Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
It’s been a few weeks since the U.N.’s Paris Climate Conference (COP21) ended. Mainstream media from around the globe praised the impotent agreement, as though anyone expects political promises to be kept. The COP21 agreement reminded me of the proverb A promise is a comfort for a fool.
Fantasy headlines read:
- This is the end of fossil fuels (CNN)
- Historic Paris climate pact puts world on green path (TheHindu)
- COP21 Delegates vote to adopt historic deal (EuroNews)
- COP21: President Obama celebrates Paris deal that ‘transformed the US’ (Independent)
There are many more.
But one headline made me laugh out loud. It still makes me smile. It was penned by none other than SkepticalScience’s Dana Nuccitelli, whose article was posted at his home blog SkepticalScience and at TheGuardian two weeks ago. His headline read:
The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars
Mr. Nuccitelli needs to ask himself why the U.N.’s climate agreement is non-binding…why the “shalls” were replaced with “shoulds”…why the teeth of the agreement were extracted…why commitments became empty promises. (See proverb above.) Answer: Republican members of congress—who Mr. Nuccitelli would most assuredly classify as deniers—would never have ratified an agreement that actually commits the United States to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I have yet to find another post-COP21 headline that made me laugh as hard, though the Independent’s “COP21: President Obama celebrates Paris deal that ‘transformed the US’” came in a close second.
“Historic Paris climate pact puts world on green path (TheHindu)”
Yes, very green. CO2 is very good for all the plants and the trees world wide. A treaty without obligations means that a lot of countries do understand reality.
The smart money always did. That’s why the whole thing would be a joke, if it didn’t divert attention and funds from legitimate environmental problems we should be cleaning up.
At a certain point politicians can not step back, officially. Than a treaty without real far reaching obligations is the best deal. In this way they win time to adapt to their new reality. “Warming” already changed to “climate change”. What’s next? Some information to the public that ‘natural variation plays a bigger role than first thought’? Gradually they can step back. Facts will win.
“the whole thing would be a joke, if it didn’t divert attention and funds from legitimate environmental problems”
Yes — that is the real tragedy of this CAGW farce. It is not just a damage to the reputation of actual science, but also in its cost in sucking funding away from real problems.
“…attention and funds for legitimate environmental problems…”
If the CiimateChange was a stock exchange, I would sell Michael Mann and hock my house to buy Khabibullo Abdussamatov futures!
By the same reasoning, the billions squandered on AGW outcome-based “research” would go a long way toward preparing to deal with a few cooler decades…
‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’ — Adolf Hitler
From the PBS NewsHour Dec 14th, “Paris summit ends with major climate blueprint ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/paris-summit-ends-with-major-climate-blueprint/ ): “JUDY WOODRUFF: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon invited world leaders today to come to New York this April to put their signatures on a historic climate accord.”
Silly as the Guardian’s headline was, it is quite a bit more suspect when so many other mainstream media headlines / narratives share the same overblown “historic” ( https://www.google.com/search?q=“historic+paris+agreement” ) talking points about what is an otherwise unenforceable agreement. One of these days, somebody within the AGW inner sanctum will spill the beans on who writes the talking points and how those get distributed.
“U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon invited world leaders today to come to New York this April to put their signatures on a historic climate accord.”
April, the first?
Everything is “Historic” now….what ever happened to the dust heap of History?
‘If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.’ — Adolf Hitler
Actually the quote is attributed to Joseph Goebbles. Here is the complete statement which is rather appropriate to the conditions today. In fact it is almost as if the alarmists are using his writings as their text book.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister for The Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
That is the essence of political correctness to suppress the truth to advance a a left agenda. Redistribution of the world’s wealth by unelected representatives. Remember in Rio the warmists tried to get through a rule that they would also be unaccountable for their mistakes. Imagine the havoc these Marxists could wreak on the planet if that happened. Unaccountable power, no thanks.
Thanks for the complete statement. Oh but they are, as they are using Alinsky”s ( probably completely based on this). And is being followed by the letter. “transform, hope and change” etc. It is mind boggling.
Yes…. for a time…. but, then….. the TRUTH COMES OUT! 🙂
As “Baghdad Bob” found out…
(youtube)
Well, well, well, so we now have “Paris Nucitelli.”
Weee are weeeeeeening! — not.
AGW never had any live rounds in its weapons. Not — one — quantified — measurement making human CO2 emissions (much less, methane, lol) an even PLAUSIBLE cause of significant change in the climate zones of the earth.
Can you understand this, “Paris?”
CO2 EMISSIONS UP. WARMING STOPPED.
You lose.
“The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars”
Danth’s Law: “If you have to insist that you’ve won an Internet argument, you’ve probably lost badly.”
“The Paris agreement signals that d*ni*rs have lost the climate wars”
Danth’s Law states: “If you have to insist that you’ve won an Internet argument, you’ve probably lost badly.”
“Thus the climate wars have been about policy, not science, and international climate negotiations are the ultimate battlefield. To this point, contrarian efforts to undermine these negotiations have succeeded, but in Paris they failed. The whole world agreed, we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis. ” – D Nuticcelli
Climate crisis?
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more.” —Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of IPCC WG III, New American, Nov. 19, 2010
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” – Christiana Figueres
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3voSXBEfN
Somebody wake Dana up.
Dana just keeps muttering “there is a spoon, there is a spoon” and hopes if he says it enough people will fall for it, but the reality is the spoon doesn’t exist.
Thanks for all the graphs – I was feeling a bit naked here in a Bob Tisdale posting … )
The Disappearing Spoon
How does that moron keep his job?
Doesn’t he work for an oil company?
I do not think Dana needs to be woken up.
He states as clearly as possible that the whole thing is policy and not about science at all. It took a lot of people, even here at WUWT, way too long to come to understand this one basic truth.
Now, how much Dana is “all in” with the whole “UN as World Gov.” thing, I could not say, but I think it hardly matters.
But here in the US, the political left and the environmental movement are joined at the hip, and if green policy means reparations payments, all the better.
Dana will get his climate crisis soon enough, but it will be the big chill if negative oceanic oscillations coupled with an anomalous low solar maximum has anything to teach.
If these eggheads were wise, they would switch their function to promoting global adaptation to the inevitable natural cycles of this planet on its journey through the galaxy, one orbit at a time. Public realization that man’s activities are swept away in the noise of nature’s dynamically adaptive systems will make these folks look like the prophets they claim to be, in the public eye. They keep their “global planner” status and get to save humanity in lieu of the planet.
Thanks fretslider for linking to “U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare”, an IBD Editorial.
The Investors Business Daily does a good job reporting real news, I visit http://www.investors.com a lot.
Nuttisillicello is delusional, as are many of the others.
What is intriguing are the overworked clumsy sentences they are using to announce their praises. Words intended to sound momentous, moving and historic are saccharine clumsy almost random aggregates of fatuous basically meaningless words.
It appears they’ve had their chosen statements for weeks and that they have continuously and laboriously worked over the words.
e.g.:
“…international climate negotiations are the ultimate battlefield…”, Say what!?
“…To this point…”, What point is that?
“…The whole world agreed…”, Says who? Delusional Dana? That is a laugh!
“…we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis…”, What!? Again!?
“…say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…”, De facto?, just where does that word work in that sentence?
“…we redistribute … the world’s wealth…”, We? What they really mean is “give us, especially me, all your wealth!”
“…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy any more…”, One can assume this sentence means many things, but I read it as gibberish.
“…This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution…”,
Which is it? First time in man’s history or just since the industrial revolution which is still technically ongoing?
“…setting ourselves the task of intentionally…”, I thought setting ourselves is understood to be intentional; why the redundancy?
“…within a defined period of time…”, No. Nothing is actually set to happen. Wishful thinking.
“…economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years…”, The economic model, i.e. capitalism, has been the basic economic model for man’s civilized history. No-one ever worked for free or supplied goods free, unless forced to as a slave of some kind.
Round and around the writers and their words spin, but their meaning is still illusionary.
Let little Dana sleep. He is harmless while preaching and singing with his little band of choir mates.
He is not harmless. All the so called microagression at Universities and the false theory of whiteness is part of the same PC attempt to crush truth and freedom. You are only allowed the freedom these people allow you while they continue their world wide parties.
@ theo 946 am ; Nuttisillicello is delusional, as are many of the others.
No he is not” delusional”. He and his ilk are dangerous to the extreme. They have a plan and it is to destroy our way of life, advancement of the sciences and therefore the betterment of people all over the world.
ATheo, good comment, but not harmless at all. By sucessfully raising the cost of energy, they are causing massive harm to the poor, and they are creating more poor.
Yes. All sophistry and word-play. Not a trace of truth or a speck of the scientific method. Thanks for the laugh! No wonder no one pays attention to these clowns.
I’d rather someone put him to sleep. He’s a cranky, whiny, gaseous little baby when he’s awake.
I’m heartened by the fact that post-COP21, every single country in the world – most notably China and India – went home to do exactly as they please…
The best policy is to declare victory and leave.
– George D. Aiken, among others.
Good point Paul. Now when the science is settled, the convention is adopted and the war has been won, not a dime of public investment is needed anymore. Champagne anyone?
A curious situation developed in Spain as elections happened just a few days after the end of the agreement, and indeed the election campaign happened at the same time as COP21.
Guess what: the climate issue didn’t even come up. In fact, the energy / fossil fuels issue was only mentioned seriously by leftist party Podemos, which vowed to cut… taxes on home fuels, i.e. natural gas, electricity, heating oil and LPG. (You couldn’t make this up)
The ‘commitment’ my country has supposedly made hasn’t been voted in Congress, or mentioned by anyone in the government – let alone explained. I’m not even sure if we have a separate INDC or if the whole of the EU has submitted one. No one has demanded an explanation either. The dissonance is especially striking because the media was in fact covering COP21 – they just didn’t mention what kind of emissions reduction Spain has committed to.
TL; DR: nobody cares.
Good for Spain.
Spain has one of the highest electricity prices in Europe, and this is mainly because of tax. IVA is charges at the full rate, whereas in most European countries, (IVA, VAT whatever) is charged at a much lower rate such as 8 to 12%.
Of course, Spain was stung with the subsidies paid for renewables Some solar farms, used diesel generators so that they could supply the grid 24/7 because the subsidies were so generous. The Government has now greatly cut back on these subsidies, and I understand that if one uses solar panels, the user may have to pay a tax to the government to take account of the lost IVA that would have been paid to the Government had the user been fully on the grid.. Perhaps Alberto can explain in more detail what the current situation is.
My take on COP21 is this: There is no reason for anyone to complain about “Climate Change” as a threat to anything, because COP21 has solved the problem. The countries of the world have spoken, and put forward how much CO2 they will produce, and how much they will donate to other countries to help them make their targets.
So, as a result it is time to stop funding PhD peer reviewed studies into Climate Science, and start funding engineers to build solutions. To stop pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into climate studies, and instead use these hundreds of billions of dollars to build efficient solutions. Engineers, not Climate Scientists should be designing the solution.
1. Install/update baseline electrical generation worldwide. Bring low cost baseline electricity to the entire world to eliminate poverty. Fund scrubbers for coal plants worldwide to end pollution in developing countries. Replace older technology coal plants with ultra-supercritical coal plants to maximize efficiency.
2. Shift to Natural Gas where possible and practical. Allow fracking to maximize NG supplies and minimize the current risk of War over oil and gas supplies. Build coal classification plants to replace coal with synthetic natural gas where possible and practical, to minimize the need for scrubbers and further minimize the risk of War.
3. Implement a “Manhattan” or “Moon Landing” style engineering project to bring commercial thorium reactors on-line within 10 years. Ideally these should be standardized, modular, non-pressurized, passive cooled designs, built using assembly line technology. Ideally the modules, not the fuel should be returned for reprocessing and re-manufacture. The modules should contain no “user serviceable” parts.
From Social Engineering to Real Engineering.
Your proposals seem entirely correct … and feasible.
That said, I think each of your 3 proposals is anathema to the green alarmists. {Grin}
“Engineers, not Climate Scientists should be designing the solution.”
Sadly, as a retired engineer I recognize the obvious: there currently are no “renewable” viable baseline solutions ready for mass productionization.
What we need is research followed by many successive generations of development using relatively small quantities of prototypes for each new generation. Research, prototyping, and honest evaluation leading to incremental improvements and perhaps the occasional breakthrough may make productive transformation possible… or not. Meanwhile, as you indicate, Ferdberple, a shift to “cleaner” fossil fuel technologies could reduce the growth in C02 emissions a bit and also reduce “real” pollutants.
The “renewable” solutions that politicians and profiteers wish to rush into production today are suitable only for tiny increments of the worldwide market. Every time a new wave of current-generation windmills and solar cells is foisted upon the taxpayer wealth is destroyed and human capital is squandered in activities which degrade the world’s environment and the quality of life for its citizens. That will be true at least as long as the energy storage solution remains to be solved by research and sound engineering.
And yet look and see what a prominent professional society of US engineers just published.
http://www.pncwa.org/assets/Committees/Sustainability/pncwa%20climate%20change%20position%20paper%202015.pdf
You should have felt the emotional intensity in the room (in favor) of this resolution when it was first presented at a recent conference.
Prominent professional engineers? Riiiiiiight.
By the key question remains: Who will be in charge of all this infrastructure?
The answer to everything above,
Eliminate corruption and you have got rid of Climate Change, put thousands of ###^&*+## in jail! with the trillions of $, schools, water, and tax breaks for ALL !
‘So, as a result it is time to stop funding PhD peer reviewed studies into Climate Science, and start funding engineers to build solutions.’
Solutions to WHAT ?!?!
An excellent summary of the current situation. It rather reminds me of a saying that is often made about the intractable problems of the middle-east, although it works just as well about global warming/climate change/ .
There is no problem that is so intractable that a new set of eyes can’t take one quick look at it and propose a solution that is simple, direct, easily understood and wrong.
This sort of human benefit engineering; the kind where the third world is electrified and freed from poverty, this sort of engineering is the worst nightmare of misanthropic warmists
(a la Greenpeas, WWF etc.)
These sorts want so badly to de-electrify the First World, Turning it into the Third World.
Just opposite to the Ideas of Ferdberple
This misanthropy is the progeny of the progressive left.
This is no victory for rationality. Wishy-washy non binding motherhood statements are still grounds for abysmal abuse, as is still happening with the so called ‘precautionary principle’.
Sanity will not rule the day until we end these meetings and explicitly repudiate their agreements.
Yes, all it means, is warmist will stimulate the economy by breaking more windows. GK
The underlying meaning of the COP21 “agreement”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwEL3NNNrfE
More of a slow burner but come back in 10 or 20 years …
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2015/dec/16/how-a-typo-nearly-derailed-the-paris-climate-deal#comment-65209196
There’s a link in the first paragraph that reads ‘History will record a diplomatic triumph’. 🙂
I just keep using the two items from BP’s Energy Review in my comments there … wind/solar provides 2.1% of world energy demand now – 20 years after AR1 – and projected to provide 6.7% after another twenty years to 2035. Winning. 🙂
If Dana and the other alarmists think they’ve won, well possibly in a similar fashion to The Black Knight … 2:30 on:
It’s just a scratch!
“Climate Peace in Our TIme !!”
On a bit of a tangent, here in Oz we have had Russell Crow throwing a public hissy fit over an airline refusing to allow his kids hoverboards on board an aircraft for the outrageous reason that the new, beaut, clean green, eco friendly, lithium ion batteries… have a habit of bursting into flames!! LOL.
A version of the first example even made it to my local paper…
http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/letters/14152113.It_s_game_over_for_fossil_fuels/
Just goes to show, once again, that liberals do not live in the real world !!!
I’ll know the so-called Deniers have lost when Mr. Nuccitelli stops using fossil fuels and everything derived from them.
Wars are of course creations of man. They are won and lost by men and their actions-inactions, strengths-weaknesses, guile and deception, intelligence-ignorance.
Climate is a creation of nature. It existed and changed far before man and his hubris and will continue long after we’ve been replaced by another apex predator.
For Mr. Nuccitelli to claim some “climate war” has a victor and a loser shows he has a limited mind and lives, like Mr Obama and many other liberals, in an alternate reality, one where King Canute really could have stopped the tide if one believed it so. Nuccitelli lives in a world of climate religion, where faith trumps natural laws in controlling weather and and its natural cycles.
Nature will win the climate war. Nuccitelli’s declaration on which political side won or lost anything is hubris and best and pathological delusion at worst.
Joel, that was rather nicely put. I liked it.
I agree Joel…well said.
As for that last part, I am leaning towards delusion.
For a lot of reasons, none more psychotic than believing that attitudes about CAGW are what really matters, not behavior.
If everything CAGW proponents believe was precisely true, attitudes would count for diddlely squat…and nbehavior everything.
Yes, the deniers have lost the climate wars.
Why? The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
Luke, It’s not Co2
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
Luke,
What have the “deniers” lost? You only show that you haven’t read much at this site. Most here agree that there is some warming since the LIA. More in highly “adjusted” thermometer hut temperatures than in satellite temperatures. But unprecedented? Never heard of the Younger Dryas? That was unprecedented, the current increase rate is peanuts compared to that one…
And while you are at that: how do you know that the current warming is not 90% natural, instead of 50-50% since 1975 according to the IPCC (or 25% since 1850). From failed climate models? These are for 95% out of range with the current lack of warming… A model is not reality…
Here Luke has bought into the scientific fraud that AGW is the null hypothesis. Mr. Trenberth tried the same folly. Natural climate cycles and natural climate variability, any that occurred after man started adding trivial amounts of CO2 to a massive carbon cycle, must be discarded in this alternate view. It is a denial of every regional and global climatic shift that occurred prior to 1950 (or 1850, or 1979, take your “cherry” pick). The pseudoscience of Climate Change uses 1. the circular (il)logic of climate models, 2. intentionally manipulated surface temp records, and 3. suppression of dissenting scientists to achieve a desired political outcome. Each of those 3 are provably true.
That the public doesn’t buy the catastrophic fear mongering message the liberals and the dishonest climate pseudoscientistists push speaks to the failure of the climate propaganda war.
The weight of evidence is overwhelming. When you can provide a viable alternative and a counter balance to the 10s of thousands of scientific papers in climatology, paleoecology, physics, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, all of which point to rapid warming due to anthropogenic-caused increases in CO2 then you will have a case.
“The weight of evidence is overwhelming”
What evidence?
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
We all believe the climate has been changing since the Earth came to be. In order to get funding and published 99% of all climate science papers assume that man made CO2 is causing the climate to change. Very few papers address why the climate is changing.
A paper on how the changing planet affects butterflies says nothing about why it is changing. It proves nothing about the impact of CO2. There is very little evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of our changing climate.
Wow, Luke really does believe in doubling down on stupid.
There aren’t 10’s of thousands of papers, there are only a handful. The vast majority of them either don’t even deal with climate change at all or concede, as do most of us, that CO2 is a minor player in terms of climate impact.
The evidence? It’s warmed not even a single degree centigrade in the last 130 years and now the satellites show NO warming in the troposhere, exactly where the CO2 should be generating the heat.
Conclusion? AGW is bollocks. It’s not happening. The hypothesis has failed all real world observations and is therefore FALSE.
The “consensus” is a RELIGIOUS belief based on blind faith and ignoring the evidence…..just like Creationism. All because a bunch of fools worship windmills.
Lost the politics war, yes, science…no. Hopefully the ex hippies will finally die off and with that the old belief in the religion of socialism. Science and art thrived under Theism.
“For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data.”
This is typical warmist talking point. They believe “all” evidence must be refuted or it’s “all” valid. Contrary to that any other other climate theory, one only has to refute one line of evidence and it’s “all” invalid.
Hubris to the max.
“I just used Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline.”
show that there is an 800 year lag between temp and CO2.
In his movie Inconvenient Truth Al Gore states that the relationship between temp and CO2 is “complicated”, but he never says what those complications are. Must have slipped his mind.
8 inches/century, exactly as it has been for the last 6000 years. Even pumping up the rate using the absurd GIA does not help enough.
Has somebody finally found one, instead of endless “Study Suggests” and “Research Indicates” along with that futuristic favorite “Could”?
0.000 deg./century for now 18 years, 6 months. Unprecedented stability in the modern temperature record.
You could say that.
Analytical chemist here, and a card carrying member of the scientific community, and I have no idea what you are talking about.
Is it anything like that “New Math” I have been hearing about?
I don’t have to do all that. All I have to do is show that your theory is wrong. It does not matter how much supporting evidence you have, one disproof and your theory is toast.
Have A Nice Day!
Actually, yes that is exactly how science works. I don’t have to disprove or ‘debunk’ every last speculative paper on the changes in butterfly populations brought on by ‘AGW’ to prove that there hasn’t been any significant warming in nearly two decades. Nor do I need to argue every polar bear or walrus article in the science tabloid press to prove that the ‘Arctic Death Spiral’ hasn’t lead to an Ice free summer yet, and is instead showing signs of recovery.
Real science isn’t about consensuses or popularity contests. It’s about making accurate predictions based on theory. And the more time passes the more Climate Science predictions prove to be false.
pollen – not conclusive
tree rings – not conclusive
ice cores – unreliable
corals – no evidence of any problem
glacial and polar ice-cap melt – no evidence of a problem
sea-level rise – not abnormal
ecological shifts – no evidence
carbon dioxide increases – wholly beneficial
the unprecedented rate of temperature increase – all previous peaks in the current Inter-glacial (Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman, Mediaeval) – were warmer.
What are you talking about?
“If someone claims to predict what a stock will do in the coming days, we know that person is either a crook or a charlatan. If an environmentalist makes similar claims about the environment, or an ecosystem, we have not yet learned to see him as a false prophet or a fool”.
Michael Crichton August 28, 2008 introduction to Micro.
Luke says:
“For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus…”
Right there you’ve drifted out of science, and into a popularity contest.
What’s more, every “convergence of evidence” example you gave is wrong.
Luke, you need to get away from the pseudo-science blogs that are feeding you that misinformation. Do you want to understand the issues? Or do you want to parrot their narrative for them?
Ferdinand Engelbeen is correct when he says:
You only show that you haven’t read much at this site.
You could learn a lot here, but by trying to preach your anti-science ‘consilience’ nonsense you close your mind to the facts and evidence available. Science isn’t about the humanities, it is all about finding the truth through observations, evidence, and falsification.
Most readers here agree that AGW exists, so give up that strawman argument. The problem alarmists have is that AGW is no more than an unproven hypothesis. There are still no measurements quantifying the fraction of AGW out of all warming, including natural global warming such as the planet’s recovery from the LIA. For all anyone knows, AGW may be 0.5% or less of the total.
But you’ve convinced yourself that the “consensus” must be right. OK then: the true consensus states that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere (see the OISM Petition statement). So explain: what’s the problem?
Luke is absolutely correct. With “consilience science” you have to disprove every prediction made by every advocate of a theory. If, for example, Antarctica is shown to be colder, it doesn’t matter because Ulaanbaatar is warmer. If atmospheric water vapor decreases, it doesn’t matter, the ocean heat content is increasing (where it can’t be measured). And so on….
Real science is different. If any prediction is falsified, the theory is falsified.
Martin
You write as if you understand what Lucky Luke’s ‘Consilience’ is – purportedly – all about.
It would oblige me, and, I think, others reading here if you could help us with it – distasteful although it may be to you to give the oxygen of publicity to “consilience science”.
Thanks in advance, and apologies for the imposition when we have not been formally introduced.
Auto
Consilience science should just be shortened to “silli-science.”
Silli-science is that pseudoscience that progressives cling to. Its like American Idol where popularity, voting, and majority rules, somehow in their twisted view, defines a scientific meaning.
Consilience science practitioners are the very definition of Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science in its purest form.
So the world doesn’t warm anywhere close to predicted rates, feedbacks mandatory for the dangerous ends of the claims do not work as we pretend in models, the hotspot mandatory for the physics of the theory or warming at both poles as per the theory doesn’t exist at atleast one of two poles among many many other major holes and you think this is “the occasional anomaly in a particular data set”. LOL, uh ok then. Someone hasn’t been paying attention.
I love the way warmists make up data and then declare that their made up data proves they are right.
That the climate has changed in the past was never in doubt. However past climate changes were never caused by CO2.
• Tree rings are of no use for studying temperature changes. Every botanist knows that.
• Ice cores prove that CO2 changes always lag temperature changes by ±800 years.
• Both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are growing.
• Sea level has been rising for about 400 years and the rate hasn’t increased.
And what unprecedented temperature increase? It’s been warmer than present 1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 years ago. In fact most of the last 10,000 years, the temperature has been warmer than it is currently.
There never was a consensus, but since all you have are lies, I’m not surprised you threw that one in again.
Luke’s entire paragraph is an unacknowledged quote from Michael Shermer’s Dec. 1 article in SciAm, “Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong,” reprinted Dec. 17 in WaPo as “consiiience and the case for climate science consensus.” Shermer in turn took his reasoning from Trenberth.
OOhh, bad boy, Luke.
That’s going over to the Dark Side.
Oh yeah. They never look at the data, just repeat someone else’s headline.
I’m thinking of getting in on all that climate news cash. I’ll write articles about how climate change keeps Eskimos from finding dates and how sea level rise will turn Mount Everest into an island in fifty years. Maybe even root through all the mounds of worthless studies out there until I find an abstract that declares climate change will cause men to turn into women. Then I’ll put it in an article, sell it to an ultra-liberal website that will print anything scary about AGW, and laugh all the way to the bank as a ton of fools believe it and start bollocking on about how it’s all capitalism’s fault and we have to end fossil fuel use now.
Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
I should have acknowledged that. The point is still valid. You need to deconstruct the supporting evidence from thousands of scientific papers in dozens of scientific fields to make your case.
AndyJ Dec 30, 11:30am
“… climate change will cause men to turn into women.”
Does Bruce Jenner know about this?
I recognized Luke’s appeal to make AGW the null hypothesis as originating from Trenberth. I just didn’t realize the plagiarism involved.
That said, it must be fundamentally recognized that the destruction of climate science as science and into its current form of pseudoscience is due entirely to the fact that there is little grant money to be had (and thus careers and paychecks) in describing what we observe today is simply natural climate variability. Thus the birth of climate scientist alarmists as rent seekers.
Excellent catch, rogerknights. Just another example of these dishonest, immature, shallow-thinking creatures who not only can’t think/research for themselves, but think nobody else does, either.
“Luke
December 30, 2015 at 5:23 pm
I should have acknowledged that.”
I reckon you didn’t acknowledge it deliberately hoping that no-one here at WUWT would notice or care. More the fool you Luke.
The Force is not with you, Luke…
In real science, all that is required to disconfirm a hypothesis is for hypothetical projections to exceed reality by more than 2 standard deviations for a statistically significant duration.
The pitiful CAGW hypothesis has already exceeded those parameters as there hasn’t been a global warming trend for almost 20 years and CAGW projections already exceed reality by 2+ standard deviations…..
The disparity only gets worse from here as the Pacific already entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2008, the Atlantic enters its 30-yr cool cycle around 2020 and the sun is entering a VERY weak phase, which could last another 30~100 years…
Most of 20th century’s warming can easily be attributed to the strongest 63-year string (1933~1996) of solar cycles in 11,400 years (Solanki et al 2003). When these strong solar cycles ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend… Oooops…
CAGW is dead, Luke..
It doesn’t appear that the cooling you predicted is occurring. 2014 was the warmest year on record, 2015 will blow that out of the water, and it is likely that 2016 will be warmer than either of them. Get real.
“2014 was the warmest year on record”
Was NOT.
This was already debunked, like, a thousand times.
Change your tune, bro. Gets boring.
Luke says – ‘2014 was the warmest year on record, 2015 will blow that out of the water, and it is likely that 2016 will be warmer than either of them’
2014 – NOAA 38% probability; NASA 48% probability.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
‘more unlikely than likely’
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1
2015 – El Nino, natural event; Tom Karl et al significance 0.10, unnatural event.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6066/353/suppl/DC1
2016 – Who knows? I’m not into predicting the future, the models show how fraught that is.
lee says – oops – NOAA 48%, NASA 38%
Poor little luke, he really doesn’t understand how error bars and confidence intervals work.
That and the fact that he actually seems to believe the propaganda he’s pushing.
Luke,
Where do you get your misinformation from?
2014 was certainly not the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH!!
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
The Farce is strong with this one.
“there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—. . . —that all converge to a singular conclusion.”
They converge on showing that the earth is warming, less strongly they indicate some effect of AGW in this warming. But they don’t converge on CAGW, which is what the main debate is about.
“The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion.”
Conclusion-People who don’t actually read the research are prone to think that a convergence of opinion is equal to, or greater than, the actual evidence that exists. And they invent terms like “consilience science” to make their opinions sound credible.
“AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set”
Ah, no. We actually point to the out-and-out scientific fraud that is rife in throughout the CAGW world. Starting with the infamous “hockey stick” that erased the pesky medieval warm period because it didn’t support the narrative. There is a real hockey stick if you look closely at the “station adjustments” that have been growing in a frantic attempt to create a warming narrative out of data that actually shows a cooling trend.
“…and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data.”
Wrong. Statement shows a lack of understanding of science. Fail = F
How many tree rings and where? Briffa’s dataset of trees on the Yamal penisula represents global temperatures, really? And Mann used just 1, YAD061, to justify his hockey stick, really? I needed a good laugh, thanks Luke, Darth Vader is your father in your world I guess!
Dana Nuccitelli is the TRUE denier–his head is so deep in the sand he’s probably speaking Chinese.
So basically he’s admitting losing the “climate wars”–as if science was ever determined by a war.
Talk about being [trimmed] stupid.
I would assert its not sand, but instead colonic tissue in which Mr Nuccitelli’s head is ensconced. He does so for that is the fountain of grant money on which his reputation was built and his paycheck depends.
NOOOOO! He couldn’t get to China remember Gore’s the ” center of the earth is millions and millions degrees, even Dana’s head full of sand couldn’t get through that!
1.5 degrees wanted and that proves all alarm of 3-4 degrees are way off.
“The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars”
The Propaganda… it burns!
As to Nuccitelli’s seeming genetically inbred inclination for de[-]nier name-calling, I found a plausible explanation for his behavior in the book ‘Liberal Fascism’ by Jonah Goldberg (recently reviewed by Montford at BH blog),
Nuccitelli fits Jonah Goldberg’s concept of a liberal fascist; Dana is diminished Al Gore.
John
“The Paris agreement signals that deniers have lost the climate wars…”
No, Dana, what the Paris “agreement” signals is the beginning of the end for CAGW…
COP(out)21 was a complete waste of time and of taxpayer’s hard-earned money.
No “agreement” was even reached…. Just a plethora of flowery platitudes that made a fragrant bouquet of empty promises, soon to wilt to nothingness.. Oh, goody…
Few people still take CAGW seriously…
If NPR (National Public Radio, aka Government Radio) hasn’t made Dana Nuccitelli one of their regular “climate” go to guys, like George Monbiot and Bill McKibben, then they need to get him on the air right quick. He’s a perfect fit for their programming.
I thought it was ‘National Pinko Radio’.
Have you heard Nuccitelli talk? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz He’s no Monbiot or McKibben. Now if it’s “sleep radio” you want….
Mr. Nutella evidently has not read Clausewitz’ “On War”, or he would recognize that a war has not been won until the opposition concedes that they have been defeated. There are no signs of concession among the ‘deniers’.
In other words;
“Mission Accomplished!”
mebbe: that’s so good – on so many levels.
The mission of the aircraft carrier on which the sign was placed, had been accomplished.
I find it amazing that so many supposedly literate adults could not understand this, since the carrier was returning to port after finishing it’s scheduled deployment at sea.
One might think they were, hey look a squirrel!
+1 MarkW
Funnily enough, it’s my taste for irony and not my opinion about the Iraq mission that prompted that comment. I’m actually one of very few Canucks that don’t condemn the Bush admin for what happened there. I am, however, aware of the mileage had by people I don’t agree with and I’ll chuckle along with wry insincerity because it seems preferable to indignation.
The agreement is nothing but a chance for the progressoids to create headlines and have a feel good moment in a time when reality isn’t looking so good for them.
I always love those products that are guaranteed to last for the lifetime of the product.
How is a products lifetime defined? It starts when the product is bought, and it ends when the product breaks.
When I had a plant nursery, I used to joke to some of my customers that all of my plants came with a lifetime guarantee. If someone kills one, the guarantee is off.
A more realistic phrasing is to state that the product conforms to industry standards, the description of the product is accurate, and is free of defects and disease and fit for merchantability.
The COP21 agreement reads almost exactly like the Lifetime Warranty for those miracle kitchen gadgets sold on late-night TV infomercials. I wonder how many kitchen gadgets Mr. Nuccitelli has? If he thinks the COP21 agreement is so wonderful, he’s a prime candidate for their target audience.
So does this mark the part of the ‘Climate War’ were the Alarmists stuff their pockets with their ill gotten billions, declare victory, and go home? Because if so they can go with my blessing. Enjoy your great victory, warmists. The rest of use will finally be able to get some real science done once you’re gone.
Mr. Nutella (sorry, I couldn’t resist that one) evidently has not read Clausewitz’ “On War”, or he would recognize that a war has not been won until the opposition concedes that they have been defeated. There are no signs of concession among the ‘deniers’.
“The Paris agreement signals the loss of the climate war…”
Fixed.
Yes but we still need to stop burning dinosaur bones for heat, electricity and transportation. Eventually we will badly need fossil fuels for feed stocks for plastics so we should not burn it all up.
guereza2wdw
Granted. Eventually … Meaning, 120 years? 180 years? 380 years? 1380 years?
See, the enviro’s and extremist’s CURRENT (2015!) agenda DEMANDS immediate policies and taxes and bank-enriching carbon schemes that destroy lives NOW, that kill millions NOW and harm billions in the near future. That do NOT reduce CO2 nor reduce potential future beneficial global average temperature increases, that do NOT reduce future potential oil and gas use.
With hundreds of years of known coal reserves, plus hundreds more years of undiscovered coal reserves, we can produce billions of tons of future oil stock products when needed at economic rates. When needed.
By the time we use up all the dinosaur “bones”, we probably won’t be using plastics anymore anyway.
Carbon fibers… a useful sequestering.
So … if we eliminate carbon pollution then our future will depend on carbon pollution?
Yep. Sounds like a typical “going Green” plan to me. 😎
Used wisely, we can use fossil fuels to supply, power and transport ourselves for generations. Applying some intelligence and true research, we should have built supply ships to bring us back methane from intrasolar sources.
There is enough methane in our solar system, to power humanity until Andromeda Galaxy smashes through the Milky Way, and then some additional billions of years.
If needed, but to accomplish this feat, we will have to solve the main flaws to the use of nuclear energy.
Also, after looking at the history of the world for the last 150 years, if we are still relying on fossil fuels for out main energy source and not nuclear the world in 100 years, the world/civilization broke.
are junk science-based, inaccurate history-based, free market-choking, government regulations.
Um….I know that the term “fossil fuels” implies that we’re burning fossils….but we don’t actually burn dinosaur bones. We preserve them in museums. We burn ancient organic materials that aren’t really anything anymore.
You can always count on “Nutty” Nuccitelli for a good laugh.
Thanks, Bob. I needed a laugh!
Let me fix this headline for you, Dana.
“The Paris agreement suggests that deniers may lose the climate wars by the end of this century.”
That keeps your claims in line with other climate predictions.
“The Paris agreement strongly suggests…”
Don’t forget the hyperbole, Mickey.
We need hyperbole in order to make it robust.
Another take on this
“Paris was an enviro-fail, but a PR success, and political win — it’s a non-binding, non-treaty, but real commitment.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/paris-was-an-enviro-fail-but-a-pr-success-and-political-win-its-a-non-binding-non-treaty-but-real-commitment/
Maybe Nuccitelli should define “war”. Is it the “war” over rising temperatures? More weather disasters? Higher levels of CO2? The arctic disappearing? Closing coalmines and oil wells? The term “war” in relation to science is such a perversion and a childish distortion. It is clear from Obama’s climate plan just released that there will be years of legal and political wrangling in the US. That is war.
What is happening that is alarming is that at a lower level of national government there is renewed enthusiasm for more rules and regulations that will be difficult to stop. In countless ways local governments and bureaucracies, now infiltrated by green, Marxists are rushing through economy damaging changes in the name of COP21 and AGW. That’s is war.
One of the main reasons why the Chinese were seemingly comfortable at Paris was they will benefit from the west forcing up the costs of production through doubling electricity pricing for example.
Yeees. Its the pinkos comin to get ya eh. Hiding under your bed right now.
NASA is in league with em. Actually
most of the world is.
Everyones out to deny a few rich wankers their right to shit over everything, including their own children.
Its not FAIR that everyone isnt selfish and paranoid. Cuz thats the normal way
way to be. Innit mate?
The ” infiltration ” you speak of is only
gunna get worse.
Because NASA is so corrupt physics will cease to be.
Except the correct physics soley propounded by wealthy paranoids.
Isnt that right?
Sorry bruvver,I is a bit confused.Are you sayin’ that the people who work at NASA are rich,selfish,paranoid wankers who sh*t over everything coz I thought that was Al Gore innit?
Right-o guv’nmma!
It took the ouster of Kruschev to end Lysenkoism. That and some help from the inventors of the Russian hydrogen bomb.
I don’t see any major political revolutions in the west coming down the pike to save us…
Peter
Shhhhhhh Peter….the best revolutions are the ones you DON’T see coming…..
Dana Nuccitelli, neo-Nazi:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8apmfouVO-Y/U3CCBVFmwPI/AAAAAAAABKU/Ci-CsSKCF0g/s1600/Herr+Dana.gif
The Germans thought they were winning, too.
Might have won it if they had rice burners 🙂
One more then I’ll stop, it seems things have progressed 🙂
Crazy…
And, of course, a major reason they lost was a shortage of “fossil fuel” (or not enough wind mills).
If it weren’t for the boomers, somebody might actually try something.
That guy looks Wehrmacht.
Perhaps better would be a Schutzstaffel uniform … if you;re looking for die-hard fanaticism. 🙂
Okay, Old Bluff-n-Dodge, “creepy,” then:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
db!!!! Godwin’s Photography!!! I hate this…but I cannot stop laughing….hysterically! My lord someone merged his face/moped incredibly well.
Must….stop….laughing.
Aphan,
John Cook did that Nuccitelli neo-Nazi photoshop, not me. Therefore old1 is wrong as always.
So when Nuttitelli called the entire skeptical community den(-)iers, he lost right there…that is what you are saying, right?
To be fair with Nuccitelli it is fair to say that when all you can make and have is sh*t , then all you got to give or sell is sh*t . So he he is given all that his got , these really is his ‘best effort ‘
Dana, Dana, Dana
The Paris agreement is a white flag held up by the climate alarmists who oppose fossil fuels.
They surrendered even though there hasn’t been a climate skirmish yet. Paris was just a mimicked affair staged by mimics for mimics.
John
John…did you just say….white flag…and Paris in the same sentence? Shame on you! *grinning widely*
Silly is all that’s left after peak climate alarmism in Paris. Otherwise, this is the quiet time before the U.S. (aka money target) elections. You will hear next to nothing from U.S. agencies, multinational agencies, biased media sphere, and many advocacy outlets over the next year. Zzzzzz
“The Silliest Post-COP21 Headline Ever?”
Hang on to that question mark. I have never seen a proof that there is a limit to silliness.
I think that the addendum “so far” is implied.
Add the word “Currently” in front of it?
Just as silly are those who claimed that all the INDC submissions (the policy pledges) would have a large impact on global emissions. One such group is Climate Interactive, strongly promoted by Joe Romm in the run-up to COP21. It claimed that the pledges would make a full 1C of difference to warming by 2100, with global GHG emissions in 2100 being 40% lower than the “No Action” scenario. But anyone reading the INDCs knows that actual proposed changes are tiny. So how do Climate Interactive achieve their much larger difference?
I looked at CO2 emissions, which account for 75-80% of GHG emissions in the model. For OECD countries where emissions per capita have been stable or falling for decades, the “No Action” scenario forecasts that they will rise for decades. For Russia and China, where per capita emissions are likely to peak before 2030 without any policy action, the “No Action” scenario forecasts that they will rise for decades. This is largely offset by Climate Interactive assuming that both emissions and economic growth in India and Africa (where there are no real attempts to control emissions) will stagnate in the coming decades. Just by making more reasonable CO2 emissions forecasts for the OECD, Russia and China can account for half of the claimed 2100 reduction in GHG emissions from the INDC. Climate Interactive’s “No Action” scenario is bogus. Plotting the CO2 emissions per capita for six regions illustrates this point.
This corroborates a post at WUWT by Bjorn Lomborg on November 17. However, I explain how the global figures are made to look reasonable. The forecasts for economic and emissions growth for India and Africa are unusually low. For instance, to meet the economic growth forecast for 2010 to 2015, India’s GDP would need to drop by 20% or more in the next few hours. 🙂
I have posted a fuller explanation at my own blog.
They are calling this a “climate war” meanwhile they will not make real war on real terrorists.
Some silly headlines and a few commenters here have mentioned “2014 warmest year ever” as proof of something
The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age.
Based on that two things
1)One would expect to see “the Warmest” month/day/year from time to time.
2)There is no CO2 signiture; therefore no human influence*, in any of that “Warmest Ever” hype.
*(This is true in spite of Governments altering historic and meticulously collected temperature records.
Records which should have been left alone and now should be restored.)
RobRoy,
Satellite data shows that “2014 was the hottest year EVAH!!” is just plain wrong:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_9549-Jun.-17-21.12.gif
(Note: “lundasoid” is the latest fake screen name for ‘BusterBrown’, ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. All the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
‘AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works.’
____
– more than 97 percent of the passengers believed in a robust white star line vessel ‘Titanic’.
– the Titanic was sunken by an iceberg:
as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence.
____
Luke and AGW.
Capt. Scettino and the ‘Costa Concordia’ stranded on Giglio.
____
BTW, who needs icebergs for catastrophs.