Quote of the Week: the industry of denial

qotw_cropped

Dr. David Deming in the Washington Times:

“With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/

Advertisements

55 thoughts on “Quote of the Week: the industry of denial

  1. Outside the claim about ‘we should not be setting any cold records in a warming world’, pretty good article.

  2. The only true denialists are those who are sticking to the claim that man is the main cause of global warmin/cooling/change. They claim that I and my fellow skeptics are “denying science”. When I ask for the “science” I just get called names. Not once have I actually been offered any “science”. Just claims that its settled and why don’t I listen to all the scientists. When I ask who are these scientists, I get the same response – no response.

  3. It’s only Tuesday – how can we have a “Quote of the Week” now?

    Well, it is well constructed and informative. So, thanks. I would not have seen this otherwise. This is he, I think: David Deming (born 1954), an American geologist and geophysicist, is an associate professor.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Our local (central Washington State) weather is setting up to spring into spring this week, unless it doesn’t. The fruit trees are saying “Maybe” but they are not rushing into blossoming – being smarter than your average “climate scientist.”

  4. Don’t forget that the so-called “industry of denial” is also accused of being a paid puppet of the fossil fuel industry. Trouble is, there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove skeptic scientists ever received money with explicit industry instructions to fabricate false climate assessments or to ‘deliberately confuse the public’. Instead of the situation being one where skeptics ‘manufactured doubt’ about AGW, what this all looks like instead is an effort by enviro-activists to manufacture doubt about the credibility of the skeptics so that it appears there is no credible opposition to the IPCC.

  5. If only this was in the Washington Post. Then it would reach the people who most need to read it. All is not lost, however, many or most members of congress read the Washington Times.

  6. This is all very interesting, but it appears in The Washington Times, which is considered a trustworthy news source, if lacking in circulation. Had this been in the pages of The Washington Post, that old propaganda whore, then it might be a portent of change, but stands now as another sermon at choir practice.

  7. W.T:

    “Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts.
    At the end of March, the areal extent of sea ice in the Arctic was 3 percent below the 30-year average. Sea ice in the Antarctic, however, was elevated 24 percent. Global sea ice was above the 30-year mean and higher than it was in March 1980.

    Well the article was going quite well until that point. But this “fact” will surely be seen as proof of “denialism” . Choosing max Arctic date (max is fairly stable) and min Antarctic (where ice is increaseing) is a blattent cherry pick

    This is just as non sensical as doing it the other way around which warmists invariably do.

    Being just a stupid as the other side is not a very convincing way to prove the other side stupid.

    There is a good case to be made that it is the warmists who are now in denial about the way climate has been changing and I agree with that point of view.

    However, I’m certainly not convinced by this twisted “fact” list and would have to agree with any enviro that called out the author for misrepresenting the facts to serve his point .

    Most disappointing and counter productive.

  8. Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:13 am
    You might possibly have missed the delicious irony.

  9. stan stendera says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am
    “If only this was in the Washington Post. ”

    In that case, the Ford Foundation would probably stop awarding cash prizes to the WaPo for outstanding journalism.

  10. I agree with Luther Wu says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am
    …And, when you see an article like this in the New York Times, you will know that there is progress being made. When 60 Minutes does an investigative report exposing SKS, or Phil Jones, or Michael Mann, you will know there is progress being made.

  11. Deming states: “If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world.”

    Imagine if a scientist or academic who believed in AGW wrote the following sentence in an editorial: “If the world were not experiencing a climate crisis due to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record high temperature anywhere in the world.” That author would be raked over the coals (no pun intended) on WUWT for a statement like that. But when a skeptic like Deming says the converse, nobody complains. Seems like a double standard to me….

  12. Around 4 years ago I commented in the Guardian (paraphrase),
    “We will soon know who the real deniers are.”

  13. @Chirs I believe your logic is wrong. If there is no AGW crisis, you would expect some new record highs, as well as some new record lows, just as it has always been. These are really just finding the outliers that have never been recorded before. But if our earth has warmed up as much as the team says (i.e.catastrophically), new record lows should indeed be very uncommon.

  14. Great article by Dr. Deming–each one helps!

    As he recounted how cold and snow records were casually dismissed as being due to global warming, he wrote “Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost foolhardy to argue facts.” Great quote!

    But, skeptics appreciate facts, so here goes:

    By coincidence, I have been monitoring temps in OKC, as somewhat representative of the mid-continent. I use data from NOAA. The last “official” winter (winter solstice to vernal equinox) averaged 0.7 degrees F per day COLDER than normal. March was 2.89 degrees BELOW normal. April, unless there is a massive heat wave in the next few days, is heading to nearly 5 degrees per day BELOW normal.

    (I can’t wait for the “warmists” reaction—-“Weather is not climate, idiot!”)

  15. @ Luther Wu says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:14 am

    Drawing lines between the reasonable and not is part of the process. The rabid will isolate themselves and increasingly stand out to be judged.

  16. Jeff in Calgary,

    You’re correct, I should’ve used as my corollary an example about global cooling (which many skeptics say is happening). My main point was about his statement “not a single record low temperature anywhere in the world” being a rather preposterous statement to make, which I think is still valid. As far as the number of record highs to lows, yes, the number of new highs should be greater than the number of new lows. And that’s exactly what the National Center for Atmospheric Research found when they analyzed temperature records from 1800 weather stations across the US for the last 6 decades. In the 1950s, the ratio of new highs/lows was 1.09/1; in the 2000s it had increased to 2.04/1.
    https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us

  17. Chris says:

    “As far as the number of record highs to lows, yes, the number of new highs should be greater than the number of new lows. And that’s exactly what the National Center for Atmospheric Research found when they analyzed temperature records from 1800 weather stations across the US…”

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Sorry, Chris, that info is wrong.

  18. DBStealey,

    So let’s see, I reference a study that looks at 1800 weather stations over a 6 decade period and millions of temperature data points. You select a period of 1 week (!). Yeah, that’s a real apples to apples comparison.

  19. Chris says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:30 am

    Deming states: “If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world.”

    Imagine if a scientist or academic who believed in AGW wrote the following sentence in an editorial: “If the world were not experiencing a climate crisis due to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record high temperature anywhere in the world.” That author would be raked over the coals (no pun intended) on WUWT for a statement like that. But when a skeptic like Deming says the converse, nobody complains. Seems like a double standard to me….

    ————————-

    Come on Chris. Does this quibble actually have anything to do with the point Deming was making? Couldn’t you delete this sentence from the article without invalidating it or in any way affecting the larger argument?

    This was the point, in case you missed it:

    With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.

  20. Chris says:
    April 23, 2013 at 11:30 am

    You have a semi-valid point, and Deming’s statement was overwrought. However, there are two things to consider:

    1) The argument is not over whether temperatures rose over the past 6 decades. It is obvious that they did. The question was always one of attribution for the observations.

    2) Moreover, the debate today is over the apparent lack of warming over the past 15 or so years. So, while a 7 day view does not address the question, neither does a 6 decade one.

  21. I have received some criticism for the claim “If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world.”

    I’m writing a polemic here, not a research article for a scientific journal. I did not say there would be no record low temperatures in a “warming world.” I’m careful about my language. I used the word “crisis,” meaning the overblown hysterical claims we see in the media. My essential point is that there has been no significant change in the climate, and that when (for example) a thousand record low temperatures are recorded in a single month, the people who think the seas are boiling ought to examine their beliefs.

  22. What I find most interesting is the level of rationalization and, yes, denial in many of the comments at the Times. I tend to get lulled into complacency here, as it has become abundantly apparent to any truly rational observer that the climate is not playing ball with the AGW team. But, there is a whole industry out there, and a massive congregation of the faithful, who are going to hang on to the last remaining shreds of this failed hypothesis until the bitter end.

  23. “I’m writing a polemic here, not a research article for a scientific journal. … . I used the word ‘crisis,’… .” [Deming @ 11:52]

    The scientists above, whom I admire highly, make very good points which you may want to consider when writing on this topic in the future. Some of them do, however, indeed, appear to have overlooked the main point of your article: to persuade the non-scientist.

    Marketing should not drive production (hard science experimentation and reasoning, here).

    Promotion, is, however, necessary, to sell the product in the marketplace of ideas. Persuasion must be based on fact to have enduring effectiveness, but slogans and simplifications CAN, at least, open the door in a person’s mind so long brainwashed by the Cult of Climatology’s proselytizing and progaganda, to the possibility that the Cult is wrong.

    To win the battle for truth, we will need to get more of the non-scientist public on our side.

    Keep up the good fight, Mr. Deming!

  24. I completely support Professor Deming’s article “The Real Deniers of climate change”.

    The extreme AGW political ideology is resulting in idiotic, irrational policy. There is no ‘global warming’ crisis. The crisis is the wasting of money and the cover-up of papers and analysis that indicates the planet will warm less than 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, that greenhouses inject CO2 into the greenhouse to increase plant yield and reduce growing yields – cereal crop yield increases by roughly 40% for a doubling of CO2 -, and that C3 plants lose roughly half of their water due to trans-respiration. (When CO2 increases C3 plants – all plants are C3 plants except for grasses which have evolved to survive in the ultra low CO2 levels – produce less stomata on their leaves to reduce water loss and leave more water at their roots. The increased water at the plant roots enables synergistic bacterial to produce nitrogen for the plant’s use.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).

    The current increase in atmospheric CO2 rise is unequivocally beneficial to the biosphere and to humanity!!!

    Regardless that CO2 increases are beneficial to the biosphere, Western governments do not have billions of dollars to spend on scams which increase the cost of energy to consumers and make Western industry less competitive.

    This is absurd. Enough is enough. It is the media and technically astute people’s responsibility to speak up.

    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/

    “At the end of March, the areal extent of sea ice in the Arctic was 3 percent below the 30-year average. Sea ice in the Antarctic, however, was elevated 24 percent. Global sea ice was above the 30-year mean and higher than it was in March 1980. Only the naive can be so logical as to reason that “global” warming, or lack thereof, should be evaluated in terms of “global” conditions rather than local. A study published in Nature Geoscience on March 31 concluded that the increase of Antarctic sea ice is caused by you guessed it global warming.”

    With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”

    The extreme AGW paradigm pushers have blocked discussion of peer reviewed papers from what they refer to as ‘skeptic’ or ‘denier’ scientists and have blocked the discussion of observations that do not support extreme warming. The general public and the media are therefore not aware of the key ‘climate change’ issues:

    1) Observations and analysis indicate the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) rather than amplifies forcing changes. The IPCC accepted forcing change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056% is 4 watts/meter^2 (Observations indicate the 4 watts/meter forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is over estimated. The correct number is likely 2 watts/meter^2 or less.) With negative feedback the planet will warm less than 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and most of the warming will occur at higher latitudes which will cause the biosphere to expand. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve.

    Comments:
    Those pushing the paradigm are ignoring obvious evidence that indicates the planet resists (negative feedback) any forcing change by increasing or decreasing low level clouds in the tropics thereby reflecting less or more sunlight off into space. The general circulation models predicted the majority of the warming in the tropics and predicted the most warming on the planet to occur at roughly 8 km above the surface of the earth in the tropics. (The greenhouse gas warming is highest where there is the most long wave radiation reflected off into space and the GCM predicted increased water vapor not increased clouds which would amplify the CO2 forcing.) There is after 20 years of observation, no tropospheric hot spot in the tropic region at roughly 8km.)
    2) Western governments are spending money on ‘green’ scams such as the conversion of food to biofuel that increase CO2 emissions rather than reduce CO2 emissions, cause food shortages and higher cost for food in the third world, increase the cost of energy for Western consumers (type of tax), and reduce the competiveness of Western industry. This and other similar green scams are criminally idiotic policy.

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
    …We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)… (William: Roughly 1C warming if there is a neutral feedback response. A negative feedback response reduces the warming further.)

  25. Deming states: “If the world were experiencing a climate crisis owing to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record low temperature anywhere in the world.”

    Imagine if a scientist or academic who believed in AGW wrote the following sentence in an editorial: “If the world were not experiencing a climate crisis due to global warming, there shouldn’t be a single record high temperature anywhere in the world.” That author would be raked over the coals (no pun intended) on WUWT for a statement like that. But when a skeptic like Deming says the converse, nobody complains. Seems like a double standard to me….

    Not a valid comparison. This would be a valid comparison if there were two groups: One saying we are headed twards imenent catastrophic global warmining and the other cliaming that we are headed tward iminent catistrophic global cooling. This is not the case!

  26. Given that our goal is to avert the economic devastation that the Cult of Climatology’s dogma will inevitably lead to, the key point, the KEY point, is not whether or not the fact of and or the amount of global warming, rather, the key point is causation.

    That is, humans did not and cannot significantly alter the climate of the Earth.

    We need to get that simple truth into the public’s mind. Thus, focusing on whether or not warming is occurring or slowing or reversing is not a helpful strategy ( to win the war for Western (and that of course includes Israel and Japan and Australia and New Zealand) civilization (and civilization). <– hey, I just wrote that with an "s" and the auto-correct refuses to let me "Control Z" it back into an "s" after it insisted on making it a "z"! &:]

    Focusing on warming or not warming only gives the opponents of truth the opportunity for a diversionary maneuver. You are a "denialist"! [of warming]

    That is not the issue (as far as our most important goal: Keep the ship afloat).

    The issue is: whether or not humans can do ANYTHING to cause it.

  27. Aack! I think you got the meaning of my garbled first paragraph above, so I won’t correct it, here. But, I wanted to add, for clarification, that re: causation, this means focusing on how VERY tiny the potential maximum human contribution toward global climate change is by emphasizing: the Sun, the ocean, volcanoes, and like causes.

    The average person (as I am) finds such evidence highly compelling. Bumper sticker facts about CO2 along the lines of (ballpark figure only), “97% of all CO2 is NOT emitted by humans,” are what will win the war of ideas.

    We are not in this merely for the sake of scientific debate and getting the science right, WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR FOR LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

  28. Chris says:
    April 23, 2013 at 11:30 am

    DBStealey,

    So let’s see, I reference a study that looks at 1800 weather stations over a 6 decade period and millions of temperature data points. You select a period of 1 week (!). Yeah, that’s a real apples to apples comparison.

    2010 – 60 yrs = 1950 -> So why have you selected a period which ignores the 1930’s and from the State by State record temps are filled with these years. Cuts down a lot of your high temperature records.

  29. Janice Moore:

    At April 23, 2013 at 1:29 pm you say

    We are not in this merely for the sake of scientific debate and getting the science right, WE ARE FIGHTING A WAR FOR LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

    Indeed, we are. And that is why this matter transcends normal politics so, for example, those fighting on the side of truth include US Republican Sen. Inhofe and me (a left-wing British socialist).

    Sometimes the opposition is so evil that Churchill allies with Stalin to defeat it.

    The existing fight for “life as we know it” has to include defending true science and proper scientific standards. Our opponents are trying to return us to pre-Enlightenment thought (i.e. decision by authority and consensus). If they win then we will suffer totalitarianism, and will only dream of the time when political, religious and scientific disagreements were possible.

    Demming’s article is a good contribution to the fight. And it is a fight we have to win for the sake of our children and our children’s children.

    Richard

  30. Thanks, Richard, for your kind and gracious affirmation. After writing such a non-scientific post on such a high-caliber science site as this one is, it’s always a relief to know that one of the high-caliber posters who read it does not scorn its author.

  31. “Mo[o]re please!”

    Voila!

    Evidence (to me) that the Intelligent Designer has a sense of humor. &:)]

  32. The Climate Change Industry is all about the preservation of long term funding and careers. Real science and facts are a nuisance, so let’s only rely on models which can confirm the desired predictions, when properly programmed.

    Climate change is natural, no one (loony alarmists excluded) will disagree with that.

    “Long term funding and careers of dubious modelling techniques”. Hmm, who wants to support that concept?

    The quote from the Washington Post is 100% correct.

    In other words, today’s ‘climate scientists’ have as much credibility as yesterday’s Soviet peace representatives. However, the latter were probably the more honest. Retract that: definitely the most honest.

  33. [Couldn’t find a category for Publicity or Public Education or the like. Please forgive me if there would be a more appropriate place for this query/thought, but I don’t know where else to post it. Thanks for “listening,” all who read this!]

    Topic: HOW TO GET THE TRUTH TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC

    I went to noaa.gov to access NWS weather forecast for my area this afternoon, 4/23/13. Before I could enter my zip code, this appeared on noaa’s home page:
    “Pockets of Cold in a Warming World”

    (I’ve forgotten how to create a link in a post, please copy and paste url)

    It lasts about 2.5 minutes.
    Just more Cult of Climatology propaganda, FYI.

    ************************************************************
    Query/Proposal:
    I wish Ben Stein and his fine crew would produce another movie, this time, called: “Get Real” using thermometer temps., measured solar activity, and other hard data, using simply, powerfully, written dialogue to get truth in science to the public. (possibly, with a different celebrity, more popular with Gen X ers, perhaps, to do the narration and interviewing? Stein would be great for me, but I’m getting a little old…)

    Could we get funding* from a charitable trust or foundation or other source to produce and
    send a copy to every mailbox in the U.S. and Canada (at least – the entire civilized world would be my hope!)?

    The event of mailing this DVD to so many people would, in itself, create a media event, providing further opportunities to tell the truth on TV and in other news media. Getting something in the mail, a rarity for many, these days, would, I think, make it more likely that the recipients would view the DVD. Plus, the REAL (verus virtual on internet) object would underscore the theme.

    *Yeah, that’s a lot of money. That doesn’t mean it is impossible to find it.

    QUERY (finally!):
    Are there action steps to make the above dream happen that I (or someone more capable) can do? Please tell me what they are (be specific, or I’ll likely still not realize what exactly it is that I can do, and then, by jiminy, nothin’ will ever get done!).

    (I have a feeling that my above post will be simply ignored by everyone, so, I almost wrote “H-|-!-LR” so that at least a moderator would read and consider it! — No, no, I didn’t, no surreptitious methods here.)

  34. I’ve been saying this for years:

    “Will the real climate deniers please not stand-up”

    Flat earther’s, really? Faux deniers can actually cogitate eccentricity, obliquity and precession, which really does not compute for true flat earthers.

    Deny climate change? You mean deny that there has ever been anything but the most equable climate H. sapiens has ever enjoyed, the Holocene? You mean denying the last glacial, including the 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger events (which can shoot temps from 8-10C on average, 16C in a pinch [DO-19]) during the last glacial? You mean denying that the last interglacial, the Eemian (MIS-5e) had two strong thermal excursions, right at its very end, the second one of which shot sea levels at least +6M amsl? Or +45 or +52M amsl? Or denying that the Eemian was in every way warmer than the Holocene, with the first SUV ~100,000 years in the future?

    Or would denial constitute failure to recognize the extreme interglacials since MIS-11, or the eccentricity paced pairings of glacials/interglacials since the Mid Pleistocene Transition, or that the earth has been cooling off since the PETM?

    Could it possibly even be that denial is in any way associated with the fact that in every ice core drilled since perfection of the electric ice-coring drill temps seem to precede CO2 excursions?

    And could it even be possible that the loudest and shrillest prognostications of AGW pale in comparison to the backdrop of normal, natural climate change noise? (signal to noise ratio fail)

    But, but, perhaps the most egregious proof of climate change denial might actually lie within the largest fail of all anthropogenic time. That climate change has actually been essential to us hominids:

    “An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.” – Trauth et al, 2009, Trends, rhythms and events in Plio-Pleistocene African climate, Quaternary Science Reviews 28 (2009) 399–411.

    Can even that level of denial be denied? What might constitute the most extreme, ultimate, crowning level of denial? Hmmm, well, let’s see…….

    What if CO2 is the heathen devil gas it is cracked up to be? Howz about if we live at the now half-precession old Holocene interglacial, and counting. Both MIS-11 and MIS-19 occurred at an eccentricity minimum, just like the Holocene, MIS-1, is now occurring. MIS-11 went long, being the only post-MPT interglacial to have flaunted the ~half-precession long rule. MIS-19 didn’t. So in the coin toss that is the end-Holocene, would the ultimate in denial of climate change constitute removing said climate security blanket, possibly smoothing the slide into the next glacial, or would leaving it up there because, goshdarnit, we like this equable climate and don’t want to take any chance that our children’s children’s children et al won’t get the chance to enjoy it too?

    Which means the ultimate denial might actually be pretzel denial………

  35. David Deming says:
    April 23, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Spot on, Professor Deming. We understood you the first time. If asked, we would have explicated your original statement just as you explicate it.

    You are replying to a troll.

    Thank You for your work in behalf of science.

  36. The moral question must come front and center. People are starving due to the biomass/biofuels impacts on global commodities prices. The numbers are vast.

    Is genocide the imperative? Where are our church leaders? Certainly this issue is not beyond their professed area of responsibility. What will we tell our grandchildren?

  37. This quote was from a totally non-related to climate site, but it seemed fitting. Especially in light of Dr. Deming’s article.

    In “Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman talks at some length about the problem of “experts” making predictions. In a shockingly wide variety of situations, those predictions turn out to be utterly useless. Specifically, in many, many situations, the following three things hold true:

    1- “Expert” predictions about some future event are so completely unreliable as to be basically meaningless

    2- Nonetheless, the experts in question are extremely confident about the accuracy of their predictions

    3- And, best of all: absolutely nothing seems to be able to diminish the confidence that experts feel

    The last one is truly remarkable: even if experts try to honestly face evidence of their own past failures, even if they deeply understand this flaw in human cognition… they will still feel a deep sense of confidence in the accuracy of their predictions.”

  38. There is an impressive list of significant problems with the extreme AGW paradigm. It appears that theory is broken, is in crisis. Typically when a theory is in crisis one does not refer to the scientists who are pointing out the anomalies and theory failures as ‘deniers’ or ‘skeptics’.

    The extreme AGW paradigm pushers have told us that the general climate models cannot predict ‘climate change’ on a year by year basis as weather (month and yearly chaotic events on the earth) cannot be separated from the long term trend. After 16 years without warming it is now possible, however, to determine what is or is not the trend in temperature.

    Looking at the graph linked to below it is obvious that there are fundamentally errors in the extreme AGW theory and the extreme AGW theory based general circulation models.

    Comment: It is not surprising that the extreme AGW theory appears to be fundamentally in correct. There are periods in the paleo record of millions of years when planetary temperature does not correlate to atmospheric CO2 levels. These periods have been either ignored or the paleo climate record has been changed to eliminate the cold period, ignoring the marks left by ice sheet movement

    Global Lower Atmosphere Temperatures 44 of the Latest Climate Model versus Reality.

    It is curious that there are cycles of warming and cooling (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles) in the paleo climatic records that correlate in magnitude and to the specific regions that warmed in the geologically recent past, to the 20th century warming. (i.e. It appears the 20th century warming is D-O cycle for the following reasons.) The late Gerald Bond showed that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes. Gerald Bond was able to track 23 of the D-O cycles through the interglacial period and into the glacial period which supports the assertion the forcing mechanism is external. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 1450 years plus or minus 500 years which correlates to a solar magnetic cycle periodicity. Every 6000 to 8000 years there is a very, very, strong cooling period that follows the warming period. The special strong D-O cycle is called a Heinrich event. The last Heinrich event is the 12,900 year abrupt cooling period called the Younger Dryas or the 8,200 year before present abrupt cooling event.

    Greenland Ice sheet temperature derived from ice cores, last 11,000 years.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    This paper notes that the extreme AGW paradigm predicted tropical tropospheric warming at roughly 8 km above the surface of the planet has not occurred. (William: The lower troposphere is saturated with CO2 due to the spectral overlap of CO2 and water. Additional CO2 therefore results in almost no additional warming of lower troposphere. The extreme AGW theory predicted the greatest amount of warming on the planet would be at roughly 8k above the surface of the planet in the tropics where there is the largest amount of long wave radiation reflected off into space. The predicted tropic tropospheric warming at 8km would then warm the planet’s surface. As Douglas et al’s paper notes there has been no observed warming at 8 km above the surface of the planet in tropics.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    Antarctic sea ice has been increasing. The period of higher Antarctic sea ice has also been increasing, such that there was in 2012 and is in 2013 more ice than the average for all months of the year which indicates cooling.


    The story has an interesting twist.
    There is observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. It has been observed that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly for some unknown reason.

    One of the theories as to what creates sunspots is that the sunspots are formed from magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun. The magnetic ropes are hypothesized to be formed deep within the surface of the sun at the solar tachocline. Eugene Parker (one of solar theorists who created the magnetic rope/tachocline mechanism) estimated that the magnetic ropes require a minimum field strength to avoid being torn apart in the solar convection zone by turbulence.

    As the magnetic field strength of the magnetic ropes decreases the ropes are being torn apart as they rise through the convection zone. What forms on the surface of the sun, are groups of tiny short lived sunspots which the specialists call ‘pores’. Interesting the tachocline magnetic rope mechanism requires old sunspots to be pulled down by convection currents to restart the solar magnetic cycle. The question is if the linear decay of the sunspot field strength continues there will be no sunspots on the surface that have sufficient magnetic field strength to survive the trip back down to the tachocline.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/
    It appears based on what has happened before that we are going to have a chance to observe what causes either a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or possibly a Heinrich event. If we do, then the question is only magnitude of the change and rapidity of the cooling.

  39. @ William Astley, Scott Scarborough, D. D. More, Peter Miller, Theo Goodwin, William McClenney, Atweel

    NICE WORK!

    (posting at the end of a thread’s day can be depressing — who knows if ANYONE EVEN READ THIS? — wanted you to know you were read and admired highly, albeit by a non-scientist, but at least you can know SOMEONE read your fine posts!)

  40. Somehow we need to get past the stonewalling of the CRL (criminal reactionary leftist) controlled news media and get the word out to the general population. If ouly we had a few billionaires like the CRL has, to finance this effort and buy the necessary air time and advertising space.

    It’s especially crucial that we get the word out to the lower-income people and people of color who are being screwed the worst by the Alarmist-and-Judge-Jury-and-Executioner-in-chief, whom they were deceived into voting for him. They need to be told of the $10 gas and 4o cent electricity that he is planning for them.

  41. @ aletho says:
    April 23, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    As you say, this is about morals, which I would extend to call values.

    Not just in regard to human life and suffering, but in regard to the way humans can expect, or otherwise, basic requirements that distinguish humanity from the primaeval, or evil, such as honesty, and the recognition that urges to place self-interest above capacity to understand or consider implications, degrades and inevitably destroys.

  42. @ Greg Goodman says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:25 am

    I understand your concerns. However in this case, and any similar that arise, I think it is misplaced.

    You are viewing it from the perspective of reasoned discourse between those whose interest is exclusively scientific, and where presenting a part of an appraisal, whilst being aware – or where an awareness should exist – that this is incomplete or potentially distorting to understanding. And as such is not an approach consistent with principles of scientific inquiry.

    But such a letter is not part of that process. It is a refutation of position maintained by those who may use science as justification but are not beholden to it in the manner described above, and in many instances have no meaningful knowledge of it even in part, and have no desire to seek that.
    It is a societal and political context, not scientific.

    As such, to present information that in itself is accurate but may be incomplete, is not just acceptable but is needed. The societal process around this is entirely constructed around incomplete information and plain deceit. A person wanting a more balanced view requires first and foremost, BEYOND any other consideration, to know that interpretations exist that tend to discount the established and promoted orthodoxy.

    For this, they need to hear “inconvenient truths”, regardless of how limited or incomplete they are.

  43. @ Greg Goodman says:
    April 23, 2013 at 9:25 am

    To further clarify.

    Paper 1 estimates sensitivity at x.
    Paper 2 estimates sensitivity at y.

    When someone is unaware of Paper 2 they need be made aware of it prior to any consideration of the relative merits is undertaken. In making someone aware, it is not necessary to present Paper 1 in itself, or initially to seek to reconcile these. Evaluation of the total factors can then proceed.

    Proponents of AGW constantly proffer Arctic ice at its minimum as evidence.

    As a counterpoint, providing evidence that is also incomplete is not only legitimate, but is required to thereafter reconcile such disparate examples.

    The process is not in substance different, it is occurring amongst people whose body of prior knowledge is less comprehensive than should be expected of a scientist with an interest in the area.

  44. Will Nelson says: April 23, 2013 at 9:38 am ” … You might possibly have missed the delicious irony.”

    No, actually I “got” the spectacular irony of the ‘industry of denial’ over 3 years ago, when I first started digging heavily into the accusation against skeptics to see exactly what its origins were and who was promulgating it. The accusation is seemingly just one of various hilarious examples of psychological projection we see coming from enviro-activists.

  45. Come on now global warming is a bunch of hot air!
    to think burning 12 million barreles of death a day on this little green ball has an efect nonsense

  46. Query/Proposal:
    I wish Ben Stein and his fine crew would produce another movie, this time, called: “Get Real” using thermometer temps., measured solar activity, and other hard data, using simply, powerfully, written dialogue to get truth in science to the public. (possibly, with a different celebrity, more popular with Gen X ers, perhaps, to do the narration and interviewing? Stein would be great for me, but I’m getting a little old…)

    Could we get funding* from a charitable trust or foundation or other source to produce and
    send a copy to every mailbox in the U.S. and Canada (at least – the entire civilized world would be my hope!)?

    The event of mailing this DVD to so many people would, in itself, create a media event, providing further opportunities to tell the truth on TV and in other news media. Getting something in the mail, a rarity for many, these days, would, I think, make it more likely that the recipients would view the DVD. Plus, the REAL (verus virtual on internet) object would underscore the theme.

    The absence of such funding, especially in the wake of the success of “The Global Warming Swindle,” is hard to account for if there is a well-organized, well-funded denial movement, as charged by alarmists. This was a point I made in my thread, “Notes from Skull Island, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/

  47. @ william matthews says:
    April 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    “…burning 12 million barreles of death…”

    ————————————————————————————————————————–

    Are you a student at Hansens School of Hysteria, Loony Bin Campus?

    Do you cover the actual people killed by the Hansen Method of Policy Manipulation?

Comments are closed.