Guest essay by Steven Burnett
Most of my income is derived from tutoring, with part being tied into the Google helpouts system. One of my most loyal customers for my physics and mathematics tutoring sent me a link to a $10,000 reward challenge for skeptics. Which is now up to $30,000, seen here.
Below is what I wrote back with minor edits. While I could have added more links, or graphs, I feel that this synopsis is the most compact skeptic’s case, without dropping off too many details. Perhaps I should submit it for $30,000.
These kinds of challenges pop up all the time here’s one for creationism:
The problem with the climate change challenge is that no one is denying that there is likely an anthropogenic signal. The question is how much.
This article probably offers one of the better overviews of the issue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/
You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. The data shows that the northern hemisphere has had a shift in the mean temperature since before the industrial revolution.
Overwhelmingly the people pushing the issue like to try to box skeptics in by presenting it as an all or nothing issue, which those who don’t read skeptic statements take on faith. In reality the skeptic’s side has a much larger range of stances on the issues, I have tried to bold them out. There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.
A better way to examine skeptics is to look at them as scientific critics, and more specifically to evaluate the criticisms as issues with each step of the scientific method in climate science fields. The standard scientific method goes:
Observations->Hypothesis->Experiment->Analysis. If we were to go back to the ’90’s Then we could state that this was doled out as…
Observations: A warming/CO2 concentration correlation and CO2 absorbs IR spectra, the same trend in the ice core data existed,
Hypothesis: Emissions cause global warming,
Experiment: Climate Model,
Analysis: a close approximation of the hind cast, statistically significant temperature increases, hockey sticks, etc. Through the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the conclusion that global warming is real was scientifically acceptable. The next stage is usually peer review and scrutiny and this is where the theory ran into problems.
The Problems:
The observations aren’t very good prior to the late ’70’s and they get worse as we go back to the earliest records. We weren’t looking for tenths of a degree trends and we weren’t controlling our instruments for them. Stations have been moved, cities have grown etc, all of which would induce a warming bias on those stations, the data is frankly of poor quality. But there are other problems that came up. The ice core data, using better instrumentation, actually shows CO2 lagging behind temperature changes. More importantly temperatures stopped rising on all data sets, but CO2 levels continued their upward expansion. We also have not detected the “hot spot” that was sure to be proof of an anthropogenic contribution.
Our Hypothesis for how the climate system operates is essentially coded into the climate models. There are 114 of them that are used by the IPCC all of them are going up, all of them are rising faster than observations and most of them have been falsified. But the work falsifying them is very recent.
This paper falsifies the last 20 years of simulations at the 90% confidence interval, within that blog entry you can find another paper that falsifies them at the 98% confidence interval. That paper cites a third that falsified at the 95% confidence interval. What this means is that there is less than a 10%, 2% or 5% chance that the models are wrong by chance.
As the models are mathematical representations of how we think the climate system operates, that means climate scientists were wrong. In response there has been a flurry of activity attempting to attribute the pause and explain it, but explaining a problem with mathematical models after it occurred and claiming that your hypothesis will still be born out requires its own period of time to validate.
There are well over 10 different attributions at this point for the pause, most of them entirely explaining it away. This means the pause in its current state is over explained and more than one of those papers is wrong. In science we aim for a chance at being wrong of 5%, apparently climate science gets a pass.
This divergence also has impacted the metric known as climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivities note a thermal increase of 1.2-1.5 C per doubling of CO2, as in if we went form the current 400ppm CO2 to 800PPM CO2 the temperatures would rise approximately 1.2-1.5 degrees, climate simulations produce much higher results typically between 3 and 4.5 degrees per doubling.
Digging even further there are major issues with the models, our experiments, themselves. Depending on the compiler, operating system and even hardware modeling output can change due to rounding errors. They can’t predict clouds. Nor do they have the resolution to see many of the atmospheric processes that transport heat. But that’s only the climate models themselves. The impact models, or integrated assessment models have almost no data upon which to base their claims. That’s why the IPCC stated that the costs of climate change for 2.5 degrees of warming range from .2%-2% of world GDP. This is again for predictions almost 100 years in the future, which at this time are untestable and unfalsifiable.
When evaluating the cost of a ton of CO2 emissions the integrated assessment models depend very heavily on the discount rate. The current administration cites a discount rate of 3% at 37$ per ton but the most appropriate discount rate, and the one which long term assessments are supposed to be performed at is 7%. This means the actual social cost of carbon is about 4-5$ per ton. As was discussed in an EPW senate hearing, the current administration has failed to produce the 7% discount rate as is required and instead produced 5%, 3% and 2.5% rates. The reason the cost varies so much is partially due to uncertainty in the integrated assessment models which are fed the outputs of the GCM’s. A common coding colloquialism is GIGO garbage in garbage out.
But the worst issue is the analysis. As part of the attempts to preserve the theory there have been some gross statistical practices and data torture employed. The first monstrosity to be slain was Michael Mann’s hockey stick which used a special algorithm to weight his tree samples. That was taken down by Steven McIntyre a statistician who proved not only the weighting issue, but also found the splice point of thermometer data when the proxy and thermometer temperatures diverged.
There have since been several other hockey-sticks, all of which go down as giant flaming piles of poo. Trenberth’s hockey stick, also from dendrochronology, died when it was pointed out that he was using a special sub-selection of only 12 trees, and that when his entire data set was used the hockey-stick disappeared. In 2013 Marcott et al published a hockey-stick on his graph that averaged multiple proxies except the the blade portion was generated using only about 3 of the proxies, that weren’t statistically robust, had some proxy date rearrangement issues, which coincided with the industrial revolution.
You have mentioned the 97% consensus papers which do exist but they are atrocious. Cook et al. has been rebutted several times actually I recommend further reading some of the issues that Brandon Schollenberger has pointed out as well, though it’s not peer reviewed. The earlier 97% paper by Doran and Zimmerman was equally stupid the wallstreet journal touched on both but I recommend this site for a thorough critique. Truthfully the number of abstracts and methodologies I have read that are complete garbage from this field is astounding so I’m not going to try to link them all.
The question ultimately becomes what piece of evidence is required before admitting that climate may not be as sensitive to anthropogenic emissions as once thought?
Outside of the problems with their scientific methodology there’s also some ethics issues that seem to keep cropping up. A statistician working for a left leaning think tank was just terminated because he wrote a piece about the statistically weak case for anthropogenic warming. About a month before that Lennart Bengtsson, a climate scientist tried to join a more conservative and skeptical climate change think tan. He had to resign due to threats, authors withdrawing from his papers and general concern for his safety and wellbeing.
A paper of his, focused on the discrepancy between models and observations, was rejected with the rejecting review stating they recommended it in part because they felt it might be harmful. The reviewer also mentioned that climate models should not be validated against observational data. A few years ago it was climate-gate.
A psychology paper tried to name skeptics as conspiracy nuts, when it was retracted citing ethical reasons, the researchers and their community cited it as being perfectly ok to debase your opponents and that the retraction was due to lawsuits. The clamoring defense got so antagonistic the publisher had to reinforce the rejection was due to the papers ethics violations, language and the failure or unwillingness of the authors to make changes. There’s also the paper that says lying and exaggerating results is OK.
If you read skeptical science they try to rebut skeptic claims but nine times out of ten they use strawmen, ad hominems or other logical fallacies. For instance a good argument can be made that cheap affordable fossil fuel energy can greatly improve the poorest nations of the world, and that denying them access to this resource is harmful. They rebut it by pointing out that projected climate damages, impact the poorest nations the most. That might be true but it’s not the same argument. Depriving impoverished nations of the energy they need to grow, enforcing poverty and mandating foreign dependence for 85 years, so that the poor might not have to suffer from as many storms in the future is frankly asinine.
But let’s say you’re not skeptical of the ethics, or their methodological flaws. Let’s say you decide you want avert the future risk now. You can still be skeptical of the proposed solutions. For instance let’s look at energy policy. The cheapest, most effective and simplest energy policy would be a carbon tax. Again 4$ per ton accurately prices future damages. It also allows countries and markets to work instead of hoping bureaucrats don’t screw it up. Essentially a carbon tax penalizes carbon for its actual cost instead of giving enormous power to unelected officials like what the EPA just did.
But maybe you don’t believe in markets, maybe you believe the government isn’t as incompetent as they seem to keep trying to prove. That’s fine, you can still be skeptical of how the money is being spent. In the US solar receives an unbelievable amount of market favoritism, you start by getting a 40% tax credit on every installation. Additionally while all sectors recoup their capital investments over time as the assets depreciate, solar recoups 100% of its cost in under 5 years, that’s less time than an office chair. With these perks solar is still the most expensive form of electricity generation.
When you correct for just the tax credit solar costs increase to almost 140$/mwhr for standard installations, that goes up for thermal solar. Correcting for wind’s tax credit this goes up to about 88$ MwHr. The intermittancy on the grid is an externality that should be accounted for, from there you have to factor in the degradation of wind and solar as a cost factor, which when integrated over their life span multiplies their cost by almost 4.5.
Nuclear at an approximate 96$/MWhr is substantially cheaper, has a lower life cycle carbon emission, lasts longer and is safer. But we only hear about improving renewable contributions when they are literally worse in every way.
These are issues that we can have with the scientific authenticity of the theory. The next step would be falsification, but It’s difficult to find a piece of falsifying evidence. No matter what happens now or in the future global warming/climate change seems to predict it. We have both warmer and cooler spring/summer/fall/winter. There’s droughts and floods, cold/hot. Literally in 2009/2010 we were hearing how climate change will totally cause more snow in winter when just a few years before it was the end of snowy winters. Hell that was four years ago and they were still blaming crappy Olympic conditions on global warming this year, ignoring entirely that the average temperature for that part of Russia in February is above freezing throughout the whole damn record.
We have almost 2 decades of no temperature trend, and a net negative for a little over a decade. That’s apparently not enough. There are periods within this interglacial that have been warmer, and periods that have been cooler. So what is the reference period of a climatic normal? A few hundred years ago temperature spiked without greenhouse gas emissions, the period of 1914-1940 showed a similar rate and trend as the 1980-200 period, why is the latter anthropogenic and the former not? How is CO2 the driving force this time when there is scant to no evidence that it has ever been the major force in the past?
Why should we believe the corrections or explanations for the pause, the same individuals hyping them were the same ones pointing out how perfect the models were just a few years ago? there is no mechanism by which heat remitted in the lower atmosphere magically descends to the deepest layer of the ocean. the one we just started to measure a few years ago and from which there still aren’t reliable measurements, also the region that is bounded by warmer upper oceans and geothermal heating. How does it get there without being detectable in the upper atmosphere, lower atmosphere or upper oceanic level? Nor is there a mechanism to describe how it could possibly all concentrate in the arctic where we also don’t have any measurements.
Where do we draw the scientific line between natural or artificial trends, and how do we know that line is accurate? Why shouldn’t climate science be required to validate? What is falsifying evidence? Faced with the mountain of problems surrounding uncertainty, poor methodology, awful ethics and analysis, most skeptics, myself included just call the whole thing bullshit.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Konrad, I have degrees in Physics and Aerospace Engineering, and I am well aware of the radiation and gas transport properties, and agree you are wrong. Please stop making skeptics look bad. I can agree that negative feedback (likely from cloud variation) can reduce CO2 effects (not amplify it), and that natural variation can swamp small residual human caused effects, but this is not the same as what you say.
To the author: I’d not use the term “pause” to describe the current flat temperature trends. It’s a loaded word that presumes the ability to see into the future where warming begins again. For all we know, temperatures will begin a long-term decline.
I would also add a paragraph or two about the over-reliance of climate scientists on the peer review process to validate the accuracy of numerical results. Peer review is a mechanism used only to verify the procedures used to arrive at particular result. Peer review does not tell you if a result is or is not correct. If I am asked how I know that the acceleration of gravity at the Earth’s surface is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared, the words “peer review” won’t cross my lips. I can point to the fact that this figure has been experimentally derived and confirmed, and more importantly, I can simply note that this value has been relied upon in applications that work in practice. How can we be sure that, if two 100 ohm resistors are connected in parallel across a voltage source, the two resistances will be seen as a 50 ohm resistance by the voltage source? The same reasoning – I can measure it, and Kirchoff’s equations have been used by electrical engineers to design circuits for decades, and those circuits work.
That’s what “settled science” looks like. If the best that some theoretical scientist can say in response to the question “How do we know that your adjustments to the raw temperature data are actually accurate?” or the question “How do we know that the net amount of increase in the Earth’s average temperature from a doubling of CO2 is more than “x” degrees” is that the results have been “peer reviewed” then that tells me that climate science is in an incredibly primitive stage of development, and cannot be relied upon for making policy.
Konrad says:
July 6, 2014 at 6:06 pm
“Yes, about that $30,000 challenge……………etc.”
I agree with Konrad.
Is it not true that the hyrological cycle shows that heat from the sun evaporates the H2O [Heat of Vaporization]; the water vapor expands and rises to the upper atmospher and gives up the heat [Heat of Condensation]; which cause clouds and precipitation?
That, to me, is cooling the earth.
CO2 does the same thing. It is a gas; it expands and rises when heated, and also carries the heat to the upper atmosphere.
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.
Alberta Slim;
That, to me, is cooling the earth.
CO2 does the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If that were the case, Mercury would be warmer than Venus. But it isn’t. The earth would be the same temperature as the moon, but it is considerably warmer. Deserts would have an average temperature higher than a rain forest at the same latitude, but they don’t. Deserts would not cool off a great deal at night…but they do. Rain forests would cool a great deal at night…. but they don’t.
Read the articles I linked to above to understand why that is.
Alberta Slim;
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On this you are correct. CO2 doesn’t trap heat, it intercepts and re-distributes an energy flux. Some of the energy flux gets re-distributed (absorbed and re-emitted) back toward earth.
After years of following this issue it seems to me that what is going on is the result of a classic and common case of misperception.
The CO2 obsessed see the climate as now under the control of humans: Anthropogenic, or caused by man. Therefor, AGW is supposed to be Anthropogenic Global Warming. Warming caused by man’s activities. But there is another “Anthro” cause to consider. One that fits the facts much better: “Anthropomorphic”. Seeing the face of a god in a cloud is Anthropomorphic. That perceived face is a result of human created perception of the cloud. Not a human change in the cloud itself.
Does human activity influence the climate? Yes. We always have, since the first caveman used fire to burn down the woods to chase game out for dinner.
Are we making the climate dangerous or changing it drastically? Only in the power of huan imagination.
After nearly thirty years of unlimited funding climate change promoters cannot show one shred of evidence that we are facing a climate crisis. Instead they have to rewrite the history, suppress the debate and demand authority to make the changes they want without challenge.
Why bother? You can’t prove that MMGW isn’t happening and nor does anybody have to. The onus of proof is on those who claim that it is. At the moment it patently isn’t happening
Will Nitschke explained it all- you can’t prove a negative. Shall we also offer $30,000 to prove that aliens aren’t causing global warming? I am always confused by the warmistas lack of basic scientific standards (e.g. cobbling different data types into a single hockey schtick without explanation). The Amazing Randi is a much better scientist than many warmistas. He has (had?) a standing offer of $1000000 for anybody who could demonstrate a paranormal activity under controlled conditions. After being blasted for making a few mild comments about the shakey AGW case maybe Randi would be interested in applying his BS detectors to the AGW Cargo Cult? A million dollars for anybody who can prove human activity has accelerated global warming? As many here have pointed out the onus of proof is on those making the claim and models are not proof, especially when they don’t work even moderately well.
Nick Stokes says:
July 6, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Firstly. it was already warming when we started adding “huge amounts of Co2”. That warming has ceased. Nearly 18 years ago.
Secondly, you said; “If it hadn’t, then at some stage the that might cast doubt on the physics. But it did.”
This statement is ridiculous. And you know it. Ergo, the physics IS in doubt.
Alberta Slim says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:41 pm
“I agree with Konrad . . . CO2 does the same thing. It is a gas; it expands and rises when heated, and also carries the heat to the upper atmosphere.
CO2 does not, imo, act like a solid [blanket], and just lie there and “trap” heat.”
We all can quibble about how heat gets moved around from one part of the Earth to another before it gets cast back off into space, but given that the Earth (land, water, and air) is wrapped in a vacuum, the only mechanism that the Earth as a whole has to shed the heat it receives from the Sun is to radiate it back into space. Adding more increments of CO2 to the atmosphere can only incrementally add to the time that the Earth as a whole churns the heat around before radiating it back into space, making it a less efficient radiator. A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.
This question is ridiculous! It’s like offering $30,000 to prove that ghosts don’t exist, then trying to pretend that ghosts must exist because you still have your $30,000.
You can’t conclusively prove that something doesn’t exist.
Plus, as the post suggests, nobody is denying that CO2 absorbs radiation and converts it into heat. Most skeptics are saying that there is no evidence to support the alarming predictions and that the scientific method has been abandoned in all the adjustments and homogenizations done to the temperature records.
Leonard Weinstein says:
July 6, 2014 at 8:31 pm
“Konrad, I have degrees in Physics and Aerospace Engineering”
—————————————————————————–
Excellent! Then the science of selective surfaces should be no great challenge…
Show me how much better your science is than my engineering.
Take a look at this simple selective surface experiment –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
When illuminated with 1000 w/m2 of SW, Block A will rise to around 20C higher temperature than Block B. When illuminated with equal power of IR, both blocks reach the same temperature.
You say I’m making sceptics “look bad”? Well, show me how much better you are. In clear language explain for other readers why frequency of incident radiation (even if of equal w/m2) matters in this ever so simple experiment. Why the temperature differential between the blocks when illuminated by SW but not when illuminated by IR?
Now these blocks are not a direct model of the oceans, but which block is more analogous to the actual transparent oceans and which is closer to how the climastrologists went and treated the oceans by falsely claiming they were a “near blackbody”?
” Trenberth’s hockey stick, also from dendrochronology, died when it was pointed out that he was using a special sub-selection of only 12 trees, and that when his entire data set was used the hockey-stick disappeared. ”
Are you sure that it was Trenberth’s?
Steven Burnett wrote – There are some people who make ridiculously stupid claims that there is no anthropogenic signal but it’s a very small minority. Many skeptics feel that they are just internet trolls, we try not to feed them.
This had me scratching my head a bit. I don’t understand why you’d single these folks out like this when we really have no conclusive evidence one way or another if CO2 has an effect on climate. There’s only one earth and it has an incredible number of inputs that may or may not affect the climate. We have no way of controlling for a single variable as is done in clinical trials, what we’re left with is trying to determine cause and effect on what amounts to an observational study. The rule I consider paramount regarding observational studies is that correlation does not mean causation, so thinking that we have any conclusive evidence as to what guides climate change is a fool’s errand at best. And ripping into people who think CO2 has no effect on climate is as shortsighted as saying it’s the only thing that guides climate.
You can have your opinion on the degree that man affects climate but belittling folks for not sharing it is just as bad as warmist behavior.
“””””…..You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off. The data shows that the northern hemisphere has had a shift in the mean temperature since before the industrial revolution……”””””
That’s really wonderful; I mean this part:….You can demonstrate in a lab that CO2 absorbs IR wavelengths within the same range as the earth gives off.
So the mean Earth sea level / lower troposphere Temperature is reputedly 288 K, or +15 deg. C or about + 59 deg. F , your choice.
At this Temperature, a “Black Body” which is what the experts presume the earth approximates (very roughly) emits about 390 W/m^2 in an essentially Lambertian (Cosine(A) intensity ) radiation pattern with a near black body spectrum that peaks at about 10.1 microns wavelength. (on a spectral radiant emittance versus wavelength scale.
So almost any non polished black object, such as a lump of coal or a charcoal (barbecue) brickette, after being chilled in the refrigerator, should give off almost exactly the very radiation, in the correct amount, and spectral distribution, that the whole earth purportedly emits.
So have you ever heard of or seen anybody perform an experiment wherein such a source irradiating a sample of dry air containing 400 ppm by volume of CO2 (if necessary synthesized from pure N2, O2, Ar, and CO2) caused the Temperature of that sample to increase above its originally stabilized room Temperature, by any appreciable amount.
I have heard of experiments conducted using phony radiation sources, that were 100,000 times the spectral radiant emittance, and 10,000 times the total radiant emittance of the earth surface and air samples, with quite uncontrolled abundance of CO2, and that radiation included vast amounts of radiant energy, that also can be absorbed by CO2, but is essentially completely absent from the radiation spectrum emitted by the earth.
But I have never heard of anybody who actually “demonstrated in a lab”, what YOU say you can demonstrate.
But I agree with the premise. Many (maybe most) “climate skeptics” do believe that CO2 in the atmosphere does absorb some of the radiation wavelengths emitted by the earth surface.
I personally have no idea whatsoever, how much the air is heated when that happens; that is, what local Temperature rise results from that absorbed radiation.
All I can say is WOW. I’ve been waiting for someone with the stomach for it to write that essay which so nicely summarizes the big picture. That needs to find it’s way into the MSM because it’s the real story. An indictment of the system we live with that has the capacity and means to allow this kind of thing to happen and it’s happening all through government. It’s called corruption. This , along with other worrying signs of sickness lead me to believe we’re in a lot more trouble than climate change can offer.
Kurt says:
July 6, 2014 at 9:17 pm
—————————–
“ A less efficient radiator has to raise its temperature to achieve a new equilibrium.”
Two important points –
First the effective (not apparent) IR emissivity of liquid water is less than 0.8. This is easy to check by measuring with background IR reduced by a cryo cooled “sky” –
http://i61.tinypic.com/24ozslk.jpg
The 0.95 figure that climastrologists foolishly put into their failed S-B equations was for apparent emissivity. That is the emissivity setting you use for measuring water temp when cavity effect and holdraum effect are occurring.
Second, water vapour evaporated into the atmosphere has effectively increased the radiating area of the surface, as it is now radiating in 3D.
For purposes of offering a challenge, has an agreeable definition of global warming been provided? If there is no global warming, what characteristics need be shown (by agreement)?
” For instance let’s look at energy policy. The cheapest, most effective and simplest energy policy would be a carbon tax. Again 4$ per ton accurately prices future damages.”
WRONG…. $4 per ton does NOT accurately reflect future damages. I do NOT accept this as accurate. The data to me suggests that so far the increase in CO2 has been net beneficial, therefor we should be getting a REBATE of $4 per ton of CO2 emitted. The earth is 11% greener, crop yields are way up since going from 300ppm to 400ppm and the earth is a mere 1.5C higher than the LIA, which I would say is a good thing. In the absence of proof that CO2 is going to cause more than 2C or warming per doubling, no Tax or trading scheme in required to mitigate CO2 release.
If the debate is about the presumed deleterious effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, no purpose is served by pointing out possible non-deleterious, or even beneficial effects. That’s a separate issue, and skeptics gain nothing by deflecting the debate.
CO2 clearly intercepts some of the surface emitted thermal radiation. How much, and what effect that has is, what there is disagreement about.
george e smith;
So have you ever heard of or seen anybody perform an experiment wherein such a source irradiating a sample of dry air containing 400 ppm by volume of CO2 (if necessary synthesized from pure N2, O2, Ar, and CO2) caused the Temperature of that sample to increase above its originally stabilized room Temperature, by any appreciable amount.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the archives of John Daly, on of he fiercest skeptics ever:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Note also the criticisms of this experiment published at the top of the page zip. The experiment demonstrates conclusively that some energy does get absorbed by CO2, and the zip file explains why the conclusions of the experiment are lower than expected due to their failure to take into account the sheer scale of the atmospheric air column.
Except running a computational model is not an experiment, never was and never will be. The terminology itself is wrong.
“…
No matter what happens now or in the future global warming/climate change seems to predict it.
…”
Incredibly, even including the disappearance of (presumably the gene for) red hair.
Go figure.
http://uncovercalifornia.com/content/2396-climate-change-will-decline-red-hair-population-scotland
Essays like this each week here longwindedly bury those few images that speak a thousand words such as the simple Marcott 2013 hockey stick scam or the pencil straight emissions defiant world average of tide gauges. But I guess some blokes just like to write. Here’s my two thousand words:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
http://postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/