The Only People Denying Climate Change Are Those Calling Others Climate Change Deniers

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Current attacks on those who question the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are signs of desperation. You can detect the exasperation in this comment by President Obama.

“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, “Climate change is a fact.”

Whoever said it wasn’t a fact? Does the President believe that if humans disappeared climate change would stop? If he does, it is a reasonable, but ludicrous conclusion to draw from the IPCC claim that 95+ percent of climate change since 1950 is due to human production of CO2.

Why is the most powerful person in the world ranting against a few people expressing different views? If they are so wrong why does he bother? He insults people by suggesting they are dupes. John Kerry made even more irrational comments.

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

These are uneducated, intemperate, dismissals, even for politicians. Why do they feel so threatened by what the deniers are saying? It is a classic example of protesting too much.

There is clearly a counterattack emanating from a siege mentality White House driven by four major conditions.

clip_image002

  •  It is the avowed primary policy driver for President Obama’s domestic and foreign policies.
  • The last chance for a global climate policy occurs December 2015 in Paris (COP21).
  • Polls, especially from the UN, show the public does not consider climate change a concern.
  • Major countries, such as India, are already announcing ambivalent positions on CO2 reduction and refusal to limit burning coal.

Responses to claims by scientists who challenged IPCC science were always political. IPCC defenders know a scientific response to the scientific challenges were a waste of time because of the general lack of scientific knowledge. They know the IPCC Report of Working Group I The Physical Science Basis is indefensible because the document lays out all the severe limitations of the science. They know the science is wrong because the predictions are always wrong. If they don’t know these things, then their ignorance is willful. Something apparently confirmed by their failure to acknowledge the problems and correct the science. Instead, they ignore the evidence and resort to ad hominem[1] attacks.

Labeling legitimate scientists as “global warming skeptics” exploited the public failure to know that skepticism is the role of science and scientists. Those pushing the IPCC claims did not look at the scientific evidence that skeptics produced to contradict the hypothesis. They knew the public didn’t realize the implications of the fact that CO2 continued to increase, but the temperature didn’t. It was only when cold winters conflicted with claims of global warming that they acted (Figure 2). They could no longer ignore their frozen lying eyes.

clip_image004

Figure 2 (Published in 2008)

Evidence of the impact appeared in a 2004-leaked CRU email from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the University of East Anglia (UEA) campus that said,

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

 

To which Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,

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

They didn’t address the science. They changed the label to “climate change” and amplified the personal attacks, as skeptics became deniers, with all the holocaust connotations. The name “climate change denier” is wrong on many levels. Its creation and use prove the creators and users do so to exploit the public lack of understanding. As usual, IPCC proponents ignored or deflected all scientific challenges. The overarching theme of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) illustrates a similar response. Ignore the scientific questions and attack the individual. One of the most egregious examples disclosed by the emails was the attack on Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas by John Holdren.

Holdren moved the goalposts again in 2014 and launched a full assault with the 840 pages “National Climate Assessment”. In that publication, he initiated the term “Climate Disruption”. It achieved Holdren’s objective as CBS News explained in, “Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming.”

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

It is interesting because it is the first label that is not just scientific. A disruption is a break or interruption in normality, so the inference is that an abnormal disruption in climate is due to humans. So far, an ad hominem name is not attached. Maybe it’s because denier still works, but more likely it is built in and unnecessary. The ad hominem attacks prove that the entire IPCC process was and remains political. If it were about science, it couldn’t fulfill George Will’s comment that,

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

If you are in the group who call challengers, climate change deniers, it implies that you deny that climate changes. The distinction between human-caused change and natural change is irrelevant at this point because the public knows virtually nothing about natural change. If they did, they would not be so easily misled. I wonder how many understood what Dr. Philip Lloyd said in his assessment of temperature records?

Holocene century-on-century changes have a standard deviation close to 1 deg C, so if there is a signal due to carbon dioxide, it still has not emerged from the background noise.

 

You are also in the group that believes “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”, which allows you to ignore the evidence and pursue personal attacks. People in this group, including the mainstream media, have a political agenda,.

In the countdown to Paris and the end of the Obama administration we see; increasing personal attacks on scientists doing their job properly; false claims about extreme weather; continued denial that current climate change is within the range of natural variability; and continued denial or avoidance of contradictory evidence. We are experiencing the supposed, but unnecessary, emancipation from fossil fuels. Irving F Stone (1907-1989), a true investigative journalist, described what is happening.

Every emancipation has in it the seeds of a new slavery, and every truth easily becomes a lie.

 

 

 

 


[1] Ad hominem; (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. 2. relating to or associated with a particular person:

0 0 vote
Article Rating
260 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TonyL
May 24, 2015 10:06 am

For 25 or more years, it has been Global Warming and CAGW. It does well to make them stick to it. When anyone says “climate change”, the response should be “do you mean Global Warming?”. Then take it from there. Going along with “climate change” lets them frame the debate, and is a disservice. It is Global Warming, make them own it.

MCourtney
Reply to  TonyL
May 24, 2015 11:32 am

In fairness, the IPCC was not named the IPGW.
Let them own their failed predictions and don’t get trapped into semantic arguments.

Gunga Din
Reply to  MCourtney
May 24, 2015 12:11 pm

Hmmm….I wonder if they knew then that the whole “Global Warming” meme was going to go bust. “Global Warming” was just to set the hook?
Establish in the public’s psyche that Man is responsible for high temperatures so Man needs to be controlled (by “us”). When the temps stop rising, shift to Man is responsible for any change in the weather. Therefore the control (of Man) still need to remain in place.
Since this is “Global”, who better to benevolently oversee the controls than the UN?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  MCourtney
May 24, 2015 12:19 pm

The IPCC – is that the one that stands for Intergovernmental Panel of Corrupt Climatists?

richard verney
Reply to  MCourtney
May 25, 2015 3:10 am

It is important that the theory is and remains global warming.
The so called settled physics/science is that an increase in greenhouse gases MUST (all other things being equal) always lead to warming.
The science and physics of CO2 is and has never been that an increase in CO2 leads to climate change, especially as temperature is but one component amongst many that defines climate and climate variations on a regional basis.

tom s
Reply to  TonyL
May 24, 2015 11:43 am

Precisely. I never let them get away with it when I debate.

high treason
Reply to  tom s
May 24, 2015 4:45 pm

You are very lucky to let you debate them. I usually find the warmists turning away or running away from debating the science. Then they bring out the emotional blackmail card-‘its for the children and grandchildren” to which the reply is destroying human technology will mean that vastly fewer people can be supported, including said precious children and grandchildren. Mind you, the warmists ALWAYS reserve the right to pick up their bat and ball and leave in a huff when they know they have been soundly beaten

Reply to  tom s
May 24, 2015 10:10 pm

6- The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual’s own reason and critical analysis.
Dalai Lama
Is he wrong then?

Carbon500
Reply to  TonyL
May 24, 2015 12:28 pm

TonyL:
Agreed: I never use ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’, but I like to take it a step further: ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ really nails it!

Reply to  Carbon500
May 24, 2015 3:27 pm

“Unprecedented, Catastrophic, Anthroprogenic, Global Warming”

Reply to  Carbon500
May 24, 2015 3:28 pm

I like to use “anthropogenic global warming”, it really makes them spin:)

Reply to  Carbon500
May 24, 2015 3:45 pm

Since it used to be called Catastrophic man-made Global Warming (CaGW) this should now be referred to as Catastrophic man-made Climate Change (CaCC) to capture the real, hidden meaning in the deceitful phrase – Climate Change.

kokoda
Reply to  TonyL
May 24, 2015 2:18 pm

TonyL – right on the mark !!! Dr. Ball is using ‘Climate Change’ in the sense of ‘Natural Climate Change’ (NCC), but the IPCC, Obama, etc., are using it in terms of ‘Global Warming Climate Change’ (GWCC). I would love to be at an Obama press conference and ask him if he is referring to GWCC or NCC.
As Joe Bastardi stated (my words), you shoved Global Warming down our throat for many years – you said it, you own it.

ferdberple
Reply to  TonyL
May 24, 2015 7:00 pm

Holocene century-on-century changes have a standard deviation close to 1 deg C
=================
As such, temperature swings of +/- 3C per century are well within the range of natural variability. The figure of 2C CO2 limit is a nonsense figure, because natural variability exceeds that.
In effect the IPCC is trying to limit tidal changes to 2 feet, when natural tidal changes are 3 feet.

Reply to  ferdberple
May 24, 2015 7:02 pm

Good way of putting it.
Just look at the former ports, now high and dry, from the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

Duster
Reply to  ferdberple
May 25, 2015 4:44 pm

And the ports from the same period that are now under water. There is no simple way to describe changes in sea level globally. Eustatic changes are presumably global in extent, but they are generally affected and partially masked by isostatic adjustments that result in shifts in both directions locally and also alter basin volumes on larger scales.

May 24, 2015 10:07 am

Isn’t it normal for a lawyer to defend his client irrespective of the evidence?

firetoice2014
Reply to  kalya22
May 24, 2015 10:25 am

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
― Carl Sandburg

george e. smith
Reply to  kalya22
May 24, 2015 1:16 pm

As in doing what you are being paid to do ??

Leonard Lane
Reply to  george e. smith
May 24, 2015 10:53 pm

That is it exactly. It is all about the money. Money for big government, money for world government, and money for thousands of universities and non-profits, and of course, money for the self-designated elite.

May 24, 2015 10:12 am

“Climate change” and “climate crisis” are phrases that fit more easily into the religious chantings of the duped and ill-informed than does “anthropogenic global warming”.
… and so it is written.

May 24, 2015 10:20 am

I am sick and tired of the government-induced “climaphobia”, being foisted upon people, that are not willing or able, to think for themselves. Vote out the Climate alarmists, before they destroyed our economy, our landscapes, and our affordable energy. This scam has got to end!

Tim
Reply to  1957chev
May 24, 2015 3:15 pm

Love that term. “Climaphobia”…and by extension, ” climaphobics”. Perfect!

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Tim
May 24, 2015 10:58 pm

How about “climakleptomania”?

n.n
May 24, 2015 10:32 am

This isn’t about science. A frame-based philosophy that avoids reasoning through inference (i.e. created knowledge) and is strictly limited in both time and space by virtue of the scientific method. A philosophy that is rarely respected and routinely violated during political maneuvering.
This is about real or coerced political/social consensus. This is about Flat Earth decrees by a desperate establishment that seeks to secure capital and control (e.g. left-wing establishment of monopolies) to marginalize and neutralize competing interests. Separation of Church (i.e. organized moral/behavioral consensus) and State is a fantasy in both principle and practice.

markl
May 24, 2015 10:32 am

It will take a change in the US government administration to address the science of AGW properly and openly. There is too much at stake politically for it to change on its’ own. A real open debate must occur even though ‘debate’ is not part of the scientific principal but neither are most warmists.

A C Osborn
Reply to  markl
May 24, 2015 10:48 am

No it will take even colder temperatures than the USA has been experiencing or repeatedly cold temperatures over many years.
The public will eventually wise up when the reality that they experience really no longer matches what they are being told to believe. Until then the Politicians controlling the Scientists and the MSM can just carry on lying as if they are correct.

peter
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 24, 2015 11:02 am

Something that many people seem to forget is that this whole movement only really got traction because the world really was warming up. Or at least the part of it inhabited by university educated liberals. I remember the winters of my childhood when I accompanied my Grandfather on his trap line. I remember each Christmas the first big Snowmobile expedition of the year was to travel over the lakes and marshes to my Aunt and Uncles for Christmas dinner. Something we have not been able to do for the last thirty years.
It was easy to believe in Global Warming then.
I think you underestimate the general population. There will be dyed in the wool fanatics for years to come, and Politicians will continue trying to leverage it for money. But for the most part your everyday voter is no longer interested. It has become an academic debate and once politicians realize it will cost them more votes than it will get them, they will pretend it never happened.

Gubulgaria
May 24, 2015 10:32 am

Speaking as a warmist, ‘global warming’ is fine by me, stick with it, but as I know you guys just love factual accuracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (that’s ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’) was founded in 1988.

MCourtney
Reply to  Gubulgaria
May 24, 2015 11:35 am

I agree with you. And we ought to study climate change as it does change.
Plus it’s hard to talk about global warming as anything but an historical event anyway.

Reply to  Gubulgaria
May 24, 2015 11:43 am

No one is disputing the nomenclature of the IPCC

David Chappell
Reply to  David Johnson
May 24, 2015 3:42 pm

However, it is the role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change.”
Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change.

Reply to  David Johnson
May 24, 2015 11:10 pm

“Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change.”
It’s all very very strange. In order to measure “human-induced climate change” they have to measure natural climate change.
But they don’t?
This is a very strange and weird flavor of science?

J
Reply to  Gubulgaria
May 24, 2015 12:07 pm

Yes we should hold the warmists to their claims…they say CO2 is a green house gas that must be controlled (by restricting carbon based fuels) because it causes more energy to be trapped in the earths ecosystem causing the average global temperature to go up. Then the leap that a small temperature increase is dangerous or catastrophic.
Then when the temps don’t increase, don’t follow the model, fit the projection, don’t let them morph the issue, make them explain why the original hypothesis (instantiated in the models) was wrong.
If that was wrong why should we listen the the next line of BS explanations so they can redistribute wealth and control the energy of the world !

george e. smith
Reply to  Gubulgaria
May 24, 2015 1:25 pm

Right now the Temperature on Earth is somewhere between about -94 deg. C (179.15 K) and about + 60 deg. C (333.15 K) , and I for one would not be too happy if it goes too far outside of that range for any appreciable length of time.

Malcolm
Reply to  Gubulgaria
May 24, 2015 8:18 pm

The FAR was in 1990. This was several years before the discover of the PDO, an natural mode of climate variability. So, they made pronouncements about the cause of the observed warming at the end of last century but didn’t even then understand the natural determinants of the global mean temperature anomaly. Hmmmm. Without being ad hom, the word ‘gullible’ jumps out at me when looking at the letters of your name.

richard verney
Reply to  Malcolm
May 25, 2015 3:28 am

They are only just beginning to discover the oceans and the role it plays in controlling climate here on planet Earth (which happens to be a water world)!

May 24, 2015 10:56 am

Another great post Dr. Ball.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~~ H. L. Mencken
Skeptics are called “deniers” to associate us with the Holocaust. A holocaust of unimaginable proportions will come to mankind if we dismantle our industrialized societies based on affordable energy. Deaths in the billions is coming if they win.

chris riley
Reply to  markstoval
May 24, 2015 5:13 pm

An astonishingly large fraction of all the sensible things ever written in the English language was written by H.L. Mencken.

markl
Reply to  chris riley
May 24, 2015 5:27 pm

chris riley commented:
“An astonishingly large fraction of all the sensible things ever written in the English language was written by H.L. Mencken.”
True statement.

Reply to  chris riley
May 24, 2015 5:40 pm

Not only a skeptic but a libertarian and a cynic about human nature.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/menckenh.htm
Journalist H. L. Mencken described himself as “absolutely devoid of what is called religious feeling.” He attended a Methodist Sunday School as a child but only, he wrote in “The Schooling of a Theologian,” to allow his father—an unbeliever—to have free time for a nap. The human race is so obviously imperfect, he asserted, that man could not possibly have been the creation of an omnipotent God, but—at best—the bungled effort of “an incompetent committee of gods.”
Surveying American religious life, Mencken found it to be a nearly endless source of material for his iconoclastic pen. A recent Mencken biographer calls him “one of the last American intellectuals to speak out forcefully, pungently, and satirically against the follies of religion.”
The most frequent targets of Mencken’s flamboyant wit were fundamentalists—largely because of their constant efforts to employ the power of government to enforce their moral views. Like Darrow, Mencken could not tolerate intolerance. He believed deeply that individuals should be left to pursue happiness as they saw fit, with as little interference as possible from government or anyone else. In 1922, Mencken declared, “In am, in brief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety, and know of no human right that is one-tenth as valuable as the simple right to utter what seems (at the moment) to be the truth.”
Fundamentalists, in the view of Mencken, belonged to the great masses of Americans who neither appreciated, nor contributed to, the best of American culture. They, like most people, were ignorant, ignoble, and cowardly. Moreover, fundamentalists lacked the intelligence to understand their own follies and superstitions. “Homo boobiens is a fundamentalist for the precise reason he is uneducable,” Mencken wrote. Fundamentalists, he believed, found comfort in the imbecilities of their creed and “no amount of proof of the falsity of their beliefs will have the slightest influence on them.” They accepted Genesis because it offers a cosmogony “so simple that even a yokel can grasp it”—it holds “the irresistible reasonableness of the nonsensical.”
Mencken contended that if “Genesis embodies a mathematically accurate statement of what took place the week of June 3, 4004 B.C.” then “all of modern science is nonsense” On that point, he had no dispute with most other intellectuals of his time. Mencken differed from other critics of fundamentalism, however, in his insistence that science and Christianity in general could not be reconciled. One supernatural event is just as implausible as another, he believed, and once one part of the Bible is rejected the “divine authority of the whole disappears and there is no more evidence that Christianity is a revealed religion than there is that Mohammedanism is.”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  chris riley
May 24, 2015 6:19 pm

chris riley, I’m afraid sturgishooper’s selections from Mencken give me a picture of a rather mean-spirited, angry little man. I note he mentions his father was without religion which suggests the possibility that had his father been a fundamentalist, Mencken would likely be a religious zealot given his propensity for bullying lesser lights. If he is, indeed, so libertarian to a fault, perhaps it was in later life he relaxed his meanness toward the “yokels” and directed his barbed jibes at himself since toleration didn’t seem to be an obvious strength of character through much of his life. “Mencken could not tolerate intolerance (accept his own toward Fundamentalists). He believed deeply that individuals should be left to pursue happiness as they saw fit (unless they were a fundamentalist), with as little interference as possible from government or anyone else. In 1922, Mencken declared, “In am, in brief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety, and know of no human right that is one-tenth as valuable as the simple right to utter what seems (at the moment) to be the truth (unless you are a fundamentalist.”
Why would the American intellectual love such a man? Oh well, he was only a journalist, I guess.

ferdberple
Reply to  chris riley
May 24, 2015 8:17 pm

Like Darrow, Mencken could not tolerate intolerance.
================
so, they were intolerant of intolerance?

Menicholas
Reply to  chris riley
May 24, 2015 8:30 pm

Only because I have yet to publish my own memoires.
🙂

mebbe
Reply to  chris riley
May 24, 2015 10:54 pm

Gary Pearse,
It’s clear to me that you are offended by the disparaging characterization of “Fundamentalists” made by sturgishooper and ascribed to Mencken.
It’s equally clear that you direct your displeasure at Mencken, rather than quarrelling with the accuracy of sturgishooper’s portrayal of his views.
The problem is that your own counter-attack on the putative anti-fundamentalist sentiments of Mencken is focused not on his words but on the paraphrasing done by sturgishooper.
I am at a loss to understand how you came to conclude that Mencken was a “rather mean-spirited, angry little man”; especially in light of his improbable self-sacrifice in submitting to the tedium of Sunday School to permit his father some rest.
Not mean-spirited, not angry, not little.
Nothing to suggest he was a bully nor that he would have been a fundamentalist zealot if only he hadn’t been so averse to that creed.
Perhaps, your implied disdain for journalists is projected on Mencken when he describes Genesis as “so simple that even a yokel can grasp it”. This is insulting to Genesis, not to yokels.
You should not marvel if others perceive you as a literalist if you cannot appreciate that intolerance of intolerance (not Mencken’s words) is not a perverse oxymoron but, actually, an illustration of the contextual nature of language. It is, furthermore, an admirable social attitude, whose antithesis is tolerance of intolerance.
Which view do you espouse?

Another Ian
Reply to  chris riley
May 25, 2015 2:35 am

Chris
Add Shakespeare, Kipling and Churchill and you’ll increase the fraction IMO

Philip Arlington
Reply to  markstoval
May 24, 2015 11:03 pm

They aren’t winning in China, or India, or the Middle East, or Russia, or Africa (African countries say what the Western establishment wants them to say to keep the aid flowing, but they also want China to lend them the money to build coal-fired power stations).
Thus they aren’t winning. It just looks like they are from the perspective of a couple of parts of the world that matter less every day on the global scale.

Another Scott
May 24, 2015 10:57 am

Maybe “Skeptics” should adopt some bumper sticker-style catchphrases of our own. “I believe climate change is real, is occurring now, and has been occurring for millions of years” or “I believe global warming is real and has been occurring for tens of thousands of years” or “I believe mankind should stop burning fossil fuels over the next 2 or 3 hundred years”, something along those lines.

Reply to  Another Scott
May 24, 2015 11:17 am

How about “Stop energy apartheid”

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
May 24, 2015 1:09 pm

Support pseudo-science and get nowhere … FAST

ferdberple
Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
May 24, 2015 8:20 pm

How about”Politicians love to tell others to do what they themselves would never do”.

Menicholas
Reply to  Another Scott
May 24, 2015 8:39 pm

How about:
“Anyone who thinks their ideas are so great should lead by example. Anyone who does not should shut the hell up.”
(OK, that last part was a tad gratuitous.)

cnxtim
May 24, 2015 11:07 am

I can’t decide whether o is the duper or the dupee. Either way he is 97% WRONG.

Kpar
Reply to  cnxtim
May 24, 2015 11:38 am

It matters not at all whether he believes it. It is his path to control over the rest of us, because we are too benighted to decide for ourselves…

cnxtim
May 24, 2015 11:12 am

Mankind should stop consuming ‘fossil’ fuels when there is a viable cost efficient alternative. So get to work science, stop flapping your jaws and spend your material and non-material gifts productively and make THAT happen.

Steve P
Reply to  cnxtim
May 24, 2015 11:50 am

Why should mankind stop consuming fossil fuels, and what is the viable cost-effective alternative?

Reply to  Steve P
May 24, 2015 12:00 pm

I think cnxtim means that until there is a viable cost efficient alternative we should continue to use fossil fuels.

Latitude
Reply to  cnxtim
May 24, 2015 12:14 pm

“Mankind should stop consuming ‘fossil’ fuels when there is a viable cost efficient alternative.”
exactly….what they are advocating is we should stop eating apples right now because one day there might be an apple blight

Menicholas
Reply to  Latitude
May 24, 2015 8:40 pm

Our children will not know what apple pie is!

george e. smith
Reply to  cnxtim
May 24, 2015 1:41 pm

Why on earth should we do that ??
Fossil fuels are an economical way of getting widely available energy to masses of people all over the world.
People, if left to their own free will, will usually choose to do things economically, and often as economically as they are able to.
So what is the purpose of exchanging that scenario for a less economical one.
People will stop using fossil fuels when and if it becomes less economical to continue using them.
And they will adopt any and all alternatives to fossil fuels, if an when those become available.
It is that simple.
If cow dung is your most economically available energy source, you will use it to get energy.
If refrigerator sized thermo nuclear fusion power supplies become economically available; say at Fry’s, I will buy one and use it to supply me with energy.
But I’m not going to pay so much as a brass razoo, to try and get somebody else to develop some other form of energy for me to use.
All forms of energy that are available in very dense form, are inherently dangerous in some way or another. In most cases those dangers are well understood, and control methods are widely known.
So we have no pressing need to develop non fossil energy supplies.
But if you do and it is economical, I will be glad to pay you for you to supply me with your alternative energy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  cnxtim
May 24, 2015 6:41 pm

Silly cnxtim. It doesn’t work that way. So many people, especially those who worry that we must do something or we are going to run out of fossil fuels or zinc, get in a panic over fears of being buried in Malthus’s road apples. The beauty of the way things work is you needn’t do anything. What have you done so far to ensure you can heat your home, cook your meal or fuel yourself from A to B. It is all done for you. Without interference by government or anybody else, it’s automatic. Long before the last gallon is pumped, the price signals that we need alternatives. Price magically gushes forth an economic alternative. It is only the centrally planned thinker that interferes with this magic.
What is this unfailing magic? Why, its human ingenuity and the pursuit of profit. Some wise wag once said, we didn’t leave the stone age because we were running short of stones. We continually found better and better ways to do things. I see no reason for this to stop unless, horrors of horrors, the centrally planned totalitarians take over and bury us in horseshit. They are wired to destroy this magic. We aren’t waiting for the oil to stop flowing. We are lining up alternatives all the time – unless we let the central planners design a windmill, solar panel or some other antediluvian future for us. Smile! We wouldn’t even let global warming harm us if, one fine day it were to actually emerge as a problem. You guys’ve got to stop reading the reams of garbage that is coming out of our new Core subject matter educated clones.

Reply to  cnxtim
May 24, 2015 8:38 pm

“Mankind should stop consuming ‘fossil’ fuels when there is a viable cost efficient alternative. So get to work science, stop flapping your jaws and spend your material and non-material gifts productively and make THAT happen.”
The idea of catastrophic antroproghenic global warming is just the Agent and means for another idea. International socialism/Marxism. It’s not really about climate but more about global government and global control.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Santa Baby
May 24, 2015 11:13 pm

Bingo!

May 24, 2015 11:20 am

By accepting the term “climate change”, skeptics have opened the door for catastrophists to mscharacterize our position. We really need to stop using that term altogether.
The hypothesis is that mankind’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in catastrophic global warming, and we’re skeptical of that claim. Period. That’s all this is about. But that is only evident when we use the proper term “global warming” when discussing it. Using “climate change” obfuscates what it is we’re skeptical about.

markl
Reply to  Notanist
May 24, 2015 11:50 am

+1

Clay Marley
Reply to  Notanist
May 24, 2015 11:52 am

I agree. When “climate change denier” comes up, it seems the PC response from a skeptic is to say “I don’t deny climate change”. Bunk. I do deny climate change.
In my 50+ years I have not seen the climate change. I’ve experienced heat waves in Texas so hot I carried around a hand towel in my car because the stick shift was too hot to touch. And my air conditioner didn’t work. I’ve tried to scrape ice off my windshield in Houston using a credit card because I didn’t have an ice scraper, and I blew out two hair dryers thawing pipes in my attic. I’ve seen drought, floods, heat and cold and all of it is normal climate.
What is climate anyway? Seems to me the Earth’s climate varies around fairly narrow limits. The further back one goes, the wider these limits, to a point. Was the Little Ice Age climate change or was it normal variability? Roman and Medieval Warming Period natural variability? These were colder and warmer than today.
As pointed out, “climate change” was nothing but a propaganda newspeak. It isn’t theory and it isn’t science. Ask anyone if they have actually experienced “climate change” in their lives.

kim
Reply to  Clay Marley
May 24, 2015 12:37 pm

Dirty little secret. Climate changes slowly except when it doesn’t.
===========

John Trigge
Reply to  Clay Marley
May 24, 2015 1:27 pm

In all of these discussions it pays to have some definition of the terms being used.
‘Climate’ is a man-made term for consolidated weather data over an arbitrary 30 year period which is then compared to current weather data. Never mind that each 30 year period would give a different baseline and change the comparative values or that 30 years may be too short a time for meaningful comparisons.
As you say, you empirical personal 50 year observations show ALL weather is possible at all times and the Earth’s longer history shows even worse is naturally possible without human influence.
My bumper sticker (suggested above) would be ‘Mother Nature is a b1tch. Live with it’

Reply to  Clay Marley
May 24, 2015 1:31 pm

“Ask anyone if they have actually experienced “climate change” in their lives.”
As an exploration geologist I’ve experienced desert climate in central Australia, California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico; sub-arctic climate in the Yukon Territory and Alaska; Mediterranean climate in coastal California, Italy, France, Turkey and Australia; tropical climate in NE Australia, SE Asia and Papua New Guinea; and alpine climate in New Zealand, Austria and Colorado. All this was done by traveling by airplane. But just staying in one spot I never experienced a change in climate – only a change in weather.

Reply to  Clay Marley
May 24, 2015 2:46 pm

Clay,
I feel I have experienced climate change. Some winters in my native region were definitely colder in the 1960s and ’70s than in subsequent decades. Summers, however have not been noticeably warmer.
IMO it’s the PDO, so “natural”, rather than man-made, climate change, however, and only marginally different. The climate classification for the Pacific NW however remains the same.
On the scales of not decades but centuries, millennia, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years, there is of course more substantial climate change. Some major biomes of glacial intervals go extinct during interglacials, as now. And as recently as the first two epochs of the Cenozoic Era, crocodylians lived in the Arctic.

Goldrider
Reply to  Clay Marley
May 24, 2015 4:43 pm

Does the “climateric” count? ; )

Reply to  Clay Marley
May 24, 2015 8:57 pm

Climate change is measured over at least a 30 years period. It’s actually scientifically always about the past and never about the future. Climate change about the future is an oxymoron?

Steve P
Reply to  Notanist
May 24, 2015 11:59 am

“But that is only evident when we use the proper term “global warming” when discussing it.”
No, the proper term is Catastrophic Anthropogenic (or Man-made) Global Warming.
Without the impending catastrophe, there is no need to take any action, or indeed, any room for debate because no sensible person disputes the fact that, over the long haul, climate always changes, and within those changes are periods of global cooling, and global warming.

Warren Latham
Reply to  Steve P
May 24, 2015 1:49 pm

Spot on Steve !
Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is the correct term which we should all be using. The use of this phrase will add to the bed-wetters’ pains as they try to vomit their beloved Mann-made hockey-stick up their gullets.
We have them on the run but don’t shoot, let ’em burn.

Reply to  Steve P
May 24, 2015 2:18 pm

“Catastrophic Anthropogenic…” may be more technically correct, but “global warming” is better for a lot of reasons, not least because its a term from 12 to 15 years ago that sounds as out-dated as the theory is. The switch to “climate change” was intentional, I would love for skeptics to intentionally change it back and use it in all public discussions.
As in, “No I’m not denying climate change, but if you want to talk about man-made global warming, then I have some questions for you…”

ferdberple
Reply to  Steve P
May 24, 2015 8:27 pm

When someone says “climate change” I ask, “Do you mean global warming”? From there depending on the reply, you can as natural or man-made. And from there, do you also mean caused by women in addition to men?

Menicholas
Reply to  Steve P
May 24, 2015 8:45 pm

Wait, now we are against it when women turn up the heat?
I may have to re-evaluate my position…

Latitude
Reply to  Notanist
May 24, 2015 12:16 pm

The hypothesis is…that a slight increase in CO2…would cause a slight increase in temp…..that would cause a sight increase in humidity….the slight increase in humidity would cause temp to slightly increase again….which would cause humidity to slightly increase again
The hypothesis was run away global humidity

george e. smith
Reply to  Latitude
May 24, 2015 1:51 pm

Except increased humidity leads to increased water vapor absorption of incoming solar energy, and increased cloudiness. Both of those reduce the amount of solar energy that reaches the surface and gets converted to waste heat trash in the deep oceans.
So increased humidity (if) caused by increased CO2, is a global cooling process. So it can’t runaway thermally.

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
May 24, 2015 2:33 pm

George, they didn’t know that then….that was the original hypothesis
and where are we now?…..they still don’t know what humidity and clouds do
Why do intelligent people even pay attention to this crap?

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Latitude
May 24, 2015 11:20 pm

Climate is an artificial construct of man in his desire to develop an average or normal weather condition. There is nothing special about a 30 year average of weather variables we use to “define” climate.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Latitude
May 29, 2015 6:11 am

What’s the difference between the Theory of CAGW and a net?
With a net, the holes are tied together!

imoira
Reply to  Notanist
May 24, 2015 7:40 pm

I think of it as Computer Climate.

Steve P
Reply to  Notanist
May 24, 2015 8:52 pm

“Catastrophic Anthropogenic…” may be more technically correct, but “global warming” is better for a lot of reasons, not least because its a term from 12 to 15 years ago that sounds as out-dated as the theory is.
You said the term global warming was better for “a lot of reasons,” but failed to provide even a single good one.
The issue is allowing the alarmists to move the goalposts, as well as mischaracterize the skeptical position. You make that point yourself about “climate change,” but fail to recognize the same process is ongoing with the term “global warming.”
There is no proof that global warming is necessarily a bad thing. We do know that there has been warming over the relative short term since the Little Ice Age, and also over the longer term since the continental ice sheets receded some 10,000 years ago, give or take, so global warming is an established fact and should not be a point of contention.

Duster
Reply to  Notanist
May 25, 2015 5:02 pm

One simply needs to recognize that “change” is an inherent attribute of climate.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
May 24, 2015 11:23 am

Not a lot different from lynching.

Latitude
May 24, 2015 11:25 am

First, people can be bought…
Occupy people were lining up to get their checks…..
….Ferguson people demonstrated again because they didn’t get their checks
This is about a lot more than just temperatures………..

Barbara
Reply to  Latitude
May 24, 2015 8:05 pm

The rent-a-mobs in action!

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Latitude
May 24, 2015 11:23 pm

Yes, and soon as Obama was elected the Occupy movement ended. Strange coincidence?

Wagen
May 24, 2015 11:25 am

Why ‘ranting’?
Because there are people who take snowballs into a debate to try to prove a point. That’s why.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Wagen
May 24, 2015 1:31 pm

Wrong. Thanks for playing, though.

Wagen
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 2:11 pm

Do you think Inhofe’s snowball proved something? Let me know.

kim
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 2:48 pm

A magical, theatrical point. I still wanna know how his basket of bread turned to roses.
============

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 8:03 pm

Hey Wagen-
Inhofe’s snowball joke proved that a lot of you warmunists don’t have a sense of humor.

Wagen
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 25, 2015 12:40 am

I see! He is a comedian, not a politician. Thanks for clearing that up.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 29, 2015 6:13 am

No Franken is the comedian!

Akatsukami
Reply to  Wagen
May 24, 2015 6:29 pm

And there are other people who turn off the air conditioning to grandstand.

Enginer
May 24, 2015 11:28 am

Likely, the Club of Rome is right, and many need to die off. But Obama driving their energy costs up seems a cruel way to accomplish this. Isn’t enlightened education a better choice?

A C Osborn
Reply to  Enginer
May 24, 2015 11:31 am

NO, NO, NO.

MCourtney
Reply to  Enginer
May 24, 2015 11:37 am

Perhaps you would be willing to educate by practical demonstrate?
No?
Then stop wishing death to others,

Reply to  Enginer
May 24, 2015 12:04 pm

Hope this is meant sarcastically but if not, it is sick.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Enginer
May 24, 2015 1:23 pm

You first.

kim
Reply to  Enginer
May 24, 2015 2:51 pm

Credentialed to moronically destroy. And a fine educational joke, Enginer.
A hypothermic death is a gentle one, doncha know? He’s always a step ahead of the game.
==========

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Enginer
May 24, 2015 11:25 pm

No, many of us do not need to die off. If so, let the Club of Rome and those who believe in them go first.

mmercier
May 24, 2015 11:34 am

Global warming was just another tired attempt by the global marxist cabal to attack capitalism. They got caught, and will switch gears to a new “sustainability” theme. Same marxists, same goals, new meme. Same as it ever was.

markl
Reply to  mmercier
May 24, 2015 3:56 pm

+1

May 24, 2015 11:45 am

What’s up with this: “If they don’t know these things, then their ignorance is willful.”? If what the media presents is so one-sided, I don’t think it takes willful ignorance to get caught up in a groupthink.

Philip
May 24, 2015 12:05 pm

http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/04/european-biofuel-bubble-bursts/
Obama really isn’t going to like this… Perhaps he will just deny that it has actually happened.

Glenn999
Reply to  Philip
May 24, 2015 2:04 pm

he’ll be really mad when he hears about it on the news….

Dudley Crawford
May 24, 2015 12:31 pm

I am a climate change denier. I believe that by adopting the warmists’ language, “skeptics” have conceded intellectual ground unnecessarily. Climate change is being used to denote a difference from climate. We undergo climate every minute. If the climate is “changing” normally, why is it called climate change? It is redundant and an indicator of acceptance of the argument. I deny it all.

Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 12:41 pm

The International Panel of Corrupt Climatists (IPCC) defines climate change as;

“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Therein lies the problem. They craftily re-defined the term.

george e. smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 2:03 pm

“””””…..observed over comparable time periods.”……”””””
Well there you see the problem.
“Observed” means that it actually happened, so it excludes the output of some computer model run.
And “over comparable time periods” means it is a total waste of time carrying on about what may or may not have happened, a million years ago.
Obama just told a bunch of captive listeners, that the atmospheric CO2 was the highest it has been for a million years.
Who cares. I’m sure that there is nothing that today compares with what it was like a million years ago.
There also weren’t as many humans on the planet a million years ago, so we don’t have any idea whether they liked or hated their CO2 back in those days.

Menicholas
Reply to  george e. smith
May 24, 2015 8:50 pm

The number of flavors of Ice Cream available at the local 7-Eleven is at a 4.5 billion year high.

Gentle Tramp
May 24, 2015 12:46 pm

Well, to be fair, poor Mr. Obama simply doesn’t know that wikipedia isn’t a very trustworthy source with regard to controversial questions… 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Dennis Bird
May 24, 2015 12:58 pm

I lost interest in CAGW very quickly but more from a cynical political view. As soon as I realized there was a way to get rich from carbon trading, I knew it was horse hockey. Then I did the research. Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted. AGW is an artifact of poorly designed computer models.

AB
Reply to  Dennis Bird
May 24, 2015 4:59 pm

Bingo!
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled-nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774

May 24, 2015 1:06 pm

What puzzles me is, why don’t the skeptics (deniers) release all or even one of their scientific peer reviewed papers. Join the scientific discussion and leave your conspiracy theories out.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 1:33 pm

What “discussion”? I thought the “debate is over”.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 2:30 pm

You are correct in thinking “the debate is over”..It is. The science isn’t settled. We still have much to learn. What are the deniers doing? Denying the facts and pushing the conspiracy theory.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 8:52 pm

Oh, it is ON now! Gloves of Mr. Cobb!

A C Osborn
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 1:43 pm
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 24, 2015 5:43 pm

@BenSturgis
What ever happened to “burden of proof” and “innocent until proven guilty”? Where is the “smoking gun”?
Sorry Ben, I am still waiting for “unprecedented” EVIDENCE. (I know, the media will say the rain in Texas today was “unprecedented”. But the media have probably never looked at a rainfall intensity nomograph either.)
Having a family that has been close to the land for 150 years, and having a personal life long education in environment, no one has shown me anything substantial enough to believe in CAGW. Yet.
But I am will to consider it given an adequate “proof”. Hasn’t happened so far and like many here, I have thousands of hours of “experience” of one sort or another.
Read about situational bias and you and many other similar articles on this site.

PiperPaul
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 24, 2015 6:19 pm

Wayne, don’t forget “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”.

MCourtney
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 1:44 pm

Why bother?
The Warmists made predictions.
They didn’t come true
Hansen’s scenario C was for no further CO2 release and that’s the temperature change that happened (with lots of CO2 released).
So The Warmists have already published – CO2 is not a big problem.
How small a problem it is requires very sensitive measurements and some means of distinguishing natural and anthropogenic forcing. Neither of which we Sceptics nor the Alarmists have.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  MCourtney
May 25, 2015 9:33 am

P Lloyd was correct, then, to point out that all we know about natural temperature movement for centuries is +-1 Deg C, and the fluctuation is still within that range. If CO2 is going to move it outside that range, there is not yet any proof od it. All we know for certain is that forecasting models based on CO2 increases and 3.7 Watts/m^2 are demonstrably incorrect. Mathematical catastrophe has been mathematically averted.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 2:15 pm

@Ben Sturgis
You obviously don’t know the scientific literature in climate science very well. Though some prominent journals, like Nature, which are biased by the ruling political “zeitgeist”, do often confuse “peer review” with “pal review”, there are a lot of peer-reviewed papers available in the literature by prominent CAGW skeptics. Here are just some recent examples:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n4/full/ngeo
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z
And there is an other recommended reading for you, though I’m afraid that this won’t cure your personal bias in this topic:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/06/16/peer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
May 24, 2015 2:23 pm

Sorry, the second link was not complete. This is the correct version:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n4/full/ngeo2375.html

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
May 24, 2015 2:37 pm

I was hoping for something scientific about global warming written by a climate scientist.

kim
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
May 24, 2015 2:43 pm

The classic on what you would mislabel ‘conspiracy’ is ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Madnesses of the Crowd’, though there certainly are those who’ve breathed together encouraging this madness. All together now and one, and two.
================

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
May 24, 2015 3:17 pm

Well Ben, that explains a lot about your “expertise” in the climate debate when you don’t know that Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer are very well known climate scientist which are rather critically with the usual scare mongering by the IPCC. And Dr. Willie Soon is a astro-physicist whose main research interest is the solar influence on Earth’s climate and who was heavily smeared by people like you quite recently because of his work in this field. And of course: All three cited papers deal with important details about climate change and its different possible causes. If you don’t realize that, you are completely disqualified to discus this topic here further…
But for your personal benefit, here you can read another recent paper with Dr. Willie Soon which shows that the Medieval Warmth Period was warmer than today, and that without any significant man-made CO2 contents in the atmosphere. Maybe you can understand the message of this peer reviewed research result somewhat easier:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825214002232

george e. smith
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 2:18 pm

An excellent suggestion Ben.
How about this one (peer reviewed)
In Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 1 2001, by Professor John Christy, and other researchers at the University of Huntsville, Alabama (UAH).
You might find a report of that paper by generally recognized skeptics at http://unisci.com/stories/2011/0109014.htm
But I’m sure you already know about that one paper, since you seem to be so knowledgeable about the peer reviewed literature on climate.
And if you don’t know about it, then I wouldn’t tell anybody that you don’t, because it has been widely publicized in the media.
It has even been alluded to here at WUWT on many occasions; and this is reputedly the most widely read information site on climate science that there is.
Well there’s one for you.
I guess you never read any of Wei Hok (Willie) Soon’s peer reviewed papers, or Dr. Sallie Baliunas either. Both of them are considered to be global warming skeptics.
I’ve never seen anything relating to conspiracies coming from any of those three.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 24, 2015 2:43 pm

I know all about that “paper” by soon and Sallie. It’s infamous and severely flawed. She and willie claimed “the climate hasn’t changed in 2000 years.” Those are your denier scientists. There you have it.

Reply to  george e. smith
May 24, 2015 3:01 pm

Ben Sturgis says:
I know all about that “paper” by soon and Sallie.
Based on your comments, I would be willing to bet money that you have never even read the paper, which describes the past climate as being different from now.
Keep posting, Ben. Your comments are amusing to the highly educated readers here. We see in your comments the typical mouth-breathing head nodders who know nothing. They only “know” the political narrative that the media tells them.
Drs. Soon and Baliunas were targeted ever since their peer reviewed Harvard paper cam out, stating that the 20th Century is not unusually or abnormally warm. That violates the Narrative, so Dr. Soon has been attacked ever since. Numpties like you are just media tools that assist with your mindless attacks.
I note too that the institutions the Dr. Soon works for have received a lot of money for his research. Companies don’t pay big bucks for nonsense. You’re not being paid for yours, right?
Keep posting, Ben. We need some amusement on a slow Sunday afternoon.

MikeB
Reply to  george e. smith
May 24, 2015 3:34 pm

Your link doesn’t work George, not for me anyhow.
Ben Sturgis
Well, you were doing OK until now

She and Willie claimed “the climate hasn’t changed in 2000 years.”

I think you will find that they said the exact opposite, that climate is always changing and, annoyingly,

“…records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium”

kim
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 2:40 pm

Ben, it’s much more fun watching the alarmist apologia get blown up in days if not hours by the like of JeanS and StevieMac. It’s also probably more effective in the long run to let the likes of Nic Lewis and Judy Curry goad the masters of the universe into examining the universe, whilst twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.
==============

Menicholas
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 8:57 pm

Sorry Bruce, I must be going cross eyed after reading here all day. Mistook you for making the comment from Sturgis.

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 9:24 pm

The problem is that the science on climate/weather is so policy based that it at the moment, is mostly a only political/ideological debate there. And that debate is definitely over. How do we debate scientifically when the theme/subject has been politizised?

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 25, 2015 8:13 am

Here’s some discussion:
All Warmists, please point out any empirically measured evidence of CO2 causing temperature rise.
Show me some, point to it. Just one example.
Sea-ice level is always in flux.
There is no Tropospheric warm zone.
There is no acceleration in sea level rise.
Co2 is a natural trace gas necessary to all life. CO2’s LWIR absorbing qualities are seen in laboratories but in the atmosphere, it’s signal is not enough to rise through the noise in the system. It’s effects are overwhelmed by the natural stability of our atmosphere. Stability that is evidently gained from negative feedbacks(water vapor?). Feedbacks ignored or flat-out wrong in the simulations(models).
Show me some, and make it CATASTROPHIC.

May 24, 2015 1:10 pm

Whatever happened to the coming Ice age? Remember that? That was before Global warming. Now we have Climate change. Thus any kind of weather can now be blamed on climate change. As for Obama and his ilk in panic mode, its clear when he’s trying to convince the coast guard graduates that the a new Ocean is coming. Makes me wonder what Obama is really smoking. Climate change is worse then ISIS. I bet if ISIS set off a nuke in this country Obama would blame it on climate change.

May 24, 2015 1:13 pm

“if humans disappeared climate change would stop?”————-Probably not, but AGW would start to slow down.

Ivan Bramwell
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 1:33 pm

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Babsy
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 1:53 pm

No, it does not.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 1:54 pm

The answer to that old psychology question is ‘No, it doesn’t’.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 2:04 pm

Yes, the existence of sound waves is not dependent upon someone hearing them.

Glenn999
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 2:08 pm

Absolutely makes a sound and the waves will travel. Stupid philosophers:)

MCourtney
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 2:08 pm

But are they worth spending resources on noise abatement?

Steve P
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 2:09 pm

It depends on what you mean by “no one.”
In virtually any forest you can imagine, there would be – at the very least – insects, and they too can hear.

How did insects get their hearing? A new study of 50-million-year-old cricket and katydid fossils sporting some of the best preserved fossil insect ears described to date are helping to trace the evolution of the insect ear.
According to University of Colorado Museum of Natural History paleontologist Dena Smith and University of Illinois Professor Roy Plotnick, who collaborated on the new study at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, or NESCent, in Durham, N.C., insects hear with help from some very unusual ears.
Grasshoppers have ears on their abdomens. Lacewings have ears on their wings. The ears of the tachinid fly are tucked under the chin. “Insects have ears on pretty much every part of their body except on their head proper,” Plotnick said.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/features/listen-crickets-have-had-ears-their-legs-more-50-million-years-0#sthash.cc4ouOoU.dpuf

george e. smith
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 2:23 pm

No, your ears make the sound, not the falling tree.
Just ask anyone who lives in a world of silence because their ears don’t make any sound; even if they are in the forest when a tree falls.

george e. smith
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 2:39 pm

“””””…..
Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Yes, the existence of sound waves is not dependent upon someone hearing them.
Glenn999
May 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Absolutely makes a sound and the waves will travel. Stupid philosophers:)……”””””
The existence of longitudinal compression waves (in gases) is not in dispute; they are real, and they exist everywhere there are gases.
They can be detected over an extremely wide range of frequencies or wavelengths, wit suitable instrumentation.
Over a narrow restricted range of frequencies, they can be detected by motions of the bony mechanisms of the human ear.
In most normally equipped persons, those motions are registered in their brain as a “sound”.
Outside of that ear brain system, there is no sound, although there may be longitudinal compression waves.
They even use a different set of units to describe the psychophysical phenomena of accoustic wave energy in the ear that is different from, Joules, Watts etc. used for physical forms of energy or power.
No wonder, so many people cannot distinguish between cause and effect.
Accoustic waves are a physical cause. In the human ear, they produce the effect we call sound.
We don’t know what lobsters or jelly fish call the effect of acoustic waves, if there is any in their world.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 24, 2015 4:58 pm

Any more than the mosquito trapped in a spiders web ?

Patrick
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 25, 2015 1:39 am

As someone who has suffered severe ear infections and issues over the years, we hearing impared are usually more concerned with the pain of infection and subsequent loss of hearing than trees falling. But then I am more concerned with busy roads and not being able to hear an approaching vehicle. But as George Smith says, we, literally make it up in our brains.

Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 25, 2015 6:18 am

There is no forest where nobody is around to hear a falling tree. Not in Russia, anyway.

Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 25, 2015 8:18 am

If a tree falls in the forest : sound.
If a tree falls on the Moon: silence.

Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 25, 2015 8:44 am

The animals hear it.
it disturbs the smooth pond.
I’m sound in my decision.

Dave Worley
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 25, 2015 9:26 am

Even on the moon, there are seismic waves, which is sound. Those waves move molecules.
IRRC, it’s Hindu philosophy that eqates perception with reality, whre anything not percieved is not real…..r something similar.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ivan Bramwell
May 25, 2015 1:18 pm

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

Was it’s name Treebeard? Did he fall because he was trying to clap with one hand…er…branch?

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 2:01 pm

There is no evidence of AGW. The net effect of human activities on climate has not been and cannot yet be measured, if ever. It might well be to cool the planet. No one knows. But in any case, it’s negligible.

nutso fasst
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 2:55 pm

“AGW would start to slow down.”
Well, that’s a profound statement with little meaning, since it has not yet been unequivocally demonstrated how much temperature rise is anthropogenic. Judith Curry had this right in her congressional testimony. The degree to which trends in global temperatures can be attributed to humans, and how much of that is from land use changes and how much from fossil fuel burning, is not known. If earlier prognostications were at all accurate, an accelerated rise in global temperatures could not have stalled due to natural variations, but it has. If natural variations can overcome anthropogenic influence, we could see AGW snuffed by anthropo-degenerative cooling (ADC).

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:52 pm

“But AGW would start to slow down”. Didn’t realise you could go any slower than stopped, but there we are!

tmitsss
May 24, 2015 1:14 pm

I prefer the term Gruber Change

Harry Passfield
May 24, 2015 1:32 pm

COP21? Continuation of Pause (in 21st Century)?

MCourtney
Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 24, 2015 3:38 pm

Nice.
I’ll steal that and I won’t be giving a reference.
Please forgive my future plagiarism.
Flattery, compliment, yadda yadda.

Barry Woods
May 24, 2015 1:33 pm

the they changed the name argument a few years back always gets knockedback and looks a bit silly (global warming – to ‘climate change)
look at how long ago the IPCC was formed..
look what is stands for Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE

Reply to  Barry Woods
May 24, 2015 3:01 pm

Barry, the terms “global warming and climate change” have different meanings. Do one of them “google searches” to learn. Easy stuff.

Reply to  Barry Woods
May 24, 2015 9:49 pm

Climate Change is measured or observed weather over a past 30 years period. 90 % of the factors driving weather and climate is scientifically either not or badly known. And Since climate is a chaotic system it’s simply on that ground alone not possible to forecast future climate and weather. So the IPCC “projections” about future climate are all solely and only an oxymoron based on UNFCCC, politics and ideology.

ren
May 24, 2015 1:46 pm

Why are melting glaciers in western Antarctica?
Numerous volcanoes exist in Marie Byrd Land, a highland region of West Antarctica. High heat flow through the crust in this region may influence the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet1, 2, 3, 4. Volcanic activity progressed from north to south in the Executive Committee mountain range between the Miocene and Holocene epochs, but there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity5, 6, 7. Here we use a recently deployed seismic network to show that in 2010 and 2011, two swarms of seismic activity occurred at 25–40 km depth beneath subglacial topographic and magnetic highs, located 55 km south of the youngest subaerial volcano in the Executive Committee Range. We interpret the swarm events as deep long-period earthquakes based on their unusual frequency content. Such earthquakes occur beneath active volcanoes, are caused by deep magmatic activity and, in some cases, precede eruptions8, 9, 10, 11. We also use radar profiles to identify a prominent ash layer in the ice overlying the seismic swarm. Located at 1,400 m depth, the ash layer is about 8,000 years old and was probably sourced from the nearby Mount Waesche volcano. Together, these observations provide strong evidence for ongoing magmatic activity and demonstrate that volcanism continues to migrate southwards along the Executive Committee Range. Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1992.html?WT.ec_id=NGEO-201312

Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 1:48 pm

When the Climate Liars use the phrase “climate change”, what they really mean is manmade climate change. Control the language and you control the debate. It’s all part of the strategy.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 24, 2015 2:47 pm

Were back to the conspiracy theory again huh? How about some science from the deniers. Come on, there must be something out there..

MCourtney
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:40 pm

There is a difference between “climate change” and “manmade climate change”.
The Grand Canyon’s epic… but it’s won no architecture prizes.

David Ball
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:44 pm

We(‘)re(sic) back to the conspiracy theory again huh? How about some science from the deniers. Come on, there must be something out there..
Yawn. Here we go again,……

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:45 pm

It’s a conspiracy fact. See Climategate emails and “we need to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:50 pm

OK, Mr B.S., this ought to be easy enough to understand
The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis, stated by IPCC, is this: Man-caused emissions of CO2, CH4, etc. to the atmosphere retard the radiation of absorbed solar/thermal energy back to space, and thereby increase the temperature of the global atmosphere
Observation 1: Human emissions of CO2 in the last 20 years are approximately 50% of the TOTAL human emissions since the beginning of records
Observation 2: Satellite data show that the global average temperature (over both oceans and land) HAS NOT CHANGED over the same time interval
As simply stated by Dr. Richard Feynman, “If the observations contradict the hypothesis, the HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG”
Observations 1 and 2 show clearly that CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures
No conspiracy here, just facts.
What do you say now, Mr. B.S.?

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 25, 2015 8:25 am

No tropospheric Warm Zone. No warming for 18 years. Cold winters.
The Tropospheric Warm Zone was hypothesized to be a fingerprint of CO2 based warming. When it could not be found, the Modellers should have re-worked their hypothesis. They did not.
The Scientific Method was abandoned. Then and there, it stopped being about science.

Dave Worley
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 25, 2015 9:31 am

My generation has seen the hijacking of many words.
Discrimination was once considered a valuable trait.
The word hero has been severely diluted due to overuse.
Sustainable is being morphed as we speak.

May 24, 2015 1:52 pm

IPCC AR5 doubts it’s own science. Refer to TS.6 Key Uncertainties.

Robert Herron
May 24, 2015 2:05 pm

Where did the IPCC’s calculation of 95% certainty that humans were primarily responsible for their calculation of global warming come from?
Was this an actual statistical calculation that can be examined or just an opinion? If it was an opinion how many people “voted” and what were the results of the vote?

Warren Latham
May 24, 2015 2:21 pm

Thank you Dr. Tim Ball; a clear description in plain English (as always) with a rather funny and appropriate cartoon !
Anthony
The entire gravy train needs to be derailed and more importantly exposed in an explosive and dramatic way (obviously). I’m sure such a thing will probably be “in your sights” and I suspect also in someone else’s sights. Perhaps you would be good enough to discuss this subject with that particular person in seventeen days’ time. I do hope so and I thank you for all of what you do.
Regards,
Warren

May 24, 2015 2:21 pm

To me, the most interesting thing about the climate debate is how clearly it demonstrates “group think.”
In these terms, it rivals religion, US politics, UFO’s, “moral veganism,” and even the devotion to a single sports team.
The problem is always the desire for a monopoly of some sort – be it power, knowledge, or moral superiority – facilitated by our tiny capacity for objectivity. –And by our submicroscopic appreciation of objectivity’s inherent value.
Excellent post! Thank you.
Talmage
storiform

Alx
May 24, 2015 2:22 pm

It’s funny leading physicists and evolutionary biologists will debate religious people who have next to zero scientific knowledge or are grossly misinformed or have no intent in debating honestly but just want to peddle their faith.
But climate scientists will not even appear on the same stage with other scientists. For a laugh look up “Dr. Gavin Schmidt Versus Dr. Roy Spencer”. Gavin actually forced Spencer, a leading scientist on collecting satellite data, off the stage before he would appear. I don’t know there has ever been a more douche-bag move in the history of television. Well maybe except for whites who refused to appear on the same stage as blacks.
Enough said.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Well, the explanation for this highly amusing and telltale behavior of leading IPCC scientists is easy:
They know their own weak position with regard to climate facts and are heavily afraid of loosing a public debate about their “settled truth”. People who are sure about their position don’t behave this way. But the IPCC proponents have done so much economic damage by their hysterical CAGW scare mongering already, that they fear the inevitable and ignoble end of their career-enhancing anti-CO2 hysteria quite mortally…

Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 6:57 pm

Schmidt did once appear side by side with Spencer’s colleague Christie and suffered being used to mop the floor as a result. Little wonder that he refuses, supposedly upon high falutin’ grounds, but actually out of abject cowardice, to behave like a real scientist and subject his baseless conjectures to criticism based upon reality.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 24, 2015 7:00 pm

Although not actually on the same set:

And only in the safe confines of CNN, not at the cruel, relentless, untender mercy of Stossel.

Reply to  Alx
May 24, 2015 7:59 pm

Here is the Intelligence Squared debate between Lindzen, Crichton and Somerville, versus Gavin Schmidt, Stott, and Ekwurzel.
Needless to say, the skeptics gave Schmidt and his pals the usual hard spanking. And here’s another debate, in which Lord Monckton takes no prisoners.
I have several other similar debates saved, in which the alarmist side gets their heads handed to them by skeptical scientists. Skeptics have won every such debate held in a neutral venue, with a fair, agreed to moderator.
As a result, the alarmist side refuses to debate any more. Instead, they tuck tail and run like Gavin Schmidt did when facing Dr. Roy Spencer.
If a scientist believes in his hypothesis, he should not be afraid to explain it and defend it. Skeptical scientists are not afraid. Alarmist scientists are terrified of debating.
I wonder what Ben Sturgis thinks about that? What’s his excuse for his side’s cowardice?

wakeupmaggy
May 24, 2015 2:29 pm

Who gave Obama the authority to Save the World anyway?
Self appointed emperor of the universe.
A US president is elected to protect the United States, in our own time.

Menicholas
Reply to  wakeupmaggy
May 24, 2015 9:06 pm

He is concerned about his “legacy”.
The strange thing is, most people do not latch onto a sinking ship with both fists when they are thinking about their future.

kokoda
May 24, 2015 2:34 pm

I applaud Dr. Ball and many others for taking a scientific stand against this injustice to humanity.
However, I wish Dr. Ball and the other good guys would realize that most of the opposition doesn’t care a whit about the science of AGW except as a false flag to con the public. Most of them know their science doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and yet the rhetoric doesn’t stop. In order to win, it will take continuing real science and also a means to change the majority of public perception. This means is usually accomplished via the media, but they are captured.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  kokoda
May 24, 2015 10:53 pm

It’s the Chinese Communist Party to the rescue, but not for our sake. They know the truth, but they are letting the scare run because it is working to their advantage.
What have we come to? The end of the Cold War gave us the greatest ever opportunity to make the world a better place, and the leaders of the West have completely blown it by collectively following half a dozen disastrous ideas at once.

Ursus Augustus
May 24, 2015 2:37 pm

What is really bizarre about Obama’s ravings on this subject, and that is what they are, is that he is a lawyer and a former professor of law. What the hell sort of lawyer is raving and vilifying advocates for the defence so to speak?
Can you imagine him raving about defence attorneys as being ‘murder deniers’ and ‘crime deniers’/
We that is effectively wjhat he is doing. He is vilifying people who, not just because they have been engaged to do so life defence attorneys, but who actually believe in their cause and are often working pro bono, are simply articulating an alternative version of events that fits the evidence and fits it somewhat better than the prosecution’s does.
Surely this man is one of Voltaire’s Bastards as John Ralston Saul terms them.

son of mulder
May 24, 2015 2:45 pm

There is no climate change at all. Climate is and has always been chaotic. There have been periods of global warming and there have been periods of global cooling. At present there is global stasis. It has been warmer than now, it has been colder than now. There has been more CO2 and less CO2 in the atmosphere. More sea-ice and less sea-ice, warmer oceans and colder oceans, more rain and less rain, more storms and fewer storms. Which was the best global climate in the last 1M years, which was the worst? Which was the best global climate in the last 1000 years and which was the worst? Which was the best global climate in the last 100 years and which was the worst? Is now the worst global climate, will it be in the next 100 years, 1000 years, 1 M years? Can we really predict this? When have we been best able to mitigate climate related disasters? What gives humanity the power to mitigate climate related disasters? Is it now and into the future with our abundent energy and intelligent use? Would a sensible harbinger of iminent climate catastrophe and catastrophic sealevel rise ever buy an expensive seafront property?

Reply to  son of mulder
May 24, 2015 2:49 pm

Son,
There is climate change and on some time scales it’s demonstrably cyclical.
The climate of earth has been everything from covered with oceans of molten rock to oceans of water ice and in between.

son of mulder
Reply to  sturgishooper
May 24, 2015 3:19 pm

So Europe over the next 100 years, better or worse climate?

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 24, 2015 3:26 pm

If warmer, better. If colder, worse. But probably not enough change to matter much, if sensible energy policies be adopted.
I expect cooler than now for two or three decades, then about as warm as now for two or three decades, then cooler again, but not by much.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 25, 2015 12:51 pm

Seems to me I already answered this question from you. But one more time.
Since colder is worse, the climate of Europe will most likely worsen for about 20 years, then get warmer (ie, better) for around 30 years, then cooler again for a similar interval, then warmer, which gets us to over 100 years.
Please don’t ask me this question again, my having replied twice now.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 25, 2015 12:54 pm

Sorry. My bad. Thought I was commenting on a different blog post.
Too much commenting.

ren
Reply to  son of mulder
May 24, 2015 9:50 pm

As long as falling AMO in Europe colder. That means about 30 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880

nutso fasst
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:15 pm

Everyone is entitled to a climate of their peers.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 4:15 pm

Yessirree, plenty of Klimate Koolade there. Great for brainwashed, True Believers of all stripes.

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 5:50 pm

LMAO

Menicholas
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 9:09 pm

Aah, a picture emerges from the murk. Thanks for clearing up the confusion, Mr. Sturgis.

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 11:07 pm

Isn’t that the paid ‘activists’ propaganda blog, founded and funded by a fraudster? A reliable ‘sauce’ for firm believers AGW, indeed!

nutso fasst
May 24, 2015 3:21 pm

Sayeth the data: “Fudge not, lest ye be smudged.”

May 24, 2015 3:32 pm

When I asked my friend the other day how her yard was affected by the tree coming down, as we are both gardeners and have “microclimates” in our yards, she said, “I don’t know; it’s hard to tell with ‘all this global warming'”……I was so proud of myself for saying nothing. “Silence is the art of communication” 🙂

May 24, 2015 3:35 pm

I like to play stupid and ask people, “why is climate change always a bad thing? Isn’t it ever good, like more rain in dry places or less hurricanes on the eastern seaboard???” I never get a response.

Reply to  Bash Brannigan
May 24, 2015 3:46 pm

There getting the “more rain in dry places” and plenty of tornadoes right now. So if you want to blame the “good” thing on “climate change” you go right ahead.. I don’t have all the facts yet. I’ll keep you informed.

Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 3:51 pm

Ben,
A warmer world should produce fewer tornadoes, not more. In the US, tornadoes result from the temperature differential between warm Gulf air and cooler air coming down from the Northern Plains.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 5:21 pm

I await with bated breath your proclamation.

kim
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 6:49 pm

Baited bread is buttered on both sides.
==========

kim
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 6:51 pm

He’s got a bad case of the extreme weather meme for which there is no data and no cure. Full body immersion in history is sometimes helpful, but he’s got to survive the ordeal.
============

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 8:21 pm

Sometimes they don’t take the bait.

nutso fasst
Reply to  Ben Sturgis
May 24, 2015 9:07 pm

Baited bread is good for kvetching carp.

Reply to  Bash Brannigan
May 25, 2015 8:40 am

What causes nice weather??

pat
May 24, 2015 4:02 pm

Dr. Ball should have a weekly syndicated column in the MSM because he is able to communicate the absurdity of CAGW to lay people in terms they understand.
however, the MSM would never allow it. there’s the rub.

Brute
May 24, 2015 4:18 pm

The closing quote is the key element of the post:
“Every emancipation has in it the seeds of a new slavery…”
We know that there is little science to AGW. It’s a political issue. Once it loses traction, it will be disposed of… and replaced with a fresh set of nonsense.
Considering the damage of AGW policies to humanity (this far), we should be paying some attention to the “new slavery” to come because come it will.
Thank you, Dr. Ball.

Philip Arlington
Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 10:47 pm

Green fundamentalism as a whole is likely to expire because its two fundamental causes (Western guilt and rapid population growth) are approaching their expiry date because the West is losing economic supremacy and global population growth is slowing down.
The thing that worries me is that the next problem we manufacture might be real. Something to do with artificial intelligence or genetics. People are useless at forseeing the drawbacks of technology.

Brute
Reply to  Philip Arlington
May 25, 2015 4:12 pm

I’m afraid the lack of foresight is much worse than that.

May 24, 2015 4:19 pm

I hope California is ready for floods. Do you think they have thought that far ahead?

knr
May 24, 2015 4:24 pm

It has been a long time irony that when it comes to denying climate change Mann’s infamous stick is based on denying past climate change for in this work he tired to disappear the MWP and the little ice age.
And yet this work has become an central part of the CAGW dogma which means that despite its many errors it must be defended no matter what. Which tells you much about the nature of this dogma.

hsaive
May 24, 2015 4:34 pm

[Please do not discuss chemtrails here, per site Policy. — mod.]

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  hsaive
May 24, 2015 4:36 pm

Hoo boy. Break out the tinfoil.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 25, 2015 8:38 am

I’ve always thought whale oil should be used as jet fuel.( Only from the cutest whales.)
It’s not petroleum and It’s renewable.

nutso fasst
Reply to  hsaive
May 24, 2015 4:54 pm

Of course. Byproducts of burning kerosene create contrails when atmospheric conditions are favorable. And studies show how the cirrus clouds that result cause surface warming.
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04140_clouds_climate.html
Expect a bump in temperature from COP 21.

kim
Reply to  hsaive
May 24, 2015 6:47 pm

It doesn’t seem difficult to regulate climate with clouds. Nature does it, all we have to do is simulate nature a little better than we can now.
And I know this Russian lady who does the Malaguena. She’s a knock-out show.
================

nutso fasst
Reply to  kim
May 25, 2015 7:06 am

“Russian lady who does the Malaguena…”
Does she stimulate nature?

kim
Reply to  kim
May 25, 2015 12:37 pm

And how. Yes, just how?
======

Reply to  kim
May 25, 2015 12:48 pm

I didn’t know there was a dance called the Malagueña. There is a style of music by that name and a number of songs.
And there is the briefly (thank God!) popular dance song the Macarena by Los del Rio, the craze for which lasted just long enough for some young Latinas to be saddled with that name. And for attendees at the 1996 Democratic presidential nominating convention to make fools of themselves trying to perform it.

nutso fasst
Reply to  hsaive
May 24, 2015 9:10 pm

Is anyone tracking the effect of Colorado on downwind weather?

Reply to  nutso fasst
May 25, 2015 8:31 am

It’s always been cloudy in Colorado.
It’s just that now It’s legal.

Derek Colman
May 24, 2015 4:54 pm

The warmists try to associate climate sceptics with the scientists that denied smoking causes lung cancer, which is highly amusing. Those scientists paid by Big Tobacco were pushing an argument without evidence, and with a body of evidence against it. Now who does that remind me of? It reminds me of the scientists paid by Big Government to push a theory with no evidence, but a body of evidence against it.

ferdberple
Reply to  Derek Colman
May 24, 2015 7:40 pm

Good point. Scientists were corrupted by money in support of tobacco. Now scientists are corrupted by government in support of climate.
It is the Scientists that have a history of corruption for money. Why should anyone believe them?

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 24, 2015 6:12 pm

Holdren/Kerry/Obama are trying to set the stage for the new totalitarian state.

Brute
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 24, 2015 6:14 pm

No, they are not. The rhetoric is getting out of hand.

kim
Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 6:44 pm

Heh, it’s all over but for the fat lady, and the encores unto farce.
===========

Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 8:41 pm

Brute– No…. You are incorrect.
Leftists have made it VERY clear that CAGW was designed to be the conduit through which the UN, central and local governments and/or government organizations will implement command and control policies, which will have huge impacts on how humans live: where we can live, how much energy we can use, how much water we’re allocated, what we can eat, what we can drive, land use, zoning laws, what type of energy is available, what can be built on private property, massive EPA regulations, massive global wealth redistribution through carbon taxes/subsidies, etc.
Just read UN’s Agenda 21, and also see all the EPA rules and regulations that are being implemented under the auspices of CAGW to appreciate how CAGW is ALREADY being used to implement massive rules, regulations, mandates, taxes, subsidies, through local and federal government polices.

Andrew Richards
Reply to  Brute
May 24, 2015 9:25 pm

Yes, they are. The rhetoric (‘propaganda’ fits much better) is straight out of NAZI Germany. There are no nations in the World at this time that cannot be accurately described as fascist of the national socialistic type. except perhaps North Korea, which maintains strict Maoist-type communism (another form of socialism). You need to wake-up to reality and read some history books (and some economics books).

Jtom
Reply to  Brute
May 25, 2015 9:32 am

It sounds to me like Obama would like to hold skeptics guilty of endangering national security, and lock us up. Perhaps that is just his desire and not his plan, but it certainly makes him look like a totalitarian-wannabe.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
May 24, 2015 9:03 pm

Another example of why you hire professionals for the top jobs.

chembro2
May 24, 2015 7:17 pm

There is no such thing as climate change scientifically speaking – period – end of story.
But wait how could any reasonable person say such a thing? Everybody has heard of climate change; everyone is talking about climate change; it’s on the news; it’s in the press; it’s in print, even the President of the United States says that climate change is real. So how can I say that there is no such thing as climate change scientifically speaking?
That’s simple – because you’ve all been duped by a play on words – it’s called ‘word magic’. And just because everyone is saying it doesn’t make it true.
Let me explain. Scientifically speaking we have ‘climate variation’ not ‘climate change’. You see climate variation is scientific terminology whereas climate change is political terminology.
Climate variation is a real scientific term that both accurately and objectively describes the cyclical nature of climate. Climate change is a manufactured political term that’s subjectively applied by the user to evoke an emotional response from their audience. Scientists that are claiming there is climate change or who are using the term climate change in their ‘peer reviewed’ scientific studies and writings need to be called out for using such unscientific, unprofessional and inaccurate terminology.
President Obama has over-stepped his intellect. He has repetitively stated that ‘the facts are in’,and ‘97% of Climate Scientists are in agreement’, and ‘the debate is over’. What a flaming ass. No scientific matter is ever over until your theory has become a law – and climate change is still a raging debate with no conclusion in site.
As for those 97%, well maybe someone needs to tell the President there is no such thing as a Climate Scientist. you cannot go to college and become a Climate Scientist and it is NOT a recognized professional title by any scientific organization. It’s been made up by those who have a political agenda. Sorry Mr. President you have your facts all wrong and we can see your progressive slip showing. Oh…and you’re still an ass. A…progressive…ass!

richard verney
Reply to  chembro2
May 25, 2015 4:17 am

Well said. I have a comment presently stuck in moderation on a similar theme.
The mistake here is that because climate naturally changes that people consider that climate change is real. The misconception is that change in and of itself is not climate change, nor evidence of climate change. That is a subtle, but very material distinction which does not appear to be sufficiently recognised and/or understood.
Any change which is within the bounds of natural variation is precisely what climate itself is.
I emphasise that any change within the bounds of natural variation is not climate change.
The real issue is why are we letting warmists define climate on a 30 year span? What is the scientific justification for this? Why isn’t climate defined and assessed on the basis of a much longer period such as 100, or 300 or even a 1000 years? That is a legitimate scientific question that needs to be addressed and answered.
If there are natural cycles of periodicity (which appear to be the case although the jury is still out), why is not this period included in the length/duration over which climate is assessed/to be assessed?

dave jones
Reply to  chembro2
May 26, 2015 3:28 pm

what about becoming a climatologist?

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
May 24, 2015 7:29 pm

Well. For the IPCC there was never any doubt.
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
In the Psychopathic Mind of the IPCC Humans ARE the agents of Cause Climate Change and Weather on Earth!
A corn crop fails in Kansas: The Humans Did It!
A potato crop fails in Ukraine: The Humans Did It.
A Hurricane batters New Orleans: The Humans Did It.
Your child’s tooth is decayed: Humans Did It.
Emperor Bon Ki-Moon, UN, Wolfenstein High Command in NYC calling Field Marshal Angela Dorothea Markel in Germany: “We will need 300 sarin death camps to achieve the required culling. Can you DO IT!
Markel: Sig Heil Mein Fuhrer. My Wurm Is For Your Baby.

May 24, 2015 8:17 pm

For leftist political scoundrels that are more interested in political agendas than scientific truth, “Climate Change” is semantically the best term to use to assure “The Cause” continues as long as possible, because “climate change” is non-nulifiable….
For the past 4.5 billion years, global climate has always been “changing”. For leftists, both rising and FALLING global temperatures have been blamed on manmade CO2 levels…. Trying to disconfirm “Climate Change” is like trying to nail mercury to the wall… It can’t be done.
It’s also hilarious to see leftists ranking years rather than dealing with the reality that global temp trends have been flat for almost 20 years…
Ranking years is statistics for children, as It provides almost NO information. It’s equivalent to a 40 year-old man saying he’s still growing for 20 out of the last 20 years, he’s been at his tallest height…. Hey, he can even show a linear increasing trend line from age 13 to 40, which “proves” he’s still growing!!… How childish…
I can’t believe more people can’t see through this charade.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle in disconfirming the CAGW hypothesis is that so many “scientific” organizations still show tacit (often explicit) support of the CAGW hypothesis….
I think once the 25-year mark of flat/falling/static/slightly rising threshold passes, a number of directors of these organizations will finally HAVE TO give up supporting the CAGW hypothesis. If current trends continue for another 5~7 years, CAGW model projections will be 3+ standard deviations off from reality for over a quarter of century, which will make it impossible for these scientific organizations to support CAGW and not risk crossing the line of malfeasance of public funds, which is an actionable criminal offense.
Leftists will NOT risk criminal lawsuits and politicians will not risk losing votes over CAGW.

Philip Arlington
May 24, 2015 10:43 pm

So few people understand what ad hominem originally and properly means that the only way the confusion could be ended is to retire the phrase (most people think it is a synonym for *personal attack” using which makes them sound intelligent), but the definition you quote is one of the worst I have seen from a (presumably) “reputable” source.
Apart from that, a useful article.

jim heath
May 24, 2015 10:53 pm

Atmosfear sucks

Streetcred
May 25, 2015 1:29 am

There’s another group of true ignoramus, the “it’s for the children” mob … probably covered in this explanation, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/23/why-its-so-hard-to-convince-warmists/

Streetcred
May 25, 2015 1:29 am

There’s another group of true ignoramus, the “it’s for the children” mob … probably covered in this explanation, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/23/why-its-so-hard-to-convince-warmists/

Chris Wright
May 25, 2015 2:20 am

If you think about it, the straight shaft of the Hockey Stick is the very essence of climate change denial.
Chris

Robert Stevenson
May 25, 2015 2:26 am

Global warming morphed into climate change and carbon dioxide into carbon. The latter was more significant because school science teaching the carbon (dioxide) cycle in nature labelled all living things as villains for breathing and plants not helpful by converting carbon dioxide into plant cell growth through photosynthesis – not even mentioning chemical conversion of CO2 into carbonates bicarbonates in seawater.

May 25, 2015 3:22 am

Assuming the obvious, that global warming will cause direct melting of polar ice caps, let’s look at the RATE of sea level increase since the mid-1800s. Google the data with this search: Battery NOAA Sea Level. The chart will show a strict linear trend of increase, not the least bit influenced by the world population increase from 1 billion to 7 billion since the beginning of that chart. Given that burning of hydrocarbons MUST have increased at least an order of magnitude in that time, the data completely mitigated against any influence of man on sea level rise and thus global warming.

richard verney
May 25, 2015 3:51 am

The more I think about it, the more I consider myself to be a climate change denier.
The problem here is what is climate. Everyone accepts that climate is not an absolute and constantly changes and indeed has been changing ever since the Earth developed an atmosphere and oceans.
Given that climate is constantly in flux and constantly changes, it means that change by itself is not climate change nor evidence of climate change.
Further, temperaature is merely one parameter amongst many that go to define what climate is.
The issue as I see it is twofold. First, that the planet, on a global basis, only has 3 climatic states, glacial, inter glacial and nearly ice free. The concept of global warming or global climate is farcical and misconceived since climate, at any given time, is regional not global. So too with warming; some parts of the globe appear to be warming, some appear to be cooling, and some parts appear to be undergoing little change in temperature.
Second, what is climate? To me climate is not and cannot properly be defined over a short period, such as 30 years, and is something to be measured and assessed on a multi-centenial if not millenial time scale. Climate consists of many parameters each of which have bounds, ie., an upper and lower bound. Claimate constantly meanders between the upper and lower level of each of these bounds, and may for many many years be at or towards the upper limit of the bound, or the lower liommit of the bound, or somewhere in between. That can be lengthy periods of warmth, or coolness, or drought, or floods, or snow, or little or no snow, storms, or little or no storms, of high winds, or little or no wind, the length and start/end of the seasons may meander a little such that for example winter may onset later (or earlier) and come to an end sooner (or later), but none of that is climate change.
In otherwords, natural change/variation is what climate is, and this is not in itself climate change. If this natural variation is to be measured on a multicentenial (or even millenial) basis rather than an artifically short (and an absurdly short one given that the globe is some 4 billion years old) period such as 30 years, then there has been no climate change in my life.
Indeed, as I often note, I am unaware of any region/country that has undergone climate change these past 50 or so years in the sense that it has changed its Koppen (or equivalent) classification. When this clasification was made there were some areas/regions that were on the cusp of two climate regimes and these areas.regions are still on the cusp of such.
The debate has been skewed by allowing the warmist to define climate as some 30 year norm. What is the scientific justification for such? That is a key element of this debate.
It is necessary to retake the ground that natural variation occupies, and the implication of such before one can even begin to consider what recent observational data is telling us about the climate system on planet Earth how it behaves and how it responds to changes in the composition of the atmosphere, and solar insolation (both TSI, and variations in composition, and variations in clouds), and albedo.

May 25, 2015 6:26 am

Over and over again, there’s this pigheaded idea that one could argue with armed robbers, and that’s the only thing we can or should do.
Socialists and environmental thieves are armed robbers. How do you fight an armed robber? By endlessly discussing his “terminology”?
Israel doesn’t discuss much a question of Europeans attacking “Jews” or “Israel.” Their policy is based on the assumption that behind any attack on Israel is rabid Jew-hatred, deep-rooted in Christian myths and in the desperate need to find any scapegoat that is weak and/or far away, instead of pointing the blaming finger at yourself.
Israel’s policy is realistic, and that’s why it is successful — in the most antagonistic surroundings.
Fight the green fascism: fight it with everything you got. You will never convince a robber to stop the robbery.

Ann Banisher
May 25, 2015 7:15 am

Global warming, climate change, climate disruption
If the science is settled, how come the name for it isn’t?

May 25, 2015 8:59 am

There is no such thing as a single planetary climate. As Richard Verney says [May 25, 2015 at 3:51 am]:

The issue as I see it is twofold. First, that the planet, on a global basis, only has 3 climatic states, glacial, inter glacial and nearly ice free. The concept of global warming or global climate is farcical and misconceived since climate, at any given time, is regional not global. So too with warming; some parts of the globe appear to be warming, some appear to be cooling, and some parts appear to be undergoing little change in temperature. . .

From The Galactic Atlas of Habitable Planets:

The third planet from the sun Sol is called ‘Terra’ (or ‘The Earth’, sometimes worshipped by the inhabitants as a female goddess called ‘Gaia’). It is a world covered about 70% by water oceans, with an atmosphere composed primarily of nitrogen, plus oxygen and water vapor, and trace gases including carbon dioxide, required by most flora on the planet, despite its slight occurance (only 4 parts per million). The planet travels in an eliptical orbit around its sun, a yellow midlife star; it rotates speedily (once every 24 hours) about an axis inclined 23º from the ecliptic; the result is a good deal of seasonal variation in temperature which becomes dramatic as one travels from the equator north or south. Diurnal temperatures vary as well. Scientist George E. Smith writes [May 24, 2015 at 1:25 pm]

Right now the Temperature on Earth is somewhere between about -94 deg. C (179.15 K) and about + 60 deg. C (333.15 K) , and I for one would not be too happy if it goes too far outside of that range for any appreciable length of time.

These are extreme limits; much of the Terran land mass is suitable for human habitation, given adequate garments and dwellings and associated technology; however, the areas where unprotected humans may live comfortably are relatively few. The generally salubrious planet is occupied by a plethora of macroscopic flora and fauna, and an equal variety of microscopic life, some varieties widespread and others adapted to specific regions and localities, including the fertile seas.
Given the orbital eccentricities and other variations in land height, ocean depth, and atmospheric conditions, Terra must be considered a bewildering congeries of climatic regions, from sandy deserts to tropical jungles, from beaucolic seas to icy, storm-swept crags, and everything in between. Unlike the fourth planet in the system, called ‘Mars’, which exhibits a rather stark uniformity over its mostly barren landscape, the interstellar traveler will find on Terra a wide variety of landscapes, seascapes, and habitable regions much influenced by the occupants busily farming and building, adding to what nature has already provided.
In past geological epochs, much of Terra has been warmer than today, with consequent gigantism in fauna and flora, and more recently considerably colder, with polar ice sheets expanding far beyond current extant. The causes of these changes are the subject of much speculation, but presently remain unknown. . .

/Mr Lynn

ferdinand
May 25, 2015 9:51 am

I see people are no calling alarmists DBs – Deaf to reason, blind to facts.

Reply to  ferdinand
May 25, 2015 10:47 am

Don’t let Mr. Stealey hear that.
;-}

fhsiv
May 25, 2015 10:41 am

Have they ever documented the so called tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly? That was part of their original story telling. Seems to me that any surface warming without tropospheric warming is game over, go home and back to the drawing board?

Reply to  fhsiv
May 25, 2015 10:49 am

The Tropospheric Warm Zone was hypothesized to be a fingerprint of CO2 based warming. When it could not be found, the Modellers should have re-worked their hypothesis. They did not.
The Scientific Method was abandoned. Then and there, it stopped being about science.

May 25, 2015 12:30 pm

I would say the climate change, that has been in part generated by humans, had taken already a big toll. And it also costed a lot of money, spent with intention or circumstantially. I believe that oceans represent the second most important factor, after the sun, that is influencing climate and that it’s important to discuss about oceans and how our activity on the sea lead to climate change.

Reply to  smamarver
May 25, 2015 12:39 pm

The toll taken by “climate change” has been from idiotic public policy based upon the myth of primarily man-made global warming. Humans do affect the weather in some localities, but not enough to have a measurable effect on global temperature. No anthropogenic signal is detectable in the small amount of global climate change over the past century, fifty years or whatever unit of time you chose to use since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century.

Reply to  sturgishooper
May 25, 2015 12:49 pm

The oceans affected by naval and merchant ships operating and sailing the seas back and forth should have been the hottest topic in the debate on climate change since meteorology was established as a science in the late 19th century. Instead of that, oceans were ignored up to the late 20th century and not even today do they enjoy the significant position they deserve. Oceans are, as I mentioned before, a decisive climatic force, the second after the sun. I emphasize with the idea that Naval War had a great impact in the climate change. I suggest visiting http://www.1ocean-1climate.com to read more about this thesis.