Reasons to be a Global Warming Skeptic

[Note: Charlie Martin of the PJ Tattler graciously agrees to have this reprinted here. While he’s taken a bit of artistic license with some claims, such as the “big oil coupon” claim, the gist of it sums up well, but could use some tweaking on details, which I’m sure WUWT readers will enjoy providing. For example, McIntyre and McKittricks’ criticism of the hockey stick math didn’t include full spectrum random numbers, but was red noise.  – Anthony]

(I ended up writing this as a lengthy answer to someone on Google+ — might as well let the world see it.)

Here’s what I’ve said so far:

“There are few skeptics (I can’t think of any, and I’ve been reporting on this for two solid years and an interested bystander for several years before that) who don’t believe there has been significant warming since the Little Ice Age, or that humans contribute to it, or that additional CO2 or other greenhouse gases aren’t probably part of that contribution.”

Unless one is arguing that humans are the only cause of global warming — in which case I’d have to point to that big glowing thing in the sky during the daytime — what I said explicitly includes a human contribution and even a greenhouse gas contribution.

Now, the IPCC AR4 model is rather stronger than that: it insists that anthropogenic, greenhouse-gas forced warming is the dominant — so dominant that it leads the unthoughtful to turn it into “only” — cause of global warming.  For conciseness, call that the AGW model.  Reasons I don’t find that hypotheses convincing include:

(1) from the start, it has depended on very sensitive statistical techniques to tease a signal out of an overall warming that has been going on for 500 years. Refer back to the famous “hockey stick” charts and then look for one with actual error bars: even in the papers making the strongest arguments for the AGW hypothesis have very wide error ranges — so wide that the AGW component barely exceeds the limits of the technique.

(2) the specific methods used for some of the dominant studies turn out to be mathematically flawed.  in particular, the methods of Mann _et al_ turn out to present a clear hockey stick no matter what the input data is, including pure random numbers.

A method that detects a signal when there is no signal is necessarily suspect.  At best.

Other examples of questionable parts of these results include:

  • the methods used to select data points in the GCHN data sets — examined carefully, it turns out that the selected points used to compute GAST and regional temps are, to a *very* high probability, the points from the raw data set that lead to the most warming.  Carefully read, the descriptions of the analysis even say that’s a selection criterion: they’re selecting data points that fit the models well — but then testing the models by how well they fit the data.
  • actual site locations turn out to very commonly have poor site placement and site changes that would add significant warming.  This warming has not been appropriately compensated for. [Note: GHCN3 does handle site changes better, Charlie is probably not aware of it since it is relatively new- Anthony]
  • odd ad hoc methods to fit together paleoclimate data and actual temperature measurement, including the famous “hide the decline” patching, and contrariwise the exclusion of recent tree ring data that suggests tree rings may not be as strongly correlated with temperature as we think.  The explanations for those exclusions end up looking very ad hoc in themselves.

(3) There is actually extensive literature showing anthropogenic components that are not driven by greenhouse gases.  These results have been excluded from the IPCC, often in very questionable ways (cf Roger Pielke Sr’s removal from the IPCC editorial board.)

(4) The predictions of further warming are necessarily based on models.  Now, it happens I did my PhD work on Federally funded modeling, from which I developed the NBSR Law (named after the group for which I worked): All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding.

Anyone with a unbiased eye who looks into it will find any number of people who have found that a model that predicts more warming gets funded; a model that predicts relatively less warming gets less funding. Pre-tenure researchers in particular are warned away from results that don’t fit orthodoxy.

(5) The models themselves turn out not to be very predictive.  Grossly, you could look at Jim Hansen’s prediction from the 80′s that Manhattan Island would be awash by the 2000′s.  More technically, there were a number of models that predicted pretty significant warming, and in fact an increased warming rate, increased 2nd derivative, in the span 1990-2010.  In fact, the warming was much smaller than predicted, and the second derivative appears even to have turned negative.

These models are often revised so that after the fact that predict what really happened.  This isn’t very satisfactory.

In the mean time, actual observation, as eg with Dick Lindzen’s recent paper, simply isn’t fitting the models very well.  As Granddaddy used to say “if the bird book and the bird disagree, believe the bird.”

(6) It’s unclear how the AGW hypothesis can be falsified in its current form.  Certainly, anecdotally, there are people who predict that unusual warm spells are a sign of global warming, as are unusual cold spells.  Should we have a period of unusually small variation, there are people who have suggested that as an effect of global warming.  And in any case, simply observing warming doesn’t allow one to infer the truth of AGW as a hypothesis.

(7) The arguments against the skeptics turn out to be unscientific, and often unprofessional, in the extreme.

These range from the common — “the consensus is” — to the ad hominem, and even to outright attempts to suppress free inquiry.

“The consensus is” neglects the fact that science isn’t decided by consensus, not permanently at least.  (At one time, the consensus was that fire involved a special elemental substance called phlogiston; at another, it was that atoms were indivisible and unchangeable; not so long ago, it was that light was a wave in a literally ethereal substance called the “luminiferous aether.” If consensus precluded further testing, we would still believe those today.)

The ad hominems include the way that anyone who ever received so much at a 10 cents off gas coupon from a service station is accused of being in the pay of Big Oil.  Sometimes, the ad hominems are frank lies, but they get out into the AGW enthusiast community and are treated as truth.

And, well, anyone who read the ClimateGate files knows about actual attempts to suppress certain authors and papers.  Perhaps it’s not fair to call it “conspiracy”, but the fact is that there is clear and unequivocal evidence of collusion and bullying on authors, reporters, and journal editorial boards.

If the AGW arguments are that strong, they don’t need collusion and bullying.

So, this is a very long piece considering I’m not getting paid to write it; let me summarize.

First of all, what *I* said wasn’t what you supposed I’d said. It would be worth considering what else you _think_ you’ve read recently for other cases.

Second, to the extent that I have a position, as I said, I think warming is unequivocal, a human contribution very probable, and the magnitude of that contribution in the face of feedbacks and homeostasis currently unknown and on the very edge of what we can actually measure.

And third, I don’t think the AGW enthusiasts consider the costs and benefits of AGW amelioration versus the other possibilities. If preventing a sea level rise of one meter means dooming future generations in the Third World to sickness, hunger, and darkness, it’s not worth it.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The models themselves turn out not to be very predictive.
This is the crucial part.
Science is theory – predict – test – accept/reject.
Now for GW, its failed the prediction and test, and it needs to be rejected as a consequence.
theory – model – test against known data, is flawed because it introduces a bias. You only accept the models that work, and models that are just curve fitting algorithms pass this test. Us them for prediction and it goes wrong. Just like a lot of banking models.
One difference with GW, is that the proof is a statistical proof, not an absolute yes / no. However given the failures of the models to predict to a high level of confidence, they are bust.

(8) the arguments for AGW mitigation inevitably get hijacked by people who want to find a reason to implement a socialistic top-down command-and-control anti-growth anti-free-speech vision of society, the same people that find a reason to demonstrate against all practical sources of energy, from tar sands to coal.

John W

Nice summary!
One possible edit:
“These models are often revised so that after the fact that predict what really happened.”
Should the second that be they?

Joe

Very good essay. I will distribute it liberally… which is exactly the opposite of what a liberal would do. 🙂

NetDr

NetDr’s Law #1 is that a studies likelihood of being funded is directly proportional to it’s reinforcing the current orthodoxy.
A partial list of things caused by global warming
Acne, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, bats decline, beer and bread prices to soar, beer better, beer worse, beetle infestation,
Plus 1,000 more.
If the study didn’t reinforce CAGW would it have been done in the first place. Having obtained funding what is the chance the study would conclude that the effect was nonexistent.?
Get real !

Jeremy

First of all, what *I* said wasn’t what you supposed I’d said. It would be worth considering what else you _think_ you’ve read recently for other cases.

^^ This paragraph is confusing to me. Do you mean “IF what *I* said…” ?

These models are often revised so that after the fact that predict what really happened. This isn’t very satisfactory.

Do you mean “..so that after the fact THEY predict…” ??
It seems mostly a fair summary of proper thinking on the matter. At this point I don’t discourage anyone from trying to convince the believers in human induced CO2 cataclysm that they’re following a dogma, but I never expect results either. Once sufficient numbers of people have suspended disbelief, you can’t simply re-instill critical thought with words. Just as human gospels won’t go away until aliens land on earth, CAGW wont go away until either a generation dies off or the world turns significantly colder (and even then, they may just claim that the ocean circulation was a tipping point that warming caused cooling, or some other nonsense.).

mkelly

From NIPCC: “New evidence shows the Medieval Warm Period was real, global and warmer than the present, while CO2 was 28% lower.”
From WikI: “In the present interglacial, the Holocene, the climatic optimum occurred during the Subboreal (5 to 2.5 ka BP, which corresponds to 3000 BC-500 BC) and Atlanticum (9 to 5 ka, which corresponds to roughly 7000 BC-3000 BC). Our current climatic phase following this climatic optimum is still within the same interglacial (the Holocene). This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago, with another warm period until the Little Ice Age (1250-1850).”
http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/6._The_Eemian.html
From the above: “The name given to the penultimate interglacial era in Europe comes from the Eem river valley in Holland, where sediments from that epoch were found containing warm-weather fauna fossils and pollen from leafy trees. It is believed that at the height of that interglacial epoch, global temperatures were between 1º C and 2º C warmer than today.”
It was warmer for hundreds if not thousands of years before SUV caused AGW and we cannot explain the cause. For me this alone is reason enough to be a skeptic. There are other reasons but this can do for now.

DirkH

“The ad hominems include the way that anyone who ever received so much at a 10 cents off gas coupon from a service station is accused of being in the pay of Big Oil.”
That’s not correct. Every skeptic gets accused of being in the pay of Big Oil; it doesn’t matter whether you ever visited a gas station.
Furthermore, the CRU received funding from BP. This has never been reported by the BBC, so the warmists don’t know it, but they also never bothered to check whether the warmist institutes are in the pay of Big Oil, which they are, because Big Oil needs AGW to get rid of Big Coal.

I would add more emphasis to the fact that while it is clear that the earth has warmed, the actual magnitude of that warming is far from clear. Anthony’s work with the first the US ground based temperature network and now the international network has shown that this network is a mess. Trying to determine current temperatures with this network is problematic. Trying to compare current temperatures to past temperatures is near to impossible because all of the changes to this network, many not properly documented, if they were documented at all.
Throw in inadequate coverage for most of the world, especially the oceans.
Throw in disagreement on the size of UHI and how much it has changed over the last 100 years and you get another system who’s error bars are signifacantly greater than the signal that they claim to be seeing.

Brandon Caswell

I can’t help but think of all the balanced and well reasoned articles and essays I have read over the years about AGW. There has been thousands. But if a in-your-face “peer reviewed” article that completely undercuts a main component of AGW can’t change anything in the debate, what hope does a well-reasoned essay have? It keeps coming back to the saying:
” You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.”
It has reached the point of absurd. But what can they do now? Their careers are tied to this wagon. Do you really think Mann, Jones, Hansen, and Gavin would ever be fully trusted again once this charade collapses? They put themselves in the position that they now have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

NetDr

Alarmists claim:
Sure warming is minor but warming in the last 1/2 of the twentieth century accelerated.
There is little doubt that there has been a slight warming since records began at the end of the little Ice age. [about 1/2 ° C per 100 years] There is also little doubt that solar influences are responsible for some if not all of the warming. This warming is of interest to climatologists only.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
The recent CERN data suggests the effect is more than previously thought.
The supposed acceleration in warming in the last 1/2 of the twentieth century all took place from 1978 to 1998, before that there was cooling and after that it was flat. Unfortunately for the CO2 mafia the period from 1978 to 1998 was dominated by more El Nino’s than La Nina’s and a positive PDO. These related facts entirely explain the 1978 to 1998 warming with no CO2 required.
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_NINO_34_latest.png
PDO vs CRUTEMP 1940 to present
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:2012/scale:5/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1940/to:2012/mean:12
When the PDO is positive temperatures go up and when it is negative they go down. So the the PDO is the 1’st derivative of temperature.
Since 1998 there has been trivial warming if any despite tons of CO2 so the alarmists have to posit cooling from aerosols to offset the warming which obviously isn’t happening. This is convenient since the amount and effect of aerosols is one of the great unknowns of climate science so who can prove them wrong ?
The observed 1/2 ° C per century warming is superimposed with a 60 year sinusoid which causes the alarmists to predict Ice ages and warming catastrophes neither of which are justified.
To me the climate can be easily explained by the processes outlined above and no CO2 is needed.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

So, does saying that there is “probably” a human component to warming really make sense? If it is essentially immeasurable, is it not just empty speculation? Or, if there is a demonstrable human component, what is its cause? Surely an immeasurable thermal effect of a trace gas cannot be ascribed as the only cause of something we cannot measure? That is as bad as a science could be to make a fuss about it.

JohnInSoCal

This is concise. That’s useful to me because I’m not a great debater. My circle of friends are 75% physics (training – not career), and the remainder engineering (plus one pure mathematician). We all work in aerospace. Yet somehow we are (widely) split on the degree of anthropogenic warming – 65% low to immeasurable, 35% highly probable.
– Curiously, only some of the physicists accept AGW. Rationale: consensus.
– None of the engineers accept it – they require the predictability element. (If it isn’t a reliable
predictor, it can’t be used in engineering without inevitable law suit.)
– The mathematician has problems with the statistics, the quality of the underlying numbers, and
with the ease of model forcing, and rejects it.
This is a strange world.

Günther Kirschbaum

Now, the IPCC AR4 model is rather stronger than that
I stopped reading after this. What a way to disqualify yourself. I would bet this person hasn’t read one line from the latest IPCC report, and informs himself in a very narrow corner of the Internet that confirms his confirmation bias instantly.
REPLY: Heh, “I stopped reading after this.” + “confirms his confirmation bias instantly.” = FAIL

John Whitman

Charlie Martin,
Great article. I enjoy seeing the words of independent thinkers (a.k.a. skeptics) spreading across cultures and societies.
Here is a suggestion of another reason to be a skeptic:
(8) There is no ‘a priori’ reason not to skeptically question all science. Especially there is no premise that requires us to exempt from skepticism any science that is politically embedded into a quasi-government body such at the UN’s IPCC. With the IPCC we must greatly escalate skepticism for the most important reason of all; the protection of trust in science per se. Trust in science is eroding due to the IPCC process. For me that is the most important reason to be a penultimate skeptic wrt IPCC’s CAGW by CO2.
Take care.
John

Willie S.

Jim Hansen’s prediction, made in an interview with a journalist named Bob Reiss in 1988, was that, given a doubling in the amount of atmospheric CO2, within 40 years the West Side Highway would probably be under water. When he made this prediction, he added that he didn’t know how prone the West Side Highway is to flooding (i.e. to that extent, he couldn’t say for sure).
To say that Hansen predicted that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008 is, for lack of a kinder word, a lie.

Nuke Nemesis

The reasons to be a believer are:
1) It’s warmed
2) CO2 has increased
3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
4) The warming is due to increases in CO2
5) Man burns fossil fuels, which release CO2 into the atmosphere
6) Nature naturally balances the carbon cycle, so any increases in CO2 must be due to human activities
7) Therefore, humans cause global warming!
Really, that’s all they got. A few facts (#1, #2, #3 and #5) with three statements of belief which have not been shown to be true.

JohnInSoCal – in the last 8 years I have found among technically inclined people in the City of London only two persons that would qualify as AGWers of the Franny Armstrong variety.
Basically anybody that has ever developed, tested and especially supported computer code understands its limitations (and potential for bugs). I suspect in Academia the support experience is lacking.

Roger Knights

Willie S. says:
September 1, 2011 at 10:18 am
Jim Hansen’s prediction, made in an interview with a journalist named Bob Reiss in 1988, was that, given a doubling in the amount of atmospheric CO2, within 40 years the West Side Highway would probably be under water. When he made this prediction, he added that he didn’t know how prone the West Side Highway is to flooding (i.e. to that extent, he couldn’t say for sure).
To say that Hansen predicted that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008 is, for lack of a kinder word, a lie.

Not really, because it was only fairly recently that Bob Reiss revised his initial claim, which was that Hansen had said 20 years. Here’s a link to a WUWT thread on the topic:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/friday-funny-hansens-book-of-horrors/
And here’s a quote from it, which should make you wonder about who’s lying:

James Sexton says:
March 18, 2011 at 10:03 pm
lol, now, I know you’re gonna find this hard to believe, so, please place your drink out of the proximity of your keyboard and ‘puter. But, after 10 years of silence from both Hansen and Reiss, and oddly enough after the expiration of the dire prediction, Hansen now says, (and apparently Reiss) that Reiss misremembered the conversation. Reiss says now, that he didn’t have his notes with him during the Salon interview, and that it really was in 40 years with the caveat of doubling CO2. Now, how a writer would pose such details in the way the questioned was quoted, ……well, you make the call. It was quite an interview to do in such detail without the aid of notes, apparently this being the one and only failing of his otherwise steel-trap like mind. I understand the 40/doubling is in Reiss’ book, but I’m not gonna read it.
http://climateclash.com/2011/01/27/james-hansen-singing-in-the-rain/

Roger Knights

Oops–Here’s the true link to the WUWT thread on Hansen’s West Side Highway prediction: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

jeanparisot

In the comments there: “1) most studies have confirmed that the hockey stick is physically real,” ? Where is that kool aid coming from?

Rob Potter

Nicely argued piece (the gas coupons bit is quite easily excused as poetic license and is used somewhat tongue-in-cheek anyway). I particularly liked how the issue of consensus is handled:
“If consensus precluded further testing, we would still believe those [incorrect theories] today.”
This is highly relevant to people in my field of (molecular) biology where we not only see “consensus” opinions dropped quite quickly in light of new evidence, but an open relish to test consensual positions when new tools come along.
Satellite data, remote sensing of sea water temperatures – even pretty CLOUD chambers at CERN – these are all tools which (should) have been used with glee by “climate scientists” to challenge the consensus and make a name for themselves. Instead, the dead hand of conformity has descended and squashed out any desire to question. Sad times.

Julian in Wales

This is an important reference article for me because I am not a scientist. I often go on to comment sections in the MSM where I do my civic duty and have fights with the AGW crowd. It is really helpful to have the main arguments well mapped out. This article becomes my castle, as long as I stay inside the confines of this castle I can defeat all-comers, even when they are better qualified than I am.
People like me come to this blog for information, often we go away confused because our science is not up to it, so it is really important that we are given proper guidance about where the boundaries of the case against CAGW are. Thank you Anthony.
BTW It would be really helpful to have a little section on your blog where the bones of main arguments against AGW are put down with links

RockyRoad

Günther Kirschbaum says:
September 1, 2011 at 10:06 am

Now, the IPCC AR4 model is rather stronger than that
I stopped reading after this. What a way to disqualify yourself. I would bet this person hasn’t read one line from the latest IPCC report, and informs himself in a very narrow corner of the Internet that confirms his confirmation bias instantly.

So you’re saying WUWT is “a very narrow corner of the internet”? And where do you find yourself? In the cracks?

Nuke Nemesis

The gas coupon thing is an understatement. Just disagreeing with the bogus consensus is enough to be branded a stooge for big oil.

Julian in Wales

I should add another big argument against the CAGW advocatees is that they tolerate corruption, and do not weed out their bad apples. It is always a good angle because it goes to the foundations of theri belief system.

Lady Life Grows

I had an interesting thing happen to me last night. I was chatting live on the web with a highly intelligent friend from Central Europe about AGW. I said I was skeptical there even was any warming, because the data has been messed up. I mentioned that a Danish scientist had asked for raw temperature data–and got it because he was a believer. Then he found that some weather stations were being eliminated from the data as unreliable–usually the ones with the coldest temperatures.
Where did you learn that? from Fox News? he asked
“From an International Scientific Conference on Global Warming.” I replied.
(I had heard it from the scientist himself, presenting at Heartland Institutes’s Conference in Chicago, June 2010).

Willie S.

So Dr. Hansen is not to be taken as the authority on what he himself said — but instead, a journalist, who was not reporting on any of Hansen’s scientific studies, but was simply relaying an off the cuff conjecture that Hansen had made in response to the reporter’s prompting him for a vivid illustration of what global warming might bring.
James Sexton says: ” I understand the 40/doubling is in Reiss’ book, but I’m not gonna read it.” Indeed.

DirkH

Willie S. says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“So Dr. Hansen is not to be taken as the authority on what he himself said — but instead, a journalist, who was not reporting on any of Hansen’s scientific studies, ”
Willie, why did Hansen not complain about being misquoted before the expiration date of the failed prediction? You surely have a convincing, logical and striking explanation; I’d love to hear it.

Jay Davis

My reason for being a skeptic is very simple – no AGW adherent has been able to coherently explain to me why the glaciers retreated so rapidly 10 – 12 thousand years ago without the help of mankind.

Magnus

To joe: being liberal has nothing to do with agw belief or willingness to distribute. Maybe a deceiving correlation exists in the us, but as you probably agree: correlation does not equal causation.

Hey, thanks guys.
Anthony’s right that this has some literary license; it wasn’t written for a formal publication, it’s a blog comment gone horribly horribly wrong. But it’s gotten enough approbation that I think it’s going to be rewritten as a more formal article or even a small book, and so any and all comment are exceedingly appreciated.
Some comments and answers:
Guenther: I stopped reading after this. What a way to disqualify yourself. I would bet this person hasn’t read one line from the latest IPCC report, and informs himself in a very narrow corner of the Internet that confirms his confirmation bias instantly.
You’d lose.
So, tell me: is it your contention that the IPCC AR4 report as released does not say that there has been warming, that the warming is dominantly driven by CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) increases, and that those increases are themselves anthropogenic, thus concluding that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is confirmed?
Have you read it?
Willie S: You might want to look up the word “lie”, as it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
To say that Hansen predicted that Manhattan would be flooded by 2008 is, for lack of a kinder word, a lie.
As Roger above pointed out before I got to it, this was responsibly reported; since the last time I saw the discussion, the change from 20 to 40 years was noted. As Anthony’s revised article notes, the actual behavior of sea level is inconsistent with Hansen’s 40 year prediction too.
Jeremy: You’re right, those paragraphs were, in a word, infelicitous. They kinda sorta made sense in the context of the conversation and I think you’ve correctly inferred what I meant.
Here’s a bleg: Jeff Id wrote me about the data selection issue. I remember it clearly coming up when I was covering Climategate heavily, and saw several papers looking at the sites selected for several regions. In particular, I think it was Queensland in Australia, and locally here in Colorado, Coal Creek Canyon maybe.
So far I haven’t been able to track them down, so if this sparks someone’s recollection, I’d sure love to hear. you can reach me through chasrmartin AT gmail.

NetDr

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. ” Voltaire
.
CO2 causes
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow
Less snow
Heat waves
Intense cold
( ICS) Irritable Climate Syndrome
Floods
Droughts
More extreme weather
Less extreme weather
Melting ice
Freezing water
More hurricanes
Fewer hurricanes
More cloud
Fewer clouds
Stratospheric warming
Stratospheric cooling
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
He who predicts everything predicts nothing !
.
No matter what happens your Horoscope seems to have predicted it just like climate alarmism.
The inability of the alarmists to eliminate ay possible change as not being cause by Global Warming [even when there has been no warming for 13 years] tells me it is a case of ASTROLOGY not actual science.

Ah, a couple more points: Anthony’s exactly right, it was red noise rather than completely pure random numbers; again, this didn’t start out to be a very formal document. Feel free to correct that Anthony; it certainly doesn’t change the conclusion, which is that a method which shows signal when there is only noise is not very skillful.
One of the site things I was looking for was Richard Keen, viz http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/coal-creek-redux/
I need to give him a call I think. I’m still looking for other examples.

Roger Knights

Julian in Wales says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
BTW It would be really helpful to have a little section on your blog where the bones of main arguments against AGW are put down with links

Absolutely! But it should be a big section, because there are 100 points in dispute. We need a grant. (Where’s Big Oil when you need it?)

Wow, so I pop by and see myself being quoted. Very nice….. but from 5-6 months ago! Very wild… And kinda inflating……. 🙂
Willie S. says:
September 1, 2011 at 1:17 pm
So Dr. Hansen is not to be taken as the authority on what he himself said — but instead, a journalist, who was not reporting on any of Hansen’s scientific studies, …………..
=============================================================
Willie, the Salon interview had been widely circulated throughout the internet for several years, cussed and discussed in just about every manner possible. I suppose, it only makes sense to try and pretend that both Hansen and Reiss were unaware of the …….ehem, …misinterpretation, but, that’s tantamount to saying both Hansen and Reiss are obliviots. And, the assertion is laughable. A best selling author is unaware of what he stated in an interview? Or what the article stated? lol, you can buy what he’s selling, but I don’t think it reasonable to ask anyone else to buy that. Or what about the camera chasing, microphone grabbing, headline seeking, histrionic, big Jim. Are we to believe he wasn’t aware of what was being stated? He was literally blogging that he didn’t know what was stated on the internet …… and in print. If you believe that, then you also must believe that he isn’t very well tuned to reality.
Of course, none of that changes the premise. Willie, most of us are old enough to have heard the constant drone that the boogy-man, CO2, is coming to getcha! For nearly 30 years now!! Guess what? It hasn’t happened. And, it is even less believable now than when first posited. Because, we’ve had 30 years of observation to know the none of the dire prognostications have come to fruition.
Its hype, hand-waving, and bluster. Nothing more.
I’d love to stay and chat, but I’m late for a continuing study of the calculus and trigonometry of spheres on a plane.
James

RoHa

“that big glowing thing in the sky during the daytime
It’s not so big. I can cover it just by holding up my hand.

Anne

This is the reason for the AGW hoax:
http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf

Anne

My own abstract to this article:
http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf
1. The system is a closed one
2. The pie is finite
3. The developed world is responsible for all of the underdeveloped worlds’ woes
4. The outcomes must be balanced, with the developed world paying and/or undeveloping
5. The few who will manage this effort will skim a little off of the top of the wealth transfer for their “service” to humankind and the planet
Did I miss anything. other than a real solution to the underdeveloped worlds’ problems?

Anne

My own abstract to this article:
http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf
1. The system is a closed one
2. The pie is finite
3. The developed world is responsible for all of the underdeveloped world’s’woes
4. The outcomes must be balanced, with the developed world paying and/or undeveloping
5. The few who will manage this effort will skim a little off of the top of the wealth transfer for their “service” to humankind and the planet
Did I miss anything, other than a real solution to the underdeveloped world’s problems?

Anne

i give up. We all need editors.
I will say that I have been reading this blog since November, 2009 and was an AGW adopter prior. I have algore’s DVD! I couldn’t believe the skeptics, based solely upon anecdotal information i read.
Reading the source code for the hockey stick graph ON THIS BLOG finally convinced me that we have been “had.” Observing how the environmental movement was overtaken by once antagonistic movements, morphing it into the environmental “justice” movement, alerted me to how good movements can get usurped, redirected, overtaken, though willingly for absolution, perhaps. AGW is another example of ulterior motives mining an environmental concern.
Demonstrated by how far algore has fallen…

Anne

turning RoHa’s comment into haiku:
that big glowing thing
i want it to be man’s fault
i’m bigger than that

John W

More reasons NOT to be a [CA] global warming skeptic:
8) You’re IRA is heavily invested in CARBON CREDITS.
9) You work for an alternative energy/carbon sequestration/”green” company.
10) You idolize the Hockey Team.
11) You like to jump on bandwagons.
12) You’ve publicly vouched for the veracity of the evidence for CAGW.
13) You freak out when someone tells you they accidentally put dihydrogen monoxide in your drink.
14) You think the government should be in control of everything.
15) You suffer from first world guilt.
16) You live in a “threatened country” that might receive climate aid from the first world.

Disclaimer: Not intended to be an exhaustive list.

Anne

this works a little better to avoid the unintended meanings behind phrases and get RoHa’s point across of perspective, or lack, thereof, of the AGW folks:
that big glowing thing
i want it to be man’s fault
i’m bigger than it

Phil's Dad

Mr Martin saves the best for last.
“And third, I don’t think the AGW enthusiasts consider the costs and benefits of AGW amelioration versus the other possibilities. If preventing a sea level rise of one meter means dooming future generations in the Third World to sickness, hunger, and darkness, it’s not worth it.”
This is what really matters in the debate, that the “cure” as currently proposed is far, far worse than the disease. The wrong policy will kill (is killing) just as surely as weather.

rbateman

The models failed miserably to predict, and the worst possible gaffe imaginable was committed when “Global Warming causes Global Cooling” was trotted out.
That was the turning point, as untold millions roared with laughter (they’re still snickering).
It was bad, plus the whole world watched in awe as the goalpost was moved from the endzone to the bonfire.

rbateman

The Green Energy cure for ‘AGW’ suffers from a core malady:
No matter how many coats of Green Paint are applied to a perpetual motion machine, the useable output will always be less than the consumable input.

Another good reason to remain skeptical is that alarmists seemingly think nothing of jumping from one scare to another if the first one dissipates. So since hurricanes and sea ice don’t cooperate and polar bears thrive, it’s now walruses in Alaska. And yes, they’ve been spotted dead from airplanes yada yada yada…

Bigred (Victoria, Australia)

Jeremy (via Charlie Martin): I think the temperature data paper you’re chasing about Australia referred not to Queensland, but Darwin. Anthony posted it in Dec 2009:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/

eco-geek

Why is it that most AGW sceptics believe in AGW?
Why is it that the MSM potrays AGW sceptics as not believing in AGW?
The difference in views can be put down in the main to climate sensitivity BUT this is never explained in the MSM although it gets some coverage on sceptic websites in a non-explicit kind of way.
Me? I believe that CO2 causes global cooling but I get no coverage anywhere – except for the baco-foil….