John Kerry: Secretary of Mis-State?

kerry_muslimsGuest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The Washington Examiner headline says, “John Kerry calls climate change deniers members of ‘Flat Earth Society’.” It typifies all reports about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s head-on attack on scientists trying to practice properly skeptical science. I challenge John Kerry to produce a single person who studies climate who denies climate change. Apparently everybody, except John Kerry, knows that climate changes all the time, it always has and it always will.

In statements made to support his political agenda, Kerry manages to perpetuate a series of errors, myths and slurs. One is the claim Al Gore made before the US Senate in 2007 that the “science is settled” and the “debate is over.” Kerry said,

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”

Kerry displays further ignorance by marginalizing those who question the science.

“We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

These are frightening words and a disturbingly narrow position from one of the most powerful statesmen and diplomats, in the world. In the land of “free speech,” he believes no venue should be allowed, and thus people denied their free speech rights. Whatever happened to Voltaire’s view that I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? Apparently this is too liberal for this liberal. It confirms George Will’s trenchant observation that,

“When a politician says, “the debate is over,” you can be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it.”

He clearly doesn’t know the history of science that determined centuries ago that science is never settled. As Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) wrote,

Another error is a conceit that the best has still prevailed and suppressed the rest: so as, if a man should begin the labor of a new search, he were but like to light upon somewhat formerly rejected, and by rejection brought into oblivion; as if the multitude, or the wisest for the multitude’s sake, were not ready to give passage rather to that which is popular and superficial, than to that which is substantial and profound: for the truth is, that time seemeth to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up, and sinketh and drowneth that which is weighty and solid.

By participating in the denigration of scientists who dare to practice the scientific method Kerry displays more ignorance and a purely political motive. He calls them climate change deniers, with all the holocaust denial connotations of that phrase.

The scientific method requires that all scientists are skeptics, so it was a correct designation. Kerry clearly doesn’t understand that, but knew the term achieved the marginalizing of those who opposed him.

Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the University of East Anglia hired to create and prove the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis knew they had a problem. Thomas Huxley identified it over a century earlier.

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

The ugly fact developed after 1998 when CO2 levels continued to increase as temperature stopped increasing, in contradiction to their major assumption. We learned, from an email leaked from the CRU (IPCC), that it prompted reaction from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the UEA campus that said,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

To which Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

Proper science requires they consider the null hypothesis that something, other than human CO2, is causing warming. Instead, they opted to defend the political objective, and the mantra shifted from global warming to climate change. At the same time, they raised the emotional stakes by saying some scientists moved from questioning to denying.

Thanks to the work of the “flat-earthers” who Kerry scorns, people began to learn that climate change is normal. Increasingly cold winters reinforced their doubts and prompted another shift begun by President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. He recommended the switch from climate change to climate disruptions. In 2014, the White House formalized the idea with the 840 pages, “National Climate Assessment.

CBS News explained the transition in an article titled,

Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming.”

Climate change’s assorted harms “are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond,” the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase “climate disruption” as another way of saying global warming.

Kerry is behind the times using climate change and “flat earthers” as epithets. Get with the program John. I suggest you call me a ‘climate disruption disrupter’ because I still know the science does not support the political agenda?

John Kerry is the third most powerful cabinet member and the most powerful statesman and diplomat in the most powerful country in the world. His words and actions on climate and attacks on some scientists are ignorant and shameful. He uses personal insults because he doesn’t understand the science. Worse, he denies scientists free speech, the primary tenet of the US Constitution to which he swore an oath of allegiance.

It is our duty as skeptics/deniers/disrupters to practice T.H Huxley’s creed;

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
389 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Mangan
March 15, 2015 7:24 am

Disrupters. Heh. I really like that word.

gbaikie
Reply to  Mike Mangan
March 15, 2015 8:32 pm

The Federation used photon torpedoes, and the Klingons used disruptors
as major weapon.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  gbaikie
March 16, 2015 9:17 am

Dirsuptors were also used by the Romulan empire, and are more akin to phasers than torpedos.

March 15, 2015 7:26 am

“Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere.”
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm

mebbe
Reply to  Slywolfe
March 15, 2015 8:14 am

Exactly!
Very little was made of this comment at the time.
This statement also reveals his utter ignorance of biology as well; it doesn’t occur to him that the grass in his lawn is not 20 km tall, so as to reach the CO2.

George Lawson
Reply to  mebbe
March 15, 2015 12:38 pm

All or most politicians know just a little about a lot of subjects. They are basically ignorant of and incapable of understanding complex matters, and resort to spouting information from other so called ‘experts’ no matter whether those experts are correct or not They cannot think for themselves, but are usually good orators, and are able to convince a gullible public that they are right, no matter how stupid their pronouncements, as in Kerry’s case. He and Gore make good partners in the specialised subject of idiocracy. .

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  mebbe
March 15, 2015 2:17 pm

20km high grass, hahahahaha.
Kerry is of course a fellow “Bonesman” of Pappa & Dubya Bush, and also a blood relation, and he will say just whatever Don Herberto tells him to say, so that the Cabal can make the most cash out of his pontifications. Kerry is a mere shill for the “organisation”. His empty words a mere echo of past aspirations by the has-been Bush Cabal.

TYoke
Reply to  mebbe
March 15, 2015 2:18 pm

George, You have noted that “They cannot think for themselves” and there is the irony. Those with certainty but no understanding wish to deny the rest of us the right to think for ourselves.

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  mebbe
March 15, 2015 2:22 pm

Bush & Kerry – Two Bonesmen with the same agenda

latecommer2014
Reply to  mebbe
March 15, 2015 7:59 pm

She was an arrogant young bastard in Vietnam Nam, and has progressed to being an arrogant old bastard today

Reply to  Slywolfe
March 15, 2015 8:36 am

Kerry must be talking about the firmament. And he dares call us flat earthers.
Idiot.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 9:04 am

Once again, a prominent public figured demonstrated an absolute ignorance of the topic at hand. And how can Kerry get away with this? Because the press/media is just as ignorant. I swear, the whole thing has become a circus of junior high school personalities vying for affirmation from each other. Idiots reporting on idiots, and revering each other as royalty.

Johanus
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 9:14 am

Here is a popular rendering of some goofy guy peeking through the “firmament” (where Earth meets Sky):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Flammarion.jpg
This engraving of the firmament is familiar to most who probably think it dates back to medieval times. In fact, it is an illustration from Camille Flammarion’s 1888 book on ‘popular meteorlogy’, and was probably etched by Flammarion himself.

Whether the sky be clear or cloudy, it always seems to us to have the shape of an elliptic arch; far from having the form of a circular arch, it always seems flattened and depressed above our heads, and gradually to become farther removed toward the horizon. Our ancestors imagined that this blue vault was really what the eye would lead them to believe it to be; but, as Voltaire remarks, this is about as reasonable as if a silk-worm took his web for the limits of the universe. The Greek astronomers represented it as formed of a solid crystal substance; and so recently as Copernicus, a large number of astronomers thought it was as solid as plate-glass. The Latin poets placed the divinities of Olympus and the stately mythological court upon this vault, above the planets and the fixed stars. Previous to the knowledge that the earth was moving in space, and that space is everywhere, theologians had installed the Trinity in the empyrean, the glorified body of Jesus, that of the Virgin Mary, the angelic hierarchy, the saints, and all the heavenly host…. A naïve missionary of the Middle Ages even tells us that, in one of his voyages in search of the terrestrial paradise, he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met, and that he discovered a certain point where they were not joined together, and where, by stooping his shoulders, he passed under the roof of the heavens…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 9:48 am

Johanus March 15, 2015 at 9:14 am
I think your illustration refers to ” the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night”

Johanus
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 10:40 am

@Simon M
Well, perhaps Alan Ginsburg (whose poetry you are quoting) would think of Kerry as an ‘angelheaded hipster’. However, the words in the blockquote above are Flammarion’s, who created the drawing and placed it in his book on ‘meteorology’.

highflight56433
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 11:15 am

Yep…The idiots are those glazed over ignorant sheeple who elect and re-elect the tyrannic anti freedom socialists. How to catch a pig: feed the masses cookies; while they villainize opponents, divide, incite hate, bla bla bla… History repeats. We can challenge these Kerry types with truth; but there is no leverage or muscle to enforce your goals to enlighten. The king makers are mainstream media whose agenda matches their idealism and greed for power…over you….period.

Reply to  Slywolfe
March 15, 2015 10:58 am

Wow! it’s even worse when you read the rest of that quote from his speech. This is the first I heard/read this quote. Thanks MSM for not picking this up. (It’s worse than Al Gore’s millions of degrees quote):
“Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.
This is what’s causing climate change. It’s a huge irony that the very same layer of gases that has made life possible on Earth from the beginning now makes possible the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen.”

Ian W
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 15, 2015 12:48 pm

What was needed in response to this was a fit of giggles turning into hysterical laughter then the Chairman telling Kerry that he was displaying abject ignorance and perhaps he should sack his advisors. But in light of his ignorance proceeding with his evidence would be a nugatory exercise for the committee.

AB
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 15, 2015 2:10 pm

Kerry quite frankly is a far bigger threat to civilization than global warming could ever be. Some time ago I took a screencap of that idiotic statement in case it “disappeared.”

Ben
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 15, 2015 5:57 pm

WOW!!! Kerry is TRULY AN IDIOT WITHOUT RIVAL!!! He makes Dumb and Dumber look positively enlightened, bordering on the level of utter genii. Suddenly, films like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes take on an air of virtual, “scientific” truth. Witches flying on brooms, fairies at the end of the garden, and gnomes and goblins all rise up in applause!

Gary Hladik
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 15, 2015 10:33 pm

I have no use for Kerry, but reading the quote above, I had to say “Kudos!” when he called it “the so-called greenhouse effect.” Ignorant though he is, I figured he at least recognized that actual greenhouses work differently than the earth’s atmosphere. Of course, then he had to say “It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.”
AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!

Chris Wright
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 16, 2015 3:24 am

“It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.”
He couldn’t even get that right.
Greenhouses don’t work by trapping radiation. They work by trapping the warm air.
It is rather appropriate that the name of AGW is based on wrong science.
Chris

Chris
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 16, 2015 6:33 am

“He couldn’t even get that right. Greenhouses don’t work by trapping radiation. They work by trapping the warm air.”
Greenhouses DO work in part by trapping radiation. The roof surface blocks the outbound long wave radiation: http://www.gardenbuildingsdirect.co.uk/blog/greenhouse-work/

mkelly
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 16, 2015 12:59 pm

For Chris:
“Traditionally a greenhouse is made up of either plastic or glass with the purpose of trapping as much sun light and therefore heat as possible within the building. The plants and soil then absorb the sunlight and reflect it back out.
Sunlight is composed of shortwave infrared radiation, but as the solar energy is reflected back outwards after absorption by the plants and soil it is altered in to long wave infrared radiation which cannot pass through the greenhouse exterior.”
From your link.
++++++++
If this is your evidence about the “greenhouse effect” and the trapping radiation please think again.
There are several things wrong with this explanation. In general infrared can go through plastic, reflection does not happen after absorption, and sunlight is composed of a spectrum of frequencies not shortwave infrared radiation.

Reply to  Slywolfe
March 15, 2015 11:40 am

a back of the envelop calculation shows that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would at the surface form a layer of gas 3 meters deep, of which at most 1 meter of this is due to human industrial activity since 1750.
In contrast, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would at the surface form a layer of gas 31 meters deep.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  ferdberple
March 15, 2015 2:43 pm

That would be Dobson units, usually employed in ozone hole images, probably what Kerry (who served in Vietnam, as Rush would add) was conflating with CO2.
Is there anyone here who wouldn’t have liked to be in that audience with his hand up to ask a question or two?

Santa Baby
Reply to  Slywolfe
March 16, 2015 10:29 pm

If you picture the atmosphere as a sports arena with 10.000 seats. Then CO2 will take up 4 of these seats. Water vapour will take up 100 seats. CO2 and water vapour absorb in the same band so those bands should be saturated?

Johanus
March 15, 2015 7:35 am

You might be accused of “cherry picking” the goofy looking Kerry image above. But if you do an unbiased search of all Kerry images, it is not easy to find images where he does not look goofy:
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+kerry&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Y5cFVaiXHpLbsASspYKIBw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1600&bih=706

jim hogg
Reply to  Johanus
March 15, 2015 7:45 am

And a “goofy” appearance tells us what exactly? Especially given that goofiness is in the eye of the beholder. The essay points out the inappropriateness of ad hominems . . why resort to the same?

Johanus
Reply to  jim hogg
March 15, 2015 8:05 am

“And a “goofy” appearance tells us what exactly?”
If goofiness is in the eye of the beholder, then let each viewer decide for himself. I was merely pointing out that the image could have been chosen at random and would likely still look ‘goofy’.
‘Goofy’ is how I would describe a person who thinks ‘climate change’ is a bigger problem than ‘Muslim extremism’, or who thinks climate skeptics believe the Earth is flat.

RH
Reply to  jim hogg
March 15, 2015 8:10 am

Mocking ones adversaries marginalizes them and reduces their impact, so that’s a good reason to do it. It can also be fun when done to an elitist buffoon like Kerry.

BFL
Reply to  jim hogg
March 15, 2015 9:43 am

I like this one; the climate GodFather coming to get those evil den**r’s. Appropriate legislation next??
http://jcourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JOHN-KERRY.jpg

Wun Hung Lo
Reply to  jim hogg
March 16, 2015 5:51 am
PiperPaul
Reply to  Johanus
March 15, 2015 7:58 am

Why the long face, Secretariat of State?

Reply to  PiperPaul
March 15, 2015 9:51 am

Jimbo
March 15, 2015 at 9:39 am
John Kerry talking to a pair of voters.

Looks like at least two pair to me.

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
March 15, 2015 9:39 am
MCourtney
Reply to  Jimbo
March 15, 2015 10:16 am

So Jimbo,
From the above picture it appears you are saying that the Secretary of State is a man of discernment.

Reply to  Johanus
March 15, 2015 11:25 am

Am I the only person who is offended that you would make such a comparison and insult Goofy?

tgmccoy
Reply to  JohnWho
March 16, 2015 7:47 am

Gee , I see five Boobs in that picture….

Reply to  Johanus
March 15, 2015 1:07 pm

Goofy picture? Nah – he’s just demonstrating how he counts to ten.

Santa Baby
Reply to  Johanus
March 16, 2015 10:39 pm

The picture of Kerry show a serial man? Dead serial?

Bloke down the pub
March 15, 2015 7:41 am

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”
Hmm, ‘I agree with Nick’. Now where have I heard that before?

MCourtney
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 15, 2015 10:15 am

Yes, I had to check the dates.
It precedes the last UK General Election so it is a coincidence.
There may be something about the rhythm of the words that makes the phrase appealing as a means of implying that this is a common belief.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 15, 2015 10:36 am

define “climate change”
since when does science use a label that has no agreed definition?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  ferdberple
March 15, 2015 2:15 pm

If England became an arid hot desert climate, I’d say “Yeah, that there’s some kinda climate change!” But for the annual mean temps to climb 1.4 C per century and get a little less or a little more rain, that don’t make it “climate change.” When London starts looking like Lisbon, let me know.

March 15, 2015 7:45 am

In an age where sensitivity to others is paramount it is surprising how often the administration (no less) ridicules, belittles, insults, and attacks CAGW skeptics. Right now Obama’s OFA, Organizing For Action, is running an email contest about voting on the biggest “climate denier”. Emailed recipients are invited to vote on a slate of Republican Senators and Congressman.
It’s thoroughly insulting. “Denier” has awful connotations. The term is intimately connected as a label for revisionist history that denies the holocaust happened.
Climate Skeptics don’t “deny” the past. We deny the models are skillful at modeling the future. Call us climate model deniers, if they must. But “climate deniers” is as nonsensical as it is insulting.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  willybamboo
March 15, 2015 11:46 am

The President of the United States and his Secretary of State should try to represent ALL citizens of the USA. But with their insulting and discriminatory crusade against all people who are skeptical about the still unproven claim of a imminent Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), they both do abuse and libel a significant part of all US citizens, whose rights of freedom of opinion they should actually defend!
CONSEQUENTLY, PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY DO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES FOR THEIR POLITICAL DUTY !!!

BobM
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
March 15, 2015 2:20 pm

Actually, all they DO is their POLITICAL duty. They disqualify themselves from their SWORN duty.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
March 15, 2015 2:38 pm

@BobM
OK, I agree your phrasing of Obama’s and Kerry’s self-disqualification is more accurate…

March 15, 2015 7:46 am

“We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

Apparently Kerry didn’t have time to check Flat Earth Society President Daniel Shenton’s thoughts about the topic either. Too funny.

Jimbo
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
March 15, 2015 9:22 am

Thanks jaakkokateenkorva. I read from your link.

But the Flat Earth Society is a real group, and its president says he believes climate change is real. He also doesn’t like being used as an example of backward thinking on the issue.
“For what it’s worth, the Flat Earth Society doesn’t have an ‘official’ position on climate change. That falls a bit outside our remit,” Flat Earth Soceity President Daniel Shenton told Business Insider in an email from England.
“Personally, though, I believe the evidence available does support the position that climate change is at least partially influenced by human industrialisation.”

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Jimbo
March 15, 2015 11:54 am

Great! Not a member of Kerry’s firmament. A cast-off from the Flat-Earthers. I don’t know where I belong anymore. It’s so disorienting.

March 15, 2015 7:52 am

It would help if prominent Republicans and Fox News stopped using God in their attempted rebuttals of the Global Warming hysteria.
Sometimes I think the Republican Congressmen are really paid shills of Greenpeace sent to undermine skepticism of CAGW by making us all look like bible bashing idiots spawned from the Union of too many cousins with each other!

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
March 15, 2015 8:42 am

And it would be more representative of women if they ditched the boxes of blond hair dye. It has gotten so bad I simply turn off the TV when yet another blond sits in the news chair. Sorry. I know that sounds trite but…COME ON!!

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 9:58 am

I like the blonDies. If they are smart. I don’t just go on looks alone.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 11:17 am

Couldn’t agree more. I swear, sometimes I think FoxNews is a jobs program for wanna-be pr0n starlets.

highflight56433
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 11:24 am

Carrots, tomatoes, apples, cherries, red wine, red meat, marinara sauce, …mmmmmm… 🙂 Red is superior? lol

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
March 15, 2015 10:47 am

The modern motto of the United States of America, as established in a 1956 law signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is In God we trust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_national_motto

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  ferdberple
March 15, 2015 12:24 pm

. . . all others pay cash.

warrenlb
March 15, 2015 7:52 am

The ‘Guest Blogger’ says:
“I challenge John Kerry to produce a single person who studies climate who denies climate change. Apparently everybody, except John Kerry, knows that climate changes all the time, it always has and it always will.”
A purposefully nonsense statement by the blogger, who knows Kerry is talking about AGW, not the simpleton’s idea that the ‘climate is changing all the time’.
The blogger says:
“Kerry manages to perpetuate a series of errors, myths and slurs. Kerry said, ““The science is unequivocal”
These are the same words used by the IPCC in their 5 Assessment summarizing 10,000 peer-reviewed papers, 99% of which conclude AGW. It seems Kerry’s characterization of D***s as ‘flat earthers’ is accurate.
The blogger says ‘These are frightening words and a disturbingly narrow position from one of the most powerful statesmen and diplomats, in the world.’
Since all 200 of the world’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW, it seems it’s the bloggers view that is frightening, narrow and disturbing.
The bloggers says: “he [Kerry] denies scientists free speech, the primary tenet of the US Constitution to which he swore an oath of allegiance.”
The blogger apparently doesn’t know that the Constitution protects free speech, and that Kerry has no authority over his. But the right to free speech implies an obligation to speak out when nonsense is being purveyed. Hooray for Kerry. He spoke truth to ignorance.
Who is this ‘blogger’? Is he ashamed to tell us? I can see why.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 7:57 am

Guest blogger is Tim Ball (read the post title)

Reply to  Slywolfe
March 15, 2015 8:02 am

^— name is under photo

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:01 am

Who is this ‘blogger’? Is he ashamed to tell us? I can see why.

can’t read? “Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball”
in bold,
under the photograph

Reply to  Hans Erren
March 15, 2015 8:12 am

Someone had a ready-to-go rebuttal, probably just pasted here.
Didn’t quite fit though.
Dr. Tim Ball wrote this post. Says so at the top, I saw it.
But I don’t know all about everything .. by the pound.
(Oh such a burden that omniscience must be, such a burden.)

ATheoK
Reply to  Hans Erren
March 15, 2015 9:23 am

It’s not his reading, Warrenpoundsit lacks reading comprehension.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:14 am

You still have not read the climate chapter of Arts of Truth, nor the climate essays in Blowing Smoke. There are a number of careful dissections of AR4 and AR5. For example,1/3 of the literature relied on AR4 was grey, (refuting your 10000 peer reviewed paper statement). That is how the infamous Himalayan glacier goof came about. Essay Himalayan glaciers. For example the global extinctions finding in AR4 supposedly rested on 78 papers listed in table 4.4. Read the table carefully, and it is actually only 10 papers. Those are listed in table 4.1, and onemof them turns out not to exist. Review the remaining 9, and it turns out the entire IPCC conclusion rests on exactly one paper. Read that paper. It contains 3 fundamental flaws. There is no doubt it was carefully designed to reach a flawed alarmist result. Even if the result were correct (it isn’t), it could not be extrapolated to all species as the IPCC plainly did. Essay No Bodies.
Warrenlb, you are preaching religion. You are not highlighting science. You will need to up your game against those of us who have actually studied these matters in detail and written them up in ways even you could understand if you bothered to try.

Vince Causey
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 15, 2015 8:23 am

You are wasting words Rud. Warren is a propagandist, not somebody that is interested in the nauances of climate science. That should be obvious by his sound bites and sloganeering. I suggest the age old advice of not feeding trolls should be observed.

warrenlb
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 15, 2015 8:51 am

@Rud Istvan.
When all 200 of the National Science Academies and Scientific Professional societies, NASA and NOAA conclude AGW, and NO Institution of Science anywhere in the world disputes AGW, you’re telling me that acceptance of AGW is religious??
It would seem instead that AGW is backed by the science, and yours only by an inability to understand it.

David A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 15, 2015 9:48 am

Warren your statements are inane. Not one scientific organization has supported CAGW.
Get it? Likely not I am afraid. Over 30,000 scientist supported the Oregon petition, a definitive statement that human induced CO2 growth is very likely net beneficial.
Most of the scientists that signed that petition would say that humans have impacted the climate and caused some warming. Therefore in your deluded little thoughts, you would count them as CAGW proponents.
“In shallow minds the fish of little thoughts cause a great deal of commotion.”

Jimbo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 15, 2015 10:09 am

warrenlb
March 15, 2015 at 8:51 am
………… you’re telling me that acceptance of AGW is religious??

Can you tell the difference?

Guardian – 25 August 2010
“Why would a solar physicist embrace the non-rationality of religion?”
John Cook, who runs skepticalscience.com, says his faith drives him. But what does religion give him that science doesn’t?……But Cook’s second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.
I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25″, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.””
——-
John Cook – Skeptical Science – 3 August 2010
“….my faith and my situation are my own. But hopefully for those curious, you understand more clearly the driving force behind Skeptical Science.”
——-
Guardian – 3 November 2009
Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion
“Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal…….In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination…..• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available…..”
——-
BBC – 25 January 2010
Using religious language to fight global warming
“If the case for tackling climate change is backed by science, why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion?“……The theologian and environmentalist Martin Palmer is also troubled by the green movement’s reliance on visions of hell as a way of converting people to their cause…..”Now they are playing with some of the most powerful emotional triggers in Western culture. They’ve adopted the language and imagery of a millenarian cult.”
For Palmer, who is a United Nations adviser on climate change and religion,….”
——-
Church of England – 22 February 2012
“Leaders representing most of the UK’s mainstream churches have today called for repentance over the prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.”
——-
[Resignation letter of Rajendra Pachauri – 24 February 2015]
For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 16, 2015 5:56 pm

Warren, Rud just gutted the documentary foundation of your cut and paste posting. There is little point in pasting it here. Take it to The Verge where the there are hordes willing to see through the eyes of others.
You later cite the numerous organisations whose life blood is the funding that sustains this grand deception. It is an information Ponzi scheme where the mass of suspicious and misrepresented ‘facts’ must grow in pyramidal fashion, increasing flows to smother the ugly truths that keep surfacing: CO2 is not producing the claimed and acclaimed warming they prophesied and the warmists have known this to be true, and discussed it among themselves since as early as 2001.

RH
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:19 am

Wow, warren, that was weak. You must be the newest member of the crusher crew.

Reply to  RH
March 15, 2015 9:39 am

No he’s been around surprisingly long.

Bernd Palmer
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:31 am

“These are the same words used by the IPCC in their 5 Assessment summarizing 10,000 peer-reviewed papers, 99% of which conclude AGW.”
Show us just a few of these papers which expressively mention and prove the ‘A’ in ‘GW’. You seem to believe one side of the debate rather than the other. What makes you so sure that “your” side is factually right?

Reply to  Bernd Palmer
March 15, 2015 10:46 am

CAGW
I don’t care about man made global warming (AGW).
It seems logical there could be some modest warming.
A very small price for humanity’s gain.
Besides, I live in Florida … I like it warm.
For some unexplained reason…no hurricanes though?
I believe this is starting our 10th season and CO2 keeps climbing.
It’s the C no one can substantiate at all and where I draw the line.
So far there has been absolutely no solid link of CO2 and Catastrophe.
There is no connection demonstrated.
And I doubt you could show one.

Old'un
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:39 am

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis, not a fact. One cannot ‘deny’ a hypothesis, only question it. That is what sceptics do. Articles such as Bob Tisdale’s today are doing just that.
I suggest you that you read it, then send a copy to Mr Kerry suggesting that he does the same.

Old'un
Reply to  Old'un
March 15, 2015 8:40 am

My comment above was in response to Warren.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:43 am

warrenlb has his usual reading comprehension difficulties. His mind is made up and closed tight, just like Kerry’s and Obama’s.
The big difference between the lemmings following Obama and Kerry is that here, people like warrenlb are allowed to comment. But if it were up to our country’s ‘leaders’, any contrary point of view would be shut down. You can see it in their intolerant comments.
You can almost smell Kerry’s frustration, because his message isn’t getting traction… except for a handful of lemmings, like warrenlb.
Dr. Ball has written a very good article. But I have no doubt that the concept of the free discussion of ideas flew right over the head of warrenlb. I’m constantly amused by his eco-religion. He doesn’t have a clue, does he?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 12:32 pm

“His mind is …”
Some refer to this as a mind like concrete – all mixed up and set hard.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:48 am

@warrenlb
You must be new here. You sound like the AGW Alarmists. ie you make no effort to find out things for yourself, but just start making false accusations.
Since the outset AGW skeptics have been continuously asking for empirical proof that CO2 by humans is causing global warming/climate change. But so far all we have seen is inaccurate computer model projections.
The AGW Alarmists made the claim; therefore it is up to them to provide the proof.
If the State charged you with murder, would you not demand proof? Would you accept the claim of all the people in the Crown Prosecutors office consensus, that they thought you are guilty?
Consensus is not proof.

warrenlb
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 9:10 am

@Alberta
I completely disagree with you.
1) The evidence for AGW doesn’t reside in models, which are only a means or predicting how AGW may affect the climate in the future. (How else would you make projections?). Instead it resides in the phsycial world’s evidence, and in the physics that explains it.
2) Since all the worlds institutions of Science conclude AGW, it’s everyone’s obligation to read the evidence and physics and understand it, not wait for someone to ‘disprove’ what one has never read.
3) If instead you read the evidence at climate.nasa.gov, or the IPCC reports, or any of the 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed journal papers, and still dispute AGW, you’re ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the 40% rise in CO2 ppmv in the industrial age, similar increases in the other GHGs- methane, nitrous oxides, fluorocarbons, and sf6, the physics of the Greenhouse Effect, the measured warming of the planet since 1880 at the fastest rate in millenia, the indicators of declining ice packs, migration of species, decreasing difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs, rising sea levels, cooling of the stratosphere, warming of the oceans, decreasing alkalinity of the oceans, and more.
This lifelong Conservative Republican agrees with John Kerry (for the first time) — the evidence for AGW is unequivocal . Those that reject the science are either not reading it, don’t understand it, or have a severe case of Confirmation Bias.

David A
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 9:54 am

Warren your statements are inane. Not one scientific organization has supported CAGW.
Get it? Likely not I am afraid; You….to water, can’t make him drink” and all.
Over 30,000 scientist supported the Oregon petition, a definitive statement that human induced CO2 growth is very likely net beneficial.
Most likely 100 percent of the scientists that signed that petition would say that humans have impacted the climate and caused some warming. Therefore in your deluded little thoughts, you would count them as CAGW proponents.
“In shallow minds the fish of little thoughts cause a great deal of commotion.”

ATheoK
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:10 am

Warren:
How very odd!?
You claim there is evidence; but are unable to provide any evidence.
Instead make claims that are not evidentiary and then you add false claims regarding institutions and the IPCC.
The IPCC has been trying to climb down from their CAGW disaster stance since the AR4. It is actually amusing to read their summaries and their confidence increases while their disaster prognostications are lessened or completely ignored.
An IPCC confidence increase that is completely devoid of science, lacks any validity and is completely imaginary in source.
Their thousand’s of alleged peer reviewed papers mostly stick to science; the ones that claim evidence of AGW have mostly been destroyed due to massive assumptions, poor science and worse math.
Which still leaves us citizens of the 21st century wondering where is the supposed warming? Winter is still with us, summers can still be mild and certainly not hotter, spring and fall still precede and follow winter.
The models are wrong in every sense of the word and concept of practical models.
There is no hot spot!
The oceans are not warming in any legitimate measurable sense; only in a highly tortured massively assumed mechanism that totally lacks causation or proof.
The riskiest ventures in the world absolutely depend on satellites; except for the CAGW scam, where they fear the satellites. Satellites read temperatures anywhere needed so cherry picked distant physical sites never are bled to fill in missing temperatures.
Alarmists despise satellites because there the lack of warming is obvious, even to the most rabid alarmists.
Temperatures since the 1880s show several nearly identical warming trends to the massively overhyped 1980-1998 warming.
Legitimate temperature reconstructions identify our current period of warming as cooler than many periods of warming since the last ice age and cooler than much of our supposed optimum.
In those longer reconstructions our last temperature spike barely registers yet the horse entrails and climate model predictions preach scorched Earth disaster after alleged but still imaginary tipping points.
You’ve already demonstrated your lack of reading comprehension. A few weeks of intensive reading into those research papers might help you.

RH
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:25 am

warrenlb said: “This lifelong Conservative Republican agrees with John Kerry (for the first time) — the evidence for AGW is unequivocal . Those that reject the science are either not reading it, don’t understand it, or have a severe case of Confirmation Bias.”
If you really believe you are a conservative republican, then you are the definition of ‘useful idiot’.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:40 am

warrenlb, if you knew anything at all about science, you’d have realized that, “The evidence for AGW doesn’t reside in models, … Instead it resides in the phsycial world’s evidence, and in the physics that explains it.” is utterly self-contradictory.
But you don’t, and so you didn’t.
Here’s the point: climate models are the physics. And they provide no physical explanations at all.

warrenlb
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:44 am

@David A.
“Inane”? I don’t think so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

warrenlb
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:47 am

@Pat Frank.
You’ve claimed to be a scientist, and you deny the existence of the Greenhouse effect? Or of the other evidence I tabulated for you? Yours is a truly nutty set of propositions.

Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:54 am

You know who else had consensus against him? Einstein. The Germans published a book…… Well we know how that turned out.

Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:57 am

warron,
The Greenhouse effect is caused by a reduction in convection. In the unconstrained atmosphere it works the same. Convection cools.

Newsel
Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 10:59 am

Warren, to your link to Wiki. The Wiki entry write-up you reference reads like an extract from the IPCC et al docs. even down to a graph supporting the 97% fraud and which was updated in Dec ’14. The entry needs to be edited to include the more recent observed data but I will have to leave that to the experts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Climate_science_opinion2r.png

Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 11:54 am

the evidence for AGW is unequivocal
=========================
Every plant and animal on the plant influences the climate. Do you deny that plants change the climate, by changing CO2 into O2? Do you deny that termites change the climate, by converting plants into CO2?
Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.

Reply to  Alberta Slim
March 15, 2015 6:02 pm

warrenlb:
“Inane” means silly and stupid. Therefore, David A used it correctly.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:12 am

Warren, you seem to be in denial of your own ancestral past. The US came about from independent minded people who said, “Prove it”. Granted, it had to do with not having an adequate voice being given an equal seat in the chambers that decided on taxes we had to pay to cover the continuing costs of England’s habit of going to war with its neighbors and even far flung nations. Even so, it was a minority view that eventually led to our unique form of a Republic. Between the First and through the Second Continental Congress, the conservative consensus view that the rift between England and the Colonies would be healed, strong independent voices, only one or two at first, then more, rose up to change the course of history, and I dare say world history. Thank God those voices, voices that denied the consensus, were not silenced, though efforts were made to do exactly that.
Our history should be reflected in science. Science is not, and should never be, done by consensus. It is at its best when individual voices present defensible research that stands against current knowledge. The minute that is no longer tolerated, we stop making advances and may even have a hand in our own destruction as the policies of the consensus are applied.
That you believe in consensus without thinking, as evidenced by your lack of references to defensible research on either side of the debate in your comment, reflects ignorance that should only be seen in sheeple, not independent self-educated thinking citizens. I wonder what your ancestors would say about your lack of independent thinking were you to be alive in Pennsylvania and witnessed the birth of individual freedom from the confines of consensus.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 10:14 am

Let’s look at just one of your “red flags”. Stratospheric temperature change. Bottom hanging fruit scientists proclaim temperature trends with precious little observational evidence. However, real scientists have spent decades studying this:
The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation. Its East and West phase, not to mention its neutral phase, more than likely is the source of much variations in the Stratosphere, including its temperature anomalies when volcanic aerosol effects are removed.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mripapers/48/1/48_1_1/_article
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493(1987)115%3C0357:TSOPVT%3E2.0.CO;2
Climate always changes, including the stratospheric climate. Humans need not apply. If you want to understand temperature anomaly in the stratosphere without relying on the low hanging fruit consensus, please read up on what makes the stratosphere have temperature changes in the first place.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 10:48 am

Just to say, Pamela, that England had no more “habit of going to war” than any other society of its day, including those extra-European. The difference among them all is that England typically left behind the ideas of personal freedom and rule of law.

Graphite
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 15, 2015 1:42 pm

“. . . it had to do with not having an adequate voice being given an equal seat in the chambers that decided on taxes we had to pay to cover the continuing costs of England’s habit of going to war with its neighbors and even far flung nations. Even so, it was a minority view that eventually led to our unique form of a Republic. Between the First and through the Second Continental Congress, the conservative consensus view that the rift between England and the Colonies would be healed, strong independent voices, only one or two at first, then more, rose up to change the course of history, and I dare say world history. Thank God those voices, voices that denied the consensus, were not silenced, though efforts were made to do exactly that.”
+++++++++++++++++++
Pamela, this summation is about as shallow as Warren Pound’s arguments supporting the AGW hypothesis. My suggestion, stick to the science and find your analogies there. For what it’s worth, as a form of government, I strongly believe a constitutional monarchy beats a republic hands down.

Chris Hagan
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:19 am

Warrenlb your dogma is showing!

albertalad
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:39 am

In 2013, a paper by Cook et al. published in Environmental Research Letters claimed their review of the abstracts of peer-reviewed papers from 1991 to 2011 found 97 percent of those that stated a position on man-made global warming supported the alarmist view. This study was quickly debunked by a paper by Legates et al. published in Science & Education. Legates et al. found “just 0.03 percent endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” They found “only 41 papers – 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent – had been found to endorse the standard or quantitative hypothesis.” Once again, many scientists whose work questions the consensus protested that their work had been misrepresented.
In striking contrast to these studies, which try but fail to find a consensus in support of the claim that man-made global warming is a serious problem, many authors and surveys have found disagreement and even a majority of scientists oppose the alleged consensus. Surveys by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have found that most scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models and do not believe key climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are adequately understood to predict future climate changes.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Of the various petitions circulated for signatures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signatures – more than 31,000 names – says:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

PiperPaul
Reply to  albertalad
March 15, 2015 10:39 am

When you have billions of taxpayer dollars to spend and a compliant/complicit media machine you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:47 am

So Warren couldn’t even bother to read the first words below the title and yet he wants us to believe that he has read the IPPC.
This appeal to authority is really getting quite old.

noloctd
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 16, 2015 10:50 am

Well, he DID cite a Wikipedia article and everybody knows that Wikipedia is the One Great Authority On Everything, so I guess we should just give up with our science, and facts, and reason.
/sarc

Jimbo
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:48 am

warrenlb
March 15, 2015 at 7:52 am
………….
A purposefully nonsense statement by the blogger, who knows Kerry is talking about AGW, not the simpleton’s idea that the ‘climate is changing all the time’.

Then why not say global warming? Climate change and global warming are not necessarily the same thing.

Abstract – August 1974
Climate modeling
Understanding and predicting climate change have recently acquired a sense of urgency with the advent of serious climate-related food shortages and with the realization that human activities may have an influence on climate. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive theory of climate to explain its variability, nor are there physical models that can adequately simulate the climate system….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG012i003p00447/full
=========
Paper – 18 December 1968
M. I. BUDYKO
The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth
…Firstly we shall dwell upon the problem of climate change regularities during the last century. Fig. 1 represents the secular variation of annual temperature in the northern hemisphere that was calculated from the maps of temperature anomalies for each month for the period of 1881 to 1960 which were compiled at the Main Geophysical Observatory…
Tellus – Volume 21, Issue 5, pages 611–619, October 1969
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x/pdf
=========
Abstract – 1958
Langbein, W. B.; Schumm, S. A.
Yield of sediment in relation to mean annual precipitation
Effective mean annual precipitation is related to sediment yield from drainage basins throughout the climatic regions of the United States. Sediment yield is a maximum at about 10 to 14 inches of precipitation, decreasing sharply on both sides of this maximum in one case owing to a deficiency of runoff and in the other to increased density of vegetation. Data are presented illustrating the increase in bulk density of vegetation with increased annual precipitation and the relation of relative erosion to vegetative density. It is suggested that the effect of a climatic change on sediment yield depends not only upon direction of climate change, but also on the climate before the change. Sediment concentration in runoff is shown to increase with decreased annual precipitation, suggesting further that a decrease in precipitation will cause stream channel aggradation.
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Volume 39, Issue 6, p. 1076-1084
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958TrAGU..39.1076L
=========
Abstract – 1933
Climatic Change as a Factor in Forest Succession
Journal of Forestry, Volume 31, Number 8, 1 December 1933, pp. 934-942(9)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/1933/00000031/00000008/art00013
=======
Book – 1930
Mathematical climatology and astronomical theory of climate change
M Milankovich – Handbuch der Klimatologie, 1930
http://tinyurl.com/ncxrwhn

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:57 am

It is my very strong opinion that Warrenlb owes Dr. Tim Ball an immediate humble apology for referring to Dr.Ball a ‘simpleton’ and his gross misrepresentation of his statement.
Perhaps Warrenlb can enlighten me by citing specific Kerry quotes that are the basis for what I see as a rude disingenuous response? It seems crystal clear to me that Kerry is speaking about ‘climate change’, not about ‘global warming’ or ‘AGW’. I see no contrary evidence in Dr. Ball’s article. Furthermore, what I see as the defining Kerry quote can be found in the referenced 16 Feb 2015 Washington Examiner story, which says:
“In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction,” he insisted, “perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
Note that the author of the subject WUWT article, Dr. Tim Ball, is clearly identified. Perhaps Warrenlb can explain what appears to me to be a flagrant attempt to mislead WUWT readers with his outlandish claim that Dr. Ball is ashamed to reveal his name
I would say a good start at retribution would be to reveal your own name, Warrenlb…

Reply to  plakat1
March 15, 2015 11:20 am

I would like to have warrenlb’s confidence.
I wonder what he knows.
What evidence of CO2 caused destruction he’s seen.
I look at historical graphs of ice ages coming and going.
Numerous times in the last 500ky without explanation.
During the LIA glaciers advanced, crops were lost and millions died.
Still, no explanation.
But this time it’s caused by a gas that is <.05% of the atmosphere.
Sure it is…Riiiiiiiiiiiight….
I wonder what made warrenlb believe it?

Jimbo
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 10:04 am

warrenlb
Who is this ‘blogger’? Is he ashamed to tell us? I can see why.

At the top of the post you will see the words just under John Kerry’s photo:
“Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
He is a climatologist who locked horns with Dr. Michael Mann. He has a blog too!
Here is his CV with a SAMPLE of his work. As you can see he knows what ‘climate change’ actually means as opposed to John Kerry the politician.

Analysis of Historical Evidence of Climatic Change in Western and Northern Canada,” Syllogeus, Climatic Change in Canada 2, Editor, C.R. Harington, National Museum of
Natural Sciences, Ottawa, 1981, Vol. 33, pp. 78-96
Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, England, p. 480
The Migration of Geese as an Indicator of Climate Change in the Southern Hudson Bay Region Between 1715 and 1851″, Climatic Change, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1983a, pp. 83-93
Climate and History: A Connection that Cannot be Ignored“, History and Social Science Teacher, Vol. 19, No. 4, May 1984, pp. 205-214
……………………………….
Changes in the General Circulation of the Atmosphere in the 1760’s at Churchill and
York Factory, Manitoba”, North Dakota Academy of Sciences Symposium Papers, Vol.38, pp. 16-18
“Observations of the Transit of Venus at Prince of Wales Fort in 1769”, The Beaver Outfit 315:2, Autumn 1984, pp. 48-59
Instrumental Temperature Records at Two Sites in Central Canada: 1768 to 1910″ Climatic Change 1984, Vol. 6, pp. 39-56
Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada”, Climatic Change 1986, Vol. 7, pp. 218-229
http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf

Mac the Knife
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 10:24 am

Hard as it is to believe, I am embarrassed for you and your inexplicably stupid statement: Who is this ‘blogger’?
You represent the AGW folks well. Even when the facts are directly in front of you, you cannot see them or comprehend.
Pathetic.

John MR
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 10:39 am

“Since all 200 of the world’s institutions of science conclude AGW”, shows how powerful and political the propaganda is surrounding the issue of AGW is, as many thousands of members of said societies vehemently disagree with their leadership’s position on AGW, yet their voices are ignored.
There are also tens of thousands of scientists and engineers around the world who disagree with the tenets of CAGW, and consider many of its claims scientifically preposterous and asinine, yet in the media you rarely hear them either.
Never doubt the combined power of PR, IDEOLOGY, GREED, FEAR, AND IGNORANCE.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 10:54 am

Kerry is talking about AGW
============
then why does he call it “climate change”?
AGW has a scientific definition. “Climate change” has no such scientific definition. When Kerry uses the term “climate change” he is not talking about science, he is talking about politics.

RockyRoad
Reply to  ferdberple
March 16, 2015 6:08 am

Yes, Kerry is a deceiver. He obfuscates to gain political advantage. The man is evil.

highflight56433
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:31 am

Warren: shameless simpleton socialistic elitist who hates humanity.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:32 am

warrenlb sticks foot in mouth – can’t figure out who the author of the post is. C’mon warren, get on the “Ball”.
“But the right to free speech implies an obligation to speak out when nonsense is being purveyed.”
No, it does not imply any such obligation. What it does more than imply is that when nonsense is being purveyed, one may choose to ignore it, which is why other that to point this out, I’ve chosen to do just that regarding your nonsense post.

David Ball
Reply to  JohnWho
March 15, 2015 2:39 pm

“But the right to free speech implies an obligation to speak out when nonsense is being purveyed.”
That is exactly what Dr. Tim Ball is doing, warrenlb.

Streetcred
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 3:43 pm

I fell off my chair laughing at your immature analytical attempt to ‘smear’ Dr Ball … and you couldn’t even find the name of the “blogger” under the article title. This example of your analytical ability will last here forever, troll.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:39 pm

I know WUWT lets every one have his say but there are times…

Dave VanArsdale
Reply to  warrenlb
March 16, 2015 3:49 am

Secretary Kerry has a “Terror Warning” in Saudi Arabia which shut down our U.S. Embassy in Riyadh yesterday. A month ago our U.S. Embassy in Yemen was shut down and ransacked. The new Saudi King is not a believer of the Obama/Kerry Plan for Iran. These guys are Knuckleheads!

Jim G1
March 15, 2015 8:03 am

Dishonesty and stupidity go hand in hand with Mr. Kerry. Being stupid and looking goofy are not his fault, probably genetic, but being disingenuous, though probably necessary to be in politics, cannot be excused. And he has a long track record in this regard.

Gary Pearse
March 15, 2015 8:07 am

I only hope that what Obama has put into place isn’t “too big to fail”. I’ve seen in Canada, for example, the Conservative Mulroney gov. installed the goods and services tax and Liberal Chretien swore he would get rid of it (and NAFTA as well). When he did get in, he found the coffers were 45B richer each year and NAFTA was highly favorable to Canada so he promptly forgot the promises that got him in in the first place. Will Republicans, who have been shifting more to the middle over time to find an electorate, be able to let go the stuff the Dems are mortaring in? They will need a special tough guy with charisma to bail the ship of state out. Maybe even a bald guy who’s hair doesn’t always get in the way of policy like these unlikely ‘clear headed’ types:
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=B111CA662D20141029&p=picture+of+eisenhower
https://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=B111CA662D20141029&p=picture+of+Churchill
That will ensure that sophomoronic looks weren’t why they got elected.

beng1
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 15, 2015 10:00 am

Gary Pearse, even Eisenhower, as tough and capable as he was, couldn’t get a handle on the military-industrial-academic/scientific elite, and thus his end-of-term warnings. So I’m pessimistic.

BFL
Reply to  beng1
March 15, 2015 2:21 pm

“even Eisenhower, as tough and capable as he was, couldn’t get a handle on the military-industrial-academic/scientific elite, and thus his end-of-term warnings. So I’m pessimistic.”
It looks like it’s all down hill from here as the corporations, their flunkies and their lobbyists own both sides with no correction in sight.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484
Of course if you may be one of the “Right” who have been convinced that subsidies for the wealthy are the only way to a greater America………

TYoke
Reply to  beng1
March 15, 2015 6:35 pm

BFL,
I’ve been around conservatives all of my life, and I’ve never met ONE, or even read about one, that “was convinced that subsidies for the wealthy are the only way to a greater America”.
That proposition is a PURE liberal straw man. You are painting a pretty little morality play with yourself as the doughty champion, and flimsy stick figure villains propped up on the other side. Good luck with persuading anyone other than yourself that you are a hero.

BFL
Reply to  beng1
March 15, 2015 7:16 pm

TYoke:
Obviously you haven’t been paying attention to politicians. As far as local right wingers, you must run in a different crowd, as all I hear from those I’m around is that the richest deserve all that they get and the only ones NOT deserving of “subsidies” are those on the bottom. And they are VERY obsessed about those at the bottom cheating or getting “too much help” even though the amounts are paltry compared to the crooked banking CEO’s and other similar (but never hear any major complaints there).
An easy way of solving the social security “problem” is by simply extending the top income required to pay in; well good luck with that because that is a tax on the top, so not allowed (hope you enjoy your SS cut when it comes unless you are one of “those” who don’t need it) . Also back when the tax rates were higher on the elite the re-investment rates and job creation were higher/forced to avoid taxes (excluding tax dodges/subsidy equivalents). With lower tax rates those incentives are not so much, but even so, they still want special exemptions (Obscene Greed is God).
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Economy/Buffett-secretary-tax-payroll/2013/03/04/id/493010/

Reply to  beng1
March 15, 2015 11:43 pm

@ BFL who again creates most of the JOBS in the USA? Oh right the guys on welfare or is it the guys that own and operate from small to big businesses?

chris riley
March 15, 2015 8:08 am

John Kerry believes that allowing a regime that invented the slogan “Death to America” to develop nuclear weapons along with to ability to deliver them to Manhattan, thus raising the temperature there by about 10,000 F, is not a real problem.
John Kerry believes that global warming, which exists only in computer models that have demonstrated zero predictive ability, and which predict that the average temperature in Manhattan could rise by as much as 2-3 F over the next hundred years is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced.
Anyone simultaneously holding these two beliefs cannot be taken seriously.

ossqss
March 15, 2015 8:08 am

Kerry is learning from his boss.
How does a president write something like this and get away with outright oppression?
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/576104761679708160

Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 8:31 am

This is as close as one can get to modern day lynching. And plenty of time seems to have gone into it. Obama seems to ensure his place in history, but perhaps not the way he intended it.

Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 9:03 am

ossqss says:
Kerry is learning from his boss.
Or vice-versa. It’s hard to tell sometimes.
They are both very anti-American. I recall when Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the Viet Nam war. I remember more recently Obama’s pledge to “fundamentally transform” our great country.
You don’t try to “fundamentally transform” something you love. Improve it, maybe. But ‘transform’ makes no sense, unless you hate the way it is.

Roger P.Geol. in Calgary
Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 10:30 am

Turn in your parents!

Glenn999
Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 10:40 am

how many voted for obama or kerry for champion denier. denying reality bigtime.

Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 5:49 pm

Welcome to the junior high school administration…whose Communications department is run by Goebbels, and whose Science department is run by Perez Hilton and Nancy Grace.

Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 6:33 pm

I’d vote for BO but his name is not on the list …

MrBungled
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
March 16, 2015 6:50 am

+1

Russ R.
Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 7:57 pm

The “ChampionDenier” from each country, get entered in the Hunger Games.
Better start training. Nothing the “Green Aristocracy” likes better than watching the peasants, fight for their survival.

Reply to  ossqss
March 15, 2015 11:46 pm

Because he is a community organizer not a president.

March 15, 2015 8:11 am

Kerry said climate change deniers, he didn’t say AGW deniers. If that is what he meant he should have said so. There is a great deal of difference and a statesman should know the importance of words. It is another misstatement?
The “bloggers” name is right at the top of the piece. What we don’t know is the name of “warren lb”, but that is typical of drive by shooters.

RH
Reply to  Tim Ball
March 15, 2015 10:49 am

Warren Beeton, useful idiot.

Reply to  RH
March 15, 2015 11:50 pm

@ RH should that read “Warren Beeton, might be a useful idiot ” ?

lee
Reply to  Tim Ball
March 16, 2015 4:23 am

Statesman? what Statesman?

Bruce Cobb
March 15, 2015 8:18 am

Back when I was a dyed-in-the-wooly-headed Democrat, I respected Kerry and voted for him (in one of the primaries, I believe). Now, I see him as a complete buffoon, who I wouldn’t vote for for dog-catcher.
How times change.

Vince Causey
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 15, 2015 8:25 am

And a dangerous buffoon at that.

warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:20 am

As a life long Reagan Republican, I’d enthusiastically support Kerry at the Kyoto meetings, but not as Secretary of State. He said what needed to be said about Climate Change.

Newsel
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:36 am

Warren, for what purpose? Next meeting is in Paris and guess where the IEA are “housed”? Doubt they will be asked to be represented with this message. Probably at Kerry’s request.
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

Editor
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:39 am

warrenlb

As a life long Reagan Republican, I’d enthusiastically support Kerry at the Kyoto meetings, but not as Secretary of State. He said what needed to be said about Climate Change.

I will endorse your claim of being a life-long Reagan republican. Yeah. Right. Sure. Whatever. (If two negatives make a positive, and three left turns permit you to face right, do four positives make a negative?)
Kerry began his political career by leaving Vietnam after only 91 days to go back to work with a Massachusetts Senator.
While a Naval Reserve officer, he negotiated as a private citizen AGAINST the United States president and AGAINST the Secretary of State in Paris to defeat the US forces still fighting for that country. Then, as a democrat Senator, he directly negotiated with the communist Noriega against Reagan in Nicaragua. Then he worked with Kennedy as Ted Kennedy worked with the KGB to defeat Reagan, and with Pelosi as she traveled overseas to oppose Bush in the Muslim world ….
Now, when the half the sitting Senators oppose HIS negotiations to arm the world’s enemies with nuclear weapons, “he” gets upset?
Yeah. Kerry. He’s not fit to even pay garbage collectors.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 10:43 am

RACook,
Thanks for that. I was composing a similar response when I spotted your contribution. Those of us with longer experience remember well how Kerry negotiated with the Sandinistas, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to defeat them and their russian supporters.
Here’s a ‘backgrounder’, for those of shorter experience…. or memory:
Kissinger Blasted Kerry in 1980s for Interfering in Nicaragua
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Henry-Kissinger-John-Kerry-Nicaragua-Iran-deal/2015/03/12/id/629773/

Langenbahn
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 10:56 am

John Kerry’s qualifications to serve as Secretary of State seem to be as follows: Served in Vietnam, protested those who served in Vietnam, shook hands with Daniel Ortega, married a rich widow, and speaks French (badly).

Reply to  Langenbahn
March 15, 2015 10:59 am

Let us not forget he negotiated with the North Vietnamese with a war on. Logan Act? What Logan Act?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 11:03 am

Let us not forget that he Promised that the North Vietnamese would only kill 3,000. They directly killed 100,000. And 500,000 took to the sea in fear of their lives. Half of those died.
Can you say “complicit in mass murder”?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 16, 2015 12:49 am

@ RACook, “Yeah. Kerry. He’s not fit to even pay garbage collectors”.
he isn’t even fit to BE a garbage collector let alone pay them (with heinz money btw)

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:18 am

warrenlb asserts:
As a life long Reagan Republican…
Excuse me if I am skeptical. When something waddles, and has feathers, and quacks, then it is a duck.
There is no way you are, or ever were, a ” life long Reagan Republican.”
No matter what you claim.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 10:29 am

And so what if he is, or was…he is still required to make a cogent argument, no?
As if his political afiliation means anything?
Why would he even think it was relevant?

Reply to  davideisenstadt
March 15, 2015 12:15 pm

Look, it really doesn’t do much good asking some people to make cogent arguments, they are incapable of making them. Warren Libs entire side is incapable of making a cogent argument. So the best we can do is meet them where they are.

warrenlb
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 12:58 pm

@DBS. I am not a Reagan Republican in the same sense you’re a well-respected publishing Climate Scientist.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 7:03 pm

warrenlb is Monty Python’s Black Knight on this site: his arms and legs have been chopped off, and his head was cut off by everyone he is still arguing with.
Now he is only a disembodied head on the ground, arguing: “‘Tis but a scratch!”
warrenlb has been destroyed in all his inane arguments. That’s why he always falls back on his Appeal to Authority fallacy. But all he is doing is pointing at a bunch of self-serving riders on the grant gravy train, and saying: “They say that MMGW is real — so it must be real!”
Give it up, warrenlb. Your arguments have been thoroughly debunked, and you only make yourself look more foolish by commenting further.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 7:33 pm

dbstealey;
you only make yourself look more foolish by commenting further.

Don’t chase him away just yet. I want to see his answer to my question. Why? Because by answering it correctly, he will have no choice but to learn some things about the IPCC literature for himself. Things he needs to know.
If he doesn’t answer by this time tomorrow, I’ll provide the answer in the hopes that he is still following the thread. The goal isn’t to chase those like him away, the goal is to teach them to think for themselves. He can’t answer my question without doing that.

Patrick
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 7:51 pm

Knowing several “professional teachers” *ahem*, in my experience if it’s not in the curriculum, it’s not considered “valid” and “teachable”. Over the last few months I have been reading Warren’s posts and they appear, to me at least, just like a cut and paste from somewhere like SkS or such like. The posts read like a broken record.

Gunga Din
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 1:09 pm

I was going to say “it could be a goose” but a goose honks, it doesn’t quack. Maybe warrenlb is a quack attempting to goose us? 😎

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:22 am

“……Lifelong Reagan Republican….” Warrenlib, I think you were born yesterday.

David A
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 10:01 am

Warren is at least nine years old.

DonM
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:26 am

Give me a free trip to Paris and I will also prostitute myself in support of Kerry’s drivel, although not enthusiastically.
Seems that a lot of people are willing to whore themselves out … not all are able to, primarily because they are not competent enough to do it well.
Warren, you are going to need a lot more practice/competence before anyone on the AGW side will even want your services.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  DonM
March 15, 2015 2:42 pm

No Don. there are already prostitutes in Paris, they do not need further competition.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:53 am

Your argument as Kerry’s is based solely on the authority you choose to vest in scientific government. Ronald Regan would never have done that.
It is you, Kerry, and scientific government who are the flat earth society. Flatly denying the overwhelming evidence that clearly falsifies human Carbon as a dangerous factor.
Do your homework before engaging people who have. Check your faith in government at the door. Ronald Regan would expect no less.

warrenlb
Reply to  gymnosperm
March 15, 2015 11:56 am

.,
I’ve done my homework — and taught Climate Science for years; the only ‘authority’ I rely upon is my own.
The anti-AGW crowd has contributed zip to Man’s understanding of the Atmosphere and Climate. They never publish in peer-reviewed journals, and when challenged, whine that the process is ‘corrupt’. That’s a cop-out, and yet they continue to expect others to respect their odd views, empty rhetoric, and utter lack of understanding of physics (eg, ‘no such thing as the greenhouse effect’, or ‘its unimportant’.)
Its no wonder we don’t find their views represented in the published conclusions of ANY of the World’s Scientific Institutions, Universities, Government, or peer-reviewed journals. Who in the educated world would listen to them?

highflight56433
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 12:11 pm

Oh thanks … another example as we see that you are an elitist. 🙂

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 12:28 pm

“I’ve done my homework — and taught Climate Science [no capitalization needed] for years; the only ‘authority’ I rely upon is my own.”
Yeah sure that why when you didn’t know you were talking to Dr Tim Ball you keep appealing to the authority of The IPPC. That is why even now you appeal to the authority of “World’s Scientific Institutions, Universities, Government, [also no need for capitalization.] or peer-reviewed journals.”
So mister climate science (not capitalized) authority. You have been challenged to present one iota of evidence, and have failed to do so, so how about putting up. I still maintain the published data doesn’t say what you think it says. You have not read it. If it says what you think it says put it up.

warrenlb
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 12:42 pm

@Tom Trevor.
You put up.
The 40% rise in Atmospheric CO2 — and concurrent rise in the other GHGs.. nitrous oxides, methane, fluorocarbons, sf6 — during the industrial era, the warming of the planet since 1880, the physics of the greenhouse effect, the secondary indicators of sea level rise, decreasing difference between daytime highs and nitetime lows, migration of species, declining global ice packs, increasing acidity of the oceans, and more. Go to the to resources I cited if thats not enough for you — climate.nasa.gov, IPCC Assessments, 10s of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, Houghton, many others. The bad (or non) science you support isn’t in even the game.

Patrick
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:17 pm

Actually, NASA have claimed CH4 is DECREASING. In any case, at ~1.8ppM/v, I’d not worry too much about that.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:21 pm

Oddly warrenlb, it was reading the official literature from the precise sources you listed, the IPCC in particular, that lead me to become a skeptic of CAGW. I use the term CAGW specifically in this instance to underscore your continued use of the term AGW instead.
When debating the science with alarmists, it is the IPCC itself I cite most often to back up my case. You on the other hand speak only in generalities, only cite other people, and don’t even make an appearance in the technical threads where these things are hashed out in detail by people with obviously relevant knowledge and credentials.

warrenlb
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 2:20 pm

@Davidmhoffer.
You have the same disease as Stealey ; can’t understand AGW, confuse it with the term CAGW, which only exists in the minds of anti-AGW amateurs (no scientists use it), and cites the evidence I’ve listed as generalities? I thought you were a victim of Confirmation Bias. Now we know you have a concurrent case of Dunning-Kreuger.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:35 pm

OK warrenlb, let’s go.
The IPCC estimates direct effects of CO2 doubling being an additional 3.7 w/m2 which they then equate to a change in temperature of 1 degree C (this statement quantifies their position before calculation of feedbacks).
I accept this position.
The IPCC accepts Stefan-Boltzmann Law. As do I. The IPCC accepts the average temperature of the earth as being 288 K. As do I.
Plugging an additional 3.7 w/m2 in to SB-Law yields a direct temperature change from CO2 doubling at an equilibrium temperature of not 1.0 degree C, but only 0.68 degrees C. Why the difference?
I can answer that question Mr Climate Science teacher? Can you? Cite the appropriate references from IPCC literature in your response. You want to accuse someone of Dunning-Kreuger, you d@mn well better be able to back it up/
I’ve thrown you a softball BTW, this one’s pretty easy, though I am pretty certain it is well beyond your abilities.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 4:38 pm

Well warrenlb? Your usual prompt replies in this thread have suddenly gone silent. Perhaps you need some help?
You won’t find the entire answer in any one place in the IPCC literature. You’ll have to read AR 1-4 to get the comeplete picture. But, provided that you have a working knowledge of SB-Law, know what he difference is between a Black Body and an Effective Black Body, what the MRL, SF, and RF all mean, you should be able to construct the answer entirely based on references to AR4 WG1. Let’s see what ya got….

warrenlb
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 4:40 pm

The IPCC estimates a rise of 3C including feedbacks, a far more relevant calculation. Tell me how they arrive at 3C.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 4:51 pm

My response to you appears way upthread for some reason, I will try and replicated it in the right place:
warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm
The IPCC estimates a rise of 3C including feedbacks, a far more relevant calculation. Tell me how they arrive at 3C.
They do no such thing. In AR4 they provide an estimated range of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees C with a consensus median estimate of 3.0 degrees. In AR5 the estimated range is the same at the top and lower at the bottom, 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with no median consensus estimate being arrived at (and explicitly stated as such).
If you believe that the in feedback number is more relevant, I will advise you that the mismatch between w/m2 forcing and the estimated temperature range change suffers from the exact same discrepancy when the relevant numbers are plugged into SB-Law.
So you have now demonstrated that:
1. You can’t answer the question
2. You don’t actually know what sensitivity the IPCC (your cited source) actually says
3. You are unaware that the “more relevant” calculation suffers from the exact same discrepancy as the direct feedback calculation does.
I direct you back to my comment at 4:38 which will give you some clue as to how to answer the question in relation to both the direct forcing and the with feedback forcing. You can either answer my question or leave everyone following this thread to draw their own conclusions as to your knowledge of both the literature and the science.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 5:26 pm

To clarify my point 3 above for poor warrenlb who I imagine right now is madly googling and sending emails to his compatriots trying to figure out how to answer my question (his earlier attempt being to simply avoid it and in doing so demonstrating he could not address it)
The IPCC AR4 WG1 consensus estimate of temperature change due to CO2 doubling with feedbacks included is 11.5 w/m2 which they cite as 3.0 degrees C. However, plugging a forcing increase of 11.5 w/m2 into SB-Law with an average surface temperature of +15 C yields a temperature change of only 2.1 degrees C. The exact same discrepancy occurs whether one uses direct forcing or warrenlb’s “more relevant” number.
The answer as to why the discrepancy exists is identical. It ought to be trivial for someone who claims to be qualified to teach climate science to explain.
(that means you warrenlb, let’s see what you got)

warrenlb
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 7:31 pm

A complete and utter FAIL, Davidmhoffer.
Three methods are used 1) The relationship between CO2 ppmv and temperature change, from proxy data from Earth’s ancient past, 2) The relationship between CO2 and temperature change in the modern era, and 3) modeling of the atmosphere’s behavior. The three are cross checked.
For you , its easy to find errors in the IPCC reports, because you propose a methodology not used by the IPCC. This is a similar approach used by you and DBS for many other issues – –you throw up strawman calculations, and say, ‘see, they (the IPCC) doesn’t know what it’s doing’. Instead, YOU don’t know what THEY are doing. Which gives you an argument that might stand up in WUWT, but not in the world of Science.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 7:57 pm

“the world of Science”
yeah, the world with no testable null hypothesis…the world with models’ projections that fail any smell test…the world of specious 97% consensus…that world of “Science”?
really?

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 8:14 pm

warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 7:31 pm
A complete and utter FAIL, Davidmhoffer.
Three methods are used 1) The relationship between CO2 ppmv and temperature change, from proxy data from Earth’s ancient past, 2) The relationship between CO2 and temperature change in the modern era, and 3) modeling of the atmosphere’s behavior. The three are cross checked.

Those are the methods to calculate sensitivity warrenlb. They do not explain the discrepancy I have alluded to. The discrepancy is in fact explained in AR4 WG1. I’ve given you enough hints that you ought to be able to find it.
So we have here:
Strike 1: Instead of answering the question, you attempted to deflect by insisting another value was more relevant, and in doing so, demonstrated that you don’t know what the current value cited by the IPCC actually is.
Strike 2: You claim I have failed, and then go on to describe methodologies by which sensitivity is calculated. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the question. I did not dispute how the sensitivity was calculated. I asked you why the calculated value did not match to the SB Law calculation which the IPCC also cites. That mismatch has nothing to do with how the sensitivity is calculated. I’ll give you another hint here. Both values are correct. Again, for anyone well enough versed in climate science to teach it, the difference between the two numbers is easily explained.
So, care to take another shot at it? You’ve one strike left before I put the actual answer on the table.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:05 pm

warrenlb;
For you , its easy to find errors in the IPCC reports, because you propose a methodology not used by the IPCC.

Just to ensure clarity, at no time did I claim an error in the IPCC reports. Quite the opposite. I pointed out information that is cited by the IPCC. Since the IPCC claims both values to be correct, there must be a logical explanation. At no time did I suggest that one was in error. In fact, I said both were correct. I asked you to explain why they differed. I even pointed you to the correct reports and the correct science to enable you to explain it.
This has nothing to do with me finding an error. This have everything to do with understanding what the IPCC literature actually says. Either you understand it, or you don’t. I’m giving you a third opportunity to demonstrate your qualifications as a teacher of climate science to show that you in fact understand the material that you are citing.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2015 11:35 am

Well it turns out I may not be available this evening to respond as promised to warrenlb with the answer to the question that I posed to him. So at the risk of being criticized for not giving him the allotted time I promised. Here is the answer.
Review – the original question was in regard to the IPCC’s contention that CO2 doubling = +3.7 w/m2 = +1.0 degrees of warming. But, using Stefan-Boltzmann Law (P=5.67*10^-8*T^4) and an average T of 288K (15 C) we can calculate that this results in a temperature rise of only 0.68 degrees. Since the IPCC also accepts SB-Law, it is a fair question to ask, of anyone not just warrenlb, as to why the discrepancy exits.
It is especially important though in warrenlb’s case. Not only did he crash into this thread trumpeting his superior knowledge of climate science which he could only demonstrate by repeated appeals to authority, he also proclaimed himself as a teacher of climate science. Understanding of SB Law and sensitivity values are as fundamental to understanding climate science. There is little else as basic in the area of climate science to understand. Not understanding those things is akin to proclaiming oneself as a driver trainer and then admitting to have no knowledge of steering wheels. So I challenged warrenlb to put his supposed credentials on the table and explain the answer to the question.
warrenlb took several swipes at the problem. First he incorrectly asserted that the value wasn’t relevant, that only the feebacks included value was relevant. This demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the questions because the feedbacks in numbers suffer from the exact same discrepancy. Then he claimed to quote the feedback in forcing as cited by the IPCC, and managed to quote an obsolete value from AR4, demonstrating that warrenlb isn’t even current with the literature he is quoting from. Then he compounded his errors by launching a tirade on how sensitivity is calculated, further underscoring the fact that he didn’t understand the question since that is a completely separate issue.
The Answer can be lifted straight out of IPCC AR4 WG1 2.2
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
which states quite clearly that “RF concept fits within a general understanding of climate change comprised of ‘forcing’ and ‘response’. This chapter also uses the term ‘surface forcing’ to refer to the instantaneous perturbation of the surface radiative balance by a forcing agent. Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1).
In brief, you have to slog through a lot of chapters in a lot of reports to put the big picture together (a maddening feature of IPCC reports that they do not put all the information about a single subject in one place) but the bottom line is that Radiative Forcing (RF) and Surface Forcing (SF) are two different things. RF is calculated against the Effective Black Body temperature of earth, which is 255 K, or -18C. The EBB is the temperature of earth as seen from space. It coincides with the Mean Radiating Level, that is the average altitude from which photons escape from earth into space. It is neither at earth surface, nor at Top of Atmosphere, but at a point somewhere in between.
But, if we accept the concept of RF, we must extrapolate it to SF. The same 3.7 w/m2 that would warm the earth from 255K to 256K ( 1degree) would only change average earth surface from 288K to 288.68K (SB Law). This is one of the many ways in which the IPCC doesn’t lie per se, but presents factual information in a misleading fashion. By the same math, the “more relevant” number claimed by warrenlb of 3.0 degrees per doubling yields a surface temperature change of only 2.1 degrees.
That sensitivity is as high as 3.0 degrees is highly unlikely given the data we have gather over the last 20 years, and it is the reason that AR5 reduced the lower bound of their sensitivity estimate to only 1.5 degrees.
That all said, perhaps warrenlb understands a bit more about climate science, his actual knowledge of the subject, and what the answer to my question is. He will of course put some of his own spin on it, but I think it clear to all those left following this thread that indeed, one of us suffers from Dunning Kreuger.

Arno Arrak
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2015 2:59 pm

Interesting, David, that you think you know something about the sensitivity obtained by doubling carbon dioxide concentration in air. Your problem is apparently that you really believe, along with thousands of acolytes of the global warming scam, that doubling of carbon dioxide will actually cause global temperature to rise. Exactly where have you been living for the last 18 years when there has been no global temperature increase despite constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? The greenhouse theory your buddies inherited from the nineteenth century has been predicting warming during each of these years and getting nothing but somehow this has not made any mark on you. If you know some elementary science you should know that if a scientific theory makes a wrong prediction it is considered false and belongs in the waste basket if history. That is where the Arrhenius greenhouse theory you use belongs. The correct greenhouse theory that explains everything that Arrhenius can’t handle is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. It tells us right off the bat that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will not warm the air. That being the case, not even doubling carbon dioxide can warm it. Since the result of doubling it is clearly zero, sensitivity to doubling of carbon dioxide is exactly zero, not any of the values floating around in your head. Since you probably have no idea how MGT explains the absence of this warming let me explain the basics for you. First, MGT differs from Arrhenius in being able to handle more than one GH gas simultaneously. Arrhenius cannot do that and the role of water vapor must be determined by an external rule. The rule that presence of water vapor in the air will triple the plain greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide alone is completely arbitrary and has no justification in science. According to MGT, however, carbon dioxide and water vapor create a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared. Its optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And just as soon as this starts water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor will keep the total absorption constant and no warming is possible. This has consequences. First, it stops greenhouse warming in its tracks and thereby makes AGW impossible. The true nature of AGW now stands exposed as a pseudo-scientific fantasy invented to make IPCC possible. That was back in 1988 when Hansen had just told the Senate that he had observed the greenhouse effect himself. His proof was a 100 year warming he said had only a one percent probability of happening by chance. It turned out that half of that 100 year warming had nothing to do with the greenhouse effect but it nevertheless was accepted at face value and has been the boogeyman of global warming ever since. Is there a lesson in this? Yes, give up your false faith in the the greenhouse effect. It will not warm the world or destroy the planet.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
March 16, 2015 3:49 pm

Arno,
If you want to argue that natural variability swamps the CO2 signal, and that the IPCC and Hansen have played politics rather than science, I’m with you. If you want to argue that there are 2nd order feedbacks that negate the warming signal from CO2, I’m willing to consider that possibiity, I’ll even consider that the net of the feedbacks may be negative, while rather unlikely, in theory possible. But if you want to argue that the first order (direct) effects of doubling of CO2 is zero… sorry, not even going to debate you.

Arno Arrak
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2015 4:14 pm

Coward. You know I am right but you can’t bring yourself to admit that. Instead you bring up a slew pf irrelevances and think they will swamp me. That is typical of the Dunning-Kruger complex.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
March 16, 2015 4:43 pm

That is typical of the Dunning-Kruger complex.
I now stand accused in this thread of being subject to Dunning Kruger for being a skeptic, and for being a warmist. LOL.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  warrenlb
March 16, 2015 12:24 am

Sorry to intervene in this dialogue, but your reply raises more questions than provides answers.

you propose a methodology not used by the IPCC.

Davidmhoffer’s question seems fair, because it’s at the very foundations of (C)AGW. What methodology IPCC has omitted?

you throw up strawman calculations, and say, ‘see, they (the IPCC) doesn’t know what it’s doing’. Instead, YOU don’t know what THEY are doing.

The IPCC threw up calculations, which Gaia now refuses to back up to a point where even the EPA chief doesn’t know what these IPCC calculations are. Now based on what exactly Obama, Kerry et al are now calling out their own potential electorate in this derogatory manner? And why?

Editor
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 4:53 pm

The IPCC estimates a rise of 3C including feedbacks, a far more relevant calculation. Tell me how they arrive at 3C.

They run fanatically-expensive computer programs on multi-billion dollar jobs programs (er, Big Government labs) for career politicians (er, government-bureaucrats) who pay them Big Wages to generate 3 degrees of warming. Then pay them to publicize +10 degree warming in 10,000 papers published by Big Government to get even more grants from Big Government science labs to create a demand for 1.3 trillion a year in taxes for Big Government.

Newsel
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 4:58 pm

How does one spell scam at the tax payers expense and the Gore et al enrichment?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 5:16 pm

RACookPE1978 March 15, 2015 at 4:53 pm
The IPCC estimates a rise of 3C including feedbacks, a far more relevant calculation. Tell me how they arrive at 3C.
They run fanatically-expensive computer programs on multi-billion dollar jobs programs (er, Big Government labs) for career politicians

Well, to be fair, it is a bit more scientific than that. The ability of air to hold water vapour about doubles every 10 degrees C above 0:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689.html
(scroll down to the chart, see the column in kg/m3)
So the increase in temperature due to CO2 doubling logically is followed by:
1. Increased rates of evaporation
2. Increased water vapour being retained in the atmosphere
3. Air at altitudes that otherwise would have not been able to retain water vapour, now being warm enough to do so.
Hence, water vapour being a GHG, there’s likely to be more of it and at altitudes where it would not otherwise exist, resulting in it being a positive feedback.
The most recent literature however, is quite clear that the sum total of direct forcing plus feedbacks is well below 2.0 degrees, forcing the IPCC to lower their estimated range in AR5 to 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. The recent literature was cited as the reason to reduce the lower bound, no reason was given for leaving the upper bound at 4.5 which is rather misleading since only rather obsolete literature and data provide any support at all for a range that high.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:38 pm

(no scientists use it)
no scientists use it anymore
fixed it for you.

warrenlb
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 4:41 pm

You didn’t fix it. No scientists used CAGW EVER.

Editor
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 4:50 pm

OK.
So, how many members and priests of the CAGW religion have CORRECTED their politicians and screenwriters and newsmedia readers at ABCNNBCBS (plus their English-speaking BBC/ABC and CBC partners) who HAVE used the Catastrophic predictions of EVERY so-called “scientist” who is using CAGW to promote their future funding by Big Government for Bigger Government?
I do not see National Geographic getting corrected when they photoshop cover pages with the Statue of Liberty in water.
When Hansen goes overseas to get arrested – while predicting the Hudson River is going to flood Manhattan I see NO so-called “scientist who only uses AGW” complaining.
I see NO so-called “scientist-who-only-uses-anthro-pathetic-global-warming ” EVER correcting a democrat politician who claims global warming is the nation’s most serious national security threat.
You are, as usual, propagandizing.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 4:57 pm

warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 4:41 pm
You didn’t fix it. No scientists used CAGW EVER.

So it your position that there are no scientists who support the notion that AGW might be catastrophic? Good to know. Perhaps you could alert Kerry and Obama on the matter for us?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 5:14 pm

can’t understand AGW, confuse it with the term CAGW, which only exists in the minds of anti-AGW amateurs…”
No one can really understand something which has not been quantified or even proven to exist. The catastrophic aspect of AGW is what requires the diversion of the western economies and justifies the global enforcement of sanctions on free capitalism, for the sake of the planet. You”ll find no confusion here.

rogerknights
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 6:28 pm

“Catastrophic” is IMPLICIT in the predictions of IGPOCC and the pronouncements of many of its green-affiliated lead authors. “Tipping points,” runaway warming,” “death spirals,” “boiling oceans,” “50 million climate refugees,” “ecocide,” “mass extinctions,” and substantial increases in hurricanes, tornados, floods, droughts, wildfires, insect plagues, tropical diseases, etc.
The only reason the word “catastrophic” isn’t used in the scientific literature is that it’s considered too unbuttoned to use in that venue. But the journalists who report on those papers and who interview their authors do the translation for them–without their objection–as their authors knew would happen.

David A
Reply to  rogerknights
March 15, 2015 11:45 pm

Indeed, the C is not missing in the press with the scientists, or as a sourer of literature for the IPCC.
Moscow-Pullman Daily News – 5 July 1989
“governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”
[Noel Brown – New York office of the United Nations Environment Program]
=======================
The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982
Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an envi-ronmental catastrophe which will witness devast-tation as complete, as ir-reversible as any nu-clear holocaust.”
[MostafaTolba – Executive director of the United Nations Environment Program]
=======================
New York Times – November 18, 2007
…..The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,”Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”…..
=======================
Guardian – 1 August 2008
Andrew Simms
The final countdown
We have only 100 months to avoid disaster. Andrew Simms explains why we must act now – and where to begin
…Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change….
=======================
Independent – 20 October 2009
[SPEECH]
Gordon Brown: We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe
……..Copenhagen must be such a time.
There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late….
=======================
Guardian – 12 March 2009
……The current financial slump would be “nothing” compared to the “full effects which global warming will have on the world economy,” he said.
“We have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change,” Prince Charles added…..
=======================
National Post – 2009?
… In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted “we have four months to save the planet.”…
=======================
Guardian – 3 November 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change
…….Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
=======================
Guardian – 8 July 2008
100 months to save the Earth
There isn’t much time to turn things around. And today’s G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
……The world’s climate experts say that that the world’s CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reaching……
[John Sauven – Greenpeace]
=======================
WWF – 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
…“The world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far won’t keep the world under 2° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. …
[WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott]
=======================
Guardian – 18 January 2009
‘We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead’
Jim Hansen is the ‘grandfather of climate change’ and one of the world’s leading climatologists…..
“We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
==================================
Take the last three as examples… Jim Hansen, a scientist alarmist favorite. Just above that are the WWF and Greenpeace, both have been published as IPCC sources. Never let any CAGW proponent claim that the “C” is not part and parcel of the theory.

Peter Plail
Reply to  David A
March 16, 2015 2:32 am

A lot of boys shouting about wolves, but still no sign of paw-prints in the snow.

Reply to  David A
March 16, 2015 7:39 am

Below is a great example of how much warren’s gang hates the Acronym CAGW. CAGW is so precisely descriptive of their hypothesis they can’t stand it. Copied from RationalWiki:
This article is about the term used by climate change denialists, not the astroturf group Citizens Against Government Waste.
CAGW, for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming,” is a snarl word (or snarl acronym) that global warming denialists use for the established science of climate change. A Google Scholar search indicates that the term is never used in the scientific literature on climate.[1]
It’s not clear just when or how the denialists adopted CAGW over from the acronym AGW (anthropogenic global warming) used by normal folk. The term was used in blog comments at the New York Times[2] and ScienceBlogs as early as 2008,[3] and is likely to have been used earlier. By around 2011 CAGW had become commonplace in denialist blogs such as those of Anthony Watts or Judith Curry, and over the next year or two essentially replaced AGW in such esteemed venues. Despite the qualifier, denialists apply the term indiscriminately to anything approximating the mainstream scientific view on climate, regardless of whether or not “catastrophic” outcomes are implied.
As for motivation, it’s an attempt to move the goalposts. Denialists realized they had lost the argument over plain old “anthropogenic global warming” — the basic physics of the problem have been known since the 19th century,[4] so that rejecting AGW outright paints oneself as a loon. Adding “catastrophic” gives plenty of wiggle room for denialism.[5] Sea level rises a foot? Just a few Pacific Islanders losing everything; no catastrophe. Sea level rises a few more feet? The Philippines get flooded out and we lose coastal cities like London and New York. But with a few trillion dollars we can move them inland; no catastrophe. And so on.

rw
Reply to  David A
March 16, 2015 1:21 pm

To borrow an oft-quoted line, I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “C” is.

highflight56433
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:36 pm

metacognition – thinking about thinking
Fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. The Warrens of the world have a grandiose sense of self-importance and entitlement, crave admiration and attention. A legend in their own mind, the world is reflected in their image. I suppose Kerry, as with Warren are very certain, while climate deniers are so full of doubts. The words of the sheeple, repeating the following: I am stupid, I’m an idiot, I will never learn.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:47 pm

I’ll say it again those sources don’t say what you think they say. It was you, not me who quoted the Washington Post article. The article where Schulz quotes a book which he says make the claim that Ice data shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature. You do know don’t you that at least 9 peer review articles says that temperature rises on average about 800 years before Co2 rises. You do know that much don’t you?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:52 pm

You are so expertly programmed. I’ll be curiously waiting to see how all your information from authority is working for you as the natural cycles of change play out.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 15, 2015 1:53 pm

Sorry, for Warren.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:56 pm

So there being a rise in greenhouse gases and it has been warming since the LIA if not since the last ice age. No one, well maybe you, but no serious person thinks that the warming since 1880 is due to greenhouse gases, maybe since 1950, but not 1880. So stop saying irrelevant things.

jones
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:08 pm

Hi Warren,
I’ve asked a gentle question above..I hope you saw it?
Thank you
Andy

Graphite
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:38 pm

@warrenlb
“the warming of the planet since 1880”
Yep, this is obvious. You only have to compare the beachwear of the late nineteenth century with the bikinis and budgie-smugglers of today. And I can remember as a kid in the 1950s wearing woollen swimming togs. The proof is pretty strong on this item.
++++++++++++++++++++
“the physics of the greenhouse effect”
A lot of the commercial greenhouses around here actually pump CO2 in, raising the ratio to 1000ppm and more — that’s gotta have an effect.
++++++++++++++++++++
“the secondary indicators of sea level rise”
I go kayak fishing a couple of times a week. I’d welcome a sea-level rise . . . anything that would save me dragging the thing across an expanse of soft sand has gotta be good. Bring it on.
++++++++++++++++++++
“decreasing difference between daytime highs and nitetime lows”
Where I live, rugby union and rugby league games are increasingly being played at night. The standard is nowhere near as good as daytime games — a damp ball leading to more handling errors the worst culprit. Whether the scores are lower in night games, I’m not sure.
+++++++++++++++++++
“migration of species”
You’re on to something here. Wealthy Chinese are buying up real estate in Auckland, NZ, to such an extent they’ve ramped up the prices and driven locals out of the market in certain areas. What used to be an affordable place to live is now one of the world’s most expensive. I’m not sure how it’s linked to climate change, though. Is China getting colder?
++++++++++++++++++++
“declining global ice packs”
I gave up drinking some time ago and haven’t had a need for one of these things in 20 or more years. A bit of moderation by the population at large would solve this problem.
++++++++++++++++++++
“increasing acidity of the oceans”
It’s always been undrinkable.
++++++++++++++++++++
So there you are, warrenlb. Most of the things you’re worrying about don’t really matter. Relax. Enjoy life.

Newsel
Reply to  Graphite
March 15, 2015 3:07 pm

🙂

John in Oz
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 3:56 pm

acidity of the oceans

They let you teach science?????????

Steamboat Jack
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 6:02 pm

Warrenlb. I am impressed with your credentials. Could you list the peer reviewed papers that you have published? That should settle much of this argument when you demonstrate what you have accomplished.

GeeJam
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:13 pm

Warren, I am a layman.
I am not a scientist or engineer. Like many, I began to question (about 8 years ago now) how the vested interest of renewable rich kids appeared to always win their argument for nailing solar panels to someone’s roof or erecting 450ft wind turbines. I then invested a significant amount of time researching papers, newspaper articles, web pages, magazines, encyclopaedias and publications in order to find the truth. I became obsessed with the fact that, how such a microscopic insy-whinsy man-made contribution to an existing microscopic insy-whinsy part of the existing entire atmosphere (yes, that tiny amount of CO2 gas up there in the sky) can possibly be blamed for changes in climate. You should do the same research yourself and become a sceptic (just like all the other wonderful WUWT community that reside here).
I bet you produce a vast amount of anthropogenic CO2 from hundreds of other ways than just driving your car! Do you drink alcohol? Do you drink decaffeinated coffee? Are you planning to be cremated . . . .? well, I do hope so soon, because I, for one a fed up with ‘goody-goody’ lefty warmists infiltrating my cosy group of WUWT friends. Stop buying bread, cease from drinking lemonade, rip out all your laser cut PCB’s from everything, don’t buy any MAP food (cooked meat, snack foods), don’t eat bicarbonated cakes, don’t use lime-scale removers and stop cleaning your false teeth . . . . basically get the hell out of here. You’re wrong and we are right. You are a sophist.
Disclaimer: This is the first time I have been completely unable to ignore a troll. Normally taken with a pinch of salt, this time I’ve had a rant – and actually, I feel a lot better for it. I need my ‘rationalist’ WUWT friends to back me up here. Bring it on.

Patrick
Reply to  GeeJam
March 15, 2015 1:21 pm

He’s not a troll. He’s a climate science teacher (Apparently). Makes sense now…

Reply to  Patrick
March 15, 2015 1:50 pm

He is a very old teacher he voted for Goldwater, but he writes like a ten year old.

Newsel
Reply to  GeeJam
March 15, 2015 2:52 pm

Like you sometimes I take the bait. This is from 2007 and was my awakening. What has changed other than the Warrens of the world denying the obvious that we live in a chaotic environment and we humans are just one species that may or may not survive and it has zero to do with industrialization. The planet has seen 4 major Glaciation periods and why do we believe there will not be a 5th when the Sun “decides” to hibernate the next time around?
“If you still believe that we are not about to be screwed then you have your head where the sun does not shine.
“The following comment was recently made in response to a recent GW article:
“Global warming/ climate change/ manmade global warming/ whatever…. These are all red herrings. The real game in town is the transfer of wealth to the underdeveloped countries.”
A review of the UN FCC Background Paper (1) that established the agenda for Kyoto and subsequent GW meetings is entitled “INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL FLOWS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE” and it does provide some support for this comment.
This paper describes (as but one of many “funds”) the establishment of a funding transfer vehicle entitled:
“RESOURCE ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK (RAF) (Where by) China, India and the Russian Federation are likely to receive the most under the RAF formula, followed by Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, followed by a group of countries that includes Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Romania, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela (GEF, 2005b).”
Quite clearly the UNFCC expect the developed nations to fund GW Adaption and Mitigation projects in Oil & Gas rich Iran, Russia and Venezuela. This beggars the imagination.
Furthermore, with the ongoing debate regarding the IPCC GW findings themselves is providing a strong case for doubting those findings (ii & iii), can we be forgiven for suspecting that the GW debate is as being suggested above, nothing more than a global social re engineering scam – a Robin Hood look alike program with the Cap and Trade tax revenues being used to fund these programs? Yes, this is also described within the Background Paper.
It is time that Governments took a deep breath and start looking for more “low hanging fruit” projects closer to home on which to spend our tax $$. For example, in the US, the recent report issued by the National Research Council (Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use) notes that, in simplified form, 80% of “high” emissions (NOX, C02, PM) come from just 20% of the 406 US Coal fired power generation facilities.
Rather than subsidizing Iran, Russia and Venezuela, let’s subsidize retrofitting these facilities: it creates employment within the US, encourages manufacturing and protects the coal industry and its thousands of workers – Ah, I forgot BHO has promised to put the Coal Industry and its thousands of workers out of business. Maybe that is the reason that funds for this “Inward Investment” are nowhere to be found within the Recovery Act.
In closing: (Buzz) Warren, it would serve you well to down load the report from the Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (v) and read it. Its entitled Climate Change Revisited. If you still believe that we are not about to be screwed then you have your head where the sun does not shine.
(i) UNFCC Back Ground Paper: http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/background_paper.pdf
(ii) Climate Conspiracy: http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/PDFs/monckton.pdf
(iii) Gore (AIT) 9 Flaws: http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf
(iv) http://www.scribd.com/doc/21352850/Hidden-Costs“;
(v) http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html
PS: We are but pimples on the backside of an Elephant but susceptible to believing we are invincible and forgetting that there are greedy *&%l’s out there like Gore and his C in C.

Reply to  GeeJam
March 15, 2015 4:13 pm

Nice rant, Geegam, but really, warrenlb’s obsession with unreality isn’t worth your effort.
Well, except it made you feel better. That, and comic interlude, make warrenlb’s trolling useful.
The sad thing is that warrenlb claims to be “teaching” others his warped reality.
That is indeed unfortunate.

Reply to  GeeJam
March 16, 2015 12:54 am

Thanks for the rant I am impressed ( i would have just told him to FO)!

rw
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:11 pm

I’m curious. Do you explain to your classes how global warming causes cooling over much of the northern hemisphere? And why the Antarctic ice extent is presently at its greatest extent in 35 years? Do you warn them about the Arctic ice death spiral – and do you tell them to expect a summer meltdown some time in the next few years? And where do you think Trenberth’s missing heat is hiding? (And do you ever mention H. H. Lamb or Reid Bryson?)
You say that the “only ‘authority’ I rely upon is my own”, but you certainly didn’t start your comments out in that vein. I’m afraid I have to consider this another rhetorical move on your part. (Maybe this whole business about teaching Climate Science is, too.)

rw
Reply to  rw
March 15, 2015 2:16 pm

I forgot to ask whether you agree with Kerry about that thin layer of gases that’s giving us all this trouble …

David A
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:18 pm

Sorry but the NIPCC has literally linked to thousands of peer reviewed publications skeptical of disparate aspects of CAGW. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance, causing you a complete inability to actually address any issues.

rogerknights
Reply to  David A
March 15, 2015 6:11 pm

Agnorance.

Reply to  rogerknights
March 15, 2015 6:46 pm

This was making the rounds when Kerry ran for President:
BIG JOHN (KERRY)
[To the tune of ‘Big Bad John’]
Every mornin’ on the Hill you could see him arrive
Standing six-foot-four, weighing one-twenty-five
Kinda’ scrawny at the shoulders and lacking a spine
And when he spoke at all, it was mainly to whine.
(Big John, Big John) …Big Bad John.
Nobody seems to know what’s in John’s soul
His ‘beliefs’ are based on the latest poll
Though he’ll say what it takes to get your votes
It’s the Leftist agenda that he really promotes… Big John.
Some one said he came from Boston Town
Where he joined the Navy and gained renown
‘Earning’ three purple hearts and one bronze star
The home folks said, “This boy will go far”
(Big John, Big John) …Big Bad John (Big John)
Then came a day back in ’71
When he renounced all the medals that he said he won
He turned against his country and his Navy friends
And sold them out for his own selfish ends
(Big John) …Big Bad John
He appeared before Congress and on Left-wing shows
Giving aid and comfort to America’s foes
It was clear to see whose side he was on
Some say he helped cause the fall of Saigon
Big John… (Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John).
He claims to be for the working poor
Yet he owns 5 mansions from shore to shore
He never had to work a day in his life
‘Cause he learned it helps to have a wealthy wife!
…Big John
Now he wants to be our next President
And Commander-in-chief of those he resents:
The American soldiers who fight and die
To give him the freedom to tell us his lies
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)
Thousands have sacrificed their young lives
To help ensure that our nation survives
A vote for Kerry is a slap in the face
To all the brave soldiers that he’s disgraced
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

David A
Reply to  rogerknights
March 15, 2015 11:49 pm

…exceeded by ignorance perhaps.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:05 pm

Warren, I completely disagree. Bob Tisdale, Willis Eschenbach (published in NATURE), and many others have contributed enormously to human understanding of climate and in a larger sense how the planet works. Many skeptics are not career scientists. They are true scientists driven to work for free.
You keep coming back to “institutions, Universities, Government…”
The answer to your question, “Who in the educated world would listen to them?”:
Ronald Reagan would have listened to them.

BFL
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 10:11 am

warrenlb
There are many who would consider your deity like support of Reagan unlogical to say the least.
Between the 2 sites below find about 29 reasons Reagan WASN”T such a great president (if you dare consider with an open attitude, difficult I know):
http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime
http://jeff61b.hubpages.com/hub/21reasonsReaganwasaterriblepresident

spren
Reply to  BFL
March 15, 2015 9:25 pm

BFL, that is complete claptrap about Reagan. Reagan reduced marginal tax rates on EVERYONE. He changed the tax rate system down to just two rates. One at 28% and the other at 15%. He also reduced the rate of taxation of capital gains two times with the result that the revenues obtained from capital gains taxes quadrupled. His marginal tax rate reductions almost doubled the revenues coming into the federal treasury. His Democrat congress squandered those gains by increasing spending $1.53 for every new dollar coming in. These articles, though possessing very few true points, are completely garbage. And you are perpetuating that nonsensical garbage. Reagan was the best president in my lifetime, and completely changed my worldview. I see him second only to George Washington as our greatest presidents. You have pushed nothing but revisionist and disgusting garbage. Go look at the actual numbers before you push your ridiculous propaganda.

Reply to  spren
March 15, 2015 11:38 pm

spren is right. Reagan was as good a President as Obama is bad. The country craves another Reagan. But will we be so lucky a second time?
As for warrenlb — the Black Knight — he’s getting absolutely destroyed every time he posts here. I’m really surprised that he comes back for more. Who does he think he’s converting to his wacky point of view?
All that is left of him is a head on the ground, asserting: “‘Tis but a scratch!”☺

spren
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 9:14 pm

One of Reagan’s major premises was that government was the problem, not the solution. But as a life-long Reagan Republican you now believe that government has the solutions to a non-existent problem. We need a scorecard or secret decoder ring to figure how you are a Reagan Republican.

March 15, 2015 8:21 am

Warren ……explain the following. 1st ipcc scientific report
Found no agw. Mann’s hockey stick, climategate emails…
No warming in 18 years, oregon petition, science bio’s of gore, obama, the lying machine
Pachuri, bill nye, kerry. Tell us how you are making $ on this scam

Streetcred
Reply to  John piccirilli
March 15, 2015 9:09 pm

He made his at Emerson Climate Technologies, milking the subsidies.

March 15, 2015 8:25 am

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”
― Niels Bohr
I don’t think Mr Kerry has yet run out of mistakes in this field.

Reply to  markstoval
March 15, 2015 8:28 am

I think this guy was thinking of Mr. Kerry:
“In my opinion, we don’t devote nearly enough scientific research to finding a cure for jerks.”
― Bill Watterson

rw
Reply to  markstoval
March 15, 2015 1:44 pm

I guess the silver lining is that if this research program ever gets on its feet there will be a mountain of evidence to work with. Thanks to AGW.

Reply to  markstoval
March 15, 2015 9:34 am

Or any other field.

logos_wrench
March 15, 2015 8:29 am

Kerry like all idiots forgets that at one time a flat earth was “settled science “. And had the consensus.

logos_wrench
Reply to  logos_wrench
March 15, 2015 8:36 am

How ironic that it’s the alarmists that keep saying the ships are going to go over the edge. Talk about Flat earthers.

March 15, 2015 8:31 am

Forgive an outsider, but didn’t Kerry get to where he is through money and influence rather than through any ability? It certainly shows that understanding the world of science is not one of his positive attributes. He seems to this outsider to be just another lying politician with little in the way of sense.

Editor
Reply to  phillipbratby
March 15, 2015 8:52 am

John Kerry married two very, very wealthy women. Who made THEIR money by marrying into old-school (capitalist, elite, monopolistic) business families. His mother’s family was very, very wealthy as well.

While his extended maternal family enjoyed a great wealth as members of the Forbes and Dudley–Winthrop families,[5] Kerry’s parents themselves were upper-middle class, and a wealthy great aunt paid for him to attend elite boarding schools.

The Forbes 400 survey estimated in 2004 that Teresa Heinz Kerry had a net worth of $750 million. However, estimates have frequently varied, ranging from around $165 million to as high as $3.2 billion, according to a study in the Los Angeles Times. Regardless of which figure is correct, Kerry was the wealthiest U.S. Senator whilst serving in the Senate. Kerry is wealthy in his own name, and is the beneficiary of at least four trusts inherited from Forbes family members, including his mother, who died in 2002.

Kerry has never done anything but receive a government paycheck.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 9:08 am

And to think that Kerry was *almost* President!
For all his faults, GW Bush kept both Kerry and Algore out of the presidency.

David A
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 15, 2015 11:57 pm

db, says, “And to think that Kerry was *almost* President!
For all his faults, GW Bush kept both Kerry and Algore out of the presidency.
=============================
Brings up a curious question. Suppose Kerry had been elected. Would the screw have been so bad, that Obama would never have been elected? (Putting the question in general terms, how much must people suffer, to remember the principles the US was founded on, and why they work?.)

Chris
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 16, 2015 7:16 am

“For all his faults, GW Bush kept both Kerry and Algore out of the presidency.”
Yeah, he just dragged us into a war that has cost $1.5T and led to destabilization in the Middle East – those are trivial faults. /sarc off

Phil R
Reply to  RACookPE1978
March 16, 2015 11:05 am

And sponge off of others (see “married two very, very wealthy women,” above). 🙂

Steamboat Jack
Reply to  phillipbratby
March 15, 2015 5:23 pm

The buffoon made his money the old fashioned way: He married it. Twice.

Rick K
March 15, 2015 8:39 am

Thank you Dr. Ball!

MikeB
March 15, 2015 8:45 am

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand”

Well, it is true that the Science is agreed on certain points, but does John Kerry, or others who say this, know what those points are?
For example….
Climate changes, it always has
The world has warmed by a fraction of a degree Celsius as it recovers from the little ice age
The activities of human kind has some effect on climate, but so do termites, sheep, cows, trees and grassland.
All these things are ‘trivially true’, to use professor Richard Lindzen’s phrase. But that’s not a problem, in itsef, is it?
What John Kerry wishes to falsely imply is that Science says that the world will somehow melt if we don’t bankrupt ourselves back to the stone age in a futile attempt to ‘combat climate change’ (or at least vote for him).
That is certainly not what the science says.
The concept of ‘tipping points’ is not supported by any science (otherwise we would have tipped).
The concept of runaway global warming is not supported by any science (otherwise we would be running away, instead of flat-lining, and would have done so long ago when Co2 levels were 10 times higher)
Seriously, there is no science that suggests any of these outcomes.
Science agrees on some points, but looming catastrophe is not one of them.

G. Karst
Reply to  MikeB
March 16, 2015 9:39 am

Nicely put. thx. GK

Bohdan Burban
March 15, 2015 8:45 am

We are yet to hear a fearless voice in the Administration proclaim … ” but the Emperor’s got no clothes!”

yam
March 15, 2015 8:45 am

Sinter Soldier will combine with any who are destructive of our economy and culture.

Philip
March 15, 2015 8:46 am

An interesting position by Kerry given that the IPCC apparently believes the Earth to be flat and built that assumption into their models: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/whoops-study-shows-huge-basic-errors-found-in-cmip5-climate-models/

Tom J
March 15, 2015 8:48 am

Wasn’t it Michelle Obama who removed ketchup from the school lunch program?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom J
March 15, 2015 9:07 am

But wasn’t ketchup designated as a qualifying serving of a “vegetable” when designing the school lunch program?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 15, 2015 12:00 pm

the No 1 fruit and vegetable consumed in the US is ketchup with fries. truth.

BFL
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 15, 2015 2:30 pm

But didn’t you know that unhealthy school lunches affect national security:
“Unhealthy school lunches pose a threat to national security, according to a group of retired military leaders. Leaving 27 percent of young adults “too fat to fight,” childhood obesity is jeopardizing military recruitment, according to a report released Tuesday by the non-profit group Mission: Readiness.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/school-lunches-pose-national-security-threat-ret-military/story?id=10424313
Of course one might consider that if this helped keep them out of efforts like the Iraq invasion, obesity might actually be a good thing (oh the irony).

March 15, 2015 8:50 am

John Kerry got a “free pass” from the Democrats on his lie about his Purple Heart wounding …. and he will get another “free pass” from the Democrats regardless of what he says or does as US Secretary of State. “Free passes” just like his predecessor is now receiving.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 9:12 am

Those ‘free passes’ are nothing compared to the Pardons that Obama will issue when he leaves office!

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 9:58 am

IF he leaves office…

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 10:51 am

Mark,
I had almost included that in my comment.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 1:16 pm

dbstealey said:
> Mark,
> I had almost included that in my comment.
I think it is a serious concern.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 3:30 pm

…lie‘s about his Purple Heart wounding…
There were three splinters received for three Purple Hearts. This makes him our first splinter hero. Only one visit to sick bay to pull the splinter from that episode.

Knutsfordian
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 5:45 pm

In golf it is called a Mulligan.

mebbe
March 15, 2015 8:55 am

AGW surface area of planet pi r squared
Denier surface area of planet 4 pi r squared
Deniers are flat-earthers times 4

March 15, 2015 8:55 am

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”
Is this the beginning of an inquisition?

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  petermue
March 16, 2015 2:07 am

I didn’t expect that.

Jimbo
March 15, 2015 9:01 am

John Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz. Teresa is a philanthropist and great funder of environmental and radical leftist groups. She is also a board member of the Environmental Defense Fund. I hope there is no undue influence on John Kerry.
http://www.undueinfluence.com/heinz.htm
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/TeresaHeinzKerry%5B1%5D.htm
Beans Means hot air.

The Heinz Endowments, with assets of $1.4 billion, is ranked the 49th largest foundation in the United States. It dolled out $75 million in grants in 2012, including $16.8 million to environmental programs. Founded by members of the Heinz food empire, it is no longer formally connected to the H.J. Heinz Co.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2013/10/28/Heinz-Kerry-offers-insight-on-upheaval-shale-center-connection/stories/201310280048

trafamadore
March 15, 2015 9:18 am

Since all of your philosophical arguments suggesting climate “skeptics” are a legitimate part of science also apply to flat earther’s, I would argue that Kerry’s categorization is quite accurate. After all, Pratchatt’s disc world must have a basis in fact.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 15, 2015 10:53 am

Why the quote marks around ‘skeptic’?
Scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Is that what bothers you?

trafamadore
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 2:59 pm

Ha

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 3:59 pm

Then why? Or are you just trolling as usual?

RockyRoad
Reply to  dbstealey
March 16, 2015 10:30 am

Around here, someone trolling just makes a fool of themselves.

March 15, 2015 9:19 am

It amazes me how people like Gore, Kerry, and McKibben, constantly lecture us on the science of global warming, get that wrong more often than not, and constantly say we should listen only to scientists, and not to say viscounts, yet none of them have a degree in the hard sciences.

warrenlb
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 11:18 am

They indeed say to listen to scientists, yet others who reject AGW say ‘don’t listen to scientists’. So which of the non-scientists is more likely to get the science right?

Jimbo
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:40 am

warrenlb, will you listen to the science? How many years of no surface warming will it take before you agree with the warmists below?

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

“The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 12:15 pm

yet others who reject AGW say ‘don’t listen to scientists’.
===============
No. We say “listen to the evidence”, because in science that is all that matters. And in science there is only one kind of evidence that matters, the contrary evidence.
We live in an infinite universe. You can always find an infinite number of examples to prove anything. Purple jelly beans cause cancer. If you look for evidence this is true, you will find it. However, the positive examples don’t mean it is true.
This is what separates pseudo science from real science. Pseudo science looks for positive examples, and counts them up as evidence that their science is true.
Real science looks hard for negative examples, and only if no negative examples can be found is this considered evidence that their science is true. If a single negative example is found in the future, this is proof that their science is not true, and everyone goes back to the drawing board to try again.
In pseudo science no amount of negative examples have any significance, so long as more positive examples can be found. In real science a single negative example is all it takes to prove the science wrong.
So today we have record increase in CO2, but the increase in temperature has not been anywhere near as rapid as in the past. This is the negative example that proves CAGW wrong. It doesn’t prove AGW is wrong, only that CAGW is wrong

jones
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:02 pm

Please forgive the question Warren and please please believe me when I say I’m not trying to attack you but are you a teenager or possibly a college undergraduate?
I promise I will drop any such further questions if you feel able to reply to this question.

RH
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:48 pm

warrenlb said:”others who reject AGW say ‘don’t listen to scientists’. ”
Nobody, particularly frequenters of this blog, said not to listen to scientists. Hell, the guy who made this post is a scientist, but you were so blinded by dogma that you couldn’t see his name and publically called him an anonymous coward. The names of skeptical scientists, many of whom we are lucky enough to have comment on wuwt, is so long that is not practical to list them here.

Tom J