Monday mirthiness – 97 hours, 97 opinions, 97% consensus, 100% cartooned climate science

The latest propaganda stunt from the Skeptical Science Kidz is underway and it is about as exciting as it is predictable. Every hour, a new opinion is revealed along with a cartoon climate scientist caricature drawn by former cartoonist turned “climate expert” John Cook. Our resident cartoonist, Josh, has different ideas on that. The first cartoon character of the “97 hours of consensus” was Mike Mann, who seems to think that “recent warming does appear to be unprecedented as far back as we can go”.


Apparently Dr. Mann on has limited time travel research skills, like this from his Penn State colleague, Dr. Richard Alley:



Update: Some people (the usual suspect) objected to the graph above, for them there’s Loehl 2007 figure 2 below. Still no hockey stick, still no unprecedented temperatures. Even Mann had previously said that “I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,” which you can read about here. So, why does he continue to push it?


(note: Dr. Craig Loehle writes via email that in a 2008 paper, he has updated the graph above to include new and more accurate data. His figure 2 for his 2008 paper:

Color Version of Figure 2 with reconstruction, CI’s

Data for this graph is online at )

Don’t like that? How about some graphs from NOAA/NCDC?

petit150[1]Source: So we are still not seeing “unprecedented” temperature.

Or this one, before global warming became politicized:



Also, commenter mikeishere replotted the Greenland GISP2 ice core data to eliminate the objections over “x axis” compressions and provides this:

greenlandicecore[1]The answer is still the same, no unprecedented temperatures in the present as Mann claims.


Then there’s the one from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth:

sks-97hrs-trenberth“all weather is now connected to climate change” – Yikes, every cloud is hiding a climate change boogie man now? Even the IPCC doesn’t believe this sort of fear mongering.

I had to chuckle though, because the SkS kids went to all this trouble to make this page where when you mouse over one of the cartoon character climate scientists, their arm goes up in the air to say “hey, I’m part of the consensus!”. That sort of high salute reminds me of the Nazi dress up photos we found last year on the Skeptical Science website. I suppose the SkS kidz didn’t see the connection to that incident, otherwise we wouldn’t have the cartoon climate scientists doing “consensus salutes” at the command of their cartoon creator. I’m pretty sure my Internet stalker Miriam O’Brien aka “Sou Bundanga” at Hotwhopper is having another hilarious conniption fit right now over that inconvenient linkage, even though it is funny to see all these cartoon climate scientists doing the “consensus salute” when you poke them with the mouse pointer.

Unfortunately, that’s about as entertaining as this propaganda stunt gets, though some of the opinions yet to be revealed from the cartoon climate scientists might be pretty funny. We’ll see.

So, we get 97 hours of these cartoon climate scientists and their opinions.

Josh seems to think we’ve heard it all before.



90 thoughts on “Monday mirthiness – 97 hours, 97 opinions, 97% consensus, 100% cartooned climate science

    • Nonsense. I predict with 97% certainty that this campaign will turn millions into “climate change” believers.

      Furthermore, I predict with 97% certainty that this campaign is, in no way whatsoever, a desperate effort for the Skeptical Science Kidz to overcome their utter lack of relevance for just one more day.

      • Tom – exactly right. I searched the archives, and this was, in fact, the dumbest reply in the history of this website.
        Eclipsed in general only by this quote by General Custer on the eve of the battle at Little Big Horn:
        “Indians, smindians! I’m not ascared of them!”

      • The shopped portrait-photo is not merely a “Nazi,” but Heinrich Himmler’s uniform. The photo labels the “scientist” as “Reichsfuhrer -SS.” The centers of the uniform lapels have been modified with an SKS leaf symbol, and so has the brim of the cap. Above the leaf the cap bears a dual-penguin emblem, also a SKS brand — see their homepage for confirmation. More, there is another photo of an outdoor Nuremberg rally inked with the name of the “scientist” combined with a directional arrow to the speaker’s podium, consistent with a Himmler identification. It is hard to conclude otherwise that there is a very disturbed person or persons connected with that site.

    • Is a flock of group-affirming scientists raising their hands to be called on by an unidentified headmaster to give disingenuous, politically-motivated commentary a good image?

      Cook should give them all brown noses.

    • Only if they don the uniform and then offer the salute as the SSK (Skeptical Science Kids) do.
      Stand by if the common core folks get their way the school kids will be made to don a uniform and offer the salute to Mother Earth or be blown up.

      • Interesting, I haven’t seen anyone who write for SkS performing a Nazi salute. Care to provide some evidence? And then evidence of the other 96 academics doing likewise? Otherwise I don’t see how anyone raising their hand (like a kid, or student, or any grown up) can be likened to a Nazi!

        [it’s satire Kit, note the Nazi uniforms they photoshopped themselves into, if they hadn’t done that, you’d be right -mod]

  1. Trenberth ‘missing heat ‘ is a result of poor science not of good theory.
    For if temperatures had increased in the way they said they would, STELLED SCIENCE, with increases in CO2 , then there would be no need for any ‘missing heat ‘ in the first place . The fact he cannot justify or even remotely prove his ‘missing heat’ idea is the reason why he tried to reverse the null hypothesise in the first place. And approach which results in a total fail for any undergraduate handing in an essay, would seem to be an acceptable standard with climate ‘science’ professionals . And they wonder why they consider a joke.

    • @Oatley
      The RH scale is for the ancient temperatures measured using oxygen isotopes in the GISP2 Greenland ice core. It shows the temperatures at the time that the snow crystals formed, which were later transformed into glacial ice. The scale is in minus degrees Celsius below the zero degrees freezing point.
      So, the temperature about 95 years ago in Central Greenland was just under -31.5 degrees Celsius (indicated by the black horizontal line) … and the temperature during the Medieval Warming Period was about 1 degree Celsius warmer. The Roman and Minoan periods were even warmer than that, at about 2 degrees and about 2.75 degrees warmer than 95 years ago, respectively.
      More information is here :

      • I do not disagree with your summary of the charts, but is the reconstruction of the past temperatures accurate?

        How could the Vikings with their primitive technology (and no mechanical aids such as mini diggers and tractors) have farmed Greenland for a couple of hundred years if the temperatures were only about 1 or so degrees warmer than today? That is the question that should be asked when tuning the proxies.

        Where they were located (and I accept that their settlements were not spread right accross Greenland), it must have been about 4 degrees (and possibly more) warmer than it is today, if not just 1 or 2 harsh winter would have wiped them out.

      • Richard,
        The Vikings were mostly along the warmer coast, while the ice cores came from the deep ice in the interior. I would suspect the marine influenced air would have been much much warmer than the interior ice mound of a glacier. (Though this is just a guess based on geography and the, as you pointed out, primitiveness of their tools.)

      • Indeed, the Vinland Saga states about the northern tip of Newfoundland in Winter: “There was never any frost all winter and the grass hardly withered at all”. So how many degrees of warming would it take to achieve that? More than one or two, you’d think.

  2. 2 thoughts.

    #1 – Trenberth’s statement is not surprising. He has been trying to change the Null Hypothesis for years now. And that is essentially what he is trying to do with his statement there. He cloaks it in sciency lingo, but the essence is that he is losing the debate and is trying to change the rules in the middle.

    #2 – Cook’s fascination with Nazism reminds me of the Star Trek Episode where some ‘well meaning’ idiot had changed a society to resemble early to mid 20th century Germany (because it was efficient and it worked). Of course the result was the same (it was Roddenberry after all). Cook seems to think that Nazism is the salvation of the planet as well. It is not a new idea. Nor will it be the last time it is trotted out.

    • Probably that bunch were inspired by the natural acronym for their site (SS) to goof on it with a dress-up session. That’s the charitable interpretation–that or some self-destructive imp got their ear for a week.

  3. This is too feeble to even bother trying to counter it.

    Don’t flatter thier sorry efforts by reading and commenting on them.

    • Until you realise that the very warm spike around 1350-1150 BC labelled Minoan Warm Period, was actually one of the coldest periods through the Holocene for the mid latitudes, and caused the collapse or demise of most civilisations at the time. including the Minoans. But if we look at the warm period when the Minoans, and many other cultures expanded from around 2700 BC, it is one of the coldest periods on GISP.
      2200-2000 BC is also another known cold period for the mid latitudes that effected civilisations adversely, that also shows as a warm period on GISP.
      And what of the Dark Ages cold period (~380-540 AD)? yet another warm period on GISP.

      • Agreed – The period 3500-2500 years before present (BP) was very cold in the Bering Sea region, referred by some as the Neoglacial (I’ve got peer-reviewd papers on that). Ancient Aleuts living at Dutch Harbor were hunting ice-dependent seals (ringed seals, bearded seals and walrus) in late spring – indicating that sea ice extended much further south than it did during the Little Ice Age.

        The other point to keep in mind is that the cold and warm parts of the cycles did not necessarily hit all regions at precisely the same time, especially across the Arctic.

        Thinking about what we know now about the differently timed effects of the PDO and AMO, it makes sense that the Western Arctic (Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort Sea) might not have been cold/warm at the same time as Greenland and Iceland.

        Susan, PolarBearScience

      • Yes, but that wouldn’t really matter in terms of melting Greenland. Absent he specter of rising sea levels, AGW is a pretty big net benefit to humanity.

  4. This baffles me. It might increase the number of hits on their website and entertain the true believers but I can’t see that it would achieve anything else.

  5. This is too sad and says more than enough.
    From Michael Mann’s narcissistic Facebook page:
    “Here’s the Skeptical Science caricature of me, kicking off the “97 Hours of Consensus” project!”
    (Emphasis added.)

    • Mann’s Facebook page is now a skeptic’s best ally in defeating claims that the hockey stick controversy amounts to ancient history nitpicking, thanks to Willis’ reality check plots that prove to anybody you show to that there is simply no blade thrusting up from the noise in any of the input data. Instead of black box statistics the upstarts that the old hockey stick team still promote didn’t obscure their cheating hand at all, producing a blade as a pure artifact of bizarre proxy re-dating that created sudden data drop-off at the end:

      I’m utterly delighted that Mann is again promoting it, linked to activist guru Cook, since it recharges the kryptonite power of the plot when presented to quite effectively ridicule bitter ended activism on news sites. It turns them into cursing paranoid fanatics in public, quite reliably, in a way that does not upset normal reasonable people, I note. I hope more skeptics will get help get the above plot into the hands of media connected skeptics and politicians. It’s not even on the reference pages of any high traffic blog. Letting it be burried in news cycles is a defeatist policy. It’s so clear and undeniable that there’s no intellectual or legal defense possible of it, gleefully so for skeptics.

  6. Is there a way to combine Cook’s work as a screen saver? I can think of all kinds of ways to enjoy that stunt aka Barney Carnage. Mods, snip if I’ve gone over the top, past playing nice, gone to the dark side, been invaded by evil, and have totally gone mad. But oh I wish for my little Mac SE and a bit of the Barney on my screen.

  7. “Help me understand the RH scale on the graph…”

    Oatley should be more concerned about the time axis. It is NOT years before 2000, the original paper uses BP in the standard paleo- definition, which is years before 1950. hence the graph ends in 1855, long before AGW could be measurable. Temperatures have climbed approx 1.4C at the ice core site since the plot ended.

    You might want also to google what Alley said about using the GISP2 data for this purpose – its on the Dot Earth site.

    A website interested in the facts would check that I am right, apologise for misleading readers and issue a correction.

    • Yes, Watts should apologize for misleading his readership with that mislabeled GISP graph, and for the deliberate misinterpretation he asks them to draw with respect to Mann’s comment. This is rather egregious.

      Wouldn’t want to set precedence, though, I suppose.

      Clarke is right, Oatley. Kudos to you for actually wanting to understand what the graph is saying. Now examine what the x-axis (time) should be scaled, and ponder how you are being misled.

    • Unfortunately, we don’t have “current” ice core temperatures, just as we don’t have a paleo surface air temperature record. The supposition that the current air temperature at the site of this ice core is 1.4 C higher than the oxygen isotope derived temperature in 1950 is not supported by evidence.

  8. not to mention that if these 97 hours are intended to be representative of total hours of the climates existence I’d say their closer to .0000000000000000097 consensus.

  9. When we see records being broken and unprecedented events, the onus is on those who deny any connection to climate to prove their case. Global warming has fundamentally alerted the background conditions that give rise to all weather. In the strictest sense, all weather is now connected to climate change.

    There’s a curious leather clad case in lost luggage labelled Temporal Fuckwit PhD. The contents include a tin of gravy granules, a model railway set and a pile of grant application forms. There’s also a broken ruler and a mug emblazoned with the words Keep Calm and Embrace Chaos.

    Bayesian priors have suggested the owner lives on Mars as befits their religious belief. But the model railway consists of rolling stock in green and a simple loop without buffers while the mug has no smell of coffee.

      • Brother Michael called from the priory to point out there’s now a 97% consensus among brethren that the owner *resides* on Venus but *eats* a Mars day which aids work, rest and play. All a matter of interpretation, one man’s sustenance is another’s domesticity. Glad we cleared that up.

  10. I’ve noticed that activist organization Polar Bears International is encouraging their supporters to follow the “97-hours consensus” campaign

    From the PBI “news” department:

    “Did you know 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are causing global warming? When was the last time 97% of scientists agreed on anything?

    What’s scary is that less than 10% of Americans are aware of the 97% agreement among climate scientists.

    This disparity has real consequences, with a number of scientific studies finding that when the public isn’t aware of the scientific consensus on global warming, they’re less likely to support action to mitigate climate change.

    A social media campaign starts today with the aim of closing the “consensus gap.”

    The 97 Hours of Consensus campaign will feature statements and hand-drawn caricatures from 97 scientific experts researching climate change or the impacts of climate change. The campaign begins on 9/7 (the date itself reinforcing the 97% consensus). Each hour, a statement and hand-drawn caricature of a scientist whose area of expertise involves climate change or the impacts of climate change will be published and shared on social media.

    The quotes and caricatures will be published here.

    Follow the twitter feed @skepticscience.”

    • Here’s a thought. Let’s say there was a 90% (or thereabouts) consensus in the official international polar bears experts group that polar bear numbers were declining and the threat to them was severe. (I think I’ve read material to that effect.) Since that position has been shown be be a considerable exaggeration and the result of an environmentalist bedwetting mentality, isn’t it reasonable to extrapolate that the same mentality underlies the IPCC’s alarmism?

  11. Looking back at history, think of everything that was widely believed to be true in the past. How much of it has actually turned out to be true? Isn’t consensus pretty much a guarantee that the belief is wrong?

    We of course laugh at silly beliefs people had in the past, and like to believe that we could never be so stupid. Yet we forget that we are the descendants on those same silly people, and we have inherited their weaknesses along with their strengths.

    The bigger question to be asked is this. Of all the consensus beliefs held by humanity over the ages, how many actually turned out to be true? You can’t escape death and taxes is the only one that comes to mind.

  12. OT nit pick (mostly…) – Can someone tell me why people who generate charts seem have a proclivity for using weird scaling factors for presentation? Take the above GISP2 chart (I truly don’t know who made it?) for example –

    Why the weird values on the X axis scale? On top of that the intervals between the dates are not consistent. The first is obviously 95 years , (the ice pack time I suppose?) and the last is 436 years so time is being generally being compressed the further you go back.

    Not sticking with some semblance of cardinal numbering hides the time compression and, IMO, hiding anything can only raise suspicion as to the reason for doing it.

    Here’s the original data as best I can find –

    I generated a chart from that data in Excel with what I think is a start to an acceptable format for the X axis and no time compression/variation.

    • I’m with you on this. I get tired of looking at charts that seem to say one thing, then realizing the scale is all weird and then I have to try reinterpreting it in my mind. And as you say, weird scales, at least to the layman, tend to suggest hidden agendas.

      • I like yours better, too.
        I agree the figure is a bit on the forceful side with the red and all.
        Trying to push a message instead of inform.
        Too sks-ish.


    It appears Trenberth may be a AGW propagandist first and a scientist second. It is interesting that the IPCC would select Trenberth as their lead author for the section on “Extreme Weather” in their climate assessment report. It sounds as if the author selection for the IPCC climate assessment reports is rigged to produce a report to support a political agenda rather than to provide an unbiased, accurate, assessment of the ‘science’ of climate ‘change’ and any observed changes or no changes in planetary temperature.

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns….

    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

  14. 3 week early freeze coming this week to the northern central US. It is just WX of course. But still, with colder than normal, the public just won’t buy into the global warming scare. Nature will undo in one winter what a thousands alarmist scare claimaints are attempting.

  15. Unfortunately for Mr. Mann, every time he re-does his shtick, he’s forced to acknowledge some criticisms, and has to shorten his “as far back as we can go”. He still tries to get away with bogus proxies, but his “stick” has become less and less unprecedented each time.

  16. Later the Spin on this will be a typing error.
    Actually we meant 0.097%.
    Printers error. Honest.

    The 5 stages of recovery?
    Where are the bulk of the Easily Alarmed Ones at?
    Cause the desperation is lovely to observe.

  17. it is interesting that the warmists scientists on Cooke’s blog make vague inaccurate comments rather than answer questions concerning analysis and observations that disproves the extreme warming theory. The observations (even if it is assumed incorrectly that a 100% of the warming in the last 50 years has caused by the CO2 increase) support lukewarm warming, less than 1C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, as the planet resists rather than amplifies CO2 forcing changes. The majority of the warming has occurred at high latitudes which causes the biosphere to expand. There is no CO2 problem to solve. All life on this planet is carbon based. The biosphere expands and thrives when atmospheric CO2 increases and when the planet is warmer in high latitude regions. The climate wars and CO2 limiting policies are irrational, do not make sense regardless of ones’ political views.

    There is a reason why the warmist scientists will not participate in a written formal scientific debate/discussion of the climate change issues. Analysis and observations do not support the extreme AGW theory. Clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist warming (negative feedback) by reflecting more or less short wave radiation off into space. The extreme AGW theory requires tropic tropospheric warming caused by increased water vapor to amplify the CO2 forcing (positive feedback) due to CO2. If there is negative feedback rather than positive feedback the warming due to doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C. The IPCC models assume planetary cloud cover decreases rather than increases when the planet warms.

    The latitudinal warming paradox and cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record, indicates that the majority of the warming, more than 90%, in the last 50 years has caused by something else rather than the CO2 increase. The pattern of warming in the last 150 years cannot be explained by increases in atmospheric CO2. As CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is more or less the same for all latitudes on the planet. As the magnitude of the CO2 forcing is proportion to both the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question, the most amount of warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should occur in the tropics as that is the region of the planet that had the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space prior to the increase atmospheric CO2. That is not observed. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years has been in high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere with the most amount of warming occurring on the Greenland ice sheet which is the same pattern of warming that occurred in past dansgaard-oeschger (named after the discovers of the cyclic warming and cooling that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes) warming/cooling cycles. A very strong scientific case can be made to support the assertion that the planet will significantly cool due to the solar cycle 24 changes.
    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    ” …These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2

    Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.

    There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglas and Christy paper.

    • That’s a good summary of the physical evidence side.

      The other major broken legs of the climate seem to be

      1) Flawed arguments by authority (positions of scientific groups who previously endorsed cooling, 97%)
      2) Reliability of climate models (hilarious SkS page on this, see Soon/Armstrong on methodology problems, Spencer on problems with the models’ hindcasting, and the various models themselves for their inaccurate predictions)
      3) Interpretations of past data (hockey stick, GISS problems)
      4) Effects (As Ridley and Lomborg have pointed out, there are net positive
      5) Policies (not justified per above, and even then no G7 emissions controls will prevent non-G7 countries from pulling up every last economical hydrocarbon and burning it)

      • There’s another thing.
        The only solutions they come up with:
        A. Give government and their minions more money and control
        B. Allow their millionaire buddies to become billionaires trading carbon credits.
        How does that save the earth?
        It won’t drop the temperature one bit.
        When Al Gore finally matches my carbon footprint I will lower mine even more to give him a leader follow. I could even stop laughing at him every time he opens his mouth to lie.

  18. Every time I see the “97%” number I have to wonder, if you asked 100 parapsychologists if they believe in psychic phenomena wouldn’t you get a similar consensus? If you asked 100 manufacturers of herbal remedies if echinacea works I’m sure 97% (or more) would insist that it does. The point is that once you’ve joined a particular field, you’re almost certainly going to accept the basic tenets without much question. That’s especially true if there is a risk of becoming socially and academically irrelevant. Let’s face it, 20 years ago no one was flying half of their geology department to Cancun or paying a climate expert $20,000 for a one hour speech.

    When you ask astronomers what is the value of the Hubble Constant to within 1%, you’re not going to get a consensus. When you ask if the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is correct you’ll get a range of qualified “yes” and “no” answers. We know that the 97% is exaggerated, but the fact that a high percentage of climate scientists agree on anything isn’t just meaningless, it’s actually troubling. If Mt. McKinley, a big stationary target, needs to have it’s elevation adjusted by close to 100 feet, no one should feel confident that we’re measuring the temperature of the oceans to .01 C.

  19. I predict project the remaining quotes will be approximately:

    29 Heidi Cullen

    We are seeing CO2 going up—it is a measurable trend, not a cyclical phenomenon. On her own, Mother Nature’s earth cannot reproduce the observed global temperature record we have measured over the past century. Solar activity, volcanoes, and variability of other types are important, but on their own they simply cannot produce the significant warming trend we are now experiencing.

    30 Warren Washington

    To get the kinds of climatic conditions we have today, you need that increase in carbon dioxide. For anyone doubtful about the effect of human activity on global warming, that finding really is a ‘smoking gun’.

    31 Kerry Emanuel

    Back in the 1980s, I did not feel there was enough evidence to warrant much concern about climate change. But great advances in paleoclimate, analysis of in-situ and satellite observations, my own acquisition of some basic understanding of climate physics and, yes, climate models have all added up to very compelling evidence that we are changing climate and engendering serious risks in doing so.

    32 Veerabhadran Ramanathan

    The additional heat trapped by the increase in greenhouse gases from the late nineteenth century to the present time has committed the planet to a global warming in the range of 1°C to 3°C. We have realized only a fraction (25–50 percent) of this warming. … Every decade we delay in taking action, we are committing the planet to additional warming that future generations have to deal with.

    33 Ann Henderson Sellers

    With the latest IPCC Assessment Report from 2007 the question is no longer about whether human activities are changing the climate, but about how fast and with what impacts? Frankly, I find it discouraging that climate sceptics and greenhouse nay-sayers still get so much attention in our mass media – and apparently credibility with the general public.

    34 Matthew England

    First, greenhouse gases trap heat. This has been known for almost 200 years. Second, fossil fuel burning is driving dramatically higher concentrations of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and so as a direct result, extra heat is being held in the Earth’s climate system. This is warming the oceans, the atmosphere, and melting ice at unprecedented levels. And third, doing nothing to limit fossil fuel burning will lead to costly and dangerous levels of climate change.

    35 Gerald Meehl

    Even if you stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases, you are still committed to a certain amount of climate change no matter what you do because of the lag in the ocean. The longer you wait to do something, the more climate change you are committed to in the future.

    36 Gabriele Hegerl

    Greenhouse warming has very likely already influenced global temperatures and will continue to do so. The chance that the warming is small is slim.

    37 Keith Shine

    There is unquestionable evidence that human activity has changed the composition of the atmosphere, and there is very strong evidence that this has lead to a change in climate.

    38 Reto Knutti

    Climate change is a fact and humans are very likely responsible for most of it. Temperature responds strongly to CO2, a fact seen in the observed warming, in climate models, and in reconstructions of past climate.

    39 Josefino Comiso

    The perennial ice cover, or ice that survives the summer melt, has been observed as part of the Arctic sea ice cover for 1,450 years. The extent of the perennial ice has been declining at a rapid rate of about 11% per decade. The observed rate of decline is expect to continue because of anthropogenic global warming which is expected to be amplified in the Arctic region because of ice-albedo feedback.

    40 Noah Diffenbaugh

    We know from past changes that ecosystems have responded to a few degrees of global temperature change over thousands of years. But the unprecedented trajectory that we’re on now is forcing that change to occur over decades. That’s orders of magnitude faster, and we’re already seeing that some species are challenged by that rate of change.

    41 Paul Shepson

    Humans have significantly changed the composition of the atmosphere, and those changes are impacting human health directly, and indirectly through impacts of the health and diversity in the biosphere.

    42 Eric Wolff

    We do know why CO2 causes warming. It’s basic physics that’s been known for more than a century. It’s pretty straightforward. If you put more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it will get warmer – there is no way around that one.

    43 Mojib Latif

    There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases.

    44 Inez Fung

    As CO2 rises, because we understand the physics of the CO2 warming, more warming is expected. There are natural processes which amplify the warming from CO2 – the warmer air can hold more moisture – water vapour is a greenhouse gas and so that amplifies the initial warming. The melting of ice exposes a darker surface and so more sunlight is absorbed. So we are very sure that the CO2 rise will lead to more warming.

    45 Richard Feeley

    Carbon dioxide is an acid gas. It reacts with water to form carbonic acid. And then that carbonic acid completely disassociates. It forms a hydrogen ion and bicarbonate, and in doing so, it reduces the pH of seawater. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that pH change has been about 0.1 pH units, which is a 30 % rise in acidity of the surface ocean.

    46 Shaun Marcott

    The rate of change in the last 100 years is very much unprecedented compared to anything we’ve seen in the last 10,000 years. I’m fairly certain that what we’re experiencing is unusual.

    47 Pieter Tans

    CO2 in the atmosphere, currently, is higher than it has been in at least two million years. What is also significant is that the rate of increase is rapid. The current rate of increase, as measured on average over the last decade, has been 2ppm per year. This is at least 100 times higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

    48 Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

    The latest IPCC report makes no bones about stating the consensus that human-driven climate change is occurring and it is important. Hundreds of changes have already been observed that are consistent with climate change, temperature rises and associated issues such as ocean acidification.

    49 James Hansen

    We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high.

    50 Bill Ruddiman

    The public is starting to understand that the vast majority of scientists accept that we have done already something to climate and projections into the future are worrisome.

    51 Penny Whetton

    Rapid global warming of 4ºC would be unlike anything experienced before by modern human societies – presenting us with huge challenges in terms of our ability to adapt … although some climate change is inevitable, changes of the magnitude described here are still avoidable as long as we are able to significantly reduce global greenhouse emissions.

    52 Marcia McNutt

    Carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels changes ocean temperature, alters ocean circulation and makes the ocean more acidic. These changes affect the productivity of ocean fisheries and influence how we manage the ocean, but it is ocean acidification, in particular, that may be mankind’s most severe environmental disturbance.

    53 Sir Robert Watson

    There is no question the earth’s temperature is warmer than it was 100 years ago. There’s no question we’re seeing more floods, more droughts, more heatwaves, all of which are totally consistent with the hypothesis of human induced climate change, which points to the fact we humans are changing our environment.

    54 Joanna Haigh

    Carbon dioxide has not been at such a high atmospheric concentration for 3 million years. We understand its greenhouse effect – warming is unequivocal.

    55 Michael Raupach

    There is overwhelming evidence that human-induced climate change is already real and will increase. Climate science shows what is needed to limit warming to about 2 degrees Celsius, and restrict impacts on rainfall, extreme events, ecosystems and more: global greenhouse gas emissions have to be cut by around 60% by 2050 with continued decreases after that.

    56 Peter Stott

    The chances that we’ve got it wrong, that the scientific consensus is wrong about this, that there isn’t a major human influence on climate — the chances that that’s the case seems to keep reducing as we get more and more data.

    57 Dennis Hartmann

    The amount of long-lived greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is being dramatically increased by humans. The earth is warming unequivocally and we’re pretty sure that’s due to human production of greenhouse gases.

    58 Nathan Bindoff

    There are a few aspects that don’t allow us to say with 100% certainty, but what we can say is that we are 95% certain that human activity is the main cause of global warming. Our best estimates actually account for all of the observed change since the 1950’s and that the alternatives, solar variability and natural variations have nothing to contribute over this period.

    59 Andy Pitman

    Climate change, resulting from human activities, is occurring all around us. It can be seen in the temperature record, in sea level rise and in the seasonal greening of landscapes. The impacts are measurable in changing frequency of extremes, in impacts on heat waves, and in the nutritional value of some crops. Not accepting the science prevents the planning that minimizes risk and would help build resilience. We are currently choosing to be more vulnerable than we need to be in the future and that is stupid.

    60 Julienne Stroeve

    My views changed as I studied the emerging data. With record low sea-ice extents year after year, it became clear that a significant warming trend was underway.

    61 Andrew Weaver

    We know that the world is warming, we’ve known that for a long time. We know that much of that warming, in fact the overwhelming majority of that warming, is due to human activity; that is the combustion of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere.

    62 Chris Forest

    It’s very clear from the observations that the climate system has warmed over the past century, and that these results are then consistent with human causes having forced the climate system over the past century.

    63 Pramod Aggarwal

    Temperature increases are certainly going to be there, they are significant, and at the minimum they will be 1 and a half degrees Celsius by the end of the century irrespective of global change scenarios, but they could go as high as 4 and a half degrees Celsius by the end of this century, all depending on the trajectory of development in future.

    64 Ken Denman

    The issue is not a lack of scientific evidence, the issue is the unwillingness of people and governments to act. It seems to defy logic. But a lot of addictions defy logic. Our society is completely addicted to cheap power from fossil fuels.

    65 Thomas Stocker

    Climate change challenges the two primary resources of humans and ecosystems, land and water. In short, it threatens our planet, our only home.

    66 Brian Hoskins

    We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don’t want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment.

    67 Malte Meinshausen

    Our habit to produce energy by burning fossil fuels causes global warming. Civil societies and policy makers will have to make a choice about how much climate change will be too much. Currently, the international community regards 2ºC as such a level, which is not safe, but which might prevent many of the more dramatic impacts.

    68 Corinne Le Quéré

    The human influence on climate change is clear and dominant. The atmosphere and oceans are warming, the snow cover is shrinking, the Arctic sea ice is melting, sea level is rising, the oceans are acidifying, and some extreme events have increased. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels need to substantially decrease to limit climate change.

    69 James White

    We live on a water planet. What that means in practical terms is that it takes decades or more for the earth to heat up, or cool off, as greenhouse gases increase or decrease. So the greenhouse gases that we add, our kids will have to deal with, and they do their kids will have to deal with, and so on. This will continue until one generation breaks the cycle by placing more value on long term benefits for their kids instead of short term profits for themselves.

    70 Scott Denning

    We expect climate to be warmer in the future than in the past because we know that greenhouse gases absorb and then re-emit thermal radiation. As people around the world burn more and more fossil fuels, concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, so that solar energy accumulates under the extra absorbing gas.

    71 David Archer

    Each ton of coal that we burn leaves CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The CO2 coming from a quarter of that ton will still be affecting the climate one thousand years from now, at the start of the next millennium.

    72 Richard Somerville

    If the world as a whole continues to procrastinate throughout the current decade, allowing emissions to continue to increase year after year, then it will almost certainly have lost the opportunity to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Instead, our children and their descendants, and ultimately all living things, will be faced with the consequences of more severe climate disruption

    73 Josh Willis

    We can’t reverse these changes. If we wreck our climate, we’re stuck with it for a thousand years.

    74 Philip Mote

    Global warming refers to an increase in the planet’s average temperature, and there’s no question that that’s happened over the last 100 years. Over the last 50 years, it’s increasingly clear that that warming, the more recent warming, is because of human activities.

    75 John Mitchell

    It’s very simple, it’s simple laws of physics, it’s well established laws of physics. More greenhouse gases, more warming.

    76 Donald Wuebbles

    We know that the climate is changing. It’s not just that the earth is warming, it’s many other aspects going on. Precipitation patterns are changing and other aspects. We have clear evidence that the basis for those changes is because of human activities, and particularly the emissions of carbon dioxide and some other gases and particles that are in the atmosphere that are causing a forcing on the climate system that is driving that change.

    77 James McCarthy

    All the professional societies of climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers that have ever looked at this problem have made very consistent statements that climate is changing, it’s changing in unusual ways, and the only way that change can be explained is as a result of human activities.

    78 Sarah Das

    We understand the physical processes, we know that climate on the planet has always been changing, and we understand that the changes we are experiencing now, a large component of that is caused by human activity.

    79 Mark Cochrane

    Anthopogenic greenhouse warming is the only scientific theory that accurately explains what is occuring. We’ve had over 100 years of scientists trying to prove this theory wrong, and there is close to unanimous scientific agreement on this as you’re ever going to find, with at least 97% consensus among scientists who actually work on the subject.

    80 Peter Hildebrand

    I think that the debate is happening around the world. It’s not a debate, though, in the science community. There’s no debate at all there. The scientists know that human influences are creating greenhouse gases and these are warming the earth.

    81 Susan Solomon

    As we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, we’re creating warming that would last more than a thousand years – even if we suddenly stopped emitting.

    82 Ulrike Lohmann

    The IPCC report states very clearly that humans are the main cause for global warming. There is therefore no longer an excuse to not act and to thereby endanger the lives of future generations.

    83 John Fasullo

    For many global warming means an increase in Earth’s surface temperature. But anthropogenic climate change also entails a warming of oceans, a moistening of the atmosphere, and an increase in sea level. All are the result of the alteration of the natural flow of energy through the climate system by human activities.

    84 Jim Salinger

    A third of the permanent snow and ice of New Zealand’s Southern Alps has now disappeared in the last three decades, along with 9000 cubic kilometres of glacier ice from the mountain glaciers of the world. With another 2 to 3°C of warming these glaciers will be about 10% of what we had a century ago – far less than the ice cover over thousands of millenia. Is this the world we want?

    85 Sylvia Earle

    An ice-free Arctic Ocean may happen in this century. That’s bad news for the polar bears. That’s bad news for us too. Excess carbon dioxide is not only driving global warming, it’s also changing ocean chemistry, making the sea more acidic. That’s bad news for coral reefs and oxygen-producing plankton. Also it’s bad news for us.

    86 Myles Allen

    Back at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we had around 3-4 trillion tonnes, that’s 3-4 thousand billion tonnes of fossil carbon sitting underground waiting to be dug up and burned to power the Industrial Revolution. Over the past 250 years, we’ve dug up and burned about half a trillion tonnes. Over the next 35 years, at the current rate, the way things are going, we’ll burn the next half trillion tonnes and the next half trillion tonnes after that will take us over 2°.

    87 James Byrne

    Current reserves of fossil fuels are five times more than we can afford to burn if we want to keep global warming to less than 2°C; and we have to keep global warming below 2°C.

    88 Anders Levermann

    There are not many human activities whose impact can reasonably be predicted decades, centuries, or even millennia in advance. The fallout from nuclear waste is one; humans’ contribution to global warming through greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, and its impact on rising sea levels, is another.

    89 Wally Broecker

    One of the main drivers of ice ages was the CO2 content in the air. When the CO2 was lower it got plenty colder. So, as we add CO2 it’s going to get a lot warmer. There can be a question about how big the warming will be, but there’s no doubt in my mind that warming has occurred.

    90 Gifford Miller

    The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is. This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    91 Michael Oppenheimer

    We know that greenhouse gases trap heat that would otherwise escape into space and that their build-up will inevitably warm Earth. We know that Earth is warmer than it was a century ago and we know that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

    92 Richard Pancost

    What we understand well is that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 and that has caused and will continue to cause global warming. There are uncertainties in exactly how temperature and sea level will rise. And there is uncertainty regarding its impacts, especially on food and water security. But such uncertainty is a cause for action, not inaction.

    93 Peter Cox

    Scientists are like cats, we are not herdable, ask any University! We don’t like to agree, in fact we are motivated by not agreeing, so how could we possibly get to the point where we can agree? Is it the Intergovernmental Panel of Cat Control? No it’s not! Part of the reason we agree is because some of it’s obvious. It’s been obvious for a long time.

    94 Glen MacDonald

    The evidence is now overwhelming that by and large the warming we are seeing has an anthropogenic cause.

    95 Katrin Meissner

    Let’s imagine we decide to stop all fossil fuel emissions today, worldwide, forever… the climate will not immediately jump back to where it was before human intervention. The longer we wait, the more warming we will be committed to. We are now setting the course for our immediate future and for generations to come. We are more vulnerable than most of us realise.

    96 Alan Robock

    If you ask climate scientists, the ones that publish in the journals, the ones that do the research, the ones that understand the science, more than 97 percent of them agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. And so, by saying that other people who claim to be scientists don’t agree, or by having debates between one global warming denier and one climate scientist, it makes it seem like there’s a much stronger argument on the side of the deniers.

    97 Greg Holland

    …the overwhelming consensus is that the globe is warming. The overwhelming consensus is that this is making changes to severe weather and rare events, be it heavy rainfall, droughts, tropical cyclones or whatever.

  20. I think this SKS approach is interesting as it creates an ‘event’ which is always easier to promote and get PR from than merely producing articles for blogs can’t do.

    Has there been any uptick in their viewing and has any interest been created in that very wide world outside of climate blogland?

    • Their site traffic is terribly low. It’s quite rare that activists link to it any more on news sites. They got savvy and now mostly cite the IPCC. When it does pop up I just mention that Cook is an Evangelical “climate justice” Christian comic artist with no advanced degree and then grab the latest 97% debunking links.

      His 97% paper and its ongoing falsification and likely future retraction is a wonderful boon for skeptics since it was so hard to counter the original 97% claim but his version is now exposed as fraudulently including psychology papers that his paper claimed were excluded.

      Highly public Mann and Cook are now so out on a limb that it’s likely putting pressure on both scientists and journalists to seemingly seize up in a panic as they now merely call for censorship, kind of a silly outlook in Al Gore’s Internet age. But activist policy makers are loudly threatening their organizations to root out potential whistleblowers such as Interior secretary Sally Jewell exclaiming, “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department Of Interior.”

      SS site ranking:

  21. Mann and Cook are now linked quite publicly through Mann’s promotion of this PR stunt that reasserts the Orwellian revisionist hockey stick version of history. And right there is in the middle of it is a quote from Marcott, asserting that his pure artifact hockey stick blade demonstrates anomalous warming rather than anomalous math.

    They now stand exposed, attempting an Enron level takeover of our culture just as the world cycles into a cooling phase. It’s delightful to see nearly every anti-Western activist, every obnoxious techno hipster blog, the entire progressive “you didn’t build that” crowd of dangerous idealists, set themselves up for a massive fall into notoriety that will be noted for centuries with their names attached to it, their every typed statement in support of such an obvious scam archived forever in the annals of human folly, calling for energy rationing that would have very much hurt future income levels and scientific progress.

    Original alarmist Malthus of the 1700s was resurrected as a Frankenstein monster this time around. That I was so familiar with the hippie bible The Whole Earth Catalog as a kid meant I knew all about Malthusians via the ongoing debunking of resource alarm by Bucky Fuller. That alerted me that these new greenies were no Hippies, just traitorous Marxists that formed a Gaian doomsday cult.

    • Mann and Cook are now linked quite publicly through Mann’s promotion of this PR stunt that reasserts the Orwellian revisionist hockey stick version of history.

      This is not a new link for Mann. About a year ago, he had teamed up with Cook’s mentor (and model?!), Stephan Lewandowski. As I had noted earlier this year:

      Here are the Lew-Mann rules: free speech for us (and freedom to call you whatever distasteful and inaccurate names our hearts desire) but not for you. It is also worth noting that Lewandowsky and Mann appear to have redefined both “daylight” and “transparency” in the interest of furthering their respective and/or mutual “causes”.

      Although, speaking of their “causes”, it is unclear at this point which has the higher priority: their shared “cause” of ostensibly saving the planet from the “danger” and/or greatest threat of the week, or their flogging of David Irving-ish unwarranted high opinions of their respective selves.

      So Mann’s teaming up with an even lesser-light, i.e. Cook, a Lewandowski side-kick, is not in the least surprising in my view. Although it could be considered a step down from his earlier alliance. And as I have also noted in the past, to my mind, there is very little difference between Mann and the real deniers at whose knees he might well have studied – not the least of whom is David <I see you, I sue you> Irving.

  22. If the list of “participants” is accurate, then it’s going to cause some hard feelings – No Gore, no McKibben, no Lew.

    If their argument is “we only wanted scientists on the list”, then we could rightly ask “why should we be listening to all these others, then?”

  23. Pachygrapsus asks, “Every time I see the “97%” number I have to wonder, if you asked 100 parapsychologists if they believe in psychic phenomena wouldn’t you get a similar consensus?”


    Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. A close look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA 1998 v 279, pages 1005 to 1010.

  24. John Christy has made an appearance (I think), yet doesn’t say anything. Who will be the other two skeptics = make up the 3%ters??

    I’m going for Lindzen, and Spencer.

  25. Thank you so much for your post ilmastotiede , we should ALL keep this list and their declarations for the future. They’ve now doubled down on this stupidity and should be held accountable for the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted and needless deaths they’ve caused through redirecting money for aid to other countries for the poor populist starving from malnutrition/child mortality(2 million a year, one every 15 seconds), our OWN health care(cancer, diabetes, you fukin name it) .. 1 BILLION a day wasted… 1 BILLION A DAY !!! Can you imagine what good could be done in the world with that kind of money? You could educate and feed the world !

    This is a list of shame and should be ridiculed and held accountable, they had their chance to be scientist doing REAL science but their so rapped up in their own egos and diatribe that it’s sickening. What other kind of science does this? Was it so hard to just say we don’t know? I’ve wasted so much time like a lot of us here running around the internet, almost 30 F-ing year with data showing how wrong they were, I was around for the 70’s ice age scare and I even believed in the global warming crap. All the same, lies and manipulation of data and now it’s so big I don’t know if it can be stopped, I’ve been here before and it just keeps going, you think this is the end but there is always more.
    I use to be pleasant and try to discus physics with AGW people, now I just laugh at them and beat them down with data. Most don’t even know the truth but believe. I had a experience with a climatologist who used to work for the military this weekend eating my breakfast at Burger king( of all places! hehe), I did two terms doing a IT audit for DND so I’ve had to deal with computer scientist, they don’t like to have their programing questioned for problems. But this climatologist was taken back by my response to him and came off dumb as a bag of hammers, he soon was calling EVERY weather event a sign of climate change even when I told him that there had been less.

    My point is, prepare yourself to confront these types, don’t cut them slack, most times they are just repeating the same old BS(bad science) and deserve a good laughing at. It pisses them off! :)

  26. LOL. the shorter version – here’s a graph of GISP2 ice – core data that shows Mann is wrong. Ooops – I’ve (well actually Easterbrook) messed up the time-axis, properly plotted it shows Greenland hasn’t been this warm for over 2,000 years (and Greenland is not the globe). Never mind – here’s Leohle (2007). Ooops! That was full of errors, but here’s Loehle (2008). What – you want me to add in the modern record? Nope, not doing that because it would prove Mann correct. But look over here, I found this chart showing that if we go back 140,000 years, NEARLY TO THE LAST INTERGLACIAL or this one OVER 1 MILLION YEARS AGO temperatures were warmer.

    So I am right and Mann was wrong. So there.

    Keep ’em coming Anthony. I love a good laugh. When did you give up on science? ROFL.

    PS – you wrongly credited the graph to Richard Alley. Here (again) is what he said about the validity of your attempt, he thinks you’re either stupid, misguided or misled.

    “First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). [..] So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response. ”

    How long before this chart re-appears? After all, you clearly got nuthin’ else.

  27. PJ Clarke,

    Apparently your argument is that past warming events were not at today’s levels. That is complete nonsense…

    …As is the rest of your rant.

  28. I am no fan of Mann, but he does say warming not temperatures. Warming, implying a rate of change in temperature.

Comments are closed.