Automated Twits

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

People wonder why anthropogenic global warming is a politicized issue. Here’s one reason among many. In a presentation aimed at the holidays that is impossible to parody, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has put up a website called, no kidding, “the Democrat’s guide to talking politics with your republican uncle”.

republican uncle

I loved how they capitalized “Democrat” but not “republican”. And here’s the advertisement for the web page that they’ve emailed out to alert the faithful to the new website:

democratic christmas

Me, I’m not a member of either party. I vote for the person not the party, and my general political philosophy is “A Pox On Both Their Houses”. However, I like to stay current with the propaganda from both sides.

In any case, there’s a section of that DNC web page that covers climate. It’s hilarious. Here are all of the different parts of their climate claims:

Climate: 97% of scientists vs. your Republican uncle

Myth

Climate change is just a liberal scare tactic.

Fact

Forgive us for being convinced by the 97% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are probably causing it. Republican obstruction on policies to address climate change endangers our environment and hurts our economy.

[Source]

Now, their [Source] is a NASA web page, and it goes to some length to prove that the globe has actually warmed over the last few centuries … but then we all knew that most scientists agree about that. However, in a classic “bait and switch”, it says nothing about whether humans are responsible, much less whether 97% of scientists believe that humans are driving the climate to Thermageddon. In fact, the NASA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once … that’s their evidence for their “97%” claim??? Do they understand what [Source] is supposed to mean?

[UPDATE: An alert reader pointed out below that there is a link on their page to another page which is supposed to give support for the “97%” number … but doesn’t. Instead, what it has are links to meaningless statements from the boards (not the members but the boards) of scientific societies, plus a citation to the laughable Naomi Oreskes study and such. Pathetic. In any case, the appeal to consensus is meaningless. As Michael Crichton said:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Can’t say it clearer than that.]

And alas, even NASA can’t resist the hype. They say:

Sea level rise

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

Umm … er … no. Not true in the slightest. That claim is the result of splicing the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, which shows no such rise. See Figure 3 here for details. [UPDATE: See also Steve Fitzpatrick’s comments below.]

NASA also gets all breathless about ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, saying:

Shrinking ice sheets

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better.

Setting NASA aside, the “republican uncle” page goes on to say,

Myth

Humans can’t do anything to combat rising CO2 levels.

Fact

Except we already are combating rising CO2. In 2012, the U.S. recorded the lowest levels of carbon emissions in nearly two decades . And by taking steps like improving fuel efficiency, we can do more in the years ahead. Because of new standards, for instance, the average car in 2025 will achieve a fuel economy equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon, nearly double that of cars on the road today. A goal, by the way, that Republicans tried to block.

They say that we “… will achieve a fuel economy…”? I do love the idea that King Barack Canute can order the tides to roll back, or order the average car to get 54.5 miles per gallon ten years from now, and it will perforce happen. The idiocy is revealed by the “.5” in the goal. These are the same fools, using the same kind of “order it and it must happen” idiotic logic who ordered oil refiners to utilize a product that doesn’t exist … but I digress.

More to the point, the reduction in CO2 emissions is NOT from any push, governmental or otherwise, to get off of fossil fuels. It is from the shift to a different fossil fuel, natural gas … the production of which has been widely opposed by Democrats. Taking credit for changes that they opposed … like I said, you can’t parody this stuff.

Finally, whether the US makes any changes in CO2 emissions is meaningless these days. We’re a minor player in the game. Here’s a graphic I made a couple of years ago showing why:

carbon_emissions_1970_all

As you can see, the developing nations are now in the driver’s seat. US emissions are already nearly flat. It doesn’t much matter what we do.

Myth

The United States can’t stay economically competitive if we address climate change.

Fact

Climate change itself is taking a toll on our economy. In 2012, climate and weather disasters cost the United States more than $100 billion . And right now, other countries are making huge investments in research and development to confront this crisis with new technologies — which means new industries and new jobs. We can’t afford to fall behind them. The longer Republicans deny climate change exists, the further we fall behind.

The myth of “green jobs” has been exploded many times and places, the latest being Germany and Spain.  There’s no cheese at the end of that maze.

And they’re playing fast and loose with the facts by claiming that the $100 billion cost of climate and weather disasters has anything at all to do with climate change. It has to do with weather, but there’s been no overall increase in extreme events … and in fact, the recent year has seen one of the lowest disaster rates in quite a while. Crisis, my okole. See here for details.

Finally, their “source” for the $100 billion number is nothing but another DNC puff piece that has no sources listed, and the figures given are labeled “Estimated” … pathetic.

Myth

President Obama wants the United States to stop climate change alone.

Fact

This summer President Obama announced a plan to reduce U.S. carbon pollution 25% from 2005 levels by 2020. But he also knows that climate change can only be solved if the international community works together. That’s why this November, the President announced a groundbreaking agreement to work with China to reduce carbon pollution and to increase the country’s non-fossil fuel energy to around 20% by 2030  .

It was a “groundbreaking agreement” alright, but not for the reasons they claim. It was groundbreaking because never in history have we given up so much in return for so little. It requires the US to take action immediately, but it allows the Chinese to increase their CO2 emissions as much as they want until 2030. Brilliant piece of negotiation, groundbreaking to say the least. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank … and the myth is absolutely true, Obama is left going it alone.

The best part of the web page, however, is that sprinkled throughout the document are a number of links with the little Twitter tweety-bird symbol next to them. If you click on one, it composes an automatic tweet all ready to go out under your byline, like this one:

#FACT: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are causing it. http://my.democrats.org/yru-climate

And the link at the end, to the website called “yru-climate”? …

Why, of course, that link goes to the website called “your republican uncle”.

Somewhere, the Founding Fathers are weeping …

Best to everyone, whether your uncles are Repuglicans or Demagogues,

w.

PS—If you disagree with someone, please be so kind as to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. That way we can all understand the exact nature of your objections.

Advertisements

315 thoughts on “Automated Twits

  1. This might just be the Christmas spirit talking here (40%) but do these people really believe what they are saying?

    • Effective Political Messaging can take years of planning and hyping.

      Think of something like the Olympics…the planning and the hype start 8 years out.

      So if something changes the messaging keeps going on as though nothing has changed.

    • The Liberal Way. 1, We are better than you.
      2. So give us the power.
      3. Then we take all your money.
      They believe in themselves. If it serves The Cause, It is believable.

      • If it serves The Cause, if they can just take and spend enough tax money, it is doable.
        If it’s not working throw more tax money at it.
        That’s another part of the Liberal Way.

      • That is the conservative way also. In fact it is the mantra of most leaders, although you might want to expand #1 to include “If you want to be better too, follow me/us”.

    • Believing anything from the DNC or the RNC for that matter, is akin to believing the moon is made from cheese. They are organizations whose only purpose is cheer-leading and character assassination. Hyperbole, hurting reputations, outright lying and lots of money are the tools used for winning elections. Unfortunately these organizations, which have less integrity than persons who snatch purses form old ladies, drive how the electorate votes.

      As bad as what Nixon did with the Watergate break-in, that behavior remains and is SOP. What political operators learned from Watergate was how to get away with digging up dirt. When Obama was running for senate, his opponents sealed divorce records were exposed, embarrassing his opponent and causing him drop out. Obama never won an election, until the presidential election, his opponents having to drop out for various reasons during his meteoric rise. Funny that.

      The DNC climate talking points are of course ridiculous hyperbole and goofy lies. There is no counter to true believers who uncritically buy into it. My response to the uncle or nephew who is not open to critically picking through the issues, is to ask them to get back to me when the climate stops changing at which point I will become concerned enough to discuss the issue with them.

      “Talking points” maybe the worst human invention since sin in the garden of Eden.

    • I forget where I read “the leftists don’t believe in any of the things they want to subject the rest of us to” (or something like that).

      • That is linked to the other old chestnut:

        Libralism and Socialism are the best political systems by far – until they run out of other people’s money…..

        Ralph

  2. still cherry-picking facts!

    from Fact re alleged Myth “Humans can’t do anything to combat rising CO2 levels”:

    “In 2012, the U.S. recorded the lowest levels of carbon emissions in nearly two decades”

    why go back to 2012 when you can use the figures for 2013?

    17 Dec: Eureka Alert: Global carbon dioxide emissions increase to new all-time record, but growth is slowing down
    After years of a steady decline, the CO2 emissions of the United States grew by 2.5% in 2013…
    These are the main findings in the annual report ‘Trends in global CO2 emissions’, released today by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the JRC. The report is based on recent results from the joint JRC/PBL Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), the latest statistics on energy use and various other activities…
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/ecjr-gce121714.php

    22 Dec: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Top firms’ greenhouse gas emissions rise, despite call for cuts
    Greenhouse gas emissions by the world’s top 500 companies rose 3.1 percent from 2010 to 2013, far off the cuts urged by the United Nations to limit global warming, a study showed on Monday…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/22/climatechange-companies-idUSL6N0U622A20141222

    and all these rises in emissions are occurring during a global economic downturn!

    • I think that the festive season must bring on some temporary irresponsibility , otherwise how can I account for this little bubble of mischief inside me that says , in response to the po- faced reports above. “go CO2, go ! “

    • This obsession with CO2 is like a bizarre fetish.

      CO2 cannot go down unless globally we suppress economic growth, start killing people off at 50, and restrict child birth. Sure it can go down by some fractional, insignificant amount with alternative energy, but the fact remains the more humanity thrives the more CO2 we will generate among other things.

      • In maybe 100 years, when it will be clear that additonal atmospheric CO2 is actually very beneficial for nature and mankind, our descendants will only grin and scratch their heads about these crazy climatism cargo-cultists like Obama, Merkel & co… ;-)

      • “CO2 cannot go down unless globally we suppress economic growth, start killing people off at 50, and restrict child birth.”

        That’s the Watermelons’ goal. CO2 is just an excuse to get there.

        Never make the mistake of believing the left really care about their ‘issues’. They’re just a means to an end.

    • I guess Pat that if the global population is the same , lets say from 2010 to 2013 that would work. But if that population increased by 5% is the CO increase by 2.5% on a 50% decreasing line ?

  3. I think your voting policy is wise. Strong supporters of either party seem to think that they can save the country from the other side. What a stupid, negative way to approach politics. Voters need to stop being loyal to parties, and parties need to be loyal to voters. How can competition work if you’re nothing but a cheerleader? Raw allegiance is what makes sports exciting but it damages politics.

    It seems to me that the left likes to feel superior, like it has some kind of monopoly on the meanings of progress and of compassion. The right likes to think that it has a monopoly on the definition of loyalty and of patriotism. Of course I am simplifying.

    • You’re largely correct, however. But I think the major difference is in short-term thinking (Dems) vs long-term thinking (Reps). The Democrats want immediate action, even though it has severe long-term consequences. And vice-versa. Take your pick.

      • Please. The only thing republicans seem to think long term about is that they are happy losing one election after another. Neither party has ideologies to speak of and their political programs are just opportunistic. Consider that, for instance, climate warming was in fact invented by the Thatcher government. Look it up.

      • Thatcher government was not republican. Thatcher is not a republican.
        Though one could say large majority of republicans thought Thatcher was a great politician.
        The Left hated Thatcher. The Left loves Castro.
        The Left hated President Reagan.
        Reagan liked Thatcher, Thatcher liked Reagan. Both considered that could work together
        to resolve problems [the empire of USSR being such a problem].
        They confirmed and strengthen the long standing alliance between US and UK.
        Reagan was considered by many republicans as a great US President.

        Many republicans has high hope for Obama as US President- many of them actually
        voted for him. If these republicans supported Obama because they knew Obama would destroy the Democrats, then they had skill as oracles.
        But it seems to me, that with say, Peggy Noonan, it was mostly a matter of wishful thinking.

        The reasonable objective view is that both Thatcher and Reagan were great leaders.
        Or at least in terms of grading on the curve, they were the best and brightest in their class.

        And fact is that Democrat party has been taken over by the Left.
        As the obvious lies and nonsense of this Democrat Guide is a typical example of the Left.
        A “path of enlightenment” for the Left is brainwashed public.
        This Democrat Guide is brainwashing 101, designed the committee of smartest
        Lefties that money can buy.
        Keeping in mind, any smart Lefty is sort of oxymoron, and the smartest is a low bar, with a committee of them being a machine that has a runaway effect on stupid.

      • gbaikie, my friend, you lost the plot a long, long time ago.

        The fact is that global warming was created as a political tool by a conservative (so called “right wing”) party. Look it up. It’s not a secret.

        As for your beliefs regarding what millions of people “love” or “hate”, take a chill pill. It’s friendly advice.

      • Thatcher had problems with coal miners striking. The Tories didn’t invent it but bought into it quickly because of that. Baroness Thatcher’s opinions later were that she was sold a pup.

        Look it up in a reliable source.

      • This reply is meant to be to Brute’s comment below where he says “The only thing republicans seem to think long term about is that they are happy losing one election after another.” only there isn’t a reply button under his comment on my computer.
        Brute I don’t understand what you mean, The Republicans won the House in 2010, and won the Senate just this year, and increased their majority in the House and increased the number of governorships and legislative bodies they control, in fact by every conceivable measure this year was a landslide year for Republicans. If you are talking about presidential elections well, yes they lost two in a row, but they won two in a row before that.

      • @Robert B

        The fact remains that the meme of climate warming was first deployed by conservatives. It only makes matters worse that they admit to lying about its content at the time. But, it’s ok. Many are lying about it today. That’s politics. And, let’s be honest, “climate” has a hook so the cynics use it. Many more imbecilic agendas have been successfully proposed to then be utterly forgotten once milked out.

        @Tom Trevor

        I was particularly talking about presidential’s but it applies to all elections. There appears to be an strategy of simply waiting for the pendulum to swing. As if somehow that is enough. Granted, it seems to be in terms of results. Eventually, Republicans are voted back in… and out.

        But I expect more from Republicans because I am on the right of the political spectrum. And their program, their language, their presentation, etc, have been at odds with reality for a long time. I was referring to that. There seems to be no fight, no growth, no internal development. Obama, for instance, won without having to face a real political response. There were muppets, for sure, but not a political agenda of substance.

    • Although it may seem reasonable to “vote for the person not the party,” as Willis said, this still leaves much to be discussed in exactly who is the best person.

      I’ve heard for years the claim of voting for the person, not the party, from a considerable majority of people who’ve expressed to me their vote decision rationale. Rarely have I met one who’s claimed allegiance to a particular party. And look where it’s taken us. If you’re preference leans toward totalitarianism, then be happy because we are well down that slippery slope.

      Recent history shows us that no matter how “good” a Democrat might seem compared to a Republican, the bottom line is that in critical considerations, Democrats have voted for bigger government. Coercion, bribes, and lies by party leaders have help ensure that process. Just look at the case of Bart Stupak, for one.

      Not that the Republicans are better… the true colors of the Republican establishment have been revealed in their otherwise inexplicable votes since the election which showed clearly that a majority of voters favor a different path. But at least there are some in the Republican Party who are resolutely bucking their “leadership.”

      If one believes in the principle expressed by our founders that people in government should not rule our lives, but rather the opposite, then voting “for the person not the party” requires a little extra contemplation – and maybe some creative action.

      • Nicely said, Vic. My reaction to that sentence was similar to yours, but colored a little differently. I have come to the realization (lo, these many years) that once a Democrat is elected, he or she will ALMOST ALWAYS vote with their caucus, so it doesn’t matter if that is “the best person”. Tammy Duckworth is a fine example in my home state of Barackistan.

        While I do not swear fealty to the GOP, you can rest assured that I will vote against ANY Democrat- as you mentioned, they are the party of big government and less freedom.

        I am a conservative, not a Republican- these days there is quite a difference…

  4. All of these are ridiculously simple to counter if only a democrat was capable of listening to something other than their leftist programming.

    IE, any reasonably competent “republican uncle” will attempt to patiently explain why that stuff is incorrect and/or lies.

    • Indeed, anyone who disrupts the gathering with such blunt statements as:
      “X is a Y, Climate Change is a Lie”,
      They have already lost the argument.

      It would be inappropriate,

      But calm discussion of current events can be far more persuasive. New ideas are always interesting (even when wrong) and friendly chat can be welcome.

      What’s the alternative, after all? An update on medical news of people you’ve never met and discussion of sporting events from half a year ago.

      • MCourtney – All very reasonable, except the bluntness is normally from the ‘warmist’ side. So explain where the 97% came from – a very low response to a survey that was then whittled down to less than 100 ‘qualified’ responses of all but 2 answered a leading question in one way. And the response will be ‘we do not believe you – I read it was 97% in [name a warmist source] so it is true.’
        Say the Earth is warming naturally out of the little ice age and you will be told – ‘no it’s not, the little ice age was not global it only affected Europe – I read that in [name a warmist source].’

        From then on the response to any reasonable point will be derision and ‘no it isn’t ‘. The committed to a cause are not interested in such ‘subtleties’ as the ACE index, they saw the devastating unprecedented superstorm Sandy and this means that all coastal communities will be wiped out if we don’t all move to electric cars powered by windfarms. If you are against this green progress you want all our grandchildren to drown.

        End of reasonable discussion.

  5. Solid gold, Mr. Eschenbach, as per usual. Though i invariably remember,”Never interrupt the enemy when he’s making a mistake”. Napoleon Bonaparte, before he came second to the Duke of Wellington.
    Many thanks for keeping the Light of Empirical Science shining in the Darkness of Policy-led Nonsense.
    ” and the Darkness knows it not”. Merry Christmas.

    • I think the meaning of comprehend here (KJV) was overcome rather than understand or know.

      ‘And the light goes on shining in the dark; it is not overcome by the dark.’
      – Basic English Bible

      Words change their meaning. Wren’s St Pauls was described as ‘awful and artificial’. Gordon Brow famously misunderstood the meaning of ‘moral compass’ whilst boasting about his.

      ‘Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and run with patience the race that is set before us, …’

      May we all have the strength to keep running the race in 2015 and speaking out for the light of science and truth.

      Nigel S (Uncle and Grandfather)

      • Yes, words do change, some changing to an antonym of the original: a ‘sophisticated’ person was one who quibbles and picks at trivial aspects of an argument, from the Latin sophisticare. However, ‘sophist’ from the earlier Greek meant someone of wisdom, learning and intelligence. So it seems the Romans ballsed up the Greek meaning and we went back to the Greek…er .. rather we ballsed up the Latin. An Americanism that is younger than I am is the word ‘oversight’. An oversight committee is one which oversees some deliberation or another. I’m not sure whether or not it reaches beyond the shores of North America. Of course the ‘old’ meaning meant just the opposite: an oversight was something overlooked! It still jars me when I hear the modern usage. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that will come into play when the CAGW mythology is toast. Consensus will probably come to mean the majority of scientists who DIDN’T believe in global warming and ‘extreme’ will be ‘calm and uneventful’. Characters like me will have to get a new age dictionary and relearn the language. We know no one is going to say we were wrong… although they could change the meaning of wrong!

        Happy Christmas and New Year Willis and all.

  6. As I understand it, support for Democrats is due to collapse shortly.
    So this Warmist tactic may well back-fire disastrously!

    • Thing is that it is not just one fight. You have to be right on all the major ones to defeat them. All they have to do is take a serious run at Prohibition and they could be back in office because the trends on that issue are running in their favor.

  7. Very happy Christmas season wishes to you, Willis, and to your gorgeous former fiance, and thank you for everything you do in the war against ignorance.

  8. As always, Willis, you efforts are deeply appreciated. My thoughts, as I sit by my fire and contemplate the past year and things to come, the democrats have passed their zenith. They don’t know it yet but I think Jessie Jackson is about to get his wish. It won’t be long until a whole lot of people realize how nice it is to have cheap fuel and begin to do an accounting of the problems that are hatched in the democrat nest. The talk- to -your- republican- uncle bit is indicative of the flailing about that begins as the catastrophic climate paradigm dies. I am guessing there will be multiple reports in the news papers about an inexplicable rise in certain offspring getting the living dog crap choked out of them by their parent’s sibling.

    • Nah, Steve… the “republican uncle” guy is far smarter than that. I have 4 nephews, all of whom started out with school programming on AGW. Over the years things have changed. Now they get it… well, 3 of them anyway. There’s never been a raised voice or anything like that. Just the calm explanation that those particular things are just plain not true, examine your sources, determine if they have an agenda. Generally speaking, skeptics don’t. They just want the facts and the truth, not your money or your vote.

  9. Why didn’t they title it “Here’s a bunch of strawman agents for you to whip out and look like a moron”?

    • Because it would be unnatural for a politician to tell the truth ?
      Ah well , Merry Christmas everyone !

    • Recently I calmly explained much of the above to a young niece, with particular emphasis on the lack of predicted harms actually occurring (record low tornadoes, decreased hurricanes, etc, and an emphasis on the known benefits of CO2.)

      Her response at the end was to get up a bit frustrated at my “good news” and express that my comments depressed her. I did not follow up with asking her why this good news depressed her, as I would have literally needed to get up and follow her.

  10. I have a good friend who works in the NGO world of liberation media. She tells me that whenever she tries to introduce inconvenient facts into any forum she is ridiculed, shunned and ignored. The room will always follow the approved narrative regardless of how distant it is from reality because to not do so will have a severe effect on funding.

    Each gathering is of the faithful as the nonconformists are constantly weeded out. Competence is never a consideration only servility to the cause. The money is “other people’s money” but the gatekeepers are the deciders of who gets what and they are in place because they advance the political position even if absolute lies of commission and omission need to be done.

    Hearing her talk I realised how this AGW nonsense has been so successful. As Climategate showed us, if you don’t follow the official narrative you get no money and your career dies away. My friend is out of the NGO world now and is doing commercial radio which is hard, but honest, work.

  11. Welcome to my parlour said the spider to the fly.

    Any amateur warmist who wants to debate climate with me is very welcome but all my relatives and friends, regardless of political affiliation, look to me to explain climate news anyway. It’s more peaceful but less sparky. I have to take my frustrations out on the odd door to door evangelist who is foolish enough to call.

  12. I have looked at the NOAA web page and the numbers they quote for “shrinking Ice sheets” don’t have error bars. My gut feeling as a scientist myself is that the error on their numbers are much greater than the quoted ice lost of 0.01% per year for Greenland and 0.001% per 3 years for Antarctica. In other words we don’t know if these ice caps are melting, stable or growing.

    • … and based on GRACE sat data to boot. A system that misses half mile high mountain ranges but can supposedly resolve ice thickness and sea level simply based on gravity. (I guess water gravitons are different from crustal, mantle and core gravitons when they act on other masses.)

      • Actually gravity measures are extremely precise (vastly more so than e. g. radar measurements of the altitude of the ice). However they have low horizontal definition (yes, a half-mile high and half-mile wide mountain will be “smeared out”) and, unfortunately, water and rock gravitons aren’t different, so all measurement must be corrected for the vertical movement of the crust under the ice. This correction is very uncertain, particularly in Antarctica.

  13. When you look up the word Democracy it means Rule of the people and can seem like the people have control . BUT if you look up the word rule it means control .So what Democracy really means is Control of the people .And the best way to control people is to control information and learning by the use of “Propaganda is information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented” Cheers and a merry Christmas to all here at WUWT .

    • That’s another Democrat lie. The United States is NOT a democracy it’s a Constitutional Republic. Democracies do not work. Note how neither the Constitution nor the Declaration use the words democratic or democracy and note there is not a “right” to vote. A democracy is 4 wolves and 3 sheep deciding what’s for dinner… basically mob rule. That’s what the Progressives want, an ignorant mob they can manipulate and their propagandists in education, entertainment and the “news” industry have given them that mob.

      • Janice, you are right, and you are also splitting hairs. The basic idea behind the U.S. form of government is, in Abraham Lincoln’s words: “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Democratic government. Let’s not argue too much about that.

      • Sigh, look up the difference between State and administration (government). The USA is a republic, i..e. not a monarchy, administered by a democratic form of government. Stop promoting this nonsense.

      • Tor, that’s not what Lincoln meant in that statement. That speech was given in a time of kings and queens and he was not referring to democracy, rather that the people were their government not a bunch of royals leading the ignorant rabble around. The fact that a kid from a farm, that ignorant rabble, could become President was his point. We were far less “democratic” as a nation when Lincoln was president than we are now.

  14. Well put Willis, the finger wagging, nanny knows best socialism is a curse, that rears its ugly head every time they win an election. They are wrong about global warming, redistribution of wealth before the economy is strong enough to afford it and micro-management of citizens lives.
    That said, A Merry Christmas and a healthy, happy, peaceful and prosperous 2015 to everyone on WUWT.

  15. Remember well: if the local atmosphere was absorbing and thermalising global mean 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ surface-emitted IR energy, it would have to be 15.47 K cooler than the 16 deg C surface. This is a S-B calculation that even the dumbest of eco-fascists, and they are seriously dumb to have fallen for the IPCC fraud, can do. I assume a generously low 0.75 atmospheric Emissivity.

    That air temperature would be lower than at any time since the Ordovician ice age, 444 million years ago. The fact that there is no surface to atmosphere temperature drop proves there can be no Enhanced GHE. Furthermore, real CO2 climate sensitivity ~zero, kept there by atmospheric processes that reduce humidity.

    So, tell all warmists you meet not only are they wrong, they are stupid; this goes all the way to the top. No professional scientist would ever make such a dumb error. You may check my reasoning by looking at Figure 2.5 of co-IPCC founder Sir John Houghton’s treatise ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ where he shows there can be no average surface-local atmosphere temperature drop because of the convection that maintains lapse rate. One may well ask why he now supports the IPCC fraud.

    As for the real AGW, and there was some in the 1980s and 1990s, it was from the burst of Asian aerosol emissions. The same mechanism accounts for ice ages and the 60 – 90 year Arctic melt-freeze cycle, now freezing. Merry Christmas everybody and hope that the New Year will see the chief fraudsters put on trial.

    • Boy are you being generous. Your emissivity number is over double what it really is. N2 and O2 aren’t really measurable and CO2 is around 0.0017. The only things in the atmosphere that really emit are water vapor and suspended particulates. (Unless you are counting N2 and O2 at 100km+ bombarded with high energy solar wind.) Here’s an interesting read on the subject.

  16. I always fail to understand why those on the left of the political spectrum are so pro climate change. In the west it requires the redistribution of money away from poor people to rich people living in the developing world, leading to increased fuel poverty for the poorest in our societies, surely against what the left stands for. On the right, climate change is pushed as a means to guarantee a safe return from investing in renewable energy technology, so I this instance, redistributing money from poor people (again) but this time to investors (whomever they be).

    There are good arguments to invest in renewable technology (as oil is finite) and if we leave it too late, it will won’t be economic to build wind farms. but the reality is, they are a far more expensive means of producing energy, so we will all be poorer as a result. Nuclear is the only feasible solution, yet leftists are against this as well! It’s almost if they hate the poor!

    • The right wants to make some people rich, the left wants everyone to be poor as it is easier to control them.

    • “as oil is finite”
      There are methane lakes on Titan a moon of Saturn. It seems unlikely that these lakes were caused by ‘carboniferous’ era fossil plants. Once it is accepted that hydrocarbons can be formed without the need for compressing rotting vegetation, then it must also be accepted that the hydrocarbons available may be being continually renewed by a natural geological process. The statement that oil is finite may then be as true as a statement that lava is finite

      • rotting vegetation
        = sapropel for petroleum
        The mind-image you transmit is of swamps leading to coal.
        The theory you are supporting is called “abiogenic petroleum origin” –
        Worth reading about.

        Merry Christmas.

      • Happy Boxing Day!! Along the lines of this sub-thread, Dr. Thomas Gold has a theory regarding the natural synthesis of petroleum hydrocarbons:

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil/dp/0387985468
        http://joer4x4.hubpages.com/hub/Peak-Oil-or-Nonsense

        There is also a Wiki link but due to the controversy surrounding this theory I thought it best not to link to that location. From what I’ve read, his theory is still just that, as attempts to drill deep exploratory wells to find petroleum in locations as theorized were non-conclusive; as far as I could find there has been no further research into the validity of the theory. Still, intriguing to say the least…but I remain a skeptic….more hard data are needed. But it is a fascinating potentiality well worth additional research. New windmills or PV arrays – or research of Gold’s Theory?????????

        Happy New Year to all,

        Michael C. Roberts

      • Michael C. Roberts on December 26, 2014 at 9:42 am mentions Dr. Gold’s book. Thanks Michael.

        Tommy Gold, the author of Deep Hot Biosphere was a multi- and diversely-talented man. I doubt anyone has so far reported that among his talents was sewing. According to my wife, who sews professionally, he was pretty good at it. We were nonetheless delighted to have him show up to get her to finish something when he did get in over his head!

        And he was keen to admit to being (originally) an electrical engineer.

        When I asked him how the book was being accepted he admitted he was having difficulty with those who had not read it. Indeed! The theory and supporting evidence in the book is uniformly and tightly argued. Hard to get around the inconvenient questions he asks – except by saying that 97% (a number that pops to mind) of consensus scientists think otherwise. Readers here appreciate the value of simply voting on a science issue!

        A top scientist and a fine gentleman: we miss him greatly. And a great book you won’t be able to put down.

  17. Many good points there Willis, but I think this one is rather weak:

    As you can see, the developing nations are now in the driver’s seat. US emissions are already nearly flat. It doesn’t much matter what we do.

    The problem is that the developing nations are not one county, they are several independent ones and each of them can point to their own small emission and say that our emissions doesn’t matter much.

    (Well, China may have a problem with saying this, but it is easily solved by splitting up their figures and looking at the emissions from each Canton independently.)

    Seriously speaking, no country matter more than the US in this.

    If the US, which is the second largest carbon emitter in the world, and the most prosperous large country in the world, will not make an effort, then all smaller and less prosperous counties can point to the US and say: “Why should we pay for this when the US doesn’t? Our citizens are emitting far less CO2 than the richer US citizens”.

    /Jan

    • True Jan, but you ignore several messages incorporated in the article. The US has reduced emissions, and future TOTAL emissions will increase IMMENSELY, regardless of any further US cut back. Look at the chart. A 15 percent cut in the US will do almost nothing for global emissions.

      Neither China or India will cut back regardless of anything Europe of the US does, and they, along with all developing nations, will celebrate the fact that our cuts make us less competitive with them for global production needs and wants.

      Also of course is the simple fact that it is good news that they do not cut their emissions of CO2, which is globally beneficial.

      • David, you may be right that the benefits of the currently elevated CO2 level outweigh the losses. It probably gives some heating, some less alkaline seawater and some extra plant growth – whether we end up with more benefits than losses with the current level of 400 ppm compared to the pre-industrial level of 270 ppm is hard to say.

        And you are definitely right that if we do nothing to curb the emissions, they will probably increase dramatically as the developing world will be using more energy. The CO2 level in the end of this century can be the triple of the pre-industrial level. The crucial question is then whether the losses will still be small with such high CO2 level.

        I am not so sure that I would take that risk.

        /Jan

    • actually on a per citizen basis the US is not the second largest emitter … and below you talk about the current losses associated with CO2 at 400 … care to list even one loss ? kind of hard since there are none … you sound reasonable in your comments but then completely ignore the facts … ignorance like that takes years of propaganda to develop so I guess we can’t expect you to unlearn it very quickly but you should at least try …

      • Kaiser,
        If you want only one loss I can pick a quite uncontroversial one: CO2 causes corrosion in the reinforcements in concrete. http://www.concretecorrosion.net/html_en/mecanism/cadre.htm

        The process is that CO2 causes a chemical process called “carbonation” which leads to lowering the PH in the concrete. The enforcement starts to corrode when the PH decreases below 9.5. Higher CO2 concentration gives shorter time before the corrosion starts.

        The US is as a country the second largest emitter after China, and the emissions per capita is much larger in US than in China. You can of cause find some small countries with even higher emissions per capita than US, but US has the highest emissions among the big nations.

        /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen
        The process is that CO2 causes a chemical process called “carbonation” which leads to lowering the PH in the concrete. The enforcement starts to corrode when the PH decreases below 9.5. Higher CO2 concentration gives shorter time before the corrosion starts.

        That propaganda has been analyzed by actual civil-structural engineers … and has been found to be greatly exaggerated, and the results trivial in the real life of real-world rebar and actual concrete covering thicknesses. If you build “per code” there is no lifetime loss of strength nor integrity.

        It is the FEARS of CO2 that ACTUALLY DO cause politicians to promote policies that ACTUALLY DO kill millions and harm billions every year.

      • RAC says:

        That propaganda has been analyzed by actual civil-structural engineers

        Sorry RAC, but you have to show me some documentation for your claims.
        The effect of carbonatation of concrete is well documented and has a high cost to society as is described in the link I provided.

        See also:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_degradation
        http://www.understanding-cement.com/carbonation.html

        or simply search “concrete carbonation” in Google

        /Jan

      • One absurd meme of the present day is that tomorrow’s problems will be tackled using today’s technology. Like, “they’ve gone about as fer as they can go” in “Kansas City”. Why do folks base faith on dire predictions rather than their grand-children’s resourcefulness? Negative thought is the underlying driver of anxiety and impatience so prevalent in many societies. It provokes the need to guess what’s going to happen next and prevent or modify the outcome. I see the media alarmist litany as spawned from negativity and harmful to the “global mentality”. When positive thought is adopted and information is filtered through critical rules of analysis, perspective of the future becomes less frightening and more exciting. My Utopian dream of the future is worldwide enlightenment through optimism, rather than world government control of resources

    • Jan Kjetil Andersen December 25, 2014 at 2:37 am

      Many good points there Willis, but I think this one is rather weak:

      As you can see, the developing nations are now in the driver’s seat. US emissions are already nearly flat. It doesn’t much matter what we do.

      The problem is that the developing nations are not one county, they are several independent ones and each of them can point to their own small emission and say that our emissions doesn’t matter much.

      Near as I can tell, we have no actual evidence that anybody’s emissions matter in the slightest.

      (Well, China may have a problem with saying this, but it is easily solved by splitting up their figures and looking at the emissions from each Canton independently.)

      Seriously speaking, no country matter more than the US in this.

      Jan, if you want to go to the developing nations and inform them that they should further impoverish their citizens by fighting the imaginary menace of CO2, be my guest. Many people have tried it, and to a country, the developing nations have told them to piss off … and so they should.

      If the US, which is the second largest carbon emitter in the world, and the most prosperous large country in the world, will not make an effort, then all smaller and less prosperous counties can point to the US and say: “Why should we pay for this when the US doesn’t? Our citizens are emitting far less CO2 than the richer US citizens”.

      And rightly so, because nobody should pay for such a useless pile of merde. Jan, we’ve just (over my objections) instituted Cap-and-Trade in California. It will cost us untold billions of dollars with a “b”, and is estimated to produce a cooling of … wait for it … 0.02°C by 2050. I can’t tell you how sick I am of well-meaning folks like yourself earnestly assuring me that that’s a good deal. See here for more about this insane proposal.

      As to the idea that if the US leads the others will follow, we’ve already tried that with the Kyoto Protocol and guess what? The people who signed on to Kyoto aren’t even following their own lead, much less the developing nations..

      Look, India and China are not suicidal. They’re not going to sentence their people to eternal poverty just because well-meaning wealthy people like you think it’s a brilliant plan. Meanwhile, the fight against CO2 has already driven electricity costs in Germany and Spain and the UK through the roof.

      People are freezing all over Europe in fuel poverty, but noooo, Jan thinks sentencing people to shiver in their homes is such a brilliant plan that the US and all the other countries should follow suit …

      Sorry, pal, but some of us are smarter than that. You do not get to claim the moral high ground when you are putting your damn foot on the neck of the poor. Your proposal is immensely destructive, and the only good news is, the developing nations are paying absolutely no attention to your maniacal delusions.

      w.

      PS—LOOK AT THE CHART! The emissions of the industrialized nations are nearly flat. Suppose we make them actually flat … will that make any difference? Emissions in the developing world are skyrocketing, and that’s the best news that the world could have. It means that they will actually able to have things like refrigerators in their health clinics, and their housewives and farmers will be released from endless, backbreaking work. How anyone can oppose that is a mystery to me.

      • Willis
        As I answered to David above, I am most concerned about the long time consequences. With business as usual scenario we may get a CO2 level in the end of this century of more than the triple of the pre-industrial level. That may have serious effects which I think it is hazardous to ignore.

        It will be a considerable economic cost to reduce the carbon emissions, and the rich world has to carry most of the burden. However, we have to remember that we expect the world economy to grow anyway. In the next 30 – 40 years the economy per capita will probably more than double in most of the developing world and it will probably also increase considerably per capita in the industrialized world.

        The cost of carbon reduction will not take all this growth, but it can reduce it by a few percent. This put the choices in perspective. We do not talk about going back to poor conditions and to shiver in our homes. The question is whether we should choose a course with somewhat slower economic growth to avoid tripling the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

        /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen wrote, “With business as usual scenario … ”

        When in the last 100 years has there been a “business as usual scenario”? We stopped cutting trees for heat, replacing them with coal, oil, gas and nuclear power. Horses are now used only for recreation. Commercial buildings are supported by steel. Pocket calculators and street maps are relics.

        The only constant is change, driven by man’s curiosity and ingenuity and desire to invent new things and make life better.

      • I sympathize. We’re anticipating Carbon Taxes here in the Green Mountain State of Vermont and with renewal of the Production Tax Credit (what marketing outfit writes this crap?), we’re looking forward to more good jobs dozing ridge lines and installing worthless whirligigs.

        My wood shed is full.
        Happy New Year and thanks Willis.

      • What is seldom mentioned, or taken into account when estimating the amount of CO2 released by 20xx (e.g., 2040, 2050, etc.) is what is referred to as ‘peak oil’. The ‘Save the Earth’ crowd seem to be rather one-tracked in their catastrophe predictions and incapable of considering more than one at a time, or the effects of one on the other.

        Since the availability of (usable) hydrocarbons seems to be a function of cost-to-extract, and at current rates that cost is rapidly increasing, it is highly probable that by the 2040 to 2050 time frame other less costly forms of energy that are also less carbon intensive will be discovered/developed and the remaining hydrocarbons reserved for better uses. I was in Houston during the OPEC initiated petroleum crisis in the ’70’s where several Oil Industry executives were quoted as saying that it was a shame to burn crude oil, it was much more valuable to mankind as chemical feedstocks.

        I’m not against spending a bit of my tax money on research, but to commit thousands of old pensioners to freezing to death as parts of Europe have done is totally unacceptable to any caring individual. I have to agree with Willis on that.

      • speed says:

        The only constant is change, driven by man’s curiosity and ingenuity and desire to invent new things and make life better.

        Yes, we could of course be lucky. Perhaps new technologies will give us some cheap and carbon free energy which will outperform carbon based energy on pure economical terms. Perhaps carbon based energy will be history before the CO2 level raises to extreme levels.

        But that doesn’t seem to happen in the foreseeable future, and I think it is a rather bad practice to base long term planning on luck.

        /Jan

      • Jan – we don’t need luck, we already have technology that could replace hydrocarbon fuels for power generation. Nuclear. Unfortunately the left is even more afraid of the scary lies they spread about nuclear then they are the ones they spread about CO2.

      • Jan, Free renewable energy provides the most expensive unreliable electricity, proven actual results. Get your foot off the neck of the poor.

    • new normal,
      your point has relevance beyond the obvious.

      Sufficient political pressure can achieve a near monolithic consensus in favor of the most wildly unlikely propositions. The following picture shows North Koreans mourning the death of the vile dictator Kim Jong Il

      Think of them as government climate scientists.

      • Never been a fan of truth by comittee.
        And I do think that sosiologly the climate change circus wouldn’t be possible without the evil wave of political correctnes gripping the western world.

  18. The Fact the democrats fear the most is no longer the Republican Uncle, it’s the Republican Niece and Nephew. They seem to be popping up everywhere like Spring Flowers.

  19. AGW is an invention of the Club of Rome to frighten the Plebs into accepting loss of freedom of speech and personal liberties to ‘save the world’ and make it easier to achieve the New World order. see http://www.theeuroprobe.org 2014 – 002   From: Watts Up With That? To: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 6:24 Subject: [New post] Automated Twits #yiv1008520438 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv1008520438 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv1008520438 a.yiv1008520438primaryactionlink:link, #yiv1008520438 a.yiv1008520438primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv1008520438 a.yiv1008520438primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv1008520438 a.yiv1008520438primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv1008520438 WordPress.com | Willis Eschenbach posted: “Guest Post by Willis EschenbachPeople wonder why anthropogenic global warming is a politicized issue. Here’s one reason among many. In a presentation aimed at the holidays that is impossible to parody, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has put u” | |

  20. Typical orthodox arrogance, but with a peculiar insecurity that might arise from ultimate belief in social institutions. Merry Christmas everyone.

  21. CARBON pollution. Is that diamonds, graphite, graphene or other pure carbon substances? Or is that all carbon containing substances: DNA, carbohydrates, carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons? Once you buy into the inaccurate use of the language, you start giving credence to the argument.

    A little carbon pollution with methyl carbinol can lubricate the family discussions.

    Merry Christmas

  22. The Democrats received a swift and broad-based rebuke in the last election. They are a damaged brand, and will NOT recover until they jettison the radical left wing, progressives which comprise about a third of their base (and are the ones who are the ardent true believers in the global warming nonsense). I’ve already seen evidence that the middle working folks who have been faithful Democrats over the years have already moved on.

  23. Twas the night before Christmas,
    And accross every state
    The families were gathering
    To celebrate.

    Things were going smoothly
    ‘Til one auntie did cry:
    The Earth’s burning up!
    We’re all going to die!

    If this sounds like something
    You’re starting to fear,
    We’ve got something for you,
    Take a look – just click here!

    We’ve had all along
    A site filled with facts
    So you’ll have what you need
    To counter attacks.

    The climate is just fine —
    The temperature too —
    To worry is just silly
    No need to boo hoo.

    So no matter what she’s heard
    From Gore or TV news
    Your democrat Auntie
    Is just going to lose.

    Show up with the facts
    (And some hollandaise sauce)
    And enjoy being home
    Instead of being cross!

    • I was afraid someone was going to beat me to this. Aw, what the heck, since I already wrote it in my notes I guess I’ll post it. But your poem humbles mine. Merry Christmas to you, sir. And to all.

      ”Twas the night before Christmas,
      And all through the home
      Everybody was freezing
      They were chilled to the bone

      Things weren’t really going smoothly
      Then one uncle did roar:
      “Obama – socialist or not
      Has become quite a bore!
      He really caused my electrical rates
      To skyrocket and soar”

      If this sounds like something
      You’re starting to fear,
      Pour down a stiff drink
      There’s plenty more to hear!

      From climate to healthcare —
      The economy too —
      Will make the day you voted for him
      Be a day you’ll always regret and rue

      He’ll warm up in Hawaii
      (But for you, you’re holiday cheer)
      Will be trying to forget him
      Now come all, let’s have a beer!

    • Eh, communists are socialists… the only real difference is that communists will tell you that at some unknown time in the future, but certainly “soon,” society will no longer need the brutal totalitarian government currently in place – utopia. The socialists offer no such hope. At least in this one sense, the socialists are more honest.

      Mark

    • Generally, medical thermometers work best when you insert the bulb side into your mouth. I’m supposing that they must have consulted the NCDC for technical assistance with the illustrations…[heh]

      • I always thought “rectum” was the answer to that question. If it is truly “mouth,” then I think I’m legally dead in many places (just over 97).

        Mark

      • Maybe that explains the real reason that warmists believe there is a problem and the data don’t agree with the theory? ;-)

        In my experience, I find many cases within the progressive ranks where education has greatly outstripped IQ.

        Wishing all skeptics a wonderful New Year.

        Wishing all CAGW proponents some much needed enlightenment and escape from the grips of the propaganda.

        Bruce

    • I salute them. “Why Daddy is a Democrat” is the very best recruiting tool an opposition party (to the Democrats) could possibly hope for. I remember the words to a song (I believe by Art Garfunkel) that went: “When I look back at all the crap I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.” Well, the vapid, simplistic, devious, and blithering author of ‘Why Daddy is a Democrat’ (WDIAD) has assured that any sentient being will now have the chance to look back on ‘all the crap they learned’, not just in high school, but also in grade school, and pre-grade school. Talk about adolescent rebellion getting a head start. I particularly liked the very first presentation in WDIAD (even before the ludicrous sick Earth representation – rocks don’t get sick) where Democrats provide fire departments and the police the tools to do their job. You mean like the leftist, Democratic, Oakland California city council deliberating to give police hollow point bullets? (A bullet form outlawed for warfare by Geneva Conventions dating back to the late 1800s.) Or, howze ’bout the Obama administration providing surplus military armoured personnel carriers to local police – vehicles I think are a little OTT for civilian police forces? Once the trusting, naive, vulnerable children grow up and discover they’ve been lied to, taken advantage of, and manipulated by this crap; well, it just might cause a wee bit of blowback.

  24. Some of their message is on target:

    Show up with the facts,
    (and some Holiday cheer)
    And enjoy being home
    for the Holidays this year.

    Good advice for all sides.

    Thanks to the entire WUWT family for providing facts and good cheer all year round.

  25. >and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years

    When you figure that Antarctica has 4.5 sq miles of land, that figures out to be half an inch per year. It is absurd to think that “they” can even measure that. I doubt a satellite could accurately measure the change in snow depth of my house lot to an inch, and it’s relatively flat.

  26. These people may be lacking facts, but the real problem is that their general critical reasoning and questioning ability is non-existent.

    Which is why they don’t do facts, but feelings, and why giving them facts is useless.

    Best thing to do here is to not either not bother (you’ll be wasting your time and the mood will be trashed), but work on their ability to think straight instead, the rest will (eventually) work itself out. And if it doesn’t, well, there is nothing you can do anyway, might as well try to teach the cat to do the washing up instead.

    So far, my cat has learned how to press the on button on the dishwasher ;-)

    (Merry Christmas everyone!)

  27. At the end of the day, US Democrats, the British and Australian parties, the French and German Socialists, the ecoloon activist groups (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc) all have as their core belief that natural climate change/cycles abruptly stopped around 1950 (for the first time in 4 billion years) and then the effects of man took over.

    Yeah right……………

  28. Willis – agree with nearly all of what you say as usual, but I think your voting philosophy – “I vote for the person not the party” – is a big mistake. Unfortunately, it’s shared by many others as well who are independent thinkers. But it’s a major tactical error. The big decisions in Congress are determined by numbers, especially in the Senate. Because of overall senate or house leadership and committee control, the party with the most members runs the show – determines what legislation is introduced, who testifies at hearings, what gets voted on, what kinds of votes are allowed, and of course, which way individual members must vote. A dissenting party member on a topic such as climate change may be allowed to vote contrary to the party line, if it’s necessary to fool his constituents into supporting him, but that’s only when the votes have been counted ahead of time and there’s no danger of the dissenter swaying the total the wrong way. There used to be a species of voter – nearly extinct now – known as the yellow dog Democrat. – “I’d vote for a Democrat even if he was a yellow dog.” The term is a pejorative, but in reality, rigid party-line affiliation is the only way to go. If you want socialized medicine and climate change lunacy with their desired goal of total control of the economy and the populace, then vote for Democrats. If you don’t, then vote Republican, no matter how doglike the candidate might be. It’s a simple binary decision.

    • What has evolved over the last decades since Woodrow Wilson is Progressives vs (is there a counter side?). While we still have a 2 party system, it is the Progressives in both parties who are winning by giving what he people want to hear. And in recent years, giving the western world entitlement society what they want, regardless if the wealth of the nation can sustain the “gifts”. The Progressives use government to enrich their elitist friends while enhancing their power to do so.

      How many politicians arrive in office less than a millionaire and leave a multi-millionaire? Follow the money.

  29. “I vote for the person not the party”

    I used to do that until I realized that the person votes with the party better than 95% of the time. Now my voting strategy is pretty simple: Which non-Democrat is closest to my position on things. After the health care fiasco, I’ll never vote for another Democrat at any level of government ever again. Basically they stole from me and my family once they forced my employer to shed a health care plan they had offered for a decade that worked very well for my family and I. In return, I will never vote for a member of their party again, for the rest of my life and that goes all the way down to the office of city dog catcher.

    • Yep. The lesser of two evils. That’s really all that is left until there is a legitimate 3rd party. Democrats are statists who will rob you blind. Republicans are only slightly better.

  30. My general response to my liberal, fact oriented friends has been sending the blog entry
    Eleven signs of cooling. A new little Ice Age coming? http://lenbilen.com/2014/07/01/eleven-signs-of-cooling-a-new-little-ice-age-coming/
    To those that are more political and ideological I send: CO2, the life giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation. http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
    When I send it to a liberal, “climate science” website it is usually flagged as “offensive” or “spam”. Some ask who is paying me to spread such lies.
    If they claim to be Christian, I have just penned: On “The sin of the world” and “The lie”, what does that mean? http://lenbilen.com/2014/12/22/on-the-sin-of-the-world-and-the-lie-what-does-that-mean/
    The fight to learn the truth about the Climate must go on. We cannot leave it to the politicians. They have no idea, but a rather large agenda. And it has nothing to do with climate.

  31. From above:

    “While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better”

    What is the error in these measurements? How can they measure something to 0.001% over three years? Do be more forthright, I make measurements for a living and I don’t believe they can do that! There error bars must be at least 10 times as big as their measurement.

  32. Thanks Willis for all your generous work this year and happy holidays to everyone who comments and contributes here. WUWT is a gift that gives every day of the year. Thank you!

  33. Brute
    December 25, 2014 at 3:00 am

    Please. The only thing republicans seem to think long term about is that they are happy losing one election after another. Neither party has ideologies to speak of and their political programs are just opportunistic. Consider that, for instance, climate warming was in fact invented by the Thatcher government. Look it up.
    ——————————–

    There are so many inaccuracies here, it’s hard to know where to begin. Republicans are now in power in more higher places across the country than they have been since the 1920s. They have an ideology and so do Democrats. You need to read the party platforms to understand them in depth but the differences are stark and telling. The problem, of course, is that the political system is set up so that no ideology can become overly dominant. Do you believe, for example, that the EPA would have been running wild for the last 6 years if a Republican had been president?

    As for Thatcher inventing “climate warming,” that’s the most ridiculous claim of all. Both Reagan and Thatcher and their advisers took the claims of climate scientists at their word during the 80s. Like most of us, they implicitly trusted that climate science was on the level. It turned out it was not, but the virus spread and eventually most people who have found the time to study the issue now know that the science is agenda driven and on very shaky ground.

    Here’s a link to Michael Oppenheimer bragging about the IPCC defrauding the Reagan Administration.

    http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/

    • “Do you believe, for example, that the EPA would have been running wild for the last 6 years if a Republican had been president?”

      The problem is that they are BOTH parties of extremes. One wants to regulate down to the level of carbon and the other wants to deregulate everything, especially their buddies at the banks and industrial cronies specializing in dumping toxic waste wherever and whenever. Just no one in the middle with a chance because both candidates have to tow the lines on the ridiculous party platforms, and also because the system has been rigged against any third parties. Might explain the continuing low voter turn out, as in why bother…….

      • One wants to regulate down to the level of carbon and the other wants to deregulate everything, especially their buddies at the banks and industrial cronies specializing in dumping toxic waste wherever and whenever.

        The reason their “buddies at the banks” have the power they do is purely a result of the regulation you so favor. Take it away, and you take away the ability of the government to grant favors. Pretty simple. Oh, and suing for dumping toxic waste actually works… particularly when a lawsuit brought by a private citizen(s) can amount to orders of magnitudes greater payout than the pittance levied by government fines (plus, the payout goes to those actually harmed, not some benevolent government agency with its own agenda).

        Mark

      • From BFL: republicans want “to deregulate everything, especially their buddies at the banks and industrial cronies specializing in dumping toxic waste wherever and whenever.”

        hyperbole much? What a ridiculous statement. Stop listening to CNN/MSNBC/HuffPo propaganda.

        A growing number of republicans are trying desperately to get back to the limitations on government that were intended by the founding fathers. That is a limited government that confines itself to creating legislation related to the 18 things in the USC, Article I, Section 8. That includes making rules for commerce that represent an equal playing field for all and let the chips fall where they may for those in the game. That is how capitalism works, and has worked in the past history of the US to lift more people out of poverty and into a middle class than any other form of government in the history of the world. There is typical envy and jealously in your statement. You shouldn’t be jealous and resentful of bankers making more money than you. I know two bankers and I’ll bet they work much harder than you and are two of the most ethical, caring people that I know in my community. And, are you assuming that CO2 emissions are toxic waste? The EPA thinks so and will soon make your life a living hell, reaching into your pocket and taking as much cash out as possible and widening the gap even more between you and those evil bankers you hate/envy so much.

        Get a brain. Please…

        Bruce

        PS: I’m an independent conservative and unaffiliated voter.

  34. “You need to read the party platforms to understand them in depth”

    Actually, no. The party platforms are non-binding and are generally for the amusement of party delegates at the respective conventions.

    • “Non-binding” has nothing to do with it. I was responding to the claim that Republicans have no ideology. Of course they have an ideology that is laid out in general principles and positions in the platform. The differences between the Republican and Democrat platforms are stark on a variety of issues. The platforms are where ideology is written. Politics is where ideology often needs to be sublimated.

  35. Lesson for all those in the Eschenbach clan is “Don’t get your uncle Willis started on climate and try to defend your position with propaganda”.

    Happy holidays

    • Lesson for TRM is “Don’t bother with vague retorts no one can possibly interpret. Spit out something, anything, with some clarity and substance that anyone can get.”

      As for Democrats, Grubering is their MO and they own AGW as sure as they own ACA.

  36. Every warmist AND skeptic should be suspicious when the “science ” is condition and reflect ion of party affiliation. BOTH want you to ignore certain facts.

    Ignornance for political purposes works for all sides. Which worries me. I’m A skeptic. What don’t the Republican leaders want me to know.

  37. Please…. on this day, set all politics, pseudoscience, and pHraud aside and enjoy, really enjoy a single day of ‘peace on earth, goodwill to men’.

    Wishing all who enter here the Merriest of Christmas gatherings and a most bountiful and successful New Year!
    Mac

  38. Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”
    ——————————————————————————–Voltaire

    • And here is another Voltaire quote for you: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”—Voltaire

      • I see doubt as a product of negative thought, whereas constructive skepticism comes from an intrinsic desire for the common good. If any issue is truly settled, it will withstand the scrutiny of critical observation. Once empirical proof is established, any who doubt (which is an emotion) become the absurd nonbelievers of fact, and make for themselves a warped and unpleasant perspective.

      • Sorry, but an linking the two quotes with the word ‘absurd’ is assuming both quotes were made in the same context. (non sequitur)

      • Jeez, just looked at mt monitor with my glasses on and realized that what I read as certainly was actually certainty. Please, greymouser70, accept my apologies for for having expounded so. I now see the context of your selected quote.

  39. This ridiculous CAGW hypothesis is quickly approaching the beginning of its demise.

    The empirical evidence, the unskillful CAGW models, the complete lack of any CAGW doom and gloom predictions coming even close to fruition has relegated this pathetic social science to mindless “97%” memes and ranking annual global temps to keep this farce alive.

    The only CAGW rankings that are significant are polls putting CAGW dead last on issues of public concern.

    I give CAGW another five years of floundering and hand waving before it’s destined to for the shredder…..

  40. By next Christmas both of these massive frauds may be in total collapse. What a gift to mankind that will be when the billions being devoured by climate science fiction are reallocated to legitimate research to produce cures for Alzheimer’s and many other deserving causes.

    This is a great summary of the fatally flawed AGW.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/

    This adds to it.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/

    The Coming Revelation Of The ‘Global Warming’ Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie

    • Yes, Steve, and perhaps the UN can then hold China responsible for the REAL pollution they are emitting, which more likely has an influence on weather than any greenhouse gasses.

  41. I sometimes wonder if stuff like this isn’t written more to increase divisiveness than for any other purpose. I suspect it’s intended to be read by conservatives, not liberals, and is deliberately inflammatory.

    I’m pretty conservative in most areas. Still, one of my best friends is an engineer who’s a classic old time Democrat. We disagree on some things, but not nearly as much as one might think, and without hard feelings either.

    Merry Christmas all!

  42. Jan Kjetil Andersen December 25, 2014 at 10:10 am Edit

    Willis
    As I answered to David above, I am most concerned about the long time consequences. With business as usual scenario we may get a CO2 level in the end of this century of more than the triple of the pre-industrial level. That may have serious effects which I think it is hazardous to ignore.

    It “may” have serious effects … and I “may” win the lottery. Until you can show that these effects exist, you’re just blowing smoke. You are proposing impoverishing the world based on “maybe” and “perhaps” and “might” … I don’t care if you are obsessing about something that might happen in 85 years, Jan. I’m concerned about today, not about your fantasies about some post-apocarbolyptic future at the end of this century.

    It will be a considerable economic cost to reduce the carbon emissions, and the rich world has to carry most of the burden. However, we have to remember that we expect the world economy to grow anyway. In the next 30 – 40 years the economy per capita will probably more than double in most of the developing world and it will probably also increase considerably per capita in the industrialized world.

    Unfortunately, the methods proposed to date all involve making the cost of energy “skyrocket”, to quote our benighted President. And that puts all of the weight on the poor, a fact which you’ve consistently refused to acknowledge. For example, you say the “rich world has to carry most of the burden” … but what you don’t seem to notice is that it is the POOR people in the “rich world” that you are asking to carry the burden. President Obama won’t be hurt if gas prices “skyrocket” … the weight will fall on the single mom who can barely afford to drive her car to work, and can’t afford not to work.

    The cost of carbon reduction will not take all this growth, but it can reduce it by a few percent. This put the choices in perspective. We do not talk about going back to poor conditions and to shiver in our homes. The question is whether we should choose a course with somewhat slower economic growth to avoid tripling the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

    You “do not talk about going … to shiver in our homes” … yeah, I’ve noticed how you assiduously avoid that issue. My friend, fuel poverty is happening TODAY, people are shivering in their homes TODAY, and your refusal to talk about it is typical of those wealthy arm-chair theorists with brilliant plans that involve shafting the poor. One in ten homes in the UK are living under fuel poverty … but nooo, Jan doesn’t talk about that ugly fact. Instead, he’s worried that concrete might age slightly faster in the year 2100 … spare me.

    I understand that you don’t talk about the effects of your plans on the poor, Jan. If I were in your shoes I’d ignore the damage your plans involve just as you do … but fortunately, your shoes don’t fit me. You claim to be worried about the future … how about you start worrying about the present?

    Finally, the amount of CO2 in the air has been much, much higher in the geological past than it is today … perhaps you could point out to everyone the huge cost to the biosphere of those high CO2 levels. And the temperature of the planet has warmed a couple of degrees since the Little Ice Age … perhaps you could indicate to us where we could locate the huge costs and the disasters due to that warming, because I’ve been unable to find them.

    Best Xmas wishes,

    w.

    • So far this fall I have given 3 cords of wood to folks and am now cutting to accumulate about the same for next fall. They need it – we don’t. In an all electric house we keep enough wood just in case an errant auto takes a power pole down.
      Some of the comments suggest the author has never met a poor person.
      I know you have.
      Merry Christmas

    • Willis says:

      For example, you say the “rich world has to carry most of the burden” … but what you don’t seem to notice is that it is the POOR people in the “rich world” that you are asking to carry the burden.

      I have not said anything about how this could be financed in the US. That is a huge topic in itself and I am sure that it is possible to find ways where the poor can be spared for most of the burden.

      A gradually replacement of the cars we use today with more energy efficient vehicles could be one thing. I use a fully electric car myself in my daily commute. It is 29 kilometer each way and I measure an average energy usage of 1.4 KWh per 10 km. The energy in that is similar to 0.16 litre/ 10 km, or a mileage of 147 miles /us gallon. http://zemcar.wordpress.com/

      I am not saying that electric cars are a good solution for everyone. They are perhaps not solving much at all before all electricity is generated by less carbon intensive energy, but at least they are not dependent on oil. If the electricity is generated eco-friendly, the car usage is also eco-friendly.

      Unfortunately, the methods proposed to date all involve making the cost of energy “skyrocket”,

      Yes, and unfortunately I think you are right there. But on the other hand, new technologies are always very expensive, but the costs very often drop sharply when mass production starts. The prices on renewables have dropped a lot, and will undoubtedly continue to drop.

      Nuclear energy may also have a renaissance. Another promising low-carbon alternative is carbon capture from coal or gas power. The cost is still considerable, but with research in new technologies and mass production it may be competitive to alternatives.

      /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen December 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm Edit

        Willis says:

        For example, you say the “rich world has to carry most of the burden” … but what you don’t seem to notice is that it is the POOR people in the “rich world” that you are asking to carry the burden.

        I have not said anything about how this could be financed in the US. That is a huge topic in itself and I am sure that it is possible to find ways where the poor can be spared for most of the burden.

        Jan, while you may be “sure that it is possible”, the problem is that the poor are already being shafted by your policies. Your pie-in-the-sky assurances mean nothing to the folks in Britain whose energy bills are steadily rising.

        A gradually replacement of the cars we use today with more energy efficient vehicles could be one thing. I use a fully electric car myself in my daily commute. It is 29 kilometer each way and I measure an average energy usage of 1.4 KWh per 10 km. The energy in that is similar to 0.16 litre/ 10 km, or a mileage of 147 miles /us gallon. http://zemcar.wordpress.com/

        I am not saying that electric cars are a good solution for everyone. They are perhaps not solving much at all before all electricity is generated by less carbon intensive energy, but at least they are not dependent on oil. If the electricity is generated eco-friendly, the car usage is also eco-friendly.

        Since they’re “not solving much at all today”, why are you pushing them? In fact, it’s cheaper to burn fuel in a car than it is to burn fuel in a power plant (with attendant losses), transform it to high voltage (with attendant losses), transmit it through the grid (with attendant losses), convert it to low voltage (with attendant losses), convert it to DC (with attendant losses), charge batteries with it (with attendant losses plus a weight penalty), and then use it in a car which uses scarce rare earth elements.

        Unfortunately, the methods proposed to date all involve making the cost of energy “skyrocket”,

        Yes, and unfortunately I think you are right there.

        So far, so good … but you seem to think that this doesn’t impoverish the very people you fantasize that you are helping, the poor.

        But on the other hand, new technologies are always very expensive, but the costs very often drop sharply when mass production starts. The prices on renewables have dropped a lot, and will undoubtedly continue to drop.

        That’s absolute nonsense. Coal replaced wood for a simple reason—it was cheaper. Oil replaced coal for the same reason—it was cheaper. Natural gas is supplanting both … for the same reason. And guess what … we didn’t need government interference for any of those shifts. We didn’t need subsidies. We didn’t need the “long term planning” that you seem to think is so critical. When a solution to a problem becomes cost effective, people adopt it, d’oh.

        I am so sick of subsidizing the pipe-dreams of folks like you, Jan. You may not be old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter started subsidizing solar a half century ago, with the promise that it was only for a few years until the prices dropped. I believed him then, I was all behind it … and then, every year since, I’ve heard the same thing, it’s almost market-ready.

        Now, fifty years later here you are singing the same tired tune, and trying to reach into my pocket to fulfill your fantasies … could I ask you politely to get your grabby, grubby hands off of my wallet? You and your friends have cost me far too much already with your foolish and expensive technological solutions.

        Nuclear energy may also have a renaissance.

        Well, yeah … if the faux greens would get behind it, which they haven’t and likely won’t.

        Another promising low-carbon alternative is carbon capture from coal or gas power. The cost is still considerable, but with research in new technologies and mass production it may be competitive to alternatives.

        Oh, my goodness, that’s hilarious, Jan. You definitely need to get out more. You have NOT demonstrated that CO2 is a problem of any kind, and you want me to spend even of my money on your daydreams of how to capture carbon? Go away and spend your own damn money on it, and come back when it actually IS competitive to the alternatives.

        I dislike being so harsh about this, Jan, but truly, you and your kind are screwing the poor into the ground with expensive energy, and simultaneously wasting my hard-earned tax dollars on Solyndra after Solyndra. STOP AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU ARE DOING!! You seem to think you are on the side of the angels.

        You are not. Wake up and smell the coffe. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

        Best Xmas wishes in any case … and do keep your hands out of my pockets …

        w.

      • Jan said: “Nuclear energy may also have a renaissance. Another promising low-carbon alternative is carbon capture from coal or gas power.”

        Yes, nuclear energy does produces energy. Carbon capture seems to be a useless “fool’s errand” that costs energy. Why did you juxtapose these ideas?

      • Jan sez:

        Another promising low-carbon alternative is carbon capture from coal or gas power.

        Expensive, unproven, and putting known (grade-school biology), airborne crop/plant food hidden away deep in the ground? Ridiculous.

      • lower costs through mass production!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jan claims. Well make five billion phones and yes but how do you mass produce a solar furnace plant such as Ivanpah, A massive failure but they claim, we can get the costs down. If so, why is free renewable energy producing the most expensive electricity?

    • Thank you, and Merry Christmas Willis and everyone else here. I worked as a legal aid attorney for a couple years. You are so right that it is the poor in rich countries that are bearing the burden of climate change policies.
      People called me to help them because they can’t afford their utility bills, they are having their power cut off, and then they can’t afford the reconnect fees. I can’t pay their bills for them, and I can’t make the utility keep the power on (outside the cold weather shut off period), and I can’t make the bills go away. Eventually they will have to pay or be cold or hot. They won’t get reconnected without paying past due bills and the reconnect fee.
      These are real problems for real people, and they are facing them right now. It’s not some abstract possible problem in a hundred years that creeps up on their descendants.

  43. Merry Christmas Willis. Great stuff as always.
    My disagreement:
    “While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better.”

    My disagreement is the last sentence. They know what they are doing,

    The politics in the “democratic” world has been overtaken by Progressives. They are an elitist bunch who know how to manipulate the masses. In their minds they always know what is best for the masses. And they self reinforce their position by rewarding their friends at the expense of their enemies.

  44. Let us pray….

    A Christmas Prayer

    Dear Lord;

    Please forgive the climate alarmists, for they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed,
    and have failed to use their brains for nought more than a tush cushion.

    Forgive them for believing they are somehow saving the planet, and for thinking that the ends justify the means.

    Forgive them for bashing and marginalizing those who disagree with what they call “settled science”. If they speak unkindly, it is only out of ignorance and fear, and a fervent wish to be a valued member of the tribe of Warmists.

    Forgive them Lord, for their ignorance is causing undue hardship for millions, particularly the poor, by depriving them of affordable and easily available electricity and other energy forms. They know not what they do.

    Amen

    • “They know not what they do.”
      Not so. They have been told and shown what they are doing and they continue to do it.
      They should *not* be forgiven.

  45. Dear Willis

    Thank you for your wonderful posts in 2014 – your energy and industry is astonishing. I loved your piece on the Ibuku CO2-sniffing satellite, and have used this post to get my students to think about sequestration as the essential counterbalance to emissions.

    On this Christmas Day in Johannesburg, on the high plateau of central South Africa at over 5 000 feet above sea level, the city is as green as a tropical forest, thunderstorms have rolled around here with much noise but little rain has fallen. My reliable memory stretches about 50 years (I think…?) and this Christmas is no different from the 50 before. We have had a splendid day with many happy children enjoying themselves in a swimming pool.

    Thank you to Anthony for this amazing forum and to all the folks who take the time and trouble to contribute your experience and wisdom to share with all your readers. Bob Tisdale gets a special accolade for his input.

    Warm Christmas wishes to all WUWT readers.

    John

  46. Merry Christmas to all and thanks once again for the informative read Willis!

    The use of the word “Twit” did spark a memory that may appropriately fit the conversation in the End?

    • They look like banking CEO’s running the economic race, with 2008 at the end……And the winners are:
      Them.
      And the losers are:
      Taxpayers.

  47. Willis, a fittingly ‘merry’ Christmas post. Truth IS stranger than fiction, although Democrats apparently do not see the irony in that.
    Thanks for all your educational posts here. Hope you have at least been provoked to additional research by mine over at Judith’s, with extended versions in Blowing Smoke. Had the book not been published yet, a riff on your DNC expose here would have made a nice addition to more than one of the various essays.
    Happy Holidays to all of whatever persuasion.

  48. Well I’m relieved by the republican Uncle campaign. This is definite proof that the Democrats have identified the issues they’ve made a complete balls-up of and the desperate way they plan to go about converting republicans (the uncles at least – they must be a den of the most intractable republicans) is a convoluted way of accepting that they are on the way out.

    I only pray that the Republican Party comes out of its trance, takes ownership of the issues that really matter (several polls, even an international one by the UN of 6 million people identified these). And puhlease, don’t put Jeb Bush forward as your man. Hey, I don’t think he’s a bad guy, as I don’t think his brother and his father were bad guys, but I don’t think putting another Bush on the ballot is a wise thing to do for psychological reasons. I think choosing a Republican candidate for the Whitehouse should be a deeply thought out process (you can bet the Democrats are busy working toward this end), not simply choosing from those whose lapels have been ruined by sticking campaign buttons in them. Hey about choosing a smart bald retired general with a no nonsense demeanor and a good sense of humor.

    • Unelectable. If anything the Colorado races (US Senate and CO Governor) proved is that you need the guy that comes across as likeable and trustworthy. Cory Gardner has that young, energetic, thoughtful look about him. Mark Udall did not, and actually more resembles the would-be Governor, Bob Beauprez, also a loser. Retired US generals rarely have that quality.

      Mark

  49. Thanks Anthony and Willis and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
    Willis I found your posting very insightful, but

    I do love the idea that King Barack Canute can order the tides to roll back, or order the average car to get 54.5 miles per gallon ten years from now, and it will perforce happen.

    the King Barack Canute may have been a bit over the top. Any way we know hurling pejoratives at the POTUS is futile because He is not a true believer, if he were, he wouldn’t have waited 6 years to “do something” about Apocalyptic Global Warming.

  50. Democrats have the same problem as our (canadian) Liberals, they lie as a compulsion, they will always chose to deceive in preference to plain speech.
    We perhaps should start returning their BS in “Enviro-speak”.
    Oil Sands of Alberta= Canadians cleaning up largest natural oilspill on planet.
    That sand has not been this clean since the Rockies rose up.
    Climate Change= Duh! When has it not?Can I have my 3 miles of glacial ice back?
    Carbon Pollution= ?? A carbon based, carbon dependent, life form obsessing over a gas essential to all green life?
    Do they hate plants?Life?
    Emotional knee jerkers are easily manipulated, the mass hysteria has just about run its course, taxpayers are returning to reality enmass. There is something about these abusive bills for electricity and home heating fuel that concentrate the citizens mind.
    That discussion of CAGW is about to be held, those who have supported, promoted and protected policy based data manufacturing are already running for cover.
    Archive their earlier words allow them no cover.
    In hard economic times fools and bandits get punished, look to the state of the “world economy”, me thinks the conversation is about to begin.

  51. Joe Crawford says:

    Since the availability of (usable) hydrocarbons seems to be a function of cost-to-extract, and at current rates that cost is rapidly increasing, it is highly probable that by the 2040 to 2050 time frame other less costly forms of energy that are also less carbon intensive will be discovered/developed and the remaining hydrocarbons reserved for better uses.

    The problem with this is that the most carbon intensive and polluting energy resource of all is coal, and that is also the resource which will last longest. Coal is not only a big source of carbon; it is also a major source of poisonous heavy metal pollution.

    Higher oil prices will probably return and we may see some really high prices on oil and natural gas 20 to 30 years from now, but the coal reserves will last for hundreds of years and there is therefore no reason to believe that the prices on coal will go up.

    Merry Christmas

    /Jan

    • the world’s oceans actually contribute a great deal to the background levels of mercury…you do know that?
      of course a few decades of CFL use and improper disposal will do a lot to distribute mercury throughout our enviroment…

      • Willis:
        first, I hope it is a happy christmas season for you and yours, and whoever near and dear to you that buys into that stuff….on to Jan
        why bother? its pretty clear that people’s suffering today is trumped by his desire to bring about a new structure of life for us all…
        He has his electric car, subsidized by taxes paid by the working poor…he uses the grid to charge it, a grid energized largely by either fossil fuels, or in SE PA, nuclear power.
        He ignores the total cost on our environment…the mining required to produce the batteries, to dispose of the batteries and on and on and on.
        He justifies government by fiat without any quibbles-you want him to educate himself regarding mercury in the environment?
        good luck.
        thanks again btw, for your posts throughout the year.
        I really enjoy your writing.

      • Willis….Jan said, “it (coal) is also a major source of poisonous heavy metal pollution. ”

        Your posts focused on mercury.

        You forgot to discuss lead, nickel ,, tin, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium.
        ..
        Secondly, the problems are not just downwind of the plants, the mining wastes at the mines, the processing plants , and ash disposal post combustion that are sources of these these metals.

      • Good heavens, David, you talk as though there was never an EPA and there were no controls on the emissions of heavy metals. This is the 21st century, and there are stringent laws covering coal plants.

        Modern coal plants have to meet very strict requirements, and as a result the amount of heavy metals that they emit is quite small. The overwhelming majority of it is captured in the the smokestacks.

        If you think otherwise, then surely you can point us to clusters of heavy metal poisoning cases around the locations of coal plants … I await your citations.

        w.

      • too much mercury and too little mercury are both a problem. developing brains need some mercury, but not too much.

      • Not all cola plants are subject to the strict control requirements.
        ..
        In fact that is the crux of the problem, retrofitting older plants.

    • Jan,
      Something we tend to overlook/forget here in the developed world is that there is a direct relationship between GDP and energy usage. This at least implies that one of the best ways to improve GDP is to improve energy availability. China seems to understand this. There also appears to be a fairly direct correlation between the relative size of the middle class (average comfort level?) and both family size and concern for the environment. China also seems to understand this, or at least their rising middle class does when they state a willingness to suffer current high pollution levels in order to make a better world for their children (child?). Carrying this to it’s logical conclusion, the best, and most likely the fastest way to improve the environment of this rock we live on is to make available to everyone on the planet the cheapest energy we can develop/discover and distribute. As per capita GDP improves both family size and the local environment will improve.

      If scientific research, engineering and the energy sector are not hamstrung by bureaucrats, politicians and the well meaning but totally clueless, I think we would all be totally amazed at the world 20 or 30 years from now. And rest assured that, if the past fortells the future, absolutely none of the dire predictions of the current crop of ‘Climate Scientists’ (running so far at +>97% failure rate) has even the slightest possibility of happening in even the next 50 to 100 years. So, when the real science is finally done, and we actually understand the problems if any, we will be in much better shape to adapt. It is nothing but hubris to think that mankind will ever be able to control the climate without unintended consequences at least an order of magnitude worst that the original reason for attempting control in the first place.

      Happy Boxing Day!
      Joe

  52. A merry Yuletide to all!

    As a Norwegian Social Democrat, well to the left of the Democratic Party, I am fighting climate alarmism at every turn. If the Republicans wanted to invent the perfect red herring, they could not have done better than the Climate Change meme. In the end, it will serve to discredit the Democrats, and environmental science too. We need to continue research on the world’s climate system, but I for one would posit that the low-hanging fruit—no pun intended—will probably be found in understanding local land and water use issues better, and first and foremost ocean fisheries management ( a different topic, I know). If people truly understood how little we know of the state and history of the global climate, they would roll their eyes in amazement. Historical temperatures? We don’t have much clue, and what we do know should cause no alarm. CO2 levels? A toss-up between rising levels lagging rising temperatures in the Holocene, to a perhaps marginal anthropogenic component. Sea level rise? Regularly confounded with erosion and other geological phenomena. Climate models? If people knew how little they predict, even how bad they are at hindcasting, they would, or at least should, rightly ask: “Am I paying for this?”

    The Democrats, who once had some credibility with ordinary Americans against the very rich and multinational corporations, have been sucked into the same maelstrom of special interest money as the Republicans. Neither represent the interest of the majority of Americans anymore. Neither is willing to take on the rise of an American oligarchy that puts the Gilded Age to shame, an oligarchy that through their buying of politicians could disrupt and permanently subvert the voice of the American voter for a long time to come.

    What the American public needs to focus on is how the American experiment itself is under threat from this drastic concentration of money. When most members of the parties can be bought and sold, I would bet my last money that Climate Change will be a very handy excuse for increased hardships on the poor and the working class, and will be used to direct even more money to those who have the most already.

    Let’s put a stake in its heart, and work for people. They deserve it. No worries; we’ll keep an eye on the polar bears too.

  53. Willis,
    You wrote:
    “That claim is the result of splicing the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, which shows no such rise.” and then provided a link to “Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807” by
    S. Jevrejeva et al, 2014.

    I don’t think your representation of that paper is accurate. From the paper’s abstract:

    “There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm/yr from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993 – 2009).”

    Figure 7 in the paper shows the two estimated slopes for 1993 to 2009, and they are very close to the same. Perhaps you are seeing something in that paper I am not seeing.

    • Steve –

      Good question. The part you quote vouches for a current agreement (3.1mm/year and 3.2mm/year) between satellites and tidal gauges in an ongoing overlap period (1993-2009), suggesting calibration is possibly, or likely correct. But – the paper also mentions acceleration between current readings (satellites and/or gauges) and older data (20th century – gauges only – 1.9mm/year). That seems to be the actual issue. Note that WITH the uncertainties, the old and new data nearly overlap (2.2mm/year and 2.5mm/year – something like that).

    • Thanks, Steve. Jevrejeva has done a very curious thing. His data is here. If you look at it you’ll see something bizarre. His data goes entirely off the rails starting in early 2009. From that point on, his sea level data goes straight through the roof. By that, I mean that the average change in sea level from June 1992 to June 2009 is 2.3 mm/year, well below the satellite value.

      But during the final year, June 2009 to the end of his data in June 2010, he claims that the sea level rose by no less than 33.7 mm … 34 mm per year? Give me a break, that’s never happened.

      Look carefully, as I said, at Figure 3. At the far right, jammed up against the box to where you can’t see it, the blue line goes right up to the top of the enclosing box. That’s the additional 34 millimetres per year, hidden away so no one can see it.

      Now, I don’t understand where he got that 34 mm in the final year … but it certainly makes me think that there’s something very suspicious going on.

      Like I said, look at the underlying data. You’ll find the bizarre claim of a 34 mm rise in one year.

      w.

      • Willis – good eyes. It can’t be a plotting limitation because on the 1800 left side he managed to set the axis out of the way of the data. Couldn’t he have set the right box edge to 2020, for example? Trivial to do. Anyone would have done that – unless you…. ! (Well, nothing exculpatory comes to mind to complete the sentence.)

      • Hello Willis,

        I looked at their data. You are correct that they have an odd dip and rise in the last two years of the reconstruction. If they included all the data (through mid 2010), the slope from the tide gauge reconstruction starting in 1993 would have been higher than satellite altimetry: 3.4. mm/yr versus 3.2 mm/yr. (these values include an added 0.3 mm/yr to account for continuing glacial rebound). That the authors selected an end point for their figure #7 which best matched the slope for the satellite record is not good (a blatant cherry pick). The rather wild down-followed by sharply-up trend in the last 2 years of the tide gauge reconstruction (which does not exist at all in the satellite record!) suggests their methodology has some serious problems, and their stated uncertainty range is obviously too small. That they did not comment (at least, not that I could find) about these problems makes their paper much weaker; had I been a reviewer, I would have recommended against publication until they addressed these issues and offered reasonable explanations. IMO, it is not a very good paper.

        But all that being said, it seems pretty clear to me the authors did not add the satellite altimetry data to the end of the tide gauge data, as you claimed in your post. Do you agree?

        There are lots of exaggerations and misrepresentations offered by climate science, and these should of course be criticized and discredited. But there really is clear evidence that global mean sea level has been rising on average at about 2.9 mm per year (relative to a geologically stable coast) since the early 1990’s. It rose at a similar rate in the 1930’s to early 1940’s, apparently in response to the relatively rapid warming in that period.

      • Thanks, Steve. My problem is that I simply don’t know what they’ve done. You’re correct that they likely haven’t simply spliced the satellite data onto the end of the graph … but what did they do? Here’s a smoothed look at the changes in the rate of rise … the blue dotted line is the satellite rate of rise

        Your call … but in any case, the claim of acceleration due to warming simply isn’t true.

        w.

      • Hello Willis,

        You wrote “but in any case, the claim of acceleration due to warming simply isn’t true”.

        I believe the data do not support that claim.

        Independent of data, the most reasonable expectation is that if the ocean is accumulating more heat due to surface warming, then there will be thermal expansion at a greater rate, in addition to any increase the rate of melting of land supported ice. Of course if the surface temperature falls, then there should be less heat accumulation and less melting of land supported ice, so a slower (or even negative) rate of rise. But you don’t have to believe that rational, you need only look at the sea level data and compare it to the temperature history. There was considerable warming from the early 1920’s to the late 1940’s, which should have increased the rate of sea level increase. Here is the same Jevrejeva et al reconstruction from tide gauge data from 1925 to 1950: http://i57.tinypic.com/1580dxc.png showing pretty much the same rate of sea level rise as during the satellite period. Both are periods of more rapid surface warming, both show more rapid sea level rise. If you look at all Jevrejeva data, you will see periods of both faster and slower sea level rise, which correlate reasonably well with the Hadley temperature history. I don’t think this is much of a surprise, even though the average rate for the whole of the 20th century is in fact much lower than the periods with the fastest rate of rise.

        In addition, you can see that the satellite data (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) shows more rapid sea level rise through about 2004 and somewhat slower since then…. corresponding (with a bit of lag) to the period of the ‘the pause’.

        Why do you think that surface warming does not increase the rate of sea level rise?

        As I said before, I think Jevrejeva et al is a weak paper, and it overstates certainty in the results. But that doesn’t mean that warming the ocean will not cause sea level rise. It pretty much has to.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick December 26, 2014 at 1:05 pm

        Hello Willis,

        You wrote “but in any case, the claim of acceleration due to warming simply isn’t true”.

        I believe the data do not support that claim.

        Independent of data, the most reasonable expectation is that if the ocean is accumulating more heat due to surface warming, then there will be thermal expansion at a greater rate, in addition to any increase the rate of melting of land supported ice

        Thanks, Steve. It seems you’re not distinguishing between rising sea levels, and an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. The fact that the ocean is accumulating more heat over time does NOT mean that the level of sea level rise will accelerate. If the rate of accumulation is constant, the rate of rise will be constant.

        The expectation from the alarmists has been that the rate would be accelerating … but we’re not seeing that in the sea level record I posted above. In fact, according to Jevrejeva the rate of sea level rise at the end of the 20th century is about the same as the rate at the start of the century.

        Yes, the planet is warming, and has been (in fits and starts) for centuries. And yes, the sea level is rising, and has been (in fits and starts) for centuries.

        What we’re not seeing, however, is any sign of the kind of acceleration in sea level rise that would lead to, e.g., the sea level swamping parts of New York City like James Hansen famously predicted.

        My best to you,

        w.

      • Hi Willis,
        I do understand the difference between continuing constant rise and increasing (accelerating) rate of rise. The rate of ocean heat accumulation (and melting of land supported ice) would have to increase compared to today to see acceleration in the rate.

        Of course the crazy (> 1.5 meters by 2100!) sea level predictions made by James Hansen (and many others, like Stefan Rahmstorf) are risible and should be ignored… or maybe just enjoyed for their comedy value. More realistic projections are not so easily discounted. The actual rate of rise will of course depend very much on future temperatures and how the rate of melting of land supported ice and ocean heat uptake react to those future temperatures.

  54. When liberal family members, of which I have an abundance, start going on about how only crackpots disagree with the “mainstream scientists”, I just innocently ask “You mean the way crackpots like Galileo, Darwin and Einstein did? That way?”

  55. “Shrinking ice sheets
    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
    While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year …”
    Yes. Their statement lacks context, so for the average reader, it is useless. 0.01% per year gives us 10,000 years before it’s all gone. Now we have a time and size scale to grasp to help us understand.

    • Anyone know of an explanation for 36 cubic miles of ice being melted in three or four years in a cooling environment, or is this a decrease in what was purportedly melting before ? … or is this whole field of endeavor a pile of crap ?

      • The Arctic was still probably warmer than before. When we get cold snap in Winter over the central United States, that is cold penetration south, a roughly equal amount of warmer air heads north. This mixing I think cools more than it warms the GAT, as I think the Arctic is good place for heat to find the TOA. “One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s [Graham, 1994]. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern…” – Tsonis 2007. I am assuming we are back to a wave-3 pattern and I think that’s consistent with what Jennifer Francis has found. https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/francis_amplification.png The falling wind speeds around 1998 look to me like more meanders in the jet stream at the right time.

  56. I don’t mind “republican” not being capitalized since I’m a republican but I’m not a Republican.

  57. The 54.5 mpg is based on the idea of 5.5 gallons of fuel rendering a range of 300 miles (the nominal distance expected from a tank of gas).

  58. Below are 2 links, one from this week and one from WUWT almost exactly 1 year ago. Several comments from above mention electric vehicles as though the electricity to charge them is freely drawn from the aether and the components can be whipped up like cotton candy. Christmas is sort of a time for fantasies so that makes it all right.
    This week (be sure to read the last 4 lines):
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-battery-swapping-station-very-191428316.html

    This week last year:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swap-is-the-hoax-of-the-year/

  59. Some times before I thought that we Germans are better off with having more parties to choose from than only the two in the U.S.

    But as it seems now – as a comedian pointed out – that all the multicolored parties here Germany are trying to sell poop with a variety of different taste. Everyone fears to show doubt on the AGW theory – in fact it is a credo now.

  60. Willis says:

    Since they’re “not solving much at all today”, why are you pushing them? In fact, it’s cheaper to burn fuel in a car than it is to burn fuel in a power plant (with attendant losses), transform it to high voltage (with attendant losses), transmit it through the grid (with attendant losses), convert it to low voltage (with attendant losses), convert it to DC (with attendant losses), charge batteries with it (with attendant losses plus a weight penalty), and then use it in a car which uses scarce rare earth elements.

    There are some benefits too:

    No tailpipe emissions, i.e. no local smog

    Very high efficiency. An electric engine has efficiency above 90% while a gasoline car is below 30%. In addition the electric car regenerates braking energy to electricity. As I said, I measure an energy mileage similar to 147 miles /US gallon.

    No oil usage. Oil is a scarce resource in the world and the prices will rise in the long run.

    Electricity can be generated from many sources of which many are eco-friendly. Look to France for instance, they have almost exclusively pollution free and carbon free sources like hydroelectricity and nuclear plants.

    You are right about the attendant losses, but you can make a similar list for gasoline. Oil extraction on the fields (with attendant losses), transport of crude (with attendant losses), refining oil (with attendant losses) transport of gasoline to the gas station (with attendant losses).

    That’s absolute nonsense. Coal replaced wood for a simple reason—it was cheaper.

    Yes, but if we do not plan or push in one direction the economy will be the only drive for change.
    If we have luck the current energy sources will be replaced with something both cheaper and more eco-friendly, but should we base our strategy on luck? Unfortunately the cheapest energy source in the long run seems to be coal which is the least eco-friendly source.

    Nuclear can be a good option in the industrial world, but, as I see it; the concern about proliferation of weapon grade material has to be solved before the uranium based technology can be pushed out globally. Thorium or fusion may be feasible alternatives.

    It is not easy to make global plans, and the treaties we end up with are usually huge compromises that are far from ideal, but anyway, I think it is a way we have to go, and it is better than the alternative; to have no plan at all.

    Wake up and smell the coffe. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution

    Well, seriously speaking Willis, I did not like that.
    I am not dictating anyone to do anything and I do not have any power to do that. But I believe in the free exchange of arguments. I learn something from this and maybe I can also contribute to something others learn from.

    I don’t agree with you, but I would not dream of calling you part of the problem. I think a small part of the solution is to find in open-minded exchanges of ideas like those we see on this site.

    Best Christmas wishes

    /Jan

    • Yet you drive an electric vehicle made affordable by tax breaks paid for by the working poor…the natural outcome of policies you advocate is the continued impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people around the world. you do know that people cook indoors using dried dung for fuel in much of the world?

      • PS ferdberple

        Your calculation of the energy content of gasoline is the BTU equivalent and does not take into consideration that the useflul energy you get is only about 20%

        The Nissian LEAF get about 70 miles on a charge, and the batteries hold about 24 Kwh.
        Assuming your gasoline powered vehicle gets 40 MPG, that 10 gallon tank of gas gets you about 400 miles.

        You would have to charge the LEAF six times to get the same amount of mileage.

        6 x 24 Kwh = 144 Kwh

        144 Kwh is about 620,000 BTU, roughly half of the BTU content of 10 gallons of gasoline
        ..
        .

      • david:
        have you considered the energy required to manufacture the battery pack? mine and refine the lithium, recycle the used batteries…mine, or drill for the energy to fuel the power plants?
        what about power lost in transmission from the source to the end user, losses transforming the power down in voltage, losses due to the need to keep the grid energized 100% of the time, losses in charging the batteries?
        lubos motl, one of the physicists responsible for developing string theory in the late 80’s, certainly capable of handling the math, has done so, and his conclusion is that electric cars get the equivalent of about 27 miles per gallon, and this doesn’t include the costs of manufacturing the battery packs, or recycling them.
        EVs: toys of the bourgoisie.

      • you do know that people cook indoors using dried dung for fuel in much of the world

        Yes, I do know that and I think it is one of the largest unsolved problems on this planet. Indoor air pollution is causing millions of deaths and lack of electricity is a huge problem because it deprives people of reading lights and refrigerators for safely storage of food.

        That is why the largest burden of reducing the growth in carbon emissions should be carried by the rich world.

        the natural outcome of policies you advocate is the continued impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people around the world

        No, it is not, because it is possible to implement this policy in a different way. Firstly, why only talk about the poor, why not the rich. I am not so concerned if fewer people could afford a 10,000 square feet house and a 50 yard swimming pool. I am not saying that we shall make it impossible to live like that, but I am just not so concerned if some people think it is expensive when they use about as much energy as an average Midwestern township in their own house.

        If you think this is a very rare example in the extreme end of wealthiness, I agree, but you started in the other end. I am just going to the other extremity.

        /Jan

      • Mine lithium?….Sir, you sink a well and pump out the brine containing lithium salts. Recycling the lithium actual saves energy as using raw materials.

        Next you talk about “losses”

        They are much the same as the energy “losses” (i.e. expended) involved in pumping the crude, refining it and transporting it thru the distribution network to the gasoline station you purchase it from. The “losses” at the refinery are huge, considering the fact that refineries are the 2nd largest source of CO2 behind coal burning power plants.

        You post ” losses due to the need to keep the grid energized 100%” …. Sorry, you seem to not know much about power transmission. If there is no load, there are no losses. Keeping the grid energized is not a “loss”

        Just think……if the source of the electricity that powers the electric car comes from nuclear, hydro, solar or wind, the CO2 reductions are significant.

    • what many people ignore is how impractical it is to recharge an electric vehicle as compared to the time it takes to fill a gas tank.

      there is an enormous amount of energy in a tank of gasoline. a ten gallon tank of gas is about the same as 10 x 1500 watt heaters running full out for 24 hours. You’d be hard pressed to draw this amount of power in most houses without blowing breakers. Now imagine everyone is drawing this amount of power to charge their cars. The local grids were never designed for this sort of load.

      add to this the limited number of times a battery can be cycled before it loses charge efficiency (1000 if lucky). add to this the weight of the battery due to low energy density. Until battery technology improves considerably the electric car will remain a niche product.

      • 10 X 1500 = 15,000 watts
        Most homes today have a 200 amp service.
        If you drew 100 amps at 240 volts, you would be drawing 24,000 watts.
        This is more than 15,000 watts, and only 50% of rated capacity.

      • Once again mpainter shows us he has no clue about circuit breakers.

        Secondly, have you ever seen the demand curve the utilities have to deal with?…you know, the reason they offer power at reduced rates at night?

      • 200 amps@ 110 volts is the equivalent of 100 amps @ 220 volts.
        take a semester of circuits sometime…or maybe just the second semester of a first year college physics class.
        a house with 200 amp service would be able to (safely) power about 70 amps @ 220…since monty municipal electric code specifie that circuits be used to about 2/3rds of rated capacity.

      • davideisenstadt
        ..
        The electric utility delivers you 240 volts on two wires. If you have a 200 amp service, your breakers are 200 amps on both hot legs of the service. I suggest you consult with a working electrician who didn’t go to college but has real world experience which you seem to lack.

        Your breaker will trip when you exceed 200 amps on either leg of the service.

      • Sock rats thinks electric cars are the now thing.Just plug it in like you would your toaster or electric toothbrush.
        No problem he says, he average home has thirty wall sockets.

      • mpainter doesn’t realize that if a person is smart enough to consider using an all electric vehicle, they’d know you’d run a dedicated circuit close to where the vehicle is parked for charging. In fact, mpainter, why don’t you ask the owner of this web site what he did to enable the charging of his vehicle?

      • Sock rats say “Electricity?No problem. Everybody knows that electricity comes from plugs and those are everywhere.”

      • mpainter doesn’t know if I pay my electric bill with a check, or directly from my account with “bill pay”

      • 200 amps @ 110 v ac is the equivalent of 100 amps @ 220. when you pay for “200 amp” service you get 200 amps @ 110 ac…not 200 @ 220.
        when is the last time you installed service in a residence?
        your post reveals pomposity borne of ignorance,
        in this country…(the United States) when you get 200 amps service its 200 amps @ 110 ac.
        you sir are an ass.

      • socrates
        not only do you do a greta disservice to an incredible mind, you reveal your ignorance to the world. good luck trying to draw 400 amps@ 110 ac from your 200 amps service…when have you ever installed service into a dewlling.
        and yeah. 2/3rds of 200 is roughly 133 amps…but thats @ 110 …for 220 2/3rds is about 70, giving your pin head the benefit of rounding error.

      • We’ll never run out of electricity because the wind is always blowing, except when it doesn’t but then we have solar panels and the sun is always shining even if it’s on the other side of the planet, unless it’s cloudy, but if it is cloudy we’ll think of something, right sock rat?

      • truly “socrates” you have simply no experience with residential electricity. I have little or no patience for “people” like you…good luck trying to suck 200 amps @ 220v out of your residential service rated at 200 amps.
        really,yours is the post of an ignoramus.
        200 amp service is 100 amps @ 110ac through each hot line…not 200 amp in each.
        go read up on your electrical code…install some services and then come back and pontificate.
        really…you think no one knows enough to call you on your bullshit? we haven’t been pumping 240v ac through our lines in the states for something like 40 years.

      • “200 amp service is 100 amps @ 110ac through each hot line…not 200 amp in each.”

        Nope….
        I suggest you look at the main input breakers on a 200 amp service.

        It’s 200 amps on each leg

      • davideisenstadt

        A 200 amp service can support 48,000 watts.
        ..
        200 x 240

        It is NOT 100 amps per leg.

  61. Jan, sorry Willis is right. Nobody pushed wood out, It happened because coal and then oil was so much better. Oil losses, virtually nil compared with energy transformations. Electric car, I calculated the tesla 85KW to cost same per mile as petrol in California with “zero” range, no heater/aircon. Lastly you claim that you are not forcing anybody down any road. Oh yes you are. The thousands of frozen to death, the millions choosing between heat or food.

    Look at electricity bills in Germany, Denmark and Spain. Four times the going rate, why. You said economies of scale would bring down prices. so where is the prices going down? Only oil and gas it seems.

    • Oil losses, virtually nil compared with energy transformations.

      Energy usage is quite proportional with the CO2 emissions in this sector.

      Refineries are the second largest CO2 emitter, in the US after the power plants. Onshore oil and gas production is number three. See: http://foreffectivegov.org/oil-and-gas-production-major-source-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-epa-data-reveals

      This means that the losses are large.
      (In addition there are the spills.)

      /Jan

      • Jan,
        Here is the truth:
        Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, so relax, don’t let the nasty ol’ alarmists give you a fright. The more CO2 the better for all creatures.
        Some people even claim that more CO2 will make a warmer world but that has not happened so far, though it would be nice.

      • Phew, nothing to do with the point made. Classic diversion. Jan take responsibility, dont wash your hands and answer the questions that Willis asked.

        I also asked how you calculated your mpg, no answer. A Tesla is 85 kw/hrs. How do you rapid charge that?

    • Economies of scale bring down prices… ceteris paribus.

      The thing that is not equal is the government, which is the reason that prices don’t decline as they should.

      • LMAO…the recent price drop in crude oil was not due to “Economies of scale”……it was due to the actions taken by the government of Saudi Arabia.

  62. Willis – You stated that the NOAA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once. The page you linked to is a NASA website and it provides links to the 97% studies. Somehow you missed it on the NASA page that you linked to. You confused NOAA with NASA!

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    • Thanks for pointing out the NOAA/NASA error, Martin. However, a search for “97%” on the web page brings up nothing, and what I said was:

      “In fact, the NOAA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once …”

      However, I now see that you are correct, they’ve spelled out the number “ninety-seven” with a link to another page … which once again doesn’t provide any citations for the 97% number, just statements from talking heads on the boards of various organizations plus the odious Naomi Oreskes.

      In fact, the 97% number is bogus … and the appeal to consensus is meaningless.

      In any case, I’ve updated the head post to include your valid correction, Martin, much appreciated.

      w.

  63. Martin is right.
    “Now, their [Source] is a NOAA web page, and it goes to some length to prove that the globe has actually warmed over the last few centuries … but then we all knew that most scientists agree about that. However, in a classic “bait and switch”, it says nothing about whether humans are responsible, much less whether 97% of scientists believe that humans are driving the climate to Thermageddon. In fact, the NOAA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once … that’s their evidence for their “97%” claim??? Do they understand what [Source] is supposed to mean?”

    Actually the source is a NASA webpage and they do have a link to the 97% studies. Let’s argue that the 97% studies are bogus because they are. We need to be precise in our criticism.

  64. Jan Kjetil Andersen

    December 26, 2014 at 12:57 am

    Here’s an experiment for you that will demonstrate the power of CO2, also known as Magic Gas:

    Locate a commercial greenhouse where they’re using Magic Gas to enhance plant growth (~1,000 ppm) and simultaneously measure the Magic Gas concentration and temperature inside the building and at another location outside the greenhouse maybe a city block away. This experiment should clearly show what an awful catastrophe awaits us for our obsession with fossil fuels.

  65. Sorry, Jan. When you say we shouldn’t “base our strategy on luck” (a crude way of denigrating market decisions based on the values and calculations of millions – think of the market as “crowdsourcing”), and that we need to “plan or push” in a certain direction, and then follow up with “I am not dictating anyone to do anything,” you appear to have lost the ability to examine your own beliefs and actions.

    The problem is that some people have a religious belief in the power of central planning that is unquestionable in their minds – ten thousand contrary examples will not shift it, no delineation of principle or example, no contrary argument will do so.

    In the end, they are insulted by your refusal to concede the point, regardless of how hollow the argument. It seems the belief is so strong that it lasts up to and well beyond the point of “wait until Comrade Stalin hears about these camps!”

    I expect, pretty much, for all future history to be as bloody as past history, because the 2+2=5 camp will always be with us (and will always think it is So Right!).

    • Merovign says

      When you say we shouldn’t “base our strategy on luck” (a crude way of denigrating market decisions based on the values and calculations of millions – think of the market as “crowdsourcing”), and that we need to “plan or push” in a certain direction, and then follow up with “I am not dictating anyone to do anything,” you appear to have lost the ability to examine your own beliefs and actions.

      By all due respect Merovign, but this is a rather ridiculous statement , and I shall explain why:

      Firstly, when I am is participating in a public debate here on an open blog I do that because I am interested in reading other people’s ideas, offer my opinion on their ideas and hear other people’s opinion on my ideas. That is what an open debate is. If you are offended by ideas which you disagree with and think they are bad persons because of what they suggest, you are actually advocating a totalitarian regime.

      Secondly, if you really think that all planning is wrong you must be living in your own world. If we for example were to build a new highway; should we just handle out two hundred digging machines and let people start wherever they want, or should we plan where it should start and stop first?

      Would it be “a crude way of denigrating market decisions” if we planned something in beforehand?

      /Jan

      • “If we for example were to build a new highway; should we just handle out two hundred digging machines and let people start wherever they want, or should we plan where it should start and stop first?” If the highways were to emerge from 200 digging machine with 200 hundred mostly rational people controlling them, we might very well get more efficient highways. What we usually get are things like the infamous I-394 3 inbound lanes being reduced to 2 lanes as you approached Minneapolis to get us to ride the bus. They planned to control us. If the highway had emerged naturally, we likely wouldn’t have seen that. We can plan many things and with enough resources we can claim success and cut a ribbon. It’s not necessarily the most efficient or elegant solution.

      • The last thing you’re interested in is an open debate, or you wouldn’t so violently twist other people’s words. You conflate criticism with totalitarianism, you conflate centrally-planned economies with *any planning whatsoever* – in other words, you’re being grotesquely dishonest in your argument.

        You appear to be *literally* incapable of seeing the contradictions in your own advocacy, and yet you see angry phantoms in everyone else’s – or, alternatively, you’re just spoiling for a fight regardless of the details.

  66. Jan Kjetil Andersen December 26, 2014 at 12:57 am Edit

    That’s absolute nonsense. Coal replaced wood for a simple reason—it was cheaper.

    Yes, but if we do not plan or push in one direction the economy will be the only drive for change.
    If we have luck the current energy sources will be replaced with something both cheaper and more eco-friendly, but should we base our strategy on luck? Unfortunately the cheapest energy source in the long run seems to be coal which is the least eco-friendly source.

    Nuclear can be a good option in the industrial world, but, as I see it; the concern about proliferation of weapon grade material has to be solved before the uranium based technology can be pushed out globally. Thorium or fusion may be feasible alternatives.

    It is not easy to make global plans, and the treaties we end up with are usually huge compromises that are far from ideal, but anyway, I think it is a way we have to go, and it is better than the alternative; to have no plan at all.

    Jan, your idea of central planning for energy decisions has been tried before, under a system called “communism”. You might recall how that worked out.

    As to whether we should “base our strategy on luck”, the forces of the market plus the laws that we build to surround and corral those forces are not “luck”. For example, is it “luck” that the pollution from coal power plants is so small? Hardly.

    Wake up and smell the coffe. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution

    Well, seriously speaking Willis, I did not like that.
    I am not dictating anyone to do anything and I do not have any power to do that. But I believe in the free exchange of arguments. I learn something from this and maybe I can also contribute to something others learn from.

    I don’t agree with you, but I would not dream of calling you part of the problem. I think a small part of the solution is to find in open-minded exchanges of ideas like those we see on this site.

    Jan, in the name of helping the poor and the environment, you advocate pushing up the prices of energy. This is very destructive, both to the poor and to the environment.

    Which means that you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

    As you point out, you wouldn’t dream of calling me a part of the problem … but then, I’m not advocating policies that harm either the poor or the environment.

    As I said above, I dislike being so harsh, and I do wish you well … but you seem to be lost in some kind of green dream world where actions only have the intended consequences, the ones that are beneficial. You seem to be unaware that the actions you are pushing, like getting rid of coal plants and replacing them with windmills, are already causing pain and suffering.

    So yes, my friend, around here you don’t get to pretend that your policies have no downside. They have a huge downside, they kill the poor, and for what? For a possible cooling of 0.02°C in the year 2050 at a cost of untold billions … I hear people describing these CO2 reduction plans as “insurance”, but if so, that’s the crappiest insurance policy I ever heard of.

    I am a serious environmentalist and have been my whole life, Jan, and I’ve spent a good chunk of my life working with the poorest of the poor. The damage done to the environment by poor people far, far outweighs the small amount of pollution from a modern coal power plant. No country has cleaned up its environment without first industrializing its way out of poverty. The faux green environmental organizations are destroying the environment, like you they are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

    Look, Jan, if you want to fight the imaginary menace of CO2, that’s your business. I fail to see why you’d want to do that, so I asked you why above, saying:

    Finally, the amount of CO2 in the air has been much, much higher in the geological past than it is today … perhaps you could point out to everyone the huge cost to the biosphere of those high CO2 levels. And the temperature of the planet has warmed a couple of degrees since the Little Ice Age … perhaps you could indicate to us where we could locate the huge costs and the disasters due to that warming, because I’ve been unable to find them.

    However, you assiduously ignored those questions … so I’m still in mystery about why you want to fight CO2. An answer to both of those questions would be enlightening as to why you enlisted in that unwinnable war.

    But given that you do want to be a foot soldier in the campaign against CO2, if you fight the eeevil carbon in any way that significantly increases the price of energy you are damaging, impoverishing, and killing the poor … so I’ll thank you not to act like you have the moral high ground. As soon as you start talking about policies that significantly jack energy prices, like subsidies for renewables, or cap-and-trade, or renewable mandates, or subsidies for electric cars, you are damaging both the poor and the environment … and as such, you are part of the problem. The rich get subsidies for their Teslas … and the poor get expensive energy. That’s a bad deal.

    In any case, my warmest Xmas wishes to you, and my thanks for defending your position,

    w.

    • As you point out, you wouldn’t dream of calling me a part of the problem … but then, I’m not advocating policies that harm either the poor or the environment.
      As I said above, I dislike being so harsh, and I do wish you well … but you seem to be lost in some kind of green dream world where actions only have the intended consequences, the ones that are beneficial.

      This is cute.

      Sorry to tell you this Willis, but you are the one who is living in a bubble here. Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.

      If you really think that I am lost in a green dream world because of my modest arguments above then I cannot help you.

      You have sometimes told me to “get out in the World”.
      I can tell you Willis, I am out in the world. I work in an international company and I meet colleagues and business relations from all over the world. Perhaps you should meet the real world, not only people who share your ideas here.

      /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen December 26, 2014 at 1:37 pm Edit

        As you point out, you wouldn’t dream of calling me a part of the problem … but then, I’m not advocating policies that harm either the poor or the environment.

        As I said above, I dislike being so harsh, and I do wish you well … but you seem to be lost in some kind of green dream world where actions only have the intended consequences, the ones that are beneficial.

        This is cute.

        Sorry to tell you this Willis, but you are the one who is living in a bubble here. Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.

        Thanks, Jan, but I note that

        • You have not answered the questions that I’ve asked … twice … about your imagined dangers from CO2 and from warming.

        • You have not demonstrated that your advocated policies do not harm the poor.

        • You have not demonstrated that your advocated policies do not harm the environment.

        In fact, rather than being a response to any of the cited, supported, referenced points I’ve made, your entire latest post is merely a well-spoken version of the schoolroom reply, “AM NOT! AM NOT!”

        Finally, as I pointed out, we have good evidence that your claim that “most of the world are laughing” is itself a joke. In the recent UN poll of more than six million people, just as in the US polls, the majority of those polled don’t think that global warming is in any sense a serious threat. The alleged threat of warming came in sixteenth out of the options, and the only reason it didn’t do worse is that there were only sixteen choices. It was dead last, Jan. The folks that think it’s important are mostly some wealthy folks who won’t be harmed if energy prices skyrocket …

        So if I’m “living in a bubble”, I have most of the world for my company.

        Sadly,

        w.

      • “This is cute.

        Sorry to tell you this Willis, but you are the one who is living in a bubble here. Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.”

        What a lame ad hominem response. Made even more pathetic by its passive aggressiveness.

        Jan, if you want to have standing to continue the discussion with Willis, then answer his questions. Feel free to ask your worldly colleagues to help you with the answers and, when they can’t either, do look in a mirror and begin to understand why you’re part of the problem.

  67. Jan Kjetil Andersen says:

    Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.

    According to numerous polls, the public just doesn’t care about global warming. So in fact, most people do not take global warming seriously.

    The purveyors of the GW hoax have cried “WOLF!!” so often, that they no longer have any credibility.

    The facts show that warming would be a net benefit, and that CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better, at both current and projected concentrations.

    Every scary alarmist prediction has failed, therefore people are actually laughing at the climate alarmist crowd. You just have it backward, that’s all.

    • Good point – that ship has already sailed.

      If we could actually separate the science (already highly uncertain) from all other factors (such as politics), we might know where we stand. But we can’t.

      If we could know the ACTUAL MOTIVES of the CAGW advocates (and the skeptics) this would also help. But we can’t.

      Some do argue that the general public SHOULD worry about CO2 caused warming (or decay of concrete!) in 100 years. But the public does not so worry (e.g., opinion polls), and rightfully so.

      Conversely, others of better conscience opt for a less miserable life for energy-poor people today, which has more public support, particularly I guess if one is (or ever has been) cold and hungry, and particularly as jet-set do-gooders flit about with hypocritical abandon.

      Some pine for a more high-minded “optimal”, but unrealistic and unobtainable, energy solution (somehow!), but these persons have come across to the public as less than straightforward (like politicians) if not just naïve (hangers-on), or as scientific pretenders with likely conflicts of interest.

      So as dbstealey observes, it is in fact the alarmist who are held in disrepute by the public (laughed at in a blog like this one), particularly by those who hold jobs, pay taxes, contribute their OWN money to the poor, and who (discarding the rose-colored glasses) try to make do with the world as it really is. Happily, it looks like this will work out just fine.

  68. Abraham Lincoln was almost wrong – you can fool MOST of the people ALL of the time – and the only thing that really drives all this twaddle (more euphemistically and politely known as fucking crap) is money:

    – grants for scientists who toe the line
    – carbon offsets which come in the form of credits that can be traded on the open stock markets

    I’m all for “good housekeeping” but why should people receive handouts for tidying their own shit up?

  69. Great Post again Mr. Willis! Thanks again for all your work.

    “Scientists are trying to stop the next Mega Tsunami” !?!
    NATGEOHD promo, 12-26-14 at 4:21 p.m. during Neil D ssss, ‘scientific’ COSMOS.
    Again at 4:52 p.m.

    WTF? I hope we know that tsunamis are caused by earthquakes. Aside from the Italians charging some geoscientists for not predicting an earthquake, earthquakes are random events and cannot be predicted.
    Most don’t know how big the earth is.

    It’s a big, big world out there.

    I submit that the best scientists in the world couldn’t even correctly model the quake after it happened, let alone predict the next tsunami. We all know that the difference between a 6.5 and 7.5 quake is an order of magnitude more severe, right? An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.

    This ignorant propaganda leads to ignorance and dismissal of science, as well as poor choices. We all watched ‘The Christmas Carol’ right? The wanton boy revealed by the Ghost of Christmas Present represented ignorance as I recall.

    Here is NATGEO claiming that scientists can end earthquakes. These infant journalists need to take some basic science classes.

  70. We have a public broadcaster in Great Britain that has decided that AGW is a fact and has banned any commentators who do not agree with their assertion, a prohibition which seems to take the ‘public’ out of their remit. They cease to be representative of the general scepticism which attaches upon taking such a stance and therefore do not represent in any way their public and the disqualification of the facts of AGW that you illustrate here. This is probably allowable in the context that there are loads of other broadcasters not quite so punctilious in their bias, you can always switch. But when such totalitarian views then support government in the application of extra duties on the cost of energy to the consumer we see a coterie of conspirators and are liable to ask what came first the demand for more revenue to maintain the energy supply or the BBC’s insistence on the censorship of fact?

    In a land far, far, away, once upon a time, there were geological conditions which formed a land bridge between Great Britain and Europe, now we call that area the English Channel. There was a time when Eastern England had a vast area of land liable to incursion by the tides until Dutch engineers were employed to drain it (and so turned it into one of the richest farming areas that England possesses). There was a time when the Bosphorus was an enclosed sea (and that may only have been opened to the Atlantic at the time of Noah and the Biblical flood). To settle on the encroaching sea as a measure of some pre-determined hypothesis seems to be rather in denial of evolution.

    The Meteorological Office in Great Britain is a government organ whose raison d’etre seems to be to qualify political manifestos rather than to do its day job. As futurologists they suck. Having made predictions on the forthcoming weather that have, to a man, been knocked down by actuality. “Barbecue Summers” and dry winters have tellingly been awful summers and winters subject to torrential downpours (who can say God is not mused by puny mankind. A strain that He seems to have created merely to demonstrate the acuity of His Commandments). In reaction to their hilarious predictions they have decided to cease long term predicting, except for AGW.

    The Met Office now regale us with the fact that they have purchased a computer of such huge capability, tens of trillions of computations a second, that will allow them to be ever more precise in their predictive ability!? Yet they are a progenitor of the AGW theory and any model they process must be biased in that regard, meaning garbage in and garbage out. A wrong conclusion even faster and more elaborately embroidered is still bound to be erroneous.

    The featured news item today is that Britain is engulfed in ‘weather’ of the wintry kind. Everyone has been taken by surprise by a wintry blast that has left people stranded in cars, warnings have been issued concerning the dangers of travelling, train services have been suspended. Britain is not a place where tyres need chains for a season; we are never engulfed by adverse conditions; our winters are a mild inconvenience; we are constantly surprised by bad weather; although a small island every climatic condition imaginable can be witnessed somewhere here almost on a daily basis. Weather in Britain is quirky. Yet the level of severity was not forecast and motorists and travellers generally have been put at risk by an agency preoccupied by assertion and dogmatism imposed on it by the urgency to support ‘consensus’.

    Whether long term or short term, the Met Office has once more displayed its ineptitude, here demonstrating that it cannot even do its day job to any significant level of competency. It appears that those of the ‘Barack Canute’ tendency are in the ascendency. Proscription, inadequacy, misinformation, rigidity, laxness and dereliction of duty are high prices to pay for insistence. If ever a bureaucracy wanted an excuse for its inadequacy AGW seems to be a godsend.

  71. Willis says

    You have not answered the questions that I’ve asked … twice … about your imagined dangers from CO2 and from warming.

    Look at my answer to KaiseDerden December 25, 2014 at 9:39 am

    This is if cause not the largest danger I see, but it is a quite uncontroversial one.

    I started this discussion thread by addressing your claim that since the US emissions of CO2 are nearly flat it does not matter much what the US do, because the developing nations is in the driver’s seat.
    I objected to this because the US is a leading nation in nearly all areas. I pointed to the fact that if the US said that they did not care then everyone else could say the same.

    The topic I am highlighting is whether the US matters when an international deal on global CO2 emissions is discussed.

    At this stage it is a premise for the further discussion of this particular topic that CO2 emissions matters. When you then are saying that CO2 emissions does not do any harm anyway and therefore the US emissions does not matter, you are trailing off the discussion in a new direction. When you then demand answers to the dangers of CO2, you open a huge topic which you know we will never close here. That is why I chose to use the uncontroversial carbonatation as my only answer to this.

    In the recent UN poll of more than six million people, just as in the US polls, the majority of those polled don’t think that global warming is in any sense a serious threat. The alleged threat of warming came in sixteenth out of the options

    This is a poll where people are asked about the UN Millennium Development goals, and the focus of these goals is more immediate needs in the developing world. When your child is starving you do not care about global warming. I think it is surprising that that so many as 1.3 million out of 6 million asked mentioned global warming is this context.

    You can find polls all over showing that a vast majority of scientists think global warming is real and a major danger. Se for example: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    I am not saying that the fact that they are a majority is a proof that they I right in everything. I have said before and I still mean that you write many good articles where you expose statistics and promote interesting alternative views. Continue with that.

    But bear in mind that you are promoting a view that very few scientists agree with, and some humbleness for this fact would be appropriate. To picture the opponent who has a view more in line with the huge majority as being in a dream world is just silly.

    /Jan

    • Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 2:31 am

      Willis says

      You have not answered the questions that I’ve asked … twice … about your imagined dangers from CO2 and from warming.

      Look at my answer to KaiseDerden December 25, 2014 at 9:39 am

      This is if cause not the largest danger I see, but it is a quite uncontroversial one.

      Not only have you not answered my questions, you don’t seem to have noticed them. So let me ask them again.

      Finally, the amount of CO2 in the air has been much, much higher in the geological past than it is today … perhaps you could point out to everyone the huge cost to the biosphere of those high CO2 levels.

      And the temperature of the planet has warmed a couple of degrees since the Little Ice Age … perhaps you could indicate to us where we could locate the huge costs and the disasters due to that warming, because I’ve been unable to find them.

      It is uncontroversial, to use your word, that the world used to have much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. It is uncontroversial that the world has generally warmed a couple degrees C or so since the Little Ice Age.

      So … where are the storms and the droughts and the floods and the hurricanes that are supposed to accompany such a terrible 2° warming? And where are the disasters associated with the very high levels of CO2 in past geological eras?

      w.

      PS—The carbonization of concrete is uncontroversial. However, it is also not what anyone would call an issue. It is a problem today, and we have ways to deal with it today. The major effect is from moisture, not from CO2. Basically what is done in response is that in high-moisture areas (say concrete in water) you simply bury the rebar more deeply in the concrete than in other areas.

      A second way to decrease carbonation is by additives at the time the concrete is poured, which slow the carbonation process.

      The final way that we deal with carbonation in concrete is to use one of a large number of surface coatings. These range from epoxies and silicone resins down to plain old paint, and they can and do totally counteract the effect of increased atmospheric CO2.

      So as it turns out, your big fear is that increasing CO2 levels will cause us to have to paint certain of our concrete structures … you’ll excuse me if that doesn’t alarm me.

      Finally, I note that concrete has been used since the industrial revolution, and during that time CO2 has gone from ~ 275 to ~ 400 ppmv without carbonization being a major issue anywhere that I’m aware of … so how about you let that issue go and answer my questions?

      • Willis says:

        Finally, the amount of CO2 in the air has been much, much higher in the geological past than it is today … perhaps you could point out to everyone the huge cost to the biosphere of those high CO2 levels.
        And the temperature of the planet has warmed a couple of degrees since the Little Ice Age … perhaps you could indicate to us where we could locate the huge costs and the disasters due to that warming, because I’ve been unable to find them.

        Willis, while you are technically right that the level has been higher in the geological past, you do not mention that we have go more than 800 000 years back:

        As you see above, the CO2 level in the year 2100 could be three times the highest level we have had in the last 800 000 years. Do you really think we should let this happen and that there is no reason for concern at all?

        The picture is taken from the article here: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

        The CO2 level will of cause continue to grow after that as long as we do not make any reductions in our carbon emissions.

        We have to go millions of year back to find this high CO2 levels.

        Do you want me to pinpoint any huge costs millions of years ago?

        Well, I would be very suspicious of anyone who said they could pinpoint that, just as suspicious as I would be to anyone who could guarantee that there has not been anyone, or could be anyone, if we suddenly triples the CO2 level.

        /Jan

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm

        We have to go millions of year back to find this high CO2 levels.

        Do you want me to pinpoint any huge costs millions of years ago?

        Sure. We’ve been told, for example, that a rise in temperature of only 2°C will cause huge extinctions of a third of the species on earth … surely we’d find that in the geological record no matter when it happened.

        But heck, if you can’t find any, we’ll let that go and wait for the answer to the other question.

        w.

  72. Interesting they seem to think “97% consensus” is their strongest argument–shows how weak the CO2 theory of climate change really is. Even if the sample were not absurdly skewed, it would still settle nothing. About a century ago, one part time amateur espoused the theory of continental drift and there was a 100% scientific consensus that he was a crank. Consensus? So what?
    A show of hands can determine an election but it can’t determine reality.

    How can people who are so stupid think they are so much smarter than everyone who disagrees with them? Does it ever dawn on them that other people might have good reasons for disagreeing? If you ask them to debunk what they consider to be the 3 strongest arguments against CAGW, most of them don’t even know that 3 or more arguments against it exist. They just jumped on the bandwagon without looking at any other possibilities and now they are so haughtily sure of their own opinions and so openly contemptuous of anyone who expresses skepticism about a theory whose predictions have repeatedly failed. They are the Climate Pharisees. “Lord, I thank Thee that I am not like those ignorant and worthless Deniers who don’t care about their children’s future!” Turns my stomach.

  73. Brute
    wrote:

    No, no. It goes back *at least* to 1950 when socialist economist Robert Heilbroner wrote in his fashionably leftish book _The Human Prospect_ (which I have read, once upon a time) that global warming caused by industrial emissions will require the formation of a one world government to save us from ourselves; and he added that it will probably have to be a “revolutionary” government–at the time, a euphemism for Communist.

    As Al Gore, Jr. (his legal name) said decades later, it’s all about getting “global governance.” Global and, of course, unaccountable to the voters and taxpayers who will have to live under its high-handed decrees.

    All for our own good, naturally. “Liberals”/socialists always think we sad, benighted masses need to be supervised by a strong and unaccountable central authority, staffed by a morally and intellectually superior elite of benevolent and enlightened planners, namely themselves.

    Now that they have “fixed” American healthcare, their next agenda item is to “save the climate,” ultimately by giving unelected UN or other international bureaucrats greatly expanded authority and an independent source of revenue, possibly from “carbon” taxes.

  74. Aaarrgghh!! one more try:

    For some baffling reason, the following quoted material failed to appear after the words, “Brute wrote:”

    Brute
    wrote:

    ‘The fact is that global warming was created as a political tool by a conservative (so called “right wing”)
    party. Look it up. It’s not a secret.’

  75. Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 2:31 am

    Look at my answer to KaiseDerden December 25, 2014 at 9:39 am

    This is if cause not the largest danger I see, but it is a quite uncontroversial one.
    ———————————————————————————-

    This is just getting silly Jan. I followed the link, and nowhere was there any data showing an increase in concrete corrosion due to anthropogenic CO2. In fact, there was no mention of it. What I read on the site seemed to be mostly about fixing the corrosion caused by all kinds of agents.

    Why don’t you do this?

    1) Take the largest danger that you see.

    2) Show the scientific evidence, i.e. real world data (not models or speculation) that CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has had any measurable effect on your “largest danger”.

    Why don’t you do this too?

    1) Talk to one of the people who is laughing (should be easy, as it’s apparently most of the world).

    2) Have them undertake the exercise above, and then please report back.

    • This is just getting silly Jan. I followed the link, and nowhere was there any data showing an increase in concrete corrosion due to anthropogenic CO2. In fact, there was no mention of it. What I read on the site seemed to be mostly about fixing the corrosion caused by all kinds of agents.

      The first link says: “The most frequent aggressive agents are pure water, chlorides dissolved in water and carbon dioxide (CO2) in atmosphere” and
      “In practice, carbon dioxide (CO2) initiates reinforcement corrosion, when the concrete cover in contact with this steel is carbonated and rather wet (even in a non permanent way).”

      How much clearer do you need it?

      If you miss the direct reference to anthropogenic sources you can look at this:
      https://www.academia.edu/2347430/Carbonation_in_concrete_infrastructure_in_the_context_of_global_climate_change_Development_of_a_service_lifespan_model

      Why don’t you do this?
      1) Take the largest danger that you see.
      2) Show the scientific evidence,

      As I explained to Willis, it just leads to an endless discussion to argument for CO2’s role in global warming or less alcaline seawater. That has been done before, and we will perhaps get the chances to do it again.
      Since KaiserDerden asked for one loss, I picked corrosion in concrete enforcement because I think it is easiest prove that effect.

      I did not want to discuss how harmful CO2 might be or not in this thread as I see that as a diversion from the topic. The topic I started and want to focus on is whether it matter or not what the US do in the climate talks concerning global CO2 emissions.

      /Jan

  76. Willis Eschenbach said:

    The fact that the ocean is accumulating more heat over time does NOT mean that the level of sea level rise will accelerate. If the rate of accumulation is constant, the rate of rise will be constant.
    The expectation from the alarmists has been that the rate would be accelerating …

    It’s been an awful long time since I studied thermo and heat transfer but I seriously doubt that, considering the total heat capacity of the ocean, a 0.6 degree increase in air temperature at the surface would cause a detectable change in the rate of expansion. Of course, looking at the “science” they have produced so far, I also doubt that many (if any) of the alarmists are even slightly familiar with thermodynamics and heat transfer.

  77. Look at my answer to KaiseDerden December 25, 2014 at 9:39 am

    This is if cause not the largest danger I see, but it is a quite uncontroversial one.

    This is just wrong. CO2 levels have no effect whatsoever on Carbonation of concrete. It is totally dependent on the relative humidity of the environment and the concrete permeability. The concrete and the structure can be designed to reduce/eliminate carbonation by decreasing the permeability, increasing the depth of cover over the reinforcing steel, using epoxy coated rebar, minimizing cement replacement, or using liquid admixtures that inhibit corrosion. Proper design and construction techniques virtually eliminate carbonation.

      • Yep, that’s what his link was all about. I was hoping to provoke him into actually finding some data (to be further disemboweled, I’m sure, if he could find some). However, I don’t think Jan knows what data is.

        ……. and that’s the uncontroversial one too, apparently.

      • Jan, did you even read that paper? First it is all based on models, no actual real test data or existing structure evaluations. Secondly, even in their own paper they say, based on their “models and calculations” that the structures service life would be in excess of 55 years, which is greater than most structures (other than bridges) are designed for. They also use an estimated w/c ratio of 0.5 which is ludicrous, no structural concrete member would be that high. Typically they will be 0.42 or lower for structures of importance (bridges,etc). If they are talking about building then there whole study can be put in the trash. They also use a layer of cover of only 25mm which is not acceptable, it is half of what is used under most building codes.

        So, they use a model (s) that use unrealistic w/c ratios, inappropriate coverage, don’t consider any modifications to improve permeability of concrete and or epoxy coated rebar. They perform no actual testing or gathering of field data and they also make a standardization of the exposure class ( saying the weather/humidity is going to be constant), give me a break. These guys need to go back to Undergrad Material Eng class.

      • philincalifornia

        December 28, 2014 at 10:13 am

        I mean … do any of these blockheads know how to design a fkin experiment ?

        Short answer; no. Why do they need experimentation when they have the Holy Grail of 97% consensus? They don’t need no STEENKIN’ facts! Ya gotta BELIEVE!! LOL!

  78. thedocrock December 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    Quote: “First it is all based on models, no actual real test data or existing structure evaluations.”

    Yes, and they don’t care. A number on a computer screen has greater value to them to help stop the horror that is CO2 released into the air than are actual measurements that don’t support their cause.

    • No… From what I have gathered, it’s just that with the requirements in academia to publish-or-perish, unless they are working on a fairly large project with plenty of funding, they dream up these (mostly small) computer model studies they can complete, write-up and submit in their spare time just to have something to add to the CV. That’s probably one of the main reasons why something like 80% of the peer reviewed papers are falsified within a few years of being published.

      I learned a long time ago, at several start-ups, that you just had to laugh and then ignore most of the relevant papers you could dig up. But, at least you could usually tell this from reading the abstract and didn’t have to waste time digging into the full paper.

      Frankly, some of the papers touted both here and at Real Climate are in that category and probably should have just be consigned to the dust bin. The problem is that the only reason a lot of them are written and published is to keep the main stream media engaged and continue the proselytizing for the CAGW meme.

  79. Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 11:50 am

    As I explained to Willis, it just leads to an endless discussion to argument for CO2’s role in global warming or less alcaline seawater. That has been done before, and we will perhaps get the chances to do it again.
    Since KaiserDerden asked for one loss, I picked corrosion in concrete enforcement because I think it is easiest prove that effect.

    I did not want to discuss how harmful CO2 might be or not in this thread as I see that as a diversion from the topic. The topic I started and want to focus on is whether it matter or not what the US do in the climate talks concerning global CO2 emissions.

    /Jan

    Of course you don’t want to discuss how harmful CO2 might be, because you have no evidence of any significant harm. I will point out, however, that it’s not a “diversion from the topic”, because the claims of harm from CO2 underlie the entire CO2 discussion. If these bogus claims didn’t exist we wouldn’t be having this discussion

    In any case, since you want to discuss whether US actions matter, I’ve shown in the head post that what we do doesn’t make any difference because the US emissions are trivial in the global scheme. By that I mean that the US emissions could go to no growth at all for the next fifty years and only make a trivial difference in atmospheric CO2 totals. You have not provided a scrap of evidence to show that this is incorrect.

    Here’s a question for you, Jan. From 1994 to 2012, global CO2 emissions increased by 60%, from 6,069,597 kilotonnes of carbon to 9,666,501 kilotonnes. That’s an increase of 3,596,904 kilotonnes per year.

    Perhaps you could inform us just how much of that three million kilotonne plus increase was from US emissions? …

    w.

    PS—The answer is, 128 measly kilotonnes, a whopping 0.003 percent of the increase. The US emissions in 2012 were essentially identical to the US emissions in 1994 … and you can see just how much difference that made to the global emissions. None at all.

    Note also that none of the developing countries have jumped on board to emulate us in holding our emissions flat, so don’t even try the “If the US does it the developing countries will follow” BS … our lack of increase in emissions has made no difference at all to the other countries.

    • Willis says

      I’ve shown in the head post that what we do doesn’t make any difference because the US emissions are trivial in the global scheme

      As I have said before, the US emissions are the second largest in the world after China. That means that all other nations can use the same excuse to not do anything to their own emissions.

      The Chinese can use the excuse that they are more people and they should have the same right to use as much carbon per capita as the US citizens.

      The US matters more than any other nation in international treaties. We have seen two such treaties lately. The first was a bilateral treaty between the US and China to set emission targets. Do you think China had solitarily declared those targets for themselves if the US had not set any target for the US emissions?

      The other was a multilateral treaty where almost all nations declared to set targets to cap emissions. Do you really think that it would be possible to include developing nations in this treaty if the US had stayed outside?

      Here’s a question for you, Jan. From 1994 to 2012, global CO2 emissions increased by 60%, from 6,069,597 kilotonnes of carbon to 9,666,501 kilotonnes. That’s an increase of 3,596,904 kilotonnes per year.
      Perhaps you could inform us just how much of that three million kilotonne plus increase was from US emissions? …

      With an accuracy of seven decimals, that’s funny.

      The increase has not been high in the US since 1994, it is a good reason for that, namely that the US already had very high emissions in 1994. The US emission in 1994 was 19.5 tons per capita. In comparison had Germany 10.6, France 6.2, China had 2.6 and India only 0.9 tons/capita.
      See: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?page=4

      The situation was a little more even in 2014: the US now uses 17.6, Germany 9.1, France 5.6, China 6.2 and India 1.7 tons/capita.

      This only shows that any international treaty without caps in the US would be regarded as very unfair by other countries.

      Look to France, they have obviously done something right.

      /Jan

  80. Returning to the lead sentence of Willis’ article, the real issue is Taxes and Control.
    Global Warming/Global Cooling (I remember that in the ’70’s) / Anthro-whatever Climate Change, Climate Disruption….. whatever the name is this week……. the so-called ‘solution’ ALWAYS boils down to more taxes and more control by the nitwits who believe they are smarter than the rest of us.

    THAT is why the Left is always pushing it.

  81. Promoters of most any agenda judge “facts” in terms of “usefulness”. If the quoted facts are actually true, that’s a happy, but not terribly important bonus. Promoters know that in any contested event, whatever “facts” they put out there will be covered over by opposition “facts”. In a scientifically based fact-slinging contest, truth is particularly irrelevant because a generally science-illiterate public will judge the winner by the height he’s added to the pile. On that realistic basis, AGW promoters pretty much had the general public won over, thanks to corrupted science and compliant news media.

    Then Mother Nature intervened by throwing tons of snow and ice onto the “skeptic” pile. She added insult to injury by following Al Gore to global warming conferences all over the world and gracing the proceedings with “cold snaps”. Back home, Ma and Pa Kettle have always known how to read a thermometer. After several decades of watching the thing bounce around from year to year, they’ve noticed that whether the reading goes up or down, AGW promoters throw that “fact” onto their pile as evidence of “warming” (relabeled as “climate change” but still defended as “warming”).

    In my estimation and according to the polls, Ma and Pa Kettle “ain’t buyin’ this crap no more” and any political party or politician continuing to carry the AGW banner loses credibility where it counts in the political world and may soon be lain bare to public contempt and ridicule.

  82. I can give a short summary of my view, you may label it lukewarmer or alarmist as you like, but this is how I view the situation.
    I consider these moments as facts:

    1. We experience very high global temperatures. The last two decades have been approximately 0.8 degrees warmer than the average from 1850 to 1920. The last decade has been the warmest in at least several hundred years.
    2. The current CO2 level at 400 ppm is the highest in at least 800 000 years and this elevated level is either for the most part, or only, a result of human emissions.
    3. The current CO2 level is approximately 43% above the pre-industrial level. The level will increase to approximately 900 ppm, which is 220% above the pre industrial level, in the year 2100 if the current trend in increased carbon emissions continues.
    4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If the Earth had no greenhouse gases the average temperature on Earth would be about 33 degrees Celsius lower than it is today.
    5. When we increase the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere we will likely get higher greenhouse effects. The extra greenhouse effect of doubling the CO2 level without accounting for feedback mechanisms is approximately 3.7 W/m2, which gives an extra warming of approximately 1 degree Celsius. It is not proven that an increase of this magnitude has more negative than positive effects.
    6. There will be feedback mechanisms, some negative and some positive. It is not proven how much the sum of these mechanisms will decrease or increase the climate sensitivity, but most models gives a net positive feedback resulting in a sensitivity between 2.0 and 4.5 Celsius.
    7. Some of the anthropogenic CO2 will be dissolved in sea and freshwater and this causes the PH to drop. It is not yet proven that this drop will cause any substantial negative effects.

    Judgment
    Most well informed people and climate scientist will agree to the points above, although quite many mainstream scientists will think that the points 5, 6 and 7 are too conservative.

    What concerns me most is number 3 and 6.

    My alarm systems start blinking when I look at the graph below. We are after all not talking about any random gas; CO2 is one of the two life bearing gases here on Earth. The other is oxygen and all the rest is something less important.

    My natural skepticism is not only triggered by people who are sure this will be catastrophic, it is just as much triggered by people who claim that this is nothing to worry about.

    If the CO2 level reaches 900 ppm, we will by a logarithmic scaling of the climate forcing of CO2, get a warming of 168% of the climate sensitivity.

    This means that even if the climate sensitivity is in the low end of current estimates, i.e. around 2 degrees Celsius, we will get a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius in the year 2100.

    I think this is worrying, and that we should take some actions to prevent the CO2 level to reach 900 ppm in 2100. However, it is no reason for hysteria which I think we sometimes see in the media.

    /Jan

    • Jan, pre-industrial levels of CO2 are thought to be 280ppm. Current levels are 400ppm, which represents, logarithmically speaking, 50% of a doubling.

      You’ve had a few days now to find and post any climate parameter where there is empirical evidence that this half-doubling has had any effect, and you haven’t even come close to addressing this. In other words, it is between zero and immeasurable.

      If we double it from 400ppm to 800ppm, which is getting up towards your 900ppm, then we will have 3 X zero to immeasurable.

      Hope this makes you sleep better

    • Jan Kjetil Andersen December 28, 2014 at 11:42 am Edit

      I can give a short summary of my view, you may label it lukewarmer or alarmist as you like, but this is how I view the situation.

      Sorry, but until you answer my question, I don’t care about the assumptions that you’re trying to pass off as facts.

      w.

      PS: you say:

      3. The current CO2 level … will increase to approximately 900 ppm, which is 220% above the pre industrial level, in the year 2100 if the current trend in increased carbon emissions continues.

      This is not a “fact”, it is the combination of a host of assumptions. The most egregious of these assumptions is assuming that you can draw a straight line extending the current trend in emissions until the year 2100.

  83. Hello Jan,

    I agree with some of what you say, but there are a few points that seem to me very unlikely:

    1. Warming (based on whatever the true climate sensitivity is net GHG forcing) will not approach the equilibrium values for hundreds of years, but only then if the atmospheric GHG levels (CO2 and all others) levels were maintained at a constant (much higher) level. They won’t be, they will almost certainly be falling by 2100, if not well before then.

    2. Reaching 900 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is very close to impossible because a) there probably isn’t enough economically recoverable fossil fuel available, and b) the rate of ocean uptake will rise roughly in proportion to the atmospheric concentration, making equal emissions of CO2 less able to raise atmospheric CO2 when the level is higher. More plausible CO2 emissions projections do not lead to such high atmospheric CO2 levels.

    3. Any substitution for fossil fuels needs to be practical and reasonably inexpensive. Current solar and wind power technologies are neither.

    If you are very concerned about future warming from CO2, then I suggest that you lend your support to rapid development of third generation (inherently fail-safe) nuclear power technology, and on helping poor countries modernize and become at least mid-income countries; that means making energy available and affordable. There is no better way to reduce long term population growth than for people to stop being poor…. it has the added benefit of reducing human suffering, improving health and quality of life, and avoiding early death.

    • Thank you Steve, you have many good points.
      Concerning the first, you are right that there will take long time to reach equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate sensitivity is in the range 1.0 to 2.5 Celsius. But I am not convinced that the CO2 level will be falling by 2100 unless we do something to make it happen.

      You are right that we will likely be short on oil and gas resources in 2100, but the world’s coal resources are really huge.

      /Jan

  84. Jan,
    I don’t disagree with your items 1 through 4, just that they present any cause for concern. When temperatures have been higher than today (e.g. Medieval and Roman Warm Periods), mankind seems to have flourished. It has been the colder periods, both between and before, that have been the more troubling times.

    Items 5 and 6 both imply positive feedbacks (I’m glad you didn’t use the term ‘forcing’) which, if any do exists, we won’t know until some time far in the future. Newer research seems to keep dropping the estimates of temperature change caused by a doubling of CO2. As far as item 7, I think the classic picture of the coral reef with CO2 bubbling around it answers that, at least for me.

    The current crop of ‘Climate Scientists’ has so thoroughly screwed up the actual science of climate (if by any stretch of the imagination you can call what they have produced science) that it is going to take decades to recover. However, that we can recover. But, they have also destroyed the reputation of scientist and scientists in general. No longer can we expect honest statements of the assumed, the known and the unknown along with their probabilities. I can live with uncertainty and I can accept ignorance, both my own and in others. What is intolerable is incompetence (i.e., not admitting your ignorance) and lying, even if (they think) for the better good. I’m afraid that once the public becomes aware of being misled, and to what extent, it will take one or more generations to recover the lost respect, if ever.

  85. I like to think of George Carlin when I see this sort of propaganda, and imagine who it will impress. “You know how dumb the average person is? Well, half of the population is even dumber than that.” And they voted for Obama.

Comments are closed.