No wonder they call him 'moonbeam' – California Governor Jerry Brown claims Global Warming causes extreme cold

Remember this eye roller from Brown where he claimed LAX was at risk from sea level rise, only to have to walkback the claim the next day after it was pointed out on WUWT that LAX is well above sea level?

Brown_LAX_SLR He’s at it again. Eric Worrall writes:

California Governor Jerry Brown has declared senator Ted Cruz is “unfit for office”, because Cruz doesn’t believe that global warming is the cause of the extreme cold in America’s North East.

According to CNN;

“What he said is absolutely false,” Brown said. “Over 90% of the scientists who deal with climate are absolutely convinced that the humans’ activity, industrial activity … are building up in the atmosphere, they’re heat trapping, and they’re causing not just one drought in California but severe storms and cold on the East Coast.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/22/politics/ted-cruz-2016-election-global-warming-jerry-brown/

What can I say – without experts like Jerry to explain the science to us, some of us might have wondered whether extreme cold in the North East, even after 30 years of “dangerous” global warming, and 18 years of no rise in global temperature, and record busting growth of Antarctic sea ice, might mean that someone made a mistake.

Advertisements

277 thoughts on “No wonder they call him 'moonbeam' – California Governor Jerry Brown claims Global Warming causes extreme cold

      • Having a paper published via peer pal review doesn’t automagically convey credibility on its author(s).

      • You do not have to be climate scientist to know the laws of thermodynamics. A trace gas, or any gas at any concentration, in the upper tropical atmosphere at -17 deg C cannot warm Earth’s surface at 15 deg C. That is the critical center of the global warming “climate science.” It is thermodynamically impossible for cold to warm hot, and exactly why they now feel the need to dishonestly alter the temperature data to try to convince us that we are warming.
        This is a political agenda and has nothing to do with climate. CO2 was chosen as the target because the socialist/fascists, pushing the UN’s Agenda 21 and who want to take over our energy supply, realized that we cannot stop using carbon-based energy supplies. CO2 IS PLANT FOOD AND IS GREENING THE PLANET. We need more CO2 and not less as the planet cools and we need to maintain our food supplies in the face of shorter growing seasons.
        They do not want the public to know that CO2 has been much higher than now during three periods of the last 200 years, even as recently as 500 ppm in the 1940s, and nothing bad happened. Furthermore, CO2 has been two to five times high, at least, during the vast majority of the last 600 million years. We are at a low CO2 period which threatens life on Earth. At below 200 ppm atmospheric CO2, plants stop growing, and below that, they start to die.
        Nope, you do not have to be a climate scientist to know that their junk science dog does not hunt.

      • Mike Borgelt says:
        I think one of the Spice Girls signed that petition.
        Oh really? Which one?
        Every co-signer is named on the OISM site. Please identify which “Spice Girl” you’re referring to.
        Take your time…

      • Great quote from that article that sums up the Oregon Petition:
        “The blogger, Jo Nova, whose article lauding the petition appeared in The Australian last week, and on her website, asked in her article if the word of one climate scientist pushing the anthroprogenic climate change barrow was worth that of 420 “scientists” who disagreed with him or her. Perhaps we should ask whether the word of a climate scientist who has published a peer reviewed paper, and the academies of science that support them and thousands of others, is worth equal weight to the opinion of 420 vets, dentists and Spice Girls. The answer should be pretty obvious to most.”

        • Flash, I’m calling you on your crapola. I challenge you to find one co-signer listed on the OISM website who does not possess a degree in the hard sciences.
          Every criticism you ever made of the OISM Petition amounts to nothing more than ad hominem complaints. Nothing either you or anyone else has said detracts from the clear OISM message, which states:
          The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. 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. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
          Alarmists like you are always playing the man, not the ball. That’s why you’ve lost the debate.
          If you can refute the OISM statement above, have at it. But your pathetic ad-homs get you nowhere.

        • 10 billion political sycophant AGW-scam supporters paid 10 billion dollars to produce politically correct pseudoscience disinformation would be incapable of altering the physical laws that have resulted in an absence of global warming over the past 18 years as atmospheric CO2 has increased. Why not post this on skepticalscience and support John Cook’s conflict of interest with his position as the head of U of Queensland’s Sustainability Institute and Dana Nuticelli’s conflict of interest as an employee of Tetratech, a corporation that designs and builds green projects, or desmogblog’s James Hoggan, whose clients include real estate developers who would undoubtedly be glad to accept contracts for green real estate development projects.

        • Yep. Kinda reminds me of the history of autism. Mothers everywhere disagreed with the professional consensus which was that autism was caused by cold mothering. That scientists did not listen to these mothers delayed the advent of truly helpful, not harmful, remediation strategies for decades.

        • People here love using phrases they think make them sound clever but which they don’t really understand. By definition appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is outside of their area of expertise. What exactly are you appealing to?

      • I see that no one can cite any “Spice Girls” in the OISM Petition. [Hint: posting a link to non-existent names doesn’t count.]
        Add that failure to the alarmists’ crusade. Even the posted link admits:
        Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition
        So we see that dishonest people in the alarmist camp have tried to play games. As Gomer would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!”
        Just because some ignorant reprobate gave the alarmists here something to cheer about, doesn’t mean they are right. They’re flat worng. The OISM Petition is routinely vetted to verify names of the signers. Four fake names out of 31,000+ co-signers is far less than we would expect.
        If that’s the best that icouldnthelpit, Flash, and Borgelt can do, then as usual, they fail.

      • You do not have to be climate scientist to know the laws of thermodynamics. A trace gas, or any gas at any concentration, in the upper tropical atmosphere at -17 deg C cannot warm Earth’s surface at 15 deg C.

        I’m not gonna claim you are wrong, but I humbly suggest the laws of thermodynamics are not required to change in the first place. You know, the upper tropical athmosphere is not supposed to warm the surface, but affect, among other things, on the speed it cools down.
        To put it in ‘Latin’, non sequitur caused by some good chutzpah.
        I wish you luck though, I’m not a True Believer either. Look at Scienceofdoom for a good short introduction to lapse rate calculations. They are dead easy /sarc

      • Dodgy Geezer says:
        What has that got to do with the truth?
        Correctomundo! Carping about something they don’t like has nothing to do with the truth of the matter.
        MB says:
        There is no known way of verifying the signatures of the OISM petition.
        Says you.
        Every OISM co-signer is listed by name. But the best that the chihuahuas nipping at the heels of the co-signers can say is that they don’t “believe” the names. But so what? That’s their problem.
        There are specific qualifications for signers. Anyone can investigate them — and they’ve certainly tried. But the very best they could ever come up with is their claim [impossible to verify] that a few ‘spice girls’ and others were faked. So what? Out of a petition containing more than 31,000 names, is it any surprise that a few jerks entered fake names? So now we see defenders of the jerk contingent.
        The OISM Petition list has been closed to new signers for a few years now, but if it was re-opened, there is little doubt that tens of thousands more scientists and engineers would add their names.
        I just love the game of OISM Whack-A-Mole! I could play it all day. Because the nay-sayers have got nothin’ as usual, and it’s always a pleasure to point that out. The alarmist crowd has tried repeatedly to match the OISM’s numbers, but they have always failed miserably. I have regularly challenged them to come up with even 10% of the OISM numbers, contradicting the OISM statement that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. But they failed to get even 3,000 names.
        Then I challenged them to produce the names of even one percent of the OISM’s numbers — about 300 names. But again, the alarmist crowd failed to produce even that paltry number.
        The truth is that the “consensus” [for whatever that is worth in science – not much] is heavily on the side of skeptics. It always has been. As in all their other claims, the alarmists are lying about having a consensus of scientific opinion regarding MMGW. They don’t. There are a handful of riders on the grant gravy train, followed by the usual mindless lemmings. But scientific skeptics still overwhelm their small numbers.
        So let’s keep discussing the OISM co-signers. It’s a game I love to play, because skeptics have the facts, versus the alarmist clique’s opinions.

        • “There are specific qualifications for signers. Anyone can investigate them — and they’ve certainly tried. But the very best they could ever come up with is their claim [imposiible to verify] that a few ‘spice girls’ and others were faked.”
          What independent body verified that the qualifications were met? And if they’re all so eminent, why are their affiliations and areas of expertise not included in the petition? Also, it’s really not up to naysayers to disprove every name; it’s up to the creators to prove they’re real. We all know you can’t prove a negative.
          “The alarmist crowd has tried repeatedly to match the OISM’s numbers, but they have always failed miserably. I have regularly challenged them to come up with even 10% of the OISM numbers, contradicting the OISM statement that CO2 is harm”
          When did this happen? Who undertook this effort? Document or I’ll assume you’re making it up. I would suggest that since pretty much all the scientific papers agree with AGW, not too many folks want to waste their time getting a bunch of random internet people to sign a petition. Hell, I could get 3000 names in a couple of days on facebook, and it would mean more than the Oregon Petition.
          “The truth is that the “consensus” [for whatever that is worth in science – not much] is heavily on the side of skeptics. It always has been. ”
          And that’s just a garden-variety fabrication with no evidence behind it, and plenty against it. Have you ever even talked to a climate scientist?

      • So a very few fake names, wow, now compare that to the 97% faked science of climastrology that supports itself primarily on funding that requires supporting AGW to receive funding or printing in the so called “science” rags of today. Call me not impressed……..

      • @”Sir” Harry Flashman “Have most of those scientist published peer-reviewed papers in the field?”
        Peer-reviewed by whom? Their co-conspirators as is done by alarmists? You really need to understand that this is NOT about science, but control.

      • Again SHF demonstrates his ignorance;
        “People here love using phrases they think make them sound clever but which they don’t really understand. By definition appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is outside of their area of expertise.”
        Actually the fallacious argument follows these lines:
        A is an authority on a particular topic
        A says something about that topic
        A is probably correct

      • Higley, you are hurting our position with your repeated refusal to see the stupidity of your claims. Even the youngest child knows that a cold blanket can warm them by slowing heat loss. While there are mechanistic differences, the radiative claim is the same on an extremely fundamental level. Cold CAN warm hot by indirect means such as slowing the cooling of a hot body.
        Your sophomoric claims that it’s thermodynamically impossible undermines the real arguments against the CAGW phenomenon (specificaly that it is much less than predicted, will not be harmful, and that the actions taken against it are a mix of extremely harmful and useless). In short, you are not helping and you are fueling the ammunition of the alarmists.

      • “Every co-signer is named on the OISM site. Please identify which “Spice Girl” you’re referring to.
        Take your time…”
        In his reply, Mike Borgelt goes and finds useless information not from the OISM site. Mike and his spice girl deluded buddies prefer rumors and bad information instead.

      • Sir Harry Flashman @ March 23, 2015 at 10:07 am
        “By definition appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is outside of their area of expertise.”
        That is incorrect.

        “Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.”

        • No. Here’s a more complete description, also culled off the web:
          “It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss
          the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are
          not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of
          experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a
          similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
          However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or
          institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a
          person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon
          whether their claims are true or not.
          Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution ‘isn’t true’ Bob
          says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution”
          In other words, it’s not the validity of the source that matters so much as that of the evidence that the source has provided .

      • This section of the comments had me rolling. Debating which people agree to what premise when we literally CANNOT explain current climate when weighting co2 as heavily as the IPCC does is laughable. We literally have dozens of papers that mostly disagree with eachother from leaders in the fields trying to explain the lack of warming in various ways. Even if 100% of those capable of understanding the field or published in the field agreed about co2 they are almost certainly wrong that it is a major factor and the feedbacks mandatory for the dangerous end of the claims are not working out either. Changes in the arctic seem to be mostly ocean water temp driven and even if we contributed to the warming of this water, it was almost certainly less then many still claim because again, we cannot currently explain why it isn’t warming more without first arguing against past understandings of other variables as per the IPCC stance for all involved. So it is more likely by multiples we overestimated co2s role and thus any additional heat added to the waters actually affecting the arctic at the moment. You can carry on forever about who believes what, but the data speaks for itself. While the full scope is far from certain, co2 as a major factor with feedbacks causing 2/3 of the claimed warming is very unlikely, and even arguing for it at this point takes extreme leaps of faith.

      • Two points.
        1 Who is surprised that someone called Benjamin Pierce signed it? Luke Skywalker sounds fictional, OK. But there isn’t a Luke Skywalker.
        Benjamin Pierce sounds as reasonable as Harry Potter.
        2 No-one would have bothered trying to sabotage the petition if they didn’t expect it to get a lot of signatures.
        They could have mocked it if there weren’t a lot if sceptical scientists.
        Everybody knew and everybody knows that there are a lot of very sceptical scientists.

        • “2 No-one would have bothered trying to sabotage the petition if they didn’t expect it to get a lot of signatures.”
          And noone COULD have sabotaged the petition if they’d had any proper controls on it.

      • “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth”- Albert Einstein
        The Scientific Method is based on the theory that God does not cheat- there are unchanging rules governing the universe, and that anyone can figure out those rules for himself or herself by observation and experiment without appeal to “high priests”.

      • That you respect the peer-review process should be causing you to doubt those “climate scientists” who have tried to subvert and pervert the peer-review process for their own gain, and who have created an even worse scientific reality, the pimping and propagandizing of peer-reviewed articles as the END point of scientific rigor, rather than as the mere beginning point of replication and repetition, which are the true scientific processes that turn hypotheses into theories.
        I believe that most of peer-reviewed “climate science” published over the last 20 years will be worthless 50 years from now. It cannot be replicated, it cannot be falsified (no one will expose climate models to falsification tests), it cannot be duplicated, and there’s so much pimping of measurements that are damn close to zero with no acknowledgement of tacit error bars 10 or 20 times greater.
        Go ahead, appeal to climate scientists if you want to. To me, that will not make you look enlightened.

      • As I’ve said, please keep the OISM debate going. I love playing Whack-A-Mole!
        So let’s whack some moles:
        Flash says:
        What independent body verified that the qualifications were met?
        More nonsense. There is no ‘independent body ‘ needed, since everything has been posted transparently online. So do your own homework, instead of playing the innuendo game. Prove that any names listed are not legitimate.
        Flash doesn’t want to admit it, but even if we stipulate all the fake names that were submitted — maybe a dozen at the outside — that still leaves more than 31,000 scientists and engineers, all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s who all state that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That tortures Flash and his ilk, because it goes to the heart of the debunked MMGW scare.
        Next, Flash says:
        When did this happen? Who undertook this effort? Document or I’ll assume you’re making it up.
        Assume whatever you like, for what good it will do you. Obviously, you did not even read the OISM link. It’s all there, and then some. Try and get up to speed, ‘K? Thx. And:
        Have you ever even talked to a climate scientist?
        Many, many times. I like to attend climate conferences. And you …?
        Next:
        Hell, I could get 3000 names in a couple of days on facebook, and it would mean more than the Oregon Petition.
        Ri-i-i-i-ght. Sure you could. Then take my challenge: post the names of even 1% of the OISM’s numbers, contradicting their co-signed statement. I’ll wait, while you hide out… Whack-A-Mole!
        Next, ‘icouldnthelpit’ says:
        Dr Geri Halliwell.
        Funny, I don’t see her name on the list. But thanx for playing. Better luck next time.
        And if you did find a fake name, it would be a first — but it would do nothing to negate the tens of thousands of legitimate names that make your climate alarmism so amusing to rational skeptics. Whack-A-Mole!
        Next, Borgelt says:
        There is no known way of verifying the signatures of the OISM petition.
        No way for you, maybe. But you probably have no imagination. Me, I can think of a number of ways to verify signatures. I don’t have to, though, because the Past President of the National Academy of Sciences has already done that… now cue the ad hominem attacks on anyone you disagree with…
        Next, Borgelt says:
        A list of names doesn’t verify the signature. Listed qualifications doesn’t verify the signatures.
        The Past President of the National Academy of Science did the vetting, along with Dr. Robinson. To 97% of the population, they would be as credible as anyone could be. So when all the ad hominem carp is stripped out of the nay-sayers’ argument, what we have are some highly educated professionals that make the Borgelts of the world look like miniature chihuahuas nipping at their heels. But thanx for playing Whack-A-Mole, it’s been fun. Next:
        The reason it has been closed is because it is worthless, and got a bad reputation from the start.
        Borgelt is wrong again, as usual. The OISM Petition was a 1997 appeal to the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. It succeeded. And if that’s the best the nay-sayers can do, then they fail spectacularly. Whack-A-Mole!
        Next, Bill2 says:
        There are 10 doctors of veterinary medicine on there.
        If Bill2 had read the OISM link, he would understand that even with an M.D. or veterinary degree, they could not be accepted unless they also possessed a degree in one of the hard sciences. Is that the best you can do, Bill2? Whack-A-Mole!
        And again we have the hopeless Flash, opining:
        And noone COULD have sabotaged the petition if they’d had any proper controls on it.
        The OISM site vetted the signatories, which is why despite the false claims, there are no ‘spice girls’ to be found. Fake names were promptly removed. So once again, Mr Flash doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Whack-A-Mole!
        Nor does Flash understand the Appeal to Authority fallacy. The ultimate Authority here is Planet Earth, which has been busy debunking the climate alarmist nonsense: there has been no global warming for many years now, despite what his false ‘authorities’ claim. Therefore, any and all of Flash’s “authorities” fail, demonstrating why the ‘appeal to authority’ argument is a logical fallacy. They are not true authorities, they are only self-serving climate propagandists feeding at the grant trough. But Flash believes them! Why? Because they support his confirmation bias. Whack-A-Mole!☺☺☺

      • Dear Harry, do you have an idea of how many people, not necessarily scientists, it takes to prove AGW wrong? ONE.
        I don’t have to have one paper published if the physics and the math are wrong, do I ? For an example, if I apply the wrong formula to an electrical circuit, will my result be correct? The proof that AGW is in error is in the results. The fact is AGW has been wrong 100 %. The only way for AGW to be that wrong consistently is using the wrong math and physics. If they were guessing they’d get a few right.

      • The clown hired to entertain the children at the kid’s party has just arrived – Sir Harry.

      • Sir Harry Flashman @ March 23, 2015 at 12:27 pm
        I’m sorry, no. That may be the opinion of some random fellow writing something on the web, but the ad verecundiam fallacy dates at least to Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations, and is not open to post-modern reinterpretation.

      • “…therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.”
        Actually, that’s not a bad description. Contrast to what you said:
        “By definition appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is outside of their area of expertise.”
        Bzzzt! Wrong.

        • So by your interpretation if I want to understand, say, black holes, the opinion of a random person off the street is as valid as that of Stephen Hawking?

          • When the SHF

            So by your interpretation if I want to understand, say, black holes, the opinion of a random person off the street is as valid as that of Stephen Hawking?

            If, when I interview Stephen Hawking about black holes – and every prediction he makes about black holes over a 28 year period is proved wrong, and every reference he quotes about black holes is proved inaccurate or incomplete or misleading BUT is funded by the national black-holes-funding-society that wants to tax me more money – then, yes, I SHOULD interview any other person on the street rather than Stephen Hawkings!

          • So you genuinely believe that almost every single climate scientist is corrupt or ignorant? If I had to stretch that far to make reality fit my beliefs, I’d be questioning my beliefs.

      • I’m going to cheat, and let Wikipedia speak my thoughts for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-authoritarianism
        Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[12][13][14] The cognitive application of freethought is known as “freethinking”, and practitioners of freethought are known as “freethinkers”.[12][15]
        Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate) is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.[16] In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[17] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
        A is an authority on a particular topic
        A says something about that topic
        A is probably correct
        Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[17][18][19][20] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[21] Influential anarchist Mikhail Bakunin thought that “Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such individual, I have no absolute faith in any person.”[22] He saw that “Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subbordination. This same reason forbids me, then, to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority, because there is no universal man, no man capable of grasping in all that wealth of detail, without which the application of science to life is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches of social life.”[22]

        Bakunin provides about as succinct description of fallacious intellectual submission to authoritative opinion as I have read which does not implicitly throw the nuanced difference of rationally studying expert conclusion under the bus.
        OTOH, I don’t like the way the conclusion of the syllogism is worded … I’d write “Therefore A is correct about that topic”, and comment that I don’t think we’d function as a society if not for domain experts and the all but unavoidable trust we have for them. Here’s an anecdotal example from this very thread:

        Alan McIntire
        March 23, 2015 at 12:45 pm
        “A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth”- Albert Einstein
        The Scientific Method is based on the theory that God does not cheat- there are unchanging rules governing the universe, and that anyone can figure out those rules for himself or herself by observation and experiment without appeal to “high priests”.

        My dose of subtle irony for the day … because appeals to the OISM petition are just too obviously inconsistent to warrant much more than a passing mention.
        I have tried in vain to find the name of the fallacy which describes this argument:
        New truths are always discovered by individuals who challenge mainstream orthodoxy
        Mine is a minority opinion
        Therefore the majority is wrong
        It’s a non sequitur of course, but it doesn’t have a specific name that I’m aware of … which surprises me given how frequently it’s invoked by magical thinkers who evidently wouldn’t know a properly rational empirical inference if it sat on their face and wiggled. Appeal to anti-authority and/or unpopularity perhaps. Wikipedia mentions “appeal to spite” or argumentum ad odium from the Latin, which is not quite the same thing, but also quite popular amongst all parties in the great climate “debate”, no better evidenced by the fact that I just did it.

      • Peer review is only as good as the quality of the reviewer and how diligent they are. If sure the Journal of Creation Science (not sure what the exact name is) has peer reviewed papers.

      • Gates,
        Let me simmer it down so that even you can understand it:
        Either Planet Earth is right, or the alarmist contingent is right.
        But they cannot both be right.
        Try to understand.

      • No idea but lots of those who have , in pratice have produced the same has cows do when they ‘publish in the field ‘
        the difference it they can admit to the fact its sh*t they dropped in their field

      • “By definition appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is outside of their area of expertise”
        You need a new dictionary: whether the authority is inside or outside the area of expertise is irrelevant. The whole point of the fallacy is that a proper argument requires evidence, not simply a reference to an authority.

      • I read through this Oregon Petition Project subset here, to see that Harry,Mike has no effective argument on the validity of the Petition list. They blow hot crap and little else.
        They chose to pore over the .01% of the list, to say Nyah, Nyah, Nyah…..,it is so stupid,when famous signers such as Edward Teller, Freeman Dyson actually signed that petition.
        Give it up,Harry and Mike,as you will find no satisfaction here.

      • dbstealey,

        So by cherry-picking 1950, and cherry-picking an ocean layer, you get to show a hokey stick.

        1950 is as far back as NODC estimates go. 2000m is as deep as their estimates go. I couldn’t have possibly better represented the data from that one particular set any better, but if you insist, here’s 0-300 m:
        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp700_global.png
        Here’s 0-100 m:
        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp100_global.png
        Here’s 0-2000 m again:
        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png
        Here’s your silly “logic” at “work” again:

        Either Planet Earth is right, or the alarmist contingent is right. But they cannot both be right.

        C’mon, Stealey, put your ludicrously fat mouth where your money is and tell me from your position of superior omniscience what Planet Earth is really doing. I’m begging you, show me a satellite surface temperature record again. Do it. I triple-dog dare you.
        You can be so laughably obtuse sometimes. It’s almost adorable.

      • Gates,
        As I explained chapter and verse a week ago, I think you have mental problems. Serious mental problems. Whether it is obvious to you or not doesn’t matter.
        Commenting here — and on many other blogs — with your incessant climate alarmist rants is not normal. I don’t have to be a licensed psychiatrist to see when someone is seriously screwed up. Sixty seven years of experience dealing with human nature is more than enough.
        You have real problems, Gates. But no matter, that isn’t the issue here. The issue is that Planet Earth is busy debunking everything you believe in. Since either the planet or you is right, and since it can’t be both, I know who I will put my money on.
        Eighteen+ years and counting… ☺

      • dbstealey,

        As I explained chapter and verse a week ago, I think you have mental problems.

        Mother Earth told you that too I suppose. I take it you actually concede not being omniscient not really knowing any better than anyone else what the planet is telling us about CO2.

        Eighteen+ years and counting…

        Tsk: So by cherry-picking 1950, and cherry-picking an ocean layer, you get to show a hokey stick.
        Well, I did triple-dog dare you after all. Here, try 45 years. Again:
        http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itemp2000_global.png
        Unabated. What’s your next tactic, DB? You’ve already played the “Gates is crazy” card. Dunno man, I’d go find something other than the weak crap you’re peddling if I were you. Either that, or fold. But then, hell would probably freeze over first.
        Which would clearly be all AGW’s fault if it happened, of course.

      • dbstealey,
        You accuse Brandon of cherry-picking data since 1950 (65 years), even though that is literally as far back as the data goes, and of cherry-picking 2000m ocean data, even though that is literally as deep as the NOAA dataset goes. In your very next response, you reference a statistically meaningless trend over 18 years. Not only this, but the 0 trend can only be found in 1 out of 6 temperature datasets, a fact I’m sure you are aware of. How is this even passable logic in your head? How do you accuse somebody of cherry-picking 65 years when they are clearly not, and then in your very next response engage in actual cherry-picking of 18 years? I seriously don’t understand.
        But then, you also apparently think that accusing people of being insane when they are just pointing out the facts to you is warranted. The trolling here is too real.

      • themaster15,

        In your very next response, you reference a statistically meaningless trend over 18 years.

        I may as well be the first to point out that Ben Santer disagrees with you on that one. The salient point here stands …
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hockey_League_spaghetti.gif
        … after centuries of Milankovitch-consistent decline in surface temps, there is no known purely “natural” force capable of adequately explaining the right-hand portion of that plot …
        http://www.realclimate.org/images/Marcott_s3.jpg
        … make that millenia. Though when referencing Marcott et al. (2013) one must take care to note the authors don’t consider the 20th century uptick robust …
        http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/images2/marcott-hadcrut.jpg
        … but that’s something that thermometers are good for when they’re available.

        But then, you also apparently think that accusing people of being insane when they are just pointing out the facts to you is warranted.

        To be fair, there is a history of me not being very genteel, and particularly not with Stealey in light of his stonewalling and diversionary propaganda tactics. “Stupidly dishonest” is how I described it not so long ago … because like you, I truly don’t understand how his transparently obvious nonsense can possibly be compelling.
        Being called insane by inveterate liars is just par for this course.

      • Have you?
        Is no one apart from a couple of ‘climate scientists’ supposed to have an opinion on a subject that is currently having billions wasted on it ever year?
        Can I not talk about gravity because I’m not a publishing physicist?
        Twaddle from Flashpants.

      • after centuries of Milankovitch-consistent decline in surface temps, there is no known purely “natural” force capable of adequately explaining the right-hand portion of that plot

        In other words: we don’t know what it is, so we’re going to blame evil see-oh-toos. We have no proof, but it suits us well…
        Pretty graphs (lots of lovely colourful squiggles) and really daft statements from BG.
        You need to realise the following BG:
        I’m a reasonably intelligent ‘man on the street’ with a maths degree and a job teaching high school students, and I’ve read all the alarmist predictions of doom from your brigade and none of it has come true. No millions of climate refugees, no New York highways disappearing under water, and no world-wide famines because of eco-system collapse. All I do see are my taxes being wasted on useless windmills and solar panels.
        All of the billions wasted on the CAGW nonsense could have been spent on making sure the world’s poor had access to clean drinking water and power. It could have made so many people’s lives immeasurably better, but it hasn’t. The waste of money is criminal and the likes of you are responsible for this travesty. Do I sound angry? You bet I am.

      • themaster15,
        While I hesitate to disagree with someone who calls himself “the master”, when I see something wrong I tend to point it out. You write:
        …you reference a statistically meaningless trend over 18 years.
        I hate to take Dr. Phil Jones’ side, but as I explained above, when Jones was interviewed in 1999 he was asked if global warming had stopped. His reply: “Yes, but only just.”
        At the time, global warming had been stopped for only two years, since 1997. Jones explained that to be statistically certain that temperatures had really stopped rising, we would have to wait 15 years. That would take us to 2012. Jones was probably confident that global warming would resume within that time frame. But it didn’t.
        It is 2015, and global warming remains in stasis. So while you can claim that the long period of no global warming is, as you say, “meaningless”, über-Warmist Phil Jones would disagree with you. If you believe that is “cherry-picking”, please take it up with Jones. It’s his definition.
        As far as your claim of “1 in 6” datasets, I reject GISS and land-based temperature records for the simple reason that they are too heavily “adjusted”. In the case of GISS, almost every adjustment shows scarier warming than before the adjustment. What are the odds of that?
        I should also point out that all the datasets agree within a very narrow range. The alarmist club hangs their hats on the fact that a tiny change of a tenth of a degree can construct a chart showing a rising, vs a declining trend line. But they all agree closely, and they all show that the scary warming in the late ’90’s was a fluke. Nothing we observe is either unusual or unprecedented. In fact, we have been extremely fortunate to have been living through a true “Goldilocks” climate for more than a century. How the alarmist crowd can make that into a giant crisis is beyond me.
        Finally, you say in a most unfriendly way: “How is this even passable logic in your head?” — then you accuse me of “trolling”?? What, there are no mirrors in your house? I should point out that I have never said a single derogatory, insulting, or unfriendly word to you, ever. So what brought that comment on?
        Treat me good, I’ll treat you better. Treat me bad, I’ll treat you worse. <– Good advice there.

      • Since posting graphs seems to be the thing here, let’s take a look at a graph constructed with/by Phil Jones’ data:
        http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
        Notice that the natural warming step changes in the past are identical to the current rise in global T.
        Now, some folks whose minds are made up and closed tight will probably fall back on their eco-religion, and claim that the most recent rise in global T is due to human CO2 emissions. But if we confine our subset to only rational folks, then it is obvious to even the most casual observer that there is no “fingerprint of MMGW” to be found.

      • “So by your interpretation if I want to understand, say, black holes, the opinion of a random person off the street is as valid as that of Stephen Hawking?”
        Stephen Hawking? The same leftist idiot who warned “Earth could become like ‘sister planet’ Venus”? There is nothing special about him.
        So, yes, I would prefer the opinion of a random person off the street and consider it as equally valid as your dear leftist idol.

      • dbstealey,

        So while you can claim that the long period of no global warming is, as you say, “meaningless”, über-Warmist Phil Jones would disagree with you. If you believe that is “cherry-picking”, please take it up with Jones. It’s his definition.

        That the trend since circa 1998 is statistically meaningless is verifiable in several different ways. I used one in response to Brandon below. If Phil Jones or Ben Santer disagree with me, then I’m fine with that. But I don’t really care about their definition, I care about whether the trend since circa 1998 is statistically significant, and it is not. If you disagree with me, I’d like to know why. If you agree that what I am saying is true, then it doesn’t make sense to continue parroting the meme that global warming stopped in ’98, regardless of which authority you got it from. And it really doesn’t make sense to accuse others of cherry picking and then use cherry picking for your own argument, even if you didn’t come up with the cherry pick yourself.
        P.S., I did not make any claims about “the long period of no global warming”, because there is no long period of no global warming. As Brandon pointed out, global warming is continuing unabated. I contesting the claim that the temperature datasets show no warming.

        As far as your claim of “1 in 6″ datasets, I reject GISS and land-based temperature records for the simple reason that they are too heavily “adjusted”.

        First of all, I’m pretty sure it’s been pointed out to you in previous threads that satellite data requires much more manipulation than surface temperature data. Your reason for dismissing surface temperature records is self-defeating.
        Anyway, you forgot to tell me why UAH should readily be dismissed.

        But they all agree closely, and they all show that the scary warming in the late ’90’s was a fluke.

        “Scary warming in the late 90’s”? You mean the El Nino? I’m pretty sure the warming in the 90’s wasn’t the only warming we’ve had. In fact, RSS shows a trend of 0.122 K/decade since data starts in 1979. And that warming is statistically significant, by the way, not a fluke.

        Finally, you say in a most unfriendly way …

        I apologize for any offense you may have taken from my comment.
        In response to your graph,
        Why is it that each successive “pause” is warmer than the last?

      • the master,
        You raise so many different issues that I’ll have to wait until I’m in the mood to play Whack-A-Mole again. To make it clear: I disagree with most of what you wrote, for various reasons. That’s OK, I don’t mind disagreements. I just don’t like it when someone digs in their heels and refuses to ever admit any error. It’s clear that the incessant predictions of runaway global warming and climate catestrophe, and all the related, scary predictions, were flat wrong. But try to get anyone to admit it.
        Next, when you assert that global warming is chugging along as usual, you are at odds with even the IPCC, which now admits that global warming has stopped [they call it a “pause”, but same-same]. That puts you on the fringe, which I have no problem with. But it’s pretty clear you’re pushing an agenda. The planet is naturally recovering from the LIA, so it is entirely reasonable that there should be some mild warming. But I cannot get excited or concerned over a 0.7ºC fluctuation over a century and a half. YMMV.
        I’ll wind up with this observation: to date, no one has ever produced a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying MMGW that is widely acceptable. There simply isn’t such a measurement. If that doesn’t drive a stake through the “carbon” scare, then nothing will.

      • Sir Harry Flashman @ March 23, 2015 at 5:51 pm
        “So by your interpretation if I want to understand, say, black holes, the opinion of a random person off the street is as valid as that of Stephen Hawking?”
        The phrase “as valid” has no meaning. A thing is either valid, or it is not. As to whether you should consider the opinions of Dr. Hawking on black holes as “valid”, no, you should not. As compelling as they are, they have not all been subjected to tests which could conclusively establish their validity.
        It isn’t a question of assigning probability. You certainly are free to conclude for yourself that his opinions are more likely to mesh with reality than others, but this conclusion is necessarily subjective, and has a non-trivial probability of being wrong.
        And, none of this changes the fact that your assertion, that the ad verecundiam fallacy does not apply to “authorities” in “their area of expertise”, is not only wrong, but actually turns it on its head. It is a catalogued fallacy precisely for the reason that “authorities”, in their area of “expertise”, are not infrequently dead wrong.
        Sir Harry Flashman @ March 24, 2015 at 6:34 am
        “So you genuinely believe that almost every single climate scientist is corrupt or ignorant? If I had to stretch that far to make reality fit my beliefs, I’d be questioning my beliefs.”
        I believe that some are corrupt and/or ignorant. Many of these happen to be at the forefront of agitation. I believe others just want to go along to get along, and still others kowtow out of fear for their livelihoods.
        At this point in time, anyone who truly believes in the hypothesis, after all the failed prognostications and lack of any compelling evidence in support, is – there really is no way to sugarcoat it – stupid.

        • @Bart – You express yourself well, albeit with the usual unnecessary abuse I’ve come to expect.
          With regard to the Appeal to Authority, while it’s nice to wrap up everything in a tidy little syllogism, stand on top of it and shout “You’re WRONG!”, all that says is that we can’t automatically assume that an authority is correct simply by virtue of being an authority. Which should be self-evident, and doesn’t require a fancy name. It would certainly apply if I were claiming that, say, Michael Mann says it’s so and therefore it must be so.
          However, when multiple authorities across multiple lines of enquiry through a generation or more of research arrive at the same conclusion, that’s not an “Appeal to Authority”, (unless you’ve read, assessed, understood and dismissed all the research) so much as an appeal to fact. So the old AtoA doesn’t apply here.
          “I believe that some are corrupt and/or ignorant. Many of these happen to be at the forefront of agitation. I believe others just want to go along to get along, and still others kowtow out of fear for their livelihoods.
          At this point in time, anyone who truly believes in the hypothesis, after all the failed prognostications and lack of any compelling evidence in support, is – there really is no way to sugarcoat it – stupid”
          So not all the climate scientists are ignorant or corrupt, some are lazy or cowardly. What a low opinion you have of the field, and a high opinion you have of yourself for being able to discern the truth being covered up by these snivelling dishonest idiots.
          The evidence is there for anyone willing to take even the most cursory look – try the North American far north for starters (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.420.2686&rep=rep1&type=pdf) What’s changed is that the power that be, at least in the main English speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, Aus) have essentially given up on trying to do anything about it, and figure they’ll push it down the road and leave it for some future government to sell adaptation in a few years. And the PR campaign run by the fossil fuel companies and their political and media shills has convinced a lot of otherwise smart people to deny the science and the evidence of their senses and go along with it.

      • Next, when you assert that global warming is chugging along as usual, you are at odds with even the IPCC, which now admits that global warming has stopped [they call it a “pause”, but same-same].

        Please cite where the IPCC said anything to the effect that global warming has stopped (or paused).

        But it’s pretty clear you’re pushing an agenda.

        Perhaps you should refrain from speculating over my motives and stick to the evidence-based discussion. That said, I took a shot at you earlier, so fair is fair I suppose.

        But I cannot get excited or concerned over a 0.7ºC fluctuation over a century and a half.

        Please cite where in the scientific literature it is predicted that the globe will only warm 0.7 K.
        The rest of your email is completely irrelevant to what we were discussing. Maybe we can discuss these other things later. For now, the topics of conversation were (1) the significance of the modern temperature trend, and (2) whether it was logically justifiable for you to accuse Brandon of cherry picking and then support your position with a cherry-picked trend. Please try to stay on topic.
        Here are my questions for you.
        1. Do you agree that the trend calculated since 1998 is not statistically significant, and if you do not agree, why?
        2. All temperature datasets have been manipulated in some way to make them as accurate as possible, and satellite datasets are no exception. Why should we only rely on RSS and ignore UAH, HadCRUT4, BEST, NOAA, and GISTEMP? You suggested that ST datasets are fraudulent. What evidence is there for this assertion? Keep in mind that the adjustments to at least one ST dataset (NOAA) actually decreased the long term trend.
        3. Why is it that in your graph, each successive “pause” is warmer than the last?
        4. How is it logically justifiable for you to accuse Brandon of cherry-picking and then support your own position with a cherry-picked trend?

      • master says:
        Here are my questions for you.
        1. Do you agree that the trend calculated since 1998 is not statistically significant, and if you do not agree, why?
        2. All temperature datasets have been manipulated in some way to make them as accurate as possible, and satellite datasets are no exception. Why should we only rely on RSS and ignore UAH, HadCRUT4, BEST, NOAA, and GISTEMP? You suggested that ST datasets are fraudulent. What evidence is there for this assertion? Keep in mind that the adjustments to at least one ST dataset (NOAA) actually decreased the long term trend.
        3. Why is it that in your graph, each successive “pause” is warmer than the last?
        4. How is it logically justifiable for you to accuse Brandon of cherry-picking and then support your own position with a cherry-picked trend?

        OK, by the numbers:
        1. Dr. Phil Jones says that global warming is not statistically significant. Feel free to argue with him.
        2. I accept satellite data without regard to whether it’s RSS or UAH. In reality they are so close in agreement that it doesn’t matter.
        3. As I explained, the planet has been recovering from the LIA. Naturally, we would expect that to happen.
        4. If you check, you started the cherry-picking accusations, so I’m surprised you would go there.

      • David Smith,

        In other words: we don’t know what it is, so we’re going to blame evil see-oh-toos.

        No, GHG forcing has a known physical explanation and a strong correlation with observation. It is logically possible that some as yet undetected forces are at work here, but I do not consider it at all irrational to make decisions on the basis of the best available theory and evidence.

        We have no proof, but it suits us well…

        You assert no “proof”, and ascribe motive. But it suits you well.

        Pretty graphs (lots of lovely colourful squiggles) and really daft statements from BG.

        Well, contrary evidence IS the enemy of those who pretend omniscience.

        You need to realise the following BG:
        I’m a reasonably intelligent ‘man on the street’ with a maths degree and a job teaching high school students, and I’ve read all the alarmist predictions of doom from your brigade and none of it has come true.

        I would think a maths teacher would undertand the difference beteeen proof and inference, and also recognize the imperative to be specific.

        Do I sound angry? You bet I am.

        I appreciate you being candid about that. I get pissed off too. One thing which really turns my crank is having words put in my mouth, then being called daft for saying things which I did not. Fury does tend to make one exhibit the traits of an illogical arse … I doubt I’m any more immune to it than you are.

      • Wow, did SHF seriously just argue here that “argument from authority” is VALID if the authority is, in fact, an authority?? By that definition, the science really IS settled!
        In that case, I cite Lindzen and Curry as my authorities and declare that the lukewarmer position is correct, and declare that a fraction of a degree of warming does not cause extreme cold.

      • dbstealey,
        Thank you for the concise response.

        1. Dr. Phil Jones says that global warming is not statistically significant. Feel free to argue with him.

        I’m talking to you, not Phil Jones. You are the one who used the trend since ’98 as a talking point, so it is you who I am addressing. If you don’t know how to defend the point yourself, you should stop using it.

        2. I accept satellite data without regard to whether it’s RSS or UAH. In reality they are so close in agreement that it doesn’t matter.

        Oh bit it does, if you are trying to claim that there has been no TLT warming since 1998. The UAH dataset certainly shows warming (0.07 K/decade) since 1998. Even more warming than HadCRUT4! (still not statistically significant, but none of the datasets are over this period) Heck, if you move the start year to 1999 it shows 0.14 K/decade of warming! Therein lies the folly of using trends over statistically insignificant periods to prove a point.
        If HadCRUT4 was actually tampered with, you would expect the trend to be greater than the apparently-more-trustworthy UAH, no?

        3. As I explained, the planet has been recovering from the LIA. Naturally, we would expect that to happen.

        And by what mechanism is the planet “recovering”? What does that even mean? Is there some temperature that the planet “wants” to be at? I was under the impression that giant rocks floating in space have no preference for their temperature.

        4. If you check, you started the cherry-picking accusations, so I’m surprised you would go there.

        Did I? I’ll take your advice and check.
        dbstealey, March 23 (the day before my first comment on this thread)

        So by cherry-picking 1950, and cherry-picking an ocean layer, you get to show a hokey stick. [sic]

        I noticed that once again you’ve failed to address the question, so here it is again:
        4. How is it logically justifiable for you to accuse Brandon of cherry-picking and then support your own position with a cherry-picked trend?

      • Sir Harry Flashman @ March 25, 2015 at 7:04 am
        This thread is unwieldy, and full of fools cherry picking evidence to convince themselves of their arguments. See below for further discussion (as of this posting, it is in moderator limbo).

      • “Have most of those scientist published peer-reviewed papers in the field?”
        No. The field of “Climate Witch-Doctory” is an exclusive club. Researchers who use empirical data and follow the scientific method are black-balled.

      • @themaster,
        1. You say:
        You are the one who used the trend since ’98 as a talking point…
        I was quoting your arch-Warmist Phil Jones, so again, go argue with him. He’s still around.
        2. Depending on the time frame you *select*, UAH can show no warming, and RSS can show warming. And vice-versa. But the fact is that exactly none of the incessant predictions of accelerating global warming that were made by the alarmist camp have ever happened. You may believe that global warming is still chugging along as usual. But it’s not, as most people aware of the situation know. And as far a ‘trustworthy’ temperature records, they mostly show changes of tenths and hundredths of a degree — smaller in most cases than the error bars. Any real scientist would consider that result arguable, if not outright pointless. But since your mind is made up, there’s no use arguing.
        3. Next, you say:
        …by what mechanism is the planet “recovering”?
        Recovering; as in reverting to the mean. The LIA was one of the coldest episodes in the entire Holocene. If you expect temperatures to drop like a stone and stay there, then you would ask that question. The rest of us use common sense. The planet is recovering. Deal with it.
        4. How is it logically justifiable for you to accuse Brandon of cherry-picking and…&etc.
        Recall that you accused me of …actual cherry-picking of 18 years…. And yes, Brandon cherry-picks. At times we all do. But the central fact remains: global warming has stopped. Whether you accept that or not, too many scientists accept it for you to be convincing. Also, not one of the many scary predictions made by climate alarmists have ever come true. They have all failed. No exceptions.
        When one side is wrong 100.0% of the time, rational folks will stop believing them. They have lost all credibility. So the question is: why do you still believe? And, what would it take for you to admit that your belief that man-made global warming is wrong, or that MMGW may not even exist? Or is MMGW your true-blue eco-religion, therefore NO amount of evidence or facts can possibly convince you otherwise?
        If global warming resumes, or if even some of the alarmist predictions suddenly come true, then as a skeptic I am willing to change my mind. That’s the difference between alarmists and skeptics — we are willing to change our minds. Alarmists either can’t, or won’t. No matter what.

    • George Balella signed that petition just to prove that anyone could sign it. I responded that since he disagreed with the statement, is was dishonest of him to sign it. I agree with the statement but will not sign it because I am not qualified to do so.
      Noble cause corruption is still corruption.

      • Yes, look at Gleick. He still has cushy job despite his unlawful deeds. Imagine how different things would be if it were a skeptic that pulled of that stunt. Do any warmists condone what Gleick did?

    • i’m not surprised if they live through a Minnesotan winter by all accounts! By God, they’re a hardy pack of rascals up there; Canadians, too.

    • Brandon Gates,

      I may as well be the first to point out that Ben Santer disagrees with you on that one.

      Then I disagree with Ben Santer. Using RSS (true to this website), the trend since 1998 is -0.041 K/decade with a confidence interval of .194 K/decade. The existence of an underlying trend in any direction cannot be established from this data alone. Ergo, the trend is not significant. It is meaningless.

      To be fair, there is a history of me not being very genteel …

      A fair concession, but I’ve found that your arguments’ reliance on rhetoric and ad-hom attacks is much lower than dbstealey’s arguments.

      • themaster15,

        Then I disagree with Ben Santer. Using RSS (true to this website), the trend since 1998 is -0.041 K/decade with a confidence interval of .194 K/decade. The existence of an underlying trend in any direction cannot be established from this data alone. Ergo, the trend is not significant. It is meaningless.

        You may actually agree with what Ben Santer actually wrote, my apologies for not making it clear that I was snarking at the locals’ frequent misrepresentations of it. The statement comes from the abstract of Santer et al. (2011): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract
        Abstract
        [1] We compare global-scale changes in satellite estimates of the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT) with model simulations of forced and unforced TLT changes. While previous work has focused on a single period of record, we select analysis timescales ranging from 10 to 32 years, and then compare all possible observed TLT trends on each timescale with corresponding multi-model distributions of forced and unforced trends. We use observed estimates of the signal component of TLT changes and model estimates of climate noise to calculate timescale-dependent signal-to-noise ratios (S/N). These ratios are small (less than 1) on the 10-year timescale, increasing to more than 3.9 for 32-year trends. This large change in S/N is primarily due to a decrease in the amplitude of internally generated variability with increasing trend length. Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10-year periods with little warming. 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.

        I’m of the mind that no trend analysis, however “statistically significant”, is meaningful without relating it to a measurable causal mechanism. What Santer (2011) is actually saying is that their determination is that doing so requires at least 17 years for the anthropogenic signal to be identifiable amidst the “noise” of internal variability and other factors. This nuance is frequently “forgotten” and the garbled paraphrasing comes out something like: 18 years of no warming, and according to Ben Santer, 17 years is the limit.

        I’ve found that your arguments’ reliance on rhetoric and ad-hom attacks is much lower than dbstealey’s arguments.

        I’ve given up pretty much any pretense of taking him seriously. His tactics are so clearly dishonest, I don’t make much of an effort to be “nice” to him either.

      • Brandon Gates,
        Ah, yes, I did not realize that you were trying to add nuance to the discussion. It’s not something I generally expect to find here, anyway.
        I think the “at least” part of that paper should be emphasized more (as in, “at least 17 years”), because it is not a set limit. Every period will be different, some may be 17 years, some may be 25 years or more even. Especially if the climastrologists are correct that we are getting more extreme weather events — I imagine that would make the data even more noisy and make it even harder to establish trends over short periods.

        I’m of the mind that no trend analysis, however “statistically significant”, is meaningful without relating it to a measurable causal mechanism.

        I think that a trend analysis that is statistically significant is meaningful insofar that it suggests that there must be a causal mechanism resulting in the trend. Which of course leads to the more interesting questions.

      • themaster15,
        Well put. I especially like your final two sentences. Secular trends want sustained causal mechanisms for an explanation, not “random walk” nonsense.

  1. Maybe he could use one of my favorite lines. I thought I made a mistake once but I was wrong.

  2. And the Californians elected him, again. A very sad commentary on the wackos leading the blind off the cliffs of ignorance.

  3. I think you are misrepresenting what he meant. He was probably referring to the speculation by some climate scientists that the bad weather on the east coast US was made worse by the lazy jetstream that might have been influenced by the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.
    You have also misquoted him, I cannot see the phrase “extreme cold” in the quote you give.

    • harrytwinotter

      He was probably referring to the speculation by some climate scientists that the bad weather on the east coast US was made worse by the lazy jetstream that might have been influenced by the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

      Please explain why the jetstream between latitudes 34 and 48 north was “influenced” by a 7% smaller amount of Arctic sea ice between latitudes 72 and 73 north during a five month period when that missing Arctic sea ice was exposed to no Arctic sunlight at all.

      • RACookPE1978,
        The arbitrary time constraints you’ve loaded the question with are curious. I immediately thought of this thread …
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/bad-news-for-trenberths-missing-heat-new-study-finds-the-deep-oceans-cooled-from-1992-to-2011-and/#comment-1883166
        … though I couldn’t precisely recall if you specifically had participated in it. Sometimes my memory is better than I give it credit. Anywho, the relevance here is that oceans impart both an appreciable lag in responses to surface forcings AND distribute energy all over the place in what I can only describe as poorly understood and not always immediately intuitive ways. Expect diverse expert opinions, and expect those to often be apparently in conflict at first blush, if not in actual conflict upon digging in.
        I can’t defend one view over the other here, I simply don’t understand it well enough myself, so I won’t. Doesn’t mean I’m not willing to discuss a particular argument, but as none was specifically cited there’s not much for me there either.
        My general approach to such complex conundrums is this: wholly ascribing one weather event to AGW is almost certainly folly. A fellow lay warmie recently countered that with: so is alleging that weather is wholly independent of climate.
        When I’m really in the mood to slice open the Gordian knot, I’ll say things like: one major blizzard isn’t inconsistent with the concept of a dynamic system that’s never in equilibrium, but which is on average gradually retaining more and more absorbed solar energy.
        Not a very satisfying answer I know. I truly don’t expect you to like it … I surely don’t.

        • Brandon Gates

          When I’m really in the mood to slice open the Gordian knot, I’ll say things like: one major blizzard isn’t inconsistent with the concept of a dynamic system that’s never in equilibrium, but which is on average gradually retaining more and more absorbed solar energy.
          Not a very satisfying answer I know. I truly don’t expect you to like it … I surely don’t.

          Yes, a wise decision. NEVER be afraid to say “I do not know. Yet.”
          Many answers – right now – need to be “I do not know” – rather than “It’s due to Global Warming/CO2/extreme terror and taxation is needed.” OR – the opposite: “It’s not due to an assumed 0.01 degree increase in average global temperatures.”

      • RACookPE1978,

        Yes, a wise decision. NEVER be afraid to say “I do not know. Yet.”

        I agree in principle. In this arena “I don’t know” can get punished in an awful hurry …

        Many answers – right now – need to be “I do not know” – rather than “It’s due to Global Warming/CO2/extreme terror and taxation is needed.” – OR – the opposite: “It’s not due to an assumed 0.01 degree increase in average global temperatures.”

        … just like that. When Condoleeza Rice uttered, “But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” I was screaming “OH HORSEPOOOOOOO!!” but I couldn’t fault her overall logic. I still can’t. We are a fear motivated species, and we’re also the dominant species on this planet. The art of risk management is not making the cure worse than the disease. Not knowing how bad the disease will be is a risk in and of itself — the most nightmarish scenario presented might not be the true worst possible case. That’s my understanding of how high-stakes risk managers think, but more importantly, it’s how I think risk management SHOULD be done.
        It so happens that I’m personally dubious of the worst AGW nightmare scenarios — thankfully runaway warming a la Venus has more or less bit the dust in literature — but I can’t rule them out either. I don’t have a crystal ball.
        I’m pretty sure, though, that chopping off all fossil fuel emissions tomorrow would be more terrible than a meter of sea level rise by the end of the century. I’m dead certain that CO2 somewhere between 280 and 350 ppmv presents zero risk because those levels are a matter of recorded history. Taxes have yet to kill us, much as we bitch about them, and every time I drive on an Interstate highway, I’m mindful that there really are some things I don’t mind paying for in that fashion. I can think of all sort of reasons to replace coal fired power plants with nuclear and geothermal which don’t have anything to do with see oh two. We’re going to run out of oil and natural gas eventually, far sooner than coal — don’t ask me exactly when, that never turns out well.
        I don’t see anything at all wrong with planned, proactive adaptation. I’ll go so far as to say that thinking about these potential problems in terms of mitigation really is the worst part of the messaging problem here. As history would suggest, successfully taking advantage of the opportunities which present for weaning ourselves off of dead dinosaur goo and fossilized ferns for energy is going to require cooler heads prevailing whilst more or less ignoring the howling, panicky demagogues on either extreme of the “debate” — thence giving practical, pragmatic, competent, forward-looking, apolitical free market operators just the right kind of affordable fiscal incentives to throw serious weight behind doing it.
        I know, I make it sound so easy.

        • Well stated. We don’t have to be alarmist to see there’s a future without fossil fuels coming one way or another, and it doesn’t need to be scary.

    • Not even close. Please read about the Jet Stream, including Rossby Waves. The polar semi-permanent pressure system will move in and out of high pressure, staying tightly confined or wide-spread and loopy, demonstrated by the Arctic Oscillation Index. A loopy Jetstream is a natural weather pattern variation that comes and goes whether or not humans are on the planet or not. Any climate scientist worth a damn would not be inclined to blame sea ice as the cause.

      • “Loopy” is an appropriate adjective when describing something in California, not just weather pressure systems.

      • Sir Harry flashman, you link to the typically unscientific article form the shill rag, Scientific American.
        “We know that climate change is increasing the odds of extreme weather such as heatwaves, droughts and unusually heavy precipitation events, ”
        A ridiculous statement akin to saying the changing climate is caused by changing climate.
        There is no evidence linking CO2 to extreme weather whatsoever. there was the dustbowl in the 1930s, a pattern similar to today, was it CO2? Considering that the dustbowl passed and CO2 increased I would say no.

      • Response to SHF: You support your contention with the link to an ‘article’ in the Scientific American. For the purpose of clarity, can you tell me if that ‘article’ has been Peer-reviewed, and if so, what were the conclusions of the Peer-reviewers?

      • Harry not very flashy, in actuality very dull:
        Two posts so far Harry and not one fact mentioned. One ad hom backhand and one link to very bad science. Is that the context of your commenting orders? Post slimy yet definitively useless comments?
        Come back when you’ve something useful.

        • Nice. When someone posts something – anything – you don’t like dismiss it as “bad science” without backup and walk away as if you’ve won some kind of debate. Does this work for you in the real world?

      • Here is the JFM AO index demonstrating both negative and positive phase:
        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/JFM_season_ao_index.shtml
        Here is the weather pattern variations typical of these phases:
        http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/long-distance-relationships-arctic-and-north-atlantic
        Way back before the AO started back down its oscillation, climate warmist scientists predicted it would just keep going up and up, tightening the jet stream and bringing warmer weather to more northern latitudes. Then the AO started going down, allowing the jet stream to once again (as it always has done) loop lazily south, bringing severe cold into more southern latitudes.
        Run for the hills! We caused the AO to go positive!
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL900317/abstract;jsessionid=3AFAA190144666FCD1CE598DF795412F.f04t04
        Run for the hills! We caused the AO to go negative!
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035607/full
        LOL!
        Seriously. Read this carefully:
        Earth is awash in natural short and long term weather pattern variations. Learn it. Some say that the Sun is wut dun it (sending the jet stream south or north). That is nonsense. There are plenty of teleconnected systems in place to demonstrate how the Earth talks between its oceans and atmospheric systems. Neither fractional solar variability or teeny tiny additional amounts of human sourced CO2 need apply.

      • Flash says:
        When someone posts something – anything – you don’t like dismiss it as “bad science”
        Wrong again. He said your comment was fact-free. But nice try, and thanx for playing, Giles.

    • So, severe and extreme aren’t synonyms anymore?
      According to CNN: “What he said is absolutely false,” Brown said. “Over 90% of the scientists who deal with climate are absolutely convinced that the humans’ activity, industrial activity … are building up in the atmosphere, they’re heat trapping, and they’re causing not just one drought in California but severe storms and cold on the East Coast.”
      http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/22/politics/ted-cruz-2016-election-global-warming-jerry-brown/
      Video of the question and answer on NBC’s Meet The Press:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/california-governor-ted-cruz-unfit-be-running-n328046

      • icouldnthelpit March 23, 2015 at 8:53 am
        policycritic. The video doesn’t work for me. Sorry.

        Click the arrow in the black bar, not the image or the link.

      • I would suggest they are modifiers and are extremely unnecessary. It is really funny how to watch how modifiers are used in the language of alarmism.

      • No “severe and extreme” are not synonyms. A bit beside the point as he did not say “severe cold” in the quote either. He said “cold” which, going by the news reports of the US east coast reports I saw, is correct.

      • Why don’t you try a meteorologist: Right panel. Watch the weather video. weatherbell.com.

      • The Arctic is not warm. Environment Canada had plenty of Extreme cold warnings and wind chill warnings over this past winter. In some places -60 C.
        You should go to the Arctic for spring break, surely you can handle that warm Arctic spring.

      • Wrong. Global warming hasn’t been happening for 17 years. The claim that the arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet would mean that the rest of the planet is cooling in order to maintain the no warming status. So much for global warming.

      • Icouldnthelpit:
        Your postulated mechanism is not supported by historical evidence. Does that matter? I suppose not. Selling the idea of a ‘disrupted climate’ which is what AGW-> cold and hot and dry and wet means (as explained 100 times by desperate catastrophists) is much, much more difficult than trying to blame a heat wave on AG CO2 which even Jerry Brown knows how to do.
        First one has to explain why the disruptions will cause an ‘increase in the severity of storms’ based of course on higher energy gradients while simultaneously claiming (as I have for years) that the gradient would be reduced by polar warming.
        Now we all admit to polar warming at one pole only (AGW is devilishly selective!) but it is in winter and seems to be entirely driven by warm water entering the Arctic basin. Huh. That doesn’t fit the AGW narrative at all. There is no place for CO2 at all. What to do?
        Well you could make baseless assertions about meandering jet streams and ignore the primal role played by the sun in such matters. History is so boring, right? You could ignore the Omega effect, for example and it’s correlation with solar cycles, or just baldly claim the Omega effect (stalling / blocking highs) is caused by CO2. But that would be stupid. Right? It would make no sense at all because it is patently untrue and physically impossible.
        But that is exactly what you did. Now apologise.

      • icouldnthelpit: You said “Dr Jennifer Francis … postulates that global warming is effecting the jet stream”. Postulates. Not avers, not states, not shows, but ‘postulates’. So all she has in an hypothesis, not even a testable theory. And has this paper passed the SHF-test: has it been successfully Peer-reviewed?

      • If the temperature differential is decreasing, wouldn’t this reduce extreme weather?

      • Hubert Lamb in his book on climate stated that global cooling causes the jet stream to meander. “creates more nodes than when the climate is warm”. He also said that the current scum were distorting climate research in order to control the agenda on human activity.

      • icouldnthelpit says @March 23, 2015 at 9:12 am [ ” … “]
        If it were not for cherry-picking, you wouldn’t even have that lame argument.
        Carefully selecting a time frame of 1951 – 1980 proves nothing. It’s just your confirmation bias at work. Instead, let’s look at the past 18 years or so of global temperatures.
        As we see, the incessant predictions of the alarmist cult that were made before global warming stopped were flat wrong. They could not have been more wrong: instead of global temperatures rising, they have been falling. If a scientific skeptic was as wrong as that, he would step up and admit it, then he would try to understand why his original conjecture was so very wrong.
        But not the climate alarmist contingent! All they do is try to back and fill, avoiding their inevitable forced climb-down. But that climb-down is in process, as everyone sees. All they’re doing by trying to avoid it is looking dishonest — a universal hallmark of the alarmist position.

      • @icouldnthelpit
        Until you at least learn the correct usage of “affect” and “effect” you have absolutely no credibility. Your writing skills are atrocious.

      • Let me help you out, Sparky. Warm air rises, cool air sinks, heat flows from a warmer area/object to a cooler area/object. Air masses always move from an area of higher pressure toward an area of lower pressure. Now you have the basics of meteorology. Enjoy!

      • Icouldeatthepit:
        “I think it’s Dr Jennifer Francis that postulates that global warming is effecting the jet stream…”
        Think along with thought is not one of your strengths or even possibles. Instead you trot out tired old stuffy nonsense from the sks kindergarten files.
        A postulate from anybody is just a fantasy until the science is proven beyond a doubt. No proof means the postulate is a loser anywhere.

      • SHF: Thanks for the link which icouldnthelpit was unable to provide (or are you a Tag Team?). A paper about Arctic Amplification. Dr Francis concludes with this sentence:

        The authors are grateful […] for helpful suggestions from Dr John Walsh and two anonymous reviewers.

        And that’s what constitutes Peer-review in this day and age: two anonymous reviewers? Mum and Dad? Who knows?

      • SHF,
        As far as links to your alleged “peer reviewed” papers, IOP Science has ultra low standards for submissions since they accepted an published the nonsensical Skeptical Science paper, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”. The second paper you linked to does not express what you said it does.
        Try again.

      • @Icouldnthelpit ( you should that get checked out btw. It sounds you are obsessive): ” causing the jetstream to meander, like a slow moving river” .@ 250 kms/hr at 500 mb slow ? A lot like some of your comments…. slow.

      • icouldnthelpit says:
        I think it’s the WMO that recommend taking a 30 year average. Is there a different 30 year average you’d prefer to use?
        This has been pointed out time after time, and ignored by you and your pals: when Dr. Phil Jones was interviewed in 1999, he was asked if global warming had stopped. His answer: “Yes, but only just.”
        At the time, global warming had been stopped for only two years, since 1997. Jones explained that to be statistically certain that global warming had stopped, we would have to wait 15 years. That would have taken us to 2012. No doubt Jones was confident that global warming would resume within that time frame.
        But it didn’t. Now it is 2015, and global warming remains stopped. Jones is one of the alarmist crowd’s über-warmists. He speaks for your side. It was his widely quoted definition that everyone on both sides accepted — until the 15 years had passed. Then the alarmist crowd moved the goal posts, just like you’re doing here.
        So you can cite the WMO or whoever else you want. But the fact is that the end of global warming is properly measured from now back fifteen or more years. It has stopped.
        You cannot accept that. Which says plenty about you, and your less than honest version of climate pseudo-science. A stand-up person would simply admit he was wrong, and MovOn. Why can’t you?
        [Note: grammar corrected. -mod]

      • I guess not, then.☹
        So, care to comment on the identity theft situation re: the fake ‘Mike Borgelt’? Or is that another uncomfortable situation for the alarmist side?

    • You claim a misquote. In the headline it states Jerry Brown claims that global warming causes extreme cold. This is a summary of his statement, not a quote (there are no quotation marks in the headline), therefor technically can not be misquote. His quote is “humans’ activity, industrial activity…severe storms and cold” which the author equates (not quotes) to “global warming causes extreme cold”. You can split hairs and quibble about how precise a translation the headline is of what Brown meant, but unless you think that he was indicating that the east coast cold was caused by something other than AGW, it is a reasonable summary and therefor a fair headline.

      • An insinuation. Which a lot of AGW people do. Then when referred to it they say ” I didn’t say that”. Much like the conversation between Sessions and the EPA chief. The EPA chief is making statements that scientists are claiming certain results, then denying that she knows nothing of the predictions. That was the course of the dialog wasn’t it, climate change?

    • I think you are misrepresenting what he meant. He was probably referring blah, blah, blah.
      The old, he probably didn’t mean to go outside without his pants on excuse.

  4. Of course I buy your premise, Governor Moonbeam is disgracefully ignorant. And yet I think he could be right here, theoretically anyway….however accidentally. The Modoki style el nino (i.e. heat)…is likely a major cause of the awful Northeast winter this year. For details, check in with Joe Bastardi at wearherbell.
    More generally as i understand it, seas surface temps can and do influence temps around the world, and often inversely so
    Am I wrong?

    • Joe B’s analogue for the current pattern is the 1950’s.
      He’s pushing for more of the same next winter (Argghhhh!).

  5. Gov. Brown said “Over 90% of the scientists who deal with climate are absolutely convinced that the humans’ activity, industrial activity … are building up in the atmosphere, they’re heat trapping, and they’re causing not just one drought in California but severe storms and cold on the East Coast.”
    I think Gov. Brown meant to say “Over 90% of the shamans who deal with climate are absolutely convinced….”

    • What Moonbeam really meant to say was:
      “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

      • Great quote, db. I first saw it in the DT in an article by Sean Thomas. Was he the originator I wonder…’cos I thought I’d seen it earlier on JoNova’s site…

    • jmichna
      You are insulting the shamans, please do reconsider…..swaping “shamans ” for “sharlatans” will still be insulting but not as much…:-)
      cheers
      [sharlatans” or “charlatans” ? .mod]

      • I like Sharon Stone …..especially if the name does not transform to Charon Stone 🙂 I will mind…..:-)
        Or Charlie Chaplin transformed to Sharlie Shaplin 🙂
        But I will not mind so much if Charlize transforms to Sharlize 🙂
        Cheers

    • i lived in southern California for a few years. The motto of the Democratic Party there should be — Party Till The Lights Go Out!
      Socialism believes that decisions should be made by government experts, not the people. It can truly be said that Socialism is founded on the Appeal To Authority fallacy.

      • Eugene,
        It can truly be said that Socialism is founded on the Appeal To Authority fallacy.
        An apt insight! Thank you for that!
        Mac

  6. This is a hint of more to come on this theme, as more usually cold weather continues at various places.
    They will tally the deaths and huge economic damage of cause by it (and the all deep snows and ice), and love how much larger they are, than those puny damage cause by warming, (and all the non-existent hurricanes).
    When they see how large those cold dollar in damages are, then “Extreme Cold” and “Advancing Glaciers” will be the new ‘hot-buttons’ of Climate Change (all caused by CO2, of course).

  7. No sympathy here. California you got the leaders you deserve. You keep voting them in quit complaining about the consequences.

    • Are you saying that 97% of Californians voted for Jerry?
      And 97% of Americans voted for Barack?

      • No what I’m saying is more people voted for him than didn’t. He didn’t get elected by having the fewest votes now did he. And no matter how kooky he continues to get he’ll probably get re-elected. But then we’re talking about the same group that thought the governator was a good idea.

    • what I’m getting at is that those who are complaining are probably not the same ones that voted him in, so it’s a bit unfair to lump them all together.
      I don’t know what the ballot results were but, typically, you have almost as many opposed as are for.

  8. “What he said is absolutely false,” Brown said. “Over 90% of the scientists who deal with climate are absolutely convinced that the humans’ activity, industrial activity … are building up in the atmosphere, they’re heat trapping, and they’re causing not just one drought in California but severe storms and cold on the East Coast.”

    Judging from this statement of Brown’s one can see pretty clearly that he’s both an imbecile, and that he can’t even properly format what idiocies his brain conjures up.

  9. Maybe he should ask RSS about satellite temperature data. They’re his California neighbors.

  10. The loony Moonbeam was on TV this morning being adamant that any climate change denying Presidential candidate would be automatically disqualified. Jerry is just the latest chump to try “pre-crime” enforcement of the warmists’ Orwellian groupthink by attempting to prevent the “thought crime” of earnest honest fact-based climate skepticism.

  11. The Sunday morning talking-heads programs are a dearth of info or insight anymore; I think it was during the (first) Clinton administration* that the decline started, and has continued since …
    This interview of Brown was no exception, and was per the ‘new rule’ (paid-for by the network “propaganda” and as an outlet of state TV.)
    .
    * I used to lament that I experienced ‘a net decline in intelligence’ after watching the Clinton spinmeisters re-tool the facts and so-called ‘truth’ to their benefit.

  12. Brown is no fool.
    He has already grabbed the first AB32 cash.Global warming will be California governments cash cow.

    • He needs the carbon tax cash to help pay for the bullet train from-nowhere to-nowhere. With that money they intend to keep the unions happy with construction cash of which a portion gets kicked-back to Democrat campaign coffers.

  13. That Gov is just protecting his own river of federal money for high speed rail and will spout any nonsense to keep it flowing.

      • NOAA predicted a warm winter east of the Rockies for the winter months on October 16, 2014. Dead wrong.

      • The CPC 30 day and 90 day outlook predictions I grant have been mostly dead wrong. A monkey with a dart board picking forecasts would have been better on their 30 day outlooks. But I have found their ~7 day (6-10 day) forecast to be accurate, else I would not refer to it. Anything past 8-9 days is hopeless for them IMO.

    • I’ve often wondered if that is why the Laurentide ice sheets were so much bigger than the western ones. Maybe the end of our inter-glacial will start in eastern north America. Were there any ice sheets thicker and bigger during the last glaciation? Europe?
      So we should prepare a welcome wagon for all those eastern folks who are going to have to migrate first. Just leave the politicians in Washington DC to enjoy their global warming 🙂

    • Joelobryan. Thanks. That map shows the new face of ‘global warming’. There is nothing quite like a disrupted paradigm.

    • I am on the west coast and we have been seasonal so far this spring. cool and wet, same as every spring.
      As a matter of fact record highs for March 20-23rd were 1939, about 4 – 8 degrees C higher. Many of our winter records were back in the 30s and 40s. Nowhere near record highs during this last mild winter. Not unprecedented. Why?

    • I’m not sure what your point is, being in New Hampshire, this is just a continuation of the pattern. I posted an article here about February, March has continued cold – yesterday was the coldest afternoon of the month so far. The day started out at 37F, so it won’t count as a sub-freezing day. Today will probably be sub-freezing all day.
      There’s nothing like Spring in New England.

  14. I’m hurt. “Moonbeam” is one of my nicknames. Earned thanks to my pale skin that makes me look like I’ve been tanning under the moon.

    • He “lives and breathes” promises to the funders of his campaigns. Old Governor “Two tunnels” is dead set on running water under the delta in order to “protect” fish that could be better protected, far less expensively, by simply better engineering at the canal intakes – larger, screened forebays outside the pump intakes. What the tunnels do is permit the delta to be written off when Sierra run-off declines and salt water pushes inland into the delta. At the same time, the desert farmers of the Southern San Joaquin and the pool owners in Southern California don’t have to worry about increased salt loads from the delta because the tunnels by pass the delta entirely.

  15. Earth to Jerry- come in Jerry. The air is then up there in the troposphere where you and Al Gore spend most of your time.

  16. Moonbeam is both the oldest and the youngest California governor ever. Brown has never done anything in the private sector, or held a real job outside of being a politician. Needless to say, he’s been a disaster for California taxpayers, who have have one of the very highest sales taxes anywhere; almost 10%. And for what?
    Now Brown is diddling around with his pet “legacy” project: a ‘bullet’ train that is unnecessary, unwanted except by public ‘worker’ unions, unneeded, and a monumental waste of money. Best cost estimates are hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars — much of that loot will be confiscated from taxpayers in the other 49 states.
    The infrastructure is already in place to travel very efficiently from one end of the state to the other: today you can fly from San Francisco to L.A. in one hour, for about a hundred bucks. But Brown’s ‘bullet’ train will take 3 – 4 hours optimistically, a ticket will cost more, and eternal subsidies will be required to keep that 19th-Century travel ‘solution’ going. The thousands of acres of formerly tax-paying land taken from the public will never pay a penny in future property taxes.
    It’s hard to conceive of a more stupid waste of money. We would be as well off if the state hired its millions of illegal aliens to dig 10’X10’X10′ holes in public parks, then move them every six months. They could call it ‘art’. And at least it wouldn’t require never-ending taxpayer subsidies.

    • Rosa Koire, author of “Behind the Green Mask,” talks about how projects such as the California bullet train are design to destroy the economy, establish a precedent for end-running elective government via ‘regionalism,’ obliterate property rights, and so forth.
      In other words, absurd projects like the bullet train are designed to pulverize society to lay the track for Agenda 21. Climate change is the locomotive.
      That is why WUWT is so important. It strikes at the root of the problem.

    • You mean like THIS debacle:
      “Since 1972 Amtrak has received more than $13 billion of federal subsidies. Twenty-five years later, Amtrak appears no closer to financial independence than the day taxpayer assistance began. Worse, Amtrak has no apparent plan to become self-sufficient. In fact, it is now pressing for a half-cent of the federal gasoline tax in order to have a permanent umbilical cord to the federal treasury. That hardly seems fair, since people who pay the gasoline tax — that is, people who drive their cars — aren’t using Amtrak.”
      http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/amtrak-subsidies-is-no-way-run-railroad

      • I love trains. A lot. Have ridden trains all over the world.
        AMTRAK is the worst, by far. Never on time, left to sit on the rails while cargo trains roar past. Bad tracks, rickety bridges, parked in cattle yards out west waiting for freight trains to roar past, dirty, dingy, poor food…I rode the best trains in Europe in the past!
        Very pathetic service. Useless for comfortable travel and I hate planes and avoid them as much as possible.

      • emsnews One time I rode a train ( since leaving the EU) was a trip I took from Montreal to the West coast in 1971 it was terrific 3-4 days, diner/breakfast cars, view cars, bar cars, sleepers etc etc. I took another one a decade later it was a disaster just as you described Amtrac.

    • “… who have have one of the very highest sales taxes anywhere;almost 10%. And for what?”
      It certainly has not improved roads or education.

    • dbstealey, here is a harbinger of the catastrophe that is certain to follow in the wake of the CA bullet train project.
      Anyone who lived in the San Francisco Bay Area during the ‘retrofitting’ of the east portion of the Bay Bridge owes it to him- or herself to watch this hilarious (and fascinating) documentary:
      The Bridge So Far – A Suspense Story

      “The Bridge So Far — A Suspense Story” is an entertaining one-hour documentary on the often outrageous and always controversial history and status of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Tragic, frustrating, comical, and historic, this entertaining documentary/news special follows the Bridge from its original construction through the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake up to the present day. It recounts the progress, delays, setbacks, and politics during the design and construction of a new, safe bridge to re-complete the connection across the Bay between San Francisco and Oakland.
      This was much more than a huge design and construction project. It was local, regional, state, and even federal politics; dollars and delays; finances and finger pointing; the U.S. Navy vs. Caltrans; northern vs. southern alignments; skyway vs. suspension bridge, with a bikeway; conceptual changes during construction; and monumental cost increases caused by such far-flung factors as the upcoming Olympics in China.

      • At 39:28 we see my undergraduate advisor (in geophysics), the late Dr. Bruce A. Bolt. He was quite a character. I have very fond memories of his classes in mathematical methods in geophysics. He always wore a white coat for class, and would invariably wipe his nose with his chalk-covered hand, making it look like he just snorted two gigantic lines of cocaine. He loved mathematics and did a fine job propagating that love. Way to go BABs!

    • “It’s hard to conceive of a more stupid waste of money”
      =================================
      Especially since a fraction of that cost could provide adequate water for all of California.

    • The Australian “carbon” tax was also supposed to be used for a similar project, high speed trains between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne (About 1200kms in distance one-way). To do that, properly, like SNCF high speed trains in France that run at 400kph or more, will require massive infrastructure to support. Power lines (I am assuming overhead power at ~25kv which would be coal derived – Using diesel powered locomotives would be defeating the object of the boondoggle project), rails, concrete sleepers, cuttings, embankments, bridges, tunnels etc to make the line as straight as possible like in France and Japan.
      In Aus we already have the most efficient method of travelling between the three cities mentioned. It’s called an airplane! Infrastructure is already there, 1km concrete runway in Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne…and plenty of air in between. Jet/turbo fan engines are EXTREMELY efficient at extracting maximum thrust using minimal fuel.

  17. Weather of every kind is caused by global warming. If the earth were a frozen ball none of this would be happening. Jerry Brown, seminerian drop-out, famous Lord of the (Med)flies, is also the prince of Reductio ad absurdum, a land of make believe far to the west and which borders a vast boiling sea.

  18. Dear Jerry,
    If we reduce human activity, industrial activity … and reduce CO2 building up in the atmosphere, and its related heat trapping capability, will it get warmer on the East Coast?

  19. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/what-are-your-fears-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1847727
    [excerpt]
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    “The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
    – H.L. Mencken
    Comment:
    Mencken’s above statement applies not only the President, but also to the Governor of California…

    • Mencken’s statment applies to ALL politicians. When you consider the gamut of things that politicians encourage you to be afraid of (left AND right wings), it is a wonder that anyone will get out of bed in the morning. Rudyard Kipling summarized the political agendas, left and right, in MacDonough’s Song nearly a century ago. It has not changed in any substantive way since he published it. Unfortunately he could not offer any real solution that was not as bad as the problem.

      • Duster,
        Not all politicians are, in Mencken;’s words. “downright morons”.
        Several Canadian politicians I know personally are intelligent, competent and ethical.
        It can happen… …really!
        However, you need a voting public that demonstrates some degree of education and intelligence.
        I suggest we should implement an intelligence test at the voting booth, which questions such as:
        1. Is professional wrestling real or fake?
        2. If your car says Dodge on the front of it, do you really need a horn?
        3. Why is it called lipstick if you can still move your lips?
        4. etc.

      • I assert that politics is an inherently stupid system, forever doomed to corruption, inefficiency, and non-optimal outcomes. What really makes a good politician, oxymoronic as that may be, is someone who is intelligent enough to embrace that but not find it disgusting to have as colleagues people who are just as venal and self-servingly opportunistic as most of us would probably conclude they are — that is, if we could truly appreciate how much of an amoral scumbag it takes to effectively govern the doings of more than a few thousands of venal, self-serving, opportunistic humans who have deluded ourselves into believing that we’re anything but.

      • Thanks Allan after all the BS I really needed the laugh ( and I think most Canadians would pass the test not so sure about the rest)

  20. Dear Jerry Brown,
    100% of Jesuit priests believe Jesus was the son of God. Since you elected to drop out of pursuing the priesthood, have your views on the subject changed? If so, why and if not, why not?

  21. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    Ah, I wish we knew what sin we had committed as a state to deserve a governor like Jerry. Scary thing is, for those who don’t know California, is that he’s one of the sane(r) Democrats in Sacramento.

  22. Man oh man, I think most of the voters for Gerry Brown showed up here today!! Look, like I said about stupid policies and statements of governments, you aren’t obliged to buy into them because you voted for them. It’s okay for you to be critical of government. Now there is a dangerous concept, I guess.

  23. Jerry Brown, now there’s a piece of work. He’s been in the “I’m an environmentalist and all my friends make BIG money” Take his dad, for instance, Brown Sr. spent his entire life in public service starting out as a District Attorney and ending with Governorship and on the meager pay of a civil servant retired the State of California’s richest man!? When his environmentalist son was elected Governor (Jerry Brown: the prequil) and insisted on setting the emissions standards to the most restrictive in the country at time, Old man Brown just happened to be the legal council for the Indonesian oil Monopoly. Now the significance of that was that California needed to purchase virtually all of it’s crude oil from Indonesia in order to acquire the kind of raw material necessary to meet the new standard (Saudi Sweet). You can bet there were some hellacious legal fees involved in all that contract writing. Pat Brown, who was the scion of the democratic party,for his part, used to flash a whimsical little smile and claim he didn’t agree with his son on everything and shrug his shoulders in a sort of “kids…what you gonna do about ’em” gesture.

  24. I see somebody is commenting using my name here today.
    I’ve contacted Anthony and the mods.
    If this is innocent please choose another handle when posting here as I was here first and my views are nothing like yours.
    Otherwise please take advice on sex and travel.
    [Reply: Our apologies, Mike. The banned troll “David Socrates/Robert Grumbine” (and many other fake screen names) has used your identity to post using your name. We will delete those comments. If you see any more that are not by you, please let us know. ~ mod.]

      • Bart, yes they do refer to Borgelt Instruments which is me and my wife. I’m the former meteorologist and for the last 37 years we’ve been designing and manufacturing instruments for gliders.
        [Interesting. Yes, even that link to your instrument web site was correct.
        Again – Thank you for speaking up. we need the assistance; and the information. .mod]

    • Mike Borgelt,
      My sincere apology also, Mr. Borgelt. It appears that someone else has been posting using your name. That is thoroughly dishonest.
      I have been responding to that troll, thinking it was you. He also goes by the screen names:
      Robert Grumbine
      rodmol
      David Socrates
      Gordon Ford
      beckleybud
      Juan
      Pyromancer
      Edward Richardson…
      …and many other fake names. He impersonated another commenter [Terry Oldberg] recently the same way.
      I could not understand why you had changed your views by 180º. I recall your comments from years past, and I even commented recently that you had completely changed into a climate alarmist. I couldn’t understand why. People do not change like that. I should have known. But honest people expect others to be honest, too, so we tend to be naive.
      I see that the fake comments using your name have now been deleted. Dishonest game playing like that is typical of the climate alarmist crowd. They cannot win on facts and evidence, so they cheat.
      I am very glad you saw this, and spoke up. That reprehensible individual was making you look bad. Now it all makes sense.

      • WOW, worth a separate post maybe – the psychiatry of having to lie harder. Are we sure it’s not Peter Gleick too ?
        Now I feel bad because what I consider to be one of my better zingers was aimed against that fake-handled f-wit and compulsive liar. Sorry, real Mike Borgelt.
        Seriously, I think this is definitely worthy of an exposé of the tactics of these dangerous fr@udsters if anyone has time, although I’ve known about it for years. I think back around 2008 when I read an article by George Monbiot in the gUardrian on wind turbines, it was clear that every one of the 30-odd comments was written by the same person (probably George himself, or his Mum).

      • No worries, mates.
        It really does speak volumes about the alarmist camp doesn’t it? Too many of them liars and cheats.
        Says lots about the strength of their arguments too that they must stoop to these lengths.
        Those on the CAGW side need to do a house cleaning else all of them will be tarred with the same brush.

      • I notice that so far not one of the usual alarmist commenters has had anything negative to say about this blatant example of identity theft.
        It was the same when Gleick was caught playing similar games. Instead of saying he did wrong, the alarmists actually defended him! They thought what he did was A-OK; a perfect example of Noble Cause corruption: the end justifies any means. They’re saving the planet, see? So stealing someone’s identity is OK — to them.
        The real Mike Borgelt is a stand-up guy who is taking this far better than some of us would have. I think most folks here appreciate that.

  25. Sir Harry Flashman March 23, 2015 at 9:11 am, says:
    “…Jo Nova, whose article lauding the petition appeared in The Australian last week, and on her website, asked in her article if the word of one climate scientist pushing the anthroprogenic climate change barrow was worth that of 420 “scientists” who disagreed with him or her….”
    Sir Harry, with all due respect for your Victoria Cross and all, would you not agree that these 420 “scientists” opposing the barrow were not actually scientists but simply lightweights, like technicians or lab assistants? The implication is that all it takes is one scientist to scatter them out of the way. They would need to fit into the feed trough of the Queen of Abyssinia’s lion cage and 420 egos is too much for that. Climate scientists, those who publish peer reviewed papers today, have learnt to glue their noses to the rear end of the Queen who also edits science journals. Like the science journal Nature says,forty percent of the papers they receive are thrown out immediately because they fail the smell test. If you are lucky enough to have yours picked for that famous “peer review” you are then asked by the journal to name your favorite reviewers. All that remains for you to do now is to line up your buddies in as reviewers and you are “In like Flynn.” By the way, they also respect your privacy. Vets, dentists, and Spice girls are all welcome and only the reviewer will know the difference. I might add that it was not like that in the sixties when I acted both as an author and a reviewer. Not for climate science, which did not then exist.

  26. For all of you worried about the weather and climate move to Canada as we have neither. The proof is shown on the map at 8:22.

  27. I remember a very funny National Lampoon article from many years ago with Jerry being credited with saying “How about this for an idea: solar warheads?”
    If memory serves this was from the 1970s during the global cooling scare.

  28. Ah yes Jerry Brown, he’s a man who is out standing in his field. No really. He’s out standing in his Central Valley brown fields.

  29. ====
    “It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation.
    That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth.”
    – Vincenzo Galileo
    ====
    Identity theft seems to be part of the alarmist arsenal these days.
    Mike Borgelt has been leaving skeptical comments on this site for years, but one of the members of your cult recently stole his name to post alarmist diatribes.
    Similarly, shameless members of your religious cult forged signatures of “spice girls” in an attempt to muddy the waters of the Oregon Petition.
    When they don’t like the signature, they smear the pixels so the audience can’t read it:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/25/why-did-pbs-frontline-electronically-alter-the-signature-of-one-of-the-worlds-most-distinguished-physicists-in-their-report-climate-of-doubt/
    That’s how your version of “science” works, Mr Flash-Bang.

  30. I haven’t seen any reference to this, but the March 1 issue of EOS “Earth & Space Science News” features an article describing a recent study published in Geophysical Research Letters by Hassanzadeh et. al. It is titled “Polar Warming Makes the Jet Stream Stable, Not Wavy or Blocked”. They find that previous studies overlooked critical factors, and conclude (in the words of the author of the article) “rather than making the jet stream wavier and causing more atmospheric blocking, polar warming is actually streamlining the jet stream and reducing the incidence of blocking events”.

  31. The Internet never forgets, even before the Internet. Late 1970s drought in California, it was catastrophic manmade global cooling causing the problem. Steven Goddard’s WordPress and comments documented the situation then. The clipping with Gov. Brown’s memorable quotes was dated March 7, 1977, 38 years ago and two years into the unprecedented drought that ended shortly thereafter with spectacular rainfall, snowfall, and flooding.
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/edmund-browns-1977-global-cooling-bs-recycled-as-jerry-browns-2014-global-warming-bs/

  32. Ahhhhhh, we’ve found the recipient of ‘Big Oil’ funding: Jerry ‘Can’ Brown.
    Brown Blasts Republicans on Climate–but Silent on His Oil Fortune
    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/03/23/brown-blasts-republicans-on-climate-but-silent-on-his-oil-fortune/
    And takes you to PEARCE: Jerry Brown, oil baron
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/16/jerry-brown-oil-baron/#ixzz3VAA5RPR4
    excerpt from PEARCE:
    Sacramento Bee political columnist Dan Walters spent months researching the source of the Brown family wealth 30 years ago and recently shared the story with me in his small office crowded with family pictures, catty-cornered from the Capitol.
    In a nutshell: After Jerry’s father, Pat, left the governorship in 1967, he was introduced to the Indonesian generals who had just overthrown the country’s post-colonial dictator, Sukarno, and set up a military junta. The former governor was able to cobble together a consortium of banks that lent $12 billion to the junta – “a lot of money in the late ‘60s,” Mr. Walters said. The banks were interested in the immense Royal Dutch Shell petroleum holdings in Indonesia, which Sukarno had nationalized and the junta controlled.
    The grateful generals then set up two trading firms – one in Hong Kong and one in California – that handled the oil-exporting paperwork and were rewarded with a fee for each barrel, “a little taste, as they might say in the Mafia,” Mr. Walters said with a grin. Pat Brown was given 100 percent ownership of the California brokerage and half-ownership of the Hong Kong office. The deal was a very lucrative one because California’s early clean-air standards set a sulfur limit for the fuel burned in power plants – a limit only the clean, low-sulfur oil from Indonesia could meet.

    Read the rest for yourself. There’s an interesting ‘twist’ in the sordid tale, just for ol’ Jerry Cans Brown.

  33. Even the high-priests of the climate cult don’t agree with Jerry Brown…
    =============
    “It’s a fascinating paradox: global warming as the culprit for bone-chilling cold.
    But more and more scientists are expressing reservations about this hypothesis
    , first proposed by Rutgers climate scientist Jennifer Francis and collaborators.
    “It’s an interesting idea, but alternative observational analyses and simulations with climate models have not confirmed the hypothesis, and we do not view the theoretical arguments underlying it as compelling,” write five preeminent climate scientists (John Wallace, Isaac Held, David Thompson, Kevin Trenberth, and John Walsh) in a recent letter published in Science Magazine.
    […]
    Despite this pushback, numerous mainstream press outlets have written about the Francis theory uncritically, failing to present countervailing views.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/02/20/scientists-dont-make-extreme-cold-centerpiece-of-global-warming-discussions/
    =============
    It’s also a popular theory with consensus-driven trolls. But it’s not part of “the consensus.”

  34. @icouldnthelpit
    I loved the Image that this person posted showing that the lowest negative was -.5 degrees Celsius and now we are at .7 degrees Celsius. So how much is natural variation and how much is Human induced?

  35. Its a marvellous night for a moondream..la la la la – la la la la
    A fantabulous night to drink moonjuice ‘neath the smog in those brown LA skies

  36. The problem with Gov. Brown’s comments is that he seems to know nothing about what is happening to the climate in the rest of the country Yes there is warming in California but it is the only place in US. Regional warming in one state does not constitute” global “warming induced climate change
    Seasonal trend of US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998 according to NOAA
    3 out of 4 seasons and the annual temperature anomaly show a cooling trend.
    • WINTER (-1.44 F/DECADE) COOLING
    • FALL (-0.50 F/DECADE) COOLING
    • SPRING (-0.06 F/DECADE) COOLING
    • SUMMER (+0.23 F/DECADE) WARMING
    ANNUAL (-0.48 F/DECADE) COOLING
    Regional trend of US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998
    8 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend
    • OHIO VALLEY -0.9 F
    • UPPER MIDWEST -1.5 F
    • NORTH EAST -0.1F
    • NORTHWEST -0.1 F
    • SOUTH -0.5 F
    • SOUTHEAST -.03 F
    • SOUTHWEST -0.1 F
    • WEST +0.7 F
    • NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -0.1 F

  37. Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
    Look folks, it our governor and we elected him. We are as much to blame for this stupidity and he is. I would be interested in how a pause in global warming for 18 years produces sever cold. I think that Governor Brown must have been protesting during science class.

  38. A Freudian slip, by Moonbeam:

    Cruz “betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of existing scientific data, it’s shocking, and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office,” he said.

    A direct “falsification of existing scientific data” is shocking. Moonbeam, backed into the truth, for once. Although he is confusing, model output for “existing scientific data”.
    Unless he was referring to the manipulations of the existing scientific data, in an effort to “correct” it. Or the growing discrepancy between the satellite data, and the Land Sea Surface, data sets.

    • Jerry Brown’s accusation that Cruz falsified scientific data (ignoring the hypocrisy for a moment) sure sounds like a libel lawsuit. I hope so!

  39. Sir Harry Flashman @ March 25, 2015 at 7:04 am
    “However, when multiple authorities across multiple lines of enquiry …”
    No. No “however”. No exceptions. The history of science is replete with examples where the prevailing opinion of “multiple authorities across multiple lines of enquiry” was wrong.
    Again, this isn’t about probability. You can make your argument that such-and-such authority is, in your opinion, probably correct. However, others’ assessment of your authority figure’s probity and reliability may differ from your own.
    “What a low opinion you have of the field, and a high opinion you have of yourself for being able to discern the truth being covered up by these snivelling dishonest idiots.”
    It’s a curse. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a raving lunatic, claiming he can “see”, whatever that means.
    But, you err in assuming that all in the field share the alamist viewpoint. You have been taken in by the massive PR campaign.
    “…try the North American far north for starters …”
    I do not need convincing that the climate changes. It always has. It always will. But, it is abundantly clear that it is dominated by natural processes.
    For over 100 years, globally averaged temperatures have displayed a long term trend of about 0.75 degC/century, with a ~60 year oscillation of about 0.4 degC peak-to-peak superimposed. This pattern was laid in well before human inputs could have had any effect.
    It is, moreover, quite clear that we have little influence on global atmospheric CO2 levels anyway. It is abundantly clear from the temperature correlation that human inputs are essentially superfluous.
    And, even were those items untrue, warm is better than cold. I wish we did have control over the weather, and were making it warmer. Unfortunately, we are just a bunch of fleas on the elephant’s back with delusions of grandeur.
    “And the PR campaign run by the fossil fuel companies and their political and media shills…”
    You’re probably too young to remember The Kinks Destroyer. Paranoia, the destroyer.
    “…to deny the science and the evidence of their senses and go along with it.”
    So, in the end, you rely on anecdotal evidence to form your opinions. You must be very young, indeed. When you become as antiquated as I, you will have lost count of all the alarms that came and went, with the only net result being the enrichment of those who can always rely on a fresh batch of ingenues and naifs to line their pockets. With the climate, and it’s ~30 year half cycle, we have a resonance condition, as generational turnover roughly matches this period. So, every 30 years, we are treated to a new Global Warming/Cooling scam. And, each time, the reaction builds, as the latest crop of patsies imagines itself so far advanced beyond the last crop.
    I am hopeful that the long institutional memory conferred by the internet will help arrest the cycle. In 2030 to 2040, when the cycle has reached its most recent nadir and the new panic is over Global Cooling again, we will be able to reach into the archives of this time to say definitively, yes, you said it was cataclysmic warming last time, and yes, you really were serious about it.

    • Nah, I’m pretty old.. FWIW I actually enjoy some of these conversations. I still don’t land on the “skeptic” side but some of my apocalypticism has diminished somewhat.

      • Good to hear it, or rather, read it. This whole brouhaha is a travesty of science. There is some truth at the foundation, but the structure built on top of it is cardboard. Yes, “greenhouse” gases absorb IR energy. Yes, all things being equal, additional impedance of egress of IR energy from the surface would act to heat it. It’s the “all things being equal” that is the rub.
        The Earth’s climate is a fantastically complex and interconnected system, and to every action, there is a reaction. Increase the IR impedance, and among other things, you stir up the winds, which convect heat upwards to the layers from which it can be dissipated. You affect cloud formation, which modulates the incoming solar energy. You stir up biological activity, which has its own impacts. There is no valid scientific principle that states that, in the aggregate response, the surface ineluctably must heat, much less must heat significantly.
        The AGW panic is based on what are taken to be three fundamental axioms:
        1) Increasing atmospheric IR impedance must heat the surface
        2) Atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen due to our release of latent CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, and will continue to do so if we do not stop burning them
        3) Increased surface temperatures would be bad for living creatures, humans among them
        Every evidence is interpreted in manner most consistent with this axiomatic basis. The house of cards comes tumbling down when you remove any one of them, because A) the evidences are then open to many interpretations, not all, or even most, of which support the hypothesis, and/or B) it becomes a moot question. And, not one of these putative axioms has been verified and/or is fundamentally true.

  40. Weather events being reported as caused by global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 causing increased water vapor thus increased air temperatures flies in the face of atmospheric conditions that bring about weather events. For example, our weather forecast for NE Oregon indicates the possibility of record high temperatures. Is it because of anthropogenic warming? Hardly. It’s because of atmospheric conditions that set up to create above average warmth.
    Here is our forecast:
    SHORT TERM…TODAY THROUGH SATURDAY…AN UPPER RIDGE WILL PERSIST
    OVER THE REGION TODAY THROUGH FRIDAY WITH A WARM SOUTHWEST FLOW
    ALOFT OVER THE CWA. THIS WILL BRING MILD AIR ALONG WITH INCREASING
    INSTABILITY. THE MOST UNSTABLE DAY WILL BE ON FRIDAY WITH NEGATIVE
    LI VALUES AND SOME CAPE. AS A RESULT A SLIGHT CHANCE OF
    THUNDERSTORMS WILL BE POSSIBLE ON FRIDAY. TODAY IT WILL BE TOO DRY
    AND STABLE. THE BEST CHANCE FOR THUNDERSTORMS WILL BE OVER THE
    CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST OREGON MOUNTAINS AND HIGHER ELEVATIONS FRIDAY
    AFTERNOON AND EVENING. A COLD FRONT WILL MOVE ACROSS THE REGION
    FRIDAY NIGHT AND SATURDAY MORNING WITH COOLER AIR BEHIND THE FRONT
    ALONG WITH INCREASING WINDS FOR SATURDAY. EXPECT NEAR RECORD HIGH
    TEMPERATURES THIS AFTERNOON AND AGAIN FRIDAY AFTERNOON WITH LOWER
    ELEVATION MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES IN THE MID 60S TO LOWER 70S TODAY AND
    THEN MOSTLY IN THE 70S IN FRIDAY. THEN ON SATURDAY MAXIMUM
    TEMPERATURES WILL COOL DOWN TO THE 60S WITH 40S AND 50S IN THE
    MOUNTAINS…WITH A BETTER CHANCE OF SHOWERS…ESPECIALLY IN THE
    MORNING. SNOW LEVELS WILL BE QUITE HIGH THROUGH THE PERIOD SO WINTER
    WEATHER WILL NOT BE A CONCERN DURING THE SHORT TERM PERIOD. WINDS ON
    SATURDAY WILL INCREASE TO THE 15 TO 25 MPH RANGE WITH THE STRONGEST
    WINDS IN THE OPEN TERRAIN OF THE OREGON SIDE OF THE LOWER COLUMBIA
    BASIN. AT THIS TIME WINDS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO REACH ADVISORY SPEEDS
    ON SATURDAY.
    LONG TERM…SATURDAY NIGHT THROUGH WEDNESDAY. WESTERLY FLOW WILL BE
    OVER THE REGION ON SATURDAY NIGHT AND WILL BECOME SOUTHWEST ON
    SUNDAY AS A WEAK RIDGE MOVES INTO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST. THE RIDGE
    WILL BE MOVING EAST ON MONDAY AS A TROUGH MOVES TO THE WEST COAST.
    THIS SYSTEM WILL MOVE THROUGH MONDAY NIGHT AND TUESDAY WITH ANOTHER
    SYSTEM SHORTWAVE FOLLOWING IT INTO THE REGION ON WEDNESDAY. THESE
    SYSTEMS WILL BRING A CHANCE OF RAIN AND SOME COLDER AIR WITH SNOW
    LEVELS LOWERING TO ABOUT 4000 FEET AS WELL AS BREEZY TO WINDY
    CONDITIONS MONDAY NIGHT THROUGH WEDNESDAY. TEMPERATURES WILL BE
    ABOVE NORMAL THROUGH MONDAY AND THEN COOL TO NEAR SEASONAL LEVELS BY
    WEDNESDAY.
    As you can see, not one mention of human caused warming. However, anyone wanna bet that if record warmth occurs, it will be blamed on humans in spite of the reasonably deduced natural causes explained in the forecast above? It is this disconnect between obvious natural causes and the more sexy human connection that grinds. And Moonbeam is as disconnected as anyone could ever be.

  41. Jerry Brown is doing his best to pollute science in the process of causing negative environmental impacts to the state of California to further the political and financial goals of fascist globalists.

  42. moonbeam came from his book. I believe his name was taken moon-bat. Where he wrote about taking acid at night looking at the moon there were bats that flew by they though they where birds.

Comments are closed.