How the climate change debate got hijacked by the 'wrong standard-of-proof'

Matthew W writes in WUWT Tips and Notes:

Today’s “Fun Challenge:”

I dare anyone to go to this blog/website and get an intelligent, coherent reply posted:

Excerpt:

This is just the sort of metaphorical setting into which the climate change denial lobby is trying to place the debate over climate change without the public or even most policymakers realizing it. The deniers in the fossil fuel industry and elsewhere are attempting by sleight-of-hand to get both the public and policymakers to abandon the preponderance of evidence standard used primarily in civil trials–and which is similar to evidence-based public policymaking–in favor of another judicial standard designed for criminal trials, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt.

So long as the deniers get to claim the role of defense attorney in this public fight, their task will be much easier. The reason that the deniers want to change the standard of proof, of course, is because climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change. The deniers have no hope of winning the intellectual argument if this standard of proof is used.

Typical of the Cultist, there is no dissent allowed !! The article is being featured on the Yahoo homepage

Advertisements

247 thoughts on “How the climate change debate got hijacked by the 'wrong standard-of-proof'

  1. How come the scientists won’t share their ” overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change”? Obama keeps saying “the debate is over” but the truth is there never was a debate. It was a mandate. People should be allowed to read transcripts of that debate and know when, where, and with whom it took place. We should demand it.

      • Yep – if I remember they all agreed we were going into an Ice Age – looking at the East coast this winter they make actually have been right .
        Please God this warming stops before we freeze to death

      • The term climate change was never used in the 80’s or 90’s. I was only after the global warming hypothesis failed that the term climate change was coined. Global Warming was at least a theory grounded in science. Climate Change has about as much scientific content as blaming extreme weather on the anger of the Greek God Zeus.

      • This was the preponderance of evidence in 2005. I have previously posted it at Hilary Ostrov’s site.:
        http://www.consciousclimate.com/pdfs/Dangerous%20Climate%20Change%201.pdf
        Prepared by Geoff Jenkins, Richard Betts, Mat Collins, Dave Griggs, Jason Lowe, Richard Wood
        “What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.”
        (I thought it had been settled science for years prior to 2005, after all, they were by then working on AR4!)
        “The physical (chemical and biological) climate system — or components of it — are capable of changing rapidly, and the trigger point for such abrupt changes could provide one of the ways of defining ‘dangerous’
        We can also investigate the impacts of relatively gradual change — and their associated costs — to seek ways of defining a dangerous change
        The inertia of the climate system means that we could be committed to dangerous change, many decades before we reach the dangerous level.
        Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change. (How would they know? Once WE decide??? Supreme hubris).
        These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases. (Really, so all those years they were claiming they knew, they were lying?)
        The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations. (More hubris)
        This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system.” (So they didn’t understand the carbon cycle, they didn’t know much about feedback, yet that is what their models depend on, but they still came up with all those mountains of documents saying they did?)
        One of the modelling concepts they were looking at in this booklet was the possible switch off of the Gulf Stream. How co-incidental, that this is being revived again at the moment by Mann and Rahmstorff….

      • “average joe”
        interesting graph. so without accounting for PDO timing, real TSi etc , observations are still above that of atleast 2 models.

      • A debate that involved almost no scientists only “world leaders”- the pro side run by Margaret Thatcher. Which gave rise the convention to push it all and all the pathetic attempts putting some scientific justification to unsupported feeble theory.

      • “A debate that involved almost no scientists only “world leaders”- the pro side run by Margaret Thatcher. Which gave rise the convention to push it all and all the pathetic attempts putting some scientific justification to unsupported feeble theory.”
        oooh sounds like a sinister conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence for those accusations?

      • @Danial Kuhn
        “your memory let you down. ”
        So looking at your article…
        “A review of the climate science literature from 1965
        to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis
        lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by
        some members of the media at the time and by some
        observers today. ”
        Ohhh… so back in the 70s, even though they knew there wasn’t imminent global cooling, scientists were ok with TELLING PEOPLE in major magazines and newspapers that it was going to happen, and let the public freak out. Scientists didn’t denounce the people that were saying it.
        I was like 5 when I heard it, and it scared me. But that was really the whole point, right? Much like today.
        Cry wolf and people tend not to accept your word any longer and demand more rigorous proof.

      • @trafamadore
        Please provide a coherent and detailed scientific explanation of how the debate has been settled. Thank you in advance.

      • “A review of the climate science literature from 1965
        to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis
        lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by
        some members of the media at the time and by some
        observers today. ”
        The same can be said of present-day mass-media climate coverage.

      • Daniel,
        without accounting for PDO timing, real TSi etc , observations are still above that of atleast 2 models.
        You really should stop this pretension that you understand what’s happening. “Real” TSI has been unchanged for very long time. PDO and other factors are part of climate so models should be able to reproduce them – and if they don’t it means that models are worthless anyway. And those 2 model runs that are roughly correct now (constituting about 4% of all runs) were wrong in the past.

      • Daniel Kuhn,
        You must be just a kid. Because I clearly remember the incessant scare stories in the 1970’s predicting the coming ice age. There were no news stories predicting runaway global warming like there were in the 1990’s (and of course, now it’s “climate change”).
        You young-uns are the most credulous lemmings. I don’t blame you personally; government education factories have done their job of dumbing down the population until we are now in an idiocracy. So you probably actually believe something written by William Connolley, chief climate propagandist for Wikipedia.
        Also, in the 1970’s scientific papers were printed. There was no internet to record them. It is a very difficult job locating papers on an obscure (at the time) backwater subject like runaway global warming. There were no climatologists, not a single one in the ’70’s. Mst such papers have been long lost. So it is very easy for a charlatan like Connolley to cherry-pick a few examples, and claim that represents the science of the time. It doesn’t.
        If you had used common sense, you would see that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Global warming has stopped. Every single prediction of alarming climate events has turned out to be flat wrong. In fact, the past century has been exceptionally mild, and the Chicken Little clucking over a minuscule 0.7º fluctuation in global temperatures over a century makes the alarmist crowd look downright insane. What do they expect? A flat line, with 0.00º change over a century? Maybe on your planet, but not here. Global T has changed by many whole degrees in the past, prior to industrial society.
        You can believe Connolley’s cherry-picked propaganda if you like. It sure looks sciencey and official. But I note that he uses a fictional novel to support his propaganda. And many scientists will jump on the current bandwagon, whether it’s warming or cooling, because that’s where the grant money is.
        But today it’s different. There’s the internet, which is destroying the climate scare narrative. Even a few years ago you could find lots of comments under media articles from readers seriously concerned about global warming. But no more: now look at those same comments. When the media publishes an article now, attempting to scare the public, 90% of the comments ridicule it. The country is changing, and you are being left behind.

      • Daniel, Since the solar cycle is at or just past max, then so is TSI. PDO only switched to negative a few years ago. The AMO is still warm.
        Being above 2 of 40 models, is still bad for the models, and that’s before you add in these other factors.

      • I was around in the 80s, and followed the debate then. I followed it in the 90s, and still to this day. It wasn’t called settled until after 2000 by some folks, and the majority who are on that side of the debate until roughly 2005-7.

      • Daniel Kuhn:
        You write

        “Yep – if I remember they all agreed we were going into an Ice Age ”
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
        your memory let you down.

        No, Kiwiskeptic’s memory was quite right.
        Your link to a piece of history revisionism by C0nn0lley et al. is evidence of nothing: C0nn0lley is infamous for his revisionism of wicki.
        Richard

      • Daniel Kuhn:
        You repeat a falsehood that was rebutted when you provided it on another thread.
        You write

        “average joe”
        interesting graph. so without accounting for PDO timing, real TSi etc , observations are still above that of atleast 2 models.

        My rebuttal of your daft comment is here.
        Richard

      • Daniel Kuhn:
        You ask cloa5132013

        “A debate that involved almost no scientists only “world leaders”- the pro side run by Margaret Thatcher. Which gave rise the convention to push it all and all the pathetic attempts putting some scientific justification to unsupported feeble theory.”
        oooh sounds like a sinister conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence for those accusations?

        Accusations? Conspiracy?
        cloa5132013 reported the history correctly and the only “conspiracy” exists in your deluded mind: there was a political bandwagon that Margaret Thatcher deliberately generated for reasons of her own personal political advantage.
        I don’t know what cloa5132013 has as “evidence” for this history, but my “evidence” is my – as it turned out – correct prediction of the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) scare before it happened. My analysis concluded that the AGW scare would occur and would displace all other environmental scares that were then raging. That conclusion was dismissed as being far-fetched but it subsequently turned out to be true.

        My analysis which provided that prediction of the AGW scare and a subsequent update about the development of the scare can be read here.

        Richard

      • There never was a debate and those with evidence for the defence were constrained by the official secrets act intended for anti terrorist activities to prevent them from releasing the evidence just as later the climategate people had faked hacking accusations used to prevent release of much of the data they had.

      • @ Daniel Kuhn:
        “oooh sounds like a sinister conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence for those accusations?”
        In November 2000, French President Jacques Chirac praised the Kyoto accord as “The first step toward global governance.”
        Your turn.

      • tramadore – “There was a debate. It was over in the 80s, and in the 90s settled. “
        from around 2000 to present, nature unsettled it again

      • trafamadore; can you please refer me to that debate?
        I cannot seem to find it in any literature. Nor do I see any peer reviewed literature making any such claim.
        If you just make stuff up and believe it, you are the denier.

      • Santa Baby: There never was any proof. That multiplier was the assumption they had to program into their models in order to generate the scary numbers the activists were after.

    • I left the following comment at this dude’s blog
      “Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”
      —David Rockefeller, Memoirs.
      Its because us Realists are financed by Big Oil.
      The Rockefeller organisation has no such taint. I mean who used to own Standard oil of New Jersey anyway? Maybe they made their money by selling toilet paper or something.
      Now about this word “resilience”. My city is a member of http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/ Now of course the city elders are far too smart to get mixed up with Big Oil. I mean If Rockefellers represent “Big Oil” what would they want in return for investing in Christchurch NZ?
      So let Big Oil speak. Actually as I said, I’m a Climate Realist but I can never squeeze a penny out of Big Oil. Damn!

      Cheers
      Roger
      http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
      Cheers
      Roger

    • Kiwisceptic NO NO that was the 70s, you’ve got to keep up with “the preponderance of evidence” man, the truth changes over time you know! Now it’s getting hot (except for local conditions ie where the thermometers are).

    • I just took a look and a chap called Theo is giving the moderator a right bashing. The moderator at one point says the “No Climate Denial” rule is not up for discussion and the commenter should go somewhere else.
      Yet the conditions of the blog state it is to promote discussion and insights – these two seem logically at odds with each other.
      I have noticed this. Cameron McNeish – a UK mountaineering writer, tweeted about UK politicians not taking climate seriously as it is the “most serious threat faced by mankind”. When I replied stating this was rubbish as global temps had not risen for at least 18 years, his reasoned, researched reply was “Yeah Yeah, and the earth is flat”.
      I replied that I certainly did not believe the earth is flat because there is a lot of good scientific evidence to the contrary, and that I was surprised he believed the earth was flat, he suddenly fell silent.
      Some of his followers replied in similar fashion but seemed willing to debate, with the usual “all these organizations say it is true” rubbish, but when you point out the error bars ( which according to one are tiny because there is years an years of data doh! ) and that the current theory must be wrong because it cannot replicate actual observations ( what we used to call scientific method), they usually end up with “Oh I see the light, all my professors and all those academics must be wrong.” and fall silent too. I usually point out the nobel prize wining work re stomach ulcers. So many doctors so wrong for so long.
      It astounds me that people like McNeish, who spues forth in published writings in various organs, are so incapable of thinking for themselves.

    • They shouldn’t dare to use such metaphors because in their courtroom metaphor, the defendant isn’t allow a lawyer nor even allowed to speak. This is how Justice works in totalitarian regimes.

      • You’re moving the goal posts. Almost nobody doubts that CO2 will cause some warming. The only reason to be afraid of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is if we are worried about catastrophic climate change/warming.
        One C warming – probably beneficial for most people
        Four C warming – certainly bad for some people
        The debate is about the magnitude of the warming. The case for four C warming is very very weak.

      • Sorry, that’s a bait and switch.
        Of course CO2 will cause warming. It’s kind of basic physics. The question has always been about magnitude, effects, and what can be done.
        The alarmist side says huge, disasterous, and quite a bit very easily respectively.
        The skeptic side says “small”, “a number of small positives and negatives”, and “effectively nothing even with multi-billion dollar investments”.
        The problem is that the data falls clearly on the skeptic side that CO2 damage will cause very minor warming that will not negatively effect much but will cause mild increases in growing seasons and rainfall. Finally, no mechanism has been proposed to meaningfully reduce CO2 aside from nuclear power plants. Everything else is simply trimming off 1-2% at best for exhorbant amounts of money.

      • Max Sargent,
        By the desmog propagandist’s own admission, he alone decided to pick which papers to cite. He alone decided on his methodology. He alone came up with his preposterous numbers. He alone framed his question so it would give him the answer he wanted. And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
        I don’t know about you, but I was working in a closely related scientific field in the 1970’s. We received all the current literature from our equipment vendors, and how I wish I had saved those papers!
        Anyone who claims that the climate scare in the 1970’s was over runaway global warming is either ignorant or lying. Scientists were no different back then: many of them published papers warning of global cooling. Why? Because that’s where the grant money was.
        Keep in mind that there wasn’t a single ‘climatologist’ back then. And as others here noticed, you’re moving the goal posts — a typical tactic of the alarmist crowd, which lacks the one thing that would give them credibility: corroboration from Planet Earth.
        But carry on. It’s always fun playing Whack-A-Mole.

    • They don’t have to share anything other than their opinion, their vote. Science is dead, what we have now are government projects and initiatives that use “science” as a tool to achieve its goal of complete control over pretty much everything. How dare you not agree with a group of government funded scientists! Blaspheme! Group think, Big Brother .. call it what you will … it’s here and as long as we keep funding the system, it will not stop.

      • “a tool to achieve its goal of complete control over pretty much everything”
        sounds like a good movie… or is that your conspriacy theory?
        you should make a movie…. oh wait, AJ was quicker than you. endgame much?

      • Daniel Kuhn – “conspiracy theory:” -think about it.
        If you wanted an easy lever for controlling the world, what would that be?
        We have all seen Pinkie and the Brain, and a bunch of James Bond movies.
        Here is the best take-over-the-world strategy I have heard yet:
        Have some sort of regulatory board that is above the level of the sovereign nations.
        UN: check.
        Control/dictate by treaty how much energy any individual nation (including its private enterprise) can consume.
        Cap-n-trade schemes: check.
        Is there a pan-global regulatory agency striving to set a limit to how much energy each and every nation can consume?
        Yes.
        This is tantamount to having control over pretty much everything.
        The only big key remaining is to control their populations so they don’t rise up against you.
        Population control efforts in place?
        Check.

    • There is a debate. For the most part skeptics are avoiding it.
      1. The earth gets energy from the via incoming radiation. Skeptics could debate this, but they dont.
      2. The earth returns energy to space via radiation. Skeptics could debate this, but they dont
      3. C02 and other GHGs, retard the return of radiation to space. Skeptics could debate this, but they don’t
      4. Retarding the returning of energy to space, will cause the system to warm in response. Skeptics could debate this but they dont.
      That leaves one question:
      5. How much warming will we see if we continue to add C02 to the atmosphere. Here there is a debate
      that some skeptics have chosen to join. Basically one skeptic, Nic Lewis.
      These 4 points are the primary points of interest: Any skeptic who wants a nobel prize can go debate 1-4 and get one. They don’t want the honor that would come with that daunting task. Or they are scared. Or they understand the facts.
      That leaves #5. how much warming?
      Instead of making a strong case for small amounts of warming, instead of buckling down and doing some fricking science, skeptics have tried to play the “defense lawyer”, game. Science aint a court room. The best explanation wins until a better one comes along.

      • Steven Mosher,
        I have personally debated your #1 through #4, and I can easily do so again. I’ve read many comments here on each of your points. So, saying “skeptics could debate this but they don’t” is simply wrong (and what is normally referred to by skeptics as a “debate” is a formal debate like this. So now the alarmist side refuses to debate any more, because they’ve lost every one.)
        Regarding #5, I have repeatedly posted the following chart (and several other charts showing exactly the same thing) showing how much warming results from rising levels of CO2. No alarmist has ever refuted it:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
        Now, per your comment in #5, where’s my Nobel Prize??

      • “1. The earth gets energy from the via incoming radiation.”
        Did you mean to have ‘sun’ before ‘via’?
        What’s the point of debating the obvious? Of course the earth receives energy from the sun via radiation.
        The earth also has a very hot core (including radioactive decay) which convects to the surface.
        So, what about cloud cover variability? Have you debated that?

      • Yes I agree. The scientific theory is built up from hypotheses that are falsifiable. Christopher Keating even offered cash prizes for the falsifications but no-one came close.

      • dbstealey.
        Why would anyone want to debate a chart? Anyone can knock up a chart in Excel. Also the burden of proof is with you, you have to demonstrate that relationship holds by using evidence.

      • Every skeptic that I have ever met concedes points 1-4, so why debate it?
        As to your lies about what skeptics believe and are doing, that’s just par for the course.

      • Harry: Nice attempt at running from the debate.
        A chart conveys information. That information is either accurate or false. If you are so convinced that the information is false, it should be trivial to show it.
        Regardless, that chart is based on basic radiative principles regarding the impact of CO2.

      • harrytwinotter says:
        Christopher Keating even offered cash prizes for the falsifications but no-one came close.
        Flat wrong. I nailed it in a half-dozen comments with Keating. So did Richard Courtney, and several others. Keating is hopelessly inept, and scientifically illiterate. But guess what? We didn’t win the prize. Why not, you ask?
        The reason is simple: Keating has designated himself alone as the final arbiter of who if anyone wins. Convenient, eh? So his money is safe. I proposed that he deposit the prize money into an escrow account controlled by a legitimate company that awards prizes to winners. There are many such companies, which are used by all kinds of corporations that award prizes. They do it to be impartial. Guess what Keating’s answer was?
        If Keating did that, his money would promptly be paid to a skeptic. Can’t have that. So you can delude yourself about Keating’s scam. But the rest of us know better. It was nothing but a publicity hoax to thrill the gullible.
        Next, the otter says:
        Why would anyone want to debate a chart? Anyone can knock up a chart in Excel.
        No one is debating a chart, so nice try at misdirection. The chart is directly based on radiative physics. It shows what happens at various CO2 concentrations. You can’t refute it, so instead you deflect by pretending that it’s the chart that’s being debated. It isn’t.
        The chart makes it clear why there has been no global warming, despite the steady rise in CO2: at current CO2 levels, there is no measureable temperature change. Look at the chart. How much would the temperature rise if CO2 went up from its current 400 ppm, by another 100 ppm? Or by another 200 ppm? By 300 ppm? Do you really think the temperature rise could be measured?
        And:
        …the burden of proof is with you, you have to demonstrate that relationship holds by using evidence.
        Wrong again. The onus is always on those proposing a conjecture such as yours: ‘human emitted CO2 will cause dangerous global warming’. But as usual you try to deflect the burden onto skeptics, who have nothing to prove. You don’t even understand the basics, do you?
        Finally, regarding ‘evidence’, it’s pretty clear that Planet Earth is following the chart. Measurable global warming has not happened for many years, despite rising CO2 — exactly as the chart predicts.
        Face it, harry, everything you believe has been debunked by skeptics. Only your eco-religion keeps your mind closed tight. Really, you need to wise up. But that’s probably hoping for a miracle.

      • dbstealey,
        the old “eco-religion” insult oooohhh I have not heard that one for hours. So original.
        you are a fraud, aren’t you? You are a winged-monkey. You just trot out charts without understanding them. I recall I caught you out on a dodgy Greenland temp chart once which you were trying to pass off as global and recent.
        I was lamenting on another blog that I have not found a climate change dissident yet who can put up a good argument against AGW. I will have to keep looking I guess.
        I will give you some advice though. If you want to back up a scientific argument, use a citation to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not a citation to another climate change dissenter website. There is a much better chance the science is actually correct.

      • harrytwinotter says:
        you are a fraud, aren’t you? You are a winged-monkey.

        Great arguments there, harry.
        I recall I caught you out on a dodgy Greenland temp chart once which you were trying to pass off as global and recent.
        Oh, really? What chart is that? Post it, and we can discuss it.
        I stand by everything I post. But your type of arguing can be seen here.
        I have some recommendations for you. They address many of the things you claim, but that you can never back up:
        • Stop making predictions that don’t come true. That happens incessantly. ALL the alarming predictions have failed. Every one of them.
        • When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen. It either happens, or it doesn’t. Your predictions don’t come true. Ever.
        • Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying. Give up your fossil fuels. Show us you believe what you write.
        • Stop the hate. I’m not a winged monkey, or a fraud.
        • Stop avoiding debate. Tell that to your alarmist heroes, who always hide out from debating. Instead, they let anonymous sockpuppets like you run interference for them.
        • Answer questions. Don’t move the goal posts. Don’t deflect. Be specific.
        • Stop wishing for catastrophes. They aren’t happening.
        • Don’t use invalid arguments. Most of yours are invalid.
        • When you are wrong, admit it and apologise. I do, and I have when I’m wrong. I’m not wrong often. But I admit it when I am. The alarmist crowd isn’t like that.
        • Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly. The ‘97%’ number is completely bogus. Stop it.
        • Stop lying. If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
        • Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way. If you do, that will be a first. Skeptics don’t let other skeptics make outrageous claims. Why do you folks give your side a pass?
        • Stop blaming everything on Man-Made Global Warming. If it exists, quantify it. Post measurements. So far, there aren’t any.
        • Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies? Private insurers are completely capable of covering risks. But the government almost always creates bigger problems than it solves.
        • Finally, let’s see you defend your pal Keating. Tell him to put his money in escrow, to be administered by a neutral prize company. That I’d love to see!

      • Otter: The evidence was presented, you pretended that it wasn’t.
        It is you who is running, as usual.

      • dbstealey, I notice that once again the otter is not dealing with the substance of your post.
        Instead he pretends to be offended by your tone, and from there jumps to past arguments that he has already lost.

      • j. peter,
        Everyone is wrong on occasion. But I notice you have never admitted being wrong. harrytwinotter hasn’t, either. I have, although it doesn’t happen often. The reason is that I’m careful about what I write.
        Now, since you’re implying that I’m wrong a lot, please post links to anything I’ve written that you believe is wrong. Differences of opinion don’t count. Only provably wrong statements count. OK?
        Ready…
        …Set…
        GO!

      • Steven Mosher on April 14, 2015 at 9:41 am

        – – – – – – –
        Steven Mosher,
        I replied to your comment below at John Whitman on April 14, 2015 at 4:01 pm .
        John

      • @j.peter,
        OK, by the numbers:
        Reid Bryson was a geologist, and later a meteorologist. As I said, there were no climatologists in the 1970’s. You say there were. Prove it. Post a degree in Climatology awarded prior to 1980.
        Next:Thank you for the laugh DB.
        Insane asylum inmates laugh, too. But in this case your pointless comment is just a very weak ad-hom, because you haven’t been able to find a single example where I’m wrong.
        Next:
        So, obviously you were wrong, because you didn’t win the prize.
        In other words, if I offer a prize for anyone who proves that 2 + 2 = 4, and you prove it to me, but then I refuse to pay you as agreed… that would make YOU wrong?? You really have a backward idea of who is right and wrong regarding Keating’s hoax.
        Next, when I stated a fact: “Skeptics have nothing to prove,” your response was:
        You cannot falsify a hypothesis without proof.
        Well, in fact you can, but that’s another conversation. In this case what you believe is nonsense. It is the job of skeptics to falsify conjectures and hypotheses if they can. It is not the job of skeptics to prove a negative — that something for which there is no measurable evidence does not exist. You say it does. In the case of the man-made global warming conjecture, the onus is entirely on those proposing that conjecture, not on skeptics who question it. Skeptics merely say: show us measurements quantifying how much global warming is caused by human emissions. But no one has been able to show that, so your statement is flat wrong. You are just impotently trying to put the onus back on skeptics. So you fail both times.
        Next:
        This one is really good
        Read it again. First, the response was to something others said, and as I pointed out, it didn’t answer what I had written. Therefore it was nothing more than misdirection. I was not commenting on anything imputed to what others said. I was specifically asking for measurements quantifying the fraction of MMGW out of total global warming. The claim is being made that MMGW exists. But we are asked to take that on faith alone. Any physical process in science can be measured (with a few exceptions related to the uncertainty principle). I personally think AGW exists. But since it has never been measured or quantified, it must be too small to measure. QED
        I understand that you don’t like the fact that you have no measurements. Tough. That means your belief begins and ends at the conjecture stage. When and if you produce measurements of AGW you will be taken seriously. Now, you’re not. And you have yet to show that I was wrong about anything I posted.
        Next:
        So a bench technician knows more than a physics professor?
        Who are you referring to? I’ve posted my CV many times here. Go find it, the search will do you good. Your comment is nothing more than the old Appeal to Authority fallacy: we’re supposed to take Keating’s word for it — with no other corroboration?? Only a fool would accept that. Why are you so willing to accept a charlatan’s fake prize? Because that’s exactly what it is. Keating never had any intention of paying a nickel to anyone. Did you really believe Keating was sincere? Really?? If so, you are totally credulous and naive.
        It gives me a lot of pleasure responding to you, j.peter. Truly. Because I can see that you’ve spent a lot of time frantically searching for something you can post, showing that I’m wrong. It’s become a fixation with you. Too bad you failed, but as I said, when I’m wrong I admit it. But nothing you’ve posted is anything more than your assertion that Keating is right and I’m wrong, or that Reid Bryson was a Climatologist, or any of your other pathetically weak attempts to find fault. Really, if you want to see someone who is wrong, look in the mirror.
        Sorry, j.peter, you’re just not smart enough to get into these debates. All they amount to is your attempt to say I was wrong, neener neener. But since you didn’t provide any credible examples, you have been spinning your wheels without getting anywhere.
        So thanx for playing, and Vanna has some wonderful gifts for you on your way out. Better luck next time. ☺

      • J.p says:
        Keep it up DB. You are an incredible source of humor.
        Like your other posts, that is merely a pointless ad-hom, which indicates you have no credible answer to the facts and evidence I posted. Just like:
        I pointed out five time you were wrong
        No, you falsely claimed I was wrong. Moles like you can claim anything. I set you straight, but you responded as usual without refuting anything, and without posting any facts or evidence. That’s because you have none. You certainly have no verifiable, testable measurements. And without measurements, you’ve got nothin’. Like I said before, this is just an easy game of Whack-A-Mole for me. You just haven’t got what it takes to keep up. For example:
        I especially love your description of Keating. Sour grapes?
        That is another confirmation that you are a fool. Keating is judge, jury and executioner regarding his completely phony hoax. If you believe he was ever ready to pay a skeptic anything, ever, then you’re a complete fool — doubled and squared. Whack-A-Mole!
        Next:
        PS, when you say “I’m not wrong often” you are exhibiting classic symptoms of the Dunning Kruger effect.
        “PS”? What do you mean, “PS”? Do you sit around in your granny’s basement, trying to think up insults to post? Because you have not provided any credible specifics showing that I’m wrong yet… Whack-A-Mole!
        Next:
        Wow, so you think to be a climatologist, you need a degree in climatology
        Wrong again. It was your false claim that Bryson was a Climatologist. I refuted that by proving he wasn’t. Whack-A-Mole!
        Every comment you made following my 1:40 post above has been content-free, ad hominem insults. Nothing but the baseless opinion of a know-nothing. You never answered one point with any credibility. Whack-A-Mole!
        Run along now, back to pseudo-skeptical pseudoscience for some new talking points. All your eco-religious beliefs are old and busted. Since you want to be a parrot, you need new phrases to parrot. But don’t worry, parrots don’t need to think. You certainly don’t.
        Whack-A-Mole! This is fun!

      • I am still waiting for dbstealey to provide a citation for the chart.
        I will point out that it would be very brave for a blogger to challenge the work of real climate scientists. It can be done, but one will have to be prepared to explain themselves.
        To quote Carl Sagan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

      • harrytwinotter says:
        you went a bit overboard on the cut-n-paste didn’t you?
        No. We are constantly asked to respond to peoples’ words. I cut and pasted the words verbatim, then responded. As usual, your complaint is content-free carping.
        Next:
        I am still waiting for dbstealey to provide a citation for the chart.
        Are you so inept, that you can’t find where the chart came from? It was posted right here at WUWT. Just click on it, and you can see the provenance.
        If one chart isn’t enough for you, here is another chart showing exactly the same thing. And if those two aren’t enough for you, here is another chart showing the same effect of CO2 on temperature:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg
        I’ve had my Whack-A-Mole fun for the day, harryotter. I’ve anserwed every question, and refuted every accusation you made, using facts and evidence. Now it’s your turn:
        What is your CV? State your own qualifications, in a verifiable manner. If you chicken out as I expect, then you have zero credibility. You’re probably an indoctrinated high school dropout who gets talking points from blogs like Hotwhopper.
        The ball is in your court now, “harrytwinotter”. Put up or shut up. <— [If it's neither, then you are an anonymous troll; nothing more or less.]
        I ask the same questions of "j.peter". For all we know, you're both the same school dropout with different sockpuppet screen names. Prove me wrong.

      • dbstealey,
        so I ask for a citation, and you give me a link back to this website! Sounds circular to me.
        I think you will have to admit that you do not have a citation.

      • @ Mosh,
        Proper sentences with capitalization and everything.
        To what do we owe this privilege , a cut and paste from another blog ?

      • For the record:
        harrytwinotter and j.peter have both chickened out, exactly as I predicted. They pretend to be knowledgeable, but both of them are terrified of identifying themselves or of posting any personal accomplishments.
        That’s because they have no accomplishments. They are probably the same person with different sockpuppet names, and possibly a high school education; certainly no more than that.
        Both sockpuppet names constantly ask questions. I and others answer them, trying to teach them some basics — an apparently hopeless effort. But the sockpuppets refuse to answer any questions.
        Skeptics have won the science debate hands down. It isn’t even a contest. The alarmist crowd has no credible facts or evidence to support their beliefs, and the planet itself is showing that they’re on the wrong track.
        So, harrytwinotter/j.peter, are you willing to answer even one question? We’ve answered plenty of yours. If you’re ready to answer just one question, say the word. I have the question ready and waiting. Will you man-up? Or will you chicken out? We’ll see which.

    • Marko.. Obama is buying votes.. This occurred in Australia with the labor party 8 years ago.. They scared everyone into believing that sea levels would rise by 1m and there would be drought forever..there was a drought here at the time ..desal plants were built and then the drought broke.. The desals have never been used.. The Green party supported labor and between them they almost bank rupted Australia in 6 years..
      Obama is desperate for votes.. And will ruin your economy to get them.. Is he anti nuclear as well. ?

    • ECK is right. Science does not use either “reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of the evidence” to decide things. Science is neither legalistic nor, more generally, a democracy. It is THEORETICAL. As a practical matter, doubt of a claim ceases when people cease to doubt it. In the case of science, one hopes that this can happen only when “candid and disciplined minds” (C.S. Peirce’s phrase) cease to doubt it.

      • As a retired lawyer, let me say that legal standards are not applicable to science. Scientific theories have always been judged by the “falsifiable” test. The global warming crowd has not agreed that there is any way to falsify their theory of catastrophic warming. The current “pause” of eighteen years and continuing is at least a red flag that the theory need some more work.
        I like the standard of “Exceptional claims require exceptional proof”. CAGW is an exceptional claim. Where is the exceptional proof?

    • Well… it was a pretty INCOMPETENT lawyer, if so. Laugh-out-loud. A real lawyer would know that the AGWers would not even get past a defendant Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (and for Summary Judgment, too!) their pitiful Complaint which fails to state a claim (here, a genuine theory, capable of being disproven) for which relief can be granted (and NO reasonably likelihood of prevailing on ANY issue).
      MOREOVER even IF they got to trial, the AGWers have not provided even one SCINTILLA of evidence, much less enough to overcome the civil preponderance standard.
      Further, all their regulations, based as they are on the speculation and conjecture that pass for CO2 “science” in their circles, fail to meet even the rational basis standard. PITIFUL.
      Verdict: For the Defendant “Den1ers” — injunctive relief returning to Dr. Murry Salby all his property; costs and lodestar attorney fees to be paid by Plaintiff AGWers for this shock-the-conscience frivolous lawsuit; PLUS treble damages because their nefarious deeds are a blatant violation of the C.P.A. (Consumer Protection Act) — bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

      • I have always liked the similarity of law and science. They both take pains in clearly identifying and verifying the evidence and then their arguments are based on the evidence, argument, and the rule of law. In the case of science it being established laws of nature science has identified.
        So your analogy is spot-on, AGW would not even make it to trial. Imagine a lawsuit accusing negligence with no causal relationship established between the alleged negligence and the damages since the damages are not clearly identified and in any case have not yet occurred. So lacking evidence and actual damages the case is based on the argument if something does occur it could be really bad.
        Predictive damage is possible but requires specificity. This is potential for valid lawsuit: company A storing x number of barrels of toxic chemical z near residential area Y, can be predicted to eventually degrade, then leak and poison the ground water and land surrounding that specific residential area. However a lawsuit stating any company that uses or creates toxic chemicals is poisoning residential areas, like the AGW example would never make it trial.
        I know alarmist will argue waiting until something bad happens makes it too late. We can’t wait the argument goes. This is an argument of ignorance; when we don’t know something it is not open season for making stuff up. It is not allowed in the legal world, I don’t know why it would be allowed in science.

    • Exactly.
      In science theories are not proven, or validated, theories are just accepted as long as the theory can explain ALL the empirical data. The moment there is a set of of data that contradicts the theory, the theory is not longer valid. It is not a question of how much data the theory can explain, or how many people agrees with the theory, the moment there is an experiment that produces data that contradicts the theory, the theory is not longer valid.
      There are lots of data that refute the CAGW theory, the pause, south pole ice cover growing instead of shrinking, lack of propospheric hotspot, poor correlation coefficient (r2) between CO2 concentration and temperatures, you name it. One should have been enough to kill the CAGW theory,

    • My thought exactly. Written by a lawyer/politician who is not familiar with science. Likening science to a courtroom cheapens science.
      And there isn’t this artificial bifurcation of supporters/”deniers” either. In science, all parties are skeptics and they all try to disprove all theories.

  2. Where I live the standard of proof required for civil trials is ‘balance of probabilities’. It seems to me that the blog featured is implying that ‘beyond reasonable doubt applies.

  3. The preponderance of evidence proves earth has warmed slightly over the last 200 years. There is no preponderance of evidence as to why. Atmospheric CO2 has doubled in the last 200 years: that’s beyond reasonable doubt. The preponderance of evidence points to hydrocarbon combustion by man as the cause.
    As far as I know – nobody ever had a trial about what was going to happen in the future. Cases are tried in the present to reach a verdict about what has happened in the past. If the models have no skill… Skeptics have hijacked nothing. The CAGW crowd has no case.

    • willy
      It has been warming for 300 years.
      Early 1990’s: Fossil Fuel Emissions increased linearly each yr.
      CO2 increased linearly each year.
      After 2002: Fossil Fuel Emissions increased 3 times faster.
      CO2 Emissions increased linearly, but at the same
      rate as in 1990’s.
      Conclusion: Fossil Fuel Emissions are not the primary driver for CO2 increase.
      Also, you fail to grasp/include that obvious natural warming cycle from the unwinding of the LIA.

      • Yes, 300 years is inclusive of 200 years. Atmospheric CO2 was below 200 ppm when it was first measured in the eighteenth century – it is slightly above 400 ppm now. What does the preponderance of evidence point to as the cause of this increase?
        Why do you say I fail to grasp natural, reoccurring, oscillations in the earth’s temperature and the unwinding of the Little Ice Age? What did I write that makes you say that? Why did the Little Ice Age unwind? What is the preponderance of causal evidence? Share your secret knowledge with us.

      • willyb,
        Human emissions are the reason for the rise in CO2. But global temperatures have not followed, falsifying the incessant predictions of runaway global warming by the climate alarmist cult.
        Therefore, the CO2=AGW conjecture is wrong. There has been no AGW, as widely predicted. Global warming stopped many years ago, despite the steady rise in CO2.
        Rational people see that the alarmist conjecture was wrong. Why can’t you?

      • willy – CO2 was not below 200ppm when it was first measured. Please do some research.
        And if “climate scientists” had actually been researching the cause of the LIA and its end instead of the meaningless demonization of trace gas CO2, maybe we’d know what caused and ended the LIA.

      • Willy:
        You claim:
        “…Atmospheric CO2 was below 200 ppm when it was first measured in the eighteenth century…”
        You need to check up on what levels of atmospheric CO2 are necessary to support plant life. CO2 levels under 200 ppm make plant growth difficult; difficult enough to cause famine, just from minimal CO2 starved plant growth.
        Look at the current crop of evidence for CO2 enhanced plant growth. Plants, in a short century, have gone from starving for CO2 to sufficient CO2 and are responding well.
        Plus you need to look up the concept of ‘scientific proof’.
        A) correlation is not causation.!
        B) Assumptions are not science!
        C) Confirmation bias driven findings are not science.
        Plus the minor issue that ‘overwhelming or preponderance of evidence’ are useless terms in the world of science. Flim flam con artists use phrases that are very similar; the intent is to deceive, not prove.
        A) Any evidence contrary to expectations, like a temperature hiatus disproving the ‘man’s emissions link to temperature’ fallacy, fully falsifies all supposed supporting evidence.

    • Last time I looked anthropogenic CO2 was between 3% an 6 % of the Co2 and Co2 is only 400 PPM .
      So futile attempts to limit Co2 by say 20% will reduce CO2 by what ? 18PPM .
      Thus saving any ” Modelled ” temp increase of 0.000001deg C

      • I seem to believe the CO2 came from the ocean, as the ocean has warmed slightly since the LIA. Cold water holds more CO2, and as it warms releases it to the atmosphere.
        Between the termites and cows, the human contribution of the total increase is about 3%.

        • That 3% seems low. Population growth has increased from 1.8 billion in 1900 to almost 7 billion today. Hydrocarbon energy consumption has jumped from around 50 exajoules to 500 exajoules. These correlations may not be a perfect match to measured increases in atmospheric CO2 – but its close. Correlation is not causation – but it needs to be carefully considered. 97% of the CO2 increase is due to other naturally occurring factors? Seems low to me.

    • Dbstealey – I observed that the “why” the earth has warmed lacks even enough evidence to meet the “preponderance” standard.
      Why do you all think I see causal evidence, when what I wrote there isn’t causal evidence?
      The author seems to think he could win a civil trial. I don’t think he even has a case. How did I become a supporter of AGW? Is my writing really that muddled?

      • It’s okay Willy, it took me a couple of reads to realize you were being ‘dry’ in your vernacular. Sometimes my stuff just doesn’t read like it sounded in my head. I share Max Photon’s frustration with text dialog.

    • 280 ppm when atmospheric CO2 is first measured in 1800. I incorrectly remembered it was 180 – my bad.
      I was just trying to point out – using his own standard – he doesn’t have a case.
      Beat me up if you like, but use the right stick.

    • The amazing truth is, the SUN has warmed us up. And now it is going to be less active and we will notice this right away. It will be colder.

  4. Great lawyers can argue and win cases irrespective of what the evidence shows. Not so for great scientists.

  5. Last time I checked, it didn’t matter how much “evidence” supporting a theory there was, if there was any evidence that falsified a theory, it was wrong. Lots of folks get easily snookered by Confirmation Bias by not also evaluating the negating evidence.

  6. So… has it actually been demonstrated that rising CO2 causes a rise in temperature by any means not involving either (1) mere assertion, (2) argument from ignorance, (3) affirming the consequent, (4) mistaking correlation for causation, and/or (5) mixing up cause and effect?

  7. The article was dated yesterday. I went in and made a number of posts, which are under moderation. They will probably be deleted.

  8. Well, at least they are up front about it. This is posted at the Resilience site:
    “This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial.”

    • Here in Somerset “resilience” is being touted as the best response to the recently worsened problem of flooding.
      Apparently, the environmentalists who have presided over the catastrophic mismanagement of the drainage system and the consequent worsening floods, are not happy with the damage that they have done so far.
      Apparently, they plan to continue their efforts to destroy the once functioning drainage system.
      All that they can recommend for local people is “resilience”.
      Resilience in the face of the mounting crimes of environmentalist meddling.
      Of course it’s really quite pointless, since nobody expects the academic environmentalist.
      Their chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and stupidity. Two weapons. Surprise, stupidity and a fanatical allegiance to buzzwords.
      Buzzwords like “resilience”.

    • Interesting that they can only have a “resilient” community by banning anyone who disagrees with them.

  9. So long as the deniers get to claim the role of defense attorney in this public fight, their task will be much easier. The reason that the deniers want to change the standard of proof, of course, is because climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change. The deniers have no hope of winning the intellectual argument if this standard of proof is used.

    See, they want to win the intellectual battle by unilaterally relabeling skeptics as deniers. This implies that the alarmists’ position is correct by default.
    Then ‘standard of proof’ becomes a red herring.
    As you all know, skeptics have to prove nothing. NOTHING!
    The burden of proof is on those making the claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And even with extraordinary evidence, it is the prerogative of each and every skeptic to make up his or her own mind.
    Basically what the quote says is that “we lose if the burden of proof is on us.”
    It’s like a French braid of logical fallacies, masterfully done with near super-sonic hand waving.

  10. I gave it a whirl. Just in case it doesn’t make it through, here’s my attempt:
    “I dare say that you’re absolutely correct that the wrong standard of proof is being used. You seem to be missing that the problem is misstated almost in its entirety. There is a hypothesis, that there is catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change going on. This is a scientific question. Once that is settled, there is a political question of how to handle whatever we’re actually dealing with in a just manner. The political standards of proof and the scientific standards of proof are two different thing. Mixing them together as if there were one process just isn’t proper.
    The scientific question is first because without science steering us clear of wrong solutions, the politicians would be fools to intervene in climate. The standard of proof in a scientific question is fairly straightforward, the proponents of any hypothesis bear the burden of proof and discrepancy between your hypothesis and observed reality invalidates the hypothesis and you adjust. Sometimes the adjustment is small. Other times you have to start from scratch and go in a different direction. I hope that nobody seriously wants to change the well established procedures of science in order to special plead CAGW theory through. That would destroy science as a credible force in society.
    The political question comes second. CAGW advocates propose a specific sort of political response, to reduce the production/release of CO2 into the atmosphere through rather large economic changes over the course of this century in order to avoid catastrophe several decades from now. This is a large footprint, front loaded solution. As small changes in climate are tolerable, perhaps even preferable, a back loaded solution is also possible, but, like Homes’ curious incident with the dog barking in the night, back loaded solutions to the problem are notably missing from either side of the debate.
    One missing back loaded solution would be geoengineering a planetary thermostat to enable us to engineer a climate optimum. Right now, the costs would be relatively painless, mostly R&D on cheap lift and space manufacturing, stuff we will likely find useful regardless of the turns of the underlying science.
    The choices between inaction, a front loaded solution of directly reducing emissions of CO2, and a back loaded solution of directly adjusting the temps when they fall out of an ideal range by increasing/reducing total solar irradiance (TSI) to get us to a rough climate optimum are not properly handled by a criminal justice standard either. The balancing of interests that are needed to create a long-term consensus policy is a very different animal indeed than a trial, civil or criminal.”

      • That’s the beauty of my position. A planetary thermostat to induce a permanent climatic optimum sidesteps the controversy of whether CAGW is happening entirely. Don’t believe in CAGW? No problem, you don’t have to do so to support a thermostat. Believe in CAGW? A thermostat would set us to a climatic optimum and thus fix the worst effects. The same policy satisfies the majority of both sides and for those who think we can’t do it, this is a relatively cheap boondoggle so they too would think it is an improvement on current policy.

  11. Evidence can only be applied to specific claims. The more general the claim the less refutable it becomes.
    And when one references the ‘preponderance of evidence’ what exactly is meant? Are the thousands of blurry photos of UFO’s evidence of UFO’s? There is certainly a preponderance of this type of evidence. Is that going to be standard now?
    Would one well documented encounter with alien life by NASA be equivalent to, say, 10 thousand blurry UFO photos?

    • Of course Unidentified Fuzzy Objects are real, but if we knew what they were then they would be IFOs!

      • Perhaps all those thousands of blurry UFO pictures are actually crystal clear. Perhaps the UFOs themselves are just fuzzy around the edges. Maybe they are really like chia-saucers or something…
        🙂

  12. “This ban is not open for discussion. The guidelines are clear. If you do not want to abide by them, please go elsewhere.”
    From the Blog/website: Resilience/ Bart. The ban. If you go to the “blog” mentioned by AW, it is along the lines “It is my ball and I’ll take it home if you don’t follow my rules”. Open discussion?? . Pretty pathetic!

    • Well censorship (moderation, whatever) is a heck of a lot easier than, well, you know, actually having to know something and have the mental acuity to to intellectually defend your point…

    • This is exactly what cults do in order to maintain the brainwashing of the cult members. You cannot allow outside influences as that could destroy all the brainwashing effort.
      That site is clearly just another cult. Harold Camping would be proud.

    • What is the point of commenting on a site where everybody believes one thing, anyway?
      The evidence has shown time and time again that these people are beyond convincing.
      Pointless to waste one’s breathe speaking logic to illogical ideologues.
      Puddin’-heads all, they are.

      • menicholas

        What is the point of commenting on a site where everybody believes one thing, anyway?
        The evidence has shown time and time again that these people are beyond convincing.
        Pointless to waste one’s breathe speaking logic to illogical ideologues.
        Puddin’-heads all, they are.

        I am struck – not knowing you from any of your previous comments – at not being able to tell if you are describing the dogmatic, belief-in-authority-despite-the-real-evidence views at “realscience” or “sks” or NOAA/NWS/EPA/NASA-GISS’s unreality show-and-tell for their political class, or WUWT’s realistic view.

      • RACookPE1978, (professional engineer?)
        “I am struck – not knowing you from any of your previous comments – at not being able to tell if you are describing the dogmatic, belief-in-authority-despite-the-real-evidence views at “realscience” or “sks” or NOAA/NWS/EPA/NASA-GISS’s unreality show-and-tell for their political class, or WUWT’s realistic view.”
        Thanks for asking.
        For the record, and to be clear:
        Count me on the side you might expect of someone who studied Physical Geography, Meteorology, Climatology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology…blah blah blah, in the 1980’s, and am sickened by what I see happening.
        I was the class clown crackup who ruined the curve for the pretenders.
        Climate realist, skeptic (the only real requirement of a scientist, IMO), denier…I am all these and more.
        I only want to know and understand the actual world.
        I just want the truth
        Trust me, I can handle it.
        (By the way, IMO, the real deniers are those who deny the hoax.)

        • menicholas
          Thank you, for the time and courtesy of your reply.
          I have read some 820,000 – odd comments and replies here, and yours was one of the first I could not figure out. Couple of million more on political and engineering sites. I appreciate the clarification from you.
          (Yes, PE in nuclear engineering, post-graduate work in QA and statistical analysis, theoretical physics and relativity, heat transfer, mech engineering, heat transfer and thermodynamics, all the usual high energy physics and math up through Bessel’s function and quantum electrodynamics, electrical and power engineering, controls theory, electronics, structural engineering, material science, professional stuff in failure effects mode and efficiency improvement, software programming and software testing, blah, blah, blah. etc. )
          Enough that I hope I know enough about every technical subject in every field to know when anybody else in the room is making a mistake, but (hopefully) humble enough to know that there’s an expert in every room everywhere that I can learn more from.

      • Mr. Cook,
        You are very welcome.
        I just wrote a long response and got a message that that comment could not be posted, and it was erased. Not sure why this happened.
        I will just enter this shorter one and see if it is posted.
        I appreciated your gracious introduction, and look forward to reading and hearing from you in the future.
        Questions:
        – Did you mean to say you have seen any previous posts from me, or that you have not?
        – Do you know of a way to search for previous comments a person has mad, either my own or someone else’s? I have been unable to find my way back to several conversations I have become engaged in, due to the shear number of comments on many of these threads. (Perhaps the moderators could help with that?)
        Thank you once again.

        • If you have had the WUWT page open for a long time ( day or so ) without refreshing your comment will be rejected. Best to refresh the page on a frequent basis that way you won’t need to worry about rejection.

  13. There was never any science presented by the Alarmists. At least none that was backed by my friends the First & Second Law of Thermodynamics which weathermen and faux climate guys never study. Malthusian Eugenicists and Agenda 21 Archbishop Morris Strong and his UN Apparatchiks, sent out a fog of intellectual masturbation masquerading as science (sic) splendidly dismissed in Tim Ball’s book “Corruption of Climate Science”. We Chemical Engineers, who understand significant numbers and Unit Operations of Chemical Processes that 99% of you can’t comprehend, had this foolishness pegged a long time ago—like 1992.

  14. Wow! I went to take a look at the blog site mentioned in the articles link…..
    I thought the moderator was running an Ashram for the Religion of Warmists……..OOOMMM
    It’s a little group think – tank
    Absolutely ridiculous……

  15. The ‘web site’ referenced is intellectually the equivalent of North Korea, closed to ‘outsiders’ with dangerous thinking, data, and science. Why waste the electrons? Leave them in their self made echo chamber…..

  16. There’s a short comment in there that is just so funny. I’m not going to flag it, because even though they would still be too stupid to get it, they’ll delete it anyway.

  17. I cannot think of a reason why anyone would want to comment on that site which is designed for trolls and sheep. It is worse than Unrealclimate and the others.
    I would suggest someone set up a site where non-skeptics of AGW can post if you can show where the effect of CO2 was measured. Skeptics are welcome. That would get under their skin. Simply stating that there is no debate is admitting you have no argument or proof.

    • “I would suggest someone set up a site where non-skeptics of AGW can post if you can show where the effect of CO2 was measured. Skeptics are welcome.”
      Isn’t that here?

      • **if you can show where the effect of CO2 was measured**.
        We need a post where only the above can be posted by believers – we still allow the trolls.

  18. You know what is really wrong with the global warming theory.
    These people believe in it “too” strongly.
    As in they won’t question it at all, they will exaggerate the evidence as much as possible, cherrypick the timelines as much as possible and even change the data so that it is more supportive of the theory.
    I’m sorry, that does not sit right with me.
    I like my science to prove itself, to be logically self-evident. I don’t think it is science if I am just supposed to “believe” in it and even to exaggerate evidence in some many ways.
    It is “the right thing to do” to question this kind of demanded obedience.

  19. I just keep it simple. prove to me that humans are causing climate change. I have read countless studies and the IPCC reports. There is still no evidence there that comes even in the vicinity of making this conclusion. Anything else around this debate is propaganda tactics and psuedo environmentalism and religiosity. The only conclusion is that the people that push this agenda that are well versed on the science believe in the politics and ideology and the science is not really important. The transparency and science has never really been put on jury. The so called “deniers’ are being shunned and given false charges.

  20. Call me old fashioned. In my day the arbiter of scientific truth or falsity cared nothing of reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence. When a well-designed, controlled, empirical measurement in the physical sciences is performed, Nature is always right. She cares not a whit what man may want or believe. She has no “doubts,” reasonable or otherwise.

      • Oldseadog,
        Essequibo River
        Science is observation
        Justice is blind
        Buddy ta-na-na, we are somebody, oh.
        Bust out the tree ring
        And tell us what you find.
        Buddy ta-na-na, we are somebody, oh.
        Somebody, oh, Johnny, somebody, oh,
        Buddy ta-na-na, we are somebody, oh.

  21. If you want a “court of law” analogy, here’s how I see it.
    “Climate Change” is willing to convict the accused, Mr. CO2, while he was on another continent, in front of 50,000 people, being broadcast on live TV via satellite.
    Meanwhile, Mr. “Bad Science” has confessed to the crime and has 20 witnesses, 3 security camera videos, and video from two teenage girls recording on their cell phones.

  22. The reason we have court trials in the first place is precisely because that which seems obvious may not be true at all. Courtrooms exist to allow for all sides of an argument to present their evidence, something AGW supporters freely admit they don’t want to allow.

  23. We probably just gave them a few months worth of hits. I’d be laughing at what I saw there, if it weren’t so… actually, I don’t have the words…

    • Agree Alan. I read quite a bit and couldn’t stop my convulsive laughter…however, I must say, they all sounded real polite in their comments to one another.

  24. I do not see a preponderance of alarmist evidence just a lot of shrill vapid rhetoric. But as with everything on the left shouting louder and parroting the loud shouters is the evidence. There you have it. It’s like trying to reason with two year olds.

    • Yes, I understand how those blogs can really irritate, but Anthony Watts was just doing the site a SERVICE by directing traffic to it. Anthony should take his own advice. I first saw this cartoon on
      “Watts Up With That”
      https://xkcd.com/386/

  25. The difference between scientist true to Theories of Science and CO2-beliving so called Scientist is hugh. The later haven’t understood what’s been known in form of demands when “proof” is put forward. Demands the Old Greek were familiar with. Retoric and sound argumentation is one thing – Theories of Science need both but also scientists understanding that: Consensus is a political term – not a scientific.
    Where have all the money gone?

  26. “climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change.”
    That’s the way to win a scientific debate!
    Make a claim that is the exact opposite of the truth, as if it is a proven and conclusive fact!
    Every sound scientific refutation that proves that claim to be false is ignored, denigrated, messenger insulted, and plain and simply lied about.
    Who do the general public believe?
    The general, prostituting press that brainwashes us, the corrupt or ignorant education system that criminally injects false information into our young. The proven-to-be corrupt scientific journals who reject sound evidence because of political pressure. The list goes on.
    The lie is so big and so ingrained, that even a total Ice Age future would be blamed on global warming, and the public and the logically challenged and financially corrupted scientists will still “believe”it.
    The evidence of political agenda bias and influence is so overwhelming, yet exists only in the world of the realists. The warmists are completely immune to logic and commonsense!

    • “Make a claim that is the exact opposite of the truth, as if it is a proven and conclusive fact!”
      And then ban anyone who disagrees with you.

  27. I just posted this at TheRelgionOfWarmism.com AKA: Resilence.org
    Alfred Wegener’s theory of plate tectonics was believed by 1% of scientists for 50 years. It’s now the accepted theory that the scientific method has not been able to disprove.
    Galileo was persecuted by the church and forced to recant his heresy of a heliocentric solar system on lain of death.
    Murray Salby has excellent data to prove that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow, not lag temperature.
    NOAA’s troperspheric satellites have shown no increase in the Earths temperature in 18 years and 4 months (as of last week).
    I further agree that the earth is not flat. (which was why the blogger at Resilence.org said they post no dissent from the GOD of Warmism)

  28. I dare anyone to go to this blog/website and get an intelligent, coherent reply posted:

    What was/were the blocked comment(s)?

    Typical of the Cultist, there is no dissent allowed !!

    Ah. Hmm, well I saw plenty of that being posted there: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-04-12/how-the-climate-change-debate-got-hijacked-by-the-wrong-standard-of-proof#comment-1962512438
    Theo: “This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial.”
    Please define “Climate Denial”.
    Please explain why opposing argument is forbidden.
    Thank you.

    Man after my own heart for his first question.

  29. The author’s argument could have been so much stronger had he only pointed out how the “deniers” arguments would have fared in a De Torquemada trial.

  30. If only they meant what the said. The preponderance of evidence is that:
    o sensitivity is low
    o consequent warming is for the most part benevolent
    o the proposed measures to “combat” the warming are a cure orders of magnitude worse than the disease

    • The Climate Change political solution is similar to Prohibition. The solutions are far worse than even the most dire predicted effects of the problem. Another similarity is that it requires massive taxation and for everyone to lose some freedom and liberty.
      The difference between the two is that there doesn’t appear to be an actual CC problem. At least with drug use, there are verifiable problems.

    • Reminds me of the days when they used to bleed people to cure them. When they died they were no longer sick.

  31. The author of the linked article doesn’t comprehend The Scientific Method which doesn’t use judicial standards of evidence, “preponderance of evidence standard” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
    The standards of evidence in Science are much higher than these two “legal” “standards”. Why? Because these two legal standards of evidence would and have produced many false positives in science as well as many false negatives.
    The trash can history of science is littered with failed conclusions, failed claims, failed dreams, failed theories, failed hypotheses based upon “preponderance of evidence standard” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
    The non-scientists are attempting to argue their political case using legal and political standards rather than providing the hard objective empirical evidence that supports their claims of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture but their failing is based in how Nature is actually unfolding the climate of Earth.
    Not a single doomsday claim made by the prognosticators of human caused climate doomsday has come true, not a one. This presents them with a problem, they can’t argue the science because of that horrific nasty Mother Nature isn’t complying with their dark visions of climate doomsday thus they argue using lessor standards of evidence which is an anti-scientific approach.

    • I love that they’re saying “it’s happening now” (on top of the “global” term) because if it’s happening “now” they have to accept photos that show gorgeous normal weather. They’re not going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. It’s not global, and in fact, our climate/weather is pretty doggone normal. Trees budding, flowers blooming, bees buzzing, birds migrating, sun shining, etc.

    • “Philosophers are as free as others to use any method in searching for
      truth. There is no method peculiar to philosophy.
      A second thesis which I should like to propound here is this.
      The central problem of epistemology has always been and still is the
      problem of the growth of knowledge. And the growth of knowledge can be
      studied best by studying the growth of scientific knowledge.
      I do not think that the study of the growth of knowledge can be
      replaced by the study of linguistic usages, or of language systems.
      And yet, I am quite ready to admit that there is a method which
      might be described as ‘the one method of philosophy’. But it is not
      characteristic of philosophy alone; it is, rather, the one method of all
      rational discussion, and therefore of the natural sciences as well as of philosophy.
      The method I have in mind is that of stating one’s problem
      clearly and of examining its various proposed solutions
      critically.
      I have italicized the words ‘rational discussion’ and ‘critically’ in order to
      stress that I equate the rational attitude and the critical attitude. The
      point is that, whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought
      to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend
      it. Few of us, unfortunately, practise this precept; but other people,
      fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it
      ourselves. Yet criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as
      clearly as we can and put our solution in a sufficiently definite form—a
      form in which it can be critically discussed.
      ” – Karl Popper, http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf, page xix.
      Science is the process of attempting to overthrow or falsify ones pet hypotheses or letting others do so.
      It is evident that those proposing CO2 Climate Doomsday Raptures aka CAGW have forgotten that they are, according to the scientific method, actually attempt to falsify their pet hypothesis. That they fail at this most basic aspect of science indicates that they are not following the scientific method, but some other method of inventing knowledge that isn’t based in objective reality of Nature.

  32. Kurt Cobb writes:

    As defendants in this hypothetical turnabout, climate scientists would only need to poke one or two holes in such a theory to prevail and win the case for the regulation of greenhouse gases. (This would roughly be the equivalent of the precautionary principle in action.)

    The precautionary principle states that we must pay any price, no matter how large, to avoid any risk, no matter how small.
    The principle is false.

    • I have been in court many times. I once was taking on a crown prosecutor. I was dancing with another at the time. The one I was taking on was trying to “INVENT” a lane for cars to park in. I was charged with the crime. But I was 9,000 miles away.
      My son was in Grade 10 then. My daughter was in uni. Don’t underestimate these delusional people. There was a sign. Kids are not allowed to get out of a car in front of the school. So the police had everyone waiting while they wrote tickets to people like my daughter who was taking my son to school.
      Don’t expect logic to prevail. Its not there.

  33. The court case analogy fails badly.
    Science is a method where the individual, in theory, can repeat the work and judge for themselves if the evidence is sufficient. There is no jury. Only when we outsource our thinking do we need a jury for something like science.
    There is no final verdict that a postulate is true. Its always provisional. You can never convict but only stop the court case because there is a clear lack of evidence to pursue it.
    In a court case, the consequences of getting it wrong is a crime. Even in a civil case, its theft. Hence the need for onus of proof on the accuser. In science it is nothing unless people want to treat the conclusions as divine. Then its like a court case and the onus of proof is on the person making the postulate. Sceptics need only poke a single hole in the argument.
    How can Yahoo take this twit seriously when our actual geniuses were adamant that no amount of experiment can prove them right beyond doubt, but only one experiment can prove them wrong.

  34. when it comes to predicting data on an interval, I would have thought 95% confidence was the default? (though studies have shown that it perhaps should be 99% or even 99.9% confidence due to bad assumptions about normal distributions…).
    For you lawyers out there, that’s 19/20 on a jury, or maybe a 95% preponderance of the evidence…

  35. Science is not a legal argument. It only takes one contrary validated observation (data point) that violates a prediction of a hypothesis to disprove that hypothesis.
    If Newton’s G constant was found to vary from place to place, then Newton’s Law would (will) have been dashed in an instant. If Einstein’s prediction of light bending by massive objects was found not to occur as predicted, it would have dashed his hypothesis, no matter what other predictions it made had been verified.
    Same with AGW theory of CO2 forcing, it has many falsifications now demanding it being rejected, yet Climate Science now is in the hands of pseudo-scientists with supporters like Matthew W. If we simply used “preponderance of evidence” standard, 51%, as he suggests then we’d have all sorts of mayhem in science. It would be the pseudo-science of cults, and mysticism, of tarot cards and astrology. Every quack claim would be able to find some set of data that randomly met a 51% threshold, and falsification would be impossible under that sham standard of “science.” Many people would die in pharmaceutical malpractice like of ages past of snake oil salesmen selling toxic potions, than unfortunately does today at very low rates. Thankfully science demands much more, and a hypothesis can be falsified in an instant
    Matthew W, the Major League Turd, that wrote that piece has utterly no scientific understanding. He is just another pseudoClimate Science hack-fraud. Let him try and publish that piece of hacktivist crap in a journal Letter to Science mag, or something and watch the outcry happen from honest scientists..

      • Matthew W.
        Oh I followed the posts. Both here at WUWT and your post at Reslience.com. I went there and read through many of the posts and moderator comments on Resilience.com. My conclusion: It is a website for 3 year olds, or those with the mentality of a 3 yr old, who buy into flashy pseudo science, like climate change, holistic healing, anti-Vax’ers, crystal healing, and other pseudoscience garbage. The spectrum of commenters allowed at that website ranged from alarmist bedwetters and foot stomping tantrum-throwers to condescending liberals (who are really fascists in disguise), with a few know-nothing cult-minded pseudoscientists thrown-in who are ignoring real world data for reputation and admiration by Climate Change cult followers.
        I don’t have time to argue using facts and data with 3 year-olds who think science is a legal argument of “because that what scientists mostly concluded in the 1990’s” unwilling to realize their position on CO2 has failed the real world tests. All that exists at Resilience.com is closed-minded ideologic zealots, not scientists.
        And you are a major league turd if you think that “preponderance of evidence” is what makes a sound scientific conclusion for policy decisions that would send many millions to NK like poverty around the world for decades to come.
        Joel O’Bryan, Ph.D.

      • mods – a reply of mine to Matthew W. is stuck somewhere in spam or moderation. comment # 1906581.
        Thanks. J.
        – I must have used too many “offending” words for the filters to describe my disgust at resilence.com

  36. The way of thinking and expected thinking I learned there isn’t fascism. It isn’t communism. It isn’t the Inquisition. It is far worse than that all together. I am convinced that this man, he seems to consider himself godlike and omniscient, would trigger a thermonuclear war just to “save the earth”. Disgusting.

  37. Hey everyone,
    The Australian Government is actually asking for submissions as to what the 2020 emissions targets should be.
    There is an online portal here …
    http://www.dpmc.gov.au/forms/unfccc-submissions
    The more observant ones among you will notice the following links on the banner at the top of the web page …
    Office of Deregulation
    Office of Best Practice Regulation
    A perfect circle of bureaucratic activity to achieve nothing …
    via JoNova.

  38. “The deniers have no hope of winning the intellectual argument if this standard of proof is used” — In science, it needs a a proof. In the case of global warming — climate change is not global warming but global warming is one component of climate change only — like in all other climate study, you must first show the standard relationship between anthropogenic greenhouse gases versus global warming. The second one is you must have a data without interpolations and extrapolations or manipulations to verify the relationship at global level. Neither of them are available. Because of this the models predict widely differing forecasts on future rise. Also, 90% of the so called “climate scientists” and not really climate scientists. Also “Climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderence of evidence that human activities are a major cause of climate change” — no not at all, the major component is natural variations in which extremes are part.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  39. The Warmistas see their beliefs being challenged on all fronts by science but maintain their spirits with their fundamental belief in Original Sin. They know that mankind is fundamentally corrupted and all his works are evil. Unusual and bad weather just must be caused by Man’s evil works. Belief in Global Warming and Climate change are modern religious beliefs and bear their adherents aloft over all reason, fact and debate.

  40. “How the climate change debate …” What “debate”? How can there be a debate when there is no evidence to support the scam?

  41. When I pointed out that their models are always proven wrong in time, I was called a fool and told that of course they’re wrong over short time frames because the climate works on a longer time scale. But that’s total nonsense. Adding up errors can never amount to correct results.
    This reminds me of the old SNL First Citywide Bank commercial skit in which a manager explains how they make money when all they do is make change for free. “The answer is simple–volume.”

  42. Not bothering to log into that site. It’s too dumb for words. But…
    The issue here is about the burden of proof required to take action.
    Surely it is obvious that the burden of proof that’s required is very low if the action has no cost.
    And if the action has a high cost the burden of proof that’s required must be higher.
    Required action to stop climate change impact = upgrade infrastructure for wear and tear as planned: No cost.
    OK, not much evidence required to accept that as plausible.
    Required action to stop climate change impact = raise energy costs for the 3rd world and so commit mass murder by starvation: High cost.
    Yes, we need a lot of evidence that killing is worthwhile.
    Look (this will get me in moderation), if the Protocols of Zion were not to be questioned then we would know that the Jews caused WW1 and so a Final Solution is the lesser of two evils.
    That is the Warmists argument – except on a bigger scale of murder.
    But if we ask for a higher level of evidence than unquestioned authority then we find that the Protocols of Zion were not authoritative and the Holocaust was a bad thing, after all.
    The same will happen with the Warmist murderous agenda, eventually.

  43. Dear Bed Wetters (persons who swallowed the Albert Gore / Mann hockey stick),
    Here is a short, true story based upon another true story. You obviously enjoy a good story.
    Don’t try telling us what to do; we’ve had enough of it AND we now want our money back. The only apology acceptable will be in writing, on paper, directly from the “qualified railway engineer” who wasted all our money.

  44. Oddly enough its normal to ask for ahigh level of proof to support great claims , in fact people this everyday and within science there is even a set method used for this , even the IPCC with infamous 95% claim acknowledge this. And you would have thought that given this is ‘settled science’ they would no trouble at all with meeting this requirement and given they claim CAGW is the ‘most important thing ever and there is no time to lose’ they be more than willing to provided it to. So its strange that lies, BS and claims of ‘authority’ are what they resort to has justification rather than the level of proof which is normal for science.
    Now I wonder why that is ?

  45. I have just posted this on their website, I will see if it stays there!
    “You talk about consensus as if that is the end of the matter, Science is not about consensus, it is about fact. Hundreds of years ago the consensus was that the Earth is flat. Consensus did not make that so!”

    • “Hundreds of years ago the consensus was that the Earth is flat. Consensus did not make that so!”
      It’s a good thing that happened long ago, back before Gore invented the interweb. Just think what our maps might show if that was the consensus today. Hey, it clears up that map/globe projection issues too.

  46. The author of this latest bit of Yahoo deception demonstrates the intellectual equivalent of the KKK: Bigoted, ignorant and dangerously hateful. The venom that drips from his use of the word “den*er” is not really any different than when a KKK’er called blacks “ni**er”.

  47. Two days, and only two comments. Must be a subject is not controversial & no one cares about. /sarc
    Or perhaps heavy moderation?

  48. No denies “Climate Change.” The question is whether 100 parts per million of man made CO2 can force catastrophic warming of the planet.
    There is no evidence this is occurring. The is no convincing evidence this can happen.

  49. OT but, I think, relevant to the discussion. I saw an interesting interview on UK Channel 4 news last night with an Armenian man whose family suffered the death marches into the Syrian desert in 1915 onwards under the Ottomans. The interview was prompted by the news that Pope Francis mentioned the genocide in his easter address. The interviewer asked him if he was happy that the Pope believed the genocide happened. He replied that he didn’t care if the Pope, Cameron or Obama believed in it. Facts are facts. You may hide the truth but the truth is still there. Smart man.

  50. On a quick scan of the thread I see some posts stating that science doesn’t do a ‘preponderence of evidence.’ And we are all certainly welcome to state that this is what science should be. The problem is that science as practiced and published *is* stringently reliant on the notion of ‘evidence based’ theories.
    That is, if there are enough results that are not inconsistent with a given theory — then that theory is ‘true for practical purposes.’ Which, quickly enough, becomes simply ‘true.’ Under this notion the rise of a new theory, the disputation of the previous one, is not based on a failure of the theory — a necessary outcome of the theory that is contradicted by observation. It is when the new theory is more ‘parsimonious.’ Which is a fancy way of stating that no theory is refuted, ever, except for social reason. That ad hoc hypotheses are the order of the day.
    This is a recurring theme and fault in the field of science. For example, the Phlogiston theory was evidence based. It was elevated from a few cases to all material — despite that not all material had been checked. And when magnesium was shown to refute Phlogiston theory: The refutation was denied. The truth of the theory was still asserted because it was ‘evidence based’ and ad hoc hypotheses proliferated. And this is just what we should expect out of ‘evidence based’ science — because it *is* about the ‘preponderence of the evidence.’
    And this is, once again, a current and common feature in the scientific disciplines. It can be found nearly everywhere, but is most prosperous in precisely those fields that lack the ability to do controlled experiments. Not simply Climatology, but Cosmology, Evolutionary Biology, Economics, Political Science, and so on. And, quite interestingly, Religion. Acknowledging such is not to dispute any of them or their cherished theories. But ‘evidence based’ is just a polite euphimism for ‘confirmation bias.’
    The hazard, irrespective or the propriety, in challenging the idea of ‘evidence based’ is that you are simultaneously attacking a number of fields and disciplines. You are calling into question the pronouncements from on High by the credentialed experts in any of them. You are calling into question the legitimacy of their epistemology and their Truth. And given the fields involved? It’s probably a right battle to fight, but a losing one at this point in time. And will probably remain so until the use of confirmation bias becomes too embarrasing for the broad discipline of science; yet again as it has before.

  51. I can’t say I like the analogy – the scientific method is not the same as a courtroom trial.
    But if we accept the analogy, then most of the climate change dissenters defense relies on “the butler did it”.

    • No, if we accept the legal standard analogy, and assume we are left with 51% odds the butler did it, and 49% odds someone else did it.
      But then if one reliable, irrefutable piece of evidence conclusively shows the butler was far way and somewhere else at the timeframe of murder, do his fingerprints and DNA on the weapon (physical evidence), the butler’s ownership of that murder weapon, and a known hatred of the victim (motive) make him the murderer?
      In Matthew W’s “preponderance of evidence” standard, the butler did it. But other explanations (a frame up) must be considered by fair, reasonable, critically thinking people.
      In the Climate Change case, natural variation and natural ocean-atmosphere and solar cycles, combined with increasing clarity of the paleo climate records, are sufficient to explain all the temp observations, all the ice and glacier changes, without any need to invoke anthropogenic CO2 forcing.

    • If the butler did do it, than that would be a valid defense.
      BTW, why do you have to make yourself look stupid by using phrases like “climate change dissenters”?
      Nobody disagrees that the climate has changed. The debate is about what role, if any CO2 played in that change.

      • MarkW,
        I don’t waste my time arguing semantics. And I use the term “dissenter” because if I use another common term, I am likely to get snipped or banned 🙂

    • No the defense is that there are multiple suspects in this case — solar activity, PDO, volcanic activity, aerosols, Natural Variability, CO2, and others that have yet to be identified. The DNA evidence of each is present at that crime scene(historical record).
      So which suspect(s) is(are) responsible for the crime of Warming? No one can say for certain. If the CO2 theory doesn’t fit, you must acquit!

  52. climate deniers simultaneously claim that
    there is no global warming,
    global warming is caused by nonhuman forces,
    and global warming
    is good even if it is caused by
    human activities.
    – says Kurt Cobb.
    And Kurt Cobb is a honorable man.
    – by his measures.

    • Obviously, Kurt Cobb is Climate Change faith-based believer, not a scientist. He is entitled to his beliefs.
      Just don’t call it “settled science.”
      That term is used to attempt to silence valid scientific criticism of conclusions when alternative explanations better fit observation.

    • Person A says this:
      Person B says that:
      These two positions are incompatible.
      Ergo: Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

  53. Anyone that is aware of public polls knows the alarmists are [losing] the argument concerning catastrophic global warming. This is just another excuse.

  54. The “resiliance” website is basically a repudiation of fire. They want to stop burning stuff. Fascinating how the progressives have demonized the wheel, fire, chemistry, and any other technical subject or knowledge that does not fit in with their view of the simple life.

  55. The poor fool thinks that the preponderance of evidence is on his side. I’d love to see the catastrophic warming theories subjected to proper rules of evidence. They wouldn’t stand a chance.

  56. on the same blog:
    ‘The Church Should Lead, Not
    Follow on Climate Justice’
    Justice. Church. Kurt Cobb and resiliance.
    Thanks for the link. Hans

  57. “Debate”? Science isn’t about “debate”. Science isn’t about debating various hypotheses and “winning the debate”. Science isn’t voting on various hypotheses and the “winner” becomes “truth”.
    The “debate” about “climate change” was lost when it BECAME a debate!

    • Thanks, Arthur –
      can’t find that dam’ comment button on that resiliant thing.
      to say:
      some people don’t think before speaking.
      Kurt.Cobb.writes.
      warming his seat, not his forehead.
      Regards – Hans

      • Johann,
        The comment widget on that site loads as a Java coded run-time executable. That simply means, there is Java coding embedded in the web page that requires permission to run as an extension in whatever browser you are using. You likely need to go to browser settings and enable Java (Java JIT compiler) and or lower the security settings to allow it to run. Another possibility is that your internet router is filtering out (blocking) Java object compiler element loads from Adobe’s website (less likely).

  58. Articles like this (Mr. Cobb’s that is) are what come from shouting in the echo chamber. You’d think an old man like him would know how to think better by now. Pity.

  59. I was banned from Resilience.com on my very first post there. It’s nothing but a site for the dullest of the climate cult to congregate for circle-jerks.

    • fully agree. The crowd at Resilience I seen many times before in different settings. They are the same people who buy into holistic healing for serious medical illnesses, go to homeopathy “doctors”, put crystals and magnets under their bed for healing, and believe they see evil capitalist intent in every major corporation.
      Ignore them. Let them shriek in their self-made, padded rubber room mental jail cell devoid of critical reasoning.

  60. ECK April 13, 2015 at 7:07 pm
    Must be written by a @#!!*&# lawyer. This is science idiot, not a court of law!

    I beg to differ. Science has always been guided by a sort of “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. An idea cannot move beyond the hypothesis category without proof beyond reasonable doubt–i.e. without very solid experimental demonstration such as surviving many experiments designed to demonstrate the contrary position. The idea of a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard in the law did not crystallize until probably 1800, which suggests to me that the law followed science in this regard. It is all part of the sort of enlightenment made possible by science.

  61. Ralph Kramden, everybody of our atavistic reptilian heritage knows:
    if not climate disaster there’s other escapistic nolands ahead.
    Don’t look back. Al Gore, Schwarzenegger, Rafjendra Pachauri now is back.
    Hans

  62. Well that is a progress! Even the cultists now admit that there is a REASONBLE doubt about global warming!

  63. If you want to up end the world’s economy, place the lives of billions at risk, lower the standard of living for 95% of the world’s population.
    Than by gosh, you are going to have to meet, at a minimum, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

  64. civil and criminal standards of proof have no place in science.
    scientific proof is much more rigorous. a theory must be able to successfully predict something that is otherwise hard to predict, and it must have no contrary examples.
    there is no such thing as “weighing the evidence” in science. if someone finds an apple that falls upwards, it means that Newton is wrong about his Law of Universal Gravity.

    • Not only that, but the depositions of the witnesses (temperature data) has been willfully altered, not just once but several times. And if that weren’t enough, eye witness testimony (proxy data infilling) was invented were there were no actual witnesses (stations) at the time of the crime, or the actual testimony (temp data) differed from the narrative.

  65. climate scientists have already shown through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence…

    This is pretty laughable, how can a preponderance of evidence be overwhelming. Preponderance means 51% to 49% which does not sound too overwhelming. Sounds more like barely proven. If the evidence was overwhelming it would be beyond reasonable doubt.
    If he thought it through, he is implying the validity of the theory of Evolution could be close to 50-50 since science only requires preponderance (51-49) of the evidence. I guess in Kurts world science moves ahead by simple majority, like many religious fundamentalists claim.
    Perhaps the blog-writer kind of mixed up hyperbole with rhetoric and then confused it with his elbow.

  66. This is precious, notice the number. There are a lot of similarities in the financial market and the climate market.
    “The credit downgrades have only increased since then, with Moody’s alone chopping the ratings on more than half the 2006 subprime residential-mortgage-backed securities it had rated, including a whopping 97% of the slices, or tranches, it deemed single-A or below, according to a compilation made by Morgan Stanley Fixed Income Research.”
    The experts had 97% of Credit Default Swaps rated improperly in 2006. When the vast majority of Experts get it wrong…it costs everybody a lot of money.
    http://online.barrons.com/articles/SB119809206941640049?mod=b_hps_9_0001_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_top

  67. I notice comments are now closed. Obviously couldn’t take the heat from skeptic logic.
    However, i did see the following “classy” comment from AndyUK was allowed through moderation:

    …i have a little saying. “if human caused climate warming is true, which it is, you’d have to be a moron or wanker to be still driving a car about”.
    i run a little emissions trading scheme with the car drivers in my town. it goes like this. they force me to breathe in their cancerous exhaust emissions everyday, and in return i give them the emissions from my salivary glands all over their windscreens and door handles. and if they dont like it, they can suck it up, like i have to suck up their cancerous emissions.
    and if a big range rover gets other, less pleasant substances smeared on its drivers door handle late at night, (theoretically of course) then the owner can hardly complain. such ‘things’ are ‘mere plant food’, and nothing to worry about at all.
    this is called ‘justice’. but dont winge about it. its all just theoretical punishment for a theoretical crime.

    What a lovely man AndyUK must be….

  68. Steven Mosher says on April 14, 2015 at 9:41 am
    There is a debate. For the most part skeptics are avoiding it.
    1. The earth gets energy from the via incoming radiation. Skeptics could debate this, but they dont.
    2. The earth returns energy to space via radiation. Skeptics could debate this, but they don’t
    3. C02 and other GHGs, retard the return of radiation to space. Skeptics could debate this, but they don’t
    4. Retarding the returning of energy to space, will cause the system to warm in response. Skeptics could debate this but they dont.
    That leaves one question:
    5. How much warming will we see if we continue to add C02 to the atmosphere. Here there is a debate
    that some skeptics have chosen to join. Basically one skeptic, Nic Lewis.
    These 4 points are the primary points of interest: Any skeptic who wants a nobel prize can go debate 1-4 and get one. They don’t want the honor that would come with that daunting task. Or they are scared. Or they understand the facts.
    That leaves #5. how much warming?
    Instead of making a strong case for small amounts of warming, instead of buckling down and doing some fricking science, skeptics have tried to play the “defense lawyer”, game. Science aint a court room. The best explanation wins until a better one comes along.

    Mosher,
    I think Lindzen addressed abuse of language in the advocacy of climate change as follows.

    From the chapter written by Dr Richard S. Lindzen, in the book ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ (Kindle Locations 590-596 & 601-606). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition, Dr Lindzen said,
    “In a further abuse of language, the advocates [of policies allegedly addressing global warming] attempt to rephrase issues in the form of yes-no questions:
    – Does climate change?
    – Is carbon dioxide (CO2) a greenhouse gas?
    – Does adding greenhouse gas cause warming?
    – Can man’s activities cause increases in greenhouse gases?
    These yes-no questions are meaningless when it comes to global warming alarm since affirmative answers are still completely consistent with there being no problem whatsoever; crucial to the scientific method are ‘how much’ questions. This is certainly the case for the above questions, where even most sceptics of alarm (including me) will answer yes.
    [. . .]
    What are some questions that are relevant?
    – What is the sensitivity of global mean temperature to increases in greenhouse gases?
    – What connection, if any, is there between weather events and global mean temperature anomaly?
    – Is the notion of global mean radiative imbalance driving global mean temperature relevant to actual climate change? The meaning of this question will become evident below.
    The above hardly exhausts the list of relevant questions, but in the present essay, I’ll focus on the first item, though brief attention will be given to the remaining two questions.”

    So, Mosher, it looks to me like your first four points (which can be viewed as being equivalent to implied questions) are of the kind that Lindzen finds are a form of abuse of the climate science language. Then your next two questions are not the key ones as you suggest, but secondary/ derived ones based on more fundamental key questions. Lindzen’s 3 questions are the more fundamental ones.
    .
    John

  69. Yes it seems they blocked mine, despite accepting 51% Prob that 51% of the post 1950 warming is above-trend from 1800 and therefore attributable to CO2. I merely argued that the same standard should apply:
    – In criticising politicians for claiming droughts and storms, where the IPCC believes “low probability” of linkage
    – to any cost-benefit on publicly funded “renewables” and other policies

  70. Interesting that WUWT should post on this subject. Yesterday I responded to this Resilience.com article as posted by Yahoo on 3 separate occasions. None of which the moderator allowed to be shown. What we all need to understand is that there really are blind and bigoted people in this world who brook no dissention. Debate is not a word they understand. Pure EVIL.
    This is from their headline web site: “This is a community site and the discussion is moderated. The rules in brief: no personal abuse and no climate denial.”
    Just follow the comment track posted below: Note the “part of a journalist’s job is to serve as a gatekeeper” comment. OK, let’s forget the truth or opposing points of view.
    toomuchgas > Luminapede • a day ago
    I was a newspaper publisher and I never rejected a letter based on subject matter. Sometimes it was edited for length, grammar or taste or when a writer repeated the same argument.
    toomuchgas, I was a newspaper editor. As you know, part of a journalist’s job is to serve as a gatekeeper. You call it editing for taste, but one also has to be on the alert for potential libel, obvious untruths, crackpots, etc. Many publications also select letters for their freshness, intelligence and diversity.
    As I’ve explained elsewhere, what we have in the case of climate change is a barrage of comments from strangers, many of which are abusive. In other cases, the comments repeat talking points which have been thoroughly debunked.
    If we weren’t under siege from climate deniers, it might be interesting to have a discussion with those skeptics who are reasonable (i.e. they listen, they understand the concepts of science, evidence and peer review, they are not abusive).
    However, to do so would require more resources than we have available. Of the 200+ comments this article has receive, I’d estimate less than a dozen of the rejected ones would be worth printing.
    Our first priority is to our regular readers, who understand and accept resource constraints and global warming, and want to do something about them.
    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-04-12/how-the-climate-change-debate-got-hijacked-by-the-wrong-standard-of-proof

  71. Resilience Post # 1 (Moderator deleted)
    How the climate-change debate got hijacked by the wrong standard of proof is an interesting perspective. To paraphrase, what is being suggested is that we should take the AGW hypothesis at face value and prepare for the worst scenario being increased global warming. That begs the question: is AGW the worst scenario that we should be taking action on or is there another scenario that we should consider? Evidence is mounting that would suggest the opposite and we should worry more about being cold and starving versus being warm and well fed.
    Let history be our guide? From a historical perspective of where the climate has been, where we are today on the climate cycle and where it is likely to be heading this research report & video is worth watching / reading.
    “We live in the coldest period of the last 10,000 years” , says glasiologist, Jørgen Peder Steffensen who take us back in time to the Greenland ice cores and reveals the secrets from the past.

    Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist, F. C.: Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature over the last millennium with a method that preserves low-frequency variability, J. Climate, 24,6013–6034, 2011. http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf
    To the authors statement that “There are only a tiny number of bona fide climate scientists who still say that the evidence is inconclusive concerning human contributions to climate change.” I would suggest that he takes the time to visit this site:
    “Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth Say Friends of Science”
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
    “Therefore, the persistent effort to make the public believe 97% of all scientists agree can only be understood as an intentional manipulation of data and public opinion for commercial gain.”
    As to preponderance of evidence, this IEA article is worth reading.
    http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

  72. Resilience 2
    Came across this site / article via Yahoo. I like the name “Resilience” and the concept of “Our focus is on building community resilience in a world of multiple emerging challenges: the decline of cheap energy, the depletion of critical resources like water, complex environmental crises like climate change and biodiversity loss, and the social and economic issues which are linked to these.”
    Therefore I find it puzzling that Climate Change can only be considered as a one way street and that building resilience should not be considered for the case of a colder world versus a warmer world? This should not be confused with Denial. No one denies that the climate changes, it does, but the world has historically been colder than it is today with the latest Ice Core data suggesting that the world has been cooling off for the past 10,000 years.
    To quote the renowned UK Climatologist H.H. Lamb (1968) from his book The Changing Climate: “It seems prudent to assume that the longer-term temperature trend is at present on balance, downward and likely to remain so.”

  73. funny my comment got deleted however i used their analogy:
    Of course the judge would set the defendants free when one piece of evidence is given to them: a scientific report of the ice core data showing the end of young dryas, and all the hot and cold spells which prove that climate never has been stable and never will be stable
    sure they didn’t liked that 🙂

  74. Just had a look and comments are closed. I think their delete button may have broken from overuse.

  75. We lawyers have a saying: “If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”.
    All I hear from the cited blog, and others like it, is a lot a table hammering

  76. I don’t even bother to read Yahoo News anymore. It’s more like Yahoo Lefty propaganda. It’s all BS. And there is a story promoting global warming as settled science posted about every 20 minutes. LOL.

  77. Surely the debate being over does not mean the conclusion of that debate was correct anyway? It just means one group has the power to silence the other and the lack of integrity to use that power.

    • David, I agree, but it seems that a separate debate on whether the original debate is over, has arisen.
      It also seems that the “science” debate is not over, and never will be, but in any case is purely academic. No conclusion is ever likely to result, no consensus feasible.
      Scientific conclusions are not arrived at by debate or consensus. They are based on facts. That some persons are unable to understand facts from speculation is a shame. Understandable in the public arena, but disappointing when many scientists themselves, have lost the ability to be objective and logical.
      Heaven forbid. but it appears only a full blown Ice Age would solve the dilemma.
      I have said this before, but probably even then the political control machine will still convince the public that “global warming” is the culprit and CO2 must be controlled 🙂

Comments are closed.