Climate Science Turned Monster

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The public just doesn't seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics

The public just doesn’t seem to be afraid of the Global Warming scare tactics

Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the ‘official’ side of the science and that going to skeptics.

Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.

The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.

The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

Establishment of the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) put national weather office bureaucrats in control of national climate policy and most of the research funding. They appointed the members of the IPCC and used their offices to promote and perpetuate the unproven hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Extreme measures taken to keep the monster alive included adjusting the record to eliminate previous warm periods and lowering the historic instrumental record to increase the slope of the curve to create or accentuate warming. More recently it was the adjustments designed to offset the pause they directly contradicted the hypothesis. They were on a treadmill for two main reasons. By accepting the IPCC AGW hypothesis as proved, required ignoring or diverting from evidence. It was the destructive effect T.H. Huxley identified when he wrote,

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

By convincing politicians to establish policy based on their information, it became difficult to admit they were wrong.

The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible. This list summarizes the claims of those making the RICO charge. The structure and involvement of people and agencies has become so large that reduction or elimination is virtually impossible. It parallels the idea of “too big to fail” but becomes, “too important to fail”.

Another challenge is that the numbers of people involved, directly or indirectly, becomes large enough to influence votes and keep the monster alive. For example, how many tax accountants, tax lawyers, IRS employees or anyone else in the taxation industry would vote for a flat tax? Other than those with a vested interest there are many others who Niccolo Machiavelli identified when he said,


One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.

It is also why Upton Sinclair said,

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”


There is also the problem of admitting error that many find difficult. Tolstoi summarized their plight.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, I identified some of the groups and agencies across the world involved in the promotion and opportunities that the global warming deception offered. They include

· Members of the cabal who chose climate and environment as vehicles for their political agenda.

· Academics attracted by the significant amounts of funding offered.

· Academics with political sympathies for the cabal’s objectives.

· Bureaucrats employed by the national weather offices that comprise the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) chosen as the vehicle for controlling the IPCC.

· Bureaucrats with political sympathies with the cabal objectives.

· Bureaucrats in other government agencies, such as Agriculture or Transport that are secondarily affected by weather and climate issues.

· Departments of Education who directed unbalanced teaching of only the ‘official’ science as Justice Burton UK court ruled.

· Politicians who saw an opportunity to “be green.”

· Politicians who saw an opportunity for more taxation.

· Businesses that saw an opportunity for a profitable business guaranteed by government policy and funding.

· Individuals who saw a career or business opportunity.

· Environmental groups who supported the political objectives of blaming humans for the world’s ills.

· Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Maurice Strong reconstituted the term coined by the UN in 1945 for the Rio 1992 conference. It purportedly gave voice to organizations not part of a government or conventional for-profit businesses. At Conference of the Parties (COP) climate meetings, they constitute at least half of the attendees.

· Most of the media who actively supported the AGW hypothesis.

· National science academies persuaded by the British Royal Society to support the IPCC position.

There is one thing likely about most of these people, 97 percent of them know little or nothing about climate change.

The Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) scheduled for Paris is clearly facing failure, which is pushing IPCC defenders, such as the twenty making the RICO request, to extremes. Their comparison of scientists trying to perform proper science to organized crime leaders is beyond outrageous. It is especially egregious because the people making the charges are guilty of scientific malfeasance. While not necessarily criminal, it is worse in the damage it has and will do to everyone. The monster they created using incorrect science became the justification for imposing destructive, expensive, and completely unnecessary policies on the world. These policies will do far more damage to the poor and the environment they claim to protect. As it was anonymously said,

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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paul Coppin

The global warming/climate change adherents need to understand the RICO barrel points back at them with a far, far more convincing case.


The high priests of global warming could demand an inquisition to root out the heretics. Torture will reveal the possessed. The head of their order is coming for a visit.


Maybe in a RICO court case evidence such as this might be produced. How would a jury see this? Would a judge laugh hysterically to within an inch of his or her life? You decide.



Climate Research Unit (CRU)
…From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,…
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of OmanShell……
Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…..
Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC until Feb. 2015]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
—– caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of, according to foundation records.
Union of Concerned Scientists
The 2013 Annual Report PDF
UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…..
Annual Report 2002 PDF
The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)….
Friends of UCS
The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc….
University of California, Berkeley
Cal Climate Action Partnership
What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.
University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois
Climate Institute
About Us
The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…
American Gas FoundationBP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services….
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…
Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts
Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world….
Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash….
America’s WETLAND Foundation
Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration
Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…..
World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum
Green Energy Futures
About Us
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell
World Resources Institute
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…
Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)….
AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…
Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…
Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013
…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows….
Jimbo October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am
Why stop at Koch funding?
Exxon Mobil Corporation
2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments
…..Pennsylvania State University [$] 258,230…..
Stanford University
New York Times – 21 November 2002
Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program….
National Science Teachers Association – Jun 11, 2012
by Wendi Liles
You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE…. You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their urban watershed…..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont, Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature Society….
Duke University
ConocoPhillips Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007
ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday.
Alberta Water Council PDF
Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system.
…Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips Canada…River Level Sponsors….ConocoPhillips Canada
University of California, Davis
Institute of Transportation Studies PDF
10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy
Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change
Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences
VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far?
September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE, US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil, and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling)…
Washington Free Beacon – 27 January 2015
Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run investment funds with Russian tycoons
A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report last year…..

@ jumbo you realize that only IPCC sanctioned graphs would be allowed in court. That graph would not be allowed (or aloud as one ph.d guy stated). Hearsay is not allowed in a court of law. Being right doesn’t matter. They control the information. The IPCC puts out a 2 sentence line proving AGW without evidence, and skeptics have to provide hundreds of pages proving otherwise. We look like idiots. Looking like and are, are two different things.


Jimbo, your list was spectacular.
I’ve been pointing out for some time now that if one follows the money, the US Energy industry is arguably the single greatest recipient of money public and private that has been generated by this “crisis” from day one. And that’s a lot of money.

Duke Energy is investing $500 million to expand solar energy in North Carolina. That commitment includes building, owning and operating three facilities that will be among the largest in the state.

In general, the following credits are available for eligible systems placed in service on or before December 31, 2016*:
Solar. The credit is equal to 30% of expenditures, with no maximum credit. Eligible solar energy property includes equipment that uses solar energy to generate electricity, to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a structure, or to provide solar process heat. Hybrid solar lighting systems, which use solar energy to illuminate the inside of a structure using fiber-optic distributed sunlight, are eligible. Passive solar systems and solar pool-heating systems are not eligible.

Even with the 30% credit, even with economy of scale on the installation price, the levelized cost of PV solar is estimated to be a decade or so away from matching coal or nuclear, and longer than that for matching natural gas. That also includes using a definition of “levelized cost” that deliberately ignores the hidden costs of maintaining a normal fuel-based generation grid capable of carrying the entire load because PV and wind (however cheap or expensive they might be when they are working) are literally incapable of working 24×7 and at best reduce the rate at which conventional plants consume fuel without reducing or eliminating the need for conventional plants.
This means that as Duke Energy and other providers that are doing the same thing — building generation facilities with high capital costs relative to their probable return using our tax dollars, more or less directly transporting those dollars into their pockets — sell the electricity built with the resources we helped them build, they will charge us more money for all the electricity they sell. Since they make a marginal profit at a rate that they cannot easily vary (as a public utility) this is one of the only ways they have of increasing their profitability. Anything that raises the cost of electricity makes all of the companies that sell electricity higher profits. Furthermore, it differentially increases their profits on electricity generated the cheaper ways (that is, using fuel). By installing a large PV solar nameplate capacity, using the need to pay off this (subsidized) investment as the rationale for approved rate increases, and then selling us (mostly) the cheaper electricity they make from coal and uranium, they actually increase the profitability of coal and uranium more than PV solar.
If Hansen and others hadn’t invented AGW, the power utilities would have. Once it was invented, they are the last group in the world to object to it. They know perfectly well that what they sell is critical to the function of modern civilization, the very foundation of wealth and health and peace on earth. AGW is simply an open invitation to increase both the value of their capital investments and their absolute profitability while maintaining the same (high!) marginal profitability. Of course they are going to quietly fund the groups that promote AGW while allowing those same groups to publicly excoriate them.
This isn’t all about global eco-communism and so on as many on this list assert. Who do you think will benefit the most if Obama’s current plan is implemented, if Hillary’s (still in flux) plan is implemented? Who will get hurt? Energy companies will across the board get the greatest benefit. The poorest Americans will be hurt, although the pain will certainly extend up through the middle class.
Note well that gas prices are the lowest today that they have been for a decade, and will probably go lower still, and it isn’t even the election year yet. Obama has been a lot more sound and fury regarding energy and climate than substance, correctly assessing the fact that high real-dollar energy prices (and the consequent economic stagnation) equal lost elections.
The earliest that there will be any real pain for the consumer — and matching persistent profits for the energy industry — will be right after the next election, especially if the democrats win. Timing is everything.
In the meantime, the use of RICO to (try to) whack skeptics could be the straw that even the most corrupt of camels won’t support upon its back. It would be mainlined straight through to the supreme court, and it would be thrown out so hard that it bounced several times along the way. That, in turn, would become deadly fodder in the next election. Which is why nobody is going to touch this one with a ten foot pole. I can just see Dick Lindzen — or for that matter, myself — in court being tried on racketeering charges for exercising our academic and political freedom. Backfire doesn’t begin to describe it.


You’ve got to understand what they’re up to here. This letter has no purpose other than to intimidate those who might speak out against THE CONSENSUS. If there is even the remotest chance that skepticism will result in jail time, people will self-censor. Capiche?


Exactly, it’s a play for media coverage and a PR intimidation tool.
RICO doesn’t apply to opinion. Opinion is guaranteed by 1st amendment rights in the USA. RICO is USA only?
Cook et al would be an interesting suit. Does collusion with intent to defraud qualify for a suit? Probably not.


Actually, these deceptive attacks may be of interest to the Federal Trade Commission and Congess as they are a perfect example of deceptive advertising. Protecting consumers from false claims is an interesting approach to end the Alarmist nonsense.

Perfect Paul!
Who fits this scenario?
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO Act”,
became United StateRICO (
Racket (crime
A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a
problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that
will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the
racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1]
Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same
party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed,
with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this
party. An archetype is the protection racket, wherein a person or
group indicates that they could protect a store from potential
damage, damage that the same person or group would
otherwise inflict, while the correlation of threat and protection
may be more or less deniably veiled, distinguishing it from the
more direct act of extortion.
Racketeering is often associated with organized crime, and the
term was coined by the Employers’ Association of Chicago in
June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime
in the Teamsters union.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 RICO Act

Robert B
James Francisco

Sounds like the actions of the IPCC. Maybe RICO is how the IPCC can be shut down.


I once had to advise a client regarding RICO. Long time ago, and I suspect the phraseology has since been clarified by legislation and court decisions, but it was almost impossible to understand the limitations (if any) on applicability of the act. And don’t get me started on the regulations defining fair hiring practices.


Perfect Paul!
Who fits this scenario?
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961–1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO Act”,
became United StateRICO (
Racket (crime
A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a
problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that
will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the
racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1]
Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same
party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed,
with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this
party. An archetype is the protection racket, wherein a person or
group indicates that they could protect a store from potential
damage, damage that the same person or group would
otherwise inflict, while the correlation of threat and protection
may be more or less deniably veiled, distinguishing it from the
more direct act of extortion.
Racketeering is often associated with organized crime, and the
term was coined by the Employers’ Association of Chicago in
June 1927 in a statement about the influence of organized crime
in the Teamsters union.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 RICO Act


If I didn’t know better, I’d say that the RICO Act was written with AGW in mind.


Your quotes by Huxley, Machiavelli, Sinclair and Tolstoi are GEMS!
Add John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Thank you, Tim Ball, for helping set the World Free!!!

The world will be more free if the plan to hold the World’s Biggest Lesson financed by the Gates Foundation, HuffPo, and UNDP among others this September 23, 2015 gets more attention.
Especially with this as the video.

What our children are to be manipulated into believing and valuing in K-12. Plus they will be subjected to constant erroneous images of what is to happen via digital learning.
I wish I was Guessing, not quoting.

That should be September 25, 2015.

Leonard Lane

And Isaiah 5:20. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Know that the woe will indeed come someday.
I add my thanks, Tim.

Robert B

A few reasons that the scam must continue but this is the scariest one. A lot of power to those who can get away with claiming black is white.

Bert Walker

tomwys1, thanks for applying John 8:32. Many people know this verse, but are unaware of the actual sentence it was uttered in, or the context of the statement. The immediate context are verses 31 and 32, but the full discourse is revealed in verses 12-58.
Here is the context, New International Version translated form the Greek:
John Ch 8, verse 12-58
Setting: the Jerusalem, inner courtyard of the second Temple ca. 33 CE, at Hanukkah
“12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
13The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
14Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
19Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.
Dispute Over Who Jesus Is
21Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
22This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”
23But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
25“Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26“I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, “When you have lifted upa the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30Even as he spoke, many believed in him.
Dispute Over Whose Children Jesus’ Opponents Are
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.b ”
39“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you wouldc do what Abraham did. 40As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”
Jesus’ Claims About Himself
48The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
49“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
54Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.”

good point, paul

Perversely, this desperate attempt to vilify formally all climate sceptics, particularly our foremost sceptics, indicates to me that an endgame is approaching. It’s just a long, drawn out fight, with two years or so to run. But the truth will triumph; we just have to keep up what we’re doing, in every honest way we can.


The endgame comes when one of the current front-runners in the Republican primary gets elected president. Then the climate con comes to an abrupt end and those like Trenberth find themselves on the wrong end of federal trials. They know it’s coming soon and are trying to deflect all the wrongdoing onto the skeptics.
I think they finally realize the outcome will be very bad for them and are filling up their pants daily.


You didn’t listen to the most recent Republican debate.
Those pantywaists would never stand up to the global warming cabal.

I listened to it, and what I heard was that they don’t give a rat’s ass about them. Let them piss in the wind.

Smart Rock

Endgame is right. I do sense that a change is coming.
In Canada, we’ve just been treated to a remarkable document called the “Leap Manifesto” apparently authored by Naomi Klein and David Suzuki, and a group of fellow travellers, mostly musicians and singers. In their view, we will all be living in harmony with nature, growing our own food in a sort of mega-kibbutz environment, and eschewing things like cars. All energy will be renewable, we can ride our bikes or our horses to the train station when we want to go somewhere. Climate activism is conflated with a sort of naively idealistic socialism where nobody ever wants to get richer than anybody else. You can read about it here:
OTOH – Today’s National Post (a slightly right-of-centre paper that irritates me by being a bit too pro-Israel) has two side-by-side opinion pieces pointing out the flaws in the AGW hype as well as the absurd impracticality of this sort of rosy-tinted idealism. Both very literate, very articulate and well worth reading:
When I see stuff like this in the mainstream media, maybe the tide is starting to turn. It surely wouldn’t have happened a couple of years ago.
Conrad Black used to own the National Post, but that was before he went to jail. He has mellowed since then. Both of these guys think, and they probably dream, in complete sentences, subordinate clauses and all. Wish I could write like that.

Thanks, Smart Rock.
Both pieces are very good.


Thanks for sharing and it’s nice to know there are still some mainstream media that have a clue perhaps as you suggest things are starting to turn. I have a feeling Paris is the make or break point for this whole charade.

Christopher Hanley

“… living in harmony with nature, growing our own food in a sort of mega-kibbutz environment, and eschewing things like cars. All energy will be renewable, we can ride our bikes or our horses to the train station when we want to go somewhere …”.
There’s nothing stopping globetrotting Klein and Suzuki and fellow travellers from taking their own advice right now — today.


Yes leap from the front so I can judge their lemmingmanifesto.


Black speaks of “The bone-crushing defeat of international communism” I’m not sure that happened, it is alive and well and known as the United (Socialist) Nations:

Terry G

One would think they would be embarrassed. Have they never heard of China’s “Great leap forward”? The results would likely be similar.


So will this be the Pope’s next leap also, to kiss the ring of a manifesto and make offerings to the omnipotent greenhouse in carbon? (With Evangelicals and Muslims in tow)


Great cartoon, I’m loving it.


But why are 7 IPCC authors so confused about what they really believe? Point 20 of the Royal Society and NAS report tells us there is nothing we can do to change temp or co2 levels for thousands of years.
So why doesn’t Trenberth and Solomons etc tell the public that they also believe that we should spend trillions of $ for a zero return? How many contrary positions can these people hold and retain any credibility? Here’s their point 20 AGAIN.
20. If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago?
Climate change: evidence and causes
No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would not cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era for thousands of years.
Figure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 (larger version)
If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying extremely long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions, and sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing (see Figure 9). Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.

Dave Wendt

It strikes me that the real relevant question is why on Earth would anyone be stupid enough to think that returning the planet to pre-industrial climate conditions would be in any way advisable. Admittedly what data that exists regarding the pre-industrial climate is not exactly of dazzling quality but, to the extent that it approaches the level of evidence, it seems to me to be almost unanimous in indicating that the pre-industrial climate was almost universally worse than the present climate. Pre-industrial times were very near to the absolute depths of the Little Ice Age. Despite all the desperately hysterical propagandizing about “increasing” weather extremes, actual observational data suggest that over the last century or more the trends for all forms of weather extremes have been down to, at worst, flatlined.
The world has built up at least a half a Trillion$ in opportunity costs ( the price of all the much more desirable and productive things we could have spent the money on) ratholing funds on biofuels, wind turbines, solar systems and all those garden spot climate confabs for overpaid climate bureaucrats. Because of the way opportunity costs compound over time the world at the turn of the next century will be poorer by the equivalent of $Quadrillions and I suspect, if we could send a probe to our future descendants to ask if they would prefer a little less CO2 or an extra $500,000 each for everyone on Earth, the answer we get back would not be congratulatory for surrendering to these brain dead mooks.

John Peter

I put my faith in Willis Eschenbach’s theory that any extra warming that CO2 may create will be counteracted by increased cloud formation and precipitation. Furthermore recent papers have shown that doubling of CO2 may lead to a temperature increase of approximately 1.2C or thereabouts. So the burning of all the fossil fuels we may be able to extract might not increase global temperatures by more than 2C, which should keep Merkel and Obama happy. By the time we will have doubled CO2 residence again to 1100ppm we might be heading for the next ice age and be happy with whatever CO2 we can add to the atmosphere in the hope it will create at least a modicum of warming.

Keith Willshaw

Dave Wendt it is simply untrue to state that
“pre-industrial climate was almost universally worse than the present climate”
We know that in preindustrial times there were long periods when the climate was WARMER than at present and until it became politically incorrect the usual term for the last such period was ‘The Mediaeval Climate Optimum’
The simple reality is that climate changes. What climate scientists SHOULD be doing is trying to understand the natural processes that make this happen. This is however expressly excluded from their role under the aegis of the IPCC.
That is the aspect of this whole farce that will have future historians most puzzled about the Great Global Warming hysteria.

Henry Galt

1996 1.08 0.07
1997 1.97 0.07
1998 2.84 0.10
1999 1.34 0.07
2000 1.24 0.10
2001 1.82 0.10
2002 2.38 0.07
2003 2.25 0.10
2004 1.61 0.05
2005 2.43 0.07
2006 1.74 0.06
2007 2.09 0.07
2008 1.77 0.05
2009 1.69 0.10
2010 2.39 0.06
2011 1.71 0.09
2012 2.37 0.09
2013 2.54 0.09
2014 1.85 0.09
CO2 record – (it’s mostly global SST related to these mk1 eyeballs 🙂 , highest is ’98 recently.

Has anybody looked at the amount of co2 being released and the amount that is ending up in the atmosphere? Those two statements would be wrong. The rate at which co2 is currently being sunk, co2 would be completely gone (plant life would die at 150 ppm) in less than 100 years. By NOAA own records clearly 50% of the co2 in the last 5 years has disappeared. ( 70 to 80% by mine). Look at the amount of increase in co2 production and the number of co2 molecules that make it into the atmosphere. 1998 is still the year with the greatest increase. How is it possible that co2 is going to remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years at this rate? Of course this year I expect to see a rise of 4 or 5 molecules ppm simply because I’m making an issue.


You are correct. There is a great deal of disagreement over the residence time of CO2 added into the atmosphere, with some analysis suggesting that it is on the order of decades, rather than centuries or millennia, and some of the opinion that the increase we have seen recently is not related to human emissions at all.
It does appear that the majority of human emissions does not show up in the atmosphere, and the annual cycle up and down seen in the CO2 graph speaks quite clearly to the greater influence of natural inputs and sinks.

The connection is a virtuous circle or evil. The IPCC needs the centuries to decrease co2 levels because without it the argument falls apart. About 10 years ago the certainly over the anthropogenic carbon dioxide was firmly fixed by isotope ratios. That is also beginning to have a lot of problems. Hence the satellite to measure co2 in the atmosphere. The uptake or disappearance of co2 cannot be ignored. So has the increase in co2 expanded the carbon sink or has man actually saved the world as we know it producing co2? Without the additional input of co2 and the growing sink co2 levels would fall drastically leading to wide spread plant death or in the view of the IPCC, because co2 is so important in temp control, a very new and deep ice age. If on balance, the input of man made carbon was taken out of the equation, the net co2 would be negative. In 100 years or less the amount remaining would be close to zero. The industrial Revolution may have saved the world.

Yes, there is a great deal of disagreement: the IPCC greatly disagrees with everyone else on residence times:
Note that all the peer reviewed papers cited contradict the IPCC’s century-long CO2 residence times.
That is because if the IPCC admitted to a short residence time, who would worry much about human emissions?
As technology brings down human CO2 emissions (which is already happening in the U.S. without any law, treaty, or protocol required), with a short residence time the extra CO2 will quickly go away. But if as the IPCC claims, CO2 remains on a century time scale, then (IF CO2 was a problem), it would keep building up for decades.
So, who should we believe? Dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers? Or a self-serving political organization that never hesitates to misrepresent the real world in favor of its remit: to blame human industrial activity for imaginary problems?
The public is deciding, but from the polls it looks like the public isn’t very concerned about “climate change” hoax.

You forgot the S.. centurieS, not century


I agree that all of the polls indicate that the entire topic is far down the list of concerns for the majority of people.
Unfortunately, as I am sure you are even more aware than me, the damage to our infrastructure, or fiscal situation, and to the reputation of science in general continues to worsen.
So, in my view anyway, the problem continues to fester while few are paying any attention.

Oh yes, I agree. Very much. What underlies the entire so-called ‘debate’ over what is claimed to be ‘dangerous AGW’ is in reality an attack on the West, and specifically, an attack on the U.S.
The climate scare is their means of dragging down a free market society. It may have even had some serious consideration in the late ’90’s, when global T rose unexpectedly fast. But that was an unusual anomaly. Nothing unusual has happened since — unless you consider the unusually flat global T over the past century to be unusual. Really a 0.7º wiggle is as flat as anything seen in the geological record.
So the ‘global warming’ concern became the ‘runaway global warming’ scare, and that morphed into the totally ambiguous “climate change” alarmism.
Now it has become a 100% pure HOAX. It is a means to an end, and honest science has nothing to do with it. The ‘carbon’ scare is a deliberate scam.
The climate alarm continues to fester, as you say, for only one reason: money, and lots of it. If the money wasted on “climate change studies” was reduced by even one-half, and was split fairly between scientists who believed there is a problem, and scientists skeptical of the ‘carbon’ scare, then in no time at all the public’s concern about ‘climate change’ would drop from the current #10 out of ten, to completely out of sight.
Money props up the climate alarm hoax. I am very angry that the promoters of that false alarm never use their own money. Instead, they divert our tax money into the UN’s propaganda machine — money that could do a lot of good in many other places, rather than enriching a small clique of self-serving rent seekers at the public’s expense.
( /rant, gotta go…)

Jim Watson

The Roman Catholic Church tried for centuries to destroy Science. All they had to do was wait for the global warming crowd to come along and do it for them.


Apparently there are idiots and bigots on both sides of the global warming debate.


Are there only two sides?


are you of the opinion that the Roman Church was not responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people during it’s centuries long “Inquisitions” and the “crusades” and such? If so, please explain why it was not responsible . . If not, please explain why you believe it would not have attempted to “control” science, when it was responsible for such gruesome attempts to control people’s thoughts on things like the Divinity of a series of men in Rome, essentially?
I’m a Christian, the kind that tries to do as Jesus instructs in a certain Book . . and what the Pope has done in effectively doctrinizing the CAWG, and global governance, etc, is perfectly in keeping with what I perceive the RC leadership to be. Certainly not all Catholics, just a few elite types, so bigotry by default seems rather a stretch to me . . like saying that believing there are corrupt politicians in high office makes one a bigot.
And if you really think it makes one a bigot by default to accuse a small group of humans of unethical behavior, I suggest you take a look in the mirror as the saying goes, cause you just did. And I for one say; No thanks, I’ll pass on the man-worship, altogether.


John, the number of deaths in the various inquisitions was in the 10’s, not 10’s of millions.
The crusades were the justifiable reaction to muslims invading and conquering Christian lands.
Please try to learn a little bit of actual history, not the brain dead slogans of those that hate the church.


PS, the crusades, including all the battles killed in the 10’s of thousands. 10’s of millions would have meant pretty much everyone in Europe and the Middle East had been killed.
Sheesh, not only do you prefer to believe nonsense, you are also innumerate to boot.


I will not bow to any man-gods, or accept your charges of bigotry for daring to see things differently than you. Get over it, I suggest, or put something on the screen that can somehow prove the RC elites did not routinely stifle beliefs not in accord with their doctrines, across the board. It will be rather easy for me to put plenty of things on the screen that prove they claimed a Divine right, even duty, to do just that, don’t you think?
Please explain why that self professed “Divine” right/duty did not extend to the scientific realms, or I really don’t see why anyone ought to believe it didn’t. Again, I’m not speaking of Catholics in general . . but you’re not helping me in that regard, as I see this matter.


Bigots prefer to believe lies over truth.
As do you.


Bigoted to not accept whatever you declare to be true, sir? . . You don’t happen to work in the climate science field by any chance? ; )


It is my hunch that if Jesus went incognito into most of the churches today and tried to tell them what is wrong in them, they would kick him out.


Jim, I thought this website was for the intelligent and informed. Neither of those qualities is evident in that nonsense post you published here. Believing the RCC tried to ‘destroy science’ is like believing that the world is going to heat by by 20C within a decade and 97% of scientists hold that that is an incontrovertible scientific fact.

The church never burned anybody at the stake for having a view that the sun revolved around the earth. Neither will the religious church of AGW faithful try anybody of crimes against humanity as long as they work towards destroying the western world.

Jan Christoffersen

If you really want to understand what the Roman Catholic church is all about, read “God’s Bankers” by Gerald Posner, published earlier in 2015. Outstanding investigative reporting.


Ah, yes…Posner.
That great paragon of unbiased journalism that he is.


It would seem rather absurd for Jim to silence people for daring to think some people who think that people in power might stifle scientific inquiry . . and allow them to be called bigots for their “heresy”.
“Believing the RCC tried to ‘destroy science’ is like believing that the world is going to heat by by 20C within a decade and 97% of scientists hold that that is an incontrovertible scientific fact”
That’s a very odd switcheroo to my mind, using the current “persecution” (as I see it) of those who dare question the CAWG cult, to justify this (to me) utterly bizarre notion that it couldn’t have happened at the hands of previous groups of elites in power. This is contra-logical thinking to my mind.
It would seem one would have to believe those men in Rome really were Divine in some sense, to accept such a strange disregard for the very evidence that one refers to himself, that science is being stifled even now . . Worship men all you wish, but please don’t act like it’s some sort of scientific given that those who don’t are being irrational, or mean, by default. .


It seems some people are in the habit of just throwing out statistics without having any idea of the actual truth, and also of repeating the talking points of those with some particular agenda, or the slogans of actual haters.
Knowing the truth often means one must abandon or at least modify the biases that are held so dearly.
But many liberals cling to their biases and hatreds, perhaps because their bitterness and frustrations towards those they wish to demonize cannot be reconciled with a rational and truthful world view.


I suspect that the Pope will have a negative effect on the Catholic Church. He already is getting snickers (laughs, not candy bars) for the comparison with Galileo travails. But maybe the anti-skeptic forces will bring back the auto de fe.


Already brought back indulgences so history offers some support for your thesis.


Sigh. To me the really interesting thing is that climate science is often called a religion on this list in a strictly pejorative sense, frequently by the very same people that then assert that the bible is some sort of standard for truth.
Science and religion are diametrically opposed, and will remain so unless and until God can be empirically demonstrated to be something other than a figment of human imagination, invented to explain gaps in human understanding, to provide some basis for the equally unsupportable expressions of wishful thinking known as “life after death” or “perfect justice”, and to give the unscrupulous both political and economic power that utterly short-circuits critical thinking and hence can inspire the masses to make (or follow) truly stupid decisions without any real hesitation or doubt.
As far as climate science is concerned — neither side of this debate is proven. The best that can be stated so far for the skeptical side is that the actual data-supported evidence for an anthropogenic climate catastrophe past, present, or future is weak, not that “CO2 has no effect” or “we’re about to start catastrophically cooling”. The best that can be said for the catastrophist side is that there is at least some evidence that future warming or changes in sea level or ocean chemistry could be catastrophic, even though this evidence is far from conclusive and is actively contradicting most models that predict catastrophe at present.
Science, of course, doesn’t care and doesn’t take either of these obviously political stances. It patiently waits to accumulate more evidence and better evidence, and to improve our theoretical understanding of the climate. Since modeling “the climate” is a Grand Challenge Problem:
in three subjects — computation, mathematics and physics (and I mean this literally — it is listed twice in this page devoted primarily to computational physics grand challenges, Navier-Stokes is one of the grand challenges in mathematics with a substantial prize, and both classical and quantum chaos, self-organizing phenomena and complexity in general are grand challenges in physics (all present in the single problem of understanding the climate well enough to compute meaningful predictions of future climate) — it seems both unlikely that this science will be “settled” soon, nor is it at all unreasonable that it is not settled at this point in time.
At this instant in time, the best that can be said is that it is reasonably likely that humans have caused some fraction of the non-catastrophic, indeed mostly beneficial, warming of the planet that has occurred over the last 165 years. It is almost impossible to quantify that fraction, however, because of the large uncertainties in the data and the lack of a useful computable theory. This is the one conclusion that nobody wants to hear, of course. We live in an insane age that punishes null results — all scientific research is currently geared towards three year renewable grant cycles so the entire concept of longer term research projects or goals is vanishing from science. The only way to ensure support that can span a career is to have some major issue — like climate disaster or the existence of the Higgs boson — that has enough “crowd appeal” to have a chance for multidecadal big science funding, at which point it grows coattails that reach far and wide.
But much as I’m tempted, I’m going to stop short of an essay on the general corruption of science and its causes, aside from affirming your implicit assertion that some part of this comes from allowing religious thinking to interfere with rational and objective thought and the objective and unbiased appraisal of evidence.


“Science and religion are diametrically opposed, and will remain so unless and until God can be empirically demonstrated to be something other than a figment of human imagination …”
That makes exactly as much sense to me as saying;
*Science and atheism are diametrically opposed, and will remain so unless and until the absence of God can be empirically demonstrated to be something other than a figment of human imagination …”
How do you think Mr. Newton (as but one glaringly notable example among many) overcame your proposed diametric opposition between belief in God and the employment of the scientific method? What’s your “theory” on how he (and many others) managed to overcome this supposed compulsion to “fill in the gaps with God” so consistently?
To me, you are an occultist, who believes that there is a magicalistic force which infuses the human mind with special truth and wisdom vibes, if we will but accept without question that God does not exist. It childishly silly to me, sir.


Clearly the mitigation of their so called CAGW is the greatest con and fraud for 100 years. The EIA forecasts that over 90% of new co2 emissions until 2040 will come from the developing world like China, India etc.
The OECD developed world will add little to emissions until that time.

Can hardly wait for the Donald to weigh in on this one….

Great essay Dr. Ball. I always enjoy your writings here the most. Thanks for all you do.

William Astley

Those pushing the CAGW ‘science’ will not participate in a formal written debate where both sides must respond to all facts and analysis results each side presents, as they would lose.
That is the reason they why they are attempting to use desperate, pathetic methods to silence those scientists who continue to do normal science where the conclusion is determined based on an independent unbiased analysis of the data, where theories can be proven incorrect. That is why they do not even acknowledge the logical difference between lukewarm warming and catastrophic warming. That is why they must use the phrase ‘climate change’.
The fact that they are attempting to shut down and silence legitimate science is unequivocal evidence that they believe their primary task is to push an agenda and hence that they believe fudging data, fudging models, and fudging analysis is OK if it supports their agenda.
It is a fact there are dozens of independent observations and analysis results, in over a hundred peer that support the assertion that there is no CAGW issue. It is a fact that there has been no increase in warming in the last 18 years, almost no tropical warming over the entire period which is not discussed as it is paradox, and there was been almost no tropical troposphere warming at 8km which is the signature of greenhouse gas warming.
The problem is the cult of CAGW started with a conclusion and then manipulated the data, the analysis, and the models to support that conclusion.
Latitudinal Warming Paradox: The majority of greenhouse gas warming should have occurred in the tropics where there is the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space. The observed patter of warming is primarily at high latitudes, with more warming in the Northern hemisphere. There is almost no warming in the tropics during the entire period.
The paleo record shows the same pattern of warming which we are now experiencing has occurred cyclically and correlates with solar cycle changes. The past cycles of warming and cooling were not caused by CO2 changes.

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.
The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing ( includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.
If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].
An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.
These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

“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). … ….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. …. …The paper, entitled "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 (William: Same periodicity of cyclic warming and cooling in the Northern hemisphere), measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….


“They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections).”
Nice try.
But you must pick one, I think.
Are all of the alarmist warmistas in a world-at-risk tizzy over projections of catastrophe by computer models, or are they engaged in making predictions of impending doom, based on models and all manner of other misinterpreted evidence and made up nonsense?

Yes, Menicholas, most of those we read about are making such predictions based on misinterpreted evidence, or none at all. You might care to look at a recent analysis of climate models on this site by Mike Jonas: “How reliable are the climate models?” When you’ve read that, please get back to us with your comments. And you are as able as any of us to search for those failed predictions, and presumably as able as any intelligent person to draw an objective conclusion about each. It’s up to you.


Okay Peter,
And perhaps you can take your own advice, and read it yourself. This time, read the comments, where you will find quite a few from me.
Once you have done that, get back to me with a comment that does not assume, falsely, that I am somehow unobjective, or unaware of the filed predictions.
Pay special attention to some of the back and forth regarding the two words I am referring to here.


…failed predictions….


Either the models make predictions or they are not scientific models. Those who tout the models proclaim them to be scientific models and, therefore, sophistry about the meanings of “predictions” and “projections” are irrelevant.
And the climate models do make predictions (a wide range of them) e.g. see the temperature predictions of the CMP5 models posted by Jimbo in this thread here.
Importantly, to date their predictions have all been wrong. If you disagree then please cite one correct climate prediction that the models have made.


On the other thread you asked where the oil companies would get the co2 for enhanced oil recovery.
a) They get it mostly from the underground co2 domes.
The reason why I said they are licking their lips over co2 reduction schemes is
b) Co2 capture (power stations) deliver to oil fields.
PS ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY using co2 has been with us since at least 1972. I hope we don’t pay big oil to do something they do already!

World Oil; (United States); Journal Volume: 175:4
Shell starts CO/sub 2/ injection project in west texas
A full-scale carbon dioxide (COD2U) injection secondary recovery project using 4 injection wells in an inverted 9-spot pattern has been started by Shell Oil Co., operator of the North Cross unit of the Crossett field, 50 miles south of Odessa, Tex. Unit co-owners are Texaco Inc. and Atlantic Richfield Co. COD2U was selected for this 1,120-acre field, currently producing 1,600 bopd from 18 wells, because up to 20 MMcfd will be available from the nearby Canyon Reef Carrier pipeline that transports gas to the large SACROC project is Scurry County. Also, the COD2U has better overall injectivity, miscibility, and displacement properties in this low permeability, high porosity reservoir, than other available injection fluids. The North Cross unit reservoir is an eastward dipping strat-trap with 55-ft average net pay. Four COD2U injection wells above the gas/oil contact help maintain reservoir pressure for GOR control. A cross section from west to east shows how the Devonian oil pay is limited by oil/water and gas/oil contacts. Porosity formed by leaching in siliceous carbonate rocks gives the reservoir low permeablity, but relatively homogeneous composition for miscible displacement.
Abstract – 1976
Status of CO2 and Hydrocarbon Miscible Oil Recovery Methods
In this state-of-the-art review, the basic procedures for applying CO2 and hydrocarbon miscible oil recovery, processes are explained. Some principal field tests and commercial applications of the processes are presented with a current assessment of the miscible flooding techniques.


Jimbo, I did not ask that question.
All I did was point out that oil companies are profiting from CAGW. Someone in the ensuing conversation brought up those other points.
I happen to know quite a bit about CO2 enhanced recovery. But never asked about it.
When I seek information, I do not demand that other commented do my homework for me.


Sorry, other commenters.


Did you not ask about how oil companies were going to get co2? You say you know about EOR yet you asked the question. CCS is all the rage. Be more grateful next time I do you homework for you. Grrrrr!


OK, there seems to be some misunderstandin’ of just what I was getting at.
Richard, I agree with you, that the climate modeler cadre make predictions.
Some are of the opinion that we must be careful to differentiate a prediction from a projection, lest we skeptics ourselves be taken in by the dreaded equivocation fallacy.
I see no need to differentiate that which the alarmists rarely if ever bother to do…that seems to me like skeptics would be helping them to clean up their own faulty logic and sloppy reasoning and, in general, bad science.
I am disinclined to assist warmistas in any way.
My comment above, was almost but not quite tongue in cheek, as it just seemed to me that attaching the word (projection) in parenthesis was perhaps an afterthought, and a nod to those who think, and made a fuss on that other thread, there is no confusion over these terms in the minds of those who use and misuse them.
(It is my opinion that warmista alarmists are in general sloppy in their science, as they are in their writing, as they are in their warnings and supposed confidence in what they think will happen.)
In fact, it seems to me, adding an extra word in that manner seems more like a footnote to onesself in a draft, as it does not clearly communicate what the thought is behind adding it thusly.
Projection, prediction prognostication, forecast…all have overlapping meanings and all are used in a context of believing that one knows, or can know, the future.
And they are also used by those who do not pretend to be taking more than a wild stab at a guess.
I do not pretend to know what the future holds, and in fact it may not be set, having at least some elements of randomness.
I also try to remember to state so when I am drawing questionable inferences or simply offering my own opinion.
Warmistas make predictions, whatever they want to call them.
No one predicts the end of the world or civilization based on what they know to be dubious constructs, unless they are completely insane.
Which, in some cases, cannot be ruled out.
And no one should advocate destructive and costly policies based on handwaving and guesswork…but they do. Go figure.
Are they sociopaths?


BTW, and to be clear, I know as well as anyone here how bad the climate models are, and in fact why they have no chance of getting anything right,vexceot by random chance perhaps.
But they are incorrect close to, if not right at, 100% of the time, thus being worse at guessing that a blind and inebriated baboon throwing darts at a dart board, or even at the side of a barn.


Jimbo, I will have to go back and check now, but I do not think I asked. My role is to inform. Most times when I ask something, it us for someone’s opinion, or a rhetorical response.
Do you have the link or time stamp of the comment…it takes forever to search these threads with my phone.
I do recall pointing out to someone what I said above here, and I also read a back and forth that ensued. I recall someone asking.Just spent half an hour searching…you will have to tell me where and when I said it.


Re what I think of IPCC…they are smarmy ideologues.
Who want our money.


I am glad I am not completely senile, but you had me wondering for a second.
It was Mark W who asked…actually, he said he did not know where they got it, and you answered with the same response as here.
Someone else said something about them getting it from chemical reactions.
Here is Mark W’s comment with the question:
I am sorry I had not remembered that it was you I was responding to, and you who made the original point…I was just tossing in my two cents.
Anyway, I do recall hearing previously that some CO2 is extracted with the brine which accompanies much of the oil pumped up from salt domes.
I have commented in the past quite a few times about oil recovery…noting that even after tertiary recovery steps, some 50% of oil in a formation remains…which bears on the related question of the recharge time of oil wells.
Which is another topic I have commented on, when some made the observation that once oil is exhausted, it will be hundreds of millions of years before any more is available…but I pointed out that some wells capped a few decades ago are already able to produce again…and some wells seem to recharge as fast as the oil is pumped out.
Geology was the first degree I sought in college, before I switched to physical geography…then finally chemistry.
Plus, as an investor, I have made it a point to understand as much as I can learn about the assets of various energy companies…and all that can be learned about future prospects


Menicholas, can you really pick one? On predictions or projections it’s not as clear as you might think. I wrote a post on WUWT covering this very issue here. It is a LONG thread of comments! If you don’t have time to read them all then read my summary of the issue here.
Here is what the IPCC says on projections. You have to wonder whether the IPCC is deliberately trying to spread confusion.

IPCC – Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
3.1. Definitions and Role of Scenarios 3.1.1. Introduction
Forecast/Prediction. When a projection is branded “most likely,” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained by using deterministic models—possibly a set of such models—outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.


Menicholas, tell me what you think of this from the IPCC?

“Based on current model results, we predict: • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century […] ”


Thanks for the link. Incredible.
Did not know there were so many sophists in the world, let alone here.
I will finish the comment thread later.
My summary:
I agree with you and Richard Courtney.


Jimbo, are you still here? Or you, Richard?


I have personal reasons why I am often not “here”. In this case I made my point and saw no reason to add to it.


No Problem. I do the same. I stop checking old posts after a few days, and just saw this just now.

John Smith

I don’t even care anymore if they are right
I refuse to associate myself with the sort of thinking that would criminalize disagreement
to Hades with the lot of them
surely their downfall looms


Dr Indur Goklany’s reply to the Pope’s ridiculous nonsense about the use of fossil fuels and the impact on human health and wellbeing can be found at this link. The full PDF link is at the bottom.
The planet is greening and everybody enjoys a much longer life expectancy than a mere 100 years ago. All because of the increased use of fossil fuels. And Dr Goklany has been an IPCC author and worked on behalf of the USA govt.


Today Castro gave a speech praising the Pope for his courageous stand against global capitalism.
In order to avoid embarrasing his good friends in the Cuban govt, the Pope has agreed to not meet with any critics of the Cuban govt.


Neville, the Popeye Francis is a religious person. Facts don’t matter, belief does. Faith does. I have faith that I will become the richest man in the world tomorrow. The fact is today I am flat broke and I will not be the richest man in the world tomorrow. Go figure.
Religion is very often separated from the state. Science is very often separated from religion. Why????


” …is a religious person. Facts don’t matter, belief does. Faith does”
Who told you that? What God? Mr. Dawkins? Mr Hitchens?
‘Belief’ and ‘faith’ mean exactly the same thing in the Book as they do in a modern laboratory, I am quite sure. That’s why a host of “believers” (like Mr. Newton for instance) were quite capable of doing some of the best science ever done . . and arguably invented science as we know it. I suggest you quit believing things without actually checking into them yourself.
A few proverbs you might wish to think about;
Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.


Are we agreeing to agree?

……‘Belief’ and ‘faith’ mean exactly the same thing in the Book as they do in a modern laboratory, I am quite sure….

…Neville, the Popeye Francis is a religious person. Facts don’t matter, belief does. Faith does….

If we still disagree then I can see where this is headed, a never ending argument – now that would be folly and foolish for me. A waste of my time.


No, sir, I’m not agreeing, I’m saying belief is essential to science, and I’d love to hear your explanation off how anyone could do science without belief.
Now, some very simplistic folks think everything they believe is absolute truth, but I happen to be familiar to some extent with the scientific method, and that’s a big no no, is it not? One is duty bound to call what they believe, what they believe, right?
And please realize that faith is something we all act upon every day . . you drive down the road a few feet from traffic gong the opposite way, based on faith, right? It’s not like you know the people zipping paste you will not suddenly swerve into you, is it? You have that faith for good reasons no doubt, but it’s still acting on faith, right?
That’s what faith and belief mean in the lingo of the Book, there is no demand to believe or have faith based on anything else, that I have seen anyway.
Now, you can call your every belief absolute fact if you like, and claim that you somehow lost all confidence in anything you can’t actually see . . but color me skeptical, please ; )


What will be interesting is for them to define “skeptic”. What line of evidence or facts will be the litmus showing one to be a skeptic. It is a very dangerous slope they are approaching if they wish to take this course. My experience has been that most people that would have an opinion are rather in the middle. Not taking either extreme. How far from the middle towards the extreme view must one be to not be a skeptic? Already the IPCC reports themselves say there is no conclusive evidence that extreme weather will result from increasing concentrations of CO2, yet that is one of the pillars of their RICO case. Will those authors who support the IPCC be labeled a skeptic?

Thats a very good point Aussiebear. If they try to define the threshold of climate “denial” as say belief in a particular climate sensitivity, they’ll make a complete laughing stock of themselves.


Eric in fact deaths from extreme events are at a 100 year low point. Death rates are down to zip today. Just proves that another one of their CAGW icons is total BS. Here is more of Goklany’s work to prove the point.


Eric, thanks for your comment. Threshold is a very good word, one I neglected to use in my previous post. More interestingly, having had time to think, even Trenberth as an IPCC author could be accused of being a skeptic, even a denier. Its all in the threshold and whom and what is used to establish it. I see unintended consequences all over this…

I thought for a RICO action to make sense there had to be money involved. If investigators “follow the money” I can’t see alarmists looking too good… unless the skeptics have been VERY good at hiding it.

Mark from the Midwest

For a RICO action to even be legal it has to point to a statute, it cannot be used in the context of civil law. Find me a statute that could be used against skeptics, you won’t find any.


“…RICO action to even be legal it has to point to a statute, it cannot be used in the context of civil law…” — Mark from the Midwest
Legal? Statute? Law? Ha-ha-ha! This is Öbama we’re talking about here.
“What line of evidence or facts will be the litmus showing one to be a skeptic.” –Aussiebear.
The evidence will be that Öbama has put them on his list of enemies.

What about the statute creating, or allowing the funding of, the EPA?

They’re really retro types, all stuck in stage 2. Everyone else is transitioning or has already between stages 4 and 5.

Jeff Stanley

Given that science requires rigorous honesty for success and politics require rigorous dishonesty for success, what will be the result when the latter funds the former?
Will a scientific form of politics emerge that displaces the former dishonesty in politics with honesty? Or will a politicized form of science emerge that displaces the former honesty in science with dishonesty?
Well, I’d say all the data needed for that little experiment is in.


The result will be what Lysenko spawned.


Excellent, Jeff.

F. Ross

Great post.
The quote “…The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence. …”
Should be taught in all grades of all schools. Should chiseled in stone letters ten feet tall and placed in the entrances of all government buildings.

Thanks, Dr. Ball. This is an excellent essay.
Recalling those crazy prophets of doom, that failed, should warn AGW proponents to stop, observe and re-think their positions.

Seems they’re as incompetent as lawyers as they are as scientists.
To apply RICO they must define the unis as criminal organisations. (the clue is the “CO”). Good luck with the unintended consequences of declaring UAH a criminal organisation, or NASA that launched RSS (and then forgot it exists).


Unintended consequences. +10


Leftists have a tendency to define any opposition to themselves as at a minimum immoral. When they have actual political power, it quickly becomes illegal.


And when they have absolute power it becomes a death sentence.

What’s up with the cartoon mentioning an autumn snowstorm in the Rockies, as if that’s a sign of no warming? Nearby parts of the Great Plains (for example Denver) have a history of occaisionally getting a 1-foot-deep snowstorm as early as mid-September before the equinox or as late as mid-May. A warming of 1.4 C would move this rate of such-season snow happenings merely uphill to the 6,000 foot level assuming the usual wet adiabatic lapse rate. It would take 3.3 degrees C of warming to merely move this sort of out-of-season major snowstorms uphill to the 7,000 foot level.

Jeff Stanley

One of the biggest PR mistakes the climate change alarmists made was pointing to weather events as evidence when they knew better. Doing so, they opened the door for grandma to come to her own conclusions.


Jeff, even better. Claiming that any sort of cooling is pawned off as unforeseen internal natural variability. Then turning around and proclaiming any hint of warming as proof of CO2 induced CAGW. Can’t unforeseen internal natural variability also cause warming? It boggles the mind.


Donald L. Klipstein, they gave us the go ahead. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that.

The Evening Independent – 24 November 1928
Weather Is Climate Only Under Exceptional Circumstances
But It’s Always Good for Conversation
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……
Independent – 7 August 2012
Recent extreme heatwaves ‘a result of global warming’
…Dr Hansen said that at least three extreme summers over the past decade, the 2003 heatwave in Europe which killed more than 50,000 people, the 2010 hot summer in Moscow and last year’s droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, were almost certainly the result of man-made climate change rather than natural events….
Yahoo News – February 18, 2013
Global warming could lead to more blizzards but less overall snow.
With scant snowfall and barren ski slopes in parts of the Midwest and Northeast the past couple of years, some scientists have pointed to global warming as the culprit.
Then when a whopper of a blizzard smacked the Northeast with more than 2 feet of snow in some places earlier this month, some of the same people again blamed global warming…..
VOA – 12 November 2013
Climate Change Linked to Typhoon Haiyan
…Some experts say man-made climate change is to blame.
Bob Ward is from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
“There’s certainly strong circumstantial evidence because we know that the strength of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons depends very much on sea surface temperatures. They act as the fuel. And we’ve got very warm waters in the Pacific at the moment, which have been increasing because of climate change,” said Ward….
Daily Telegraph – 8 Feb 2014
Climate change is to blame, says Met Office scientist
Flooding like that in Somerset may become more frequent
Climate change is behind the storms that have struck Britain this winter, according to the Met Office.
Dame Julia Slingo, the Met Office’s chief scientist, said while there was not yet “definitive” proof, “all the evidence” supported the theory that climate change had played a role.
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Climate Change Secretary, warned….“There is clear scientific evidence that climate change has led to sea levels rising and that extreme weather events will become more frequent and more intense,” Mr Davey said….
National Geographic – 26 January 2015
Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change
…They call it completely predictable.
“Big snowfall, big rainstorms, we’ve been saying this for years,” says climate scientist Don Wuebbles of the University of Illinois in Urbana. “More very large events becoming more common is what you would expect with climate change, particularly in the Northeast.”…


Didn’t they assure us a few years ago, that children wouldn’t even know what snow was by now?


It was in the Independent in March 2000.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
…According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event“.
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said….

Today we know that snow in south east England is a sure sign of global warming.

Christopher Hanley

“What’s up with the cartoon mentioning an autumn snowstorm in the Rockies, as if that’s a sign of no warming?”
Donald L. Klipstein’s comment is a neat example the equivocation that is so important to the strategy.
The cartoon is not a comment on whether autumn snow in the Rockies (or anywhere else) is or isn’t a sign of — not “warming” — but Global Warming™.
It is a comment on the fact that despite the monstrous Global Warming™ scare campaign, the general public remain stubbornly rational calm and unmoved.


Interesting (to me anyway) thought. I think the RICO gambit is indeed an attempt to silence those who are making legitmate arguments in opposition to the so-called settled science. Wouldn’t it be interesting to actually litigate CAGW? Does anyone know if it has been done yet?

Litigation as to whether or not it is acceptable to call, in public, Michael Mann’s “work product” a scientific fr@ud is currently in progress.
…. the depositions are going to be fun too. If only these clowns knew what being taken apart in a deposition will feel like.
Meanwhile, I won’t lose any sleep waiting for the process server that these dweebs couldn’t even afford anyway.


“It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter.”
That sentence is a monster as well. It makes no sense as it stands. To make it comprehensible I have to, first, remove the commas, and, second, to guess that “they” refers to the writers of the letter and not the authors of the book. Even then, that excessively long subject clause is still clumsy.
Don’t you have an editor, Anthony, to help your writers?
[It can be changed, but what version would be clearer? More clear? .mod]

Alan Robertson

Are you volunteering to be an editor for submissions to these pages?


Here are two clearer versions.
1. The writers of the letter claim various academic peer-reviewed papers and books provide the evidence for their charge. It is important to note that none of the authors of those papers and books signed the letter.
Less felicitously:
2. It is important to note that the letter was not signed by any of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books which, the letter claimed, provide the evidence for their charge.


@Alan Robertson
I’ll do it for large sums of money, though I think Anthony would be better advised to hire a very old-fashioned professional editor. (Since, as we all know, he is being paid trillions by Exxon, Shell, BP, and the Koch brothers, he can well afford it.) Writers sometimes get carried away by their enthusiasm,, and need an editor to sort out the resulting tangled prose.
(I know this from experience. I have, at various times, produced, not just sentences, but whole paragraphs which I thought were perfectly clear, but which readers denounced as hopelessly obscure.)


And perhaps a second editor to remove doubled commas.

Alan Robertson

It’s been over four and a half decades since my sole required course in English composition was successfully completed, so being mindful of time’s erosive effects, it would be hopeless for me to compete with you for the position. Any number of my past writings here would also expose such an effort as laughable, so go ahead and get rich, unencumbered by any guilt for having taken away meaningful employment from this viewer who sits catcalling from the peanut gallery.


“It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books (which supposedly provide the evidence for their charge) signed the letter.”


That’s a good one, BallBounces. However, as with my second version, the reference of “their” in “their charge” is still ambiguous. The context of the sentence leads us to hope the reference is to the writers of the letter, whereas the structure of the sentence makes it the authors of the books.
Alan, I am waiting for a six-figure offer from Anthony, and hoping that the the zeroes follow, rather than precede, the other digits.


It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, whom they claim provided the evidence for their charge, signed the letter.”

Bernie Hutchins

The earlier post said ” A group of climate scientists, including Professor Kevin Trenberth,….”
Is it not telling, that, I believe, if we remove Trenberth, of the 20 or so signers, most of us would have a hard time telling the remaining list from a list of students from your local junior high. Or – Are they well-known?

….. is Travesty Trenberth still purporting to have a Nobel Prize ?
That episode tells you all you want to know about honesty in climate science.


This is enlightening. Sorry mods for using word fraud…

A RICO suit like the one we propose would be very narrowly focussed on whether companies were engaged in fraud in order to continue selling a product which threatens to do harm.

Nice. So I read they want to use RICO against oil companies. Merchants of Doubt swallowed to line and rod.
But oil companies are not afraid of climate science anymore. They have understood that all these measures taken to reduce coal and oil dependency are very much in vain, and, not only that but they provide lots of new opportunities for oil companies. Biofuels, for example, are potentially very good source of income to oil companies which have the refineries, storage and sales network already set up. CO2 panic does not lessen the income of oil companies, because it will give them a good reason to raise end user product prices. Oil companies are ready to offer new products, which are more expensive or government-subsidised. They will not deny ‘climate change’ or whatever. They will, as mentioned earlier, happily kowtow to the greenish customers by selling you some good consciousness.
If they take part in a fraud, it is a green fraud, not a global warming denial fraud.


The travesty has been found.

Koch and George Mason University
Funding and Connections
From 2005-2013, George Mason University (GMU) Foundation, and its associated institutes and centers, has received over $35 million from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations. This represent over half of the $68 million total that Koch foundations have sent to over 300 universities since 2005.
Thu Apr 09, 2015 at 01:08 PM PDT
George Mason University President to Charles Koch: “I am nothing but incredibly grateful”
….Over half of that $68 million went to George Mason University alone. GMU easily clocks in as the top university recipient of Koch cash, taking $34.6 million since 2005. That is separate from another $10 million to GMU’s Mercatus Center–which Mr. Koch founded and remains a director of–and another $18 million to GMU’s Institute for Humane Studies–of which Charles Koch is the chairman–since 2005…..


Are they well-known?

Yes. Not well known by laymen, but Judith Curry says:

I am familiar with all of these names, and know a few of them fairly well. The list includes several members of the National Academy of Science, and numerous IPCC authors. Apart from Trenberth and Robock, as far as I know, none of these individuals have made previous public/political statements about climate change.

So, it is telling. Most of us readers are laymen. Engineers, MSc’s, doctors of pretty much unrelated sciences etc, but laymen related to climate related sciences, or simply mostly non-scientists with some scientific education.
Frankly when Trenberth wants to use RICO against – well I’m guessing – against Anthony Watts, Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, or possily, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, it appears he has lost his marbles. Science is not about suing your sad opponents, but about doing good, reproducible, and open science well. There is no Big Oil money here. Rather, there is the Big Green funding on the other side, but Trenberth might have difficulties seeing forest behind the Big Green trees.
There are good reasons to believe the world might have been, and will be warming 0.15 C/decade – given no major volcanic event changes the direction. However, the idea that this would be a reason to panic and destroy world economy is the dangerous one. That would have casualties. Millions.
It is now very important to create economic structures, that is, insurances and derivative papers, around climate change such that those who suffered get compensation in case of disaster, and those who don’t think disaster is coming get money from those who panic in case of no disaster.
After creating a derivative market the people will happily pay the money needed, because they think they’ll win. Using this market the money can be directed to where it is needed – drought adaptation, sea level adaptation, giant mosquito prevention, flood protection and so on. The list of scares is longer than the space available. This way the market will decide how much money should be invested and everyone is happier with outcomes, whatever they are.

Keith Willshaw

All such insurances and derivative papers achieve are to make the lawyers and traders rich. Governments should simply adopt their traditional role of funding tangible assets that can be used during emergencies and putting in place measures to prevent flooding by maintaining levees and drainage ditches.
The UK government in the form of the Environment agency has largely walked away from these traditional roles as we saw in the case of the Somerset floods when we found they had stopped maintaining the flood defences.
Prior to 1995 the UK government had 67 depots that held 200,000 tons of food as a strategic food reserve. These were all shut down in 1995 and the stocks disposed of.


“All such insurances and derivative papers achieve are to make the lawyers and traders rich.”
You need a market for derivatives in order to have insurances based on them. Somebody has to buy the risk that climate warms / does not warm, in order someone to get money from their insurance. I’m sorry I called it ‘derivative’, it is a naughty word after all.


@ Dr Tim Ball, I heard to part of your program on Ian Jessop’s radio show ( Sept 17th) regarding comments you made about he University system. Is there a transcript available? Although I only caught part of I fully agreed with you at the time but would like to read the whole thing, thanks.

Gary Hladik

Listen here:
Go to the 17 Sep 1 PM audio clip, starting about 7 minutes in.


Thanks guys great!


Warmists stopped doing science, and now they want to criminalize science so nobody can do it?

Eugene WR Gallun

Dr. Tim Ball — Exactly — Eugene WR Gallun


According to the letter these scientists all signed off on, one of the things Global Warming is supposed to cause is “increasing ocean acidity”. Do they not know that the oceans aren’t acidic, and so they cannot become “increasingly” acidic?
In addition to that error, it’s impossible for the oceans to become acidic because there isn’t enough carbon atoms in the atmosphere to convert 300 million cubic miles of sea water into an acid. So, the oceans will remain alkaline, and in fact warming would cause them to become even more alkaline.
Dr. Eastbrook deals with this at about the one hour mark in this Congressional hearing.


Well worth a look at this video.
An interesting presentation.


And don’t forget “The Climate Swindle”.
Would you believe that this was a 2007 program – and yet the Global Warming bandwagon rolled on regardless…..


That video is wonderful. Best quote “you’ll never see this on TV.”


These scientists also mentioned the supposed “stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years”. What stability? Proxy data, archeology and historical records prove that there was a Roman Warming Period, a Medieval Warming Period, and a Little Ice Age, none of which were caused by man.
In any case, it’s too little late for Obama’s injustice department to get any such convictions, but perhaps President Trump or Cruz should use RICO to go after radical Warmists all over the world. Hoisting them on their own petards, as it were.


Don’t forget the Minoan Warm period from about 3000 years ago. It was warmer than both the Roman and Midieval Warm periods.


The modern warm period is cooler than the Midieval warm period of 1000 years ago.
The Midieval warm period is cooler than the Roman warm period of 2000 years ago.
The Roman warm period is cooler than the Minoan warm period of 3000 years ago.
Anyone else noticing a pattern?


People who learned Math the Common Core way will never spot the pattern because they learned to count like a carnival horse, by stomping their feet.

Nik Marshall-Blank

How pathetic to try to associate challenging AGW with the Tobacco industry. It’s like saying anybody who paints pictures of architecture is a Nazi because Hitlers main painting subject was architecture.

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
“If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.”

David Cage

They achieved the same result here in the UK by making false accusations of hacking against those who released the data proving at the very least an element of corruption and dishonesty by climate scientists.
the really damning evidence never got to the public thanks to this threat.
Even it you can readily prove you are innocent of the charges the legal fees will financially destroy an ordinary person beyond any hope of recovery.


They have even coined a term for the tactic: lawfare.


This includes expanding the scope and scale of the work, promoting speculative dangers and threats to society, emphasizing the urgency to resolve the problem, and involving as many other public and private agencies as possible.
And covering up any defects in their scam.
I blogged on the UKs Grauniad newspaper about this recently, and ran rings around their Warmist bloggers, because they did not seem to know any of the contrarian data in this field. So what did the Grauniad do? — They closed the thread and deleted all my comments.
Its no wonder these people are so ignorant about climate science, they live in a Warmist bubble created and promoted by the likes of the Grauniad and the BBC.

Climate science is a cancer that eats away all the funds from regular science.

Dodgy Geezer

…The natural tendency of any bureaucracy is to perpetuate its existence….
This was, of course, specifically noted by Parkinson in his famous book: ‘Parkinson’s Law’…


I’m pretty sure Murphy covered it as well.

Rainer Bensch

Isn’t it time to start libel lawsuits against all of the signers?


Oh my goodness gracious me – we must be doing something about the global warming deniers. Are we not scientists! We are scientists and we must be acting before the world is being destroyed.
Come Mahendra- you too must be acting for saving the world.


Is it a criminal offence in the United States to engage in a conspiracy to subvert democracy and suppress freedom of speech? If so, when will the plotters who wrote the letter face charges?


When we have an honest govt.
Drudgereport has a poll that finds that 75% of Americans believe that govt is corrupt.

Who the heck are these 25% who think differently?


They are the ones who work for the corrupt govt.

Leo Smith

I am not a lawyer, especially not a US lawyer, but this actually seems to me to be prima facie case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud and to oppose freedom of speech.
I wonder if a charge could be brought against Trenberth et al?


Richard Feynman:
“In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Do ANY of the projections by climate scientists match the unadulterated data collected over the last one and a half centuries?

I was intending a short reply, but I just couldn’t stop. Thanks for the quote by Richard Feynman. This clearly shows that he had adopted Popper´s empirical method, commonly known as the hypothetic-deductive method, simply put:
1 A hypothesis is proposed. This is not justified and is tentative.
2 Testable predictions are deduced from the hypothesis and previously accepted statements.
3 We observe whether the predictions are true.
4 If the predictions are false, we conclude the theory is false.
5 If the predictions are true, that doesn’t show the theory is true, or even probably true. All we can say is that the theory has so far passed the tests of it.
As phrased by Karl Popper i The logic of scientific discovery:
“According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but … exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”
Clearly, a skeptical attitude is valuable to the method, as a theory is corroborated and merited by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived. A skeptical attitude is required to design and conduct proper tests. Any proponents of the IPCC climate theory who calls their opponents “skeptics” demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Popper also states:
“But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.»
One problem with the IPCC climate theory is that the theory allows everything. It allows: Increasing temperature, non-increasing temperature (hiatus), decreasing temperature, more ice, less ice, more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more drought, less drought, more wind, less wind. And – the sea level is rising anyhow. A theory which allows everything explains nothing.
Ref. Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC
TS.5.4.1 Projected Near-term Changes in Climate
Projections of near-term climate show small sensitivity to Green House Gas scenarios compared to model spread, but substantial sensitivity to uncertainties in aerosol emissions, especially on regional scales and for hydrological cycle variables. In some regions, the local and regional responses in precipitation and in mean and extreme temperature to land use change will be larger than those due to large-scale GHGs and aerosol forcing. These scenarios presume that there are no major volcanic eruptions and that anthropogenic aerosol emissions are rapidly reduced during the near term.
TS.5.4.2 Projected Near-term Changes in Temperature
In the absence of major volcanic eruptions—which would cause significant but temporary cooling—and, assuming no significant future long-term changes in solar irradiance, it is likely that the Global Mean Surface Temperature anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).
Taking into account that the Global Mean Surface Temperature is already roughly about 0.3°C above the reference period of 1986-2005 (Not sure, but I was told so) The hiatus could last to 2035 without falsifying the theory. It could even go down a bit since they use the terms likely and medium confidence. Hence I cannot see that the theory is falsifiable in the near-term. As the climate theory by IPCC isn´t falsifiable in the near term, I guess it shouldn´t either be regarded as empirical or scientific in the near-term.

Erik Christensen

Great post by Dr. Tim Ball – bravo!


Nice post but useless we need this as posted above and it has be lawyers not bloggers anymore…
“I am not a lawyer, especially not a US lawyer, but this actually seems to me to be prima facie case of a criminal conspiracy to defraud and to oppose freedom of speech.
I wonder if a charge could be brought against Trenberth et al?”
They HAVE to be charged

Coeur de Lion

What about the 31000 named American sceptical scientists in Are they all to be imprisoned?

Bruce Cobb

The Frankenstein monster depicted in the cartoon (which I printed out when it first appeared, and put it on the refrigerator, where it remains) was meant as a humorous way of showing people’s general response to the fake manmade warming scare. An apt monster for the multi-faceted, and incredibly difficult to dispatch Climate Cabal though would be the Hydra, of Greek mythology:
comment image

Gerald Machnee

You have to note that Obama is gullible enough to accept or believe what that bunch has to say since it fits in with his plans.

Paul Coppin

It would be interesting to know how many of that List of 20 have failed grant applications (or successful ones, for that matter) with foundations heavily supported by the petrochemical industry. How many have their knickers in a knot because they didn’t get the grant money they believed they deserved. In fact, how many looked for funds via the very industry they seek to punish…?
As for Trenberth – he needs to spend less time looking for the missing heat, and more time spent looking for his missing common sense.

I already think there will be a day (if it doesn’t get omg is it cold soon) that most of us will be put on trail for crimes against humanity. All those island nations are now under water and canal st in NYC is under 20 feet of water. To think I am a deiner! Both poles have melted, hurricanes are stronger and more frequent than ever and large swaths of the Midwest US are still in an epic drought. Just as predicted.


I think this RICO idea is going to come back and bite them in the @ss in the next few years !!!! Hopefully, a little jail time will do wonders to wake these Eco-terrorists to the world of reality !!


Keep in mind that most people have never heard anything that conflicts with the “official” version of climate change. They don’t seek out or research matters, and believe what is shouted at them a hundred time per day. Unless there is a well-funded counter argument made to the people at large (and not simply those of us who are truth junkies), the “official” version will remain official. I see this in so many, many areas, not just climate change.