Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards
Guest Opinion: Dr.Tim Ball
Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why? What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?
The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.
“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”
————————–
Do these remarks explain the comments of Jonathan Gruber about legislation for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare? Do the remarks fit the machinations of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the activities of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed in their 6000 leaked emails? It is instructive to know that Professor Gruber’s health care models are inaccessible, protected as proprietary.
The author of the quote was a leader whose lies and deceptions caused global disaster, including the deaths of millions of people. In a complex deception, the IPCC established a false result, the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming, then used it as the basis for a false premise that justifies the false result. It is a classic circular argument, but essential to perpetuate the phony results, which are the basis of all official climate change, energy, and environmental policies.
They successfully fooled the majority and even though many are starting to ask questions about contradictions, the central argument that CO2 is a demon gas destroying the planet through climate change, remains. There are three phases in countering what most people understand and convincing them of what was done. First, you have to explain the scientific method and the hypothesis they tried to prove, instead of the proper method of disproving it. Then you must identify the fundamental scientific flaws, in a way people understand. Third, you must anticipate the next question, because, as people grasp what is wrong and what was done, by understanding the first two stages, they inevitably ask the basic question skeptics have not answered effectively. Who did it and what was the motive? You have to overcome the technique so succinctly portrayed in the cartoon (Figure 1).
The response must counteract all the issues detailed in Adolf Hitler’s cynical comments, but also the extremely commendable motive of saving the planet, used by the IPCC and alarmists.
Figure 1
There are several roadblocks, beyond those Hitler identified. Some are inherent to individuals and others to society. People want to believe the best in people, especially if they have certain positions in society. Most can’t imagine scientists would do anything other than honest science. Most assume scientists avoid politics as much as possible because science is theoretically apolitical. One argument that is increasingly effective against this concern is funding. Follow the money is so basic, human greed, that even scientists are included.
Most find it hard to believe that a few people could fool the world. This is why the consensus argument was used from the start. Initially, it referred to the then approximately 6000 or so involved directly or indirectly in the IPCC. Later it was converted to the 97 percent figure concocted by Oreske, and later Cook. Most people don’t know consensus has no relevance to science. The consensus argument also marginalized the few scientists and others who dared to speak out.
There were also deliberate efforts to marginalize this small group with terminology. Skeptics has a different meaning for science and the public. For the former they are healthy and necessary, for the latter an irritating non-conformist. When the facts contradicted the hypothesis, namely that temperature stopped rising while CO2 continued to increase, a more egregious name was necessary. In the latter half of the 20th century, a denier was automatically associated with the holocaust.
Another form of marginalizing, applied to minority groups, is to give them a unique label. In climate, as in many other areas where people keep asking questions for which they receive inadequate answers, they are called conspiracy theorists. It is why I prefer the term cabal, a secretive political clique or faction, named after the initials of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale, ministers to Charles II. Maurice Strong referred to the cabal when he speculated in 1990,
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?
The motive emerged from the cabal within the Club of Rome around the themes identified by their founder, scientist Alexander King, in the publication The First Global Revolution. They took the Malthusian argument that the population was outgrowing food resources and said it was outgrowing all resources. The problem overall was bad, but was exacerbated and accelerated by industrialized nations. They were later identified as the nations in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Accord. The objective to achieve the motive was to reduce industrialization by identifying CO2 as causing global warming. It had to be a human caused variable that transcended national boundaries and therefore could only be resolved by a world government, (the conspiracy theory). Two parallel paths required political control, supported by scientific “proof” that CO2 was the demon.
All this was achieved with the political and organizational skills of Maurice Strong. Neil Hrab explains how Strong achieved the goal.
How has Strong promoted concepts like sustainable development to consume the world’s attention? Mainly by using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection. He can bring presidents, prime ministers and potentates from the world’s four corners to big environmental conferences such as the 1992 Rio Summit, an environmental spectacle organized by Strong and attended by more than 100 heads of state.
Here is a simple flow chart of what happened at Rio.
The political structure of Agenda 21 included the environmental catch-all, the precautionary principle, as Principle 15.
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
What reads like a deep concern for doing good, is actually a essentially a carte blanche to label anything as requiring government intervention. The excuse for action is the unassailable “protect the environment”. Who decides which State is capable? Who decides what is “serious” or “irreversible”? Who decides what “lack of full scientific certainty” means?
Maurice Strong set out the problem, as he saw it, in his keynote speech in Rio in 1992.
“Central to the issues we are going to have to deal with are: patterns of production and consumption in the industrial world that are undermining the Earth’s life-support systems; the explosive increase in population, largely in the developing world, that is adding a quarter of a million people daily; deepening disparities between rich and poor that leave 75 per cent of humanity struggling to live; and an economic system that takes no account of ecological costs or damage – one which views unfettered growth as progress. We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Our very success is leading us to a dangerous future.”
The motive was to protect the world from the people, particularly people in the industrial world. Measure of their damage was the amount of CO2 their industry produced. This was required as scientific proof that human CO2 was the cause.
From its inception, the IPCC focused on human production of CO2. It began with the definition of climate change, provided by the UNFCCC, as only those changes caused by humans. This effctively sidelined natural causes. The computer models produced the pre-programmed results and everything was amplified, and exaggerated through the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The deception was very effective because of the cynical weaknesses Hitler identifies, the natural assumption that nobody could deceive, on such an important issue, and on such a scale, but also because most didn’t know what was being done.
People who knew, didn’t think to question what was going on for a variety of reasons. This situation makes the statement by German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls even more important.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
Puls commented on the scientific implications of the deception when he said,
“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
Now, as more and more people learn what Puls identifies, they will start to ask, who did it and what was the motive. When you understand what Adolf Hitler is saying in the quote from “Mein Kampf” above, you realize how easy it was to create the political formula of Agenda 21 and the scientific formula of the IPCC. Those responsible for the formation, structure, research, and final Reports, easily convinced the world they were a scientific organization making valid scientific statements. They also quckly and easily marginalized skeptics, as the leaked CRU emails exposed.
Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?
=======================================================
Disclaimer [added]: This post is entirely the opinion of Dr. Tim Ball, it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Anthony Watts or other authors who publish at WUWT. – Anthony Watts
Update: A guest post response, along with a comment from me has been posted, please see A big (goose) step backwards
“Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?”
Fear. Fearful to admit that climate change is very poorly understood, and lacking the courage to challenge the authority that deems that natural variation of the climate is largely internal. Which then exaggerates their fears about human impacts on climate, which they then precede to bully the global population with. Though ~15 years accelerated cooling through the rest of this solar minimum would show that we are dealing here with a lesson in human behaviour rather than a valid scientific argument.
Fear and greed.
To illustrate how climate change has been a means by which reality is stretched into belief, let’s refer to the book: ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity’ (Hulme 2009). As a former director of the Tyndall Center, and I think currently Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences in the University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme collaborated on influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His well-written book demonstrates how the political realm overwhelms other realities held in science and journalism, especially if these alternative realities convey facts disapproved by the dominant culture. A famous quote from his book, illustrates how journalism and academic inquiry failed to notice and give analysis of coordinated efforts to construct public belief in anthropogenic global warming and the inevitable catastrophe to follow.
. . . the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs. (Hulme 2009 p. 326)
Some have gone so far as to claim that the climate change debate in Britain has become “as depressingly unscientific and polarised as it is in the United States”.
He then says: “I disagree. The debate about climate change needs to become more political, and less scientific. Articulating radically different policy options in response to the risks posed by climate change is a good way of reinvigorating democratic politics.”
Despite many journalists being well endowed with an education that is humanities based, postmodernism with plastic realities as central, few have seen how this reality has been socially constructed.
Hulme is right. The Science is well established (only amateurs dismiss the findings of all the world’s ScIence Academies, NASA, NOAA, and 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers), and politics is where the debate should be among thoughtful citizens. Much more needs to be done to bring not just the Science but its ramifications, to the public and to the political arena.
Warrenlb, when you capitalize Science every time you use it, you reveal it has become your God. But just as thousands of descriptions exist for god, so too do thousands of descriptions exist for “Science”.
“only amateurs dismiss the findings of all the world’s ScIence Academies, NASA, NOAA, and 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers”
Duh. Professionals would lose their jobs. That leaves amateurs at the point of the doubting spear.
I have for sometime believed that we are dealing with Anthropomorphic Global Warming, not Anthropogenic.
The motive is the same as it is for all fields of Science — to understand and explain the natural world. Unfortunately, some refuse to accept the findings of Science, and look for conspiracy or fraud instead of trying to understand those findings. This is not a new phenomenon– the world saw it (and still sees it) in the rejection of Darwin’s findings, or of commission reports that JFK was killed by a lone assassin, and even more remarkable, in the events of 9/11 or more looney tunes — chemtrails.
When 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’, it’s time for the doubters to reconsider their rejection of the Science.
Preacher (warrenlb), when the following is true I will revisit my conclusions:
“When 99% of 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers conclude ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’, it’s time for the doubters to reconsider their rejection of the Science.”
But when only 72 of 12,000 papers conclude as you say, then it is time for believers to reconsider their beliefs.
You also might try a different “talking point”.
@Michael 2. Re: peer-reviewed paper count, I don’t know what your source is, but here is mine. http://www.jamespowell.org/
Does anyone here in this lengthy exchange consider the role of the big Insurance Companies and also their Re Insurers in promoting a climate of fear about loss of property and or trade when and if here is a change in Climate in any part of the world? I saw a Television news interview with the head of an large International Insurance company here in the Earthquake damaged City of Christchurch and he smiled and shrugged as he said the next big thing to insure against would be Climate Change. Climate Change would be a good portmanteau term Climate is always changing so they can accommodate both sides of the argument and bring in the money. Insurers reinsure to cover their losses. perhaps investors in reinsurance companies are calling the shots.
Yes, actually and for several years. Climate change, at least the part that is loosely based on the reality that storms occur, has been very lucrative for a growing number of years now. If the insurers are now going to proceed to sell policies based on the great ever looming never arriving climate catastrophe, well then life is even more lucrative and less risky than ever. The term “over insured” comes to mind.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/over-insured.html
But yours is a rational question on a thread that frankly should have never been published.
I suspect insurers are beginning to believe their prior premiums may not have been adequate.
It is difficult to talk a man out of a falsehood upon which his livelihood depends. “Scientists” are no different than any man in this regard.
By this argument we can safely ignore all the findings of modern science — Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics, Evolution. Or perhaps you do reject it all?
Darwin wasn’t dependent on government grants for his livelihood.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism (CACA) is to real science–like evolution, relativity, DNA & plate tectonics–as a Mob protection racket is to the insurance industry.
Warren asserts: “By this argument we can safely ignore all the findings of modern science — Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics, Evolution.”
Precisely so! Not once in my daily profession has “relativity” ever been an issue. Not once has Plate tectonics been an issue. In fact, evolution isn’t an issue — everyone I know has not changed, not grown wings or extra limbs.
DNA has become useful in law enforcement and paternity checking but as I am not involved in either, I can ignore DNA, too.
And so can you.
@Michael 2: So you assign AGW, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics and DNA to the same category — useless and invalid. At least your honest enough to admit it — not all are.
Warrenlb says “At least your honest enough to admit it”
Of course. Why should I not? This is the crux of the public perception — academia lives in a bubble where such things are important. I live with one foot in science and one foot in the mundane world of business where the only scientific question is today’s weather. That’s also where most of humanity lives, at least in my bubble.
Arguing the precise percentage of consensus really doesn’t matter to most people. It was a good meme for a while, fooled my brother, but you see, it didn’t matter. It did not turn into action.
warrenlb,
Keep digging you hole. This is fun — if a little too easy.
The question is about the motive for the massive IPCC deception. Read the article’s title. So naturally, the climate alarmist crowd will do whatever they can to deflect from that uncomfortable question.
You’re doing a fine job of deflection and misdirection.
Warren, even you must have noticed that Michael said in his daily life or profession he could ignore “Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics (&) Evolution”, not that he rejected them as invalid.
I find that in my daily life or profession I can’t ignore them all, but he can & also asserts that you probably can as well, too, which may or may not be the case.
“Michael said in his daily life or profession he could ignore Relativity, DNA, Plate Tectonics”
It’s also a “script tease” — the script calls for me to be offended and deny this accusation but the reality is that these things are interesting to me but not exactly relevant to my daily life so I agree when the script calls for me to disagree.
It is unlikely warrenlb cares to know how much I know about these topics. Here on the internet we are just names or handles. Insult my handle all day, see if I care 😉
The whole entire realm of academia lives in a bubble and from time to time useful things pop out like GPS but inside the bubble its a steamy pile well churned. Consider the lively debate on why the surface of Venus is hot, a debate happening over on Science of Doom. It would be the most utterly irrelevant debate of all except that some people think Earth could become Venus despite its greater distance from the sun (duh), less atmosphere and abundant water. This is what motivates fear, and fear motivates action, so beware the actions.
Well, I’ve read this post by Dr. Balll several times since its publication and can’t see where Richard Betts got his panties in such a knot. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/
What a disgusting bit of anti-Semitism. I endorse the sentiments of Betts and Tamsin, and find Watts’s
post, as Betts and Tamsin observed –‘ambiguous’.
Yes, you’re right, my mistake. My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.
But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin.
warrenlb,
Now you resort to “anti-Semitism” name-calling?
A typical warmist tactic is the use of psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto others.
More than a decade ago Boston Globe coulmnist Ellen Goodman wrote that skeptics of man-made global warming are labeled “deniers”, specifically to equate them with Holocaust deniers. In other words, to equate scientific skeptics with anti-Semites.
Now you go into your projection mode, and try to tar another skeptic with your ‘anti-Semite’ pejorative. Don’t your rehtorical tactics ever get old to you?
So you don’t find Ball’s essay anti-Semitic, as others on this forum have?
Quotes from Ball’s essay:
“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood,”
And
“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.”
warrenlb : YOU ARE A LIAR. The quotes ARE NOT from this essay.
You have crossed the line from pretending to have a discussion/debate to LYING, just LYING.
You are now a complete and perfect visual aid for how the USEFUL IDIOT is used as a weapon on an otherwise sane populace to confuse and deliberately LIE in order to forward your cultist agenda.
Do you really believe Tim Ball included those quotes or are you just a liar repeating the lies and propagandic inferences of others?
You should be ashamed, but you are proud of your role. Just another pathetic and sad victim of your own need for acceptance vindication from other cultists. Your religion is false warrenlb and nothing, not even blatent lying or name calling, can make true.
If you weren’t actually dangerous to others I might feel sorry for you.
warrenlb,
As I said, I find your comments anti-Semitic name calling. You are desperately trying to tar skeptics with that brush. When you stop it, I will stop pointing it out.
Since you’ve been shown that your assertion that Dr. Ball’s essay was anti-Semitic is false, don’t you think you ought to admit that you were wrong & apologize to the good doctor, which he is & which you appear not to be?
warrenlb proffers some memes:
“So you don’t find Ball’s essay anti-Semitic”
Yes, I do not find it anti-Semitic. It is, however, anti IPCC. YMMV.
“as others on this forum have?”
I am not sheep. As your mother said, “If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?” Your mileage obviously varies.
“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited”
Indeed. They have been at the short end of this stick rather often.
@milodonharlani: I agree with others who have posted that Ball should post his mea culpa, for the same reason I just posted — Ball’s choice of parallels.
You falsely asserted, ie lied, that Ball wrote the anti-Semitic sentences which you posted. It doesn’t matter how many “others” you imagine think Ball should post a mea culpa. He has nothing for which to apologize. You do, as a blatant liar and calumniator.
@milodonharlani: You say:
‘Warren, The 9000 scientists & engineers of whom DB speaks don’t necessarily “d*ny” the GHE. They are however skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming, for which indeed there is no evidence. On the contrary, all available evidence clearly shows CACA false. You need look no farther than growing gap between observed reality & the GCMs designed to show warming in lock step with increasing CO2. But other mounds of evidence also exist, & are growing daily.’
I say:
1) There is no such Science as CACA, only AGW. ‘Catastrophic’ is not a quantitative or scientific term, and is not used by the scientists engaged in the research.
2) There is overwhelming evidence confirming AGW: To be found in10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from independent scientists around the world, and summarized in the IPCC Assessments; The same basic conclusions or positions on AGW are published by ALL 200 of the World’s Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, all Major Universities, NASA and NOAA. No scientific institution maintains a contradictory position or conclusion.
It would seem that evidence contradicting AGW is not growing — but rather has vanished entirely.
If it’s not catastrophic what’s the problem?
A little more warmth, a little more open land, and a whole new coast line on which to build expensive homes.
What’s not to like?
A bridge that collapses is a “catastrophe”
A crack that appears in a major support member for a bridge is not a “catastrophe” …….but would you drive over that bridge knowing the major support member was cracked?
PS……you can even recycle the materials from the beachfront homes that get inundated.
David,
Except there is no evidence of a crack in the bridge. The late 20th century warming, now over, was entirely beneficial. Should another such warming period occur in this century, as IMO is likely, that too would be a good thing.
Since catastrophe isn’t in the cards, what’s to worry about? More CO2 is a boon, up to some point much higher than 400 ppm, which the world is not likely to reach again for millions of years. Better to focus efforts on curbing real pollution, which is choking Chinese cities & causing soot to fall in the Arctic.
I have posted just a few of the irrefutable facts showing not just CACA but AGW false. You have posted nothing at all in the way of evidence, but merely claim tens of thousands of papers finding AGW. Yet in fact, not a single one exists, or you would have cited it. There is zero evidence supporting AGW, let alone CACA. Some rent-seekers have “found” a human “fingerprint”, but that is not evidence.
The null hypothesis has not been rejected, so neither AGW nor CACA have a scientific leg upon which to stand. And even if AGW exists, it would be a good thing, if not catastrophic. The world has clearly benefited from more CO2 & would also gain from slight warming, if humanity were indeed able to cause such a boon, which is doubtful, since our activities also cool the planet.
Your tens of thousands of papers claim is just another of your lies.
@Kyle:
You said:
“The sheer volume and pomposity of your (all of you) inversions of reality are breathtaking. Over and over you clowns posit ridiculous conspiracy theories while steadfastly ignoring the barely concealed program to discredit the science”.
My response:
‘Breathtaking’, ‘inversions of reality’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ describe the posts pretty well. Just remember you have science on your side, and the only ‘arguments’ left to your amateur scientist opponents are their claims of ‘conspiracy’, ‘they’re all in on it’, ‘hundreds of Climate Scientists around the world are committing fraud’ and the best of all: ‘All the world’s Science Academies, Scientific Professional Societies, major universities, hundreds of independent researchers, NASA and NOAA are WRONG” (!!)
Steven Spielberg could not have imagined a more bizarre world. I think to understand it one has to be a psychologist, not a scientist.
Warrenlb,
You have been proven here to be nothing but a common liar, yet you continue to speak as if you actually have some sort of credibility or basis on which people should believe you. Why is that ?
You think that is bizarre, try to wrap your mind around the thinking of someone that has it all figured out.
It must be comforting, but at the same time rather unfulfilling, wouldn’t you think ?
warrenlb says:
10s of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers… ALL 200 of the World’s Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, all Major Universities, NASA and NOAA… ALL 200 of the World’s Science Academies and Scientific Professional Societies, all Major Universities, NASA and NOAA.
warrenlb just doesn’t get it. He lists his own appeals to authority — then he disregards the much greater number of scientists who do not agree with him. He has a closed mind infected with confirmation bias. The climate scare has colonized his mind, and he is searching for reasons to believe in it.
It may come as a surprise to warrenlb, but organizations can be bought and paid for. They can also be derailed and politicized by just a couple of extremists on the Board with an agenda, as pointed out by Prof. Richard Lindzen [see Sec. 2]. One or all of those things has happened to the professional organizations cited by warrenlb. Organizations are even more susceptible to group-think than individuals.
warrenlb also tries desperately to characterize those scientists he disagrees with as “amateur scientist oponents” — a sure sign that he is on thin ice: Richard Lindzen is one of his “amateur scientists“, while the thoroughly corrupted IPCC is fawned over.
Rather than engaging in his constant misdirection and deflection, I wonder why warrenlb avoids the central point of this article? Which is, of course, the motive for the IPCC’s deception.
The UN/IPCC was given it’s marching orders from the get-go: to support the man-made global warming conjecture. They tried and failed on scientific grounds, so the alarmist tactic shifted to demonizing anyone who points that out. Dr. Tim Ball is in their sights at the moment. But the fact remains that Planet Earth is busy debunking the MMGW conjecture, and all the appeals to authority in the world are no match for her ultimate Authority.
dbstealey,
warrenlb is just another example of the classic “useful idiot”. He seems to take great pleasure in this role.
Fortunately for me my family has just left after the holidays and warrenlb will become my handy stress toy for a bit.
🙂
@dbstealey: Actually the key issue was, and remains, why DBStealey and others have no answer for the fact that ALL the Scientific Institutions of the world, NASA and NOAA conclude AGW, other than they’re all in a conspiracy to defraud the public. This reasoning is so bizarre, even Stephen Spielberg couldn’t have invented it.
warrenlb,
Are you that dense?? I gave you answers, chapter and verse, with citations. You did not even have the time to read the citations I posted, before you spouted your latest opinion.
Really, the climate scare has colonized your mind. You are helpless. The rest of us can see that.
If Planet Earth was doing what the IPCC and every alarmist group predicted, I would have changed my mind by now. But the planet is making fools of the IPCC, and of every other alarmist organization and individual.
That is the difference between skeptics and alarmists: when the facts change, skeptics change their minds. But when the facts contradict the alarmist crowd, they switch into propaganda mode. If you don’t see that, warrenlb, you are blind.
@dbstealey. So still no answer to the question why all the institutions of Science conclude AGW, other than they’re ALL incompetent (vs you) , or in a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the public……
warrenlb, you force me to repeat myself:
Are you that dense?? I gave you answers, chapter and verse, with citations. You did not even have the time to read the citations I posted… But you go on as if you never read that, or anything else.
If it were not for your endless Appeal to Authority fallacies, you would have run out of arguments long ago. You are probably ignorant of the fact that, when he was confronted by 100 scientists who disputed Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Einstein responded [paraphrased] that: it does not take 100 scientists to show I am wrong, but only one.
Those 100 scientists are an example of the Appeal to Authority fallacy, and that is what you keep doing. Those 100 eminent scientists were all wrong, and Einstein was right. You are doing exactly the same thing.
It is a logical fallacy to argue numbers of opinions. Evidence is all that matters. But then, fallacies are all you’ve got, it that so? If you had facts and evidence, that’s what you would use. You certainly have no verifiable scientific measurements to support your Belief. Do you?
You can cite a million ignoramuses. But all it takes is ONE person to show that AGW exists. That can be done by posting a testable, empirical measurement quantifying AGW. I have repeatedly challenged you to produce such a measurement, to no avail. But you have no measurements of AGW. You just Believe in it.
The fact is, you are a True Believer. It would not matter if you believed in Scientiology, or in CAGW, or in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or in Festinger’s flying saucer. Your entire motivation is Belief. Science is just a fake veneer over your comments, and over your Belief.
Prove me wrong. Post that measurement. IF you can.
Prove AGW wrong…..
David,
Easily done. Please see below.
There is zero evidence of AGW.
There is 0.8 degrees C of evidence of AGW
…
Your job is to falsify AGW
You want a ‘measurement’ — as a Metrologist would want to determine surface finish on a machined part. But Climate Science is multidisciplinary, and demands more….e.g., an understanding of physics (The Greenhouse Effect, for one), and multiple lines of evidence. For that, go here: http://www.climate.nasa.gov; or to the IPCC 5th Assessment and to its thousands of peer reviewed papers. Both should satisfy your request.
1) That amount of warming is only in cooked book “data” sets.
2) Even if the world has warmed that much since 1850, there is no reason whatsoever to attribute it to human activity. Much of it happened before CO2 took off, so is certainly the natural rebound from the end of the LIA Cold Period. Most if not all of the rest is faking the “record”.
3) There is nothing the least bit unusual about that much warming over 164 years, if it indeed happened. As I’ve repeatedly commented, the early 20th century warming was the same as the late 20th century warming & the early 18th century warming was more impressive both as to magnitude & duration.
4) GASTA (if such can actually be measured) has at best flattened for the past 16 to 24 years (depending upon “data” set), while CO2 has continued climbing. This is the same as during the 32 years after the end of WWII, when CO2 zoomed upward, but global T fell.
I could continue, but I’ve already showed AGW false. Which brings me to:
5) Why should I have to show AGW false? Surely it is incumbent upon “climate science” to show that it exists. So far there is no evidence whatsoever that it does. The Team has failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Whatever warming may actually have happened since the end of the LIA in the mid-19th century is entirely within normal fluctuation bounds, so there is no reason, zero, zip, nada, to imagine that people are responsible for whatever warming occurred in the late 20th century. In fact “climate science” can’t even determine whether the net effect of human activity is to warm or cool the planet, but in any case either effect is negligible, at best.
My comment was in reply to:
David Socrates
November 30, 2014 at 5:23 pm
“Why should I have to show AGW false?”
…
Because a hypothesis stands until you do so
David,
As I’ve repeatedly showed, the hypothesis was born falsified.
It’s incumbent on its proponents to test it with predictions subject to experiment. When that’s done, the hypothesis fails. It has failed every test.
So then why do I have to show it false over & over again?
The earth has warmed when CO2 was high & going up; it has cooled or stayed flat when CO2 was high & going up; it has warmed when CO2 was low & going down; it has cooled when CO2 was low & going down; it has stayed flat when CO2 was flat, going up or going down. There is no correlation. By pure accident, AGW was at least plausible during the 1980s & ’90s because CO2 just happened to be rising along with temperature (if the cooked book “data” sets are to be accorded any credence at all). But that was not true in the 1950s & ’60s & the 2000s & so far in the 2010s, to take but the most recent decades.
AGW has no observational scientific leg upon which to stand.
David Socrates
November 30, 2014 at 6:02 pm
“Why should I have to show AGW false?”
…
Because a hypothesis stands until you do so
David Socrates,
My 8th grade science teacher says you’ve got that backwards. Something about a null something ?
We are dealing with a couple of science illiterates here; warrenlb and David Socrates. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to educate them, but for new readers who might be swayed by their nonsense:
David Socrates says: Prove AGW wrong….. a hypothesis stands until you do so.. There is 0.8 degrees C of evidence of AGW… &etc.
How wrong can one person be? By the numbers:
1. It is the job of those putting forth a conjecture such as CAGW to support it with facts and evidence. It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything.
2. A hypothesis stands only if it can make repreated, accurate predictions. AGW has never made accurate predictions. Not even one.
3. The 0.8º fluctuation in global T is due to natural variability. Attributing it to human activity is a measurement-free conjecture, nothing more.
David Socrates does not understand how the Scientific Method works. He mistakenly believes that making a conjecture proves something, and that others have the onus of disproving it. If that were true, I could make a conjecture that the cow jumped over the moon — and David Socrates would have the onus of proving that it didn’t. By Socrates’ ‘logic’, we must accept that the cow jumped over the moon, until it was proven that it didn’t.
Mr Socrates doesn’t even understand the science basics that a 5th grader has learned.
Next, warrenlb continues to display his ignorance, this time by linking to a blog that has nothing to do with what I challenged him to show: the % of human-caused AGW, out of total global warming. Everything else in science is measured: changes in CO2, changes in temperature, changes in precipitation, changes in Arctic ice, etc. But there are NO measurements quantifying AGW. That is mighty curious, since every other parameter in science is composed of verifiable measurements. Governments spend hundrds of billions of dollars trying to measure subatomic particles… but they can’t measure AGW? Doesn’t that tell you something?
These guys are going on nothing more than their Beliefs. It is no different than a religion with them. The proof: they cannot produce scientific evidence to support their conjecture [note that scientific evidence is composed of verified empirical observations, and raw data; evidence is not pal-reviewed papers, or computer climate model output].
No wonder the global warming scare is imploding. After a couple of decades of that imaginary head fake, the public is tired of being told there is a wolf at the door. Better find another scare, boys, this one is old and busted.
warrenlb,
A whole week ago you chose to ignore my inquiries in this thread. Perhaps you could be so kind as to respond now ?
Please, tell us idiots all about carbon pollution.
warrenlb
November 24, 2014 at 6:34 am
So you advocate to maintain the price of carbon at zero? So that the costs of carbon pollution will continue to be borne by our grandchildren rather than paid today? Or perhaps you deny the existence of carbon pollution altogether? Which is your position?
lawrence Cornell
November 24, 2014 at 7:51 am
warrenlb,
Please tell me, what is this “carbon pollution” of which you speak ?
I know about carbon and I know about pollution. Carbon is what our life forms are built on, I know about CO2 and it’s benefits to plants and agriculture and I know that pollution harms us.
What I don’t know all about is this “carbon pollution”.
Can you explain to me exactly what is carbon pollution ? Will it kill me from the inside ? What does it smell or look like ? How is this pollution made ? and how can I avoid it ?
@lawrencecornell. You’re on the WUWT website and don’t know what’s meant by ‘carbon pollution’? I find that hard to believe. If you really do want to debate, each has to declare their position beforehand.
Mine is : ‘Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative’ Underlying physics; The Greenhouse Effect. Evidence: as published in the IPCC 5th Assessment and the 10,000 peer-reviewed journal papers that form its basis, plus NASA and NOAA.
Your position?
She has been being bombarded by asteroids for 4.5 billions years, and doesn’t really care what you think.
It’s every “man” for himself.
Unless we can work together, at least a little.
No, I don’t understand what’s meant by carbon pollution.
Please explain to me what you mean when you say “carbon pollution”.
Carbon pollution: Man’s addition of CO2 — the primary greenhouse gas— to the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels — increasing the Greenhouse effect in the atmosphere: The mechanism responsible for AGW — warming of the planet by Man.
So all CO2 is “pollution” ?
CO2 is not pollution. It’s plant food. The more, the better, up to real greenhouse levels, ie 1300 ppm.
I don’t understand warrenlb, you are saying that the CO2 in the air is pollution ?
milodonharlani is right, warrenlb. You just don’t understasnd what pollution is.
CO2 is a beneficial trace gas necessary for all life on earth. It is every bit as necessary for lifew as H2O is. Is water ‘pollution’? The answer is exactly the same for both CO2 and H2O.
The biosphere is starved of CO2; more is better, at current and projected concentrations. CO2 is a completely harmless trace gas, which is being demonized by science illiterates for political reasons.
warrenlb, you should be posting on a political blog, not here. This is a science site.
The “primary greenhouse gas” is H2O.
You, Warren, are a scientific illiterate.
warrenlb,
Why did you tell this lie ?
Warrenlb,Nov 30,2014 at 11:16am
Quotes from Ball’s essay:
“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood,”
And
“From time immemorial. however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited.”
See my post on your question.
I don’t understand that answer. Why did you tell that lie ?
Oh, This “misplaced” post on my question ?
warrenlb
November 30, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Yes, you’re right, my mistake. My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.
But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin
My question was warrenlb, WHY did you tell the lie that Dr. Ball included those two quotes in his essay ?
You haven’t answered that question. Please do so.
warrenlb
November 30, 2014 at 12:06 pm
“Yes, you’re right, my mistake. My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.
But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin”
1) “Yes, you’re right, my mistake.”
I don’t think any “mistake” was made on your part. What you did here you did purposefully.
2) “My post should have said that Ball’s essay drew a parallel between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ (to which those quotes should have been attributed) , and AGW ‘Warmists’.”
No, Dr. Balls essay did not draw a parallel between Jews and warmists. Dr. Balls essay, as he states in it, drew parallels between the concept and application of “The big lie” as popularly understood historically and some of today’s CAGW liars, yes, liars.
2a) There was indeed a parallel boldly drawn between Jews in ‘Mein Kampf’ and AGW warmists using those two quotes which Dr. Ball specifically omitted. (because he wasn’t discussing that aspect.) First by Brandon Shellenberger and now by you. Only you have lied about it.
3) “But the point remains that Ball uses the Hitler parallel of Jews as ‘Warmists’ — a clear anti-Semitic implication, for which I condemn him, as did Betts and Tamsin”
No, The point does remain that warrenlb and Brandon Shellenberger only have used the parallel of Jews as ‘warmists” in order to smear and convolute a salient point and discussion. A despicable trick that too many intelligent people here fell for.
And warrenlb, my question still stands.
WHY did you tell the lie that Dr. Ball included those two quotes in his essay ?
You haven’t answered that question. Please do so.
warrenlb says:
The mechanism responsible for AGW — warming of the planet by Man.
Still deflecting, I see. Well, I can’t force you to stay on-topic. But I can point out one fact that destroys your Belief System [BS]:
You claim that human activity is responsible for global warming. That is called a “conjecture”. In other words, it is an opinion, nothing more. To rise to the status of a hypothesis, AGW must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. But we know that not one alarmist prediction has ever happened, so AGW remains a conjecture [at this point let me say that I think AGW exists. But it is so minuscule at current CO2 concentrations that it cannot even be measured].
That brings us to the point where your feet are held to the fire of science: I challenge you to post a measurement of AGW. In other words, produce a verifiable, testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the specific percentage of global warming due to human emissions, out of all global warming.
Every physical process can be measured, as long as it is above the background noise level. Of course, if AGW is so tiny that it is swamped by noise, then there is no need whatever to worry about it, and your climate alarmism is debunked.
The ball is in your court, warrenlb. You raised the issue, now let’s see you show us some AGW. Up to now it has been: “a significant amount” of global warming is due to human activity. Or, “most”. Or, “a large fraction”. But none of that is science. Those are just worthless opinions. They mean no more than any other opinion.
So show us some real science, warrenlb. Post a true MEASUREMENT, quantifying the % of global warming specifically due to human activity. What percentage is it?
Otherwise, you — just like the rest of the alarmist crowd — are just winging it.
Call it “conjecture” or….
Call it a “hypothesis” or….
Call it a “theory”.
The fact is that the global temp has risen 0.8 degrees C in the past 150 years.
If you have a better explanation than AGW, please post it, and if you think it is “natural variation” you’d better be able to show us all when in the past million years the Earth has had an increase of this magnitude in such a short span of time.
In science, the best explanation wins. so, if you can provide a better explanation than AGW, please tell the world, because the majority of scientists would be interested in your explanation. If it makes more sense than AGW, you might consider publishing your personal, “conjecture”
That is easily done.
Earth warmed more rapidly & more from about 1710-39 than it did from c. 1977-98. It warmed about the same in the early 20th century as it did in the late, under a completely different CO2 regime.
QED. You lose.
Besides which, it’s not at all clear that the earth has warmed as much as you claim. HadCRU & GISS are both shameless liars.
However, even if it has warmed that much, it’s totally within normal limits, as I’ve repeatedly shown. There is no human fingerprint.
2014 – 150 = 1864 which rejects your 1977-96 argument.
…
Your 1710-39 time span is under which reconstruction? Not sure you can confirm global temps prior to 1800
I expect the reply you get will include assertions that the data is faked. Without assertions of conspiracy, fraud, or manipulated data, they cannot function.
The 18th century data are from the CET, which has proved a good simulacrum for global changes, in so far as they can be measured.
I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the late 20th century warming versus the whole of the Modern Warming Period since c. 1850.
Is it really that hard to understand this point, repeated for at least the third time?
The Modern Warming Period consists of three warmings and three cooling cycles. The slope & duration of the warmings is about the same whether in the 19th century, the early 20th century or the late 20th century, when CO2 was rising rapidly. Therefore there is no reason to imagine that CO2 was responsible for the last of the three. CO2 was also rising rapidly during the longer, post-war cooling interval that preceded the late 20th century warming. Is it really hard to grasp that concept?
CACA & AGW were born falsified, since the post-war cooling already showed them false, as did the warming in the first half of the 20th century, cooling in the late 19th century after warming previously, coming out of the LIA.
Not to mention falsified yet again by the flat to cooling interval since the late 1990s, contrary to all CACA model predictions. CACA was born falsified & has been shown false again with each passing year since the hoax was hatched.
Must you so totally destroy them ?, there are others out here waiting for the scraps 🙂
You want a ‘measurement’ — as a Metrologist would want to determine surface finish on a machined part. But Climate Science is multidisciplinary, and demands more….e.g., an understanding of physics (The Greenhouse Effect, for one), and multiple lines of evidence. For that, go here: http://www.climate.nasa.gov; or to the IPCC 5th Assessment and to its thousands of peer reviewed papers. Both should satisfy your request.
This post is addressed to DBStealey.
warrenlb,
Of course I want a measurement. Every skeptic wants a measurement, because every other physical process is measured, whether it is temperature, or CO2, or precipitation, or Polar ice cover, or Polar bear numbers. As I pointed out, governments spend hundreds of $millions each year trying to measure subatomic particles. AGW — if it exists — should be a piece of cake.
So, where are the measurements of AGW? Produce even one measurement quantifying the percentage of global warming caused by human emissions. That percentage must be the fraction of total global warming that resulted in a total 0.7ºC warming, over the past 150 years or so. How much of that was caused by human activity? Post a measurement, please.
What’s that you say? You have no measurements? How can that be??
If AGW exists, the only reason there are no measurements is because AGW is swamped by background noise. I worked in a Metrology lab for thirty years, and I know something about measurment. Every change can be measured, unless the change is below the background level.
If AGW is below background noise, then it is too small to measure. And if it is too small to measure, then it is simply not worth worrying about. In that case, AGW should be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
This chart makes clear why AGW is too small to measure. Any rises in CO2 at current levels causes a truly minuscule change in global temperature — a change that is so small that it is unmeasurable. You are like Chicken Little, clucking that the sky is falling — when it was just a tiny acorn.
So yes, warrenlb, I want a measurement of AGW. But you cannot seem to find one. I’ve explained why, which would satisfy rational readers. Why won’t it satisfy you?
It’s because AGW is your religion. Isn’t it? Science has nothing to do with your beliefs.
I think Dr. Tim Ball took the quote from My Struggle at face value. There is no analogy, parable, symbolic interpretation, literary parallel, no representational meanings, no context, nothing. It is just a quote about deception on a grand scale. Most of us cannot be so discriminating and discerning about the passages in that book. It is interesting that some people do have that sensitivity to the work. My stars.
Besides, the open discussion of how to use evil tactics must be hidden in an accusation, I would think.
It may be the type of argument that is mentioned by saying you do not want to mention it: an apophasis.
Also, climate debt or climate justice does require the payment of several trillion dollars to offended parties, last I checked. You know how everyone wants to be a trillionaire these days.
Zeke…
Huh?
@dbstealey:
You say (MY RESPONSES IN CAPS):
1. It is the job of those putting forth a conjecture such as CAGW to support it with facts and evidence. It is not the job of skeptics to prove anything. OH YES IT IS. THE AGW HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNDERLYING PHYSICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND MULTIPLE LNES OF EVIDENCE– BY NASA, NOAA, THE IPCC, AND 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. AND YOU OFFER NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO THIS WELL DESCRIBED PHENOMENON.(LINKS WERE PROVIDED EARLIER TO YOU)
2. A hypothesis stands only if it can make repreated, accurate predictions. AGW has never made accurate predictions. Not even one. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. A HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT DEPEND ON PREDICTION – IT DEPENDS ON EVIDENCE–FOR WHICH THERE IS PLENTY..
3. The 0.8º fluctuation in global T is due to natural variability. Attributing it to human activity is a measurement-free conjecture, nothing more. UNTRUE. 0.8C SINCE 1880 IS THE FATEST RATE OF RISE IN 1400 YEARS. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
David Socrates does not understand how the Scientific Method works. He mistakenly believes that making a conjecture proves something, and that others have the onus of disproving it. If that were true, I could make a conjecture that the cow jumped over the moon — and David Socrates would have the onus of proving that it didn’t. By Socrates’ ‘logic’, we must accept that the cow jumped over the moon, until it was proven that it didn’t. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. THE HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE VIEWABLE AT THE WEBSITES OF NASA, NOAA, AND THE IPCC, AND IN 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. UNTIL YOU OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE SCINETIFIC EXPLANATION, THE HYPOTHESIS STANDS AS SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CITED..
Mr Socrates doesn’t even understand the science basics that a 5th grader has learned.
Next, warrenlb continues to display his ignorance, this time by linking to a blog that has nothing to do with what I challenged him to show: the % of human-caused AGW, out of total global warming. Everything else in science is measured: changes in CO2, changes in temperature, changes in precipitation, changes in Arctic ice, etc. But there are NO measurements quantifying AGW. That is mighty curious, since every other parameter in science is composed of verifiable measurements. Governments spend hundrds of billions of dollars trying to measure subatomic particles… but they can’t measure AGW? Doesn’t that tell you something? IT APPEARS YOUR METROLOGY TRAINING DID NOTHING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BROADER DISCIPLINES OF SCIENCE –AND FOR COMPREHENDING THAT MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE AGW HYPOTHESIS. THIS IS ALL VIEWABLE TO YOU IN THE LINKS PROVIDED.
warrenlb, now you’re going off the deep end. You’re not making sense any more. And no need for all caps; shouting doesn’t make you right, as you are about to find out.
You assert:
1. OH YES IT IS. THE AGW HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNDERLYING PHYSICS OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND MULTIPLE LNES OF EVIDENCE– BY NASA, NOAA, THE IPCC, AND 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. AND YOU OFFER NO ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO THIS WELL DESCRIBED PHENOMENON.(LINKS WERE PROVIDED EARLIER TO YOU)
Relax, you’re going ballistic because your argument has fallen apart. You assert that there are ‘multiple lines of evidence’, but you don’t provide any evidence. And how many times do you need to be told that your pal-reviewed papers are just another appeal to authority fallacy? Without measurements of AGW, they amount to nothing but opinions. Pf-f-f-f-ft. And finally, AGW is not a ‘hypothesis’. It is merely a conjecture; an opinion. Why do you have such trouble understanding scientific hierarchy? Here, maybe this will help you to understand the difference.
Next:
2. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. A HYPOTHESIS DOES NOT DEPEND ON PREDICTION – IT DEPENDS ON EVIDENCE–FOR WHICH THERE IS PLENTY..
Yet you post zero verifiable, testable, empirical evidence. I asked for measurements, but all I get is bluster. Asserting you have posted evidence, and actually posting it, are two entirely different things. So far, you have posted neither evidence nor measurements. And yes, a hypothesis can make repeated, accurate predictions. If it does not, it starts down the road to being falsified. What good is a hypothesis if all it does is make wrong predictions?
3. UNTRUE. 0.8C SINCE 1880 IS THE FATEST RATE OF RISE IN 1400 YEARS. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
Sorry, sonny, but Prof Phil Jones, a well known warmist, disagrees with you. Notice that the most recent warming is the same slope as the prior warming episodes. Go argue with Jones, maybe you will get somewhere. You’re just making false assertions here.
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. THE HYPOTHESIS IS SUPPORTED BY MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE VIEWABLE AT THE WEBSITES OF NASA, NOAA, AND THE IPCC, AND IN 10S OF THOUSANDS OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS. UNTIL YOU OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE SCINETIFIC EXPLANATION, THE HYPOTHESIS STANDS AS SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CITED..
Wrong-O, bud. May I remind you that you still have posted no verifiable, testable evidence, or any empirical measurements of AGW? None at all. You really shouldn’t put your ignorance on display like that, but the fact is that a hypothesis makes repeated, accurate predictions. A hypothesis is a theory, although a theory has to pass more rigorous tests. They must both, however, be able to make accurate predictions. The fact that you are going ballistic over that requirement says plenty about your AGW conjecture — which has never been able to make accurate predictions.
Finally, you throw a juvenile tantrum:
IT APPEARS YOUR METROLOGY TRAINING DID NOTHING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BROADER DISCIPLINES OF SCIENCE –AND FOR COMPREHENDING THAT MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE AGW HYPOTHESIS. THIS IS ALL VIEWABLE TO YOU IN THE LINKS PROVIDED.
Again, the ‘multiple lines of evidence’ canard. You have posted neither evidence nor measurements of AGW. And since you have my technical background, warrenlb, may I ask what your own CV is? I find it very hard to believe that you have any real science training at all. Your comments just do not support it. But, maybe you’ve been in the seminary? Or had other religious training? That would explain a lot about your Beliefs, you know…
You refuse to acknowledge the link I provided to climate.nasa.gov saying I provided no evidence, which is there in spades, along with the explanation of the physics of the greenhouse effect. And you hang your hat on the ridiculous point that I didn’t POST this information as support for AGW? You have now lost both your marbles and the argument. And you use personal attack , repeatedly, in your replies.
Your performance in both regards speaks volumes about you and the validity of your posts.
warrenlb asserts:
You refuse to acknowledge the link I provided to climate.nasa.gov saying I provided no evidence, which is there in spades, along with the explanation of the physics of the greenhouse effect.
If it were not for his baseless assertions, warrenlb wouldn’t have much to say. Asserting that evidence is “there in spades” is laughable. There is no evidence.
First, I did acknowledge his link — unlike warren, who has never acknowledged any of my own numerous links. I explained to warrenlb that his link shows no scientific evidence of AGW, which is a fact. I can try and teach warrenlb these things, but I can’t understand it for him.
For everyone else: ‘evidence’ consists of empirical, verified obsevations, and/or raw data. Pal reviewed papers and computer climate models — which form the basis of NASA’s link — are not evidence.
The only evidence NASA cites are measurements such as temperature changes and CO2 changes, which proves nothing. Those may well be just a coincidental correlation; they certainly are no proof that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales, from years out to hundreds of millennia. Since effect cannot precede cause, the effect of CO2 cannot be the cause of changes in global T. Rather, ∆CO2 lags T by 800 ±200 years.
[I repeat my own view that I think AGW exists, but that it is just too small to measure.]
I have repeatedly asked for even one measurement showing that human CO2 emissions cause ∆T, but neither warrenlb nor anyone else can produce any measurements. That leads to one of two possibilities: either AGW does not exist, or AGW is so minuscule at current CO2 levels that any resulting changes in temperature are simply too tiny to measure.
CO2 is now at ≈400 ppm. Look at the chart linked above. Another 10% rise in CO2 would not result in any measurable ∆T. Even another 50% rise in CO2 would not produce a measurable rise in temperature using today’s instruments. Almost all the effect of CO2 happened in the first 20 – 100 ppm. That is physics, warrenlb.
Finally, warrenlb says “you use personal attack , repeatedly, in your replies”, as he informs me that I have ‘lost my marbles’. Someone hand warrenlb a hanky. He would rather discuss his feelings than produce the measurement I am constantly requesting. Because without such a measurement, AGW remains nothing more than a conjecture.
@Catherine Ronconi.
On Nov 30 you said:
“The “primary greenhouse gas” is H2O.
You, Warren, are a scientific illiterate.”
My response: Katherine, do you normally start a dialogue with personal attack?
If you had asked, I would have answered that of course H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas, but the total amount of water vapor in earth’s atmosphere is relatively constant (air’s water vapor capacity is almost entirely a function of temperature), and varies primarily with location and season. As a result, water vapor’s contribution to the Earth’s greenhouse effect is roughly constant. The next largest contributor to the Greenhouse effect is CO2, which has increased 40% since the 1800s, and so is the main contributor to AGW –which is of course the point of my post.
The AGW was an invention of the Club of Rome see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2014 – 002
2014 – 011 More of The Club of Rome invented Global Warming
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All … Continue reading →
warrenlb says:
CO2, which has increased 40% since the 1800s, and so is the main contributor to AGW
That is a complete non sequitur; a coincidental correlation. Until/unless you can produce a measurement quantifying AGW, you are just speculating.
We need a measurement showing the percentage of global warming attributed to human CO2 emissions, as a fraction of total global warming. Simples. Just produce a measurement.
Because without such a measurement, AGW is only speculation. It is an opinion. A conjecture, nothing more. Measurement is central to all of science. The fact that there are no measurements of AGW destroys the runaway global warming scare. It is really nothing more than a giant head fake; the ultimate Chicken Little panic. It would be amusing, if there were not so much tax money and political power at stake.
But warrenlb is improving. At least he has given up accusing others of being anti-Semitic, and he’s finally climbed down from his ad hominem attacks against Lord Monckton. Now, if I could just get him to understand that his entire belief system is based on confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and appeals to compromised authorities, we could have a meeting of the minds.
But that may be a tough nut to crack, since warrenlb still claims that Earth is Warming, Man is the Cause, and the net effects are likely to be strongly negative. When arguments are made based on assertion, it’s almost like religion. warrenlb Believes, and it’s tough reasoning with someone like that.
And then there’s David Socrates, who says:
The fact is that the global temp has risen 0.8 degrees C in the past 150 years.
If you have a better explanation than AGW, please post it, and if you think it is “natural variation” you’d better be able to show us all when in the past million years the Earth has had an increase of this magnitude in such a short span of time.
Glad you asked. I am always happy to shine some light in the darkness. First, the 0.8º fluctuation over about 150 years is extremely benign. Normally, natural variability would cause much greater swings in temperature. Therefore, there is no need to invoke AGW. Natural variability is fully sufficient to explain such a very small change in temperature over more than a century. It is the simplest explanation. Occam’s Razor advises us to accept the simplest explanation. There is no need to muddy the waters with an extraneous and unnecessary variable like AGW.
Mr. Socrates says we had “better show” when in the past million years temperatures have changed more than that. May I? Thank you…
Just prior to our current Holocene, temperatures fluctuated by TENS of degrees, within only a decade or two. Those abrupt temperature changes occurred when CO2 remained steady. And of course, that happened well within the past ‘million years’.
If Mr. Socrates has any more questions, I’ll be glad to help him out.
@warrenlb:
As always, you could not possibly be more wrong.
CO2 on its own, if the atmosphere were a controlled lab experiment, produce about 1.2 degree C of warming for a doubling from 280 to 560 ppm. IOW, nothing to worry about & indeed a good thing.
The only way that catastrophists can drum up anything to worry about is by assuming high positive feedbacks from rising CO2, chief among which is the presumption, not in evidence, that it will cause higher H2O as well. This not observed positive feedback is supposed, again without evidence, to cause higher, worrisome temperatures (up 4.5 degrees C for a doubling) from more radiative forcing and clouds. But in fact, just the opposite happens on balance, ie water vapor and clouds are a net negative feedback, because of convective evaporative cooling, shading by clouds and other mechanisms.
Thus even the Team assumes that water vapor is the primary GHG.
Water vapor varies over the earth, from around 40,000 ppm in the moist tropics (ie 100 times more than CO2) to just a few or several ppm in the cold polar deserts. But its planetary average is around 30,000 ppm. This means that over most of the planet, any GHE from one, two or three more molecules of CO2 out of 10,000 dry air molecules, plus 300 H2O molecules on average, would be effectively swamped by the water vapor, the absorption bands of which to a large extent overlap those of CO2.
Where more CO2 might have a measurable effect, it scarcely matters, since that would be in the northern half of the NH, in winter at night. Raising winter temperature in the Arctic in winter night will have virtually no climatic effect, eg going from −25.7 °C to −24.5 °C, for instance, should CO2 ever actually reach 560 ppm there, and if the actual atmosphere does really behave like a lab, which it almost certainly does not, and in the also unlikely case that positive and negative feedbacks cancel each other out. Since earth’s climate is self-regulating, negative feedbacks usually predominate. Runaway heating is practically unknown in climate history, while during glacial phases of ice ages, positive cooling feedback has been observed.
The presumed global increase in CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm is trivial compared to the quantity of H2O over most of the planet, which, as noted, averages about 30,000 ppm. So instead of ~40% increase in GHG, it’s only about four percent. As noted, the effect might be noticeable at high latitudes, where it doesn’t matter much, but in any case will on balance be beneficial.
Thank you for a detailed response with numbers. This one’s a keeper.
You are right about the value of Climate Sensitivity without accounting for feedback.. However, nearly all Climate researchers reject your view that net feedback is zero or negative. As one example, water vapor has increased in the earths atmosphere at roughly the rate of 2.5% per decade for decades, a consequence of CO2 being driven from the oceans (primarily) and then amplifying the original warming due to CO2.
The consensus range of Climate Sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of 3C. The estimates are made using three techniques — proxy data from earths ancient past, modern day measurements of global temperature vs CO2 ppmv, and Climate Models. The three methods are in good agreement, confirming the validity of the estimates.
This conclusion of nearly all researchers is to be found at climate.nasa.gov, and the IPCC 5th Assessment.
Warrenlg writes “This conclusion of nearly all researchers is to be found at climate.nasa.gov, and the IPCC 5th Assessment.”
I suspect all of the regulars here know these sources. It is even a reasonable estimate, considerably reduced from AR4 of course.
You’re more wrong with every comment.
There is no evidence supporting the assumptions used in models to get scary ECS estimates. Quite the contrary.
Again, link to some actual studies in support of your assertions.
@Catherine Ronconi.
If the consensus estimates of PhD researchers working in the field is not enough, then I refer you to this more detailed explanation: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
But if you don’t accept peer-reviewed science, there’s not much I, or anyone else, can do for you.
warrenlb suggests “there’s not much I, or anyone else, can do for you.”
I think you mistook that anyone was asking.
There is no peer- or pal-reviewed papers presenting evidence for man-made global warming, since none exists. Please do as asked repeatedly and show us some examples of these alleged papers you imagine to exist.
Citing SkS doesn’t cut it here. A blog run by a failed cartoonist publishes nothing but cartoonish garbage.
If you really believe that man-made global warming exists, man up and make the case for it yourself, point by point, with supporting evidence as so many have done here showing that there is no valid evidence in support of the falsified hypothesis.
You won’t because you can’t. You’re a liar, which is why I addressed you as I did, to which you had no right to object, since you’ve shamelessly not apologized for or even admitted your blatant lie about Dr. Ball’s essay.
The world is still waiting for one of the anti AGW proponents on WUWT to publish their research in a peer reviewed science journal. And waiting, and waiting…… I wonder what this tells us?
Plenty of skeptical commenters on WUWT have published in peer reviewed journals. Had you done the least amount of actual research, you’d know this.
Some even allow as how there might be man-made global warming, but question its actual and theoretical extent. If it’s insignificant, not measurable or even just negligible and beneficial, then what’s the worry?
You just keep embarrassing yourself with more lies and false accusations.
warrenlb December 1, 2014 at 5:38 pm says:
“The world is still waiting for one of the anti AGW proponents on WUWT to publish their research in a peer reviewed science journal. And waiting, and waiting…… I wonder what this tells us?”
That “peer review” of yours is buddy review as Climategate emails demonstrate. But it is worse than that. They have scientific publishing under their control and if they do not like what you say they will refuse to even go through the motions of peer review and simply reject it out of hand. This happened to two of my papers, one sent to Nature and one to Science. I proved that the rate of sea level rise for the last 80 years had been under ten inches per century. Al Gore’s movie said 20 feet, hence I was wrong and got thrown out without even a peer review. When Gore got a Nobel prize for that trash I got mad and wrote a whole book about real climate science called “What Warming?” Awarding of that prize to him is an example of corruption in high places. Wait, a better way to put it is stupidity, ignorance, and corruption in high places.They had their fingers in every pie and were able to stop any contrary information from appearing in the scientific literature so that their propaganda machine could take full advantage of Al Gore’s lies. I happen to be one of those “anti AGW proponents” you speak of and I invite you to join us because you have been brainwashed by warmist lies. The science is settled – there is no such thing as AGW. It can be proved that it is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fantasy. I will summarize the relevant science below at a level any high school graduate can grasp. Here it goes:
First, we know that there is no warming right now and there has been none for the last 18 years. That is a an observation of nature. Second, during this period of time atmospheric carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing according to the Keeling curve based on accurate observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide content. Third, IPCC uses the Arrhenius greenhouse theory to predict future global warming by the greenhouse effect. The Arrhenius theory says that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will cause the air to warm because carbon dioxide absorbs OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation, which is infrared radiation). That is supposedly grounded in the radiation laws of physics. But look what is happening: atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, Arrhenius green house theory predicts warming, but nothing is happening. For each of the previous 18 years Arrhenius theory has predicted warming and got nothing at all. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing at all for 18 years in a row you are justified in putting that theory into the waste basket of history. Since the Arrhenius theory does not work the claim that it is based on absorption laws of physics is false. We need a greenhouse theory that is not in conflict with the laws of physics. Such a theory is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT. It differs from Arrhenius theory in being able to handle several greenhouse gases that simultaneously absorb in the infrared. Arrhenius can handle only one – carbon dioxide – and is incomplete. According to MGT, the two most important greenhouse gases – water vapor and carbon dioxide – form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the oprtical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming takes place. This warming that did not take place would have been called greenhouse warming by the failed Arrhenius theory we just dumped. The absence of this warming means that anthropogenic global warming, AGW, simply does not exist. It is a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by over-eager climate workers to justify the existence of the greenhouse hypothesis. In 1988 it had never been directly observed and Hansen took it upon himself to proove that it exists. He unveiled it in front of the United States Senate and announced that “..the greenhouse effect has been detected..” It turned out that at least one third of the hundred year warming he submitted as his proof was not caused by greenhouse type absorption. Hence, the verdict of real science is and remains:
THERE IS NO ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING NOW AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY. PERIOD.
Make this your talking point number one when talking to warmists because it is true. All the science to back it up is here.
Warrenlb writes “I wonder what this tells us?”
I love it when someone puts himself on report as not only having multiple personalities but apparently none of them know what they have been told.
There is no “us”. What anything tells you, only you know. For you to express wonderment at what a thing tells you is to admit that it tells you nothing.
These events tell me quite a lot. However you have not shown interest in my beliefs so I won’t bother you with the details.
@Michael 2. Know the sources, yes. Read and understood, no.
warrenlb says:
The consensus range of Climate Sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5C+ with a midpoint of 3C.
LOL!! There goes warrenlb with his ‘consensus’ fallacy again. I really wonder, does warrenlb even have a high school science education? From his comments, it’s very doubtful. Planet Earth herself is making it crystal clear that the 3ºC number is lunacy.
warrenlb doesn’t seem to understand the fact that global warming has stopped. Even the UN/IPCC admits to that fact now. Global T is going the wrong way for our boy warren. T is going DOWN, not up.
As uk u.s. says upthread, about warrenlb and his sidekick:
Must you so totally destroy them?
We can’t help it; it’s just too easy. Fun, too! ☺
Next, warrenlb says:
The world is still waiting for one of the anti AGW proponents on WUWT to publish their research in a peer reviewed science journal.
warrenlb presumes to speak for “the world”. But he is obviously ignorant of the numerous papers published by scientific skeptics, such as Prof Richard Lindzen, who has authored more than twenty dozen peer reviewed papers debunking the nonsense that warrenlb Believes in. The world already knows about those papers; only warrenlb seems to be ignorant.
I doubt that warrenlb will ever get up to speed on this subject. He gets his confirmation bias from pseudo-science blogs, so no wonder he doesn’t understand the basics.
Further, as I have repeatedly tried to educate warrenlb but to no avail: scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on the promoters of the man-made global warming CONJECTURE to provide supporting evidence for their conjecture.
Since they have failed, some of the more dense believers try to make skeptics prove a negative by insisting, as warrenlb does here, that skeptics must prove that AGW doesn’t exist! Wake me when warrenlb understands how the scientific method works. As of now, he doesn’t have a clue.
Finally, warrenlb cites the repeatedly debunked blog SkS — the only blog on the sidebar listed as “UNRELIABLE”. It is an anti-science blog run by a cartoonist, and it easily bamboozles scientific illiterates.
At least warrenlb is reading WUWT. If he continues long enough, some real science may even rub off on him.