Boston Globe asks: Where's the global warming?

Wheres the global warming?

1984's skeptical question: "where's the beef"?

For those too young to remember (such as Jim Hansen’s coal protesters in Washington this past week), Clara Peller, pictured above, started a national catchphrase with “Where’s the beef?” that even made it into the 1984 presidential campaign. Today, the Boston Globe asks: where’s the global warming?

Watch the original commercial that started the catchphrase. It seems applicable today. – Anthony

JEFF JACOBY

Where’s the global warming?

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 8, 2009

SUPPOSE the climate landscape in recent weeks looked something like this:

Half the country was experiencing its mildest winter in years, with no sign of snow in many Northern states. Most of the Great Lakes were ice-free. Not a single Canadian province had had a white Christmas. There was a new study discussing a mysterious surge in global temperatures – a warming trend more intense than computer models had predicted. Other scientists admitted that, because of a bug in satellite sensors, they had been vastly overestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice.

If all that were happening on the climate-change front, do you think you’d be hearing about it on the news? Seeing it on Page 1 of your daily paper? Would politicians be exclaiming that global warming was even more of a crisis than they’d thought? Would environmentalists be skewering global-warming “deniers” for clinging to their skepticism despite the growing case against it?

No doubt.

But it isn’t such hints of a planetary warming trend that have been piling up in profusion lately. Just the opposite.

The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn’t happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes – Erie, Superior, and Huron – almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.

Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles – an area the size of Spain. In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission. The current global cooling “is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Swanson told Discovery News. Yes, global cooling: 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade – global temperatures have not exceeded the record high measured in 1998, notwithstanding the carbon-dioxide that human beings continue to pump into the atmosphere.

None of this proves conclusively that a period of planetary cooling is irrevocably underway, or that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are not the main driver of global temperatures, or that concerns about a hotter world are overblown. Individual weather episodes, it always bears repeating, are not the same as broad climate trends.

But considering how much attention would have been lavished on a comparable run of hot weather or on a warming trend that was plainly accelerating, shouldn’t the recent cold phenomena and the absence of any global warming during the past 10 years be getting a little more notice? Isn’t it possible that the most apocalyptic voices of global-warming alarmism might not be the only ones worth listening to?

There is no shame in conceding that science still has a long way to go before it fully understands the immense complexity of the Earth’s ever-changing climate(s). It would be shameful not to concede it. The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. “The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”

But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

Advertisements

206 thoughts on “Boston Globe asks: Where's the global warming?

  1. What is needed to stop this spiral is a cap and trade tax to suspend economic development and that will stop the global warming that is not.

  2. I’m stunned. Wow you can almost see the light bulb turn on at the Boston Globe
    Brent in Calgary

  3. Well sheesh isn’t it obvious that the Messiah has fulfilled his promise to the world!?!?!
    HE told us that upon his election the temps would decline and the seas would recede…he was sooooo darn right.
    Gosh his policies work even before he institutes them…WOW. I mean WOW!
    I am naming all my children after him…

  4. It makes me nervous to compare the religious dogma to the AGW supporters’ belief, but I too keep coming back to it. The mainstream media in general have to have a hook, and they really enjoy having an “expert” give them an opinion to chat on about, and along the way the voice from the outside gets invited on to be made fun of. Then the situations all change and those experts are all coming up with “The Signs Were There All Along!” commentaries.
    The most recent and notable case for this is the economic situation where the largest banks and several of the most respected institutions with the most educated economists failed at seeing what all seems to be fairly obvious now. The government agency in charge of oversight, the SEC, was warned multiple times about a massive fraud going on, and now we find out there really was nobody in charge at the SEC that had the intellectual chops to actually pursue charges of that financial fraud. The fraud went essentially unchallenged until actual chilling of the market showed the theory that Madoff was a financial genius to be a complete falsehood.
    Will we one day find out that those in charge of the NOAA and Met didn’t have the intellectual chops to challenge some of the core beliefs of the AGW crowd, proved wrong by a “chilling of the market” that we’re touching on now?
    Am I comparing Hansen to Madoff?
    Why yes. I suppose I am.

  5. It would be a frosty day in hell that our local eco-weenie newspaper would print such heresy! ☺
    Great item. Thanks.
    Clive in Alberta
    Soon to be freezing with Brent ♪♪♪♪

  6. Well, Jacoby said that Al Gore was speaking with the “…closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot.”
    Finally a reporter with a backbone. I wonder what Michael Tobis will think of this.
    The extremely thin veneer of science is beginning to crack, revealing the crumbling edifice of AGW. Reality has shown that AGW is really about socialist politics and power, not about saving the children. Al Gore and his traveling medicine show, should now hitch up the horses and take his ill-gotten gains to some other planet. Mr. Gore, the game is up, the debate is over. You lose.

  7. Being a resident of the Commonwealth, I have to say I’m completely stunned that this would be printed in the Globe.
    I need to go to their webpage and see it for myself…
    JimB

  8. Well written article from a high circulation paper…
    “he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot.” Exactly, and he is not the only one in the AGW camp that adopts this air of dogmatic superiority. Its time all the rats stopped following the pied piper…
    I must admit I had been skeptical that objective journalism surrounding the climate issue was lost – this gives me some hope.
    Anyone want to take bets on when the BBC or WSJ will print such an article?

  9. This is all very interesting but the wheels of change are already in motion. Science really doesn’t matter, in fact it was never a consideration. Cap & Trade is but a moment away. Carbon tax is set to go. The media will turn on the current fad of global warming alarmism only after the laws are in place and the bureaucratic structure is functioning. Nearly 50% of the electorate is dependent on the federal government or is willing to allow the fed to run their lives. They constitute a majority and consequently exercise their authority at the expense of the neutered minority. The U.S. was once a republic, ruled by law and the constitution. This has now changed to rule by the loudest voice, rule by the most dishonest, and rule by the tyranny of the majority.
    The greatest minds of the country could tomorrow declare that global warming/climate change alarmism is a hoax and it wouldn’t change a thing. Over the next three years look for thousands of windmills to sprout from every hilltop, for every state to adopt “climate change” legislation, and for every politician to scramble to insure that they can “weather” the storm of change that is sweeping the nation.
    The “facts” of the latest “science” refuting the hysteria holds no sway to the forces already in motion. The current administration will not be denied. They are united 100%
    behind a complete and irreversibly change in the structure of taxation and control of peoples lives. The “silent majority” has allowed the “few” to gain the upper hand and be able to dictate the political agenda of the country. These are indeed times that try men’s souls!

  10. Mr. Jacoby,
    I thank you for your candor and bravado (for having the n*ts to tell what I feel is the truth). Thank you again and again!
    Good luck to you in your future endeavors!

  11. I’ve subscribed to this rag for the last twenty five years. Jeff Jacoby is the lone conservative at the Boston Globe and his column only appears twice a week. The rest of the time, it’s the AGW loonies who spout on the op-ed page. On the other hand, the sports pages are the best.

  12. novoburgo (19:50:46) :
    This is all very interesting but the wheels of change are already in motion. Science really doesn’t matter, in fact it was never a consideration. Cap & Trade is but a moment away. …
    Keep the faith, man! As evidenced by this very thread… miracles CAN happen! Our “silent majority” is getting a wee bit more audible every day!
    Keep up the good fight!

  13. As mentioned by Paul, Jacoby does not speak for the Globe. He is the token conservative, kept as an illusion of open mindedness. From time to time the Globe refuses to print his scheduled column because the management is bothered by it.
    Not much has changed at the Globe. This is as much a sign of crumbling as Galileo
    not being executed was.

  14. “The greatest minds of the country could tomorrow declare that global warming/climate change alarmism is a hoax and it wouldn’t change a thing. Over the next three years look for thousands of windmills to sprout from every hilltop, for every state to adopt “climate change” legislation, and for every politician to scramble to insure that they can “weather” the storm of change that is sweeping the nation.”
    In three years it will be 2012, and the tide will turn with a vengeance in November.

  15. Little Bo Peep has lost her warming
    And can’t tell where to find it
    But she won’t leave it alone
    Global Warming is home
    Wagging it’s green tail behinding

  16. There is nothing more scientific than the cold hard reality of logic and truth.
    Thanks for that GREAT op-ed, Jeff.
    The saddest part about the whole AGW thing, is that the REAL environmental problems we face today–such as the strip-mining of the oceans of biological systems–all of that is being THROWN UNDER THE BUS.
    What bus? The sham bus of the AGW agenda.
    In other words….if they were just honest, and did not use SCAM SCIENCE as a front…there would be a lot more people protesting coal pollution and every other environmental problem.
    In what will surely go down as the greatest scientific HOAX since the days of the the Inquisition, individuals like Gore, Hansen, and Holdren have participated in GUTTING the public scientific trust.
    Funny thing….the people who commit Enron-type or SEC crimes…get charged.
    Yet, somehow…in the scientific arena…it is permissible to propagate LIES (even publicly-funded ones!!).
    What gives???
    If Uncle Dalton….or even Aunt Maunder visits us….and we are not at least reasonably prepared….then it is OUR fault. We have allowed the current BOZOS that shape scientific policy…to thrive.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  17. Where’s the beef indeed. In my little world, we have another fat, fluffy 2″ of snow. We didn’t have rain, we had snow. Some forecasts are predicting another record low temp. I believe the forecast will be wrong, but I a have an open mind to the actual events.
    Just two short years ago, we had temps with highs more than 50F more than now. It’s all within the normal variability.

  18. @ realitycheck (19:46:59) :
    “Anyone want to take bets on when the BBC or WSJ will print such an article?”
    i think the BBC will end up to be the last follower of the AGW agenda.
    i don’t expect anything from them. they had an internal revolution and terminated oldish brave, unbiased journalism. the good guys have been mobbed out. the new commanders have put all in.
    they are in the same position like michael mann. every scientist who looks closer at his work can easily find out that he is wrong, however he has no option to admit it without losing everything.
    however, my hope lies on the sincere people from the left spectrum. those who followed the crowd without a hidden political agenda. they do have the option to check the data, listen to skeptics and change their mind without losing their faces. and they will, if the difference between models and reality continues to grow.

  19. The headline is misleading. Jeff Jacoby does not represent the views of most at the Boston Globe on this, or on almost any other issue. He’s a token, like Debra Saunders at the San Francisco Chronicle.

  20. We should be comfortable incomparing the religious dogma to the AGW supporters beliefs. Every group of people worthy to be defined as a culture yet discovered on this planet has had at least one religion. It is something we are wired to do. If a person is not involved with an organized religion, they are highly likely to be involved with a substitute faith-based belief system. BTW, as reported in the small journal Military for Mar.’09, on pg. 43, the Obama administration wants to delete the oath all members of the military take to defend the Constitution and replace it with an oath to the President. Robert Gibbs, the Wh. House Press Sect. states, “The president feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an oath to American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.” The memo continues, “We expect to take a lot of flack over this. But those who would be most against it are those who are looking for either attention or control.” I know where they can find just the oath they are looking for. All they need to do is translate it from the German.
    [REPLY – If I’m not very much mistaken, that one turned out to be a hoax. ~ Evan]

  21. realitycheck (19:46:59) :
    You wrote: “Anyone want to take bets on when the BBC or WSJ will print such an article?”
    On Friday, July 14, 2006 (p. A12) the WSJ under the title “Hockey Stick Hokum” printed and image of the famous “hockey stick” graph and above it the chart showing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Their piece was of the same tone found here on WUWT and on Climate Audit. They explain Michael Mann’s role in the hockey stick. They explain the McIntyre-McKitrick report and other relevant details.
    So, I think you owe the WSJ an apology!
    Now then, the magazine Scientific American publishes pro-AGW articles on a regular basis. Examples: The August 2007 issue was printed with the banner headline, “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming [see page 64]” with the article authored by five participants in Working Group 1 of the 2007 IPPC assessment. Other pieces have followed, including “How to Cool the Earth … (9/08) and “How Eating Meat …” (2/09).
    So, if you want to direct your skepticism somewhere, take a shot at SciAm; as a “science” magazine, they deserve your scorn.

  22. “Paul (20:17:01) :
    I’ve subscribed to this rag for the last twenty five years. Jeff Jacoby is the lone conservative at the Boston Globe and his column only appears twice a week. The rest of the time, it’s the AGW loonies who spout on the op-ed page. On the other hand, the sports pages are the best.”
    Just to go the paper’s page, find his column, and read the responses. If I were him, I’d have someone else start my car each day.
    JimB

  23. I am still of a mind that the markets are driven by an approaching Grand Mental Minimum, very much similar to hibernation, as a very cold winter has chilled the spirit.
    Has this sort of a cooling madness happened before?
    Why, yes, it certainly has.

  24. Excellent article that proves that the wheels are starting to come off the global warming scam wagon.

  25. As a former long time reader of the Boston Globe , which is owned by the NY Times, I just have to ask “what’s up with that”? Jacoby’s email inbox is sure going to fill up fast, he might even get the George Will treatment.

  26. Another sunspeck and MiniMouseSunSpeckle has come & gone in a space of shortly over 24 hours. A cycle 23 spotgunwedding. Where’s the CycleBeef? Where’s the SeaRising Beef and Where’s the RoastingBeef?
    Where is the appreciation for the cooling that should ease the minds of those scared half to death over Drowning and Frying?
    Same place as the appreciation for the recent drought-busting rains to hit California: Shut down agriculture to water golf courses by State of Emergency rules. What if Al Gore and Hansen come to play a round of nine?

  27. Take heart all climate realists. Another crack in the AGW monolith has appeared. The zealots’ end is nigh.

  28. I was watching a 2hr special on Albert Einstein tonight, and one of the persons interviewed said “If it’s not a testable Hypothesis, it’s not Science.”
    I turned to my wife and said “Can you think of one testable Hypothesis in the AGW realm?” Silence…
    Anyway, when I read where Jacoby said that Al Gore was speaking with the “…closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot.” I saw a parallel.

  29. I am naming all my children after him…
    Not good enough.
    You need to rename the children you already have after him.

  30. Heresy!
    [snip] Everyone just knows that the debate is over; the science is settled. The High Priest of the Church of AGW, Al Gore, has told us so. We skeptics must repent.

  31. Well, the Feb. lower troposphere temps aren’t especially cold neither…from 1979…they’re relatively warm. (See drroyspencer.com)
    Even though temps with respect to gw theory may not be rising like a spring flower, they are still balmy. And the temps have flatlined for the last 10 years…they haven’t significantly dropped…or look like they’re going to drop.
    But who wants to try and prognosticate anyway…chances are…the boring old flatline trend…will continue until we look away and lose interest in watching grass grow.

  32. Watts up with solarcycle24.com?? The sunspot number for today is 12, yet the continuum image shows ( ) <—Blank! No spots! The cycle 23 spot is gone and yet the number is still 12? And here we are talking about problems with ice data satellites when over there we seem to be having sunspot overcount…

  33. “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    -Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

  34. The AGWers are in more trouble than they know. There is severe drought in Northern China, Argentina, California and parts of Australia which is effecting food production. There will be reduced snow pack on the Sierras effecting water supplies and an increase of typhoons in East Asia wiping out rice harvests in places.
    All of these weather patterns are perfectly predictable when the PDO is in its cool phase but there has been no warning from the ‘climatologists’. Maybe they are too highly ‘trained’ to notice.
    FYI, I’ve changed my name because there are one too many Alans here. Not that any of your will care…

  35. It is obvious that the IPCC climate models are not working, as Dyson says. One feature that seems to be doubtful is the positive feedback properties of water vapour. Surely it is time to set up a well funded, independent research programme dedicated to this aspect and find out once and for all the sign of the feedback.

  36. John F. Hultquist (21:42:58) :
    realitycheck (19:46:59) : Sir. If you read back through past posts, you will see that Scientific American and its UK sister ‘science’ magazine New Scientist were written off by most posters here a long time ago (and not just by posters on this site. Here in Australia, mention of the New Scientist in academic circles at my university brings sniggers and looks of contemp at revealing that one has even looked at it! Both of these magazines were enlightened reading until they were hijacked!).

  37. Thanks for a great memory…like the article says most of the believers in AGW are too young to have seen the original commercial or for that matter too young to have yet learn, don’t believe everything you hear especially from the MSM.
    I remember the first time I saw the commercial…I laughed for days and seeing it again just now brought back wonderful memories. Thank you.

  38. AlanG (01:38:44) wrote: “I’ve changed my name because there are one too many Alans here.”
    Noted, AlanG. Necessary at times to avoid confusion abounding…

  39. Charles Moore is writing about finance, but it has a broad message that crosses boundaries:
    “Although some of Chancellor’s work is technical, it benefits from a historian’s understanding of what people have done in reality rather than a narrower economist’s obsession with ‘modelling’. It has strong elements of common sense. By that same common sense, though obviously with much less information, the man in the street also predicted the credit crunch.”
    The Spectator, UK
    (You may have to search for the full Charles Moore column; but this link has the quote.)

  40. Rasmin: NS is known here in Cambridge as the “local stupid”, I peruse it regularly for a laugh. ScA lost me as a reader long ago when the tone turned patronising.
    Sunspot 12 was actually very interesting if you look at the magnetogrammes. The Southern pair is accompanied by a mirrored but less pronounced Northern pair at the same distance from the equator, suggesting to me a causal connection. I wonder if that has been seen before and if so, or not, what the magnetohydrodynamics folk make of that.

  41. Welcome to the Darkside Jeffy boy. And for me the question is “where’s the science?”.

  42. I’m someone who sees global warming rhetoric as highly similar to that of the apocalyptic milieu of my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, but the anti-global warming celebration going on in the comments here is equally close minded. It’s always a bonus to understand what your adversaries actually are believing and saying (but that’s tough, because sometimes you actually have to change your mind when all is said and done).
    The most common way of talking about such issues these days is not in terms of warming, but “climate change.” The models of what might happen actually predict that some parts of the world will grow colder and some will grow hotter over time. Of course, Canada and the Great Lakes region is one of the areas that most models show as growing warmer, while Europe will supposedly get much colder. However, most ‘climate change’ models also predict a great deal of instability in the interim. Now, of course, media should be reporting on all phenomenon related to these issues, especially big possible counter facts as reported here. But I was actually directed to this story by someone whose opening lines made me think (wrongly) that he was citing Lake Superior freezing over more frequently than usual as evidence of ‘climate change.’ The opening paragraph:
    ***
    Lake Superior last froze over in 2003. It has now, again, frozen over. The frequency of freeze overs has historically been around once every 20 years. Now, in the last decade, we have seen two freeze overs.
    ***
    In other words, hold the champagne on your “the party’s over” party. Much of the evidence you are celebrating fits well within the overall story line of climate change.

  43. A quick second comment, because I forgot to check the box which will allow me to receive follow-up comments in my email box.

  44. Manfred: “I think the BBC will end up to be the last follower of the AGW agenda.”
    That’s not far off from the truth, I think. They have pretty much thrown in their lot with AGW, so they won’t change overnight. I think they may well start to downplay AGW at some point though, replace it mainly with stories about ocean acidification, deforestation, animal extinctions etc. That way they will start to create some distance from Global Warming, although they might not ever admit to doing so. We may start to see small unannounced changes on the BBC News website, like the gradual disappearance of AGW-related articles in their “Green Room” section.
    No sign of this so far, though. I note from their Arctic Diary feature that Pen Hadow’s team “has a dramatic night on melting Arctic ice.” Melting already? In early March? Naughty BBC.

  45. In other words, hold the champagne on your “the party’s over” party. Much of the evidence you are celebrating fits well within the overall story line of climate change.

    Personally I’m not having any such party at the moment, but here is where I take issue with AGW: everything “fits well within the overall story line of climate change.” When will we ever know it is time to party, when the climate stops changing? I think that’s a few billion too many years for me to go without a bit of celebration. What I’m hoping for is that stagnating or even cooling temperatures will cause public pressure on the science to come up with something which can be either verified or falsified within a reasonable portion of a human lifespan so that we can just move on with our lives in whichever direction is supported by actual facts rather than vague speculation. Sadly, at the rate we’re going it will be too late by then and we’ll all be saddled with outrageous taxes which of course will never, ever be repealed no matter what discoveries are made.

  46. @Roger Carr,
    Charles Moore’s excellent piece was printed in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. Another quote caught my attention:
    “But it is surely a function of leadership to question a theory more strongly the greater the consensus about it. It is proverbial that when every taxi driver advises you to buy a certain stock, you know it is oversold. The same herd stupidity infects elites. It is when the powerful all agree that they are least likely to be thinking straight.”
    This is spot on. The term “herd stupidity” is particularly appropriate. I wonder if it ever occurred to Charles Moore that his comments apply so perfectly to AGW?
    Chris

  47. March 7, 2009
    Obama invites Ban Ki-moon to Whitehouse to discuss “new world climate change pact” http://www.newsmax.com/us/un_un_obama/2009/03/06/189374.html
    “President Barack Obama has invited U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the White House next week, the first meeting between the two since Obama took office, Washington’s U.N. envoy said on Friday. …
    Ban is particularly hoping for close cooperation in U.N.-led efforts to negotiate a new world climate change pact at talks in Copenhagen in December.
    Obama, who took office in January, has signaled a new urgency in tackling climate change. Bush refused to ratify the existing Kyoto Protocol, saying it would put the United States at an economic disadvantage.” “Obama Invites U.N. Chief to White House”
    Repeats the nonsense about Bush “refusing” to ratify Kyoto, when only the Senate can do so and it rejected Kyoto 95-0.
    See http://green-agenda.com for the real agenda of the UN, Obama and George Soros (who helped the Democratic Party to win the elections).

  48. The only viable force in opposition of the AGW doctrine and the Green Agenda (http://green-agenda.com) at a political level is President Vaclav Klaus.
    He understands what is about to happen.
    http://www.euportal.cz/Articles/4200-president-klaus-is-environmentalism-a-bigger-threat-to-humanity-than-global-warming-.aspx
    March 7, 2009
    Vaclav Klaus in Santa Barbara
    “For me, one of the main symptoms of un-reason in our era and of our returning [to] before the Age of Enlightenment is the current global warming debate and the futile ambitions to control climate. In its arrogance and immodesty, it reminds me of many unrealistic and [to] all of us damaging and hurting plans and projects the communist propaganda kept supplying us with all the time. My answer to the question in the title of this session “Is environmentalism a bigger threat to humanity than global warming?” is clear and straightforward: Environmentalism is a much bigger threat and what is endangered is freedom and prosperity, not climate. Climate is OK. This is also expressed in the subtitle of my book devoted to this topic, published two years ago.
    I have spent years studying this issue, which is only a new variant of the many times discredited and disproved Neomalthusian pessimistic and interventionistic environmentalist doctrine. This ideology, if not religion, should not be confused with scientific climatology in spite of the fact that it uses, or better to say, misuses some of its terms, concepts, hypotheses. Structurally, they belong to two, totally different fields. One is science, the other is politics.” “President Klaus: Is Environmentalism a Bigger Threat to Humanity than Global Warming?”

  49. Much of the evidence you are celebrating fits well within the overall story line of climate change.
    Climate change?
    The climate has always ….. changed.
    Story line is about right.

  50. Way to go — use natural within bounds variability in the weather to make absurd claims about the climate — soooooo typical of you flat earthers.

  51. I guess it’s time for a flip. As Russia and the Czech Republic drop Socialism and the warm fuzzy science of AGW, both of these ideologies have moved to the USA. Our one-party system has become the shining beacon of hope for Socialists and Communists of the entire world.
    Too bad that we have forgotten our Constitution. Too bad our two-party system has become the one-party, Demo-Republican Socialist Coalition. Is it too late for the Constitution? Is it too late for America?

  52. Dough. I am working on a theory of Global Cooling, actually a hypothesis, based on the magnetic activity of the Sun as driver of the climate. As this is a complex field the term Global Cooling doesn’t really catch all aspects of it, so using the term “climate change” may be more appropriate. And indeed, this theory predicts that some areas may not get colder after all and even warmer instead. But also in my hypothesis Europe will get colder winters than we have enjoyed for some time now.
    There is, however, one problem I am struggling with a hypothesis that predicts both warming and cooling: how does that gel with the First law of Thermodynamics. Or have I won the Nobel Prize (for Physics, that is, not Peace) for demonstrating that the First Law does not apply to the climate?
    And how do I distinguish your hypothesis from mine?
    So let’s try and make a prediction: if the Earth is cooling indeed than I predict that within the next 5 years, Lake Superior will freeze again, whereas you suggest that we will have to wait at least 2 decades?

  53. Tenney Naumer (05:23:44) :
    “Way to go — use natural within bounds variability in the weather to make absurd claims about the climate — soooooo typical of you flat earthers.”
    Hurricanes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, icestorms… all natural events, all within variability, all weather and all used to make absurd claims about the new scary climate of AGW. Give me a break.

  54. At this rate I’ll have to keep going south to keep warm, just like we still have apes don’t we? Of course I haven’t been as far south as the jungles. I prefer to speak in English whenever possible.

  55. If AGW is such an serious and urgent problem why not spend all of the money collected under cap and trade to reduce co2 emission and get it over with? Recent bill plans to spend over half on a new welfare program to offset cost of cap and trade (minus government bureaucracy “handling charge”).
    Adjust cap and trade down, give all the money to the problem, and let existing welfare programs take care of people who can’t pay their energy bills.

  56. Novoburgo made a sobering point with his indication that once the US firmly feels the energy and other crunches now being set into motion by your new administration, the legislation will already be firmly in place, and then it will effectively be too late to unring the bell. For a long time I envied you first world people. But Africa is starting to feel so much better. We travelled on a family holiday not long ago, and commented on how glorious it was to view our beautiful country, unmarred as it is by the presence of any intrusive and practically useless wind generators.
    Geoff A

  57. What makes any of you think that in 2012 you are going to be able to throw the looters out of Washington when the electorate comes to their senses? The name of the game in Washington is to buy the votes of 51% of the electorate using your money. The only way to fight the looters is to withhold your sanction and your wealth from their control.
    Over at NASA, Dr. Hathaway has again slipped Solar Maximum by another 3 months and no one but the readers of a few forums are going to care that we are now in Solar Cycle 24 prediction freefall as I indicated in this updated post at SC24.
    Re: Dr. Hathaway Moves the SC24 Goalpost Again
    http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=350&page=6#13121
    At this point the only thing which can stop the new state religion is a full Maunder Minimum, which is far from certain, and even then the true believers will ignore such an event. The old state religions were not stopped by facts and the new state religion will not be stopped by them either.
    Mike

  58. I’m with you Tenney – CET average 1719 to1778 9.21
    CET average 1959 to 2007 9.56
    Increase over 230 years .35C -Calamatous!
    Please don’t mock the flat earth society. Increased levels of Co2 are forecast to “PEP” things up for us! The science for this is unassailable. Burp!

  59. Tenney Naumer (05:23:44) “use natural within bounds variability in the weather to make absurd claims about the climate”
    How about calling warming from the El Ninos of the 90s ‘global warming’, hmm?

  60. Indeed. Where is the heat?
    Where are the cataclysms and divers alarums that the media has been thick with? Was all the fuss only to sell newspapers?

  61. Tenney Naumer (05:23:44) : Way to go — use natural within bounds variability in the weather to make absurd claims about the climate — soooooo typical of you flat earthers.
    Well, those of us with our feet firmly planted on old Mater Terra — be she flat or otherwise — are claiming that ALL of the weather we’ve been seeing is natural, within bounds variability. Nice of you to agree.

  62. Tenney, it is fine that you have joined our conversation. I would suggest that you begin reading basic books on chemistry, atmospheric science, how our solar system works (like how the spin of Earth affects weather producing winds and oceanic currents), then progress to journal articles. You will need to develop a rather large vocabulary so that all the acronyms used here will make sense. If you are not in to reading basic books, there are lots of websites, with pictures, that will help explain all of these things that have major effects on our weather pattern variations, in the short AND long term. If you do, your posts will be taken more seriously.

  63. Tenney Naumer (05:23:44) : Way to go — use natural within bounds variability in the weather to make absurd claims about the climate — soooooo typical of you flat earthers.
    Tenney. Pot. Kettle. Black.
    Here’s a list of some of the thousands of weather occurances that have been touted as caused by AGW
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  64. Tenney Naumer (05:23:44) :
    Dearest Tenney,
    In your posts on this topic and on the George Wil controversy, you use the debating techniques of a zealot. First, you try to change the topic, then you accuse people of idiocy, you proclaim their false beliefs, and finally you insinuate mentall instability for their failing to follow your faith-based belief system.
    Jacoby and Will wrote about people like you the posted articles in this way:
    “…but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot.”
    “It is clearly for some people a surrogate religion. It’s a spiritual quest. It offers redemption.”
    I am writing for myself and not Wattsupwiththat or any other posters: Please label your “feelings” based thoughts as such, and try to use facts to buttress your other points.
    I get tired of people giving me their feelings; please give me your philosophy, your logic, your facts, or quotations from others. Lose the faith-based zealotry.
    Sincerely,
    markm

  65. I propose that we all share what we have learned about the AGW scam with everyone that we are able to in order to use a grassroots movement to change the course of our respective governments.
    Here in Texas I have put together a PowerPoint presentation of about 45 minutes duration where I cover the main points of the Global Warming debate (thanks mostly to WUWT, ICECAP, and CLIMATE AUDIT sites and contributors). I have shown it to several groups so far and it has been very effective in changing people’s minds. Mind you I have no stake in this debate (I am in the military) other than a quest for truth and I will never recieve any renumeration for my efforts. Next month I will show it to a group of over 200 people and I will not stop until AGW or ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is no longer used as tool/excuse for governments to control people.

  66. Tenney wrote:
    “Way to go — use natural within bounds variability in the weather to make absurd claims about the climate — soooooo typical of you flat earthers.”
    Besides that being the flat-iron griddle calling the flat-iron black frying pan black….
    WHO is saying the earth is flat here??? Nobody here.
    We all know which public bozo made that comment about anyone who dares to actually use their brains to question the current cult-religion of AGW.
    Yeah…that same individual, while he was Vice President, got LOST in the woods (LMAO)…and the secret service had to come and find him.
    Maybe we can blame DIM individuals such as Gore, et.al. on the DIMMING SUN. Who knows.
    But back who is REALLY, metaphorically, calling the earth “flat”:
    Those that participate in what will go down in history as being the greatest scientific HOAX, the greatest bastardization of the Scientific Method, and the greatest GUTTING of the scientific public trust and goodwill since the days of the Spanish Inquisition.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  67. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt.

    Really? I’d really like to know what virtues they might have. I can’t think of any.

  68. Gripegut/Ryan Welch (08:48:27) :
    I would really like to see your PowerPoint presentation.
    Hmmm….I’m not going to be in Texas soon. Oh well.
    markm

  69. The UK Met Office admits that there has been a recent hiatus in the accelaration of global temperatures but states that the last 11 out of 13 years have been the hottest for over a century.
    Watt (sorry) do you say to that?

  70. Ryan please email me as to how I can obtain a copy of that Powerpoint. I will pay for a coppy. (Sorry to momentarily interrupt the thread here). My email sharkhearted@gmail.com
    Back to the article at hand…the quote from the Boston Globe I loved the most:
    “The climate models on which so much global-warming alarmism rests “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in,” says Freeman Dyson, the eminent physicist and futurist. “The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”
    Case in point. If I had a nickel for every snowstorm the GFS weather model had cooked up for Coastal Virginia, I would be rich, and we would be a coastal ski resort (well, that is, if we had hills and snow and cold LOL).
    But that’s just it. Our models….even though they valiantly try, can not even extrapolate correctly into the near future.
    Well how in the Sam Hill then, can we even BEGIN to rely upon climate models…that try to predict further??
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  71. Tenny reminds me of local alarmist on our local blogs.
    The guy here played the same games.
    He crticized skeptics with the “weather is not climate” bromide but when I googled him I found a piece he wrote that attributed a heat wave in France and Hurricane Katrina to AGW.
    Over and over again we see hypocricy and dishonesty in the AGW proponents pitch.
    Tenny is a poster child for this approach.

  72. That was one sound, kind, sensible, truthful, descriptive article.
    Every day I worry about the freedom of speech, and future for Science, that are threatened by the current muzzling, and what I feel is racism, targeted at various luminaries in Climate Science. Courtney, Monckton and Morner debated recently at St Andrews University (see ICECAP) with warmists, and they were glad to win the debate, because as they said, climate skepticism is just not familiar to that generation.

  73. I am looking for some grant money. (Because its all about the $$$, right?)
    Any modelers out there care to create a model to try to predict the behavior of climate scientists that are off the deep end about AGW??
    Maybe try and predict when ex-scientist / current religious and social activist James Hansen will say or do the next stupid thing??

  74. JimB (21:57:01) wrote:
    Just to go the paper’s page, find his column, and read the responses. If I were him, I’d have someone else start my car each day.
    I grew up in the suburbs of Boston, across the street from one Andy Bonanno. Northeasterners will recognize that the word “Bonanno” never appears in print without “crime family” right after it. Andy “owned a laundry” but never seemed to go to work.
    One of his daugthers, Lulu (I am not making this up) got a brand-new 1964 T-bird for her 16th birthday, and would drive me and my bother to school once in a while. She looked exactly like Nancy Sinatra, chain-smoked Salems with one languid arm dangling it out the window, wore dangerously short skirts and a half a bottle of perfume a day. Her blonde hair brushed the headliner of the T-bird and she took eye-liner lessons from Mo-town album covers. I do believe she could “snap” her gum, but I may be getting her confused with Marissa Tormei, it’s been a while. In a possibly ironic twist Lulu married a state trooper.
    JimB, I knew The Bonannos. I was friends with the Bonannos. Clearly, I am still in awe of some of them. AGW folks, JimB, are NOT Bonannos.
    The worst thing Jeff Jacoby needs to worry about is being bitch-slapped from behind by an over-caffeinated AGW acolyte. The Greenie better be careful though, if he swings too hard he may fly out of his Birkenstocks.

  75. Hey, I resemble that remark. I had my birkenstock days. Still have my birkenstocks with cork bottoms that I would liberally ;^) coat with Elmers glue to keep them from disintegrating in the Willamette Valley rain. And I am right now severely over-caffeinated with Palermo blend dark roast.

  76. Didn’t you guys get the memo? It’s in the Pipeline! Someone just forgot to open a valve, that’s all.

  77. There’s a valve? Where? My boyfriend would really like to know where the valve is so that I can warm my tush before getting into bed with him.

  78. PamelaGray
    OK you caught me. It was a trap for an unsuspecting AGW person strolling-by in cyberspace to induce a bitch-slap of my own.
    I myself am wearing Birkenstocks (which is how I knew how to spell Birkenstock) and I’m on my third cup of Starbucks French Roast made from the bean. Listening to Zydeco on a tube amp in my shop with doors flung open and the ceiling fan blasting away. It’s about 78 in here right now, rain clouds on the horizon. Just finished the Sunday Daily Worker, er, NYT. Leftists somehow always get the wrong signal about me. Do you think it’s the beard? Maybe the Che t-shirt. I guess they don’t understand irony.

  79. “Spencer Atwell (09:04:04) :
    The UK Met Office admits that there has been a recent hiatus in the acceleration of global temperatures but states that the last 11 out of 13 years have been the hottest for over a century.”
    It certainly is nice of the UKMET to FINALLY at least admit there has been a recent “hiatus”….especially since they have been eating humble shepherd’s pie (all be it frozen because it was left outside) about their winter forecast of 08-09 for Western Europe to be mild.
    So the next time a bureaucra-science organization such as the UKMET or NASA spouts forth politically-charged data, take it ALL with a grain of salt: Many of the brilliant scientists who work for those organizations are muzzled by whatever New-speak policies they have to abide.
    The UKMET has egg (albeit frozen) on their faces with that dismal bust of a winter forecast and so they have no room to prognosticate AGW at this point, especially in light of the fact that there is countervailing data which points to the 1930’s as actually being the warmest in a century.
    And even if the foregoing fact is found to be incorrect…. even so there are numerous forcings (solar, oceanic, and some scientists even say cosmogenic i.e. attributing the huge GRB of 1998 which helped to amplify the temperature spike and Super El Nino of that same year)…all of those contribute and line up to perhaps amplify the high temps of the past decade.
    I mean combine the super ENSO event of 1998, along with both phases of the PDO and the AMO in warm (that is changing as we speak),
    …along with abnormally high solar activity in the past 50 or 75 years (and that is changing as we speak), along with perhaps some small component of anthropogenic forcing (and I say small….not tipping point!)….
    combine that with the major loss of temparature reporting stations in the former cold portions of the Soviet Union…..as well as the abnormally high number of temperature measuring stations in localized “heat islands” in our own country (as Anthony has so painstakingly helped to point out)…
    …combine that with what I would like to call the PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCING of politically-driven organizations like NOAA or the UKMET….
    ….and we get what is rubbish the UKMET continues to spout forth.
    And they can continue to talk all they want to about the acceleration of temps and Mann’s hockey stick AD NAUSEUM…
    (while the Russian scientists are preparing for the OPPOSITE….and what they already know best!)…
    ….until it’s TOO LATE for the American and British hockey teams…as their hockey sticks and the pucks and the players who are Mann, Gore, Hansen, Holdren, et al…..are all frozen solid to the ice!!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  80. A reminder to all the rational readers and commenters here.
    Mr Jacoby is probably getting a lot of “heat” for his article; he just might appreciate some email support if you are so inclined
    jacoby@globe.com [as shown above].

  81. And their Birkenstocks…frozen in the ice too….
    Damn….I have a pair.
    Oh well, I guess I am a “greenie” in the right places…as my WUWT handle here suggests. 🙂
    Chris

  82. MarkM (08:59:40) :
    “I would really like to see your PowerPoint presentation.”
    Send me an e-mail to ryan.scott.welch@ng.army.mil and I will send you a disc (the presentation is 9 GB). I am of course open to any critique that can be offered. I will not accept any money for this.

  83. One can argue that ‘dogma’ in the technical sense of the word, is a valid authority to be appealed to in discourse that deals with revealed truth, i.e. in Christian theology, while wholeheartedly agreeing that such an appeal has no standing in discourse about the realm of physical change, i.e. in the natural sciences– insofar as such discourse must appeal only to the authority of human reason.
    Pray for me, St Thomas of Aquino.

  84. Climate changes. The questions to be answered are: What direction are we changing, and where are we now?
    My opinion is that, climate wise, we are in early September and headed for winter. Therefore, the Met can accurately say 11 of the past 13 years have been the warmest of the century, and for those of us over 40, we have seen a warming trend. Climate wise, none of us has ever seen a winter.

  85. Michael Ronayne (06:18:43) :

    At this point the only thing which can stop the new state religion is a full Maunder Minimum, which is far from certain, and even then the true believers will ignore such an event. The old state religions were not stopped by facts and the new state religion will not be stopped by them either.
    Mike

    I was under the impression that the “old state religions” got stopped by economics… I.e. the economy failed so badly that the state was unable to continue as a going concern.

  86. It is snow pelting right now, and no, not hailing. These are lighter snow pellets falling rather softly from a partly cloudy sky. The area has been setting breaking low temps again (since near the turn of the last century), and building snow. That is not very unusual. I have sat on Wood’s Hill near Lostine and watched snow storm after snow storm blow over South Fork and the rest of the Wallowa Mountains during spring break, leaving behind a once bluish mountain landscape with nothin but white.

  87. “soooooo typical of you flat earthers.”
    GEEZ I’m tired of this kind of comment; the next time madam or sir, that you cross a bridge or fly on an aircraft REMEMBER one of us ‘flat earthers’ and *our* science designed it, fabricated it, tested it, then flew or opened it to the public!
    Talk about FLAT EARTHERS, Tenney-what-her-name is projecting!
    Enough already Tenny.

  88. Everytime I come to the east coast for the winter it’s bad. When I stay on the west coast I always hear it is a mild winter. Maybe it’s just me.

  89. ~snip~ will read this post and pat themselves on the back for “seeing through the propaganda”, the conspiracy theorists self flattery. Skeptics will read this post and follow up by doing further research. If they did, they may have run across this quote from Kyle Swanson, whose research was cited:

    “When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming. Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing
    will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very
    aggressive.”
    UW Milwaukee researcher Kyle Swanson

    That’s quite a statement: “explosive” and “aggresive”! Alarming. Now, why wouldn’t that have been included in the Globe article? Must be from the George Will school of editorializing.

  90. Michael Ronayne said:
    “At this point the only thing which can stop the new state religion is a full Maunder Minimum…”
    Haha thanks for that prescient observation as always, Mike!
    I must secretly confess…a little guilty pleasure of mine…that there is the twisted side of me that WANTS to see another Maunder Minimum do its dirty work.
    I would love to see the new International Church of the AGW lose parishioners faster than it is!!
    Still, all things serious, there is grave cause to be worried about the snoozing sun.
    I certainly want my fresh produce in the grocery store. I love going to the beach in May. I would rather subsist with as few articles of clothing as possible.
    But back in the days of JS Bach, Beethoven, and Hans Christian Andersen….they certainly did not have the technology to keep warm like we did, yet they somehow survived…even thrived.
    They, and others like them, ice skated on ponds and enjoyed the fireplace and wrote timeless music….even when the Great Frost of 1709 came and went.
    The Stradivarius violins were made from a particularly dense type of wood, because of the slower growth and colder climes. My point is…it ain’t ALL BAD!!
    And you know what they say a good cold winter kills all the bugs.
    Well…er um….how to say this….perhaps Mother Nature feels the same way about OUR species…. and that a good GRAND MINIMUM gets rid of all the excess. In the long run, the species, if it survives, will be stronger for the adversity.
    Bundle up!!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  91. global warming causes temperatures to go the extremes: cold places get colder, hot places get hotter, rains get stronger, and droughts last longer. the northern states may find winter unusually could, but the southern states will find the coming summer to be unnaturally hot…

  92. kyokoumei wrote:
    “global warming causes temperatures to go the extremes: cold places get colder, hot places get hotter, rains get stronger, and droughts last longer. the northern states may find winter unusually could, but the southern states will find the coming summer to be unnaturally hot…”
    Wow this is getting FUN.
    Global warming?? What global warming?? Show it!!
    For all of the errors in the foregoing statement….one thing this person is correct on….we ARE trending toward more extremes.
    BUT…..and that is a BIG BUT…(haha) …..when the cold gets colder and the warm gets warmer… it all still smoothes out against the means.
    Interestingly about drought, is that ice core samples that are taken from ice age or sub-ice age periods, have more DIRT.
    The planet is windier and drier during ice ages…in contrast to the wonderful temperate balminess that we as a a species, have evolved to enjoy.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  93. kyokoumei (17:28:48) :
    “global warming causes temperatures to go the extremes: cold places get colder, hot places get hotter, rains get stronger, and droughts last longer. the northern states may find winter unusually could, but the southern states will find the coming summer to be unnaturally hot…”
    heat waves get wavier, hurricanes get hurricanier, and Al Gore gets even more annoying.

  94. That would be a conservative opinion columnist spreading propaganda, not the actual news source. The title of your post is as misleading as his column.
    REPLY: I understand your point, but it made it through the globe editorial department – Anthony

  95. Uh uh. That’s why the Arctic, a very cold place, will see ice area, depth, and extent increase according to your theory. Canada, also a relatively cold place, will eventually be covered with ice, and we will have the equivalent of a new ice age in the NH, not to mention the unmelted Anarctica. Meanwhile, Nevada and Arizona, rather hot places in my opinion, will spontaneously burst into flames. Unless you meant that cold places will get warmer and colder, and warm places will get warmer and …how’s that go again?

  96. “Canada, also a relatively cold place, will eventually be covered with ice, ”
    Pamela … I am 61 years old … can you make it hold off for a few decades … ☺☺☺☺
    Unfortunately the ice covering may have started this week. Sheesh. ☺
    Clive
    Still from the frozen North where this week it would not be ‘mart to stick your tongue on a steel post. ☺

  97. Since when do regular folks feel compelled to argue climate science? Of course, they’re really not–they’re discussing whose rhetoric is better crafted to reflect a current snapshot of reality.
    Sure, Al Gore is easy to make fun of. But one winter does not disprove a growing trend in temperatures across the globe. Ornithologists are noticing the ranges of many birds extending northward over the last twenty years. Wildlife who make changes in their habitat and range are not influenced by the popular media, news reports, etc.

  98. “..heat waves get wavier, hurricanes get hurricanier, and Al Gore gets even more annoying.”
    Al Gore gets richer….and larger, have you noticed how large he has become lately? Climate alarmism clearly pays very well!

  99. Jacoby was hired to be the token conservative at the Globe. When he writes an editorial, it is not “The Globe” speaking. The newspaper does take editorial stands on policy matters, and it is firmly in the AGW camp. The title of your post really is inaccurate. Not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but true nonetheless.

  100. there is a huge difference between weather and climate change
    here in SoCal we’ve had a strange winter with unusual highs and lows
    that’s weather not climate change
    climate change is BIG picture…and undeniable in my picture

  101. Welcome to the 21st Century’s Wars of Religion. Pray that you are not on the wrong side. *insert maniacal laughter here*

  102. Did the MET actually say that 11 0f the past 13 years have been the warmest this century?
    Is it March of 2009? Are they confused or am I?
    I guess if you can say AGW is a fact then you can fit 13 years into 8.

  103. rationalpsychic (18:42:07) penned:
    “Since when do regular folks feel compelled to argue climate science? Of course, they’re really not–they’re discussing whose rhetoric is better crafted to reflect a current snapshot of reality.”
    Please, speak for yourself and ONLY for yourself; some of us have the background and experience to evaluate the data and methologies (the ‘horse’) upon which (the ‘knight’) AGW rode in on … ranging from flawed/contaminated surface temperature data (owing to temp shelter/MMTS siting issues) to highly questionable if not outright suspect analysis (e.g. the Hockey Stick).
    Perhaps this is your first visit to the site, in which case your should check out the more ‘technical’ threads as opposed to the more ‘political’ where delving onto the specifics ‘errors’ in the AGW arg are discussed.
    .

  104. Rationalpsychic wrote this: “Sure, Al Gore is easy to make fun of. But one winter does not disprove a growing trend in temperatures across the globe. Ornithologists are noticing the ranges of many birds extending northward over the last twenty years. Wildlife who make changes in their habitat and range are not influenced by the popular media, news reports, etc.”
    So WHAT IF IT IS??? If I was a dark-eyed junco (one of the cutest) songbirds….I would be stoked as to the expanded territory.
    “Ornithologists are noticing the ranges of many birds extending northward…”
    20 years is a micro snowflake in the bucket of snow.
    Be happy that there is any BIRDAGE at all at this point.
    If I were an ornithologist….I would be relieved to see the expanded territory….not alarmed that the earth had warmed to support such.
    LMAO!!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  105. Tenney Naumer (05:23:44) :
    Thanks for coming along to Mr Watt’s website. You are contributing directly to the number of hits on his website. As you can see to the right had side he has had almost 10 million hits. Not bad for a supposed “flat earther” who won the Best Science Blog in 2009.
    Come back again soon, we enjoy the entertainment you provide.

  106. rationalpsychic wrote:

    Ornithologists are noticing the ranges of many birds extending northward over the last twenty years. Wildlife who make changes in their habitat and range are not influenced by the popular media, news reports, etc.

    You mean reports like:
    Mature Arctic ivory gull seen in Massachusetts for the first time in over a century
    Rare snow bunting appears in Cornwall
    Waxwings from Scandinavia move south to Britain
    Crossbills from Scandinavia visit British garden bird feeders
    Snowy owls spotted thousands of miles south of normal feeding grounds

  107. Please investigate the difference between “climate” and “weather”. It looks like you are confusing them.

  108. Re: the difference between a news article and an op ed. In this current infotainment world we live in, it would be easier to part the hair on a gnat’s head than it is to tease apart the reliability of a news report from an opinion.
    It is not a good thing when I, a liberal, see more accuracy in an opinion from Mr. Will, or any other designated Republican conservative op ed piece than a news report on what Al Gore has said about global warming. I have no conservative or liberal ax to grind but I also have no desire to change my views on several of my liberal leanings. One of the reasons why I have liberal views is because I rely on basic science, not political environmentalist dogma or religious faith based party planks, to help me understand how things work.
    But this CO2 global warming thing does not make logical scientific sense at all. And it seems to have affected (infected?) some of the brainiest people around, which just floors me. Degreed people, researchers, titled scientists, all of the presidential candidates, and, it is hard for me to say this, nearly all the democrats in Washington and a good share of republicans, have been taken in by this odd global movement. Are there no honest politicians or major respected scientists that, while surely risking their careers, can calm the masses and stop the madness of this ill-conceived movement?
    Obama, I voted for you. I hate to say this, but I am regretting the choice I made. You are beginning to look like one of the pack, just like all the rest. There is such a thing as being blinded by your own kind.

  109. As last I looked, the atmosphere was a chaotic system. Increasing the energy level of a chaotic system will tend to result in greater instability. In climate, this would mean greater extremes and wilder variations as well as an increase in the overall global temperature. If these things are observed, it is evidence that the energy available in the system – the temperature – is indeed increasing.
    Now, if any one of those is not happening, that would be a strong argument against global warming. Possible evidence for global cooling would include a narrower range of temperatures measured over time, fewer major storms over time, a reduction in the average global temperature over time, and a reduction in the rate of change in atmospheric conditions (essentially, conditions tending more towards an average climate and less towards rapid changes, such as warm days followed by cold ones). “Over time” would require a minimum of about a year to mean anything much, preferably evidence should be collected over several years.
    Evidence for stability would involve those items remaining constant over time.
    After that, of course, there is the question of how much impact human activities are having on the observed trends.
    Now, if you want a quick thought-experiment to evaluate whether or not adding more energy to a system causes greater variation, consider reducing the average temperature of the earth to a close approximation of absolute zero. There will be virtually no changes, no variation between years, and no weather.
    Then add energy to the system until you reach current conditions: you will find notable variations in surface temperatures in various locations over the course of a year, a great deal of activity, and a lot of weather.

  110. It’s about time the Boston Globe said something about the global cooling which is I believe has been going on since 2006. NASA reported the oceans since 2006 have been cooling, following winters 2007 and 2008 have been harsher almost like the winter of 1979.
    Warming trends and cooling trends are normal. The fact that the weather has been cooling despite humans pumping in CO2 into the atmosphere at a very small rate. Al Gore avoids debates about global warming because he wants to focus more on funding those who believe in global warming and restricting companies in the US, while neglecting other countries like China and India.

  111. Thought this article might help you to understand the data.
    “The 2008 climate report: partly cloudy. Or partly sunny — it depends on your point of view, which underscores why it can be so easy to misunderstand the mechanism of climate change. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Tuesday released its weather analysis for the year and found that 2008 has been the coolest year since the turn of the century. Using data gathered from Britain’s Hadley Centre, the University of East Anglia and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the WMO reported that the average global temperature in 2008 was 57.74 degrees F (14.3 degrees C), cooler than the past several years. That’s due in part to the chilling action of the climatological effect known as La Niña, which cooled the Pacific.
    So does that mean global warming has ceased?
    Afraid not. Even though 2008 is cooler than the past several years, it’s still likely to rank as the 10th warmest year since the beginning of climate records in the 1850s. And despite the cooling of the Pacific, several parts of the Earth — especially the Arctic, where sea ice melted to its second lowest level ever this summer — were far above normal temperatures. Globally, 2008 was about 0.56 degrees F (0.31 degrees C) warmer than the annual average between 1961 and 1990. But if the heat seemed to have been turned down during 2008, that could owe to the fact that the gradual warming trend has changed our idea of a normal temperature. As Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at Oxford University, explains, “Globally, this year would have been considered warm, even as recently as the 1970s or 1980s, but [it would have been] a scorcher for our Victorian ancestors.”
    During 2008, we kept pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so it’s easy to assume that the climate would keep warming uniformly — and therefore to use evidence to the contrary as grounds for doubting that human activity really causes climate change. But the climate and the weather are not the same thing: we experience only the weather, which is the day-to-day, sometimes hour-to-hour changes of temperature, precipitation, wind and more. The climate, on the other hand, refers to the cumulative average of the weather around us over decades, centuries and longer.
    So we can’t track global warming through changes in the weather, even from one year to the next. Instead we need to look at the long-term trends, and here the evidence is undeniable. “The trend for warming is still there,” says Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the WMO. There will be oscillations, up and down trends, thanks to other climatological factors like La Niña, its warming opposite El Niño, even large volcanic eruptions, which can throw sulphur into the atmosphere and temporarily cool the planet. But unless we reverse the steady increase in greenhouse-gas emissions, over the long term, the world’s temperature is going in one direction: up.”

  112. Re: “Naughty BBC”
    Despite there being no mention of “melting ice” in Pen Hadow’s published diary extracts, the BBC continues to promote it’s AGW agenda with the headline “Arctic diary – The team has a dramatic night on melting Arctic ice”.
    In fact what they do say is “Because of the freezing temperatures some of the equipment has been playing up”
    and
    “I’ve been walking around since the first night with a fuel pump inside my clothing. Like Martin’s kit, our cooking stoves were struggling – the fuel pumps were leaking fuel – it seemed the best way to keep the pump warm!”

  113. Katherine (20:23:54)
    Good examples. One could ask, ‘if the world is getting warmer, why are birds that like it colder expanding their range SOUTH, into allegedly warmer areas?’

  114. @Pamela Gray
    “Obama, I voted for you. I hate to say this, but I am regretting the choice I made.”
    There are a lot of people experiencing buyers remorse at this point,…

    …and I think I can fairly confidently assert that the number will increase dramatically.
    It’s going to be a very long 4 years. And it’s going to be even longer fixing, if we can, the damage he will certainly have done by then, which is why forums like WUWT are so important, as they supply people with an alternative to the insanity (an antidote to the KookAid) that many didn’t even know they were consuming.
    The part I worry about, and I’m beginning to see expressed more and more, is that science will suffer. After all, if AGW was suspect, and if nothing we could do would mitigate the changes, why didn’t they speak out against ruining the economy to “repair” something that couldn’t be? Will the reputation of science be suffer as a result? I think it could, which is very disturbing because without good science no nation can really prosper. But then, prosperity is so ‘yesterday’, after all.
    http://masterresource.org/?p=1106
    http://masterresource.org/?p=1332

  115. We all know there has been a slow warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age.
    The question is whether the recent warming i.e. since WW2 has been caused or enhanced by human CO2.
    Peter A. Leonard’s article from WMO is disingenuous in not acknowledging that issue.
    There is still no proper evidence as to causation or as to scale of AGW in relation to natural forces and the longer the pause in warming or any cooling spell lasts then the less likely it is that human CO2 has anything to do with it.
    The WMO of all people should accept that current observations do introduce a level of doubt about AGW so that the science is even less settled now than it was before.
    In my opinion a continuation of misplaced confidence about the AGW theory is an abuse of professionalism.

  116. Weather extremes depend on differentials NOT absolute temperatures.
    Stormier weather occurs when the global air temperature is falling or rising because changes increase differentials.
    The faster the change in EITHER direction the more storminess.
    A stable global air temperature has least extremes of weather.

  117. As it gets colder, more folks will see the light, followed by many feeling the heat, just not the kind they expected…
    Does anyone know if the Reynolds method data that feed into GIStemp and depend on simulated data (would that be “dimulated” – a typo I started typing, then corrected, then realized the truth from the subconscious …) from the ice levels at the North Pole are using the broken satellite data?
    If so, we would know that GIStemp would be fudging their anomaly maps high based on broken polar ice estimates…

  118. Peter Leonard
    There it goes again.
    “But unless we reverse the steady increase in greenhouse-gas emissions, over the long term, the world’s temperature is going in one direction: up.”
    What’s long term? Since the Cretaceous? Holocene maximum? MWP? LIA? The only way you get an uniterrupted warming trend is cherry pick a date after the last cool period (c 1980) and then ignore what’s happened since 1998.
    If a small increase (in “long term” terms) in a trace gas is so powerful that it can tip the climate into a catastrophic slide, then what is powerful enough to counteract it? The only way the GCMs can make CO2 do the magic thing is by inventing a water vapour positive feedback, which seems to be in the process of being thoroughly debunked.

  119. mjolsen (20:44:22) :
    Please investigate the difference between “climate” and “weather”. It looks like you are confusing them.
    No, there is no confusion.
    Obviously, the difference is: “Climate” means anything that supposedly supports AGW/CC doctrine, including a warming trend for a cherry-picked time period, heat waves, droughts, floods, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, glaciers retreating and, increasingly, any weather “extremes”, such as unusual cold, blizzards, ice storms, glaciers advancing etc.
    “Weather” on the other hand is anything that might tend to cast doubt on the idea of manmade warming/climate change.
    1+1=3, 1+1=3, 1+1=3, 1….

  120. In order to fairly discuss the present lay epiphany on climate change one would think that the objective commentator would concede and perhaps offer that there are other theories which have a fairly close coincidence with the present inter glacial scenario such as the Milankovitch Cycle. If I don’t hear some alternative theories offered there is no moving forward then the commentator has only weakened the ground. Unfortunately this article is just a parody of the logical errors of those who have no idea of what they are talking about and subscribe to an ideology. Unfortunately the decisions that follow from the ideology are fantasy world decisions and will have real world consequences. This is a great graph and it deserves contemplation because it is elegant and to the point and predictive to a high degree of certainty.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

  121. Toth,
    As Stephen Wilde said extreme weather depends on temperature differentials.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Gray12-08.pdf
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-7-skept.html
    Also increasing heat would not cause cooling, certainly not globally. We all know or should know that this seasons cold temperatures and snow storms are just weather. However no global increase in temperatures since 1998 is a trend and not weather. As stated before, if this was a mild winter the MSM and some AGW acolytes would have used that as proof of global warming. The fact that it has been colder than expected is certainly worth noting because it was unexpected by those who believe in AGW. What we are pointing out is that in spite of the AGW proponent’s predictions of steadily increasing temperatures we have seen instead no warming and also a growing body of evidence of cooling.

  122. Pamela Gray (22:03:30) :
    “Obama, I voted for you. I hate to say this, but I am regretting the choice I made. You are beginning to look like one of the pack, just like all the rest. There is such a thing as being blinded by your own kind.”
    Pamela,
    I am not at all surprised by his position on AGW. Knowing how “smart” he and his team are one would have to conclude that they have motives other than the ones he has stated. If you can look at other instances of Obama saying one thing and doing another you may see, as I have, a pattern.
    I have spent some time researching his background, his past associations, and his past actions and I have concluded that AGW is just another tool he is using to get the people of the US to concede to ever more government control by using scare tactics of a climate apocalypse.

  123. I agree that one month or one year does not a trend make, but now we have 10 years of no increase and recently a decrease in temperatures while all the time CO2 levels have been increasing. Trying to reconcile these data with global warming is like eating a steak to prove you are a vegetarian.
    Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, “What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!”

  124. Hm, presuming that the comment addressed to “Toth” was addressed to me on the basis that “Toth” does not appear elsewhere on this page and that the topic seems relevant to my comment, I’ll reply to it.
    “As Stephen Wilde said extreme weather depends on temperature differentials.”
    Yes. Ultimately those between space and the various regions of a planetary surface. Ergo, increasing that average temperature differential should lead to increasing extremes of weather. Decreasing it should reduce them.
    “Also increasing heat would not cause cooling, certainly not globally. We all know or should know that this seasons cold temperatures and snow storms are just weather. However no global increase in temperatures since 1998 is a trend and not weather.”
    Half correct: it is a tautology that increasing the average global temperature will not result in decreasing the average global temperature. The notion that adding energy to a system cannot cause cooling in some parts of that system is easily demonstrated to be false: all you have to do to demonstrate that is to go and check your refrigerator. Without pumping energy into the system (in this case, your house), you will not long have a temperature differential between the two locations – inside the refrigerator and the room outside it.
    As for whether or not the average temperature of the earth is above, below, or the same as, what it would be without human interference, we have no direct way of finding out: we do not have an earth that is substantially free of human interference but otherwise identical to compare with. Models may be indicative of what we might expect to find in such a situation, but it is always possible for any given model to be wrong.
    Model testing is a different subject, but usually involves giving the model a set of parameters from some point in the past and seeing how well it projects known subsequent behavior from there. Models which show a high degree of success in such tests may or may not actually be useful in predicting future events – but models which do not show success in such tests almost certainly are not useful in predicting future events. The larger the number of successful models employed, and the greater their agreement on further projections, the more likely the projection is to be useful as a guide. Similar modeling schemes can be observed in basic behavioral studies, marketing, insurance, and many other fields.
    “As stated before, if this was a mild winter the MSM and some AGW acolytes would have used that as proof of global warming. The fact that it has been colder than expected is certainly worth noting because it was unexpected by those who believe in AGW. What we are pointing out is that in spite of the AGW proponent’s predictions of steadily increasing temperatures we have seen instead no warming and also a growing body of evidence of cooling.”
    What the MSM and AGW acolytes would use something for is irrelevant to the tests proposed. If the energy level of a chaotic system increases – regardless of the nature of that system – you can expect to see greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes. Remove energy, and you can expect to see lesser extremes and slower shifts between such extremes. Remove enough energy, and the system will become quiescent.
    That is a simple set of predictions that can be analyzed, examined, and tested against local records. If the average results of such tests show lesser extremes and slower shifts, we have evidence for global cooling. If the average results show no changes, we have evidence of stability. If the average displays greater extremes and more rapid shifts, we have evidence of global warming. If they show lesser extremes and more rapid shifts, or vice versa, the results will be mixed, and either indicative of stability or of a need for additional tests.
    The raw results, however, have nothing to say about what the results would be without human interference or whether the result (whatever it is) is desirable or not. For such evaluations it is necessary to turn to modeling and to personal preferences.
    Whether or not the actual data supports trends of global warming or global cooling actually isn’t relevant to the AGW hypothesis, which states that human activity is resulting in a higher average global temperature than would prevail otherwise – not that the average global temperature is necessarily increasing at the moment. Thus, even a solid demonstration that the average global temperature is decreasing would not actually be a challenge to the hypothesis. Such comparisons are based on atmospheric modeling – as are the predictions of various difficulties which might result from an ongoing warming trend. To effectively challenge the AGW hypothesis and the various proposed courses of action based on it, all that is needed is develop atmospheric models that provide better projections of current conditions from past conditions AND either do not indicate that current and likely future human activities will be a major factor in increasing the average global temperature OR which indicate that the results of such an increase will be desirable to whoever is evaluating the results.

  125. Re: “Naughty BBC”
    Despite there being no mention of “melting ice” in Pen Hadow’s published diary extracts, the BBC continues to promote it’s AGW agenda with the headline “Arctic diary – The team has a dramatic night on melting Arctic ice”.
    The above misleading Arctic Diary headline has been changed to: “Arctic diary
    The team has a dramatic night on shifting Arctic ice.”
    Perhaps they had some complaints?

  126. Thoth,
    “Thus, even a solid demonstration that the average global temperature is decreasing would not actually be a challenge to the hypothesis.”
    Of course not, Thoth. How could anything at all EVER actually be a challenge to the hypothesis. Even glaciers moving across the Canadian border would not falsify the hypothesis. That is because the hypothesis is so robust!

  127. KW (00:32:45) :
    While I don’t think we should be making much of the recent cool years I have a lot of trouble with your idea that it is “still balmy”. I am freezing my but off up here with snow in the forcast for tonight and sub zero farenheit temperatures to follow. Growing season last year was 15 days shorter than expected and this year is already behind schedule.
    Where I live is not the “breadbasket” it is however probably the most productive region for meat, dairy, poultry… certainly the most productive that isn’t supported by federal subsidies on irrigation etc.
    If we lose another 10-15% in Ag production like we did last year around here a LOT of people are going to be hungry. As to warming, I can’t come up with a rational argument to support the contention that a net warming of 2 degrees C would be bad. Neither apparently can anyone else; if they could they wouldn’t be wedded to the rediculous fantasy scenarios of catastrophic warming.

  128. Mike Bryant – “Of course not, Thoth. How could anything at all EVER actually be a challenge to the hypothesis. Even glaciers moving across the Canadian border would not falsify the hypothesis. That is because the hypothesis is so robust!”
    The AGW hypothesis is that the earth is warmer than it would be without human intervention. Since there is no pristine version of the earth available to refer to, that’s entirely a hypothesis based on modeling. “Robustness” is not an issue: if you want to successfully challenge the hypothesis, you need to go after it’s basis – the models. I told you how to do that: produce better atmospheric models. Yes, that’s hard and potentially expensive. It’s also the only way in which a model-based hypothesis can challenged outside of waiting for a few decades.
    If you’re interested in public furor and political pressure rather undertaking all the work of making an actual challenge to the AGW hypothesis, then arguments designed to confuse (most easily given the general form “but it’s cold outside!”), attempts to divert attention from what would actually tend to prove or disprove the hypothesis, attacks on the database, and personal attacks against proponents, are likely to be most effective. They won’t have any real effect on the scientists doing the modeling, but – with enough public noise – it may be possible to ensure that the scientists are ignored.
    If you’re entirely sure that the current models and projections are badly flawed, the most efficient way to undermine the AGW hypothesis is simply to support additional research and attempts to develop better models. Since the predictions derived from atmospheric models are extremely useful in agriculture, disaster planning, and many other fields, such an effort is likely to pay long-term dividends in any case. That’s why attempts to predict the weather are made.
    If you’re most interested in opposing the various “solutions” that have been proposed for the “problem”, then the next easiest route is to attempt to convince other people that the various effects predicted by the current models are desirable, rather than undesirable. To use your own facetious example, if “glaciers were moving across the Canadian border” (depending on which border, which way, and why), then warming predictions might well be regarded as a good thing. A judicious selection of prediction-results from differing models, combined with carefully stressing effects that the audience being addressed will likely see as desirable, might be quite effective.
    Of course, a combination strategy – expressing doubts about the modeling process and supporting the development of improved models while exerting political pressure to prevent hasty action based on current models – may well be most effective overall. Such a strategy does tend to render attempts to present AGW as a good thing relatively ineffectual however; if you’re discounting the current models, the only way to really use their projections is in the form “and even if this was to happen, it would hardly be a bad thing!”. That’s doable, but it’s a weak presentation.
    Demonstrating a failure to understand the hypothesis that you’re arguing against does not help your case, no matter how much personal emotional satisfaction you may find in it. In fact, it tends to undermine it.

  129. Thoth,
    Sorry about misspelling your name.
    “If the energy level of a chaotic system increases – regardless of the nature of that system”
    Can you please show me how the chaotic system has an energy increase and explain the source? I was under the impression that the TSI has decreased by approximately 1%. Are you telling me it is from a CO2 driven greenhouse effect? I have not seen any credible evidence that it is significant especially since water vapor has a negative forcing effect.
    “- you can expect to see greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes.”
    Where is the evidence that what we are observing are greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes? Compared to what?
    Could not a global cooling just as easily cause the effects we see as the atmosphere cools faster than the oceans causing greater than normal temperature differentials?

  130. …the AGW hypothesis, which states that human activity is resulting in a higher average global temperature than would prevail otherwise…

    That’s not really the AGW hypothesis.
    The hypothesis that causes all the commotion states that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to a tipping point at which runaway global warming will be triggered, leading to melting of the polar and Greenland ice caps, steeply rising sea levels, drowning polar bears and an invasion of killer bees.
    See, it’s got to be like that, because if the AGW/CO2 hypothesis only predicted that sea levels would rise a couple of inches per century, then there would be no need at all to argue for the enormous tax increases demanded by its conniving promoters. So in order to get at the money, the AGW contingent must engage in alarmism and scaremongering. As we see, that’s exactly what they’re doing 24/7/365.
    And suggesting “undertaking all the work of making an actual challenge to the AGW hypothesis” turns the Scientific Method upside down. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that must successfully challenge the mainstream theory that the climate is fluctuating well within its natural and normal parameters. That is the theory that must be falsified, and so far the AGW/CO2 promoters have failed miserably.
    The same thing can be said of the climate models. There is no need to falsify models; they falsify themselves. Every model failed to predict the rapid decline in global temperatures over the past 12 months. Every single one of them.
    Prediction is the hallmark of a successful hypothesis. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails because it predicted that rising CO2 levels would result in runaway global warming. But as CO2 levels rise, the globe cools — forcing AGW proponents to invent increasingly ridiculous explanations for their failure, such as global heat being in some sort of pipeline, from where it will presumably emerge with catastrophic results too horrible to contemplate.

  131. Gripegut/Ryan Welch
    “Can you please show me how the chaotic system has an energy increase and explain the source? I was under the impression that the TSI has decreased by approximately 1%. Are you telling me it is from a CO2 driven greenhouse effect? I have not seen any credible evidence that it is significant especially since water vapor has a negative forcing effect.”
    The word “If” is important: If the available energy in the system has increased, those are the symptoms that would be expected. As noted, increasing, stable, and decreasing energy levels all lead to differing predications – and the test doesn’t favor any of them. The proposed test does not presuppose data, does not have an expected outcome, and does not even deal with the exact nature of the system in question; it applies equally well to chaotic systems such as the dynamics of satellites, fluid dynamics, and oscillating chemical reactions. The question is confusing opposition to poor methodology with support of a position.
    “Where is the evidence that what we are observing are greater extremes and more rapid shifts between such extremes? Compared to what?
    Could not a global cooling just as easily cause the effects we see as the atmosphere cools faster than the oceans causing greater than normal temperature differentials?”
    A testing mechanism evaluates evidence. It does not provide it. As for “compared to what”, that was stated: the comparison for this test would have to be with the data from previous years. Now, the oceans do act as a thermal reservoir, as does the earth itself. Powerful long-term weather patterns driven by heat from below can be readily observed on Jupiter. Of course, the basic test proposed is of the total amount of energy in the system; as far as such a test goes, the source is irrelevant. The test itself says nothing about the “the effects we see”, since those are data to which the test can be applied.
    Smokey
    “…the AGW hypothesis, which states that human activity is resulting in a higher average global temperature than would prevail otherwise…
    That’s not really the AGW hypothesis.”
    Actually, that is the AGW hypothesis.
    The competitive attempt to model the behavior of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and geology of the earth is founded in a desire to make better predictions. The fact that various models have proven useful in making better – and thus more useful and profitable – predictions is what has led to them being widely used.
    Every model – whether economic, orbital, climatic, or psychological (right down to the behavioral model in your brain that attempts to predict “how upset will my spouse get if I do (x)…”) makes predictions as to the probable result of various actions. Models are refined when observed results do not match projected ones.
    Mechanical or computer models are in some ways easier to refine; you can feed them historical data and run “projections” of current conditions without fear of knowledge you did not include influencing the results. Such models may thus be tested, compared, and upgraded with relative ease.
    Now, the “Tipping Point” argument relies on details of the projections of some of those models. It is not an inherent part of the AGW hypothesis. If you want to challenge models, you need to provide better models.
    Proposals for various actions to prevent such predictions from coming to pass rely on a series of value judgements as to whether or not those predicted consequences would be a bad thing. Arguments about actions, or getting money, have nothing to do with the hypothesis. This falls under “objecting to proposed courses of action” not under “objections to the hypothesis”.
    “And to suggest “undertaking all the work of making an actual challenge to the AGW hypothesis” turns the Scientific Method upside down. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that must successfully challenge the mainstream theory that the climate is fluctuating well within its natural and normal parameters. That is the theory that must be falsified, and so far the AGW/CO2 promoters have failed miserably.”
    Unfortunately, this statement is self-contradictory: The “Scientific Method” can be summarized as the process of gathering information, forming a hypothesis – also known as a model – based on that information, making predictions using that hypothesis, and testing them against reality. If they fit, the hypothesis is good until contradictory results appear. If they do not, either some factor in the test was overlooked of the hypothesis must be either modified or discarded. In the case of a field too complex to be precisely modeled or solved, you look for predictions within a margin of error or not.
    Ergo, to overturn the current models, you need to propose new ones. What you are claiming as a “mainstream theory” is not a theory because it fails to make testable predictions: how is “natural and normal” different from “anything that happens”? What predictions does it make? If I give you the initial conditions from a random point in the past, what testable predictions will the “theory” of “natural and normal” make about the weather a few weeks from then? How will they differ from the predictions of the current models? Will they be the same for each proponent of “Natural and Normal”?
    The models are mainstream simply because they are the best theories available. If they weren’t mainstream, there wouldn’t be a debate in the first place outside of scientific journals.
    “Prediction is the hallmark of a successful hypothesis. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails because it predicted that rising CO2 levels would result in runaway global warming. But as CO2 levels rise, the globe cools — forcing AGW proponents to invent increasingly ridiculous explanations for their failure, such as global heat being in some sort of pipeline, from where it will presumably emerge with catastrophic results too horrible to contemplate.”
    Unfortunately, this compounds several different elements:
    AGW states that human activities have (and probably will continue to ) result in a net rise in average global temperatures over the values which would prevail if humans did not exist.
    The CO2 hypothesis states that average global temperatures tend ro be strongly correlated with CO2 concentrations and postulates this as a possible like to current human activities.
    “As CO2 levels rise, the globe cools”. This suffers from several presumptions: that the only variable is CO2 (for example, if the sun was to disappear tomorrow, there are no models that suggest that high levels of CO2 would compensate for setting the solar constant to zero), and that there is no disagreement here about the actual data (from a quick look around, there does seem to be). Fortunately, it’s also irrelevant to the test proposed – which is only related to whether or not the average temperature is increasing, staying the same, or decreasing, and has nothing to do with CO2 or speculative forms of heat storage.
    The point remains. If you want to overthrow the current theories about preserving food, develop and demonstrate better ones. If you want to overthrow the currently-dominant type of flat-screen video display, develop and demonstrate a better one. If you want to replace current climatic models, develop and demonstrate better ones.
    Complaining that such a requirement is “unfair” sort of misses the point.

    • Thoth:
      If someone builds a car and it doesn’t start, you don’t have to build a better car to demonstrate that their car doesn’t work.
      If GCM model predictions are demonstrated to be useless, one does not need a better model to point out that they should be discarded. All that is needed to falsify a model is to demonstrate that its predictions fail. There is no need to build a better model to falsify a current one.

  132. Thoth, I regret making my original comment, accurate as it was. I tried to get through your giant, overly detailed reply, but I just couldn’t do it. Sorry. But lots of words don’t make an argument convincing.
    I did notice upthread where you said something about a closed system gaining heat [I’m paraphrasing] will tend toward more violent weather events. In that case, history shows that the globe isn’t warming: click
    Oh, and BTW, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is every bit as alarmist as I’ve described it, for the obvious reasons given: if AGW proponents didn’t have their scary [and repeatedly falsified] AGW/CO2 hypothesis to frighten the public with, it would only rate a few footnotes in an obscure journal or two.
    The AGW hypothesis must be scary. There’s no money in it otherwise.

  133. Jeez:
    “If someone builds a car and it doesn’t start, you don’t have to build a better car to demonstrate that their car doesn’t work.
    If GCM model predictions are demonstrated to be useless, one does not need a better model to point out that they should be discarded. All that is needed to falsify a model is to demonstrate that its predictions fail. There is no need to build a better model to falsify a current one.”
    Unfortunately, that presupposes what you want to demonstrate – and presumes that the atmospheric models are wholly unsuccessful. They have been, and continue to be, quite useful in weather prediction. All theories / models have limitations. Newtonian gravity was and is an excellent model for how the universe behaved under a limited set of conditions. It was recognized that it had limitations well before Einstein’s theory supplanted it – but, since it had a high predictive value in many circumstances, it remained in use despite acknowledgment of those limitations. It is still in use. The models in question are the product of quite a lot of development: they are not perfect – but they have demonstrated considerable predictive value. Perfection is not possible (for some information on “why not” you might want to look up Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem and the Uncertainty Principle).
    Your comparison essentially attempts to generalize from “this car does not work” to “Someone’s car does not work as well as is desired. Therefore the basic design of all cars is faulty, and all cars should be discarded”.
    That might even be true, but the argument does not demonstrate it.
    Now, the earth may or may not be becoming warmer or cooler on the average; that is why I proposed a test.
    If the earth is becoming warmer or colder, the various atmospheric models may or may not be correct in their descriptions of why that is happening. Models are inherently limited.
    If you want to overthrow current theories, and the models built on them, you need to produce better and more predictive theories and models.
    In practice, our current modeling of the universe is usually good enough that more predictive theories and models are variations on the old ones, rather than entirely new ones. That’s not a rule however, it’s simply a general observation. Based on a quick search, there seem to be several downloadable models available which can be modified to test various assumptions.
    If you want to be taken seriously by scientists, do the science.
    If you want to be taken seriously by political groups, exert political pressure.
    If you want to be taken seriously by the general population, exert economic and emotional pressure.
    Regardless of the issue in question, if you’re sure that you are correct, doing the science is best, politics is second best, and attempting to manipulate the general populace is a distant third. If you are unsure as to who is correct, political pressure is probably best: if you cannot convince yourself, convincing the general population or doing the science will be nearly impossible. If you are sure that the other side is actually correct, but would prefer to avoid dealing with that, trying to manipulate the general population is best, the politicians are secondary, and attempting to manipulate the scientists is likely to be counterproductive. Still, all of them are potentially workable strategies for attaining a goal.

    • Thoth:

      presumes that the atmospheric models are wholly unsuccessful.

      No it doesn’t. Read what I wrote again.

      that presupposes what you want to demonstrate

      Yes, presuppositions like, do the GCMs accurately predict and track the current Global metrics? And guess what? The answer is demonstrated to be no in many “scientific” ways.
      You are very very verbose, but actually you don’t make that many points. Your wandering off about subjects like Newtonian physics being good enough for everyday use or Godel’s theorem are completely irrelevant. If a model says we will get .2C warming per decade and in fact there is no warming or even cooling over a statistically significant period, then that model is not a good enough approximation. At a certain point, these prediction failures accumulate to what is known as falsification. No competing model need apply.

  134. No one must build a better model to falsify the existing models. The existing models have been repeatedly falsified…

  135. “Mike Bryant
    No one must build a better model to falsify the existing models. The existing models have been repeatedly falsified…”
    Sorry, but incorrect. As already noted. In modeling, “falsification” is a measure of relative predictive values. No model is, or can be, perfect – and they are neither expected nor required to be. Falsifying a model involves building another model that produces better predictions.
    AGW – with its various extensions – may or may not be valid. A valid scientific case against it must, however, present a testable theory with differing predictions. Such theories and models do exist. All that is needed is to find one that, when applied to known past conditions, yields better descriptions of current conditions.
    Personally, I would find that delightful. Destroying an old theory is a marvelous opportunity; who knows what wonderful new theory will replace it?

  136. Thoth,
    I will repeat this as many times as someone posts this kind of misinformation:

    “Falsifying a model involves building another model that produces better predictions.”

    Wrong.
    It is those who are putting forth a new hypothesis who have the burden of falsifying the current theory — it is not the other way around.
    As Dr. Roy Spencer said, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
    The burden is entirely on the proponents of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis to show convincingly that it explains reality better than the current theory of natural climate variability. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails because natural variability, [which is the result of many external forces such as the oceans, the sun, the tides, the diurnal effect, the Earth’s annual orbit, aerosols, clouds, etc., etc.], has not been falsified.
    Only by turning the Scientific Method on its head can an argument be made that the AGW/CO2 alarmism is valid.
    In the mean time, the planet continues to cool even as CO2 continues to rise. It is the AGW/CO2 hypothesis that is being falsified.

  137. “Smokey
    I will repeat this as many times as someone posts this kind of misinformation:
    “Falsifying a model involves building another model that produces better predictions.”
    Wrong.
    It is those who are putting forth a new hypothesis who have the burden of falsifying the current theory — it is not the other way around.
    As Dr. Roy Spencer said, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”“
    And I suppose I will have to answer until the logic of the responses improves.
    Unfortunately, as already pointed out Dr Roy Spencer’s “Hypothesis” – along with the “theory of natural climate variability” – make no testable predictions, and thus have nothing to do with science. It is not possible to falsify the proposition that unspecified natural phenomena might be responsible for any possible observation.
    As for misrepresentation, the various AGW predictions are based on extensions of the models used to predict the weather, which have been steadily refined for years and in no way represent a new hypothesis. In turn, those models are based on rules of physics and chemistry which are very well established indeed.
    “Alarmism” may or may not be justified: that depends on personal attitudes, and is not a part of the science.
    Now, if you want to object to AGW on scientific grounds, your objections need to be scientific. Whatever theory you present needs to make testable projections which are better than those of the existing theories. Similarly, if you wish to support it, your supporting theory needs to make better projections than those of the theories that do not. In either case, I am in favor of sound logic, as well as careful separation of facts, theories, projections, and evidence and a sound appreciation of the roles of all of them.
    If you want to either support or object to the theory on theological grounds, that could be interesting, but it is less subject to logical debate.
    Political, economic, and social support or objections have nothing to do with the scientific side of the hypothesis: they’re based on competing value judgements. Value judgements aren’t really rationally debatable, but basic strategic considerations for implementing such judgements have already been addressed in earlier comments.

  138. Thoth wrote:
    “AGW – with its various extensions – may or may not be valid. A valid scientific case against it must, however, present a testable theory with differing predictions.”
    SORRY BRO BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGW “THEORISTS”….NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
    And so far…I won’t name names (MICHAEL “BROKEN HOCKEYSTICK” MANN ….JAMES “PROTEST AGW IN A MARCH DC SNOWSTORM” HANSEN…ET AL…..their burden of proof ain’t so good.

  139. Thoth….
    Trust me dude….your long dissertations of sophistry…..ARE NOT READ.
    Even my response above….I was just able to point my finger in one of your “dissertations” and zero in on one sentence, and find a flaw.
    “Sophistry” is exactly what it is.
    If you want to get a real audience, then limit your verbage to a few sentences.
    If you can not do that, then you have nothing to say.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  140. “Unfortunately, as already pointed out Dr Roy Spencer’s “Hypothesis” – along with the “theory of natural climate variability” – make no testable predictions, and thus have nothing to do with science.”
    Utter tosh! The prediction it makes is that nothing we experience weather-wise is outside the range we’ve experienced before.
    Any claim to find a ‘trend’ in essentially chaotic data requires prove. As the data gathers to prove no correlation between CO2 ‘forcing’ global temps, we now have to explain to the Greens that the colour they wear is to honour the enzyme that uses CO2 to drive Life on Earth.

  141. “savethesharks
    SORRY BRO BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGW “THEORISTS”….NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.”
    Sorry, both incorrect and already covered above.
    “Trust me dude….your long dissertations of sophistry…..ARE NOT READ.
    Even my response above….I was just able to point my finger in one of your “dissertations” and zero in on one sentence, and find a flaw.”
    Anyone who can’t manage to read and understand something as short as this page is unlikely to actually come up with an interesting argument. Dull, repetitive, or unsupported arguments will not be missed.
    If you want to actually contribute to a discussion, present a through analysis. Anything else is a waste of time.

  142. Oh, another one while I was writing the last one…
    “Sandy
    Utter tosh! The prediction it makes is that nothing we experience weather-wise is outside the range we’ve experienced before.
    Any claim to find a ‘trend’ in essentially chaotic data requires prove. As the data gathers to prove no correlation between CO2 ‘forcing’ global temps, we now have to explain to the Greens that the colour they wear is to honour the enzyme that uses CO2 to drive Life on Earth.”
    Hm. And how is that “prediction” to be tested? How can it be falsified? It remains an article of faith, not science. Asking for “proof” is a dead giveaway in that respect: it is not possible to “prove” the objective existence of the universe.

  143. Thoth (18:44:29) :
    As i understand it the models are non linear, each event effects the next. So if a model fails to predict the observations, it is clearly showing that the quantification’s used are wrong, or factors have been missed. The fact they can replicate known data is irrelevant(a five year old can figure out that a cube goes in the square shaped hole in a puzzle box) This is because we dont know what is causing the inaccuracies, are the assumed forcing parameters exaggerated? Is there a negative feed back that is being missed? Is there some unknown mechanism at play?
    But the fact they fail to match the observations proves they are flawed.

  144. Thoth,
    I refer you to Langmuir’s Laws of bad science:

    1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. [think AGW]
    2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results. [think AGW]
    3. There are claims of great accuracy. [think AGW]
    4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. [think AGW]
    5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. [think AGW]
    6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero. [think AGW]

    Others have encountered similar tactics in the past; there is nothing new under the sun.

  145. Thoth wrote…..”Anyone who can’t manage to read and understand something as short as this page is unlikely to actually come up with an interesting argument.”
    NO THE REALITY IS THAT YOUR “ARGUMENT” WILL NOT BE READ.
    “INTERESTING” DOES NOT NECESSARILY = VERBOSE (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT EQUALS “SOPHISTRY”).
    “Dull, repetitive, or unsupported arguments will not be missed.”
    WELL IF THAT AIN’T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. LOL
    THANKS FOR BEING CANNON FODDER FOR US, THOTH.

  146. “MikeE
    As i understand it the models are non linear, each event effects the next. So if a model fails to predict the observations, it is clearly showing that the quantification’s used are wrong, or factors have been missed. The fact they can replicate known data is irrelevant(a five year old can figure out that a cube goes in the square shaped hole in a puzzle box) This is because we dont know what is causing the inaccuracies, are the assumed forcing parameters exaggerated? Is there a negative feed back that is being missed? Is there some unknown mechanism at play?
    But the fact they fail to match the observations proves they are flawed.”
    Yes. All models are. That’s why there are lots of competing models, rather than one, and why the evaluation of computer models is a statistical matter, rather than a yes/no scenario. The method of testing such models against each other is simple: input initial parameters from some point in the past, add known variations in external factors (such as solar input) to the database, and run the model forward. Models that produce results that often closely match developments from after the input point have good predictive value. Models that do not produce good projections, are discarded. The same system is used for models of a wide variety of phenomena.
    That is why we need to create better models, to identify additional parameters, and to look for items that are being missed. There is certainly room for improvement in all existing models – and improved models might well reveal that the current models are inadequate.
    The next step is to create a model incorporating such factors and to start testing and developing it. When it’s predictive value exceeds that of older models, you will have a new theory.
    And congratulations: you are the first person to reply here who has not obviously missed the point that I am not supporting the AGW hypothesis. I am supporting applying sufficient logical and scientific rigor to any opposing hypothesis to ensure an entertaining scientific debate.
    Now, from
    “Smokey
    I refer you to Langmuir’s Laws of bad science:
    1 .The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. [think AGW]
    2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results. [think AGW]
    3. There are claims of great accuracy. [think AGW]
    4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested. [think AGW]
    5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. [think AGW]
    6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero. [think AGW]
    Others have encountered similar tactics in the past; there is nothing new under the sun.”
    Ah, Langmuir. Lets see now:
    1) The various models depend on readily detectable quantities, and the results do vary with the level of those quantities. Sorry, but not applicable.
    2) As pointed out earlier, the AGW hypothesis depends on modeling – the outputs of which are readily measurable. The inputs – the solar constant, gas ratios in the atmosphere, and many other elements – are also readily measurable. Again, not applicable.
    3) As last I checked, many of the different models produce wildly different results. There is no claim of “great accuracy”. Once again, not applicable.
    4) The models are consistent with a great deal of experience: they rely on well established rules of physics and chemistry, as pointed out earlier. Again, not applicable.
    5) Unfortunately, a good theory – for example, the equations of electromagnetism – also answer all readily raised questions. The difference lies in whether or those answers can be considered “Ad Hoc” answers – constructed to suit specific situations without reference to the underlying rules of the system. Since the theories in question are computer models of physical systems, and without purpose in themselves, we can be sure that they do not produce Ad Hoc answers. Their programmers may, but that is what the Peer Review process is designed to spot. This will not, of course, satisfy the objection, since it relies on a personal value judgement. Of course, that value judgement also means that – on its own – this rule cannot yield an objective judgement – and it is unsupported so far. Sorry, but there’s still rule #6 to look at.
    6) This rule states that supporters should peak near 50%. Unfortunately, surveys of climatologists and scientists indicate peak support far above 50% for the AGW hypothesis. Given that scientific success consists of overthrowing old theories in favor of your own, support at the 90%+ level – as many surveys have reported – seems unlikely to be an artifact. Again, not applicable.
    On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results. Practical results are the opposite of pathological science.
    As far as the AGW/Anti-AGW argument goes, I would expect anyone who sincerely believes that the science is inaccurate to welcome objective tests such as I originally proposed – and to be willing to subject their own arguments and theories to a through analysis. A flawed argument is not going to get very far scientifically, which is dull.

  147. Ah, and another one…
    “savethesharks
    NO THE REALITY IS THAT YOUR “ARGUMENT” WILL NOT BE READ.
    “INTERESTING” DOES NOT NECESSARILY = VERBOSE (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT EQUALS “SOPHISTRY”).
    “Dull, repetitive, or unsupported arguments will not be missed.”
    WELL IF THAT AIN’T THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. LOL
    THANKS FOR BEING CANNON FODDER FOR US, THOTH.”
    Sorry, personal assaults as arguments were dealt with earlier. You are, however, welcome to continue demonstrating your lack of an argument.

  148. Thoth wrote: “Sorry, personal assaults as arguments were dealt with earlier. You are, however, welcome to continue demonstrating your lack of an argument.”
    Haha this is so fun. My argument is…that you have none at all, bro.
    I realize this is casting blog-pearls before blog-swine.
    I maintain if you can not say it in a few words, you can not say it in 1000.
    Trust me….your material is ignored. It is pure, unbounded sophistry [Google it]. Guys like you are why Socrates took his life.
    You introduce so much NOISE and detritus into your argument, then you thnk, by force, it will make sense.
    Well it does not….and i am going to bed.,
    Gald to have not read your jibberish…and will look forward to some more rational discourse on the morrow.
    Chris

  149. “savethesharks
    Haha this is so fun. My argument is…that you have none at all, bro.
    I realize this is casting blog-pearls before blog-swine.
    I maintain if you can not say it in a few words, you can not say it in 1000.
    Trust me….your material is ignored. It is pure, unbounded sophistry [Google it]. Guys like you are why Socrates took his life.
    You introduce so much NOISE and detritus into your argument, then you thnk, by force, it will make sense.
    Well it does not….and i am going to bed.,
    Gald to have not read your jibberish…and will look forward to some more rational discourse on the morrow.
    Chris”
    I take it you have never bothered with reading anything about any complex subject then? Still no actual argument here – although an admission to attempting to argue about posts that you have not read demonstrates that there isn’t likely to be one either.
    Jeez:
    Sorry, I missed this one, since currently virtually all comments seem to be replies to mine and I only check back in between other projects.
    “Yes, presuppositions like, do the GCMs accurately predict and track the current Global metrics? And guess what? The answer is demonstrated to be no in many “scientific” ways.
    You are very very verbose, but actually you don’t make that many points. Your wandering off about subjects like Newtonian physics being good enough for everyday use or Godel’s theorem are completely irrelevant. If a model says we will get .2C warming per decade and in fact there is no warming or even cooling over a statistically significant period, then that model is not a good enough approximation. At a certain point, these prediction failures accumulate to what is known as falsification. No competing model need apply.”
    Sorry, comparison and evaluation of models was already dealt with: attempting to evade evaluation of a model by labeling it “common sense” or “natural” doesn’t mean that you aren’t using one. It’s simply claiming to have a better model without being willing to demonstrate it. If you don’t want an explanation of basic material, do not demonstrate a need for it.
    Shall I make it very simple?
    1) To unseat a current model that has demonstrated practical value, you need a better one.
    2) The current models are used in weather prediction, and have demonstrated practical value.
    3) If you want to actually answer criticism, you must answer every point.

    • Thoth:

      Sorry, comparison and evaluation of models was already dealt with: attempting to evade evaluation of a model by labeling it “common sense” or “natural” doesn’t mean that you aren’t using one. It’s simply claiming to have a better model without being willing to demonstrate it. If you don’t want an explanation of basic material, do not demonstrate a need for it.
      Shall I make it very simple?
      1) To unseat a current model that has demonstrated practical value, you need a better one.
      2) The current models are used in weather prediction, and have demonstrated practical value.
      3) If you want to actually answer criticism, you must answer every point.

      Hmm..I didn’t label anything common sense or natural. I described a simplified scientific process for falsification of models in a particular use and that use was not weather prediction. To address 3 above, no you need only to address pertinent points. You addressed not a single one of mine. My original post stands completely unanswered. You have the ability to write a lot, but I’m afraid you are demonstrating more of an ability to type than an ability for logical thinking. This is not a political debate where sound bites lead to scoring points.

  150. Jeez he did’nt because he has not the facualty or acumen or abiity to do so, The trolls tou will always have with you. They are really not worth your time at all because they set forth spurious arguments that can be shot down at a minutes notice.
    I dont’ notice them as they mean nothing to me
    Carry on. Pleasant dreams.

  151. Well, good night everyone: it’s time for bed and it looks like comments are no longer being moderated tonight anyway – so I won’t see anything that was put up either shortly before or after my previous post until I have time to check back again. This has definitely livened up a dull day; a nice spot of analysis is always invigorating.
    Hopefully next time I get back here there will either be a new theory to try to develop or an attack on an existing one that cannot easily be broken down.

  152. No new theory here, I just found this interesting:

    As for misrepresentation, the various AGW predictions are based on extensions of the models used to predict the weather, which have been steadily refined for years and in no way represent a new hypothesis.

    On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results.

    A common argument AGW proponents use when a few years don’t jibe with the models, is that just because the models didn’t correctly predict the weather, that doesn’t mean they are likely to be wrong on long term trends. What would you say is right and/or wrong about people using the weather/climate distinction in that manner? I realize I could just search for such information, but it could be of value to other readers right here.

  153. Thoth says:

    This has definitely livened up a dull day; a nice spot of analysis is always invigorating.

    Can you imagine this guy at a party? He’d be as much fun as a turd in the punch bowl. Lots of folks post here and they cover a wide spectrum, but I’ve never run across anyone so insufferable.

  154. their evil empire is crumbling around them the empire built on the blood of the milloins , stewed in corruption lies and deceipt. globalcarbon tax the only hope of a decintergrating banking sector to raise some bail out cash when the government can’t print any more cause its run out of paper! the US deserves to have clowns like Gore

  155. Parse Error (02:26:16),
    A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.
    Ask your friendly AGW proponent where the time line is drawn between a model being capable of accurate predictions, and being consistently wrong.
    It’s like someone claiming they have a model that can predict the stock market a year from now — but it just can’t seem to predict the market a month from now.
    If someone tells you that, hang on to your wallet.

  156. Parse Error wrote “A common argument AGW proponents use when a few years don’t jibe with the models, is that just because the models didn’t correctly predict the weather, that doesn’t mean they are likely to be wrong on long term trends”.
    Hey Parse….the problem is….the members of the cult AGW will say anything or set forth anything that helps prove their argument.
    They are cherrypicking (or more-like Cherry blossom-picking) data whores.
    And if someone has used that argument that you mention above, (i.e. short term model errors does not mean long term model trends won’t be correct) they can’t have it both ways.
    Do they think that small errors in weather forecasting models which yield busted forecasts….will somehow self-correct in the long run and yield long term climate forecasts?
    That makes no sense whatsoever.
    Case in point: If I had a nickel for every time the GFS has predicted a snowstorm in Norfolk “No-Snow” Virginia, I would be rich….and we would be a coastal ski resort (except no hills LOL). But the GFS has been wrong….again and again and again.
    If weather models can not extrapolate out a week or two in advance, fail-safe….then how in the SAM HILL can we trust ones that try to predict years from now???
    Not just weather and climate models…..but, for example…..the failed models which helped cause this current recession we are in….or the fact that NASA is now soliciting RFP’s to try to figure out what is going on with the sun in this 11th hour.
    And just like my BEAVIS CORNHOLIO HYPED-UP FRIEND, the GFS, the busted BUSTED UKMET forecast for Western Europe this winter, the GOALPOSTS FINALLY JUST BEING TAKEN OFF THE FIELD in HATHAWAY’s solar forecasts, the stimulus package introduced to boost the first stimulus package, and Michael Mann’s BROKEN HOCKEY-STICK…nobody really knows what the hell is going on. (Some have an idea….and they are making good progress).
    But there are just too many variables, that, like little viruses, pass under the grids of the models unnoticed…and after that happens the damage is done.
    Hats off to the modelers though as the good ones and the good models deserve more funding!!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  157. My model works really well.
    In the long term, it will get somewhat colder at times, and somewhat warmer at other times, in the climate you live in. Climates are stable, but their weather patterns vary both in the short term and long term. You can bank on it. Cap and trade that.

  158. Thoth 21 30 30 said;
    ‘Guys like you are why Socrates took his life’.
    I think you have rather missed the point of the Socrates story;
    He was forced to commit suicide for refusing to recognise the gods promoted by the state and for ‘corrupting the young’.
    http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm
    Socrates would likely have refused to recognise the new religion of climate change promoted by the state without due recognition of testing a provable scientific hypotheses. He would also surely have considered it was the state corrupting the young by not providing a balanced view point.
    There is no need for the unpleasant and childish coments you make as it detracts from the interesting points you sometimes make. Equally there is no call for the silly comments from some on ‘our’ side that you then provoke.
    Please accept that most of us are not badly informed ‘deniers’ but have made our choices to be a sceptic based on examining a great deal of data with an open mind.
    Hope you are in a more polite mood tomorrow.
    TonyB

  159. Thoth
    I think I owe you an apology for attributing the Socrates remark to you. There seems to be a growing habit of not putting speech marks round someones elses quote, or not closing the speech marks, which makes folowing half a dozen diferent lines of discussion problematic.
    There is some name calling from both sides, although I appreciate you are not necessarily promotiong AGW but like to parse the semantics of a situation.
    Tonyb

  160. TonyB is right. Sometimes it’s difficult to figure out who’s saying what.
    To separate someone else’s quote it’s best to use the “blockquote” HTML tag:
    <blockquote> to start the quote, </blockquote> to end it.
    That’s what the blockquote tag is made for.

  161. “Parse Error
    A common argument AGW proponents use when a few years don’t jibe with the models, is that just because the models didn’t correctly predict the weather, that doesn’t mean they are likely to be wrong on long term trends. What would you say is right and/or wrong about people using the weather/climate distinction in that manner? I realize I could just search for such information, but it could be of value to other readers right here.”

    That’s simple enough: the models have a limited resolution, just like any other form of map and predictions based thereon. the smaller the scale you’re looking at, the more likely local conditions are to interfere. A road map is very good for showing me how to get from Philadelphia to Chicago, fair for showing me how to get across town, and useless in my house.
    Now, that doesn’t mean that the map may not be wrong in any given detail, that the printer may not have made an error, or that conditions may not have changed – but it doesn’t mean that maps are either useless or unscientific. It means that you want a better map.

    “Smokey (to Parse Error): A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t. Ask your friendly AGW proponent where the time line is drawn between a model being capable of accurate predictions, and being consistently wrong. It’s like someone claiming they have a model that can predict the stock market a year from now — but it just can’t seem to predict the market a month from now. If someone tells you that, hang on to your wallet.”

    Sorry, but incorrect: a model is necessarily scaled down, which means loss of detail. Modeling was already discussed; if you actually want to refute that, go ahead and present your own examination of how models are evaluated, and demonstrate how it is incompatible with the material already presented. The question about “when the time line is drawn” demonstrates a lack of comprehension of scaling.

    “savethesharks” (statements omitted due to length, please scroll up)

    I quite agree with your conclusion – we need better models. The AGW hypothesis may well be overstated, incorrect, or be ignoring compensating mechanisms. The various furors, nontechnical statements, and “recommended courses of action” based on it could easily be totally misguided. That wouldn’t make it “unscientific” or even “junk science”. It would simply make it inaccurate. Model scaling – as noted above – is a severe limiting factor, but is also why models are better at long-term trends than short-term prediction. Still, a recommendation: don’t complain about “cherry-picking” and then provide only specific examples instead of general theory. It’s self-contradictory and weakens the argument.

    “Pamela Gray: My model works really well. In the long term, it will get somewhat colder at times, and somewhat warmer at other times, in the climate you live in. Climates are stable, but their weather patterns vary both in the short term and long term. You can bank on it. Cap and trade that.”

    Which is indeed a model, and actually makes a testable prediction: it could be falsified if temperaturs failed to vary. Unfortunately, we have more complex models which provide more useful predictions.

    “TonyB” (On Socrates comment)

    Yes, that was quoting someone else to answer a comment addressed to me. Hardly a worry, it’s difficult to answer another comment clearly without quoting part of it, which can make for difficult reading.

    “Smokey” (On Blockquotes)

    Very true, they’re just a nuisance to insert manually, and my usual word processor inserts all sorts of other tags which foul things up. On the other hand, this is a wordpress blog, and ought to be compatible with their HTML editor, so I’ll try running it through that, adding the blockquotes, and see how that turns out. My apologies if it renders this post even more difficult to read.

  162. A road map is very good for showing me how to get from Philadelphia to Chicago, fair for showing me how to get across town, and useless in my house.

    I’m having trouble reconciling that with:

    On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results.

    As a guess, have we applied the same principle that created the floor plan of the house to make a map of the city which is no longer useful at the resolution originally used?

    A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.

    Hey Parse….the problem is….the members of the cult AGW will say anything or set forth anything that helps prove their argument.

    I’m very well aware of these arguments; I make similar ones myself all the time when confronting the neo-Malthusians who want to drag us back into the Stone Age. They like to turn to The Science for support, however the overwhelming majority of them know little to nothing about science and simply parrot Gore-Al‘s talking points. The more familiar we are with every aspect of the subject, the easier it is to show such people they are trying to use something they don’t even understand as a political weapon, and drive those discussions straight to the realm they belong in.

  163. “jeez: Hmm..I didn’t label anything common sense or natural. I described a simplified scientific process for falsification of models in a particular use and that use was not weather prediction. To address 3 above, no you need only to address pertinent points. You addressed not a single one of mine. My original post stands completely unanswered. You have the ability to write a lot, but I’m afraid you are demonstrating more of an ability to type than an ability for logical thinking. This is not a political debate where sound bites lead to scoring points.”

    All of your points have indeed been addressed in the original post on models. All models necessarily loose detail, which is why comparison of predictions derived from models is statistical. If you want to claim otherwise you need to examine the development and use of models in general and establish some basis for that claim. If you don’t want to bother doing that, that’s your privilege – but why should I be interested in the repetition of ideas that have already been examined? New ideas and logical presentations are interesting. Your personal beliefs are your business.
    As far as “making things simple” goes, please note that that was at the end of the post and after a rhetorical question; at that point you are not the only person being addressed.

    “Parse Error
    A road map is very good for showing me how to get from Philadelphia to Chicago, fair for showing me how to get across town, and useless in my house.
    I’m having trouble reconciling that with:
    On a practical note, the various climatic models are used in weather prediction, with good, practical results.
    As a guess, have we applied the same principle that created the floor plan of the house to make a map of the city which is no longer useful at the resolution originally used?
    A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.
    Hey Parse….the problem is….the members of the cult AGW will say anything or set forth anything that helps prove their argument.
    I’m very well aware of these arguments; I make similar ones myself all the time when confronting the neo-Malthusians who want to drag us back into the Stone Age. They like to turn to The Science for support, however the overwhelming majority of them know little to nothing about science and simply parrot Gore-Al’s talking points. The more familiar we are with every aspect of the subject, the easier it is to show such people they are trying to use something they don’t even understand as a political weapon, and drive those discussions straight to the realm they belong in.

    Hopefully I can sort out the nesting here: The reason why models are useful in weather prediction and yield practical results is because there is a difference between “The weather tomorrow? Who knows?” and “Severe thunderstorms and high winds with a 70% chance of accuracy”. You may not always get the thunderstorms and high winds when they’re predicted, and you might get such a storm when nothing is predicted thanks in part to that local scaling problem. On the other hand, taking precautions every day is impractical, hence such predictions can help you avoid a substantial portion of the damage that an unexpected storm would normally inflict. That’s practical and profitable, which is why we have weather reports.
    The atmospheric models tend to be going the opposite way from the “house map” to “city map” route. They’re most useful for things like projecting the progress of a cold front through an area, less useful for small-scale items. That’s why you see “a cold front will be moving through Ohio tomorrow afternoon or evening” instead of “70% chance of cold”. They give it an extremely high probability of coming through, but the exact timing is subject to the viewers exact location and to local conditions.
    Now, “A model is a model, and it can either make valid predictions or it can’t.” is flatly incorrect. There are no models which make 100% accurate predictions about the real world. That’s why comparing models is a statistical matter.
    I’d agree on the neo-Malthusians. Unfortunately, not knowing much about science isn’t strictly restricted to one side or the other – and most of the proposed “solutions” have little to nothing to do with the science.
    I’ll probably have to look in again tomorrow. I have other things to do this evening. Have a nice evening everyone.

    • Thoth,
      Whatever gets you through the night. I addressed one point and one point only.
      1. One does not need a new model in order to falsify a model.
      All your talk of weather prediction, model theory, epistemology, quantum electrodynamics, summer and post Labor Day fashion, and phenomenology has not remotely approached rebutting that point.

  164. Hopefully I can sort out the nesting here

    Indeed you have; thank you.

    Unfortunately, not knowing much about science isn’t strictly restricted to one side or the other

    I wholeheartedly agree, that’s why I enjoy the opportunity to increase my knowledge so that I can reformulate my arguments to be as sound as possible, and I’m hoping others will do the same. Granted, the matter should never even arise among people who in reality only wish to debate on the proposed solutions, but since it does, I’ve found that diminishing opponents’ confidence in their own understanding of the justification they’re using to be extremely effective at causing them to reveal their true motives, which are often so repugnant that no further effort is required.

  165. jeez (14:55:19) :
    Im getting the point Thoth is conveying… Ill use an analogy, ok so youre sighting in a rifle(simplest predictive tool that comes to mind). You dial in till yah droppin three rounds on the bull. After you’ve zeroed a cross wind picks up, at 100m youre a few mm of, at 500 youre about a half foot off, at 1000 you dont even hit the target, so you re-zero, factoring in the new influences. As opposed to buying a new scope.
    The problem with models is figuring out exactly what are the influences that are throwing them off… for example the current ones could be exaggerating the co2 forcings, or it could be that theyre right but the water vapour is causing a negative feed back… or water vapour was causing a greater positive feedback and co2 a smaller one, or some completely unknown mechanism is at play(ie ocean currents)
    But if we keep “re-zeroing” the models it will lead to more accurate models eventually, and a better understanding off the climate system, i personally do agree with this… but i certainly wouldnt agree to basing policy on a models predictions when the accuracy of them brings the quantification’s into question.
    But in short hes saying why throw away a perfectly good scope just because it isnt zeroes correctly.

    • MikeE
      I understand that point, although I have issues with certain parts of the context you cited. However, Thoth said (I don’t have the exact quote), that you cannot discard a model unless you have a better one to replace it and that is patently untrue. I was not delving into the specifics of GCMs, their role in weather prediction, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  166. Well, Thoth, the blockquotes do make your posts easier to follow. [If “blockquote” is a bother to type, just set up a hot key shortcut.]
    But as for the model discussion, it’s simply run out of gas. Models are wrong. All of them. Not one computer model predicted the steep decline in temps since 2007.
    Now, if someone ever falsifies the hypothesis of natural, normal and routine climate change, based on the seasonal, solar, diurnal, galactic and oceanic effects that have been going on since way before the first SUV appeared, wake me.
    But unless that happens, the AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails — as everyone else here seems to understand without any problem. But you’re new around here, so maybe you’ll eventually get up to speed and realize that your always-inaccurate computer models are the only thing that the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is based on; and the real world contradicts them: click
    The atmosphere has had many times the CO2 concentration in the past with beneficial effects. It seems preposterous that some folks still cling to their strange belief that a change in a minor trace gas, from four parts in ten thousand to five parts in ten thousand, will trigger some fantastic kind of tipping point and cause runaway global warming. Regular folks don’t think like that unless there’s a verifiable, real world basis for it. Computer models don’t count as that basis.
    The reason climate models are always wrong is simple: the results from models always tend towards the desires and expectations of the modelers. But I guess when all you’ve got is those always-wrong climate models, then that’s what you have to run with.
    You can have the next [several hundred ±] words, Thoth. I’m headed for the current events page to read up on the good news from latest Gallup poll!

  167. MikeE,
    I understand what you are saying, and it makes perfect sense for a scope on a deer rifle. I think that if you try to zero it in for 100,000m though, you’re going to have a problem. The GCMs are trying to hit a target at 100,000m, when they haven’t been able to zero it in on the 100m target yet. At least, that’s the way I see it.
    Thanks,
    Mike Bryant

  168. I was the guy that used the word “sophistry” and connected it (however remote) with the death of Socrates.
    Socrates (even though he was technically a Sophist), was ultimately one who believed in inductive, rational, reasonable inquiry.
    Interesting reading for those who care: http://facweb.bcc.ctc.edu/wpayne/socrates.htm
    Ironically, some of Socrates’ zealot Sophist followers who took what he said into overdrive and helped prosecute him in the end.
    The reason I say that is that “sophistry” (in all its modern derogatory and unflattering forms) is sometimes used by individuals on this blog.
    Smokescreens, agenda, rhetoric, and DEFINITELY ad hominems, are all red flags to skip and not read the post…not too mention if the post seems like a 1000-word rant.
    There is a beauty to brevity and that is exceptionally the case in the blogosphere here.
    Well….back to THIS thread, and the article that inspired it, is a quote from Mr. Jacoby’s article
    “When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, BUT WITH THE CLOSE-MINDED DOGMA OF A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT.”
    I wonder what the great Socrates himself would think of “city-state “leaders” like Al Gore??
    Not too highly I would surmise….
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  169. MikeE,
    If you don’t mind.
    Imagine that you are sighting in a deer rifle at 100m. After each shot you have to wait ten years to see where you hit the target. That’s the situation we find ourselves in. They’ve already put the bullet high three times in thirty years.
    IF they ever hit the target, we have to wait another hundred years to see where the further target is hit. How many times will that shot be high?

  170. Smokey
    Lets see… You have multiple sections to reply to, and it’s too long to simply block quote it, so I’ll simply number them:
    Section One: Yes, the blockquotes seem to be working properly.
    Section Two: Noting that models have limitations. Yes. Already discussed and – since the various atmospheric models continue to make useful predictions – the way to falsify and supplant them continues to be to make better models.
    Section Three: Sorry, but demanding the falsification of a model that does not make falsifiable predictions as a prerequisite for being awake means that you’ll have to remain asleep.
    Section four: To summarize, unless the logically impossible happens, you will continue to ignore the predictions of computer models. I trust that, in the interests of intellectual honesty, that will include not only short and long term weather prediction, but travel planning, medical applications, and all other forms of computer models? Or is doubt about the statistical basis of falsifying modeling only relevant where it is personally convenient to apply it?
    Section five: Two logical problems here. First, and most obviously, this assumes that since one consequence of a given change is beneficial, all consequences must be. The same logic can be used to produce statements of the form “I have flat feet. I have fallen into a coma. The flat feet no longer bother me. Therefore the coma is beneficial”. Secondarily, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the value of models is statistical. The AGW/CO2 projections may well be inaccurate. That would not mean that the models were unscientific or even that they were poor models. It would simply mean that they are not perfect.
    Section six: Sorry, but human desires tend to be distributed along the usual bell curve. The model projections are not.
    Jeez
    You’ve put up multiple posts, but the same answer applies to each, so I’ll simply put it up once.
    As already explained, since models are inherently simplified, falsification of a model is statistical. Current atmospheric models make a great many predictions every day; every weather report involves a test of atmospheric modeling. Such models produce results far in excess of random chance, therefore their “falsification” requires either the creation and demonstration of a better model to supplant the current ones or a demonstration that their net predictive value has – for reasons unknown – dropped below random chance At this point that would require many years of weather predictions that were less accurate than would be expected by sheer chance. Your complaints about “not rebutting the point” continue to demonstrate a failure to understand the nature of modeling, or the explanation thereof, to begin with.
    Your brain runs a set of models for “walking” that predict how you should move to walk successfully in your current environment. If you trip or stumble, that model has failed, and – by your logic – should be discarded. Personally, I prefer to replace the model with an improved version that includes the new data and to continue to walk.
    savethesharks
    I quite agree: “The notion that there can be no debate about global warming” is absurd. So are many of the proposed “solutions”. Fortunately, none of that has anything more to do with science than some tribal shamans pronouncement that we are all cursed because someone tipped over the sacred rock.

    • Thoth:
      Sigh, you have yet to address my point (hint, I never mentioned Weather prediction).
      This grows tiresome and it is obvious you have more energy to devote to this this than I.
      I assure you, were I your logic professor this would not be a passing example.
      However, I will simply leave you with this:
      Get off my lawn you hippie!

  171. Jeez
    Your point has already been addressed repeatedly. Hint; it may have escaped your notice, but climate forecasting is simply long-range weather forecasting – as is the nature of models, the longer the term, the more general the results.
    As for logic, it has apparently escaped your notice that I am supporting science and attempts at developing better modeling – not AGW. While the AGW hypothesis is scientific, as I’ve repeatedly noted, being scientific does not mean that it cannot be wrong.
    Check back to my first post: I proposed a possible test that could indicate either cooling, stability, or warming without favoritism. Many subsequent posters took that as support for one outcome. Which side of an argument is more likely to oppose a objective test?
    Personally, I would recommend spending some more time in a library, reading works that may or may not agree with you. It is entirely too easy to spend your time on the internet absorbing only information with which you already agree.

  172. Dear Pamela Grey,
    I am a 54-year-old with two masters’ degrees, albeit not in science, but with more than enough statistics. My own blog contains more than 900 articles about the science, some from primary sources, some even you lot could understand. Vocabulary is not a problem for me.
    The comments on this blog are really sad.

Comments are closed.