Can we stop the doom mongering?

A letter to the editor which appeared in the Norman, OK Transcript on Tuesday, February 17th, reprinted here with permission of the author, Dr. David Deming:


I write in rebuttal to the Feb. 12 letter by Nancy Smart advising us to “listen” to climate scientists. According to Ms. Smart, climate science is “settled.” Instead of thinking for ourselves, she recommends we obsequiously follow the dictates of “our most respected and highest level scientific agencies.”

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Science is not a dogmatic body of doctrine. It is an open system of knowledge that establishes probable truths that are subject to continual revision. The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped?

Ms. Smart claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record. But there is no such thing as a measured temperature for the entire Earth. Estimates of climate change are not data, but interpretations produced by manipulating data of dubious quality. Anthony Watts’ survey of meteorological stations in the US has shown that more than 90 percent of temperature sensors may have systematic errors larger than 1 degree Celsius. Watts and his colleagues have found thermometers sitting in asphalt parking lots next to air conditioner vents blowing out hot air. To verify their claim of the “hottest year on record,” climate researchers must reconstruct the temperature record of the entire planet since the year 1880. Pray tell. If our current system of temperature measurement in the United States is unreliable, how can you expect us to believe that you can accurately estimate what the temperature of the South Pacific Ocean was in the year 1890?

We are told that there is an increase in the “number and frequency” of “extreme weather events.” Ms. Smart is long on vague generalities but short on specifics. If the weather is deteriorating so badly, its strange that she can’t list even one of these alleged weather events. In fact, weather is not climate and the climate is not changing. Global hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-three-year low. There has been no increase in tornadoes in the US. Neither droughts nor wildfires have increased. The poles are not melting. There has been no significant change in the global extent of sea ice since satellite monitoring began in 1979.

Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified. But global warming is the hypothesis that can never be falsified. Several years ago, we were told that global warming meant the end of snow in winter. Then the east coast of the US suffered devastating blizzards in 2010 (“Snowmageddon“). A few days later the party line was retroactively modified with the preposterous claim that global warming would produce less snow but more blizzards. Hot weather, cold weather, it makes no difference. Every weather event is portrayed as being consistent with global warming. That’s because global warming is not a scientific hypothesis, but a dogmatic ideology. It resembles nothing so much as Bible-based creation science.

Ms. Smart proposes a “solution” to global warming entailing something she describes as a “carbon fee and dividend program.” She claims this is a “market-based approach” that will “help the economy and create jobs.” Nonsense. If it were “market-based” it would not have to be imposed coercively through government. Spending, labeled “investment,” in failed “green energy” programs and companies over the last few years has been an utter debacle. Over $500. million was lost on Solyndra alone. The reason these programs don’t work is that you can’t change the laws of physics and chemistry through wishful thinking and political action. Reality imposes constraints even on people who are detached from it.

Neither is the “solution” a solution. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand arithmetic. The per capita annual carbon generated in the US from using fossil fuels is about 4.4 tons. Norman’s population is 120,000. So if carbon emissions for the entire city went to zero, we would prevent 528,000 tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year. That sounds like an impressive number, but its only 0.000528 gigatons (GT). The Earth’s atmosphere contains 720 GT of carbon. The oceans contain 38,400 GT. Every year, the atmosphere and oceans exchange about 90 GT of carbon. Nothing the city of Norman does is going to measurably change the composition of Earth’s atmosphere, and any claim to the contrary is utterly irrational.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and the Earth’s climate is not changing. So please, give it a rest. We’re tired of the array of tendentious claims and the endless litany of hysterical doom-mongering.

David Deming

Norman, Oklahoma

email: ddeming@ou.edu

Advertisements

390 thoughts on “Can we stop the doom mongering?

  1. Reality imposes constraints even on people who are detached from it.

    Shout that one from the rooftops.

      • I see Brandon, our darling little warmulonuian, is on a charm offensive today ;)

        Brandon, the current answer to your question is “earphones”. While doing structural and mechanical design for 100’s of tonnes of SFX rigs for the next pirates movie is fun, I feel using the 6 axis 3D space controller to fly through the maze of pseudo coloured steel and hydraulic lines in virtual space goes so much better with some Happy Hardcore :)

        And if you were wondering what is between my ears, then the answer is clearly “more brains than you”. After all I proved by empirical experiment there is no net atmospheric radiative GHE. Global warming was a global IQ test, with results permanently recorded on the internet. I passed. You failed.

        BTW, how did you go with those Oh-So-Easy physics questions Brandon?

        “Are the oceans a near blackbody or an extreme SW selective surface?”

        “Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere warming or cooling of the oceans?”

        Still struggling are we darling? Scooter boi and the cartoonist don’t have the answers for you? So sad, too bad…

        As I said. Global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Interwebs –
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/11/recent-paper-ends-abstract-with-model-might-be-too-sensitive-to-the-prescribed-radiative-forcings/#comment-1857677

      • Branded say “Goodness, I shudder to think”

        So….. you only think when its freezing cold ?

        This imaginary warming is stopping you thinking… obviously !!

      • Konrad,

        I see Brandon, our darling little warmulonuian, is on a charm offensive today ;)

        Tit for tat, darlin’.

        Brandon, the current answer to your question is “earphones”.

        That would do it.

        And if you were wondering what is between my ears, then the answer is clearly “more brains than you”.

        At least we’re both humble about it.

        BTW, how did you go with those Oh-So-Easy physics questions Brandon?

        No need for me to go there, the fatal flaw in your argument is revealed in another post further down: The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is surface cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

        ferdberple hasn’t yet quite stated it in such easily falsifiable fashion, yet he submits as evidence a plot which amply shows the Emperor is indeed quite nude:

        Pre-university physics of heat transfer suggests that we’d expect the rate of deglaciation to be retarded by the increasingly cooling effects of CO2. Instead we see the opposite: the rate of glaciation is retarded. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that not ALL relative rates can be explained by CO2 alone:

        Still and all, the dominant directionality of the sawtooth shape of the temperature curve suggests that CO2 does exactly as advertized by your clueless climastrologists: reduces the rate of heat loss in lower layers of the atmosphere. Different story in the stratosphere, where increased levels of CO2 (or any IR-active species) would be expected to contribute to radiative cooling. Which has been observed, both in the real atmosphere as well as your test rig — which is quite the elegant TOA simulator if I may be allowed a compliment.

      • ”No need for me to go there”

        Still refusing to attempt those two very simple physics questions? I guess that’s because the correct answers prove that AGW is a physical impossibility on this ocean planet.

        ”the fatal flaw in your argument is revealed in another post further down: The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is surface cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.”

        In terms of net effect, my statement is 100% correct. During the day our radiatively cooled atmosphere is accelerating the cooling of both land 29% and oceans 71%. Overnight our radiatively cooled atmosphere is decelerating the cooling of the land and still accelerating the cooling of the oceans. The net effect of our atmosphere is therefore surface cooling for all concentrations of radiative gases above 0.0ppm.

        ”CO2 does exactly as advertized by your clueless climastrologists: reduces the rate of heat loss in lower layers of the atmosphere. Different story in the stratosphere, where increased levels of CO2 (or any IR-active species) would be expected to contribute to radiative cooling.”

        No Brandon, wrong again. The primary cooling afforded by radiative gases occurs by emission to space from below the stratosphere. Radiative gases do intercept surface LWIR, but more than half the warming of the lower troposphere is from surface conduction and release of latent heat of evaporation. All the cooling of the upper troposphere is due to radiative gases and liquids emitting LWIR to space.

        So how do those failed models manage to show warming at low altitude and cooling at high altitude for increasing radiative gases? The answer is “immaculate convection”. The models cannot run computational fluid dynamics in the vertical dimension. They are parametrised. They hold the speed of tropospheric convective circulation constant for increasing radiative gases. They show warming because the are told to show warming.

        Let’s run some simple CFD in the vertical dimension –

        The panel on the left shows a gas heated at low altitude and cooled at high altitude, just like our atmosphere. The panel on the right shows the same gas heated and cooled only at the surface, just as an atmosphere without radiative gases. As you can see, without radiative gases strong vertical tropospheric circulation would stall, and the bulk of our atmosphere would super heat.

        But trying to write the accepted meteorology of tropospheric radiative subsidence out of history is not the worst mistake of the clueless climastrologists. Their worst mistake was treating our SW illuminated, SW transparent and IR opaque oceans as a near blackbody. And that is why you dance around avoiding my two very simple questions. The answers don’t mean “warming but less than we thought”, the correct answers mean “no warming from radiative gases ever”.

        Global warming due to CO2 is a physical impossibility Brandon. There will be no soft landing for this hoax or any of the fellow travellers. And the rest of us? We’re just going to get the JCB and fill the gory crater in and get on with our happy lives in our free market democracies.

      • Konrad,

        Still refusing to attempt those two very simple physics questions?

        Of course. In addition to your CO2 cooling theory not being born out by observation, your questions belong to your argument, not mine. ‘Tis not my duty to argue your position for you.

        [skipping a bunch of already seen repetitive nonsense]

        And that is why you dance around avoiding my two very simple questions.

        More like my willingness to entertain factually bereft “arguments” does actually have limits.

        Global warming due to CO2 is a physical impossibility Brandon.

        Venus, with an albedo of 0.9 has no business being hot enough to melt lead at the surface if your CO2 cooling “theory” holds any water. Which it does not. Mercury, which is far closer to the Sun and has an albedo of 0.068 with no atmosphere to speak of has an average surface temperature nearly 300 K cooler. The sunward side is really damn hot of course (590-725K) but even the hottest value in that range is STILL shy of Venus’ 737 K.

      • Gates says

        …In addition to your CO2 cooling theory not being born out by observation…

        By that argument, CO2 causes no warming either. Observations confirm that CO2 simply does not have the claimed warming effect.

        Glad to see you emerge from the dark side. The ‘carbon’ scare was always a bogus false alarm.

        Once you accept that empirical fact, you are well on your way to enlightenment.

      • CO2 has no relation to warming, as we see here:

        Another view:

        And if we use a normal axis, we see that the rise in CO2 is very modest:

        None of the scary predictions have happened – as usual:

        A simple overlay chart shows that CO2 has no effect:

        Finally, the rise in CO2 is followed by the rise in living standards:

        Draw your own conclusions.

      • @dbstealey February 20, 2015 at 3:12 am

        ”Gates says…”

        Gates says plenty, but that squealing warmulonian won’t dare answer these two simple physics questions –

        “Are the oceans a near blackbody or an extreme SW selective surface?”

        “Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere warming or cooling of the oceans?”

        How hard could it be? For Brandon, the hardest thing in the world. If you know the correct answer, even only to the first question, you know AGW due to CO2 is a physical impossibility.

        Brandon is not entirely stupid, but he has no ethics. He knows GoreBull Warbling is a physical impossibility, but he fights on in the vain hope of defending the professional Left. But it is a dead end. No one who vilified sceptics survives. These are the rules. “noble cause” is no excuse when you and yours have called those who got the science right “holocaust deniers”, “Flat-earthers” and “Anti-science”

        In my work, being the top of the global game important. I don’t bitch when the Americans steal my work and call it their own (Kandahar 2010 vs dark zero 30). It’s a small world and everyone knows where they stole it from.

        Top of your game important? Yes. But so too is recognising when others are better, and you have more to learn.

        That of course was the key give-away regards climastrologists. No humility. No trustworthy professionals act like that. I’m a professional, I’m a contractor, I know.

        Sure, I have checked the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. Via empirical experiment. It’s all utter garbage. But how did I know to check?

        “it’s basic physics” they screeched, “the science is settled” they shouted. Talk about waving the red flag….

      • Konrad, it is physically impossible to have your fingers in your ears when you already have your head up your backside. To have them hear that you would probably have to have 5000 watt amplifiers for them to sit on.

      • Brandon Gates
        February 19, 2015 at 11:52 pm
        /////////////////////////////////////////////////////

        K – ,Still refusing to attempt those two very simple physics questions?”

        B – ”Of course.”
        But rather than deal with our planet, the one your squealing climastrologists (non of them engineers) say is heading for thermogeden unless we accept socialist one world government under control of un-democraticaly elected UN commissars, what do you do? You run squealing to Venus!

        Branndon –

        “Venus, with an albedo of 0.9 has no business being hot enough to melt lead at the surface if your CO2 cooling “theory” holds any water.”

        Now who’s a warmulonian drivel monkey Brandon?
        The atmosphere of Venus is largely comprised of radiative gases. Due to albedo, Venus actually absorbs less solar radiation than earth, with most solar radiation is absorbed (90%) well above the surface.

        Want to know what causes the high surface temps on Venus? Simple. Strong vertical circulation across the 90 bar pressure gradient of the atmosphere. You know, that adiabatic heating and cooling mechanism. But of course on Venus, this cannot occur without radiative subsidence, just the same as earth.

        Like to try your luck with those two simple physics questions again Brandon?

        “Are the oceans a near blackbody or an extreme SW selective surface?”

        “Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere warming or cooling of the oceans?”

        Geeze, how hard can it be you squealing warmuloniaan?

        Step up to the plate!
        (I’m always the pitcher.)

      • Konrad says:

        Now who’s a warmulonian drivel monkey Brandon? …how hard can it be you squealing warmulonian?

        Brandon, better quit while you’re behind. You will have a hard time topping those!☺

      • Tom O
        February 20, 2015 at 4:46 am
        ////////////////////////////////////////////////
        Whatev’s Minga.

        Better at radiative physics than me?

        I doubt it.

        Call me when you have a clue…..

        Seriously, I don’t waste my time with other’s corrupted measurements. Unlike you, I build and run the empirical experiments for myself. I’m not some pathetic lightweight and you are way out of your league.

      • Tom O
        February 20, 2015 at 4:46 am
        ////////////////////////////////////////////////
        Tom, sorry. My bad.

        I’m too used to all out attack here at WUWT. (the lukewarmers don’t like being informed that they too are snivelling idiots).

        As you were. Carry on.

      • Konrad 5:15am: I see you have made no progress in understanding basic science in this field you write about, better to stick to your structural work. Fill us in on Saint Venant and so forth.

        “The atmosphere of Venus is largely comprised of radiative gases.”

        So is every atmosphere.

        “Want to know what causes the high surface temps on Venus?”

        Simple. The extremely high optical depth of the atmosphere of Venus.

        “Are the oceans a near blackbody or an extreme SW selective surface?”

        Test results demonstrate oceans are both.

        “Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere warming or cooling of the oceans?”

        On earth at 1bar, the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere alone is neither warming nor cooling of the oceans as the radiatively cooled atmosphere constituents do not use up a fuel as does a campfire or refrigerator. The optical depth of earth’s atmosphere is the basic important science in this field for further understanding basic intro. L&O annual global surface Tmedian SW sun warming and LW cooling to deep space. All of Konrad’s experimental results confirm the basic science.

        ——-
        Ref. 1: http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
        Ref.s 2: Bohren, C. 1985, 1998, 2006 Chapter 1, p. 33.

      • Trick says:

        So is every atmosphere. [comprised of radiative gases.]

        No.

        Next, I see that no one has answered my comment at 3:29 am above.

        This chart…

        …shows decisively that CO2 has no noticeable effect. It is similar to this chart, by arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones:

        There are other charts showing the same thing: no matter whether CO2 is low or high, the warming steps — as the planet continues to emerge from the LIA — have the same slope. That is extremely strong evidence that CO2 simply does not have the claimed effect.

        Then of course, there are the GISS “adjustments”, which are completely dishonest, as anyone can plainly see. Other government agencies fabricate their own “adjustments”, and they are all lying about it: in each case, older temperatures are shown to be cooler, while more recent temperatures are made to be hotter. The resulting false impression is that global warming is accelerating:

        Next, we see here that in many different databases, global T has begun to decline. Here is another view.

        Finally, for those honest folks who bought into the original ‘carbon’ scare, they have changed their minds as the facts changed:

        But the reprobates who still dig in their heels and still insist on demonizing harmless, beneficial CO2 are just plain dishonest. They refuse to admit that the real world has decisively falsified their original conjecture. I have no patience with that crowd. They are not arguing science; they are arguing Belief, based on politics. They are a serious problem — as anyone is who refuses to admit it when they have been proven wrong.

      • dbstealey,

        This reprobate’s previous post skipped moderation and went straight into limbo. One, maybe two hours ago? Give the mods a jingle if you’re looking for something to get even more wound up over.

      • dbstealey 5:01pm: All gases radiate at all temperatures at all frequencies at all times. So every atmosphere is comprised of radiative gases.

        “This chart shows decisively that CO2 has no noticeable effect.”

        You are looking for .003C per year due CO2 out of .005C per year total during a certain half century. So, yes, that chart decisively shows no noticeable effect as it should – being way [too] coarse.

      • Brandon Gates
        February 20, 2015 at 5:48 pm
        ///////////////////////////////////////////////
        No Brandon, my description of Venus is accurate and your attempted joke about perpetual motion is pathetic.

        You appear to understand neither radiative physics nor the mechanisms of Rayleigh-Bernard circulation in fluids in a gravity field.

        Most solar radiation is absorbed midway into Venusian atmosphere. This cases warming and buoyancy increase. But the atmosphere of Venus is comprised mainly of radiative gases. As they rise, they lose energy by LWIR emission to space, lose buoyancy and descend. This drives the convective circulation across the 90 bar pressure gradient of the atmosphere.

        Almost exactly the same processes are occurring our atmosphere, but here most of the heating and buoyancy increase in the lower atmosphere is due to surface conduction and release of latent heat of evaporation. The energy loss to space and the radiative subsidence of air masses is still due to radiative gases, primarily water vapour.

        Your problem appears to be that you think that sceptics are scientifically illiterate. But we weren’t the ones who believed adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability.

      • Trick
        February 20, 2015 at 10:09 am
        //////////////////////////////////////////////////
        Trick – “I see you have made no progress in understanding basic science in this field you write about, better to stick to your structural work.”

        Thick, your attempts at condescension are pathetic. I shared the IEA presidents award for Aero not structural. You are a complete twit.

        K – “The atmosphere of Venus is largely comprised of radiative gases.”

        Trick – “So is every atmosphere.”

        Yes we know all gases radiate LWIR. You semantics games are pointless. By “radiative gases”, oit is clear to all theat it is the strong emitters and absorbers like water vapour that is being referred to.

        K – “Want to know what causes the high surface temps on Venus?”

        Trick – “Simple. The extremely high optical depth of the atmosphere of Venus.”

        Wrong, There is no net radiative GHE on Venus or Earth. The sun heats the Venusian atmosphere, radiative gases cool it.

        K – “Are the oceans a near blackbody or an extreme SW selective surface?”

        Trick – “Test results demonstrate oceans are both.”

        Clearly you don’t understand the difference. The answer cannot be “both”, you are just spouting pseudo scientific drivel now. The oceans are SW translucent and IR opaque. Further they have a hemispherical SW absorptivity of around 0.9 and a hemispherical LWIR emiss9ivity of around 0.7. That is an extreme SW selective surface, and nowhere close to a “near blackbody”. “Both” is just pathetic Trick, you’re just out right lying now.

        K – “Given 1 bar pressure, is the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere warming or cooling of the oceans?”

        Trick -”On earth at 1bar, the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere alone is neither warming nor cooling of the oceans as the radiatively cooled atmosphere constituents do not use up a fuel as does a campfire or refrigerator.”

        Wrong again. Given 1 bar pressure the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling of the oceans. Because the oceans are a SW selective surface, the sun alone would drive our oceans to 335K, were it not for conductive and evaporative cooling by the atmosphere. And the only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases emitting LWIR to space.

        Trick -”All of Konrad’s experimental results confirm the basic science.”

        No Trick, the most important thing my experiments prove is that 71% of the surface of our planet is an extreme SW selective surface. The idiot climastrologists went and claimed that they were a near blackbody. No flappy hands from you can ever erase there shame. My experiments do confirm known science from 1965, but utterly destroy the pseudo science of climastrology.

        And your references? “Catling & Robinson and Bohren” Oh Pleeeeaze! All of them make the near blackbody 255K “surface without radiative atmosphere” mistake.

      • Konrad 3:56pm: No Konrad that won’t do, isn’t good enough; words without substance won’t work on competent participants. My response stands. Name calling is totally useless. You really do need to show scientific method proof not simply wave your hands around in the air with that prose. Respond when you have something of substance with credible ref.s to add to the discussion. All your tests shown to date do confirm the basic science. Competent published tests abound for your study, see the ref.s! Get to work, dig them out, self improvement is good for you. Earn an equiv. Aero IEA Presidents award in meteorology field too.

        ——-
        Ref. 1: http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
        Ref.s 2: Bohren, C. 1985, 1998, 2006 Chapter 1, p. 33.

      • Sorry Trick, the condescension just can’t work. Not from you. Remember your frantic attempts at Talkshop when you tried to deny the critical role radiative gases play in tropospheric convective circulation?

        You argued black and blue that I couldn’t drive convective circulation in a fluid column? Remember how that turned out?

        You have proved time and again you are not a “compedent participant”.

        You never get to condescend to me.

      • Konrad 1:07am: That unscientific comment won’t work either especially without on topic links. Condescension is in your mind only. Only scientific methods will work in persuading the competent. Without employing well founded science you have not falsified the credible ref.s I gave that do use the scientific method (as defined by Dr. Feynman). All of your tests corroborate the basic science. See the top post again, stop the doom mongering using science:

        “Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified.”

        ——-
        Ref. 1: http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf
        Ref.s 2: Bohren, C. 1985, 1998, 2006 Chapter 1, p. 33.

      • Trick
        February 22, 2015 at 5:14 am
        ///////////////////////////////////////////////
        T-”That unscientific comment won’t work either especially without on topic links.”

        Links Trick? Other peoples work? I check for myself and design repeatable empirical experiments so others can verify from instruction I post on the Web. You know, the scientific method? Oh, that’s right, you don’t. I most certainly use Dr. Feynman’s methods, however you are an AGW believer that foolishly demands worship, and submission to the current scientific bureaucracy not the scientific method. That was you and your fellow leftardulet propagandist’s greatest mistake. You didn’t understand radiative physics, however you falsely and vehemently believed you were intellectually elite and that even if you had no real knowledge, there was no hope of an “evil holocaust denier” perceiving your scientific illiteracy let alone being far better at radiative physics than any AGW believer on the planet.

        Trick, care to point out where Dr. Freynman claimed referencing others who got it utterly wrong or pal-review were part of the scientific method. Of course you can’t, because Freymann would never have said something so inane.

        Here’s how real engineers do science Trick –

        – repeatable empirical experiment that others can replicate. I designed this one so as future high-school students will be able to run It. And having done so, run any socialist teachers out of town on a rail after a good tarring and featherin’. Due to the professional left’s global warming hoax, the “Fabian long march through the institutions” is going to end like the German retreat from Moscow.

        The experiment is simple. Both target blocks have the same ability to absorb SW and LWIR. Both blocks have the same ability to emit LWIR. The only difference? Depth of SW absorption. Heat both blocks with incident LWIR and they will both heat to the same average temperature and temperature profile.

        Now try heating with the same power of SW illumination. Now block A runs far hotter. The idiot climastrologists you pointlessly defend Trick, went and did something completely inane. They treated the oceans closer to block B (solar absorption at surface, emission from surface) instead of A (absorption at depth, emission from surface). Worse, they forgot liquids convect, and this can make a significant difference to surface temp profile. And forgetting the diurnal cycle and using averages on a LWIR opaque, SW translucent convecting material illuminated by SW?? Utterly ridiculous. Simple empirical experiments prove you simply cannot use the Stephan-Boltzmann equations for such materials.

        (don’t worry if you don’t understand this most basic of physics Trick, Bohren, Catling, Roberson, Lindzen and Spencer all made the same inane mistake).

        Surface at 255K being raised 33K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere was it trick? That’s exactly what your climastrolgists and the foolish lukewarmers claimed. The Internet record of their shame is permanent.

        Try surface at 312K being lowered to 288K by a radiatively cooled atmosphere.

        Trick, you need to face it. You are no good at science, yet you threw years of your life into mindless CO2 activism. Your sorry hoax is now in full collapse. Sceptics have recorded the names of every journalist or politician involved. Sceptics never forgive and the Internet never forgets. There will be no negotiated settlement.

      • It is also very funny how closely they watch WUWT?, and always amongst the first to comment. That’s so weird.

      • And they show up as a flock. The term for a group of crows and ravens is a ‘murder’.

        Trolls are not intellectually equivalent to crows, (crows are easily superior), so how describing troll infestations as troll hoodies? Especially, since without their ‘buds’ to echo and support, troll comments are wastefud co2 exhalations.

        [Please do not insult crows (and trolls and/or trollops) by comparing them to interfering infernal internet interferences. Continued such Neanderthal behavior will result in your removal to the back of the cave. .mod]

      • And they show up as a flock. The term for a group of crows and ravens is a ‘murder’.

        Shouldn’t that be ‘murmer’

      • Brandon Gates February 18, 2015 at 7:40 pm says;

        It’s only my second “first” here ever.

        Your reading comprehension is deplorable. It is clear to me now why you cannot understand anything anyone posts for you.

      • David Ball,

        It is clear to me now why you cannot understand anything anyone posts for you.

        Yes, it’s true, my ability to parse nonsense is rather limited, but then I consider that a good thing.

    • This Conservative Republican endorses shouting from the same rooftops: ” Evidence and Physics reveal the behavior of the atmosphere, regardless of what we would like to believe, what we fear the solutions might be, or whether liberals accept the findings”. A corollary would be ” If one rejects a finding of science just BECAUSE Liberals accept it, one has to also reject Relativity, Evolution, DNA, and Plate Tectonics, to name a few.

      • I think requiring labels on foods containing dna is a good idea. It would allow us to distinguish between canned peaches and canned corn.

        Labels would also be a good idea on non-dna foods like sugar.

        Thank goodness we have a government that is looking out for us.

      • Professional, trained and “credentialled”, geologists rejected the amateur theory of [continental] drift. You really should stop bleating…

      • Even Evolution is an unproven and untestable hypothesis…but I suppose by now it could be elevated to the status of “widely accepted theory.” Don’t get me wrong. I believe in evolution. How could I not? I’ve been indoctrinated in this belief since grade school in the 60s. Darwin’s theory has only been around for a little over 150 years. The fossil record is pretty good, but incomplete and there are holes in the theory that cannot be explained. Outside of adaptive changes (e.g. Staph aeureus becoming resistant to methicillin…in terms of species its STILL a Staph aeureus) I have yet to hear of a single credible case of one species evolving into another. Have you?

      • Dr. Dave. Whales, possibly? The have visceral limbs under the skin in their hind regions which suggests they were once land walking quadrapeds but took to the sea at some point in time.

      • I have yet to hear of a single credible case of one species evolving into another.

        What differentiates one species from another? The ability to mate and produce a viable offspring. If you live long enough you will find that you have evolved into a different species.

      • Imagine that!?

        Warrenpoundsit by conflating various science topics with liberal beliefs.
        I suppose that is why the extreme left is always fighting power plants, especially highly efficient nuclear, coal and gas plants.

        Nor forgetting that the extreme left decries immunity innoculations like measles, polio, mumps, tuberculosis…

        And that they hate anything that gets labeled GMO, not that they really understand just what genetic manipulation might involve; e.g. hybridization.

        Oh and fracking is so evil, just listening to the evils of fracking is hard since most of their logic is not penetrable.

        On an on, warren maintains that it is conservatives that fail to understand science. It is rather suspicious that far left liberals are unable to recognize the leftist aversion to science and civilized pursuits in general.

      • ATheoK,

        My view is that radicals and extremists have a few loose screws by definition, no matter which fringe of the political spectrum they’ve chosen to infest. Problem is, everyone seems to think they’re a moderate, which leads to ever further confusion.

      • Dr. Dave says … “Even Evolution is an unproven and untestable hypothesis”
        Followed by … ” I believe in evolution.”

      • Dr.Dave February 18, 2015 at 10:02 pm

        Evolution is both a fact & an evolving body of theory to explain that fact, like gravity. It is an observation, ie scientific fact, that species change, just as it is an observation that massive objects fall (or more correctly appear to be attracted to each other).

        Many species transitions have been observed. The fact of evolution is not controversial in biology, geology, paleontology or anthropology, the sciences in which its existence matters most. Same goes for medicine, although you can find practitioners of all these basic & applied sciences who for religious rather than scientific reasons object to the reality of evolution.

        MRSA is an example of adaptation, but if that process goes on long enough & in isolation from other populations of the same organism, speciation will occur. Evolution of new species can however also happen in a single generation, as through hybridization, or when a diploid plant produces polyploid offspring, or when a single point mutation produces a new microbial species (such as nylon-eating bacteria from sugar-eating bacteria). Slower, multi-generational evolution of new species has also been observed. So evolution doesn’t need to be inferred from fossils, from biogeography or genetics, although all these studies & more do show its validity.

        Two important events in human evolution, for example, seem to have occurred as a result of simple mutations, one (upright walking) from a gross chromosomal fusion several million years ago & the other (larger brain size) from two duplications of a developmental gene around 3.4 & 2.4 Ma.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGAP2

      • @Dr. Dave

        I think you are overly negative about evolution.

        1. Two individuals belong to the same species if they belong to the same pool of mutually fertile individuals. That isn’t applicable to bacteria, since they propagate asexually. So, the point of S. aureus not having morphed into another species is moot.

        2. The fossil record contains holes alright – but there are many fossils of intermediate and transitional shapes that are most economically explained by evolution, although you could certainly also assume that God’s tastes are subject to changing fashion.

        3. The fossil record is now powerfully confirmed by ample genetic and genomic evidence.

        4. Evolution is more or less unavoidable. Adaptive changes must happen if phenotypic traits are a) subject to inheritance and b) subject to mutation. The only other ingredient you need is separation of diverging groups in a species — either by migration or changes in behaviour.

      • @ Dr.Dave February 18, 2015 at 10:02 pm

        I have yet to hear of a single credible case of one species evolving into another. Have you?

        A literal interpretation of this definition, to wit:

        spe-cies 1. a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

        Means that all life forms that undergo a metamorphosis ….. are in fact, ….. evolving into a different species capable of interbreeding with each other.

        metamorphosis – a change of the form or nature of a thing into a completely different one, by natural or supernatural means.

      • Michael Palmer February 19, 2015 at 5:18 am

        Correct. Defining species in bacteria is less straightforward than in eukaryotes.

        Evolution is a consequence of reproduction. Natural selection can also work to keep organisms from changing rapidly in a constant environment.

        I should have added in the comment above that speciation has been observed in both the wild & the lab, sometimes the same species origination, as for instance with hybrid butterflies & the referenced nylon-eating bacteria.

      • Fourier (Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires, 1827) doesn´t mention carbon dioxide or IR. He does talk about “chaleur rayonnante obscure” (dark radiant heat), which has been translated as IR, & “chaleur lumineuse” (luminous heat), which has been translated as short-wave radiation. Not many think that the atmosphere has no effect on the surface temperature of earth.

        Nor do many commenters here question the reality of evolution.

      • It´s a correct statement of what Fourier discussed in 1827. He did not, as you seemed to imply, argue that carbon dioxide was the control knob on global T.

      • From the Post article Brandon linked to:

        “For many people, there is little benefit to understanding much about genetics or DNA.”

        I can’t agree with that. I can accept that people can go through life without any such understanding without it necessarily being disasterous, but there most certainly is benefit. One example that stands out is health and longevity. A basic understanding of genetics will allow one to recognize that one’s genetic makeup is the overwelming determinent factor in their health and longevity, particularly the latter.

    • One of the best jokes I ever saw on here was –

      John W. Garrett
      January 29, 2014 at 5:35 am

      Any forecast of CAGW by a climatologist worth his salt would predict temperatures at the North Pole to rise. It’s obvious— this is settled science, everybody knows that heat rises.”….Sarc

      But I think your comment is on a par ! Brilliant ! I wonder if we could have a climate joke of the year section, but I think that would probably be won annually by the hockey stick.
      Perhaps Brandon’s’ could be filed under “best shooting in the own foot ” section?
      Yours truly
      Brandonborg Gate.

      • Too late. David Suzuki jumped the shark on this one a few years back when explaining the greenhouse effect. He stated that it’s like when you park your car on a hot day and the temperature inside rises considerably “due to the carbon dioxide in the glass trapping the heat”. It was in a YouTube video for a while but seems to have been removed from the interwebs these days. But in any case, I don’t see how that joke could be topped by anyone, not even John Cook.

    • The manic eagerness of the microsecond trolling got the best of you, Brandon.

      The line you wanted is at the end of the Deming’s “rebuttal”. It says “… the Earth’s climate is not changing.”

      You are welcome.

      • I have to assume that Deming means not changing drastically, as supposed by CACA advocates.

        He knows it´s different every thirty years, the smallest unit of climate change, but often not by much.

      • I agree. Or perhaps Deming simply misspoke. But it would be a small victory for the troll and the guy needs it desperately.

      • No force in the universe can overcome stubbornly wilful ignorance. Surely you don’t disagree, Brute …. :D

      • No force in the universe can overcome stubbornly wilful ignorance.

        Truth overcomes ignorance. And the truth is stopping the alarmist cult, a true bastion of ignorance.

        It began prior to COP-15, and has gotten more painful for alarmists ever since.

        Truth, Gates. Skeptics seek it. You don’t.

      • Yeah, I wondered when this one would surface, particularly as it is his sign off. I think it’s probably the only thing that everyone agrees with, is that the Climate is changing. It’s what it does best. Stating it’s condition, with absolute certainty, fifty to a hundred years into the future is absurd.

        Eamon.

    • Branded say “Shout that one from the rooftops.”

      Yet, you still aren’t hearing are you.

      Must be the massive build up of ear wax !

      Don’t use too much pressure removing it, you are already brain-washed enough.

    • Brandon Gates,
      you have a debt to pay.

      You owe Davy Jones your soul.

      You’re a marked man, Brandon Gates…

    • Brandon Gates wrote, ‘_Reality imposes constraints even on people who are detached from it._’ Shout that one from the rooftops.”

      Yes, that’s a keeper! I’ve added it to my personal collection of favorite quotes & aphorisms.

      Prof. Deming has been a particularly courageous defender of scientific integrity against the Left’s thought police for many years, and has paid a price for it, as you can read here:
      http://www.thefire.org/cases/university-of-oklahoma-plot-to-punish-professor-for-political-beliefs-whistleblowing/

      University of Oklahoma: Plot to Punish Professor for Political Beliefs, Whistleblowing
      At the University of Oklahoma, the School of Geology and Geophysics attempted to silence Professor David Deming, a frequent critic of administrative policy and a politically outspoken faculty member. OU removed him from his department, stripped him of most of his classes, and moved his office to a converted basement lab. After controversial remarks in Oklahoma Daily newspaper, Roger Slatt, Director of Geology and Geophysics, began to unconstitutionally monitor Deming’s letters to the newspaper and include them in three professional evaluations, until directed to stop by OU President David L. Boren. Slatt and his colleagues did not stop there, however. They instigated a campaign amongst OU alumni to remove Deming. After a prominent donor to the university condemned Deming, the university transferred Deming against his will, and evicted him from his office. Deming filed suit to restore his position in the School of Geology and Geosciences. Deming and the university settled out of court, and Deming transferred to the College of Arts and Sciences at OU.

    • Please stop writing personal attacks on this guy. It reveals ignorance, intolerance, groupthink and poor taste.

      Voluminous cheering and jeering devalues the comments, so it’s become ever more a social club for the same people making the same comments to the same other people ad nauseum.

      Stop glomming and say something new!

      • ad nauseam. Nausea, nauseae, nauseae, nauseam, nausea; nauseae, nausearum, nauseis, nauseas, nauseis.

        At least you didn’t say “naseum”.

        [Do they have a separate wing in the Naseum for Li, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr, or just a different row of tables? .mod]

    • The reality Brandon refers to is the reality that none of the climate models had predicted the flat surface temps of the last 17 years.
      So denying reality they go back and change the model to match the past, yet keep the same prediction for the future. The crisis predicted ensures the continued and expanded funding for their research. Job security and not much more.

    • What’s up, this weekend is good in support of me, as
      this moment i am reading this enormous educational post here at my residence.

  2. Has the Norman Transcript changed hands? I was a subscriber for 15 years and I have serious doubts that they would ever have published Dr. Deming’s letter in any of those years.

  3. This is my favourite WUWT entry of all times. It also contains one of the best lines I’ve ever heard on the topic. It is quoted in the first comment. I’m stealing that quote.

  4. if the science was settled, AL gores predictions that he made years ago would have come true. They did not come true.

      • Wellllll …. the raw data on balance show more warming than adjusting out known biases:

        This makes you unhappy because ______________ ?

      • dbstealey,

        Provenance is Zeke Hausfather, recently of BEST: http://berkeleyearth.org/team/zeke-hausfather He’s posted that plot and others here on a different thread. FWIW, I confirmed the HADSST3 adjustments by going out and grabbing the before and after data myself.

        Victor Venema has a writeup here: http://variable-variability.blogspot.ch/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

        I doubted it at first myself as the original plots, which I first saw over at ATTP’s joint, didn’t cite the data sources: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/

      • Brandon,

        I think your source is making the same mistake others have made not understanding what constitutes the raw data. The GCHN data that goes into CRU, and the GISS etc is already adjusted. The CRU GISS etc claims to undo and then redo the adjustments so the end result is understandably very close.

      • uh brandon..ever hear of the “little ice age”? so named because it was… little ice age?
        perhaps the graph you present represents recovery from an historically cold period?
        Just asking if you think thats a possibility?

      • Version 3 would be the product that resulted from switching from a plethora of temperature stations scattered haphazardly amongst rural airports, mountain ranger stations, and city hall rooftops, then paring them down to just the city hall rooftops. In the big cities of course!
        We’re talking San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego – from California , for example.

      • Zeke reconstruction of Land-Ocean adjustments contains two parts.

        Land – which has been adjusted up by 0.3C to 0.45C.

        Ocean – which long, long ago use to show much cooler temperatures in the 1800s and pre-1940s. This was fixed in the 1980s because the bucket method used pre-1940 produced artificially low temperature measurements by the time the bucket got measured on the ship with a thermometer. The old ship-based measurements also did not have enough coverage to produce a global estimate. When these issues were looked at in the 1980s, everyone realized the previous estimates were far too low in the 1800s pre-1940s and the ocean SST record was fixed/ adjusted.

        Zeke is being disingenuous by using these old (but required) ocean adjustments. These adjustments are nothing like the thumb on the scale land temperature adjustments which are increasing every few weeks, not done once and settled.

      • Another poster at another board who has considerable patience and skills has collated the adjustments for just the 1374 long-lived, 90+ years, more-or-less-complete-record stations in the GHCN land temperatures database.

        This doesn’t suffer from station drop-outs, infilling bias, station selection bias (which is obvious anytime one wonders why certain stations suddenly disappear from the database when they are still reporting and why some suddenly appear with incomplete records) and does not suffer from breakpoint algorithm selection bias. This would represent the true change in the land record from all the adjustments and algorithm biases.

        It is the largest estimate yet produced for the whole GHCN land database at 0.43C added to the trend from 1936 to 1914 from the adjustment. 0.38C from 1900.

      • I would also point out that one the bucket adjustment there is next to zero evidence to support it. It was a hypothesis that was assumed fact with absolutely no research. It wasn’t until Kent 2007 that someone actually looked at just how measurements were being taken during and post WWII. In short the CRU assumptions are dead wrong.

      • Tom T,

        I think your source is making the same mistake others have made not understanding what constitutes the raw data.

        I thought so at first too, see my comments in the link to ATTP’s blog. You may also wish to peruse the list of papers he’s co-authored: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Chq-VAIAAAAJ&hl=en

        He’s lead author on the third one down, which may be of interest, “Quantifying the effect of urbanization on U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperature records”: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/full

        Open-access.

      • davideisenstadt,

        ever hear of the “little ice age”?

        Who hasn’t?

        perhaps the graph you present represents recovery from an historically cold period?

        The question implies there’s something to recover to. I’m not exactly sure you really want to go down that path.

        Just asking if you think thats a possibility?

        I can think of all sorts of possibilities. Being the curious sort, I tend to go hunting for causal mechanisms. Here’s one to toss into the hopper:

  5. The slow steady march of truth and reason will eventually turn this around. Its a matter of cracking the mirrors and letting the smoke out.

  6. Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
    Hysterics are all for doing “something” in the face of every perceived crisis. If you don’t want to do that “something”, you are branded a “denier” or “conservative”. Sometimes doing nothing is the safest and most expeditious course!

    • Truer words were never spoken. That is precisely the way I think. Robert A. was always able to hit the nail on the head. Saying only thirty years counts is foolish and short sighted.

    • Climate is the average of weather over 30 years. Any period less than that is still just weather.

      However, the climate of 1981 to 2010 was little different from the climate of 1982 to 2011. OTOH, the global climate of 1681 to 1710 was demonstrably colder than of 1981 to 2010.

    • The fact that 1946 to 1977 was colder than both 1916 to 1945 & 1978 to 2008, despite CO2 rising during all three periods, alone falsifies CACA.

  7. Well said. Covered the bases. I’ve talked to people who believe in man-made global warming that think our atmosphere is 75% CO2. Our government has done a “snow job” on the public and now the Keystone Pipeline bill has wording to the fact that climate change is not a hoax. Amazing.

    • The wording in that Bill might be more clever than you suppose. You might think of it as the equivalent of “the sun rises in the east.”

      • Technically, the “sun rises in the east” is exactly right.
        But only twice a year.
        And only is you assume the reader is in the right place.

        You
        (1) must be between the Arctic Circle and the Antarctic Circle. (Too high, or too low, and “the sun never does rise in the east.” Ever.)
        (2) You must be looking at the sun on the spring equinox or the fall equinox.
        Otherwise? The other 364 (or 363) days of the year?

        No, the sun rises in the northeast, and sets in the northwest.
        Or rises in the southeast, and sets in the southwest.

        So, yes, a clever author of the bill can make the “consensus” dead wrong.” And stupid – though that is not difficult. One tax law set aside all taxes for a particular product if manufactured at an elevation above 4500 feet. Which protected a particular Colorado company from taxes for many, many years.

      • The Sun does not rise exactly in the east at any day of the year ‘almost anywhere’. The exact moment of equinox happens at a certain time, which means the Sun is rising at that moment only on a thin line, less than a half around the Earth.

        /nerd

      • >>The sun does not rise at all, the earth rotates.

        Oh, no it does not !!
        Well, not if you are a Saudi cleric it does not.

        (video – a Saudi cleric trying to explain that the Earth does not rotate….)

        And you wonder why Islam does not do science or technology……

        R

      • …and you wonder why NASA has two impossible tasks, proving global warming, and equally difficult, making Muslims proud of their modern achievements.

    • Yeah, I have discuessed this with similarly “thinking” people. When you point out that ~78% is N2, ~21% is O2 and the remaining ~1% is all the rest INCLUDING CO2, their eyes glaze over!

  8. “The climate is not changing” will be shown to be false, therefore everything he wrote is false. That is how it will be responded to. He will be trumpeted as just another denier of climate change.

    • Probably a minor typo, what he meant was:

      “the climate is not changing abnormally”

      On the other hand, since the climate is always changing, is a changing climate “change” at all?.

      • I have thought (and challenged) that if climate change is real, provide for me the formula for climate so that I could compute the derivative – change. Then we’ll see if it is zero, positive, or negative.

        Most don’t even know what I’m talking about as their science and maths are so poor.

      • (Rhetorical) Are the rates of change greater or smaller than the past?

        It seems to me that since we can barely reconstruct a reasonably robust temperature record for ~ 150 years, for a relatively small region of the globe, the rate of climate change is not known well enough, over enough time or area, to know if the rate of change is larger or smaller now than say, 1000 years ago.

      • I could say the climate has not changed in my lifetime at 34 N, other than experiencing a full cycle of the PDO, although the academia which surrounds me at my domicile would say it has. I would not say the climate is not changing without describing the context to which I am referring.

      • Bubba,
        Been calculating a derivative of daily and annual station temps for a while. The daily derivative when averaged over a year for all stations in the following areas
        Global
        > 66 lat
        > 23 -23 and <23 lat
        Is 0.0 +/-0.1F for station temp measurements with +/-0.1F accuracy.
        Oh for each year from 1940 to 2013 , based on gsod stations with greater than 360 samples per year.
        If you follow my name look for the report file with today's date.

    • Not if we use the IPCC definition which is specifically human induced climate change due to the burning of carbonatious fuels, then there is no climate change.

  9. Great reply to that woman.

    Click the link to the original and read the replies. One logical person and three useful idiots.

  10. I have argued similarly in letters-to-the-editor and blog posts that simple observational facts falsify the CAGW hypothesis and all “climate scientists” who labor to assert it must be TRUE.

    Fact 1: Ice core records show convincingly and repeatedly that Temperature changes (up or down) before CO2 changes. Therefore, CO2 cannot be the Big Control Knob on temperature

    Fact 2: Satellite MSU data show that tropospheric temperatures have not statistically risen for at least 18 years, at the same time CO2 has risen at least 10 percent. Therefore, CO2 cannot be the Big Control Knob on temperature

    Everything else thrown about in blogs, media reports, and “peer-reviewed literature” is BS.

    Q. E. D.

    • GeologyJim,

      Ice core records show convincingly and repeatedly that Temperature changes (up or down) before CO2 changes. Therefore, CO2 cannot be the Big Control Knob on temperature.

      No, it just means that CO2 isn’t the only contributing factor. As well, just because something is a response variable does not mean it can only be a response variable. If all you do is look at lead-lag relationships, and leave off looking at rate and magnitude of change you’re all but guaranteed to miss GHG influence in the paleo data.

      • So CO2 is the control knob, except when it isn’t. But we know it’s controlling it now, because we can’t think of anything else it could be, except for whatever did it before. But it can’t be that now, because it has to be CO2.Because that’s the control knob, except when it isn’t. Rinse and repeat.

        A settled science indeed.

      • “Brandon Gates

        February 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm

        As well, just because something is a response variable does not mean it can only be a response variable.”

        And we know all these variables, right? HA!

      • Brandon Gates February 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm

        No, it just means that CO2 isn’t the only contributing factor.”

        No, it means the CO2 can not be a contributing factor. If B always follows A, B can not be a contributing factor of A. Throughout the entire geologic history of earth, CO2 has not once led a change of temperature. It has at times followed temperature up or down but for the greater part of geologic history shows no relation to temperature at all.


        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

        The GHG hypothesis of Arrhenius was disproved theoretically and mathematically as soon as he published it. Wood disproved it experimentally in 1909. It is being disproved by observation right now.

        http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

      • No, it just means that CO2 isn’t the only contributing factor.

        In point of fact, when one looks at the ice age record, temperature rises rapidly when CO2 is low and falls gradually when CO2 is high.

        The only conclusion possible from this is that CO2 causes cooling, and it is only when CO2 levels fall that the earth warms up.

        Check out the graphs of CO2 versus temperature during the ice age you will see what I’m saying is true. It is only when CO2 levels become very low that temperatures increase. And, it is only when CO2 levels become high that temperatures decrease.

      • The ice cores reveal a lot more than just “…CO2 isn’t the only contributing factor.” They reveal that at most, CO2 is a negligible factor. Atmospheric CO2 is always at a relative high, when temperatures begin to fall rapidly towards the next ice age. Atmospheric CO2 is always at a relative low, when temperatures begin to rise rapidly towards the next inter-glacial. At the very least, this reveals that the impact of CO2 is largely irrelevant compared to a natural variability that is in play as the Earth transitions from glacial to inter-glacial and back again.

        At these points of transition, the effect of changing CO2 on the Earth’s temperature is obviously inconsequential. The data does not tell us anything about the impact of CO2 at any other time, but there is no logic in making the assumption that the gas mystically takes on a great power that it clearly lacks at the transition points.

        There is also no physical evidence that supports the assumption of constant relative humidity or a positive water vapor feedback loop; the base assumptions on which the entire AGW crisis theory rests. It isn’t happening now. It has never happened before. There is no evidence for it and there is a lot of evidence against it, which grows larger every year.

        So I should believe because…? Oh yes, I am told to believe.

      • schitzree,

        So CO2 is the control knob, except when it isn’t.

        That would be confusing an overly-simplistic popular explanation with what is actually written in literature.

        A settled science indeed.

        And that would be confusing political sloganeering with the same.

        Patrick,

        And we know all these variables, right?

        No, of course not. But if that’s the argument you wish to run with, it means that you cannot rule out CO2 either. So your choice is to hold an agnostic position or chase the incredible warming of the gaps. Myself, I’d go for the former position, but that’s just me.

        Michael Wassil,

        No, it means the CO2 can not be a contributing factor. If B always follows A, B can not be a contributing factor of A.

        Sorry, that is simply not necessarily true, neither logically nor empirically. A classic example is the predator/prey population relationship:

        Throughout the entire geologic history of earth, CO2 has not once led a change of temperature.

        Well damn, my turn for a “gap” argument; we do not know the entire geologic history of Earth. Besides — and this is the better argument — it’s technically and clearly quite false: since the industrial revolution, CO2 has been leading temperature quite handily. Best estimates from ice cores don’t place CO2 above 280 ppmv for the past 800,000 years at least, we’re currently sitting around 400. Pretty much your only options here are to reject the instrumental temperature record, the CO2 record, or both. And all are quite popular.

        ferdberple,

        In point of fact, when one looks at the ice age record, temperature rises rapidly when CO2 is low and falls gradually when CO2 is high.

        I would be paying attention to the rates of rise and fall more than levels if I were you.

        The only conclusion possible from this is that CO2 causes cooling, and it is only when CO2 levels fall that the earth warms up.

        If you’re bound and determined to get things exactly backward, yes.

        Check out the graphs of CO2 versus temperature during the ice age you will see what I’m saying is true. It is only when CO2 levels become very low that temperatures increase. And, it is only when CO2 levels become high that temperatures decrease.

        Think about what you are saying here. CO2 gets high and suddenly decides to become a cooling agent. CO2 gets low, and it suddenly decides to let things warm up again. Just. No.

        Look at the graphs again. Note that temperatures tend to rise more quickly and fall less rapidly. If CO2 were a cooling factor at the surface, one would expect the rises to be shallower than the declines — the exact OPPOSITE of what the ice core records show.

        Now if you pardon me, I’m going to go bash my head into a tree several times.

      • “Brandon Gates

        February 18, 2015 at 11:54 pm”

        You cannot model something if you do not know ALL variables. Like powered flight, we know ALL variables in the machine we call an aircraft and the principals of flight. We can model that! And yet, we have climate scientists who think they can model climate, with projected output, without knowing all variable inputs!

      • ”Think about what you are saying here. CO2 gets high and suddenly decides to become a cooling agent. CO2 gets low, and it suddenly decides to let things warm up again. Just. No.”

        “Just. No.”
        Sorry Brandon, the “No No” cat response won’t fly –

        The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is surface cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

        CO2 doesn’t “suddenly decide to be come a cooling agent”. It was always a cooling agent. 71% of the surface of this planet, the oceans, would heat to an average temp of 335K were it not for conductive and evaporative cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.

        Oh wait, the climastrologists you believe said 255K. But then they applied Stefan-Boltzmann equations to a SW illuminated surface that was SW translucent and IR opaque. They were drivelling idiots. You believed them.

        That’s why neither you nor they would ever pass engineering. Climatrologists are “C” students. That’s not “C” for credit average. That’s “C” for conceded pass.

        You believed them Brandon, you believed the “C” team. Now everyone gets to laugh at you ;)

      • Fail. They are different parametres, yes, but not looking at one doesn’t change the significance of the others. You are using the ole ‘don’t look at the ice extent look at the volume’ style of science.

      • Brandon Gates February 18, 2015 at 11:54 pm

        Well damn, my turn for a “gap” argument; we do not know the entire geologic history of Earth.

        I beg your pardon, thank you. For the past 600 million years at least. However, would you please point out to me a period during that 600 million years where CO2 and temperature played the Lynx/Hare game. I’d appreciate that very much. Also, you’re wrong about CO2 leading temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Didn’t happen and it’s NOT happening now either. CO2 is rising and temperatures are falling.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-5-co2-emissions-versus-temperature/

        Finally, I’d like to point out to you, because apparently you’ve failed to notice. The Pleistocene glaciation began 2.5 million years ago. That’s why atmospheric CO2 has been very low. 400ppm is doodly squat. If you would bother to look at the nice coloured picture I provided for your edification, you might notice that atmospheric CO2 was well above 1000ppm and even above 2000ppm from the middle of the Permian to the beginning of the Tertiary. Temperature showed ZERO correlation, just as it now shows ZERO correlation.

        If you’d care to provide some actual documentation to support your pretentions, I’m sure we’d all be very happy to see it. Otherwise: LOL. Cheerio.

      • Branded says , “Now if you pardon me, I’m going to go bash my head into a tree several times.”

        Seems that you landed on your head many, many time as a child, not that long ago.

      • Love them saw tooth graphs,

        They prove categorically that CO2, even at its highest peaks, CANNOT maintain high temperatures.

        There is absolutely NO positive feedback mechanism.

      • Brandon Gates February 18, 2015 at 11:54 pm

        Sorry, that is simply not necessarily true, neither logically nor empirically. A classic example is the predator/prey population relationship:

        If A is a crash in the hare population and B is a crash in the lynx population, A is a contributing factor of B, but B is NOT a contributing factor of A. If in turn A is a crash in the lynx population and B is an increase in the hare population, A is a contributing factor of B, but B is NOT a contributing factor of A. So you’re wrong about that as well.

      • A classic example is the predator/prey population relationship:

        Which proves my point. Like the lynx reduces hares, CO2 reduces temperature. It is only when lynx populations are low that hares rebound, and when lynx populations are high, hare populations fall.

        Just like we see with CO2. When CO2 (lynx) is low, the earth comes out of the glacial period. When CO2 (lynx) is high, the interglacial ends and the earth enters an ice age.

        Your confusion results from the mistaken belief that the ice cores showed CO2 leading temperature, which would have make CO2 the rabbit. But CO2 lags temperature, which makes it the lynx.

      • Michael Wassil,

        For the past 600 million years at least.

        I like that better, thanks.

        However, would you please point out to me a period during that 600 million years where CO2 and temperature played the Lynx/Hare game.

        I don’t have one at the ready. I am aware that it’s the subject of much debate in literature.

        If A is a crash in the hare population and B is a crash in the lynx population, A is a contributing factor of B, but B is NOT a contributing factor of A. If in turn A is a crash in the lynx population and B is an increase in the hare population, A is a contributing factor of B, but B is NOT a contributing factor of A.

        The way to untangle lynx/hare is to ALSO look at the relationship outside the context of a time series. Which to me means doing a scatter plot of A vs B. Since you note that B (lynx) lags A (hare), your natural inclination is to make B the response variable and plot it on the Y axis, leaving A as the independent variable and plot in on the X axis. Which is fine, and indeed that is how it’s often done:

        The text of the page from which I lifted that plot proposes the following model:

        3. Prediction: Lynx = 13.677 + 0.277 Hare (lagged one year)

        How many hares does it take to support a lynx? If this years hare population is 120, how many lynx can you expect next year?

        http://courses.washington.edu/qsci483/notesection2004/Lecture%204.htm

        My emphasis. Not asked here is what affects the population of the hares? Well lots of things, but should be blindingly obvious that predation by lynx (and other species of course) is a significant factor. Here’s quite interesting writeup in the popular press on some of those factors: http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/100308/out_268252393.shtml

        One hand does indeed wash the other, which is why I like it as an example. Where the analogy fails is that predator/prey is a negative feedback dynamic. The best analog of a negative feedback in climate is Stefan-Boltzmann relationship between temperature and radiative flux. As absorbed flux increases temperature, emitted flux increases as the 4th power of temperature, multiplied by a constant. Right? I’m right.

        It’s really important to keep that in mind because it suggests a strong damping effect on temperature response to insolation changes. OTOH, it’s probably not the best lynx/hare analogy.

      • Patrick,

        You cannot model something if you do not know ALL variables. Like powered flight, we know ALL variables in the machine we call an aircraft and the principals of flight.

        We don’t know ALL the variables of flight. We simply understand enough of them well enough so that our (design) models are usually good enough to keep the first functional prototype from buying the farm on the first test flight. Which flight tests, I might add, are only the beginning of the next series of design modifications because there just isn’t any good substitute for actual flight testing.

        And yet, we have climate scientists who think they can model climate, with projected output, without knowing all variable inputs!

        Well gosh, the planet has quite a few more moving parts than an A380, and building a full scale replica isn’t in the offing. Are we supposed to give up just because it’s a challenge fraught with unavoidable uncertainties? Keep in mind that the Wright Bros. are known for their pioneering efforts in powered flight, not for being genius bicycle mechanics. And yet by modern standards, the Wright Flyer was a miserable aircraft, almost as bad as, say, the F-35. [grin]

        Oh and hey, if the mods will indulge in a little OT:
        [Just this once… ~mod]

        And:

        One is much easier to fly, but the other gets more requests. That probably stretches the point past breaking … but, well you know how it is with such photos ….

      • Jim Clarke,

        At the very least, this reveals that the impact of CO2 is largely irrelevant compared to a natural variability that is in play as the Earth transitions from glacial to inter-glacial and back again. At these points of transition, the effect of changing CO2 on the Earth’s temperature is obviously inconsequential. The data does not tell us anything about the impact of CO2 at any other time, but there is no logic in making the assumption that the gas mystically takes on a great power that it clearly lacks at the transition points.

        Yet you’ve got no problem invoking the mystical forces of “natural variability” sans further explanation. Here, I’ll help you find the starting point:

        Here’s another one which includes estimated forcing from ice albedo feedbacks:

        No magic required here. Varying insolation at high northern latitudes is the primary driver for timing and amplitude. Feedback processes likely explain most of the rest, though doing so is anything but a trivial undertaking. However it’s the epitome of silly to say CO2 is “obviously inconsequential” for it’s lack of potency at “transition points” when the transition points are marked by insolation free-falling off the cliff.

      • What you are implying is that we “know enough” about climate that it can be modelled. Now that’s some odd thinking!

      • Michael Wassil

        Arrhenius agreed with Wood and published a new calculation subsequently (that no one refers to) with a much lower forcing value, something close to what is being discusses these days.

    • GeologyJim,

      Correctomundo. Your points #1 and #2 are not refuted by Gates or anyone else.

      Some folks clutter up the threads with endless nitpicking commentary which does nothing to negate the fact that CO2 does not control temperature.

      In the very first few ppm, CO2 had an effect. But after that, the window was ‘painted over’ so many times that any further effect is much too small to measure. That’s why there are no measurements of AGW.

      So as you say:

      Everything else thrown about in blogs, media reports, and “peer-reviewed literature” is BS.

      True dat.

      Gates says:

      Now if you pardon me, I’m going to go bash my head into a tree several times.

      That explains a lot.

      • dbsealey,

        That explains a lot.

        I’m of the mind that it’s more adult to take responsibility for one’s own contributions to their massive headaches than blaming it on others. Don’t you?

      • dbstealey, PS:

        Some folks clutter up the threads with endless nitpicking commentary which does nothing to negate the fact that CO2 does not control temperature.

        Don’t be so hard on yourself.

      • It’s entirely your fault, Gates. Someone has to correct your constant stream of misinformation. I can hardly post without you bird-dogging my comments with your anti-science.

        And your headaches can’t all be blamed on bashing your head against trees. Just some of them. <–(Your headaches, not the trees.)

      • dbstealey,

        Someone has to correct your constant stream of misinformation.

        I understand the sentiment.

        I can hardly post without you bird-dogging my comments with your anti-science.

        A double-shot irony latte. I hardly think responding to your posts when you inserted my name into the mix constitutes bird-dogging. But hey, I’m just reading here.

    • ferdberple,

      Your confusion results from the mistaken belief that the ice cores showed CO2 leading temperature, which would have make CO2 the rabbit. But CO2 lags temperature, which makes it the lynx.

      Your confusion results from mistaken beliefs about my confusion. The lesson of the lynx/hare mechanism is that changes in the population of one affects changes in the population of the other and vice versa. The fundamental principle I’m going after here is as I wrote above: … just because something is a response variable does not mean it can only be a response variable. To the extent that you understand and ACCEPT lynx/hare, you MUST agree with that principle.

      You disagree? Let’s work through it. CO2 is responsive to temperature. I agree. What is temperature responsive to? It doesn’t “just change” for some magical reason, does it?

      Lynx/hare doesn’t work for temperature/insolation. It does work for temperature/albedo by way of insolation though, yes?

  11. Mr. Buckingham, I do not know who you are but your short comment about the above letter is exactly what I would have written. Thank you for your insight. I will look forward to comments from you in the future.
    FYI, I have constant banter back and forth with other “ologists” in my place of employment concerning climate change. Unfortunately, my Pleistocene geology background carries no weight compared to their ‘faith’ in the IPCC.

  12. Was looking for an old post for Jo Nova’s site when I found this from a blog site I’ve followed since 2004:

    June 02, 2004

    “I knew that

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Wacko-environmentalists are religious freaks, every bit as obsessed and misguided as Islamic extremists. Those people give me the creeps.
    Environmental alarmism/hysteria is a fascinating psychological phenomenon. It bears many traces of ancient myth and similarities to religious mania. It also has close ties with that most powerful, and delusive, of all political religions: socialism.
    Close ties to socialism? I would call it more than that. Environmentalism is anti-individual, anti-private property, anti-capitalist and anti-progress. Environmentalists don’t care how many people die because of their idiotic cause. In fact, they would be the first ones to throw virgins into a volcano to please the appetite of Gaia. They are that goddam superstitious and that goddam crazy.
    They won’t be happy until we all freeze to death in the dark. “

    The guy left us in 2006, but I refer to his blog often:

    http://www.gutrumbles.com/archives2/000050.php#000050

    Worth looking around his site which is still up (but sadly a lot of the links are out-of touch):

    http://www.gutrumbles.com/

  13. Dear David Deming, While it is true that things are never “settled” in science, there are many things that are much more certain than others (in fact, all of the things you mention–the solar system, plate tectonics, evolution, the theory of germs). Gravity is a theory, but no one walks off a cliff to test it.

    You also do not understand statistics and the theory of large numbers. Even if 90% of all thermometers had systematic bias, if the bias were random (up or down), large numbers of observations would cancel out.

    Finally, there is lots of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing. Just ask folks in the western U.S. (record heat and extreme droughts), northeastern U.S. (record cold and snowfalls), and Europe (record heat). This is related to Arctic amplification and an increased meandering pattern of the Jet Stream. Combined with record high temperatures in the North Atlantic, the cold air coming from Canada is leading to record snowfalls, with huge economic impacts. Meanwhile, coastal areas around the globe are preparing for sea level rise and increased flooding. I could go on, but the fact is, the evidence is piling up faster than you can shovel it.

    • Barrry says:

      Finally, there is lots of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing. Just ask folks in the western U.S. …

      Put on the dunce cap, Barry. There is no “evidence” that withstands any scrutiny. And “just ask” is an appeal for hearsay.

      Extreme weather events are declining. Asserting otherwise is meaningless without verifiable evidence. Got evidence, Barry?

      I do. I have evidence that extreme weather events have been declining for decades. Just ask, and I’ll post it.

      Barry ends with:

      I could go on, but the fact is, the evidence is piling up faster than you can shovel it.

      Something is piling up, Barry. But it isn’t your ‘evidence’.

    • Evidence, not so much. But the “climate science” is certainly piling up faster than you can shovel it. The stench is getting unbearable…

    • Barry,

      “You also do not understand statistics and the theory of large numbers. Even if 90% of all thermometers had systematic bias, if the bias were random (up or down), large numbers of observations would cancel out.”

      You need to read Mr Watts paper. It is not a random bias. That’s the point. The bias associated with UHI is in one direction — hotter. Look at the data! It is the minimum temperatures (i.e. nighttime) that are increasing along with the pavement and asphalt around our temperature sensors (retaining heat after the sun goes down) and not the daytime highs.

      “Finally, there is lots of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing.”

      Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is just flat out lying. Stop spreading lies! Look at the data! Even NOAA can’t find a way to fudge the data for tornados, hurricanes, floods, droughts, fires, etc. None of it shows any statistical increase and some even shows a decrease (e.g. presently continuing a record, long since shattered, for the number of days since a class 3 or stronger hurricane made US landfall).

      It just amazes me how someone can be so entrenched in their religion that they just won’t even honestly acknowledge the actual data. Amazing!

      Bruce

    • The difference is the Theory of Gravity has predictive value and is testable. No one needs to walk off a cliff to test it.

      “Climate Change” Theory or whatever you want to call it now has proven to have no predictive value. None. Zero. Every single model has been wrong. For over 35 years. That is not science. That is not the scientific method. You realize that right? Or do you?

      And what is your theory of large numbers? If 75% of the Earth has no temperature data prior to 1979 ( the satellite era) where are the large numbers you refer to? How many fixed measuring stations are there in the North Atlantic?

      Can you answer any of these questions?

      People who live in Glass “Green” houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    • “…if the bias were random (up or down)…”

      …then, it would not be a systematic bias.

      There is no increase in extreme weather, and this:

      “Meanwhile, coastal areas around the globe are preparing for sea level rise and increased flooding.”

      All manner of religious sects across the globe are preparing for the end of the world. This, however, is not evidence that the end of the world is nigh.

    • What is the fate of virtual quantum particles inside a blackhole event horizon????

      Einstein and many others have spent a lifetime with many manifold equations, far, far, far beyond our simple minds trying to ponder. Still we wonder. Why is c = 2.9989E+08 m/sec? What not pi x 10E+08 m/sec?

      • That’s easy. ‘We’ chose meter and second, so the number is our choice.

        Why second is so small compared to meter? We much larger than faster – the time in which chemical signals travel is much lower than speed of light, thats why our unit of time, second is not good in expressing time light takes travelling one metre.

        There are also pure, dimensionless numbers in physics. The good question is their magnitude.

      • Of course there is another series of questions that come up occasionally that has a very similar problem to climate science – insufficient data to actually answer the question: “Is the speed of light in a vacuum the same everywhere in the universe?” and “Has the speed of light always been the same throughout the history of the universe?” The same questions can be asked of all the other fundamental constants. We assume they are the same spatially because the universe as observed seems to indicate that they are, and we assume they are temporally constant as the distant galaxies seem to behave as expected even with the time of flight for the photons we observe. The “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” quandaries though could be explained by changes in the constants under the circumstances observed – they come about because some things don’t seem to be behaving as expected. So, not enough information to say definitively.

    • Barry,
      I grew up on a farm, before I acquired a couple of engineering degrees.
      I’ve had lots of experience with your brand of evidence.
      It’s bull shit. It’s horse shit. But, most of all, it’s chicken shit.

      Take this to heart. It applies directly to you.
      “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
      ― Carl Sagan

      You’ve been bamboozled and captured by the charlatans. Cognitive dissonance makes it painful to acknowledge. I doubt you will ever be able to find the truth. You will just keep regurgitating their false doomsday narratives, rather than thinking for your self.

    • And what sort of climate can we expect without Global Warming?

      Taking action on climate change makes as much sense as taking action on gravity. Or time.

    • of course, the fact that hurricane land falls are at historic lows, and that tornado activity is at historic low levels dont seem to make it into your narrative.

    • Gravity is not a theory child. It is a word we give an observed physical phenomenon. As for theories about gravity there are many competing theories and no concensus at all.

      • And, we do not use a single word “gravity” to refer to two different things.

        “Climate Change” refers to human caused, natural caused, or both depending on who is doing the talking, and no one bothers to clarify the definition. Since when does a scientists use the same word to refer to two different phenomenon?

        Imagine that we used the word “magnetism” for example to refer to all forms of attraction, be it magnetism, gravity, or sexual attraction. Now tell us, what causes “magnetism”

        You would get endless arguments. Some would say it is caused by mass, others would say it was caused by chemistry, others would say it was caused by electricity.

        Exactly as we get over Climate Change. Climate scientists are using a term ambiguously, and since no one agrees on the definition no one agrees on the cause.

    • Sorry, Barry. Appealing to the theory of large numbers only works for a sum of identically distributed random variables. There is no way that the temperatures, even if treated as an anomaly (temperature difference) around the globe are identically distributed random variables. To use that argument you would need N independent measurements each day within the same grid on the surface of the earth. Instead, we have perhaps several thousand measurements spread over the land surface (while satellite measurements cover the sea area, the land based datasets are just that). To take a simple example: Knowing the temperature of the Amazon Basin to an accuracy of 1 degree doesn’t help one whit in reducing the error of a temperature station in Peoria.
      And are you seriously comparing the certainty of our knowledge of climate change to that of gravity? And yes, there was a good reason why it took many centuries and lots of patient (and sometimes impatient, if you read about the life and personality of Galileo) scientific work to convince people that heliocentric theories were a better description than earth-centered theories.

      • Time series in nature rarely obey the Law of Large Numbers. Only simple systems with a fixed mean and variance (like a coin or pair of dice) obey the Law.

      • Hats are also a good idea at high latitudes.

        Science not only makes valid observations, such as owls & hats exist, but then also states hypotheses explaining these observations & tests them by making predictions. An explanatory hypothesis might be that hats exist to protect from the sun & weather at all latitudes but to varying extents. A competing hypothesis might be that they are items of fashion meant to convey the wearers´ status or sense of style. The science is not settled, but it’s probable that reality is a mix of the above hypotheses.

        In real science rather than ridiculous throw away lines, it might be settled now that the earth goes around the sun, but the heliocentric theory is still subject to revision, as it has been ever since 1543. Copernicus was wrong about perfectly circular orbits, for instance, so his theory required refinement. Nor is the sun necessarily considered the center of the universe (if slightly offset therefrom) now, nor surrounded by spheres carrying planets, with a fixed star sphere outermost.

        Similarly, even well established & tested hypotheses & theories are still subject to revision, such as gravity, the atomic theory of matter, evolution, the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, the Big Bang, etc, or even possible rejection in some cases.

      • I can think of experiments to test competing hat hypotheses. For instance, the Fuegians (Yaghans) encountered by Darwin went practically or completely naked despite the frigid, windy, wet climate of their extreme environment.

      • The example I’ve seen in the past is the theory of New Zealand being in the southern hemisphere. Nobody (apart from flat earthers, possibly) debates that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. It’s settled science.

        Are we permitted to debate the existence of New Zealand’s sole, or will such debates get booted out of the discussion? (Trenberth claims the earth’s climate is a flat disk, but Pratchett’s disk is clearly rotating. )

      • dbstealey
        February 19, 2015 at 1:32 pm

        milodonharlani’

        I don’t think he got the ‘joke’. Hats are associated with the insane.

        Well, hats made from aluminum foilage harvested from the New Zealand rainforest.

    • Even if 90% of all thermometers had systematic bias, if the bias were random (up or down), large numbers of observations would cancel out.

      Agreed. But consider where this leads. If the bias was random, there would be no need for adjustments, because it would cancel out to zero.

      And if bias adjustments were random they would also cancel out and show no trend. but the adjustments do show a trend, which means their bias is not random.

      So, why has the bias (trend) in the adjustments not been corrected?

    • Barry rambles…”Finally, there is lots of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing. Just ask folks in the western U.S. (record heat and extreme droughts), northeastern U.S. (record cold and snowfalls), and Europe (record heat).”

      So the US is the world when you want it to be? Sorry Barry, anecdotal observation of 2% of earth is meaningless. The US has had far worse heat waves and much greater droughts. So please show me your graphs of increasing heat waves, droughts snowfall hurricanes, tornadoes, extreme storms etc., and proof that the Jet stream has not entered the same pattern it is now in. You guys, the alarmist nutters, said the North would be looking like Florida, and snow would be a thing of the past.

      The peer reviewed literature does not show any such thing. As to SL rise, the nutters preparing are doing so based on nutters projections of SL rise that is 3 to 30 times greater then the observations.

    • Gravity is a theory, but no one walks off a cliff to test it.

      OK, tell us what causes gravity. Like gravity, no one disputes that climate changes. We know that the earth warms and cools naturally, often by large amounts over short periods of time. The question is, what causes this?

      So far none of the climate models or the climate scientists have been able to explain beyond the arm warving stage what caused the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming, the Minoan Warming, or any of the warmings and coolings that took place before then.

      Even the ice ages are a problem, because the forcings do not appear to align well with the observations. For example, the 100k problems.

      So, if the climate experts cannot explain the past, when the answer is right before them, how reasonable is it to trust that they understand what causes the climate to change?

    • Barry,

      So how is Arctic amplification and a meandering jet stream related to CO2 concentrations?

      BTW – you get an A from Jennifer Francis. She keeps pushing that same hypothesis. Even after its been taken apart by a colleague.

    • Barry, I understand the part about you shovelling it. Not a single assertion of ‘extreme weather’ which is what you are implying, is true. How do you deal with that?

      Arctic amplification causes the jet stream to meander? Are you aware (I guess not) that the jet stream meanders each time the sun goes quiet, like now?

      There are plenty of anecdotes from history about events that are caused by blocking highs, something associated with meandering jet streams.

      See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/chronological_listing.pdf for a long list of real extreme weather events. We live in relative quietude, constancy and calm. Enjoy it while it lasts.

  14. Barry:

    I confess I do not at all understand the following:

    “Even if 90% of all thermometers had systematic bias, if the bias were random (up or down), large numbers of observations would cancel out.”

    Isn’t this self-contradictory? If 90% of all thermometers had systematic bias, then the bias is not random. No one I know of is making the case you seem to think you’re refuting.

    • It is pretty clear that Barry does not understand the meaning of “systemic bias”. To him, “systemic” is just some sciencey adjective that he’s seen in a statistics article.

      • And how could anyone determine the thermometers’ bias is random?
        I’m just a layman here but as far as I know Anthony’s surface station work is the only project that has looked at a significant number of the actual reporting sites to determine which way the bias would go.
        I don’t recall him mentioning that he found many in people’s refrigerators.

  15. Every word in this post is true.

    The impact on the worldwide Greens will be Zero.

    This is because, Greenpeace, WWF, IPPC, Steyer, et al., understand communications to low-information voters Better Than Skeptics!!!

    Bullet points help, pithy summaries, in simple language, of one or two sentences, help. The Progressives who provide the campaign contributions to the Boxers, Pelosis, Schumers, Reids, Gores and their ilk, firmly believe they are doing the Right Thing!!!

    We are being out-marketed, that is all. Consider how to sell the skeptic position when the Academics at State-Funded Universities push and push to convince the Great Unwashed that our prosperous lifestyle has a cataclysmic end.

    The imprimatur of Professorship at the Harvards, Stanfords, Berkeley/Michigan/Virginia/Texas/UCLA’s, when speaking to the CNN’s, New York Times, Washington Post’s, LA Times, Huffington Whoevers, cannot be opposed. Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens said it best, “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”

    The Low-Information-Voters only see one thing, bills. Utility bills, Gasoline receipts, home heating costs, this is easily understandable to those whose median income is $800/week, right here on the USA.

    Every single time Green legislation is passed, costs go up to the L-I-V crowd. They know no physics, no chemistry, could not tell you the difference between Acidification and Alkalization, these people are not sophisticated. This does not make them stupid, just less educated in technical fields.

    It is possible to lose a war after having won every battle, see USA vs Vietnam. We are losing!!!

    Couch these communications so that sound bites for the uninformed Move Them to Protect Their Own Interests!!! Liberal Media certainly does not do this……..

    • Michael, you are correct. I’ve always thought that real push back begins with understanding what drives the environmentalists. In short, they are SURE that they are better intended than you and me. They care about the earth. The have the courage to challenge our over-consuming, white-privileged society. Their superior righteousness means they deserve to prevail.

      Not like you and me who are in the pay of the Koch Brothers. Al Gore says “deniers” should be put outside the boundaries of polite society, like racists. Michael Mann cannot utter a sentence about skeptics without using phrases like “Koch brothers denial machine”.

      To successfully push back, it is necessary to directly address this central claim of moral superiority, since that is really what is fueling all the craziness. Our chattering classes often face a special incentive structure. Frequently, one of the most important tools for advancing self interest in that peculiar world is by rubbing in the message to all listeners that: “I am more un-self interested than my selfish critics and competitors.”

      The alarmist environmental orthodoxy is for the most part a very poor model of reality, but it does have the great merit of offering wonderful, unending opportunities for praying in public. The central driver is the claim: “My intentions are superior to yours since I care about poor beleaguered Mother Earth, and therefore you should be on the moral defensive and silent in my presence while my ideas, and I, take precedence.

      Perhaps it is time to go on the offensive with phrases like “self-righteous”, “moral-preening”, “moral posturing”, “competitive praying in public”. I think that this would have an impact, and it has the great merit of being true as well.

      • But their students could not attend without billions in federal and state tax money over the years, and the research and support and salaries and “benefits” to the staff are from federally-administered grants and budgets.

        Yeah. Let’s try cutting off federal money to “Harvard” and see how many minutes that lasts.

      • Harvard has an endowment of about $36billion, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
        But their students could not attend without billions in federal and state tax money over the years,
        Not true, they have excellent financial aid programs which meet 100% of demonstrated financial need.
        and the research and support and salaries and “benefits” to the staff are from federally-administered grants and budgets.
        Clearly you’ve never written a budget for a federal grant.

  16. “Reality imposes constraints even on people who are detached from it.”

    Truer words than that have never been spoken.

  17. Dr. David Deming: “Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting.”

    One of the first things my doctor (Hematology) told me was “We don’t use leeches anymore”.
    Due to heavy smoking, I developed excessive red blood cell production.

    The treatment is donating a pint to the local blood bank every couple of months, taking a low dose aspirin daily, and quitting smoking. Seems to be working as my oxygen level is now good, and haven’t had to donate for a while. Cured me.

  18. “Doom mongering” is not a symptom of those who are carriers of the intellectual malaise perceived to be associated with the climate change cause. “Doom mongering” is the intellectual disease and the climate change cause is just the symptom of the moment.

    John

  19. USA won every battle in Vietnam?
    Poppycock – the only battles the USA won conclusively were the volume of lies in the propaganda they spewed out to the US and allied public.
    I still have an image of westmoreland giving a footpath press conference outside the US Embassy after the Vietnamese gob-smacked the US and Saigon aligned forces during The Tet Offensive.

    Pointing to rubble on the footpath and saying “that is where they broke in” and right on cue a loud explosion was heard – without turning his head the general said, “Don’t worry,that is one of ours….yeah right, their explosions sound different..

    • You mean the Tet Offensive where the Viet Cong were so decimated that PRG Justice Minister Trương Như Tảng said of it:

      “It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits”

      Is that the Tet you’re talking about?

    • “I still have an image of westmoreland giving a footpath press conference outside the US Embassy after the Vietnamese gob-smacked the US and Saigon aligned forces during The Tet Offensive.”

      You mean the Tet Offensive which was a disaster for the Viet Cong?

      The idea that America somehow lost the Tet Offensive despite killing a huge proportion of the Viet Cong is just as much a myth as CAGW. It was a military success, but a media failure.

    • You simply do not have a good grasp of military history of the Vietnam Conflict.

      Every major engagement of the Vietcong or NVA with the US Army was utter defeat for the Vietnamese and Vietcong insurgents. every single one. There is no equivocation on that count.

      What happened was the US solider body bags coming home, and the US press correspondents embedded with the troops, subsequently recording human life losses (both US troops and Vietnamese). That registered a defeat in the minds of US public opinion, and the Tet Offensive, though a decisive tactical battlefield defeat for the Vietnamese, was registered as a strategic blow by the US media, and US public support sank as a result.

      Joel O’Bryan, USAF, (ret)
      PhD, Biomedical research

      • You don’t understand the concept of 4th generation warfare. There was never any chance of winning Vietnam and we have not won any other 4th generation conflict since then either.

        Look closer at the history of the US’s relationship with the people of Vietnam, especially during WWII, and you will see why the bad guys lost the war. Look at the promises made and the double cross.

        By the way, one of my 3 uncles in the war was on the planning staff and told me in ’69 that we had lost it and were getting good men killed and hurt for nothing. (not to mention the innocent civilians that we were butchering)

      • The war was winnable, but not as waged. The US chose not to win it. Whether winning would have been worth the effort or not is debatable.

        The least costly (in money & men) way to win would have been to recognize the reality that Laos was not neutral & maintain defenses on the ground comparable to the DMZ all the way across the country to the Mekong, to stop invasion of the South from the North. That would have required keeping some US ground troops in the region long after 1975. At least the decade spent in SE Asia kept Thailand, Malaysia & Singapore from going Communist.

      • markstoval; if you read some of the letters and dairies of U.S.A (union) officers written in 1862-1864, you will see similar sentiments as you’re Uncles. Read about the 1864 presidential campaign and the war weariness of the time,
        As for US relationships with Vietnam start with the end of WW1 1918. also remember the U.S. was not a superpower until After WW2 and once our leaders realized it, they had to come to terms with it. Most of the players had grown up (politically) with the U.S. being at best a major power.
        As for this 4th generation conflict? The North Vietnamese used more armor [in] the final offensive in 1975 then the Germans did in crushing the French and British in the 1940 Battle for France.
        By the way have you ever had the chance to talk to any of South Vietnam’s military personal who survived 1975 onslaught? You might find it an eye openner .
        michael

      • Mike the Morlock

        As for this 4th generation conflict? The North Vietnamese used more armor [in] the final offensive in 1975 then the Germans did in crushing the French and British in the 1940 Battle for France.

        And each tank used was mmore effective, stronger, heavier armed, faster, and with more firepower and control than ANY German tank even at the end of WWII. For example, the so-feared “King Tiger” of WWII “only” had a 88 mm cannon, fired mechanically by eye sights. Powered by a notoriously small and difficult to maintain engine on tracks too small for its weight. Low range, poor maintenance, and almost no fuel were avilable to the (end of war) German tank crews.
        Compare that to the 1975 (Russian) heavy tanks used by North Vietnamese regular army divisions. (1973-1975 was no longer foight by the Viet Cong irregulars of the “my uncle’s war” of 1963-64 nor the 1966-67 version.)

        Yes, we lost Vietnam War. Because we lost it in Washington DC to Johnson, Nixon, McNamara, Clifford, Laird, Richardson, Kerry, Pelosi, Hagel, Boxer, McCarthy, McGovern, Clinton’s, Kennedy’s, Alinsky, Doran, Jackson, Holdren, and the others running today’s Big Government. And a lot of nitwits in the Pentagon who thought “they” could fight it from either side of the Potomac.

      • RACookPE1978

        “Because we lost it in Washington DC to Johnson, Nixon, McNamara, Clifford, Laird, Richardson, Kerry, Pelosi….”
        ….
        Pelosi???

        Uh……better check your histroy book there fella

      • Where the bloody daylights do you think “she” was fighting? She was in the middle of the CA politics at the time!

        Those were the front lines in that war!

        Pelosi was involved with politics from an early age. In her outgoing remarks as the 60th Speaker of the House, Pelosi noted that she had been present at John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address as President in January 1961. She graduated from the Institute of Notre Dame, a Catholic all-girls high school in Baltimore, and from Trinity College (now Trinity Washington University) in Washington, D.C., in 1962 with a B.A. in political science. Pelosi interned for Senator Daniel Brewster (D-Maryland) alongside future House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.[5] She met Paul Frank Pelosi (b. April 15, 1940, in San Francisco)[6] while she was attending Trinity College.[7] They married in Baltimore at the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen on September 7, 1963.[8] After the couple married, they moved to New York, and then to San Francisco in 1969, where Mr. Pelosi’s brother, Ronald Pelosi, was a member of the City and County of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.[9]

        After moving to San Francisco, Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic politics. She became a friend of one of the leaders of the California Democratic Party, 5th District Congressman Phillip Burton.

        In 1976, Pelosi was elected as a Democratic National Committee member from California, a position she would hold until 1996.[10] She was elected as party chair for Northern California on January 30, 1977, and for the California Democratic Party, which she held from 1981 until 1983.[10]

      • You misspelled “history” there. Missed a period as well. Could use a comma as well, but that is a debatable matter of style.
        Hate to see you make errors like that, it might mean you’d lose credibility about punctuation and plurals and noun-verb agreement while criticizing other people’s comments, ya know.

      • RACookPE1978

        I will repeat (with bold emphasis added)

        ““Because we lost it in Washington DC to Johnson, Nixon, McNamara, Clifford, Laird, Richardson, Kerry, Pelosi….”

        I suggest you research when Nancy became a representative in Washington DC

      • PS RACookPE1978

        According to your post “In 1976, Pelosi was elected as a Democratic National Committee member from California”
        ….
        Do you remember what happened in April 1975, the year BEFORE Pelosi was elected as a DNC member?

      • Pelosi (and her extended family) had been active in San Francisco democratic/anti-war politics ever she she MOVED there in the early 60’s! Good Lord – Do you somehow think a person who is selected in 1975 as the HEAD of a major state’s NATIONAL Party Leadership has not spent the previous 10-15 years moving up in the ranks? Oh wait! No, she had no influence and no power and no opinions on the war HER ENTIRE POLITICAL GENERATION still celebrates fighting against 50 years later! No, she had no influence nor power until she became chairman. San Francisco was the heart and soul and center of her generation’s defining battle – and she IS STILL right at the center of that battle for the country.

      • RACookPE1978

        Sorry sir, your spin doesn’t work. There were a lot of people that participated in the anti-war movement at that time, and you mistakenly believe Pelosi was in Washington (per your post.)

        Furthermore, leave her “extended family out of this discussion, as it has no relevance.
        ..
        You need to focus on the actual people in Washington prior to 4/1975 that had power and were involved in the decisions related to the prosecution of that war.

      • You bloody d*mn idiot!

        Pelosi got her start in CA power politics with and through her family connections inside San Francisco politics and money structure. Just like Boxer. They are relevant. Just like all of the Kennedy family connections are relevant to JFK and RFK’s decisions early on in the war as we supported the failed French re-colonial fights – from the early liquor/bootlicking corruption in West Virginia through ambassadorial promotions. Washington is connected. Chicago, Mass, New York, LA, Boston …. Are you so innocent that you think wars and politics are in one location? People travel and talked and communicated and coordinated even back in those “old days”!
        The final “battle” was won in Washington long before the North Vietnamese tank divisions were fighting South Vietnamese troops armed with rifles – while our fighter circled disarmed overhead.

        The only battle in the entire Vietnamese War between 1945 and 1994 that the Communists won was the one that mattered: in the hearts and the minds and in front of the eyes and in the souls of the people sitting on their chairs behind the desks and in front of the TV cameras in Washington. The WAR was fought in San Francisco, in LA, in Watts, in Austin, on the Mall in DC, in the “race riots” in Detroit, in Cleveland, on the front lawn of Kent State OH, and on every campus in every protest and in every street riot from sea to shining sea. And in Paris, John Kerry was advising the Communists how to negotiate with the losers representing the Washington establishment. Today, he is still doing the same thing; but today, Kerry and Pelosi are still attacking the people who try to defend freedom from within the establishment they attacked from the streets.

      • rodmol says:

        Furthermore, leave her extended family out of this discussion, as it has no relevance.

        Rodney, when you finally get your bigboy pants, you can comment with the adults.

        I was in Viet Nam <—[old timey spelling, in case your usually faulty spelling corrections are being planned.] I was in the thick of it, and RACook is right. You don't know what you're talking about.

        You should learn from the adults here, instead of emitting your opinion. The people who forced insurmountable constraints on the military, like Pelosi, Fonda, Kerry, Hayden, and their ilk, blew it big time. It certainly was not the military’s fault; the military was back-stabbed by those snakes. Only the most naive and clueless would believe that the American military were beaten by the Viet Cong. As if. Treachery from within was the cause.

        You can also dispense with your pseudo-scientific comments. They have no relevance at this site. The mindless MMGW narrative has colonized your mind to the extent that you can no longer think straight; you just post talking points. No wonder you are always on the losing side of the argument. Readers here know better, you should listen to them.

        I’ve given you very good advice in the past: read the WUWT archives for a few months. Try to get up to speed, at least on the basics. But you don’t take good advice. That makes it easy to dominate your anti-science comments…

        …and how else are you going to get your bigboy pants?

      • OK this is off topic, political, and about to become a food fight. ZIP IT everyone or I’ll just delete further posts.

      • rodmol@virginmedia.com
        I know Wikipedia is not the best but this should do.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Offensive
        First while the U.S. was still able to aid South Vietnam the North could be stopped
        Once Congress stopped funding for South Vietnam it was as good as over. The South’s stockpiles of munitions were quickly expended in the opening phases of the 1975 offensive. A comparison to the expenditures of the Yom-Kipper war would help you to understand how badly the democratic Congress betrayed the South Vietnamese
        aid to Israel 1973
        http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/
        Aid to ROV.
        http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-cuts-military-aid-to-south-vietnam
        Pelosi was part of the movement that was responsible for the lose of aid to the South.
        michael

    • Poppycock yourself. Try learning the real history of Tet Offensive. As PRG (Viet Cong) Justice Minister Trương Như Tạng said later,
      “It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits”
      Tet was a massive USA/ARVIN victory that has been compared to Hannibal and Watling Street . It was the MSM and Walter Cronkite who decided it was a defeat, reported it as such and convinced the public that it was a defeat, which arguably led to losing the war.

      Sound familiar? As this article points out, honest science is winning the battles, but losing the war, so far.

    • cnxtim try reading Col. Summers’ book he was one of the U.S. negotiators in 1975 The following is a famous quote from the time. The war was lost on the “home” front.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=1wU1m1N9ge8C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=Col.+Summers+Quote++You+Know+you+never+defeated+us+on+the+battlefield+True+but..&source=bl&ots=XnlaOHO0XD&sig=YEY2tATUt0STea5Ej0BdveVSqoM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C47lVPuqMsjooATniYKQAg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Col.%20Summers%20Quote%20%20You%20Know%20you%20never%20defeated%20us%20on%20the%20battlefield%20True%20but..&f=false

      People still are very emotional over the war.
      michael

    • whoah this blog is excellent i really like reading your posts.

      Keep up the good work! You know, lots of people are looking around for this information,
      you can help them greatly.

  20. cnxtim,

    As a matter of fact, the explosions do sound different. So do the gunshots. So do the mortar explosions, and the shrapnel whizzing through the air sounds different.

    Were you in Viet Nam? I don’t think so.

    • He/she/it/cnxtim hadn’t even been thought of around that time, not even a glimmer in an eye. The total lack of knowledge of that period in history is a dead giveaway. We might laugh, but I had a discussion with a, early 30-ish type the other day on the golf course … he’d never heard of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy, etc., knew nothing about Cuba and the missile crisis. I kid you not!!

      • Cuban Missile Crisis: Sherman Kent had decided there was no way the Soviets would dare put missiles in Cuba and it became agency orthodoxy. Dr. Albert Wheelon identified the inbound missiles through photo analysis. Kent shot Wheelon down, but when the missiles actually appeared and Kent was dragged in front of a Congressional Committee to explain, he admitted he had been swayed by the consensus, apologized, and gave full credit to Wheelon for getting it right.

        That’s called integrity.

      • Santa Baby,

        I have seen some episodes of MASH?

        Well …. Netflix did just recently release the first five seasons.

      • Santa Baby
        February 18, 2015 at 11:03 pm

        I have seen some episodes of MASH?

        MASH was Korea.

        No war is ever a good thing. But to not fight and win one forced upon you is often not worth the consequences.

  21. When I was a young Lt in the US Air Force on training nights with my GLCM flight, I spent many nights on Salisbury Plain MTA. Very cool was listening to the British 155mm artillery practice. BOOM!!…. followed by the impac many seconds later after the rounds traveled overhead. (yes, overhead). Like lightning… counting the seconds to estimate distances.
    With our nuclear missile launchers, and alerts at RAF Greenham Common, we practiced, trained, drilled, and sat alert with nuclear tipped missiles during the Cold War to prevent a hot war that never happened… through strength… resolve. We succeeded under Presidents Reagan and GW Bush. Prez (dumbass) dObama is likely, like most Democrat US presidents,will lead us to the next conflict though incompetence and their stupidity.

    • I recall sitting in a traffic jam on the A34 as you pull in to Newbury in the 80’s one night when those nukes were delivered to RAF Greenham Common (On C4 Galaxy transports?). The whole base was lit up under flood lights. GCHQ is not too far away and would have been a target. But don’t forget Maggie Thatcher, the UK PM at the time, she too was instrumental in breaking down tenssions during that time with Reagan.

    • Climate is a wide band of parameters, temperature being only one of many metrics. At all times, these parameters wander between the upper and lower level of their bands.

      As far as I am aware since the industrial rvolution, no country has changed (or is about to change) its Koppen (or such like) classification.

  22. Seriously, stop the doom mongering. You know what real doom would be? The end of the current interglacial period. Imagine unstoppable glaciation creeping down into the continental US or Europe or anywhere populated…

      • Well, side-by-inside.

        (Except from “The Polar Bear and the Climate Alarmist”

        “O Penguins,” said the Polar Bear,
        “You’ve had a pleasant run!
        Shall we be trotting home again?’
        But answer came there none–
        And this was scarcely odd, because
        They’d eaten every one.

  23. Facebook: CitizensClimateLobby Norman, OK
    Nancy Smart’s commentary (see below) brought out the chief Norman denier, David Deming – see Wed., 2-18, Transcript. Only Inhofe is more well known in OK. Her commentary must have hit a real sore spot. This is a Great opportunity to start a short LTE series of responses in the Transcript. Get your pencils out CCL folks, and pick some fallacy to correct.
    Listening to climate scientists…
    (scroll down)
    Feb 12: Check out this op-ed from our Norman member, Nancy Smart!
    Great work, Nancy!
    Listening to climate scientists…
    Feb 3: Our member, Ola Fincke, has an op-ed in the Tulsa World!…
    https://www.facebook.com/CitizensClimateLobby.norman.ok

    i’ve heard members of the group on radio, outlining their tactics; do a search “Citizens Climate Lobby”, click “news” & u’ll find pages & pages of results, in the regional press, in particular.

    CAGW groups are organised and zealous.

  24. For the temps and the co2 cause in times past it must have been those people in Atlantis, the sea level rise got them.

  25. @Michael Moon: “CO2 is plant food.” How’s that? The real messaging problem is with the misdirection and misleading claims and images. CO2-related pieces almost always depict high opacity emissions of smoke or even steam, as but one example. These are not honest people.

    The only other quibble with Dr. Deming’s letter has to do with this: “It resembles nothing so much as Bible-based creation science.” It less resembles the story of “Genesis” and any resulting “science” than the natural “science” employed in past times which often involved as the solution the ritual killing of youngsters, usually girls, or some other penance enforced on hapless subjects by their rulers and shamans.

  26. The ice extent over the Great Lakes in total this year is at 82.3 percent, rivaling last year’s coverage and nearing the all-time record of 94.7 percent.

  27. Uh Oh! Major Uh Oh.

    Secretary General Korean-Japanese Half-Breed Moonbeam at UN and “Pikachu” the ‘Director’ Writer of Sex Slut Pennie Novels at IPCC will NOT like this link! It is a Given.

  28. Ah that is really weak:
    “The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped?”

    For starters: All these wisdoms are actuaclly from a pre-scientific era and as such nobody would give any weight to them from a scientific perspective anyway.

    And if we look at them one by one:
    No my good Doctor, the earth revolves around the sun and that will never change again, no matter how hard you’ll try. Do you understand that?

    Also, species will not somehow found to be immutable again, no matter what – do you understand why?

    And then, continents will never stop to drift again (in scientific theory) – do you understand why? We actually measure the speed with which continents drift today. it is not even a scientific fact only, it is an objective fact.

    Same goes for blood letting… this is all strawman-style weak sauce.

    And science rarely completely overthrows something fundamentally, because what is considered scientific fact at any given time and that is well supported and not merely hypothised on has nothing in common with the above examples; there may be slight alterations to theory around the edges, but it is not like that the earth does not spin after all, as has been ridiculed in the news these days, as claim by some insane Saudi cleric… or some such thing.

    Don’t worry, gravity will never be found to be angels tuggling stuff to the ground, in line with those examples from the bronze ages you gave… that we know.

    Einstein improved on Newton, he didn’t throw him under the bus. When we fly to the moon or send satellites in to space, we use Newton, not Einstein. In that sense science is generally correct. Where it gets changed substantially, it wasn’t thought to be “settled” in the first place.

    For example, Michelson-Morley proved there was no such thing as the aether – that was thought to be there for 2000 years – but that was not the result of scientific findings – just like your examples – that was simply believed – and on the first occasion it could be tested, the aether went out the window. It is not like 2000 years of scientific research had been debunked on the occasion. On the subject, there was no science, and no research.

    Einstein has been proven to be correct in every single experiment for a hundred years now with very high accuracy… don’t expect to read in the news tomorrow that it was all BS somehow – then you don’t understand how science works… You won’t see experiments coming that will show all those other experiments to be wrong. You might see a greater explanation that is to Einstein what Einstein is to Newton, but what you will NEVER see is what your strawman examples suggest is the course of science… which it is not, because those weren’t even scientific examples.

    And so it is with science in general.

    • the post of an ideologue…do you deny the scientific contribution of archimedes? of euclid?
      If you couldn’t follow design’s argument, at least have the decency to read it again before you totally misrepresent and miscomprehend his point.
      Here is another example of a scientific consensus gone wrong: the cause of ulcers..once thought to be the result of stress, now known to be the result of bacterial infection (heliobactor pylori). Of course this scientific consensus existed thirty years or so ago…thats too ancient for you?
      Consider the recent release of studies that show that saturated fats and cholesterol aren’t harmful to one’s health, after forty years of relentless misinformation, which caused the rates of type two diabetes to skyrocket in the western world.
      One could attack you post all day with counterexamples, but if you can’t accept that brilliant guys like Ptolomy, and Euclid and Archimedes were also incorrect sometimes, maybe look to prerelativistc physicists…do you deny that those guys were scientists, and were also wrong?
      Yours is the post of an imbecile.

    • Matt,
      Do not confuse the evangelists of climate change with scientists such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein etc.
      In the field of climatology we have allowed science based on meticulous observation and experiment to be replaced by one based on modelling and press release. Science relies on validation. There is very little regarding the dire predictions of climatology which can be verified.
      Predicting climate catastrophe has become a billion dollar bandwagon. If someone declares ‘no problem’ then all that funding will dry up.

      Until recently it was believed that ulcers were caused by stress and diet and millions of people were routinely prescribed drugs to limit stomach acid. When Warren and Marshall suggested the real cause was bacterial infection they were pilloried by the medical profession and especially pharmaceutical companies. Now we know they were right – they were eventually awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005.

      Try to distinguish between that which has been established and that which is still speculation.

      • Actually Warren and Marshall’s hypothesis was quite rapidly accepted, they were receiving major awards within 10 years of the research:
        Marshall received the Warren Alpert Prize in 1994; the Australian Medical Association Award and the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 1995; the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 1996; the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 1997; the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, and the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society in 1998; the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Life Sciences in 1999; the Keio Medical Science Prize in 2002; and the Australian Centenary Medal in 2003.[14]
        Three years after their publication of their findings a therapy for treating duodenal ulcers was developed by another research group. In 1994 the NIH published an opinion stating most recurrent duodenal and gastric ulcers were caused by H. pylori, and recommended antibiotics be included in the treatment regimen. Their first paper was published in The Lancet which I wouldn’t describe as being pilloried! The editors were initially skeptical about the paper but contacted an expert on campylobacter who confirmed their findings and the paper was published. Within 10 years of the initial publication they had completely overturned the prevailing paradigm within 10 years. Of course the drug companies that had developed big selling drugs like Tagamet weren’t too happy.

    • Opposition to continental drift was orthodoxy until c. 1960 or later. This was the pre-scientific era?

    • Matt:
      You draw a logically illegitimate conclusion from an argument in which the polysemic term “science” changes meaning in the midst of this argument. Thus, you are guilty of muddying the waters through an application of the equivocation fallacy.

      • “Science Change”. “Climate Change”.
        Someone up thread commented about scientist not using the same word to mean two different things. That happens later. A twist on the ol’ bait and switch.

  29. Why? Why do people continue to pump out doom-laden lies?

    I am old enough to recall exactly the same scare in the 1970s, though at that time it was a prospective Ice Age that worried us.

    Looking at the graphs, I see that the world is assessed to have become hotter during the 1980s and 1990s, but then started to cool again in the 2010s. Which is why the 2000s were the hottest decade. And this is obviously cyclical.

    We should be preparing now for the inevitable coming Ice Age scare which will happen in the 2050s. You heard it here first…!

  30. And again. I note that the UK Met Office ‘Climate’ section has a piece about the expected consequences of a 4 degree rise/century. Alarming, of course. As a taxpayer, I object.

  31. CAGW alarmists will NEVER cease trying to scare the masses with concocted dangers of CO2, because if they only used: empirical evidence, physics, reason, the Scientific Method and logic, the CAGW hypothesis would already be in the trash bin of failed ideas.

    None of CAGW alarmists’ doom and gloom projections are even CLOSE to reflecting reality, so they’re left with making silly “worse than we thought” propaganda predictions to keep the nightmare alive.

    If any scientist or well informed individual show contradicting evidence to CAGW dogma, they’re merely called “deniers” or “flat-earthers” and are reminded that the mythical “97%” consensus of scientists and all scientific institutions disagree with them. Skeptical scientists often have their careers ruined to warn others not to rock the leaky boat….or else…

    That’s why CAGW’s demise will most likely come from scientists outside climatology. The allure of $billions in climate research grants overwhelms and creates bias to keep the grant gravy chain chugging along…

    I still think that when the CAGW hypothesis does crash and burn, it will happen rather quickly.

    • The only problem with your post is that NONE of the world’s Institutions of Science support your ‘hypothesis’, and ALL of the Scientific Institutions support AGW. That includes the National Academies, Scientific Professional Associations, major universities, NASA and NOAA. NO exceptions.

      Also there’s no such term as ‘CAGW’ among scientists – the term is used only by bloggers and journalists.
      That why the “no -AGW” thesis –maybe we could all it ‘NAGW’— has already crashed and burned in the world of science.

      • There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. If you imagine that there is, please present it. Thanks.

        So far increased CO2 has been a great boon to most life on the planet, including humans.

        Statements by Big Science don´t count unless they include evidence, which they don´t, but just assertions based upon models already shown fatally flawed, at best. Big Science also opposed the hypotheses that the earth orbits the sun, that phlogiston causes combustion, that species are immutable, that miasmas or humors cause disease, that continents don´t move, that giant floods don´t create landscapes & that acid causes ulcers, while also maintaining that eugenics means people should be sterilized or executed.

      • Warren says, “Also there’s no such term as ‘CAGW’ among scientists”

        Well warren, with out the C in AGW the debate is academic, and we can stop wasting billions on this nonsense. I am glad you are a luke warmer and see no catastrophic affects of increasing CO2.

        Unfortunately there are dozens of quotes available from so called scientists, like Hansen and many many others, predicting doom. I hope to see you arguing against their already failed predictions since you reject the “C” in CAGW.

        Hell Warren, BTW, the W and the G are also MIA.

      • @milodonharlani.

        You say “There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. If you imagine that there is, please present it. Thanks.

        You are absolutely correct. There is no scientific evidence in support of CAGW — since ‘Catastrophic’ is not a scientific term and not used by Scientists. However, ALL the evidence supports AGW, which is why all those aforementioned Institutions of Science conclude it.

      • @David A.

        You say: “Warren says, “Also there’s no such term as ‘CAGW’ among scientists”
        Well warren, with out the C in AGW the debate is academic, and we can stop wasting billions on this nonsense. I am glad you are a luke warmer and see no catastrophic affects of increasing CO2.
        Unfortunately there are dozens of quotes available from so called scientists, like Hansen and many many others, predicting doom. I hope to see you arguing against their already failed predictions since you reject the “C” in CAGW. Hell Warren, BTW, the W and the G are also MIA.”

        Sorry, there is no ‘debate’ among scientists about ‘AGW, as that is the conclusion of ALL the world’s institutions of Science, including Hansen.

        ‘CAGW’ is an invention of those that don’t like the findings of ALL Science, and seek ways to justify their rejection of it.

      • If it´s not catastrophic, then no worries. So far more CO2 has been a good thing.

        But there is also no evidence of man-made global warming. It is hypothesized from the GHE of CO2, but so far no evidence confirms that it has actually happened. Maybe the cooling effects of other human activities cancels it out. Maybe nature is so promptly self-regulating that in the actual atmosphere any GHE from the increase in a trace gas is readily cancelled out or swamped.

        Since the null hypothesis that nothing unusual is happening cannot be rejected, there is no persuasive evidence of man-made global warming. But even if there were, so far increased CO2 has, as noted, been beneficial. Nor is there reason to suppose it ever will produce catastrophic effects.

      • warrenb wrote, “ALL of the Scientific Institutions support AGW. That includes the National Academies, Scientific Professional Associations, major universities, NASA and NOAA. NO exceptions.”

        You really think so, warrenb? “NO exceptions?” What about the Geological Society of Australia (GSA)?

        Well, if by “support AGW” you mean, to quote Peter Doran, “When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen?” then, sure, very few scientists would disagree with the fact that it is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age.

        But so what? That’s a pretty meaningless “consensus,” in the context of the climate debate. That fact does not help make a case for the sorts of public policy measures which climate activists advocate.

        If you ask a more meaningful question, such as whether, in the succinct words of President Obama, “Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?” the “consensus” disappears.

        The June 2013 newsletter (TAG 167) of the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) illustrates the ongoing lively debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change. In 2009, the GSA’s Executive Committee issued a statement in support of global warming alarmism, but they subsequently withdrew it due to intense criticism from the Society’s members. On p. 9 of the June 2013 newsletter you’ll read that in 2010 an independent poll of GSA members found that 53% disagreed with the Executive Committee’s 2009 statement. So, in 2012, the Executive Committee tried again. They drafted a new, more balanced position statement (from TAG 165 pp. 6-7), more accurately reflecting the Members’ beliefs. But the Society’s members were so divided
        on the subject, and the debate was so rancorous, that they finally gave up on trying to reach a consensus. That’s why the GSA takes no position on climate change.

      • @warrenlb, who says:

        …NONE of the world’s Institutions of Science…

        As usual, warrenlb posts his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy in place of evidence.

        So, warrenlb, let’s see you post verifiable, testable evidence of AGW. Forget CAGW, even though if it were not for that scare, there wouldn’t be any grant money available.

        Now, let’s see you produce testable, empirical scientific evidence showing that AGW exists.

        If you can produce such evidence, you will be the first, and you win the debate.

        But if you cannot produce evidence showing that AGW exists, you lose the debate.

        Simples.

        See, organizations are easily corrupted by money and fame. That’s what has happened. They could assert that the moon is made of green cheese, and we could demand evidence. But they wouldn’t have any more evidence for that than they have for AGW.

        See your problem? Anyone can “say anything”. But in science, we need evidence. Otherwise, it is just a conjecture.

        Conjectures have their place. But they don’t win debates. Testable evidence wins debates. But you have no evidence, warrenlb. None at all. Why not?

        Really, you’ve got nothin’.

    • warrenlb:

      There is a huge difference between CAGW and AGW and it is imperative that a distinction be made between the two.

      Science has known CO2 is a GHG that will cause some warming at higher concentrations since 1824, when Dr. Fourier discovered this property of CO2… That’s never been up for debate…

      The logarithmic forcing effect of CO2 per doubling is 5.35*ln(560ppm/280ppm)=3.7 watts/M^2. Running this tiny amount of forcing through the Stefan-Boltzmann contant, gives a gross potential global warming effect of around 1.2C, which is without any positive or negative feedback effects, and which can be called “AGW”. 1.2C of “AGW” global warming is absolutely nothing to worry about, and would actually be a net benefit.

      The CAGW hypothesis postulates the existence of a “positive runaway feedback loop” involving water vapor, which assumes a tripling or quadrupling of the 1.2C of gross “AGW”, which is where the IPCC got its “best guess” ECS estimate of 3.0C~4.5C.

      There is absolutely no evidence that CAGW’s “runaway positive feedback loop” exists… Conversely, there is growing evidence that a NEGATIVE feedback exists, caused by increased cloud cover leading to increased albedo and less warming; perhaps AGW’s NET ECS will be as closer to 0.5C by 2100 (Lindzen & Choi et al).

      BTW, hypotheses cannot be corroborated nor falsified by vote…. This can only be done by comparing hypothetical projections to reality. CAGW projections vs. reality are now off by 2 standard deviations, which is not good news for CAGW. If current trends continue, in 5~7 years, the discrepancies could exceed 3 standard deviations, which should be sufficient to falsify the CAGW hypothesis.

      • All right on, except that Fourier didn´t ID CO2 as a greenhouse gas. He spoke of the warming effect of air in general.

  32. “Can we stop the doom mongering?”

    No.

    The planet has been warming a bit since the 1870s when the Little Ice Age ended. It has been an uneven warming with some cooling mixed in with the overall warming trend. That fact plus the fact that those in charge of the government funded temperature data sets are not honest or scientific will bring even more “warming”.

    Even on the skeptic side we have sites where one may not question that CO2 warms the planet. My limited training on how the atmosphere works came in the early 70’s so I don’t buy the CO2 fallacy at all. The sun heats the earth on the day side in the lower latitudes and the atmosphere (and the ocean of course) serves to move that heat toward the higher latitudes as well as holding heat during the night. It is the mass of the atmosphere plus gravity that cause convection and conduction to do that work in the atmosphere. (the ocean’s currents appear to be even less well understood at this time)

    Climate “science” will make no progress towards understanding how our planet’s climate works until we ditch the utterly stupid theory of Jim Hansen. (was he ever right about anything?)

    On top of all that, we do not really know what the average temperature of the planet is now, has been in the past, or even what it should be. We quibble over hundredths of a degree when we don’t have the data to do that at all.

    There is no science in today’s Climate “Science”.

    ~Mark

    • Earth has been warming since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum, c. AD 1690, but it is still in the long-term cooling trend since the height of the Minoan Warm Period, c. 2000 BC, or even earlier Holocene Optimum.

  33. Dr Dave 10.02pm 18th Feb.
    Evolution not proven? Put “London underground mosquito” into Google and then decide.

    • Not the best example of observed speciation, but an intriguing suggestion for study in other issues of evolutionary theory.

  34. “Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science.”
    “Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified.”
    “The reason these programs don’t work is that you can’t change the laws of physics and chemistry..”
    I’m no scientist but there does seem to be some disconnection between the third statement and the other two.

    • No disconnect at all.
      The third statement refers to the laws of nature. Period.
      The other two refer to Man’s study and understanding of how those laws of nature work together.

  35. Mods.

    My post just disappeared. It did not say that it went to moderation. It just disappeared. When I tried it again I was told I had already said that. Odd.

    • It must have slipped into a temporary loop in the space /time continuum ,are you sure you did,nt put it in your pocket?

  36. Agenda 21 is the goal, and Climate Change is the key. Nothing makes sense until you put the two together. This is a concerted effort to attain Global Governance pure and simple. They will not give up the key lightly.

  37. The West’s political Left, or simply, the Totalitarians, will focus on a topical area and become like wind and water — slowly, constantly, eroding any opposition until they win. Even if it takes decades, even lifetimes, to accomplish. Their dedication is equal to, perhaps even greater than, missionaries, jihadists and other proselytizing religions.

    The Totalitarianists simply wear you down. If you’re populuar, they will wash you away with smears. If smearing and deceit fails, they’ll simply outlive you.

    All your is feeling is the eternal campaign of Totalitarianists. For those that like quoting Thomas Jefferson, try this one:
    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

    And it’s a high price indeed.
    Don’t be discouraged.

  38. Doom mongering has got to really worrying proportions here in the UK
    I’ve taken to dipping into a few MOOCs – massive online something courses being held/dispensed by various UK universities, if nothing else to get a glimpse into these people’s heads and understand what is propelling this whole thing.
    Among mountains of worthless rock, a few particular gob-smacking and lumpen boulders were truly outstanding.
    I’ve been informed that:
    Carbon dioxide can explain ALL of Earth’s climate history, every last ice-age, warm period, extinction, un-extinction, just everything. The Lot. Well, as far back as 4,000 million years anyway.

    Also and from a different course, that the future world economy will need many more bank managers, financial advisers and advertising agencies as these sorts of jobs ‘create wealth’

    Also it seems, that because (their own figures) one person out of 8,000 (in the UK) gets one meal per year from a Food Bank charity, the ENTIRE UK food system is in crisis and MUST be reformed. it went on to say that the global food system is in even worse shape and needs huge regulatory action to save it. and us.

    From my own field (pun intended), I was informed (dreadfully seriously via a woman with a hugely worried face on the point of tears) informed that because a few (highly valuable pedigree) livestock routinely give birth via Caesarian Section, the entire European livestock industry is a corrupt and exploitative money grubbing enterprise that force-feeds the population with low grade and barely edible rubbish. And needs reform which they will be happy to advise upon.

    The problem I’m seeing is that this junk is actually coming out of our universities where our hapless kids are not only being indoctrinated with it, but are being forced to pay (£9,000 per year in UK) to be be brain-washed.
    The rot is deep and getting ever deeper

    • To get people to the point where they are unable to distinguish right from left or up from down, you make them irrationally scared. Once irrationally scared, institutions can get people to support anything the institution desires. It’s like magic.

  39. Ms Smart will never give up the benefits of fossil fuels. gas, nuclear etc.. That’s what other people must do.

    Meanwhile I think the climate stopped being perfect when disco was invented.

  40. Dr Dave at 10:02

    “I have yet to hear of a single credible case of one species evolving into another. Have you?”

    Which is the simplest explanation?

    # Multiple species of turtle were created on day 5 (I think without looking at Genesis)
    # A single organism evolved with a shell and then due to local conditions gradually split into several species
    # Several species evolved by chance independently each with shells and similar appearance

    The first obviously I would be mischievous to suggest that. Of the other 2 I would go for a single organism that evolved into separate species after separation. DNA studies tend to suggest common ancestors for similar phenotypes, which for me is overwhelming evidence for the second.

    • I recall attending a seminar by Craig Venter (sequencing the human genome) who said: “evolution is no longer a theory it’s a look-up table”.

      • His devout Christian colleague or competitor, Human Genome Project director Francis Collins would agree.

        Relationships among species can now be studied in detail genetically.

      • How did that “look-up table” come to be? Obviously, some would say God compiled it. Maybe he/she/it did, maybe not.

        I have no idea. There are too many things to pursue in life to spend one’s time naval gazing.

    • Honestly, all the debates about Evolution tend to miss the forest for the trees.

      Most religious folk I know have no problem with the idea that God created Evolution to produce his species.

      I am not religious. I simply refuse the conceit that I can make definitive conclusions about things nobody can know for certain. I am purely agnostic about the unknown, which is the only truly rational way to be. This does not mean that one cannot form working hypotheses and see where they lead, especially if they appear to be producing beneficial applications. But, one should maintain awareness that this is provisional knowledge, which may at some point require modification in the face of contradictory evidence.

      I have no doubt that rapid reproduction rates, and the law of large numbers, establish Evolution as the primary life dynamic in populations of microscopic organisms.

      I have no doubt that organisms adapt, and that sometimes adaptations go so far as to produce offspring which can no longer mate with their predecessors in populations of complex organisms which reproduce sexually.

      I believe it is possible that, e.g., bears could be the result of a long line of adaptations over eons from simple, single celled animalcula. I do not say I am sure because nobody can be genuinely sure of this without additional premises, e.g., supernatural occurrences cannot happen. I’ve never seen one, but I’ve never seen a duck-billed platypus, either, so I cannot rule it out from that.

      Here’s the rub: Why?

      Even if Evolution is well established, why is it even possible? How does DNA actually even exist? Those miraculous molecules which, as Douglas Adams phrased it,

      … quickly learnt to copy themselves (this was part of what was so extraordinary of the patterns) and went on to cause massive trouble on every planet they drifted on to.

      And, why should it be stable? Why does the balance of predator and prey balance just so, such that the former do not quickly out-evolve the latter, leading to a total population collapse? I mean, sure, one can make observations, and come up with an equation that demonstrates stability, but that is begging the question. Of course, what we see is stable. That is mere tautology. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to confirm it.

      There are so many unanswered questions. Richard Dawkins once wrote of his joy that Evolution finally made atheism intellectually fulfilling. Well, only if your intellectual pool is rather shallow, IMHO.

      • DNA exists because of chemistry. You can, & some do, claim that our universe was designed by a Designer with the physical laws & elemental chemistry with which we are familiar & which make life not only possible but arguably inevitable here, because it´s too improbable otherwise.

        But others say that ours is but one universe in a multiverse, so it´s no surprise that ours has the laws & relations it does.

        RNA has the ability both to carry genetic information & to synthesize proteins.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

        For the specific chemistry giving rise to RNA through self-assembly, please see:

        From self-assembled peptides:

        http://www.fasebj.org/content/19/9/1051.full

        In ice:

        http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/abs/ncomms1076.html

        In water:

        http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/02/self-assembling-molecules-offer-new-clues-lifes-possible-origin

        Aided by PHA:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAH_world_hypothesis

        Evolution of DNA from RNA:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

        Using (human) designer RNA & DNA to assemble nanotechechnological structures:

        http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/12/1/4

      • And, why should it be stable? Why does the balance of predator and prey balance just so, such that the former do not quickly out-evolve the latter, leading to a total population collapse?

        It doesn’t balance, frequently one gets oscillations where the predator causes a rapid drop in the prey population, followed by a drop in its own population due to starvation, leading to a rise in the prey population (see Lotka-Volterra) an so on…… Evolution frequently leads to less effective predators because of the negative feedback. Often observed with viruses, for example after rabbits were introduced into Australia they rapidly became a plague due to lack of predators. A viral disease, myxomatosis, was introduced which was extremely virulent and rapidly decimated the population, however some survived due to an innate resistance, also the virus became less virulent, because as the ‘host’ population becomes more scarce it takes longer to transfer between hosts and it’s disadvantageous to kill your host off too quickly. HIV evolved from SIV but monkeys don’t suffer as a result of a SIV infection (probably because of this type of co-evolution). It’s possible that HIV will evolve into a less virulent strain by the same means. Ebola didn’t use to spread very far as it killed off its hosts so rapidly, it’s been suggested that the recent outbreak is a result of a less virulent strain which can spread more effectively.
        Imperfect replication of the genome is the mechanism by which evolution is possible.

      • No science is settled no matter how long ago the consensus was formed.
        “Science” gets into trouble when it doesn’t like the conclusions.
        Man conducts science.
        What could be greater than Man?

      • milodonharlani @ February 20, 2015 at 1:42 pm

        “DNA exists because of chemistry.”

        It’s chemistry all the way down, I tells ya’ ;-)

        Phil. @ February 20, 2015 at 1:51 pm

        A commendable start, but this, as I described above, is begging the question.Of course, we observe the parameters of the Lotka-Volterra equation to be such as to confer stability. The question is, why are they so?

        Gunga Din @ February 20, 2015 at 3:21 pm

        At best, science can only ever answer how? It does not address questions of why?

      • Bart February 20, 2015 at 3:53 pm
        Phil. @ February 20, 2015 at 1:51 pm

        A commendable start, but this, as I described above, is begging the question.Of course, we observe the parameters of the Lotka-Volterra equation to be such as to confer stability. The question is, why are they so?

        Actually you said they ‘balance’ which is what I addressed above, they don’t.
        They don’t even confer stability either, the simple version of the L-V equations describe a center and not a limit cycle, frequently fluctuations can lead to extinction although you’ll typically only see this if you use discrete rather than continuous variables (known as the atto-fox problem). Obviously if the prey is the one that goes extinct then the predator also goes. Extinction has frequently been observed particularly locally. In fact if you do a spatial model using L-V you can get local extinction, so a mutation could become extinct if it became too efficient a predator without spreading to the whole prey population. The local extinction of prey could be replaced over time by those from other domains. Isolated populations such as islands frequently lead to extinctions, an ongoing study at Isle Royale shows some interesting changes.

        http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/data/data/home.html

      • Bart February 23, 2015 at 9:56 am
        I do not know why you do not see that you are begging the question, but you don’t. Hey ho.

        The usual content-free post that we have come to expect from Bart. Equally clear that he hasn’t read the cited reference, no surprise there either.

  41. Doom-mongering is very effective at establishing and sustaining religions.

    Didn’t realize it could also be effective at establishing and sustaining a branch of science.

    Another contribution of climate science to the social sciences in studying social disorders.

  42. I would also like for them to stop lying to me. Minnesota bridge collapse, honey bee colony collapse just 2 famous examples. Global warming was the first thing blamed, and later completely disproven once any data was collected.

  43. I sometimes wonder what future generations will make of the current CAGW obsession, especially the levels of investment of limited public funds being made to counter a non-problem when there are so many real problems that a fraction of that spending could fix. Will it be a ‘warning from history’ for them? Will one of its legacies be a distrust of science? Will future generations look at it as the tulip mania or South Sea Bubble of our days? Will they wonder that so many apparently intelligent and well educated people could be taken in by (I’m being kind here) half-truths and propaganda? The only thing I can say with any confidence is that there will be future generations, or at least that if there aren’t, it won’t be because CAGW has wiped us out.

    • The majority of future generations will still believe humans are ruining the climate, no matter what the evidence.

      I’m sorry to say that future generations show no prospect of being smarter, wiser, or more objective than the current one. Quite the contrary.

  44. Alx wrote:

    “Doom-mongering is very effective at establishing and sustaining religions.

    Didn’t realize it could also be effective at establishing and sustaining a branch of science.”

    Alx, be careful because you are falling into the same trap as Nancy Smart and most warmists by saying that the purveyors of warming hysteria are involved in “science”.

    As an example, consider the CRU and the “scientists” who were actively involved in the destruction of emails as detailed by the “Climategate” affair.. People who treat their data and methodologies as trade secrets so as to sell the product of their data and methodologies ARE NOT ACTING AS SCIENTISTS. A scientist makes public his data and methods and challenges the world to prove them wrong. At best, one might say that the email destroyers and data hiders acted as entrepreneurs, not scientists. Some might conclude that these “”scientists” are little more than crass opportunists. In either case, given their actions we are entitled to exercise skepticism and caution toward them and their products, just as we would toward any salesman who purveys an elixir without disclosing its ingredients.

    And then there are the outright Alinsky-ites who will simply follow his 12 rules for radicals, with special emphasis on rule #5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. Sadly, most warmists do not even realize that they have been indoctrinated in these 12 tools. They simply believe that this is how “civilized” people act, and that their end justifies any means. When they reach their 5th or 6th decade, many will realize how destructive these 12 rules are. After all, Alinsky saw them as a means of deconstruction, not construction.

  45. Good letter but I’m not sure I can agree with the author’s statement, “…and the climate is not changing.”
    I believe, and with good reason, that the climate is indeed changing, just as it always has since the beginning of earth time and most likely, always will.
    As for mankind being able to do very much about it, short of a thermo-nuclear war, I’m not sure we are quite up to that task.
    Have I missed something here?

  46. The one flaw with this letter is “the climate is not changing.” Wrong. The climate is always changing, and has been since the climate system was born.

    • Actually, the statement that “the climate is changing” makes no sense, and is unscientific. All we can really say is that it has always changed. In order to say that the climate is changing you have to be able to say in what way, and that is a question that science can’t answer. Although, of course that doesn’t stop the Climate Liars from doing so, and pretending that it’s science.

      • Science tells us the changes that have happened up to the present, measurement error notwithstanding. It is certainly not a static system and similar to the case of plate tectonics, we can reasonably assume changes will continue. It is also reasonable to assume the current interglacial will eventually end.

      • Agreed James but are we going to be around to see it, that is the question to be asked. If we do what the Lord says to do (receive the Holy Ghost, use the same to work signs, wonders and miracles, read the word to know more about the experience and finally be Faithful), we will be around forever to see what happens. Obviously I am a Christian and to see what is in “forever” is far more interesting than living this life only, being judged by the :Lord at the end of it and then dying (eternal seperation from the Lord). It is a, as they say, no-brainer. My name is Craig Abernethie, I live in Ashfield, Western Australia and to find out more google Revival Fellowship. Enjoy and be not deceived.

  47. Great letter, very well put in every regard. Global warming is unfortunately the perfect theory in so many ways.
    1. The enemy is big oil companies, who most of us dislike because they have billionaire executives who make money creating pollution. We’d love shoot down their cloud but we are powerless to do so, global warming gives us the ammunition to claim governments must get involved to stop big oil.
    2, The science can be made to sound simple, greenhouse gases raise temperature, so those who want to believe can feel they have an understanding of the issue. Those who question global warming can be labeled as denialists because there is no denying that if everything remains the same in a lab experiment, greenhouse gases will raise cause a greenhouse effect and raise temperatures. So they can say “The science is settled”.
    3. Climate scientists, who should have the most complete understanding of the issue, benefit hugely if global warming is man made and must be acted upon by man. More grant money will need to be spent on climate science studies, the IPCC will be more important and need larger budgets, and climate scientists are raised in stature because they can “save the planet” and save us all, with their studies and recommendations of what to do. Global warming raises the once nerdy climate scientists of the world to rock star status. So with any uncertainty about global warming climate scientists will be motivated to assume it is man made, and we can and should take action against it.
    4. Anyone who disputes man made global warming can easily be thrown under the bus by claiming they are paid by big oil. No one can prove they aren’t paid by big oil beyond any uncertainty that would satisfy those who don’t want to believe you.
    5. Even weather events associated with cold can be claimed to be caused by global warming, so there is nothing anyone can observe that can be sited as proof there is no global warming.
    6. The media loves global warming so there is free propoganda for it everywhere. Its a subject that tells us we can save our planet by killing big oil profits, it makes us feel empowered and all warm and fuzzy inside. So they will cover more of the record highs, and less of the record lows to feed the hype without anyone having to pay them a dime.
    7. Any measured trend that suggests there is no global warming can be shot down by saying the period is too short of a time to make any conclusions. Whatever the time length is, its too short.
    8. The fox is in charge of the hen house. The climate science community has convinced us that the global temperature data bases that we rely on to determine the global temperature trend need to be adjusted, and they are in control of the adjustments. The importance of climate scientists depends on whether global warming is a problem, whether global warming is a problem depends on the temperature data, and the climate scientists are in charge of adjusting the temperature data.

  48. The skeptic crowd needs to stop trying to excuse away “warmest year on record” arguments, and embrace them. The earth has been on a warming trend since the end of the last ice age. That each year may be warmer than the previous is just part of that trend. Instead, we need to emphasize that fact and the fact that any recent increase to that trend is not outside natural variability.

    • That would be OK advice had 2014 actually been warmer than 1998, but it wasn´t in reality, just in the cooked books of GISS & CRU.

      The less tampered with satellites found it to be the seventh warmest since 1979.

    • The “signal” that characterizes the ebb and flow of glacials and interglacials does seem to resemble a wave form. And prior to each glacial there is a bit of a saw tooth, with some ringing on a shorter scale. When temperatures seem to be at or near a maximum versus paleoclimate, it is a good time to start thinking about the pending glacial.

  49. The main issue with CO2 is about it’s impact on our oceans. There it has produced cataclysmic collapse in ocean productivity. By restoring ocean pastures to the condition of health and abundance they and we enjoyed a century ago billions of tonnes of CO2 will be repurposed from becoming certain ocean acidifying death into ocean life itself. In the bargain this Good Shepherding work will bring back the fish.

    In my demonstration project in 2012 in the NE Pacific I replenished and restored a large and vital ocean salmon pasture with just half a boat load of mineral rich dust, 100 tons. The ocean pasture bloomed and was restored. The proof was revealed in nearby Alaska the very next year. Where Alaskan fishemen were expected to catch 50 million Pink salmon instead they caught 226 million pasture fed salmon. The largest catch in all of history!

    The endless argument about global warming is about the cost that we are all being told to manage societies 10 billion tons of CO2 that we emit each year. That cost, at $100 per ton, is said to demand $1 trillion dollar per year and that gigantic pork barrel has attracted all manner of hogs and vultures in the climate industrial complex.

    The good news is taht replenished and restored ocean pastures will turn billions of tonnes of deadly CO2 into ocean life for a cost of less than a penny per ton! We can begin by restoring 100 ocean pastures around the world for mere millions not trillions! In the bargain we will put billions of additional fish on the plates of hungry people around the world.

    This ain’t rocket science it is just plain pasture management good sense. Read more http://russgeorge.net/2015/02/19/another-roadside-attraction/

    [And we were thinking that the 2012 “live ocean” iron dust experiments were declared illegal and unwanted and unwarranted. .mod]

    • Utter nonsense. If “repurposing” life-giving CO2 is commercially viable, then great. No need for any “carbon” tax.

      • True. If there were an ounce of legitimacy in this, fishermen would gladly pay for it without the need of taxes. Not only would it save their careers, it would increase their profits 450%.

        So why aren’t they, Russ?

    • [And we were thinking that the 2012 “live ocean” iron dust experiments were declared illegal and unwanted and unwarranted. .mod]

      That’s only because nobody had proposed an “iron tax” yet. Give them time.

  50. The statement in the last paragraph — “the Earth’s climate is not changing” — is so wrong that it is impossible to trust anything else Mr. Deming writes.

    The primary strategy to defend against leftist scaremongering (climate change is just the latest in a 55-year ongoing series of environmental boogeymen, starting with DDT, as far back as I can remember) is to teach people what I’ve used to name my climate blog: “So What? Earth’s climate is ALWAYS changing !
    .
    Mr. Deming gets an “F” in ‘Climate 101″ by contradicting the most basic fact about the climate of our planet that EVERYONE should know … although the smarmy leftists want everyone to (falsely) believe climate change is a recent thing … and a catastrophe, of course.

    We skeptics have been blessed by Mother Nature, or whoever controls these things, with a pause in global warming, and a few cold winters.
    .
    NOW IS A GREAT TIME TO RIDICULE LEFTIST GLOBAL WARMING COMPUTER GAME CLIMATE ASTROLOGY.
    .
    Next month, or next year, the warming trend may return — these trends, if climate proxy studies are correct, seem to last for many hundreds of years, so the 1950 Modern Warming is relatively young.

    A majority of the general population is now doubting global warming predictions, or are undecided — I assume the past two cold winters helped increase their doubt.

    Lets not forget that the general public believes in Santa Clause, tooth fairies, Oswald didn’t act alone, Obama is a Muslim, heaven, hell, and lots of other things based on faith rather than science and facts — if the general public does not realize Earth is ALWAYS warming or cooling (because we didn’t teach them), then it won’t take long after a warming trend resumes before a large majority believe in the global warming boogeyman … again.

    The leftists have done a good job of hiding the pause, and NASA doesn’t even mention their own weather satellites in the “hottest year on record press release” … not to mention reporting Earth’s average temperature in hundredths of a degrees in a desperate attempt to make 2014 a new record (I’m sure they “cooked the books” with infilling in 2014.

    For 2015 PLEASE tell everyone you know “So What? Earth’s Climate is ALWAYS Changing … If you don’t like global warming, then the only other ‘choice’ is global cooling — would you prefer global cooling ! … If not, then be happy with global warming !” I know I am VERY disappointed personally that warming has stopped and winters have been cold.

    Deming’s letter to the editor is much too complicated for the general public to learn from, and his “the Earth’s climate is not changing” conclusion is wrong, counterproductive for teaching the general public about Earth’s climate, and marks Deming as a careless writer, or poor teacher, or perhaps just IQ challenged (leftist term for the class dunce).

    If we skeptics are going to get letters published in newspapers, then they ought to make a few key points using very simple language, starting with: EARTH’s CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

    My climate rantings and ravings, poor jokes, and the first ever climate skeptics Page 3 girl, are at this link:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  51. OT But Mars and Venus are almost occluded (I think I used the right term.) within a thumb width of the Moon at the moment. (6:45 EST)

    (Sorry for the sidetrack.)

  52. The doom mongering is going to intensify as the months tick by and the December 2015 Paris Climate Conference draws nearer. The UN is seriously desperate to get an international global agreement on controlling fossil fuel energy use. The UN has been trying to achieve this for two decades and has resorted to engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in order to achieve its goal. The Paris conference must not succeed if we are to value freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity.

  53. Bottom line, you don’t get grants for results that say everything is fine. If there is not a problem there is no need to spend money on it. But, a crisis demands action and more study (money). Scientist have families to feed, mortgages to pay.
    There are no climate change deniers. We all agree on the facts, CO2 is increasing, greenhouse gases are increasing, temperature changes, weather changes, and that’s it. Beyond that it’s models, theories, and guesses. We just don’t agree with the models, theories, and guesses. Particularly when projecting out 100 years. A single volcanic (massive) eruption can disrupt the climate (temporally at least) so unless volcanic eruptions can be predicted 100 years in advance, the models will yield incorrect results.

  54. First, I resent the comparison to “Bible Based Creation ‘science'”. The toilet papers which absorbed the fecal matter deserving to be flushed are far less scientific.

    Hitting the “Mute” button does not make something immutable.

    Cream rises to the top. Dirt and such “settles” to the bottom, hence “settled science”.

    As to “blood-letting” there have been calls for the execution of “deniers”.

  55. I believe I know how this “JUNK SCIENCE” got started.
    It took me about a year of monitoring all the Climate Scientists, NOAA, and just about everything that was written about “The Climate” to see that their data has been “peer” approved, averaged, and put through some sort of “model” before placing it in the public square for consumption.

    I finally became interested in the new fangled gadgits that are available to measure the imperical information that is available to everyone without using those hard to read ,scientifically filtered data sets we have on net as some “product”. Well, when I look at the real time, and pure information you can see on a Barometer setting on your desk and see that no model has been produced to actually see the detail that the Hg has available.

    All the talk in the world does not even refer to the actual devices and what they are showing us. The scientists are instead looking up the data on their favorite website and writing a paper to submit for money.

    For example the Barometer has been hijacked from the original use, seeing something coming on the horrizon and replaced by the fantsy digital version containing automatic calibrations and little sub programs to tell you the average for the month and year. BUNK, by the time it gets to the Weather Scientists, it has lost alot of flavor. It must be easy to jump to someone else’s work as if it is the truth.

    WELL, Something is happening at HIGH NOON that even the scientists can not explain and doing nothing to understand what it is. Why is it? Back to peer data. Without a fine set of real data, it is impossible to see what is really happening at high noon. It took me two weeks of scratching my head before I realized even those barometers reading in Mb were not even accurate enough to see the nuances of nature that occur on God’s earth at high noon.

    Now give me an instrument that gives me Hg in three decimal places and that is when my Rainbow Stew arrives.

  56. At this time last year a pilgrimage to the Holy Land – warm and sunny. Yesterday my paper had a picture of 8 inches of snow at the Wailing Wall. Great Lakes frozen over? USA ‘s eastern states blizzarded? Is 2015 going to be a COLD DROP year? I’d love to be able to track Valentia’s temperature (just love Valentia – so rural, so far west, radiates NAVTEX for yotties) on a daily basis unadjusted versus recent average. Anyone know how?

Comments are closed.