculation then grossly overstating certainty (pretty much every climate paper published these days), and gradually backing off towards their opponents own position when proven incontrovertibly wrong (‘fireball earth’ to high climate sensitivity to ever lower climate sensitivity), attempted terrorisation of the impressionable with apocalyptic visions, endless ‘Gish-Galloping’ and blinkered propagandising, I always thought AGW adherents had a lot more in common with creationists.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icouldnthelpit:
See the definition below. “Gish gallop” is simply projection on your part. It is the climate alarmist crowd that cannot provide credible facts, evidence or measurements.
Everything you write is based on belief, not on scietific facts. If you had credible facts, you would have no need to invent insults like “denialist” to suppport your argument.
Using the term “alarmist” is insulting also.
Joel D. Jackson
Please don’t post ridiculous nonsense.
“Deni a r” has the connotation of holocaust deni a l and is unspecific about what is deni e d.
“Alarmist” has no unpleasant and untrue connotation and it accurately applies to people who assert an alarm without comment on whether such alarm is justified.
Richard
Mr Courtney
…
Your “opinion” is noted, but the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.
What a savage reply, pit. Did you invent the “I’m not one but you are” retort?
If you do not think it is problematic, then you are not an alarmist. Depending on HOW MUCH warming you think is coming you would be either a warmist or a lukewarmer. Which to an actual alarmist would make you a denier, since that includes everyone that doesn’t agree with 5hereb on every last point.
Heck, Lomberg agrees with all their ‘science’, yet is still branded a denier because he disagreed with their economics.
J. Jackson says:
the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.
I cannot help the feelings that come from within you. Your ‘logic’ makes no sense either. Based on all available evidence, AGW is not ‘problematic’. At all.
If you are not a climate alarmist, then what are you? You write just like all the other alarmists here, agruing incessantly with scientific skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists).
If the rise in CO2 is harmless, which it is (if you disagree, identify any global harm from CO2), then why the endless arguing about human CO2 emissions?
It’s clear that you agree with the alarmist crowd. Nothing wrong with that, feel free to be as mistaken as you wish. That is your right. But there is a difference between labeling someone as a climate alarmist, and labeling someone as a “denialist”. What’s a denialist?
‘Climate alarmist’ is an accurate term. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. Global temperatures over the past century have been as flat as anything in the entire geolgic record. The people running around in circles and clucking over a tiny 0.7º fluctuation over a century are just trying to alarm the public. See? They’re alarmists. They are falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater for their own benefit.
But, “denialist”? And “deniers”? What, exactly, are skeptics ‘denying’? I’ve stated repeatedly that CO2 causes (minimal) global warming. I’ve never said otherwise. So what am I ‘denying’? What is a “denialist”?
Answer: those are mindless terms that unthinking people (like your guy Mears) use to insult everyone who has a different scientific view. It is a mindless insult. You will get as many definitions of “denialist” as there are people defining the term. It is a fine indicator of stupidity, isn’t it? Those using it are truly stupid. Wouldn’t you agree?
All that said, I would be happy to never again label climate alarmists as what they are — if they will stop labeling skeptics as what we’re not.
Dbstealey writes, “I cannot help the feelings that come from within you.”
…
Dbstealy doesn’t have a clue about any of my “feelings”
..
He then writes, “:If the rise in CO2 is harmless, which it is” of course he offers no evidence if it is harmless. The fact is WE DON’T know either way. It may be harmless, it may not be harmless. The only way we’ll know if it is….is to wait and see. The true skeptic will not say it is harmful, nor will he say it is harmless. Why? because nobody can predict the future reliably. Additionally you seem to forget that science makes no value judgement. If you wish to determine if it is “harmless” or “harmful” study the branch of Philosophy labeled “Ethics.” Science will not answer the question of harm.
…
Then he writes “It’s clear that you agree with the alarmist crowd” no, you are wrong with that assertion. When one lives in a very cold climate, warming can be a good thing.
…
Now DB writes ” There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening.”
…
That is not true. Look at the ice cores. CO2 levels have not been at 400 ppm for at least 800,000 years if not more. That is “unusual” considering that in the time span of 800,000 years, we’ve had several glaciations happen. There is no doubt that human activity has had an “unprecedented” effect on the global carbon cycle. Carbon that has been sequestered for MILLIONS of years is being reintroduced into the environment.
…
To answer your question ” What, exactly, are skeptics ‘**enying’? ” …. They(you) are *enying the findings of science, you are *enying the fact that the global warming continues and is caused by humans.
..
Lastly, you write, ” unthinking people (like your guy Mears) ” Mears provides you with the RSS data. He’s responsible for it. You are the one that constantly provides examples using data from Mears. You are tactfully approving of him each and every time you cite the RSS data in a graph, or in your relentless pushing the meme of “no warming in 18 years” …..
..
If you continue to label people as “alarmists” don’t complain when they label you something you don’t like either.
Joel, the evidence that rising CO2 will be harmless is rampant, if you would just stop reading the alarmist propaganda.
1) The earth has been much warmer than today several times in the last 10K years and life not only survived, it thrived. Therefore, even if the alarmists are right and temperatures go up by 3 or 4C, no big deal.
2) Up until a couple million years ago, CO2 levels well north of 1000ppm was the norm. In fact for most of the last 200 million years CO2 levels have been above 5000ppm. And life thrived.
Therefore your fear that if CO2 were to increase, something bad might happen is completely unfounded based on facts.
J. Jackson says:
Dbstealey doesn’t have a clue about any of my “feelings”
Sure I do. We all do, when you whine about “the term ‘alarmist’ is insulting”. Being insulted is your feeling. Want us to stop? Then quit sounding your false alarm. There is nothing to be alarmed about.
Next, jackson says that CO2…
…may be harmless, it may not be harmless.
Wrong again. Listen up: it is not the job of skeptics to prove a negative. If CO2 is harmful, then it is up to you to produce verifiable evidence of global harm due directly to the rise in CO2. Otherwise, my hypothesis stands, because you are incapable of falsifying it:
CO2 is harmless at current and projected concentrations, and it is beneficial to the biosphere.
Falsify that, if you think you can. If you do, you will be the first.
But you can’t of course. If there were any such evidence, we would be hit over the head with it 24/7/365 by the alarmist cult. So “CO2 may be harmles, may not be” is a bunch of wishy-washy pablum for the faint-hearted. It is a baseless assertion, because you’ve got nothin’ else. You’re just scaring yourself for no good reason.
Next, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening with the climate, or with global temperatures. I guess I have to spell that out for you. But the fact is that not one single scary prediction ever made by the climate alarmist contingent has ever happened. Every alarming prediction has been wrong.
Yes, harmless, beneficial CO2 has gone up — from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half. But so what? It hasn’t made a whit of difference, despite your obvious craving for a climate catastrophe so you could finally say you were right. But guess what? You were wrong. As always.
Ah, and skeptics are “denying science”? THAT is your totally lame response?? No wonder you’ve lost the debate. My position on the subject is exactly the same as Prof. Richard Lindzen’s. So when you’ve authored twenty dozen peer reviewed papers on the global climate subject, then maybe you’ll have Lindzen’s credibility. Right now, you have none. Zero. Anyone who tries to justify calling skeptics “deniers” has no credibility at all. Run along now back to Hotwhopper, there’s where you belong. You’re their speed, and vice-versa.
Finally, Mears is not responsible for anything. He is only a part of a team — and the odd man out. He’s trying to nitpick what the rest of the RSS team produces, for his own self-aggrandizement. Until Mears stops labeling other scientists who simply have a different point of view as “denialists”, all he is doing is sulking because the others won’t listen to his nonsense. So please, keep trying to defend someone who calls people like Dr. Lindzen “denialists”. You have no credibility, and you will never get any that way.
Face reality. Your “dangerous man-made global warming” belief has been thoroughly debunked. The real world is busy falsifying that failed conjecture. So all you’ve got is your name-calling and complaining. You have no good evidence, and no measurements at all to back you up. Really, you’ve got nothin’:
MarkW
June 10, 2015 at 7:58 pm
While your general point of course is valid, CO2 probably hasn’t been above 5000 ppm since the Ordovician Period, if then:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
sturgishooper,
Yes, Mark was a little off on his dates. But in general he was right:
[click in chart to embiggen]
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
The biosphere is starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More is better, and at current and projected concentrations there is no evidence of any downside. It’s all good.
MarkW: “the evidence that rising CO2 will be harmless is rampant” Evidence for something that will happen in the future can only be obtained via time travel. Good luck with that.
..
Dbstealey: “Sure I do. We all do” You’re wrong as usual. You are projecting. Does using the “d” word upset you? It must, because you seem to be attaching connotations to it that are not in the dictonary.
…
Secondly, I apologize to you for being unable the predict the future. You cannot tell if rising CO2 will or will not be harmful. If you can, can you please tell me the make and model of the crystal ball you are using that enables you to predict the future with such clarity? I could use it for adjusting my investment strategies. I’m not asking you to prove a negative,
..
“Falsify that, if you think you can” What a silly challenge. Everyone knows you cannot falsify a PREDICTION
“there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening” You need to learn to read. The release of UNPRECEDENTED amounts of carbon into the biosphere is ……unprecedented. You seemed to have not read what I posted.
…
“despite your obvious craving for a climate catastrophe ” Craving? please….clue us all in on what “craving” I have. I told you before the value judgement is not a part of science. You have made the mistake of putting a “C” into the AGW science. There is none, and you are playing the game of moving the goal posts.
…
“Mears is not responsible for anything” Wrong again. He’s responsible for the RSS data. He’s the senior scientist there, and the vice president. He’s the top dog at that outfit when it comes to the science. Being a VP outranks all the other members of the scientific staff at that organization. Even the president of RSS has lesser credentials than Mears.
…
Mears knows more about satellite data than you do. His exact words are, ” surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets” He knows the details, and I trust his opinion over yours or some British viscount.
…
Thank you for posting a graph of RSS data. See what Mears says about that data.
Joel, why do insist on digging this hole of yours deeper.
If 5000ppm did not cause harm in the past, then 500ppm will not cause harm in the future.
No need of time machines, just a mind that is capable of actually thinking.
Please let me know when you acquire one of those.
MarW
..
First of all, your quote of “5000 ppm” is the output of a MODEL
..
You trust model output? (GEOCARB?) Do you have physical evidence of 5000 ppm?
..
Secondly, I suggest you refresh your understanding of the evolution of stars. The output of the sun many millions of years ago was less than today’s output, and in the future the sun’s output will rise. So no, you are wrong when you say ” will not cause harm in the future” because conditions today are unlike conditions in the past.
J. Jackson,
I could easily answer every point in your rant. You think you’re the first one to come up with that nonsense? Get a grip.
I’ll just point out that everyone makes predictions all the time. We depend on our predictions. Most folks call them ‘making plans’. We predict that the sun will rise in the east, or that it will take us 20 minutes to drive to work — or that our children won’t know what snow is. Some predictions are right, some are partly right, and some are totally wrong.
Alarmist predictions have been totally wrong. All of them, from increasing severe weather events, to ocean “acidification”, to accelerating sea level rise, to increasing relative humidity, to the big enchilada: runaway global warming and climate cartastrophe. When a group of people believes in predictions that turn out to be 100% wrong, others start to look at them like they’re followers of Harold Camping, or one of Leon Festinger’s ‘Seekers’. Earth to Jackson: the flying saucer isn’t coming.
You are determined to believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems — but you have no evidence of that. It is only your belief, nothing more. That is the argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy: assuming something is true, simply because it hasn’t been proven false. Thus, you demand that others must ‘prove a negative’; we are expected to prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global harm. As if.
This is a science site; it is the internet’s BEST SCIENCE site. There are other blogs that cater to religious beliefs. But here, we need facts, evidence, and measurements. Come back when you’ve got some. If/when you can show any global harm from the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, I’ll sit up straight and pay attention. Until then, you’ve got nothin’ but your belief.
As for the despicable Mears, so long as that jamoke calls other scientists “deniers” and “denialists”, he has zero credibility. YMMV.
Finally, here is some good advice from Australian blogger Jo Nova:
• Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
• When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
• Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
• Answer questions.
• Don’t use invalid arguments.
• When you are wrong, admit it.
• Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
• Stop lying. If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
• Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
• Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
But of course, if alarmists did those things, the debate would be over.
Here you go again db….“You are determined to believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems ” ……you are wrong as usual. I make no claim about CO2 being good or bad. You seem dead set on projecting that onto me, and it is laughable that you do.
You cannot predict the effect of the increased CO2. Nobody can. Don’t label me an “alarmist” because I maintain the position that neither you, nor I nor anyone else can accurately predict what is going to happen as far as the climate goes. If you think you can predict the future, can you tell me if there will be rain in Chicago on August 12th of this year?
If this is a site about science, can you please tell me why there was no mention of the recent heat wave in India that claimed over 2000 lives? That is a significant “science” story that seems to have been overlooked by this site. This is a “news and commentary” blog about science. It apparently has a distinctive bias in its selection of authors and point of view.
…
Now in typical Stealey fashion, you resort to calling Mears names. Does it make you feel good to call a successful chief scientists and vice president of RSS names? You say, “he has zero credibility” yet you reference his data all the time. How can his data be credible if he is not credible?
So Stealey, you don’t like it when the term “*enialist” is used, but then you turn around and call the bloke a “jamoke”………You know, it is so funny to watch someone complain about name calling and then watch that very same person call someone names.
Joel Jackson asks ” can you tell me if there will be rain in Chicago on August 12th of this year?”
Yes, there will be rain.
On August 12th we will find out if I was correct.
Similarly, in 85 years we’ll find out if the IPCC was correct.
PS….. “Alarmist predictions have been totally wrong. All of them”
…
Here are a few predictions that were correct.
..
1) 120 years ago, Svante Arrhenius made predictions of the amount of warming that were amazingly accurate
2) It was predicted that t the arctic would warm faster than the equatorial regions, and that’s what happened.
3) It was predicted that night time temperatures would rise faster than day time temperatures, and that’s what happened.
…
So much for your claim that “all of them” were wrong.
Joel Jackson says “Here are a few predictions that were correct. 1) 120 years ago…”
Congratulations. You went back 120 years to find a prediction that proved correct. I readily admit that some predictions must come true even if by random chance.
Michael 2, the reason I went back 120 years is because that is when the AGW hypothesis was first made. And Svante Arrhenius made his prediction based on it. We are all still waiting for someone to falsify it.
Joel D. Jackson says “Michael 2, the reason I went back 120 years is because that is when the AGW hypothesis was first made. And Svante Arrhenius made his prediction based on it. We are all still waiting for someone to falsify it.”
Thank you for explaining. As a side note, I suggest there is no “we” — you have little or no way of knowing who, besides you, is actually waiting for someone to falsify the basic physics of the operation of carbon dioxide. I doubt an attempt will be made here on WUWT where I think most readers understand the basic operation of carbon dioxide in this context.
This book explores a variety of educated opinions on various factors influencing climate change. It stands in opposition to people that believe carbon dioxide to be the principle driver of climate whose influence is greater than 50 percent up to nearly 100 percent. This book comprises opinions where carbon dioxide’s influence is believed to be less than 50 percent causally related to observed climate changes.
As to failed predictions; it depends on whose data and charts you believe. By at least one prediction, New York City is already under water; and maybe it is — I don’t go there.
In the case you say a “pox on all their houses” you can also rely on your own personal experience over the past 20 or more years and make note of how many piers have been submerged at major shipping ports in the United States or around the world. Coleman Dock in Seattle, for instance, appears neither higher or lower as compared to my memory that goes back to the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair.
Michael 2, in replying to
Joel D. Jackson
Well Jackson, you must have forgotten the Arrhenius actually re-wrote his CO2 predictions himself just a bit later: Reducing the original value he chose for CO2’s effect by more than half. Seems like Arrhenius done did do the falsification himself. About 110 years ago.
DB,
Good, simple graph, from which it should be obvious that Hansen’s fantasy of the Venus Express is simply pysically impossible.
J. Jackson,
May I quote you? Thank you:
CO2 levels have not been at 400 ppm for at least 800,000 years if not more. That is “unusual” considering that in the time span of 800,000 years, we’ve had several glaciations happen. There is no doubt that human activity has had an “unprecedented” effect on the global carbon cycle. Carbon that has been sequestered for MILLIONS of years is being reintroduced into the environment.
That’s scary! So obviously you have a phobia about “carbon”. Obviously you believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems. Why else write the wild-eyed Chicken Little comments you wrote above? They are clearly intended to cause alarm. But CO2 has been up to TWENTY TIMES higher in the past, without ever triggering runaway warming or any other problems.
Next, you cherry-picked only out to 800K years? Why? The answer is clear: because before that, CO2 was much higher — without causing any problems or global harm. If it weren’t for that kind of cherry-picking, the climate alarmist crowd would have a lot less to say.
Next you gave 3 false examples of alarming predictions:
1) 120 years ago, Svante Arrhenius made predictions of the amount of warming that were amazingly accurate
So what? Ten years after Arrhenius’ prediction, he backpedaled and said that doubliung CO2 would cause only about 1.6º rise in temperature. That is far from alarming; that would, in fact, be entirely beneficial. So unlike all your other scary predictions, not only did that not happen, but there hasn’t been any global warming for almost 20 years. So: wrong again.
2) It was predicted that the arctic would warm faster than the equatorial regions, and that’s what happened.
That has been known since far before you even became aware of the climate issue: global warming happens primarily in winter, and at night, and at the higher latitudes, and low temperatures are raised, not high temps. So again, nothing new there, and nothing alarming. The alarming predictions were that Arctic ice would disappear. That Polar bears would be decimated. That rising seas would engulf Tuvalu. That corals would be bleached out of existence. And so on. Like all the other scary predictions, those predictions never happened.
3) It was predicted that night time temperatures would rise faster than day time temperatures, and that’s what happened.
Once again, you are deflecting. Everyone but you seems to have known that night time temps are raised; it’s just radiative physics. No one disputes it. It is entirely beneficial — not scary at all. It is certainly not an example of climate alarmism.
Scary is predicting an “accelerating sea level rise” — not happening.
Scary is “disappearing Arctic ice”. Not happening; Arctic ice is recovering.
Scary is: “Our children won’t know what snow is.”
Nothing in your examples was alarmist. They are normal. But it is only climate alarmism that keeps the scare going — and the tax money coming in. It’s based on a hoax. A scam. Elmer Gantry would be jealous.
Your pal Mears is part of that hoax. Until he stops calling anyone who doesn’t agree with his ‘science’ “deniers”, “denialists”, etc., he has no credibility. At all. Prof. Richard Lindzen, whom I agree with (I’ve read most of his 240 published papers) does not call other scientists names like Mears does. So what’s with Mears? And why is he your HE-RO?
sturgishooper The “Good, simple graph” is the output of the GEOCARB model. No physical measurements, just good old fashioned model output. You ever hear of GIGO ?
…
RACookPE1978….revising one’s numbers is not a falsification. If you think that is the case, isn’t the recent “revision” of the UAH models the same thing?
“That’s scary!”
…
Too funny Stealey…..if you find that scary, please do not ride on a roller coaster.
..
“you believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems”
…
Nope don’t know what it will do.
…
“Chicken Little comments what a gross misrepresentation. Project much there buddy?
..
“TWENTY TIMES higher in the past” Well, wasn’t that when solar output was lower than today?…..Oh….and can you post a citation for that claim?
..
I picked 800K years because that is the only direct measurement we have of atmospheric concentrations. If you want to trust GEOCARB model output….you can, but I’ll stick with measurable quantities.
..
“That is far from alarming; that would, in fact, be entirely beneficial.” Stealey, science does not judge anything harmful or beneficial. Can you stick to science instead of injecting your value judgements?
..
“That has been known since far before you even became aware of the climate issue” Another one of your “assertions” …..got a citation for that?
..
“Once again, you are deflecting” Nope….you said ALL predictions, and when you say ALL you were wrong
..
“Your pal Mears is part of that hoax. ”
…
Mears is the VP and chief scientist at RSS. Be real Stealey, if he was “in on the hoax” do you think the RSS numbers would be as they are? You are funny.
…
“And why is he your HE-RO?” He’s your hero, every time you cite the RSS data.
Not sure you know what the term means – I was directly addressing your comparison of AGW sceptics to creationists. In what way is that a Gish gallop? What you tend to find debating climate catastophists is a retreat to speculative assumptions when called out on lack of proportion, fabrication or cherry picking. When a head-on argument fails, go for the precautionary principle (or polar bears, arctic sea ice etc) as a catch-all diversion. That is a Gish gallop, named after the favoured debating tactic of creationist Duane Gish.
Your comment would be more informative if it included a sentence or two illuminating something relevant about Ray Comfort’s playbook since I have never heard of Ray Comfort much less his playbook.
“Ray Comfort is the Founder/President/CEO of Living Waters Publications” That didn’t help much.
As to similarities — I wonder why you consider this newsworthy? Of course there are similarities. Pick a few and let us discuss them.
I see that others cite the precautionary principle; and yes that is an excellent tactic used by all and also known as Pascal’s Wager. Dare you not {believe in G*d, global warming, sea level rising}? Catastrophe and doom are in your future unless you {send money, believe in me, hate your enemies}.
Comparing a belief in catastrophism with Pascals’ wager is invalid. Under the terms of Pascal’s wager, belief in God had no cost. Can’t say that about the Global Warming scam.
In answer to MarkW
June 10, 2015 at 10:22 am
Pascal’s wager is in itself invalid. The idea that the pretense of belief in an omnipotent being would fool said omnipotent being into believing that the pretender actually believed in said omnipotent being takes some believing. There would be more reason to not believe, then when brought up before said omnipotent being argue that said omnipotent being made things far too obscure and complicated that deciding which specific belief was the true and valid one was impossible for a relatively impotent creature such as a human being. Therefore to prevent believing in any of the incorrect omnipotent being or belief systems which would be the same as not believing in the correct omnipotent being and belief system, one decided to not make the choice and argue the toss at the correct time.
Better to not make any decision than to make the wrong one.
Richard, let me see if I have this right. You are arguing that it is the creator’s fault that you choose not to believe in him? That it is up to the creator to provide sufficient proof that anyone even the uninterested would have no choice but to accept it?
BTW, next time you go before a judge, try that line of reasoning and see how far it gets you.
Protestant theology values the act of faith. If the existence of God and divinity of His Son were obvious based upon reason and evidence, belief would have no value. As Luther said, “To be a Christian, you must tear the eyes out of your reason>” Calvin went even farther.
This was also the attitude of the Early Church Fathers: “I believe precisely because it is absurd.”
Therefore, God must remain hidden, and it’s theologically incorrect to search for proofs of His existence, as pursued by the Scholastics. Unfortunately, modern fundamentalists who feel compelled to believe everything in the Bible is “true” misunderstand the concept of faith, so are thus both theologically and scientifically incorrect.
Fundamentalism is misunderstood by many if not most fundamentalists. It isn’t biblical literalism, but belief in biblical inerrancy, when properly interpreted. It’s akin to Catholic faith in papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.
MarkW,
There are very few instances in real life where one’s judge also purports to be one’s creator, so that might be a silly analogy.
mebbe says (in response to Michael 2:) “There are very few instances in real life where one’s judge also purports to be one’s creator, so that might be a silly analogy.”
My creator is my judge. He lives in Oregon. He is my father. I have many other judges of course, you apparently now having joined the herd.
I have not suggested that creators and judges are linked and it is certainly not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant, at least distantly, is the use of FEAR to motivate followers. The actual future of heaven or global warming isn’t nearly as useful as moving billions of people and dollars based on fear of that future.
mebbe, you don’t have a lot of experience with this analogy thingy, do you.
MarkW says “you don’t have a lot of experience with this analogy thingy, do you.”
I do not know how to unambigously answer dont-you-do-you questions. Please restate. Bring the “do you” to the front, drop the “don’t” and it is not only shorter, but unambigous:
“Do you have a lot of experience with analogy thingies”?
To which I would still have to ask, “what is a ‘lot’?”
Perhaps it would be best not to inquire as to my familiarity with analogy thingies and ask a more relevant question or at least express your contempt in a clear and concise manner.
icouldnthelpit — Who is Ray Comfort? Your joke goes flat because I and certainly others here have no idea who the guy is. Out of curiosity i will google him. — Eugene WR Gallun
icouldnthelpit — Gish gallop?? — You are an education, man. Got to google that one also. — Eugene WR Gallun
“Gish gallop” is a term of projection used by climate alarmists. When they cannot refute skeptics, they hide behind that pejorative, which indicates that they are unable to produce credible facts, measurements, etc.
When Dr. Duane Gish was debated it was assumed that it would be a debate of science versus belief. But when Dr. Gish presented copious scientific evidence, his opponents were unable to refute his data during those debates.
Hi opponent Dr. Eugenie Scott lost the debate, and she coined the phrase “Gish Gallop” because she had no scientific counter arguments. (She could have won the debate in that instance, but she went in unprepared.) Instead, she presented the “consensus” among scientists that she was right, and resorted to ad hominem attacks on Dr. Gish.
So “gish gallop” is just another pejorative like “denialist”. It’s a mindless insult alarmists use when they cannot refute the facts presented by “man-made global warming” skeptics.
In other words, a Gish Gallop is when you’ve so fallen for your own propaganda about the other sides arguments (anti-science, ignorance, reactionary, whatever) that you don’t even learn what those arguments ARE, and thus have no rebutle ready when faced with them.
Not sure how you got to that belief… huge cross over between the cultists and creationists though. They both selectively edit when the world begin to push a view point… creationists though are no where near as bad as cultists.
Joel,
Arrhenius was so inaccurate that he had to redo his “predictions”.
While the hypothesis that doubling CO2 should increase temperature around a degree C has not been conclusively falsified (to my knowledge), what happens in isolation in a lab is very different from what happens in the complex atmosphere. That’s quite aside from other human activities which have the effect of cooling the air.
GCMs include feedback assumptions not in evidence and ignore other effects, so no one can say what the actual result of 800 ppm would be. The models have gotten the effect of adding 120 ppm to 280 ppm laughably wrong.
Callendar considered his GHE calculations from the 1930s to have been falsified by the cold conditions of the 1960s. For this and many other reasons, the reborn 1980s hypothesis of AGW was stillborn, ie falsified at its hatching.
It is never nice to gloat , it really is a bad thing but ……..hahahahaahahahaha.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Mann.
Oh dear! Mann’s “opus magnum” now rated “opus minimum”
(This might need some correction from a scholar of Latin)
I believe your Latin to be impeccable. You matched the adjective minimus, (-a), (-um) perfectly with the third declension, neuter noun ‘opus’.
Well done, to Anthony and all the authors of this book!
I also highly recommend “Isaac’s Storm” which is slighly trailing in the ratings despite being in print since 1999. It is a tale of overconfidence in the pet theories of the day held by the U.S. Weather Bureau. It was thought at the time (1900) that hurricanes could not enter the Gulf of Mexico. This idea unfortunately turned out to be disasterous for the city of Galveston. Very topical to today’s climate debate I think.
well obviously the big oil companies are buying up this book in vast numbers in order to skew the rankings 🙂
congrats to the authors, big achievement.
(being sarcastic ^)
You can be sure, though, that Mann’s masterpiece of nightwork was bought up by all government-financed libraries.
It seems to be number 91 in all books at the moment. That’s still quite high.
But such things are transient.
More interesting to me are the other books that make the Top 100. I’d not looked before.
Pre-school books dominate. And a few ‘classics’ are in at the moment (The Very Hungry Caterpillar fitting both criteria).
Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby and 1984. They must always be there, or are they on school curricula at the moment? Can Amazon track that? Might tell you something about the influence of the State or the influence of publishing houses on the State.
Game of Thrones seems popular. Cookery books not so much.
And there are no other science books in the Top 100. Some religion though.
It’s very American.
with respect to Flies, Rye, men, Gatsby and 1984 it has to be “required reading” to keep those there on the top 100. That requires curricula. There is absolutely no reason that anybody would read Gatsby by “word of mouth”!
If you plot the performance of the two publications in 2 dimensions, you can use the points to:
(a) construct a line
(b) construct a curve or
(c) construct a hockey stick