Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming.
Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change.
But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.
Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.
Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.
· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.
Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sisi says @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 5:09 pm
“HI is trying to do anything else but arguing in favour of those who see no need to diminish global exhaust of CO2 because they profit from the present economic setup.”
Absoutely false. My family and myself have profitted handsomely from CAGW alarmism. We would do less well financially if HI prevails, but I see more truth and honest analysis in HI than I do in the IPCC.
BTW. I do not believe that “recovery from the Little Ice Age” is the proper phrase. Such a phrase suggests that the LIA was abnormal and the tendency is to recover from it. Only a huge amount of hubris allows one to claim that any phase of the world’s climate is normal. I prefer the phrase: “emerging from the Little Ice Age.”
Steven Mosher says:
September 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
since the LIA C02 forcing represents about 50% of ALL forcing.
On what planet?
Steven Mosher says:
September 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
Bill Illis says:
September 11, 2013 at 5:43 am
wrong. you have to look at all forcings. jeez, if you want to attack the explanation you first have to get it right
The temperature response is a reaction to the sum of ALL FORCING. since the LIA C02 forcing represents about 50% of ALL forcing.
————————————–
No, you are wrong again.
We are also exactly half-way if the measure is ALL forcing versus the expected ALL forcing doubling level.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/index.htm
Yes they can ignore it and they will for quite some time. Read The Road to Serfdom and State of Fear. A crisis, even an imaginary one, give the states a pretense for grabbing more power and making everyone more dependent.
Mosher says:
“Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.”
What if his ‘explanation’ is wrong?
In case you haven’t been watching, the people who are losing are the purveyors of the catastrophic AGW scam. That “explanation” is a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense. No credible scientist agrees with CAGW, for the simple reason that there is no testable evidence whatever for CAGW. It is no different than fortune-telling, astrology, rain dances, or phrenology.
If someone cannot produce measurable, testable, quantifiable scientific evidence to support their claim, then their claim is self-serving nonsense.
@Jai Mitchell
There have been other recoveries from cooler temps in the current interglacial period long before the forcings you cite even existed. So why the double standard? Recovery is natural without mankind, but when we’re around and industrially active it is not?
Steven Mosher:
At September 11, 2013 at 10:20 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/a-science-based-rebuttal-to-global-warming-alarmism/#comment-1414382
you claim
No!
Science is about seeking the closest possible approximation to truth.
Everyone can think they each have a “best” explanation. But an explanation refuted by one or more pieces of evidence is not valid. At any moment the scientific explanation is the valid explanation which agrees with most evidence and – in the event of a tie – uses least assumptions.
Often the only valid explanation is “we don’t know” and in that case the scientific explanation is
WE DON’T KNOW.
But, of course, pseudoscientists always have a “best” explanation.
Richard
The drive by Jai’s only comment attracted common sense like flies on Jai.
Deb Rudnick says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm
The heartland institute is a conservative/libertarian think tank well known for its position on climate change skepticism and is funded by several other conservative foundations and major corporate players in tobacco, pharmaceutical, and oil and gas…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SOOoooo??? The East Anglia Climate Research Unit (Home of Phil Jones and the climategate e-mails) is funded by BP and Shell Oil. Ged Davis (named in one of the e-mails) Was a Vice President of Shell Oil AND wrote the climate scenarios for the IPCC. You can read them yourself in the e-mail: link
The IPCC chairman, Robert Watson, was an employee of the World Bank.
Peter Glieck committed Wire Fraud, a serious offense, when he stole information from Heartland. Richard Muller (BEST) has a Shell Oil VP in his consulting business, Muller & Associates.
Maurice Strong: Chair of the 1972 First Earth Summit and Kyoto was president of Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada. He has served as president of energy companies such as Petro-Canada and Power Corporation,, and on the board of industrial giant Toyota. In 1981 he had moved on to Denver oil promoter AZL Resources.
Then there is Good old Al Gore whose money comes from Occidental Petroleum and bragged of his tobacco farming days when trying to get votes as a presidential candidate.
Careful what rocks you try to throw, people in glass houses should clean up their own act first.
Pippen Kool says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Is any of this stuff peer reviewed? Because it would be fantastic if it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It says right in the text:
Actually it is better that: the IPCC that uses so-called ‘grey literature’, that is, articles written by activists like Greenpeace and WWF. See: UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card
milodonharlani says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm in reply to Deb Rudnick
The IPCC isn’t composed of thousands of scientists. Its conclusions & summary for political leaders are written by a cabal of around 50. Many of those it counts as scientists are in fact bureaucrats & a lot of the scientists it lists don’t want to be associated with the scam any more.
Tens of thousands of real scientists recognize IPCC for the anti-scientific hoax it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heck there are over 100 scientists and engineers here commenting a WUWT who have mentioned their educational background so we beat the IPCC in the numbers game.
Sisi says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 5:09 pm
…..Is there anybody here still thinking that the HI is trying to do anything else but arguing in favour of those who see no need to diminish global exhaust of CO2 because they profit from the present economic setup?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you don’t think the TRILLIONS of tax dollars aren’t going into someone’s pocket?
At least the ‘present economic setup’ (or the old one anyway) produced goods and services that improved peoples lives. All that those TRILLIONS of tax dollars has done is cause thousands to freeze to death – In Britian 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March
Meanwhile according to the International Monetary Fund In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012).
Three decades, GEE, that is about how long we have been hearing about (and funding) the CAGW mania.
Rich Wright says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Is Tony Abbott the only national leader in the whole world who will say that he does not believe humans are causing dangerous global warming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No you forgot Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic from 2003 to 2013. After his presidency ended in 2013, Klaus was named a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.
richardscourtney says:
September 11, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Steven Mosher:
At September 11, 2013 at 10:20 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/a-science-based-rebuttal-to-global-warming-alarmism/#comment-1414382
you claim
Remaining silent may work with the cops, but not in science, because someone somewhere will always have an explanation and the best explanation wins.
No!
Science is about seeking the closest possible approximation to truth.
Everyone can think they each have a “best” explanation. But an explanation refuted by one or more pieces of evidence is not valid. At any moment the scientific explanation is the valid explanation which agrees with most evidence and – in the event of a tie – uses least assumptions.
+++++++++++++
Richard: I agree with you, of course. BUT Mosher reveals himself here and no amount of logical discourse can change this. Mosher is right with a single caveate; he’s referring to “political” science. Using a phrase like “best explanation wins” is very valid when discussing topics of political science. As proof, the IPCC’s explanations about man causing climate change that will be catastrophic have won the minds of enough people such that CO2 has gotten labeled as a pollutant, and carbon is taxed, and energy is becoming more costly, and Green’s get my money. Mosher is right because he implies political science.
jai mitchell says: @ur momisugly September 10, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Dbstealey,
you have absolutely no scientific mechanism that can explain a “natural” variability that is producing the warming that would constitute a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you DENY there is such a thing as Heinrich, Dansgaard/Oeschger and Bond Events? Funny NASA and NOAA don’t.
NASA: Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events
NOAA: A Pervasive 1470-Year Climate Cycle in North Atlantic Glacials and Interglacials by Gerald Bond
Steven Mosher says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Hey Facebook stock is up because its recovering from its IPO low.
There I explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You forgot the effects of the lawsuits….. August 26, 2013 Judge approves $20 million settlement in Facebook class-action lawsuit and possible up and coming lawsuits NSA Surveillance Lawsuit Tracker …. is that something like a slump in solar sunspot activity? /sarc
@jai mitchell:
Gail Combs, William McClenney, Fabi, BillW, Robert in Calgary, Bob Greene, Ric Werme, milodonharlani, Steve Oregon, ferd berple, George H, David Ball, Tom Moran, and many others have made you into a laughingstock here; a climate clown. Every point you have tried to make has been easily refuted. Debunked! No one agrees with your climate alarmist nonsense, and it is clear that you don’t even understand it yourself.
Your thoroughly discredited/debunked/falsified talking points make no headway here, because WUWT readers know that:
1. You have zero scientific credentials. No CV. If I am wrong, then post your degrees in the hard sciences right here. I and others have asked you before, but the only response from you is the chirps of crickets in the background.
2. You are a self-serving opportunist, who is attempting to make a buck out of climate alarmism. That has been exposed recently by other commentators. But that doesn’t pass muster at the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site. We know a charlatan when we see one, and you are fooling no one here.
3. Unlike a real scientist, you have no use whatever for the Scientific Method, or for Occam’s Razor, or for the climate Null Hypothesis. They just get in the way of your True Beliefs. You would fit in perfectly back in the witch doctor era.
I would not be so hard on you if you ever engaged in an honest, forthright, question-and-answer commentary. But your childish hit ‘n’ run commentary leaves no room for intelligent discourse. You never respond to an honest, direct question asked of you, or to a point made that refutes what you claim. Never. That makes you a troll, no? A site pest. You have not the slightest interest in science. Your only interest is in self-promotion, which requires that you constantly emit alarmist propaganda, and nothing else.
My advice to you: stop it! Everyone can see what you’re up to. You have zero interest in scientific truth; only in your self-serving CAGW propaganda. You have no credibility. I can assure you that you are wasting your time at a site that is read by many thousands off highly educated individuals, who can tell honest science from your “carbon” nonsense.
Steven Mosher says:
September 10, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Sadly, that is how skepticism works in philosophy and how the defense works in a court case. But its not how skepticism works in science. Science works to explain. doubt is a tool in science, but in the end if you dont have an explanation you lose to the guy who does have an explanation, EVEN IF his explanation is partial and incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, explanations like phlogiston or the sun circles the earth and if you do not believe we will persecute you and you may even lose your head ( Lavoisier)?
Steven Mosher says:
September 11, 2013 at 10:24 am
“science is not a debate. for the record I’ve endured more ad hominem attacks here than any other place…..”
===========
Give a semblance of respect, and it will be returned.
Twobob says: @ur momisugly September 11, 2013 at 3:45 am
… Also it is an offence to dispose of your domestic florries in your dust bin….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So do you mail them to your Parliament member instead?
(Sorry mod. I resisted the first time but not the second)
The question is it seems whether the LIA was a forced event (whether a solar Bond event or an endogenous volcanic event), with an imbalance-induced bounce-back tendency, or just part of a general orbital-explainable temperature decline seen since the Holocene optimum?
An interesting piece has just appeared in the Guardian about just this subject in an interview with Naomi Klein. Note that the D word is quoted. I have edited it extensively to extract the relevant quotes, but the full version is here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/10/naomi-klein-green-groups-climate-deniers#start-of-comments
Naomi Klein: ‘Big green groups are more damaging than climate deniers’
Environment movement is in ‘deep denial’ over the right ways to tackle climate change, says Canadian author
10 September 2013
Naomi Klein says green groups have been backing the wrong solutions to climate change, such as the UN Clean Development Mechanism
Klein is worried that some of the things she had said would make it hard for her to land an interview with a president of the one of the Big Green groups (read below and you’ll see why). She was more interested in nabbing the story than being the story; her reporting trumped any opinion-making.
Klein’s first book, No Logo, investigated how brand names manipulate public desires while exploiting the people who make their products. The book came out just weeks after the WTO protests in Seattle and became an international bestseller. Her next major book, The Shock Doctrine, argued that free-marketeers often use crises – natural or manufactured – to ram through deregulatory policies. With her newest, yet-to-be named book, Klein turns her attention to climate change. Scheduled for release in 2014, the book will also be made into a film by her husband and creative partner, Avi Lewis.
Klein’s books and articles have sought to articulate a counter-narrative to the march of corporate globalization and government austerity. She believes climate change provides a new chance for creating such a counter-narrative.
“The book I am writing is arguing that our responses to climate change can rebuild the public sphere, can strengthen our communities, can have work with dignity.”
In a piece you wrote for The Nation in November 2011 you suggested that when it comes to climate change, there’s a dual denialism at work – conservatives deny the science while some liberals deny the political implications of the science. Why do you think that some environmentalists are resistant to grappling with climate change’s implications for the market and for economics?
Well, I think there is a very a deep denialism in the environmental movement among the Big Green groups. And to be very honest with you, I think it’s been more damaging than the right-wing denialism in terms of how much ground we’ve lost. Because it has steered us in directions that have yielded very poor results. I think if we look at the track record of Kyoto, of the UN Clean Development Mechanism, the European Union’s emissions trading scheme – we now have close to a decade that we can measure these schemes against, and it’s disastrous. Not only are emissions up, but you have no end of scams to point to, which gives fodder to the right. The right took on cap-and-trade by saying it’s going to bankrupt us, it’s handouts to corporations, and, by the way, it’s not going to work. And they were right on all counts. Not in the bankrupting part, but they were right that this was a massive corporate giveaway, and they were right that it wasn’t going to bring us anywhere near what scientists were saying we needed to do lower emissions. So I think it’s a really important question why the green groups have been so unwilling to follow science to its logical conclusions. I think the scientists Kevin Anderson and his colleague Alice Bows at the Tyndall Centre have been the most courageous on this because they don’t just take on the green groups, they take on their fellow scientists for the way in which neoliberal economic orthodoxy has infiltrated the scientific establishment. It’s really scary reading. Because they have been saying, for at least for a decade, that getting to the emissions reduction levels that we need to get to in the developed world is not compatible with economic growth.
What we know is that the environmental movement had a series of dazzling victories in the late 60s and in the 70s where the whole legal framework for responding to pollution and to protecting wildlife came into law. It was just victory after victory after victory. And these were what came to be called “command-and-control” pieces of legislation. It was “don’t do that.” That substance is banned or tightly regulated. It was a top-down regulatory approach. And then it came to screeching halt when Regan was elected. And he essentially waged war on the environmental movement very openly. We started to see some of the language that is common among those deniers – to equate environmentalism with Communism and so on. As the Cold War dwindled, environmentalism became the next target, the next Communism. Now, the movement at that stage could have responded in one of the two ways. It could have fought back and defended the values it stood for at that point, and tried to resist the steamroller that was neoliberalism in its early days. Or it could have adapted itself to this new reality, and changed itself to fit the rise of corporatist government. And it did the latter. Very consciously if you read what [Environmental Defense Fund president] Fred Krupp was saying at the time.
It was go along or get along.
Exactly. We now understand it’s about corporate partnerships. It’s not, “sue the bastards;” it’s, “work through corporate partnerships with the bastards.” There is no enemy anymore.
More than that, it’s casting corporations as the solution, as the willing participants and part of this solution. That’s the model that has lasted to this day.
I go back to something even like the fight over NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Big Green groups, with very few exceptions, lined up in favour of NAFTA, despite the fact that their memberships were revolting, and sold the deal very aggressively to the public. That’s the model that has been globalized through the World Trade Organization, and that is responsible in many ways for the levels of soaring emissions. We’ve globalized an utterly untenable economic model of hyper-consumerism. It’s now successfully spreading across the world, and it’s killing us.
It’s not that the green groups were spectators to this – they were partners in this. They were willing participants in this. It’s not every green group. It’s not Greenpeace, it’s not Friends of the Earth, it’s not, for the most part, the Sierra Club. It’s not 350.org, because it didn’t even exist yet. But I think it goes back to the élite roots of the movement, and the fact that when a lot of these conservation groups began there was kind of a noblesse oblige approach to conservation. It was about élites getting together and hiking and deciding to save nature. And then the élites changed. So if the environmental movement was going to decide to fight, they would have had to give up their élite status. And weren’t willing to give up their elite status. I think that’s a huge part of the reason why emissions are where they are.
At least in American culture, there is always this desire for the win-win scenario. But if we really want to get to, say, an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions, some people are going to lose. And I guess what you are saying is that it’s hard for the environmental leadership to look some of their partners in the eye and say, “You’re going to lose.”
Exactly. To pick on power. Their so-called win-win strategy has lost. That was the idea behind cap-and-trade. And it was a disastrously losing strategy. The green groups are not nearly as clever as they believe themselves to be. They got played on a spectacular scale. Many of their partners had one foot in US CAP [Climate Action Partnership] and the other in the US Chamber of Commerce. They were hedging their bets. And when it looked like they could get away with no legislation, they dumped US CAP completely.
The phrase win-win is interesting, because there are a lot of losers in the win-win strategy. A lot of people are sacrificed in the name of win-win. And in the US, we just keep it to the cap-and-trade fight and I know everyone is tired of fighting that fight. I do think there is a lot of evidence that we have not learned the key lessons of that failure.
It’s interesting because even as some of the Big Green groups have gotten enamored of the ideas of ecosystem services and natural capital, there’s this counter-narrative coming from the Global South and Indigenous communities. It’s almost like a dialectic.
That’s the counter-narrative, and those are the alternative worldviews that are emerging at this moment. The other thing that is happening … I don’t know what to call it. It’s maybe a reformation movement, a grassroots rebellion. There’s something going on in the environmental movement in the US and Canada, and I think certainly in the UK. What I call the “astronaut’s eye worldview” – which has governed the Big Green environmental movement for so long – and by that I mean just looking down at Earth from above. I think it’s sort of time to let go of the icon of the globe, because it places us above it and I think it has allowed us to see nature in this really abstracted way and sort of move pieces, like pieces on a chessboard, and really loose touch with the Earth. You know, it’s like the planet instead of the Earth.
And I think where that really came to a head was over fracking. The head offices of the Sierra Club and the NRDC and the EDF all decided this was a “bridge fuel.” We’ve done the math and we’re going to come out in favor of this thing. And then they faced big pushbacks from their membership, most of all at the Sierra Club. And they all had to modify their position somewhat. It was the grassroots going, “Wait a minute, what kind of environmentalism is it that isn’t concerned about water, that isn’t concerned about industrialization of rural landscapes – what has environmentalism become?” And so we see this grassroots, place-based resistance in the movements against the Keystone XL pipeline and the Northern Gateway pipeline, the huge anti-fracking movement. And they are the ones winning victories, right?
I think the Big Green groups are becoming deeply irrelevant. Some get a lot of money from corporations and rich donors and foundations, but their whole model is in crisis.
I hate to end a downer like that.
I’m not sure that is a downer.
It might not be.
I should say I’m representing my own views. I see some big changes as well. I think the Sierra Club has gone through its own reformation. They are on the frontline of these struggles now. I think a lot of these groups are having to listen to their members. And some of them will just refuse to change because they’re just too entrenched in the partnership model, they’ve got too many conflicts of interest at this stage. Those are the groups that are really going to suffer. And I think it’s OK.
I think at this point, there’s a big push in Europe where 100 civil society groups are calling on the EU not to try to fix their failed carbon-trading system, but to actually drop it and start really talking about cutting emissions at home instead of doing this shell game. I think that’s the moment we’re in right now. We don’t have any more time to waste with these very clever, not working shell games.
Much impressed by dbstealy, William Mc and other thinkers today. Some really coherent and well referenced contributions.
As for the AGW supporters whom I view as particularly willful today, the are fewer and fewer straws to grasp. Picking up Mosh’s reasonable point, they have been disproven.
The AGW assertions are literally impossible and we need to move on.
Mario Lento:
Thankyou for your post at September 11, 2013 at 8:26 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/a-science-based-rebuttal-to-global-warming-alarmism/#comment-1414812
in reply to my post at September 11, 2013 at 2:26 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/a-science-based-rebuttal-to-global-warming-alarmism/#comment-1414598
I agree that my answer to Steven Mosher addressed the nature of “science” and not what you call “political science”, but Steven Mosher said “science” and that is what I answered.
However, you truncated my post in your quotation, and I think the part you omitted does address your point; at least, the part implies it. The part of my post you omitted was this
Richard