Quote of the Week – climate fears in context


A dear friend sent me a note the other day that I thought was prescient, as it relates to the alarmism side of climate, where we see fear stories being propagated by the media on an almost daily basis. Many of the fears spread by climate alarmism pander to the base emotions of people.

So with permission, I repeat it here.

Fears are all subject to the climate, just sometimes it’s an emotional climate.

– A friend who remains anonymous


0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 31, 2014 12:25 pm

All fears are emotional, because fear is an emotion.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 1:07 pm

I’d argue that fear is an instinctive and useful survival mechanism first and an emotion second. Most of the “powerful” emotions are instinctive actions and responses in most animals and we are no exception. Playing on them (like the old “sex sells” meme) gets the message to bypass the thinking part of the brain and go right to the action part of the brain. All “good” manipulators know this and the Climateers are no exception. That’s what makes our job harder, it’s difficult for “the masses” to think logically when they’re running away from that imaginary sabre toothed climate disruption tiger.

Reply to  nielszoo
October 31, 2014 2:12 pm

…and running right into the jaws of the T-Rex.

Phil R
Reply to  nielszoo
October 31, 2014 7:51 pm

“I’d argue that fear is an instinctive and useful survival mechanism first …”
I’d argue that ’nuff said. If one didn’t survive (whatever the threat), then moot. If one did survive, then all the rest is phsychobabble.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  nielszoo
November 1, 2014 12:00 am

…and running right into the jaws of the Tyrannosaurus Climaticus WrecksUs.

Brian H
Reply to  nielszoo
November 3, 2014 2:04 am

Hard, jorge. T Rex was extinct millions of years before the sabre-tooth arose, and then also went extinct. Have trouble with time in your analogies?

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 1:33 pm

Emotions are generally good unless they become irrational. Likewise, fear is often a good thing unless it is an irrational fear of something you can do nothing about, like the climate. A world without fear is a world without caution, and a world without caution is a world where no one survives past childhood.

Phil R
Reply to  Louis
October 31, 2014 8:10 pm

“Likewise, fear is often a good thing unless it is an irrational fear of something you can do nothing about, like the climate. A world without fear is a world without caution, and a world without caution is a world where no one survives past childhood.”
First, I would tend to agree, except I don’t agree that fear is irrational if it is, “something you can do nothing about…” If you can’t do something about it, like a car running a red light before it hits you and you fear for your life, why is that irratioanl?
Second, I survived childhood, but I had a fear of earwigs. guessthat gave me an advantage.

anna v
Reply to  Louis
October 31, 2014 9:44 pm

They are called phobias, irrational fears, that have no survival value.

George Potts
Reply to  Louis
October 31, 2014 11:33 pm

Of all the many reasons for the world’s cooling or warming, the only one that man could possibly do anything about is the level of CO2. Ergo, it, by default, becomes the culprit.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 1:51 pm

Funny, I was just reading an interesting study related to this topic.
Games in the Arctic: applying game theory insights to Arctic challenges
Read More: http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/23357/html
In order to formalize a conflict as a game, an analyst must: (1) identify the players; (2) identify what the players can do to affect the outcome, that is, their strategies; and (3) identify the payoffs to each player for the different outcomes. Once the conflict is formalized as a game using the steps above, the game can be solved.
“Climate fears in context” appears to relate to tragedy of the commons where the individual simply ignores the fact that their actions make it harder for the group as a whole.
An attempt to avoid the problem of moral hazard may be the motivation for some.
IMO, alarmist depends on how one draws a distinction between the various strategies.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 2:32 pm

The term Alarmist implies an intentional strategy. Fear isn’t a strategy its a reaction. Fear mongering (baffle them with BS) is a strategy used by Alarmists to influence the uninformed. Its seems unfair to condemn the uninformed who are simply parroting Alarmist disinformation.
The terms used to define the various groups in the debate are an example of Alarmist BS.

Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 12:26 pm

I perceive a scale, and look forward to others commentary.
The “community” surrounding the topic of CC includes all types. Scientific to social to political.
My perceived scale is CAGW to AGW to {GW GC(global cooling)} (a scale within a scale). Does anyone else see something similar and is there a “middle ground” that can lead to conversation and discussion without acrimony? I’m posing this question on others sites and am quite interested in others perceptions.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 1:02 pm

AGW may exist. But if so, it is too small to measure. Proof: there are no measurements of AGW.
CAGW is complete nonsense.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 1:07 pm

Hi Db,
It’s seems to me that CC is the “common ground” with a reasonable amount of evidence towards the GW side. Would that thought be within your comfort zone? I’d appreciate your insight.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 1:34 pm

First, it is not “climate change”. That is a fabricated term that took the place of “global warming”, which in turn took the place of “runaway global warming and climate catastrophe”.
When one side is forced to climb down repeatedly, it is probably a good bet that their original claim was nonsense. And it was, as it turns out.
Therefore, “climate change” is not any kind of ‘common ground’. The climate always changes; always has, always will. So the term is completely meaningless pablum for the masses.
This is a science site. The internet’s best science site, in fact. So please try to confine your comments to things that can be quantified. “Climate change” cannot be.
If you want to draw a line, do it like this: if a scientific argument is being made, then post measurements. Because there is no verifiable science with out measurements.
Start by posting at least one (1) quantifiable, testable measurement showing the % of human-caused global warming, out of total global warming [≈0.7ºC]. What is the human part of that? Measurements, please.
What’s that you say? You have no measurements? Well then, you are just speculating. Aren’t you?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 1:48 pm

Yep. A science site: “A man who fears suffering is already suffering from what he fears.
Michel de Montaigne”
And:”When people cease to fear God, they soon become afraid of everything else!”
I see how you jumped all over them!
I see CC as common ground as it’s the one consistent with which everyone agrees. I’m sorry you don’t care for the fact that I used it.
So then, based on your comment you do not have evidence that climate change is/has ever/or will ever occur even thought historical records indicate differently. Interesting.
Once again, I speak with you in reasonable terms. Based on your response (evidence provided by you) then the answer to this:”is there a “middle ground” that can lead to conversation and discussion without acrimony?” is an emphatic “NO”. And “NO” is the sign of a closed mind! I read that somewhere.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 2:40 pm

Yes, Danny, this is a science site. The best science site, year after year. If you don’t like it, there may be others more to your liking. A religious blog, perhaps.
You write:
I see CC as common ground as it’s the one consistent with which everyone agrees.
Saying ‘everyone agrees’ is meaningless, much like most of your comments, which seem to me to be no more than trolling the threads because you enjoy the result. Everyone agrees that apple pie is good. So what? By itself that means nothing.
You say:
So then, based on your comment you do not have evidence that climate change is/has ever/or will ever occur even thought historical records indicate differently.
What?? Now you’re just babbling. How many times do skeptics have to tell you that the climate changes constantly, and naturally? And you certainly do not understand the meaning of “evidence”, or you would stop trying to sell your CAGW True Belief here. [Please, no more pretending that you are just trying to learn, or make up your mind, etc. We’re not stupid.]
Don’t waste your time trying to deny it. You have been provided with mountains of solid evidence showing that neither CO2 nor AGW is anything to be concerned about. In return, you have been asked repeatedly if you can provide even one measurement of AGW. But you can’t, therefore, CAGW is simply your True Belief. Exactly like a religion. It is your religion.
You ridiculed religion being referred to here by another poster. But make no mistake: you are every bit as religious as the most fervent Jehovah’s Witness, because you cannot provide a single measurement to support your Belief — and you reject out of hand any other explanation because it contradicts your own religion. Sad, really. But you’re not the only one.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 3:23 pm

But wait! Your words:”First, it is not “climate change”. That is a fabricated term that took the place of “global warming” and then “How many times do skeptics have to tell you that the climate changes constantly, and naturally?”
Which is it? Not CC or naturally occurring CC? Outstanding science once again. Or, are those opinions best suited for a “religious blog”.
Db, as you seem to believe (oops, that word) that you are “all seeing” and “all knowing” maybe it’s not me who is on the wrong site.
I choose to continue to ask, learn, post and absorb. This seemed as appropriate as any of a place to pose a perception, and others who are reasonable and open minded have responded.
Oh, and I didn’t ridicule religion. I copied a post as counter to your words that this is a “science site”. Those words were provided from Philip Foster. I’m not sure what crawled up your nose but you really ought to seek help for it.
My latest and best choice is to have no further discourse with you as you are the most defensive person on any site I’ve visited and offer no value to me and to others based on some other responses to you.
Have a great day!

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 2:51 pm

This site is an opinion blog. It is not a “science” site.

A “science” site would be objective, and would not favor one point of view (skeptic) over another.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  juan
October 31, 2014 4:50 pm

Don’t let folks here dissuade you. With the exception of a few, some of whom you’ve interacted with, I have found many/most to be critical thinkers. Some have shown human kindness to those such as myself that lack the scientific background, and shared, taught, and offered resources from which one can learn.
As with any public format, “there’s one in every crowd” that feel some need to belittle, but even some of those offer valuable information. Just ignore the snide commentary, look for the evidence and research, and make your own decisions.
There is much here to be shared and much from which to learn.
Best regards,

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 2:54 pm


Proof: there are no measurements of AGW.

I think the closest thing they have for “measurements” of AGW are ‘projections’ from the various climate models, which estimate future global temperatures by extrapolating the past climatology, and then adding a quantified estimate of the AGW “contribution”.
So by comparing this quantified AGW climate with “reality” they can claim that they have indeed “measured” the AGW contribution to GW, which the following chart shows is very close to zero”

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 2:59 pm

juan says:
This site is an opinion blog. It is not a “science” site.
That’s just your opinion. ☺
In addition to science, this is also ‘the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change’.
Plenty of scientists here, probably more than at any other single site. Sorry yours didn’t make the cut.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 3:31 pm

Juan writes “A “science” site would be objective, and would not favor one point of view (skeptic) over another.”
This is a big failure in understanding of what scepticism actually is. A sceptical point of view favours neither “side”. A sceptic looks at a result, lets say a paper describing sensitivity, and for example says I dont believe that result is correct because I can see the measurement they’re basing it on wasn’t taken over sufficient time or wasn’t representative spatially or ignores or oversimplifies some other related aspect …or any number of reasons to be sceptical.
This blog is seen to have a “side” because it tends to focus on papers that support AGW but it also is sceptical about papers that dont support AGW. You wont find too many supporters of “climate varies cyclically with some astronomical body” theories around here. Not to say they’re definitely 100% undeniably wrong, its just they they seem very unlikely to be right. They’re something to be highly sceptical of…

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 3:34 pm

@Danny Thomas:
I stand by what I wrote because it is logically consistent. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs assitance.
I do not ask you to comment on my posts. Ignore them. But good luck getting me to not comment when I see nonsense, or when I see something you wrote that needs clarification. You may think I’m commenting to you, but I am often just setting the record straight.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 3:45 pm

No, but you do beg for a response.
I LOVE the “keeping the record straight” part right after saying “”First, it is not “climate change”. That is a fabricated term that took the place of “global warming” and then “How many times do skeptics have to tell you that the climate changes constantly, and naturally?”
You sir, are laughable! But not very bright!

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 3:57 pm

This site favors the anti-AGW point of view.
For example, when a paper is published, the proprietor of this site will use the word “CLAIM” in the title of his post when the results of the research support the AGW premiss. When a paper supports the anti-AGW point of view, the word “CLAIM” is absent.
To say this site does is objective is ludicrous .

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 3:59 pm

” ‘the world’s most viewed site ”

Chevy sells more cars than Ferrari, but that doesn’t make them better.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 4:08 pm

This site does focus on science’s inability to actually demonstrate the anthropogenic portion of any observed warming. And whether the measurements of warming are accurate. And whether policy response to warming is appropriate. That’s true.
But this site is no less objective that say “Real Climate” or “Skeptical Science” and in fact I’d say its much more objective. There is much more scope for people to be sceptical of ANY result posted here but you wont find that on pro-AGW sites where you’ll find censorship of valid counter arguments. I know this for a fact because its happened to me many times.

4 eyes
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 5:14 pm

Danny and Juan are wrong to say this is not a science site. I have been following it for years and have learnt a lot from it. Many scientists and engineers contribute here. Most of the regular visitors are sceptics because there is an absence of proof of CAGW and they want evidence.
In a nutshell we have a simple equation that has not been solved.
Let a = anthropogenically induced temperature change in degrees
Let b = the background natural temperature change in degrees
For simplicity let’s say the actual temperature change (rise) has been 1 degree
i.e. a + b = 1
This equation has no solution unless you know either a or b.
When I have been convinced that we have a strong handle on b then I’ll accept the calculated value of a. Then depending on the magnitude of a I’ll form an opinion on whether we have a problem. Please post evidence of CAGW and all the sceptics will join you in tackling the problem.
If somehow or another someone can prove a = 2 (like some people want it to be) then b = -1 which means there is natural cooling lurking in the background.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  4 eyes
October 31, 2014 5:29 pm

Uh, 4.
Where did I say it’s not a scientific site?

Danny Thomas
Reply to  4 eyes
October 31, 2014 5:35 pm

Oh, I see where you got that and I beg your pardon. Db, being his usual obstinate self, was saying it’s a scientific site while we’re in the middle of anything but a scientific topic. I quoted two posts that were not anything but philosophical to point out his inaccuracy.
My intent was to say This Topic is Not scientific, not this site. For that I do humbly apologize as my experience is that at high volume of the posts are scientific, a bit lower amount are political, and some are social with a bit of humor.
Hope this clarifies.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 6:55 pm

Danny Thomas has descended to this level of what he considers scientific discourse:
You sir, are laughable! But not very bright!
Thanx, Danny. That tells me you have totally run out of any arguments.
juan says:
Chevy sells more cars than Ferrari, but that doesn’t make them better.

A “science” site would be objective, and would not favor one point of view (skeptic) over another.

juan, you’re the kinda guy who would sit in a physics class, and when you hear someone tell a joke you would say, “That isn’t science!” There is plenty of good science here, if you only open your mind.
For both of you alarmist folks: give us one measurement of AGW. Just one will do.
I have stated that I think AGW exists for many years now. But AGW doesn’t raise temperatures enough to even measure the change, and therefore no more tax money should be wasted on it.
But prove me wrong, if you can. Post a measurement of AGW. If it is verifiable, you will change my mind. Until then, I am a skeptic.
Also, this site is not anti-AGW. It is anti-catastrophic AGW [CAGW]. I’ve said many times here that I think AGW exists. The problem is there are no measurements of AGW. That means that the effect of AGW must be very, very tiny. And it it’s so minuscule, we should not be wasting any more time, energy or money on it. AGW is completely inconsequential. Let’s MovOn to something that matters.

John West
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 2:47 pm

It seems to me that there is indeed a scale that is very wide-ranging and in places complex, as you say scales within scales.
If I were to attempt a classification system I’d start with:
The Disbelievers: Those that don’t accept any of the mainstream climate science view. Subsets include The Sky Dragon Slayers (don’t accept GHE) and those that don’t believe the planet has warmed at all.
The Lukewarmers: Those that don’t accept the catastrophic projections associated with AGW although they do accept AGW theory to various degrees. Subsets would include those that believe man’s contribution to GW is significant to dominant.
The Alarmists: Those that accept the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme including the “approved” remedies. Subsets would include those that would characterize the warming as potentially dangerous and invoke the precautionary principle to those hyper alarmists who see the end of the world right around the corner.
The Skeptics: Those that don’t accept the catastrophic projections associated with AGW although they do accept AGW theory to various degrees. Subsets would include those that believe man’s contribution to GW is negligible to barely noticeable (i.e.: Low climate sensitivity). These subsets could be further divided into those that tend to believe in cycles be it from cosmic rays, various internal cycles like ENSO, or solar influence. Another subdivision might include the various degrees in which the temperature record is accepted.
The Heretics: Those that accept the mainstream science with respect to the GHE (etc.) but don’t except the “forcing” view of mainstream climate science.
The Policy Dissidents: Those that accept CAGW but don’t agree with the mainstream proscribed solutions. Subsets include those that prefer adaptation over mitigation and those that support geo-engineering solutions.
Middle ground is hard to come by even though some individuals (like myself) can identify with multiple subsets. In my experience the squabbling between even close subsets can be rather fierce. One would think advancing nuclear power would be common ground many of the groups could support but that coalition hasn’t materialized to my knowledge.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  John West
October 31, 2014 3:02 pm

Thank you for the perspective. This is exactly the kind of input I’d hoped to receive. My plan is to take the inputs from all sites on which I’ve posted and see if “consensus” can be changed from a “dirty word”.

Reply to  John West
October 31, 2014 4:39 pm

That’s a good answer. I doubt any of us has absolutely identical views. I thought Danny’s question a good one.

Reply to  John West
October 31, 2014 6:36 pm

Sure, we can change the word “consensus” to something acceptable. Just note that the true and accurate consensus is entirely on the side of scientific skeptics: the 32,000 OISM co-signers far outnumber all the climate alarmist scientists ever found in the history of the world.
Skeptics are the true ‘consensus’. So it isn’t a dirty word, it has just been misused.

Reply to  John West
November 1, 2014 1:28 am

Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, peaceful assembly and association prevail in the civilized western democracies. Would you John agree that a third party is unnecessary in the process.

stan stendera
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 5:27 pm

Moderators, I am very suspicious “Danny Thomas ” is actually David Appell.’ who has a history of thread manipulation at WUWT. I have held my nose and gone to his web site to fnd the style of writing is very similar. Holding my nose was not enough; maybe a gas mask would have been sufficient.
[Noted. .mod]

Danny Thomas
Reply to  stan stendera
October 31, 2014 5:37 pm

LOL! Conspiracy theory much?
I assure you I’m non other than who I say I am. Here’s my drivers licence to prove it!
[No DL attached though. 8<) .mod]

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 7:32 pm

Oh. I get it! Mods in on it too! ;).
Db says, that Danny Thomas (if that’s who he really is) is such a bad scientist.
Mod says, how bad?
Db says, he can’t even prove his own ID!
[Ask not for whom the mods toil, lest they toll for you … .mod]

Reply to  Danny Thomas
November 1, 2014 2:16 am

No one is questioning my identity, so I have nothing to prove. I know AW pretty well. We’ve met many a time, most recently at the Heartland Climate Conference. We’re pictured together in a group, in a former article here. I use my real name. I don’t post under other screen names, although I used a nickname when I first started commenting.
I am not really questioning that you are DT [although I’m not sure]. But you sound just like a couple of concern trolls who have posted here under various fake names. I’m not the only one who noticed the similarity.
Your inability to take facts at face value and arrive at the logical and inescapable conclusion is not only frustrating, it seems to be a deliberate tactic to generate comments. Too much of the wrong kind of ego there, IMHO.
Most folks look at the plain fact that there are no measuremnets of AGW and never have been, and conclude that it can’t be significant. Not you. You always seem to be hoping to find evidence that just isn’t there.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  dbstealey
November 1, 2014 7:27 am

Come on. Can you not see in your own words “most folks”. As many have stated science is science. If there’s no irrefutable evidence (and some refute based on “most folks”) then why is it a waste of time and effort to find a starting point (common ground). You are at the end of your evaluation, I’m an much nearer the beginning.
I face facts quite well, but NO ONE (not you or me or anyone else) can absorb all the data related to the topic of CC especially while having to cut through all of the non science (sorry, this site is not science exclusive) related philosophy, politics and rhetoric. So please stop trying to force your views on me. I will form my own based on evidence. I will, however, appreciate your guidance. As I’ve said before others have indicated they value your input.
You have formed a complete misimpression about me. I’ve told you that, and you are unwilling to move off of that position. Short of you and I getting together at the pub, what can I do to help you reopen your mind? Sir, it’s you that have closed off based on assumption. And trying to force me to say/do something is not the right approach. Bullying will not work, and I will not go away sans a request from A. Watts.
I’m here to learn, have spoken respectfully to you (until you jabbed at me) and off we went again. Now I can continue reasonably, but I ask sir, can you?

Reply to  stan stendera
October 31, 2014 6:39 pm

I share your suspicion. I don’t think DT is who he claims he is.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he is just a guy who cannot be educated, no matter how much of an effort folks make.

Richard M
Reply to  stan stendera
October 31, 2014 7:26 pm

Who cares who he is. The funny thing is pretty much every one of the skeptics is really just seeking the truth. The truth IS the common ground. I have my own “preferred” ideas but I am not married to them. If any evidence arises that gives another explanation more solid grounding I would move to it in a heartbeat.
So, what exactly is Danny Thomas trying to accomplish? Trying to find some kind of “common ground” in views is a fool’s game. The only “common ground” worth finding is the truth, and that is what this site is trying to accomplish. Trying to find some esoteric compromise is just plain silly.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Richard M
October 31, 2014 7:30 pm

What I am trying to accomplish? Reasonable communication. It’s near impossible on “the other side” and with many it’s difficult here too.
But it’s my task to [bear]. And I chose to continue to try. Thank you.
Your truth is your truth, and is of no more or less value than mine. Any other impression is just a fools game.
[Unless you to reveal your burden to all, which may also be true. .mod]

Steve Reddish
Reply to  stan stendera
October 31, 2014 8:10 pm

@ Danny Thomas:
You say “…is there a “middle ground” that can lead to conversation and discussion without acrimony?” and similar things as if you are trying to get us all to come to a compromise of opinion on whether “CC” is due to CO2 emissions. One side says civilization will fall within 85 years due to CO2 emissions so let’s turn down the power now, even if many freeze or starve. The other side says There is no evidence that CO2 will cause any harm whatsoever, and plenty that warming improves the climate and CO2 benefits the biosphere. The truth of the matter is determined by physical facts, not popular opinion. The only way for a true consensus is when those who are wrong realize their error. If you wish everyone to come to a middle ground – say that CO2 emissions are only going to cause a little warming and a few more storms, all you have to do is present evidence that bears that out. Most readers of this site are looking for evidence that sheds light on the question. That is what dbstealey proposed you should do in prior threads, and in this one. Each time, “acrimony” came from you as a reply to that suggestion.
As a reader of this forum, I do not see an honest effort on your part to foster civil dialogue on this issue.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Steve Reddish
November 1, 2014 7:02 am

Dear Steve,
I will be more than happy to accept your chastisement if you will do me a favor. Where, from my words (not superimposed on me) did I say that I thought CO2 was a cause of GW, or that I fear it? Db tried to put words in my mouth and apparently you and others have picked up on that.
My “relationship” with Db evolved then devolved due to HIS insistence that he can read my mind. I asked him the same question that I’m asking of you above. When folks spew at me, I spew back. I’ll admit it’s a bad habit. But when folks treat me reasonably, I return the favor.
Since you’re referring back to previous discussion, I’ll ask that you note how I spoke with Db respectably here and how he began digging at me like the schoolyard bully that he thinks he is. Later, when I posted about him in speaking to Juan, did I not show respect there? Even the little joke with the mod showed Zero disrespect.
I get that you all have a relationship (quite cozy) here and that I’m an outsider. But I’m here to learn and will remain only subject to the discretion of A. Watts. So, you guys can accept me as the mistrusted unknown that I am, or not. I can play and/or learn.
If you all will treat me well and ask questions, I’m happy to answer respectably to the best of my less than scientific mind. NO WHERE did it say that I had to be a scientist to post. Respect is earned, so if it’s not come some particular direction there’s good reason. I can share the names of several others that I am fostering good rapport with, so no matter how many try to ‘gang up’ on me I’ll not be chased off.
So challenge to the entire forum, I’ll commit to doing all I can to reduce the acrimony. Will you? This was the point of my initial post here. If we all remove the acrimony we can have good conversation.

Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 12:18 am

Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 at 7:30 pm
”What I am trying to accomplish? Reasonable communication.”
no, what you are trying to achieve is a “soft landing” for the hoax. That will not be happening.
Just accept it, soon you will be moving from “everyone agrees on” to “but, but, but everyone believed.” But the Internet records otherwise. Global warming (no, you can’t change the name) was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet. Those that didn’t believe passed.
It’s very simple, either radiative gases reduce the atmosphere’s ability to cool the oceans or they increase it. Black or white, right or wrong. Sure, many fools on both sceptic and believer sides are trying for the “warming but less than we thought” soft landing. But it can’t work. A political consensus cannot trump physical reality. A “science communicator” putting effort into manufacturing such a consensus would be wasting their time.
Danny, go back and look at the foundation of the AGW hoax. Surface without atmosphere would be at 255K for 240 w/m2? That foundation claim is in error by around 80C for 71% of this ocean planet’s surface! No amount of “reasonable communication” is ever going to fix that fist-biter 😉

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Konrad.
November 1, 2014 7:16 am

You assume that I’m some AGW/CAGW guy. So please prove that I (Me, Danny) am that guy.
A few notes, I didn’t change CC to GW. If you’ll look at the initial post on this thread you’ll see that I stated that there appeared to be a scale of GW to GC (cooling) with CC being the common thread. I’ll agree that my use of the term “everyone” is a poor choice as it’s an absolute.
It seems to me, based on reading on this site, that there is not even agreement (proof) that the next phase in climate change is warming. Some say cooling.
The only reason for my comment about the scale is this entire CC topic has loads of political components (on both sides) and if/when it’s about only politics conversation tends to wind up as gum flapping. So much here on this “scientific site” involves philosophy and politics and I note a complete lack of refocusing folks that post along those lines and yet much energy is being posted here and AT me (not communicated with me) to try to get me to admit I’m something I’m not.
So my perception is finding some sort of common ground (sans politics) would be a huge step in improving communication from everyone. And based on your post I think you’ll agree. As I’m a newbie, I can look at things with “fresh eyes” that you guys who’ve been here (and I’m assuming here) may no longer see.
I’ve said it before and until I’m accepted here feel I must repeat. The reason I’m here is to seek the other side of the discussion as I’ve mostly gotten CAGW/AGW and for the most part I don’t buy it. There are things yet for me to learn about, but I’m willing.

stan stendera
Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 4:25 am

Did you know “Danny Boy” was/is a funeral dirge. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. After your outburst in reply to my comment I am more then ever convinced you are an, admittedly, clever troll. Trolls live and die under bridges. Why don’t you find a bridge and leave WUWT alone. Given what the warmists have done (see climate gate) I put nothing past them including you as a troll. Let me say it very clearly: YOU ARE A TROLL. [trimmed]

Danny Thomas
Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 7:31 am

Science site stan. Gotta ask you to Prove it!
I’d venture a guess that your assumptions are based on, well, assumptions.
Can we get off this, please? It’s got to be boring/frustrating for others interested in the topic.

stan stendera
Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 4:41 am

WUWT is very clever at tracing the origin of their comments. I’ll bet they are on your case hard.
As for identity I can only say the illustrious Charles the moderator was once under attack from some government agency and I came out from my former nom de internet of taxistan. I was thinking to support Charles, but guess what happened. I liberated myself. I am largely unafraid of commenting under my own name in a number of blogs across the world. Thank you Charles the moderator. Why don’t you, Danny Thomas, liberate yourself and comment under your real name? What are you afraid of? [trimmed. .mod].

Danny Thomas
Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 7:29 am

I will be happy to reply once Db calls you for being Unscientific.

stan stendera
Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 4:43 am

Sorry to put you hard working “guys” to so much work but “Danny Thomas” really chaps my sweet ass.

stan stendera
Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 4:47 am

I’ll bet dollars to donut I’m not the only one chapped by “Danny Thomas”. And I’ll make the donuts. PS: I can cook.

Reply to  stan stendera
November 1, 2014 9:06 am

Danny Thomas
October 31, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Your truth is your truth, and is of no more or less value than mine. Any other impression is just a fools game.

Revealed as a post-modern relativist. Nothing is right or wrong — it’s all just equally-valid viewpoints.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  beng
November 1, 2014 11:43 am

Not original to me, but a good representation of why I posted the “scale” and made the comment about seeking “common ground”. This comes from a link in a link from JC’s site:http://theenergycollective.com/sierenernst/2018221/climate-movement-throwing-conservatives-under-bus (hope it’s okay to post a link).
“I give you this:
Put a conservative in a room with a poll and ask him whether he supports cleaner air. Why of course he does! More efficient energy use? Sure! More solar energy? Yes, please! People like cleaner, more, and better, generally speaking.
Now imagine that conservative in his living room, watching Fox or listening to talk radio. Is he hearing about cleaner air? No, he’s hearing about job-killing regulations, which he hates. Is he hearing about efficiency savings? No, he’s hearing about Big Government coming to take his lightbulbs, and he hates that. Is he hearing about the recent flourishing of solar power? No, he’s hearing about Solyndra, about government boondoggles and giveaways. He hates those.”
I counted up 7 paragraphs from the bottom.
If the conversation is framed well, reasonable, and not politically pointed. I truly “believe” progress can be made.
I agree with the perspective that the left is demonizing the right and it’s human nature for the right to fight back. Throwing darts from both sided, does no one any good so I can only ask for forgiveness in my quest to moderate the tone.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  stan stendera
November 2, 2014 11:05 am

Danny Thomas,
You say “Where, from my words (not superimposed on me) did I say that I thought CO2 was a cause of GW, or that I fear it?”
Here: “…is there a “middle ground” that can lead to conversation and discussion without acrimony?”
Since the conversation you refer to varies from no fear that CO2 causes GW, to extreme fear that CO2 causes GW, The middle ground that you propose would logically be medium fear that CO2 causes GW.
So I agreed with DB that you should provide evidence for that position if you wanted people to adopt it, not merely harangue those who do not.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Stevan Reddish
November 2, 2014 12:11 pm

Uh, that’s not very good science.
When I was talking of “middle ground” I was discussing a “perceived” scale on which folks fall. That scale goes from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming to Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change. Within Climate Change there is a subset scale of From Global warming to Global Cooling.
After visiting here, JC, Real Science, talking with my CAGW buddy, main stream media (poor source) etc. My perception is that the “common ground” is somewhere around the Global warming area. And I’d appreciate perceptions of others, and that includes you.
I personally, cannot find evidence that CO2 at current levels, is a direct cause of global warming. But I must say that I’m not a scientist. I’ve been directed to National Academy of Science and there I find a firm “maybe”. I’ve looked at way to many other sources to detail here. If you’ve got one, I’d love a link. But as for me, and I know not how to be more clear, I CANNOT find it!
I keep hearing how science oriented this site is, and then the evidence I see from you and from Db is that assumptions are the order of the day and a typical method of trying to provoke a response that you want.
So, can we move past your assumption and your support of Db’s assumption?
I’m not trying to influence anyone about Climate Change. I’d LOVE to be able to influence folks to have a decent reasonable conversation. I’ve had some here, and elsewhere, but some has been quite poor.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Stevan Reddish
November 2, 2014 7:10 pm

I’ve posted this on two other sites. So you and others can see exactly where I stand. And I would appreciate reasonable responses (sans politics). Setting myself up for ridicule and I get that so can only ask that you please refrain. I know not how else to prove I’m really in this for the knowledge and education.
Begins here:
“Thank you for your response. I want to preface my comments with letting you know I’ve spent a few days on Watts and taken a firm beating (would be happy to provide a link or two if that would add to my credibility). I kinda expect the same to happen here because folks tend to let emotions take over.
So I’ll ask that you and others here bear with me as I’m just beginning my journey towards an understanding of Climate Change and I have to start with a basic question that I can’t get a concrete answer for. Why is CO2 such a “bad guy”? My seriously AGW buddy (and I can provide his website, he’s given permission) said (para mine) I don’t know, go to the National Academy of Science. I’ve gone there and there is some evidence, but no definitive conclusion. I’ve gone to IPCC and get the same. Google, same. Watt (of course it’s NOT AT ALL a bad guy there–as if breathing on Venus would be easy for us humans LOL.). JC, eh, maybe, maybe not. I can’t for the life of me understand how if that is unsettled IPCC can say we have to cut it to the extent proposed. I can see it’s can be seen as pollutive at some level, but I don’t see it at today’s level. I’ve been to the NOAA Mauna Loa site to run the numbers for myself. Yes, it’s increasing, and that increase has increased in the past decade. But if it’s such a known “bad guy” why is it still debated?
So many out there have already made determinations, on both sides. It’s thick with politics. But seemingly there is so much riding on such a basic question that I’m frankly confused.
I don’t wanna stir things up, I’m no troll. There is no place for those of us beginning this quest. There is AGW, and “absolutely not” sides. There are some in what I perceive as “the middle” (accepting Global warming is occurring based on evidence, but unclear if cause is natural or man caused or maybe even a bit of both). I’m in that middle.
My buddy has provided some stuff but he can’t seem to see that his politics muddies the picture. But to his credit, he’s got me researching.
I see there is psychology of Global Warming communication and that bothers me as I’m not aware of something like that for say, chemistry or physics. I come from a sales background and selling an intangible requires some psychology. This should be tangible and it bothers me that it’s not.
And I’m not understanding why There’s a Watts side, and Judith Curry side and a Real Science side. But since there is, why aren’t folks here over there and folks there over here?
In other words, as you say it seems there is no “company line” on the “skeptical side” (I can’t use denier because my perception is very few deny global warming but do deny causes). But there are reasonable discussions (as well as unreasonable attacks) of some of the evidence for AGW.
Short comment is the science seems far from settled. Am I missing something (I’m sure I’m missing A LOT)?
Reminder, I’m just beginning developing my understanding. It’s a tough ask, but can you or others approach this with me from that perspective. I’m cringing by hitting the submit button.
Oh, and if it’s inappropriately posted please let me know.
Thanks in advance.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
November 1, 2014 4:46 am

I think the evidence clearly shows, as this link once again demonstrates http://newclimateeconomy.report/ ,that CAGW is being used as the reason to shift to a governmentally planned economy and society that is supposedly about meeting everyone’s needs a la Marx’s dream for a Human Development Society once a certain stage of technology is created through capitalism’s innovation. Since we would not voluntarily consent to impoverishment for most of us, it gets sold as a crisis. Plus, my specialty education, is the way to create the new desired Mindset and more communitarian values.
The full report at that link is 308 pages. Do not miss that Lord Stern chaired or that the head of the OECD is there. The heads of Unilever, Swiss Re, the Bank of America, and the mayor of Houston. I guess she took time out from harassing pastors. The presence of the Stockholm Institute is important as that is where the global initiatives the Belmont Challenge that the US created in 2009 is housed. It’s also where Future Earth Alliance is, which brings in all the UN entities as well.
That’s a very important Blueprint that does not care what the temps are. It’s about joining economic and political power and using coercion.

Reply to  Danny Thomas
November 1, 2014 6:17 am

Danny, the acronyms should be identified or footnoted. As you know I switch from language to language unconsciously and the acronyms change meaning. This can be a real hassle when the bureaucracy calls on the phone and wants references about engineers using acronyms. One time I got so confused I thought a person looking for Ninja Turtles was trying to find a real EA.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 1, 2014 7:36 am

Noted, and thank you.
Can you share where the Owner’s manual is? LOL. I obviously do not know.
Would you care to offer any thoughts on the scale or a quest for “common ground”. I’ve appreciated your commentary before and can’t help but expect others would also.

October 31, 2014 12:31 pm

Speaking of fear the CAGW crowd are now OPENLY doing fiction again!!
“Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, is attracting wide notice these days for a work of science fiction called “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future,” that takes the point of view of a historian in 2393 explaining how “the Great Collapse of 2093” occurred. “Without spoiling the story,” Oreskes said in an interview, “I can tell you that a lot of what happens — floods, droughts, mass migrations, the end of humanity in Africa and Australia — is the result of inaction to very clear warnings” about climate change caused by humans.”
They are now trying to SCARE people about a fictional collapse in 2093. DESPERATION in spades.

Reply to  TRM
October 31, 2014 2:03 pm

I think Naomi should start out reading 1984.
Then she’d learn what we’re worried about.

Gunga Din
Reply to  TRM
October 31, 2014 2:58 pm

“Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, is attracting wide notice these days for a work of science fiction called “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future,” that takes the point of view of a historian in 2393 explaining how “the Great Collapse of 2093″ occurred. “Without spoiling the story,” Oreskes said in an interview, “I can tell you that a lot of what happens — floods, droughts, mass migrations, the end of humanity in Africa and Australia — is the result of inaction to very clear warnings” about climate change caused by humans.”
They are now trying to SCARE people about a fictional collapse in 2093. DESPERATION in spades.


Reply to  Gunga Din
October 31, 2014 3:40 pm

Gunga Din on October 31, 2014 at 2:58 pm
– – – – – – –
Gunga Din,
I thought for a minute that that green person was a caricature that parodies Linda Ellis who has a long history of suing people who link to or use the content on the blog she hosts or who talk about her. I ran across the strange case of Linda Ellis when it was discussed at Lucia’s blog ‘Lucia’s The Blackboard’

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 31, 2014 3:41 pm

Hey. It’s Halloween and she’s “green”.

Reply to  Gunga Din
October 31, 2014 3:47 pm

Yes, it is . . . and a Happy Halloween to you Gunga Din.

Reply to  Gunga Din
October 31, 2014 3:54 pm

Gunga Din,
“You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!”
John Rudyard Kipling

Reply to  TRM
October 31, 2014 8:19 pm

No doubt the probability of a natural or man-made global calamity of some sort by 2093 is nonzero, but most of the people to suffer that have yet to be born.

October 31, 2014 12:33 pm

I am a very poor climate skeptic, because I can’t even convince my wife. She was an elementary school teacher for 35 years and became so steeped in the alarmist myths and misinformation that re-educating her at this point is like trying to drain the ocean with a soda straw. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you and the others do. As long as intellectually conscientious passion can not be snuffed out, there is hope that truth may survive this era of Official Dogma darkness.

Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 12:46 pm

A good tactic for for people who are too indoctrinated to change: just work on convincing them that it is all hopeless, that there is nothing they can do that will change anything, that there is nothing anyone can do that will change anything. That’s a pretty easy case to make, since you don’t have to contradict much of their position, just emphasize how hopeless it all is. Every time a potential “solution” is mentioned, blow holes in it until it is too ridiculous to be contemplated. The best part is that you don’t have to come up with any “solutions’ of your own – just continually beat the drum of despair and hopelessness, no matter what we do.
Most people hate to constantly butt their heads against a hopeless situation, and after a while will correctly conclude that it is an endlessly depressing topic, and won’t want to have much to do with it. And after that they’ll ignore most mentions of it and just spend their time and energy on different things.
I don’t envision any future where we “convince” people who are warmists now that they were wrong – what I do see is a day when all of them hate the topic and refuse to talk about or even hear about it anymore, because it makes them feel horrible.
And on that day, we will have won. So I do everything I can when I talk to one of them to bring that day closer.

Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 12:57 pm

Michael Cook,
If you can’t convince someone, you can at least have some fun. Every time there’s a comment or a story about weather or temperature, shout “Global warming!!” Then laugh.
Sometimes ridicule works when everything else fails.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2014 2:57 pm

Yes, but be careful.
A few years ago scientists were killed in South America observing a volcano when it unexpectedly erupted. I had a professional acquaintance to whom I quipped as I sort of jab when we were reading about it: “Damn that Ronald Reagan!” He had been out of office for quite a while at the time. He looked at me and then nodded, totally seriously, and said: “Yeh. If he hadn’t cut the USGS, there could have been better monitors on that volcano.”

Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 1:08 pm

I always ask them a simple question. How long with flat or falling temperatures and rising CO2 before you admit that CO2 does not control the climate? Point out that all the major data sets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for 14 to 18 years.
If they are willing to read have them read Dr Brown’s article about climate science and models
Just ask them their opinion about it.

Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 1:12 pm

Try an experiment. Tell your wife that you are interested in a timeshare investment in a nice little house on the beach. If she objects because it will be underwater in a few years, there may be hope for her. That’s because she believes the “science” of global warming and could change her mind when that “science” fails to pan out. But if she doesn’t bring up concerns about rising sea levels, it probably means that she is convinced by the “politics” of global warming rather than the “science.” In that case, there is little hope to change her mind no matter how long the pause continues or how many global-warming predictions fail to materialize.

Reply to  Louis
October 31, 2014 2:21 pm

You first 🙂

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 1:16 pm

I have found people tend to latch onto parts of the dogma. Some people focus on the [bad] science. These people I find easy to convince. Others tend to focus on what to do about it, they want to save the world. I find these people utterly impossible. They do not want to hear a different opinion. Faith is a powerful thing but it is also morally indifferent. It is a sword and shield that can be used to defend the weak or subjugate them.

Reply to  Joseph Murphy
October 31, 2014 8:08 pm

The second kind of people that you describe are the ones interested on politics and use “science” as an excuse to impose their views.

Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 1:56 pm

I find that people want a simple answer. After years of trying, I settled on Willis’s story about the daily thunderstorms in the equatorial region. I take it in steps. I tell them of Willis’s heading for the bar while the 5 pm thunderstorms do their business, only to clear up by 8 pm. Then comes the thought experiment.
All of us have taken airplanes and seen thunderstorms way up beyond where we fly. They can visualize that.
Then a simple visualization of the sun evaporating water off of a wet concrete driveway. We all have seen how quick that is. That feeds upwards as the warm moist air rises.
Then the visualization of moist air carrying lots of heat. We all have been in a steamy steam bath, and know that it heats you more than a dry sauna.
We all have been drenched in a thunderstorm, as that moisture rises to above where the airplanes fly, then condenses, leaving the dry air warmer than it would otherwise be at that height. Sometimes if it rises high enough, it comes down as ice, as hailstones.
Now multiply that thunderstorm by tens of thousands daily.
Those thunderstorms take heat above the CO2 layer. Most of the CO2 is lower down. You need not even explain that it is more dense lower down.
Once people then visualize this, they can then see that our earthly “greenhouse” is largely below, and that those thunderheads stick up through that CO2 blanket.
Then they get it. The world has holes in its greenhouse, just like open windows on a real greenhouse.
Thus we humans add CO2 all right, but it has little effect. Maybe 0.5 C or so. No big deal.
If they argue, ask them to visualize going into a greenhouse, and opening the windows, and then starting a heater. Ask them how much the greenhouse would heat up. Most will acknowledge that it would not be very much at all. The ask them then to visualize closing the windows, and feeling the difference.. Most will then agree that it is a good thing that the earth knows how to open its windows and let off excess heat. It is a comfort to understand that the earth is looking after us, that is how we come to be here after millions of years.
That has worked for most folks I meet. Forget the sciency stuff, that is for academics, and WUWT.
H/T to Willis.

Reply to  Ed_B
October 31, 2014 2:47 pm

Too complex

Reply to  Ed_B
October 31, 2014 3:37 pm

Yes, too complex. Then just say that the earth ventilates naturally by thunderstorms throwing up heat above the CO2 layer.

Reply to  Ed_B
October 31, 2014 8:27 pm

I think this could be made into a children’s book. Get them properly indoctrinated before they start hearing the CAGW stuff in school.

Reply to  Ed_B
November 1, 2014 7:43 am

@ Ed_B
October 31, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Hello Ed.
I like your try to explain how the climate, atmosphere or Earth for that matter, may be “responding” to the CO2 emissions.
In the basics of your point made I do not argue against, even that the technicality or the mechanism described is not quite convincing to me. But is a simple point to demostrate how things could still be different than the AGW “SCIENCE” and still make sense.
But my reply to you is simply on trying to show that to a degree you make some very similar mistakes as in the case of AGW.
While AGW to a degree makes a call for us humans to prioritize towards altruisem….like looking after the earth and saving the planet,…..you do “vest” some kinda of altruisem to the Earth itself by saying:
” It is a comfort to understand that the earth is looking after us”
In both cases there is a degree of “immaturity” that somehow makes us to be very special in our own consideration.
Also while AGW overestimates the CO2 emissions effect to a point that is so ridiculous to considere it as probable anymore, you do underestimate it still to a ridiculous point by saying:
“Thus we humans add CO2 all right, but it has little effect. Maybe 0.5 C or so. No big deal.”
0.5C is more than a big deal….and it demands that we humans better understand it.
Especially if the case is similar as described in your comment…..an energy loss from earth to the outside.
Maybe if you start looking at it from the point that the earth is not actually looking after us but only after itself, as always it has done for billions of years, maybe then you could consider what a big deal the 0.5C warming could be.
Anyway I like your basic point, but simply not able to appreciate the simple conclusions you jump at so easily, in the same way as the AGW “science” jumps with its conclusions.

Stevan Makarevich
Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 2:52 pm

” trying to drain the ocean with a soda straw”.
LOL – I like that!
My wife and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and she also tends to go by the only medium she gets her information from – television. So I think we’re kind of in the same boat.
What has helped my argument somewhat was a vacation we took in New Zealand – specifically, a tour through the Milford Sound, which used to be a glacier and is now a spectacular site. This helps me because it shows how the Earth has always changed regarding climate.
And in other cases where we disagree, it comes down to “do I want to have peace, or be right?”. Being in the latter part of my life, I choose peace (most of the time).

Reply to  Michael Cook
October 31, 2014 8:52 pm

Here’s what works for me.
(1) I point out the difference between science and politics. Most of what people hear on this issue has to do with politics and is a lie. (I am a mathematician and most of my friends are too so this already solves the issue)
(2) I am allowed to disagree with their political views.
If someone doesn’t see the first point then they are delusional and If they don’t see the second they are fanatics. If they agree on (1) and (2) then we can debate and the sentence “but climate scientist agree…” is counter with “The OPINIONS of climate scientist are irrelevant to the matter” and “THE SCIENCE says…” leads to “We are talking about politics not science. If you want to talk about science that’s fine. What does the science says?” If they get to this point is over because I KNOW THE SCIENCE. I even have a folder on my phone called GW with some papers -which includes MBH 1998- and the part of the IPCC where they say that there is no scientific evidence on extreme weather- Here’s another good one, different models of the IPCC are based on CONTRADICTORY hypothesis but all models are wrong so they have to put them together to reach a result which is still wrong but it seems they are closer to be right and then THIS is use to conclude we are the problem -and they are the solution- this is bizarre.
Based on my experience your wife will still worry about the plight of the planet but at least she’ll be clear that it’s her political view and not the absolute scientific truth with an absolute political answer.

Danny Thomas
Reply to  Beethoven
November 1, 2014 7:59 am

I wish there was a thumbs up/down icon so I didn’t have to add a mostly unnecessary post other than to say “well said”.

Reply to  Michael Cook
November 1, 2014 6:25 am

Michael, have your wife look up a simple figure I put up in a post I wrote “Are NASA employees color blind?” The figure shows how NASA displays world temperature maps using the wrong legend (they use a fake color palette) to make the public think temperatures are warmer than they really are. The post gives you sufficient information so you can reproduce what I did together with your wife.
Here is the link, if you want more information let me know.

October 31, 2014 12:57 pm

A man who fears suffering is already suffering from what he fears.
Michel de Montaigne

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 31, 2014 1:45 pm

On the other hand, a man who has absolutely no fear of suffering is a man who will not hesitate to take unnecessary risks and is therefore not long for this world. A moderate and reasonable fear of suffering is necessary for longevity, just as the ability to feel pain is necessary to teach us to avoid harm.

October 31, 2014 1:00 pm

Michael: I share your frustration as I am faced with the same situation with my wife and daughter who are intelligent people but have swallowed the alarmism story hook, line, sinker and fishing rod. Every time I ask to have a serious discussion with actual facts I lose them. The seas are rising, the climate is changing (I don’t refute this but I ask which way is it changing and why is it alarming?) and we are all doomed. Its gets to the point that I almost don’t bother sending them documents with facts or contradictory statements. If its in the MSM its true. I just keep plodding on hoping for a light bulb moment. But now that incandescent bulbs are banned, they start up that much more slowly.

October 31, 2014 1:02 pm

Emotions, like fear is precipitated by thought. THinking we are all going to either be baked or suffer at the hands of extreme weather events never before seen in the history of man, is the kind of thing that tends to provoke fear.
Fear has always been a useful tool for manipulating the masses. It has mixed success in individual cases. I have never had success in job interviews after telling the interviewer he was likely suffer extreme malady if he did not hire me.

Pedro, the CPA Guy
October 31, 2014 1:13 pm

The CC fear mongering reminds me of the goofiness surrounding the Year 2000 computer “disaster” that was going to happen. A neighbor college sociology professor (who else) actually convinced some folks to withdraw money from their banks because the computer systems would all fail.
No only that, the guy called a community meeting to set up plans for “sharing and caring” (his actual words) our collective misery. A lady neighbor who loves horses and had contacts with a local riding stable arranged to have several horses available for the group for emergency use. I kid you not.
A third fellow – a well educated chap asked me what I thought about it; I said the “disaster” ain’t gonna happen. So we left the meeting and went out for a beer at a local watering hole.
Seems like a suitable response to all the CC “fear”, too.
As an aside, the horsey lady neighbor was last seen handing out Obama literature at the local voting station in 2008, a few weeks before we moved to another state. What is it about those people?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Pedro, the CPA Guy
October 31, 2014 1:26 pm

I’ve never understood the Y2K scare, either. There must have been Trillions of lines of coding to be gone over and corrected, world-wide- and not ONE line was missed, anywhere?
I should add, my brother worked on that project for the State of Pennsylvania. A guy with a degree in nuclear physics (he never used it though). He didn’t see an issue either- but it paid well.

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 31, 2014 4:01 pm

“There must have been Trillions of lines of coding to be gone over and corrected, world-wide- and not ONE line was missed, anywhere?”
Systems fail all the time. And other subsystems detect the failure and shut the affected system down into a safe state. Bit difficult in airplanes, but you can’t have everything.
There actually were some Y2K fails; the Berlin fire brigade lost all computer dispatcher services and fire trucks were ordered to patrol the city and look out for fires themselves. In New Years eve, that’s the worst time of the year for firemen and several people did die that night in a home burning down.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 31, 2014 6:37 pm

I had a credit card that was rejected the next day. Could have been Y2K – or something else. The account was good.

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 31, 2014 8:32 pm

Wait until the y10K problem rears its ugly head in less than 8,000 years!

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 31, 2014 11:36 pm

And some countries such as Ethiopia and Romania could not afford working on the “problem” so didn’t.

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 1, 2014 6:37 am

We had a Y2K project and found flaws in the control systems for refineries, compressor plants, the telemetry systems used for oil field controls, and other software systems. In some of these cases it would have led to an emergency system shutdown condition. Once some of these systems go into full emergency shut down we need to figure out what is wrong before we restart. IF the reason is a code bug it can take a while to figure this out. Overall, I’m happy we spent the money to sort out the Y2K issue.
I don’t think the global warming scaremongering is similar. This is a lot more political, and it definitely costs a lot more money.

Reply to  Pedro, the CPA Guy
October 31, 2014 1:35 pm

The professor got his required 15 minutes of fame explaining “things” to you. Never let a pending “disaster” go to waste.

October 31, 2014 1:23 pm

I dont comment here often and just prefer to read and gain knowledge on this learning path i’m walking. Sometimes at a BBQ or a dinner or another social event of a kind, someone will comment of this topic and when asked about where they get their information, its, invariably, MSM.
I politely suggest to them that they look further to seek the truth and open their eyes up to the reality of ‘global warming’ and do more independent research. This, inevitably, leads to an emotional retort about being a denier and killer of this or that. Even the famed ‘95%’ argument I have torn to shreds with a gentleman one evening and I was accused of being a bully!
It is an emotional argument isn’t it? Shame that people cant take 5 minutes from their busy lives to critically examine the evidence and be honest about it. Thank you Anthony and others on this blog for keeping it real 🙂

Reply to  Craig
October 31, 2014 9:10 pm

If you have a smartphone you should download the 97% Cook et al. Next time you are in this situation ask people “What do 97% of scientists agree with?” and after they answer you mention the Cook et al. paper and show it to them in your phone and the fact that papers where divided into 7 categories with only one of them being what they consider consensus. If there are several people this will already make some of them go sceptic.
Do you agree that “Earth is warming and we have something to do with it? Great! me too…Now this doesn’t convince me that we need an international panel of bureaucrats to decide on our economy, our energy policy etc…Does it convince you? It didn’t convince Ivar Giaever either”

October 31, 2014 1:33 pm

When people cease to fear God, they soon become afraid of everything else!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Philip Foster (Revd)
October 31, 2014 6:57 pm

Nope, not seeing it.
Can’t figure out why people would fear god in the first place.

John de Melle
October 31, 2014 1:49 pm

Here is another result of global warming (Number ???)
Geoffrey Lean, the author, is a complete nutter. Each week he produces a stupid article for the London Telegraph.

October 31, 2014 1:56 pm

It brings to mind the old lawyers advice to the young lawyer. When the facts are against you, pound on the law. When the law is against you, pound on the facts. When both are against you, pound on the table.
Climate Alarmists are spending more and more time pounding on the table.

Reply to  stuartlynne
October 31, 2014 8:35 pm

No doubt with one of their shoes.

October 31, 2014 1:59 pm

We have come upon a political ploy, intended to extend the influence/power of the international community ie :United Nations. It is time for the US to quit providing funding for that corrupt organization.

Reply to  Jim Brock
October 31, 2014 8:36 pm

…and the EPA as well.

October 31, 2014 2:16 pm

The only non-changing climate is 4K background radiation in the Universe. Being emotional about climate means you are not at 4K yet.

High Treason
October 31, 2014 2:22 pm

cAGW is not the only line that exploits basic human emotions. FEAR prevents reckless behavior. GUILT (in some people at any rate) creates a harmonious society. GREED is exploited by the UN to deal with the uber capitalists of the Bilderburgs in particular. They have been comprehensively hoodwinked in to believing they will be part of the New World Order. This is why the mainstream media will not report what is really happening. They have been blinded by GREED. The UN is a fundamentally Socialist and anti capitalist body. Bit strange then working with these monopolistically minded capitalists. They are being set up to be shafted.
Hitler was once asked by a journalist why he, as a Socialist was so close to big business. The answer-“when the time comes, they too will be made to comply.” Like in all James Bond plots, those who have been loyal will find themselves double-crossed. Could someone please get this message to members of the Bilderburg group, especially the big media outlets.

Gunga Din
October 31, 2014 2:32 pm

A super-saturated solution. One gallon of water will dissolve about 2.5 pounds of salt. But if you heat it and carefully stir it you can dissolve more than 2.5 pounds of salt. Let it cool and the “extra” salt will stay dissolved.
When a grain of salt is added to that super-saturated solution then the “extra” salt will crystallize into something your can get your hands on.
Some want to keep us in a state of fear about this or that until something sticks against the wall so they can get their hands on the authority to “save us”.

October 31, 2014 2:39 pm

According to numerous polls AGW is last on the list of things people worry about. It won’t start moving up the list until it directly affects the masses. Rising energy costs, people freezing to death, green taxes, and economic stagnation caused by climate alarmism will make them notice and only then will they really question and challenge the status quo. The media will no longer spew the CAGW meme when people understand they were being duped by an agenda and not science as they were led to believe. Indignation over being lied to will trump the alarmism and science will lose respect.

Reply to  markl
October 31, 2014 3:00 pm

And that’s the key. It’s “not science as they were led to believe”. Most simply don’t understand that computer modelling forecasts are not science as they know it. The majority don’t understand all of the human judgements and assumptions (often without basis in fact) that make up a computer model. It’s not all reliant on facts, observations and verified data.

Reply to  markl
October 31, 2014 3:39 pm

In a toast before the New York Press Club in 1880, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Sun, made this confession:
“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. “

October 31, 2014 3:05 pm

One of Crichton’s views on the current climate of fear about the climate:

“False fears are a plague, a modern plague!”
― Michael Crichton, State of Fear

& Crichton explains the profession that is essential in helping to manufacture false fear about climate,

“Right now, scientists are in exactly the same position as Renaissance painters, commissioned to make the portrait the patron wants done, And if they are smart, they’ll make sure their work subtly flatters the patron. Not overtly. Subtly.”
― Michael Crichton, State of Fear

No, there is no con$piracy by such kinds climate focused scientists; they are voluntarily and individually pursuing separately their own self-image of a self-serving pre-science myth. The fundamental source of their shared myth is the philosophy of science of what is called post-modern philosophy.
Feynman type scientists are the antidote.

Reply to  John Whitman
October 31, 2014 4:04 pm

“No, there is no con$piracy by such kinds climate focused scientists; they are voluntarily and individually pursuing separately their own self-image of a self-serving pre-science myth.”
You should look into Maurice Strong’s UN summit on the environment in 1971 in Stockholm, and the 1975 conference Our Endangered Atmosphere with Holdren, Lovelock, Schneider and Mead.
It has been a conspiracy from the start. Also look at GLOBE international.

October 31, 2014 3:49 pm

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell observed that “neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.”
This statement explains why democracies can act irrationally where under the influence of a great fear. All of the AGW fear mongering can be summed up in the above statement.

Reply to  Rudebaeger
October 31, 2014 4:05 pm

Russell was a Fabian.

Daniel G.
Reply to  DirkH
November 1, 2014 1:15 pm

It didn’t stop him from being a social engineer wannabe.

October 31, 2014 3:59 pm

I fear extreme weather, and this extreme election coming this Tue in the USA – get out and vote…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 31, 2014 5:46 pm

And if you’re not in the USA, vote anyway – no ID needed,,,

Danny Thomas
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 31, 2014 5:53 pm

ID is required in Texas!

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 31, 2014 6:26 pm

So you found an exception. Find 49 more and we’ll be on the right track.

ron davison
October 31, 2014 4:59 pm

So what?
Here is another quote
there is nothing to fear untill its to late.
then its to late.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ron davison
October 31, 2014 7:16 pm

To late what?
Oh, TOO late.

Gary Pearse
October 31, 2014 5:11 pm

Climate fears are a two edged sword. Fear by CAGW careerists and activists that the warming WONT continue has become a boon to psychiatrists/psychologists. The latest to go deep into the blues is the celebrated Dr. Camille Parmesan – the butterfly specialist who pronounced major local wipe out of butterflies in UK and in Nevada. The psych-types have supported her denial explanation that she is depressed because nobody will listen. She states that she identified the strong “signal” of global warming but no one cares. This is blatantly incorrect. The whole world was listening and giving her accolades. She even joined up with the guy who lied about the extinction of the golden toad in Costa Rica caused by global warming. It turns out the golden toad was killed by a mycotoxin (fungus poison) carried by a South African toad! Researchers were looking for toads that excrete a liquid in their urine (?) that is used in human pregnancy test products. Some clown tried to save a buck probably by not destroying the rubber gloves or other tools he used all around the world and spread a disease that nearly wiped out PHYLUM CHORDATA CLASS AMPHIBIA except of course the South African toad.
Jim Steele a seasoned ecologists harpooned her for shoddy science after revisiting her Nevada site and for her incorrect interpretation of the ecological problem in UK. Another scientist interpreted the UK problem correctly and the creature has rebounded. I commented on the story at Grist and was pleased that my comments (politely phrased) were not discarded. Indeed, my exchanges were identified as top “conversations” there.
Now having said all that, I do have compassion for those debilitated by this climate science syndrome. But the only cure is to face the fears, push aside denial and accept that CAGW is at least not a slam dunk and we could just as easily slip into an extended cold period now that natural variability has been discovered to be the elephant in the room. Take solace in the fact that 18 years is not a large chunk of geological time, although it is a pretty big part of an individual’s career. A good honest (old fashioned?) psychologist would counsel face it, accept it and move on. Look at the opportunity that has presented itself for a rejuvenated career to really understand climate with this new data you are crying the blues over.

October 31, 2014 6:32 pm

Halloween in Chicago:
It started with enough snow to make the grass white (a record for the date).
The north winds produced waves 20 feet high on the south end of Lake Michigan:
The number of trick-or-treaters was near a record low,…. it was 39F and windy.
Scary weather.

Rob Dawg
October 31, 2014 6:59 pm

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” ~ Plato

October 31, 2014 7:05 pm

I observe that on the Progressive religion there are people for whom enviromentalism provides anti-anxiety rites, some of them are suffering anyway, as it becomes obvious that the AGW project is failing.
The people outside of Progressiveism who have anxiety issues used to be called “survivalists”. They are now included under the term “prepper”. I’ll note that what they are afraid of is more plausable than AGW, and their preparations are actually practically related to their fears. In short, they are saner than their Progressive equivilents.

Steve Oregon
October 31, 2014 7:23 pm

“There is nothing to fear but our emotions…. and the boogeymen they invent”
Steve Oregon circa 2014

October 31, 2014 8:27 pm

When people fear their government, people live under the tyranny of Democracy.
When governments fear the people, people live in freedom protected by a limited-government Republic.
CAGW is simply one manifestation of the democratization of “science”.

October 31, 2014 8:45 pm

Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling …

Danny Thomas
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 1, 2014 7:54 am

but I hope, not yet for me! (sorry, can’t hit that high note) 🙂

johann wundersamer
October 31, 2014 8:59 pm

the word ‘catastrophe’ doesnt bear a meaning good / bad.
just says ‘starting something new’.
Wikipedia has an article on:
Alternative forms
catastrophë (now rare)
From Ancient Greek καταστροφή
(katastrophḗ), from καταστρέφω
(katastréphō, “I overturn”), from
κατά (katá, “down, against”) +
στρέφω (stréphō, “I turn”)
igniting the car’s engine awakes a series of controlled combustions – the motor is running.
switching the light on is done by changing the mode of an electrical contact.
and breathing is a series of controlled catastrophes:
chemical reactions, gaining energie by combustions producing CO2.
brg Hans

October 31, 2014 9:20 pm


First, it is not “climate change”. That is a fabricated term that took the place of “global warming”, which in turn took the place of “runaway global warming and climate catastrophe”.

The IPCC was formed in 1988. Those last two letters stand for Climate Change.
While it is true that as Global Warming stuttered in the metrics, it became easier to fall back on the more scientifically neutral term, but to say it was fabricated Post hoc is a stretch, and not a good place to stake your position.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
November 1, 2014 2:02 am

Hi Charles,
Well, you’re right as usual. The point [probably badly] made was that the term keeps shifting with the alarmist crowd, as the planet refuses to cooperate with their carbon scare.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
November 1, 2014 7:54 pm

Here is the function of the IPCC according to Wikipedia:
“The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change”. (so a convention has morphed into a treaty, let’s not go there)
As has been stated here before, if the function is to support a certain theory then that is all we will ever get.
Of course that last C in IPCC can stand for lots of things, regardless of what the official version is.
Catastrophe, Cacophony, Conundrum, Codswollop ( apparently not a real word, but meaning nonsense in some parts of this globe), Chicanery and so the list can go on.
Now the P however can be more interesting, officially (in IPCC) it stands for Panel, however in some countries P is synonym for a hallucinating drug with disastrous and very aggressive side effects. (Both product and side effects Man Made, of course). In other countries P stands for Pot or as in some others Wackybacky.
Pot is also called Cannabis which brings us back to the C.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
October 31, 2014 10:27 pm

Next week we fly off to Hawaii to enjoy some more warmth before the eventual cooling of winter must be faced, while I thumb my nose in the general direction of the voluntary donation pot for purchasing carbon offsets.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 1, 2014 12:22 am

How about a serenity prayer for Notorious Alarmists Group (NAG) or similar?
‘Gaia, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.’

Dr. Strangelove
November 1, 2014 2:11 am

On fears and hauntings
The Amityville, the most famous haunted house, is a fake. The buyer of the house couldn’t pay his mortgage so he made up a horror story and earned royalties on the bestselling book. The hoax is not surprising. That people readily believed it is. Our beliefs are colored by our primal fears, religion and culture. A ghost would never occur to a Martian because it is so absurd. Like claiming a dead cat ate your pet fish. That many people have strange experiences doesn’t prove ghosts despite their belief.
I too have strange experiences such as light switch turning on by itself and loud banging noises in my room. I’m not impressed. The feats are not enough to win the Randi Prize. With so many purported haunted houses, there should be Randi Prize winners everyday. The prize remains unclaimed. Either the ghosts are afraid of James Randi or they are a figment of our imagination. Witches on broomsticks are so lame so we have come up with the Amityville horror and the Exorcist.
Happy Halloween!
P.S. Many exorcists vied for the Randi Prize. But according to Randi, loud screaming and projectile vomiting are not paranormal. None of the candidates could turn his/her head 360 degrees. Randi would have accepted that as paranormal.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
November 1, 2014 8:56 am

Dr. Strangelove
November 1, 2014 at 2:11 am
“I too have strange experiences such as light switch turning on by itself and loud banging noises in my room.”
I had those loud banging noises as well, at the time I thought, boy, that sounds like a capacitor blowing. After a few months and more loud banging, the screen began to show a moiré pattern of pink dots while watching a youtube video, and I thought, that’s a funny Flash virus, it even manages to produce pink dots outside the flash video window. I restarted the computer in safe mode and virus checked and the dots started reappearing; so I switched it off and checked the NVidia graphics card. In fact, 5 capacitors had blown.

_edsfam in ohio
November 1, 2014 6:10 am

I have a simple question for anyone that expresses a belief with unrestrained fervor.
“Why do you want to believe what you want to believe?”
This question is impossible for emotional beliefs and easy for scientific beliefs.

Bruce Cobb
November 1, 2014 7:33 am

Climatism certainly peddles fear, particularly when a nice, scary storm like Sandy comes along, and with Warmist mouthpieces like Borenstein bleating about “hottest year ever”, but the real action lies with their use of guilt on the one hand and the promise of salvation on the other as long as you Believe, and act on that belief.

The Definition Guy
November 1, 2014 6:39 pm

If I hear climate scientists warning me of catastrophe, I can rest assured that their predicted disaster won’t happen. Their record of successful predictions is so dismal that I think we should use the number of successfully predicted climate catastrophes as the new definition of absolute zero. Their attempts to instill fear instead brings me peace of mind.

%d bloggers like this: