The Peril of Great Causes

Guest essay by Tom Fuller
the-causeAs a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period. As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today. And as someone who has worked in the solar power industry and reported on green technology for over a decade, I believe that green energy can provide a partial solution to some of those problems.

But as a Lukewarmer I see flaws in what has become a Great Cause–to me it seems to often be an excuse for NGOs to ask the public for more money, for politicians to gain easy support and to replace the stock prayer from beauty pageant contestants for world peace.

Climate change is real. The political struggle over acknowledging the scope and impacts is full of unreality.

When a political cause gains traction among those in power, a curious thing happens. Conventional ideas about right and wrong slip in priority and winning becomes so important that criminal activity and sexual impropriety become forgivable by those in service to a Cause.

Peter Gleick stole documents and forged another to attack his political opponents. Despite the gravity of this crime he was welcomed back into the fold of those promoting worst-case scenarios about the impacts of climate change as if he were a hero, not a criminal. This is not unusual in political movements. The cause becomes more important.

 

Gleick

Al Gore was one of the first who promoted global warming as an imminent threat to human safety. His sybaritic lifestyle was evident from the first–private planes, living in a mansion, conspicuous consumption. None of that was sufficient to cause the Cause to disavow him. It still is unclear whether it was his arrest for pressuring a masseuse for sex or his sale of his television channel to a fossil fuel organization was the cause of his fall from grace–but that fall was apparently temporary, as he still speaks on global warming before green groups the world over. The rules don’t apply.

And now it is the turn of Rajendra Pachauri. Women are now speaking of a decade-long pattern of sexual harassment. Even before this revelation, Pachauri was involved in misconduct, ranging from suppressing dissent to hiding the income from his foundation. He showed incredibly poor judgment in publishing a bodice ripper of a novel while head of an organization that had been criticized by the IAC–with many of those criticisms calling into question his leadership. But it doesn’t matter. He was a champion of the Cause.

Gore Pachauri

Currently, some bloggers and mainstream media sources are reviving decade-long questions about the funding of a scientist named Willie Soon, that he received funding from fossil fuel sources.

It doesn’t matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST’s Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t matter that this information is old.

What matters for the Cause is that headlines of supposed misbehavior hit the news at the same time as Pachauri’s disgrace.

Because none of this is about science. It is about controlling the levers of power, making sure the right message is fed through the media channels and that funding for the right issues is uninterrupted.

Oh for the days when we talked about science.

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bevan

the problem isn’t with the funding, its with Dr Soon’s poor science.

davideisenstadt

really?
troll.

rogerknights

I recall a couple of knowledgeable comments on Climate Audit that acknowledged that the Soon and Balinoris (sp?) paper that got journal editors fired was flawed in one half of its analysis, but correct in the other.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Bill Illis

Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history – a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history – despite the fact that they tried and are still trying to get the authors fired.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2006Q2/211/articles_optional/Soon2003_paleorecord.pdf
Versus Michael Mann’s hockey stick showing there was no enigmatic medieval period (even tried to change the name) with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing in the twentieth century – but was based on incredible data-selection techniques and was mostly based on one tree core series, the bristlecone pine trees from one mountain which cannot possibly be expected to provide a reliable indicator of climate – the worst type of science but still accepted by climate science because that it what they do – rewrite history and get all the facts wrong.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
An objective person knowing all the facts would conclude Soon’s work reflected science and the IPCC/Mann’s work does not.

You all are getting off track with your point-counterpoint arguments. What really matters is what was in Mr. Fuller’s post. In case you haven’t bothered to read it:

It doesn’t matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST’s Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t matter that this information is old.
What matters for the Cause is that headlines of supposed misbehavior hit the news at the same time as Pachauri’s disgrace.

The problem is the obvious collusion to put out this smear campaign to protect “The Cause”.

Jimbo

Thanks milodonharlani. Now when I take a look at your referenced link I see the following:

“The journal’s publisher had “no specific disclosure form that I know of,” she says.”
“and that, in some cases, journal conflict-of-interest policies appear to require such disclosure.”
“But that policy wasn’t in place at the time of Soon’s submission,”
Conflict is often in the eye of the beholder, she says, and researchers often accept all kinds of funding that doesn’t necessarily skew their peer-reviewed publications. “I’m for full disclosure,” she says, “but I’m not sure how we’re going to address this.””

The article makes it clear that the rules are not iron clad and it would be easy to ‘break’ a rule that is not clear in the first place.
Now that icouldnthelpit has got the list he may now want to find problems with Soon’s work. Peer reviewers obviously missed them all.

Jimbo

TomB, Pachaurigate has not gone away yet. If he is charged then it’s back with the headlines on Pachauri. The police and courts are already involved. Sexual harassment is now taken more seriously in India.

george e. smith

“””””…..
Bill Illis
February 25, 2015 at 4:14 am
Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history – a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history …..””””
Bill,
I’m familiar with that paper of Baliunas and Soon, from the days when I read Tech Central Station Blog.
As I recall, they reviewed maybe as many as 200 peer reviewed papers from all over the place, and reached a conclusion that the MWP and the LIA were not “Northern Hemisphere” phenomena, as Michael Mann tried to imply in his hockey stick graph, but were in fact true global events, with evidence for that coming from all over the place.
The odd thing, is that they are being chastised and marginalized for pretty much publishing a bibliography of peer reviewed work by other esteemed climate scientists, that supported the case for the MWP and also the LIA, both of which Mann sought to exterminate.
Sally B also wrote a great paper that showed why the sea level in the vicinity of the Maldives, is anomalous. It relates to the great depth and “land lockedness” of that part of the Indian Ocean.
G

nipfan

In that case, why isn’t his science refuted rather than the man himself being attacked? There’s really only one possible reason for that and it makes nonsense of your comment.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo

Why is taking fossil fuel money wrong for sceptics when these climate change bodies take it? Here is some more of the brazen hypocrisy:

July 9, 2013
200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source
Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
http://fair-questions.com/post-4/

Fuller makes it clear that Warmists happily do wrong and their side goes along with the humbug for years. Here is Pachauri’s behavior while head of the IPCC. As is clear to see they are happy to attack BIG OIL connections but don’t mind their connections. Pachauri was a directory of an Indian oil company while head of the IPCC too. It never ends.
On the 20th April 2002 Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri was elected Chairman of the IPCC. In 2005 Pachauri set up a residual oil extraction technology company called Glorioil. It advised and gave technical assistance to oil companies on extracting residual oil from fields which would otherwise have been abandoned. Pachauri is no longer linked with the now defunct firm now re-named Glori Energy based in Houston, Texas.

2007 – “Glorioil delivers state of the art bio-technology solutions to improve and increase recovery from mature oil wells. Operating from our new state of the art 20,000 sf headquarters in Houston, TX, GloriOil is ready to discuss and apply this breakthrough technology to increase recovery from your mature assets today.”

Jimbo

On the 20th April 2002 Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri was elected Chairman of the IPCC.
Here is where he served during and after 2002 (while head of the IPCC) according to Teri, his organisation. In no particular order.
• Board of Directors of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (2006 to 2009)
• Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1999 to 2003)
• Board of Directors of GAIL (India) Ltd. (2003 to 2004) – [natural gas processing & distribution]
• Member of the International Advisory Council for the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies & Research Center (KAPSARC), Saudi Arabia (2009 onwards)
His Teri institutue organises the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit. Over the years its sponsors have been oil and gas companies.
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
• 2007: Partners – BP
• 2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
• 2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
The wall of NO shame continues from Al Gore and Dana Nuccitelli to almost anyone one you care to pick. They are a bunch of shameless hypocrites.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

DEEBEE

Icouldnthelpit stop being a moron. Isn’t the context of the paper he did not have to disclose his sources.

Jimbo

icouldnthelpit
February 25, 2015 at 1:59 am
Jimbo. It’s not wrong to take fossil fuel money. It’s wrong not to state where your money came from.

It is wrong to be hypocritical. It is wrong to CONDEMN fossil fuels as a danger to the planet, then take fossil fuel money. It is wrong to assist BIG OIL to extract more oil if you believe that fossil fuels will destroy the biosphere. It is wrong to take money from fossil fuel funded Al Jazeera then tell the world about the dangers of fossil fuels. There is so much wrong with what you claim that you leave me almost speechless. Is hypocrisy OK with you???? You have to wonder whether these Warmists actually BELIEVE that co2 will lead to dangerous warming.
Please give me information about Soon’s failure to disclose where his money came from. I have got some stuff to do right now, but once I get back and get your details I will investigate matters a little deeper.
PS if it was for his joint paper ‘Why Models Run Hot’ then I have to say that to the best of my understanding the paper was not funded at all, let alone by fossil fuel money. I maybe wrong, but please give me the information.

icouldnthelpit

(Another very long, but wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo

icouldnthelpit, next time provide me with a link or at least a reference publication and date.
As for choosing to ignore my “whataboutery” – that is the best course of action for you my friend otherwise you would have to either disapprove of hypocrisy or not. Either answer would make you look a little foolish regarding taking fossil fuel money by climate change groups.
Now onto Soon. The reference you give appears on the New York Times on FEB. 21, 2015 (here)
You earlier said:

What’s now come to light is that he apparently didn’t disclose who his paymasters were.

The New York Times said:

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.

So the referenced quote which you quoted has clearly said that at least there was disclosure in some of his scientific papers.
Now please point me to the scientific papers where he failed to provide his conflict of interest declaration where it was a requirement? I can’t see it in the NYT or in the Climate Investigations Center. You can ignore everything I have state EXCEPT my last question. Please point me to the scientific papers where he failed to provide his conflict of interest declaration where it was a requirement?
Interestingly the New York Times says

The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center.

I went to the Climate Investigations Center to find out WHO FUNDS THEM, but came up with nothing. Disclosure is a funny old game.

MarkW

Hey Pit, just because your paymasters tell you that Soon must be wrong, doesn’t constitute a refutation.

Mark Bofill

Jimbo
+1

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo

icouldnthelpit
February 25, 2015 at 7:34 am
Jimbo, I don’t have the actual list. I’m sure it’ll surface soon. We’ll just have to be patient.

I too shall remain patient until the list of papers “surface soon”. I think however that it’s pretty poor show when the NYT repeats allegations supplied by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center without giving us examples of the offending papers. If we had the list we could then look for ourselves whether there was a requirement, listed affiliations etc. Now you see why I like to look for myself rather than taking anyone’s word for it.

milodonharlani

Pit,
It would have taken you seconds to find “The List”, a la McCarthy, along with a discussion of the disclosure issues:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/02/climate-skeptic-s-fossil-fuel-funding-puts-spotlight-journal-conflict-policies
This is a tempest in a teapot. Far more worrisome is the failure of CACA advocates to archive their “data”. Also the funding of Greenshirts by Putin.
Please state what parts of Soon’s work you imagine has been “refuted”.
Thanks.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

milodonharlani

Jimbo,
You´re welcome. My point exactly. Soon did nothing wrong.
Pit,
Leif disagrees with part of Soon’s work (maybe all; I don’t know). In science that’s not “refutation”. It’s a difference of conclusion subject to test via the scientific method. Soon makes predictions. We’ll see.

george e. smith

Well in the last 65 years, I have read one hell of a lot of scientific papers, even ones written by people like Marie Curie or Albert Einstein.
I don’t recall ever reading such a scientific paper that included in the body of the paper where the funds came from to support the author while he was writing the paper.
Usually, if any there was a footnote that mentioned the affiliation of the author(s).
But most of those papers concentrated on the science of the work, and not on the politics.
Mr idon’tknowenoughtocommentrationally seems to think that funding is the most important part of any science paper.
It has been made quite clear that the Harvard Smithonian Center for Astrophysics got money from BigOil to hire Soon to write for them.
So why not try learning something yourself, so you don’t have to take Wikipedia for a reputable science source?

timg56

icouldn’thelpit appears to be cut from the same soiled cloth as a certain Arizona Congressman.
Some people just don’t care if they are disgusting.

PiperPaul

Was Soon’s science discussed in any of the articles and online discussions recently?

Bevan, exactly what is wrong with Dr. Soon’s science?
Or do you just not like his results?

Vuil

More information and proof please. Anyone can make unsubstatiated empty remarks. But only people of integrity back it up with facts.

Doug

I find it fascinating that the ad-hom trolls are perched on the threads to post first. no facts, just attacks. it makes me sad too.

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
If it’s been a long time since you read Orwell’s prophetic 1984, you might want to read it again. The parallels with the present world are uncanny. But stay out of range of the two-way telescreen while reading it, to avoid arousing the suspicions of the thinkpol (Thought Police), which could get you sent to a joycamp.
“Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
But currently the necessary organizational and mechanical infrastructure (e.g., memory holes) is not yet in place to track down and replace all existing copies of malreported published materials. Pending the full implementation of the revolution, it is still necessary for Big Brother’s loyal followers to attempt to discredit such materials with whatever tactics they think might be effective. Let’s see how many can doublethink themselves away from the implications of the narrative and step up in fluent duckspeak in the Replies.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/winston-smith-loves-big-brother-even-more-now-that-he-has-returned-to-the-fold-and-discovered-global-warming/

Tim

Are you paid to watch for a new post? And then post lies? Or are you just an ignorant person with too much time on your hands?

joelobryan

those were my thoughts too regarding Bevan’s trollish remarks.

mikewaite

If you examine some of Bevan’s previous postings, they include well researched and professionally presented documents that clearly cost money to produce.
One suspects he is one of Greenpeace’s ( or similar ) footsoldiers , assigned to monitor WUWT around the clock.
Given the productivity of WUWT this montoring must be soaking up quite a bit of Greenpeaces’s resources , which some might think could be put to better use in eg actually preventing Japan and Norway turning the whales into sushi or preventing the last of the rain forests being destroyed to make biomass plantations.

Sir Harry Flashman

Yes, this blog is just that important. The Trilateral Commission and the reptilians monitor it 24/7 and have their shills on call to respond to each post, because people here are so open-minded and likely to change their views to suit those of the NWO/Agenda21/ALGOREINC conspiracy.

mebbe

the problem isn’t with the funding
classic!

If the science was bad, you wouldn’t need the finance issue to attack him, wouldn’t you?
And use false accusations at that too.
You are a great specimen of the anti-science crowd.

Brute

Please do elaborate, Bevan.

policycritic

Bevan February 24, 2015 at 9:07 pm
the problem isn’t with the funding, its with Dr Soon’s poor science.

Are you an astrophysicist? Jes’ asking.

Gubulgaria

Soon isn’t an astrophysicist, he’s an aeronautical engineer.
Did you mean ‘are you an aeronautical engineer?’

RWturner

Well Guber perhaps you should call the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for ASTROPHYSICS and let them know that they have been employing someone for 14 years that is not an astrophysicist to do research involving astrophysics.
I understand that to the laymen it is a befuddling concept that not all active researchers hold a degree in what they actually end up researching. It’s simply too difficult of a concept for you to wrap that nugget around isn’t it? We could make a list a mile long automatically disqualifying research because of your logic. Let’s start with Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician major, not a climatologist. Mann is a physicist that specialized in semiconductors when he was earning his degrees, what would he know about paleoclimatology?

george e. smith

“””””……
Gubulgaria
February 25, 2015 at 2:34 am
Soon isn’t an astrophysicist, he’s an aeronautical engineer.
Did you mean ‘are you an aeronautical engineer?’…..”””””
So someone is an Automobile Engineer because he worked for 40 years, on the production line in the Ford Motor s plant; installing Bolt 39 ??
That’s like calling someone with a PhD, a “Scientist”.
Dr. Laura has a PhD. She doesn’t know anything about any kind of science; or ice cream making either.
I believe the Ph is short for philospophy; which is all about holding forth on subjects one knows nothing about.
A real scientist would have a DSc as in Doctor of Science. I only have a BSc, so I’m only a part scientist; but I had to go to work for a living to complete my education, and to contribute to the taxpayer funded support for all the 65% of US Physics PhD graduates, who never ever get a full time paying job in their field of expertise. Well they become post doc fellows at some institute.

Streetcred

In Australia, A “Bevan” is a thick person … lacking intelligence … you certain are the proof.

Solomon Green

In the UK A(neurin) Bevan was the left wing Socialist Minister of Health who took credit for introducing the National Health Service, although it was originally conceived by Sir William Beveridge in his 1942 Report to Churchill’s coalition government.
Bevan represented a Welsh Mining constituency and when visiting it, would invariably leave his expensive car in a neighbouring constituency while having his agent pick him up and drive him over the border in his own old second-hand vehicle.
His hypocrisy was noted. He together with two of his Labour Party colleagues sued the Spectator for libel when that magazine reported on their drunken misbehaviour in Venice, where they had been attending a conference. The politicians won and were paid substantial damages, which were never returned even, years later, when they finally admitted that the report was correct.
I wonder if there is any genetic link between Bevan and A. Bevan?

James Allison

The good thing about trolls like you Bevan is that your stupid posts incites many subsequent putdown posts which must be jolly good for WUWT’s Google ranking. So carry on good trolls.

Wow, all the old sock puppets are out in force this week. It might appear to the casual observer as though there has been a concerted and co-ordinated effort to double down on the message for the cause by character assassination of respected academics, perhaps in the hopes that Their climate guru might have his alleged criminal perversions swept into the ever-growing hillock of ignorance under the carpet.

ROM

The Chiefio,aka E.M.Smith has coined the most appropriate description that fits the trolls at the head of these comments to perfection.
As two can play at name calling and skeptics have endured a decade and half of vicious name calling and deadly threats and calls for beheading and 10;10 videos of killing kids and after constraining the language for all that time maybe it is time for the skeptics and those denigrated and attacked to return the favour.
The Chiefio’s term for the vicious public denigrators of skeptic climate scientists and skeptic commenters.
“Slime mongers”

William Astley

Bevan,
Why is there suddenly record snowfall and suddenly record cold temperatures on the Greenland Ice sheet?
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Why is there suddenly record sea ice in the Antarctic and ‘recovery’ of sea ice, including multi year sea ice in the Arctic?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
What caused cyclic warming and cooling in the past? Why do solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with each and every warming and cooling cycle in the paleo record?
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Why are the GCMs’ incorrect?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
What is currently happening to the sun? Is there any possibility the entire IPCC paradigm is incorrect? i.e. The majority (roughly 75%) of the warming in the last 50 years has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001

The peculiar solar cycle 24 — where do we stand?
Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it.
We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.
Other, more recent data sets, such as the Kitt Peak and MDI magnetograms, and they too also show that the polar fields were weak during the cycle 24 minimum compared with the cycle 23 minimum (de Toma 2011; Gopalswamy et al. 2012). The structure of the solar corona was also quite different from what is expected during a normal minimum. As can be seen from the LASCO images shown in Fig. 2 the solar corona has the canonical solar-minimum structure during the cycle 23 minimum, but the coronal did not have a simple configuration of streamers in an equatorial belt as it was during the previous minimum in 1996.

Jonas N

It’s nastier than that:
Greenpeace are trying to get the IRS to go after Willie Soon based on the same silly accusations. Here, in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (whose name they didn’t get right).
Others are going after Judith Curry, trying to dig up anything that would suit the same agenda.
A sad state of the world. But it’s good to see where they’re coming from, and what they really would like to (be able to) do if they only had more power of government coersion.

Sciguy54

And of course Koskinen is the administration sock-puppet thug who declared that “lost” IRS emails could never be recovered. Emails which were partially recovered, despite destruction of PC hard drives and foot-dragging beyond retention periods, by a simple FOIA request made at a later date.
It is clear that he would be willing to do almost anything to please the white house and sympatico NGOs. Another reason that the IRS needs to be deconstructed and replaced ASAP.

RomanM

So it seems that anyone providing expert scientific testimony to a legislative committee of a state or the US government had better ensure that all their research funds come form a Greenpeace approved source or else it becomes “lobbying”.
Priceless!

John Silver

The Cause Nostra.

ROM

Closer than you might think.
Read the history of the rise of the Sicilian Mafia.
And the rise of Greenpeace and etc.
The public, political and criminal trajectories that Greenpeace is currently following closely parallels that of the rise and eventual fall of the Mafia.

Robert B

Bevan – either elaborate or don’t hang around to get the first word in if its just a jibe form the playbook.
icouldnthelpit – his paymasters are the Smithsonian and Harvard. They took the money and signed the contracts. Now if you have some data that you find suspect, elaborate on that.
Funding sources are only important if the paper reports new data that is difficult to replicate. Identify that or give it a rest.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

MarkW

Pit, I love the way you lie about what previous posters have said. It’s almost as if you know you can’t compete on the facts.

Chris

A publication has the right to request that papers submitted include sources of funding. If you don’t like those roles, don’t submit your document to that publication.The same for the Smithsonian for their employees (really employees by association since they do not draw a salary from the Smithsonian).

Harry van Loon.

I find it peculiar and somewhat disturbing that Greenpeace and the NYT are going after Soon for the wrong reasons. The funding is immaterial, what really counts is the contents of the papers. I have read them and find no scientific reason to doubt his conclusions. They are well documented as regards science and that is what counts.

Evan Jones

the problem isn’t with the funding, its with Dr Soon’s poor science.
Then go at it from that angle, alone. Just sayin’.

LonestarM

The lack of ability to point out significant flaw(s) in Dr. Soon’s science appears to be the motivation for the attacks.
“If I can attack your theory, i will do so. If I cannot, I will attack you.”
What warmists hate about Dr. Soon is the fact that his “irreducibly simple model” works, and even worse, cost taxpayers nothing, while the 70+ “The C02 Did-It” computer are laughably inaccurate and shockingly expensive.
The AGW “computer scientists” give a whole new meaning to the term for expensive software that promises everything and delivers nothing — “Vapor Ware.”

Lets talk about the science Bevan. What exactly is wrong with Soon’s science? That would be a discussion with real merit. It would be interesting.
As it is you are just making assertions without referencing any substantive facts.

MarkW

Can you actually point to anything Dr. Soon actually got wrong, or does the fact that you disagree with his results constitute proof that he must be wrong?

Reply to Bevan Thread ==> Bevan’s off-topic comment continues his obfuscation of the Soon issue started at my earlier essay.
Three important things to know about the Southern/Smithsonian/Soon issue:
1) There is and was no hidden funding of any kind — all grants were above-board through the Smithsonian’s normal grant-receiving channels.
2) Southern Services Company is not a fossil fuel company. It is an electric utility — it generates and supplies electricity throughout the American South. It does have coal-burning electric plants — it is building the only new nuclear power plant in the USA, it operates a huge solar electric plant in the Southwest, it donates millions of dollars to environmental projects throughout the United States.
3) There was and is no possible Conflict of Interest for Soon from the unfettered general research grant from Southern Services Company. No papers were sponsored, no specific research requested, no relationship between Soon’s research and Southern’s businesses — plainly stated — Nothing Done.

Jimbo

On the matter of Soon and funding I think it’s time we entered common sense times.
Wouldn’t Willie Soon make his life a lot easier by simply towing the party line? Funding would POUR IN as his former adversaries cheered and hugged the poor guy.
As regards poor science may I refer you to the ENTIRE body of work produced by the IPCC. Here is an example of poor science.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg

Jimbo

Warmists are now desperate and sad. Since they like to dredge up that ‘thing of the past’ re Soon let’s see.
Where was the outrage when a lead author of an IPCC report waspaid by Greenpeace? Oooops! Activist backed Climastrology – which leads to Himalayan total glacier meltdown by 2035. Oooops! It was the WWF what made me do it guv. It was just like voodoo, really.

“Dear NY Times Re Willie Soon: Character assassination is not science.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/ny-times-willie-soon-character-assassination-is-not-science/

Janice Moore

The problem is also the Tom Fullers of the world’s ignorance.
Solar Power (for the U.S. Economy) Is a L1e
Re: The Myth of Solar Energy
Ozzie Zehner video: “Green Illusions” (youtube)

(I do NOT endorse ALL of its content — some is highly accurate, however)
[6:55] — As of 2012, less than ONE TENTH OF 1%, i.e., less than .001% (< .1 Quads), of total energy (114 Quads. for N. America) is supplied by solar. [7:11] — Graphic of N. American total energy v. solar (tiny dot v. big bucket).
Caveat re: Mr. Zehner: He is an irrationally anti-nuclear power, Church of Anti-consumption (albeit good-intentioned) religious zealot, BUT, he knows his stuff about solar power and makes a good point about the gross ineffectiveness and hypocrisy of solar/wind. They will NEVER be cost-effective and they promote not reduce fossil fuels/CO2 = not “green” = hypocrisy.

I haven’t seen any serious rebutals to Ozzie’s points on solar. Nuclear seems like an incredible nobrainer. One solar strategy that does look interesting is Nate Lewis’s proposal to make hydrocarbon fuels from sunlight:

Jimbo

I demand that Dr. Phil Jones and other climastrologists publishing papers while at CRU clearly state on EVERY PAPER THEY PUBLISH that the Climatic Research Unit has in the past / present received funding from the following:
Climate and Development Knowledge Network (“aims to help decision-makers in developing countries design and deliver climate compatible development.”),
Earth and Life Sciences Alliance (“addressing the challenges of a changing climate, the Alliance not only carries out fundamental research but also applies the findings to real world scenarios“),
Greenpeace International, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, WWF, EPA, British Petroleum, Shell, Sultanate of Oman.
Can I declare game, set and match? LOL.

Jimbo

As you canb see below Dr. Phil Jones did not declare that CRU has in the past received funding from the above ie the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, Earth and Life Sciences Alliance, Greenpiss, WWF et al.
Abstract
P. D. Jones1,*, T. Jonsson2 and D. Wheeler3
Extension to the North Atlantic oscillation using early instrumental pressure observations from Gibraltar and south-west Iceland
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0088%2819971115%2917:13%3C1433::AID-JOC203%3E3.0.CO;2-P/abstract

Jimbo

The URL’s gone funny. Here is the DOI.
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(19971115)17:133.0.CO;2-P

So what!
Just because Soon got some money from oil industry sources does not mean his conclusions are false!
The 2 biggest sources of heat on earth are: Sun and the Earth’s inner core. Commonsense demonstrates that any rise in temperature must come from there!
Alarmist scientists get money from the government because alarm sells. Politicians love it!
When you have a toothache you go to a dentist.

catweazle666

Drivel.

timg56

And you would know it is poor how?

Barry

Dr. Soon is also really unproductive — something like 8 published papers in 12 years, despite more than $1 million in funding. And how many students has he trained, or classes has he taught?

Barry,
And how many classes have you taught? How many papers have you published? What’s that you say? Zero?
Apparently Dr. Soon’s work was important enough for the grant in question.
Try to think of better reasons to be a troll, ‘K? Thx bye.

george e. smith

Back in 2004, on a short trip to Auckland New Zealand, I was able to get a close look at a strange vessel sitting right at the dock on one side of the Viaduct Harbor; home to the local Americas Cup and other sailing festivities.
This odd looking hydrocarbon fuelled boat (and CO2 disgorging as well), was purported to run on fat, for fuel.
Well not just any old fat; but liposuction fat; of which there is a bottomless supply; excuse me, make that a bottom full supply.
This amazing boat was going to set a round the world speed record by rocketing across the world’s ocean on bum fat.
Well in the end, I think they ended up running it on diesel; aka fossil fuel.
In any case, the project fizzled, and somehow Greenpeace acquired this vessel.
Probably some corporate donation to GP.
Well Just a coupla years ago now, Greenpeace used this monstrosity of a boat to pester some Japanese whale research scientists who were just trying to get some whale tissue samples for scientific research. Maybe to compare it to bum fat.
Somehow, things went pear shaped and the Obesity Burner ended up crashing into the whale sampler, or verse vicea, and the tub of lard , went to the bottom of the Pacific.
Luckily no crew members were harmed; that would have not been nice.
I have a good set of photos of that thing sitting at the dock, right next to an actual green machine; a former winner of the Whitbread round the world ocean race for sail boats, which is now known as the Volvo Ocean race.
The sail boat was actually sponsored by the makers of a free clean green renewable energy source, called (as I recall) Lion Breweries.
And yes I have actually sailed on that sail boat, while out on the harbor watching the then current Volvo Ocean Racers, who were in Port getting ready to go sail among the icebergs in the southern ocean.
I’ll be doing the same thing in a few weeks, when this years Volvo boats come into port on their way into history, all powered by the wind, and with no liposuction fat on board.
Yes Greenpeace have had their fun times all probably corporate funded in some way or other.

“the problem isn’t with the funding, its with Dr Soon’s poor science.”, which your comment implicitly acknowledges can’t be identified by character assassins such as yourself.

John F. Hultquist

For those of us (or am I the only one) that know not of “Dr. Soon’s poor science”,
perhaps you should enlighten us (or me).

Here is an example of poor science:
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Soon shows a ‘solar radiation’ [the heavy black curve] and outdated version of TSI [Hoyt and Schatten’s old estimate]. Modern reconstructions are show by the red curves at the top. Soon should know [if he follows the modern debate] that his ‘solar radiation’ curve is false.

Tim

Too bad you didn’t post when Soon showed his graph and put it into context of what he was saying.

Tim

Of course you would follow the troll to move the debate away from the post.

John F. Hultquist

Leif,
It is good that this chart is posted by you, for it is sourced from the BEST project and the Washington Times. Because it is posted by you I will assume it is something attributed to Soon. Anyway, the much earlier paper of Soon and Baliunas is what internet searches refer to when controversy about Dr. Soon is searched for, and also the questioning of his funding began with that paper (I think).

As is the ‘big news’ peddled there

crakar24

Thats great Leif you found a graph that disagrees with another graph, heres a gold star *
Can you produce an ice core graph that disagrees with the one your old buddy Al Gore used in his movie? I am sure you can if you try hard enough,

The issue is Soon’s poor science, nothing more. What do you think is good about Soon’s science?

“It is good that this chart is posted by you, for it is sourced from the BEST project and the Washington Times.”
Huh? looks like he used our temperature data and put our name on his chart.
RIF

Anything is possible

lsvalgaard February 24, 2015 at 10:22 pm
As is the ‘big news’ peddled there
==================================
Probably. but if the predictions of you and your fellow solar scientists of a prolonged Dalton or Maunder-type minimum come to fruition, we will be able to observe what happens in detail Maybe, just maybe, after that, we won’t need to guess anymore.

Speaking of ‘poor science’, it isn’t solar radiation per se that matters.
It is variations in the mixture of particles and wavelengths relative to one another that affects atmospheric chemistry so as to change global cloudiness/albedo.
Those solar variations are not yet adequately represented by any charts or graphs that I am aware of.
Even so Leif’s chart still shows warmer periods roughly associated with high solar cycles and cooler periods with lower ones with the thermal effect being proportionate to the length of any run of high or low cycles.

Heaven forfend that someone has the temerity to enter into your personal domain and say something you don’t agree with. I know for sure that with you Lief, your science is certainly settled.

geronimo

So Leif do you think his “poor” science is as a result of his funding? Do you think a congressional committee can hold a hearing and then promptly investigate all the scientist who told it what it didn’t want to hear? Do you think that government funded scientist aren’t persuaded to give their sponsors what the want but privately funded scientists aren’t? Do you think Dr. Soon would receive government funding for his work, and if not what should he do? Retire and stop doing work that’s challenging the popular assumptions?
Leif, have you heard of DDT? Which was castigated by mainstream government scientists for 35 years as dangerous and harmful. With somewhere in the region of 70 million unnecessary deaths
Or, are you aware that Dt. Atkins of the “Atkins diet” was wrong about the relationship between carbohydrates for 35 years, but now isn’t. In the meantime the proposed consensus solution appears to have given rise to an obesity epidemic in the USA as predicted by Atkins and pooh hooed by to consensus
You take away the wonder of science if you say emphatically that people are wrong and you are right when the scientific evidence is based on models, and theories with huge gaps in the knowledge. Science never progresses by consensus and agreement it progresses by people like Dr. Soon, being wrong maybe, but challenging the smug acceptance of conventional wisdom.

geronimo

Should have said, “…but privately funded scientists are.”

“Modern reconstructions.” We all know what that really means.

Robert B

lsvalgaard- A newer version doesn’t make it correct. These are reconstructions, not actual measurements and considering what has happened with other reconstructions, I’m tempted to go with the older versions Maybe Soon has better reasons. Best to ask about that before labeling it bad science.
Wang, Krivova? The data should be between 1365-1366 Wm-2? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282/pdf

MarkW

Of course “outdated” translates into, disagrees with my recent work.

Jimbo

Willie Soon should follow the real money. Here is one cause of catastrophic global warming.comment image

Bob Boder

Leif
Do you agree with the attack on Soon being done by Greenpeace? could you ever see yourself on the other side of such an attack? Agree or not with you, you a are a scientist and from all I see an honest one. is this how you see science working?

Of course I do not agree with personal attacks [of any kind, including those of some of Soon’s coauthors on me]. But both sides of the ‘debate’ use personal attacks because they work [just like attack-adds in political campaigns], so are both guilty.

“Reconstructions”?

Yes, there are several modern reconstructions, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-recon3.png

Jimbo

Here is also an example of poor science.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Here is another example of poor ‘science’.

Abstract
The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California
Climate model simulations disagree on whether future precipitation will increase or decrease over California, which has impeded efforts to anticipate and adapt to human-induced climate change……..Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter. These results are obtained from 16 global general circulation models downscaled with different combinations of dynamical methods…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00766.1

More failures from the IPCC.

Robert B February 25, 2015 at 3:12 am
lsvalgaard- A newer version doesn’t make it correct. These are reconstructions, not actual measurements
The newer reconstructions are based on actual measurements. The Hoyt&Schatten reconstruction used by Soon is not based on ANY measurements of solar radiation, but on [dubious] guess work extrapolated from solar activity proxies: “These indices are (1) the equatorial solar rotation rate, (2) the sunspot structure, the decay rate of individual sunspots, and the number of sunspots without umbrae, and (3) the length and decay rate of the sunspot cycle.”, see their paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93JA01944/abstract

richardk

Beven apparently you did not read the opinion of a progressive to your liking. Go figure.

Alan Robertson

Bevan accomplished his goal. This thread went straight into the ditch.

Peter Miller

Sadly, you are right.
All too often recently, there is an inane tosser comment at the top, which winds everyone up.

Brute

Now, now. Don’t feed the microsecond trolls, you two.
Folks are free to comment on what they like and, let’s be fair, the hysterical irrationality of the trolls makes more people question the “official line” than the failure of the climate to behave as prophesied. In fact, their ability to ridicule the warmist cause is so rotund that I’ve often wonder if these trolls might not the fabled “deniers” pretending to be the most maniacal wamists in order to ridicule them all.

Alan Robertson

Bravo, Brute. Nice ploy.
Chastise those who called attention to Bevan’s behavior, praise the trolls for actually harming the warmista cause and then further advance your idea that the trolls are really skeptics.
Good job.

Eric

It is AMAZING how quickly the warmest trolls reply to every post these days… almost as if they were getting paid to do it…
Care to elaborate on your funding sources, Bevan?

ConTrari

Yes, it seems that there is an alarmist campaign to be the first commenter on any WUWT-thread.
Maybe it is time to remind us all: DNFTT.

Chris

I could say the same about the number of posts by skeptics, which are far greater in number on this site than those of warmists. Eric, are you being paid to post here?

MichaelS

@ Chris
This is a skeptic site so naturally it would have a higher number of skeptic posts. Twit!

KuhnKat

“Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
Your first paragraph told us you have made up your mind on EVERYTHING!!!
NOW, with your leaders being shown to be the usual con artists, a lack of observations and science to back up your scams. you want to talk about SCIENCE??? YOU NEVER TALKED ABOUT SCIENCE!!! Y’all only lectured us on how stupid we were and how much smarter y’all were!!!
There was and is plenty of talk about Science on the sceptic sites which only drew your fan boys to deride and insult us.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Evan Jones

Interestingly, I find it surprisingly easy to converse perfectly civilly with scientists who stridently disagree with me. I had a very interesting discussion on Stoat that was quite productive. Also, with Dr. Venema in a thread Sou set up for us and others.
I find if you strictly avoid politics, you can learn a lot from these guys, and maybe you can even make ’em think twice.

Mark Bofill

You talk with the enemy from other tribes? You learn a lot from those guys? What are you, some sort of scientist?
/sarc off
🙂 Me too Evan. Well said.

Evan Jones

Thanks. Only a Citizen Scientist. But I have very many brothers: Everyone, everyone, no matter what they believe, no matter what they have done — who has ever surveyed a surface station is my brother and comrade at arms. Also those who tried and failed.
As for the ones I have corresponded with, well, they have their objectives, I have mine, and I say so plain out. They need to know if the microsite issue is for real, and they actually want to. They are also interested in the problems with adjustment. Whereas I need to be fully and amply prepared for a very gnarly hairy eyeball during peer review. There will be questions. I’d just as soon have some answers.
The deeper I get into the data the more I sound like Mosh. (We are barking up different trees. Yet we are barking in the same direction.)

Tim

good.

Evan Jones

Necessary.

John F. Hultquist

Tom,
I do not see how our low emissions have much effect on the current warming period or the past cooling period or the warming before that – and so on. Insofar as Earth’s atmosphere was dangerously low of the plant food (CO2) not too long ago, I am pleased that it is now higher. I’d also like a smaller government and less waste. Whatever you mean by “green energy” (maybe solar and wind? – in truth, not very green) being a solution of something – well, so far, it is a nice wealth redistribution from the low and middle classes to the well-off. It cannot, and does not, provide utility scale electric power 24/7 for 365 days each year. That’s the sort of power my refrigerator, freezer, and heating and cooling systems need.

“an excuse for NGOs to ask the public for more money”
It’s not an excuse, believe you me. It’s an out-and-out grab. UNFCCC. Openly abandoning any science and full-on saying so.

policycritic

Accurate.

tomwys1

We’re enjoying the weakest solar maximum in a hundred years that followed an extended minimum.
Atmospheric temperature has flatlined for the past 18 years, and EVERY ocean’s rate of SS temperature increase is declining while the Southern ocean’s is in freefall.
Notice a relationship here???
Celebrate every day within which Dr. Soon’s research continues!!!

We’re enjoying the weakest solar maximum in a hundred years that followed an extended minimum.
A situation very much like what we enjoyed a century ago and two centuries ago. Note how today’s temperatures are like they were 100 and 200 years ago [or NOT].

Khwarizmi

Note how today’s temperatures are like they were 100 and 200 years ago [or NOT].
============
“Climate change: According to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth, Lake Superior may have warmed faster than its surrounding area.[20] Summer surface temperatures in the lake appeared to have increased by about 4.5 °F (2.5 °C) since 1979, compared with an approximately 2.7 °F (1.5 °C) increase in the surrounding average air temperature. The increase in the lake’s surface temperature may be related to the decreasing ice cover. Less winter ice cover allows more solar radiation to penetrate and warm the water. If trends continue, Lake Superior, which freezes over completely once every 20 years, could routinely be ice-free by 2040.[21] This would be a significant departure from historical records as, according to Hubert Lamb, Samuel Champlain reported ice along the shores of Lake Superior in June 1608
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Superior#Climate_change
Great Lakes are FINALLY ice free after record breaking seven months frozen
June 10, 2014
It has been a long, cold winter for much of America – but the Great Lakes have really suffered. Forecasters finally revealed today that all of the Great Lakes including Lake Superior are now ice free. It marks the end of a record breaking 7 month stretch where the lakes were covered in at least one ice cube, which is the longest period since satellite records began back in the 70’s.
*******************
Fall snow cover in Northern Hemisphere was most extensive on record, even with temperatures at high mark
December 4
In 46 years of records, more snow covered the Northern Hemisphere this fall than any other time. It is a very surprising result, especially when you consider temperatures have tracked warmest on record over the same period.
-WaPo
*******************
The constantly-revised globally-averaged “temperature” apparently has no meaningful relationship to the real world, so we should probably ignore it.

Tom Roche

Leif, are you also dismissing medieval, roman, etc,, warm periods, the Holocene optimum out of hand?. Science is not settled, Soon may not be right but the alternative certainly is not either.

lsvalgaard : A situation very much like what we enjoyed a century ago and two centuries ago. Note how today’s temperatures are like they were 100 and 200 years ago [or NOT].
It is a bad logic application
Sunspot count starts a new (from near zero) every 11 or so years, the Earth’s climate does not.

The effect of solar activity on climate does.

MarkW

vukcevic, Leif apparently does not believe in such things as thermal lag.
He’s been corrected on this point many times.

MarkW February 25, 2015 at 6:42 am
thermal lag.

What do you think the thermal lag is? A number, please.

Evan Jones

But the PDO alone can explain that. Dr. Soon may well be right — or not. (But all serious research is inherently good.)

“The rules don’t apply.”
That has yet to be seen.

Evan Jones

We do have a bit of a “rules” problem here.

Hoyt Clagwell

Mr. Fuller, with regard to the first line of your essay,
I believe “current warming period” is an oxymoron since it is not currently warming. Also “our high emissions of CO2” is contrary since our emissions are incredibly small compared to natural emissions. Even “science explaining how” doesn’t work for me because science currently doesn’t explain the pause or hiatus we are in. I would just throw that whole first sentence out.
Beyond that, what really is a liberal progressive? Is that like “freedom for me through restriction of you”?

Evan Jones

You could characterize it a warming period in that surface trend remains flat, but some heat is being convected into the oceans. This is typical of negative PDO periods.
Of course, the recent NASA study refutes the overall hypothesis that the “missing heat” is residing below 2000m. However, we are experiencing a flat surface trend in a cooling period.

David A

I have to disagree. We have been neutral in the pacific, not cooling, basically La Nada. And the AMO has yet to really turn…comment image?w=520&h=395
You have pointed out that the surface stations have adjusted the Rural to the urban, and not properly accounted for the UHI affect. Perhaps it is better to go with the satellites, and they show us turning the corner and cooling.

JB Goode

‘what really is a liberal progressive?’
It’s the name communists give themselves because they don’t know they’re communists.

David A

Such is the nature of the Tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector” (Plato)

davidgmills

It’s a guy like me. And I am not anything close to a communist.

pat

c’mon, u know it’s time to accept CAGW is real (sarc) when –
18 Feb: Citigroup: Citi Announces $100 Billion, 10-Year Commitment to Finance Sustainable Growth
New York – Citi announced today a landmark commitment to lend, invest and facilitate a total of $100 billion within the next 10 years to finance activities that reduce the impacts of climate change and create environmental solutions that benefit people and communities. Citi’s previous $50 billion goal was announced in 2007 and was met three years early in 2013.
With this $100 billion initiative, Citi will build on its leadership in renewable energy and energy efficiency financing to engage with clients to identify opportunities to finance greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and resource efficiency in other sectors, such as sustainable transportation…
http://www.citigroup.com/citi/news/2015/150218a.htm
how fascinating it would be to know what these “impressive” figures actually mean!
loans at interest to renewable companies might be at the top of the list!

mikewaite

Pat:- If your supposition about loans to renewable energy companies is correct ,and because the interest on the loans comes from the subsidies paid to suppliers of renewables , the Citigroup is profiting from green taxes on working families . Since these will only ever increase , especially after Paris 2015, it is a no-risk operation for Citigroup.
Truly bankers are the cleverest people on the planet.

Evan Jones

Truly bankers are the cleverest people on the planet.
Don’t underestimate the attorneys.

ROM

“Truly bankers are the cleverest people on the planet”
Enron; The smartest guys in the room;
1985 to 2001; then finis, bankrupt and jail and billions of OPM just gone.

urederra

… Sustainable Growth …

Another oxymoron.

As a “lukewarmist” you should have your head examined to make sure the logic and reasoning side of your brain is working!
If you were a lay person I would be kinder to you and write civilly, but you are a scientist. A paid professional and regardless of who is paying you it’s money that you don’t deserve. I am intolerant of stupid people who are paid to pretend they are intelligent. Find another career, then I’ll be happy to take as much time as necessary to explain to you civilly why AGW is nothing but pseudo science.

As a “lukewarmist” you should have your head examined to make sure the logic and reasoning side of your brain is working!
Well technically I am a “lukewarmist” so I would have to take Mr Fuller’s side on that one. I describe myself as a skeptic though because I recognize that the debate has become polarized. On one side are people who want to take draconian measures because of the science, and on the other are people who believe the science doesn’t justify taking draconian measures. The only middle ground left belongs to the apathetic majority who prefer not to think about such things lest they have to make a decision for themselves.

JB Goode

‘On one side are people who want to take draconian measures because of the science, and on the other are people who believe the science doesn’t justify taking draconian measures’
Wrong!
On one side are people who want to take draconian measures and use ‘science’ as an excuse and on the other are people who know what the word science means.

R. de Haan

You took the words out of my mouth.
What a bunch of crap.
There is noting wrong with our climate.
In fact the current weather pattern is very similar to the winter of 1934.
This means that nothing has changed at all.
What worries me is that the same clique pushing for a global CO2 tax are the same sociopaths rigging our economies and our financial system and promote a shooting war with a nuclear power to provide them with a scape goat when the house of cards collapses.
They’re traitors and criminals.
Still the sheeple keep quiet while their henchmen continue their attacks on human civilization because that’s what their “saving the planet” is all about.
http://green-agenda.com

Evan Jones

As a “lukewarmist” you should have your head examined to make sure the logic and reasoning side of your brain is working!
Does that mean I should have my head examined?
If you were a lay person I would be kinder to you and write civilly, but you are a scientist.
Isn’t that all the more reason for kindness and civility?

Konrad.

Tom,
first you assert –
“As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period.”
“Climate change is real.”
and then you lament –
“Oh for the days when we talked about science.”
Tom, all sceptics ever wanted to do was debate the science. It has been the alarmists and lukewarmers standing in the way. Alarmists don’t want debate as they fear the critical flaws in the AGW hypothesis will be exposed. Lukewarmers don’t really want to debate the science because they don’t understand it.
You don’t understand radiative physics or fluid dynamics Tom, so when you say you “cheerfully accept the science”, you haven’t. You have just taken peoples word for it. You haven’t checked for yourself. This is why we are in this mess, too many have done as you have done and believed without evidence.
As a “liberal progressive”, you are soon going to be getting some very bad news. It’s not the “warming but less than we thought” soft landing you and yours are now praying for. It’s “AGW is a physical impossibility”.
I know you don’t understand the science but I will try to explain. Climastrologists made a critical mistake in the very foundation of the “basic physics” of their “settled science”. Climastrologists assumed the surface of our planet to be a near blackbody that could only heat to 255K for an average of 240 w/m2 of solar radiation if there were no radiative atmosphere. They then claimed our radiative atmosphere was raising that by 33K to our current 288K.
Little problem, 71% of our planet’s surface is ocean. The oceans are nowhere close to a near blackbody, instead they are an extreme SW selective surface. The sun alone could drive our oceans to 335 or beyond if it were not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
This is not small mistake. This is a critical error. It means the unproven radiative GHE hypothesis that is the foundation for AGW claims is totally and utterly wrong. Our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the surface of our planet, not warming it.
Tom, this error is to huge to be hidden. No amount of political games can engineer a soft landing for any of the AGW fellow travellers. Words and politics cannot change the physics. The oceans are an extreme SW selective surface and that is that. Every activist, journalist and politician who promoted this sorry hoax is going to get their public face, metaphorically speaking, punched to custard. It’s plane tickets to Brazil time. As a “liberal progressive” you just have to cheerfully accept that.

Evan Jones

It has been the alarmists and lukewarmers standing in the way.
It is not the lukewarmers who have stood in anyone’s way. We have suffered mightily along with all other skeptics. Ask Dr. Curry.

Alberta Slim

I’ll second that. Thanks Konrad.

Jim Francisco

Boy I hope you are right Konrad. It seems to me that it would not be the first time that a lot of scientist were wrong on a fundamental. All I know is that when I was working on top of an F111 in midday New Mexico (1972) the dark green surface was so hot it would burn your hands. I was afraid my shoe soles were going to melt.

pat

no GREATER CAUSE than this:
24 Feb: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans: MEPs vote for early EU carbon market fix
Analysts say the reforms could see EU carbon prices more than double by 2020, to between €17 and €35 per tonne. Member states must still back any reforms to the ETS, however…
With today’s vote, the European Parliament’s environment committee says the reserve should be established in 2018 and should be operating by 31 December 2018. This leaves ambiguity over the start date, which could come during 2018 or perhaps only at the start of 2019…
A final decision on reforms will need the backing of the European Commission and EU member state governments in a process known as trialogue negotiations. Member state agreement will be the hardest to secure…
Around 80 per cent of council decisions are taken by consensus. If this is not possible, then the decision is taken by qualified majority vote.
The voting system was changed last year. The changes reduce the voting power of smaller member states, while increasing it for the likes of the UK and Germany. However, until 2017, any member state can ask for the old voting rules to apply. Poland is likely to do this, as standard bearer for the opponents of ambitious EU ETS reform, and because it has reduced voting power under the new rules…
Sandbag would like the EU to cancel some suprlus allowances to “ramp up its climate offer”…
If the reforms backed today by the European Parliament were implemented, they would be expected to increase prices to between roughly €17 and €35 by 2020, according to differing forecasts from market analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon and ICIS Tschach Solutions.
Sandbag argues these price forecasts are too high because electricity consumption in the EU will continue to fall faster than expected while the increasing penetration of renewables will make life more difficult for gas- and coal-fired power stations, reducing their incentive to trade ETS allowances in advance…
DISCLOSURE: * Sandbag and Carbon Brief both receive funding from the European Climate Foundation
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/02/meps-vote-for-early-eu-carbon-market-fix/
if only the public understood this. they surely don’t understand the science.

dp

I believe that green energy can provide a partial solution to some of those problems.

What problems? You’ve placed your horse before your cart. There is no general agreement there are climate problems. There are modeled fantasies that hint at it but when rigorous science is applied the problems are identified as modeling errors.

JackT

Isn’t that what Dr. Soon’s “Models run hot” paper was all about?

Chris

There is general agreement that there are climate problems among the vast majority of the world’s governments, scientific organizations and large companies. There are also some skeptics, both in the climate sciences and among the general public. If by the words “general agreement” you mean everyone agreeing with AGW you are correct. But that is not true of governments, scientific organizations and large companies.

Jonas N

Seriously Chris!?
Are you saying that there are governments claiming there are ‘problems’, which they say they the need to ‘solve’ for the ‘public’ good, and which require them to increase their spending and regulation?
Whodathunkit!?
And equally seriously: Are you equating “climate problems” (in the beginning of your short comment) with some (unspecified) “AGW” towards its end!?

Billy Liar

What is a ‘climate problem’? There are plenty of weather problems, as there always have been, but problems of ‘average weather (ie climate)’? Name some.

Sebastian

Tom thankyou for your interesting article. Whilst it may not seem it the vast silent majority of readers here welcome your thoughts and opinions.

Evan Jones

And not all of us remain silent.

JamesS

I am curious as to what events Mr. Fuller sees as “climate change.” We all agree that the Earth’s climate changes over the centuries, and even moreso over the eons. Studying the geologic history of the Earth really opens one’s eyes to the reality of that change, but at the same time, realizing that it has gone from “snowball Earth” to “hothouse Earth” and back, many times, and without human influence, I have to wonder what anyone is seeing today that is any different from those natural cycles.
Sure, Boston had a lot of snow this winter. But it’s not unprecedented. You know how we know that? Because 20,000 years ago, Boston was under a kilometer of ice, which didn’t get there without there being lots of snow over a long period of time.
Now, I’ve been around this global warming thing since the beginning. Then, there was no talk about increased cold, or more snow — it was all about getting hotter and hotter, with more storms, and snow would be a thing of the past that our grandchildren would never see, and so forth. When none of that appeared to be happening, the goalposts were moved over to *stonger*, not more numerous, storms, and maybe *more* snow at times. In effect, any pattern of weather change could be blamed on it — but a hypothesis that predicts anything and can’t be proven false is not science

Greg Woods

+10

I believe that green energy can provide a partial solution to some of those problems.
It occurs to me that coal might be the greenest energy source we have. You burn it and what you get is energy, particulates (captured these days at the smokestack)… and plant food.
I dare you to show any similar benefits to plants from solar or wind power. Green my ***

dp

Future generations will damn us for our cavalier attitude toward the length of day and our ignorant and wanton manipulation of it by converting Earth’s rotational energy into electricity to power our automobiles.

urederra

You do not have to go that far. I have seen solar panels in places where fruit-trees used to be.

Chris

If particulates are captured at the smokestack, then why do India and China, with their high % of coal fired power, have the most polluted cities on earth?

Chris

If particulates are captured at the smokestack, then why do India and China, with their high % of coal fired power, have the most polluted cities on earth?

Several reasons.
All basically come back to “Poverty kills. Energy-starved poverty kills quicker. ONLY RICH COUNTRIES with energy readily available can afford to control pollution.
One. A million small fires on inefficient, manually-fed coal, wood, paper, and dung fires for heat, cooking, light (dung much less so in the cities, but the region around the cities? Many hundreds of thousands of fires out there as well every day.)
No auto emissions controls nor cat converters being kept up-to-date, inspected, replaced.
Bad gas being used in what cat converters are present, so even newer cars get screwed up quickly.
BAD – very bad – controllers and particle filters on the hundreds of thousands of older burners and heaters and industrial shops around the area that cannot afford to update.
No or poorly-maintained particle filters on the older fossil plants still in use. If I add clean filters to 1 plant, but have 12 still burning the old way, will I see an improvement right away? No. Not until I shutdown or fix the old ones!
Get them out of poverty. Get cleaner, healthier people. Force artificially high energy prices? Kill them.

Now, people, be nice to warmists who have the courage to post here. They are treasures. Mere trolls, such as that vacuous first post, do not deserve all the attention they get.

Eliza

Bevan would have one comment at SG at most,because no one would answer it (except SG himself). That is the onlyway to deal with these people (AVOID), do not engage,as you have)

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

richardscourtney

icouldnthelpit
It is good that – at last – you write to agree with an article on WUWT. Perhaps you are starting to learn something.
Richard

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

richardscourtney

icouldnthelpit
You were “remarking”? Really? I saw agreement but no “remark”.
Please explain your “remark”, obnoxious troll.
Richard

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

icouldnthelpit

(Another long but wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

richardscourtney

icouldnthelpit
Thankyou for that exposition. I still see your complete agreement with the article but no “remark” except for your addition of a comment about the behaviour of your left eyebrow.
Perhaps in future when you want to comment on an article that you completely agree then you could be more clear by merely thanking its author for the article.
Richard

Evan Jones

Rodger Moore?! Please. Sean Connery.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

MarkW

The purpose of the post was to delve into the willingness of people like you to ignore the logs in their own eyes while whining about motes in the eyes of others.
It also dealt with the eagerness of your side to ignore the science and attack those who disagree with you on anything else.
Thank you for being willing to be the poster child for such nonsense.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Bob Boder

icouldnthelpit
So you disagree with Soon and think he should be attacked, I got it. Luckily everyone knows your a troll and could careless what you think.

timg56

icouldn’thelpit apparently can’t refute anything Tom states, so he instead labels it a long meandering rant.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

richardscourtney

icouldnthelpit
In this sub-thread you have written

Richard. I don’t know why you say I completely agree with the article and I’m not entirely sure that I want to know.

and in reply to Bob Boder saying

icouldnthelpit
So you disagree with Soon and think he should be attacked, I got it. Luckily everyone knows your a troll and could careless what you think.

you replied

Bob. No, I didn’t say that either. For the record I lean toward the opinion that Soon shouldn’t be attacked.

So, you say you don’t “completely agree with the article” and suggest you do “disagree with Soon”.
Perhaps it is time for you to plainly state what you do think of the article because – at present – your wriggling is making you a laughing stock.
Richard

richardscourtney

OOPs
I wrote
So, you say you don’t “completely agree with the article” and suggest you do “disagree with Soon”.
but intended to write
So, you say you don’t “completely agree with the article” and suggest you don’t “disagree with Soon”.
Sorry.
Richard

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

MarkW

I long for the day when you would recognize science, instead of the mythologies that normally haunt your posts.

timg56

I don’t know ….. and I’m not entirely sure that I want to know
I have no problem believing this of you. Knowledge appears to come in a distant second among your values to tossing out useless comments, lacking any sort of information to back them.

icouldnthelpit

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Richard111

There is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’ in earth’s atmosphere. The closest effect to a ‘greenhouse’ anyone can observe is heavy cloud cover. The cloud can reduce the rate of cooling of the surface because of NET back radiation from the bottom of the cloud layer which is slightly cooler that the surface. If the sun is shining above the cloud everyone can feel it is not warming up below the cloud.
Please post any link to the science that explains how ‘greenhouse gases’ raise the temperature of the earth by 33 degrees.

Konrad.

Richard,
you are correct. There is no net atmospheric radiative GHE raising surface temperatures from 255K by 33K. The net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling. 71% of the surface of our planet is ocean, an extreme UV/SW/IR selective surface. Incident solar radiation alone would drive it to 335K were it not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
But you are only partially correct with this –
“The cloud can reduce the rate of cooling of the surface”
Both water vapour and especially condescended water (cloud, the strongest emitter of LWIR in the atmosphere) can reduce surface cooling rates at night, but only over land. Land only accounts for 21% of our ocean planet’s surface. Some wet vegetated areas of this would experience no measurable effect. And over the oceans? Empirical experiment consistently shows that incident LWIR emitted from the atmosphere has no effect on the cooling rate of the oceans.
How on earth did the inane climastrologists come up with that utterly incorrect 255 K figure for “surface without radiative atmosphere” on our ocean planet? They used the Stefan-Boltzmann equation! It doesn’t work for solar illuminated water. It can not possibly work for 71% of our planets surface!
Seriously, you cannot use the S-B calc for materials that are SW transparent, LWIR opaque that are being intermittently SW illuminated. To claim otherwise you would have to be completely scientifically illiterate or a Climastrologist.
I have checked this with multiple empirical experiments. My claim – “97% of climastrologists are assclowns” is scientifically correct, and unassailable. 😉

Trick

Richard 12:30am – MikeB’s 1:01am link works thru to correct conclusions you asked about based on/traceable to the scientific method as laid out by Dr. Feynman. The ref.s I’ve included below also do so. The 3:33am comment does not demonstrate using the scientific method, has conclusions based only on political science as discussed in top post. Willis’ recent post I’ve added shows that S-B is reasonably applicable to calculate sea surface temperature (SST) from satellite radiometer data because oceans test out both as near black body surface and selective surface as demonstrated by numerous scientific method testing. Comment at 3:33am experiments all corroborate those tests. Top post quote works:
“Oh for the days when we talked about 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
Ref. 3: Willis E.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/21/the-tao-calculated-surface-datasets/

Dodgy Geezer

…As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period….
That’s not how science is done. That’s laying yourself open to being conned. Because science is about scepticism and examining the evidence for an assertion critically…
…As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today. …
That’s not being a good citizen. That’s laying yourself open to being enslaved. Because being a good citizen is about holding governments to account and checking that each government power really is essential and properly administered…

MarkW

He’s demonstrated that he isn’t a great thinker. After 100 years of evidence, anyone who believes that govt is capable of solving the pressing problems of any era, just isn’t paying attention.
Heck, he even believes that “renewables” are capable of supplying more than a trivial fraction of our energy needs.

davidgmills

When governments are owned lock, stock, and barrel by an oligarchy, you can’t very well hold the governments to account unless you can somehow hold the oligarchy to account.

Admad

“Because none of this is about science. It is about controlling the levers of power, making sure the right message is fed through the media channels and that funding for the right issues is uninterrupted.” Unfortunately a great deal of this is actually about hypocrisy, control of the lumpen proletariat and central command and control of resources by the “worthy and wise” (in their view).

davidgmills

I agree with you if the worthy and wise is seen for what it is: an oligarchy.

And this is talking about science?
We would be better to get back to that. Posts about this stuff just make us look silly.

MikeB

The comments here make sceptics look silly

M Courtney

MikeB, The repeated personal moral failings of those who claim the moral high ground on environmentalist grounds… they make the hypocritical greens look silly. But you are right that wrestling with pigs makes anyone dirty.
Still, the post makes a good point.
It is worth noting that Gleick’s forgeries are considered normal practise by the climate science establishment… and that hypocrisy for personal gain (Gore) is accepted and rewarded.
So why are ancient allegations against Soon brought up? Allegations that even Monbiot has had to apologise for. Well, other than the fact that the paper can’t be faulted so the author must be targeted, obviously.
Perhaps because these working practises are so embedded amongst climate “scientists” that they assume everyone else is corrupt too?

Still, the post makes a good point.
It is worth noting that Gleick’s forgeries are considered normal practise by the climate science establishment… and that hypocrisy for personal gain (Gore) is accepted and rewarded.
————————————-
Peter Gleick was the head of the Ethics Committee (and may still be?)
Ethics, lying and stealing are unrelated.
A liar and a thief are the same.

MarkW

How dare anyone disagree with the sacred IPCC, and it’s profit, Al Gore.

Khwarizmi

Why did you tattoo “concern troll” all over your pseudonym?
Don’t they teach you to be more subtle?

Evan Jones

Speaking personally, I find it more effective to simply address the points and move on.

MarkW

It really is sad the way the trolls work so hard to miss the point.
The post is about noble cause corruption. If you had actually read the post, you would know that.

timg56

Some advice my dad passed on to my brothers and I from our grandfather.
“Never give someone reason to call you a liar, a thief or a cheat.” The actions Tom Fuller relates above speak to the lack of integrity of the individuals named and those organizations that fail to speak up. Now Embarrased, integrity may not be important to you. If so, they perhpas this is all silly. I prefer to go with my grandfather’s advice.

Jbird

The bleating of AGW proponents and alarmists has become more insistent and earnest. In the absence of any obvious climate catastrophe, let alone the slightest evidence, I can only conclude that the alarmists understand at some level that are losing the “debate,” such as it has been. The greenhouse theory was always nothing more than a house of cards built upon computer models that were never any match for the infinite variables and their chaotic interactions which make up our climate systems. Mother Nature, herself, is destroying this global warming delusion.

Re: Dr. Soon’s Graphs
Here is Dr. Svalgaard’s contribution to debate
http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
Here is Dr Schmidt (RC) contribution to debate
http://www.realclimate.org/images/soon_update.jpg
I would suggest that all three, however well respected scientists (Soon, Schmidt & Svalgaard) are partially wrong, because:
There is also geomagnetic ‘solar forcing’ with identifiable effect on the Arctic polar vortex.

dccowboy

I thought that GISTEMP does not have actual temperature measurements above 64N, they are all calculated from stations a considerable distance away. If that is the case, I don’t know that you can objectively say that the ‘increasing’ Arctic temps are ‘real’. At the very least any temperature reconstruction should have the error bars clearly displayed.

milodonharlani

Who respects serial adjuster Schmidt?

Vukcevic contribution to debate:
N. Hemisphere climate is under control of polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferral and Hadley).
Since Equatorial temperature changes little, it is the Arctic temperature which moves jet streams latitudinal location.
It is true that the Arctic temperatures are not particularly accurate, but trend along polar circle (where Pollar & Ferral cells meet) is an acceptable representation, in that respect it is correct that Dr. Schmidt draws attention to the Arctic temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF1.gif
Strong correlation between the Arctic temperature anomaly and averaged strength of the geomagnetic field (R2>0.8) is not necessarily proof of causation, but it is stronger than what Dr. Soon proposes, on the other hand Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Svalgaard, pursuing their own different agendas, may wish to discredit.

A ‘little’ matter of mechanism
Solar magnetic activity reaches the Earth’s poles in form of geomagnetic storms. NASA: “a two-hour average sub-storm releases total energy of five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake”
This is in form of the electric current ionising upper layers of the atmosphere, whereby the flow of atmospheric flow is affected by the strength of the magnetic field (Lorentz law). Assuming that the sun varies little over centuries, the Earth’s field (i.e. magnetospheres shielding) is not constant (currently loosing its strength), weaker the magnetic field, stronger the solar incursion, stronger the effect on the climate.
The effect can be clearly seen in the graph above.

Alx

There is obviously a relationship between the Sun and earths climate. To think not, you’d have to be brain dead. There is a relationship between CO2 and our climate, to think not you’d have to be brain dead as well. The problem is there are an enormous amount of factors involved and we do not understand their relationships and importance in the mix.
Predicting climate behavior by fabricating correlations with little understanding of the system as a whole does require certain parts of the brain to go dead. I think it’s the parts related to rationality and common sense.
So the search for the “ONE” climate factor that controls everything, is akin to searching for the holy grail.

rogercaiazza

+10

The Warmists weren’t interested in doing science; they seized upon Anthropogenic Global Warming because it fit their anti-capitalist agenda of ‘global governance’. Control CO2 and you control the world. They’re still working hard at it.
/Mr Lynn

L.E.Joiner hi
I have added the CO2 concentration data to the graph. It is clear that the GMF correlation is greater.

The message I’m taking away from this is that if you are a Global Warming Alarmist you can grope women to your heart’s content and get away with it.
That seems like a pretty good reason for being an Alarmist to me. I think I’ll change sides.

janus

you forgot “sarc” din’tcha!!!

Dodgy Geezer

…That seems like a pretty good reason for being an Alarmist to me. I think I’ll change sides….
There’s a much better one.
If you’re a Global Warming Alarmist people will queue up to give you money and Nobel prizes. And you don’t actually need to deliver anything. Just keep saying that humanity is doomed…

I’ve been saying “we’re doomed” on this site and Jo Nova for several years. When do I get the money and the Nobel prize?

Harry Passfield

Great modding! This is an article by Tom Fuller – a not very good one – and it is immediately hijacked by Bevan and turned into a rehash of all the arguments for/agin Soon that have been rehearsed ad-nauseum on other threads. I bet Bevan is feeling very smug.
However, back to Fuller. He says: “As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period” What warming period? Don’t you mean the last (20c) warming period?.
Then: “As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today.” Well, of course you do, Tom. That’s what Liberals do: seek control. Especially when such control will benefit your personal welfare, derived as it is from solar. And, of course, it’s not enough that you accept control from elected government, you’re happy to accept control from unelected NGOs. How does that sit with your conscience?
If Tom Fuller was to use the God-given intelligence he had he wouldn’t spout such claptrap.

Evan Jones

I am in many ways a liberal progressive. Does that invalidate my work on surface stations? Does my conscience enter into this? Don’t worry; I’ll tend to that.
God, I’m sounding more like Mosh every day.

Harry Passfield

Evan: You being a ‘liberal progressive in many ways’, does that mean you believe in “…[supporting] large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today.” as Fuller says he does? And if you you do, does that inform your work? I would not have thought so based on what I have read of your comments at WUWT.

Billy Liar

I hope it’s not infectious!
/sarc

David A

Sir, you have never in my experience sounded remotely like Mosh. You have not, to my awareness regularly insulted the entire skeptical community with straw man statements, then refused to engage in rational discussion when called out on the illogic of your statements. I believe you pointed out that the homogenization process apparently adjusts the good stations to the bad.
What do you think of what homogenization did to the Iceland stations?

Alx

I don’t know if Bevan is capable of feeling smug. Does a fly feel smug flying from one pile of crap to another while spreading disease? Those that need filth to survive are what they are, but no matter, that’s why we have fly swatters.

davidgmills

Liberals seek control? Oligarchies actually get it. And most of them are not liberals.

sleepingbear dunes

When I saw the egregious behavior of some of the scientists in Climategate as well the Animal House food fights that go on constantly in the blogosphere, the dynamics told me that the sciene was only secondary and it had become protection of a belief system.

Evan Jones

They paid for their folly — in the coin they valued most. I wouldn’t trade places with any of them for all the grants in Vicksburg.

Leo Smith

…As a Lukewarmer I cheerfully accept the science explaining how our high emissions of CO2 have contributed to the current warming period….
Supposing I could give you a mathematical proof that climate problems are of such an order of chaotic complexity that the last thing that can be said is that they have an external cause?
“As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today. ”
Supposing I could give you a mathematical proof that social problems are of such an order of chaotic complexity that the last thing that will work is large scale government intervention?
In short your no doubt admirable intentions and impeccable logic are based on two fundamentally flawed assumptions:
– that climate change is caused by an external influence rather than just being ‘what climate does, anyway, all by itself’.
– that the problems of society at large can be solved by channelling huge amounts of money not through the decision making processes of the individual whose problems you are trying to solve, but through a vast bureaucracy controlled by a de facto elite who are not necessarily acting in anyone’s interests but their own, don’t necessarily listen to the real problems of the individual, and even if they do, don’t understand enough about the actual situation to make any difference at all?
You seem a decent enough chap: Consider this. The purpose of what we mildly libertarian chaps here call ‘cultural Marxism’ is to place beyond question the fundamental proposition that big government is the answer to everything. You have swallowed that line.
I have not.
But then I trained as an engineer and the control of large complex dynamic systems is something engineers have to deal with on a daily basis, and I know that the only way even a mildly complicated mechanism like – say – an aircraft – works, is by having many many systems of localised command and control. So that in the end, central government – the pilot – really only makes a few top level decisions like where the damned thing is going to land.
Now if you had asked me, or any other engineer, what to ‘do about climate change’, and we had gone away and analysed it, the answers would have been as follows.
1/. Climate change is endemic to the climate system, and is beyond our control.,
2/. Carbon emissions probably have very little effect on climate, and are unstoppable at a practical political level short of nuking the whole of India and China anyway.
3/. If you want the most cost effective way of reducing them in the west, a 100% nuclear powered society is way the best and cheapest option.
4/. Renewable energy so called is an engineering cul-de-sac because it relies on so much non-renewable energy to make it work.
5/. Ergo, in terms of energy generation the most effective central government response would be to tear up the stifling regulations on nuclear power and start again, allowing nuclear plant to be built cheaply, efficiently and safely.
6/. Insofar as climate change goes, the real science suggest that natural variation of ± 2°C is to be expected from within the dynamics of the system itself, and that ice ages of considerable depth and length are also well documented. Within the smaller variation the policy objectives are simple. Have some contingency funds in place to deal with the short term effects but don’t waste time trying to control the climate. It can’t be done (yet) and the possibility of making things much worse if you try – or simply wasting a huge amount of money and achieving nothing are considerable. If the ice age cometh, all bets are off anyway, and as far as the West is concerned, its genocide on the races inhabiting the warmer places, cultural suicide, or massive deployment of nuclear power to keep civilisation going in (under?) permafrost and ice capped regions.
The above are the rational scientific responses to climate change the scare story.
If people who really know are essentially promoting faux remedies to a non-existent problem, that doesn’t mean that the problem is real. It means they have other agendas than the solution of the non existent problems.

I hear there is a job open at the IPCC …

I do not believe that new job opening is available to one who supports a rational scientific response to climate change.
/grin

Thank you Leo for the only comment in this entire post really worth reading.

MikeB

Why don’t you just give us a mathematical proof Leo?
The fact that problems are complex or chaotic doesn’t mean that you have turn your brain off. The movement of gas molecules in your lungs , their direction, momentum, collisions are beyond calculation. But, when your diaphragm raises you will breath out. I can predict that. Similarly, if the Sun’s intensity were to double, the temperature here would increase. I can predict that in spite of the climate system being chaotic.
….and, if CO2 concentrations increase, the surface temperature of this planet will increase, because that is simple science and the fact that you don’t understand it will not change it.

Alx

You can predict a living person breathing? Wow that’s impressive. Can you forecast what happens to a dead person breathing too? Careful now, consider your answer, we have machines that can keep a persons lungs breathing well after they are dead.
No one is turning their brain off except for those fixated on CO2 being the one singular lever that affects climate and humanity is the one singular variable that affects CO2 concentrations.
CO2 concentrations have increased but the warming is no where close to the relationship projected. Where have you been the last 20 years or so?

Solomon Green

MikeB
“…if CO2 concentrations increase, the surface temperature of this planet will increase, because that is simple science….”
True, but only if we assume that all other factors remain unchanged. An assumption that, so far, no simple, or even complicated, science has managed to validate.

milodonharlani

Mike,
You wrote, “(I)f CO2 concentrations increase, the surface temperature of this planet will increase, because that is simple science and the fact that you don’t understand it will not change it.”
But the science isn’t simple. Your assertion has already been repeatedly shown false. CO2 rose from 1945 to 1977 & the world cooled. It rose from 1978 to 1996 & the world did indeed warm slightly. But then it kept rising from 1997 until now, as global temperature stayed the same or slightly cooled.
The science isn’t simple because our planet is homeostatic. CO2 doesn’t rise in a vacuum. Earth responds. Besides which, humans also do things that have the effect of cooling the planet, although both our warming & cooling activities have negligible effect worldwide, although more pronounced locally.

MikeB

Alx,
Are you a sceptic because of your lack of reading comprehension skills? Or do you think it’s some other reason?

Eustace Cranch

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
-2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report

Alberta Slim

@MikeB…
NOW… let us get to some facts about the atmosphere and Carbon Dioxide [CO2].
The atmosphere is: [approximately] 78% Nitrogen; 21% Oxygen; 0.04% CO2 and the rest made up of other trace gasses. Water Vapour varies from 1% to 4%
Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere = 0.04% which = 0.0004 of the atmosphere.
Man-made CO2 is 3% of that which = 0.0004×0.03 = 0.000012.
Burning fossil fuels is about 50% of that.
Therefore The amount of man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels is about 0.000006 of the atmosphere.
It is absurd to think that this miniscule amount of CO2 can control climate.

Janice Moore

Re: “… if CO2 concentrations increase, the surface temperature of this planet will increase… .”
Science does NOT say that. There is NO evidence that CO2 emissions drive climate. None.
Dr. Christopher Essex, Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate,
World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair,
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario (Canada)
in London, 12 February 2015
presents the actually state of the physics concisely and clearly here {WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO — I did and it is well worth it}:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/
{video linked in above WUWT article and also here on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY }
7 Key “Impossible Things” Points (listed at ~ 1:07:06 in the video} in Video with approx. times:
{25:17} 1. Solving the closure problem. {i.e., the “basic physic” equations have not even been SOLVED yet, e.g., the flow of fluids equation “Navier-Stokes Equations” — we still can’t even figure out what the flow of water in a PIPE would be if there were any turbulence}
{30:20} 2. a. Computers with infinite representation. {gross overestimation and far, far, misplaced confidence in the ability of computers to do math accurately (esp. over many iterations) — in this section he discuss the 100 km square gaps {specifically mentioned at about 46:00} (i.e., cell size) — e.g., to analyze air movement, the cell would need to be, per Komogorov microscale, 1mm (aersols even smaller, microns)) — in climate data,
at about 44:00 His discusses the fact that even IF the basic equations were known, there isn’t enough time since time began to calculate even just a TEN – year forecast, even at super-fast speeds it would take approx. 10 to the 20th power years (the universe is only 10 to the 10th power years old)}
2. b. Computer water and cultural physics {also in Intro through ~14:50}.
{19:40} 3. Greenhouses that don’t work by the greenhouse effect.
{14:50} 4. Carbon-free sugar.
{15:40} 5. Oxygen-free carbon dioxide.
{passim} 6. Nonexistent long-term natural variability.
{49:00} 7. Nonempirical climate models that conserve what they are supposed to conserve {that is, they do not do this}.
**********************************************************
Further, Dr. Murry Salby and others have good evidence from ice core proxies that strongly indicates that temperature drives CO2 emissions, not the other way around.
Dr. Salby, Hamburg lecture, April, 2013 (youtube)

timg56

MikeB,
Sometimes when you attempt to simplify complex issues all you achieve is painting yourself as a simpleton.
Congrat’s, you just managed that.

VicV

Ditto what Roy said. Clearly the wisest post so far — perhaps the vortex of the thread.

“The above are the rational scientific responses to climate change the scare story”
Whoa! We can’t be having any of that now, can we?
/grin
“3/. If you want the most cost effective way of reducing them in the west, a 100% nuclear powered society is way the best and cheapest option.”
Probably a good idea anyway. I mean, really, isn’t this the 21st Century? Why not act like it is?

Alberta Slim

Well said. Thanks

Alberta Slim

That was for Leo Smith BTW.

He, he –
I knew you weren’t addressing me.
And, FWIW, I agree, Leo’s post is praiseworthy.

davidgmills

You have an erroneous idea about what a liberal progressive is. I am one. I am just as concerned about a big government as you are. It is just that we disagree as to why. My concern is that big governments are run by an a oligopoly who has bought the government lock, stock and barrel. The politicians are just their puppets. It is foolhardy to blame the puppets when we should be blaming the puppeteers.

Dodgy Geezer

…Carbon emissions probably have very little effect on climate, and are unstoppable at a practical political level short of nuking the whole of India and China anyway….
Er…nuking the whole of India and China (and probably much of the rest of Asia, Europe, and the Americas) would result in a HUGE carbon pulse, and lots of extra heat.
Besides, NASA satellites show major carbon outflows coming from the rain forest, so you’d better nuke that as well…

Nuke ’em all,
you know,
just to be sure.

Mark Bofill

effin-A! 😉

Jim Francisco

Let’s save Australia. Don’t want to hurt no kangeroos.

timg56

Let’s drop the big one now. Boom goes London, Boom Paree. More room for you and more room for me.
We’ll spare Australia. Don’t want to hurt no kangoroo. (Can’t remember how the rest of the song goes.)

Dodgy Geezer

…As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today….
…When a political cause gains traction among those in power, a curious thing happens. Conventional ideas about right and wrong slip in priority and winning becomes so important that criminal activity and sexual impropriety become forgivable…
So, let me get this straight. You believe whole-heartedly in big government addressing big problems. But you also believe that when big government gets involved, it becomes criminal and oppressive?
Hello, Liberal. Welcome to the Libertarian viewpoint. I think you now have two choices. You can either move to the right-wing, or you can argue that the ends justify the means, and adopt National Socialism….

Alx

Moving to the right wing is not a libertarian point of view. The right wing increases the scope and power of the federal government just as willy-nilly as the left does, mostly in the same areas with some differences in order to give people an excuse to keep voting.
The two party system sells the same snake-oil with different labeling and flavors. The federal government is a runaway bureaucracy, neither party is interested in fixing that, since that would mean diminishing their power.

Chris

If the right wing is the way to go, then why have Federal deficits been worse under Republican Presidents than Democratic?

milodonharlani

FDR ran deficits, Truman ran deficits (but also surpluses with a GOP Congress & rapid defense cuts), Ike had surpluses with GOP Congresses but not with Democrat, JFK ran deficits, LBJ ran deficits, Nixon had just one surplus, thanks to Democrat Congresses, Ford ran deficits under Democrat Congresses, Carter ran deficits, Reagan ran deficits, thanks to his budgets’ being declared “DoA” by Tip, Clinton ran deficits until the GOP took control of Congress & Bush ran deficits, under mixed Congressional control. Despite precipitously pulling out of Iraq, Obama will have doubled in eight years or less the national debt accumulated by all previous presidents, even with the bank bailout of 2008.

milodonharlani

Not to mention the cap gains tax windfall thanks to the DotCom Bubble of the late ´90s.

Both parties play the same game. But…have you looked to see who controlled the Congress when these great society bills were passed?

timg56

Don’t confuse Chris with facts. You might embarrass him for making it clear he skipped (or failed) civics.

Chris

timg56 – nice fact-free, drive by comment.
Here’s a civic lesson for you – the budget process starts with the President introducing a Budget request to the House, not vice versa: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155
Here is the impact of the deficit by Presidency: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
My point stands, feel free to challenge it, but please provide data sources.

Tsk Tsk

Because no one can hold a candle to what the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave. has done.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/
The truly scary part is imagine what would have happened if the socialists, er, Democrats, had retained total control of government like they had his first two years.

David A

Chris, I noticed you skipped several posts that directly countered your assertion, and ONLY responded to the one gratuitous insult.
I would add that republican politicians have often not represented conservative ideals. (Defining conservative as a belief in small and less intrusive government, as well as the American ideal of protection of individual liberty against any “group power”.)
When you start out extremely conservative, the only compromise is to more statist solutions. To the great harm of the ideals of the Untied States of America, the compromise has now, with the current POTUS, fundamentally transformed the greatest nation on earth. The only question is will the people wake up to the massive coming failures of central statist control, after they have seen the results of such folly and will there be enough of the Constitution left to initiate a recovery.

davidgmills

As a liberal progressive let me say what I think he means. I support the concept of a strong central government but not when the actual central government is owned and run by an oligarchy. Not when the politicians are puppeteers of their puppet masters in the oligarchy.

Tom
It was never about the “science”, even from the outset

Evan Jones

Science will out, regardless.

MikeB

I used to argue for that Evan, but now I’m not so sure. If science triumphs it will take centuries, as always. The issue has become so polarised with so many interests invested in this billion dollar bandwagon that, for now, politics dominate.
As Max Planck said….

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Science advances one funeral at a time.

I see that Roger Pielke is now under investigation for his views by the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. McCarthyism lives on.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/2/25/why-you-cant-trust-climatology.html

Greg Woods

Reality will out, regardless, but what damage will have been done in the meantime?

MarkW

First off, history has proven that McCarthy was right.
Secondly, I love the way that you pretend that any investigation of those you agree with is equivalent to a witch hunt.

Alx

The Sun plays an important part in our climate, who knew?
Both sides of the debate take money from fossil fuel, who knew?
Character assassination works, who knew?
The best mechanism to spread mis-information is the media, who knew?
The AGW movement easily manipulates the media, because the media is stupid, who knew?
Alarmist only have their stupidest be the first comment on WUWT articles, who knew?
Pachauri’s is morally bankrupt, who knew?
Pachauri’s and Gore have made fortunes off of the AGW hype, who knew?
Climate science wavers between poor science and anti-science, who knew?
Anyone paying attention knows.
Anyone enamored by the toxic stench coming from the morally bankrupt, heavily financed AGW industrial noise machine, not so much.

DD More

Alx, your item – “Both sides of the debate take money from fossil fuel, who knew?
If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

From – http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
You, and most all of us, have been programmed for 80 years to fall for the Good Group/Bad Group thinking. The Green Blob are not really good and want to either kill or put us back in caves. Just look at their ‘optimum population’ estimates.
The PC origins is an eye-opening historical account.

Eustace Cranch

1. I don’t believe there’s a “problem” with climate that needs “solving”.
2. Making energy more expensive and less available is no “solution” to anything.
3. Government pretends to have “solutions” all the time. Name anything in the last 150 years that government has actually “solved”. (Military action doesn’t count)

Alberta Slim

Correct……….I agree.

timg56

Let’s see:
1) War on poverty – nope, not a good example.
2) War on drugs – uh, never mind.
3) War on cardio-vascular disease – that one’s looking like a loser as well.
I might put up Rural Electrification and Interstate Hwy system.

davidgmills

Going to the moon. Nuclear power.

Gentle Tramp

A very good and just essay – Thank you!
Indeed, the ruling double standards of the MSM and the Greens are really sad and should be condemned more openly…
So, why don’t we see such little interest of discussing the alleged “Pachauri” case in the MSM and the warmists blogosphere?
And, why does e.g. nobody ask, why alarmist scientists like Rahmsdorf or Schnellnhuber are allowed to take money from insurance companies which will benefit from the extreme weather panic they propagate? See e.g. here:
http://www.klimaskeptiker.info/index.php?seite=rahmstorf.php
And so on, and so forth… – Hypocrisy is ruling the green movement!
So stop to smear others and mend your own ways first…

Gentle Tramp

Sorry, it should read “So, why do we see such little interest of discussing…”

We libertarians have an answer for “levers of power”. Fewer of them.

davidgmills

What is the libertarian answer to the consolidation of private power when the government is powerless to stop it?

Gamecock

“Climate change is real.”
Tell us Mr. Fuller which climate on earth has changed in the last 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
“Climate change” is a reification fallacy, a nonsense marketing phrase.

Dodgy Geezer

@Alx
…”Moving to the right wing is not a libertarian point of view. The right wing increases the scope and power of the federal government just as willy-nilly as the left does..”
I don’t know which right wing you’re talking about. Perhaps the mistaken view of the right wing which the Left have tried to present for ages? In all political theory I know, the right wing look for ‘small government’…

So they say. But look who supports Prohibition. Definitely a big government policy.

Tsk Tsk

So does the Left. They just want to ban different substances, i.e. tobacco, vaped nicotine, sugar, GMO’s…

Stephen Richards

Tom you poor deluded creature. I feel really sorry for you.

OK S.

As a liberal progressive I support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today.

Thieves are always ready to spend other people’s money. Money that people earned for themselves to buy for themselves.

Mark Bofill

Tom Fuller,
Good essay, nice work. Thanks.

Ron Clutz

So warmists, no longer controlling the Senate with votes, now are intimidating potential witnesses having facts contrary to Global Warming Alarm. That would be witness tampering in a criminal proceeding, but apparently fair game in politics. We can only hope that the other side is as diligent in discovering the extent of environmental activist money funding alarmist research.
Still, anyone deciding to testify in the upcoming Senate hearing better be ready for the hard questions (echoes of the past):
“Are you confused between weather and climate change?”
“Do you accept the writings of the UN IPCC as the scientific truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that believes CO2 is only a harmless trace gas and is essential to plant life?”
“Why is your carbon footprint so large?”
How long have you been taking money from fossil fuel companies?
“Do you advocate the overthrow of the United States Climate by force or violence?”

Alberta Slim

You have that right. Good one.

MarkW

Speaking of noble cause corruption, the belief that renewable energy is capable of being part of our power generation mix comes in right at the top.

Walt D.

WUWT produces a lot of posts showing that the Climate Models are wrong. However, I think Christopher Essex’s video is a lot more damming. He provides an explanation of not only why the computer Climate Models are wrong, but also why they can NEVER be right. The models are not only broken, but they CAN NOT be fixed. This is why we are seeing all the puerile ad-hominem attacks.

Mark Bofill

hmm.
At least a few comments on Tom’s politics make me want to clarify my position.
I’m right of center and conservative, and I don’t think the government does much of anything well. I most certainly do not agree with Tom here: support large-scale (government and NGO) efforts to address the pressing problems of today. Mostly I wish the government would stay the heck out of it.
This wasn’t his point. He was openly stating his political views so that there be no misunderstanding of where he was coming from, that’s all he was doing there. Indeed, by highlighting that he’s from the left, he demonstrates that political differences need not trump integrity.
It’s hard to argue with that, in my view.
As always, just my two cents.

timg56

Agree.
One doesn’t have to agree with him on certain issues to recognize Tom is an honest participant. Unlike some other clowns we won’t name.

JD Ohio

I wouldn’t call it noble cause corruption. I would simply call it cause corruption. In some cases I would call it just plain corruption.
JD