One of the most pathetic things about climate alarmism is the fact that it seems the people who profess such views have no capacity to be ashamed of their own statements. For example, Brad Johnson, who is a paid spokesman for a shadowy outfit called “forecast the facts” has previously made outrageous statements trying to link tornado activity to the voting record of some southern states.
We’ve called him out on these claims before, but being paid to do it he does, he’s right back at it this week with an even more outrageous claim as seen below on his Twitter feed:
Johnson is a paid political advocate, his job is to scare up emotions with whatever statements he can muster so that it can be regurgitated by low information voters even though there’s not one speck of truth in anything he has ever said in this matter of severe weather events related to climate.
He is the worst kind of alarmist: paid to create lies, such as trying to link a blizzard to climate change.
Even the IPCC doesn’t buy into the climate to severe weather link as we have covered before:
This is consistent with what was reported last year in the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF)
From Chapter 4 of the IPCC SREX report:
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr adds in blog post some points from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.
- “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
- “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
- “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
- “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
- “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
- “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
- “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
And says:
Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.
There are numerous studies that show no linkage between tornado activity and climate change, and last month was the quietest Mmnth on record for US. Tornadoes since 1969.
Even Nature’s editorial two years ago was dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
Brad Johnson should be ashamed for pushing such lies, but when you’re paid to do so, I suppose it’s impossible to embrace such an emotion.
It would be a great service for someone to unravel all the financing of these left-wing groups. I strongly expect that much of it comes from surreptitious government funding using created money.
Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen have done just that!… in Cracking Big Green – To Save the World from the Save-the-Earth Money Machine. It’s available at amazon.com in paperback and Kindle.
See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-report-exposes-the-climate-environmental-movement-as-being-a-cash-machine-controlling-the-epa/
I don’t think people are as stupid as he thinks. Doing outrageous posts like his simply expose alarmists for what they are & most people are more likely to dismiss “climate change” as a problem after seeing some stupid headline like this than they are to be scared into thinking it is a real problem.
I am not sure “pathetic” necessarily means newsworthy or have I missed the point… again!?
The article stands on it’s own legs without reference to an idiotic tweet. GK
Ummm …. no. Not even then.
We need a rating system for these claims, although 97% will probably garner 5 Snake Oils.
[Several of those (very long!) links did not get recognized by WordPress. Check them and re-post. .mod]
Looks like a search string URL, not a link to actual content.
Mod: It’s one long link to a pix of snake-oil-in-a-bottle. Have to copy and paste the whole thing to retrieve.
Try this.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gn6taqRu2C8/TVC8S7fqW3I/AAAAAAAACV0/9qAWrEte6m0/s1600/snake-oil.jpg
So how many miles per gallon do these fossil fueled tornados do?
More than fifty ?
Or will the EPA ban their production?
Need I say…Sarc?
“
TotoBrad, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore. We must be over the rainbow!It’s only Monday. I’m pretty sure there will be even crazier stuff as the week unfolds. There is a genuine hockey stick of climate statements decoupled from reality approaching asymptotic singularity.
Role saving throw vs reality check
If that was a fossil fueled tornado, then my car jumped over the moon last night. Ludicrous.
And this is why we have to get into politics, because the warmists left science far, far behind long ago. As in this case, they no longer even try to hide the ridiculous, bald faced lies, and anti-science nature of their appeal. They weren’t winning on the science, and now they have given up on it completely.
carbonado, It’s not sharknado, but it’s much worse than we thought.
“It is well known that the normal human body temperature is about 310 K. Furthermore, it is also well known that a seemingly small change (up or down) in absolute body temperature by only 1% (3.1 K, or 5.6 F) would make one sicker than a dog, and, that a 2% change in body temperature (up or down by 6.2 K, or 11.2 F) will virtually guarantee a dead body.t is well known that the normal human body temperature is about 310 K. Furthermore, it is also well known that a seemingly small change (up or down) in absolute body temperature by only 1% (3.1 K, or 5.6 F) would make one sicker than a dog, and, that a 2% change in body temperature (up or down by 6.2 K, or 11.2 F) will virtually guarantee a dead body.”
Just read this at Skepticalscience. Not the best comparison. For those of you who don’t quite get it. The human body…any mammalian body cannot be a placeholder for the planet, when trying to make a broad scientific comparison. Because, and this is where it gets confusing, they are not the same in volume or exact measure of substance, etc.
A link to the SKS article would have been nice.
I do know the origination of that comment; Andy Lacis responding to a Steve Koonin article at Judith Curry’s: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/08/are-human-influences-on-the-climate-really-small/#comment-691948
In context, Lacis’ argument is not about the physics of mammalian vs. planetary thermodynamics, but rather the fallacy of appealing to small percentages as a way of saying, “aw shucks, what’s the big deal with a 1-2% change in global absolute surface temperature?”
A 2% drop in GAT is an ice age, a 2% rise is many tens of meters of eventual sea level rise. We can quibble about whether either case would be “good” or “bad” for us a species, but I find it very difficult indeed to argue that those “small” percentage changes would be insignificant in terms of the physical changes to the planet’s surface.
Disclosure: Having done a fair amount of work for commercial real estate concerns does inform my opinions on such matters.
Brandon, you need to go much deeper for your Koonin falacy argument to be convincing. Small percentage changes can be important in some circumstances, not in many others. Thermally important circumstances include homeostatic biological regulation (human sweating/shivering) and physical threshold effects (‘tipping points’) like phase transitions (ice/water/vapor). None of those circumstances have been shownto apply for the climate system except on slow geological scales. (yes, ice ages do change sea level by 120 meters over 100 millennia, andmduringnthe EEmian by up to 6 meters more than at present over 3 millenia with temps pwrhaps 3C higher than at present. Get used to all that, since has happened 4 times in the last 500 millennia, during most of which Homo Sapiens did not exist.) Not your fault, and nothing the IPCC can do about it. Ocean acidification, buffered. Permian extinction was SO2 from mantle plume Siberian Trap eruptions, not CO2. Sudden SLR from ice sheet collapse, never happened before. Species extinctions, never during the Pleistocene except with human predation intervention (Clovis culture, passenger pigeons),
ristvan,
It’s not strictly my argument, it’s Lacis’ — however I do share his views and have done well prior to reading them. In short, I’m willing to own it as mine with the note that someone with relevant domain expertise and publications in the primary literature on the same supports my own position.
Note also, I don’t “need” to do anything here. I respond much better to requests for elaboration than I do implied demands. My opinion is that most people do.
Granted, however note that I have specifically addressed one case where a +/- 2% deviation in absolute GAT has been observed to have non-trivial effects on the planet. You raising the question that not all such cases are significant, while logically true, does not address the specific case I am discussing — which is fallacious, yes?
I’ve seen variations of all your remaining arguments based on prior observation. I don’t dispute the observations themselves. I think I understand the implied argument you’re making, but rather than put words in your mouth I’ll simply ask you to more clearly state your own conclusions before proceeding any further.
Ok, perhaps I just don’t understand but a 1% change in body temperature is not 5.6 F. It is .98 F, very much within the limits that humans can endure.
Tom, that is 1% of the absolute temperature (difference from the coldest possible as defined by Kelvin), not of the difference from the coldest that Fahrenheit could achieve with ice and salt.
No, that’s not the problem with the example. K is an absolute scale, F is not. You cannot compare them as expressed in the quote “a seemingly small change (up or down) in absolute body temperature by only 1% (3.1 K, or 5.6 F)”
It’s apples and oranges. Just another example of how liars figure and figures lie.
The planet normally changes temperature by 5 to 10C everyday, and another 10 to 20C over the course of a year.
That alone refutes the absurd attempt to compare the planet to a body.
MarkW,
Indeed, the problems with arguing by analogy are two-fold:
1) They have the tendency to lend themselves to conflations which ought not be made.
2) They’re easy to refute by introducing an alternative analogy.
In this case you’ve actually dispensed with the analogy altogether, which is great, I’m happy to do that rather than argue the analogy. What’s not great is that you’ve introduced diurnal and annual temperature range into a completely different discussion. Allow me to explain by rewinding from the top. Koonin’s article at Curry’s was to clarify a portion of an op-ed he authored for the Wall Street Journal article on 9/20/14, Climate Science is Not Settled. The problematic paragraph in that article was: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/08/are-human-influences-on-the-climate-really-small
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
The question was how he arrived at 1% to 2%. The condensed answer is that the downwelling IR flux at the surface from the atmosphere is 342 W/m^2. He was calculating net change in forcing + feedbacks, the answers work out to an increase of 1% to 2% of 342 W/m^2. He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts. Which is not a great argument for a number of different reasons which I expect he’s heard plenty about.
Fast forward to present, in the article at Dr. Curry’s, he extends the small percentage argument with:
An alternative way of seeing the physical smallness of anthropogenic influences is to look at how the long-wave absorptivity of the clear sky increases with CO2 concentration – this is the physical input to GCMs that varies directly. Figure 4 from Harde shows that a doubling from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm increases the absorptivity by about 1% on a base of 82%, or, again a percentish shift. An even simpler indication of the percentish influence is to note that a 3 C mean global surface temperature increase on a base of 288 K is also about a 1% effect.
Emphasis mine. Yes it’s even simpler, but no more or less wrong of an argument for it. The reason being that taking the percentage of the absolute GAT in Kelvin and saying, “see, small percentage!” is not a meaningful comparison. It IS a way to generate an itty-bitty number and thereby argue, “wot’s the big deal, hey?” That fallacy is the thing Dr. Lacis is taking Dr. Koonin to task for.
The bottom-line question here is, of course, why Dr. Koonin’s percentage calculations are fallacious. The short answer is because it doesn’t say anything meaningful about the resulting physical effects on the planet. So, as I have already answered above, note that a +/- 2% deviation in absolute GAT results in vast areas of the NH being covered with ice on the cool side and tens of meters of increased sea levels on the high side. I find it incredibly difficult to call those effects a “percentish” change as Dr. Koonin would have us believe.
But that’s just me being diplomatic; his argument is bullcrap, and not the kind of thing one expects a highly lettered and intelligent scientist to make.
Lest you balk, let me show the other side of the small percentage fallacy — the large percentage fallacy:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/fig1.gif
Over the past 800,000 years, GAT has varied about 6K. A 3K increase is 50%. That’s “significant”. Why cherrypick the past 800,000 years you ask? Fine, 3 K of 8 K is 37.5%, still “significant”.
But still meaningless, right? Just me making up big scary numbers.
Brandon, Paraphrasing Dr. Koonin says,
“He was calculating net change in forcing + feedbacks, the answers work out to an increase of 1% to 2% of 342 W/m^2. He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts.”
He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts. Which is not a great argument for a number of different reasons which I expect he’s heard plenty about.
==================================================================
Actually I think it, in and of itself, a reasonable argument, as the transient climate response varies greatly in the literature, with the observations supporting the lower numbers, and their is extensive evidence that the only KNOWN impacts are primarily positive.
Brandon continues, “So, as I have already answered above, note that a +/- 2% deviation in absolute GAT results in vast areas of the NH being covered with ice on the cool side and tens of meters of increased sea levels on the high side. I find it incredibly difficult to call those effects a “percentish” change as Dr. Koonin would have us believe.”
“But that’s just me being diplomatic; his argument is bullcrap, and not the kind of thing one expects a highly lettered and intelligent scientist to make.”
===========================================
Well I agree that small changes can have a large impact, but I did not hear Dr Konnin dispute that, and since that (the percentage change in GAT on the K scale) was not his argument, (according to what you wrote in your comment) I consider it a strawman.
His argument was that the TCS to doubled forcing on a W/m^2 basis was small and difficult to project the impacts. Since those impacts to GAT have already run so far off the rails, and since there at least 20 plus per reviewed articles showing a smaller TCS and ECS then what the IPCC uses, and since the increase in extreme weather events have failed to materialize, and the many other projected harms such as SL rise have failed to accelerate, and an extensive body of research indicates negative feedbacks likely dominate, and since the benefits of doubled CO2 are tremendous and not in dispute (about a 50% increase in global crop production on the SAME amount of land, on the SAME amount of water) then I consider his argument that, “He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts.” is not both rational and correct referring to the projected harms.
I further recommend that you do not stick to just the IPCC literature, as volumes have been written on the corruption of that political body and their extensive use of non peer reviewed alarmism. I suggest the NIPCC as an excellent source to find a broader perspective on what the peer reviewed science says.
David A,
Sorry but you’re factually incorrect on the percentage change in GAT on the K scale. His exact words, as I already quoted: An even simpler indication of the percentish influence is to note that a 3 C mean global surface temperature increase on a base of 288 K is also about a 1% effect.
Indeed, Dr. Koonin did not dispute that small percentage changes can have a large impact, but then again neither did he raise it. The clear theme of his note is that anthropogenic forcings are small. Some quotes: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/08/are-human-influences-on-the-climate-really-small/
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.
However one quantifies it, we have a percentish exogenous perturbation, which will result in percentish shifts of the energy flows, even after feedbacks (which are thought to roughly double the response).
Figure 4 from Harde shows that a doubling from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm increases the absorptivity by about 1% on a base of 82%, or, again a percentish shift.
The physical smallness of anthropogenic influences, which comes as a surprise to many non-climate-expert scientists, has profound implications for climate understanding and modeling. First, it means precision observations are required to see the climate response. Second, it means that natural variations can easily overwhelm human influences, at least on multidecadal scales (witness the current stasis in global mean surface temperature). And finally, because life at the 1% level is rich, the models have to get many small phenomena right to confidently isolate and project the response to anthropogenic effects.
I find it incredibly difficult to read his essay any other way than: anthropogenic effects are “small” and “percentish” — “however one quantifies it”. Which last part is patently false since, as I’ve already demonstrated, percentages can be big or small depending on what one chooses to use in the denominator. Since percentages don’t inherently tell us anything about actual physical effects, he’s built a non sequitur. I can, and have, answered with a large percentage: 3 K / 6 K = 50%, which is just the same fallacious numbers game he’s playing. That figure only makes sense in the context of noting that a GAT 6 K cooler than present-day constitutes the approximate lowest global surface temperature at the height of a glacial period, or ice age.
What matters are NOT the percentages, but the physical effects themselves. Expressed in percentage terms on the Kelvin scale, 2% cooler planet is significantly different physically, as is a 2% warmer one.
Since we’re on a strawman kick today, I’ll end this section with how Dr. Koonin ends his essay from Dr. Curry’s blog:
The annotated version of my WSJ article contains supporting material for some of other points I made. Virtually all of the references are from IPCC AR5 WGI, so they are surely settled science.
A fun exercise is to download any AR5 document and count the number of times “highly uncertain” and like phrases appear.
Seems to me that literature is going to have difficulty projecting the impacts across the board, and that you should be just as dubious of the NIPCC’s soothing bromides based as you are of the IPCC’s “alarmism”. A “broader perspective” of difficult projections should give one a “broader perspective” of the difficulty.
When high uncertainty and difficult projections are the rule of the day, I hold that a rational and informed risk-assessor tends to argue for the path of least reliance on the projections.
Errata: “soothing bromides based” — strike the word “based”
Brandon, I called your argument a straw-man, based on your words, and specifically said that in my comment.
Your words, “He was calculating net change in forcing + feedbacks, the answers work out to an increase of 1% to 2% of 342 W/m^2. He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts.” I agree. He is not saying nothing serious will occur, just that there are many poorly understood natural forcing’s of equal magnitude. He is not saying they do not matter.
Again you reiterated…
“He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts. Which is not a great argument for a number of different reasons which I expect he’s heard plenty about.”
=========================================================================
I pointed out the wide range of CS and TCS in the literature, and defended this as a reasonable argument.
Apparently, from your latest post, you agree with him. I quote you;
“A fun exercise is to download any AR5 document and count the number of times “highly uncertain” and like phrases appear…
and you said…
“Seems to me that literature is going to have difficulty projecting the impacts across the board, and that you should be just as dubious of the NIPCC’s soothing bromides based as you are of the IPCC’s “alarmism”. A “broader perspective” of difficult projections should give one a “broader perspective” of the difficulty.
” high uncertainty and difficult projections are the rule of the day,”
=========================================================================
So I am glad you agree with Dr Koonin that due to many disparate forcing’s of similar magnitude, and due to many aspects of the earth’s climate we poorly understand, projections are difficult. You further quote Dr Koonin saying “Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole.” So he admits to potential SERIOUS consequences, and further explains they are small to the climate system as a whole, making it difficult to determine the CS.
Clearly he is taking about the difficulty in sorting out disparate natural forcing’s of similar magnitude, as you agreed exist, and as evidence by the very wide range of TCS within the peer reviewed literature.
You end with an appeal to the precautionary principles, entirely ignoring my paragraph that stated this,
“His argument was that the TCS to doubled forcing on a W/m^2 basis was small and difficult to project the impacts. Since those impacts to GAT have already run so far off the rails, and since there at least 20 plus per reviewed articles showing a smaller TCS and ECS then what the IPCC uses, and since the increase in extreme weather events have failed to materialize, and the many other projected harms such as SL rise have failed to accelerate, and an extensive body of research indicates negative feedbacks likely dominate, and since the benefits of doubled CO2 are tremendous and not in dispute (about a 50% increase in global crop production on the SAME amount of land, on the SAME amount of water) then I consider his argument that, “He’s saying in the WSJ that the small percentages make it difficult to project the impacts.” is not both rational and correct referring to the projected harms.
Furthermore the POLITICAL actions being taken which are destructive to the life blood of any economy (Under Obama’s plan “electricity rates will NECESSARILY sky rocket”) and will have virtually zero affect on the GAT, as India and China are building coal fired power plants at the rate of two to three every week, and will continue to with the “Great Negotiators” non agreement.
Hey, Daniel Kuhn where are you? I need you to comment on this article. I’m in dire need of another good laugh.
You can’t have it both ways. As mentioned in the “article”, there was a distinctly late start to the tornado season across the midwest US. That fact was trumpeted here as a sign that there is no AGW. Today the claim is being made that AGW doesn’t effect extreme weather events anyways.
So which is it?
My inclination in such things is to go with what the IPCC says, not political activists. When that doesn’t work, I read the primary literature.
You say you would prefer to go with the IPCC rather than political activists.
The problem is that the IPCC is run by political activists.
Brandon Gates
‘My inclination in such things is to go with what the IPCC says. When that doesn’t work, I read the primary literature.’
____
And that works on You?
Primary literature before the IPCC?
____
Brandon daredevil Gates! One small step for Brandon, a big … etc.pp.
MarkW,
Worse: poiticians. Hence, primary literature as an essential part of my balanced breakfast. Pre-Gore when I can get it. That’s why I’m such a fan of Arrhenius (1896): http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
johann wundersamer,
Well actually, yes … it’s constantly being published and I like to be current when I’m not reading the classics.
Er, I should read more carefully. My comment as a general principle still stands.
Someone else,
Which is it? It’s like this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rugV5vZN-Zs/U037ZpI1FnI/AAAAAAAAAg4/AB7VsDi-vkI/s1600/Tornados.jpg
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SBdDntcRgAI/AAAAAAAAATw/J_oTeNILjso/s1600-h/tornado-fatalites-1916-2005sm.jpg
[click on ^icon^; don’t know why it won’t post]
CO2 rising. Tornadoes declining. Draw your own conclusions.
Like I said, go with the data. The political activism on this point is wrong and should be called for what it is. SE’s argument is different, and I don’t disagree, but I’ll let him prosecute it.
It seems to me that these graphs demonstrate better preparedness, building standards, and education about safety than anything else. Post a graph of the economic impact of extreme weather events, i suspect the relationship will be inverted. Lower human casualty count, higher economic/damages impact.
That’s me drawing my own conclusions (as requested i might add).
@Brandon, i agree that when all else fails, proper study of the source materials is what provides the best information. Panels like the IPCC are trusted to digest and present that information in a concise and understandable format so the likes of you and I don’t have to dig into every assessment that goes into such a report (although we are free to do so if inclined).
Someone else,
It helps that you and I have some native trust in the process of peer reviewed science. Personally, I consider default trust in the scientific process across the board the most efficient way of gaining broad knowledge about anything and everything. IOW: a good way to not be a “low information” individual. OTOH, the perceived, and arguably real, hazard of default trust is blind trust which I do not at all think is an acceptable way to seek truth.
The issue I see with political activism, across any and all issues, both sides of the political spectrum, is that it trades on incidental lay ignorance. In that respect, I consider “scare” stories about AGW and tornadoes to be odious behaviour even though it’s ostensibly for a cause I nominally support. At the same time, I object to calling people who accept such messages as valid “stupid” or “low information”. I hold that the criticism should nearly always be directed mostly at the activity of disseminating misleading or overly-confident information, less so at those who are ideologically disposed to accept it without much question.
Now contrast incidental ignorance with deliberate ignorance. Clearly deliberate ignorance is bad faith, non-truth-seeking behaviour. On a subject such as climate, it is very difficult to establish what is factual and what is not. A lot of bad faith on both sides is assumed here, which is unfortunate — though not at all something I consider difficult to understand. Very frustrating though, yes?
More to the point of your comment which started this subthread, I recall the previous tornado articles of which you speak. And my recollection is similar — the point was indeed that AGW predicts more extreme weather, bbbbuuuttt tornadoes are decreasing, etc., therefore AGW predictions fail. I don’t remember there being a specific message that AGW isn’t happening.
SE says:
It seems to me that these graphs demonstrate better preparedness, building standards, and education about safety than anything else.
Some of them might be, but first 2 graphs are direct tornado strength count and has nothing to do with preparedness.
Incorrect. The burden of proof is not on skeptics. The burden of proof is on alarmists, and they claim that AGW causes more extreme weather.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat — the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). This is a particular case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The problem here is not the burden of proof, its the conflicting statements made in the two articles i mentioned. You can’t say that AGW has no effect on extreme weather events, and then point to the [lack of] extreme weather events and say “see, that proves AGW isn’t real”. If the premise that AGW has no effect of extreme weather events is true, then the previous statement must have been caused by natural variability. It proves nothing one way or the other.
Also, using tornadoes as a litmus test of all extreme weather events is just as much cherry picking as pointing at temperatures in Greenland and saying they are global.
As an aside, all of my posts must now go through moderation for some reason (even if its a single word or sentence) which causes my responses to show up late, and in doing so lets everyone else move to the next argument so as to make my comments appear less relevant and after the fact. Its not worth having a discussion that takes hours on end that i am the only one left behind and appearing to play catch-up. If the goal is to make my simply stop posting, all it is accomplishing is a delay of discussion. I will not play this game, but if i have something worthwhile to post I will.
You’re assuming that AGW exists, and then projecting it onto skeptics. In used car sales that would be called the “assumptive close.”
No, I believe skeptics were saying that the lack of extreme weather contradicts alarmists’ claims of extreme weather.
Again, skeptics don’t have to prove anything. I don’t know why you don’t get that.
Someone else,
If your posts always have to go through moderation, I will acknowledge that that is pretty annoying and discouraging. Obviously I have no idea why, but do understand that some of my posts go through that process too, so hang in there 🙂
We need all types here or otherwise it will become an echo chamber, which isn’t a plus.
Max Photon,
I consider myself a sceptical, critically thinking, truth-seeking person. I hold that anyone who makes a claim or counterclaim on any position owns their own burden of proof no matter how they choose to self-label their position on the broader issue being debated.
I don’t know why you don’t get that.
If you object to the previous sentence, perhaps you and I agree on more than you might otherwise think.
Max Photon,
Let that be an example of you and I being very much in agreement. I appreciate you saying that to SE and salute you for it.
“You can’t have it both ways. As mentioned in the “article”, there was a distinctly late start to the tornado season across the midwest US. That fact was trumpeted here as a sign that there is no AGW. Today the claim is being made that AGW doesn’t effect extreme weather events anyways.
So which is it?.”
Why salute this drivel? Where do one of the authors on this blog actually say that AGW is completely refuted by a late start to the tornado season (how many of them are Slayers anyway)? Its simply one piece of evidence that the claim that extreme weather is getting worse due to AGW is not true let alone settled.
The assertion that extreme weather is predicted by settled science and evidence that its clearly not happening is evidence that you can’t trust the same people on their other predictions, not that they are always wrong about everything. The settled part is important here. If we weren’t called “deniers of the science” then simply getting a prediction wrong would not be such a bad thing.
Apart from that, you are allowed to take a different tack ie, even if AGW were true, the data does not show conclusive evidence that the predicted increase in extreme weather is occurring.
Someone else, the problem is that the so called conflict exists only in your head.
Actually Someone else, it was noted here on WUWT that while Co2 levels have continued to rise, tornado activity has fallen. So the link has been debunked, not reinforced on WUWT.
I know that you are desperate to show an example of hypocrisy, but once again, you have failed.
The issue with late start to the hurricane season was not to claim that CO2 resulted in the late start, it was to refute the claim that CO2 would necessarily cause an increase in hurricanes.
Once you stop working from the warmist agenda, the world starts making a lot more sense.
There is no link between warming and tornadoes. They claim that the poles are warming and that will cause more severe weather. Now think about it. Does that make sense to you? Among other things, it takes warm air colliding with cold air to form the super cells and the wind shear for the rotation associated with tornadoes. IF the poles warm but the temperate and tropical zones do not, there will be less contrast in temperature between warm and cold air masses, NOT MORE! So why don’t you ask them to explain how more severe weather, in the form of tornadoes are supposed to occur when there is a decreased temperature contrast between tropical and polar air masses?
Dr. Roy Spencer covers this fact and more in this very good explanation: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/05/the-tornado-pacific-decadal-oscillation-connection/
Did this joker, Brad Johnson, just get hired by Hillary because she going to make Co2 regulations part of her platform. More war on the middle class.
” You can outwit knaves but you cannot outsmart fools”
+1
Even the outrageous 2014 National Climate Assessment did not go this far. See essay Credibility Conundrums for evidence and references. A sign of growing warmunist desperation, since Mother Nature refuses to warm. And another reason to ignore Twitterati. To paraphrase Churchill, ‘It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.’ Which Brad now has.
[Snip. Labeling people as “denialists” is not acceptable here. ~mod.]
If you don’t like that [rest is trimmed]
I obviously caught someone’s attention since every single post i make is now moderated, doesn’t matter if its one word. Maybe i’ll just start posting one word at a time.
[If you wish. Be sure to use a legit email address every time .mod]
Whoever you are, Someone else, buy my third ebook Blowing Smoke, read it, then get back with counterfacts. I am easy enough to find personally since use no avatar, unlike you. Or, get back here for others to scrutinize your reappnse.
Capice? Comprehndre? Wissen Sie? Do you Understand? Show up or display your ignorance.
The expression you’ve cited at the end of your comment likely predates Churchill:
From Yahoo answers:
Peter Lewerin has suggested Proverbs 17:28 as an early source of the line
Note that Lincoln, Twain, Johnson and probably others are commonly cited as the original source of the expression, but I think Peter Lewerin nailed it. The words are a little different, but the sense is the same.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AwrTcchEOSxVrLUAhbQnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzcWkwNG1lBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwM18x?qid=20080222182838AABluIO
(long, ugly-looking link; ‘hope it functions)
Of course, by now, many of us have realized – and shared good laughs about – the disturbing fact that there is no end to the maladies, conditions, perturbations, severities and what have you that this ol’ catastrophic anthropogenic global warming can cause.
All good. Glad you added to those additional distinquished thought leaders. Adds grvitas. The result remains unchanged.
“One of the most pathetic things about climate alarmism is the fact that it seems the people who profess such views have no capacity to be ashamed of their own statements.” This sounds like classic psychopath behavior; there is no external truth, only what gets the psychopath what he/she wants. Fabrications are as valid as external reality is to normal people. Other people aren’t real; they’re objects to be used by the psychopath to get what he/she wants. Psychopaths don’t need respect from objects, so looking like a fraudulent idiot isn’t a consideration. In addition, psychopaths are egocentric and emotionally immature, and lack the capacity for insight that allows normal people to assess how idiotic and dishonest behavior appears to others.”
Stuff I wish I’d known before marrying one. Dr’. Robert Hare, who developed the PCL, the Psychopath Checklist used by mental health and law enforcement, is a good source of info, and chairs the board of a non-profit support and education organization. He’s recommended testing elected officials for psychopathic traits for years; psychopaths are only capable of representing their own interests.
Fabian socialism is moving along quite well while we’re trying to figure out why they continue to come up with one example of ridiculous pseudoscience after another, the goal of the psychopathic global warming organization.
The reason the gov’the of the United States with it’s minions ofliberals have switched from “Global Warming to Weather Change” is they all know Earth is cooing. As the public realizes this as food and keeping warm from winters worsen increases, The public will see gov’t and liberals as the “Enemy!”
It is going to get “Ugly!”
The United States and Ivy League universities will be seen for what they are: incompetent and dangerous!
There are those who speak what is not true but not with the intent to deceive (technically, “a lie”). They are just innocently wrong. (Been there. Done that. …as have have we all.)
Then there are those who, at times, speak lies with the intent to deceive.
But to do it to make a living? A human failure.
It may not be so simple. There are always stupid people.
No-one pays the UFOlogists. The Homeopaths believe they aren’t killing cancer patients. Atlantis is probably somewhere – so why not here!
As you point out, the IPCC rejects Brad Johnson and his climate change fuelled twisters.
But his mind is so twisted he believes that mainstream science is madness.
Pity him.
And then still mock him on behalf of truth.
lf you want to hear some more climate craziness of the week. Then check out The Guardian and read about the latest claims and ideas of Jim Yong Kim (World Bank President).
Utter madness.
I warned people a couple of years ago about this, but didn’t get a lot of attention on it. The Obama administration has abandoned the IPCC as their lead on climate change. They’re using their influence on the World Bank to achieve their international climate goals in instead.
Despite the veneer of science, those believing the climate catastrophe fable are at the end of the day anti-science.
“Johnson is a paid political advocate, his job is to scare up emotions with whatever statements he can muster so that …”
As I was reading that for the first time, I thought it said “Johnson is a paid political whore …” I guess that shows my mind is in the gutter or something. But then, I have thought for years that many of “The Team” are prostituting themselves for 30 pieces of silver over this issue. (yes, mixed metaphors there)
Climate “science” is so divisive, dishonest, double-dealing, and duplicitous that all of science has been tarnished over this false-alarmism. I never thought I would see any branch of “science” be worse than what we see sponsored by “Big Pharma”, but the climatologists and their minions have lowered the bar to subterranean depths.
~ Mark S.
Never heard of the dolt.
Brad Johnson’s goal is to be victimized, to become a martyr. That is why the leftists make the outlandish claims they make, the more outrageous the better.
Their whole goal is to provoke righteous indignation against their persecutors, that gives them power, money and control. It is the meme of the whole ‘environmental movement’, ‘civil rights movement’, ‘politics’, etc.
The techniques weakness is that it has to be taken seriously, it can’t stand any ridicule. Ridicule is also the techniques most potent weapon.
Brad Johnson has victimized himself. He has made himself ridiculous. He is a martyr to his own dementia.
He will start to catch on when he notices people get up and leave as he speaks. Perhaps he already notices this in his personal life, and resorts to the web to seek attention he lacks in the real world. He seeks “hits” on his “sites”, but that is a sort of pathetic contact with fellow humans, compared to real conversation and real relationships.
I think he needs a cold shoulder, for that is bitter medicine to one who craves attention. Save the ridicule for the people who quote him.
Typo alert: There are numerous studies that show no linkage between tornado activity and climate change, and last month was the quietest Mmnth on record for US. Tornadoes since 1969.
The emboldened should be “March” or “Month” depending on which is more accurate.
I doubt it would be “Month”, as January can have no tornadoes. By “March” the warm muggy air starts coming north, and there can be tremendous outbreaks.
The Gulf of Mexico is warmer than normal to the east, which makes the lack of tornadoes all the more interesting. You might expect warmer water to fuel more tornadoes, but south winds have been rare.
i once caught an article from the Ny times that quoted something along the lines of “climate change was making conservatives more racist.’Then of course there was the reporting on how Isis was created by man made climate change. The huff post has the mos the hilarious journalism on the subject. i used to be quite liberal but even then I could never consider such a rag with any journalistic integrity. there is no claim about clamte change they aren’t willing to publish on the alarmism side.
How about that AGW earthquake today in Ca.
Was the fracking in OK wot did it.
Frack me, that was a good one.
Not fracking but underground salt water disposal post fracking. However, even though Oklahoma earthquake rates have increased about 40 fold since 2009 compared to the last 30 years, the Oklahoma Geological Survey position is that there is low statistical correlation. So AGW is a good a guess as any.
http://www.ogs.ou.edu/pdf/OGS_POSITION_STATEMENT_2_18_14.pdf
Funny how few complaints I see about geologists’ models not being able to predict them.
Geologists’ models aren’t being used as support to try to fundamentally change society.
You will see complaints about correlation with laws being passed to allow fracking and increased earthquakes before any actual fracking starts.
deebodk,
The main function of a forward-looking AOGCM business-as-usual projection is an attempt to tell us something about what to expect if we don’t.
We can’t do a darn thing about preventing earthquakes, but I argue that it would fundamentally change society for the better if we could reliably predict days, or even hours, in advance where and when they’re going to occur, and how strong they’re expected to be.
Robert B,
Sure. I find that argument a bit annoying myself.
We can’t do a darn thing about preventing earthquakes, but I argue that it would fundamentally change society for the better if we could reliably predict days, or even hours, in advance where and when they’re going to occur, and how strong they’re expected to be.
And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
davidmhoffer,
Where my analogy breaks down is that AGW at its core is a continuous phenomenon with a subtle low frequency signal being masked by high frequency “noise”. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve explained to you that we’re not doing long term annual weather forecasts here.
Where my analogy breaks down is that AGW at its core is a continuous phenomenon with a subtle low frequency signal being masked by high frequency “noise”. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve explained to you that we’re not doing long term annual weather forecasts here.
1) Thank you for admitting that your analogy is completely inapplicable.
2) You failed to answer the question
davidmhoffer,
Thank you for putting words in my mouth which are not there.
You failed to ask a question: And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
I can’t read your mind and answer something you did not specify. I do know that I’m not still beating my wife, I never have, and don’t plan on doing it.
You failed to ask a question: And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
LOL. You’re evading answering the question by claiming I didn’t ask one while quoting the exact question that I asked. You’re not on your game tonight.
davidmhoffer,
Partially tired because it’s nearly bedtime, partially being tired of that particular game. Of course two dozen in a row missed predictions doesn’t inspire confidence, but a yes/no answer to your “question” is one I cannot answer and not be wrong. It’s a silly debate tactic we’ve all learned from watching too many politicians on television and I’m weary of it.
What’s this two dozen you’re talking about, anyway? Years of “no warming”? Atlantic hurricanes which haven’t happened? Number of species which haven’t gone extinct?
My view is that properly skeptical truth-seeking behaviour is not to ask such vague questions designed to trap an opponent. When I’m doing that, damn straight I’m not interested in learning anything from the other guy. Someone pulls it on me, it sends the same message — therefore my answers will tend to be non-substantive and seeking to manuver for an angle to counter-attack. Pretty standard playbook, not at all mysterious.
Brandon says,
The main function of a forward-looking AOGCM business-as-usual projection is an attempt to tell us something about what to expect if we don’t.”
and says, “Funny how few complaints I see about geologists’ models not being able to predict them.”
==========================
Brandon, the main function of a forward-looking AOGCM business-as-usual projections, is, in the view of many who have studied the IPCC. purely political. (Books have been written and suggested to you) A very short summary is that if your models all run way to warm according to observations, then you do not take the mean of those models as the basis of your forward looking projection of future harms. It is not logical. If you are shooting an arrow at a target, (target here is a symbol for observations) and 97% of your arrows all go to high, you adjust your aim, and then takes those arrows which hit your target as the basis for your “projections”
The IPCC scandals and “Gates” if you will, are extensive, and I do suggest you familiarize your self with them.
A general complaint about skeptics saying, ” all models are bad”, is simply another strawman, as no informed skeptics I know are saying that. So here, like the IPCC, I suggest your projections are missing the target.
What’s this two dozen you’re talking about, anyway?
Seriously? You’ve not only admitted your analogy breaks down, you can’t seem to remember what it was about. Anyone following this thread knows exactly what two dozen I was talking about.
No, I have not been following this thread. All analogies break down at some point, else they would not be analogies. Like models, they’re all wrong, but sometimes useful.
David A,
Once again you wander into a science discussion and start talking politics.
No, I have not been following this thread
Oddly, I thought you would at least be familiar with the things you yourself said in the thread. Apparently a bad assumption on my part. A clue as to how and why you operate though. Thanks.
davidmhoffer,
Oddly you are speaking in ambiguities again, which is a clue as to how you operate. Please quote my exact words and dispute them. Not only do I find nebulous hand-waving unhelpful, I consider persistently and repeatedly doing it after calls for specifics have been made to be highly dishonest.
Not only do I find nebulous hand-waving unhelpful, I consider persistently and repeatedly doing it after calls for specifics have been made to be highly dishonest.
Seriously? I cite your comment at:
Brandon Gates April 13, 2015 at 9:35 pm
In which you said (and i quote)
We can’t do a darn thing about preventing earthquakes, but I argue that it would fundamentally change society for the better if we could reliably predict days, or even hours, in advance where and when they’re going to occur, and how strong they’re expected to be.
To which I responded at:
davidmhoffer April 13, 2015 at 10:23 pm
In which I repeated your statement above and specifically asked:
And if you had predicted 2 dozen in a row that never materialized, would you still shout that the science is settled and that anyone who didn’t do as you say was some sort of idiot?
You then pretended that I had not asked a question, and when taken to task on this matter as it was patently false due to the fact that you in fact quoted the question you claimed I never asked, you then tried to claim that you didn’t know what the question was in reference to. After all that, calling me out for being dishonest is hilarious.
davidmhoffer,
I’m not stupid, David, and I’m getting weary of you dancing around the meaning you’re obviously hinting at. Please answer the question you are clearly raising: what failed AGW predictions do you cite as fatal failures of the theory?
I’m not stupid, David, and I’m getting weary of you dancing around the meaning you’re obviously hinting at.
You’re getting weary?:
o I asked you a simple question
o You claimed I hadn’t asked one (while quoting it!)
o You then claimed you didn’t know what it was in reference to
o I then demonstrated that you knew very well what it was in reference to
o You now claim you’re getting weary of me dancing around the point you think I am making
My question hasn’t changed, your excuses are BS, and I’m done with this thread because the one weary of all the dancing is me.
davidmhoffer,
I answered your question, what, two posts ago?: Of course two dozen in a row missed predictions doesn’t inspire confidence, but a yes/no answer to your “question” is one I cannot answer and not be wrong.
Now are you really talking about earthquake predictions, or something else. This is not the first time I have asked you that.
“Fossil Fueled Tornado”
————
Apatosaurus-nado!
Like most leftists, they truly believe that the “truth” is whatever advances their agenda.
Ralph Nader: unsave at any speed.
A big gain for the corvette, Americas automotive industrie – and retaining sober reaction.
the IPCC’s supercomputers too are unsave at any speed.
Where’s IPCC’s Nader, where the sober reaction?
( Nader argued polemically, confirmed. Freedom of speech. )
Hans
It was the “Corvair” that was Nader’s target, not the “Corvette”, huge difference.
was that a pull-start, kick-start, or an electric-start tornado?
Here is my question…. what if this tornado [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-State_Tornado ], which occurred 90 years ago, struck today? Any bets it would be linked to AGW faster the winds it produces. Tornadoes happen, and they have been happening since well before recorded history.