Members quitting the American Meteorological Society over stance on climate

Jai Mitchell says:
146 million dollars to climate change denial groups in a decade, 20 to 70 percent of their funding.

Those boldfaced words misleadingly suggest that the groups receiving the money have no other activity that “denying” climate change. But actually that activity is a tiny focus of conservative and free-market think tanks. Even Heartland, the most active group opposed to the CACCA Cult, devotes only 20% of its resources on climate change–and that 20% amounts to under $2 million per year. You can work out from that how little is going to denialism from other sources.
This “suppresso veri, suggesto falsi” (that any group that expresses and /or supports skepticism about catastrophic warmism is a group exclusively focused on doing so, and thus that all monies it receives can be assigned to denialism’s account), is a standard smear found in the propaganda of environmental organizations. Its continued employment says much about their trustworthiness.
Further, as Judith Curry has pointed out, the impact of the scientists employed by such think tanks has been considerably less than the impact of unfunded skeptics in academia.
Another red herring is this:

Jai Mitchell says:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.
This happens to be the position of :
[many scientific organizations]………

That may be so. I don’t deny it–and I don’t think that most contrarians do, either. So that’s not what the debate is about, although warmists nearly always misrepresent it as such–another instance of suppresso veri, suggesto falsi. The debate is not about whether carbon dioxide significantly contributes to present (actually past) warming. Most contrarians accept that. It’s about:
* How much that rise would continue under business-as-usual;
* How bad the consequences of a rise would be;
* Whether it would be wise to wait and see if the rise continues before mitigating;
* Whether adaptation would be a wiser policy than mitigation;
* Whether the developing world can or will significantly mitigate;
Whether mitigation in the developed world alone or as a trail-blazer would make a dime’s worth of difference,
* Whether “renewable” energy is an affordable or workable option;
* Whether the voting public in the developed world will continue to accept paying more, directly or indirectly, for renewable energy once the costs start to really bite, or whether it will come to see it, in light of inaction in Asia, as futile feel-goodery.

The warmists must resort to propaganda and ad hominem. The warmists must attempt to disrupt discussion in each and every thread as they cannot defend the extreme AGW theory and green scams based on logic and reason. Billions upon billions have been wasted on green scams as a direct result of the warmists propaganda. Unscrupulous leaches and fanatics have taken advantage of well meaning people.
P.S.
I am deeply thankful to Anthony Watts, the many contributors to WattsUp, and the Moderators efforts at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ which help to make this one of best blogs (in my opinion the best blog in the world) in the world to get up to date information concerning the climate wars and issues related to climate ‘change’.
Challenge to warmist pseudonym Jai Mitchell or any other warmist. We see that you cannot defend the extreme AGW hypothesis using logic and reason and must hence appeal to video links to Bill Maher’s rants. We notice that you must attempt to distract the subject away from the science. Why is that so?
Do you want to debate the observational fact that there has been 16 years of no warming and that there is now the first observational evidence of global cooling? The tide is most definitely changing. It will be interesting to watch the process as scientific organizations, scientists, and politicians abandon the AGW fiasco. We see that you have no scientific response to lack of warming.
There is no response to the fact that the paleo climate record shows there are nine warming and cooling cycles in this current interglacial period, all of which correlate to solar magnetic cycle changes. The latitudes where the warming followed by cooling occurred in the past are the same latitudes where we have experienced warming in the last. Curiously latitude of warming patterns in the last 70 years does not match the AGW theory.
Do you want to ‘debate’ the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes?
Do you want to debate the observational fact that solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slowdown in solar magnetic cycle?
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
Do you want to debate that the solar magnetic cycle in the last 70 years was at its highest level and at its longer duration at a high level for over 8000 years. Solar cycle 24 is an abrupt slow down the solar magnetic cycle. The scientific consensus is that solar cycle 25 will be Maunder like minimum.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
“… according to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode…”
Do you want to debate the comments made in this interview with IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch which is an unprecedented admission of the failure of the general circulation models that were used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions?
Do you want to debate the public admission from lead IPCC Storch that the climate ‘science’ was fudged? Storch: “Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.” Yes, global cooling would be a surprise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/
Hans Van Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”
William: Less CO2 warming does not explain no warming for 16 years. As atmospheric CO2 continues to rise planetary temperature must increase in a wiggly manner as the CO2 forcing does not go away. It appears at least 0.45C of the 0.7C warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar modulation of planetary clouds. The latitudes where the warming has occurred are the latitudes that are most strongly affected by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. There is a lack of warming to explain and the fact that the latitudinal pattern of observed warming does not match the AGW forcing pattern.
Hans Van Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more — and by the end of this century, mind you. That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
William: Give us a break. We will see less than 1C warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2. ‘Skeptic’ scientific analysis puts the estimated warming at 0.3C. There is no need to ask people what their ‘instinct’ tells them. Enough is enough, the warmists propaganda has to stop and will stop, as the planet is cools. There are nine warming and cooling periods in the current interglacial. The warming and cooling phases are called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. Each and every warming and cooling period has an increase in solar magnetic cycle activity during the warming phase and a decrease during the cooling phase. The Medieval Warm Period has followed by the Little Ice Age.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on the North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene (William: Holocene is the name for the current interglacial period. The late Gerald Bond was able to track 23 of the cyclic warming and cooling cycles through the current interglacial period and into the glacial period. As he notes in this paper there are cosmogenic isotopes change that correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling which indicates that solar magnetic cycle changes cause the cyclic warming and cooling. Later research determined the sun causes the cyclic warming and cooling by modulating the amount of planetary clouds.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/08/1000113107.abstract
Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
The Sun-Climate Connection by John A. Eddy, National Solar Observatory
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8.
The paleoclimatic data, covering the full span of the present interglacial epoch, are a record of the concentration of identifiable mineral tracers in layered sediments on the sea floor of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. The tracers originate on the land and are carried out to sea in drift ice. Their presence in seafloor samples at different locations in the surrounding ocean reflects the southward expansion of cooler, ice-bearing water: thus serving as indicators of changing climatic conditions at high Northern latitudes. The study demonstrates that the sub-polar North Atlantic Ocean has experienced nine distinctive expansions of cooler water in the past 11,000 years, occurring roughly every 1000 to 2000 years, with a mean spacing of about 1350 years.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
Periodicity
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

u.k.(us) says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Janice Moore says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:15 pm
dbstealey says:
June 21, 2013 at 8:38 pm
=================================================================
Thanks for explaining what a “NGO” is.

The following interview by Spiegel of IPCC lead author and senior climate scientist Hans Van Storch validates the so called skeptic’s position (see also links to peer review papers that support the skeptics position) that the something is fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models that have been used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions (the planet is going to warm less than 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 rather than the predicted 3C) and that climate ‘science’ has been fudged.
The reason warmists must try to change to the subject way from a scientific discussion and try to disturb threads is they cannot defend the warmist position using logical, observations, and peer reviewed papers.
The warmist alarmism is being used to justify green scams. Large industrial interests that benefit from the scams and ignorant green parties are pushing spending billions upon billions of dollars on green scams which have and will reduce the competiveness of Western countries, increase our unemployment, and indirectly increase Western debt (due to higher energy costs consumers have less money to tax). Furthermore the green scams have had no effect on reducing world CO2 emissions which is not a problem. The greens scams do not significant reduce CO2 emissions they only increase the cost of energy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
The fact that the observed temperature change (no warming for 16 years) does not agree with the general circulation models indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the general circulation models (GCM). (See Roy Spencer’s summary of the data and comparison of the GCM model predictions above.)
The reason for the fact that the planet has not statistically warmed for the last 16 years is the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes by increasing or decreasing cloud cover in the tropics to reflect more or less radiation in to space. (See Lindzen and Choi’s recent paper and the Idso’s 1998 classic paper on the planet’s response to forcing changes which both provide data and analysis to support that assertion.) If the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. Based on Idso and Gray’s analysis the estimated equilibrium warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is around 0.3C.
The general circulation models that have been used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions assume the planet amplifies rather resist forcing changes. As the assumptions in the general circulation models have been proven to be incorrect, the IPCC alarmist predictions are also incorrect. William M. Gray’s monogram provides a good explanation of the technical issues.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … …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 (William: for the zero feedback case, warming will be less than 1C if the feedback response is negative) (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). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. …
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
Increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climate disruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptions within the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block too much infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo) energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic. A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the climate simulations. Idso Skeptics View of Global Warming http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/
J Bryan Kramer writes of this interview with IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch in SPIEGEL.
Storch: …. ….Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I’ve been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.
Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency under the title “Sie erwärmt sich doch” (“The Earth is getting warmer”). Pamphlets like that aren’t going to convince any skeptics. It’s not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too — and then we didn’t hear much about the topic for a long time.
Storch: …Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people (William: James Hansen for example. The problem is once you have stated the sky is falling and the science is settled it is very, very difficult to admit you were 100% incorrect.). What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.
Storch: … Natural science (William: Climate science) is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises. (William: Yes, the planet is going to cool.)