Camping and Climate Change

Image: Anthony Watts

Allow me to share with you a speech given by one of my sound colleagues here in the European Parliament.  Derk Jan Eppink is a Dutch national representing Belgium who sits with us in our Euro-sceptic ECR group.  He delivered this speech, entitled “A religion without a God” at a book launch for “Blauwe Planeet” – the newest book by Czech President, and fellow climate realist, Vaclav Klaus. – Roger Helmer MEP

At the occasion of launching Blauwe Planeet

By Derk Jan Eppink

May 25 2011

A religion without a God

Last weekend on May 21, American Christian preacher Harold Camping, once again encountered his ‘Disappointment Day’. For years he announced the end of times, predicting May 21 to be Judgment Day. On that day, the world would be destroyed and only ‘a chosen few’ would make it to heaven.

On Judgment Day, the preacher took a seat in front of his television to await news events. He expected a live report of CNN covering a wave of earthquakes that ultimately would lead to global demise.

But nothing happened.

Instead, CNN focused on the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn who lost his way and senses in a New York hotel room. For ‘DSK’ indeed, the world collapsed. The preacher was disappointed that apocalypses remained confined to only one person and possibly some of his friends in Paris belonging to la gauche caviar. The preacher fled to a motel to escape international media.

Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take ‘facts’ into account. Like doomsday announcer Camping, you simply believe and preach, hoping that facts will follow. Western political elites live in a secularized world, a world without God. But religion – a matter of belief – does apparently remain a need of human mankind. In particular, progressive political elites have abolished God, while clinging to notoriously religious features like ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘final judgement’, ‘redemption’, ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’, as part of their political philosophies.

God is gone, but the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is ‘guilt’ (politically incorrect behaviour of human mankind), ‘fear’ (doomsday), if there is ‘sin’ (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally salvation (brought about by the NGO´s of the Green Movement). And if there is somehow a substitute Jesus on top, as impersonated by Al Gore, secular religion gets rooted in political communities trying to turn it into public policy all people have to adhere to.

It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as a heretic, as anti-human, as narrow-minded, as autistic and stupid. In fact, like in theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness. There was no way to escape.

Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a dissident by inclination. He simply raised factual questions secularized religions can hardly cope with.

That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth. And here again, even as President of an EU member state he challenged the fundamentals of a policy pretending to save the world from Doomsday.

Many politicians publish books. Very often, these books are written by other people. Very often, these books are glossy and self-glorifying. Very often, these books make no impact whatsoever and they are finally shelved in the basement of the party headquarter. Mostly, these books are dead upon arrival in the bookstore.

Klaus takes on nonsensical thinking regardless of the status of the author himself. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament. In fact, it is a church singing the gospel of the ‘ever closer Union’. Some members were shocked, left the Plenary and started crying in the corridor. Yesterday, Ivo Belet one of those weeping members, published an opinion article in a Flemish newspaper denouncing NVA-figurehead Bart De Wever for meeting the Anti-Christ from the Czech Republic. Belet, a slavish poodle of EU figureheads, is barking up the wrong tree. The European elite demand flattery and praise; not to criticism, let alone unconventional thinking.

It takes courage to challenge fashionable thinking. For 5 years, I worked in the cabinet of former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. The Dutch Commissioner was a non federalist and a climate change sceptic in the Commission. For most of his colleagues he was the ‘devil in disguise’. You can imagine the bumpy ride he had in Brussels; he was a ‘non believer’ in a church of devoted federalists.

Once he got a letter from former Belgian Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, a self-appointed viceroy of the United States of Belgium, who said that a non federalist should not be member of the European Commission. He demanded a purge to restore the purity of the Institution.

Ten years ago, Bolkestein publicly said that the Euro would derail if not underpinned by sound monetary policy and iron-clad criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. He also stated that a common EU immigration policy based on unenforced external borders would generate a political backlash beyond belief. He was laughed at. But now, the political elite of the EU is not laughing anymore. They wasted ten years of policy-making and still, they would rather drive into a brick wall than to admit that they made mistakes.

Jean Marie Dedecker equally has the courage to stick out his neck. As a former Judo player and coach he is not risk adverse. On the contrary, he likes the fray and smashing his opponents on the ground, sooner the better.

And that is precisely why he has written the introduction to the Dutch version of the book President Klaus is launching here today. He belonged to the first in Belgium to challenge the preachers of doom and climate change. Belgium only recently abolished God, and for those who were still in doubt some catholic leaders and priests did the rest.

Flanders was in urgent need for a religious substitute that would be able to micromanage the lives of the people. Obviously, Dedecker was vilified by the political elites and the media which had turned into an extension of the green movement and its preachers in politics.

Both Klaus and Dedecker focused on facts, rather than on speculation and emotional manipulation. They challenged the issues head-on by raising difficult questions, and by doing so they gradually saw the narrative of climate change unravel. Later on, a series of scandals revealed that so-called scientific researchers had manipulated their work in order to serve the dogmas of their beliefs. The Copenhagen Summit resulted in failure and, demonstrations against climate change even had to be cancelled because it was to cold and frosty in the Danish capital.

Now, climate change does not have that mythical spot on the political agenda it had a few years ago. However, it remains on the agenda of political elites in the EU. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image. But the man in the street never embraced climate change and why? The climate has been changing as long as there is a climate, even in times in which people were running around naked and living in caves. One slight change in the activity of the Sun has an impact on the entire [solar system]. Human behaviour is just one of the many elements. Therefore, the religious zeal did not stick because ‘human guilt’ could not be established. And ‘guilt’ is what it takes to make a religion work, even a religion without a God.

Therefore, a democracy needs people like Klaus and Dedecker, people who speak out when nobody does, people who stand out when others follow the flow and people who lash out when many bend towards submission. This book will certainly be a much welcome recipe against political overheating in Flanders and the reality-check which is the necessary basis for any sound public policy.

Advertisements

211 thoughts on “Camping and Climate Change

  1. Great speech!
    It was quite clear that AGW was just another religion as soon as the word ‘denier’ started getting thrown around. That was the nail in the AGW coffin for me.

  2. The Church kept the Bible in Latin, saying that only properly lettered people (those working for the Church) could understand what was being said, as interpretation was necessary. Having the unlettered read the Bible for themselves would lead to a loss of faith in the Church and a confusion about what was actually being said. These days, the Church is Science, and the properly lettered are the scientists. We are told by the Church and its adherents that only scientists can understand the science, and the results must not be available to the non-scientists for the same reasons as the Bible was kept in Latin. We are also told that only the scientists can properly understand what the science is saying.
    Let us hope that the analogy between the days of the Church and the days of Science, that we do not need to go through the dark times of burning heretics and casting down the idolatrous ways of others to avoid the wrath of an angry God. If the Eco-Green philosophy weren’t so costly, cost-ineffective and job-killing, and the times weren’t so economically fragile, the chances of a full-blown revival of witch-hunting and -burning would be upon us, I cynically suspect. Perhaps the greatest danger we actually face is a great economic surge in which the powerful have far too much money and time in which to spend it.

  3. As Stephen Colbert pointed out, Camping is very good at predicting the end of the world…he’s done it before!
    Likewise, all the AGW alarmists who have warned us of “tipping points” have done so again and again, with pretty good results, at least in terms of gathering believers. Failure to accurately predict the tipping points, but successful in bringing donations in.
    Camping has shown what some misguided, and inaccurate calculations can do for you. Make you a lot of money, get the world worried, and accomplish absolutely nothing.
    In that, Gore and Camping are two peas in a pod, proving P. T. Barnum right.

  4. Bravo!
    Where is the Vaclav Klaus of the United States? We desperately need a prominent leader to stand up and shout, “The climate emperor has no clothes, and never did! The priests who say he does are wrong!”
    /Mr Lynn

  5. All this is obvious and clear, as it has been for many years to anybody with open mind.
    The question is, how to effectively confront a new religion that satisfies many people’s need to be guided by fear mongers — a need that has been bred in the “peasantry” for thousands of years.
    How to change the human nature without killing off hundreds of millions of people?

  6. Yes, for far too many people, Environmentalism is just another flavor of secular political religion, like Marxism, Communism, Socialism and Progressivism.
    The Socialist who seek power used to tell the masses that if they give up their individual rights then they can create a “Marxist utopia” where there is equality, peace, and prosperity. But now with the lessons of history before them the masses see that instead of a “utopia” they end up getting a military dictatorship. So, the power seekers had to find another way to get power, and that way has become the global warming/climate change fraud.
    Now the power hungry tell people that they have to give up their rights, not to create a “workers’ paradise” or to create a “Marxist utopia,” but instead to “save the planet.” But if the snake oil salesmen are successful, the end result will be the same. Every country that buys into the scam will end up as just another Communist North Korea, or Communist Cuba where everyone is a slave to the state and those in the elitist ruling class live like kings, unless they can be stopped.

  7. Forgot to add, doomsday should have been 21st June, not May, I have just checked my figures, you wait ‘n see!!!

  8. Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
    At which I was thinking: my goodness, if that’s the best we can do. Why would anyone consider a czech president know anything … And then I read…
    That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth.
    And it all clicked. Of course, once you’ve lived through the news speak and half truths of the communist pseudo-religion, it’s very easy to spot other similar religions.
    Great article. Thanks!

  9. DJ says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:07 am
    Likewise, all the AGW alarmists who have warned us of “tipping points” have done so again and again, with pretty good results, at least in terms of gathering believers. Failure to accurately predict the tipping points, but successful in bringing donations in.

    It goes back to the core beliefs of the leaders of the movement. It is not results that count, but the severity of the accusations. So they will always have a willing following as the severity of the accusations far outweigh any evidence or facts.

  10. I think a huge part of the problem is money. Richard Lindzen was right 25 years ago when he called it the New McCarthyism. Perhaps most proponents do not have sinister intent but there are literally thousands of jobs tied to climate change alarmism. And I am not just talking about environmental lobbyists. I mean among our colleagues. If your research findings go against the accepted monologue of global warming you can expect to have difficulty getting more funding. You being right won’t carry much weight with funding agencies.
    I can’t blame people for jumping on the bandwagon to promote AGW/Climate change/whatever it is this week when failure to do so can, and does result in lost jobs, careers and opportunities.
    Similarly IPCC had as its mandate to find evidence for human cause climate change. Not to find out if it is a threat. As a result the entire IPCC has been fundamentally an anti scientific process from the beginning.
    Sometimes folks here don’t like those of us who don’t come forward with our names.
    I remain nameless because I fear that my former position in a professional society could threaten research projects run by members of that society despite the fact that they may or may not agree with me. More frightening to me is the knowledge that this intimidation of free inquiry has caused some of these people to avoid publication of results that would tend to further erode the “consensus”.

  11. Mr Lynn says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:11 am
    Bravo!
    ‘Where is the Vaclav Klaus of the United States? We desperately need a prominent leader to stand up and shout, “The climate emperor has no clothes, and never did! The priests who say he does are wrong!”’
    Senator Inhofe does the next best thing. He states clearly that the proposed remedies for climate change would destroy the US economy and that the remedies would yield essentially nothing by way of mitigation. That is a cost-benefit analysis rather than a denunciation but it is an analysis delivered with a hammer. I suggest that all of us do all we can to support the senator and to magnify his voice.
    In his own very quiet and very scientific way, Roy Spencer, author of “The Great Global Warming Blunder,” denounces climate science as having no clothes because it has no physical hypotheses. Given Arrhenius’ hypotheses about CO2, there can be no basis for claiming warming from manmade CO2 until there are reasonably well-confirmed hypotheses which can be used to explain and predict forcings and their effects on temperature. As all scientists know, at this time, there are no such physical hypotheses. Warmista who claim that their non-science of forcings can explain warming are engaging in bold and brash lies, and they know it. Doesn’t that count as a clear declaration that the emperor has no clothes?

  12. And like many religious movements. AGW demands lots of sacrifices by disciples, and very few by the anointed.

  13. We won’t have a Vaclav Klaus of the United States until we can get somebody versed in science rather than law, business, or political science running for high office. Until now, the only opinion our politicians have regarding climate science comes from the likes of “experts” from NASA, the NOAA, or other Kool Aid-drinking, AGW-partying, government-funded entities. Yet this is surprising, considering that a majority of regular folks don’t believe the AGW hype and hysteria. They’ve been bombarded with the “party line” way too long to give it much credibility. There should be a windfall in votes for someone willing to apprise themselves of the science, take a logical stand, and go on the political offensive.

  14. Religion has always been a great tool to control the masses. This trick is as old as humanity. Now that the God religions are loosing to incite fear in people, they needed to find another. But good for most of us, it’s not taking hold. Humanity is Religion-tired. Now if we could do the same with Politics, humanity could really thrive.

  15. Of course. Science is now religion. Everything is now religion. Words mean what you want them to mean, no more no less. Sure makes it easier to denigrate those with which you disagree.

  16. Thanks so much for publishing this wonderful essay. If the USA survives another decade or two, one of the most powerful political movements in US history will have communism, Warmista-ism, and similar ideologies officially declared religions and burdened with the same legal restrictions as those today suffered by evangelicals.

  17. I think you are missing the point in picking on good ole Harold.
    Yes, everybody laughs about him now – but the majority of US citizens is just as nuts as he is – yes, he put a date on the rapture – and that is the ONLY difference between most Americans and him! It’s not about the (wrong) date, anyone who believes in the rapture at all is a nut-job. Yet, somehow you thought it somehow serves to make ‘you’ (all) look smart and others goofy. Well, thanks, that was funny 🙂

  18. sceptical says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:58 am
    Of course. Science is now religion. Everything is now religion. Words mean what you want them to mean, no more no less. Sure makes it easier to denigrate those with which you disagree.

    it is good to see someone admit the weaknesses of the global climate crowd. Since we are treated to such dichotomies as warm/cold, rain/drought, snow/heat from them every day.

  19. The take home message…..
    Never make a prediction that you will live long enough to see………..

  20. For those in the UK, this will sound very familiar to the debate we have over how to organise the funding and provision of healthcare! Facts don’t matter, emotions rule and the “Preachers” hold over us is unshakeable – almost!

  21. The here mentioned Ivo Belet, member of the European Parliament for the christian democratic Flemish party in Belgium, was interviewed on Radio 1, a radio subsidied by the government. On May 25, he said about the President Vaclav Klaus: “This Klaus is an infamous climate denier. Do you know what it means? It means he says there is nothing wrong with our climate! With his view he has become an absolute pariah in Europe. Nobody dares still to say it because it is the opinion of everyone that humans are the cause of what is happening to our climate.”
    After the conference of President Vaclav Klaus in Antwerp two days ago, the newspaper “De Standaard”, wrote a comment with the title “When the President becomes a twaddler”. And in big letters we read: “It remains difficult to recognize twaddle as the basis of a debate.” Other newspapers were more correct in their coverage.
    I thought that witch-hunting was finished in our country…

  22. All good stuff. You really have to ask, though – why have politicians (with the notable exception of Vaclav Claus and a few others) swallowed this stuff so completely..? Is it nothing more than a cast-iron way of controlling the masses..? Surely EVENTUALLY they will have to admit that they were duped – but that’s not the sort of thing that politicians do, is it..? As Derk Eppink succinctly puts it, politicians would rather drive into a brick wall than admit they made mistakes…
    Re the IPCC – as I’ve posted on various occasions in the past – why is it called the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate CHANGE – if nothing other than an organisation which sets out to PROVE climate change – not to research it with an open mind..?

  23. Has anyone ever asked Jimmy Carter if he believes in CAGW (he had a science education) ?

  24. Wondering Aloud says: “…I can’t blame people for jumping on the bandwagon to promote AGW/Climate change/whatever it is this week when failure to do so can, and does result in lost jobs, careers and opportunities.”
    Failure to be a Nazi also resulted in lost jobs, careers, and opportunities, but there was considerable blame after the war for those who had jumped on that particular “bandwagon.” AGW is little different at its core. Replay the 10-10 snuff video if you doubt it.

  25. Doug Proctor says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:02 am
    The Church kept the Bible in Latin, saying that only properly lettered people (those working for the Church) could understand what was being said, as interpretation was necessary.
    _________
    So, is that why Science uses Latin to deal with the vagaries of different languages and common names? Perhaps a universal language was used by the Church to avoid ambiguity and the inevitable splintering of beliefs when relying on vernacular translations of the Bible. The vulgate did this for roughly 1200 years.
    Perhaps you’re bigotry is showing.
    I confess, I’m a Latin lover.

  26. @kwik says: May 27, 2011 at 10:02 am
    Nice link concerning Gordon “Flat Earthers” Brown.
    But half way down an even nicer link to Richard Courtney’s debunking of Brown and then, in comments, stuffing it to the eggregious “Slioch”
    A belated “Well Done” Richard!

  27. chris b – the point is that at that time the Church actively deterred the masses from learning Latin as a means of controlling the opportunity to learn.
    While I might quibble with some details of the speech (none of the name-brand players fit the Jesus-as-God-incarnate model, if anyone it’d be Hansen but let’s not do him the honor of crucifixion, and Gore is more of a Paul/Moses/Mohammed character carrying the received Word to the flock) it does pretty much lay out the case that ‘climate change’ is a convenient hitching-post for Westerners’ guilt reflexes.

  28. Al Gore as the substitute Jesus for the Climate Cult? I think not. He just looks wrong for the part:
    http://hotcelebrity.name/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/al_gore.jpg
    But if you’re looking for a Messiah figure, who better than James Hansen? He’s sincere (or at least I think he is) and intelligent (mostly) and while he can’t walk on water, he even (admittedly rarely) swims upstream in the river of AGW [propaganda-stuff], unlike others I could name. He likes to get arrested by the authorities, too.

  29. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament.
    And so say we all.

  30. David says:
    May 27, 2011 at 10:47 am
    All good stuff. You really have to ask, though – why have politicians (with the notable exception of Vaclav Claus and a few others) swallowed this stuff so completely..?
    ——————————-
    Because it is coming from them and invented by their own. They just managed to convince some intellectually poor scientists to go along.

  31. Jorgekafkazar said
    “Failure to be a Nazi also resulted in lost jobs, careers, and opportunities, but there was considerable blame after the war for those who had jumped on that particular “bandwagon.” ”
    Actually after the war I thought no one had ever been a member of the nazi party.

  32. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image.

    While climate scientists continue to push the agenda as their very welfare (continued funding) depends on the continued ‘belief’ of CAGW. Whole careers have been built around this fraud.

  33. Doug Proctor says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:02 am
    The Church kept the Bible in Latin, saying that only properly lettered people (those working for the Church) could understand what was being said, as interpretation was necessary.
    ———–
    Of course literacy was 100% in ancient Rome, where everybody spoke Latin. /sarc
    And of course, since the early Catholic Church had hidden the secret of the printing press and paper-making, Church leaders managed to keep literacy rates low so as to be able to maintain their supremacy. //double sarc.
    How about learning some real history, including the history of technology, so you can learn the material and cultural reality in which the early Church functioned. Perhaps you could accuse the British government of a conspiracy to promote English as the language of business, as well!

  34. The Venerable Bede – father of English History – asked his scribe to make haste with the last few lines the old monk’s dictation of the translation of a Gospel into Old English, because he was dying. He did indeed die that same day.
    There are hundreds of translations of the Bible into different languages – only one of which is the Latin Vulgate (Vulgate=the common tongue). It was made to popularise the Bible, not confine it to an elite.
    It is poor practice to call in aid the follies of a few believers to disparage all religion; and poor practice to disparage all science because of the follies or greed of a few scientists, be they never so well chronicled as in WUWT.
    Bede would be delighted with your efforts to establish the Truth (about science) – he gathered information of the History of the English People from all round the country, as Anthony’s network of volunteers chronicles the weather stations and their data.
    And the courage of survivors like Havel, Woytila and Mindszenty should inspire us to hope that the Truth will prevail – but not before we have suffered to support it.

  35. “The Church kept the Bible in Latin, saying that only properly lettered people (those working for the Church) could understand what was being said, as interpretation was necessary. Having the unlettered read the Bible for themselves would lead to a loss of faith in the Church and a confusion about what was actually being said. These days, the Church is Science, and the properly lettered are the scientists. ”
    Please note: First English translation of the O.T. and N.T. was William Tyndale. For which he was “burned at the stake” by the Anglican Church. (Which, conviniently decided keep the O.T. and N.T. in Latin was to THEIR advantage too! Despite their being an exclusively “English Church”, Henry the 8th and all. But don’t forget, the Gutenberg Bible, in German, was out 100 years before Tyndale.) It’s a mixed bag of background on this. We should note that early scientists worked and communicated IN LATIN as it was the way to surmount other language barriers.

  36. Your photo caption describes Algore as a failed Divinity school student but he didn’t so much fail as suffer from a severe loss of enthusiasm when he discovered that, when he had signed up, he had been confused by the multiple meanings of the word “vocational”. Al thought Divinity school was akin to cosmetology college, job training for his dream profession. When he found out otherwise he wandered off to pursue his goal elsewhere. It took many years, but after suffering the near death experience of the 2000 election he finally had his epiphany. He discovered the miracle molecule CO2, the source of life, and his introduction to the path toward Resurrection and of becoming the new Risen Messiah. The rest is history and I suspect, that in his mind, he is completely confident that his dream job has finally been achieved.

  37. pat says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:55 am
    And like many religious movements. AGW demands lots of sacrifices by disciples, and very few by the anointed.

    See Al Gore.

  38. It’s ironic that a skeptic should label AGW a religion. Very similar to the way that creationists label “evoutionism” a religion. Isn’t it the skeptics who feel persecuted, who have a few anointed leaders up whose every word they hang? And isn’t it skeptics who are driven by ideology – the ideology of the free market – to the exclusion of all rational enquiry?
    I guess I’m a “luke warmist” – somewhere in the middle. I see at least as many religious traits among skeptics as I do among the warmista.

  39. Max Hugoson says:
    May 27, 2011 at 12:18 pm
    Please note: First English translation of the O.T. and N.T. was William Tyndale. For which he was “burned at the stake” by the Anglican Church.
    This is not actually true. The first complete translation of both the O.T and N.T. was the Wycliffe bible of 1382. Portions of the N.T. had been translated into English, under the auspices of the church, in the 7th century. This was Catholic Britain, well before Harry 8’s time. John Wycliffe died a natural death, but his remains were exhumed 48 years later and burned, by order of the Pope (Martin V).

  40. Great article. Nice to see the smaller European countries highlighted.
    40 shades

  41. sceptical says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:58 am
    Of course. Science is now religion. Everything is now religion. Words mean what you want them to mean, no more no less. Sure makes it easier to denigrate those with which you disagree.
    I’m not sure I understand where, how, or to whom your points apply. In other words, should I simply offer you a pacifying baby bottle, or are you instead willing to make a start by agreeing that ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science is objectively not practicing real, scientific method and principle, science?

  42. @Dave Wendt – “It took many years, but after suffering the near death experience of the 2000 election he finally had his epiphany. He discovered the miracle molecule CO2”
    I think you will find that Gore’s environmental activism goes back a little further than 2000…
    From good old wikipedia: “Gore has been involved with environmental issues since 1976, when as a freshman congressman, he held the “first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsor[ed] hearings on toxic waste and global warming.”
    Or is wikipedia part of the religion, too?

  43. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    It’s ironic that a skeptic should label AGW a religion. Very similar to the way that creationists label “evoutionism” a religion. Isn’t it the skeptics who feel persecuted, who have a few anointed leaders up whose every word they hang? And isn’t it skeptics who are driven by ideology – the ideology of the free market – to the exclusion of all rational enquiry?

    It is not ironic, and you have it bass ackwards. Your premise is that atheists cannot feel persecuted. I can find many more atheists that disagree with you than agree with you. Anointed leaders? There are no leaders, and that is the problem with the skeptics side. It is a rable of rational thinking people trying to get a seat at the table and being denied by Torquemada.
    As for the free market? Some (many perhaps) are. But stick around and you will find that skeptics run the gamut from far right to far left. There is only one thing they have in common – a devotion to the scientific principals, and a quest for knowledge, not indoctrination.

  44. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    I guess I’m a “luke warmist” – somewhere in the middle. I see at least as many religious traits among skeptics as I do among the warmista.
    Unfortunately, John, in concluding that you are a “luke warmist”, you are trying to answer the wrong question – which is apparently something like, “Which side’s members – ‘skeptical’ or ‘warmista’ – more demonstrate to you the actions of people practicing a Religion?”
    But that question has nothing to do with the validity or factual nature of the hypotheses advanced in regard to the various ideas involved with Catastrophic Anthropogenic/CO2 Global Warming, as ostensibly framed by “Climate Science”.
    In other words, the real question you need to answer is solely scientific. Therefore, instead, the first relevant point to recognize is that the ipcc’s CO2=CAGW Climate Science very objectively does not practice real, scientific method and principle, science. Then continue from there, along the threads which stick to the practice of real science, to decide whether you are a “luke warmer”, or whatever.
    Otherwise, why bother to take a position on CO2=CAGW?

  45. David says:
    May 27, 2011 at 10:47 am
    “All good stuff. You really have to ask, though – why have politicians (with the notable exception of Vaclav Claus and a few others) swallowed this stuff so completely..?”
    Because of the success of Anti-Smoking Hysteria. In unguarded moments, one published recently here, Hansen pines for the Eighties and the great victories over Big Tobacco. The communists recognized the tool, they have used it effectively, and it has given them new life – as Grandiose Community Organizers.

  46. Theo Goodwin says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:54 am

    I agree that Senator Inhofe and Dr. Spencer are stalwart champions of science and reason, standing tall against the rampant, agenda-driven ideology of the Enviro-zealots.
    But they are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the establishment orthodoxy: politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and the press. Listen, in the New Jersey thread, to the current darling of the right, Gov. Christie, repeat the litany of the Climatists, as if from scripture.
    When I asked, “Where is the Vaclav Klaus of the United States?” I meant, where is the one leader decrying the hoax whom the press and the rest of the establishment cannot ignore, and can only disparage at their peril?
    What if a leading presidential candidate were to stand up and declare this? “Contrary to the Alarmists, CO2 is not a pollutant, and not a problem. There is nothing so special about our current climate that a little change wouldn’t hurt. Once upon a time the Sahara was green, and so was Greenland! But really, there is no measurable effect on the Earth’s many climates from burning fossil fuels, and there is boundless benefit from the abundance of affordable energy that fossil fuels provide. The Establishment is wrong. They want you to stop human progress in its tracks, to condemn the Third World to perpetual poverty, and to promise nothing to your grandchildren but forty acres and a mule, and a small windmill to pump their water. That is not what I want for my children, my grandchildren, my country, and my world, and if elected, I will not let it happen!”
    I like to think that this candidate would get elected overwhelmingly.
    /Mr Lynn

  47. David says:
    May 27, 2011 at 10:47 am
    All good stuff. You really have to ask, though – why have politicians (with the notable exception of Vaclav Claus and a few others) swallowed this stuff so completely..?

    By 1990 the environmentalist movement had legs and respectability–it was conventional wisdom, endorsed by every right-thinking person, especially in academia and among the anointed in various gatekeeper positions, and especially in the MSM. It acquired lots of money with alarmist predictions from a mass of responsible wealthy people in their bequests, from charitable foundations, and in government funding. It demonstrated its willingness and ability to effectively smear and steamroller opponents in earlier battles over polution limits, the spotted owl, etc.
    In 2000 the Green Party candidate in the US won enough votes to deny Gore the election. Democrats noticed that endorsing Green positions won them the votes of swing voters (e.g., people like the Packards, etc.), and therefore started winning elections when they made an issue of their more aggressive environmental policies than their opponents–who were then forced to move closer to their positions, or soften their opposition. The same thing happened in Europe.
    Most scientists who enter any field associated with environmentalism do so because of a strong pro-nature/anti-human-impact bias, one that is strengthened by all they are taught in school, read in their journals, hear in their lounges, etc. Those who get studies funded do so with the expectation that these will be alarmist–if nothing alarming is found, there is no real “finding,” after all, so it’s just a non-news, dog-bites-man story.
    Also, it is difficult for a politician to challenge the believers, since they confidently spin out unending streams of intimidating, sciency-sounding baffle-gab at the drop of a hat. I’m sure this is what swayed Cameron, Gingrich, etc.
    These factors, plus half-a-dozen more, like the sin-redemption psychological dynamic at work, combined to form a perfect storm in the West. Skeptical politicians just took cover in their storm cellars.

  48. Wondering Aloud says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:49 am
    “I think a huge part of the problem is money. Richard Lindzen was right 25 years ago when he called it the New McCarthyism. Perhaps most proponents do not have sinister intent but there are literally thousands of jobs tied to climate change alarmism.”
    Yep. Humanities and Social Sciences professors are getting grants (big bucks) by the armload and spreading the gospel of climate change. If you have a child in public secondary school, you know that huge federal dollars are backing teaching of global warming.

  49. @PhilJourdon
    If skeptics are devoted to scientific principles, why do they rarely do any science? If you think “it’s the sun”, do some research. If you think “it’s volcanoes” or “it’s cosmic rays”, do some research. If it holds up, it will become accepted. That’s how science works. But it has to hold up. That’s why the oft quoted “global cooling scare” of the 1970’s, which was all based on one paper, went away. It didn’t hold up.
    Of course, we can’t all do research, but we can all read about it. Go read the IPCC reports, not what bloggers have written about them. Go read some science papers or reviews of those papers intended for lay audiences, not what politically motivated bloggers have said about them. What you will find is that the science is (a) rather dry to read, (b) very measured in its conclusions, and (c) pretty much devoid of politics.
    A plea to those whose minds are still open – read the “IPCC report summary for policy makers” for yourself. If you don’t like it, what have you lost? If you find yourself thinking, “hmm, this isn’t what I was expecting”, dig a little deeper.
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

  50. Declaration of interest right at the start: I am protestant, not creationist, a B.Sc Hons in biology, and fairly sceptical of CAGW on empirical grounds.
    Excessive infatuation with CAGW can be found in both believers and non-believers. With non-believers this exemplifies the view attributed (perhaps apocryphally) to Chesterton: they stop believing in God and they start believing in anything.
    But for believer and non-believer alike there is another pitfall in CAGW. It gives us a chance to feel that we can expiate our sins and achieve a spiritual catharsis by opposing CAGW. Confession is indeed good for the soul. But is CO2 a sin? This has to be left to the scientists – who haven’t done a very good job of analysing this.

  51. In the interest of full disclosure Al Gore also flunked out of the Vanderbilt Law School.

  52. Wycliffe inspired another ‘Czech’, then Bohemia, John Huss: http://www.manchesterorange.co.uk/Religion/john-huss-reformer
    John Elder says:
    It gives us a chance to feel that we can expiate our sins and achieve a spiritual catharsis by opposing CAGW.
    Not why I oppose it. When I began exploring it by asking questions of AGW supporters I very quickly realised that even those considering themselves scientists didn’t have any objectivity about it, a requisite I thought, not being a scientist myself, the benchmark for scientific thinking. That first inkling that it was all a product of mass hysteria and well-organised to be that is what has kept me interested in the arguments and in arguing against it, because it is so overwhelming in its scope. So not at all about “expiating sin”, whatever it is you mean by that, I’m supposing it’s tied in with the Western Christian Augustinian model, but of keeping a grip on my own sanity by trying to understand the arguments.

  53. John B says:
    A plea to those whose minds are still open – read the “IPCC report summary for policy makers” for yourself. If you don’t like it, what have you lost? If you find yourself thinking, “hmm, this isn’t what I was expecting”, dig a little deeper.
    Hmmm, that would be the CAGW bible – based on pal-reviewed pseudoscience, faulty, even fraudulent “facts”, grey literature from NGO’s fully-invested in, and counting on the CAGW/CC gravy train continuing, and politics.
    But, I guess you believe in Consensus Science, right?

  54. JPeden says:
    May 27, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    “the first relevant point to recognize is that the ipcc’s CO2=CAGW Climate Science very objectively does not practice real, scientific method and principle, science.”
    That sounds to me rather like a creationist saying “evolution isn’t real science”. Creationists say that because evolution offends their religious views. It seems to me that skeptics deny (yes, deny) the science because it offends their ideological views.
    Show me where the science relayed by IPCC (for that is all the IPCC does) is not real science, but don’t fall into the trap of pointing to a single contrary paper or Op Ed piece and thinking that it brings down the whole edifice. That is also what creationists do.
    BTW, you got me on the “luke warmist” bit. I shouldn’t have written that, it’s not relevant.

  55. Despite the views of John B, the good thing about the new religion of AGW, is that real evidence will eventually trump exaggerated church-like (IPCC) propaganda (models), evidence that now appears to me to be avoided by the church hierarchy and their disciples, the media.
    I have been hoping for a few degrees of warming for a long time, as I see so many benefits to society for a warmer world, but evidence tells me, as well as personal intuition, that it is not happening.
    Anyway, climate changes over a century or more at the minimum, it’s natural cycles
    that the AGW religion are preaching about today. Why else would they change terminology from CAGW to AGW to Climate change to Climate Disruption.

  56. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    “Show me where the science relayed by IPCC (for that is all the IPCC does) is not real science, but don’t fall into the trap of pointing to a single contrary paper or Op Ed piece and thinking that it brings down the whole edifice. That is also what creationists do.”
    As one who has had my own attempts at humor misunderstood around here, I’d suggest that you remember to include a sarc off tag when going for a joke, although that one was so completely hilarious that I can see how you would think it wasn’t necessary.

  57. @Bruce Cobb
    “Hmmm, that would be the CAGW bible – based on pal-reviewed pseudoscience, faulty, even fraudulent “facts”, grey literature from NGO’s fully-invested in, and counting on the CAGW/CC gravy train continuing, and politics.”
    Yep, that’s the one 🙂 Now go read it for yourself, it’s only 18 pages. I did. I’m not a “believer”, I just find it harder to accept that 97% of climate scientists, plus the MSM other than Fox, plus all national and international science bodies, etc., etc. are in some sort of conspiracy than to accept that there might be some truth in it. After all, I accept relativity and evolution on the same basis.

  58. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    A plea to those whose minds are still open – read the “IPCC report summary for policy makers” for yourself.
    Yes, John, it is a pitiful document, indeed, just as it stands and stood there all by itself for some months. And I have no burning desire to rehash its multiple internal problems just because you are so far behind the curve.
    But note this one feature of the SPM4, John – although it alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for proving the fact that ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science is not real, scientific method and principle science: since when has any truly scientific entity or operation ever published its so very controversial or potentially important results or conclusions – here the SPM4 – while not only not providing its scientific basis for the conclusions along with the conclusions – supposedly found in the rest of the AR4 as indicated by the SPM4’s totally unhinged reference numbers – but also delaying the publication of its actual “science” in support of the conclusions for three long months? I’d never thought such a thing would even be possible.
    In fact, this peculiar Climate Science “method” itself only serves to alert anyone familiar with the practice of real science of the possibilities that, 1] ipcc Climate Science is not real science; and 2] that the tactic is also possibly telltale of ipcc Climate Science being more of a Propaganda Operation instead. Because there is no chance to confirm, replicate, or rebut the ipcc’s conclusions by examining its own science. Instead its conclusions can be propagandized at will to the public, and they were.
    [A press release published before the SPM4 even started the PR propagandizing process earlier by promising a “smoking gun” to be forthcoming proving CO2=CAGW, but which was eventually never presented.]
    John, you have no idea what you are talking about, or as to who you are talking to here at WUWT. You need to rid yourself of your own Fantasyland constructions and preconceptions, including the notion that ipcc CO2=CAGW Climate Science is real science, when the truth is that it is really only a gigantic “perception is reality” – thus intentionally deluding and delusional – Propaganda Operation.
    Why do you insist upon being so far behind the curve that you are not even on the plot?

  59. @Sun Spot
    Why would anyone ask the idiot Jimmy Carter anything? He also claims to be a Christian. Yet, he enthusiastically supports a progressive movement hell bent destroying Christianity and enslaving humanity which seems to have settled on AGW as the means.
    I really hate that Carter got the satisfaction, in his lifetime, of being relieved of being the worst president in our country’s history. Thanks for nothing B. Hussein Obama.

  60. @John B
    You ask why sceptics rarely do science. I’ll glide over the fact that scepticism is a prerequisite for science and just say that science is observing, hypothesising and testing. That third item is vital; while peer review is fallible, pal review is worse than useless. In getting hold of data, replicating results, and challenging analyses, the sceptics ARE doing science. That the climate scientists do their best to thwart these efforts serves science how, exactly?
    There are also political AGW sceptics who, like political AGW believers, don’t contribute to the science. No doubt, some on both sides have come to their opinions after reviewing some of the evidence. Many have probably followed herd instincts. If you are bemoaning political sceptics, you should bemoan the political believers too.
    I don’t know how you’ve convinced yourself that the IPCC isn’t mired in these same politics.

  61. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    “That sounds to me rather like a creationist saying “evolution isn’t real science”. Creationists say that because evolution offends their religious views. It seems to me that skeptics deny (yes, deny) the science because it offends their ideological views.”
    In science the burden of proof goes in one direction and it is opposite the direction presented by you. Scientists who put forth hypotheses have a duty as scientists to supply all other scientists with all data, mathematical methods, lab procedures and whatever is needed for all other scientists to replicate the experiments or observations that rendered the hypotheses reasonably well confirmed. To fail to do so is rock solid evidence that you are not a scientist. Ergo, no Climategater is a scientist and Lord Nurse has acknowledged the same by requesting that Climategaters receive government waivers from FOIA requests.

  62. They’ve got the wrong type of “Judgment Day” in mind. To really get into this in a realistic way, one needs to explore Norse mythology, and the concept of cyclical history. There may be some basis for the lore. Perhaps a verbal history handed down amongst specific bands of Indo-Europeans who had found a niche at the edge of the Continental Ice, during the Pleistocene. The experience of the Younger Dryas would have made proto-scientists realize that the ice could advance rapidly, that the good times never last. Someday it will come back, the end of all good things (at least for the following 100K years). Ragnarok. On that note:
    =====================================================
    FOR THE REST OF NEXT WEEK…AN UNUSUALLY STRONG UPPER LEVEL LOW
    (HEIGHTS 3.5 STANDARD DEVIATIONS BELOW NORMAL FOR THIS TIME OF
    YEAR) WILL MOVE JUST OFF THE NORCAL COAST TUESDAY AND REMAIN
    NEARLY STATIONARY INTO THURSDAY. ALTHOUGH THE VAST MAJORITY OF RAIN WILL BE TO OUR NORTH AND EAST…THE SOUTHERN EXTENT OF THE RAIN WEDNESDAY COULD REACH THE NORTH BAY. AFTER THAT LOW EJECTS OFF TO THE NORTHEAST AS ANOTHER DROPS DOWN BY NEXT FRIDAY WHILE A STRONG RIDGE BUILDS ACROSS THE CENTRAL US. BOTTOM LINE…OUR COOLER THAN NORMAL WEATHER IS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE THROUGH AT LEAST ALL OF NEXT WEEK AND LIKELY EVEN FURTHER OUT.

  63. Let’s not forget my favorite doomsayer, Dr. Paul Erlich, who, it is said, has infallibly predicted 10 of the last zero apocalyptic events.

  64. SteveSadlov says:
    May 27, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    per the forecast: How’s about a NORCAL year without a summer?

  65. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    Show me where the science relayed by IPCC (for that is all the IPCC does) is not real science….
    Well, first things first, John: if, as you claim, the ipcc is in effect only a Publisher and does not warrant its own product as real, including “peer reviewed”, science, then someone better let the EPA know pronto, i.e., that it can’t use the ipcc’s AR4 as a basis upon which to make its endangerment finding and then regulate CO2! Because that’s the basis upon which the EPA in turn accepted the ipcc’s product to begin with, that is, that the ipcc product was warranted by the ipcc to use only peer reviewed science. [Which it, nevertheless, didn’t do anyway, a fact itself which has also been repeatedly demonstrated.]
    But no, John, the ipcc is not merely “relaying” science. It is actually alleging to practice CO2=CAGW Climate Science.
    Therefore, as one important specific example of the unscientific nature of the ipcc’s Climate Science as practiced, it turns out that the ipcc’s CO2=CAGW Climate Science simply will not allow its hypotheses to be disproven or even seriously challenged by accumulating empirical evidence. Whereas, in contrast, this feature of its possible falsification is necessary to considering an hypothesis as “scientific”.
    For example, its own critical “hot spot” which it predicted for the Tropical Troposphere as CO2’s fingerprint simply did not develop, which actually should have dispoven its CO2=[C]AGW hypothesis according to its own statements. But the ipcc would not allow this empirical disproof or even take the data as a significant challenge to its hypothesis. Instead it only claims to be looking for the “right” data, or possibly trying to manufacture it from the existing data, probably even as we speak.
    Another example: rising CO2 levels have effectively decoupled from an essentially zero-sloped GMT at best, which, along with energy balance data, has led Kevin Trenberth to lament the conflict between the data and ipcc Climate Science’s own hypothesis-based prediction as a “travesty”; but, again, one quite tellingly not involving ipcc Climate Science’s own hypothesis as to CO2=[C]AGW; and instead again only relating to an alleged inadequacy in the data collection processes, one allegedly involving “lost heat” in the deep Oceans – but a suggestion for which there is a clear lack of suggestive data according to the Argo Buoys.
    In other words, since ipcc Climate Science will not allow its CO2=CAGW hypotheses to be disproven, and essentially will not state any empirical condition which would disprove its hypotheses, its CO2=CAGW statements are functionally consistent with everything that might happen empirically; and therefore ipcc Climate Science actually has no scientific hypotheses whatsoever.
    In effect, according to its own “methods” and practice, the ipcc Climate Science process truly has no affirmative scientific statements/hypotheses to make to begin with.

  66. For the weak willed, weak minded and greedily opportunistic it is always easier to go with the flow rather than swim against a riptide of absurdity.

  67. …Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite…
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Great pity that no one heeded Ike’s warning. During the excitement of scientific progress made during the Kennedy era , science became elevated to the status of a religion and the ruling elite have used this as a tool to increase taxes and repress personal freedoms.

  68. While both are failures at predicting, there is one very important difference between Camping and Gore.
    Camping asks for donations. You decide.
    Gore wants to pass laws to take your money. Gore decides for you.

  69. Climate scientists do science, not all of it perfect. The IPCC sumarizes it, primarily for politicians, that is their job. Yes, they too can make mistakes, e.g. the Himalayan glacier melt date. Politicians accept it with open arms if they are to the left or reluctantly if they are to the right (e.g. Chris Christie). Skeptics claim the whole thing is a conspiracy.
    Here’s another place to go for the open minded to challenge your views. I’m not asking you to believe me, just go look for yourself. Find your favourite argument: “warming would be good”, “the warming has stopped”, “it’s natural cycles”, “we don’t have enough data”, whatever.
    And to quote from that site:
    “Skeptical Science is based on the notion that science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means you don’t take someone’s word for it but investigate for yourself. You look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion. In the case of climate science, our understanding of climate comes from considering the full body of evidence.
    In contrast, climate skepticism looks at small pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the full picture. Climate skeptics vigorously attack any evidence for man-made global warming yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. If you began with a position of climate skepticism then cherrypick the data that supports your view while fighting tooth and nail against any evidence that contradicts that position, I’m sorry but that’s not genuine scientific skepticism.”

    And BTW, on the name change thing. The IPCC (not the IPGW) was formed in 1988. GW is a slang used mainly by the media. Frank Luntz, adviser to George W Bush, pushed for use of the “less frightening” term CC in 2003. If you don’t believe me, check for yourself.

  70. Ironically, the High Priest of CAGW also sowed the seeds of its destruction – he invented the internet.

  71. Robert Swan said:
    If you are bemoaning political sceptics, you should bemoan the political believers too.
    Gladly! I find eco-warriors an embarrassment. Yes, both sides have their sheep. But this does not detract from the science. It’s there, go look for it.
    I’m with NJ Gov. Christie, who said (more or less), “GW is happening, AGW is at least part of it, but the RGGI isn’t working, so I canned it”. Or to put it another way, “the science is sound, get over it, now let’s deal with the loony lefty politics”.

  72. Here is a link to an audio from a spiritual group which is getting a lot of attention right now. They explain the difference between December 21, 2012 and Camping’s dart board throw prediction. This recording is apparently causing a lot of controversy!
    http://www.merkaba.org/audio/camping.htm

  73. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    I’m not a “believer”, I just find it harder to accept that 97% of climate scientists, plus the MSM other than Fox, plus all national and international science bodies, etc., etc. are in some sort of conspiracy than to accept that there might be some truth in it. After all, I accept relativity and evolution on the same basis.
    Oh, but you are a Believer. You use many of the same types of laughably bogus arguments we have seen here over and over again from Warmist trolls. There is no need of a conspiracy. The climate bandwagon accepts any and all types, in it for their own various reasons. Money, fame, and politics are certainly big factors.
    What you don’t seem to realize is that many skeptics/climate realists used to believe, or at least assume that what we were hearing constantly from the MSM must be true. Many, in fact, are or were Democrats who wouldn’t be caught dead listening to FOX. We all come to skepticism from various paths, the common denominator being that we have in fact read. We did not come to skepticism easily, often finding ourselves at odds with family and friends. Many had to keep their skepticism secret, so as not to jeopardize their jobs. The only difference between we skeptics and you and your ilk is that we in fact had an interest in what the debate was about, not simply in confirming what we already thought we knew. It is a pity that you do not seem to have that spark of curiosity, because it is you that needs to read more.

  74. JPeden says:
    “For example, its own critical “hot spot” which it predicted for the Tropical Troposphere as CO2′s fingerprint simply did not develop, which actually should have dispoven its CO2=[C]AGW hypothesis according to its own statements. But the ipcc would not allow this empirical disproof or even take the data as a significant challenge to its hypothesis. Instead it only claims to be looking for the “right” data, or possibly trying to manufacture it from the existing data, probably even as we speak”
    The tropospheric hotspot is proposed (by climate scientists) to be a signature of warming, however caused, not just of anthropogenic warming. It was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2”. (Almost) nobody denies that there has been warming. That is why the failure to measure the hot spot is thought likely to be a failure in measurement. It could conceivably be a failure in the prediction that there should be such a hot spot, but that is less likely since it is based on well established physics. Either way it has nothing to do with AGW.
    Don’t believe me, look it up. Ditto for any other idea you think “disproves” AGW. Look into the science a little deeper.

  75. jorgekafkazar says:
    May 27, 2011 at 11:24 am
    But if you’re looking for a Messiah figure, who better than James Hansen? He’s sincere (or at least I think he is) and intelligent (mostly) and while he can’t walk on water, he even (admittedly rarely) swims upstream in the river of AGW [propaganda-stuff], unlike others I could name. He likes to get arrested by the authorities, too.
    – – – – – – – –
    jorgekafkazar,
    James Hansen is a better fit for being the Mahatma Ghandi of CAGW instead of being a Christian motif of CAGW.
    John

  76. JEM says:
    May 27, 2011 at 11:22 am
    chris b – the point is that at that time the Church actively deterred the masses from learning Latin as a means of controlling the opportunity to learn.
    That the masses were not fluent in Latin much beyond Classical Roman times can hardly be blamed on the Church. I think there wasn’t a lot of reading material lying around until after the printing press and cheap paper were invented.
    Do you have any evidence of the Church having “actively deterred the masses from learning Latin”? Jack Chick tracts don’t count as evidence.

  77. John B likes to quote from the Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog, which has been debunked here so many times I’ve lost count. It’s a blog run by a wacked out cartoonist, and it’s about as skeptical as Algore.
    John B also likes to quote the totally bogus 97% number of scientists that supposedly believe in runaway global warming – but he doesn’t see the irony: John B is the 3% here who is contradicted by 97% of the regular commentators.
    If John B believes he is going to convince the level-headed folks here that white is black, down is up, evil is good, and there is evidence of CAGW, it can only be chalked up to his cognitive dissonance. Poor guy. Cognitive dissonance is practically incurable.

  78. Roger Knights – many thanks for your detailed explanation.
    Here’s another thought – the UK government passed the Climate Change Act in 2008 which enshrines IN LAW that we will be reducing our carbon emissions by 80% (yes, that’s EIGHTY PER CENT) by 2050, using 1990 as a baseline. (Big caveat – doesn’t apply if Europe doesn’t do the same – but leaving that aside…)
    Supposing we, the UK, fail to meet these criteria..? Who is fined – or goes to jail..? The Prime Minister..? The Energy Secretary..? The whole population..??

  79. @Smokey
    I’m not personally trying to convince anyone of anything. All I am saying is, if you have an open mind, go look at the evidence. Don’t take Smokey’s word for it that SkepticalScience.com is debunked pseudo-science, go read it, or anywhere else that presents mainstream science, for yourself. But if you have already made your mind up for ideological reasons, don’t bother.
    And actually I do realise I am in a minority here. But that’s OK, I can handle it.

  80. Good speech, the CAGW as religion analogy must absolutely cut these pseudo secular neo-pagans to the quick. Oh well, the analogies are obvious and frankly, in the face of such ambiguous empirical evidence, it is mystifying that people are so enthused by the CAGW meme.
    “Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit,” reads the inscription carved above the door to Carl Jung’s home – “Called or not called, the god will be present.”
    Jungs inscription means that all people/persons have “religion”, but only some people are conscious of it.
    A student of Jung would ask, what collective unconscious archetype is being constellated here? What the heck am I talking about? Big topic, but if you are interested, read the link below for a decent start.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37517232/The-Mythology-of-Archetypes

  81. If climate science is a religion, does that make “skepticism”, a peculiar off-shoot of it, a cult?

  82. The study of ancient belief systems and the progression to the current is as fascinating to explore as the exploration of magnetic fields, solar influences, climate science, plate tectonics and angular momentum. The leap of logic between the absurd, the believable and the plausible provides an endless supply of study material.
    The doomsday proponents are pinning their hopes for a triumphant end to their story line on October 21, 2011 and December 21, 2012, as comet Elenin (c/2010 x1) swoops in. Get big vats of buttered popcorn in advance if you plan to Google the comet. There are many Applewhites still out there.
    Global and local actors who play out the role of God on earth aren’t allowed to admit mistakes. Bravado and Ego demand that the earth itself be destroyed and cataclysmic punishment meted out to prove their point. It must be tough to be god but it appears to pay well as long as it lasts.

  83. John B:
    Your above comments repeatedly claim the propoganda provided by the IPCC is real science, and you suggest that people should read that propoganda. But your comments demonstrate you have not read it.
    For example, at May 28, 2011 at 4:47 am you assert:
    “…The tropospheric hotspot is proposed (by climate scientists) to be a signature of warming, however caused, not just of anthropogenic warming. It was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2″. …“
    And you say:
    “… Don’t believe me, look it up. …”
    I DON’T BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE IT IS A LIE
    and I am writing to inform everybody how they can look it up with one click of a mouse.
    The most recent so-called scientific Report from the IPCC is the AR4 and it explains the ‘hot spot’ in Chapter 9 from WG1. The pertinent Section is
    9.2.2.1 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Response
    And it can be read at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    The Section summarises the matter in Figure 9.1. and it is titled:
    “Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
    (a) solar forcing,
    (b) volcanoes,
    (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
    (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
    (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
    (f) the sum of all forcings.
    Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”
    Only Figures 9.1.c (well-mixed greenhouse gases) and 9.1.f (the sum of all forcings) show the ‘hot spot’.
    So, the IPCC says the ‘hot spot’ is only provided by forcing from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and that forcing is so powerful that it overwhelms all the other forcings.
    But the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
    Trolls keep coming here to spout the same nonsense as yourself, but they are always confounded because AGW-skeptics do “look it up” which is why we are skeptical of the IPCC propaganda.
    Richard

  84. sceptical says:
    May 28, 2011 at 11:20 am
    If climate science is a religion, does that make “skepticism”, a peculiar off-shoot of it, a cult?

    Climate Science isn’t a religion, but uncritical acceptance of CAGW seems to be.

  85. sceptical says:
    May 28, 2011 at 11:20 am
    If climate science is a religion, does that make “skepticism”, a peculiar off-shoot of it, a cult?

    There is a legal basis to assert that belief in AGW is akin to a religion.

    Guardian – 3rd November, 2009
    Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion

    and…….

    BBC – 25 January 2010
    Using religious language to fight global warming
    “The theologian and environmentalist Martin Palmer is also troubled by the green movement’s reliance on visions of hell as a way of converting people to their cause. “

    So when we say AGW is like a religion there is some basis for it. ;O)

  86. sceptical says:
    May 28, 2011 at 11:20 am
    …………………….
    I forgot to add the juciest bits.

    BBC – 25 January 2010
    For Palmer, who is a United Nations adviser on climate change and religion, the green movement’s appropriation of religious language and imagery has backfired.
    Environmentalists have stolen fear, guilt and sin from religion, but they have left behind celebration, hope and redemption,” he says.
    “They read science in the way that fundamentalists read religious texts: they cherry-pick the bits that support their argument and use them to scare people,” he adds. “Then they offer no solutions other than letting greens take over the running of the world.

    Ouch! Sceptical, you should be more sceptical.

  87. John B said
    “May 28, 2011 at 1:55 am
    Climate scientists do science, not all of it perfect. The IPCC sumarizes it, primarily for politicians, that is their job. Yes, they too can make mistakes, e.g. the Himalayan glacier melt date. Politicians accept it with open arms if they are to the left or reluctantly if they are to the right (e.g. Chris Christie). Skeptics claim the whole thing is a conspiracy. ”
    Perfection has nothing to do with it. The only things that counts are facts, which are neither perfect or imperfect, and models that can be history matched to real measured data. If they can’t be history matched the models are junk.
    The absurd claim about the timing of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is far more than a scientific mistake. It is the stuff causes alarm in the minds of people who rely on MSM for their info – MSM love sensational claims. The MSM reported but did not sensationalize the retraction. No, I can only regard that claim as blatant deliberate headline grabbing dishonesty by the person who made it to sow seeds of fear in peoples’ minds. It is the same sort of claim that Hansen made about the Manhattan docks going under water in 40 years when in fact 23 years after the claim the water level has risen 3″. The absurd prediction lives on in peoples minds and everywhere you look in the media you hear about rising sea levels. A lot of people don’t know that the glacier claim was wrong. So don’t minimize the IPCC skullduggery or incompetence here by saying it was just a mistake.
    Your generalisation about politicians on the right reluctantly accepting “it” tells me exactly where you are coming from – a political position, not a scientific one.
    And your even wilder claim that skeptics think “the whole thing” is a conspiracy confirms you are thinking in non scientific terms. What conspiracy do the skeptics claim? How many skeptics say this and who are they? Are all skeptics the same.? More myth propagation. If you are going to make generalisations you’d better be prepared to put up or shut up. WUWT got its good reputation by sticking to the facts and demanding logical argument.

  88. There can be no Satanism without a belief in God (The cult v religion) just as there can be no “skepticism” without climate science. “Skepticism” or satanism is an off-shoot of the mainstream. The mainstream has many beneficial tendencies while the cult does not. The cult is about the short-term exploitation of those they can get to believe. The belief of the cult is based on a twisted misunderstanding of mainstream which creates a distrust for the mainstream. The cult provides the misunderstanding and then provides a means to cope with the misunderstanding.

  89. sceptical:
    I completely agree with your post at May 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm and, therefore, I firmly assert that the cult of AGW must be opposed before it does more harm than it already has.
    The leaders of the AGW cult (e.g. Jones, Hansen, Mann, etc.) have done immense damage to climate science with resulting damage to the reputation of all science.
    Acolytes of the cult leaders (e.g. Rabbit, Tamino, Slioch, etc.) disseminate lies and hide behind pseudonyms to avoid being called to account.
    Adherents to the cult (e.g. yourself) are dupes who swallow the AGW BS, believe it, and then pretend the BS has an importance which gives them importance because they believe it.
    If you escape from the AGW cult then you will be able to discover that you – and all other people – have worth and merit by virtue of you being human. You do not need to justify yourself by adhering to the AGW cult or any other cult.
    I commend you to escape from the AGW cult for your own sake.
    Richard

  90. @Richard Courtney
    You said that it is “A LIE” that nobody claimed the tropospheric hotspot was a signature of CO2. Well, I say your argument is based on a misunderstanding of section of the IPCC report you quote. Here’s how…
    The graphs in question show that the only forcing that produces significant warming over the period considered is “well mixed greenhouse gases”. The big red blob in graph (c) is caused by that warming, but not specifically CO2 induced warming . That pattern would be seen whatever caused the warming. You can see in graph (a) that the warming attributed to solar forcing is most pronounced in the same region of the atmosphere, i.e. the tropical troposphere, there’s just less of it. If you cranked up the solar forcing you would see the same hot spot as in (c). The real “CO2 fingerprint” is statospheric cooling, the blue region at the top of graph. Other forcings don’t cause that effect. As the section of the report quoted by Richard goes on to say, “Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere”.
    Both of these arguments are, of course, well rehearsed on the Internet. Look it up for yourself, but don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report; see what the counter arguments are, and then see what the rebutters have to say about the counter arguments, and so on.

  91. 4 eyes said:
    Your generalisation about politicians on the right reluctantly accepting “it” tells me exactly where you are coming from – a political position, not a scientific one.
    And your even wilder claim that skeptics think “the whole thing” is a conspiracy confirms you are thinking in non scientific terms. What conspiracy do the skeptics claim? How many skeptics say this and who are they? Are all skeptics the same.? More myth propagation. If you are going to make generalisations you’d better be prepared to put up or shut up. WUWT got its good reputation by sticking to the facts and demanding logical argument.”

    The “conspiracy” of which I speak is that Mann, Hansen, Gore, the MSM, IPCC, CRU, those who cleared the CRU of wrongdoing, etc., know that they are talking a crock, but they continue doing it for financial or political gain.
    Let me make my position totally clear: I try to base my own decisions purely on the science. I am, however, making the assertion that AGW skepticism is primarily a political position, not based on science. If it were a scientific position, then skeptics would do some science and then use that science as argument rather than merely picking holes in mainstream science. I would be only too happy to accept such science if it held up. I am well aware that there are AGW proponents who are equally politically motivated and also that there are those on both sides who are incapable of understanding the science anyway. So no, not all skeptics are the same.
    I have learned a lot from this thread, the main thing being that you really believe what you are saying. I had the preconception that many skeptics were being dishonest, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here. I too believe what I am saying, so hopefully I have provided you with an insight into the mindset of “the other side”. However, as was noted earlier, science does not care about my opinion of it, or yours; it’s the facts that count. The hockey stick may or may not be broken, but whether it is or not has nothing to do with what you or I personally think of Mann, Gore, or McIntire and McKitrick.

  92. John B:
    At May 29, 2011 at 3:28 am you attempt the usual ‘warmist’ trick of justifying lies with another lies whilst attempting to change the subject.
    Fact:
    At May 28, 2011 at 4:47 am you asserted:
    “…The tropospheric hotspot is proposed (by climate scientists) to be a signature of warming, however caused, not just of anthropogenic warming. It was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2″. …“
    Fact:
    That assertion is a combination of three lies; viz.
    1. The tropospheric hotspot is proposed … to be a signature of warming, however caused, …
    2. The tropospheric hotspot is proposed … to be a signature of warming … not just of anthropogenic warming.
    3. It (i.e. the tropospheric hotspot) was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2″. …“
    Fact:
    At May 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm I stated that the IPCC denies your falsehoods and I posted a link so anybody can see the truth for themselves.
    Fact:
    As the link I provided proves:
    1a. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot is NOT a signature of warming, however caused.
    2b. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot IS A UNIQUE SIGNATURE of warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and NOT from any other cause.
    3b. The IPCC says the major increase in warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” is predominantly from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    At May 29, 2011 at 3:28 am you respond with:
    “Both of these arguments are, of course, well rehearsed on the Internet. Look it up for yourself, but don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report; see what the counter arguments are, and then see what the rebutters have to say about the counter arguments, and so on.”
    But I was writing to prove as I said at the start of my comment to you at May 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm;
    “Your above comments repeatedly claim the propoganda provided by the IPCC is real science, and you suggest that people should read that propoganda. But your comments demonstrate you have not read it.
    For example, at May 28, 2011 at 4:47 am you assert: …”
    Now you say “don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report”!
    Go away, you nasty little troll. Your lies are not wanted here.
    Richard

  93. “Sceptical”, it is you and your quasi-religious Warmist cult that twists and misunderstands, while we skeptics/climate realists are the antidote to that; we are more akin to atheists. You Warmists have erected a belief system wherein Gaia is your God, C02 represents evil, and man, by way of spewing said evil is sinful, and in need of redemption and salvation. Those who do not Believe are doomed to eternal damnation in the fires of climate Hell. Believers are able to obtain relief from the guilt of their very existence by purchasing Indulgences such as carbon credits, and by buying expensive “Green” products which have been sanctified by your Church. By peddling itself as “mainstream” and as “science” the Warmist Religion manages, (or has managed) to fool the naive, the simple-minded, the easily-led, and most shamefully, the young, who haven’t yet acquired the critical thought processes necessary to counteract the propaganda with which they are being assaulted.
    Unfortunately for the high priests and other purveyors of Warmism, though, and fortunately for mankind, the whole thing is in the process of coming undone. It is a dying religion, thankfully. Soon it will be relegated to the dustbin of inglorious history, to be wondered at and ridiculed by our descendents.

  94. Bruce Cobb, AGW science is mainstream. The Pentagon and the Pope have made public statements supporting the science which over 97% of climate scientists have said shows AGW. How much more mainstream can you get than when the Pentagon and the Pope are in agreement.
    Richard Courtney, you are confused about what you claim the IPCC says about a Tropospheric hotspot. Indoctrination into a cult confuses people as to the reality of the world.

  95. sceptical says:
    May 29, 2011 at 4:55 am
    Bruce Cobb, AGW science is mainstream. The Pentagon and the Pope have made public statements supporting the science

    Personally, I would regard this as a warning sign.
    “97% of climate scientists”
    “Say their governments prefer it.”

  96. Sceptical:
    At May 29, 2011 at 4:55 am you say to me:
    “Richard Courtney, you are confused about what you claim the IPCC says about a Tropospheric hotspot.”
    No!
    I copied and pasted from the IPCC Report and I provided a direct link to the page of that Report from which I had copied. I again provide it here so anybody can see the truth for themselves.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    Confusion? You AGW cultists are so deluded that quotation seems to be “confusion” to you.
    Richard

  97. Richard S Courtney said:
    “Fact:
    As the link I provided proves:
    1a. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot is NOT a signature of warming, however caused.
    2b. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot IS A UNIQUE SIGNATURE of warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and NOT from any other cause.
    3b. The IPCC says the major increase in warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” is predominantly from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    Where does it say anything that supports 1a and/or 2b? My quote, “Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere” is taken directly from your link. I genuinely cannot find support for your assertions in your link. If you can, please quote it so I can learn something. On 3b, we agree – IPCC does indeed say that the major increase in warming is predominantly from increased CO2 concentration. That is, of course, the central premise of the AGW theory.
    I still think you have misunderstood the report you quote and/or the science behind it. To paraphrase the mainstream argument and the IPCC report section – (1) CO2 causes warming, (2) warming should cause a hotspot, (3) we haven’t been able to measure the hotspot. But as it is not the CO2 that causes the hotspot directly, this does not mean that (1) is invalid. It means that either there is no warming (clearly not the case over the last 100 years, the period they are considering), the model that predicts the hotspot is wrong (possible, but unlikely as it is based on the same physics that proven weather models use) or the problem is in the measurement.
    I may be mistaken somewhere, but I am not lying to you. And surely merely disagreeing or even being wrong doesn’t make me a troll? According to wikipedia, “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum”. Which of those did I do?

  98. sceptical, you and your Warmtroll ilk keep repeating that “97% of climate scientists” nonsense like a mantra. We know that, in one poll, 75 out of 77 self-proclaimed “climate scientists” said that they believe in manmade warming/climate change. Only the most delusional and/or suffering the severest throes of cognitive dissonance can possibly believe that to be in any way significant. The “mainstream science” claim is not only bogus in itself, but it is an irrational argument. In no way does it say anything about the soundness of the science.

  99. Tony B:
    I am responding to your latest troll comment (it is at May 29, 2011 at 6:16 am) so it is clear that I am not ignoring you.
    It asks me:
    “I may be mistaken somewhere, but I am not lying to you. And surely merely disagreeing or even being wrong doesn’t make me a troll? According to wikipedia, “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum”. Which of those did I do?”
    I answer:
    All of the above. The following are examples.
    “a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, … messages in an online community.”
    e.g. John B says at May 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    ” And isn’t it skeptics who are driven by ideology – the ideology of the free market – to the exclusion of all rational enquiry?”
    That question is extremely “inflammatory” to left-wing socialists like me.
    “a troll is someone who posts … extraneous … messages in an online community.”
    e.g. John B says at May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    ” That’s how science works. But it has to hold up. That’s why the oft quoted “global cooling scare” of the 1970′s, which was all based on one paper, went away. It didn’t hold up.”
    There are so many ‘hooks’ on that attempt to side-track the discussion of this thread that I gasp in awe. But the “global cooling scare” and its several published papers are “extraneous” to the discussion of this thread.
    “a troll is someone who posts … off-topic messages in an online community.”
    John B says at May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm
    “A plea to those whose minds are still open – read the “IPCC report summary for policy makers” for yourself. If you don’t like it, what have you lost? If you find yourself thinking, “hmm, this isn’t what I was expecting”, dig a little deeper.”
    Discussion of the validity of the political IPCC Summary for Policymakers is very “off-topic” for this thread.
    There are several other examples, but you ‘go-for-broke’ when you try to claim the IPCC does not say what it does about the ‘hot spot’. Your claims lie, they inflame by dishonestly implying that my link to the IPCC statement is false, they are “extraneous” to rational debate, and they are “off-topic” of this debate.
    I enjoy rational debate with people whose opinions differ from my own because I learn from such debate: I learn nothing by listening to opinions that I hold. But I resent trolls and their attempts to prevent rational discussion.
    Richard

  100. @Bruce Cobb
    And in another study, it was between 97 and 98% of 1,372.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
    “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. “

  101. John B,
    You’re still flogging that dead horse? Give it up, it’s dead.
    You couldn’t get 98% of scientists to agree that bears crap in the woods – but we’re suposed to believe that 98% of self-designated ‘climate scientists’ all agree with the UN/IPCC?? Get a grip. You’re starting to sound like Harold Camping.

  102. sceptical says:
    “AGW science is mainstream. The Pope… made public statements…”
    That’s your authority?☺
    And John B, it is the models that are wrong about the tropospheric hot spot; the widely predicted “fingerprint of AGW.”
    Well, the AGW fingerprint simply isn’t there. And the temperature measurements are taken with radiosonde balloons and confirmed by satellite measurements – both accepted as being very accurate.
    The fact is that you cannot provide any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes any rise at all in temperature. It may. But where is the evidence?

  103. Richard:
    I really don’t think what I said was off-topic, inflammatory or extraneous. The OP was about AGW as a religion. I was trying to make the counter point that, to me, AGW looks scientific and the “skeptics” seem more religious. You might not like that opnion, but I think it is on-topic, etc.
    And you say, “There are several other examples, but you ‘go-for-broke’ when you try to claim the IPCC does not say what it does about the ‘hot spot’. Your claims lie, they inflame by dishonestly implying that my link to the IPCC statement is false, they are “extraneous” to rational debate, and they are “off-topic” of this debate.”
    I didn’t claim your link was false – it links correctly to the IPCC report. I said that I think you misundertood it. I stand by that. I asked you, and this is a genuine inquiry, to show me where the report claims that the hot spot is a signature of AGW, as opposed to warming from any source. I’d really like to know. Or maybe Smokey could help out there.
    And as for being a left-wing socialist, Google would seem to suggest you’ve been keeping that quiet 🙂

  104. “Smokey said: “The fact is that you cannot provide any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes any rise at all in temperature. It may. But where is the evidence?”
    Sorry, I didn’t know I had been asked for that evidence. Anyway, here goes. One line of evidence is:
    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it can absorb and re-transmit IR radiation
    2) Temperature in the instrumental record period has corresponded closely with CO2 levels. Even more closely if you factor out sulfate emissions, ENSO, Pinatubo and other short term variations.
    3) The main “fingerprint” of CO2-induced warming is a cooling stratosphere. That is because some of the radiation re-transmitted by tropospheric COs goes downwards, so does not reach the stratosphere to warm it.
    (4) This cooling has been measured.
    Which bit of that do you not accept?

  105. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    It seems to me that skeptics deny (yes, deny) the science because it offends their ideological views.

    1. What about the former warmists who became turncoats?
    2. What about the leftists among us?

  106. @Roger
    I’m sure there isn’t a single answer to that, and I should qualify my own assertion as in the main I think skeptics are ideologically driven. I guess there will be a mixture of people who have ideological changes of heart and people who really believe the science does not support AGW. I happen to think the evidence shows that they are wrong. Eventually the facts will out.

  107. John B exhibits psychological projection, imputing his fault onto scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists]:
    “…I think skeptics are ideologically driven… the evidence shows that they are wrong.”
    I challenge you to post such evidence, showing exactly how much warming a given amount of CO2 has caused. Make it testable, verifiable evidence per the scientific method.
    And keep in mind that models are not evidence; neither is the deliberately fabricated temperature data exposed in the Climategate emails and the Harry_read_me file.
    In fact, there is no verifiable evidence showing that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. AGW is still at the conjecture/hypothesis stage of the scientific method. It is not a theory because it has never been able to make accurate, testable predictions. James Hansen gave three wide-ranging predictions – not one of which happened. Don’t you think it’s time to demand real world evidence of the AGW conjecture? Because so far, there isn’t any.

  108. John B, you seem to be correct. Nowhere does the IPCC claim that the tropospheric hotspot is a signature of AGW. This hotspot is a signature of any warming. Richard Courtney does not understand what the IPCC report he linked to is saying.
    Smokey, the accuracy of Dr. Hansen’s past projections are quit good. It must really take some squinting to see otherwise.

  109. Smokey:
    Your post at May 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm is much too kind.
    John B is not exhibiting “psychological projection”: if he were then he would merit pity.
    But he is merely a troll attempting to inhibit rational debate, so he merits contempt.
    Richard

  110. C’mon Smokey, gimme a break. First you asked “… provide any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes any rise at all in temperature.” I pointed you at the evidence. Now you ask “I challenge you to post such evidence, showing exactly how much warming a given amount of CO2 has caused”. You know as well as I do, that that is not possible, because the predictions have error bars. But the trap you are falling onto is, “science doesn’t know everything, so it doesn’t know anything.”
    I gave you 4 steps in a chain of evidence, to which links to the original research are easy to find. Most skeptics accept at least some of those steps. Tell me which step you are not happy with and I’ll see what I can do to provide the evidence.
    Regarding Hansen’s predictions from 1988, he over-estimated climate sensitivity. Had he used a value in middle of the IPCC range (which he didn’t have at the time, of course) his scenario B would have been pretty much spot on.

  111. sceptical,
    You constantly make assertions that are easy to falsify. For example, this chart shows that Hansen’s predictions were flat wrong. There’s no getting around that fact.
    John B provides what he apparently believes is empirical “evidence” that CO2 causes AGW:
    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it can absorb and re-transmit IR radiation
    Not evidence per the scientific method. Quantify the amount of warming for each GT of CO2 emitted, annd make your prediction based on that. So far, all such predictions have failed. If you can do it, you will be the first.
    2) Temperature in the instrumental record period has corresponded closely with CO2 levels. Even more closely if you factor out sulfate emissions, ENSO, Pinatubo and other short term variations.
    Correlation. And actually, CO2 seems to have little to no effect on temperature.
    3) The main “fingerprint” of CO2-induced warming is a cooling stratosphere. That is because some of the radiation re-transmitted by tropospheric COs goes downwards, so does not reach the stratosphere to warm it.
    Not evidence. And when you’re up to speed you will understand that the ballyhooed “evidence” of stratospheric cooling simply replaced the ballyhooed “evidence” of the non-existent tropospheric hot spot when it became apparent that the models were wrong.
    (4) This cooling has been measured.
    Not evidence. Correlation. The predicted hot spot was also measured, and found to be missing.
    Here, let me help. Dr Karl Popper explains how rigorous the empirical evidence must be in order to fit within the scientific method. Pay attention to #1, because that’s what you’ve been doing.
    And of course Prof Richard Feynman explains that empirical observations are required, and that those observations must agree with your guess. Not just what you cherry-pick, but all predicted observations.
    The guess [conjecture] was that CO2=CAGW. All it takes is one falsification of that guess to debunk the conjecture. GCMs [computer climate models] all predicted rising temperatures over the past decade+. They were all wrong, every last one of them.
    When you’re up to speed on the meaning of “evidence” under the scientific method, report back. But it will take you a while to read and understand what Popper is saying about testability. You will see that nothing you have provided fits the definition of evidence.

  112. @Smokey
    So, we are stuck on step 1. You won’t even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Even Lord Monckton would give me that one. And the verification of that particular step has been done in the laboratory. It is only the later steps that involve the actual atmosphere.
    I am a great fan of Feynman, by the way, but I fear you have misunderstood him. Agreeng with experiment does not necessarily require exact numbers. For example, the prediction “aspirin reduces headaches” is borne out by experiment, i.e. clinical trials. That does not mean you can predict the exact amount by which your headache will reduce per aspirin tablet after a night out on the beer, but you still take the aspirin because (a) there is a mechnism by which it ought to work and (b) there is a correlation that shows it appears to work. Do you see the analogy? There is a mechanism for CO2 causing stratospheric cooling (IR re-radiation downwards) and there is a correlation (measured stratospheric cooling).
    Another example: evolution. Lots of qualitative predictions but few exact numbers. Do you think Feynman or Popper would say that evolution isn’t science?
    And climate science does have numbers, lots of them. But I have to admit I don’t know what they all are.

  113. P.S.
    Smokey, you cite Popper. Have you also read Kuhn? Kuhn talks about paradigm shift, wherein a particular idea sweeps across an area of science and become the norm. For example, relativity supplanting Newtonian dynamics. He contrasts this with the humanities, where scholars continue to debate philosophies and politics endlessly. In science, you can’t do that. Once oxygen theory has replaced phlogiston, there is no going back. Scientists stop debating it and start basing their work on the new paradigm. Climate scientists have reached that point, but the politicians continue the debate.
    IMHO.
    Good night.

  114. John B says:
    “You won’t even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
    Show me where I have ever said that. I have stated numerous times here that CO2 may cause some warming. So far, the effect, if any, appears to be minuscule, and it can be disregarded for all practical purposes because if it exists it is indistinguishable from natural variability. In fact Dr Miskolzci, a climate scientist [who knows more than you and I put together about the subject] estimates that CO2 causes zero warming. For a range of estimates, Prof Richard Lindzen puts climate sensitivity of CO2x2 at ≤1°C. Dr Craig Idso puts the sensitivity number at 0.37; Dr Miskolzci puts it at 0; Dr Spencer puts it at 0.46; Dr Schwartz puts it at 1.1; Dr Chylek puts it at 1.4. None of those numbers is anything to worry about, and they all contradict the 3° – 6° preposterously assumed by the IPCC’s political appointees.
    The original scare was over catastrophic AGW that would cause runaway global warming [CAGW]. However, there is no indication that warming is accelerating. In fact, the past decade has been flat to cooling, thus debunking the CO2=CAGW conjecture. The planet is telling you very clearly that the “carbon” scare is horse manure. Who are you gonna listen to? The self-serving UN/IPCC? Or planet earth? That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?
    And you could not possibly have read and understood the Popper article in this short time. So your mind is made up and closed. Lots of folks are true believers, and contrary facts are simply discarded, no matter how relevant.
    What I have been challenging you to produce is testable, reproducable, verifiable, empirical evidence, according to the scientific method, which quantifies the degree of warming per X amount of CO2 emitted. But there is no such evidence, so you try to re-frame the debate. If you want to do that, run along to Skeptical Pseudo-Science; they’ll let you do that over there. You can pick up some new talking points while you’re there – the current ones are easily debunked.
    Saying that CO2 warms the atmosphere is a meaningless statement. The question is: if so, how much? Provide direct evidence so that accurate, testable predictions can be made and verified. If you can. You’ll be the first, and on the short list for the Nobel prize.
    When you throw out unscientific nonsense like “analogy” and “correlation” to try and make your case, you necessarily fail. Produce real evidence, or admit that you simply have a belief system that thrives on cherry-picking.

  115. Agreed. Except for one thing. The religion of Global Warming/Climate Change does indeed have a god. It is their Mother Earth they worship.

  116. vigilantfish says:
    May 27, 2011 at 11:57 am
    Tony McGough says:
    May 27, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    As a Catholic as well as a man truly interested in good science, allow me to give three cheers for these two posts. In the pursuit of the full truth about the Church and science.

  117. sceptical says:
    May 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    John B, you seem to be correct. Nowhere does the IPCC claim that the tropospheric hotspot is a signature of AGW. This hotspot is a signature of any warming.
    Oops, then there hasn’t been any warming!
    Btw, I’ve read that same alleged “rebuttal” many times since it was first shown that no hotspot had materialized, and even responded once before as above. But apparently no “Climate Scientist” has realized that their rebuttal disproves Global Warming per se? [At least according to Climate Science.]

  118. Smokey:
    Please do not get entangled by the trolls posting under the names of ‘John B’ and ‘sceptical’.
    The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is the reason for the AGW hypothesis and it is NOT evidence that the hypothesis is right. Comparison of predictions from the hypothesis with obsevation of the real world shows the hypothesis is wrong.
    Figure 9.1 of the IPCC AR4 explicitly shows that the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of warming from “well-mixed” greenhouse gases and all other causes of warming provide a different pattern. Anybody can see this in seconds by clicking on
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    Only trolls would try to pretend these truths are other than they are.
    Trolls destroy rational debate. Please do not feed them.
    Richard

  119. @Smokey
    I said “You won’t even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
    Smokey said “Show me where I have ever said that. I have stated numerous times here that CO2 may cause some warming.” (emphasis mine)
    Well, you said it right there. If you accepted it, you would not have said “may”. Or at least that is how I interpreted it. If you do accept that CO2 s a greenhouse gas, I apologise.
    You then go on to talk about climate sensitivity. I absolutely agree with you that we do not know what the correct figure is for climate sensitivity. Yes, I agree! But the consensus is 3-6°C for a doubling of CO2. You cite 4 authors who provide figures below that range and accuse me of cherry picking. You can accuse the mainstream of many things, but cherry picking is not one of them.
    And BTW, I didn’t need to the time to read your Popper article as I was already familiar with his work. History and philosophy of science is a great interest of mine. You really shouldn’t assume you know more about me than you do.
    Also, BTW, you used the word “correlation” first. But science does use correlation, all the time. Plausible mechanism plus correlation is often the evidence. For example, in showing the link between cancer and smoking, the mechanism was originally only weakly understood (smoke contains nasty things and gets in your lungs) but the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was so strong as to make any reasonable scientist accept that smoking causes lung cancer. That became the “paradigm”, scientists stopped debating it and got on with elucidating the mechanism.
    In climatology, CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the underlying mechanism, figures for stratospheric cooling (and many more figures) show correlations. AGW makes testable hypotheses as to what those correlations should be. Stratospheric cooling is one, tropospheric hot spot is not (see above). If another hypothesis had a plausible mechanism and made testable hypotheses for correlations that held up, it would be studied and if it continued to hold up it would become mainstream. More examples: bacteria causing ulcers now mainstream, cold fusion not mainstream.
    But then we can talk about CAGW. Will it be catastrophic? We can talk about C if you will accept that AGW is real. If you don’t accept that, there is no point.

  120. @Richard
    No, no , no!
    You said “Figure 9.1 of the IPCC AR4 explicitly shows that the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of warming from “well-mixed” greenhouse gases and all other causes of warming provide a different pattern. Anybody can see this in seconds…”
    What they show is different amounts of warming, or indeed cooling, from different forcings. They show that only the GHG forcing predicts anything like the observed warming. The “missing hot spot” is a separate issue. The hot spot is predicted to occur as a result of warming, any warming. That point is not made explicit in those figures, so I suppose you could criticise the IPCC for lack of clarity, but you can’t just look at the pictures, you have to read the story, too.
    It has proved difficult to measure the hot spot. “It’s a travesty”. But given that there are lots of other measurements that show warming, and that the hot spot is not a unique signature of GHG warming, it is not a nail in the coffin of AGW. In any case, science does not work that way. If a single measurement disagrees with theory, you look at everything from “the theory is wrong” to “experimental error”. It might mean the theory is wrong, but not necessarily. You have to look at the big picture. If a mountain of evidence shows warming but we can’t measure the tropical tropospheric hotspot, we have an issue, but the problem may lie with the measurements rather than the theory. If you look at the recent literature, that is the way it is looking; e.g…
    http://camels.metoffice.gov.uk/quarc/Sherwood08_JClimate.pdf
    And anyway, the hot spot is not a signature of AGW as I have explained.

  121. @Smokey and myself, a correction:
    Smokey quoted the IPCC as predicting a 3-6°C sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 and I repeated it. The prediction in the 4th AR (2007) is:
    “The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is defined as the equilibrium global average surface warming following a doubling of CO2 concentration. Progress since the TAR enables an assessment that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html
    The 3rd AR had it at 1.5 to 4.5 °C. I’d be interested to know where you got 3-6°C from. Is it somewhere else in the IPCC report?

  122. Richard S Courtney says:
    “Please do not get entangled by the trolls posting under the names of ‘John B’ and ‘sceptical’. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is the reason for the AGW hypothesis and it is NOT evidence that the hypothesis is right. Comparison of predictions from the hypothesis with obsevation of the real world shows the hypothesis is wrong.”
    That is correct. The predictions have been wrong, and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that AGW is real. It may well exist, but without evidence, it is simply conjecture.

  123. @Smokey
    Here’s a good test of whether your views (or mine, or those of anyone else watching this debate) are religious or scientific: What evidence would make you change your mind? If you can’t think of any, then you are being religious.
    I’ll start:
    If the stratosphere were found to be warming rather than cooling, that would blow AGW out of the water.
    Your turn…

  124. Smokey, there is plenty of evidence supporting AGW. To begin to learn about the evidence I would suggest reading some of the IPCC reports, in paticular AR4 Working Group 1. Hopefully you can begin to learn about the evidence because the evidence is what the issue is about.

  125. John B:
    Your trolling is annoying.
    To be clear, the ‘hot spot’ is an increased rate of warming at altitude in the troposphere relative to the rate of warming at the surface. The difference in the warming rate is a factor of between 2 and 3.
    IPCC AR4 WG1 Report Section 9.2.2 explains the matter clearly and it can be read at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    Figure 9.1 of that Section shows the ‘hot spot’ is UNIQUELY an effect of forcing from “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
    THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS THE BIG RED BLOB IN Figure 9.1(c).
    No other forcing provides it (c.f. the other diagrams in Figure 9.1).
    You are either failing to look at what the IPCC says or you are deliberately lying. I have reached the conclusion that you are a liar. So, go away.
    Richard

  126. Smokey:
    You rightly say (at May 30, 2011 at 5:33 am ):
    “The predictions have been wrong, and there is still no evidence supporting the claim that AGW is real. It may well exist, but without evidence, it is simply conjecture.”
    I think it is reasonable to compare
    (a) what the IPCC says should be happening according to the AGW hypothesis
    to
    (b) what is happening in reality.
    Section 10.7.1 titled ‘Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs’
    in the Report from WG1 (i.e. the “science” Working Group) of the most recent IPCC Report (AR4) can be read at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
    It says:
    “The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.”
    So, the IPCC says “The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
    n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.
    And the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.
    But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.
    So, for the IPCC prediction to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.
    What happened to the “committed warming”? Answers on a postcard, please.
    Richard

  127. @Richard
    You still don’t get it, do you?
    you said: “THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS THE BIG RED BLOB IN Figure 9.1(c).
    No other forcing provides it (c.f. the other diagrams in Figure 9.1).”

    No other forcing provides any significant warming. If they did, you would see the hot spot there too because it is predicted by “moist adiabatic lapse rate”, not by any efect peculiar to the cause of the warming. However, GHG induced warming, and only GHG induced warming, predicts a cooling stratosphere. That is not only in the picture, but also described in the text. I asked you to show me where in the text your assertion is supported. I believe it isn’t. Your whole argument is based on misinterpreting a single set of pictures.
    If you could get over this misunderstanding, we could debate the issues of how accurate IPCC predictions have been.

  128. John B says:
    May 29, 2011 at 2:39 pm
    @Roger
    I’m sure there isn’t a single answer to that, and I should qualify my own assertion as in the main I think skeptics are ideologically driven. I guess there will be a mixture of people who have ideological changes of heart and people who really believe the science does not support AGW.

    The dispute appears more ideologically driven that it is, because of a reluctance among political allies to criticize erring members of their own flock. Added to which is a corresponding eagerness on the opposite site of the fence to jump all over any flub committed by any faction of the enemy, and impute it to the entirety thereof. (Sociologists and political scientists probably have a name for this dynamic.)
    IOW, the outspoken critics of the CACA Cult (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmist) are mostly those who would be delighted to see a holier-than-thou progressive parade mocked and turned to a rout on general principles.
    Left-leaning disbelievers criticize in mutters, more in sorrow than anger. They don’t want to give the other side ammunition, they don’t want to be vilified as apostates (as Dyson has been)–and some think that even if there’s no real threat from warming, it would be a good excuse to super-tax those nasty Republican industrialists, or make the Other Side look uncaring about pollution, or divert a little money in transfer payments to the poor in the third world, etc.; so they soft-pedal their criticism.
    In addition, it’s likely that when progressives find themselves being wobbled by doubts after delving into the issue, many stop delving. (The same phenomenon happens on the other side of the fence, on other issues, natch.)
    So I think it’s superficial to take the average political affiliation of the public scorcher-scam scoffers as having determined their position on the issue. (What political mostly determines is the vociferousness and openness of ones criticism. (A searching opinion-survey would help to clarify matters.))
    Warmist spin-meisters who argue that their critics are biased are serenely oblivious to the likelihood of political bias (in favor of dirigism and against “development” and “consumption”) operating on their own side. I suspect that the percentage of Republicans among the “97% consensus” is extremely low–perhaps under 15%.
    I am therefore unimpressed by the consensus; it seems to me just another case of “advocacy research” by activist-researchers, similar to heterosexual-AIDS-alarmist public health officials or recovered-memory therapists.

  129. John B said:
    “However, GHG induced warming, and only GHG induced warming, predicts a cooling stratosphere.”
    Please explain this:
    “During the late 20th century warming trend the stratosphere was observed to cool and that was also supposed to be in accordance with AGW. However since the 90s that cooling has ceased and the stratospheric temperature trend is now one of slight warming:
    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”

  130. John B exhibits classic cognitive dissonance: when the data falsifies the model… then the data must be wrong!
    And to claim that ‘no other forcing’ can cause the observed effects is not even wrong; it shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Prof Richard Lindzen explains:

    “For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”

    Misguided folks like John B, who get spoon-fed propaganda from pseudo-science alarmist blogs, still insist on demonizing CO2 – a tiny, beneficial trace gas which, contrary to their evidence-free religious beliefs, does not control the planet’s temperature. It may add a minuscule amount, but the added warming is so insignificant that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. Lindzen testified in 2005 to the House of Lords Select Committee:

    “Current climate models would have predicted a substantially greater increase in the past temperature than has been observed in the past 150 years, perhaps +3°C compared to the +0.6°C we have witnessed.”

    John B’s belief in climate models is misguided, because the models have been falsified. Despite constant tweaking they still cannot predict future temperatures. The models are simply wrong. Despite their being debunked, that doesn’t deter true believers from digging a deeper hole based on their complete misunderstanding of the situation. Cognitive dissonance in action.

  131. John B:
    It is clear thatyou are a liar. You assert:
    “No other forcing provides any significant warming. ”
    Then claim that means something.
    It means nothing.
    The important point is the PATTERN (i.e. distribution throughout the atmosphere) of the warming and NOT ITS MAGNITUDE.
    Only “well mixed greenhouse gases” provide the ‘hot spot’. Other forcings don’t.
    The facts are plain for all to see and your lies do not change them.
    And are you going to say what happened to the “committed warming” or will you merely keep spouting irrelevant nonsense and lies?
    Richard

  132. @Richard
    OK, one last try. You said “The important point is the PATTERN (i.e. distribution throughout the atmosphere) of the warming and NOT ITS MAGNITUDE.
    And to the extent they show any warming at all, the pattern is the same as regards the hot spot. Look at figure (a) solar and (d) ozone forcings. What little effect they have is also centred on the upper troposphere. They are also predicted to create the hot spot, just not s omuch because their effect is smaller. Get it?
    Let’s try this approach – if the IPCC did assert that GHG induced warming uniquely caused the hot spot, they would be wrong! Why? Because there is no mechanism for it. The hot spot is due to lapse rate, not the cause of the warming. That’s the physics, even if you interpret the IPCC figures as saying something other than that.
    Regarding the committed warming, I didn’t realise that question was directed at me. It is, after all, a different issue. But surely you are clutching at straws going after a prediction that has other 9 years to go. Let’s say it turns out to be wrong. Does this disprove all of AGW theory? No, because climate is a noisy business. You have to look at the trends. Eventually there might come a time when the trends go in the wrong direction. If and when that happens, non-AGW will become the mainstream, but we’re not there yet.

  133. @Steven Wilde
    First, thank you for your civility.
    As regards the paper you link to, the authors themselves say “the evidence
    for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited” and “this study may provide evidence to the recovery of stratospheric ozone.”

    The right thing for a lay person like me to do is see what the scientific community make of it. All I can find so far is this on wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
    “Since 1996 the trend is slightly positive due to ozone recover juxtaposed to a cooling trend of 0.1K/decade that is consistent with the predicted impact of increased greenhouse gases. [31]”
    The actual paper (reference 31) is behind a pay wall.
    Hope that helps,
    John

  134. John B, have you noticed ?
    You said:
    “If the stratosphere were found to be warming rather than cooling, that would blow AGW out of the water.”
    and I said:
    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming since 1996.”
    Have I blown AGW out of the water ?

  135. @Smokey
    Prof. Lindzen misinterprets Tsonis et al. This is what they actually say:
    In 2007: “However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
    https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf
    And in 2009: “Global mean temperature at the Earth’s surface responds both to externally imposed forcings, such as those arising from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, as well as to natural modes of variability internal to the climate system. Variability associated with these latter processes, generally referred to as natural long-term climate variability, arises primarily from changes in oceanic circulation.
    Here we present a technique that objectively identifies the component of inter-decadal global mean surface temperature attributable to natural long-term climate variability. Removal of that hidden variability from the actual observed global mean surface temperature record delineates the externally forced climate signal,
    which is monotonic, accelerating warming during the 20th century.

    http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
    John

  136. John B,
    When you quote someone explaining that they “superimposed” something on top of the raw data, they are describing a model, not evidence. But thanx for showing us again what grant-trolling looks like: removal of a ‘hidden variable’, heh. If those clowns could make accurate predictions with their models, don’t you think they would have done it by now?
    They claim that warming is accelerating, while empirical satellite and radiosonde measurements contradict them.
    Your problem is that you reject empirical evidence, and believe the models instead.

  137. Stephen Wilde said, “Have I blown AGW out of the water ?”
    I don’t know. What do you think? My response to you crossed in moderation.
    John

  138. Hey Smokey, those “clowns” are the very people Prof. Lindzen was using to support the assertion you cited. I have no idea whether their work is any good or not, I was just pointing out that Prof. Lindeen misinterpreted them. The first of my quotes is from the actual paper he cited.

  139. Well John, I do think AGW is in difficulty if the stratosphere is no longer cooling.
    The thing is that I think that the ozone recovery is ozone induced just as the ozone loss was solar induced so the part that CO2 plays in the process is likely negligible unless you and your fellow AGW proponents can come up with far better evidence.
    Which gives me an opportunity to post this:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php
    I think that Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann made a huge error back in 2001 on the basis of a mere assumption.

  140. John B:
    You again lie.
    I cannot post the diagram here so I am forced to yet again post the link:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    At May 30, 2011 at 8:39 am you lie:
    “And to the extent they show any warming at all, the pattern is the same as regards the hot spot. Look at figure (a) solar and (d) ozone forcings. What little effect they have is also centred on the upper troposphere.”
    NO! The pattern is NOT the same.
    Anybody can see your lie for themselves so why do you keep posting it except as a way to prevent rational discussion?
    (a) solar forcing,
    shows similar warming at altitude to the surface.
    (b) volcanoes
    does show slightly higher warming at altitude than at the surface but their overall effect is cooling and is transient (i.e. lasts ~3 years for each major eruption).
    (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases
    shows much greater warming (i.e 2 to 3 times more) at altitude than at the surface and this provides the big red hot spot.
    (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes
    shows the same warming at altitude and the surface.
    (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing
    the relevant altitude shows cooling – not warming – relative to the surface.
    That is fact which anybody can see. So, you may be deluding yourself with your lies but they fool nobody else.
    Richard

  141. @Steven
    Obviously I haven’t had as long on this topic as you have, since you wrote the article you link to 🙂
    I wouldn’t call that an error on the part of Schmidt and Mann. They suggest that MWP and LIA were caused by solar irradiance changes. They don’t “junk” this mechanism for the late 20th century, they just say it is swamped by the effect of CO2. I’d have to agree with you that the ozone effect is at least a confounding factor.
    Are you planning to publish your work formally? If you think you have a novel point, I think that is what you should do.

  142. Stephen Wilde:
    With respect, I think you are on a loser.
    John B said;
    “If the stratosphere were found to be warming rather than cooling, that would blow AGW out of the water.”
    And you showed that the empirical data shows the stratosphere IS warming.
    Any rational person would thank you for that information and would learn from it. An AGW cultist will make excuses and conclude with an assertion that the empirical data must be wrong.
    Richard

  143. Actually there is a religion underlying much environmental activism – Pantheism. It considers god and the world to be the same, and every creature is literally part of the world. So in the extreme every action hurts, there are no individuals, thus it is attractive to the many people who’ve been taught the notions of Marxism and its Kantian cousins.
    Pantheism is probably practised implicitly rather than consciously by name. Some religious practices of aboriginals were close to Pantheism, seemingly because they recognized their dependence on the world around them but did not understand the causes of variability of climate and risks of action. (They were mixed, they did recognize human performance such as great hunting skills, and invented or adopted inventions from other tribes/cultures. Such as designing boats to suit locally available materials and the need for light weight or durability depending on local geography, and controlled use of fire to increase supply of animals and plants.)
    I find that environmental activists are operating on faith. They talk as though it is obvious that humans are ruining the environment but ignore human-supporting achievements like clean water. They talk of deforestation yet cannot grasp the view outside their window of abundant gardens nor the view of replanted forests outside cities, such as http://www.keithsketchley.com/treegrow.gif. When challenged with such evidence they keep repeating their beliefs.
    What I find puzzling is that the media paid much attention to Harold Camping. Doomsday predictions by Christians in the US are a regular occurrence.

  144. Thanks Richard, I’m inclined to agree.
    John B,
    I’ve no intention of formal publication. The peer review of the blogosphere is more rigorous than pal’s review.
    The natural conclusion from events of the past ten years is that any effect from CO2 is swamped by natural variability.
    Gavin and Michael backed the wrong horse and it would be good for climate science as a whole if they were to accept that and explain how it happened.

  145. Richard, take another look:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    See that fat yellow stripe across the middle of (a). Wouldn’t you say that is at the same altitude as the read spot in (c)? And the little yellow dot in (d). Also at the same altitude as the red spot. They are yellow rather than red because the effect is much smaller, but “lapse rate” works the same no matter what the cause of the warming. (e) is cooling so its difficult to compare. Actually (b) is the outlier since its “warm spot” is at higher altitude.
    And how dare you call me a liar? You may not like what I have to say, but I am not lying. As far as my so-called “lies” fooling anyone, you know as well as I do that I am presenting the mainstream position. If anyone else here is not aware of that, look it up. I guess you would just say there are a lot of liars out there.
    Stephen makes some sense. If the stratosphere warming effect is (a) real and (b) long lived and (c) not separable from CO2 induced cooling, it is indeed a problem to AGW. However, you Richard seem to need a crash course in the scientific method. A single paper does not “prove” or “disprove” anything, it only supplies evidence. If that evidence is valid, replicable, etc., it trumps theory. That’s why I asked him if he was going to publish his work. It would add to the body of evidence. That’s how science works. If the weight of evidence shows that stratospheric cooling, as predicted by AGW, is not happening, I will gladly accept that AGW is blown out of the water. There, happy now?
    John

  146. Stephen said: “The natural conclusion from events of the past ten years is that any effect from CO2 is swamped by natural variability.”
    Yes, the effect of CO2 is swamped, or at least obscured, by natural variability. But the effect of CO2 has a trend, natural variability does not, at least not over the same timescales. The effect of waves lapping in and out on the shore swamps the effect of the tide coming in, but the tide still comes in. It just takes a few hours to see it. 10 years is at the low end of what is needed to see the effects of CO2, which is why climatalogists tend to use 30 year norms.

  147. John B,
    Yes I am cautious but first to the line gets the prize and to me the logic and observations are currently all going one way.
    You might be interested in this:
    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/features/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
    The thing is that if I hadn’t noted the jets start to shift back equatorward as long ago as 2000 I would never have doubted AGW theory but that really was not supposed to happen and there were lots of other changes around the same time that did not fit AGW theory either such as:
    The less active sun being accompanied by a record negative AO.
    The stratosphere no longer cooling.
    Tropospheric temperature stopped rising.
    Global albedo and cloudiness started increasing.
    The jets ceased to shift poleward.
    Ocean heat content stopped rising.
    One really should follow the evidence after all.
    Always question the mainstream if you see odd things happening 🙂

  148. John,
    Your point about the bacxkground effect of more CO2 is valid but must be put in perspective.
    The jets shifted by 1000 miles or so from MWP to LIA to date and I’d guess that human CO2 contributes just a mile or so unless you can prove otherwise.
    Even on the basis that more CO2 does have a discernible effect we have hundreds of years to wean off fossl fuels, control our populations and adapt our technologies.

  149. Stephen,
    An interesting article, which I will read properly when I get time. You have clearly put a lot of work into it. I genuinely think you should look at getting it published. First though, you need to get your work informally reviewed by some experts in the field. They might be able to point out flaws, but alternatively might be able to suggest improvements or other avenues to investigate. Seriously, if there is real merit in your work it will get somewhere. It really isn’t the closed shop that some suggest. But I would go “mainstream” if you want to avoid becoming just another skeptics talking point.
    One bit of advice, that maybe is teaching granny to suck eggs: while we can (kind of) get away with phrases like “seems unlikely” or “natural consequence” when shooting the breeze on the web, in a serious paper you have to qualify everything. I just wrote a Masters’ dissertation (in bioinformatics). That’s not even a real paper, but I can tell you, reviewers will be brutal if you make unfounded or unsupported claims.
    Good luck!
    John

  150. Thanks John but if the real world behaves as I suggest then the blog posts will be quite enough.
    Besides I have a demanding day job and could not allocate the time to prepare a full dissertation.
    Also it is a work in progress that I adjust continually in the light of new data.

  151. John B:
    Reality is what it is.
    Reality is not what you, me or anybody else may want it to be.
    And lies are lies whether or not you present them in polite words.
    The facts of the ‘hot spot’ are clear so everybody can see the truth for themselves. Hence, I see no point in my wasting more time refuting your nonsense about it.
    I still await your answer to the question;
    “What happened to the “committed warming”?”
    Richard

  152. John B says:
    “…linking to a graph that covers 7 years and another one that covers just over a year wouldn’t be cherry picking, would it? To misquote Slick Wille, ‘It’s the trend, stupid’”
    No, it would not be cherry-picking. I deliberately posted two charts, covering different time scales, to avoid charges of cherry-picking. But to keep you happy, here are three more charts, showing that CO2 follows temperature:
    click1 [CO2 lags T by 5 months]
    click2 [30-year chart]
    click3 [60-year chart]
    Effect cannot precede cause, therefore the rise in CO2 follows the MWP by ≈800 ±200 years. Part of the atmospheric CO2 is human emitted. But as I will conclusively demonstrate, that added CO2 is entirely beneficial.
    Next, that chart you linked @10:42 am above was pretty scary — and it completely misrepresents the situation by using an alarming y-axis. Here is a chart using a normal zero y-axis: click See? No longer scary.
    Let’s look at Dr Roy Spencer’s chart of CO2 in its correct relationship to the atmosphere: click See the CO2? No? OK, Here’s that same chart magnified 10X: click But a chart like that is entirely unacceptable to the IPCC and its alarmist enablers, so they use charts like you posted, with the y-axis beginning at close to current levels. See, that makes the rise seem very alarming.
    OK, let’s try again, by magnifying the chart by another 10X: click Now you can make out the tiny amount of CO2.
    Here’s another chart: click See the CO2? No? That’s because it’s too minuscule to see.
    Despite all the spittle-flecked, red faced arm-waving by the self-serving alarmist contingent, normal folks can see how the effect of “carbon” has been completely blown out of proportion. An honest y-axis puts things in their proper perspective.
    Next, CO2 is good, not bad — and more CO2 is better:
    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    That is empirical [real world] evidence that additional CO2 is highly beneficial to the biosphere. But even after a significant ≈40% increase in that trace gas, there is zero evidence of any resulting global damage. Since there is no harm, CO2 must be considered harmless, no? [if you have the urge to answer ‘yes,’ you must post verifiable evidence of global damage tied directly to CO2, and testable per the scientific method].
    I trust you were able to follow the logic here: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Until/unless empirical evidence is provided showing that CO2 is not harmless or beneficial, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] must follow the scientific method, and conclude that without testable evidence, forcings other than carbon dioxide cause climate change.

  153. Smokey, are you serious? Nah, you gotta be kidding me!
    Let’s take this graph:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
    Do you really not see how stupid that is? You are trying to argue that becuase CO2 is a trace gas, which everyone agrees on, that it can’t be significant. And using a graph to show it is a trace gas, which everyone agrees on, does not help the argument one bit. How about I introduce a similar trace of hydrogen cyanide into you local atmosphere? Of course a trace can be significant. In the case of atmospheric CO2 the evidence is that it is. That does need to be demonstrated, but to say “it can’t be a problem because its only a teeny bit” is just stupid. I think you even said yourself earlier in this thread that it “may” have an effect.
    You make a different but equally egregious mistake with your “it’s beneficial ” argument. It is possible for a substance to be beneficial in one way but harmful in another. Take water for instance – essential for life, but if you were to spend 5 minutes at the bottom of a swimming pool, not so good. Let’s agree that increased atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow. What has that got to do with it’s potential effects as a greenhouse gas? Nothing! It can be “plant food” and a greenhouse gas.
    The x- and y-axes on the graph I posted were set to contain all the data, so that you can see clearly what’s going on – not to scare anyone. Sorry if they scard you, that was not the intention. The intention was to show the trend. that just happened to be the first suitable graph I found that I could link to.
    Which highlights your next mistake: absolutely any graph can be turned into a flat line by extending the y-axis enough. What does it prove? Nothing! If you want to see if something is increasing, decreasing, staying flat, wiggling about, or following something else, you set the y-axis to allow you to see what’s going on. OK, there is some rationale in setting the y-axis to start at 0, but why did you take it to 1,000? Why not 10,000? Why not 100, 000? That would make the trend look even less “scary”, to someone who doesn’t see what you are doing.
    And then your last paragraph: “I trust you were able to follow the logic here: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Until/unless empirical evidence is provided showing that CO2 is not harmless or beneficial, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] must follow the scientific method, and conclude that without testable evidence, forcings other than carbon dioxide cause climate change.
    What does CO2 being “beneficial” have to do with whether it causes climate change? Nothing! It could be both, you know. And surely your scientific method should only lead you to conclude that “forcings other than carbon dioxide may cause climate change”.
    Look, there are uncertainties about climate sensitivity, there are uncertainties about statospheric cooling (I learned today), there are all sorts of things open to debate, but this is just silly.
    John

  154. John B says:
    “OK, there is some rationale in setting the y-axis to start at 0, but why did you take it to 1,000?”
    From zero to 1,000 ppmv shows exactly where we are. And you’ve got a problem with that? Why? I’ve provided you with plenty of supporting graphs – and I have plenty more. If you’re interested in learning, just ask for them. The real problem is using an artificially high y-axis.
    Anyway, there is still nothing in your posts showing evidence that CO2 is anything but harmless and beneficial. There has been no global damage, and as I showed, agricultural production tracks increases in CO2. Thus, CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas.
    Your problem is that you want to blame CO2 for climate change, but you have no evidence.

  155. Richard, I did answer you on committed warming. I said:
    “Regarding the committed warming, I didn’t realise that question was directed at me. It is, after all, a different issue. But surely you are clutching at straws going after a prediction that has other 9 years to go. Let’s say it turns out to be wrong. Does this disprove all of AGW theory? No, because climate is a noisy business. You have to look at the trends. Eventually there might come a time when the trends go in the wrong direction. If and when that happens, non-AGW will become the mainstream, but we’re not there yet.”
    On the hot spot though, let’s throw it open to the audience, but let’s make it objective. On each of the figures that show warming, at what altitude is the greatest warming at the equator? In other words, where is its hot spot? I say the equator because it is the tropical tropospheric hot spot we are talking about. The figure that show warming are (a), (b), (c) and (d). The greatest warming is red in (c), yellow in (a), (b) and (d) as they produce less warmimg, but it is the pattern not the magnitude we are looking at. The equator is the middle of the x=axis.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
    Anyone care to answer? Richard, you can join in too? I’ll hold off so as not to bias the result. Here’s a clue though: three answers, including GHG (c), will be very similar.

  156. Smokey, my feeble attemts at irony were clearly lost on you. I should have simply said, “why go to 1000 when 500 or even 400 would show all the data and allow you to see what is happening more clearly?” 1000 is the “artificially high y=axis”.
    And then you atart talking about “global damage”. That’s important too, but I thought we were talking about y-axes. One thing at a time.
    Why don’t you have a go at my hot spot quiz?

  157. I’ve pointed out the attempts to alarm the public with jiggered y-axes. That point has been made. The central issue is the hypothesis that CO2=CAGW. CO2 has risen, but there is no evidence of ill effects – and plenty of evidence of beneficial effects.
    Regarding the failure of the predicted warming of the troposphere, Prof Ross McKittrick definitively showed in his peer reviewed paper that the tropospheric hot spot had not appeared as predicted. Another dagger in the heart of CAGW.
    The widely touted “fingerprint of global warming” just isn’t there.
    CO2 is harmless and beneficial. There is no evidence to the contrary. The planet is still emerging from the LIA, so CO2 is still outgassing from the oceans. But the model predictions are, as always, wrong.
    Some day the scales may fall from your eyes, and you will realize that the motivation to demonize “carbon” is based on money, greed, power and status, not on reproducible science:

    Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.
    ~Prof Richard Lindzen

  158. Would that be the same Lindzen who (mis)quoted Tsonis et al to support him? The same Tsonis et al who you called “clowns” because you didn’t spot why I quoted them.
    And one day you may realise that not all climate scientists are evil or dishonest and that not every one who accepts what the experts have to say is stupid. And that reality trumping ideology works both ways. And that dismissing all the science you don’t like while uncritically accepting anything you do like is not really being a “skeptic”. One day…
    This has been very informative, thank you!

  159. John B,
    You are hanging on to your opinion that Prof Lindzen made a mistake like a drowning man grasps at a toothpick. I think Lindzen knows a little more than you do about the subject, and until he explains that he was mistaken I’ll presume he’s innocent of you attempted tarring of what is probably the world’s most esteemed climatologist.
    You are simply attempting to re-frame the argument away from the fact that there is no testable evidence showing that CO2 is harmful to the planet [AKA: “Look over there! A kitten.”]
    You’re trying to support a conjecture without evidence. Flap your arms all you want, it’s still just a conjecture.

  160. I’m not clinging on to anything. I just thought it funny that Lindzen would quote a paper that clearly does not support the view he was presenting and that you would then rip into the quote as if I were using it to support my position.
    On the serious point of evidence though, there is a mountain of it. You know that as well as I do. It’s all summarised in the IPCC reports. Yes, I know what you are going to say, but that’s where you will find it. There’s no point me pulling out bits here and there to wave in front of you, it’s all in the reports for anyone who cares to look. It’s not precise, it’s not all conclusive, but it is the best we’ve got. That’s how science works; it’s about the big picture, not cherry picked factoids.
    But how about having a go at “pin the tail on the hot spot”? It’ll be fun!

  161. John B,
    I’ve asked numerous physicists here over the past year and a half, some with doctorates, to provide any empirical evidence showing global damage due to CO2. Not one of them provided any evidence; most never responded. That is because there is no evidence.
    The IPCC operates on models, not evidence. It’s all hand-waving. All of it. There is no global damage from CO2. None. By claiming that there is a “mountain” of evidence, then saying you don’t need to post it, makes me think you’re probably Camping in drag. Here are the rules for testing whether a hypothesis is valid per the scientific method:

    It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. <–[John B]
    1. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
    2. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
    3. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
    4. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.
    5. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers <– [John B] — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.
    One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

    Note that “runaway global warming” morphed into “climate change,” then into “climate disruption,” etc. This constant moving of the goal posts is an attempt to escape refutation of CO2=CAGW. It falls under the rubric of PNS, and is thus invalid per the scientific method.
    The hypothesis that CO2 causes runaway catastrophic global warming has been falsified by the ultimate authority: the planet itself. So, who are we supposed to believe? A cognitive dissonance-afflicted true believer telling us his fantasy that evil “carbon” controls the climate? Or Planet Earth? I believe what the planet is telling us.
    And enough with the tropospheric hot spot fixation. It’s been thoroughly debunked. That horse is dead, find another one to flog. The models predicted it, and the models were wrong as usual; they couldn’t predict their way out of a wet paper bag.

  162. Without evidence that today’s warming (if there really is any outside internal variability) is unprecedented during this interglacial in either scope or rate of change, then there is no catastrophe. The hockey stick(s) can’t provide that evidence beyond 1500ce without using proxies which have been totally discredited.

  163. Smokey says:
    May 30, 2011 at 6:54 pm
    What a noble soul you are! Good work! However, after my little spat with Ryan and others on Ryan’s “defense of NOAA hurricane forecasting,” I doubt that critical evaluation of scientific claims will gain an audience here. I just might be losing the fire in the belly that is needed for the effort.

  164. Richard S Courtney says:
    ‘“Please do not get entangled by the trolls posting under the names of ‘John B’ and ‘sceptical’.’
    Good for you, Richard. Such obvious trolls really should not be tolerated. John B. is so good at what he does that he should be called a “Tar Baby” rather than a troll.

  165. John B:
    At May 30, 2011 at 4:37 pm you ask Smokey:
    “Why don’t you have a go at my hot spot quiz?”
    I cannot answer for Smokey but my answer to your “quiz” is that I have completely and repeatedly answered it above.
    Now, are you going to answer my question that I have repeatedly posted above first at May 30, 2011 at 6:26 am and explicitly addressed to you at May 30, 2011 at 2:36 pm; viz.
    “What happened to the “committed warming”?”
    Richard

  166. Richard, I answered you question at 8:39am and then repeated the answer, as you must have missed the first answer, at 4:24pm (both May 30). You may not like the answer, which boils down to “I don’t know”, but it was an answer.
    Regarding the quiz, that just required 4 numbers as an answer. If you did answer, I’m afraid I missed it. Can you point me at your answer to that question?

  167. John B:
    No! That will not do (even from a troll).
    I asked ;
    “What happened to the “committed warming”?”
    And your repeated so-called answer says;
    “Regarding the committed warming, I didn’t realise that question was directed at me. It is, after all, a different issue. But surely you are clutching at straws going after a prediction that has other 9 years to go. Let’s say it turns out to be wrong. Does this disprove all of AGW theory? No, because climate is a noisy business. You have to look at the trends. Eventually there might come a time when the trends go in the wrong direction. If and when that happens, non-AGW will become the mainstream, but we’re not there yet.”
    Rubbish!
    That does NOT say what happened to the “committed warming”?
    It says you do not want to admit that the IPCC’s assertion of “committed warming” (explained in my post at ) was plain wrong. No “committed warming” has happened.
    And I did not say the failed prediction disproves” all of AGW theory” (actually AGW is a hypothesis and not a theory). I said it is a failure of a prediction provided by the AGW hypothesis.
    I remind that the the IPCC AR4 says;
    “The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
    n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.
    And the IPCC AR4 says the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.
    But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.
    So, for the IPCC predictions for “the first two decades of the 21st century” to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.
    Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required rise in the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.
    I repeat;
    What happened to the “committed warming”?
    To paraphrase Trenberth, it is a travesty that the “committed warming” has magically vanished to nobody knows where.
    Richard
    PS
    I will not continue to debate your silly assertions concerning the ‘hot spot’: I have repeatedly refuted them above and I have repeatedly provided a link so anybody can see and read the truth for themselves.
    Richard

  168. And I said, in a rather long-winded way, “I don’t know”. If Trenberth et al don’t find the missing heat, that is indeed a problem, I’ll grant you that. OK? But if they do find it, will you recant?
    And the answers to the hot spot quiz:
    (a) Solar ~10Km
    (b) Volcanoes ~12Km
    (c) GHG ~10Km
    (d) Ozone ~10Km
    Bottom line : GHG warming is not unique in being expected to produce a tropical tropospheric hot spot. The difficulty in measuring the hot spot, or even its non-existence, is not specifically linked to GHGs. Yes, other people can “read the truth” too. But I would urge them, and you, to look up what the tropical tropospheric hot spot issue is really all about, not just play “gotcha” by misunderstanding or misrepresenting a single set of pictures. In the long run, that does the skeptic cause no good at all.
    Shall we leave it at that?

  169. John B says:
    May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    John, your very response shows why there is no science on the AGW side. Scientists do not opine – the investigate, they experiment, they test, they hypothesize. They do not go around with pre-determined conclusions and then try to shut out the ones who may disagree with them. You would shut out those who disagree simply because you cannot prove you are right – but that should then make you try to prove it – something that is lacking inthe AGW science since none of the models work, and nothing has been proven or disproven.
    Which brings us to the criticial scientific question – what is the Null Hypothesis and where is the proof that it is false? In other words, why are you chasing rabbits when you should be going about disproving the null hypothesis. Once that is done,THEN and only then can we start looking for alternate causes. You have jumped the shark and are trying to have the horse push the cart. It works better when you follow scientific principals instead of some religious creed.

  170. Bruce Cobb says:
    May 29, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Bruce, you forgot to mention that of those 75, they had to sample over 10,000 scientists and then cut it down by qualifications to get to the 75. In addition, only 1/3 even bothered to respond, so that means that about 7k scientists views are not known. The 97% number is like an internet poll – except it is worse since they did not qualify it with the fact that 67% had no opinion, or that less than 3/4 of 1% agreed with that opinion.

  171. Phil,
    I am not a climate scientist, so I defer to those who are. I am, however, scientifically literate, so I can understand it to a certain level. In this thread, I have been trying to consistently put the views of mainstream climate scientists. Here goes again…
    The null hypothesis is that the observations (temperatures, sea ice extent, etc., etc.) can be explained without recourse to CO2-induced or other anthropogenic effects. Agreed? Do you really think that climate scientists don’t know that, or discount it out of hand? Well, they don’t!
    The IPCC get pilloried by skeptics for saying (I’m paraphrasing) “we can’t find another cause, so it must be CO2”. They say that because they have looked at the null hypothesis and found that it cannot explain the observations. They have then looked at the CO2 hypothesis and found that it does. We don’t know all the details, hence error bars, etc., but the scientific method has been followed. Yes, really.
    And here’s an irony: the skeptics keep bringing up more hypotheses: “it’s the sun”, “it’s cosmic rays”, “it’s volcanoes”, etc. Doesn’t that mean that they also must have, or at least should have, ruled out the null hypothesis?
    John

  172. Sorry, a correction:
    The skeptics hypotheses are not anthropogenic, so for them the null hypothesis is slightly different.

  173. John B says:
    May 31, 2011 at 9:57 am

    No, I guess you are not a climate scientist – although you can be. There is Only ONE null hypothesis and it is the same for all scientists.
    For the AGW religious, one can only guess what it is. So I guess since I am agnostic, we do not agree. You do not know what the null hypothesis is, yet you are arguing for a belief system that has yet to even begin the proof? We are not even at the hypothesis of AGW yet – according to the scientific method. I understand that for the true believers they skipped all that and went straight to dogma.

  174. Phil,
    When you say “There is Only ONE null hypothesis and it is the same for all scientists”, that’s not quite accurate.
    The null hypothesis depends on what hypothesis you are investigating.
    Say you are looking at the link between smoking and lung cancer, the null hypothesis is “there is no link between smoking and lung cancer”. You then look at how likely it is that the observations (e.g. numbers of smokers vs. non-smokers getting lung cancer) would be generated by the null hypothesis. If that likelihood is very low, the null hypothesis is very unlikely so can be rejected, with a level of confidence that may be high but will never be 100%.
    If you are looking at climate and the hypothesis is “CO2 induces warming”, the null hypothesis is “CO2 does not induce warming”. Again you look at, “How likely is it that the observations could arise if the null hypothesis pertained?” A more specific example, when the IPCC report says “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely [>90%] higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely [>66%] the highest in at least the past 1,300 years”, they are really talking about the inverse of the likelihood that the observations could have been generated by the null hypotheses, which are “it was not the warmest period in the last 500 years” and “it was not the warmest period in the last 1300 years”. The reason they are more sure about the 500 year period is that the error bars on the temperature data are smaller, so it is less likely that any 50 year period within it could have been warmer than the second half of the 20th century. The better your data, the greater confidence you can have in rejecting the null hypothesis.
    So, each hypothesis has its own null hypothesis. For me, the interesting point is that what may be presented as the claim “X is probably true” is more likely to have been originally stated as “it is unlikely that [not X] is true”. Gotta love statistics!
    I should also point out (apologies if you already know this) that “likelihood” has a very precise mathematical definition based on the number, variability and distribution of the data points.
    This is a good read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
    It doesn’t mention climate anywhere, but it is easy enough to read across to how it applies.
    John

  175. PhilJourdan says:
    “John, your very response shows why there is no science on the AGW side.”
    Correctomundo. John B is full of false facts, such as:
    “The difficulty in measuring the hot spot, or even its non-existence, is not specifically linked to GHGs.”
    The tropospheric temperature is in fact very accurately measured by both satellites and daily radiosonde balloons. Charts and graphs from peer reviewed papers have been posted repeatedly in this thread showing the result: there is no tropospheric hot spot, which had been widely predicted by the climate charlatans at RealClimatePropaganda and their servile flatterers at the now defunct Climate Progress.
    No other modern scientific conjecture has been more repeatedly debunked than CO2=CAGW. There is absolutely no credible evidence of any global harm resulting from the rise in CO2, and there is no discernable difference between the current mild temperature rise and numerous even steeper rises in the recent past, yet the Skeptical Pseudo-Science sycophants still come here trying to peddle their CAGW nonsense. No wonder the alarmist hand wringers lost the public debates they engaged in. Gavin Schmidt was made to look like an ignorant fool by Michael Crichton [and later blamed his loss on Crichton being taller!], and Lord Monckton kicked alarmist ass at Oxford. Michael Mann is too afraid to even debate a real scientist, and the debunked alarmist clown Abraham still hides out in his ivory tower, terrified of debating Monckton. None of them will debate skeptics any more. Why not? Because when the general public exited those debates, the majority always agreed with the scientific skeptics [and they had agreed with the CAGW promoters prior to the start of the debates].
    Thanks also for bringing up the climate null hypothesis, which has never been falsified. The null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data [it is obvious that John B does not even understand what that means]. The alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis crashed and burned on contact with the null. As Dr Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
    Really, belief in the magic powers of CO2 is no different than Festinger’s Seekers believing in Mrs Keech’s prediction of their rescue by the flying saucer, or in Camping’s true believers continuing to follow him even after his predicted end of the world didn’t occur. Believers in CAGW suffer from the very same cognitive dissonance. Belief simply makes up for their lack of evidence.

  176. Smokey, why do you keep missing the point? Is it deliberate?
    You said, “The tropospheric temperature is in fact very accurately measured by both satellites and daily radiosonde balloons. Charts and graphs from peer reviewed papers have been posted repeatedly in this thread showing the result: there is no tropospheric hot spot, which had been widely predicted by the climate charlatans at RealClimatePropaganda and their servile flatterers at the now defunct Climate Progress.”
    All true, but they did NOT say it was predicted uniquely by AGW. It is predicted as a result of moist adiabatic lapse rate, which is itself a result of warming, whatever the cause. Look it up for yourself!
    John

  177. John B says:
    May 31, 2011 at 11:59 am

    LOL! Richard Courtney is right. You are simply a troll. There is only ONE null hypothesis in this discussion. You are welcome to go over to the AMA site and discuss lung cancer, or Stephen Hawkings to discuss the null hypothesis of Black Holes, however here we are talking about Global Warming/Climage Change/Catastrophic something or another. But the key to all of them is what is going on with the climate, and what is causing it. The rest is just troll bait.
    Now, when you can quit lying (as has been shown by Richard), and trying to change the subject (not very good at that one – I have seen better) , you may want to discuss the SCIENCE of Climate. not the theology. I hear over at Real Climate they are big into dogma – so much so they burn heretics at the stake (carbon neutral since the carbon is already above ground).

  178. John B:
    I remind that my question was
    What happened to the “committed warming”?
    My question goes the the crux of the issue of this thread which is the catastrophist predictions of dire effects from AGW. But you have said your answer to my question is a “long winded don’t know”, and then you have run away.
    Please note that my explanations of the “committed warming” were deliberately conservative. I said:
    “I remind that the the IPCC AR4 says;
    “The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
    n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.
    And the IPCC AR4 says the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.
    But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.
    So, for the IPCC predictions for “the first two decades of the 21st century” to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.
    Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required rise in the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.”
    Had I wanted to be extremist I would not have said
    “So, for the IPCC predictions for “the first two decades of the 21st century” to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. ”
    I would have pointed out that because there has been negligible warming for the last 10 years that 0.4°C would need to occur now and be sustained for the next 10 years.
    Indeed, a linear rate of warming from now that would fulfil the IPCC prediction requires the global temperature to rise by 0.8°C over the next 10 years.
    But your response to my question was to say;
    “But surely you are clutching at straws going after a prediction that has other 9 years to go. Let’s say it turns out to be wrong. Does this disprove all of AGW theory?”
    Of course it does not “disprove all of AGW theory” but it certainly and undeniably disproves the assertions of future catastrophic warming from AGW unless an answer can be found to the question:
    What happened to the “committed warming”?
    The most likely explanation is that the true value of the “committed warming” was zero so nothing happened to it because it never existed.
    This zero value would result, for example, from the improbable assumption (adopted by the IPCC) of large positive feedbacks being wrong, and the reality being negative feedbacks as is suggested by e.g. the work of Lindzen.
    Unless an answer to my question is provided then the existing evidence is that projections of large (or even discernible) AGW are known to be wrong.
    So, I yet again repeat my question:
    What happened to the “committed warming”?
    And I remind that “don’t know” is not an acceptable answer (even from a troll) because that response is an admission that the projections provided by the IPCC are unfounded scares.
    Please note that this issue of the absent “committed warming” also pertains to the above discussion of the null hypothesis.
    Nothing unprecedented has been observed so the null hypothesis is unchallenged.
    And the absent “committed warming” disproves the projections of AGW based on the AGW hypothesis, so the AGW hypothesis is disproved in the form it is presented by the IPCC.
    In conclusion, I point out that your nonsense about the ‘hot spot’ can continue but I have answered that side-issue so I will not be dragged back to that side-track. I am trying to get you to address the subject of this thread.
    What happened to the “committed warming”?
    Richard

  179. Richard, I’m still here.
    “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer if, er, well if I don’t know. It is not “an admission that the projections provided by the IPCC are unfounded scares” because I am not the IPCC. But I’ve done a bit of digging, and I think I’ve found the missing heat 🙂
    First of all, the prediction has until 2020 to come true. So we are discussing how likely it is, not whether it has failed already, right?
    It sounds unlikely if one picks the last decade as a trend. If that rate (pretty much flat) continues, the prediction will fail badly. Granted, yes it would fail! However, if you take the trend over the last 30 years, of about 0.15°C per decade (by Mk I eyeball, I’m sure you have the exact figure) the prediction of 0.1-0.2°C per decade seems much more plausible.
    However, we are below that trend line, so for the prediction to be fulfilled, something drastic has to happen. Well, the change from 1997 to 1998 was a whopping 0.17°C – in one year. Now before you accuse me of cherry picking, I am just saying that such a year-on-year change has happened before. (It went down even more the following year.) figures here:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
    So, it could happen. But if it doesn’t, if the climate doesn’t bounce upwards in the next 10 years, the IPCC got it seriously wrong. I will absolutely grant you that. According to Trenberth, that heat is somewhere, maybe in the deep ocean, but it has to show up sometime soon.
    It all comes down to the trend. If we are still on the IPCC-predicted upward trend, i.e. if the tide is still rising but we are between waves, the prediction will likely come true. If the tide has turned, or even just slowed, it will fail to be met and the IPCC boys will have some serious explaining to do. If that happens, I’ll gladly buy a WUWT hockey stick mug.
    That is my final answer!

  180. Smokey,
    Very funny, I almost died laughing. Read the actual article:
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1979-ncar-forecast-sea-level-may-rise-15-25-feet-before-the-year-2000/
    And a commenter further down that page sums it up nicely:
    “As usual, when you check out the facts, it turns out that Schneider said absolutely no such thing. Not even close. Did any of you even bother to read the article. Obviously the author of the peice didn’t. Schneider said that the melting could START by the end of the century. Or to spell it out word for word: “..It’s INITIATION cannot be ruled out by the end of the century..”
    Don’t you ever bother to follow the links?

  181. Smokey:
    Yes, I agree that the cult of AGW has a series of failed predictions and that is telling.
    However, the “committed warming” issue is much more important than a failed prediction. The absence of the “committed warming” is a definite proof that the projections of large increases to global temperature based on the AGW hyothesis are wrong.
    Simply, it is a proof (n.b. a proof and not merely evidence) that the IPCC “projections” of AGW are unfounded scares obtained by application of a disproved hypothesis.
    I explain this proof in my post at May 31, 2011 at 1:11 pm .
    It is not surprising that John B has run away from answering my question, is it?
    Richard

  182. Richard,
    We crossed in moderation. You’ve seen my answer now, I assume.
    You need to learn to play fair. You can’t deride everything climate science does as unproven, lacking in evidence, etc., etc., and then claim that pointing to a prediction which may or may not fail 9 years from now constitutes “a proof (n.b. a proof and not merely evidence) that the IPCC “projections” of AGW are unfounded scares obtained by application of a disproved hypothesis”. Science doesn’t work like that.
    Like I said, if the temperature stays flat for another 9 years, something is wrong, but we’re not there yet. “It’s the trend, stupid”.
    John

  183. Phil,
    Even after I pointed you at an article on the null hypothesis, you say “There is only ONE null hypothesis in this discussion.” No there isn’t! Every individual claim requires a null hypothesis to be tested against, otherwise you can’t verify the claim. That’s where all those “likelies” and “very likelies” in the IPCC reports come from. They statistically compare the results against the likelihood of those results being generated by the null hypothesis. “Null hypothesis” is not just an arm waving term, it has a precise meaning when doing real science. The null hypothesis for the claim that it is warmer now than at any point in the past 1300 years is NOT that same as the null hypothesis for the claim that late 20th century warming was caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Surely you can see that.
    Dr Roy Spencer may well have said “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” Have you ever contemplated the possibility that he might be wrong? I can assure you that people doing actual research in the area would not agree with him.
    John

  184. I agree, Richard. The natural warming trend from the LIA appears to be moderating, and the predicted runaway global warming has never happened; another failed alarmist prediction in a litany of failed alarmist predictions.
    And from his comment it is clear that John B has no understanding of the climate null hypothesis, because his examples concern alternate hypotheses:
    “The null hypothesis for the claim that it is warmer now than at any point in the past 1300 years is NOT that same as the null hypothesis for the claim that late 20th century warming was caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.”
    The guy is totally confused. The definition of the null hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data. John needs to think about what that means.
    The alternate hypothesis is compared with the null hypothesis of past natural climate variability, including temperatures, trends, rates of change, etc.
    The alternate hypothesis must be able to show that the curent climate exceeds past parameters. It does not. The current climate is well within the parameters of the Holocene. Those parameters constitute the climate null hypothesis. Since no one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability, Dr Spencer is not wrong, he is absolutely correct.
    Which brings us to Kevin Trenberth’s weaselly attempt to unilaterally re-define the null hypothesis:
    “The null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
    Trenberth is openly admitting that he can’t get past the climate null hypothesis, so he wants to turn the scientific method on its head. But the burden of proof is always on those proposing a new hypothesis, such as CO2=CAGW. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. At least Trenberth understands the predicament he’s in. John B simply doesn’t understand either the null hypothesis or the scientific method. Or he does, and he’s being a crank:
    “That is my final answer!”
    As if.

  185. Sorry if I didn’t express myslf clearly enough. When I say “The null hypothesis for the claim that it is warmer now than at any point in the past 1300 years”, I mean “the null hypothesis against which that claim is tested”. Did that not come across?
    The point I was trying to make was simply that each claim is tested against an appropriate null hypothesis. There is not one, single null hypothesis. If there were, how would you test against it statistically? Surely we can agree on that.
    My problem with you guys is that while you shoo away everything that mainstream climate science does with cries of “not enough evidence”, you accept claims like the one by Spencer uncritically. You even go so far as to say “Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove”. That does not give you a free pass. IPCC claims are tested against the approriate null hypothesis. You can dispute individual claims, but not just by flashing up a graph. You need to do the maths that shows they are wrong. Like M&M did with the hockey stick. We could argue about whether they were correct or not, but at least they put the work in.
    John

  186. John B says:
    “You even go so far as to say ‘Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove’.”
    In fact, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. As to the hypothesis that CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the belief that CO2 causes global damage: the onus lies on those who say so.
    John B’s fixation on non-existent CAGW can lead to the related epistemological disorder, “argumentum ignarus res” or argument in defiance of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism such as CO2 [and in the simplicity of the mechanism’s operation in the real world] that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CO2=CAGW is a good example of this.
    And I could bring the noob up to speed on the null hypothesis, except for two problems:
    • It’s a lot of typing, and
    • His mind is closed
    But on the off chance that John B actually wants to understand the climate null hypothesis [instead of arguing every line by line of numerous other commentators with either questionable assertions or outright false facts like a crank], here are Willis Eschenbach’s really excellent articles on the null hypothesis:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/congenital-climate-abnormalities
    I recommend reading all the comments, too.

  187. “As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the belief that CO2 causes global damage: the onus lies on those who say so.”
    And that onus has been met. No amount of hand waving will remove that fact. Go read some peer-reviewed literature, not just blog postings and unreviewed ramblings.
    John

  188. John B:
    Your post at June 1, 2011 at 12:52 am is an admission that you know you have lost the argument.
    If you had a point then you would make it. And it would be easy to make.
    You would have said how, where and by whom the “onus has had been met”.
    But it has not been met and you know it has not been met. So, you say;
    “Go read some peer-reviewed literature, not just blog postings and unreviewed ramblings.”
    That is pathetic.
    Indeed, your initial contributions to this thread were claims that people should read the IPCC Assessments. The first time you made this claim was at May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm where you wrote;
    “Go read the IPCC reports, not what bloggers have written about them.”
    But when I cited and quoted statements from the IPCC that you do not like then (at May 29, 2011 at 3:28 am) you said the IPCC had been rebutted on the web, saying;
    “Both of these arguments are, of course, well rehearsed on the Internet. Look it up for yourself, but don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report; see what the counter arguments are, and then see what the rebutters have to say about the counter arguments, and so on.”
    [snip]
    Richard

  189. Amen. It takes far more courage to stand against the politically correct doctrines. That is why people like Anthony Watts are heroes. Let us all keep it up and crush those who are trying to destroy our freedom.

  190. John B says:
    May 31, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    let me speak S-L-O-W-L-Y so that you can perhaps understand. There is only ONE null hypothesis in the climate debate. It is core to the debate. It is about what is causing the climate to change. Period.
    You on the other hand want to try to divert the discussion to smoking and autism and anything BUT climate. I will not bite. You can send links to the AMA, the CMA, the KMA, and the 104 if you want. They are non-sequiturs. As is your entire post.
    So for now, we can only assume, based upon your inability to stay on topic and answer questions and read, that you do not know what the null hypothesis is. And not knowing it, you are totally clueless on the subject and are therefore a mere troll trying to win brownie points by sidetracking the discussion. Sorry, I do not bite at your sidetrack. You are simply making a fool of yourself.
    But you know the good part? You are free to do so! On this site, Anthony allows any one to make a fool of themselves because he does not censor comments he does not agree with.

  191. Phil,
    Each claim has an associated null hypothesis. For example, when Smokey says “The alternate hypothesis must be able to show that the current climate exceeds past parameters”, the null hypothesis is that the current climate does NOT exceed past parameters. It might be the case that the current climate does exceed past parameters but the cause is still natural. That is a different issue and a different null hypothesis.
    I guess you are talking about a “central” claim, that climate changes are both anthropomorphic and bad, aka “CO2 causes global damage”. But that is at least two separate claims. You have to break it down. That’s how science works. The AGW camp first claims to show that CO2 can induce warming. Then it claims to show that warming is actually happening. Then it claims to show that such warming is not explained by other factors. And so on, eventually getting to claims that “it will be bad”. The claims build on each other, but they are distinct. Knowledge building on previous knowledge is one of the things that differentiates science from pseudo-science. As skeptics, you need to counter individual claims by showing them to be wrong. Yes, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but that does not mean the skeptic can just say “no it doesn’t” to every claim and not be expected to back that up. You counter a claim by showing that ITS null hypothesis is not rejected.
    The skeptic DOES have something to prove; he has to prove that the claims of AGW are unfounded. Simply saying something is so does not make it so – for either side of this debate.
    This is not a sideline. When Richard brings up the”committed warming” claim, it needs dealing with. But it has nothing to do with, say, whether increased atmospheric CO2 would be a good or bad thing for agriculture. That is a different claim. Knowing what null hypothesis you are rejecting, and sticking to it, is key to this.
    Chaps, if you don’t agree with me, then say so. Calmly, sticking to the point, without shouting, and not by simply linking to a picture and saying “there, that proves it”. I would dearly like to have a proper discussion witout resorting to name calling.
    John

  192. John B says:
    June 1, 2011 at 6:36 am

    No John, troll as you will, but the skeptic has nothing to prove. The AGW crowd has to prove the null hypothesis wrong. THE NULL Hypothesis. Not Smokey the bear, not Screwey Squirrel. The one that AGW SAYS is wrong must first be proven wrong. Proving that null hypothesis wrong does not then prove anything right. But it then requires that a new hypothesis be opined and the method begun to prove or disprove it.
    You clearly don’t give a whit about discussion since to have one, we must be discussing an issue – not trying to divert the subject to whatever whim strikes your fancy. You care not for science since you apparently are clueless on that as well as you do not know thing one about how it works. You can go prove anything you want to yourself, but that is based upon your whim since you have yet to address anything scientifically. In short, you are merely attempting to wear all of us down to get in the last word. And guess what? You win what one!
    Because I have little time to suffer fools and trolls. When you want to DISCUSS something, come on back. Until then, talk to yourself. That is all you are really doing.

  193. So, all you have to do is claim “AGW is not true” and that is good enough?
    AGW proponents spend all their time disproving null hypotheses. When they say “it is likely that late 20th century warming is due to anthopogenic effects” they are claiming to have disproved the null hypothesis that says “late 20th century warming is NOT NECESSARILY due to anthopogenic effects”. You can dispute that claim, but not just by saying “oh no, you didn’t”. You have to prove them wrong or prove yourself right, whichever way you want to look at it. If you can’t see that, there really is no point in discussing it further.

Comments are closed.