At WUWT, one thing we pride ourselves in is helping visitors learn about the issues and the science, even if those visitors should already know what these things mean. Take for example, Michael Tobis proprietor of “Only In it for the Gold” and “Planet3.0”, both heavily pro-warming sites. Readers may remember Mr. Tobis from his famous F-word Fusillade.
Mike came to WUWT to ask a simple question, and of course, we are always happy to help him out.
Original comment asking to define “CAGW” here.
Honestly, I thought most everyone (especially the bloggers) in this debate knew this term, but apparently not. So, this post will make sure everyone does now.
CAGW is an abbreviation for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
For more abbreviations, see our WUWT Glossary Page


“Lead squirrel, James Hansen, predicted that Manhattan would be under water by now.”
Really? Reference please?
Tobis: To my knowledge it is not used by actual climate scientists in any context.
Books by:
James Hansen: Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity
Michael Mann: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – The Illustrated Guide to the Findings of the IPCC
Archer and Rahmstorf: The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change
Tyler Volk: CO2 Rising: The World’s Greatest Environmental Challenge
Need more “knowledge” ??
I created a computer model to determine what CAGW stands for. I ran the model 1000 times and averaged the results. CAGW means: Orange Water Given Bucket of Plaster. See? Perfect!
Since y’all are such expert hairsplitters, I should not have said “Does someone have an alternative definition which people actually advocate?” after admitting that such people probably exist.
Does someone have an alternative definition which influential people actually advocate?
I am not saying that there isn’t a useful concept in here somewhere. I just would like to know whether we are discussing an extremist position of no influence, or a position which actually includes the bulk of scientific consensus opinion, or something in between. Otherwise it is just a rhetorical device.
@Tobis
The last IPCC report is the definition of CAGW.
I agree with you that it has never been “coherently expressed as a hypothesis.”
You’re so right, Michael! Climate Change is just a rhetorical device for mass governmental control, and to keep poor countries poor.
Tobis:
How about Maurice Strong? Actually I don’t know if he really believes there is a climate catastrophe going on, but he certainly wants to use the meme to de-industrialize the west. Don’t bother asking for a cite, I’m sure you know it already. There are others who are influential who believe the same thing; Al Gore, David Suzuki, You (though how influential you are remains to be seen).
TerryMN seems to capture the sense of many of you with the list of book titles from climate scientists.
Would it be fair to suggest that “CAGW” means “the proposition that continued accumulation of greenhouse gases at or above current (ca. 2010) rates over the next century is sufficiently disruptive to climate that it would produce widespread, unambiguously catastrophic consequences”?
If that or something similar is the definition, without any additional political baggage, I think it represents a legitimate and reasonably objective scientific hypothesis. I believe that the consensus of informed opinion would show that such a proposition is deemed much more likely than not to be true.
The key poitn for me is that this makes no statement about preferred policy other than the obvious implication that we ought to find some way to avoid such an outcome. Further, I think we could agree that most of you disagree with me about the likelihood that the proposition is true. This would help separate the political from the scientific aspects of the conversation.
If you accept that definition, why not add it to the list of acronyms so we can properly nail down what we are talking about when people around here use the term?
If not, what do you propose?
@ur momisugly Michael Tobis
Michael Tobis says:
February 1, 2012 at 9:20 am
“The IPCC report is a literature review, not a hypothesis.
As for “Control All Global Wealth” Count me (and everybody I know) as opposed.”
Michael Tobis…please please please I sincerely beg you to look away from the trees and step back and look at the entire forest.
Sir, I respectfully submit to you my hypothesis, or one of them anyway…
Please note, snark and sarcasm is being filtered as much as I can for this comment.
The scientists…the VAST majority are good people…trying their best to do what they love, be it in academia, business or government. The problem as I see it is this:
Lets assume the ‘scientist’ are actually doing good ethical science.
Who is the science for? Who is the end user? In some cases it gets into the hands of politicians and Wall Street folks correct? What do they do about it? Do you trust them? Do you trust Goldman Sachs? Do you trust the Chicago Merc? Do you trust Warren Buffett? Do you trust BP? What about George Soros?
How about when we mix politicians and business people…Do you trust Al Gore? Either Bush? Is Obama the same guy you voted for? Has he done everything you hoped he would? Look, Michael, I tried to balance out the political spectrum to be fair. Heck, everyone saw the video of Newt and Nancy stroking each others Speakers gavels a few years ago in a AGW PSA and now they are fighting again. What gives?
Here is my point Professor, the scientists…at least most of them are but pawns for the Chess Masters but you guys don’t even know it!
I think…prove me wrong.
Andrew
CONTROL ALL GLOBAL WEALTH.
I’m serious.
The IPCC report is a literature review, not a hypothesis.
As for “Control All Global Wealth” Count me (and everybody I know) as opposed.
Nobody is cutting climate scientists into this hypothetical cabal anyway, so it doesn’t explain our motivation. I know some of you think it’s possible to take, e.g., NSF grant money and just stuff it in your pocket, but it really doesn’t work like that. Talk to an actual scientist, in any field, and ask them.
Or read this:
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/taking-the-money-for-granted-%E2%80%93-part-i/
Thank-you so much for the “let me google that for you” animation construction page. I didn’t know of it’s existence. GK
“Lemming” adds alliteration.
Here’s a summary of the catastrophes that catastrophists have warned us about:
Michael Tobis says (February 1, 2012 at 8:36 am): ‘Would it be fair to suggest that “CAGW” means “the proposition that continued accumulation of greenhouse gases at or above current (ca. 2010) rates over the next century is sufficiently disruptive to climate that it would produce widespread, unambiguously catastrophic consequences”?’
Not bad, although it should be amended to blame humanity for the greenhouse gasses. Otherwise there’s no “A” in “CAGW”. Of course it’s not as sexy as “…the f**king survival of the f**king planet is at f**king stake.”*, but at least it’s just as wrong. 🙂
*http://init.planet3.org/2011/04/moshers-team.html
Michael Tobis says:
February 1, 2012 at 8:36 am
You do understand that temperature leads CO2, right?
That is like saying con men do not refer to their “proposals” as “scams” when trying to sell it to the mark.
It is a simple phrase that summarizes the intended message presented by the accumulated scare stories trotted out over the last couple decades so we don’t have to refer to a list the size of a phone book.
He is playing you guys. He knows full well what it is, and is trying to build up a red herring argument about nothing. The question what is he trying to distract everyone from?
Larry
I think most people stipulate that the accumulation is anthropogenic.
I plead guilty to being extremely angry at the people who keep trying to find earth-shattering or even mildly relevant scandals in the mundane stolen emails when nothing remotely relevant to the scope and scale of the problem was revealed.
I’m not alone. Somebody had to come out and start yelling. Admittedly, “…the f**king survival of the f**king planet is at f**king stake” is a bit exaggerated for effect. But you guys indeed had better be really sure of yourselves that we are completely wrong. Otherwise you are being hugely irresponsible.
You all can keep bringing that up if you want. Or you can engage on substance. Your call.
“You do understand that temperature leads CO2, right?”
That’s a long story. I’ll put it on my list for a serious article. I have not been happy with any popular expositions on the subject.
Short version:
If warming causes CO2 releases on a glacial cycle time scale, as it indeed appears, that is an amplifying feedback. And indeed, we need an amplifying feedback, because the direct forcing and ice albedo effect don’t seem to be enough to account for the quaternary glacial cycle.
That does not constitute good news.
However, how temperature increase causes CO2 releases on that time scale is not nailed down (to my knowledge). It is among the biggest open questions in physical climatology.
Perhaps the mechanism is tapped out somehow in the interglacials, which would make the prognosis on a multi-centruy time scale somewhat less severe. Understanding the glacial cycle is incomplete and this is a major reason to keep working at it.
hth
Michael Tobis says:
February 1, 2012 at 11:41 am
It isn’t a long story. One of three things can happen; temperature can lead CO2, temperature can lag CO2 (the basis for alarmism), or temperature and CO2 are independent of one another.
re post by: Michael Tobis says: February 1, 2012 at 9:20 am
Please don’t be so disingenuous – or open your eyes, as the case may be. I daresay not one scientist would claim that increased availability of grant funds isn’t a boon to their field and the scientists in it. Every scientist knows full well that their very career and therefore livelihood depends on grant money – and the more the better their life will be. Just ask James Hansen who has apparently gained, on top of his six figure government salary, something like an additional $1.6 million over the past few years ($1.3?).
Every professor knows that difficulty obtaining grants means a very stressful work environment with the department head and possibly dean constantly riding your back. That conversely, increased grant money means the ability to do the research you want, to hire more grad students thus making success more likely even if you have to rework the starting hypothesis to the point it’s almost unrecognizable from the original. Which means it will be that much easier to get future grants, be invited to contribute to other researchers papers, etc., etc., etc. All of which means more citations, quicker and easier route to tenure, enhanced respect and recognition in your field (what scientists doesn’t yearn for that?). Even more, everyone knows it also means that there is more money available to fund trips to professional conferences which are typically held in sweet vacation spots.
It’s tendentious to play the ‘can’t stuff the money in your pocket’ meme, when even the majority of grad students know increased grant money means ability to buy better equipment (which can later be used for other research too of course), enhanced career and greatly enhanced earnings, salary, trips, respect, success, and even huge opportunities should one decide they want to transition out of academia.
So no, unless one is willing to commit a crime and misuse funds (which of course some do), liberal grant money doesn’t mean you can directly grab the actual funds to stuff ones’ pocket – but everyone knows that one stands to make huge gains in virtually every aspect if one can pull in grant money.
If they work hard, and the research is conducted using sound scientific technique, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this – it’s a good thing. However, I seriously doubt there’s a scientist alive who doesn’t also know that some display far more integrity in terms of how they apply grant funds, while others are master at finding ways to word the grants or finagle the funds such that they skate the edge of legality, just staying legal, and yet using more of the money for pleasurable aspects rather than hard research.
Meanwhile, MSM article and after article along with the words of top ‘climate scientists’ as displayed in Climategate 1 & 2 put paid to your implication that scientists (especially ‘climate scientists’) have no interest in global control. Are you really claiming that a push to limit human CO2 production isn’t a massive control on every human it’s imposed on? Please. It even extends past energy to the very diet we eat, type of house we live in and virtually everything in that home, right down to the very light bulb we use.
Trying to imply that there’s no financial gain or power or control involved in all of this for the scientist – and that supposedly all scientists would agree if asked – or that this would require some nefarious secretive ‘cabal’ rather than simple human nature and the facts of the system, all while using weasel words that give you wiggle room if someone calls you on it, is just, well, disturbing and ridiculous.
I’m not sure this whole question-and-answer period isn’t simply an excuse for getting the WUWT faithful to come up in search engines associated with pro-CAGW verbage…let alone giving Mr. Tobias the chance to be found on the world’s favorite science blog.
Oh yeah – one more thing – if the pro-CAGW folks aren’t successful in their scheme to kill off 80% (or more) of the world’s population, don’t they realize that keeping the poor countries poor is the best way to keep them producing babies? Talk about your unintended consequences!
@ur momisugly Power Grab
Read up on the Progressive Movement in the 1890’s through the 1940’s. Read up on the rise of the Eugenics movement and how it manifested itself into medical care, psychiatric care…as the Kennedy Clan about lobotomy’s.
Note how Eugenics were applied in various countries. Look at the US Progressive Movement of the 30’s and there views on what was going on in Europe.
Look at who is behind the restrictions placed on GMO foods and the use of DDT in Africa.
Now…what were you saying about ‘your unintended consequences!’
Lose the ‘un’….(wow ironic..un…UN…now that was truly UNintended, but rather sardonic…I think)
Michael Tobis,
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) infers that Anthropogenic (human) sources of trace atmospheric gases are and will cause the Warming of the Globe, that in turn will have Catastrophic consequences for all life on the entire planet.
The weak hypothetical case of CAGW can be defined further by reading questions like yours and the various nonsensical dribble from those who are proponents of CAGW and their constant re-branding of it.
I thought AGW = Anthropotomac Global Warming.
Michael Tobis says (February 1, 2012 at 11:30 am): “I think most people stipulate that the accumulation is anthropogenic.”
Which is why the explicit accusation belongs in any definition of the term “CAGW”.
“But you guys indeed had better be really sure of yourselves that we are completely wrong. Otherwise you are being hugely irresponsible.”
Pascal’s Wager again, AKA “The Precautionary Principle” AKA “The f**king sky is f**king falling!” Given the religious nature of Pascal’s original argument, it’s quite fitting that CAGW believers resort to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
“You all can keep bringing that [“…the f**king planet…”] up if you want. Or you can engage on substance. Your call.”
Actually, it was Michael Tobis who brought that up (referenced above). If Mr. Tobis has some substance to offer, perhaps Anthony can provide space for a guest article on the “science” behind CAGW.