Union of Concerned Scientists – hoisted on their own petard

Guest essay by Russell Cook.

First, I must credit my newest Twitter follower Geoff Simon for the news item on his timeline today about the latest web page from The Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Climate Deception Dossiers.”

Don’t be expecting detailed UCS analysis of problematic science assessments, you need only read their subtitle to see where this is headed:

“Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

If that doesn’t grab your attention, their bullet points further into the page will:

  • Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades.
  • Fossil fuel company leaders knew that their products were harmful to people and the planet but still chose to actively deceive the public and deny this harm.
  • The campaign of deception continues today.

Of particular interest to me is their “Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s ‘Information Council on the Environment’ Sham”, the core of which is the so-called leaked memo strategy statementreposition global warming as theory (not fact).”

Where have we seen that phrase before? Spelled out in red letters full screen in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie. Who did Al Gore say discovered this revelation? Pulitzer-winning investigative reporter Ross Gelbspan, in his 1997 “The Heat is On” book, where Gelbspan insinuated  the strategy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” was carried out by Fred Singer, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling, aimed at “older, less educated men” and “young, low-income women.”

Problem is, Fred Singer was never involved with the PR campaign Gelbspan speaks of (hence the substitution of Sherwood Idso’s name in the 1998 paperback version), and Dr Singer pointed out that Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer. Add to that, others cited what Gelbspan quoted long before Gelbspan ever wrote about those phrases.

Most notably, Al Gore, in his 1992 “Earth in the Balance” book. What an inconvenient truth that is, particularly when neither he nor any other accuser after him ever proved the “reposition global warming” phrase was any sort of top-down industry directive.

Apparently, UCS people didn’t look carefully at their own evidence here, since the “Information Council on the Environment” thing was never anything more than an obscure short-lived pilot project PR campaign which only sought to bring some reality to Al Gore’s initial unfair and unbalanced global warming tirades.

gw-minigraphic-climate-deception-dossier-5-ICE-memo[1]Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2015/07/gw-minigraphic-climate-deception-dossier-5-ICE-memo.jpg

There’s a huge problem with the 20 year+ history of the overall accusation that skeptic climate scientists ‘lie to the public and are paid big industry money to follow the instructions of their benefactors.’ What the collective lot of accusers have abysmally failed to provide all along is evidence proving any money donated to skeptic climate scientists was given for the performance of following orders to knowingly fabricate false climate assessments.

This latest UCS “revelation” is no more than one more bit of trash to throw on that same stinking pile as growing evidence of a character assassination effort that intentionally spread disinformation for decades, where enviro-activists potentially knew their accusations were baseless, but still chose to actively deceive the public in a campaign of deception that continues right up to today.

Russell Cook blogs at GelbspanFiles.com, and is the author of the Heartland Policy Brief, “Merchants of Smear

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David L. Hagen
July 9, 2015 7:07 pm

Contrast the detail Alex Epstein documents in “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”

July 9, 2015 7:10 pm

Thanks for this. Frustrating business, being a climate skeptic these days. I keep thinking we need to find creative ways to show the world the debate is far from over…What about a giant rally, to which we invite notable, highly credentialed skeptical scientists. I think done right it could be a tremendous success that the MSM would have to deal with.
(aka pokerguy)

Reply to  aneipris
July 9, 2015 7:11 pm

skeptic scientists invited to speak that is….

Reply to  aneipris
July 9, 2015 8:56 pm

Like the Heartland conference this past June that occurs every year?

Reply to  ATheoK
July 9, 2015 10:04 pm

It seems as if he’s recommending a rally for members of the general public to attend. Members of the general public that want to support the work being done by skeptic scientists, and who wouldn’t otherwise attend a formal sciency conference.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2015 3:09 am

The problem there is that the Heartland conference smells like a political meeting, wherein filthy rich money-men pretend to listen to raving right-wing loonies while they plan ways of screwing the rest of us. Even if you like that sort of thing, you you have to admit it doesn’t have an aura of cool, objective, science.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2015 7:05 am

RoHa, I’m sure the Heartland conference actually “smells” much less than any climate change rally. Ha ha.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2015 7:45 am

It’s fascinating the way those who use politics to get their way, assume that everyone else is doing the same thing.
Note the brain dead left wing code words “filthy rich”, “right wing loonies”, “screwing the rest of us”.
It’s almost as if RoHa has mortgaged his brain and no longer even tries to make sense.

Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2015 9:10 am

wobble, exactly…more grass roots..

Reply to  aneipris
July 10, 2015 4:53 am

Is there some place we can find a list of the names of these so-called “concerned scientists”?

Reply to  taptoudt
July 10, 2015 5:54 am

I live with one member of that organization, bit so far she had refused to give me any lists.
Since she went deaf this past spring, I am not very hopeful of getting any more info out of her, even though she has been in a much better mood since the vet pulled her broken canine tooth out.

Reply to  taptoudt
July 10, 2015 7:45 am

She’s a dog, so aren’t they all canine teeth?

Reply to  taptoudt
July 10, 2015 9:28 am

Tallulah is a cat.
She is not happy about calling them canine teeth either.
Her field of study is small animal biology, and does a lot of research on the question of resilience under severe trauma.

Reply to  aneipris
July 10, 2015 5:24 am

I would like to crowd fund a Super Bowl ad. It would have the amount of money spent by governments promoting global warming. And it would end by saying “the truth is the eternal enemy of the global warming movement.” All donations would by design by anonymous. The ad would make it very clear that this ad was funded entirely by anonymous donations with no person able to donate more than a certain amount and with a link to a website for proof. Other details I don’t know about.
A Super Bowl ad like this would have the alarmists crying bloody murder. They would do all in their power to shut it down. To a leftist, free speech only means speech they agree with, all other speech should be banned. Their caterwauling alone will draw attention to it even more. It would have to be a year when NBC doesn’t air the Super Bowl, because GE/NBC-Universal, owner of MSNBC, would definitely ban it.

average joe
Reply to  alexwade
July 10, 2015 1:55 pm

I’ll tell you what I think would be even better. To have 1 million+ demonstrators occupy Washington DC for a day or two with signs that show everything from charts of how bad the climate models have done to slogans demanding reforms in how climate research is funded. Get a million people there and I tell you it would leave a mark, and maybe even snowball into the downfall of this pathetic excuse for science that now exists. I’m not talking about rent-a-mob, I’m talking about 1 million smart educated people that are fed up with this crap. Heartland met in Washington last month for their annual conference, but they were out of sight inside of a building, and I don’t think there were much in excess of 1000 people. That’s not going to get much attention, nothing like 1 million people for a day would. There were 30,000 that signed the Oregon petition, should be able to get most of them to attend, if each of them brought 10 people there’s 300,000, if people could see that it was going to be big a lot of them would choose to attend, I could see getting 1 million. Anthony if you, Marc Morano, Jo Nova, and a few other powerhouse skeptic bloggers got together and planned this, perhaps coinciding with Heartland meetings next year, and promoted it through your blogs I’ll bet you could get 1 million to commit to going. I certainly would, and I would try to get everyone I know to go as well. There are a lot of people who want to do this, they just need a catalyst. And it would be big, and thus lot’s of media coverage. I’m so ticked off with people like Lewdowski and Kook saying only nutters are skeptical of climate change, they need to be sent a message. Come on guys, lets do it!!!

Reply to  alexwade
July 11, 2015 4:32 am

what is your background in television commercial production?
great idea.

Reply to  aneipris
July 11, 2015 8:51 am

.The thing is they’ve been claiming for decades that the science was settled—– was set-in-concrete—-FACT—-years before OHC could be reliably measured with the ARGO float system in 2003/5—- with most of the science at that point not done—- especially cloud science.
Do they think it was legitimate to declare CAGW as incontrovertible fact—- the science ‘over’ as Tim Flannery’s Climate Council told us here in Australia—- when warming of such an enormous part of the earth system—the ocean— could at that point not be reliably measured?
No ‘journalist’ ever asks them. You’d think it wasn’t the ‘greatest moral issue of our time’ as we’re sanctimoniously told –after all.
The trend on which they rest their case—- late 70s to 1998—- is hardly longer than the pause that’s followed it—- and their trend began right after the world was told we maybe should be alarmed at signs of a ‘coming ice age’.
The whole thing is stark raving mad, but the warmist scientists and globalist Socialists and carpet baggers making their squillions and establishing dynasties on a hoax—have gutless governments backed into a corner.
Our Australian government wants to resist the madness but is under attack from the world’s uber-Socialist /Greens including Obama, Gore, Deben, Stern, UN etc and has to risk losing office to keep it from destroying the Australian economy.

Gary Pearse
July 9, 2015 7:13 pm

The Union of Concerned Scientists certainly have much more to be concerned about than this (the decrepitation of science itself) but introspection is not a strong suit among earwigs.

george e. smith
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 9, 2015 10:39 pm

Well it seems that the UCS is breeding its own offspring; in a manner of speaking.
Others are getting in the act of paving the road to Paris.
In today’s mail I just received the July 2015 issue of UniNews , a publication of the University of Auckland (NZ) for staff. I’m on their list, not their staff.
So the front cover story blares out the message of the issue; “Lowering Emissions.”
A half dozen young to middle aged persons, with bicycles grace the cover image; 2M and 4F. The index introduces the story as 25 scientists from the university submitting a join paper on “Climate Change.”
Well this got my attention, as I wondered which members of the departments of Physics or Chemistry , were in this group, that I might possibly know (of). I assumed that perhaps some botanists could be among them, maybe even some marine scientists.
So the article’s heading is; ” Science Staff speak out on Climate Change. ” So a pretty big deal, for the University and its Science Staff.
Well they do list the 25 authors, but sadly, they mostly don’t identify the science departments of each of the 25 authors.
I won’t use any names, but none of them is recognizable by me; nobody I know.
Of the persons shown in the two photographs in the story, most bear the notation SBS.
Not being hep on the modern communication of tweets and texting; I have no notion what that textation might mean.
Apparently the instigator and primary author of the submission (which is not included in the story), is the newly appointed Dean of the Science Department of Sustainability, and comes from the Psychology Department.
It turns out that one of my closest lifelong friends, was one of the earliest graduates of that Psychology Department in its first years of existence.
Well I might think it strange that an encyclical on “Climate Change” , would be chaperoned by a Psychologist, rather than say a Physicist, or maybe a Botanist; but then what the hell do I know.
The only persons Identified as to department, come from the departments of Psychology, or Computer Science, or Statistics; all seemingly quite unrelated to Climate Science.
But their leading motto is that targets for climate change should be set by what must be done, not what can be done.
Well what a goal; to do at any cost that which may not be doable at all; but is judged (by somebodies) as something which must be done any way.
This paper is going to the Government to set them up for Paris.
Well I need say little more. There is in fact NO Climate Science of any kind mentioned in the story, and as I said the document itself is not known yet.
They urge that NZ should be taking the fastest possible route to a low emissions world; but at no point do they ever identify what it is that being emitted, that must be lowered at any cost.
They say that sustainable transport technologies are readily available for a low emissions future; but mention no candidates for such technologies.
I’m wondering, just what the Psychologist members of this climate change experts group feel, about dooming the people in the low income developing world to a future of poverty and misery, by denying them readily available and affordable energy, with which to better their quality of life.
I’m considering writing to the editors, and requesting a complete departmental list of the 25 authors of the white paper they have submitted.
I would also like to know specifically what members of the Department of Physics may have commented on the paper, since that seems to be the most appropriate science department in which to study climate.
And it would be good to know what the secret emanations are that must be lowered.
g >> G

Reply to  george e. smith
July 9, 2015 11:19 pm

SBS may stand for “Social and Behavioral Sciences.” Not really a science department, more a statistical circle jerk department.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 10, 2015 3:03 am

Good post!
Were they riding wooden bicycles. by the way? Or were they aluminum, magnesium, or other metal alloys?. Arte those alloys made with sustainable, no emissions (or emanations) energy?
I don´t think so, In fact, I don´t think there is anything sustainable, anyway. That goes against the laws of thermodynamics.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 10, 2015 11:01 am

Thanks Jor, you may have hit it. I guessed maybe School of Business Science, which also is not a science, but rather an art form.
And business oriented people would be more aware of the concept of value, so they wouldn’t be promoting pouring money down a rat hole knowing there was no bottom to the pit.
As for the bicycles they are not wooden and the one most prominently viewable in the cover photo, looks like quite a high tech bike.
Purportedly, these climate experts ride their bikes to work.
Now if you know the city of Auckland, then you know it is built on about 60 volcanoes, most of them inactive we hope. Well It’s less than 60 now, because at least one of them got dug up for gravel (scoria) to make roads. Perhaps even bikable roads.
So I would not consider biking up Queen Street, even if there was a cold beer waiting for me at the top.
As for that Department of Science memorandum to the Government, I happen to be a regular contributor to one of their scholarships, which will get one (maybe indigent) student (at a time) through a bachelor degree in Biological Science, so I take a dim view of social manipulators using their ivory tower trappings to make life less livable for other less fortunate, folks by dressing up as scientists,
Maybe it’s time to write the prime Minister (John Key) and tell him once again, that NZ should be joining with the Land of Oz to abolish such poppycock, and lead the world out of a new dark ages.
He did get the NZ green shelled mussels quality problem fixed for me, so maybe I should suggest he ignore this academic grandstanding.
NZ, like the USA, is a net carbon sink, because of its extensive agriculture including forest farming, so it is silly for them to burden their taxpayers to hold hands with the eco nitwits.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 10, 2015 1:46 pm

School of Biological Sciences. Well that’s the only school of science that fits with SBS.
It’s also where my small scholarship contribution goes; currently to a marine biology student.
Well he’s doing great, so I guess I’ll hang with it.
I believe that biological denizens are comfortable in more different kinds of climate, than rocks are.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 11, 2015 11:06 pm

In today’s mail I just received the July 2015 issue of UniNews , a publication of the University of Auckland (NZ) for staff.
So the front cover story blares out the message of the issue; “Lowering Emissions.”
Here’s the online copy:

July 9, 2015 7:25 pm

How did Kenji Watts (she is still a member isn’t she?) vote on this proposal?

Reply to  DonK31
July 9, 2015 9:11 pm

My snaggle-toothed deaf cat, Tallulah Mae Brown, is also a member, and she did not even bother voting on this one.

Dave O.
July 9, 2015 7:35 pm

The hypocritical Union of Concerned Scientists use fossil fuels.

Nick Stokes
July 9, 2015 7:36 pm

So what has UCS actually got wrong here? It seems from this article that the “Information Council on the Environment” was an industry PR campaign, involving Drs Balling, Idso and Michaels, and their words in question did come from their strategy statement. Maybe someone, sometime, said something incorrect about Singer, Gelbspan etc, but how does that make the current UCS quote wrong?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2015 10:58 pm

Nick Stokes
You ask

So what has UCS actually got wrong here?

UCS is promulgating a smear by exaggerating a minor fact.
I can – and do – understand why you would not understand it is “wrong” to promote such a smear.

Charles Nelson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 9, 2015 11:20 pm

They’ve mis-attributed their smear.
I suppose you could argue that they were ‘re-cycling’ their smear.
That would be very Green of them.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Charles Nelson
July 10, 2015 12:05 am

“They’ve mis-attributed their smear.”
How? Russell Cook, in his linked article, starts his timeline with:
“In early 1991, U.S. coal company associations created the Information Council on the Environment (ICE) pilot project public relations campaign to provide some balanced science assessments they thought were unfairly missing from Al Gore’s then-current narratives about the threat of global warming. The objective was to show how the debate was anything but settled, and one of the internal memos for the PR planners had this as the #1 strategy: ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’ “
And that is just what UCS is saying,

DD More
Reply to  Charles Nelson
July 10, 2015 7:23 am

Nicky, “The objective was to show how the debate was anything but settled, and one of the internal memos for the PR planners had this as the #1 strategy: ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”
You are correct that they were wrong on repositioning “as theory (not fact), since Global Warming is still in the ‘hypothesis’ stage.
Just a little psych-ops going on here.
Propaganda – Create effective propaganda that changes attitudes This is achieved if people identify with a new or changed mission. Propaganda is used to extend this identification to increase popular support for a mission and provide points of convergence for transformative action.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) was created in 1937 to alert the public to political propaganda. The IPA identified seven basic propaganda tricks: Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Transfers, Testimonials, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to Combs and Nimmo (1993), “these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles and textbooks ever since that they have become … synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda.”

Seems these authors have a little check list of who this works best on.
Psychological operations have maximum effect with people who:
– have little education
– accept information uncritically
– benefit from the proposed change
– want to believe the propaganda
– do not wish to understand their own motivations
How many check marks to you have?

Reply to  Charles Nelson
July 10, 2015 7:50 am

Nick, a circulated memo proposing a PR campaign is not proof that the entire skeptic movement is funded by the oil industry.
Even you should have enough brain cells left to understand that.

David A
Reply to  Charles Nelson
July 11, 2015 3:45 am

Nick think!!! … “public relations campaign to provide some balanced science assessments they thought were unfairly missing from Al Gore’s then-current narratives about the threat of global warming.”
Nick do you agree or disagree? Was Gore’s alarmism scientifically accurate? Did it need correcting?
The fact is that Gore’s narrative was junk science, and even shown to be such in court. So trying to inform the public of truth is somehow an evil conspiracy?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2015 1:11 am

Are you even capable of understanding what Mr. Cook wrote?

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
July 10, 2015 7:50 am

If he does, it would be a first.

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
July 10, 2015 8:52 am

This sort of thing pops up – the elemental accusation for 20+ years, using the very phrase I repeatedly point to, is that skeptic climate scientists are fully aware that catastrophic man-caused global warming is happening as a direct result of human-induced GHGs, but they have been corrupted by huge wads of cash and were directly instructed by an industry-wide order to ‘reposition AGW back to being just a theory’. The entire premise is based on the notion of AGW as settled science. Skeptics don’t actually reposition anything, they point to how the IPCC has never made its case on AGW to begin with. This all boils down to outright misinformation about a “smoking gun” piece of evidence that is anything but what they portray it to be,

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
July 11, 2015 9:05 am

How could anyone right now look at AR5 [ not the SPM] and say the science was settled—let alone back then before ocean warming could be reliably measured–ie before the advent of the ARGO float system—and when most of the research hadn’t even been done.
How can it be FACT when the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 is still highly contested—when most of the models they relied on back then and since have proved unreliable?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2015 7:15 am

It is tragically comical to argue that there is nothing wrong with spreading exaggerations, false attributions and innuendo. A pedestrian term for this is called gossip, or in this specific case malicious gossip.
Good to know that concerned scientists have acquired virtues more commonly associated with gossiping ninnies.

David Smith
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2015 7:31 am

And what’s the big deal about saying “re-position global warming as theory rather than fact”?
The CAGW mania is an extremely shaky hypothesis, let alone a theory.
All the predicted carnage (“millions of climate refugees”, “ice caps gone”, etc) has failed to materialise and fewer and fewer people are believing the alarmist twaddle.
Right, I’m off to cash my huge cheque from Big Oil.
Oh wait, I’ve never received one…

Reply to  David Smith
July 10, 2015 2:28 pm

Thanks for making the point. The only thing wrong with the phrase “re-position global warming as theory rather than fact”, is the use of the wretched publicist word “re-position”.
How about changing the words to:
“Emphasize that global warming is a theory rather than a fact”. Anything wrong with that?
Only three of the IPCC model runs out of 98 are consistent with the current lack of warming. That means the central AGW hypothesis is falsified at the 97% confidence level. That disastrous failure means that AGW can barely rise to the dignity of being called a theory, much less a fact.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 10, 2015 7:48 am

What did they get wrong? How about everything.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 11, 2015 1:38 pm

Good grief! You can’t be serious. If you haven’t joined the UCS already, I suggest you do. You could teach a course on being disingenuous.

July 9, 2015 7:37 pm

Yet oil money flows to green causes like water…
Still waiting to see a check…

Pat Frank
July 9, 2015 7:49 pm

There’s a bit of an ambiguity in your presentation, Russell, that maybe can be clarified. You wrote that, “… reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” was carried out by Fred Singer, Pat Michaels and Robert Balling, … Problem is, Fred Singer was never involved with the PR campaign Gelbspan speaks of.
This leaves open the question, was there in fact such a PR campaign? If so, were Pat Michaels and Robert Balling associated with it? I’d just like to know.
I don’t think there’d be anything wrong with such a PR effort, because at that time, “global warming” didn’t (and still doesn’t) refer to a warming climate as such, but rather to human-caused climate warming, by way of GHG emissions.
Human causality in global climate warming doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory, even today, because there’s no physical theory of climate with the resolution to deduce any such an effect. Or even to show that such a GHG emission effect might exist at all.
So, a PR campaign to publicize this lack of a science base would have been ethically sound, in light of the thoroughly politically motivated assertions about human-caused global climate warming even in 1992. Dick Lindzen has written about Gore trying to bully him on global warming during senate testimony in 1992.
If there was to be such a campaign, Gelbspan would have misrepresented a legitimate scientific clarification as a dark, cynical conspiracy. The gross ethical lapse was his (and now the UCS’s), not theirs.
I’d like to know, though. Was there a PR campaign? Or did Gelbspan invent that, too?

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 10, 2015 9:07 am

Pat – time consuming that it may be, dive into my GelbspanFiles.com blog. I explain the reality – its length, effect (or lack thereof), etc – of the ICE campaign at length in several places. At least you seem to grasp the relevance of my work in your 2nd-to-last sentence, but do expand it larger: there was a legitimate pilot project PR campaign, and everything about it from Gore’s Senate 1991-92 office on up to now has been pure misinformation about it being a sinister effort where scientists who knew better were recruited to knowingly lie to the public and were highly paid to do so. This core misinformation is the only “smoking gun” Gore, Oreskes, and the rest of the enviro-activists have ever had in their arsenal to persuade the public to ignore skeptic scientists. The thrust of the PR campaign is not the point. The point is whether the central pushers of the accusation knew from the start that what they were saying was malicious and false. I’d speculate that if Gore himself knew he had the ICE memos before he said Gelbspan discovered them, and if he knew the memos themselves were baseless as evidence of an industry-wide top-down directive, then he could be open to one of the biggest libel/slander lawsuits in history.

george e. smith
Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
July 10, 2015 11:31 am

Russell it occurs to me when one is considering the notion of “Climate Change”, which so far as I know, absolutely nobody questions the existence of, that “Climate” changes not only in time (in 30 year chunks evidently) but it also changes spatially.
To me, few things are more ludicrous, that the concept of a “global” climate.
The Antarctic highlands climate bears no resemblance to the climate of Saharan Africa, or even that of Borneo.
Kevin Trenberth’s model of the global climate energy budget, can’t possibly behave at all like a real rotating planet.
With a completely isothermal earth surface, at 288 K or 15 deg. C or 59 deg. F, there cannot be any lateral energy flow across earth’s surface.
We should never lose sight of the fact that the extreme cold of Antarctica, and to a lesser extent in the arctic, exists despite the real observed fact, that astronomical quantities of energy in the form of heat, are convected to those frozen polar regions via ocean and atmospheric currents.
Without that huge transport of heat, the polar regions would be even colder still, so small is their total solar energy input from the sun, over the course of an annual cycle.
Spending endless hours manipulating statistical mathematics algorithms, in the vain hope of unearthing a Rosetta stone of new climate understanding, is simple foolishness.
Whether the end product of those endeavors say that maybe one deg. F or 0.6 deg. C of Temperature change may have occurred in the last 150 years, while simply moving less than halfway round the planet, can give a 150 deg. C climate change, seems like a total irrelevancy to me.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
July 12, 2015 7:18 pm

Thanks, Russell I’ll take a look.
It’s pretty amazing, isn’t it, how quickly and thoroughly environmental radicals opportunistically rallied to Gelbspan’s essays at character assassination. A very serious political lesson is in view there.

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
July 13, 2015 9:59 am

What amazes me is how the “environmental radicals” collectively put all their eggs in this one basket over the last 20+ years, the supposedly devastating smoking gun accusation that skeptic scientists were paid and instructed to “reposition global warming” despite knowing it was ‘settled science.’ People rallied to Gelbspan’s version of it because he had the street cred of being a “Pulitzer winning investigative journalist”, and he was a dang good writer. But the festering cancer within the ‘corrupt fossil fuel industry funding’ accusation is that Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer; he never offered details of his ‘investigation’ into the origins of the “reposition” phrase, when it comes to revealing where it came from or how he obtained it; and he never provided evidence to back up the accusation.

July 9, 2015 7:56 pm

CAGW’s abysmal skillfulness doesn’t even qualify as a “theory” at this point. At best, CAGW is an unconfirmed hypothesis that’s within 5~7 years of officially being disconfirmed based on the huge discrepancies and duration between CAGW’s hypothetical projections on almost everything vs. the empirical evidence….
About the only CAGW projection that has come close to matching hypothetical projections has been the shrinking of Arctic Ice Extents, but Arctic ice has been steadily increasing since 2007 and this year’s Arctic minimum will likely be around 2,000,000 KM^2 above 2007’s low (2012’s record Arctic low can be completely disregarded as it was caused by the longest and strongest Arctic Cyclone in 50 years…, not CO2 induced warming,,). Moreover, Antarctic Ice Extents are setting 36-yr records, which is completely contrary to CAGW projections…
The CAGW hypothesis is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
All warmunists can do now is: wave their arms, Karl2015 (I hereby declare Karl2015 a verb) raw data to make various lines go up as much as possible without crossing the line and being charged with malfeasance of public funds, and push CAGW projections further and further into the future (preferably a date after their respective retirement ages).

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 9, 2015 7:57 pm

There is no “C” in the science of AGW

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:12 pm

You look, but fail to “C”!

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:14 pm

rogerknights, do you have a point to make?

Steve P
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:17 pm

Without the impending catastrophe in the CAGW conjecture, please justify the alarmism, the hated curly bulbs, the whirligig boondoggle, the war on coal, the demonization of carbon dioxide.
Without the C, you’ve got no game.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:22 pm

Steve P

The science of AGW does not concern itself with the “C”

The “C” is not part of the science.

Steve P
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:44 pm

Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 at 9:22 pm
And so Joel, I wait almost sorta kinda breathlessly for you to tell me, not what it isn’t, but rather, what it is, this “science of AGW” of yours.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:49 pm

Steve P
It’s not that complicated.
The science of AGW says that the recent rise in global temperatures is caused by the human emission of CO2. It’s an old hypothesis that originated around 1896.

The science of AGW has no “C” in it ….

The “C” was added by the people that don’t accept the actual science, and not by the scientists themselves.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:07 pm

I love that alarmist attempt to make this claim. Climate scientists have most certainly been including “C” in their scientific claims. In fake, climate scientists have told each other that they need to ratchet up the “C” in order to get more people to pay attention.
Please keep trying to deny the fact that climate scientists don’t assert a “C”.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:09 pm

wobble, could you please post a link to a published scientific paper that contains the “C” ????

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:22 pm

Hello Joel; lets see
“It’s an old hypothesis that originated around 1896.” Hmmm, kind of like say canals on Mars? Same time frame. But you said it, a hypothesis. Science is how you prove or disprove the “hypothesis”.
AGW is not science but rather an opinion at this stage. Do please remember that. In time it may prove to be-why the horse may learn to sing, Or it’s fate may be that of the Canals of Mars
Time will tell.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 11:17 pm

Joel D. Jackson
The “C” in CAGW stands for catastrophic. You assert

The science of AGW has no “C” in it ….

The “C” was added by the people that don’t accept the actual science, and not by the scientists themselves.

If you think that then you need to provide a clarification.
Section 1.2 of the most recent IPCC Working Group 2 Report (AR5) is here.
It says

The stakes associated with projected changes in climate are high. Numerous Earth systems that sustain human societies are sensitive to climate and will be impacted by changes in climate (very high confidence). Impacts can be expected in ocean circulation; sea level; the water cycle; carbon and nutrient cycles; air quality; the productivity and structure of natural ecosystems; the productivity of agricultural, grazing, and timber lands; and the geographic distribution, behavior, abundance, and survival of plant and animal species, including vectors and hosts of human disease. Changes in these systems in response to climate change, as well as direct effects of climate change on humans, would affect human welfare, positively and negatively. Human welfare would be impacted through changes in supplies of and demands for water, food, energy, and other tangible goods that are derived from these systems; changes in opportunities for nonconsumptive uses of the environment for recreation and tourism; changes in non-use values of the environment such as cultural and preservation values; changes in incomes; changes in loss of property and lives from extreme climate phenomena; and changes in human health. Climate change impacts will affect the prospects for sustainable development in different parts of the world and may further widen existing inequalities. Impacts will vary in distribution across people, places, and times (very high confidence), raising important questions about equity.

Are you claiming
(a) this list of disasters would not be catastrophic
or are you claiming
(b) the IPCC consists of “the people that don’t accept the actual science”?


Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 3:27 am

Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 at 8:08 pm
“Arctic ice has been steadily increasing since 2007″

I don’t think so

Antarctic ice has been increasing since the eighties, which falsifies AGW, and CAGW.
In a non politiced scientific world that should be the death of AGW theory, like Michelson and Morley´s experiment falsified Newtonian motion physics, but those were other times where only the truth mattered.

Reply to  urederra
July 10, 2015 4:01 am

Rather, Arctic sea has been steady since 2006. Not increasing, not decreasing. 9 years now of oscillating sea ice area, but with no decrease in the daily Arctic sea ice anomaly:
Arctic sea ice mass estimates (PIOMAS calculated values) have been increasing only for 4-5 years.
Today’s Arctic sea ice area (July 09 extents) according to DMI are higher this day than any of the previous 4 years, now well within 1 std deviation of the long-term 1979-2010 average.
Antarctic sea ice has been increasing around the southern continent since about 1992, and has been radically increasing since

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 5:26 am

Read this manic nonsense from the newly nominated head of the AGU…
Then tell us there is no “C” in CAGW !!
The whole trashy output from the alarmista bletheren is riddled with “C” !!!

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 5:33 am

not AGU, NAS.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 6:18 am

Yes. Just like there’s no ‘K’ in “oolade”.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 7:03 am

Joel D. Jackson, I can most certainly post links to published climate scientists asserting the “C”, but you can specifically start reading Rasool and De Bergh, 1970.
For a more contemporary flavor, you can read Benton and Twitchett, 2003, entitled, “How How to kill (almost) all life”. Golly, how to kill almost all life? That sounds fairly “C” to me, Why are you DεNYlNG that “C” is part of the alarmists’ science?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 8:25 am

Joel, In your reference to 1896, you are almost certainly referring to the work of Svante Arrhenius, the father of the Greenhouse Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius He also said “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)” Moreover, he was trying to establish a theory about the source and advent of Ice Ages. His work in this area was, of course, subsequently discredited.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 8:26 am

It’s kinda nice, Joel, to see you test marketing this no ‘C’ meme. It is to be the coming excuse by the activists when no catastrophe materializes.
It won’t work. Too many have died already in this social mania of catastrophism. This massively delusional detour into extreme policy changes has already seriously damaged us, and since lost opportunity costs compound, we’ve irretrievably harmed our grandchildren’s future. They’ll understand, and may not forgive.

David Smith
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 8:34 am
Harry Passfield
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 9:03 am

Quite right. But then again, I find there is no F in AGW.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 1:22 pm

Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 at 7:57 pm
There is no “C” in the science of AGW

Then why don’t you write it with a VEERRRYYYY small “a”?

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 1:54 pm

So I can ignore AGW? If it’s not catastrophic?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 2:20 pm

Isn’t ridiculing your ignorance sufficient, or does he need another point?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 2:22 pm

If we are compiling a list of people who say there is a C in CAGW, let’s not forget the Preezy of the United Steezy himself.
How many times has he or one of his minions declared global warming to be the biggest threat we face?

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 9, 2015 8:08 pm

“Arctic ice has been steadily increasing since 2007”

I don’t think so


Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:27 pm

Ya know, Joel, when a man shows me a graph ending in 2011, I always have to wonder why he left off of the last few years …

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:30 pm

Willis, perhaps he left them off because it did not fit his meme?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:37 pm

Willis…..do you like this one better?


Same point, namely that SAMURI saying “Arctic ice has been steadily increasing since 2007” is full of bovine feces.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:51 pm

“Ya know, Joel, when a man shows me a graph ending in 2011, I always have to wonder why he left off of the last few years …”
Could be because of this:

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 8:56 pm

A blog post?

Sorry buster, but NSIDC has a better rep than the non-existent “Steve Goodard”

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:04 pm

In case you forgot, we are commenting on a blog post.
Did you open the link? It has graphs that are up to date.
Surely you know that one month graphs of ice extent, whether they be September or March, tell much less than a complete story.
What are we, gun slingers?
Better “rep”?
*rolls the eyes.*

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:14 pm

“we are commenting on a blog post.”
Yes we are, but it helps your argument if you use original sources instead of second hand info

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:14 pm

Joel: The 2007 Arctic Ice Extent Minimum was around 4.5 million KM^2, This year, it’ll be around 6 million KM^2. Every year since 2007 (with 2012 the ONE exception) has been higher than 2007..
The Arctic Ice Extent seems to be closely tied to the 30-yr AMO warm/cool cycle. The AMO entered its 30-yr warm cycle around 1994 and peaked around 2007, now it’s slowly moving towards its 30-yr cool cycle, which should start around 2022; perhaps sooner.
When polar ice satellite records began in 1979, the AMO was at its coldest point in its 30-yr cool cycle, which started in 1964…. It makes sense that Arctic Ice Extents would fall from a peak, does it not?
Let’s see if the AMO cycle/Arctic Ice Extent hypothesis works out, because CAGW seems to be a complete laughable bust.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:36 pm

“Yes we are, but it helps your argument if you use original sources instead of second hand info”
Ok, so you think Tony Heller has a bad rep. Got it.
And you think years old graphs are better than new ones, if the new ones are linked via “second hand” sites. Got it.
As for what, exactly, “it helps”, one may only guess. Perhaps you will tell us.
It helps me to read many peoples opinions. And to pay little heed to misdirection. But that is just me.
BTW, you might want to check the source of Tony’s graphs before claiming that NSIDC is better, because, well…his blog post uses graphs from… *wait for it*… NSIDC!

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:43 pm

PS Menicholas
You post: “Ok, so you think Tony Heller has a bad rep. Got it.”

No, Tony Heller has no rep…..

His climate science credentials are…..lets say…..not spectacular

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:09 pm

Your graph shows increasing Arctic Sea Extent since 2007.

Phil Jones
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 2:37 am

Take the graph out to 2015 and you will see the bounce back to around the 2001 levels, quite marked indeed.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 4:43 am

Gee, Joel, thank you for the plot showing explicitly that the Arctic sea ice has been increasing ever since the 2006-2007 winter. Just like what we have been saying.
Like all of those scared by the CAGW religion, you seem to live only within a straight-line approximation of the world.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 8:12 am

I love this strawman meme that there is no Catastrophe. So, no catastrophe, no problem, case closed.
Try telling a generation of schoolchildren indoctrinated on the likes of Gore’s film there was no catastrophe predicted. Joel’s tactic is foolish and will fail.

george e. smith
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 1:28 pm

Maybe he does a five year running average, in which case the result wouldn’t be valid past 2010.
Or something like that. Do enough averaging and pretty soon you have the definitive fixed value.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 1:57 pm

Joel, the updated graph you show (ending in 2014) shows Arctic sea ice extent increasing from 2006.

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 9, 2015 8:11 pm

“(2012’s record Arctic low can be completely disregarded as it was caused by the longest and strongest Arctic Cyclone in 50 years.”
Do you make a habit of disregarding data that does not fit your meme?

NZ Willy
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:10 pm

How on Earth can you say that when your own graph (above) left off the years 2012-2014? Weird.

NZ Willy
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:12 pm

And what part of “since 2007” are you not understanding? Sheesh.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:16 pm

NZ Willy
Doesn’t matter what graph you use, the statement “Arctic ice has been steadily increasing since 2007″ is bogus

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:22 pm

No Joel, but you make a habit of it.
Look at your own, lousy, graph and even you have a trend that is rising from the low point in 2005. Ever notice how only those cagw fixated people try to ignore inconvenient trend changes.
Your sloppy, perhaps malicious, use of graph scale crams the entire ice extent graph into a small fraction of the actual graph range making it falsely appear that extent bottoms are near zero.
-sotto voice from the echoes of cagw advocates: “O my God, the ice is melting, it’s a disaster!”
And you claim there is no ‘C’ in cagw. The truth is, there is no science in cagw!

Starting with the satellite era in 1978 with an extent of 16.5 million square kilometers, the graph shows a sinusoidal wave of natural variability with a range of less than 2 million square kilometers.
Fourteen point five million square kilometers of perpetual extent means that permanent ice extent more than seven times the variability you squawk about remains frozen in the far North. During this period, the Antarctic has not reached it’s upper extent bounds and may continue towards new, satellite era, ice extents.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:23 pm

Even the updated one is over a year old, from March 2014.
And extent is a small part of the story of course. Multi year ice, which was predicted to be gone by…um…when was it…oh yeah…2015(!) is now higher than when these predictions were made.
The whole issue is ridiculous of course, if one is attempting to draw some sort of global long term conclusion by a glance at monthly charts of this highly variable and cyclic parameter.
We are, after all, very likely in the early stages of thirty years of Arctic sea ice growth, having just seen the minimum of the last downward leg.
Time will tell, but I will make a gentleman’s bet that Arctic sea ice will trend upwards over the next few decades.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:28 pm


1) Look at the long term trend. You seem fixated on short term trends.
2) “And you claim there is no ‘C’ in cagw.”….yes I do, and you have made no argument against my claim. The simple fact is that the science of AGW does not have a “C” in it, and does not make any such prediction/projection.
3) “more than seven times the variability” ….. how about you address the fact that over the long term, the trend is decreasing?
PS….we’re talking about the Arctic……bringing up the Antarctic extent is a different subject, and a dodge of the facts on your part.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:30 pm

Joel– No, I say 2012 was caused by the strongest and longest Arctic Cyclone in 50 years, because that’s what the scientists say occurred, including NASA…
If we have another one-in-50 year Arctic cyclone this August, I’m sure the Arctic Ice Extent minimum will be even lower than 2012, because the 2012 Arctic cyclone wiped out a lot of multiyear ice… However, the probability of that happening is around 2%…

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:32 pm

Menicholas says: “after all, very likely in the early stages of thirty years of Arctic sea ice growth”

1) very likely?
2) somewhat likely?
3) itsy bitsy likely?
4) I wanna it to be likely?

You have a citation for that statement?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:35 pm

SAMURI says “was caused by the strongest and longest Arctic Cyclone in 50 years,”

So what?

Just because you cite the cause doesn’t allow you to ignore the data point in the trend.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:47 pm

“”You have a citation”
If I thought you really were curious and needed help finding information, I would supply it, but it is painfully clear you are simply in a frame of mind of goading people for no reason other than your own ego. You know perfectly well why some consider this likely. I am not even the only one in the past ten minutes to mention it.
You do know you sound rather juvenile, don’t you?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 9:53 pm

Menicholas says: “You know perfectly well why some consider this likely”

I get it…

You can’t provide a citation…..

Or in other words, you have no clue how “LIKELY” this is.

Pure and unadulterated speculation on your part.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:13 pm

Why are you DENYING the fact there’s been an upward trend in Arctic Sea Ice Extent since 2007? Are you a Sea Ice Extent DεNlER?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:44 pm

“Joel D. Jackson July 9, 2015 at 9:28 pm

1) Look at the long term trend. You seem fixated on short term trends…”

Just as you are strictly fixated on a short term from 1978 to 2005-2006. Get over it, the trend has broken in 2005-06 and is now moving upward.

“…2) “And you claim there is no ‘C’ in cagw.”….yes I do, and you have made no argument against my claim…”

I did make an argument. Your refusal to understand that, well.

“…The simple fact is that the science of AGW does not have a “C” in it, and does not make any such prediction/projection…”

If that is the case then who cares about Arctic ice? Era’s have passed with very rare occurrences of an ‘ice free Arctic’. Why bother fretting about it if your not playing the ‘C’atastrophic game.
Not overlooking the fact that virtually every output of alleged agw science includes predictions of impending disaster. Or are you insisting that your definition of catastrophic different?

“…3) “more than seven times the variability” ….. how about you address the fact that over the long term, the trend is decreasing?…”

I did.
You have ignored that 2 million square kilometers variability is a small fraction of the total Arctic ice. Why get your knickers in a twist over such small changes, especially given that the total satellite record is so short?
Did you notice all of those cagw polar adventurers who sought to sail the ‘ice free Arctic’ these last few years have all failed?

“…PS….we’re talking about the Arctic……bringing up the Antarctic extent is a different subject, and a dodge of the facts on your part.”

Ah, another slimeball attempt to sully someone responding to your nonsense.
I did not bring up a different topic. Polar ice is polar ice, splitting one pole out alone is sophistry; especially since the ‘science’ predicts equal impacts to both poles.
You are the one trying to prevent inconvenient facts and truth from being presented. It is after all, a globe, so view the world’s climate in it’s entirety.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for that fracking pad disaster…

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 9, 2015 10:47 pm

Pardon everyone is this what is being discussed?
I don’t know if its any help michael

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 3:57 am

There is plenty of evidence that during the first 2/3-3/4 of the Holocene, Arctic sea ice levels were winter seasonal only. The world and the polar bears survived that, and in fact thrived.
The current level of Arctic sea ice is actually VERY HIGH compared to all but the last couple of hundred years of the last 10,000 years.
We should be very thankful that we are not still back in the LIA. !

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 4:08 am

The North-west passage was navigated in 1903 in a small wooden sailing ship.
Maybe the new and very powerful Russian ice breakers might try again … later. !.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 5:17 am

Note, there is eve a descriptive term for the COOLINBG that started around the end of the Minoan period.
The RWP and the MWP were small spikes on the way down.
The modern slightly warm period (MSWP), is a lesser, smaller bump out of the LIA.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 11:22 am

For awhile now, I’ve considered ice volume to be the most likely leading indicator of recovery. Everytime I think about it, though, I come up with a different reason for thinking so.
Maybe it’s got something to do with the three dimensional aspect. Less variability than the two dimensional one. I’ll have another explanation tomorrow, but it is gratifying to see the PIOMASS graph above.
Gratifying? So long as it is cyclical, still and not permanently recovering. But wait, wasn’t the Arctic mostly open during the recent glaciations?
What these alarmists forseeing the end of Arctic Ice wish for.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 2:33 pm

Before WordPress did some kind of upgrade if a Name had a link it would show up as blue.
I was going to copy/paste a “Joel D. Jackson”‘s comment and discovered the name has a link. Here’s the first part of what showed up.

Home Page
Joel Jackson and associates have been providing home design, services, renovations, restorations, and fine custom homes to folks for over thirty years.

He’s hardly a “peer-reviewed Climate Scientist” so any (C)aGW warmist/alarmist out there should ignore anything and everything he has said. 😎

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 10, 2015 3:50 pm

Its not Bob the Builder… it Joel the Builder.

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 9, 2015 9:36 pm

I like this graph better with out the deceptive linear trend line. The hiatus/reversing trend in Arctic ice melt is more readily appreciated.

Reply to  jim Steele
July 9, 2015 10:03 pm

Yes Jim, the long term trend is most certainly evident in your graph.

Reply to  jim Steele
July 9, 2015 10:06 pm

I’m particularly fond of this one because is shows the differential between the seasons

Reply to  jim Steele
July 9, 2015 10:34 pm

Seems like you prefer the ones best that stop when the long term trend reverses.
I want to hear you say it again…please…

Reply to  jim Steele
July 9, 2015 10:49 pm

Another graph that ends in 2010?
Absolute bogus!
Oh, we did notice that you do recognize changes in trend directions. So your refusal to accept the change in trend over the last half decade is done on purpose?
False is a false does…

Phil Jones
Reply to  jim Steele
July 10, 2015 2:51 am

Joel D you obviously fail to see the “hockey stick” with the marked upward trend especially in the PIOMAS graph which shows a strong upward trend and regeneration of the Arctic ice cap from the 2007 low.

Reply to  jim Steele
July 10, 2015 4:12 am

Current Arctic sea ice level is above the previous 6 years at leastcomment image
And from DMI, it looks like only 2005 is above current
GLOBAL sea ice is well above the 1981-2010 meancomment image

Reply to  AndyG55
July 10, 2015 4:33 am


GLOBAL sea ice is well above the 1981-2010 mean

Careful about ever considering “global sea ice” as an indicator of anything meaningful. It is a valid number ONLY the during one day of the spring equinox (March 20-21) that both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice areas receive the same amount of sunshine from even approximately the same solar elevation angle.
For example, over the 24 hours of the September 21 2014 equinox, the Antarctic sea ice (then at its maximum sea ice extent) had more than 17.75 TIMES the effective reflective power that the Arctic sea ice had over the same 24 hour period: 2326 x10^6 Watt-hours compared to 131 x 10^6 Watt-hours

Reply to  jim Steele
July 10, 2015 4:15 am

It should also be noted in the first of those graphs, that the rate of melting this year is slower than previous years and is now skirting only 1sd, (ie an non-significant amount) below the 1981-2010 mean.

Reply to  jim Steele
July 10, 2015 4:44 am

RA, Look at the comparison to previous years. That’s what I find interesting.
It is reasonably valid as a comparison to itself.
But you are right, we should look at the two poles separately… Antarctic is >2sd above the 1981-2010 mean.
Will it slide above the purple 2010 line and set some more new maximum values (in the satellite measurement period) in a few days time?
Time will tell.comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
July 10, 2015 4:51 am


But you are right, we should look at the two poles separately… Antarctic is >2sd above the 1981-2010 mean.

More troubling, the Antarctic sea ice has been consistently over +2 std deviations of the 1979-2010 average for the past 2-1/2 years. Not every day of the the past 2-1/2 years, but almost all of them.
The arctic sea ice? This past winter, it averaged about only 6-7% below its long-term average. Today (mid-summer) as the total Arctic sea ice area gets lower, the percent increases (as it always does each summer melt season). At today’s 1 std deviation difference, it is still only 12-13% below the long-term average.

Reply to  jim Steele
July 10, 2015 5:12 am

It seems that the Antarctic 0-100 sea temp is heading downward rather quickly as well.
note. Figure is the upper 100 meters of ocean south of 60°S. There’s been a rapid cooling since about 2007. Negative numbers are used to select latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The source is KNMI
(from notrickszone.)

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 10, 2015 5:03 am

” … The CAGW hypothesis is, for all intents and purposes, dead. “
I wish I could agree with that line of thinking but I just can not. As long as most of the “skeptical” side agrees with the alarmists that CO2 “warms the surface of the planet” by 33C we are playing ball by their false rules. I am always amazed at how seemingly knowledgeable people can walk in lock-step with James Hansen’s revival of an old and disproved theory.
As long as you agree with the green blob that CO2 does this magic, even though you claim to a much lesser degree, they will win in the end. We must look honestly at all sides of this issue.

Reply to  markstoval
July 10, 2015 5:31 am

The hypothesis should be dead buried and long ago rotted in the ground.
It is being kept alive by shear political and financial will power…
… but still putrefying.

David A
Reply to  SAMURAI
July 11, 2015 4:04 am

” Joel, you assert there is no “C” in CAGW. yet below you will find just a few of the dozens of quotes from both scientists, like Mike Mann, and politicians who are being advised by these scientists, as well as news paper quotes of scientists…
……..as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them,…..
We are serially doomed. The End Is Nigh………….again.
Moscow-Pullman Daily News – 5 July 1989
“governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”
[Noel Brown – New York office of the United Nations Environment Program]
The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982
Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an envi-ronmental catastrophe which will witness devast-tation as complete, as ir-reversible as any nu-clear holocaust.”
[MostafaTolba – Executive director of the United Nations Environment Program]
New York Times – November 18, 2007
…..The IPCC chairman, RajendraPachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,”Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”…..
Guardian – 1 August 2008
Andrew Simms
The final countdown
We have only 100 months to avoid disaster. Andrew Simms explains why we must act now – and where to begin
…Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change….
Independent – 20 October 2009
Gordon Brown: We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe
……..Copenhagen must be such a time.
There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late….
Guardian – 12 March 2009
……The current financial slump would be “nothing” compared to the “full effects which global warming will have on the world economy,” he said.
“We have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change,” Prince Charles added…..
National Post – 2009?
… In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted “we have four months to save the planet.”…
Guardian – 3 November 2009
We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change
…….Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
Guardian – 8 July 2008
100 months to save the Earth
There isn’t much time to turn things around. And today’s G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
……The world’s climate experts say that that the world’s CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reaching……
[John Sauven – Greenpeace]
WWF – 7 December 2009
12 days to save the planet!
…“The world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far won’t keep the world under 2° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. …
[WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott]
Guardian – 18 January 2009
‘We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead’
Jim Hansen is the ‘grandfather of climate change’ and one of the world’s leading climatologists…..
“We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
The Star – Mar 24 2009
‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster
…Recently, Prince Charles has said we have only an estimated 100 months. Unless the world comes together and negotiates a meaningful agreement to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions nine months from now – at the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations climate conference in December – another 90 months won’t help. We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it.
Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday….
[Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party]
Address at New York University Law School – September 18, 2006
Al Gore
Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.
Scientific American – Mar 18, 2014
By Michael E. Mann
Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036
If the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise 2 degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that many scientists think will hurt all aspects of human civilization: food, water, health, energy, economy and national security. …
Irish Times – 14 April 2014
Former president Mary Robinson said this morning global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world”.
Independent – 28 June 2010
Scientists ‘expect climate tipping point’ by 2200
…“We are certainly capable of committing ourselves to an emissions trajectory that make 1,000 ppm in 2200 almost inevitable if we make the wrong decisions over the next 20 years,” Dr Allen said….
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
“[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
“Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford Biologist, Earth Day 1970<
So Joel, where did the "C" come from? BTW Joel, the G and the W are also MIA. All that is left of your precious theory is the human influence from above; a bunch of alarmist the end is neigh statements, and most of them it is already to late, as the end already happened. Doomsday in the last few happened in 1975, 2000, again 2000, etc.
So Joel, if there is no C in CAGW, why do you want to waste billions, nay trillions of dollars combatting it?

Joel O’Bryan
July 9, 2015 9:53 pm

This by effort UCS and The Gruniad post by Willis is just part of the ongoing propaganda campaign being quarterbacked by John Holdren

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 9, 2015 9:54 pm

not Willis of course but his thread highlighting the Gruniad’s sophistry

July 9, 2015 10:12 pm

Joe(l) Jackson– Given my proclivity to add and subtract letters to things, why is it that this song reminds me of you?:

Cheers, mate. All in good fun!

Reply to  SAMURAI
July 9, 2015 10:35 pm

“why is it that this song reminds me of you?”
You can read why in the Sunday papers.

Brent Loken
July 9, 2015 11:12 pm

D. is for Discord?

Charles Nelson
July 9, 2015 11:24 pm

Hey isn’t it great to have a live one on the line?
This Joel Jackson is providing excellent practice for debunking the Warmists.
Thanks Joel!

July 10, 2015 12:09 am

“One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.” – Niccolo Machiavelli
“….They call me a denier
What does it mean?
That I can see colours
Other than green?
I’ve not been radicalised,
I’ve not been indoctrinated?
I’m not fooled by the fear:
Is that why I’m hated?….”

July 10, 2015 12:37 am

Just a small point for Joel,
If there’s no C in AGW then there’s no problem either (from a political point of view) as the only justifications for all the expensive actions to reign in co2 are that the consequences will be catastrophic!

Clovis Marcus
July 10, 2015 1:57 am

40 odd years is a long term trend?
Only on planet Joel.

July 10, 2015 2:58 am

For God’s sake, how many times do we have to tell you? A petard is a bomb, and no-one gets hoisted on it. The phrase is “hoist with his own petard”. (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4.)
If you don’t know what the words mean, don’t bloody use them.

Reply to  RoHa
July 10, 2015 3:11 am

And now that the steam pressure has dropped a bit, I will add “Otherwise, good post”.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  RoHa
July 10, 2015 2:04 pm

Ha ha. You Shakespeare people are freaks. Alas, poor ACGW. I knew it well Horatio.

Reply to  RoHa
July 10, 2015 7:37 am

Ok it’s Friday night, oh hang on no it’s Saturday morning, whatever!

Reply to  RoHa
July 10, 2015 10:25 am

RoHa (2:58 am): Unfortunately for non-linguists, or those who d3ny linguistic evolution, the passage of a literary quotation into proverb in English, as in all other languages, often involves multiple changes to the original phrase. 400 years ago, when Late Medieval English was still the literary norm in GB (yes, Shakespeare wrote in Middle English; get over it: the Great English Vowel Shift hadn’t covered the island yet, and it is doubtful that you or I could even have a conversation with the Bard), everyone knew what a petard was; now we “know” it as an obscure, but hazardous weapon of unspecified mechanism, perhaps for stabbing, since we usually do not even think of any powdery weapons having been used in Shakespeare’s plays. And hoist as a past participle is now completely unknown. The change of “with” to “by” in current usage is sanctioned by the OED, and further change to “on” in the vernacular does nothing to change the contemporary meaning of this entirely idiomatic phrase. The phrase, however worded, is used in English to mean “having one’s schemes against others backfiring on one”, and if the individual meanings of “hoist” and “petard” have been lost, this is not in any way relevant to the meaning of the idiom. Get over that, too.

Reply to  Don Newkirk
July 10, 2015 10:29 am

The quote is from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 1072. Sorry I forgot to include the reference. And BTW, I live in Salem, Oregon, USA, but I find the OED much more useful even for American English than the truly awful Oxford Dictionary of American English from the same publisher.

Reply to  Don Newkirk
July 10, 2015 10:57 am

Don Newkirk:
I don’t know where you gained your understanding but it did not concur with my own and, therefore, I checked the definition in the Oxford dictionaries which is here. It defines a petard to be the hand-held explosive weapon I thought and that “hoist” had the meaning I thought; i.e.

See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Syllabification: pe·tard
Pronunciation: /pəˈtärd/
Definition of petard in English:

1A small bomb made of a metal or wooden box filled with powder, used to blast down a door or to make a hole in a wall.

Example sentences
1.1A kind of firework that explodes with a sharp report.
Example sentences
hoist with (or by) one’s own petard
Have one’s plans to cause trouble for others backfire on one.
[From Shakespeare’s Hamletitalicized ( iii. iv. 207); hoist italicized is in the sense ‘lifted and removed’, past participle of dialect hoise (see hoist)]
Example sentences
Mid 16th century: from French pétard , from péter ‘break wind’.


Reply to  Don Newkirk
July 10, 2015 12:47 pm

It is in this post where I point out the word, ‘fart’ in French.

Reply to  Don Newkirk
July 10, 2015 1:03 pm

richardscourtney July 10, 2015 at 10:57 am:
Richard, I really appreciate all of your postings, and do not mean to quibble, but I feel I must clarify my own offering a bit (obviously). When I expressed how “we” interpret the now wholly idiomatic (else utterly gibberish) phrase “hoist with his own petard” I was, of course, not talking about OED and Shakespeare. I’m talking about how the now-corrupted phrase “hoist on his own petard”, which is the usage in America, at least, can be interpreted when 2 of its words–hoist as pp. of the now nonexistent verb hoise, and petard as a now-nonexistent weapon of dubious reliability (its name comes from the French word “pétard , from péter ‘break wind’”, as you point out, and the “engineer” who planted it on the wall or gate to be taken down was unfortunately likely to be blown into the air by his own bomb, which is what is the physical metaphor invoked 400 years ago, but forgotten now)–are essentially unknown in Modern English. These words emphatically do not mean for “us” what OED says, at least not for the typical contemporary speaker, and in fact, I would be surprised to find many Americans who have any love for dictionary definitions of just about anything, given the disastrous state of education in the US and the endemic distrust of authority. The phrase only has holistic, idiomatic meaning, and has lost any connection, in contemporary usage, to its erstwhile metaphorical origins.
BTW, by 1894, as attested in E. Cobham Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1894), where the entry for petard begins
Petard’. Hoist on his own petard. Caught in his own trap, involved in the danger he meant for others….”
(Note my emphasis on on, which had already partially replaced the original with by 1894.)
I do apologize for the 2 uses of “get over it”. Unforgivable rudeness on my part, and I hope you will accept my apology. I do try myself to keep my usage as true to both history and contemporary usage as is practical, and I often spew coffee over a well mixed metaphor, but when the metaphor has been around 400 years, and the physical instantiation of the metaphor is no longer part of our experience, and people use it only for its effect (which is the purpose of language), or to get the opportunity to write that weird word “petard”, I would say that it is time to accept the status quo. That is all I meant with those 3 rude words, and that is closer to what I should have written.

Reply to  Don Newkirk
July 10, 2015 2:36 pm

Interestingly, I did not know any of this Shakespeare stuff, but I knew very close to exactly what was meant by the phrase.
And that is what counts, no?

July 10, 2015 3:01 am

Why are we always accused of being minions of Big Oil when we speak up using facts, against the religious people who push the Anthropogenic Global Warming and Extreme Sustainability line, acting just like the sheep do in Orwell’s book “Animal Farm”?
Unfortunately for me, I have never received any offer from anyone let alone any fuel organisation, but then I am only a small fish it seems.
However I did, with only a little digging, find this information about one of the most dangerous lobbiests in the world who made his initial fortune by having an almost complete monopoly on fossil fuel in the United States until his company was broken up by the introduction of the Sherman Act, which I know a little about because I studied it as an undergraduate.
I am of course talking about the Rockefeller family.
Here are some facts which I looked up recently. The Rockefellers are a bit sneaky and tend to show their allegiances with discretion and one has to chase them a bit. However this is what I found.
Simply a fraction of where they are involved I suspect.
The Rockefeller family are supporters of the following and I give the web address so you can look for yourself. However they tend to use slightly different names and often support organisations via another organisation. If you follow the financial trail, of which most “non profit” organisations are usually required to display by the law of their origin, very often the Rockefellers appear.
Here are some examples of what I have found.
1 United Nations http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/partners/organizations/rockefeller-brothers-fund.html
2. ICLEI http://www.iclei.org/en/climate-roadmap/advocacy/global-lg-events/worldmayorssummit/high-level-dialogue-on-financing-local-climate-action.html
3. Resilience http://www.100resilientcities.org/ http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/RESILIENCE-Resilient-Cities-Acceleration-Initiative.pdf
4 Oceanwatch Sailing via http://www.conservation.org
5 IUCN http://www.iucn.org via 6. WWF http://www.iucn.org/about/union/donors/companies/
Are Rockefellers involved with the WWF? A little tricky to trace but http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_international_corporate_partnerships_report_2014.pdf
Which mention 7 IMD as one of its major supporters. Lets check there.
IMD seems to be an arm of the WHO.
Who is a supporter of W.H.O. then? And why does the WHO support the WWF?
http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/ search for “rockefeller”
http://www.who.int/en/ search for “rockefeller”
Of course someone else has already catalogued this:
Oops, I almost forgot to include this beneficiary of the Rockerfellers.
Here is a little history.
It seems that no matter where you go in the “green” or “sustainability” world you trip over the Rockefellers .
Exactly who has Big Oil on their side then?
And believe me, the Rockefellers are not the sort of people who give out money without thinking of whats in it for them!
Actually fossil fuel energy organisations love green, sustainability and AGW.
These “philosophies” ( If they are worthy of the name) will actually benefit oil companies and the like. I don’t mean the miner at the bottom of the heap but those who control it.
Here is why.
Greens bleat out “Don’t use oil it is about to run out and it is heating up the planet.
Oil companies interpret that as “Fossil fuel will always be needed but restrict the supply? Great, can do – We know that will make the price sky rocket, so we can produce less oil, get a huge price and still make as much or more money as before but with fewer expenses! A businessman’s dream!
Read more about the Rockefellers here.
This blog is generally quite reliable as I have verified many of the things said here from other sources.
Please excuse the length of this comment, but it seems so appropriate to point all this out.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 10, 2015 5:02 am

To be fair to the original John D. Rockefeller, he DID save the whales by underselling whale oil.
Check out the site, “Measuring Worth”, by a couple of cliometricians. It turns out that GNP growth was quite low during Teddy Roosevelt’s administration, ranking 34 out of 41 presidents. I suspect that a lot of that had to do with “trustbuting”, converting efficient sellers of cheap products into iinefficient sellers of moderately dear product.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Alan McIntire
July 12, 2015 3:25 pm

Much has been stated about Rockefeller saving the whales due to the introduction of petroleum oils, but I would consider that William Murdoch had a greater effect worldwide, with the invention of coal gas. This also happened well before Rocky did his drilling, Murdoch died in 1839 the same year Rockefeller was born.

Bob Lyman
July 10, 2015 3:57 am

I think that one of the most misleading tactics of the CAGW-alleging crowd is to paint the petroleum industry as the primary opponent of the theory and as the interest group that would be primarily harmed by stringent emissions reduction policies. As Exxon-Mobil eloquently explained when asked by “Green” institutional investors why it continued to invest in new fossil fuel development, petroleum companies produce and sell the hydrocarbons because they are demanded by the consumers of the world. The same is true of the coal industry. The most significant victims of the policies being promoted by the IPCC (i.e. a 70% reduction in GHG emissions from 2010 levels by 2050 and their complete elimination by 2100) would be the people – the billions of consumers who either now rely on fossil fuels for the energy to power their daily needs and uses that support the services of a modern economy plus the billions more who tragically do not yet have access to these services. The CAGW advocates are an irritation to the fossil fuel industry but a severe menace to the consumers of the world. They need to be “called out” every time they attempt this misdirection.

July 10, 2015 4:27 am

OT, but another catastrophist trougher gets nominated as president of NAS !
This is the sort of crap we can expect more of…

July 10, 2015 5:53 am

Skeptic scientists receiving funding of $5,000,000 per year while pro-global warming researchers get about $30,000,000,000 per year; 6,000 times as much.
Skeptical scientists get little air time or press coverage while there is a global warming scare story every second day and a global warming conference every weekend at a 5 star resort.
There is no comparison.
As much as they complain, it is still just a theory that is at least 66% wrong, NOT a fact.
The fossil fuel lobby-mime is really just toddler-like whining. They dropped their ice cream cone.

Say What?
July 10, 2015 6:58 am

Global Warming is not a fact – it is a hypothesis. When tested and able to be used as accurate tool, then it becomes a theory. So far, their hypothesis has not been properly confirmed. The debates over such issue is a major scientific controversy, IMO, and yet, the general public is unaware of how the left has usurped the process. Overall, the mainstream media has failed in their responsibility to report “all the news that’s fit to print” and replaced much of it with drivel – which draws away the those with media derived attention spans from actually thinking about both sides of any issue. Subliminal Seduction at its best, IMO.

Bruce Cobb
July 10, 2015 6:58 am

…a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.

They got that part right at least, just the wrong attribution, and their campaign, which UCS is heavily involved with, and is highly profitable for them, is far more massive than anything “Big Oil” could possibly come up with, even if it wanted to.

July 10, 2015 10:17 am

Years ago I used to wonder if UCS had a point? Then I attended a conference in 2005 where a member of UCS made a presentation regarding Bt corn and the impact on butterflies. The Losey paper in Nature spawned a lot of research into impacts and there was a presidential committee to look at it, referred to as NC205 (or something similar). The UCS “scientist” made their presentation, lambasting the NC205 committee and the work it had compiled. Claimed they were all shills for Monsanto.
Thankfully the vast majority of the authors of NC205 were in the audience and in turn stood and tore the UCS argument to shreds, in calm, professional form. The moderator of the session had to shut down the question period because too many of the authors of NC205 were lined up to rebut. He then thanked the speaker who received polite applause. The speaker took a couple of steps appearing to move off the stage, then raced back to “get in the last word” at the NC205 authors. High school antics at their finest.
From that point on I vowed to ignore anything coming out of UCS and I would urge anyone I know with a professional background in science to stay as far away from UCS as possible because quite simply the majority are nutbars. UCS represents the lunatic fringe of scientists. Masters of taking science out of context.

more soylent green!
July 10, 2015 10:32 am

As usual, they say one thing but claim another. Of course global warming is a fact, just as global cooling is a fact. Climate change is a fact. The climate has always changed and will always change.
They insinuate that “global warming,” a fact means “man-made global warming via greenhouse gas emissions,” which has never been proven.

Mickey Reno
July 10, 2015 12:23 pm

Let’s not forget that the so-called Internal Strategy Memo is also the device forged by Peter Gleick to smear Heartland as being under the wing of big oil and “anti-science” a few years back. Remember how gleefully DeSmog pounced on a forgery and ran with it? Shameful. But what do you expect from propagandists?

Reply to  Mickey Reno
July 11, 2015 8:13 am

I didn’t forget that myself, I brought it up in my November 21, 2014 blog post “The ‘Non-smoking Gun’ Leaked Memos Pattern” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2273

Scott Saturday
July 10, 2015 1:30 pm

I’ve been trying to get someone…anyone to pay me for my skeptical stance on CAGW for years – to no avail.

Reply to  Scott Saturday
July 10, 2015 2:37 pm

Hell, I can’t hardly give it away!

Charles Nelson
July 10, 2015 2:47 pm

Hoist on his own petard = lifted by his own bomb.

July 10, 2015 5:34 pm

It is amazing that money has a variable effect. When handed out by the government to climate scientists money does not corrupt or influence the research, yet when handed out by oil companies the resulting research is nothing but a paid ad.

July 10, 2015 10:17 pm

“•Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades.”
What really impresses me is that the evil fossil fuel companies knew for sure long before even the “mainstream” Climate Scientists that “CO2 is a green house gas, and we’re all gonna die!” Evil Genius strikes again! And they kept it from us just like the tobacco companies did. Surely a search of their records will finally produce the irrefutable proof we’ve been looking for! / sarc

July 11, 2015 6:42 am

The best solution to getting to the real truth is through applying the scientific method to the data in a double blind manner, just like the FDA and EPA do when approving drugs and chemicals. Global Warming, errr, sorry, Climate Change is the greatest example of the politicization of science since Eugenics and Lysenkoism. We simply can’t allow a group of political activists masquerading as scientists determine the direction of this great nation and global economy, especially now that new studies are pointing towards a coming little ice age.
What is needed is a Scientific Data and Conclusion Validation Administration, or SDCVA. Research being used to form public policy would be required to provide the 1) conclusion and 2) supporting data. That data would then be scrambled so that there would be two data sets, one representing the actual data and one representing the placebo. That data would then be tested scientifically and compared against the conclusions. If the published conclusions don’t match the blind test results, the research would be rejected and the researcher would need to pay back the research money.
What makes climate “science” so interesting is that there are no experiments that can be replicated, at least none that they want anyone to know about. Climate “science” relies on econometric style multivariate modeling, and anyone that works of Wall Street and is familiar with these kinds of models knows, they aren’t worth a hill of beans when it comes to forecasting the future. What the Einsteins in the Climate ‘Science” departments are learning is know by any 1st year graduate working at a research firm on Wall Street, anyone can curve fit a computer model to give unbelievable “back tested” results. The Climate “Science” departments would have had better results had they hired Bernie Maydoff to create their models.
What needs to happen is for people to demand a Congressional Hearing on this climate “science” and have the actual data and conclusions presented in a level understandable to an 8th grader so our elected officials can understand it.
1) Simply produce a chart of the Holocene. Every ice core data set I’ve tested demonstrates that a) we are well off the high temperature of the Holocene and 2) there is nothing statistically abnormal about the past 50 and 150 years temperature variation.
2) Al Gore’s own chart demonstrates CO2 lags temperature and that previous temperature peaks were higher than today.
3) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 PPM, and temps never got above 22 degree C, we fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 PPM.
4) The oceans are warming, there is no way for atmospheric CO2 radiating at 15 microns to warm the oceans.
5) CO2 is transparent to viable light, viable light warms the earth. Daytime temperatures have been increasing. There is no way for CO2 to cause record daytime temperatures. Absorbing and re-radiating heat can not warm a body, it can only slow cooling. Record daytime temperatures can not be explained by CO2.
6) The atmosphere most likely to be impacted by CO2 would be the extremely cold and dry air of the S Pole. It shows no warming over 50 years even though CO2 has increased by about 100 PPM, or 30%+.
I could go on and on about the flaws in this theory, but until we have an effective watch dog, real science won’t matter. The activists have successfully used the tobacco fiasco to silence any corporation from entering into these kinds of debates. That has left the fox to guard the hen house, where activists, NGOs, Government Researchers, liberal universities, public schools, the gullible media and Government Agencies act with impunity as they push their agenda, void of any fear of being exposed. It is a classic fascist approach to science and ruling the people. It isn’t who casts the vote, it is who counts the vote that matters, and the people counting the climate “science” vote are as corrupt as they come, and a simple unbiased, uninterested, uncorrupted, objective agency to review the science, data and conclusions of research used to support public policy. Bottom line, we’ve given the Climate “Scientists” all the rope they’ve needed to hang themselves. Now we just need them to answer for their crimes. They’ve published their models, and here are their results. No credible “science” would defend such garbage.
If these people worked on Wall Street, or for a Drug or Oil company they would be in prison. We can’t have 2 sets of laws and rules in this country. What is good for the goose. Liberals would use this kind of data to destroy who ever produced it, yet they remain quiet.comment image

Reply to  co2islife
July 11, 2015 6:46 am

Like you say, they’ve been given enough rope. They’ve already gone off the rails, the wreck smoulders, but EMS ain’t there yet.

Reply to  co2islife
July 11, 2015 9:20 pm

Tropical mid-troposphere 20S-20N. RCP8.5 model ensemble.
Trend line intercept adjusted to zero. Data going back to only 1979 when CMIP-5 can go back to 1850 (I believe).
Cherry-picking anyone?

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 12, 2015 10:39 am

“harrytwinotter July 11, 2015 at 9:20 pm”
harry, the hypotheses involved in the idea that “CO2 drives Climate” aka “[CO2-]Climate Change” aka CO2=CAGW aka…aka….have a perfect record of 100% Prediction Failure – of which Spencer’s Graph is but one example; meaning that the hypotheses are Scientifically Falsified. In other words, according to the principles of real science, there is something seriously wrong with the hypotheses [still] claiming that rising CO2 levels are changing the Climate in any empirically observable way.
Also, only because you made the claim, show us where the CMIP-5 correctly represents GMT’s going back to 1850.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
July 12, 2015 11:55 am

Tropical mid-troposphere 20S-20N. RCP8.5 model ensemble.
Trend line intercept adjusted to zero. Data going back to only 1979 when CMIP-5 can go back to 1850 (I believe). Cherry-picking anyone?”
Really? You obviously have never built a multi-variable model. Any fool can curve fit historical data. Wall Street has countless “back-tested” models that are pure crap. They mean nothing. What is important is that the models have a theoretical basis that is valid to that they forecast the future. The climate models were created recently, so what is important is how well they forecast the future. Climate “scientists” are simply learning what every 1st year Wall Street analysts is learning. Curve fitting is pure junk.
Let’s forget “cherry picking” time periods and simply focus on the basics:
1) Is there enough CO2 in the atmosphere to materially change the pH of the oceans? Nope.
2) Is there a way for CO2, which absorbs 13 to 17 microns with a peak of 15 microns to warm something that emits at 10 microns? Nope. BTW, 13 microns represents -50 degree C, 15 represents -80 degree C.
3) The oceans are warming. is it possible to shine an IR lamp of peak radiation of 15 microns onto water and warm it? Nope.
4) All green house gasses are increasing, not just the man made ones. Hows is that?
5) Sea level isn’t increasing at an increasing rate, which it would if we were truly warming at an abnormal rate.
6) Cherry pick any ice core data you want and see if we are currently at the peak temperature of the Holocene. We aren’t. Test the variation of the past 50 and 150 years. You will find there is nothing statistically different about that period.
Unlike climate scientists, I don’t rely on cherry picking, I simply use their own data and theory to prove they are frauds.
BTW, methane is claimed to be a greenhouse gas. Green house gasses require a dipole so the molecule can vibrate. Methane doesn’t have a dipole.

July 11, 2015 9:59 am

“hoisted on their own petard”
The correct phrase is “Hoist by their own petard”
It is not being hung up by a “petard”. A petard is a bomb intended to blow open a door. The phrase refers to being blown up by your own bomb, or by something intended to harm another person. A common misuse of the phrase.

Lauren R.
July 13, 2015 10:56 am

It’s the pot calling the kettle black. The so-called Union of Concerned Scientists are the biggest frauds around; pretending to be a group of scientists when they are in reality a political advocacy group emphasizing “scientific” issues. Only a small fraction of their membership are actually scientists; just like every other 501(c) non-profit which includes religious, educational, social welfare, labor, and agricultural groups and social and recreational clubs. It’s not illegal, but it is deceptive.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights