Guest post by Alec Rawls (see part 1)
Ex-physics teacher Christopher Keating, who strongly believes that human activity is causing dangerous global warming, is offering $30,000 to anyone who can prove that “claims of man-made climate change” are not supported by the science. What claims? He gives as an example the IPCC’s central assertion that: “It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Easy money (if he would actually give it, but that is secondary). There are several grounds, already laid out by a variety of skeptics, why this claim of extreme scientific certainty is prima facie unscientific.
The climate models that give rise to the IPCC’s human-attribution claim also predicted that the rapid continued rise in CO2 would cause rapid continued warming. After 15+ years of no warming these models are on the verge, or past the verge, of falsification. That is the extreme opposite of certainty, and in a series of desperate attempts to stave off falsification the IPCC’s “settled science” now hinges on a parade of freshly concocted and highly speculative possible explanations for the “pause,” such as Kevin Trenberth’s hypothesis that the warming is hiding in the deepest oceans. Sorry, but if your theory fails in the absence of freshly concocted and highly uncertain further theories then it is not well established and highly certain.
The IPCC’s attribution claim was actually produced, not by a scientific evaluation at all, but by a political process, driven by the representatives of numerous governments that see the demonization and taxing of CO2 as a vast untapped source of tax revenue. As will be seen below, this political influence is well documented. The attribution claim is part of the Summary for Policymakers which has a long history of contradicting the findings of the scientific review. So of course the attribution claim is not scientific, when it is not even arrived at by a scientific process.
Beyond the prima facie case the IPCC “consensus” works deep and profound perversions of the scientific method that require more detailed exposition. That will be part 3, but the overt conflicts with scientific reason and evidence are sufficient in themselves to prove that, given the current state of knowledge, any attribution of most post 1950’s warming to the human burning of fossil fuels must be highly uncertain, the opposite of the IPCC’s assertion of extreme certainty.
Evidence against a hypothesis logically decreases the certainty that it is correct
As climatologist Judith Curry notes: “[s]everal key elements of [AR5] point to a weakening of the case for attributing [post-1950] warming of human influences.” She lists:
■ Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
■ Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
■ Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
■ Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
■ Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming
Yet in the face of this buildup of contrary evidence, documented in its own report, the IPCC increased its claimed level of certainty that post-1950 warming was human caused [emphasis added by Curry]:
■ AR4 (2007): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% confidence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (SPM AR4)
■ AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely (>95% confidence) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)
The change in AR5’s attribution claim runs opposite to the evidence it put forward. Going against the evidence is not science. It is anti-science.
The IPCC’s attribution claims are the product of a political process, not a scientific one
Judgments about science issued by a political process could happen to agree with sound scientific judgment. The political nature of the IPCC’s attribution claim does not itself prove that this claim is at odds with the science, but understanding the influence of politics is still very important to understanding the unscientific nature of the IPCC’s claims.
Believers (“consensoids” if one prefers), are often aghast that there are all these skeptics out there who don’t trust scientists. This is particularly true of believers like Keating who are not themselves familiar (see part 1) with the actual points of scientific debate . They are stumped by the “why” of distrust and think it has to be that skeptics are just anti-science. The political nature of the IPCC, and the politicized nature climate science in general, explain the “why.”
Not only is climate science close to 100% government funded but in the United States that government funding is all channeled through funding structures set up by Vice President Gore to finance only those who agreed with Gore’s CO2-centric views. Internationally funding is channeled by the funding structures put in place by Canadian leftist and IPCC-founder Maurice Strong. Is it really hard to understand how a research effort that is 100% politically funded could become politicized?
The IPCC is a politicized body that sits at the top of this heap of politicized science and bends its declarations in an even more politicized direction, especially in the Summary for Policymakers. As seen above, AR5’s increased certainty of human attribution runs directly counter to the evidence that it presents, but this is just the latest increment of political interference. Where did AR4’s “very likely” claim of human attribution come from, and TAR’s “likely” claim?
It all traces back to the first human-attribution claim in the Summary of the Second Area Report (1995), which ran strongly counter to the scientific report, which was then edited to conform with the politically negotiated Summary. This case was recently discussed here at WUWT by Tim Ball:
An early example of SPM increased alarmism occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, graduate from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and shortly thereafter lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
As planned the phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline.
This scandal was first exposed in a June 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed by Frederich Seitz:
In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. …
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
■ “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
■ “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
■ “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report’s lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
That shook out information from inside the IPCC, as noted by Fred Singer in another WSJ op-ed:
“IPCC officials,” quoted (but not named) by Nature, claim that the reason for the revisions to the chapter was “to ensure that it conformed to a ‘policymakers’ summary’ of the full report….” Their claim begs the obvious question: Should not a summary conform to the underlying scientific report rather than vice versa?
Santer’s defense of the changes he had made to the peer-reviewed report is highly revealing. He pled that the IPCC rules were designed to allow and even require that the final report be changed in response to political input from governments and NGOs after the scientific report had been completed:
All IPCC procedural rules were followed in producing the final, now published, version of the Chapter 8. The changes made after the Madrid IPCC meeting in November 1995 were in response to written review comments received in October and November 1995 from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They were also in response to comments made by governments and non-governmental organizations during plenary sessions of the Madrid meeting. IPCC procedures required changes in response to these comments, in order to produce the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science.
Okay, so the whole thing is designed from the outset to be a political document not a scientific document, resulting from a political process not a scientific process, and as we well know, politicians tend to have their own strongly preferred conclusions. The environmentalist component is overwhelmingly anti-capitalist (at a UN-backed conference in Venezuela this week: “130 Environmental Groups Call For An End To Capitalism”), and a much broader spectrum of politicians are eager for expanded government revenues and government control, both of which are served by the demonization of CO2.
These same politicians also control who gets scientific funding in the first place, but the IPCC, and in particular its Summaries, are markedly more unscientific still. The history of the IPCC’s attribution claims prove that these politicized judgments have not managed to comport with scientific reason and evidence but have worked persistently to overthrow it. AR5 fits squarely in that train, asserting increased certainty that humans caused most recent warming when the scientific evidence they put forward points to decreased certainty.
The actual scientific question at the present moment is whether the “consensus” climate models have been definitively falsified by the lack of 21st century warming
Even Ben Santer has had to admit that this is the case, putting off claims that the “consensus” models had already been falsified by offering in 2011 a falsification criterion of 17 years with no warming:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
Santer and his colleagues are leaving themselves some wiggle room by saying “at least,” but they are clearly admitting that at 17 years the models should be near falsification, which is where we are now.
In a 2013 interview with Der Spiegel German climate scientist Hans Von Storch summarized the difficulty that the “consensus” view is now facing:
Storch: 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. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
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.
Both of these explanations are devastating to the IPCC’s attribution claims, and it pretty much has to be both. If late 20th century warming was not caused by CO2 it has to have been caused by something else, like the 80 year grand maximum of solar-magnetic activity that began in the early 1920’s and ended just about when “the pause” began.
Some solar scientists claim that 20th century solar activity was merely “high” without warranting the “grand maximum” label, but that is a distinction without a difference. Whether “high” or “grand,” since we don’t yet understanding all of the ways that living inside the sun’s extended corona might affect global temperature (and there is the rub, that this understanding is still very immature), 80 years of any high level of solar activity could very well account for most or all of the modest warming over this period.
There could also be purely internal sources of natural variation, unforced by external influences from either mankind or the sun. These could be merely oscillations in how much of the heat-content of the climate system is present in surface temperatures or they could be self-reinforcing processes that alter heat content (see Bob Tisdale’s theory of El Nino driven warming). The deeper problem with the IPCC is the unscientific grounds on which it has dismissed these competing theories.
It claims certainty for its politically preferred CO2-driven theory when the actual evidence points overwhelmingly in the other directions. CO2 is the least likely of the available explanations. There is actually no evidence that feedback effects are even positive. The proclaimed evidence is purely circular (climate sensitivity estimates that are based on the assumption that warming was caused by CO2), making it a classic petito principi, but that is part 3.
For the prima facie case it is sufficient to note that if natural cooling can be responsible for “the pause” it can also be “the cause” (to quote The Hockey Schtick) of late 20th century warming. Keating himself explains “the pause” as a result of natural cooling effects that must at least be similar in strength to the hypothesized human warming effects:
Christopher Keating, June 24, 2014 at 10:37 AM
What I believe I said is that we are in a natural occurring cooling period. In other words, if it wasn’t for us, the climate would be cooling right now. All of the warming above the average (actually, above what it would be without us) is due to the effects of our greenhouse gas emissions.
Somehow it doesn’t dawn on him that if ill-understood forces of natural temperature change can be at least as strong as the hypothesized human effects in the cooling direction then they could also be responsible for the two decades of warming that the IPCC is attributing to human effects, and there goes your certainty.
The two sides of Keating’s “option 1” are sides of a coin
In addition to challenging skeptics to prove that the lack of scientific support for the IPCC’s extreme certainty that most post 50’s warming was human caused Keating’s “option 1” also asks skeptics to prove the lack of scientific support for the IPCC’s climate sensitivity claim, that:
Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C.
These to halves of “option 1” are sides of a coin. What is driving falsification is the conflict between the high climate sensitivity necessary for the very small CO2 forcing to explain late 20th century warming and the low climate sensitivity necessary for the lack of 21st century warming to be consistent with the continued rapid increase in CO2. If these two sensitivity requirements can’t be reconciled then the theory of human caused warming collapses, and right now, they are very close to un-reconcilable.
“Settled Science” now stands on the strength of one newly concocted speculation after another
To save their CO2-driven climate models from falsification by “the pause,” “consensus” scientists have been offering a string of highly speculative rationales for how human caused warming could still be dominant, even though it is not showing up in surface temperatures. An early example was the 2010 “missing heat” paper by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo, described in this UCAR press release:
“MISSING” HEAT MAY AFFECT FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE
April 15, 2010
BOULDER—Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”
Nice, a falsification dodge that won’t be falsifiable until we build a more extensive ocean monitoring system, but four years later what little evidence there is about the deep oceans is pointing in the other direction: they are cooling, not warming. .
However that turns out, if the viability of the CO2-dominant theory hinges on a highly uncertain new speculation then the theory itself cannot be more certain than that new speculation. There have been a host of such rescue attempts: that Chinese coal burning is causing the pause, that the Montreal Protocol caused the pause, that volcanic aerosols caused the pause, that a slow down in Pacific trade winds caused the pause, and on and on.
All are highly speculative, thus none can confer any significant level of certainty on the otherwise now highly uncertain IPCC attribution claim. Von Storch again:
So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
But they didn’t confront it. They ignored this “serious scientific problem” and pretended that their human-warming theory had been strengthened, not weakened, by developments since AR4. This fixed determination to ignore the available reason and evidence is the opposite of science.
The unscientific and anti-scientific nature of the IPCC’s attribution claims is unambiguous. They are asserting extreme and increasing certainty as the foundations of their CO2-dominant theory are on or past the verge of falsification. The only degree of certainty they can legitimately assess is very low. It is certainly not extremely high, and if Keating has any integrity he will admit it.
davidmhoffer says:
July 26, 2014 at 8:52 pm
I hereby offer $100 to anyone who can prove that Mosher is not an alien set among us by a hostile race for the express purpose of annoying skeptics into emotional rather than scientific responses and confusing the debate. I submit as evidence that Mr Mosher is:
o Frequently, and by his own admission, deliberately annoying.
o He often leaves cryptic comments that are likely a consequence of translation from an alien language
o His arguments frequently misrepresent the science, and when this is pointed out to him, he rarely responds to defend himself, showing that he doesn’t care what human beings think of him.
o He frequently talks down to people even when he is wrong, evidence that he believes himself to be a member of a superior race
Agreed, an alien set among us by a hostile race for the purpose of annoying skeptics would, by definition, be annoying.
Agreed, cryptic comments would be a characteristic of such an alien
While the fact that his arguments frequently misrepresent the science, so do the arguments of some climate scientist earthlings. Can’t agree that this is conclusive proof that he is an alien, but will agree that it doesn’t rule him out either. Call this one a wash.
Acting like one is a member of a superior race by talking down to people even when he is wrong also may or may not be a characteristic of an alien, but certainly would be if the aliens purpose was to annoy skeptics etc., so you get an agreement here too.
Your $100 is safe from me,
however…
Mosher may claim that since there is no proof that extra-terrestrial aliens exist, he can’t be one.
Then he will challenge you to prove that extra-terrestrial aliens do exist.
That one will be easy – hand him a mirror!
(he, he – Just playing along.)
Steven,
I don’t share in the general contempt commenters are showing for you and your words. It’s always good to hear criticism, particularly from a guy as sharp as you. But I think you’re mistaken here.
So the challenge is to show that the statement (to paraphrase) ‘it’s extremely likely that human use of fossil fuel has been the main cause of observed warming in the 20’th century’ isn’t supported by the science. The challenge is to show that this statement is not supported by the science. Alec’s argument appears to be addressing this. (1)
Whether or not this is a worthwhile thing to do, or if time wouldn’t be better spent looking at sensitivity is of course another question. If that’s your point, I don’t disagree.
Best regards.
(1) – disclaimer, I’m assuming Alec has represented the situation properly. I’m not sufficiently interested to go read Keating and verify.
@Mark Bofill
Keating has offered multiple ways but the primary one is asking people to prove a negative
“1. I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring.”
I might as well offer a challenge that is equally ‘unprovable’. “I’ll give $100,000 of my own money to anyone who can prove, via the scientific method, that God did not create the universe.”
You can’t use the ‘scientific method’ to prove a non-scientific statement. There isn’t anything to test repeatedly. For instance, we can’t prove evolution via the scientific method, nor can we prove the Big Bang Theory via the scientific method.
Keating’s ‘clarification’ offers opinions (garnered via the expert ‘oracle’ method) and he wants people to disprove them via the scientifically, although I don’t really know what he means by ‘scientifically’, is it via the scientific method as stated previously or by some other means? Opinions cannot be proved nor disproved ‘scientifically’.
“Climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C and extremely unlikely (95-100%) less than 1°C.” Even if you prove beyond any doubt, ‘scientifically’ that Climate sensitivity is say exactly 1.25C that does not invalidate the statement because the statement dealt with probability.
“It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Define ‘dominant’. Is it 51% or the largest contributor?
dcowboy,
Well, ok, but
1) Are you talking about proving a negative?
2) Are you talking about applying the scientific method to opinions?
In the case of (1), I think we can reasonably prove some negatives. I mean, I understand the philosophical argument, but in practice for example, we can rule out that the increase in temperature has been due to 3 hiroshima bombs exploding in the atmosphere every second for a hundred years. They haven’t been observed and most sane people accept that as evidence that it hasn’t happened. So on.
In case of (2), I don’t agree at all. Hypothetical: In my opinion, a program probably crashed because of stack overflow. I can often scientifically verify or disprove my opinion in this case.
All I was really saying is that ‘is not supported by the science’ isn’t the same thing as ‘is false’. Alec claims the challenge is the first one, Steven the latter one. Steven asserted that this was so and didn’t really support it in my view, it was just an assertion.
You are never going to convince Totalitarians and their Perfect Totalitarian Fodder that they are not right. Same goes for The Mob.
the actual global warming of the earth system can not be assessed with the global temperature as it is defined ( or not defined!) you have to made assumptions for instance the exchange energy rate between ocean and atmosphere on the cloudiness and the radiative energy balance on aerosols …
if i tell you tomorrow it will rain ,with certainty of 95% the coming sunny day will not prove i am wrong.
The point is i made an assumption assuming that the wather nature is assessable in probalistic ways.
Assessing what did happened in probalistic ways is not wrong it is preposterous. It may not even be assessed with science!
if somebody tells you you are a woman with a probability of 50% it is preposterous it cannot be fasified even you are a man or a woman, one must say i may be wrong if i am telling you you re a woman with the probability of 50%..it is very very diffent, what actually happened cannot be assessed with a probabilty….
global warming was or was not man made…you cannot assess that , you can assess the probabilty to be wrong or right about it and it is very very different.
The climate of the Earth is in constant flux – it always has been (since it began) – it always will be (as long as it lasts). Human beings are part of nature as are ants and fungus. If we (speaking as a human) affect climate, then we take part in the natural change in climate.
If the change in global average temperature, disregarding precision , accuracy, and bias in temperature readings, exceeds the variation that existed before our short time here that would be a basis for stating that we (again speaking as a human) contribute to the natural variation.
In the long run, it doesn’t matter, as our passing from the scene, which will inevitably happen, will be a part of the natural scheme of things and, once we are gone, the Universe will cease to exist as it requires the presence of sentient observer in order to exist.
Disprove this,
Cheers
This “challenge” is the same as the cook consensus paper, it is not meant for a sceptic audience, it is designed for alarmist consumption. people spending more than a few minutes reading the crap from these ‘you must prove climate change doesnt exist’ people are just wasting their time. simple as that. they know they are not doing or backing science and will not care what you or anybody else thinks of that.
guys…..he’s not really asking anyone to prove a negative
He’s asking people to prove something does not exist….that hasn’t been proved to exist
“The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that unicorns do not exist.”
Steven Mosher says:
July 26, 2014 at 4:33 pm
The challenge is to use the scientific method to show that warming is due to something else other than humans.
===========
That’s no challenge, it’s called the null hypothesis – which is the real scientific position on the issue. The real challenge is using the scientific method to show that the warming is mostly due to humans.
Good luck with that.
So can we call this the; “Keating Argument”? As useful as that Kaya thingy?.
Prove the future can not be fuelled by Unicorn flatulence.
Just another clue that we are witnessing the collapse of a Cult.
From “The science is settled” to “All right thinking people know…”. the Cult of Calamitous Climate, has peaked and is in freefall.
As many others have stated, we need to focus on rooting out the idiotic policies imposed during this period of mass hysteria.
And firing the fools and bandits who imposed them.
Maybe Keating’s challenge can be counter-challenged.
I believe MAGB (at 2.45am) had it right when he said the null hypothesis is that fluctuations are due to non-human influences. That being the case why not double Keating’s offer (i.e.$60,000) if anyone can demonstrate, scientifically, that the dominant cause of warming in the last 50 years is not due to natural cycles.
The challenge can, and should be modified, including the time period, to make the challenge bulletproof. Perhaps those more knowledgeable of the science can do that.
Still, if Keating’s goal is to try and trap skeptics and claim a PR victory, a counter offer essentially negates his ploy. In all likelihood no one will ever pay out any money but, if necessary, we could probably crowdsource the $60,000. And, if it came down to it, perhaps a panel of volunteers could do the judging.
JohnH:
re your post at July 27, 2014 at 10:28 am.
If you go here you can see that someone called Will Pratt has attempted to challenge Keating to a debate with no success.
At the same URL you can find my response to Keating’s challenge (a click on ‘see more’ is required to read it all) and it is an exposition of the Null Hypothesis.
So, both your suggestions have been applied: one has been rejected while the response to the other is awaited. But this prevents warmunists from claiming that climate realists could not respond to Keating’s silly challenge.
Richard
Not to take anything away from Alec Rawls’ excellent response, but this boils down to the “blanket” argument.
Alarmist: An extra blanket on the bed at night will keep you warmer. It will cause you to sweat and perhaps die of heat stroke. Small infants may be smothered to death. Bed wetting will increase exponentially, as will infertility. Happiness index will sharply decline. People will gain weight, causing heart disease rates to soar. Dehydration will become a serious threat to life and well being. Suicide rates will rise as the extra blankets can be used to make rope. Our children will not know what a safe bed to sleep in looks like.
Skeptic: Uhm…. I don’t think you have any evidence to support that….
Alarmist; Oh yeah? I’ll give you $30,000 if you can prove that an extra blanket on the bed doesn’t keep you warmer at night!
Skeptic; Uhm… but it does…
Alarmist; Of course it does, that’s why you’ll never win the $30,000
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; The science is settled.
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; 97% agree
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; You should be in jail
Skeptic; (snipped)
Alarmist; That’s it, I just can’t can put up with anymore of your drivel, I don’t have time to snip your comments anymore, you are banned.
Their models are the finest representation of the most definitive evidence climate science has to offer. They have to be because that’s what they tell us.
In fact, not only do those models not predict anything – instead relying on the weasel cop-out of ‘projections’, but they also cover a widely disparate range of scenarios – all of them supposedly the possible consequences of man made warming.
Yet their models are – by any meaningful interpretation of fair analysis, wrong. Not one can reliably predict future climate.
Repeat that, not one can reliably predict future climate.
Therefore they’re not certain of anything. Instead, they’re guessing.
Chuck in a (widening) climate sensitivity range of several hundred % – 1.5 – 4.5C, which is so large it’s effectively an admission of failure, and the very best evidence they offer simply does not produce certainty to the 95%-99% levels claimed.
Plus for good measure everything we’re seeing in climate has been seen before so is within the range of natural observations, therefore not one single observation falsifies the null hypothesis, either.
Mr Keating, about that $30,000….
I am wondering if skeptics should not issue a major challenge to a debate. Get a team of skeptics (say 5) and they go up against a team of 5 alarmists. This done at a hall with an invited audience, and with a crew taping the whole affair. Put it on youtube after the event is over. It would be nice if a group of geologists, physicists and statisticians (or similar grouping) would host the thing and vote on who made the better case. I wonder if there are 5 alarmists in the world brave enough to debate the issues in public.
At least we have each other to talk to.
I agree with those who say that you cannot talk ot the AGW Alarmists.
These people have seriously accepted and adopted a cult-style thought structure.
Ask yourself: how do cults work?
First, they are friendly. They allude to vague benefits of being a member.
The benefit is either being privy to special knowledge, or being one of the special people.
It is is easy to profile the average human as far-from-perfect, and ignorant, that these claims are very believable.
The ideas are supported by the other true believers: surely [insert number] cannot be wrong.
As you advance to hear more of the special, unique ideas or thoughts or revelations, the rest of the world gets profiled more in a straw-man, a caricature.
Friends and family could disrupt this brain-washing process. So, as you advance into the cult, little by little, you are given things to believe about the unenlightened so that your developing thought structure is protected from outside criticism,
Media also gets caricaturized in order to innoculate the thought system from that influence.
As a life-long democrat, I have watched this thought structure creep up on us.
I jumped ship once I began exploring global warming fear. I voted for Obama in the first primary, but not in the election – I figured out he was one of these communist totalitarians – and I am too red-blooded american to fall for that.
The liberal cult comes out of Marxism. They have cleverly sifled up with democrats, labor, etc.
The appeal is this: it is a virtue cult. When you have the enlightened views, you are one of the virtuous minority. Far more moral than the unwashed masses.
While Marxism generally would scoff at the concept of “morals” as being a social construction developed to sustain the cultural hegemony, NEARLY ALL of these current liberal points of view have a MORAL basis.
It must be since this is the appeal – be moral/be virtuous.
This can be seen clearly with the nonsense at the border – it is insanity to encourage minors to trek across Mexico; yet it is now framed as virtuous, Reducing your carbon footprint is virtuous – and the opposite is to participate in evil – this is why the cult members cannot simply reduce their carbon footprint – they are evangelical .
Gun control – sure, we could reduce mass shootings by getting ALL guns off the street. <–This is in a category of political idea called "IMPOSSIBLE."
It is not virtuous to advocate for no-citizen-gun-possession; it is rank foolishness.
But many of my family and friends whole-heartedly believe this stuff.
Ten years ago, I heard NO ONE advocating for publically-funded birth control for all. Now, to be opposed is to be un-virtuous.
This just shows you: 1 it has been gradual; 2. people are believing things that realistically make no sense; 3. the cult concept explains a lot of this; 4. you simply cannot talk "reason" with a cult member – by time they throw out the $30,000 dare, they are all-in.
Thank God I had training as a journalist and scientist to anchor me in REALITY.
Here is the end-game: either totalitarianism, OR enough of these foolish things are seen to NOT pan out, such as is happening with global warming scare, and little by little people make that one break with the cult on the one issue, and that fragments the entire thought structure.
davidmhoffer, I think you nailed this with your July 26 2014, 11:42 am post. Might I add that the alarmist would believe in higher than observed positive feedbacks from that 1 blanket. The alarmist would say that one blanket would cause your body to heat up and produce sweat that instantly turns into water vapor further increasing the temps under your blanket (runaway greenhouse). The skeptic would claim that there is a negative feedback to your body temp and that the sweat (clouds) will cool your body down.
markstoval Your idea has been rejected by the warmists. They know they will be clobbered,
Ouch!
That will leave a mark…..
Jim Cripwell says:
July 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm
markstoval Your idea has been rejected by the warmists. They know they will be clobbered,
———————
History always vividly displays the cowards Jim!
If they had any confidence, the alarmists would be all over the opportunity, but they all flee like rats in the light at night.
Speaks volumes.
Confidence is not purchased, it is earned!
Just sayin…….
In accordance to the Scientific Method, it doesn’t matter what scientists hypothesize to be true, or what the public believes to be true, the ONLY thing that matters is how well the hypothetical projections match the reality they’re designed to describe/explain.
Under this criteria, the CAGW hypothesis is imploding:
1) No global warming trend for 18 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/normalise
2) Falling global temp trends for 14 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000.8/plot/rss/from:2000.8/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000.8/normalise
3) The discrepancies between CAGW’s hypothesized temp projections vs. reality have become a joke:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
4) The CAGW hypothesized increasing global trends of frequency/severity of: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, drought, flooding, tornadoes, tropical storms, thunderstorms, hail, etc. are NOT occurring as admitted in IPCC’s AR5 report released last year, which states NO increasing trends for all these weather events over the past 50~100 years.
5) The RATE of Sea Level Rise is NOT increasing as the CAGW hypothesis projected, and is stuck at around 7 inches per century and have actually fallen 30% over the past 10 years (Cazenave et al 2014 and Javrejeva et al 2014).
6) The Antarctic Sea Ice extent is growing as opposed to CAGW’s hypothesized projection that it should be shrinking, and just set a 35-yr record high anomaly this month:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
7) The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is showing signs of recovery as the 30-yr AMO warm cycle, which started in 1994, winds down:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
8) The Arctic is having its 2nd coldest summer since DMI records began in 1958 (2013 was THE coldest summer….) Oh, my:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
9) Only 0.4 watts/M^2 of added energy has entered the oceans to warm the top 2000 meters +0.09C since 1955, which is 1/3rd the amount the CAGW hypothesis projected.
10) On the CO2 forcing side of the CAGW hypothesis, the math can be easily disproved. The forcing effect of doubling CO2 is 5.35 x ln(560ppm/280ppm)=3.7 watts/M^2, and calculating the GROSS Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) using a rather long equation involving the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, equates to about 1.2C of Gross potential global warming from the added 3.7 watts/M^2 of CO2 forcing.
From this 1.2C of GROSS potential ECS, the CAGW hypothesis projects 3.0C~4.5C of CO2 induced Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity by adding a “runaway positive feedback loop” involving an exponential increase of atmospheric water vapor caused by the added 3.7 watts/M^2 of CO2 induced forcing. To keep the sum of the TOTAL positive feedback loop below 1.0 the positive feedback loop is offset by arbitrarily increasing fossil fuel particulates….. (if the sum of the feedbacks exceeds 1.0, then global temps would increase to infinity; which would not be a really bad hair day for Earth…)
Unfortunately for the CAGW hypothesis, atmospheric water vapor is NOT increasing exponentially as the empirical evidence clearly shows:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://nvap.stcnet.com
11) The CAGW hypothesis projects that added atmospheric CO2 emissions will cause dangerous ocean acidification. This is rubbish. Since 1750, ocean pH has only dropped from ph 8.15~8.2 to just 8.1, which is just a -0.05~ -0.1 pH difference, after burning through roughly 50% of known fossil fuel reserves.
Since the average ocean pH over the past 250 million years has been around pH 7.8, and oceans thrived at this less alkaline pH level. The empirical evidence shows there is absolutely no reason for concern. If anything, ocean pH is still too alkaline as it is the most alkaline it has ever been in Earth’s 4.5 billion years…
12) The CAGW hypothesizes that crop yields, forest growth and plant life will suffer from higher CO2 levels. This is patently false. Increasing CO2 levels to 560ppm will: increase crop yields and forest growth by 40% due to CO2 fertilization (Idso and Idso et al), will decrease plants’ water requirements from shrinking leaf stoma caused by higher CO2 levels, will increase the amount of arable land area in northern latitudes due to the 0.5C of CO2 induced ECS, will lengthen growing seasons for the 0.5C of CO2 induced ECS, will make winters less severe from 0.5C of CO2 induced ECS, and will increase ocean plankton growth from CO2 fertilization, which is beneficial for all ocean life.
Conclusion: Any one of these realities is sufficient to cast doubt on the efficacy of the CAGW hypothesis, and all 12 of these facts are downright damning to the CAGW hypothesis. None of CAGW’s dire predictions are occurring and any changes to the climate and/or the environment from higher CO2 levels are either benign or positive and any possible negative effects (thermal expansion of oceans) are easily offset by all the positive effects enjoyed from higher CO2 levels.
Keating owes me $30,000….. I won’t accept a check, only a wire transfer is acceptable…..
Although I agree with much that you say, I do quibble a bit with this:
“Somehow it doesn’t dawn on him that if ill-understood forces of natural temperature change can be at least as strong as the hypothesized human effects in the cooling direction then they could also be responsible for the two decades of warming that the IPCC is attributing to human effects, and there goes your certainty.”
The problem with this statement is that we have had a pause in warming—we have not (yet) had the cooling. But you are correct that there are two sides here. If the warmists want to excuse the pause using the oceans, then they must also attribute a portion of the warming to same.
(Which is still a problem for them.)
Jim Cripwell says: July 26, 2014 at 6:40 pm
You are fond of making this claim, but equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and its more policy-relevant cousin, transient climate response (TCR), has been measured numerous times. Unfortunately, many estimates of ECS and TCR are based on assuming ONLY the IPCC approved forcings. But the IPCC forcings (greenhouse gas (GHG), aerosols, TSI) can not explain the large temperature variations of the Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, because the IPCC does not include most natural causes of climate change, and their forcings are unknown. Therefore, any estimate of ESC or TCR that requires an estimate of total forcings must be wrong.
Fortunately, we can estimate TCR by comparing changes in GHG forcings to changes in the greenhouse effect (GHE), which is the temperature difference between the surface and the top-of-atmosphere effective radiating temperature. Both the GHG forcing and the GHE are known and measurable. Natural causes of climate change and human caused changes in aerosol and land use do not directly change the greenhouse effect, other than by a feedback response to water vapor. The CERES dataset accurately measures the effective radiating temperature (via OLR), and there was no temperature change over the data period, so there was no average feedback over the period starting in 2000. With zero net feedbacks, the GHE change is ONLY caused by the GHG forcing, allowing a determination of TCR. The result is: Using HadCRUT3 surface temperatures, TCR = 0.38 °C [0.0 to 0.92 °C] and using HadCRUT4, TCR = 0.74 °C [0.20 to 1.29 °C]; where the range is the 95% confidence interval with zero minimum. These values are much less than the multi-model mean estimate of 1.8 °C for TCR given in Table 9.5 of the AR5.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=739
Is this sufficient to claim the Keating prize?