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)
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 @ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.
Based upon the history of the Holocene and prior interglacials (as well as glacials) the way to bet would be on cooling as the next multi-decadal move in the real world if not in the cooked book surface “record”.
Considering just the Modern Warm Period since the end of the LIA in the mid-19th century, there was an initial warming, followed by cooling, followed by the early 20th century warming, followed by the mid-20th century cooling, followed by the late 20th century warming, followed by the present plateau or cooling, which should have perhaps two decades more to run.
If climate history be a guide, and given the cyclicality of oceanic oscillations, it ought to be. The enhanced GHE of more CO2 doesn’t seem observably to override these natural fluctuations, although there night be some minor, undetectable effect, given the size of natural variability in the multi-decadal swings.
Brandon writes “Questions like this baffle me. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Why ask a question which relies on a premise you’ve not only not stated, but haven’t even vaguely referenced?”
I think the “context establishing comment” got lost in this shuffle.
The context is that of *certainty*. You are expressing certainty that after the pause the temperature can only go up. This is an article of faith. After the pause the temperature will go either up or down and it cannot be predicted. The LIKELY direction can be predicted but it is always uncertain. For that matter, it will be extremely difficult to define the inflection points that demark the pause. The 1998 inflection point seems easy enough to find; but what the climate does next could be another inflection point or a gradual rise or, less likely, a gradual fall or even a downward inflection point. Absent a spectacular natural event I expect temperatures will eventually rise again but I certainly don’t commit to a statement of faith on it.
I am glad you acknowlege the pause. Several at ATTP deny the pause itself so this conversation isn’t even possible.
To emphasize uncertainty or unpredictability of a chaotic system I claim scientists cannot predict tomorrows temperature. They get it right within a few degrees about 50 percent of the time and sometimes get it spectacularly wrong; missing tomorrows temperature by 20 degrees or more (F). But of course I don’t blame scientists; it is a computer (ought perhaps to be called “Deep Think” in honor of Douglas Adams) and it is quite remarkable for its achievements — but uncertainty persists while claims of certainty indicates FAITH.
I see that no one here is predicting the likelihood of cooling in 2030; merely keeping an open mind as to the possibility. I think the extreme dangers of global cooling do not enter your mind because you consider it impossible; but the “precautionary principle” pertains to the risk of global cooling and snowball Earth as well as the dangers of warming. A few million tons of coal ought to be kept on hand to stave off the next glaciation.
Sold!
Yesterday and the day before (June 8 and 9) Mark Steyn mentioned the book on the Rush Limbaugh show. Hopefully the word it now out and many more will read it.
What’s the title of Mark Steyn’s climate change book?
http://www.steynstore.com/Climate-Change-The-Facts_moreinfo.html
Um something about climate change or something like that, it had hard to remember title and Mark didn’t mention the name more than 15-20 times on the show.
Tom, not all of us heard the show.
Just because it was brought up. University of Michigan discovered some “sealed in glass” soil samples, dated 1910, about 20 years ago. Decided, “Let’s analyze all the trace chemicals, etc. and see what changes “modern life” have brought.” Result: 10 PPM DDT !!! “Natural product”. This was many times, prior to this discovery, cited to “prove” that DDT never “broke down” and would always “accumulate”. (Of course no one every CHALLENGED this absurd notion by taking an estimate of total global top soil, multiplying out the PPM and finding that the number you’d get would be HIGHER THAN THE TONS OF DDT produced to that date. Last, the egg shell thinning was caused by the ethylene dibromide added to leaded gas, in order to stabilize tetraethyl lead in the gas. (Source: ASTM Publications)
The egg thinning was caused by laboratory birds who were fed calcium poor diets and placed in a stressful environment.
There never was any egg thinning in the wild.
DDE-Induced Eggshell-Thinning in the American Kestrel: A Comparison of the Field Situation and Laboratory Results
Jeffrey L. Lincer
Journal of Applied Ecology
Vol. 12, No. 3 (Dec., 1975), pp. 781-793
Abstract
(1) DDE residues in kestrel eggs collected from the Ithaca, New York area averaged 35, 42, 33 and 37 ppm for the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, respectively. (2) Based on Ratcliffe’s Index, eggshells of the local population averaged 10% thinner than pre-DDT eggshells. (3) A dose-response relationship is established for dietary DDE and eggshell-thinning in a captive kestrel population. (4) Statistical analysis revealed that the correlative relationship between DDE in the egg and eggshell-thinning is the same for both captive experimental birds and the wild population. (5) A discussion of organochlorines, eggshell-thinning and the decline of several populations of North American raptors concludes that a causal relationship exists between the ingestion of prey highly contaminated with DDE and the consequent eggshell-thinning and eggshell breakage. The breeding failure that follows and subsequent population declines of several raptor populations proceeds in a straightforward, logical and well-documented sequence.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2402090
Max Hugoson
And as I remember it a lot of direct deaths were caused by drinking from puddles of leaked radiator fluid — the composition of which was later changed — not to mention the whole cooling system of cars being mightily improved cutting down on leaks.
Eugene WR Gallun
This is even better than the Heartland award. Congratulations to all of the authors and to Anthony for his being recognized for the massive effort put in here. I doubt that any of us realize just how much time and commitment this blog and associated activities have taken.
Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years
Horrors! People with spare money donating to groups working on behalf of what they believe. Who gave them permission to do that? Coming up next as a Guardian Exclusive — “New Analysis reveals 97% of Donations to Bill & Hillary Foundation came from soccer moms and school kids donating their piggy banks”.
Went and read the guardian article. Apparently if any large donation is made (for any reason whatsoever) to any group with a multiple agenda one part of which is deemed to oppose the CAGW agenda then the entirety of the donation is counted as being given to oppose CAGW even if the donation was specified to be for another purposes entirely. Wow, talk about deceitful!
Eugene WR Gallun