An Update On The Real Deniers

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.” In climate the problem is those who label others deniers are the real deniers. They don’t even acknowledge there is a debate to deny.

Even the Pope denied the deniers by excluding them from his climate conclave while he ordered priests to forgive those who had abortions. Apparently there are limits to Papal forgiveness. Sadly he doesn’t know enough to know who the real deniers are, which tends to dent infallibility. There is a long list including the President of the US and his cabinet, most world leaders, a majority of the world’s politicians, all environmental groups and their followers, and most with a left political leaning. Sadly, most have no understanding of the science, but typically they have very definitive positions; it is emotional and politically fuelled ignorance.

Recently Lord Monckton provided details of the continuing period of 18 years and 8 months with no global warming (Figure 1). Ross McKitrick puts the hiatus at 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere. Regardless, it contradicts the basic assumption of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis because CO2 levels continued to rise. Proponents only acknowledged these events by calling it climate change instead of global warming.

clip_image002

Figure 1

They then came up with 52 and counting excuses for the facts not fitting the hypothesis. These are similar attempts to explain away or deny conflicting evidence. AGW proponents even set up web sites to obfuscate, deflect and deny, The first was Realclimate set up at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). As Gavin Schmidt explained in a December 2004 email,

Colleagues, No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days:

Scepticalscience is another web page designed to contradict or deny evidence that shows the AGW hypothesis is wrong. Joanne Nova and Lubos Motl completed two incisive decimations of the validity of John Cook and his web page. A woman who spoke with Gavin Schmidt after a presentation at the University of Victoria wrote to me on July 26, 2015, with questions. She noted that,

“He (Schmidt) also directed me to the website www.scepticalscience.com to do my own research.”

This recommendation is not surprising because John Cook credits Schmidt for coming up with the idea for the web page.

An anonymous adage says,

“When you point your finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you.”

Finger pointing rarely includes facts, especially in the climate debate. The first finger was pointed at global warming skeptics who tried to practice real science by questioning the AGW hypothesis. The slur was averted when the facts no longer fit the AGW story global warming story. Now it became Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) and the second finger pointed at climate change deniers. This charge was rejected because enough people knew that climate change was natural. Besides, the opposite is true; opponents to AGCC are telling the public about the extent and speed of natural climate change.

As Paris nears, it’s evident no agreement is possible so rhetoric, and alarmism abound. Finger pointing has a new form, being a denier is now a disease, like leprosy. George Monbiot identified denial as a disease.

There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”

Pope Francis limited his welcome to his recent climate conclave by not inviting disease carriers. Hardly an action Jesus would approve. In doing so, Francis created two groups. Those who knowingly deny the failure of the hypothesis and those who don’t know or want to know the hypothesis failed. Either way they are the real deniers.

Monbiot ignored all the facts I provided when he pointed the finger at me. Ignoring facts makes it easy to claim the deniers are at fault. The facts are the reason the sphere is expanding. Here are just a few, but sufficient to expose the deniers.

· As Monckton demonstrates, the global average temperature has not risen for 19 years.

· Over the same period CO2 levels continued to rise.

· Every IPCC temperature projection was wrong.

· Temperature increases before CO2 in every single record for any period. The only place in the world where CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.

· CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.

· Predictions of more severe weather are proving incorrect.

· The continued failure of medium forecasts, such as the most recent debacle in the UK, further the already high public skepticism about weather forecasts.

The Ulitmate Sign Of Denial

 

The worst level of denying is least seen by the public. It is the adjustment of data and records to ensure the deception continues. We knew about the adjustment of the New Zealand record by NIWA (Figure 2) and the claims against the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) by Jennifer Marohasy and others (Figure 3).

 

clip_image004

Figure 2

 

clip_image006

Figure 3

As Chris Booker points out, few exposed the extent of the manipulation, especially in the US, better than Stephen Goddard through his web site Real Science. In an article titled “Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor” Goddard asks, Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS.” Figure 4 illustrates what Goddard describes as

“…Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.”

 

clip_image008

Figure 4

The most recent and egregious adjustments to data are those of Thomas Karl at the United States Historical Climate Network (USHCN) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Karl has a long history of adjusting records as Steve McIntyre identified in 2007. In an open letter to Karl, Bob Tisdale questioned the method and the objective of the most recent adjustments. The phrase “cherry-picking” is all too familiar to those following the history of the real deniers. However, Judith Curry found it appropriate to describe what Karl did.

This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus.  I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.

Apparently in a determination to say 2014 and 2015 are the warmest years on record and prove the hiatus Lord Monckton identifies didn’t exist he created a more than questionable method. These issues are crucial to supporting and continuation of the denial as a prelude to the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21). It is as important a deception to persuade politicians as the leaked emails were an exposure to stop COP 15 in Copenhagen.

The good news for Karl is he now has support for what he did from Michael Mann.

“Tom Karl and colleagues have done solid work here, but they’ve mostly just confirmed what we already knew,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “There is no true ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming.”

Mann’s credibility with scientists is clearly delineated in Mark Steyn’s latest book.

Who Has The Political Prejudice To Deny?

Logic says it’s those who want to stifle debate, to silence individuals and groups, who are the real deniers. President Obama in his State of the Union political speech said,

“So unfortunately, inside of Washington we’ve still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they’re wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate,” “Climate change is a fact.”

Yes, Mr. President it is a fact but in stating it you cherry-pick the more accurate and complete statement that “Climate change is a fact, but anthropogenic climate change is not.” It appears the President is the denier in chief. Further proof of who the real deniers are is found in the anonymous observation that,

If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong, or he stops being honest.

In the case of the real climate deniers, they ignore the demonstrable facts and compound their denial by changing the record.

Advertisements

289 thoughts on “An Update On The Real Deniers

    • Spelling error in the first paragraph,,,,you say papal forgiveness,,, did you mean paypal forgiveness?

      • Bazinga!!!! “Paypal forgiveness” ROTFLMAO. We have a winner!
        I always get a kick out of the New Zealand adjustments. Anything below 2 C a century is not a problem and the best they can do is 1?? I thought the whole purpose of cheating was to win? I mean if you’re going to rig the numbers at least get the result you want.

      • I recall reading a weather article on stuff.co.nz back in about 2000/2001. The author, a weatherman, stated that there had been no significant change in national average temperatures since 1941. The article didn’t stay up on stuff for long!

      • Whatever you say, but the fact is that GISS’ Gavin is the public employee who runs Realclimate on the US taxpayers’ dime.

      • Dr. Ball, didn’t Gavin run the RealClimate hosting server on a computer under his desk at GISS? I’m sure I remember reading that.

    • Here is Gavin from the past. I wonder whether he is worried about the state of understanding for the temperature standstill?
      Note: 2013 was not the hottest year on the record according to NOAA.

      Real Climate – December 2007
      Daniel Klein asks at #57:
      “OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
      (1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
      (2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
      (3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
      I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?”
      ————
      [Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/

      • “The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target.”
        Uh Gavin. RSS & UAH, at around 35 years, are showing around 1 deg/CENTURY.

  1. Climate change is in the realm of Operating Thetans. When the high priests of climate change call people deniers, they may be correct, for we non believers really don’t know what they mean by climate change. The priests will tell us what to believe; we are not supposed to doubt priests.

    • I could not listen to more than 10 seconds of it, then skipped ahead, heard more of the same, and had to disconnect.
      Dude, those things are called clouds.
      If they are left by planes, they are trails of condensation…water droplets.
      I find it disturbing that you are, or at least claim to be, an educator.
      Home schooling, anyone?

      • Why the dig at homeschoolers? On average home schooled children outperform both pubic and private schooled children.

      • I don’t think it was a ‘dig’ at homeschoolers:
        I find it disturbing that you are, or at least claim to be, an educator.
        Home schooling, anyone?

        Seems to me Menicholas is suggesting homeschooling over subjecting children to such educators.

    • “I teach native American history on Facebook” probably couldn’t get tenure for kindergarten so holds classes on Facebook. Glad he’s not a REAL TEACHER in a genuine school. But it’s too bad he is passing bad information to the lesser intelligent masses of Facebook. Even looks like and sounds like a pseudo-intellectual dufus

      • I could not stand to listen long enough to get that part of it.
        If you want people to listen to your goof, you have to be careful not to make it so annoying, that no one can listen long enough to get the joke.

  2. The Pope’s position on climate change was not made “ex cathedra”; and, thus, is not an infallible position. Those of us here know just how fallible it is. Unfortunately, it is widely viewed as being authoritative, for no obvious reason.

      • As Renaissance popes go, Innocent VIII was not the worst. Besides promoting the burning of weather witches, he was happy to accept the gift of slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, husband of Queen Isabella. He doled them out among the cardinals to maintain their support.
        But, like most popes, he was a disgusting, revolting hypocrite. The current incumbent is certainly in this tradition. The communist liberation theologist has not contributed anything at all worthwhile to society since his last real job at age 19.
        The sooner the world frees itself from the tyranny of the bishops of Rome, the better. To the extent that the disgusting, revolting Francis hastens this process, the more useful the useless drone will be. Francis the Talking Mule was a lot more useful.

      • I don’t hold out much hope that the Communist Francis will hasten the demise of the Roman Catholic Church mafia. Ex-pope Benedict was shunted aside in a leftwing palace coup, rather then bumped off, the fate that befell John Paul II and many of his predecessors.
        But the farther divorced from physical reality the Church gets, the more likely does it becomes that more and more national churches will adopt the English model and separate themselves from Rome, while maintaining apostolic succession and the other aspects of Catholicism that separates its doctrine from Protestantism.
        IMO the Orthodox churches have it right, ie Catholicism without a pope. I look forward to a Christendom freed from the baleful influence of popes. Anglican, Orthodox and non-Roman Catholic believers might eventually unite in a Universal Catholic Church free from the Mafia-like protection racket of the corrupt Roman bishop.

      • Try again.
        The picture confused me. The cat ate my homework.
        Sorry!
        Sturgis
        Was that JP 1, the Pope of thirty days?
        – the Smiling Pope; the September papacy?
        JP 2 – a grizzled old Polish scrapper – managed 25 years or so, IIRC.
        Auto

      • Sorry, I meant JP I as the bumped off pope.
        JP II, whatever else he may have done or not done, at least helped defeat the Evil Empire.

      • Menicholas
        September 6, 2015 at 8:22 pm
        I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t venerate the presumptuous Vicar of Christ on Earth, ie head of the template for the Mafia’s protection rackets.
        Somehow Protestants and Orthodox Catholics manage to be good Christians without benefit of the generally Unholy Father.

      • Not to worry, Gloria.
        I for one am not confused on this in the slightest.
        God and organized religion have almost nothing to do with each other.

    • I can’t resist: Into what category of fallibility is the decision whether or not to declare something “ex cathedra”? Could there not be false positives and false negatives? Or is that decision itself, “ex cathedra”? (Full disclosure: I’m not a Catholic, but I am a Christian.)

      • Papal infallibility is limited to matters of faith and morals. I guess you could argue that CAGW is a matter of faith; and, that not not following the tenets of the faith would be immoral. However, the Pope did not make the first part of that argument.

  3. I tweaked what George Monbiot said a bit;
    “There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change skepticism/realism is spreading like warmth from the sun on a cold day. It exists in a sphere that can only be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to pseudoscientific Warmist claptrap is greeted with derision and much-deserved mockery. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.”
    Works for me.

    • He referred to it as realism?
      That is weird, if you ask me.
      How can anyone be an alarmist if one thinks that the other side are the realists?

      • Here he George Monbiot of the Guardian demonstrating his flexibility. They have embarrassed themselves by putting themselves into a corner time and again.
        First he said that the weather is not the same as climate. Sceptics insist on this fact too.

        Guardian – 6 January 2010
        George Monbiot & Leo Hickman
        Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong
        Climate sceptics are failing to understand the most basic meteorology – that weather is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends
        ……This is called weather, and, believe it or not, it is not always predictable and it changes quite often. It is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends. Is this really so hard to understand?

        Then he said that the cold weather and snow was in fact a sign of global warming.
        Guardian – 20 December 2010
        George Monbiot
        That snow outside is what global warming looks like
        Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth
        …..So why wasn’t this predicted by climate scientists? Actually it was, and we missed it……
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-warming
        Right there is a sign of mental disease from Monbiot.

  4. I have to nit-pick with, at least one, of your statements viz. ‘Mann’s credibility with scientists is clearly delineated in Mark Steyn’s latest book.’
    No, it’s not.
    Mark still has two more volumes to put to press before this task is completed. I suggest that you replace the word ‘delineated’ with the word ‘introduced’.
    The adjective is still appropriate.

      • What gets me is the number of alarmists who routinely claim that since a bunch of Mann’s co-workers, using the same data and same methods, and with the guidance of Mann, managed to reproduce Mann’s results, that proves that the hockey stick correct, and hundreds of other papers are wrong.

      • db
        All of us in the EU were awarded the Nobel Prize for something or other.
        Political Correctness?
        Doing down the Greeks?
        Inviting Immigrants [not refugees, who are, always, welcome]?
        Perhaps listening Admiringly to Mother Merkel?
        something.
        And every one of us was a deserving winner a few years ago.
        I can’t remember what I did to deserve it, or when, but still . . .
        But the bloke they named the warming after – supported, or contributed an axiomatically interesting graph or similar to the real winners – a bunch of Agenda 21 luvvies fixated on Marx [Not Marks – and Spencer].
        Do you put NL after your name if a Nobel Laureate [jointly with 500,000,000 or so others equally clueless as to why we won]?
        Auto .. ..

  5. I think there needs to be a comprehensive post comparing all of their CAGW icons from 1950 to the present day.
    Here’s just a few, SLR, polar bear numbers, deaths from extreme events, wild fires, the hot spot, droughts, snowfalls, NH and SH sea ice etc.

    • Agree, the list is long and the entire list needs to be exposed including Hansen’s numerous failed fredictions

    • It is a startlingly consistent record of being exactly wrong, until one stops to consider that anyone preaching that the sky is falling, the end is nigh, the world will end, or anything like that…has always been wrong.
      Then it is not so startling after all.
      But still remarkably consistent.
      On the plus side, it seems to have gathered all the would be cultists of the world under one banner, and one that they publicly proclaim allegiance too.
      And lured into the wide open those whose testimony is for sale, and/or have no ability to weigh evidence critically and come to logical conclusions.
      In these ways, it may be not be a total,100% fubar.

      • “…has always been wrong.” And will continue to be so until one of them is not… at which point, all of this ‘web knowledge’ we are sharing won’t be worth a load of fetid dingo’s kidneys. A sentient puddle in a pothole would think the world was made for it. A perfect fit. Even as the day heated up, and it began to evaporate. Even as the weather cleared and no more rains came to ‘re-populate’ it. it might still marvel at just how perfectly was the match of itself to its world… right up until the last of it disappeared. Pop.

    • From Dr Ball’s article;
      · Temperature increases before CO2 in every single record for any period. The only place in the world where CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.
      · CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.
      Both sentences need to be put into numbers or anologies better understood by the general public. The amount of C02 is minute and so the increase over the last few decades is even smaller by portion. Can we somehow put this into numbers or language people would be able to understand in terms they are used to?
      “I am going to sell you a really good car at $50,000 runs at 1200 rpm with any gas at 40mph that will save you a nickle on gas per tank full” You see no body would buy that silly statement ( or the car).
      “The PPM at 4% of CO2 within the boundaries of the total volume of the ever changing atmosphere” (sentence made up by me not Dr Ball) is a sentence that makes most peoples eyes glass over.
      We have to change that approach completely.
      I am no good at stats but to me that is where we are not clear enough. Statistics and graphs for many on this site are just fine but others just leave the site and go Ho Humm.

      • @ asybot
        When one writes, he has to have an audience in mind. Your comment leads me to believe that you would rather that Dr. Ball had targeted a different audience than he did. One could say that about almost any essay on this site or any other one.
        This site takes submissions from everyone. Why not take the information presented by Dr. Ball and write an essay more friendly to the audience you would like to see targeted. I am sure that Dr. Ball would not be offended if you cited his work as the underlying source of your information. Or, you could just start fresh with data from wherever you choose.
        After teaching for over four decades I have discovered that no explanation does it for everyone in the class. One has to go from many angles to reach everyone most times. (at least in math and science)
        ~ Mark

      • I agree Asybot. Using simple facts about CO2 helps most warmists reconsider their false argument.
        This one works for me . . . . . “but 400 ppm is such a trivial amount of atmospheric gas when compared to all other gasses. 1 x million divided by 400 is 1 x 2,500th of all the air in the sky. It’s really not a lot.”
        Incidentally, by comparison (if one needs further proof) . . . .
        Nitrogen (N2) is around 780,800 ppm (nearly 1,952 times more than total CO2)
        Oxygen (O2) is around 209,500 ppm (nearly 524 times more than total CO2)
        Argon (Ar) is around 9,297 ppm (nearly 23 times more than total CO2)
        Naturally occurring Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is around 388 ppm of the total 400ppm
        Therefore, anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only around 12 ppm (that’s about 1 x 83,000th of the atmosphere) – and yet it still seems to be widely believed that this microscopic amount of gas has dominated the warming of our Earth during the last century. Even UK vehicle excise duty (road tax) is calculated on how much we contribute to this 1 x 83,000th of the air in the sky.
        (Combined total for Neon, Methane, Helium, Krypton, Hydrogen and Xenon is around just 3 ppm)
        Or this . . . .
        Encyclopaedia Britannica 2014: “Human life evolved with carbon dioxide levels 10 times or more the present 400ppm. Anthropogenic emissions currently account for the annual release of about 7 gigatons (7 billion tons) of carbon into the atmosphere . . . . equal to approximately 3 percent of the total emissions of carbon dioxide by natural sources (i.e. 230 billion tons). Thus all human-produced carbon dioxide is responsible for a mere 0.12 percent of GHG.”

      • @ GeeJam September 7, 2015 at 2:47 am

        I agree Asybot. Using simple facts about CO2 helps most warmists reconsider their false argument.

        But the literal fact is, ….. most warmists are like the Bible believing Creationists and are not the least bit interested in reconsidering their false arguments.
        Thus the only way to get their attention is to embarrass them by making them look utterly foolish in front of their “god and everyone” …. and in the process some of the “fence straddlers” will be nudged over to the factual science side of the climate change argument.
        Most everyone is familiar with, knows and/or believes the claimed fact that both CO2 and H2O vapor (humidity) are, per se, “greenhouse” or global warming gasses.
        But what most don’t realize is that for every 400 ppm of CO2 in the near-earth atmosphere ….. there is, in non-desert areas, a minimum of 20,000 ppm of H2O vapor (humidity) in that same near-earth atmosphere ….. and thus it is utterly foolish and asinine for anyone to assert or claim that the CO2 is the direct and/or only cause of the “fuzzy math” calculated “average increases in near-surface air temperatures”.
        One could strip out the current 400 ppm of CO2, ….. or add another 400 ppm of CO2 …. and it would make no difference in their “fuzzy math” calculated “average increases in near-surface air temperatures” …….. that is, unless their math gets “funnier”.

      • Still to abstract for the common person. Let’s try it this way:
        My mom decided to bake an atmosphere cake. Boy, was I excited as I hadn’t had one in a long time. She went to the store and bought the ingredients. When she came home she was upset because it cost her $100. She couldn’t understand why the price for all the things she go into the atmosphere cake had gone up. “Well”, I told her,“I heard that CO2 had recently gone up 40%”. She said that would probably account for the increase. So we checked out the receipt and this is what we found.
        Nitrogen $78.00
        Oxygen $21.00
        Argon $0.93
        CO2 $0.04
        Other $0.03
        “Wow”, said I, “it really must be the CO2”. I was so upset that I choked on the first bite of the cake. Of course I blamed the CO2 for that.

      • I’ve always been uncomfortable with this argument. It’s implying that CO2 can’t be a danger because there is so little of it.
        A few grams of arsenic can kill, it’s the dose that makes the poison. Some things are bad in small amounts, other things aren’t bad until they reach much higher concentrations.

      • In other words, if you wish to prove that small levels of CO2 are harmless, then go ahead and prove it. Don’t just assume that it can’t be harmful because there isn’t much of it. That’s the kind of nonsense we expect from the other side.

      • re MarkW September 7, 2015 at 7:02 am
        Both your posts are straw man arguments, You want proof the a little CO2 is harmless? You breathe in a little every breathe, are you still alive? There’s your proof.
        Besides, this was about most people not knowing what amount of CO2 is in the air we breathe. Most people when asked think it is around 20%. They need to be enlightened.

      • Many people can not pay attention to facts of science, or remember them long enough to realize the difference between .04 % and 20%…it is all just a jumble of numbers to them.
        For them, it may be like when I am at a party, and I meet a bunch of people. I may remember the name of the comely lass who offers to get me a fresh drink, but if some guy tells me his name, by the time he finishes saying it, I am more likely to remember the mustard stain on his sweater than what he said.
        Not sure really, just guessing. It makes no sense to me…I have vivid memories of science facts I learned over 40 years ago when I was still shedding baby teeth.

  6. Here is the reason why there has been no surface warming for 18 years at a time when atmospheric CO2 has been rising year by year.
    The canonical so called 1-dimension no ‘feedbacks’ calculation – which was done by a who’s who of the cult of CAGW founding fathers – to determine the surface temperature change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 assumed that the increased CO2 does not change the lapse rate which is physically not possible.
    Convection cooling is a physical fact not a theory and cannot be ignored in the without ‘feedbacks’ calculation. The change in forcing at the surface of the planet is less than the change in forcing higher in the atmosphere due to the increased convection cooling caused by greenhouse gases. We do not need to appeal to crank ‘science’ that there is no greenhouse gas forcing to destroy the cult of CAGW ‘scientific’ argument that there is a global warming crisis problem to solve.
    There is a forcing change due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 however that forcing change is almost completely offset by the increase in convection. Due to the increased lapse rate (3% change) due to convection changes (the 3% change in the lapse rate, reduces the surface forcing by a factor of four, the forcing higher in the atmosphere remains the same) therefore warming at the surface of the planet is only 0.1C to 0.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, while the warming at 5 km above the surface of the planet is 1C. As a warming of 0.1C to 0.2C is insufficient to cause any significant feedback change, the zero feedback change for a doubling of CO2 is ballpark the same as the with feedback response.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1

    Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

    4. Conclusions
    In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

    The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981]. Table 1 shows the obtained climate sensitivities for 2xCO2 in these studies, in which the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2~1.3K [Hansen et al., 1984].
    In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) [Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978]. There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1.

    The followings are supporting data (William: In peer reviewed papers, published more than 20 years ago that support the assertion that convection cooling increases when there is an increase in greenhouse gases and support the assertion that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause surface warming of less than 0.3C) for the Kimoto lapse rate theory above.
    (A) Kiehl & Ramanathan (1982) shows the following radiative forcing for 2xCO2.
    Radiative forcing at the tropopause: 3.7W/m2.
    Radiative forcing at the surface: 0.55~1.56W/m2 (averaged 1.1W/m2).
    This denies the FLRA giving the uniform warming throughout the troposphere in
    the 1DRCM and the 3DGCMs studies.
    (B) Newell & Dopplick (1979) obtained a climate sensitivity of 0.24K considering the
    evaporation cooling from the surface of the ocean.
    (C) Ramanathan (1981) shows the surface temperature increase of 0.17K with the
    direct heating of 1.2W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the surface.

    Transcript of a portion of Weart’s interview with Hansen.

    Weart:
    This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…
    Hansen:
    That’s trivial. You just put in…
    Weart:
    … a lapse rate…
    Hansen:
    Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers (William: Different answers that invalidate CAGW, the 3-D models have more than 100 parameters to play with so any answer is possible. The 1-D model is simple so it possible to see the fudging/shenanigans). So you try to pick something that has some physical justification (William: You pick what is necessary to create CAGW, the scam fails when the planet abruptly cools due to the abrupt solar change). But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model.

    In addition to the above error/emission, the no ‘feedbacks’ calculation for the forcing change due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, ignored the fact that the absorption spectrum of water vapor and CO2 overlap. As the planet is 70% covered by water there is a great deal of water in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropical region. Redoing the 1-dimension calculation taking into account the reduced forcing in the lower atmosphere due to the overlap of the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 reduces the forcing by a factor of 4 which also reduces the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 to around 0.2C.
    Check out figure 2 in this paper.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
    In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2.

    • The canonical so called 1-dimension no ‘feedbacks’ calculation – which was done by a who’s who of the cult of CAGW founding fathers – to determine the surface temperature change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 assumed that the increased CO2 does not change the lapse rate which is physically not possible.

      The lapse rate depends on density. The atmosphere’s density doesn’t change much with a doubling of CO2 because it is way way less than 1% of the atmosphere. So, yes, the lapse rate will change a bit, but not enough to matter. wiki

      • The ELR (Which, for any who are not aware, is the Environmental Lapse Rate, which measures the change in temperature of the atmosphere with height) changes everywhere, all the time, and every day.
        It is a key to accurate meteorological forecasting and, at least in the old days, was one of the main reasons for sending up radiosondes. It allows a forecaster to determine, for example, if the atmosphere is stable, unstable, conditionally instable, etc.
        Since it is highly variable (I read Mr. Astley’s comments to referring to the average ELR), it must be influenced by more than just density.
        In the places where the most interesting weather is occurring, at the margins of air masses, temperature inversions, rapid surface heating…the lapse rate at different altitudes is not constant.
        Also, I think for the sake of clarity one should distinguish between the ELR and other lapse rates, such as the dry and wet adiabatic rates.
        As usual, all comments are to the best of my knowledge. It may be best not to quote me in your dissertation without checking for yourself.

      • The change in the lapse rate is due to the greenhouse gases’ long wave radiation properties.
        The cult of CAGW tells use the greenhouse molecule will heat the atmosphere and then ignores the change in convection that the greenhouse molecules cause when the greenhouse molecule absorbs long wave radiation.
        The lapse rate changes due to the increase in greenhouse gas as it is a physical fact, not a theory, that hot air rises. Greenhouse gases absorb long wave radiation (the amount of long wave radiation moving through the atmosphere is continually changing throughout the day) and hence warm. Warm rising air causes higher colder elevation air to fall.
        What I am saying (that the lapse rate is dependent on the amount and the type of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere) is basic physics of atmospheric gases. What I am saying is absolutely in agreement with Salby’s comment in his video presentation on this subject and on the subject of what is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. My comment is also in agreement with Salby’s graduate level text book Physics of Atmospheric Gases.
        We do not however need to determine if my above comment is or is not correct by scientific debate. If it is correct the vast majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover.
        i.e. If the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover, global warming is reversible. If the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the warming should not be reversible.
        The cult of CAGW have made the medieval warming period go away by data manipulation The cult of CAGW have made the hiatus of 18 years with no warming go away by data manipulation. The cult of CAGW will not be able to hide global cooling. How will the media, the public, and the politicians respond if it is determined that the entire scientific premise of the IPCC was incorrect, fudged, a big fib?
        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

        Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle?”
        …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

        Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.
        http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
        There is currently an astonishing change occurring to sun. There is now obvious quarter by quarter changes to almost all solar parameters. The solar observations continue to support the assertion that the solar cycle is not slowing down, it has been interrupted.

      • Clarifying my earlier comment:
        Mr. Astley,
        I understand you to be saying that the average ELR must rise.
        My comment was directed in part or the benefit of anyone reading who does not have a clear understanding of exactly what is referred to by this term.
        And partly at the rather cryptic comment by commie bob, who seemed to be disagreeing with/contradicting what you are asserting.
        I have to say that I would, myself, not refer to a wiki article on any subject relating to climate change, although it does seem to be reliable for referencing such things as the physical properties of titanium, the mass of the oceans, or other things which are not generally the subject of much difference of opinion.
        The wiki article does seem to be a straight reading of textbook definitions of lapse rates, in this particular case.
        I am not exactly clear at this point on the exact mechanism by which having CO2 increase will increase the lapse rate, how the precise amount (3%) was arrived at, and or whether this is a linear effect.
        We know that the supposed forcing effect of CO2 is not linear, and the incremental amount of additional heating caused by increasing CO2 is diminished with further increases.

  7. What’s it called when you accuse your adversary of what you yourself are doing? I think ‘projection’ refers to someone unknowingly doing so, there must be a specific term for doing it as a deliberate tactic.

      • For it to be a psychological rather than a mental phenomenon, it would seem to have to be done at least partially subconsciously.
        I think when someone says things one knows to be untrue on purpose, we should just call it what it is…lying.

    • “What’s it called when you accuse your adversary of what you yourself are doing? ”
      That is a standard tactic in covert influence operations.
      Known by the acronymn, ANDEMCA: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
      Egregious examples are the decades-long attacks against those who spoke the truth about Alger Hiss’s status as a spy. Also used against those who spoke the truth about the Rosenburg’s spying operations.
      Today we see it used by the political heirs of those operations–the Politically Correct Progressives. Including the CAGW clique, they’ve inherited the goals–destroying normal civilization, including capitalism, without the inconvenient example of an actual country being destroyed by their rule contemporaneously.

        • “Are you really placing the Chinese among political progressives. That’s a WOW!”
          Chinese? You’re reading something that’s not there, bear.
          The PC-Progs are Obama’s handlers and political party–Americans, all. Bent on the destruction of American capitalism and exceptionalism.
          Hiss and the Rosenbergs were operations run by the Soviets.
          Chinese?

      • bobbybear,
        The Chinese are doing what is in their country’s self-interest. That makes them completely different from so-called “progressives”.

      • Great to see you here Kent. Enjoyed your books very much and admire your stand against communism and political correctness.

        • Thanks for your note, Leonard.
          The CAGW operation is the tip of the spear in the PC-Progs’ efforts to destroy Normal-American capitalism. I’ve been operating to counter them for a decade now.
          While WUWT is on the forefront of countering the CAGW, it’s a bit disheartening to see so many WUWT warriors floundering around on the information warfare battlefield, cluelessly.
          The answers to who/what/why/how/when/where PC-Progressives would /could carry out a massive fraud designed to destroy American exceptionalism and the capitalist based economy are laid out in Willing Accomplices.
          We waste enormous amounts of time and effort in navel-gazing, amazed at how our opponents could be so mendacious.
          Beginning from the basis of understanding the belief system, political strategy and tactics of our opponents, we could do great things in counter-acting the PC-Prog operations–most importantly the Mann-caused Global Warming scam.
          But without a clear understanding of our opponents, we flail around wailing and knashing teeth, with no results.
          It’s a life and death struggle–information warfare–covert influence. They are well-versed in the deception-based communications. Our general population are babes in the woods, playing by the Marquisse de Queensbury’s rules (‘clean break, neutral corner…”), while our opponents are using concealed knives, brass knuckles, and chunks of concrete.
          But I’ll keep on sharing the truth. Slowly, slowly. Think positive!
          http://www.willingaccomplices.com

      • I should have added one word to my original question. “What’s it called when you *preemptively* accuse your adversary of what you yourself are doing?”

      • piper paul, I can see that the rate of knots you arms flail at as you attempt to excavate the earth underneath you, has increased considerably. Have you thought about not digging at the ground anymore or does being a pretentious prat come naturally to you?

    • I can think of a whole long list of appropriate terms for these people.
      Many of them would violate site policy on decorum, foul language, and manners.

    • Yup. Warmunistas d@ny the best science available on ECS and the economic and social benefit of higher CO2. The truth is indeed inconvenient.

  8. The politically correct nonsense is beyond out of control. If you have a stance on immigration you are a racist. If you support the free market you have no empathy for the poor. If you are skeptical of cagw you are souless and don’t care about the environment. All these stances will just about run you off the campus of any university. The time might soon come when individuals are prosecuted or jailed for these ideas and opinions.

    • And since the demand for respect is lopsided, “they” can offend at any level but under their political correctness rules the side attempting logical argument can do nothing but attempt to tolerate the abuse and respond with politeness hoping to gain some ground. In the future, this attitude will eventually be the economic and immigration downfall of Europe & the U.S. (see Steyn).

      • By bestowing upon themselves oppressed underdog status they claim the right to use “asymmetrical warfare” tactics (e,g., they can ruthlessly and viciously attack their adversaries and yet shrink back and portray themselves as innocent victims when their target defends him/herself. It really is pathetic, vile behavior). This is why their control of the narrative via a compliant/biased/ignorant media is so essential.

    • I do not think so Charlie, as the layers of hypocrisy are now so thick they are ensnaring even those who are laying down the PC gauntlet.
      It will collapse of it’s own weight, or be subjected to the mother of all backlashes.
      It is only a matter of time.

    • . . . and don’t get me started about how they’ll string you up if you don’t believe Bruce Jenner is a real WOMAN!

  9. “The time might soon come when individuals are prosecuted or jailed for these ideas and opinions.”
    Witch burning was tried in the past … you just have to love such christian rationalization.

    • Nice display of bigotry there.
      Assigning to those you don’t like, characteristics that are truey universal in scope.

  10. Sigh, when will everyone realize it’s not about Climate Change/AGW? Useful idiots are praised and remunerated for advancing the false narrative. They are being told they are saving the world and they believe it. MSM has been purchased by those interested in taking down capitalism and what can be an easier and more elegant way other than denying the industrialists access to energy? The Club of Rome and United Nations have openly stated this and put it in writing for everyone to see if they took the time to read it. All they have to do is play the shame game and claim ‘conspiracy theory’ when someone tries to out them. Like it or not they are good at it as well. If the threats and fear mongering are successful long enough for them to gain control it will be a moot point whether AGW is real or not. Don’t forget to vote.

  11. Tim,
    There is other evidence that something is rotten in the state of “climate science”. First, increasing ice in Antarctica has systematically been downplayed if not denied. Second, I don’t recall EVER having seen a study showing or predicting a positive effect of warming on humans, wildlife, crops or on anything else, anywhere on the planet. Sorry, not possible. This is proof of a powerful publication or confirmation bias or both. The corollary is that cooling would only have positive effects, which is demonstrably false, at least where I live (Canada).

      • You could not possibly be more wrong.
        Oil companies have drilled in the Arctic for decades. They’ve been trying to get permission to drill in ANWR for decades, as well.
        The NW Passage is a lot less open now than it was just a few years ago.
        Please try to get with the program and keep up.

  12. Ross McKitrick puts the hiatus at 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere.

    These numbers are out of date. The 19 years at the surface should probably be lower due to the record high anomalies over the past year. However if these high anomalies were due to adjustments, well that is a different issue that needs to be addressed.
    But the 16 years was for an older version of UAH. With the new UAH6.0beta3, the 16 should be 26 in line with RSS since they are now very similar.

    • UAH and RSS are similar but not as similar as they once were. There seems to be an increasing divergence going on with RSS showing warmer than UAH and I wonder why?

      • RSS and UAH have been converging

        WFT is totally useless for showing what you are attempting to show. They more or less had converged already when UAH6.0beta2 came out, although beta3 widened things just a bit, however while the pause is 18 years and 8 months on RSS, it is 18 years and 4 months on UAH6.0beta3.
        But WFT still uses UAH5.6 so it is way off. If you want to find when the slope is 0 for UAH6.0beta3, you must go to Nick Stokes’ site here:
        http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html

      • Werner B,
        Thanks for the pointer. I compared UAH and RSS on the blog you linked to. The current difference is so small that I couldn’t tell from the y-axis, but it seems to be only about one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of a degree. They are essentially the same.
        That small difference also has to be within measurement uncertainty. The difference between RSS and UAH certainly seems to be smaller than the difference between UAH beta2 and beta3 versions.
        So as far as I can see, there’s almost no difference now between the two satellites.
        Of course, this kind of discussion distracts from the fact that all the alarming predictions over the past couple of decades said that global warming would accelerate. It hasn’t. In fact, there has been almost no global warming at all, despite a steady rise in CO2.
        Therefore, the predictions were wrong. That falsifies the CO2=AGW conjecture (I’m not saying that CO2 causes no global warming; it just does not cause enough to quantify any measurable relationship between a rise in CO2 and any subsequent warming).
        A Conjecture, a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law all have one thing in common: they must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. If they cannot do that they are falsified.
        The CO2=AGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. But rather than go back and try to find out why their predictions were so wrong, the alarmists have dug in their heels, and now they have even conscripted a science illiterate — the President of the U.S. — to argue for them.
        They have no desire to find out why they were wrong. They just want to make everyone accept their ‘carbon’ narrative. But skeptics say: give us some convincing evidence. We want verifiable, testable measurements quantifying man-made global warming. If it’s dangerous, show us the global harm being caused.
        That’s the job of skeptics, no? We must falsify scientific conjectures and hypotheses, if at all possible. This one has been easy. That’s why their answer has turned to politics, and away from science.

    • Just to add a further point to dbstealey’s fine post above (September 6, 2015 at 7:38 pm) alarmists have long-since claimed that as a result of already-emitted CO2 future warming was ‘locked in’ and ‘guaranteed’ for decades to come. Despite increased CO2 throughout both of the last 2 decades the 18 years and counting Pause has well and truly nailed that one, too. Oh dear, another one bites the dust.

  13. Tim, you have missed the biggest and most ironic denial of them all – I mean here the classic psychotherapist’s clinical diagnosis of ‘being in denial’. This is a venerable diagnosis used for example when someone loses a loved one tragically and doesn’t want to face up to it. They will dream of seeing them, say, at a party, or someone in the dream tells you, oh, he just left, or he’s in the next room and you go and either find there isn’t a next room or you just missed them, etc. This is your own mind trying to resolve this issue: hey, he’s gone, my dear. It is common that such a sufferer believes they saw them on the street or in a passing bus when a person with generally similar coloring or features goes by.
    The ‘climate blues’ example became a big story and was reported on all over the internet.
    http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-depression-is-for-real-just-ask-a-scientist/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=Daily%2520Oct%252028
    Camille Parmasan is one of a growing number of 100% committed CAGW proponents who are suffering the newly minted ‘Pre-traumatic Stress Syndrome’ that is pushing them into deep depression. She’s had her Edith Spot butterfly extirpation in a part of Nevada thoroughly debunked by other ecologists and on top of this, the 18 year hiatus in warming looms large, whittling down climate sensitivity drastically. Can it be that a half or more of your career has gone for naught?
    Unremarkably, their self diagnosis is that they are depressed because their work has determined an unmistakable signal that the world is heading for disaster and they can’t get people to see this. No mention of the 18 yr old elephant in the room – classic denial. Indeed, almost every media outlet can ‘see’ it. Virtually every University, government agency, scientific organization around the world can ‘see’ it, the journals are full of it. The UN and all the NGOs, Green folks, etc can see it….. Parmasan adds:
    “In the U.S., [climate change] isn’t well-supported by the funding system, and when I give public talks in the U.S., I have to devote the first half of the talk to [the topic] that climate change is really happening,” says Parmesan, now a professor at Plymouth University in England.
    Talk about denial! The US Government is spending 18Billion a year, one for each year that there has been no global warming to support clisci research at home and abroad. They are shutting down the coal industry, blocking pipelines, intimidating scientists who don’t toe the line and in addition to the research fund are also funding hundreds of billions of alternative energy projects, although she should be worried about what these might do the Edith Spot butterfly and its fellow creatures of the habitat.
    The biggest denial of all is among psychologists and psychotherapists! They buy into the self diagnosis and even giving it an oxymoronic name: Pre-traumatic Stress Syndrome. How you can have the stress ahead of the trauma shows you where 100% committed psychologists (who are part of the thoroughly corrupted social sciences we have learned are doing a lousy job of designing their research projects) are in the scheme. They, who presumably don’t have the stress of the noble climate scientist sufferer, also don’t see the 18yr old elephant named ‘hiatus’ filling up the clinic and that’s their job!!! A doctor in denial trying to treat a patient in denial doesn’t augur well for the patient.
    We live in interesting times, indeed. Something is going to give and real soon.

  14. “Proponents only acknowledged these events by calling it climate change instead of global warming.”
    Please, please, please, please … Can we put this tired chestnut to bed once and for all? It’s been called “climate change” all along, friends.
    A few examples:
    1. 1956: Gilbert Plass’ seminal study “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”
    2. 1971: Barrett and Gast publish their important paper in Science entitled “Climate Change”
    3. 1977: The journal “Climatic Change” begins publishing
    4. 1988. The IPCC is established — and “CC” means, well…?
    Fair arguments are fair arguments, but B.S. is B.S., as any reasonable person should conclude.

    • Do you seriously propose that in the ’80s and ’90s the “threat” was not of “global warming”?
      But let’s stipulate “climate change” might have been mentioned then. When came “extreme weather” and “global weirding” when the world stopped warming?
      And what makes alleged man-made “climate change” supposedly so catastrophic, if not global warming due to CO2?
      Sorry, but your special pleading and hand waving are to no avail.

      • You are, quite simply, wrong.
        Review the scientific literature, not media reports, and you’ll come to the inarguable understanding that “climate change” (IPCC? C’mon…) has been the standard term among the scientific community since the 70s, at minimum.
        Let’s attempt to infuse a bit of honesty into this debate, okay?

      • There is a debate, really? I thought “climate scientists” claim the “science” is settled. Haven’t seen any of that yet!

      • Seriously myslewski, you either deluded or pathetically ignorant, or just another misdirecting miscreant of a troll.
        I offer my apologies if it is either of the first two.
        But not my sympathy.

      • Gloria,
        myslewski did not propose what you are asking.
        he said ” It’s been called “climate change” all along, friends.”
        he’s right about that.
        The fact that the media, joe public and activist scientists found ‘global warming’ more emotive for a long time doesn’t mean that our fellow commenter, myslewski, is a troll, in denial of the truth or dishonest.

      • Mebbe,
        It was called global warming because that is what it is about. Before any of the other alleged effects without any physical explanation, such as extreme weather or global weirding, the alleged danger was from global warming due to man-made CO2, which was supposed to cause bad things like melting ice and rising sea levels.
        While some one might have said “climate change” in the 1970s, that would have been concern over global cooling. The fact is that the CO2 scare was originally sold over alleged global warming.
        The “Father of Global Warming” reraised the specter of man-made global warming in 1975:
        http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/bergen_county_scientist_who_co.html
        I say reraised because man-made CO2-induced global warming was first suggested in the first half of the 20th century, then shown false by the severe cooling of 1945-77. Of course in those days, man-made warming was thought to be beneficial.

    • Gloria is right, and you are in denial of truth.
      Notwithstanding the names of a few studies that the public never heard of, and of a few journals that the public never reads, the operative term of the green media propaganda, directed at the public (at people like me, who follow the news but don’t claim to be climatologists), was “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” until warming ended in the second half of the 1990s, when this main operative term was hastily transformed into “climate change” by the green media, Al Gore, and the rest of their nefarious ilk.
      Even if peddlers of the environmental obscurantism sometimes called the vehicle of their alarmism an “anthropogenic climate change” before the end of warming trend (if any at all really existed outside their models and adjustments), the overwhelmingly prevailing scarecrow in their terminology was “CAGW” before the second half of the 1990s, and became “climate change” after that. Such is the truth as it appeared before the eyes of millions of peoples, and your attempts to deny it are pathetic and self-destructive.

    • Perhaps you should try some honesty. Widely and commonly known as CAGW to the vast majority of people they are manipulating, lying to and stealing from – since the 90s. THEN they changed it to ‘climate change’. Just after their damning emails were exposed and no “alarming” warming was actually happening, nor has it or will it from CAGW.

    • myslewski September 6, 2015 at 7:22 pm
      “4. 1988. The IPCC is established — and “CC” means, well…?”
      “CC” means “climate change”, but the IPCC really means “CO2-Climate Change” and makes no effort to correct this usage. Such diversionary word games are often characteristic of Propaganda Ops in contrast to the practice of real science, which shows that CO2-Climate Change has been scientifically falsified by virtue of its record of 100% Prediction Failure; but which the “scientific community” pushing CO2-Climate Change also refuses to acknowledge while continuing to engage in its Propaganda Op.

  15. CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.
    I think you mean to say that the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that 4 percent, not of “that total.”

      • You must know the percentages in order to claim those figures are wrong. So why not state them.
        Maybe you do not know the percentages and just like the cheap thrill of saying “Wrong!” provides.
        Or maybe you are in denial.

      • CO2 concentrations have gone from about 280ppm to just over 400ppm. Unless natural sources are responsible for 97% of that increase, then the human percentage has to be higher than 3.4%.
        If humans are responsible for the bulk of that increase, than the human percentage is closer to 34% than 3.4%.

    • Well, maybe not.
      3.4 percent of the total would make human sources 85% of the ambient CO2, if the ambient is in fact 4 percent of the total. Way too high.
      3.4 percent of ambient 4 percent is inconsistent with the recent large rise in the total ambient, as MarkW points out below. Way too low.
      Anybody got a source for these numbers?

  16. It seems to me that the next big global lie being attempted is a reversal back to global warming, and that 2 degrees C from pre-industrial times is catastrophic. I doubt that this one is going to have legs given that we’ve already had around 1 degree and, along with greening of the planet, it’s all been highly beneficial.
    There are still people stupid enough to believe that the next 1 degree C (which will most likely be anthropogenic-irrelevant anyway) will plunge us from beneficial to catastrophic – Emma Thompson, for example.

    • Yes, even with large swaths of the planet in perpetually ice and snow cover, making them a literal frozen hell of a wasteland.
      Even with an even larger amount of the Earth’s surface cold enough in winter to rapidly kill anyone who is unfortunate enough to be caught outside and unprotected, and slowly kill anyone who has some protection but insufficient shelter from the elements, and a large supply of stored foodstuffs.
      Even with the bulk of the human race preferentially living in or near the tropics, and large numbers of those who do not reside there flocking to the warmest places they can find, just to be where it is warmer.
      Even with thousands of people regularly travelling to the very hottest locations on the planet…the driest deserts, the most unforgiving terrain, to engage in various activities, from hiking and sightseeing, to actual contests of extreme physical exertion, in which they run for days and nights straight through, and their only protection from the elements a supply of water and perhaps a hat brim.(One might assume the wispy running shorts and bikini tops they wear are more for modestly and to avoid running afoul of decency laws than for protection.)
      The idea we are on a hot planet, and living on some sort of precipice of destructive warming, is so far beyond ludicrous, one wonders if there is any limits to the lies that will be swallowed by the gullible masses.

    • Rereading this this morning, I realize that I meant to say “beyond the next 1 degree C”. It would be remiss of me not to to describe accurately the climate liars’ new big lie.

  17. Readers at this site need to know that even according to conservative Catholic theology, the pope has no expertise, authority, or infallibility on climate, science, weather, or economics. Sure he has some status as a world figure, as does Obama or big Al, but can be just as ignorant.

  18. You stated “There is a long list including the President of the US and his cabinet, most world leaders, a majority of the world’s politicians, all environmental groups and their followers, and most with a left political leaning. Sadly, most have no understanding of the science, but typically they have very definitive positions; it is emotional and politically fuelled ignorance.” Funny that you forgot to mention that hundreds of scientific societies around the world have issued statements that concur with the IPCC view on anthropogenic global warming. Obviously, they DO have an understanding of the science. The few that don’t are tied to the oil industry. Look it up.

      • @Leonard Lane: “Nonsense” is hardly a well-support argument, hmm?
        It’s inarguable that the vast majority of qualified scientific associations are individuals who understand and can provide well-supported logic to prove AGW, and it’s also inarguable that the Heartland Institute and other anti-AGW apologists (Willie Soon, Bjørn Lomborg, et al.) are supported by fossil-fuel industry interests. Can you prove otherwise?
        As an attendee at AGU and other conferences, it appalls me that denialists continue to unsupportably trash honest, concerned, careful, honest scientists and analysts with silly ad hominem attacks based on assertions of “greed”, “careerism”, and “grant seeking”. Not true. Simply not true. Wanna provide some proof? Though not…
        C’mon, folks, grow a pair. Anthropomorphically generated climate change, heating the earth’s surface and the troposphere, acidifying the ocean, transferring heat into the deep ocean, and decreasing the arctic albedo is no longer arguable — it’s a fact.
        It’s a problem. It needs you — all of us — to face facts and come up with solutions. Or you can simply be cowards, hide behind ludicrous “lib’ruls wanna steal our freedoms ‘n guns” arguments, or latch onto crazy ‘n’ unprovable solar variability theories.
        Folks, we’ve got a problem. We’re smart Americans. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it.
        As long as we get our heads out of our denialist asses.

        • myslewski commented:”…..C’mon, folks, grow a pair……..As long as we get our heads out of our denialist asses….”
          Oh my, a shaming followed by name calling. Troll of the first order.

      • As one of those really inventive Americas (aerospace engineer) I have a zero cost solution. Do nothing.
        Why? Well “missing heat” is proof positive the models are wrong. Until the models match reality doing nothing is the best thing we can do.

      • I love it when the trolls come out of hiding in order to prove the point that the author has just made.
        myslewski, the author isn’t here to thank you, so I will do so on his behalf.

      • myslewski,
        It is a Holiday morning here, and a drizzly rain in falling in SW Florida.
        I am gonna go do some shopping, then come home and respond to your assertions.
        Considering that everything you have said amounts to the literary equivalents of the arguments “Uh uh”, and “I know you are, but what am I?”, you best come up with some better material.
        If you are an actual scientist, your defense of the climate liars is pathetically weak.

      • You mean “anthropogenically”.
        There is no evidence that humans are causing any of the phenomena that you mention, or that warming is occurring at all.
        Statements by scientific societies aren’t made based upon a vote of their memberships. They’re released by executive directors who often are not themselves scientists. Of course professional organizations will support anything that brings in money, as “climate change” study grants do.

      • Well, just a little up-thread, I defended myslewski on the cc/gw thing; oops!
        Turns out he is somewhat of an anthropomorphocologicalated twit with, by his own admission, his head up his denialist ass.

    • Nonsense it is.
      “Myslewski”, you are spewing tired, jaded lies that have been debunked so many times it would be totally spurious to repeat the factual arguments. There isn’t a glimpse of fact in your ideologically charged propaganda.

      • Like most trolls, myslewski isn’t here to provide facts. He’s here to cause trouble and to support his cause.

      • And I am the attack dog, here to tear him a new one…as soon as I get back from shopping.
        Tallulah is hungry.

    • No, Luke, there is nothing obvious except that those are simply boilerplate Warmist statements based not on science, but on politics. It is “science by committee”, meaning it isn’t science at all. The actual science is of no real concern to them, and if they bothered to peek under the hood of CAGW “science” they would be shocked at how truly bad it is.

      • Boilerplate? Here are some of the statements from various Societies. They don’t look like boilerplate to me. Having served on the board of a scientific society I can assure you that the committees that issue these statements do consider the actual science and take this very seriously.
        American Physical Society.
        (Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
        Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
        The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
        If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
        Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
        American Association for the Advancement of Science
        The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts
        in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
        American Geophysical Union
        Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
        Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

      • Pure boilerplate, Luke. Sure, they change the wording here and there. And of course they take it seriously. They seriously don’t want to get kicked off the CAGW gravy train. That would be a disaster.

      • Oh, boy, a cut and paste argument deluxe.
        How amusing, Luke.
        As is your adviso to “Look it up”.
        You see, “looking it up” is what people do who have no facts at their command.
        Many here could write an actual book on this topic right off the top of their heads.

    • Most scientific societies are run by politicians, not by scientists. You forget to mention that by the thousands, scientists have been resigning from these “scientific” societies in protest to the actions of the politicians who run them.
      As to your crack about oil companies, that just proves that you are another troll uninterested in actually debating reality.

      • He seems unaware that oil companies are among the biggest gainers in this whole fiasco of a CAGW meme.
        They profit hugely from the warmista jackassery.
        And the entity with the really deep pockets is the US Federal Government. Led by the climate liar in chief, they spend some $29 billion of our hard earned tax dollars annually, much of it to prove a supposedly settled subject.
        Here is a guy who has not updated his talking points on the subject in about 10 years or so.
        I have always wondered at the severe cognitive dissonance that must be caused by simultaneously believing that the money spent by oil companies is a toxic sludge on the soul of those who would lie for money, but the gajillions of dollars spent by the corrupt cronies working on and for the federal government is some sort of soothing salve for the soul, with no tendency to corrupt those who ride the lard encrusted gravy train of grants and studies and fat jobs as irresponsible bureaucrats and their lickspittle lackies.

    • 400 ppm by volume or by mole, = 0.04%.
      Anyway thanks to my friend Tim Ball for his tireless efforts, I get so exasperated with people like Karl and Mann, I’m glad somebody has the patience to write a coherent response to what they continue to promulgate because I have lost mine

  19. I could never take the word “denier” seriously as I used to work in a textile factor where denier was a measure of yarn thickness. (Said den-ier – I suppose it could be french).

  20. Government-financed “science” is like a jukebox in a cheap bar: whose who pay determine sounds that it will produce. Only a few scientists, such as Dr. Ball, risk their career and financial well-being by refusing to sing along with the crowd. They are real heroes of our time, while conformist choir boys, repeating profitable mantras after green clergy (such as repulsive “Myslewski” above) are destined to oblivion.

    • We see the same kind of science when it comes to cannabinoids. Up until the discovery of endocannabinoids by an Israeli group led by Raphael Mechoulam all we got were abominations like the Heath monkey study. He asphyxiated a few monkeys with cannabis smoke and ascribed the deaths to cannabis.
      The government gets the science it pays for.

  21. Ah yes Niwa. That will be the Niwa that were taken to court by the New Zealand Climate Coalition. Back in August 2010, the Coalition commenced legal action against Niwa, asking the High Court to invalidate its official temperature record, to prevent it using the temperature record when advising NZ Government and to require the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to produce a “full and accurate” temperature record. It must be the same New Zealand Climate Coalition that the High Court declined all claims and ruled that the Coalition pay NIWA’s costs. And the very same NZCC that liquidated its trust funds so they didn’t have to pay the $80,000 in costs it owed the NZ tax payers (and Niwa). What honourable fellows they were.

    • Ah yes, good old NIWA which uses something like 3 thermometers to determine a national average for New Zealand. That NIWA? Yeah, did some contract work for NIWA, good is not a word I’d use to describe their practices and data. Shonky at best!

      • Mark… using your flawed logic you could never take a Govt agency to court.
        But….What an irony we have here. We had a group accusing Niwa of fraud, who themselves committed a fraud on the NZ taxpayer. And now we have Tim Ball (who I am assuming knew this was thrown out of court) still implying Niwa acted improperly. What a circle of creative honesty we have and the only non fraudulent group here are Niwa…. the ones accused in the first place. Haha, a funny old world isn’t it?

      • In the words of the judge…”The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges to the three decisions of NIWA in issue. The application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.”
        Slam dunk…. and yet we still see the misinformation above paraded as truth.

      • So no, the judge said nothing of the sort. Niwa’s data stands as an accepted accurate record of NZ’s past and present climate.

      • Having done work for MoJ, DoC and NIWA I am not surprised a court judge ruled in favour of a Govn’t agency. Lets not talk about a senior judge at MoJ and “misusing” e-mail systems to send e-mail to someone at Telecom NZ. Tut tut tut!

    • Exactly.
      CO2 is the defendant in climate wars. In that sense a prosecutor may explore 52 possible explanations of a crime but would never gain any credibility, never mind a conviction by presenting 52 possible explanations to a jury.
      And that is the elephant in the room with climate science, claims of certainty and draconian calls to action are undermined by their endless stream of possible explanations. Scientists want to explore possibilities, fine, good, that is what they are supposed to do, but do not make extravagant claims based on fiddling with their navels.

  22. How is it possible that that the entire scientific basis of the IPCC is incorrect? The explanation is the climate wars, climategate manipulation of data/analysis, and climategate blocking of data/analysis in research papers that disproves CAGW.
    This link is very interesting worth a re-read.
    As the authors noted, their paper where they provide data that shows that there were natural 342 warming events in the Antarctic peninsula ice core data (in the last 240,000 years) was originally accepted for publishing, by the journal Nature. Their paper noted the current warming period is not unusual based on what has happened in the past (i.e. there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record, that is a fact not a theory). As they note in their paper, the past warmings were not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. The scientific implication is that the data indicates there is a significant forcing function that cause the earth to cyclically naturally warm and cool.
    Mysteriously the senior editor that they were working with, to published their paper, was fired for not blocking a paper that disproves CAGW. After firing the senior editor who’s sin was daring to continue to attempt to support ‘normal’ science, their paper was rejected.
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    Does the Current Global Warming Signal Reflect a Recurrent Natural Cycle?
    In the middle of the editorial review by Nature Climate Change, the senior editor in charge of our paper abruptly and inexplicably ceased working for the journal. We were notified of this change by an automated “no longer working here” response to a routine e-mail from us. We were advised later that responsibility for our paper had been transferred to the Chief Editor of Nature Climate Change, who issued the final rejection. A few weeks later, the climate journalist Christopher Booker wrote an opinion piece in the Sunday Times of London to the effect that Nature magazine continues to reject scientific findings if they contradict the prevailing anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. We have no way of knowing whether or how the departure of the Nature Climate Change editor or the Sunday Times article was related to the rejection of our paper.
    Public media in the U.S., including National Public Radio (NPR), were quick to recognize the significance of this discovery. The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.
    A couple of years ago we performed a similar but more extensive analysis of the historical temperature record from the ice core data obtained from the Vostok site in the Antarctic, not far from the ice core evaluated in the recent Mulvaney et al. Nature paper. ….
    We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years at apparently irregular intervals (though we have not analyzed for subtle regularities, which may exist). The 342 NWEs we identified by this method are reminiscent of the two more recent NWEs reported in the Mulvaney et al. paper.
    The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). Warming rates of NWEs were calculated as the peak amplitude (oC) divided by the duration (centuries). The threshold for HRWEs of 0.74oC /century is useful because this is the estimated rate of the current global warming event according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Of the 342 NWEs in the Vostok record, 46 are high-rate warming cycles (HRWEs). The mean warming rate of these recurrent HRWEs is approximately 1.2oC per century, the mean amplitude is 1.62oC, and the mean duration of the warming phase is 143.8 years. For comparison, the current warming rate estimated by the IPCC is about 0.74oC/century, the current amplitude so far is about 1oC, and the current duration to date is 197 years. The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. Note the highest rate of warming beginning at 8,226 YBP, near the beginning of the agricultural revolution (taking into account the north-to-south hemispheric phase lag or climate see-saw).

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_grl_2003.pdf

    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
    Many paleoclimatic data reveal an approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period. (William: The mysterious cause of cyclic warming and cooling in the paleo record is the sun. Big surprise who would have thought that solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover would affect planetary temperature?)

  23. “The enemies are silly. They think we are the enemies, but we are not, THEY are” (Pierre Desproges, french humorist)
    Everybody wants to be the good guy, the realist bringing to light obscurantist folk (deniers included). If you are SURE you are, well, you just are a believer of some sort. not a scientist, not a skeptik.

  24. “CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.”

    When I attempt to discuss this simple concept, the response is I am denying science. Instead of saying “and you’re an idiot”, I end the discussion. An argument from ignorance is hard to refute especially when the ignorance is embraced.

  25. The pope didn’t order priests to give forgiveness to those who have had abortions, he stated that forgiveness is available to those who are repentant, which has been the churches position regarding sin for the last 2000 years or so.
    Only those who know nothing about the Catholic church believe that the Pope is supposed to be infallible in every public utterance.

  26. The biggest denial of all, the denial which forms the cornerstone of climate science, is the denial that chaotic-nonlinear dynamics lie at the heart of climate. Climateers pay lip-service to chaos-nonlinearity and try to relegate it to small scale noise. But the signature of chaos-nonlinearity in the fractal log-log character of climate oscillations of all amplitudes and all timescales is so overwhelming and obvious, that its denial is one of the most, if not the most, egregious frauds in human history.
    Anyone using the word “forcing” immediately identifies him/herself as being a participant in this denial-ignorance of chaos-nonlinearity. Put simply, change and oscillation are the norm for the chaotic-nonlinear climate system of heat dissipation. When any climate fluctuation is observed, such as late 20th century warming, the null hypothesis is that this is no different to the exactly similar such fluctuations that have always characterised the climate record – at all time and amplitude scales in a precisely fractal manner. In the Holocene there have been about 20 such natural chaotic upswings – and similar downswings.
    Use of the word “forcing” in regard to climate (an intellectual albatross hanging around the neck of anyone who says it declaring their willful ignorance of natural chaotic dynamics) implies that the climate system is passive, and that it can only warm and cool at the surface in response to outside brute forcing. It rests on willful ignorance for example of the amount of heat in the world’s oceans and the fact that the oceans are not a passive puddle, but are are actively mixed by chaotic-nonlinear dynamics such that the vast ocean heat is also chaotically unstable, able by small changes to vertical heat exchange to continually change climate at the earth’s surface and atmosphere. Without help from hairless apes or their campfires.
    The world’s first computer simulation of climate, by Ed Lorenz in 1961, remains to this day the only such simulation with any scientific value and content whatsoever, and that solitary status looks set to remain unchallenged for the forseeable future. Any climate simulation not build primarily on chaotic nonlinear oscillation, as Lorenz’s was, is worth less than the sweat and grease of the programmers fingertips deposited on their taxpayer-funded computer keyboards.
    Climate analysis and simulation built on any foundation other than dissipative chaotic nonlinear oscillation is exactly analogous to astronomy with epicycles based on an earth centered universe, or chemistry denying Mendeleev’s periodic table, or astrophysics denying Einstein’s relativity, or biology denying the evolutionary theory of Darwin/Wallace, or any such example you can imagine. No amount of effort will add one cent of value. Trying to make climate change only through human atmospheric emissions is like trying to make lead turn to gold through cookery procedures and incantations; in other words, alchemy.
    The denial of nonlinear chaotic dynamics leads to blindness to the fact that climate change is the null hypothesis of climate; that the terms “climate” and “climate change” are identical in meaning, and in fact that the term “climate change” itself is a tautology based on profound ignorance. This denial, at the heart of current “climate science”, linked to the anticapitalist misanthropic “global warming” scam and power-grab, is the monstrous mother of all denials and will be remembered and studied as such by students and historians of science for centuries and millenia to come.

      • Menicholas
        Perhaps I went a little far – “forcing” does play a role in oscillating systems. Some are unforced – the oscillations are spontaneous and internal, depending on harmonics and resonance. Others however are indeed periodically forced from outside. Such periodic forcing can be strong – where the system oscillates with similar frequency to the forcing frequency – for instance high and low tides at the sea shore. There is also weak periodic forcing, where the frequency induced in the oscillating system is complex-chaotic and can have little apparent relation to the forcing frequency. Annual, lunar, solar and other astrophysical forcings may well operate on the earth’s oscillatory climate system – and on longer timescales Milankovich orbital cycles. I strongly suspect the forcing is of the weak variety, which is why a clear astrophysical signature is so elusive.

      • I can tell you that the first 600 times I heard the warmistas use the word, I hated the sound of it.
        Slightly changing the composition of the atmosphere can be described in any number of ways, but to start out by referring to such an alteration as a forcing, seems to presuppose some dramatic effect will result.

    • +1 phlogiston September 7, 2015 at 6:32 am
      Too much words methink, and some useless (even though justified) rant ( “worth less than the sweat and grease” … tsss), but nonetheless things to say again and again and again until understood

  27. I am afraid that no amount scientific evidence, arguments or observable data will change the mind of the alarmists prior to the Paris conference . There is too much free money at stake for too many people . The climate will cool once this El Nino and warm blob dissipate next year or so and decades of cooler weather will follow. as it has done for thousands of years

  28. “The only place in the world where CO2 increase precedes a temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models.”
    I do not believe that models count as being part of the world. The computers themselves, yes. The models exist only in the rarefied world of imagination and theory.

    • Those models have become the basis of a fantasy climate that the real deniers believe in as if they were an actual part of the real world. As with all such advocates they have revised history to try and make it support their claims and are even doing so with current data. Any means justifies their end. They believe their fantasy is the real world!

  29. ” CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.”
    I’m not understanding the math here. If CO2 has gone from under 300ppm to over 400ppm, how can the human caused portion only be 3.4%? Are you saying natural sources account for the bulk of the increase? If so, can you document that claim?

  30. “CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses ”
    At it’s core, this is a dishonest argument. It’s not the amount of anything, it’s the effect.
    Only a few grams of arsenic can kill a 200 lb person.

    • MarkW-
      Farcical statements are laughable when viewed in the proper light.
      I know it wasn’t your intent, but thanks, I welcome merriment anytime.

    • Mark,
      The very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly heat the rest of the atmosphere, the land, or the ocean. The heat transfer capacity of CO2 is vanishingly small. The amount of mass of it, the molar fraction in the atmosphere, is so small relative to everything else, that its ability to act as a warming agent is insignificant, even if it’s phantom heat retaining properties are real. The photons that circulate though all molecules come from the sun first, meaning that the only significant source of heat variation is strictly from solar variation, modified only by atmospheric pressure.
      The warmists’ big mistake is attributing the extra energy that caused “global warming” to CO2, instead of where that energy came from in the first place, the sun.
      The sun’s variation caused “global warming” of less than 1C , nothing catastrophic, to be sure.
      The additional energy that drove those increasing temperatures, especially 1980-2004, came from the modern maximum in solar activity.
      I define the modern maximum in solar activity here:
      The sun had 65% higher sunspot activity for the 70 years between 1935-2004, than the previous 70 years between 1865-1934. The earlier 70 year period averaged 65.8 annually, whereas the latter 70 year period averaged 108.5 per year. Data used for this came from the v2 SSNs from the WDC-SIDC. The v1 SSN disparity was 89% between the 70 year periods.
      TSI tracks with sunspot activity, meaning TSI was correspondingly higher for those 70 years compared to the previous 70 years. That higher TSI delivered the heat (photons) into the system that caused “global warming”.
      The sun does not have a static output, and it’s real variation is more than the 0.1% muted value that the IPCC uses. Furthermore there is a level of solar activity that is insufficient to warm the planet, and when that happens, that’s when the globe cools. That is the scenario we are entering into now, as the next one or two solar cycles are expected to be lower than this low cycle, the lowest in 100 years.
      The tired old failed arguments of the warmists are total crap. I sincerely hope that you Mark are not one of the fools who continues to believe their scary fairy tales based on useless “CO2 science”.

    • Getting awful tired of people comparing a very toxic and reactive substance (arsenic) with a benign, non-toxic, plant food which benefits man and critter. Pick a comparable substance or stop. GK

      • Micrograms of certain dyes can make a large volume of clear water so blue you cannot see through it.
        Not taking a position on this without further thought, but there are examples which are directly comparable.

      • Menicholas – Of course there are better examples of trace elements that can alter large volumes. All I ask is comparisons be reasonable in toxicty and reactivity. You surely understand that citing extreme poisons is… well… alarming and misleading. GK

    • MarkW September 7, 2015 at 6:57 am
      “At it’s core, this is a dishonest argument. It’s not the amount of anything, it’s the effect.
      Only a few grams of arsenic can kill a 200 lb person.”
      And it takes over exposure to 30,000 ppm of CO2 over time to be as harmful. So let’s put that little arsenic comparison to rest. People function quite well indoors with CO2 around the 1000 ppm mark.

      • No one suggested that CO is toxic in the amounts present in the atmosphere.
        The point was whether tiny amounts of substances can have dramatic and/or outsized affects, seemingly out of proportion to the concentration of the substance.
        Mark was making an analogy based on that proposition, not implying that CO2 was a poison like arsenic, in the amounts in question.
        In the lake management business, one low cost and nontoxic way to reduce or kill invasive and/or noxious aquatic weeds is to dye the water.
        The dye used comes in one quart containers, and one of those quarts full will dye a pond dark blue for months, so dark that the plants at the bottom of the water die from lack of light.
        One 32 fluid oz container of Blue Lagoon SS will tint 4 acre feet of water dark blue.
        Four acre feet is nearly 1.4 million gallons of water, so this sort of dye will block light in a concentration of one part in 5.5 million.
        Comparable enough for ya, Karst?
        http://www.aquaticbiologists.com/lake–pond-dye/blue-lagoon

      • By the way, that 5.5 million to one is a volume comparison. The dye as sold is not in pure form, plus it is a large molecule compared to water, so the molar ratio is far lower than the stated 5.5 million to one.

  31. This piece is just the kind of thing that does not belong here…it is a purely political screed fired off as another shot in the Climate Wars — which themselves are an entire waste of time and effort. while not as bad as Dr. Ball’s infamous “they’re all Nazi’s” essay, it should have no place here.
    Those who wish to get the science right and communicate correct science to the public must shun this type of nonsense — it is just the same worthless name-calling that SkS and hotwhopper sling.

    • Kip,
      Each to their own and all that, but I found your apologia of ocean acidification orthodoxy “an entire waste of time and effort”, as you say but I would not say that it “doesn’t belong here”.
      Tim Ball’s piece is pretty anodyne and your willingness to impugn him with reference to his “”infamous “they’re all Nazi’s” essay””” does you no credit.
      Since you brought it up, let me ask you to look a little deeper into the very famous/infamous Big Lie and figure out who said what about whom. Then you can reverse-engineer your “they’re all Nazi’s” paraphrase and come up with who went all Godwinian first.
      Willie Soon calls WUWT a ‘luke-warmer site’ and that may be so, but it’s a very tolerant one with a catholic (in the literary sense) demeanour. That means that diversity of opinion is rife.
      BTW, that phrase “Climate Wars” sounds familiar! Wasn’t it the title of a book recently?

      • Reply to mebbe ==> Can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or not. (BTW, Tim Ball impugned himself — slimed himself — when he wrote and posted his infamous Nazi essay….this is just a milder version.)
        The Climate Wars are what is wrong with the field of climate science — and it is wrong on both sides.
        There are plenty of political sites where this kind of thing is welcome — I suggest you read the WUWT Policy page — this site is about taking the higher ground and engaging in civil discourse about an highly charged, politically sensitive subject. Alas, it does not always achieve this high standard — I am speaking of the essays here — the comment section is always almost entirely out of control and filled with adolescent nonsense.
        For example, implying that the Catholic Pope is unchristian is well below the standard of discourse here. On the up-side, at least Dr. Balls essay was clearly marked as a Guest Opinion.
        All this is, of course, a matter of opinion, and we both have stated our own.

  32. So… Steven Goddard’s paranoid rantings are now considered okay here? And remarks like:

    · CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.

    Aren’t just laughed at for being hugely misleading? And this site, which has repeatedly complained about calling people deniers, has no problem labeling people deniers now?
    What is going on?

    • Brandon, as you know, I can’t control what commenters say. You are using an incorrect application of a broad brush to imply “Steven Goddard’s paranoid rantings are now considered okay here” As you may know, Goddard (Tony Heller) became unwelcome here due to his inability to come to terms with an incorrect statement he made about CO2 freezing out of the air in Antractica. That’s why he no longer guest authors here. Don’t make assumptions about the entire blog based on what commentators say.
      [Added note from Anthony: This comment has erroneous context about commenters, when it should have been about the article. My mistake. Please see this clarifying remark: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/06/an-update-on-the-real-deniers/#comment-2022804 ]

    • Oh boo-hoo-hoo, cry me a river. You know, if you pull out a weapon, you can’t really act all surprised and hurt if it gets used against you instead.

    • Lulz. So our host responded to my comment to say:

      Brandon, as you know, I can’t control what commenters say. You are using an incorrect application of a broad brush to imply “Steven Goddard’s paranoid rantings are now considered okay here” As you may know, Goddard (Tony Heller) became unwelcome here due to his inability to come to terms with an incorrect statement he made about CO2 freezing out of the air in Antractica. That’s why he no longer guest authors here. Don’t make assumptions about the entire blog based on what commentators say.
      But then he deleted his comment after he realized I wasn’t talking about anything commenters said, but was actually talking about what this post said. And instead of acknowledging his mistake, he just deleted his comment to cover it up…?

      • Brandon, I’d planned to clarify that in an edit, But got distracted with phone calls before I could edit it to be correct for the context. People make mistakes, just like you did with the blockquote. But I’ll take the criticism of my comment as is. One of the down sides to running WordPress is that it presents comments (to the operator) without the full context, and you have to switch back to other pages to see the full context and indeed my context about Goddard was erroneous.
        The issue of adjustments is worth discussing, because they are sometimes of a dubious value, particularly since homogenization tends to take a vast mix of poor quality stations and good quality stations. Unfortunately, the far greater number of poor quality stations tends to bias the results in one direction.
        [Added: And I agree, Goodard often has an over the top approach that isn’t as effective as it could be if presented differently]

      • Alright. So um… cool. Good to know I can be told I’m wrong at any time even when I’m not, only to have the comment saying I’m wrong taken down so people won’t see it and/or edited to correct the mistake thanks to moderation powers giving people abilities no other commenter has. That seems entirely… horrible.
        But whatever. I’m just happy to know it’s now apparently settled that calling people “deniers” is okay…? I’m still completely baffled on that, but at least we can stop having discussions over how wrong it is to use the word now? That’d be nice.

        • Well it was only up for about 2 minutes, I took it offline briefly to correct it and got distracted with other stuff, unfortunate, but life is messy like that sometimes. That’s an error on my part. Next time I’ll simply leave it and add a clarification in brackets. That would prevent such confusion and your rush to judgment to condemn me over at your blog. BTW, you have my email, you could have simply asked.

      • Shollenberger,
        Sometimes you’re right on the money and sometimes, you’re just an a$$, like right now.

      • And just in case Brandon comments again, and considers my lack of immediate response some sort of nefarious intent, I’m going to be offline for about two hours while I fix a problem with a car.

      • Anthony Watts says:

        Next time I’ll simply leave it and add a clarification in brackets. That would prevent such confusion and your rush to judgment to condemn me over at your blog. BTW, you have my email, you could have simply asked.

        Uh… the last time I e-mailed you, you said you weren’t going to talk to me. It’s difficult to see that as an invitation to e-mail you again.
        As for rushing to condemn you, you posted a comment which said I was wrong then removed the comment. If Skeptical Science had done that, you’d condemn them, regardless of their reason. I’m just treating you the same. Besides which, look at what you just said. You openly acknowledge you’re using moderation powers to give yourself advantages over the people you’re talking to. That’s wrong. I would condemn it regardless. Everybody else has to make a new comment if they want to add something. You should have to too.
        Alan Robertson:

        Shollenberger,
        Sometimes you’re right on the money and sometimes, you’re just an a$$, like right now.

        So this site calling people a name it’s complained about being called for a decade is what, okay? Secretly removing comments is not a bad thing? Promoting Goddard’s paranoid rantings is alright?
        The reality is if Skeptical Science or Real Climate had written a post calling people on the “skeptic” side what Tim Ball called people and secretly removed a comment like this, this site would probably run a post about it. The only reason I’m “just an a$$” is because you guys don’t like people on your “side” being criticized.

      • Brandon Shollenberger says:

        Uh… the last time I e-mailed you, you said you weren’t going to talk to me. It’s difficult to see that as an invitation to e-mail you again.

        Um, no. Sorry, that weak argument just doesn’t hold water. A sampling of recent emails I have received from you were received on:
        8/5/2015, 7/25/15, 7/24/15, 7/23/15, 7/22/15, 7/21/15, 7/16/15, 7/14/15, 7/13/15, 7/12/15, 7/8/15
        Per your Twitter feed, perhaps you’ll label this a “dumb” comment too?

      • As I’ve previously said, Brandon and I don’t see eye to eye on much of anything. In his Twitter feed from this holiday weekend, there’s this amazingly candid but disastrous nugget:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/brandon-impaired.png
        Perhaps Brandon can’t understand Dr. Ball’s definitional use of the term in his essay, in a “turnabout is fair play” sense, complete with references, which wasn’t done with any pejorative intent (i.e. “stupid deniers”, “oil-funded climate deniers”, “Koch shill deniers” and dozens of other pejorative uses that we have to suffer daily) because Brandon was blogging today while impaired? It would explain a lot of what we’ve seen today. Since Brandon refuses to accept my explanation for the comment issue, and inserts his own reasoning to bolster his own arguments, there’s not much else I can say except I think his reasoning is off. If this were a systemic problem here, such as what occurred over at Skeptical Science where they edited many many comments in a time extended post facto sanctioned process involving the moderation team, and not just one attempted (but not completed) mistake fix within the hour by the blog owner, he’d have a point. But this was a one-off issue that was complicated by life events today, as I explained.
        However, the best thing one can do is learn from mistakes, and to that end I will be updating my blog policy page soon so that there’s a clear guideline for my own comments.
        Dr. Ball certainly could have softened the essay and use of the word a bit, but it is a far cry from the kind of horrid insults that I and many climate skeptics have had to endure on a daily basis.
        I think Brandon has done some good work in the past, but lately, I and some others I correspond with have noted he’s gotten somewhat pedantic and erratic, even going so far as publishing an essay on DeSmog Blog, where they’ve used such pejorative “denier” labels for years. For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/13/calls-media-accurately-label-climate-deniers-growing-louder
        Given Brandon’s own double standard on the blogging usage of “denier”, perhaps it simply time to stop paying any further attention to him on the issue.
        Brandon is of course free to be as upset as he wishes about all of this, and I’m sure he’ll write some entertaining arguments about how he’s in the right, but I have to wonder about his ability to reason properly when I see tweets like the above. It’s one thing to have a medical issue like that, but to advertise it to the world and to say he’s going to start drinking on top of medication suggests he’s not thinking through clearly.

      • Anthony Watts:

        Um, no. Sorry, that weak argument just doesn’t hold water. A sampling of recent emails I have received from you were received on:
        8/5/2015, 7/25/15, 7/24/15, 7/23/15, 7/22/15, 7/21/15, 7/16/15, 7/14/15, 7/13/15, 7/12/15, 7/8/15

        As best I can tell, those e-mails are all group e-mails where you and I were both included, and I responded to the group. Not once did I direct a single remark in any of them at your directly. In fact, I’m not sure I had even noticed your name was on the list of names included in the group.

        Per your Twitter feed, perhaps you’ll label this a “dumb” comment too?

        Um, yes? It is pretty dumb to pretend you being included in group messages is somehow comparable to me sending you an e-mail one on one.

        • Well each one of them is from you, and if you state that there was no invitation to communicate with me, why then did you send them? Why include me whether it’s a group or not? Sorry, still doesn’t hold water. You could have asked, by email, but didn’t.

          • Basically, Brandon was having too much fun playing what he erroneously perceived to be a “gotcha” game today to ask before writing his diatribe minutes later.

      • Anthony Watts:

        Perhaps Brandon can’t understand Dr. Ball’s definitional use of the term in his essay, in a “turnabout is fair play” sense, complete with references, which wasn’t done with any pejorative intent (i.e. “stupid deniers”, “oil-funded climate deniers”, “Koch shill deniers” and dozens of other pejorative uses that we have to suffer daily) because Brandon was blogging today while impaired?

        Real classy to try to portray comments I made about drinking alcohol nearly 24 hours ago as somehow devaluing what I say now Anthony. As for the idea this was merely a “definitional use of the term,” that’s complete nonsense. That’s exactly the same excuse people have used to justify calling you a denier for years. They’ve always said things like, “We’re just calling them deniers because they deny things.” And every time, you’ve called BS on them. So guess what, I’m calling BS on you. Sort of like how you say:

        It would explain a lot of what we’ve seen today. Since Brandon refuses to accept my explanation for the comment issue,

        I didn’t refuse to accept your explanation. Anyone who reads what I said will see I have accepted your explanation. They’ll just see I’ve said your explanation indicates a problem with how you use your moderation powers in discussions. In the same way, when you say:

        I think Brandon has done some good work in the past, but lately, I and some others I correspond with have noted he’s gotten somewhat pedantic and erratic, even going so far as publishing an essay on DeSmog Blog, where they’ve used such pejorative “denier” labels for years. For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/13/calls-media-accurately-label-climate-deniers-growing-louder
        Given Brandon’s own double standard on the blogging usage of “denier”, perhaps it simply time to stop paying any further attention to him on the issue.

        I don’t hold a double standard. I haven’t insisted people not use the word “denier.” You’re just making that up to portray me in a negative light. All I’ve done is say if someone wants to complain about people using the word “denier,” they shouldn’t use the word “denier” themselves. If you want to use insults, that’s fine. Just don’t complain when others do the same.
        But by all means Anthony, feel free to say things like:

        Brandon is of course free to be as upset as he wishes about all of this, and I’m sure he’ll write some entertaining arguments about how he’s in the right, but I have to wonder about his ability to reason properly when I see tweets like the above. It’s one thing to have a medical issue like that, but to advertise it to the world and to say he’s going to start drinking on top of medication suggests he’s not thinking through clearly.

        Just because I have the audacity to challenge you and the other people here when you guys do things like call people deniers after spending a decade insisting calling people deniers is wrong. By all means, try to paint me as incapable of rational thought while promoting the paranoid rants of Steven Goddard and posts which try to say CO2 has no meaningful effect on the planet’s temperature.
        Clearly, I’m the one with a problem. That problem is just I’m consistent with my standards and willing to challenge people on any “side.” You on the other hand are just doing a great job of showing how the tribe reacts to anyone who dares challenge it.

        • Well Brandon I think you’ve demonstrated poor thought process, and you’ve used lots of perjorative language in the process. As I said we don’t see eye-to-eye, and if you don’t want people questioning your thought process, you shouldn’t post things like what you did on Twitter. Heat, kitchen, and all that. Whether you think the question is classy or not, your behavior seems erratic to me, especially when you went and made a rant on your blog within a few minutes without ever so much as asking me.
          What I see from you is mostly a reaction of a tribe of one. Brandon doesn’t like to be challenged on anything, and it shows.
          I didn’t “promote” anything about Goddard, that’s all in your mind. If I did a post on him or his work, you’d have a point.

      • Anthony Watts:

        Well each one of them is from you, and if you state that there was no invitation to communicate with me, why then did you send them? Why include me whether it’s a group or not? Sorry, still doesn’t hold water. You could have asked, by email, but didn’t.

        The last one-on-one communication we had had you tell me you wouldn’t talk to me. The fact you and I sent e-mails to a group of people each other happened to be in, never once directing any remarks to one another doesn’t change that fact.
        But sure, I could have asked you by e-mail why you did this. Why would I though? Look at your comments here. Look at how pathetic and personal you’re making this exchange. You’ve done this every time I’ve disagreed with you about anything. Why would I ever expect a useful response from you via e-mail?
        Am I supposed to subject myself to your abuse and misrepresentations in private before discussing your public comments publicly? I don’t think so, especially not when a constant criticism of climate scientists has always been that they expressed their concerns in private but not in public. Public comments get discussed publicly. That’s all there is to it.

        • Yes that was months ago, and we went through the same process. I offer an explanation, sending you emails privately for a disagreement, then you write about them publicly claiming they are “dumb” or “stupid”. I might not want to engage further when I’m treated like that (who would?) but if there was a genuine issue, like today, I’d certainly read the email, as the ones I cite above show.

      • Anthony Watts:

        Well Brandon I think you’ve demonstrated poor thought process, and you’ve used lots of perjorative language in the process. As I said we don’t see eye-to-eye, and if you don’t want people questioning your thought process, you shouldn’t post things like what you did on Twitter.

        I said I was going to drink alcohol despite being on medication which says it shouldn’t be taken with alcohol. Big deal. Plenty of people do the same. Maybe I overshare on Twitter, but so what? It in no way justifies you trying to pretend, the next day, that this somehow explains anything about my behavior. As for your claim:

        I didn’t “promote” anything about Goddard, that’s all in your mind. If I did a post on him or his work, you’d have a point.

        This post promotes Goddard’s paranoid accusations. You defend the post as being fine. That means you defend the promotion of Goddard’s paranoid accusations. Nobody should. Anybody who wants to have the slightest shred of credibility should run away from Goddard.
        And wow. I see you just edited a comment of yours after submitting it again. How in the world do you expect people to have serious discussions with you if they can read your comment, type a response, hit Submit only to find out your comment has changed? Can you really not see the problem in using moderation powers to give yourself advantages over the other people participating in discussions?

        • I accidentally left two words off the end of sentence the last comment I intended to type. I put them on seconds later. I don’t see a problem with that. Over at Lucia’s, you can edit comments for up to ten minutes afterwards to correct such mistakes, and I don’t see you complaining about that. Here at WUWT about two years ago, we had the same feature for about a month while I went through a trial of their hi-end plan. I don’t recall you complaining about that feature.
          Comment editing features that allow you to fix stupid mistakes on self hosted wordpress platforms is fairly common, just like what we see at Lucia’s.
          It has been the most requested feature here at WUWT for a long time. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/20/here-is-your-chance-to-ask-for-comment-editing/
          To that end, I’m going to look into it again. Then there won’t be any issues with complaints about anyone not being able to fix silly mistakes in comments before some pedant goes ballistic about it.
          Have you not ever fixed a mistake in one of your own comments or blog posts within seconds of typing it? I’d be amazed if you haven’t used your own “moderation” powers. For incidents that fix missing words, misspelling or punctuation, I don’t see that as an issue, especially when such short term editing is a common feature on other WordPress blogs, Disqus, and Facebook.

          • And to add, going back hours, days, or months later and making wholesale changes to comments (like Skeptical Science did) is an entirely different argument.

      • Anthony Watts:

        Yes that was months ago, and we went through the same process. I offer an explanation, sending you emails privately for a disagreement, then you write about them publicly claiming they are “dumb” or “stupid”.

        Actually, what happened is I e-mailed you to try to resolve a disagreement in a cordial manner. You responded to me with a single e-mail which said you wouldn’t talk to me because I had called you names and labeled you “insane,” things I had never actually done. There was no explanation of anything. But please, keep telling people untrue things about the e-mail. It’s not like I posted it for everyone to see how absurd your accusations were back then.
        Oh wait, I did. And the reason I did is because you made wildly untrue accusations about me, and I wanted a record of the fact you did so. Because you keep doing it. Every time we disagree. Every single time we get in a disagreement, you start making things up about me to paint me in a negative light, things which anyone who put even the slightest effort into reading my comments would know aren’t true.
        And I think that’s something worth documenting. I don’t mind the abuse. You’re bad it so you’re not going to hurt my feelings, but you are going to create a toxic environment where genuine disagreement isn’t tolerated. You’ve already made a lot of progress in doing so by doing things like accusing climate scientists of (everything short of?) criminal activity in much the same manner.
        But sure, paint yourself as the victim. Pretend I’ve said things about you I’ve never said before. Pretend I’m ranting and raving in some blind rage fueled by alcohol and prescription pills. The reality is I treat you the exact same way I’d treat anybody else, and I’d have said the same things three years ago when you still liked what I had to say, but… don’t let that get in the way of your reactions.

        • Brandon, I think you’d get a lot farther with people if you didn’t label their opinions as “dumb” which anyone can read upthread. That’s a fact.
          You’ve routinely taken things I’ve said, and put your own interpretation on it without bothering to hear my side of the story. When I disagree with it, you get defensive. When I comment about it you label my comments as you did above as “dumb”.
          We don’t see eye-to-eye on anything, we don’t communicate well with each other, and we both don’t think much of each other’s viewpoints. To that end, I’m not going to continue what is obviously a waste of our time.

          • And IIRC you did label my comments to you from that episode as “insane”. Again, that sort of language is unhelpful if you want to communicate with another person without building walls.

      • Anthony Watts:

        I accidentally left two words off the end of sentence the last comment I intended to type. I put them on seconds later. I don’t see a problem with that. Over at Lucia’s, you can edit comments for up to ten minutes afterwards to correct such mistakes, and I don’t see you complaining about that. Here at WUWT about two years ago, we had the same feature for about a month while I went through a trial of their hi-end plan. I don’t recall you complaining about that feature.

        How disingenuous can you be? Of course I have no problem with an Edit feature being used if it is available to all users like it is at Lucia’s or like it apparently was here for a little while. If it’s available to everybody, then everybody knows it’s there and knows comments might get edited after they’re submitted. There’s no sudden shock of comments being edited because one guy happens to have powers nobody else gets to have.

        Have you not ever fixed a mistake in one of your own comments or blog posts within seconds of typing it? I’d be amazed if you haven’t used your own “moderation” powers. For incidents that fix missing words, misspelling or punctuation, I don’t see that as an issue, especially when such short term editing is a common feature on other WordPress blogs, Disqus, and Facebook.

        I fix HTML tags in my comments and other users’ comments at my site, and I sometimes edit out words for purposes of filters (for obscenities and the like). Aside from that, I don’t edit comments. I don’t care if someone, including myself, makes a mistake while writing. The purpose of moderation is not to fix mistakes. It’s not for proofreading, and I’m certainly not going to give myself an advantage over people I’m having discussions with.
        If people are going to have a discussion, they should all be on equal footing. One person should not have the advantage of being able to proofread comments after the fact, especially not if it is going to be done without any indication being given. And one person certainly shouldn’t be allowed to go back to previous comments and append additional thoughts to them as the discussion progresses. It’s completely unfair, and making unmarked changes to comments nobody could be aware of is deceptive.

        • Well I’m glad to see that you admit to editing comments to fix mistakes and troublemakers with bad language at your blog. I see your fixation on this here as disingenuous. Sure If I was going back later and doing wholesale changes, I’d agree, fixing a mistake of two missing words within seconds, not so much.
          This whole argument today boils down to you basically saying I’m disingenuous because I made a mistake and then fixed it in a way you think is wrong. Admittedly, it all could have gone better from the first comment today, but there’s no nefarious intent here. What I’ve said is that I’ll come up with a policy to deal with it, so that there won’t be any questions, and/or better yet, find a way to get the comment editing feature back. Since you are self hosted now, at least I think you are, perhaps you should install that plugin to allow editing of comments for your own readers. That way, nobody can accuse you of having more “power” to edit out nasty words or fix mistakes than they do.

      • Anthony Watts, you can say my language is unhelpful, but the reality is what’s really unhelpful is people saying things like:

        And IIRC you did label my comments to you from that episode as “insane”. Again, that sort of language is unhelpful if you want to communicate with another person without building walls.

        Nobody disputes that I labeled something you said insane (because it was insane). My sentence clearly said you claimed “I had called you names and labeled you ‘insane.'” There is a significant difference between labeling something you said and labeling you as a person. The reason I criticized your e-mail is it made the ludicrous accusation:

        2. You are claiming I’m “insane” in this email

        When I had never labeled you anything as I generally go out of my way to avoid making remarks about people as individuals. You may find labeling remarks “insane” unhelpful, but the reality is it is far more unhelpful to constantly mischaracterize what people say.
        Also unhelpful is to, you know, constantly make personal remarks about people like you do with me…

        • When you label the person’s language as “insane” it implies (to me) that you are labeling the individual, because a sane person wouldn’t be saying insane things. If you don’t want that to happen, don’t use the words. Like I’ve said we don’t see eye-to-eye on much, your mindset says you aren’t calling me “insane” my mindset says you are. Who’s right? Dunno, but I do know that you and I don’t communicate well, hence the friction.
          I’m out for the night. I hope you feel better soon.

      • Anthony Watts:

        This whole argument today boils down to you basically saying I’m disingenuous because I made a mistake and then fixed it in a way you think is wrong.

        Um, no. I never called you disingenuous for that reason. I called you disingenuous for pretending situations where an edit feature is available to everybody is comparable to you using moderation powers to edit comments after the fact. If you’re going to make things up about me, please at least do it in a less obvious way.

        Admittedly, it all could have gone better from the first comment today, but there’s no nefarious intent here.

        I feel I should point out I accepted this quite some time back, even though you’ve claimed I refuse to accept your explanation. For the record though, I don’t think there is any nefarious intent in your decision to edit comments. I don’t think there was any nefarious intent in Skeptical Science’s either. I just think what was done in each case was wrong, despite the lack of nefarious intent.

        What I’ve said is that I’ll come up with a policy to deal with it, so that there won’t be any questions, and/or better yet, find a way to get the comment editing feature back. Since you are self hosted now, at least I think you are, perhaps you should install that plugin to allow editing of comments for your own readers. That way, nobody can accuse you of having more “power” to edit out nasty words or fix mistakes than they do.

        Huh? Nobody would say anything like that because it’s obvious I would have more moderation power at my site than the average user. Nobody would be bothered by that either. Moderating is a natural part of running blogs.
        Why are you bringing up normal moderation duties in relation to editing comments for proofreading purposes? The two are very different. All this does is create a false dilemma for no purpose. You could have cut out this entire point and your comment would have been far better. As it stands, it looks like you’re just trying to find a cheap point to score.
        And that’s a real shame because if not for that, this would have been a comment that made progress toward resolving things.

      • I like the way it is on Facebook, where edits can be made, but if anyone mouses over the edit notification, they can click it and see what the original was.
        But that is just me.
        Brandon, you said that you were only criticizing the original post, and not the commenters, but your first remark suggested that everyone should have laughed a particular commenter out of town:
        · “CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gasses and the human portion is only 3.4 percent of that total.”
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/06/an-update-on-the-real-deniers/#comment-2022750
        Finally, say what you want about Tony Heller, call him mean names, suggest he is mentally ill, but complain about a word which is in widespread usage and seems to become a more popular way to refer to “skeptics” by the day, being used in exactly the “turnabout is fair play” context that our host asserted.
        Mr. Heller did the world a huge favor, IMO, and has every reason to be angry, and to show it in his writings.
        One does not need to share this style of writing to defend it. He does not, IMO, deserve the criticism you make. No one is perfect, and people have a limit to how much they can take.
        Those of us in the skeptical community have taken a lot, for a long time.
        The day you become Mr. Perfect is the day you have standing to say the things you have said here.
        IMO.

      • Anthony Watts:

        When you label the person’s language as “insane” it implies (to me) that you are labeling the individual, because a sane person wouldn’t be saying insane things. If you don’t want that to happen, don’t use the words.

        What?! This is about as stupid a thing as you could possibly say. And no, that’s not me calling you stupid. People say wrong things all the time. I make mistakes all the time. I catch myself at least a couple times a day saying something stupid because I misread something or had a brain fart.
        I’m sure most readers here would agree they make “stupid mistakes” from time to time. That doesn’t mean they’re stupid. And yeah, people might say “insane” things from time to time. That doesn’t mean they’re insane.

        Like I’ve said we don’t see eye-to-eye on much, your mindset says you aren’t calling me “insane” my mindset says you are. Who’s right?

        I am. Words have meanings. If I want to call you insane, I will. If I want to call you stupid, I will. If I just want to say you’ve said something stupid, then I’ll say that. I can characterize the behavior you exhibit in a single instance without drawing conclusions about you as a person.

        Dunno, but I do know that you and I don’t communicate well, hence the friction.

        There are bound to be communication problems if you refuse to do simple things like recognize the fact we can discuss a person’s behavior in a single instance without labeling the person as a whole. The problems are going to arise from the fact you’re refusing to look at what people say and mean, choosing to instead decide they say and mean things that exist only in your imagination.
        Which I guess might explain why you so consistently misrepresent what I say?

      • OK, my turn to say I was wrong. I missed the 4% -3.4 % comment in the original article. I was under the impression that this was first asserted by a commenter.
        My mistake.

    • Average global H2O concentration is around 30,000 ppm or higher. Other GHG levels are negligible, so CO2, at 400 ppm, is about 1.3% of total greenhouse gases.

    • Brandon you claim that the quote is misleading. How so? It is factual. If you think it is not factual, then the ball is in your court to prove it. Have a nice day!

      • Bob Weber, something can be both factual and misleading at the same time. Everybody knows you can things which are technically true yet are misleading.
        I have no reason to discuss whether Tim Ball’s statement is factual. The simple reality is the percent concentration of something being small in no way indicates it will have a small effect. Ball’s statement implies human greenhouse gas emissions will have a negligible effect due to being small in terms of total percent concentration, but that is a false implication. Therefore, his statement is misleading.

      • I see that you ‘believe’
        “The simple reality is the percent concentration of something being small in no way indicates it will have a small effect. Ball’s statement implies human greenhouse gas emissions will have a negligible effect due to being small in terms of total percent concentration, but that is a false implication. Therefore, his statement is misleading.”
        Perhaps you could have “‘I think’ his statement is misleading”.
        The simple reality Brandon is that no large effect from CO2 has been proven. Only someone who ‘believes’ as you apparently do, that CO2 can do what the warmists say it does, would then claim Ball’s statement created a false implication.
        Many people like you take the position that the warmists are right and argue from that position, as you are doing, without ever considering counter evidence.
        If you want to be persuasive wrt me, you must explain how SSTs dropped during the 1960s and 70s while CO2 went up. You must explain how a small molar fraction of the atmosphere did that, and also how it supposedly then caused temps to go up post-1980. You must explain how the energy got there (here) and from where it originated.
        You probably know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only relocate. From where did the energy come from – relocate from – that caused global warming?
        If you are going to tell me that CO2 either creates energy or acts as a super-absorbent heat diaper that sponges heat out of the atmosphere, then you will need to tell me where that energy came from in the first place.
        Please see my comment above regarding CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/06/an-update-on-the-real-deniers/#comment-2022717
        Dr. Ball’s comment was correct. I will paraphrase his post:
        The accusers of the deniers are themselves the deniers.

      • Bob Weber:

        If you want to be persuasive wrt me, you must explain…

        Here’s the thing though, I don’t think I could possibly be persuasive with you. You shamelessly say:

        Dr. Ball’s comment was correct. I will paraphrase his post:
        The accusers of the deniers are themselves the deniers.

        So let me quote a post from this very site years back:

        When I see anyone legitimize the term “denier” in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – “this is not a serious person”.
        To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach.

        That was from years back though, so let me quote something more recent, from our host himself:

        We don’t see eye to eye on most things, and trying to communicate with you seems a pointless exercise when you resort to labels/name calling. So, I won’t bother further.

        This site has criticized and complained about the use of the word “denier” for years. It has repeatedly said anyone using the word shouldn’t be taken seriously, as they’re refusing to engage in real discussions. By that standard, I have no reason to try to convince you of anything. You and anyone else who thinks it is fine to label people “deniers” are people who shouldn’t be taken seriously, and serious discussion with you is impossible.
        Every person on this site should be complaining about how wrong it was for this post to label people deniers. For whatever reason, none are. Instead, the only people talking about it are defending it. I’m not going to try to figure that one out, but I’m also not going to waste my time trying to engage in useless discussions with people who think it’s okay to call people “deniers.”
        I’ve had to listen to this site say people shouldn’t try to engage in discussions with people who call others “deniers” for nearly a decade. I think it’s only fair to listen.

      • I’m glad you got that off your chest Brandon. I’d rather not get into classifying and labeling either, and focus on the awesome power of solar activity. Hope tomorrow is a better day for you.

      • Bob Weber:

        I’m glad you got that off your chest Brandon. I’d rather not get into classifying and labeling either, and focus on the awesome power of solar activity. Hope tomorrow is a better day for you.

        It’s not really relevant to anything, but because it’s funny you say that, I have to tell you today is actually a great day for me. I’m in an awesome mood. I got some wonderful news earlier today, and it’s made my day fabulous. You may not realize it from my comments, but I’ve been smiling and laughing almost constantly for the last few hours.
        So thanks for the sentiment! I’m not sure it will be better than today, but I’m sure tomorrow will still be great. I hope it’s great for you too!

      • “You and anyone else who thinks it is fine to label people “deniers” are people who shouldn’t be taken seriously, and serious discussion with you is impossible.”
        Perhaps you could direct us to your efforts to make alarmists stop using this word?
        What had been a occasional usage has become a commonplace reference.
        So things have changed.
        But, if the word is so intolerable to you, surely you have been spending considerable time publicly condemning the warmists who use this term?
        As far as I can tell, this term is in near universal usage by the entire pro-CAGW warmista community.
        Your outrage at it’s usage here is somewhere between puzzling and laughable.

      • Menicholas, it might help answer your question if you look at the sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted. Here are the two together:

        By that standard, I have no reason to try to convince you of anything. You and anyone else who thinks it is fine to label people “deniers” are people who shouldn’t be taken seriously, and serious discussion with you is impossible.

        As you can see, the remark you quoted was given in the context of the standards advanced by this site and the people on it. I don’t have to agree with that standard to point out how it would apply to a situation. So when you ask:

        Perhaps you could direct us to your efforts to make alarmists stop using this word?

        You’re kind of missing the point. I don’t actually think a bit of name-calling/labeling is as serious as this site and its proprietor has made it out to be. I have discussed why the word is inappropriate a number of times, and I could find links if it really mattered, but the truth is I don’t think it’s as serious a problem as people here have made it out to be in the past.
        Speaking of which, when you say things like:

        But, if the word is so intolerable to you, surely you have been spending considerable time publicly condemning the warmists who use this term?
        As far as I can tell, this term is in near universal usage by the entire pro-CAGW warmista community.
        Your outrage at it’s usage here is somewhere between puzzling and laughable.

        I have no idea what you’re talking about when you refer to things like my “outrage.” I’ve never gotten worked up about people calling other people “deniers.” There’s never been any outrage on my end. All there is is me scoffing at the hypocrisy of people who last week would have complained about people saying “denier” this week calling people “deniers.”

  33. myslewski wrote:
    September 6, 2015 at 11:13 pm
    “C’mon, folks, grow a pair. Anthropomorphically generated climate change, heating the earth’s surface and the troposphere, acidifying the ocean, transferring heat into the deep ocean, and decreasing the arctic albedo is no longer arguable — it’s a fact.”
    The United Nation’s IPCC, the biggest promoter of human-caused global warming/climate change in the world, say that *no* weather event, or series of weather events can be attributed directly to human causes. Yet here you are doing just that.
    Of course, you are not alone in making such claims. It seems every promoter of human-caused global warming/climate change attributes whatever is happening at the time to humans burning fossil fuels. It’s like a knee-jerk reaction.
    Everyone but the UN’s IPCC. I guess they are not quite bold enough to make such claims, not to mention they don’t have any evidence of such, plus the atmospheric temperature trend should be discouraging making such claims right now.
    There is no evidence humans have caused any weather event, much less the climate, to change. Please quit claiming there is. You are scaring people unnecessarily.
    TA

  34. It’s good to see the Pope maintaining the Church’s proud tradition in science. Why, it almost 20 years since they grudgingly admitted that Galileo was right.

  35. Dr. Ball,
    Nice article. I would add that Michael Mann and others deny the existence of the Medieval Warming Period. The MWP has been documented in numerous peer reviewed articles.
    The MWP was warmer than today. Without manmade CO2 levels. In order to make AGW claims they need to deny the existence of MWP. Mann’s hockey stick was adopted to win that battle.
    Dr. Mann is a MWP denier.

    • The Medieval Warm Period, c. 1000 years ago, was warmer than the Modern WP. The Roman WP, c. 2000 years ago, was warmer than the Medieval. The Minoan WP, c. 3000 years ago, was warmer than the Roman. The Holocene Climatic Optimum, which ended c. 5000 years ago, was at least as warm as the Minoan WP.
      The Holocene has been cooling for 3000 to 5000 years. That’s a lot more worrisome than a naturally occurring warm cycle. The Little Ice Age, which followed the Medieval WP, was probably colder than the Dark Ages Cold Period, which followed the Roman WP, and Greek Dark Ages CP, which followed the Minoan WP.

      • They had it right in the 70’s…resumption of cooling would/will likely prove disastrous.
        Plants survive heat readily…in fact they thrive on heat.
        They die from cold. The only way to keep them from dying is to keep them from getting cold enough.
        It is incredible to me that the whole world, outside of a very few concerned scientists and informed citizens, is completely ignoring what is occurring with the sun.
        I do not know what will happen. I have my ideas, as do many.
        But to be ignoring a very real and immediate change in the FRICKIN’ SUN seems crazy to me.
        It is not like we have no reason to suspect that there may be severe effects here on Earth due to this.

  36. Even though it’s fun to use their own “D” word against Alarmists, I still prefer “Climate Liars” as a description of them.

    • Indeed Bruce. I’ve used this terminology, along with “climate parasite” and “climate wanker”, but “climate liar” really seems to be catching on. It encompasses and encapsulates their very being. Even the incompetents can’t use their incompetence as an excuse now.

  37. What an incredibly childish discussion between Anthony and Brandon.
    I didn’t think Brandon could come on so passive/agressive – normally I like his reasoning and coolness.
    And Anthony should just admit, that he wasn’t called insane. Come on – he commented specifically on the substance of what you said, that is totally permitted in a free country 🙂

  38. “Denialism is defined as “the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.”” ~Tim Ball PhD
    Karl Popper called that rational criticism and empirical observation and thought it was always necessary at every point in the scientific process. He said that is the way out of the tendency of scientists and experts to be completely under the influence of the love of their own theories.
    Popper is what they teach the kids in textbooks, and after they trust scientists, they switch to Kuhn.

Comments are closed.