Oh, Mann, that’s gotta hurt!

This book, Climate Change: The Facts of which I’m a co-author, is becoming a powerhouse on Amazon, here are the latest numbers as they compare to Dr. Michael Mann’s new book.

Climate Change: The Facts

#1 in Environment! and #74 in All Books! 

Details here

cctf-amazon-rank amazon-environment-bestsellersAnd #1 in Climatology too!

amazon-climatology

#82,090 in Books
mann-book-amazon
 
Get your copy here: (available on Kindle, backordered AVAILABLE AGAIN in hard copy)
Advertisements

396 thoughts on “Oh, Mann, that’s gotta hurt!

      • Anti-human, anti-African, anti-poor, anti-capitalist, trough-feeding bureaucrat, Lesbian (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), mass murderess of global proportions, so Mikey Mann is in good company.

      • Her sexuality is neither relevant nor well-defined.

        Stick to criticisms of her work. It is well-defined and has had a net negative effect on the world.

      • @sturgishopper
        Agreed above, you wouldn’t use the label if you weren’t trying to infer suspicion and negativity with it. Doing that is degrading to everyone. As sceptics of AGW we should be familiar with the unfairness of narrow minded, lazy broad-brush stigmatisation and ‘poisoned wells’ and you should know better.

        Can’t seem to get the book in the UK yet – anyone have any idea of a release date?

      • M Courtney
        June 10, 2015 at 1:09 am

        […] Stick to criticisms of her work. It is well-defined and has had a net negative effect on the world.

        I haven’t read Silent Spring in its entirety, but my recollection is that she did not call for an outright ban on DDT, but rather recommended its wise use.

        In regards to the pesticide DDT, Carson never actually called for an outright ban. Part of the argument she made in Silent Spring was that even if DDT and other insecticides had no environmental side effects, their indiscriminate overuse was counter-productive because it would create insect resistance to the pesticide(s), making the pesticides useless in eliminating the target insect populations:

        No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story—the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting.

        […]
        Many critics repeatedly asserted that she was calling for the elimination of all pesticides. Yet Carson had made it clear she was not advocating the banning or complete withdrawal of helpful pesticides, but was instead encouraging responsible and carefully managed use with an awareness of the chemicals’ impact on the entire ecosystem. In fact, she concludes her section on DDT in Silent Spring not by urging a total ban, but with advice for spraying as little as possible to limit the development of resistance.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson

      • “Carson concluded that DDT and other pesticides had irrevocably harmed birds and animals and had contaminated the entire world food supply. The book’s most haunting and famous chapter, “A Fable for Tomorrow,” depicted a nameless American town where all life — from fish to birds to apple blossoms to human children — had been “silenced” by the insidious effects of DDT.

        “http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/hcarson.asp

        With words like “irrevocably” and “contaminated the entire world,” Carson reminds me of climate alarmists. It would be hard for me to believe that a person who believed such things did not want to ban DDT outright.

      • Ah, Wikipedia as a source of verity. And I assume that the ban on DDT was just another example of implementation of the precautionary principle.

      • Louis Hunt
        June 10, 2015 at 8:55 am

        With words like “irrevocably” and “contaminated the entire world,” Carson reminds me of climate alarmists. It would be hard for me to believe that a person who believed such things did not want to ban DDT outright.

        If you are going to quote Rachel Carson, please use her words, and not the words of the reviewer.

        As it happens, The chapter you mentioned “A Fable for Tomorrow” is available online, although with a couple typos, errant pastes, and such, but I could not find the word “irrevocably” in there, nor the phrase “contaminated the entire world,” even though the first part of the chapter is an acknowledged “fable,”

        http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI3222/carson.html

        Rachel Carson did write this, in the referenced chapter:

        Since the mid-1940’s over 200 basic chemicals have been created for use in killing insects, weeds, rodents, and other organisms described in the modem vernacular as “pests”; and they are sold under several thousand different brand names.

        These sprays, dusts, and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests, and homes nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the “good” and the “bad,” to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams, to coat the leaves with a deadly film, and to linger on in soil all this though the intended target may be only a few weeds or insects. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called “insecticides,” but “biocides.”

        The whole process of spraying seems caught up in an endless spiral. Since DDT was released for civilian use, a process of escalation has been going on in which ever more toxic materials must be found. This has happened because insects, in a triumphant vindication of Darwin’s principle of the survival of the fittest, have evolved super races immune to the particular insecticide used, hence a deadlier one has always to be developed and then a deadlier one than that. It has happened also because, for reasons to be described later, destructive insects often undergo a “flareback,” or resurgence, after spraying, in numbers greater than before. Thus the chemical war is never won, and all life is caught in its violent crossfire.

      • M Courtney
        June 10, 2015 at 1:09 am

        Carson’s sexuality is not irrelevant. As a non-breeder, it was arguably easier for her to accept the deaths of tens of millions or more people if that disaster would, as she imagined it, save the planet’s other life forms which she loved more than her fellow humans.

      • sturgishooper, that’s a long stretch.
        It’s not clear she ever knew she was a non-breeder or that she wanted to be.
        Or that, if she did, she would have any more empathy for birds than her friends’ babies.

        Psychoanalysis is hard to do on someone in front of you. This is asking for too much faith in our ability to know the woman.

        I’m sceptical. Stick to what we know.

      • MC,

        When she wrote Silent Spring toward the end of her life, she knew she was a non-breeder and had already adopted the attitude toward humanity which her book helped spawn more widely.

        She and her last lover burnt most of their letters, a la Eleanor Roosevelt and hers, but enough of them survive to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt what her sexual orientation was.

      • not sure how people are saying she’s not calling for a ban… Steve P wiki post is pretty clear she wants an outright ban but doesn’t think she could be successful… thus crouch the language to still ban it but make it seem a reasonable ban.

        If blacks were banned from votes except as little as possible people would say its a bad and racist… but yet she’s not calling for a ban…. yeah right its clear she wants a complete ban.

    • “The effects of DDT removal on Sri Lanka, for example, were devastating. After less than twenty years of DDT use, Sri Lanka had lowered malaria cases from 3 Million to a mere 17. DDT killed mosquitoes and other carriers of malaria as well as lowering food prices by protecting crops from pests. In spite of these gains in food production and life expectancy, DDT was branded a danger rather than a savior and was banned. Within five years after the ban, Sri Lankan malaria deaths had climbed all the way back up to 2 million per year.”

      https://books.google.com/books?id=NjPhv02qvbMC&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=P.+J.+O%27rourke+DDT&source=bl&ots=uNOs-fM3lp&sig=hp2LRWb4Ak0qIAS9ajiAsy71zO8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OapxVZqvL8OBygSq-4HoDQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=P.%20J.%20O'rourke%20DDT&f=false

      • 2 million a year, just in Sri Lanka? Multiply that by X years and then chuck in untold millions in countries impacted by malaria in the rest of the world to reach an unimaginably high total: is there a case for saying Rachel Carson is responsible for more human deaths than any other single person who ever lived?

      • Wikipedia states population of Sri Lanka is approx. 20 million. The quoted figure of two million deaths per year is clearly wrong (P J O’Rourke being his usual and delightful provocative self) as Sri Lanka would be entirely depopulated in eleven years

      • P.J. O’Rourke cites zoology professor Dixy Lee Ray’s book “Trashing the Planet” for a figure of about 1,000,000. The UN puts the figure at 500,000 for the worst year. Back in the 1990s the maximum was about 210,000. The death rate has been decreasing since then. Sri Lanka is on the path to totally eliminating malaria.

        The population of Sri Lanka is about twenty million. Two million malaria deaths would be ten percent of the population. If that were the real rate, Sri Lanka would be almost completely depopulated by now.

        Notwithstanding the above, the folks responsible for the DDT ban do have the death of millions of children to account for.

      • imho, not “malaria deaths” but “malaria cases” …

        I found these numbers so spectacular that I looked a bit furher … this is also part of the human sciences, and numbers don’t mean the same thing as in the exact sciences …

        see e.g. also http://www.malariajournal.com/content/13/1/59 with different numbers …

      • In Sri Lanka, malaria deaths went from 2.8 million in 1948 down to 17 in 1964 due to the use of DDT.
        Following the ban DDT by 1969, death rates were back up to 2.5 million. In addition DDT was replaced by pesticides that are often much more toxic to humans. Many environmentalists dismiss or minimize these concerns. For example, Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was asked if the DDT ban led to loss of human life. His reply was “Probably … so what? People are the causes of all the problems; we have too many of them.” He has since retracted his statement.

      • “Silent Spring” got me interested in pollution and pesticide control 50 years ago. One of the first term papers I wrote was on “organophosphate” issues rather than “organochlorines” (eg. DDT). Many people worried about the “persistence” of organochlorines rather than the toxicity of organophosphates (eg. Sarin).

        The positive aspect of “Silent Spring” , in spite of much of its incorrect information, is that it made people aware of the need for careful use of pesticides and herbicides. I believe almost all of the compounds are still being used though generally restricted to agriculture and professional use as it generally should be. (I am not against the use of these products by the way. I have several types in my farm shed along with proper personal protective equipment.)

      • Hmmnn…….

        WHO figures, which are a bit rubbery, estimate total world wide deaths from malaria at between 470,000 and 790,000 in 2012. 90% of deaths were in Sub-Saharan Africa
        http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/

        Official deaths from malaria in Sri Lanka in 2011 …….none
        http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/ghg/country-briefings/sri-lanka.pdf

        It’s a bit more complicated than use, or not, of DDT

        Note – morbidity means ill or diseased, not death

      • AFAIK, DDT is not even an insecticide, but a repellant which operates by disabling the scent-localizing circuitry of the antennae, such that insects avoid its influence (by departing). It is thus not actually a poison.

    • I presume you mean in the “Books > Engineering & Transportation > Engineering > Civil & Environmental > Environmental” section (where its actually #6 right now). Which has a very tiny sales number (and Anthony’s book is not in competition there – or in any subsection of Amazon, for that matter). You forgot to mention that it is #1 and #2 – in two of the enviro-cult sections.

      In All Books – its sitting at #2,542; far below Anthony’s. (Now, considering that the half-life of an Amazon ranking would, if it were radioactive, have me getting out the lead shielding and waldos – that’s not too bad. I’d be interested to see what it would rank at if released today, though.)

      • Thank you for the info.

        Since you seem keen on numbers… how do you get your head around the fact that this website is so popular and yet we are told it runs on a shoestring budget? I mean, shouldn’t ads be bringing in thousands of dollars?

        I’ve been wondering for a while about this and would appreciate some light on the issue.

      • Brute

        You say

        how do you get your head around the fact that this website is so popular and yet we are told it runs on a shoestring budget? I mean, shouldn’t ads be bringing in thousands of dollars?

        Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this website can bring in “thousands of dollars” from advertising.

        Many would like to know and I am certain that the host of this website would appreciate the information.

        Of course, I am asking for practical information that anyone can understand, and I am NOT asking for more arm-waving assertions about what some anonymous idiot on the web cannot get his/her/their head around.

        Richard

      • @richardscourtney

        Please don’t flip out. There is already enough paranoia going around. I am asking a question.

        There are ads on this site and there are supposed to be more than a million visitors per month. It has to bring revenue. A lot of revenue. I don’t know how much. That’s why I’m asking. My guess is based on my experience with much less popular sites and thousands of dollars is a low figure. I could be wrong, of course. Please feel free to provide a better figure.

      • Brute, no-one knows that answer except those for whom it is personal information, so I googled it.
        It seems that you can make $100,000 a year from ads if you have 100,000 distinct visitors a day.

        I doubt there are near that many distinct visitors each day – from the distinct number of commenters I see. But the earnings per ad may be higher than average as this is a distinctive site catering to those who are well educated.

        So my guess is that this site takes in about $100k per annum (less costs to run it).

        Being the biggest means that it probably does provide a nice little earner.
        But not enough to change your lifestyle unless you were on the breadline in the first place.

      • @M Courtney

        Thank you.

        [ based on the URL in the email, you might ask if “Brute” would like to share his earnings info from the “tens of thousands” of users that have downloaded his software -mod]

      • Brute

        You say to me

        Please don’t flip out. There is already enough paranoia going around. I am asking a question.

        You provided a smear and not a question. Others have refuted that smear.

        I did ask a question of you; viz.

        Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how this website can bring in “thousands of dollars” from advertising.

        Many would like to know and I am certain that the host of this website would appreciate the information.

        Of course, I am asking for practical information that anyone can understand, and I am NOT asking for more arm-waving assertions about what some anonymous idiot on the web cannot get his/her/their head around.

        As anticipated, you responded with arm-waving assertions.

        Please answer my question or apologise for having presented an unfounded smear.

        Richard

      • So if Anthony chose a WordPress “paid” plan for $300 he could eliminate these offensive ads? I’ll chip in… But does this also mean Anthony doesn’t receive dollars for these ads, just free space?

      • carbon, I believe it is based on volume. For low volume sites, accepting the ads just gives you free service.
        As your volume increases, you get a cut of ad revenue, the greater the volume, the greater the cut.

      • Rachel Carson’s book has been around since 1967 or so- 47 years.

        As far as ads go I see one on this page for the book announced in the headline.

        The real point is that people are obviously visiting this site and buying the book to learn something. With Climate Change: the Facts at #1 in category and Mann’s book down around 82.000 it tells me that facts are much more sought after than paying for propaganda- I get that everyday from the news media and the government. Shades of George Orwel’s book Animal Farm. It still does quite well on Amazon considering its age and subject. It’s pretty to the point on the current political climate.

    • I’m just hanging this here so there’s some reply buttons…

      Context: the precautionary principle as loosely related to Pascal’s Wager, both of which suggest avoiding distant future doom by obeying an Authority right now.

      sturgishooper says “Protestant theology values the act of faith. If the existence of God and divinity of His Son were obvious based upon reason and evidence, belief would have no value.”

      Some sects place excessive weight upon “blind faith” but I suggest it is not actually part of the religion but rather a strategy designed to avoid too-close inspection of any particular doctrine or sect. Global warmists do manifest a similar theme expressed eloquently in Wizard of Oz: “Ignore than man behind the curtain.”

      The brand of religion I favor places emphasis upon action; charity specifically. What is in your mind is invisible and irrelevant; what matters is what you DO. If that suggests “Mormon” to your mind; give yourself a golden star. Attitude certainly has a place, but I will be judged by what I do. It is fortunate that I will not be judged on blind faith, for mine is not blind; I know some things for sure. None of my faith is blind.

      So it is with the more intelligent among both warmists and skeptics — the “show me” crowd. These can still be misled by careful choice of what is shown, but at least they are willing to be shown and will look at the evidence.

      The book being discussed (on the rare occasion the thread returns to topic) shows aspects of the debate less frequently shown. It reveals the man behind the curtain.

      • Actually “justification by faith alone” is at the center of Protestant theology, as per Luther’s reference to blinding your reason. Calvin carried it even further.

        Protestantism was founded in the moment of Luther’s “blinding” insight into passages in Romans, which led him to formulate the doctrine of “sola fide” (by faith alone), which still distinguishes most Protestant denominations from the beliefs of Roman and Orthodox Catholicism, which emphasize “works”, as per your belief.

        Although sola fide is arguably less central to Mormonism than to Protestant denominations, it nevertheless is an LDS doctrine:

        http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55881-is-sola-fide-consistent-with-mormonism/

    • Congratulations for the authors of “Climate Change The Facts”. But don’t forget: The real contest is not “Watts & co vs Mann” but “Watts & co vs Naomi Klein”. Her book “This changes everything” is not far behind in the climate ranking and will have a big impact on the radicalization of the true CAGW believers.

      Thus, the battle is not over yet. Keep ready for a long fight…

      • I have a feeling that being an approved intellectual and marxist, Naomi’s book is being purchased by students that are forced to read it.

  1. Glad my Kindle purchase of this book helped obtain a great statistic.
    Mann O Mann, what is he going to do now? Looks like he will be left with a lot of paper for fire starter or did he do the right thing and published only in E format?

  2. I bought “Climate Change, the Facts”, as edited by Alan Moran. Have just now compared that with Michael Mann’s book, as shown in the Amazon list. In that book (correct me if I am wrong) I can find no scientific references; only “Glossary, Index and Picture Credits/Author Acknowledgements”; whereas Moran’s book has 50 pages of references to scientific papers behind statements in each chapter.

    Doesn’t that indicate a lot??

    • Wash your mouth out…eh, I mean, rinse your pen, no, scrub your fingers, beg forgiveness…..Mann considers himself a deity, far beyond any requirement to supply a bibliography. Since when do pulpit bangers need refs particularly as we’d likely not have got through them by the time the end is nigh?

    • Um, what? My hard copy of Michael Mann’s book has its Notes section beginning on page 265 and ending on 371. That’s over a 100 pages, and much of that is for giving references.

      • Nevermind that comment. I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago. I haven’t even looked at the newer one.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        You say

        Nevermind that comment. I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago. I haven’t even looked at the newer one.

        Congratulations! On WUWT you have long last admitted to have done something sensible; i.e. you have not bothered to read a book by the ludicrous Michael Mann.

        Richard

      • Brandon,
        You said; “I somehow forgot this post talks about Mann’s newest book which came out recently, not the far more popular one that came out a few years ago.”

        I’d like to reassure you as regards your apparently terrible memory.
        You didn’t forget that it was about his new book, you never took in that detail in the first place.
        Possibly, haste caused by zeal.

      • I couldn’t find the comment leader for this so I’ll hang it here…

        Context: discussion of who “we” are than can know with certainty the Earth will warm by 2030 (if it does anything that is, a separate discussion).

        Brandon says “there are plenty of people who could count as ‘we.’ For instance, there is myself and everyone else who agrees we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030.”

        I am fascinated by this phenomenon. A we-ist cannot help himself. He’s a drone in a hive-mind. Even while explaining “we” he uses “we”. We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. You have no idea how many people, if any besides yourself, are in any instance of “we” nor does it matter. I am corresponding with Brandon and you are corresponding with me. Whether anyone else on Earth believes exactly as you do, or as I do, is irrelevant. Stay focused — right here, right now, just you and me.

        Brandon writes “we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030″

        Then let me give all of you a few reasons:

        1. Asteroid collision — could make Earth a LOT cooler!
        2. Nuclear winter
        3. Sufficient volcanic activity; but the added CO2 competes with SO2 so its hard to say the net effect.
        4. Solar variation.
        5. Running out of fuel so the whole idea of “business as usual” is absurd on its face.

        And so on. Doubtless more exist. Now you have some reasons to allow for the possibility of the Earth cooling in 2030. Unlikely; but possible.

        Brandon continues: “As for whether or not we can know this to be true, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge”

        There is no “we”. I know some things with absolute certainty. Cogito ergo sum for starters. The word “know” has meaning and it is silly to suggest that what it means cannot exist. But it is probably true that what has not yet happened also cannot be known; for it does not exist, and only that which exists can be known. I do not know that you exist. I know that I exist. I cannot say “we exist” because at least one member of the set “we” is not known for sure to exist. I can say “I exist” and then I can say “we probably exist”.

        Brandon continues: “…and more than we can ‘know’ the sun will rise tomorrow. But aside from semantics like that, yes, we can know it will not cool by 2030.”

        Are you deliberatly using “we” in every sentence or is that just dronish?

        “We” cannot know anything that has not happened. “Know” is for things that (1) have happened and are observed or (2) are defined and thus instantiated in the instant of definition. In that sense you can know as many things as you wish to know, the moment you think it into existence.

        It is possible the sun won’t “rise” tomorrow; although for that to happen the Earth must stop rotating or the sun exploded or some such thing. Highly unlikely and in either case we won’t argue about it.

        The probability the Earth will be cooler, on average, over a ten year moving average centered on 2030 as compared to a similar thing centered on 2010, exists but I do not know what is that probability. My own sense or “wag” is about 5 percent probability.

  3. Wow, this is very surprising.
    Who would have guessed a paperweight would get all the way up to 82,090?

    • Menicholas

      Paperweight. Liked it. Was waiting for someone to make a toilet paper comment but you made the humor fresh and new with paperweight. It is said that there are only 7 jokes in the world and all humor comes from how you tell them.

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • Not a chance.
      As a Science Fiction fan for decades, his work never even rises to the level of Ben Bova.

      • Whats wrong with Ben Bova?

        Granted i don’t read him these days, but he was one of the early writers (along with Heinlein and Andre Norton) that got me interested in SF in the first place.

      • Everyone has their own tastes, and it’s easy to forget that just because you don’t care for a particular author, others don’t agree.
        I was never able to get into Turtledove, but he’s counted as one of the greats. Don’t understand it myself, but it doesn’t bother me.

  4. Mann Kump. Says it all. Good to see that Mann’s book is going down in flames and contributing to CO2 levels. I would not be surprised if they printed 100,000 copies(to become a carbon sink.)

    • high treason —- Carbon sink! I never want to have a duel of wits with you! — Eugene WR Gallun

  5. Yes but if you adjust 82,090, by say removing the last 3 digits, you arrive at a respectable # 82.
    They are ‘climate scientists’ after all!

      • I am reminded of the old Soviet-era joke. An American athlete and a Soviet athlete have a race. The American wins. Pravda reports “Soviet runner comes in second! American finishes next to last!”

      • And infill the number of books that would have been sold in the areas of the world lacking Internet access.

      • >>I am reminded of the old Soviet-era joke.

        ‘Tis no joke. The BBC is doing the very same thing as we speak. When the Wall came down, PRAVDA simply moved its offices to London…….. /sarc

    • charles nelson — This is Mann’s “New” book. Therefore climate science says that all the data on it has been adjusted up. — Eugene WR Gallun

  6. Have bought five copies – a couple of my siblings have birthdays coming up. Not that they will read it, alas, as ‘true AGW believers’, but must keep up the good fight.

  7. How about sending complementary copies to President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, Ban ki Moon, Green Peace, Friends of the Earth, et al, and each of those scientists who are still struggling to justify why we have had no warming for 19 years.

  8. I have to confess, I am one of the people who purchased Mr. Mann’s book; I needed a door stop. The dog had a go at chewing it too be didn’t like the taste at all.

    • I may have mentioned this before, you could not even use this for toilet paper as, in my opinion, it is already full of s***

      • ^^^ Mann’s book that is, not the one in the main subject — Just thought I had better clarify before getting dismembered :)

      • Man Bearpig — This seems a corallary to Godwin’s Law –Talk about books long enough and someone is sure to mention toilet paper — Eugene WR Gallun

      • AFAIK, DDT is not even an insecticide, but a repellant which operates by disabling the scent-localizing circuitry of the antennae, such that insects avoid its influence (by departing). It is thus not actually a poison.

  9. It is never nice to gloat , it really is a bad thing but ……..hahahahaahahahaha.
    Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Mann.

  10. Oh dear! Mann’s “opus magnum” now rated “opus minimum”

    (This might need some correction from a scholar of Latin)

    • I believe your Latin to be impeccable. You matched the adjective minimus, (-a), (-um) perfectly with the third declension, neuter noun ‘opus’.

  11. Well done, to Anthony and all the authors of this book!

    I also highly recommend “Isaac’s Storm” which is slighly trailing in the ratings despite being in print since 1999. It is a tale of overconfidence in the pet theories of the day held by the U.S. Weather Bureau. It was thought at the time (1900) that hurricanes could not enter the Gulf of Mexico. This idea unfortunately turned out to be disasterous for the city of Galveston. Very topical to today’s climate debate I think.

  12. well obviously the big oil companies are buying up this book in vast numbers in order to skew the rankings :)

    congrats to the authors, big achievement.

  13. It seems to be number 91 in all books at the moment. That’s still quite high.
    But such things are transient.

    More interesting to me are the other books that make the Top 100. I’d not looked before.
    Pre-school books dominate. And a few ‘classics’ are in at the moment (The Very Hungry Caterpillar fitting both criteria).
    Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men, The Great Gatsby and 1984. They must always be there, or are they on school curricula at the moment? Can Amazon track that? Might tell you something about the influence of the State or the influence of publishing houses on the State.

    Game of Thrones seems popular. Cookery books not so much.
    And there are no other science books in the Top 100. Some religion though.
    It’s very American.

    • with respect to Flies, Rye, men, Gatsby and 1984 it has to be “required reading” to keep those there on the top 100. That requires curricula. There is absolutely no reason that anybody would read Gatsby by “word of mouth”!

  14. If you plot the performance of the two publications in 2 dimensions, you can use the points to:
    (a) construct a line
    (b) construct a curve or
    (c) construct a hockey stick

    • Eh? With the constant retreat to statements of faith when cornered (precautionary principal, peak oil etc.), highly selective reading of evidence (minutely cherry picking and misrepresenting data), mingling and blurring fact with speculation then grossly overstating certainty (pretty much every climate paper published these days), and gradually backing off towards their opponents own position when proven incontrovertibly wrong (‘fireball earth’ to high climate sensitivity to ever lower climate sensitivity), attempted terrorisation of the impressionable with apocalyptic visions, endless ‘Gish-Galloping’ and blinkered propagandising, I always thought AGW adherents had a lot more in common with creationists.

      • icouldnthelpit:

        See the definition below. “Gish gallop” is simply projection on your part. It is the climate alarmist crowd that cannot provide credible facts, evidence or measurements.

        Everything you write is based on belief, not on scietific facts. If you had credible facts, you would have no need to invent insults like “denialist” to suppport your argument.

      • Joel D. Jackson

        Please don’t post ridiculous nonsense.

        “Deni a r” has the connotation of holocaust deni a l and is unspecific about what is deni e d.

        “Alarmist” has no unpleasant and untrue connotation and it accurately applies to people who assert an alarm without comment on whether such alarm is justified.

        Richard

      • Mr Courtney

        Your “opinion” is noted, but the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.

      • What a savage reply, pit. Did you invent the “I’m not one but you are” retort?

      • the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.

        If you do not think it is problematic, then you are not an alarmist. Depending on HOW MUCH warming you think is coming you would be either a warmist or a lukewarmer. Which to an actual alarmist would make you a denier, since that includes everyone that doesn’t agree with 5hereb on every last point.

        Heck, Lomberg agrees with all their ‘science’, yet is still branded a denier because he disagreed with their economics.

      • J. Jackson says:

        the label “alarmist” is insulting to those of us that accept the science of AGW, but do not think it is problematic.

        I cannot help the feelings that come from within you. Your ‘logic’ makes no sense either. Based on all available evidence, AGW is not ‘problematic’. At all.

        If you are not a climate alarmist, then what are you? You write just like all the other alarmists here, agruing incessantly with scientific skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists).

        If the rise in CO2 is harmless, which it is (if you disagree, identify any global harm from CO2), then why the endless arguing about human CO2 emissions?

        It’s clear that you agree with the alarmist crowd. Nothing wrong with that, feel free to be as mistaken as you wish. That is your right. But there is a difference between labeling someone as a climate alarmist, and labeling someone as a “denialist”. What’s a denialist?

        ‘Climate alarmist’ is an accurate term. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. Global temperatures over the past century have been as flat as anything in the entire geolgic record. The people running around in circles and clucking over a tiny 0.7º fluctuation over a century are just trying to alarm the public. See? They’re alarmists. They are falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater for their own benefit.

        But, “denialist”? And “deniers”? What, exactly, are skeptics ‘denying’? I’ve stated repeatedly that CO2 causes (minimal) global warming. I’ve never said otherwise. So what am I ‘denying’? What is a “denialist”?

        Answer: those are mindless terms that unthinking people (like your guy Mears) use to insult everyone who has a different scientific view. It is a mindless insult. You will get as many definitions of “denialist” as there are people defining the term. It is a fine indicator of stupidity, isn’t it? Those using it are truly stupid. Wouldn’t you agree?

        All that said, I would be happy to never again label climate alarmists as what they are — if they will stop labeling skeptics as what we’re not.

      • Dbstealey writes, “I cannot help the feelings that come from within you.”

        Dbstealy doesn’t have a clue about any of my “feelings”
        ..
        He then writes, “:If the rise in CO2 is harmless, which it is” of course he offers no evidence if it is harmless. The fact is WE DON’T know either way. It may be harmless, it may not be harmless. The only way we’ll know if it is….is to wait and see. The true skeptic will not say it is harmful, nor will he say it is harmless. Why? because nobody can predict the future reliably. Additionally you seem to forget that science makes no value judgement. If you wish to determine if it is “harmless” or “harmful” study the branch of Philosophy labeled “Ethics.” Science will not answer the question of harm.

        Then he writes “It’s clear that you agree with the alarmist crowd” no, you are wrong with that assertion. When one lives in a very cold climate, warming can be a good thing.

        Now DB writes ” There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening.”

        That is not true. Look at the ice cores. CO2 levels have not been at 400 ppm for at least 800,000 years if not more. That is “unusual” considering that in the time span of 800,000 years, we’ve had several glaciations happen. There is no doubt that human activity has had an “unprecedented” effect on the global carbon cycle. Carbon that has been sequestered for MILLIONS of years is being reintroduced into the environment.

        To answer your question ” What, exactly, are skeptics ‘**enying’? ” …. They(you) are *enying the findings of science, you are *enying the fact that the global warming continues and is caused by humans.
        ..
        Lastly, you write, ” unthinking people (like your guy Mears) ” Mears provides you with the RSS data. He’s responsible for it. You are the one that constantly provides examples using data from Mears. You are tactfully approving of him each and every time you cite the RSS data in a graph, or in your relentless pushing the meme of “no warming in 18 years” …..
        ..
        If you continue to label people as “alarmists” don’t complain when they label you something you don’t like either.

      • Joel, the evidence that rising CO2 will be harmless is rampant, if you would just stop reading the alarmist propaganda.

        1) The earth has been much warmer than today several times in the last 10K years and life not only survived, it thrived. Therefore, even if the alarmists are right and temperatures go up by 3 or 4C, no big deal.

        2) Up until a couple million years ago, CO2 levels well north of 1000ppm was the norm. In fact for most of the last 200 million years CO2 levels have been above 5000ppm. And life thrived.

        Therefore your fear that if CO2 were to increase, something bad might happen is completely unfounded based on facts.

      • J. Jackson says:

        Dbstealey doesn’t have a clue about any of my “feelings”

        Sure I do. We all do, when you whine about “the term ‘alarmist’ is insulting”. Being insulted is your feeling. Want us to stop? Then quit sounding your false alarm. There is nothing to be alarmed about.

        Next, jackson says that CO2…

        …may be harmless, it may not be harmless.

        Wrong again. Listen up: it is not the job of skeptics to prove a negative. If CO2 is harmful, then it is up to you to produce verifiable evidence of global harm due directly to the rise in CO2. Otherwise, my hypothesis stands, because you are incapable of falsifying it:

        CO2 is harmless at current and projected concentrations, and it is beneficial to the biosphere.

        Falsify that, if you think you can. If you do, you will be the first.

        But you can’t of course. If there were any such evidence, we would be hit over the head with it 24/7/365 by the alarmist cult. So “CO2 may be harmles, may not be” is a bunch of wishy-washy pablum for the faint-hearted. It is a baseless assertion, because you’ve got nothin’ else. You’re just scaring yourself for no good reason.

        Next, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening with the climate, or with global temperatures. I guess I have to spell that out for you. But the fact is that not one single scary prediction ever made by the climate alarmist contingent has ever happened. Every alarming prediction has been wrong.

        Yes, harmless, beneficial CO2 has gone up — from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half. But so what? It hasn’t made a whit of difference, despite your obvious craving for a climate catastrophe so you could finally say you were right. But guess what? You were wrong. As always.

        Ah, and skeptics are “denying science”? THAT is your totally lame response?? No wonder you’ve lost the debate. My position on the subject is exactly the same as Prof. Richard Lindzen’s. So when you’ve authored twenty dozen peer reviewed papers on the global climate subject, then maybe you’ll have Lindzen’s credibility. Right now, you have none. Zero. Anyone who tries to justify calling skeptics “deniers” has no credibility at all. Run along now back to Hotwhopper, there’s where you belong. You’re their speed, and vice-versa.

        Finally, Mears is not responsible for anything. He is only a part of a team — and the odd man out. He’s trying to nitpick what the rest of the RSS team produces, for his own self-aggrandizement. Until Mears stops labeling other scientists who simply have a different point of view as “denialists”, all he is doing is sulking because the others won’t listen to his nonsense. So please, keep trying to defend someone who calls people like Dr. Lindzen “denialists”. You have no credibility, and you will never get any that way.

        Face reality. Your “dangerous man-made global warming” belief has been thoroughly debunked. The real world is busy falsifying that failed conjecture. So all you’ve got is your name-calling and complaining. You have no good evidence, and no measurements at all to back you up. Really, you’ve got nothin’:

      • MarkW
        June 10, 2015 at 7:58 pm

        While your general point of course is valid, CO2 probably hasn’t been above 5000 ppm since the Ordovician Period, if then:

      • sturgishooper,

        Yes, Mark was a little off on his dates. But in general he was right:
        [click in chart to embiggen]

        The biosphere is starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More is better, and at current and projected concentrations there is no evidence of any downside. It’s all good.

      • MarkW: “the evidence that rising CO2 will be harmless is rampant” Evidence for something that will happen in the future can only be obtained via time travel. Good luck with that.
        ..
        Dbstealey: “Sure I do. We all do” You’re wrong as usual. You are projecting. Does using the “d” word upset you? It must, because you seem to be attaching connotations to it that are not in the dictonary.

        Secondly, I apologize to you for being unable the predict the future. You cannot tell if rising CO2 will or will not be harmful. If you can, can you please tell me the make and model of the crystal ball you are using that enables you to predict the future with such clarity? I could use it for adjusting my investment strategies. I’m not asking you to prove a negative,
        ..
        “Falsify that, if you think you can” What a silly challenge. Everyone knows you cannot falsify a PREDICTION

        “there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening” You need to learn to read. The release of UNPRECEDENTED amounts of carbon into the biosphere is ……unprecedented. You seemed to have not read what I posted.

        “despite your obvious craving for a climate catastrophe ” Craving? please….clue us all in on what “craving” I have. I told you before the value judgement is not a part of science. You have made the mistake of putting a “C” into the AGW science. There is none, and you are playing the game of moving the goal posts.

        “Mears is not responsible for anything” Wrong again. He’s responsible for the RSS data. He’s the senior scientist there, and the vice president. He’s the top dog at that outfit when it comes to the science. Being a VP outranks all the other members of the scientific staff at that organization. Even the president of RSS has lesser credentials than Mears.

        Mears knows more about satellite data than you do. His exact words are, ” surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets” He knows the details, and I trust his opinion over yours or some British viscount.

        Thank you for posting a graph of RSS data. See what Mears says about that data.

      • Joel, why do insist on digging this hole of yours deeper.
        If 5000ppm did not cause harm in the past, then 500ppm will not cause harm in the future.
        No need of time machines, just a mind that is capable of actually thinking.
        Please let me know when you acquire one of those.

      • MarW
        ..
        First of all, your quote of “5000 ppm” is the output of a MODEL
        ..
        You trust model output? (GEOCARB?) Do you have physical evidence of 5000 ppm?
        ..
        Secondly, I suggest you refresh your understanding of the evolution of stars. The output of the sun many millions of years ago was less than today’s output, and in the future the sun’s output will rise. So no, you are wrong when you say ” will not cause harm in the future” because conditions today are unlike conditions in the past.

      • J. Jackson,

        I could easily answer every point in your rant. You think you’re the first one to come up with that nonsense? Get a grip.

        I’ll just point out that everyone makes predictions all the time. We depend on our predictions. Most folks call them ‘making plans’. We predict that the sun will rise in the east, or that it will take us 20 minutes to drive to work — or that our children won’t know what snow is. Some predictions are right, some are partly right, and some are totally wrong.

        Alarmist predictions have been totally wrong. All of them, from increasing severe weather events, to ocean “acidification”, to accelerating sea level rise, to increasing relative humidity, to the big enchilada: runaway global warming and climate cartastrophe. When a group of people believes in predictions that turn out to be 100% wrong, others start to look at them like they’re followers of Harold Camping, or one of Leon Festinger’s ‘Seekers’. Earth to Jackson: the flying saucer isn’t coming.

        You are determined to believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems — but you have no evidence of that. It is only your belief, nothing more. That is the argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy: assuming something is true, simply because it hasn’t been proven false. Thus, you demand that others must ‘prove a negative’; we are expected to prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global harm. As if.

        This is a science site; it is the internet’s BEST SCIENCE site. There are other blogs that cater to religious beliefs. But here, we need facts, evidence, and measurements. Come back when you’ve got some. If/when you can show any global harm from the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, I’ll sit up straight and pay attention. Until then, you’ve got nothin’ but your belief.

        As for the despicable Mears, so long as that jamoke calls other scientists “deniers” and “denialists”, he has zero credibility. YMMV.

        Finally, here is some good advice from Australian blogger Jo Nova:

        • Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
        • When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
        • Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
        • Answer questions.
        • Don’t use invalid arguments.
        • When you are wrong, admit it.
        • Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
        • Stop lying.  If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
        • Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
        • Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.

        But of course, if alarmists did those things, the debate would be over.

      • Here you go again db….“You are determined to believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems ” ……you are wrong as usual. I make no claim about CO2 being good or bad. You seem dead set on projecting that onto me, and it is laughable that you do.

        You cannot predict the effect of the increased CO2. Nobody can. Don’t label me an “alarmist” because I maintain the position that neither you, nor I nor anyone else can accurately predict what is going to happen as far as the climate goes. If you think you can predict the future, can you tell me if there will be rain in Chicago on August 12th of this year?

        If this is a site about science, can you please tell me why there was no mention of the recent heat wave in India that claimed over 2000 lives? That is a significant “science” story that seems to have been overlooked by this site. This is a “news and commentary” blog about science. It apparently has a distinctive bias in its selection of authors and point of view.

        Now in typical Stealey fashion, you resort to calling Mears names. Does it make you feel good to call a successful chief scientists and vice president of RSS names? You say, “he has zero credibility” yet you reference his data all the time. How can his data be credible if he is not credible?

        So Stealey, you don’t like it when the term “*enialist” is used, but then you turn around and call the bloke a “jamoke”………You know, it is so funny to watch someone complain about name calling and then watch that very same person call someone names.

      • Joel Jackson asks ” can you tell me if there will be rain in Chicago on August 12th of this year?”

        Yes, there will be rain.

        On August 12th we will find out if I was correct.

        Similarly, in 85 years we’ll find out if the IPCC was correct.

      • PS….. “Alarmist predictions have been totally wrong. All of them”

        Here are a few predictions that were correct.

        ..
        1) 120 years ago, Svante Arrhenius made predictions of the amount of warming that were amazingly accurate
        2) It was predicted that t the arctic would warm faster than the equatorial regions, and that’s what happened.
        3) It was predicted that night time temperatures would rise faster than day time temperatures, and that’s what happened.

        So much for your claim that “all of them” were wrong.

      • Joel Jackson says “Here are a few predictions that were correct. 1) 120 years ago…”

        Congratulations. You went back 120 years to find a prediction that proved correct. I readily admit that some predictions must come true even if by random chance.

      • Michael 2, the reason I went back 120 years is because that is when the AGW hypothesis was first made. And Svante Arrhenius made his prediction based on it. We are all still waiting for someone to falsify it.

      • Joel D. Jackson says “Michael 2, the reason I went back 120 years is because that is when the AGW hypothesis was first made. And Svante Arrhenius made his prediction based on it. We are all still waiting for someone to falsify it.”

        Thank you for explaining. As a side note, I suggest there is no “we” — you have little or no way of knowing who, besides you, is actually waiting for someone to falsify the basic physics of the operation of carbon dioxide. I doubt an attempt will be made here on WUWT where I think most readers understand the basic operation of carbon dioxide in this context.

        This book explores a variety of educated opinions on various factors influencing climate change. It stands in opposition to people that believe carbon dioxide to be the principle driver of climate whose influence is greater than 50 percent up to nearly 100 percent. This book comprises opinions where carbon dioxide’s influence is believed to be less than 50 percent causally related to observed climate changes.

        As to failed predictions; it depends on whose data and charts you believe. By at least one prediction, New York City is already under water; and maybe it is — I don’t go there.

        In the case you say a “pox on all their houses” you can also rely on your own personal experience over the past 20 or more years and make note of how many piers have been submerged at major shipping ports in the United States or around the world. Coleman Dock in Seattle, for instance, appears neither higher or lower as compared to my memory that goes back to the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair.

      • Michael 2, in replying to
        Joel D. Jackson

        Joel D. Jackson says “Michael 2, the reason I went back 120 years is because that is when the AGW hypothesis was first made. And Svante Arrhenius made his prediction based on it. We are all still waiting for someone to falsify it.”

        Well Jackson, you must have forgotten the Arrhenius actually re-wrote his CO2 predictions himself just a bit later: Reducing the original value he chose for CO2’s effect by more than half. Seems like Arrhenius done did do the falsification himself. About 110 years ago.

      • J. Jackson,

        May I quote you? Thank you:

        CO2 levels have not been at 400 ppm for at least 800,000 years if not more. That is “unusual” considering that in the time span of 800,000 years, we’ve had several glaciations happen. There is no doubt that human activity has had an “unprecedented” effect on the global carbon cycle. Carbon that has been sequestered for MILLIONS of years is being reintroduced into the environment.

        That’s scary! So obviously you have a phobia about “carbon”. Obviously you believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems. Why else write the wild-eyed Chicken Little comments you wrote above? They are clearly intended to cause alarm. But CO2 has been up to TWENTY TIMES higher in the past, without ever triggering runaway warming or any other problems.

        Next, you cherry-picked only out to 800K years? Why? The answer is clear: because before that, CO2 was much higher — without causing any problems or global harm. If it weren’t for that kind of cherry-picking, the climate alarmist crowd would have a lot less to say.

        Next you gave 3 false examples of alarming predictions:

        1) 120 years ago, Svante Arrhenius made predictions of the amount of warming that were amazingly accurate

        So what? Ten years after Arrhenius’ prediction, he backpedaled and said that doubliung CO2 would cause only about 1.6º rise in temperature. That is far from alarming; that would, in fact, be entirely beneficial. So unlike all your other scary predictions, not only did that not happen, but there hasn’t been any global warming for almost 20 years. So: wrong again.

        2) It was predicted that the arctic would warm faster than the equatorial regions, and that’s what happened.

        That has been known since far before you even became aware of the climate issue: global warming happens primarily in winter, and at night, and at the higher latitudes, and low temperatures are raised, not high temps. So again, nothing new there, and nothing alarming. The alarming predictions were that Arctic ice would disappear. That Polar bears would be decimated. That rising seas would engulf Tuvalu. That corals would be bleached out of existence. And so on. Like all the other scary predictions, those predictions never happened.

        3) It was predicted that night time temperatures would rise faster than day time temperatures, and that’s what happened.

        Once again, you are deflecting. Everyone but you seems to have known that night time temps are raised; it’s just radiative physics. No one disputes it. It is entirely beneficial — not scary at all. It is certainly not an example of climate alarmism.

        Scary is predicting an “accelerating sea level rise” — not happening.

        Scary is “disappearing Arctic ice”. Not happening; Arctic ice is recovering.

        Scary is: “Our children won’t know what snow is.”

        Nothing in your examples was alarmist. They are normal. But it is only climate alarmism that keeps the scare going — and the tax money coming in. It’s based on a hoax. A scam. Elmer Gantry would be jealous.

        Your pal Mears is part of that hoax. Until he stops calling anyone who doesn’t agree with his ‘science’ “deniers”, “denialists”, etc., he has no credibility. At all. Prof. Richard Lindzen, whom I agree with (I’ve read most of his 240 published papers) does not call other scientists names like Mears does. So what’s with Mears? And why is he your HE-RO?

      • sturgishooper The “Good, simple graph” is the output of the GEOCARB model. No physical measurements, just good old fashioned model output. You ever hear of GIGO ?

        RACookPE1978….revising one’s numbers is not a falsification. If you think that is the case, isn’t the recent “revision” of the UAH models the same thing?

      • “That’s scary!”

        Too funny Stealey…..if you find that scary, please do not ride on a roller coaster.
        ..
        “you believe that the rise in CO2 will cause big problems”

        Nope don’t know what it will do.

        “Chicken Little comments what a gross misrepresentation. Project much there buddy?
        ..
        “TWENTY TIMES higher in the past” Well, wasn’t that when solar output was lower than today?…..Oh….and can you post a citation for that claim?
        ..
        I picked 800K years because that is the only direct measurement we have of atmospheric concentrations. If you want to trust GEOCARB model output….you can, but I’ll stick with measurable quantities.
        ..
        “That is far from alarming; that would, in fact, be entirely beneficial.” Stealey, science does not judge anything harmful or beneficial. Can you stick to science instead of injecting your value judgements?
        ..
        “That has been known since far before you even became aware of the climate issue” Another one of your “assertions” …..got a citation for that?
        ..
        “Once again, you are deflecting” Nope….you said ALL predictions, and when you say ALL you were wrong
        ..
        “Your pal Mears is part of that hoax. ”

        Mears is the VP and chief scientist at RSS. Be real Stealey, if he was “in on the hoax” do you think the RSS numbers would be as they are? You are funny.

        “And why is he your HE-RO?” He’s your hero, every time you cite the RSS data.

    • Not sure you know what the term means – I was directly addressing your comparison of AGW sceptics to creationists. In what way is that a Gish gallop? What you tend to find debating climate catastophists is a retreat to speculative assumptions when called out on lack of proportion, fabrication or cherry picking. When a head-on argument fails, go for the precautionary principle (or polar bears, arctic sea ice etc) as a catch-all diversion. That is a Gish gallop, named after the favoured debating tactic of creationist Duane Gish.

    • Your comment would be more informative if it included a sentence or two illuminating something relevant about Ray Comfort’s playbook since I have never heard of Ray Comfort much less his playbook.

      “Ray Comfort is the Founder/President/CEO of Living Waters Publications” That didn’t help much.

      As to similarities — I wonder why you consider this newsworthy? Of course there are similarities. Pick a few and let us discuss them.

    • I see that others cite the precautionary principle; and yes that is an excellent tactic used by all and also known as Pascal’s Wager. Dare you not {believe in G*d, global warming, sea level rising}? Catastrophe and doom are in your future unless you {send money, believe in me, hate your enemies}.

      • Comparing a belief in catastrophism with Pascals’ wager is invalid. Under the terms of Pascal’s wager, belief in God had no cost. Can’t say that about the Global Warming scam.

      • In answer to MarkW
        June 10, 2015 at 10:22 am

        Pascal’s wager is in itself invalid. The idea that the pretense of belief in an omnipotent being would fool said omnipotent being into believing that the pretender actually believed in said omnipotent being takes some believing. There would be more reason to not believe, then when brought up before said omnipotent being argue that said omnipotent being made things far too obscure and complicated that deciding which specific belief was the true and valid one was impossible for a relatively impotent creature such as a human being. Therefore to prevent believing in any of the incorrect omnipotent being or belief systems which would be the same as not believing in the correct omnipotent being and belief system, one decided to not make the choice and argue the toss at the correct time.
        Better to not make any decision than to make the wrong one.

      • Richard, let me see if I have this right. You are arguing that it is the creator’s fault that you choose not to believe in him? That it is up to the creator to provide sufficient proof that anyone even the uninterested would have no choice but to accept it?

        BTW, next time you go before a judge, try that line of reasoning and see how far it gets you.

      • Protestant theology values the act of faith. If the existence of God and divinity of His Son were obvious based upon reason and evidence, belief would have no value. As Luther said, “To be a Christian, you must tear the eyes out of your reason>” Calvin went even farther.

        This was also the attitude of the Early Church Fathers: “I believe precisely because it is absurd.”

        Therefore, God must remain hidden, and it’s theologically incorrect to search for proofs of His existence, as pursued by the Scholastics. Unfortunately, modern fundamentalists who feel compelled to believe everything in the Bible is “true” misunderstand the concept of faith, so are thus both theologically and scientifically incorrect.

        Fundamentalism is misunderstood by many if not most fundamentalists. It isn’t biblical literalism, but belief in biblical inerrancy, when properly interpreted. It’s akin to Catholic faith in papal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.

      • MarkW,

        There are very few instances in real life where one’s judge also purports to be one’s creator, so that might be a silly analogy.

      • mebbe says (in response to Michael 2:) “There are very few instances in real life where one’s judge also purports to be one’s creator, so that might be a silly analogy.”

        My creator is my judge. He lives in Oregon. He is my father. I have many other judges of course, you apparently now having joined the herd.

        I have not suggested that creators and judges are linked and it is certainly not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant, at least distantly, is the use of FEAR to motivate followers. The actual future of heaven or global warming isn’t nearly as useful as moving billions of people and dollars based on fear of that future.

      • MarkW says “you don’t have a lot of experience with this analogy thingy, do you.”

        I do not know how to unambigously answer dont-you-do-you questions. Please restate. Bring the “do you” to the front, drop the “don’t” and it is not only shorter, but unambigous:

        “Do you have a lot of experience with analogy thingies”?

        To which I would still have to ask, “what is a ‘lot’?”

        Perhaps it would be best not to inquire as to my familiarity with analogy thingies and ask a more relevant question or at least express your contempt in a clear and concise manner.

    • icouldnthelpit — Who is Ray Comfort? Your joke goes flat because I and certainly others here have no idea who the guy is. Out of curiosity i will google him. — Eugene WR Gallun

    • icouldnthelpit — Gish gallop?? — You are an education, man. Got to google that one also. — Eugene WR Gallun

      • “Gish gallop” is a term of projection used by climate alarmists. When they cannot refute skeptics, they hide behind that pejorative, which indicates that they are unable to produce credible facts, measurements, etc.

        When Dr. Duane Gish was debated it was assumed that it would be a debate of science versus belief. But when Dr. Gish presented copious scientific evidence, his opponents were unable to refute his data during those debates.

        Hi opponent Dr. Eugenie Scott lost the debate, and she coined the phrase “Gish Gallop” because she had no scientific counter arguments. (She could have won the debate in that instance, but she went in unprepared.) Instead, she presented the “consensus” among scientists that she was right, and resorted to ad hominem attacks on Dr. Gish.

        So “gish gallop” is just another pejorative like “denialist”. It’s a mindless insult alarmists use when they cannot refute the facts presented by “man-made global warming” skeptics.

      • In other words, a Gish Gallop is when you’ve so fallen for your own propaganda about the other sides arguments (anti-science, ignorance, reactionary, whatever) that you don’t even learn what those arguments ARE, and thus have no rebutle ready when faced with them.

    • Not sure how you got to that belief… huge cross over between the cultists and creationists though. They both selectively edit when the world begin to push a view point… creationists though are no where near as bad as cultists.

    • Joel,

      Arrhenius was so inaccurate that he had to redo his “predictions”.

      While the hypothesis that doubling CO2 should increase temperature around a degree C has not been conclusively falsified (to my knowledge), what happens in isolation in a lab is very different from what happens in the complex atmosphere. That’s quite aside from other human activities which have the effect of cooling the air.

      GCMs include feedback assumptions not in evidence and ignore other effects, so no one can say what the actual result of 800 ppm would be. The models have gotten the effect of adding 120 ppm to 280 ppm laughably wrong.

      Callendar considered his GHE calculations from the 1930s to have been falsified by the cold conditions of the 1960s. For this and many other reasons, the reborn 1980s hypothesis of AGW was stillborn, ie falsified at its hatching.

  15. Is Mann’s book really called “Dire Predictions”? LOL.
    It’s true, many climate predictions have indeed been dire.
    Snow being a thing of the past, Arctic ice melting by 2013, no 2014, no 2015, rapid warming in the five years following 2009… full list here.

    • Leo, I got mine from Mark Steyn – autographed to boot. Was pleased to get it from him as my tiny contribution to his court fight with Mann. Go to his site and get it from there. It took just a few days to come from Canada to my home here in New Zealand.

  16. But Mann’s book has a high star rating, surely some of our readers could do something to rectify the appearance that this is a good reference book. For instance the fact that it has no references should be heavily pointed out in the review section and be a reason for down-starring it(maybe one has to buy the book to be allowed to review it?). When I buy a book I tend to read the rave reviews and the bad reviews, that gives me a picture of how the book is viewed across the spectrum of opinion

    • Make sure you review the right Mann book. i highly recommend not reviewing a book you haven’t read.

      • I highly recommend not biasing the tree-ring record by hiding some records and giving others 190x more weighting than others. I highly recommend not concealing the decline shown by the original data and methodology. I highly recommend not appending the surface temp record onto your manipulated pile of donkey poop and then trying to sell the whole mash-up to the public as a representation of real stuff that has actually been measured.
        Mann deserted reasonable behaviour long before his critics.
        As far as I’m concerned this guy deserves to have his book reviewed by people who have not read it. Why should we be constrained to base our output on reference to reality?

    • “maybe one has to buy the book to be allowed to review it?”

      People with Amazon accounts can presumably review anything. If you bought from Amazon your review will be marked as having been made by a purchaser. Whether you actually read the book is a thing Amazon cannot know. But having the purchaser tag helps sort out the probably-meaningful reviews from the sock puppets and shills.

  17. This issue can be viewed two ways. One good and one bad.

    First the good. It is great to see a lot of people search out the truth on their own in spite of the propaganda flowing from the media, the green blog, and the government bureaucracies. Inspiring almost.

    Now the bad. The little book by Mann is barely read as was his “paper” giving forth his hockey stick. But the damage was in the propaganda value of the horrific “science” that he ginned up. The media lapped up that Al Gore propaganda work and then many “scientists” reference the hockey stick meme for years afterwards. Dr. Mann may now be much less useful to the green blob, but others (97% anyone?) have taken his place.

    We fight a political war … a propaganda war … every bit as much as a scientific one. The Scottish Skeptic (I think it was him) once ran a post saying that the “Sky Dr*g*n Sl*y*rs” had the physics right but that their presentation of what they were trying to say was horrible PR. Regardless of whether the S.S. was right about the physics or not — he was darn sure right about the PR piece.

    It is a sad commentary on today’s CO2 madness that Public Relations is far more important than any real old-time science. Gas Laws? Who needs any stinking gas laws? Observations? Who needs any stinking observations? Logic? Surely you jest.

    • Yes. I think it’s been all about PR from the beginning. Mindbending, you might call it.

      Based on the virtually universal acceptance of the entire CAGW scam by our mainstream mass media, the green word must have come down from the top, wherever that is.

      There have been many beneficieries for those on the inside, for those who ride the green bandwagon and its train of troughs with marching piggies, but not so much for the enormous rabble of deluded zealots who shuffle along in its parade, this last mob wearing only the green badge of self-righteousness to show for their efforts, along with higher utility bills, inflated food and housing prices, and a few other inconveniences like that, burdens these useful idiots gladly shoulder in their smugly sustainable efforts to save the world.

      Why does everything cost more? One reason might be we’ve bought a bunch of stuff that cost more that it is worth, and which we didn’t need in the first place. By clever arguments, the light bulb manufacturers were able to demonize the incandescent light bulb with its narrow profit margin, and promote the idiotic CFL bulbs which cost 10x more, and have many drawbacks, (but just take it back to the store in a baggy.)

      I’m sure there are probably more than a few articulate skeptics who if given the chance could demolish the entire CAGW edifice in 15 minutes, or less, on national TV, but that singular event must fall into that select group of things that must never be allowed to happen.

      Finally, skeptics need to sharpen their game. Long scientific arguments will register on only a small cohort of the available audience, where short, powerful statements may get through to the terminally distracted.

      Some of the more articulate skeptics here should take a break from the long paragraphs occasionally, and sally forth with some short, sharp, blunt, brutal language that has a much better chance of being picked up by influential members (bellwhethers) of the hoi polloi, get buzz, and start “trending.”

      This may be an effective way to narrow the mind-shaft gap.

      • “sally forth with some short, sharp, blunt, brutal language”

        Such as: “Go outside right now and see if you feel any global warming. Think about the past ten years, maybe even 20. See any global warming? Think about your last trip to the beach or to the ferry — did you notice any sea level rise?”

        Scientifically it is unlikely anyone would notice a change the thickness of a dime when the daily change is 12 feet anyway (Seattle) but as you say it is a good tactic.

  18. a friend, never before interested in the subject
    just sent me an article about the ‘pause’ and the Karl paper
    it is as I predicted :)
    the Streisand Effect
    in their efforts to erase it they brought it to the forefront of public attention
    victory and vindication may be in sight
    the End Game?
    what happens when we win?

  19. Cheshirered @ 2.38am

    Read, in awe, your dogged rebuttal of Dana Nuccitelli’s propaganda blog in The Guardian on Monday. Thank you.

  20. Will “Climate Change: The Facts” be translated into French and German, for sale in Europe this summer?

  21. I bought the book. It fills a clear need with the people looking for the REAL facts and not the politically inspired half truths and dogma’s.
    Thanks Anthony and all the other co-authors. It gave me a good basis for discussing with my friends and family.
    By the way, I also bought Tim Ball’s latest book. Great read as well.

  22. Mann’s book is twice the price, this needs to be taken into account.

    I see when you buy Mann’s book Amazon suggests you might like to buy other books about doom and eschatology, when you buy “climate change the facts” it offers Asimov which is sci fiction. The most important thing is that the right book is being read by a lot of people, which is very good news.

  23. A mystery why such an old and completely discredited book like Silent Spring would still be in print. Must be
    used by environmentalist college courses to show early roots. DDT was Carlson’s nemesis – her book led to its ban. A huge huge mistake, based on junk science.

    • The book serves as an excellent example of a bad example.

      An odd, but believable, selling feature.

  24. It may shock readers to know that years ago I had a sex change operation and became a female. Yes, I was a woman. And, I became a prostitute. Now, I know what you’re all thinking: There’s no way in hell that Tom guy could possibly have made any money doing that. Well, I had to learn the hard way.

    Perhaps it was the stubble that remained on my face.

    Anyway, in my early exploits as a prostitute I figured I’d raise my price to compensate for my lack (an understatement) of customers. Each night when I had no customers I raised my price more.

    Now, I know that having a sex change operation, becoming a prostitute and thinking I could make money at it (and then thinking I could compensate for not making any money at it by raising my price), may seem to indicate that I’m a very strange person with a very distorted view of reality. That may be true, but in my defense I must say that I was never so utterly detached from the real world that I ever attempted to sell a book called ‘Dire Predictions’ for a whopping $28.80 (more than I charged to prostitute myself) on Amazon.

    Lack of sales volume, anybody?

  25. I have to admit, I am really not a fan of this book. I think it has a number of chapters which are terrible, primarily toward the beginning where they say things like:

    Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

    This is a book which literally says we cannot know the planet warmed in the 1900s. Things like that are why I panned the book. As I said in a post a couple months ago:

    Which goes back to the central problem of this book. There is good work in this book. I just can’t endorse it because it is associated with terrible, unscientific claims which have no basis in reality. This book claims to be providing “The Facts” of climate change, but the first third of the book is pretty much completely wrong.

    If skeptics want to be taken seriously, they ought to trim the dead weight. There are lots of problems with the global warming movement. They ought to be pointed out. Skeptics just can’t be taken seriously in pointing out those problems while ignoring glaring problems on their own “side.” If skeptics want to be taken seriously, they need to do a couple simple things:

    First, acknowledge the planet has warmed over the last century. Everyone knows it has guys. You look like idiots when you suggest it hasn’t.

    Second, acknowledge the planet will likely warm the future. Come on. It’s going to. We may be in a “pause” right now, but that isn’t going to last forever. And it’s not going to spin around and turn into cooling. We may not know when temperatures will rise or how much they’ll rise by, but they are going to rise.

    Still, I guess congratulations are in order. You’ve now got a highly selling book which tells people facts like:

    The reality is that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today.

    Skeptics, promoting the idea of global cooling by 2030. Oh yeah.

    • The reality is that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today.

      This say that no scientist can tell you that it will cool by 2030, not credibly at any rate.

      So how can you make that mean?

      Skeptics, promoting the idea of global cooling by 2030.

      It means the exact opposite.

      • M Courtney, climate scientists say there is no way we will see global cooling by 2030. This book turns around and says (paraphrased), “We don’t know if we’ll see cooling or warming by 2030.” That’s a clear contradiction of the mainstream position, one which promotes the possibility of global cooling.

        Promoting an idea doesn’t require saying the idea is true. You can promote an idea just by saying it is possible, which is exactly what this book did.

      • I see Brandon Shollenberger, you missed the point about “with credible probability”.

        Climate scientists know that they can only make projections not predictions.
        They know that the models are diverging from reality and so cannot be used to make predictions.
        They know that the future is uncertain.

        If you know that the warming will restart or accelerate then you know the magnitude of the natural variation that caused the slowdown. Which climate scientists didn’t – see the models.

        But even if you disagree with the IPCC and think that climate scientists can make predictions, it still doesn’t mean that the book promotes the idea of global cooling by 2030.
        The book promotes the idea that we don’t know if it will cool by 2030.
        Your own quote proves that.

      • M Courtney:

        If you know that the warming will restart or accelerate then you know the magnitude of the natural variation that caused the slowdown. Which climate scientists didn’t – see the models.

        This isn’t true. All you need to know to know warming will resume is natural variability cannot possibly overwhelm the anthropogenic influence forever. Even if it doesn’t happen by 2030, warming will happen.

        it still doesn’t mean that the book promotes the idea of global cooling by 2030.
        The book promotes the idea that we don’t know if it will cool by 2030.
        Your own quote proves that.

        That’s a false dichotomy. If a prosecutor tells a jury, “That man is guilty” and the defendant’s lawyer says, “You don’t know he’s guilty,” the defendant’s lawyer is promoting the idea his client is innocent. Discussing uncertainty is a common way of promoting alternative ideas.

        But even if you continue to disagree with that, the best you can say is the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility. It isn’t.

      • Brandon Shollenberger, we will have to agree to disagree
        Clearly you believe that saying “no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today” means “the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility”.

        That is obviously illogical. So there’s not much more to say.

        Except that your assertion that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years is speculative to say the least.
        I wonder how many times were you sure that the Pause was going to be over (statistically significantly), After 5 years, 10 or did you go with Trenberth’s 15? You were wrong every time so why double down on that bet? Nether you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.

        The logical approach is to agree that “no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today”.

      • M Courtney, describing things as being illogical would work a lot better for you if you if you didn’t so obviously misrepresent things. For instance, you say:

        Except that your assertion that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years is speculative to say the least.

        I have never asserted “that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years.” Saying the planet will not cool in the next 15 years is not the same as saying the planet will definitely warm in the next 15 years. It could also just turn out that the pause keeps going for another 15 years.

        I wonder how many times were you sure that the Pause was going to be over (statistically significantly), After 5 years, 10 or did you go with Trenberth’s 15? You were wrong every time so why double down on that bet?

        I was never wrong about when the pause would end because I’ve never said a word about when it would end. You can be as derisive as you want based upon assuming I held views that are nothing like anything I’ve ever held, but it’s pretty incredible you’d then say, “You were wrong every time.”

        Saying people you disagree with have been “wrong every time” on an issue because of things they’ve never said or even thought is pretty bizarre.

      • Brandon, that’s an interesting position you take.
        Are you really trying to claim that we can only say things that are 100% proven?
        Are you really that desperate?

      • Brandon Shollenberger, You said

        But even if you continue to disagree with that, the best you can say is the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility. It isn’t.

        I said,

        Nether you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.

        I meant “Neither you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.” Typo.
        Now you say

        I have never asserted “that the Pause will definitely be overwhelmed by anthropogenic forcing within the next 15 years.”

        But you did assert that the natural forcing cannot overwhelm the anthropogenic forcing in the next 15 years. You said it wasn’t even a “legitimate possibility”.

        If you’re get out is that they will perfectly balance then you had better give a plausible mechanism. Because that’s just calling ‘edge’ instead of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ on a coin toss.

        Otherwise you have asserted that the natural forcing cannot overwhelm the anthropogenic forcing in the next 15 years – and that means you claim to know the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing and that it will not be the larger.

        Reread what you said. You did make the call. I understand if you wish to withdraw it. I would too.
        But that means that global cooling by 2030 is a legitimate possibility.

      • MarkW:

        Brandon, that’s an interesting position you take.
        Are you really trying to claim that we can only say things that are 100% proven?Are you really that desperate?

        I have never, in my life, said anything of the sort. I have no idea what makes you think I have.

        M Courtney:

        But you did assert that the natural forcing cannot overwhelm the anthropogenic forcing in the next 15 years. You said it wasn’t even a “legitimate possibility”.

        I’m curious at the fact you simply ignored the entire part about you making ridiculous remarks about me and my views based upon absolutely nothing. The one where you said I was “wrong every time” on the issue of the pause. It’s difficult to see how you’d expect to have a reasonable discussion if you’re going to make derisive remarks about what I’ve said/believed even though I’ve never said/believed anything like what you describe, much less if you then refuse to correct the record.

        Regardless, your question is off-base as you say:

        If you’re get out is that they will perfectly balance then you had better give a plausible mechanism. Because that’s just calling ‘edge’ instead of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ on a coin toss.

        I didn’t say the two would be perfectly balanced. You referred to when “the Pause was going to be over (statistically significantly).” I have no idea when that will be. Statistical significance is a very tricky thing to calculate. Even if the planet started warming tomorrow, I don’t know how long it’d take for that warming to be “statistically significant.”

        In fact, as far as I know, the planet could be warming right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is warming or not.

        That’s not saying there will be a perfect balance between anything. It’s just saying it’s hard to tell how long a “pause” has lasted/will last because the tests for it are very weak.

      • In fact, as far as I know, the planet could be warming right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is warming or not.

        And therefore;
        In fact, as far as you know, the planet could be cooling right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is cooling or not.

        But you still claim:

        the book seriously considers global cooling by 2030 a legitimate possibility. It isn’t.

        I still recommend withdrawing from that claim and conceding that cooling is a possibility.
        If not on logical grounds how about on the grounds of the Precautionary Principle?

      • M Courtney:

        And therefore;
        In fact, as far as you know, the planet could be cooling right now. As long as we’re stuck relying on tests of “statistical significance,” tests whose power is incredibly weak, it’s impossible to actually know if the planet is cooling or not.

        Sure. There could be some temporary cooling swing so small the tests used to argue about the “pause” could never detect. But since it’s been decided warming doesn’t count unless it is statistically significant, statistically insignificant cooling doesn’t count either.

        I still recommend withdrawing from that claim and conceding that cooling is a possibility.

        I have said it is a possibility on more than one occasion. What I said, however, is we have no reason to believe it will happen. It’s not impossible, but we don’t have anything which would justify predicting it.

        So uh, yeah. Not sure why you’re asking me to concede something I’ve always said is true.

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      Thankyou for your clear promotion of the book as a source of factual information.

      The book must be really good if the best you can do in attempt to demean it is – as you have – to quote factually accurate statements in the book and to demand the book promotes the unknown.

      For example, you demand this lunacy which the book – being factual – refutes

      Second, acknowledge the planet will likely warm the future. Come on. It’s going to. We may be in a “pause” right now, but that isn’t going to last forever. And it’s not going to spin around and turn into cooling. We may not know when temperatures will rise or how much they’ll rise by, but they are going to rise.

      No, dear boy, the present “pause” will end with global warming or global cooling and n nobody can know which until it happens.

      Richard

      • richardscourtney, there is nothing to suggest we will see global cooling by 2030. You may disagree, and I am sure some people here do, but that doesn’t make it true. Rather than worry about that though, let’s focus on the simpler issue. One of the supposedly “factually accurate statements” I quoted was:

        Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

        Do you agree with that statement? Even if you think global cooling by 2030 is a serious possibility, I’d like to think we could all agree we know the planet warmed throughout the 1900s.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        We know it was worse in the 1930s, there were worldwide droughts and oodles of news about melting glaciers , heatwaves in the Arctic and on and on and on.

      • So Brandon, are you justifying your guess that earth’s temperature will be warmer a century from now just because it kept warming from the LIA during the 1900’s?

        That’s a dangerous assumption.

        What you’re doing is extrapolating, and where I work, you can get fired for that. Interpolation, on the other hand, is generally acceptable, but putting yourself out on a limb by projecting into the unknown is simply a guess.

        And if you have nothing to justify your guess other than warming in the 1900’s, you’ll just as likely be wrong as anything else. Earth’s temperature can’t continue to rise forever.

      • richard, I’m not sure what you mean when you say:

        Brandon Shollenberger

        We know it was worse in the 1930s, there were worldwide droughts and oodles of news about melting glaciers , heatwaves in the Arctic and on and on and on.

        There were heatwaves in the Arctic in the 1930s…? I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you just saying things were worse in the 1930s, or that they were actually warmer? The two aren’t the same.

        RockyRoad:

        So Brandon, are you justifying your guess that earth’s temperature will be warmer a century from now just because it kept warming from the LIA during the 1900’s?

        Um, no? I didn’t say a thing about earth’s temperatures “a century from now.” The only things I’ve said is the planet warmed in the 1900s, and it’s not going to cool by 2030. Those are points everybody should be able to agree on.

        I wouldn’t even dream of saying what temperatures will do 100 years out. Not only would it be dependent upon what humans do, which I couldn’t hope to predict, but I don’t care to make predictions I won’t be alive to verify.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        It is no wonder that you get so much wrong: clearly, you cannot read.

        I wrote the factual and accurate statement

        the present “pause” will end with global warming or global cooling and nobody can know which until it happens.

        You have replied

        there is nothing to suggest we will see global cooling by 2030. You may disagree, and I am sure some people here do, but that doesn’t make it true.

        Yes, dear boy, THAT IS WHAT I SAID and I also said the equally true statement that there is nothing to suggest we will see global warming by 2030. But we will see either global warming or global cooling at the cessation of the “pause” whenever that occurs.

        Having made that mistake, you compound your foolishness by demanding of me

        Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

        Do you agree with that statement? Even if you think global cooling by 2030 is a serious possibility, I’d like to think we could all agree we know the planet warmed throughout the 1900s.

        Of course I agree with that factually accurate statement. Anybody who knows anything about the subject agrees with that factually accurate statement.

        Unfortunately, you don’t understand it because – you again say – you lack ability to read.

        The statement says, there are no instrumental records that demonstrate the warming.
        BUT
        You assert the statement says we don’t know if the planet warmed: IT DOESN’T SAY THAT.

        In the unlikely event that you can read it, I commend this explanation of the issues especially its Appendix B.

        Richard

      • Brandon:

        Um, no? I didn’t say a thing about earth’s temperatures “a century from now.” The only things I’ve said is the planet warmed in the 1900s, and it’s not going to cool by 2030. Those are points everybody should be able to agree on.

        No, we shouldn’t agree that it is not going to cool by 2030. I personally don’t think it will cool, but this doesn’t mean that I consider that outcome impossible. We should agree that the strengthening of the green house effect should make it more likely to see an increase in temperatures than some cooling, from now till 2030. But saying “it will not cool” means saying “I know that all the other factors in play won’t be able to counter the increase of the greenhouse effect”. Which implies knowing in detail all other factors, which we don’t. We have way more assumptions than certainties about it.

      • richardscourtney, our host has frequently made comments to the effect of:

        See there you go, right to the insults. When you resort to name calling, you’ve lost the argument.

        You might want to consider that when insulting people on his site. In the meantime, I don’t think it is worth pursuing two topics at once, so I’ll focus on the more pressing one. You say:

        Of course I agree with that factually accurate statement. Anybody who knows anything about the subject agrees with that factually accurate statement.

        Unfortunately, you don’t understand it because – you again say – you lack ability to read.

        The statement says, there are no instrumental records that demonstrate the warming.
        BUT
        You assert the statement says we don’t know if the planet warmed: IT DOESN’T SAY THAT.

        I’d be curious to know how you think the book says we know the planet warmed over the 1900s even though we have no measurements which indicate such, assuming it did. And if it didn’t, I’d be curious to hear how you think we could know the planet warmed in the 1900s when we (supposedly) can’t tell that by examining temperature measurements.

        Would you care to explain?

      • Nylo:

        No, we shouldn’t agree that it is not going to cool by 2030. I personally don’t think it will cool, but this doesn’t mean that I consider that outcome impossible.

        The quote I provided on this issue referred to “credible probability.” That’s the context I had in mind when I said that. I think we should all agree there is no credible reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030. Perhaps it could happen, as almost nothing is truly impossible, but it’s not a serious possibility.

        But saying “it will not cool” means saying “I know that all the other factors in play won’t be able to counter the increase of the greenhouse effect”. Which implies knowing in detail all other factors, which we don’t. We have way more assumptions than certainties about it.

        I would say we have nothing which indicates the planet will cool by 2030. That doesn’t make it impossible. It just means if it happens, it will be because of something we don’t currently know about. In other words, we have no particular reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030, and we have many reasons to believe it will not.

      • Brandon, if the solar scientists are correct, there is plenty to suggest that we may see cooling over the next few decades.
        You continue to refuse to acknowledge any science except that which you want to agree with.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        You attempt to poison the well by asserting I made “insults” when I did not!
        I am willing to accept your apology.

        You wisely withdraw from continuing to promote one of your two ridiculous errors that you promoted, and as an excuse flor withdrawing you say

        I don’t think it is worth pursuing two topics at once, so I’ll focus on the more pressing one.

        It would have been better if you had provided a simple statement admitting you now know you were wrong.

        On the subject of your mistake which you continue to press, I wrote

        Of course I agree with that factually accurate statement. Anybody who knows anything about the subject agrees with that factually accurate statement.

        Unfortunately, you don’t understand it because – you again say – you lack ability to read.

        The statement says, there are no instrumental records that demonstrate the warming.
        BUT
        You assert the statement says we don’t know if the planet warmed: IT DOESN’T SAY THAT.

        In the unlikely event that you can read it, I commend this explanation of the issues especially its Appendix B.

        Obviously, I was correct in my suspicion that you would be incapable of reading the explanation because you have replied

        I’d be curious to know how you think the book says we know the planet warmed over the 1900s even though we have no measurements which indicate such, assuming it did. And if it didn’t, I’d be curious to hear how you think we could know the planet warmed in the 1900s when we (supposedly) can’t tell that by examining temperature measurements.

        Would you care to explain?

        There are many ways to determine if something warmed or cooled. I can tell if a day gets warmer without needing a thermometer.

        And there are several ways to determine if the Earth warmed or cooled throughout the twentieth century without using thermometers or other “direct instrumental” methods; e.g. on average glaciers advanced which is consistent with warming.

        The factually accurate statement which you say you don’t understand says

        Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

        That is true. And I linked to an explanation of why that is true, but you say my suspicion was right and your inability to read does prevent you understanding the explanation.

        Sadly, the only additional help I can give you is advice.
        I advise you to stop making posts on WUWT until you have taken a remedial course in reading comprehension because you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

        Richard

      • MarkW:

        Brandon, if the solar scientists are correct, there is plenty to suggest that we may see cooling over the next few decades.
        You continue to refuse to acknowledge any science except that which you want to agree with.

        There’s a degree of humor in saying someone refuses “to acknowledge any science except that which [they] want to agree with” while referring to the scientists you agree with as “the solar scientists.” There are many solar scientists, and practically none support the position you support. Because the work supporting it is bad.

      • richardscourtney:

        You attempt to poison the well by asserting I made “insults” when I did not!
        I am willing to accept your apology.

        That’s a fascinating position. You called me illiterate, but you claim you haven’t insulted me? What exactly counts as an insult in your eyes? If calling people illiterate isn’t insulting them, is saying, “You’re an incompetent buffoon who can’t read simple sentences”? Where exactly do you draw the line?

        You wisely withdraw from continuing to promote one of your two ridiculous errors that you promoted, and as an excuse flor withdrawing you say

        This is a gross misrepresentation of what I said and did. I still stand by everything I’ve said here. I simply feel it is unlikely pursuing every point all at once could be productive. It often is. A way of getting around that is to focus on a single point, and once it gets resolved, to move on to another. There is nothing remarkable about that approach, certainly nothing to justify you saying:

        It would have been better if you had provided a simple statement admitting you now know you were wrong.

        Because this is completely untrue. I don’t know if you’re trying to read my mind or what, but nothing I’ve said even remotely suggests I “now know [I was] wrong.”

        At this point, it’s clear nothing I say could possibly result in a productive exchange with you. It’s unfortunate, but as our host says, once you resort to insults, you’ve lost the argument. And I know you may once again deny having insulted me, but I think most people will agree comments like this are insulting:

        I advise you to stop making posts on WUWT until you have taken a remedial course in reading comprehension because you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

        For the record though, the book doesn’t say anything like what you’re suggesting. That you could come up with some interpretation not remotely supported by the book because I only quoted a small portion of it, rather than an entire section, doesn’t really mean much. Other than, you probably haven’t read the book.

        Because that very same chapter has a list of points of agreement between the author and the mainstream position. None of them include that the planet has warmed. One of them does, however, say warming “may have occurred in the twentieth century.” Warming may have occurred. Not did occur.

        The author of the chapter makes a point of our supposed inability to be sure the planet warmed in the 1900s, multiple times. It’s pretty hard to miss.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Your persistent falsehoods are starting to annoy me.

        I did NOT say you are illiterate. I said to you with sincerity

        Sadly, the only additional help I can give you is advice.
        I advise you to stop making posts on WUWT until you have taken a remedial course in reading comprehension because you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

        In your usual fashion you have misrepresented that.

        Again, I would accept your apology.

        And you persist with your idiocy saying

        Because that very same chapter has a list of points of agreement between the author and the mainstream position. None of them include that the planet has warmed. One of them does, however, say warming “may have occurred in the twentieth century.” Warming may have occurred. Not did occur.

        The author of the chapter makes a point of our supposed inability to be sure the planet warmed in the 1900s, multiple times. It’s pretty hard to miss.

        Yes. It is a pity that you cannot read because if you had been capable of reading the link I have twice given you then you would have understood these matters.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney, you say:

        Your persistent falsehoods are starting to annoy me.

        I did NOT say you are illiterate.

        The word “illiterate” is defined as “unable to read or write.” You said:

        clearly, you cannot read.

        If I cannot read, I am “unable to read,” therefore I am illiterate. You called me illiterate. Amazingly, despite denying this, you then say:

        Yes. It is a pity that you cannot read

        In the same comment you deny having called me illiterate, you say I cannot read – meaning I’m illiterate. You can talk all you want about “persistent falsehoods,” but I don’t think anyone will find you convincing when you deny doing something at the same time you do it.

        I think you will find conversations work better if you stop being quite so rude and hostile. And perhaps cut down on the insults.

      • Brandon: Interesting, now you are denying actual scientists in order to preserve your indefensible position.
        As to your claim that almost no solar scientists believe that there is a possibility of a sun caused cooling over the next few decades, you really need to get out more.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        Anybody who can read can see that my despair at your inability to read pertains – as I clearly said – to your reading comprehension and NOT to your literacy.

        The fact that you proclaim an inability to understand this demonstrates the truth of your inability to read. For the third time, I give you this sincere advice.

        Sadly, the only additional help I can give you is advice.
        I advise you to stop making posts on WUWT until you have taken a remedial course in reading comprehension because you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

        If you were able to read then you would recognise that my advice is NOT “rude” and is NOT “hostile”. On the contrary, it is a sincere attempt to help you overcome your problem.

        Also, and importantly, I have made no “insults”. The only “insults” have been from you, and I have twice said I would accept your apology.

        I point out to onlookers that you have raised these untrue objections as a smokescreen for your recognition that you were and are wrong about both of the substantive points you made about the book.

        Richard

      • MarkW:

        Brandon: Interesting, now you are denying actual scientists in order to preserve your indefensible position.

        How does one deny scienists? Is that like being a “climate denier,” where you apparently deny… that climate exists? Am I denying scientists exist? I really don’t know. It might help if you took the time to actually write out what your points are. For instance, you say:

        As to your claim that almost no solar scientists believe that there is a possibility of a sun caused cooling over the next few decades, you really need to get out more.

        Nobody could possibly be convinced by that. Not only do you claim I’m ignorant of the state of a field, you act as though the field actively supports a position. But you do nothing to support either position. Your comment might as just say, “You’re wrong and in denial, trust me.” That’s not how discussions work. If you want to make a point, you need to make it and offer support for it.

        richardscourtney:

        Anybody who can read can see that my despair at your inability to read pertains – as I clearly said – to your reading comprehension and NOT to your literacy.

        You pretty much quoted the definition of illiterate word for word, yet you keep insisting you didn’t call me illiterate without showing how your comments could be interpreted in any other way. Simply repeating assertions over and over does not make them convincing or true. Especially not when you throw accusations of dishonesty into the mix:

        I point out to onlookers that you have raised these untrue objections as a smokescreen for your recognition that you were and are wrong about both of the substantive points you made about the book.

        Not only are you accusing me of being dishonest by saying I choose to resort to “a smokescreen” to hide what I’ve come to realize, you make a completely baseleess claim about what I think. I explicitly stated I stand by everything I’ve said here, yet you respond by claiming I now know I was wrong about what I said.

        I don’t know if you think you have ESP or what, but your claims about what I think couldn’t be more off-base.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I am willing to accept your apology for your persistent dishonesty.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney:

        I am willing to accept your apology for your persistent dishonesty.

        I don’t understand why you would make this comment. I can’t imagine anyone would find it convincing or compelling. I doubt they would even find it tasteful or welcome in civil discussion.

        Regardless, I am confident anyone who reads my comments will find I have been not dishonest. If you wish to keep accusing me of being dishonest, you can, but I think it will only make you look bad.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        You say to me

        Regardless, I am confident anyone who reads my comments will find I have been not dishonest. If you wish to keep accusing me of being dishonest, you can, but I think it will only make you look bad.

        Well, making the very debateable assumption that your comment I here quote is not dishonest, then we can add self-delusion to the list of personal problems you have displayed in this thread.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney:

        Well, making the very debateable assumption that your comment I here quote is not dishonest, then we can add self-delusion to the list of personal problems you have displayed in this thread.

        It’s fascinating to see the level of discourse one can find on this site. I’m pretty sure nobody will find criticisms of what I had to say compelling when they’re made by people who behave like this. When you go around calling people you disagree with illiterate, dishonest and whatever else, I think you devalue anything else you might have to say.

        Because after all, when you resort to insults, you’ve lost the argument.

      • richardscourtney, you haven’t pointed to a single thing I’ve said that was an insult, yet you say:

        Thankyou for at last admitting you’ve lost the argument.

        Because I said when you resort to insults, you’ve lost the argument. As such, I have to ask, where did I insult you? Heck, where did I insult anyone? You’ve flat-out called me dishonest and incapable of reading. I don’t think I’ve said anything that remotely compares.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        OK. That post replaces my annoyance at you with pity for you.

        Clearly, self-delusion is another serious problem you have.
        Try to read this sub-thread if you can.

        Richard

      • Brandon: Now you are getting deep into hypocrisy.
        You proclaim that all I did regarding solar scientists was proclaim that you were wrong.
        Well why not, that’s all you did. Both in the post I responded to, and now in your latest post.
        In fact, that’s all you have ever done.

      • MarkW:

        Brandon: Now you are getting deep into hypocrisy.
        You proclaim that all I did regarding solar scientists was proclaim that you were wrong.
        Well why not, that’s all you did. Both in the post I responded to, and now in your latest post.
        In fact, that’s all you have ever done.

        There’s a little thing called the burden of proof. If you want people to believe solar scientists provide good reason to believe we will see global cooling in the next couple decades, you should provide some support for that idea.

        I don’t have any obligation to provide evidence you’re wrong when you claim evidence exists if you fail to provide that evidence. A lack of evidence speaks for itself when discussing whether or not evidence exists.

      • And the hypocrisy hole gets even deeper.
        You demand that others prove their claims, yet you have never provided any proof of your own.
        Sheesh, quit before you hit magma.

    • “Brandon Shollenberger June 10, 2015 at 5:37 am
      I have to admit, I am really not a fan of this book. I think it has a number of chapters which are terrible, primarily toward the beginning where they say things like:

      Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

      This is a book which literally says we cannot know the planet warmed in the 1900s. Things like that are why I panned the book.”

      I’m not as sure that you’ve “panned the book” as you have demonstrated a level of “not so brightness” on your part.

      The book, based on your quote from it, does not say “we cannot know the planet warmed in the 1900’s”, it says (paraphrased, although the quote is fairly clear), “we cannot know how much it may have warmed through our direct instrumental records”.

      If you think our direct instrumental records, which do not cover the entire planet, are acceptable to give us anything more than “may have warmed during the twentieth century”, then you haven’t been paying attention.

      Unless, or course, you are one of the people who accept that since the end of the LIA we’ve warmed 1.5 degrees C, plus or minus 2 degrees?

      /grin

      • JohnWho:

        I’m not as sure that you’ve “panned the book” as you have demonstrated a level of “not so brightness” on your part.

        Maybe it’s because I’m not so bright, but I struggle to see how this statement could make any sense. Panning a book just means giving it a bad review. I don’t think being stupid could somehow prevent me from giving a book a negative review.

        Incidentally, I’d be curious where I’ve “demonstrated a level of ‘not so brightness.'” Was it when my review of Michael Mann’s earlier book was promoted on this site, when my discovery of John Cook’s Nazi dress up was promoted on this site, when my critique of work by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky was promoted on this site, or… I’m just curious because it seems how much I get insulted on this site is directly dependent upon who I am criticizing.

        The book, based on your quote from it, does not say “we cannot know the planet warmed in the 1900’s”, it says (paraphrased, although the quote is fairly clear), “we cannot know how much it may have warmed through our direct instrumental records”.

        That is nothing like what the book says. The book clearly says we don’t have instrumental records “that demonstrate any such warming with an acceptable degree of probability.” Denying we can demonstrate “any such warming” does not mean, “We don’t know how much warming there is.” It means, “We don’t know there has been warming.

        You can insult me all you want, but as our host says, when you resort to insults, you’ve lost the argument.

      • Brandon –

        I didn’t think I was insulting you, just expressing an opinion of what you’ve presented as your understanding of what you clearly must not be able to comprehend since you insist on distorting what was written.

        Your original book quote (the portion you keep omitting from your further discussion) says:

        “Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century,…”

        Sounds reasonable and straightforward to me.

        Do you really believe we can give an accurate number to the amount of warming that may have happened in the 1900’s?

      • JohnWho:

        I didn’t think I was insulting you, just expressing an opinion of what you’ve presented as your understanding of what you clearly must not be able to comprehend since you insist on distorting what was written.

        Maybe I’m being a bit touchy due to having been insulted multiple times on this page already, but I think statements like, “you have demonstrated a level of ‘not so brightness’ on your part” are pretty clearly insults.

        Your original book quote (the portion you keep omitting from your further discussion) says:

        “Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century,…”

        Sounds reasonable and straightforward to me.

        I struggle to see how anyone could think it is “reasonable and straightforward” to say the planet may have warmed in the 1900s. The planet did warm in the 1900s. There is no doubt about that.

        Do you really believe we can give an accurate number to the amount of warming that may have happened in the 1900’s?

        The word “accurate” is too vague to allow anyone to answer that question. Accuracy is not a binary thing, it’s a scale. Whatever uncertainties there may be in the amount of warming over the 1900s, those uncertainies certainly do not cover 0 as the book says.

        If the most you are willing to say is, “Warming may have happend in the 1900s,” nobody will take you seriously. Because they shouldn’t. Warming did happen in the 1900s. There is no reason to constantly say it only “may” have happened.

      • Was it when my review of Michael Mann’s earlier book was promoted on this site, when my discovery of John Cook’s Nazi dress up was promoted on this site, when my critique of work by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky was promoted on this site

        Congratulations, you have said some intelligent things in the past, and made some major discoveries.

        … so has Mosher. It doesn’t stop someone from getting a big head and start thinking their opinion is now infallible. Just the opposite from what I can see.

    • @ the Courtney’s –

      It appears you have engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

      Brandon’s reading comprehension level isn’t high enough for him to understand the book, let alone comment rationally about it.

      It is commendable of you to show the desire to assist him with his understanding, but perhaps you’d better apply your thinking toward more productive things like: shoes, and ships, and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings?

      /cynic /sarc

      • From his tone and word usage I would be hesitant to declare Brandon to be “not bright”. It does appear that he has decided to utilize whatever intelligence he may have to defending an indefensible position, along with a willingness to use obfuscation and misdirection to cover up for the fact that he can’t actually defend the positions he has taken.

    • Brandon, the truth of the matter, whether you want to believe it or not, is that the ground based temperature record is so bad, that we can’t say with any certainty what the temperature of the earth is within a degree or two, using todays records.
      As we go back into history, it gets worse, the records are so sparse and the sites so poorly maintained that we don’t know what the earth’s temperature was within 5C 100 years ago.
      The claimed warming of 0.7C over the last 150 years claims a precision that cannot be justified using the measurements available.

      That you would down the book for telling the truth is not becoming.

      • “MarkW June 10, 2015 at 7:24 am
        From his tone and word usage I would be hesitant to declare Brandon to be “not bright”. It does appear that he has decided to utilize whatever intelligence he may have to defending an indefensible position, along with a willingness to use obfuscation and misdirection to cover up for the fact that he can’t actually defend the positions he has taken.”

        Well, OK then, let me just say that I take a “dim view” of his position.

        /grin

      • MarkW, I’ve never “claimed warming of 0.7C over the last 150 years” is a reasonable statement. It may be too precise. I have no problem with people arguing it is. However, there is absolutely no doubt, regardless of questions of precision, that the value is greater than 0. There was warming. You can only say:

        That you would down the book for telling the truth is not becoming.

        By pretending the book only said we are uncertain of the exact amount when it actually said we aren’t certain there was any warming at all.

    • Indeed, the reality is that no scientist can tell me with reasonable probability what the temperature is going to be TOMORROW; much less in 2030. I see that you don’t challenge this point.

      Brandon says “We may not know when temperatures will rise or how much they’ll rise by, but they are going to rise.”

      There’s that socialist “we” again. You do not know this. I certainly do not know this. It cannot be “known” and there is no “we”.

      It is believed by you; it is an article of faith. 2030 is a long time from now and many things could happen. How is it that you have more certainty than the IPCC itself?

      • Michael 2:

        Indeed, the reality is that no scientist can tell me with reasonable probability what the temperature is going to be TOMORROW; much less in 2030. I see that you don’t challenge this point.

        Um… what? Nobody had made that point before, so how would I have challenged it? There are an infinite number of things nobody brought up which I haven’t challenged. What makes that one any different from the rest? You could just have easily said, “Lizard aliens are using the global warming hoax to take over the world; I see you don’t challenge this point.”

        There’s that socialist “we” again. You do not know this. I certainly do not know this. It cannot be “known” and there is no “we”.

        I don’t care to go into semantics given how fruitless exchanges here have been thus far, but there are plenty of people who could count as “we.” For instance, there is myself and everyone else who agrees we have no reason to believe the planet will cool by 2030. As for whether or not we can “know” this to be true, there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, so in that sense, we cannot “know” it and more than we can “know” the sun will rise tomorrow. But aside from semantics like that, yes, we can know it will not cool by 2030.

        It is believed by you; it is an article of faith. 2030 is a long time from now and many things could happen. How is it that you have more certainty than the IPCC itself?

        Questions like this baffle me. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why ask a question which relies on a premise you’ve not only not stated, but haven’t even vaguely referenced?

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        You say to Michael 2

        Questions like this baffle me. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        Yes, Brandon, everybody who has read this thread has noticed that almost everything baffles you and we have all observed why.

        For the fifth time in this thread, I say to you
        Sadly, the only additional help I can give you is advice.
        I advise you to stop making posts on WUWT until you have taken a remedial course in reading comprehension because you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

        Richard

    • Brandon Shollenberger —

      You don’t seem to read very well.

      “Though global average temperatures may have warmed during the twentieth century no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.”

      The phrase “may have warmed” is an affirmation of warming. If I said — You may have been the sheriff but that does not mean… — would you take that to mean I was denying the person being talked to was once the sheriff? Of course not. People who’s second language is English might not understand but certainly you should. It seems like you are deliberately misreading what has been written.

      And the continuing statement — “no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability” — is 100% accurate. The direct instrument data is admitted to need adjustment. The accuracy of the raw data is not acceptable.

      And the instrumental data from the twentieth century has all been adjusted and readjusted and readjusted again. The validity of many of the adjustments is suspect and thus the magnitude of the trend of warming of the adjusted data shows is also of very doubtful accuracy — perhaps even more so than the raw data.

      What’s not to understand? And why are you misunderstanding?

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Eugene WR Gallun, words can be used in many ways. One can say something “may have happened” to affirm it happened when contrasting two things like you describe. However, Bob Carter lists as a point of agreement with the IPCC/mainstream position that temperatures may have risen since 1900. That’s it. There is no contrasting or rhetorical setup where “may” could mean anything more than “may.”

        I get people are quick to defend these individual quotes by suggesting the authors may have said or meant something based solely upon the quotes, but I find it interesting nobody has looked at the context of the quotes to try to argue I am wrong. I suspect if people were to, they’d find what I say is certainly true. Put simply, Carter does not agree the planet warmed in the twentieth century. When listing what he agrees about, he says he agrees warming “may have occurred in the twentieth century.”

        He doesn’t say the estimated amount of warming might be wrong. He says the idea of warming itself may be wrong.

    • “This is a book which literally says we cannot know the planet warmed in the 1900s.”

      So basically your saying you panned the book for admitting the truth that the data is a joke and using science plus said data can not create any results that are scientifically valid… how very anti-science of you.

    • Brandon says: “I was never wrong about when the pause would end because I’ve never said a word about when it would end.”

      I was going to argue this, but on careful re-reading I see that you are just barely correct. You assert that the world WILL warm but make no prediction (in this thread anyway) of exactly when that will happen. That is the substance of my commentary over on ATTP with regard to the “ill-posed question”. Being able to predict the end of the pause ought to be within the powers of science and models.

      You write: “richardscourtney, there is nothing to suggest we will see global cooling by 2030.”

      Well there was also nothing to suggest the pause, but here it is! there was nothing to suggest the LIA, the MWP or the Roman Optimum. Plenty of room for additional research; the science is not settled.

      That the world could cool in 2030 is a possibility. That is scientific. It would take a rather dramatic event to cause it; but it is unscientific to be so sure of your prediction that the Earth can only get warmer. I concur that it is likely to go in the direction of warming, possibly dramatically, but it is certainly possible to go cooler. What this tells me is that you are motivated by faith as well as science and it is not clear which dominates in your mind.

      • Based upon the history of the Holocene and prior interglacials (as well as glacials) the way to bet would be on cooling as the next multi-decadal move in the real world if not in the cooked book surface “record”.

        Considering just the Modern Warm Period since the end of the LIA in the mid-19th century, there was an initial warming, followed by cooling, followed by the early 20th century warming, followed by the mid-20th century cooling, followed by the late 20th century warming, followed by the present plateau or cooling, which should have perhaps two decades more to run.

        If climate history be a guide, and given the cyclicality of oceanic oscillations, it ought to be. The enhanced GHE of more CO2 doesn’t seem observably to override these natural fluctuations, although there night be some minor, undetectable effect, given the size of natural variability in the multi-decadal swings.

    • Brandon writes “Questions like this baffle me. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why ask a question which relies on a premise you’ve not only not stated, but haven’t even vaguely referenced?”

      I think the “context establishing comment” got lost in this shuffle.

      The context is that of *certainty*. You are expressing certainty that after the pause the temperature can only go up. This is an article of faith. After the pause the temperature will go either up or down and it cannot be predicted. The LIKELY direction can be predicted but it is always uncertain. For that matter, it will be extremely difficult to define the inflection points that demark the pause. The 1998 inflection point seems easy enough to find; but what the climate does next could be another inflection point or a gradual rise or, less likely, a gradual fall or even a downward inflection point. Absent a spectacular natural event I expect temperatures will eventually rise again but I certainly don’t commit to a statement of faith on it.

      I am glad you acknowlege the pause. Several at ATTP deny the pause itself so this conversation isn’t even possible.

      To emphasize uncertainty or unpredictability of a chaotic system I claim scientists cannot predict tomorrows temperature. They get it right within a few degrees about 50 percent of the time and sometimes get it spectacularly wrong; missing tomorrows temperature by 20 degrees or more (F). But of course I don’t blame scientists; it is a computer (ought perhaps to be called “Deep Think” in honor of Douglas Adams) and it is quite remarkable for its achievements — but uncertainty persists while claims of certainty indicates FAITH.

      I see that no one here is predicting the likelihood of cooling in 2030; merely keeping an open mind as to the possibility. I think the extreme dangers of global cooling do not enter your mind because you consider it impossible; but the “precautionary principle” pertains to the risk of global cooling and snowball Earth as well as the dangers of warming. A few million tons of coal ought to be kept on hand to stave off the next glaciation.

  26. Yesterday and the day before (June 8 and 9) Mark Steyn mentioned the book on the Rush Limbaugh show. Hopefully the word it now out and many more will read it.

  27. Just because it was brought up. University of Michigan discovered some “sealed in glass” soil samples, dated 1910, about 20 years ago. Decided, “Let’s analyze all the trace chemicals, etc. and see what changes “modern life” have brought.” Result: 10 PPM DDT !!! “Natural product”. This was many times, prior to this discovery, cited to “prove” that DDT never “broke down” and would always “accumulate”. (Of course no one every CHALLENGED this absurd notion by taking an estimate of total global top soil, multiplying out the PPM and finding that the number you’d get would be HIGHER THAN THE TONS OF DDT produced to that date. Last, the egg shell thinning was caused by the ethylene dibromide added to leaded gas, in order to stabilize tetraethyl lead in the gas. (Source: ASTM Publications)

    • The egg thinning was caused by laboratory birds who were fed calcium poor diets and placed in a stressful environment.
      There never was any egg thinning in the wild.

      • DDE-Induced Eggshell-Thinning in the American Kestrel: A Comparison of the Field Situation and Laboratory Results

        Jeffrey L. Lincer
        Journal of Applied Ecology
        Vol. 12, No. 3 (Dec., 1975), pp. 781-793

        Abstract
        (1) DDE residues in kestrel eggs collected from the Ithaca, New York area averaged 35, 42, 33 and 37 ppm for the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, respectively. (2) Based on Ratcliffe’s Index, eggshells of the local population averaged 10% thinner than pre-DDT eggshells. (3) A dose-response relationship is established for dietary DDE and eggshell-thinning in a captive kestrel population. (4) Statistical analysis revealed that the correlative relationship between DDE in the egg and eggshell-thinning is the same for both captive experimental birds and the wild population. (5) A discussion of organochlorines, eggshell-thinning and the decline of several populations of North American raptors concludes that a causal relationship exists between the ingestion of prey highly contaminated with DDE and the consequent eggshell-thinning and eggshell breakage. The breeding failure that follows and subsequent population declines of several raptor populations proceeds in a straightforward, logical and well-documented sequence.

        http://www.jstor.org/stable/2402090

    • Max Hugoson

      And as I remember it a lot of direct deaths were caused by drinking from puddles of leaked radiator fluid — the composition of which was later changed — not to mention the whole cooling system of cars being mightily improved cutting down on leaks.

      Eugene WR Gallun

  28. This is even better than the Heartland award. Congratulations to all of the authors and to Anthony for his being recognized for the massive effort put in here. I doubt that any of us realize just how much time and commitment this blog and associated activities have taken.

    • Horrors! People with spare money donating to groups working on behalf of what they believe. Who gave them permission to do that? Coming up next as a Guardian Exclusive — “New Analysis reveals 97% of Donations to Bill & Hillary Foundation came from soccer moms and school kids donating their piggy banks”.

    • Went and read the guardian article. Apparently if any large donation is made (for any reason whatsoever) to any group with a multiple agenda one part of which is deemed to oppose the CAGW agenda then the entirety of the donation is counted as being given to oppose CAGW even if the donation was specified to be for another purposes entirely. Wow, talk about deceitful!

      Eugene WR Gallun

  29. Rachel Carson, just another lady with a bee in her bonnet and if she’d have left it at that….but then you can’t comprehend the repercussions, as unfathomable as is the ether. But banning DDT – one can never account for mankind’s group think of stupidity – one can attest and bear witness to the misery and death it caused though and maybe utter – never again.

    Down the line, here comes another – Hillary Clinton – buzzing like mad!

  30. If I was a science teacher, I would assign Mann’s books for my students to read to show them what bad science looks like.

  31. Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
    Congratulation to Anthony and his fellow authors for the huge success. I bought my copy when Mark Steyn announced the book on his blog. He is also a co-author. Highly recommended if you what the real facts about Climate Change.

  32. The free marketplace of ideas has given its comparative valuation of the ideas in the book ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ (co-authored by many independent critical thinkers**). Namely, the free marketplace of ideas finds ‘’Climate Change: The Facts’ is valued as being interesting to a much much wider audience as compared to ‘Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change’ (by Mann).

    I love the smell of the free marketplace of ideas in the morning.

    ** co-authors are: John Abbot; Jennifer Marohasy; Andrew Bolt; Robert M Carter; Rupert Darwall; James Delingpole; Christopher Essex; Stewart W Franks; Kesten C Green; J Scott Armstrong; Donna Laframboise; Nigel Lawson; Bernie Lewin; Richard S Lindzen; Ross McKitrick; Alan Moran; Patrick J Michaels; Joanne Nova; Garth W Paltridge; Ian Plimer; Willie Soon; Mark Steyn; Anthony Watts. Editor, Alan Moran.

    John

    • People are still buying ‘The Population Bomb’, and it’s been discredited for longer.

      Hell, they still read Marx.

  33. I just bought myself the Kindle edition of Climate Change: The Facts. Thanks for the reminder, Anthony! Really happy to support these authors, and besides I’ll need something interesting to pass away my upcoming 11-hour flight to sunny Thailand on one of those nasty fossil-fuel-spewing airliners!

    • “on one of those nasty fossil-fuel-spewing airliners!”. Have a safe trip!

      I just read “U.S. EPA takes first step to regulate aircraft greenhouse gas emissions”.
      I wonder if that will affect any flights to Paris?

      • Paul – Here is the link to the proposed rule to be issued in the Federal Register (note, Our Friend at EPA Ms. Gina McCarthy just released this today):
        http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/aviation/aircraft-ghg-pr-anprm-2015-06-10.pdf
        Oh, the humanity. I fully expect a war declared by the EPA upon all carbon-based organisms, as they put forth great quantities of CO2 during the act of respiration. Starting with those skeptical of the EPA’s position on CO2 = pollution. The war “drones” on (notice my aviation-related pun right there?)…
        MCR

  34. The Paragon of Scientists by Jim Dodson
    What a piece of work is Mann,
    How ignoble in unreason.
    How finite in faculty.
    In jetting about instead of teleconferencing,
    How like a hypocrite.
    In action, how like a conman working an angle,
    In eventual apprehension by the proper authorities
    How like a fraud!

  35. An alternate title for Mann’s ‘Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change’ is something like ‘Useful Mythological Climate Doom or the IPCC on Climate Change’.

    An alternate title for ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ is something like ‘Behind the Curtain; Exposing the Illusions in IPCC’s Climate Change’

    John

  36. I note the bimodal distribution of review levels. Sad commentary on the state of the debate.

  37. Above, some people took issue with my characterization of this book. Most importantly, I offered this quote:

    Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

    Saying it is bad for skeptics to act as though we’re not certain the planet warmed during the 1900s. Some people insisted the quote doesn’t do so, saying it is reasonable to say “temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century” but we can’t tell via instrumental records. I struggle with that interpretation. No matter how flawed one may think the instrumental records are, I’d like to think we could all agree they do show the planet warmed in the twentieth century.

    But since there was dispute over that quote, I’d like to offer a couple more to demonstrate the same general point. That quote was from Chapter 5. Now I’ll quote Chapter 1:

    The first 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature, whereas any increase from the current 400 ppm will have an insignificant effect.

    This book says further CO2 emissions “will have an insignificant effect.” That’s not directly denying the greenhouse effect, but it is basically saying further global warming (of any meaningful amount) won’t happen. That’s not good. Even if you believe climate sensitivity is as low as 1C, future CO2 emissions can still have some meaningful effect. This quote is from a section:

    ii. The increased carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, will lead to ever increasing global warming.
    Point (ii) has shown to be invalid on all time scales.

    Which sets the stage for a number of other terrible talking points people should run away from (e.g. CO2 makes up a tiny % of the atmosphere so it doesn’t matter), but perhaps the most clear statement is:

    This again shows that atmospheric CO2 does not drive atmospheric temperature change.

    But perhaps the worst statement comes from the Introduction of the book which says:

    Robert Carter shows that any human effect on climate is trivial compared to natural variation, and that there is no evidence the next 50 years will bring human induced warming

    50 years. No evidence. Not a shred of evidence that we will see any warming (caused by humans) in the next 50 years. No skeptic should be comfortable being associated with a position like that. I think some chapters in this book are quite good, but I’d be embarrassed to have written one of them if it meant being in a book which says things like this.

    • First the pause wasn’t long enough to be a pause and therefore was not significant. Then the pause was acknowledged and blamed on missing heat and/or natural variation. Then the pause disappeared by using bad (ship) data to correct more accurate and robust (buoy) data.

      Given all of that, how can any reasonable person not believe that our understanding of the science of the Earth’s Climate is anything but poor at this point. I wish I could share your confidence, but after examining the data, methods, predictions and assertions I cannot.

      • Reg Nelson, I don’t fully agree with your depiction of the situation (primarily because of your remark about ship/buoy data), but regardless, the idea the planet didn’t warm in the 1900s is ludicrous. The idea there is no evidence we will see warming in the next 50 years is absurd. There is a lot of room for uncertainty in the global warming debate, but some things are quite certain.

        For instance, the planet did warm in the 1900s. We should all be able to agree about that.

      • @ Brandon Shollenberger

        I never claimed the planet hasn’t warmed. The planet has both warmed and cooled in the past. I think we can both agree on that. The fact that the planet has warmed, in and of itself, means nothing. Understanding how much it has warmed and why is what is scientifically important. When I see graphs showing the global temperature anomaly for 1850 with a claimed precision of 0.1C, I know based on the amount data collected and the method of measurement that this simply is not possible.

        My point is that we haven’t got the science figured out yet. Show me one paper that predicted the pause. There is nothing wrong with saying we don’t know at this point. All science has to begin somewhere. To claim that “the science is settled” is absurd.

      • Reg Nelson:

        I never claimed the planet hasn’t warmed. The planet has both warmed and cooled in the past. I think we can both agree on that

        I understand you haven’t done so. Other people have, however. Or at least, they’ve said we don’t know the planet has warmed (since 1900). Just below, the commenter Bruce Cobb even said:

        I don’t want to shock you, but the fact is that there is little evidence of manmade warming. Period. It is merely conjecture. To then posit any future manmade warming is sheer stupidity.

        That’s the sort of attitude I’m talking about. This book encourages it. It denies that we know the planet has warmed (since 1900), and it says there is no evidence the planet will warm in the next 50 years. It says other things as well, but my point is we should all be able to agree on a few basic details. So when you say:

        Understanding how much it has warmed and why is what is scientifically important. When I see graphs showing the global temperature anomaly for 1850 with a claimed precision of 0.1C, I know based on the amount data collected and the method of measurement that this simply is not possible.

        That’s fine. I just think if people want to be taken seriously, they need to agree the planet has warmed since 1900 and will warm again in the future. And I think it’s a shame this book encourages people not to agree with either point.

      • Wow, even the guys who collect and work with ship data acknowledge how bad it is. But Brandon won’t accept that as a characterization of the data.

        How bad the data is, has been well documented and discussed to death here in recent days so I won’t bother going over all of it again.

      • Brandon, fascinating how you slide so easily from the assumption that there has been warming, to the belief that the warming must have been caused by man.

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      Please explain why you persist in trying to disrupt this thread by quoting accurate and correct facts from the book then say the facts must be wrong because you don’t understand them.

      And for the fourth time in this thread, I say to you
      Sadly, the only additional help I can give you is advice.
      I advise you to stop making posts on WUWT until you have taken a remedial course in reading comprehension because you are making a laughing stock of yourself.

      Richard

      • richardscourtney, I am not trying to disrupt anything. This topic is about a book. I am discussing that book. The fact you think I am dishonest has no bearing on that. You can continue insulting me all you want. You can repeatedly insist I am dishonest if you’d like. You can even say I believe things I’ve explicitly said I do not believe.

        You can keep doing all of those if you’d like, but none of them will contribute anything to discussion. In fact, they will disrupt things far more than anything I might have to say will.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I refer you to the true and accurate comment of Bruce Cobb below because I am fed up with refuting your ridiculous and untrue twaddle.

        Richard

      • I don’t have the time nor the inclination to go back through this thread and find the exact quote, but someone here suggested that Brandon might be intelligent because of his word use. He might be, but I think it a fallacy to assume that word use implies intelligence. Having a large vocabulary and the ability turn a phrase has been given way too much credit in our society. I believe that having a way with words, maybe a sign of a certain type of intelligence, but it is not necessarily associated with an ability to think. The other side of the coin is that some highly intelligent people have trouble expressing themselves.

        While I concede Bradon might be intelligent, I’d be remiss if I didn’t add that nothing he has written on this thread suggest that he is in fact intelligent.

      • Brandon, we aren’t discussing the book. We are discussing your mischaracterizations of the book.

      • Tom Trevor, MarkW, I find it fascinating how you guys keep making comments without even attempting to contribute anything. I’m genuinely curious what you hope to achieve. Do you think this approach will convince me of anything? I assume not.

        My best guess is you hope to convince onlookers what I’ve been saying is wrong, but I don’t see how you think it could. The only other idea I have is you’re just trying to force me off the site so I’ll shut up.

        Seriously. All I’ve been saying is the planet has warmed since 1900, and it will warm again in the future. Those should be points everybody can agree on.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I see you are posting more falsehoods.
        That is NOT all you are saying. Try to read your own words in this thread.

        You really, really do need help.

        Richard

      • Brandon, refuting your lies is not making a contribution?
        Interesting world in which you live.
        Is the beer free there?

    • I don’t want to shock you, but the fact is that there is little evidence of manmade warming. Period. It is merely conjecture. To then posit any future manmade warming is sheer stupidity.

      • Bruce Cobb, would you care to expand upon this point? I thought it was pretty obvious humans have caused the planet to warm, but I’d be curious to hear why you think it isn’t. I honestly don’t know why people might think the idea of manmade warming “is merely conjecture.”

      • Brandon, just because you believe something to be obvious, does not make it so.
        Yes there is evidence that the planet has warmed, but the evidence that this warming was caused by man is very weak. Especially considering the fact that the earth has warmed by even greater amounts in the recent past. In fact, for most of the last 10K years, the planet has been warmer than it is today.

      • MarkW:

        Yes there is evidence that the planet has warmed, but the evidence that this warming was caused by man is very weak.

        Interesting. It’s not, “Yes the planet has warmed”; it’s, “Yes there is evidence the planet has warmed.” And it’s not, “The evidence humans are responsible for all the warming is very weak”; It’s, “[T]he evidence that this warming was caused by man is very weak.”

        Apparently my problem is I accept humans emissions of greenhouse gases has led to the greenhouse effect getting strong.

      • Brandon Shollenberger
        June 10, 2015 at 11:44 am

        “Apparently my problem is I accept humans emissions of greenhouse gases has led to the greenhouse effect getting strong.”
        ——————————-
        Describing the greenhouse effect as strong is rather imprecise and subject to interpretation of the word “strong”, wouldn’t you agree?
        Try this: merely present any modern era temperature data set which shows a clear temperature response to CO2atm. That should solve all of your problems here, today.

        hint: This request might be considered a trick, since there is no modern (since 1850?) temp data set which shows any correlation at all between temps and CO2. You are free to disprove my statement and display, or link to such a data set.

      • Alan Robertson, I actually meant to type “stronger,” not “strong.” I’d like to think we could all agree humans have caused the greenhouse effect to get stronger, and hence, have cause the planet to warm, since pre-industrial times. That’s apparently not the case though.

      • Brandon,

        As I explain in a previous comment, you fail to recognize that any possible planetary warming from CO2 might not show up in the record for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that the effect is so slight.

        So far more CO2 has been a good thing and even more would be better.

        And please let me add once again that there has in fact been no global warming for going on two decades now. This flat to cooling interval will soon have lasted longer than the relatively feeble late 20th century warming phase, blown off the super El Nino of 1997-98, itself possibly primarily the result of a stronger sun previously shining on the tropical Pacific, aided by higher UV flus making more ozone and a more powerful solar magnetic field reducing CCNs, and of natural oceanic oscillations such as the PDO.

      • Brandon S., in response to Alan Robertson’s very specific (I’ll call it the money) question, you provide an (extraordinarily lame) evasion, merely repeating what you’d “like to think we can all agree on”. If you answered his question, maybe more would agree. Your evasion indicates to those of us who doubt the “greenhouse effect” translates to the atmosphere, that you cannot prove it. How do you expect to persuade anyone here if you run away from Alan’s question?

    • I would much rather be associated with the comments in the book you take issue with, than be associated with any of the statements you have made on this post. Your lack of logic has been pointed out many times, and you refuse to address your clear lack of logic and instead you insist that your lack of logic is fact logical, and then double and triple down down on your lack of logic by adding more illogical statements to your previous illogical statements. Then you insist that all skeptics should endorse your illogical statements, and apparently bring our reading comprehension down to your level, so you will finally understand what we are saying. No sir, bring your understanding up.

      • Tom Trevor, I find it is generally best to join discussions if I have something to contribute. Commenting just to criticize a person, without explaining your criticisms or doing anything to justify them, seems like a bad idea.

        If you think I am wrong about something, you’re welcome to say what it is you think I’ve gotten wrong. If not, you might as well just say, “You’re stoopid.” It would save some space, and it would contribute exactly as much.

      • MarkW, I love it how you label me a “warmista” when I’ve probably done more to challenge popular science in the global warming debate than anyone commenting on this post. That’s not me tooting my horn. I just find it funny people on this site would decide to use derogatory labels for people who, in theory, should be their allies.

        Apparently it’s just not okay to acknowledge basic things like, “Global warming is real” here.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        You add this to your long list of horrendous falsehoods in this thread

        I’ve probably done more to challenge popular science in the global warming debate than anyone commenting on this post.

        So, you claim to have “probably done more to challenge popular science in the global warming debate than” e.g. me.

        That claim would be funny if it were not so daft.

        Richard

      • MarkW:

        Brandon, pretty much by definition, less than 1C of warming is not going to be significant.

        Somebody just above made a relevant comment:

        I love the way warmistas actually believe that they get to define what words mean.

      • Pointing out that you want to change the definition of significant isn’t relevant?
        Wow, you really do feel you have the right to define what word’s mean.
        No, a 1C temperature rise is not significant, not by any rational definition of the term.

        Perhaps you meant measureable. Different word, with an entirely different meaning.

    • Brandon Shollenberger —

      I answered your other post. There is no point in answering this one. Your preset notions about what you are gong to read ARE what you read — not what is actually written on the page. Stick to comic books — they got pictures that will help you understand their text — what there is of it..

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” – Mark Twain

      Hopefully you can tell the difference between Brandon and me, but I will take the risk. I am not sure that anyone actually took him on point for point regarding the specific quotes (sorry, I could only watch so much bad thread tennis before my neck got sore). I am actually going to partially concede that he has a minor point, but don’t worry I will take him to task on the bulk of it.

      [quote]Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.[/quote]

      He says that this is an embarrassingly bad quote because it is essentially trying to deny the temperature record. Most reasonable scientists can look at the surface temperature record and conclude that the general trend of the 20th century was a mild positive slope. This quote makes that point a bit of a mess.

      There are questions about the precision of the instrumentation in the early 20th century, the consistency of data gathering, the corruption of many data stations by environmental encroachment, and a number of other issues. One could reasonably say that given all that, putting an error range into place, and accounting for precision, you could make the argument that the temperature rise is statistically small compared to the precision and error range. But that is a stretch.

      Stronger points could be made: historical proxies show sharper rises over shorter periods; the rise is very gradual and therefore not dangerous; despite the rise, we are still at the lower end of the temperature scale historically speaking; more recent data with precise and reliable instruments show the rise has stopped. Leaving the impression that there was no rise in the 20th century is disingenuous.

      I stop well short of Brandon’s characterization that this is an intentional misleading statement. I would say that it is an awkward way to say something that could give the reader (such as Brandon) an impression which is not intended.

      [quote]The first 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 have a significant effect on atmospheric temperature, whereas any increase from the current 400 ppm will have an insignificant effect.[/quote]

      Brandon takes issue with the fact that this leaves the impression that further contribution to the CO2 level will not lead to warming. He is correct that is the intended message, but incorrect that it is wrong. CO2 has a diminishing effect as concentration increases, and the current level is well beyond the level of significance (as far as planet temperature is concerned). Additional CO2 does help plant growth, which is good for the environment.

      While it is technically correct that adding C02 will still have a tiny marginal warming impact, it is at a level that is well below our current ability to measure it. Brandon’s taking exception to this missed the point of the quote.

      [quote] ii. The increased carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, will lead to ever increasing global warming. Point (ii) has shown to be invalid on all time scales. [/quote]

      Brandon seems to think this statement too is false. Thank God he is wrong on this one. If increasing CO2 lead to increasing temperature, then the rise in temperature would cause outgassing of CO2 from water and soil, and the snowball effect is on its way to a runaway burning planet. The quote points to the proxy records which show that CO2 levels have been many times higher than present without much increase in temperature. Indeed temperatures have been lower with higher CO2 levels at points in time.

      See the previous point on the diminishing returns from the effect of CO2 on temperature, and the negative feedbacks that exist in the system to neutralize the temperature/carbon cycle. The proxy record shows that CO2 rises in response to temperature rise (not the other way around), and because of the diminishing returns and negative feedbacks, Brandon’s fear of the present and future CO2 level is misplaced.

      [quote] Robert Carter shows that any human effect on climate is trivial compared to natural variation, and that there is no evidence the next 50 years will bring human induced warming [/quote]

      Brandon likes this quote least of all, but it is true. There is no hard, direct, meaningful science that can definitively point to any activity that man has done thus far has a statistically meaningful effect on climate compared to the natural variation of the system. There is a theory which is untested and unproven as to how significant man’s contribution may be, but as yet nothing empirical that state with any level of confidence. As there is no evidence of past impact, there can be no evidence of possible future impact.

      If such proof existed, it would be cited as rebuttal each time a quote like this is put forward. Brandon has none because there is none.

      • htb1969:

        Sorry, this thread includes a refutation of each and every point presented but the ridiculous Brandon Shollenberger.

        Taking the specific point he has made which you wrongly consider to be valid; i.e.

        Though global average temperature may have warmed during the twentieth century, no direct instrumental records exist that demonstrate any such warming within an acceptable degree of probability.

        You say

        He says that this is an embarrassingly bad quote because it is essentially trying to deny the temperature record. Most reasonable scientists can look at the surface temperature record and conclude that the general trend of the 20th century was a mild positive slope. This quote makes that point a bit of a mess.

        No! You are wrong because
        (a)
        Whether or not “the general trend of the 20th century” of “the surface temperature record” has “a mild positive slope” is not the same as saying the surface temperature record is capable of demonstrating that “warming within an acceptable degree of probability”. As the link I provided to Brandon Shollenberger explains, the “surface temperature record” has no known (and no knowable) accuracy and precision so CANNOT indicate the putative warming with “an acceptable degree of probability”.
        (b)
        I repeatedly explained (a) to Brandon Shollenberger in this thread, for example here and here. Unfortunately, his inability to read prevented him from understanding the matter.

        Richard

      • “every point presented but the ridiculous Brandon Shollenberger.”

        Are you implying that Brandon has been speaking through his nether regions?

      • MarkW

        No, my word ‘but’ was a misprint for ‘by’.
        Sorry, and thankyou for pointing it out.

        However, for clarity I add that in in common with others, I have observed that “Brandon has been speaking through his nether regions”.

        Richard

    • Brandon,

      There has been warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age, c 1700, not just since 1900. Since c. 1850, the planet has been coming out of the LIA cold period into another warming interval, as has happened repeatedly during the Holocene. However, each successive warm period since the Minoan, over 3000 years ago, has been progressively less warm. Earth is in a long-term cooling trend.

      The recovery from the Maunder Minimum depths of the LIA in the early 18th century was greater in duration and amplitude than the late 20th century warming phase, c. 1977-96, without benefit of increased man-made CO2. The warmings of the late 19th century and early 20th century were comparable in magnitude to that of the late 20th century, again without greatly increased CO2. The natural, late 20th century warming occurred accidentally while CO2 was rising, but it was preceded by the cooling cycle of the late 1940s to c. 1977, despite rapidly rising CO2 during that interval as well.

      Thus, there is no reason to imagine that man-made CO2 actually contributed to the natural warming or cooling cycles of the past more than 300 years. All observed warming and cooling cycles since then have been within normal bounds (century to century fluctuations of one degree C), so no valid way has yet been devised to tease out a human signal from this normal variation. It might well be that the net effect of human activity has been to cool the planet, but in any case, the effect either way is at best negligible.

      This doesn’t mean that there is no GHE from increased man-made CO2. It does mean that, if any, it’s not detectable. Perhaps earth’s self-regulating climate system quickly compensates for any such warming with prompt negative feedbacks. Maybe man-made cooling more than compensates for the hypothetical warming. Science doesn’t know. But clearly natural variation is far more important in climate change than growing beneficial plant food from 280 to 400 ppm. Hence it’s impossible to reject the null hypothesis that nothing out of the ordinary happening.

      So the supported scientific conclusion, based upon evidence, is that there is no discernible anthropogenic global warming, although there are local effects from human activities such as urban heat islands.

  38. Brandon Once again your illogical statements have been pointed out by many people here. It does no good for me to point them out again. If you think all I did was call you stupid, then you need to add my post to the growing list of things you don’t understand.
    I believe it your intention to shut down this thread, by saying such outrageous things that the rest of us just get frustrated and go away. If that is not your intention then you doing a great job of making yourself look stupid.

  39. wow
    whoever this brandon fellow is……make the stupid stop. It hurts to read your inane rambling arguments. It’s like you paid for an argument and you want your money’s worth. Another possibility is the meds have run out.
    Really dude, take a break.

    • Glenn,

      I wonder why there is never a “Reply” option in any of Brandons posts. Is it this site or was this “exchange” of “ideas” supposed to be uninterrupted? Perhaps a good duel, but worthless. What do you think?

      Liked your Monty Python vid BTW. Very good description of the exchange.

      D

      • Reply buttons only go about two levels deep on any thread.
        Brandon has a habit of trying to evade his earlier comments which causes lengthy back and forths trying to pin him down to something concrete. Hence most of the posts on any thread that he is involved in go way past the third level.

  40. Let’s keep the ball rolling. Contact your local library and ask them to buy a copy! That way more people can learn about this issue.

  41. The best thing about this high rating, is that a lot of these buyers will be Uber Green Warmists. They will see the comforting title, feel assured that there cannot be anything quite so heretical as a contrarian book, and not find out what this book is about until they start reading.

    I bet this book comes as a shock to many readers.

  42. I have struggled through Mann’s book.
    It was worth the effort though.
    The first 960 pages are quite dull. Just a few ups and downs.
    But then it suddenly takes off, about 40 pages from the end.
    By the end, I could have sworn that I was reading an altogether different book!!!

  43. We can all read the comments and make up our own minds.
    We can also read the book and make up our own minds.

    But here’s a new observation:
    In the discussion between Richard S Courtney, Brandon Shollenberger and me, I am fairly sure that Brandon Shollenberger is the one who is politically on the right.

    • I would love to have a long conversation about right/left issues, but this blog is mainly about science, so we would have to have another forum for discussion.
      However, my question is, what are you trying to infer by this statement? Brandon was thoroughly illogical with some of his statements, and that to me was what was insane about the whole back and forth.

      • I’m trying to imply that climate science is not a left /right political issue.
        Wrongness comes in every shade of the political spectrum.
        And that is a novel idea to many on this site.

      • The Courtney’s have been stung by the valid observation that the vast majority of people who are pushing the AGW scam are also quite vocal in their belief that govt should be bigger and run more of our lives in general.

      • I remember a UN bigwig who stated a few years back that it didn’t matter whether AGW was true or not, since the solutions being proposed were things that needed doing anyway. That is, there are a lot of liberals who don’t really care about global warming, they are just willing to use any excuse to increase taxes and grow govt.

      • @MCourtney
        That you might find it novel doesn’t make it so for anyone else.

        I will agree wrongness can be found in the opinions of some under any given political shade. But it does not follow that all political shades entrain similar amounts of wrongness.
        Some political philosophies contain flaws.
        Some political philosophies are wrong to their core.

      • Unfortunately it is true that even many on the right have fallen for the CAGW meme. I have however met some of these alleged right wingers and all I can say about them is what I say whenever someone claims the NAZI were right wing.

        Hitler was only to the right compared to Stalin, and National Socialism is still socialism.

      • schitzree

        Not content with this thread having been ravaged by a troll, you join in with this nonsense

        Unfortunately it is true that even many on the right have fallen for the CAGW meme. I have however met some of these alleged right wingers and all I can say about them is what I say whenever someone claims the NAZI were right wing.

        Hitler was only to the right compared to Stalin, and National Socialism is still socialism.

        Oh dear! Reality does hurt the right. I see MarkW could not resist the temptation to support your falsehoods.

        National Socialism is was not and is not socialism. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum; socialism is left wing and naz11sm is extreme right wing.

        As the Oxford English Dictionary states

        Naz1

        The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after World War I. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist government and developed a racist ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of “Aryan” Germans. Its charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in 1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship, rearmed Germany in support of expansionist foreign policies in central Europe, and thus precipitated World War II. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the war and was outlawed in Germany.

        And the global warming scare was created by the political right (i.e. Margaret Thatcher), was promoted by the right (e.g. the UK Conservative Party, and was adopted for reasons of self-interest by people across the entire political spectrum. Indeed, communist China opposes the global warming scare and is totalitarian so its 1.3billion population alone demonstrates there are more of the left who oppose the scare than there are opponents of the scare from the right.

        So, this thread has suffered a thread-bombing troll presenting warmist falsehoods, and now has political right-wingers posting political propaganda falsehoods. If the solar advocates and proselytising atheists join in then the thread will have suffered the full set.

        Richard

      • Richard, Richard, Richard.
        I see you are still trying to push the lie that just because the Nazi’s weren’t your type of socialists, that they couldn’t be socialists.
        They wanted govt control of business. That’s socialism.
        As to your weak attempt to show that they must be right wing because they were totalitarian and anti-Semite, all I have to do is point out that the vast majority of totalitarian regimes of the last century were communist and that a very solid majority, perhaps even a vast majority of anti-semites in today’s world are socialists and communists.

      • MarkW

        No. Clearly, you don’t have a clue what socialism is.

        Naz11sm is extreme right wing politics.

        And this thread is not about politics.

        Richard

      • Richard.

        As usual, you have no clue about the subject at hand. Socialism is an economic creed, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the government is totalitarian, democratic, anti-semite or vegitarian (as was HitIler).

        So yes, the Na – zi party was economically socialist, as their title clearly states. The workers holiday resort was socialist, the party car was the People’s Wagon etc: etc and etc. Sorry, Richard, you are completely wrong, as usual.

        Ralpg

      • “Socialism is an economic creed, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the government is totalitarian”

        Socialism is always socialist; which is to say, groupthink, hive-mind, and approximately totalitarian insofar that you will have no liberty to do what you want to do except in the rare instance that what you want to do is exactly what the group wants you to do.

        Since it is impossible to have “group” control things the group will eventually manifest a leader, and the leader will tell the group what to think and do, and that is what they will think and do, not often realising they are being led. At best therefore socialism is a type of “soft” totalitarianism where the pigs, those that are “more equal”, influence the hive-mind.

        A totalitarian government might be socialist; and a socialist society will necessarily infringe upon personal liberty which I accept is a hallmark of a totalitarian government.

      • Richard,

        What in N@zi ideology and practice do you imagine made them “right-wing”? The OED is hardly a legitimate source of historical analysis, except for etymology.

        They were socialists by definition and action. When the Soviets accepted “socialism in one country” for the time being (without abandoning internationalism), the distinction between Communism and N@azism lacked a difference. Socialists of both international and national flavors persecuted ethnic, religious and class minorities.

        It’s a myth favored by Left-wingers that the N@zis were somehow “right-wing”, Their socialist, big government, collectivist, anti-freedom program was the opposite of modern, libertarian conservatism, which advocates small government and individual liberty.

    • From what evidence do you make your conclusion that Brandon is conservative? Not liking him is not evidence.
      I haven’t seen anything to indicate his political affiliation in either direction.
      Regardless, so what?

      • So what? That is the point.

        Climate science is not a left / right political issue.
        He has stated in the past that he is not a socialist, to the right of my father and I.

        Not saying he is a member of the Conservative party. He hasn’t said that.

      • Climate Science isn’t a left right issue. That doesn’t excuse the fact that most, perhaps even vast majority of those who take the alarmist position are on the left side of the spectrum.
        And finding one warmist who may be somewhat conservative does not disprove that position.

      • MarkW

        You assert

        Climate Science isn’t a left right issue. That doesn’t excuse the fact that most, perhaps even vast majority of those who take the alarmist position are on the left side of the spectrum.
        And finding one warmist who may be somewhat conservative does not disprove that position.

        True, “finding one warmist who may be somewhat conservative does not disprove that position”.

        But your assertion is disproved by the opposition to the alarmism by the 1.3 billion communists in China. And, yes, they do oppose the alarmism because China is totalitarian so they are nor permitted to do anything other than support their government’s opposition to the scare.

        But, I suppose you could try to pretend communists are not left wing because you do pretend that naz1s are not right wing (these two claims are equally ridiculous).

        Richard

      • Richard, are you truly this desperate.
        1) Are you actually claiming that everyone who lives in a communist country is a communist?
        2) Are you claiming that everyone who lives in China is informed enough on global warming to actually have an opinion?
        3) Examine the economic policies followed by the Nazi’s. Left wing to the core.

      • MarkW

        I am not “desperate”. As always, I am factual.

        As I said

        But your assertion is disproved by the opposition to the alarmism by the 1.3 billion communists in China. And, yes, they do oppose the alarmism because China is totalitarian so they are nor permitted to do anything other than support their government’s opposition to the scare.

        In addition to not knowing what socialism is and not knowing that Naz11sm is extreme right wing, it seems you are now also claiming you don’t know what totalitarianism is.

        This thread is not about politics and that gives you a valid reason to stop digging.

        Richard

  44. Amusing thread folks:

    I see the “attack dogs” are out for Brandon. On your “own” I see too (better do some checking Glenn999).
    IMHO you are the injured party Brandon.

    Brandon points out that the book states…

    “This again shows that atmospheric CO2 does not drive atmospheric temperature change.”

    I would just like to point out where Anthony stands on CO2’s GHE………..

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/weekend-open-thread-4/#comment-1164308

    The Watts comment reads as follows:

    “Mr. Postma and everybody else involved in this idiotic discussion over “magic gas”
    The greenhouse effect exists, get over it. The only questions are magnitude, sensitives [sic], and feedbacks.
    This thread is closed, along with a warning to any other “Slayers” out there posing under other names (Doug Cotton this means you).
    Your GHG science is pointless, wrong, and unwelcome here. Take it somehwere [sic] else, and please, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts”

    See the point he makes about “Slayers”?
    dbstealey may like to take note regarding Goddard’s “slaying” of the gas laws to laughably claim the heat of
    Venus is due to PV=nRT showing that if P increases, so does T (for the scientifically challenged ONLY when something in there stops the V (gas) from expanding – space doesn’t).

    Also Roy Spencer has the same opinion of “Slayers”.
    Here he shows how you can demonstrate the GHE at work….

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/

    Really folks, keep it real.

    • Toneb

      You say

      I see the “attack dogs” are out for Brandon. On your “own” I see too (better do some checking Glenn999).
      IMHO you are the injured party Brandon.

      I have followed this post in its entirety and see no “attack dogs”.

      And the only injury suffered by Brandon Shollenberger is the self-inflicted public display of his several problems.

      You try to substantiate your support for Brandon Shollenberger by saying

      Brandon points out that the book states…

      “This again shows that atmospheric CO2 does not drive atmospheric temperature change.”

      No! Brandon Shollenberger did NOT “point out” that factually accurate statement: Brandon Shollenberger claimed that factually accurate statement is incorrect.

      And our host does not dispute that factually accurate statement.

      It seems that you have the same inability to read as Brandon Shollenberger.
      The phrase “does not drive” does NOT mean “does not affect”.

      I suppose my pointing out your post is plain wrong in every detail will be interpreted by you as me being an “attack dog”. In fact, it is merely an expression of my annoyance that an anonymous troll would try to pretend there has been any substance in anything asserted in this thread by Brandon Shollenberger.

      Richard

      • Mr Courtney:
        That’s just the point – it is NOT a factually correct statement (from climate sciences POV). It quite clearly says “… does not DRIVE …”. Saying it does not mean “does not effect” misses my point. In climate science “drive” has a specific meaning – a special action in warming. There are either drivers or feed-backs. Feed-backs “change” climate but drivers drive. CO2 is a driver in AGW – the cause. It is that that I, and I think Mr Scollenberger are arguing. It is comprehension of the scientific meaning of “drive” and not of any other.
        Of course you disagree with much of the science, but surely, as does Anthony – just the degree of the drive – not that a GHE is not the driver.

      • Toneb

        Stop talking bollocks.

        A “forcing” does not “drive” although it may be said to be one of many drivers.

        Ask when you don’t know and those of us who do know and understand the subject can explain for you.

        And I agree with science. I made my living doing it throughout my adult life.

        It was bad enough when Brandon Shollenberger was disrupting this thread with nonsensical twaddle but at least he had the guts to put his name to his posts. You don’t even rise to that level.

        Richard

  45. I downloaded a copy to my tablet this morning, and just tried to order a copy for my dad…sadly, Amazon is out of stock at the moment. Hope it gets here by Father’s Day!

  46. There is no doubt in my mind that certain persons are actually paid a salary to come to skeptic sites to try to “derail”. They are extremely worried about sites like WUWT, P Homewood Real Science ect. They are very well funded and organized, but of course they only help the skeptic cause and probably help turn AGW believers into skeptics. They still don t realize this but when they do they will no longer be posting here mark my words LOL

  47. Climate Change: The Facts currently sitting at #94 on Amazon’s best-seller Top 100 list, bouncing around the 90s all day from #98 first thing this morning, to high of #91 an hour or two ago, when Strunk & White’s classic The Elements of Style broke into the top 100 briefly.

    Other than a few classics of literature, the rest of the top 100 is an unremarkable collection, with several coloring books in there, so it really is a remarkable achievement by the host and his co-authors to get such a serious book into the Top 100 Amazon Best Sellers.

    • I also meant to add that, despite its minor fluctuations up and down today, the book has had a green upward arrow the entire time.

  48. So I read the back and forth between the twit and the regulars. I noticed three very good points that might have gone unnoticed by some people.

    Point 1 — We can not measure the mean temperature of the planet to within a degree of two now and it was much worse 100 years ago. This is besides the allegations of cheating on the part of the bureaucrats running the government funded data sets.

    Point 2 — There is no proof that there has been any warming since 1900 till now. There has been since 1860 or so we think, but no proof of warming since 1900.

    Point 3 — If there has been any warming since 1900, there is no proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming. (if any)

    I would add on to the above points that there is very credible evidence that much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now would be a very good thing for plant life and that several more degrees of warming would be very good for life in general. I was in a meeting today with several people who had moved from the upper northeast US to central Florida seeking warmer weather. They seem to have survived a very large increase in average temperature so far. :-)

    • Well said.

      I’d comment though that quite possibly the land surface was better sampled 100 years ago than now, with colonial stations more numerous and better maintained and observed, and all with similar equipment so that fewer adjustments were needed.

      The oceans of course are better sampled now, but still with many issues.

      As I’ve written before, there apparently was some modest warming in the late 19th century, and then another spurt between (and possibly during) the World Wars, followed by cooling during the Cold War until the late ’70s.

      From looking at raw data, IMO there has been little to no global warming since the peak of the c. 1918-47 hot spell. The first part of the late 20th century warming just clawed back the cooling of the ’40s-70s. Whether it beat the Dust Bowl years or not no one can say with certainty because the data have been so bent, folded, spindled, mutilated, stepped on, mutated, homogenized, extrapolated, guessed at with extreme bias and adjusted beyond all recognition.

      • I’d agree that some portions of the US were better sampled 100 years ago, but there were large portions that were population densities were way lower back then and as a result those areas had fewer stations compared to the present.
        The same issue exists for most of the rest of the world as well.
        I do agree that for the most part, maintenance was better back then.
        Oceanic records on the other hand were sparser and more problematic 100 years ago.

  49. This PROVE that the public at large is smarter than western governments including our own

  50. Michael Mann’s Dire Predictions:
    #82,090 in Books
    ——

    Nice try, but this is figure is completely misleading, because the ranking uses actual data (purchases) rather than homogenized, TOA adjusted, Kriged, tree ring proxy survey data, which when Mosherized shows that Mann’s book actually outsells 97% of all books published since 1850 at a 95% confidence level.

    Amazon is obviously run by a bunch Fake-Moon-Landing-Believing, Koch Brothers Funded, Flat-Earthers who deny that the science is settled.

  51. Bought the book (of course) and read most of it but In the beginning of the book Professor Ian Plimer states that “the sea level the Maldives in the 1970s was 70 centimeters higher than at present”.
    While remarkable if true, there is no reference for that statement.
    I have searched everywhere but no luck.
    Can anybody tell me where I can find where the data is to support that statement?

      • Thanks sturgishooper , much appreciated.
        Nils-Axel Mörner is the most knowledgeable scientist when it comes to sea levels.
        As for the Gruniad, it isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.

    • I’ve seen Ian Plimer’s chapter criticized elsewhere, but I’m mostly comfortable with it. I do wish he had included footnotes, though. I assume his comment about CO2 being 1000x higher in the earlier ice ages should have read that CO2 was 1000 ppm in the earlier ice ages, is that not correct? Was that a typo or was he referring to a very early ice age in the Paleozoic? Now that I look at the sentence again, I think he might have meant the latter.

      • The highest estimate I’ve ever seen of historical atmospheric CO2 was – 8000ppm/atm, several million years ago. That would be 20X higher than at present.

      • Yeah, gotta be a typo. 1000 x 400 is 400,000 or 40% of the atmosphere. It hasn’t ever been that high. But, certainly we had ice ages when CO2 was 1000 ppm or close to it.

      • It is estimated that the CO2 level reached around 10 percent (100,000 ppm) at the end of the “snowball” phase of Earth glaciation; without which extreme level of CO2 Earth would have remained snowball forever.

  52. Re: the advertising. 1) You allow WordPress to host ads if you want to have a free site. You get a free site – they get the money. 2) Revenue depends on the model. Is the advertiser paying per impression (the ad showing up), or per click-through (when someone actually clicks on the ad)? Makes a big difference. 3) Revenue also depends on the advertiser. The seller of advertising is going to charge Toyota a lot more for their web ad – reasonable, because the seller will take extra care to place the ad where it will get the most customers, not on a random rotation. (Someone at Toyota is also going to be very carefully analyzing the actual sales and profit that result – and negotiate their contract accordingly.)

    WordPress is probably making a decent profit after expenses. Not a huge one, but a nice one – they would probably try hard to keep WUWT if Anthony ever evidenced a desire to leave.

  53. That book would have a higher ranking if it was available in print again. Unfortunately, this is not the case still. Is it publisher’s negligence or incompetence or even sabotage by Amazon? Freedom of the press is a great thing, but of absolutely no avail when there are no prints…

  54. Very well written. Good point by point exposition of the primary arguments. I have purchased a paper copy for a good but alarmist friend. In exchange I will read any book he cares to offer.

    HT to the authors

  55. Yet another comment culled by the Mod – it must depend who’s on guard duty

    [why not abide by the site rules, that way your thoughts and opinions will be there for the edification of all. . mod]

  56. I am curious as to why I haven’t been able to get this post on my old iPad but have no problem on this Android ‘phone. I tried 5 times on the former and it kept spitting the dummy; three times on this ‘phone with no hesitation. Surely not being censored?!

  57. I just found the new ‘phone ‘corrected’ my email address…is that why it [went] into .moderation?

    [There is a long list of “triggers” – The mods do not recommend worrying excessively about any particular reply getting trapped into the queue. .mod]

Comments are closed.