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.
#1 in Environment! and #74 in All Books!
Details here
And #1 in Climatology too!
#82,090 in Books
Get your copy here: (available on Kindle, backordered AVAILABLE AGAIN in hard copy)
Way To Go!
Well done. It’s a very informative book. The more of us order it, the better. . But shouldn’t Mr Mann’s magnum opus be in the fiction section? 🙂
Well played
Jay Hope — Good one — Eugene WR Gallun
I notice that Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” is number 5.
Saint Rachel pls.:-)
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.
Also anti-Asian, of course, but anti-human most of all.
http://www.cfact.org/2013/08/11/ddt-ban-linked-to-population-control/
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?
Oh yeah? Well, I have a suspicion that you are hetero! Ha! Yup, I outed you. 8D
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson
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
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:
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
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 – Try clicking on “About these ads” up on the top right. The explanation there might enlighten you.
TMLutas, good spot.
I feel stupid.
Brute
You say to me
You provided a smear and not a question. Others have refuted that smear.
I did ask a question of you; viz.
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.
how long has that been around ? I think it has cobwebs around it by nowl.
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.
September 1962
RexAlan — Millions have died because of that book — Eugene WR Gallun
Like, totally awesome, dude!
Way to go!
Mikey is not going to like that.
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/
Watts vs Mann……mmmmmm……bit of a no brainer when it comes to credibility does it?
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.
You lil beauty
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?
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?
Mann is a legend in his own mind, he doesn’t need references, his word is enough.
I’m sure the Mann book has several “peer reviewed” syllables.
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
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.
IMO the odds that the 20 years 2016-35 will be cooler than 1996-15 are pretty good.
Hmmmmm
M. Mann … the word that comes to mind … irrelevant
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
Strange, I thought Mann was a cert. for No. 1 in the fiction category
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.
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
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!
With error bars you could be straddling first place!
Don’t forget to divide the # sold by the sqrt of all books sold to reduce the error bars.
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
As an initial contributor to this book my smug factor just went up a major notch.
🙂
Don’t buy a Prius, otherwise the smug quotient may reach deadly levels.
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.
Awesome mate 🙂
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.
No use if their are “sums” in it!
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.
Say, phaedo, when I needed a door stop I picked up a Rock outside. Didn’t pay a penny. But hey, common sense and all that, WUWT?
Humour! WUWT?
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.
If MM had been the author, the title might have been ‘Climate: Change the Facts’.
+10
;.)))
Excellent choice of punctuation + several thousand
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Keynes said “When the facts change, I change my mind”.
Climate Science says “When the facts change, change the facts”.
Excellent
+100
David — Too funny! On a scale of ten that is an eleven. — Eugene WR Gallun
+ one googalplex
googolplex, is that a google site that shows movies?
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
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.
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
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.
Using the term “alarmist” is insulting also.
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?
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:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
sturgishooper,
Yes, Mark was a little off on his dates. But in general he was right:
[click in chart to embiggen]
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
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
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.
DB,
Good, simple graph, from which it should be obvious that Hansen’s fantasy of the Venus Express is simply pysically impossible.
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.
mebbe, you don’t have a lot of experience with this analogy thingy, do you.
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.
It is never nice to gloat , it really is a bad thing but ……..hahahahaahahahaha.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr Mann.
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’.
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.
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.
(being sarcastic ^)
You can be sure, though, that Mann’s masterpiece of nightwork was bought up by all government-financed libraries.
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”!
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
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.
Sadly no UK print edition is available (yet)
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.
Bought! Let’s keep it in a good position in the rankings.
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?
jorgekafkazar — Will people remember and get your joke? — Eugene WR Gallun
Some do indeed remember. And laugh!
“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.
Reason triumphs over emotion. Fact over fantasy.
“Facts are stubborn things. So much worse for the facts.”
— Joseph Jugashvili (Stalin)
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.
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?
A few minutes of celebrating, then off to fight the next environmental scare.
How come no one has reviewed Mann’s book?? err.. cos no one has read it maybe???
Cheshirered @ 2.38am
Read, in awe, your dogged rebuttal of Dana Nuccitelli’s propaganda blog in The Guardian on Monday. Thank you.
I’m assuming Amazon are still using raw data for rankings ?
Will “Climate Change: The Facts” be translated into French and German, for sale in Europe this summer?
Nice one!!!!!
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.
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.
sorry I got that wrong, your book is bundled with books on corruption and Manns with books on doom
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.
Still not available on Amazon.ca…
Go one better – order it from Mark Steyn online: The amazon.ca version will probably come from China anyway… http://www.steynstore.com/Climate-Change-The-Facts_moreinfo.html
Just downloaded, climate change the facts,can’t put it down.
Michael Mann who?
Oh cool, Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire is #20 on that list. That’s about 40 years old. My brother had me read his Monkey Wrench Gang before visiting him in Arizona back then.
http://www.amazon.com/Desert-Solitaire-Edward-Abbey/dp/0671695886/ref=zg_bs_14459_20
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?
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:
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:
Still, I guess congratulations are in order. You’ve now got a highly selling book which tells people facts like:
Skeptics, promoting the idea of global cooling by 2030. Oh yeah.
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?
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:
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.
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:
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 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
I said,
I meant “Neither you, I nor anyone else knows the size of the natural forcing relative to the anthropogenic forcing.” Typo.
Now you say
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:
I have never, in my life, said anything of the sort. I have no idea what makes you think I have.
M Courtney:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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 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
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:
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:
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:
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
You have replied
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
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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
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
Obviously, I was correct in my suspicion that you would be incapable of reading the explanation because you have replied
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
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:
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:
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?
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:
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:
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
In your usual fashion you have misrepresented that.
Again, I would accept your apology.
And you persist with your idiocy saying
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:
The word “illiterate” is defined as “unable to read or write.” You said:
If I cannot read, I am “unable to read,” therefore I am illiterate. You called me illiterate. Amazingly, despite denying this, you then say:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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 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
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:
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.
Brandon Shollenberger
You say to me
Thankyou for at last admitting you’ve lost the argument.
And I draw attention of onlookers to your having started another sub-thread and the response of Tom Trevor to your nonsense in this thread.
Richard
richardscourtney, you haven’t pointed to a single thing I’ve said that was an insult, yet you say:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
JohnWho
One corrects such people for the benefit of onlookers.
Richard
JohnWho +100
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:
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:
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.”
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.
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
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.