How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic

Hint: He did his homework, then took himself to the other side of the debate.


Guest essay by David Siegel

siegel-pixMy name is David Siegel. I’m not a climate expert; I’m a writer. Early in 2015, I became interested in climate science and decided to spend the better part of this year trying to learn what I could. It didn’t take long before it was clear that there isn’t likely going to be any catastrophic warming this century. What was clear is that skeptics are losing this battle, and I want to tell you why.

For thirty years, James Hansen and Al Gore have been building their PR machine along with David Fenton, the wizard of nonprofit PR. They understand that the messenger is more important than the message. People don’t easily change their minds. People get their opinions from “experts” and brand names like NASA, MIT, Harvard, TIME, The Daily Show, etc. Fenton knows the game is about credibility and repetition, not science. As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose.

So I did my homework and wrote a 9,000-word essay aimed at liberals who have a voice, who have access to media, and who might take 30 minutes to educate themselves.

I submitted my piece to every liberal publication, from the LA Times to the Atlantic Monthly to National Geographic to Huffington Post and many more. They all turned it down. Now I’m launching it myself and hope you will read it and help spread the word.

I ask you to help get the word out through social media, links, and the press, to the liberal audience I’m going after. Links really help. If you can help reach Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other influential liberals, I hope to help them understand that the science is not settled. I think this is the best way to tip the scales back to reasonable, impactful environmentalism. If you can help move it on Reddit, Voat, Quora, NewsVine, etc., I would appreciate that.

I’m going to ask people to leave comments here, rather than on my page, because I can’t manage the comment spam there. I will, however, read the comments here and will respond if I can.

My work is aimed at your liberal friends; please send them to read it.


What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in preserving our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible.Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural.

3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

4 New research shows that fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, at both long and short time scales.

5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

6 There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7 Sea level will probably continue to rise, naturally and slowly. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

9 No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people who eat them.

10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey

You’ll find it at:

2 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 16, 2015 12:17 am

From my experience, as soon as you cross this line you will discover all of your previous friends clamping their hands over their ears and screaming “la la la la la” so they don’t have to hear.
Good luck with this, though!
I also started out believing the narrative, and it really only took a few hours of looking at data to realize it was a load.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 1:24 am

I first got interested in the climate issue as a result of the media hype before the release of AR4. At first I took it all at face value, not having any reason to doubt the “thousands of climate expert scientists”.
Since I have science training I went straight for the data. I won’t pretend it only took “several hours”, it’s a huge and complex question but it rapidly became clear that it was not that simple. Nor were the papers and data sources verifiable. That is what first raised my suspicions.
At some point someone sent me a link to a MODTRAN interface on Dr David Archer’s site (now removed). It became clear that cutting CO2 would have negligible impact.
I’ve been interested in environmental protection since the 80’s, so is was biases towards accepting rather than rejecting the possible impacts of massive human activity.
That is why I’m particularly pissed off about the current stupidity that is distracting from and prevent action on REAL pollution issues.

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2015 5:12 am

Fortunately for me, I didn’t have the disadvantage of years of climate study to unlearn. What I saw when I first started searching for supporting evidence was what I now recognize as “weasel words”, and a subtle but powerfully overwhelming feeling of “greasiness” to everything related to climate.
With some of the personalities, who I won’t mention but you know who they are, I saw absolutely no credibility, and it’s a travesty that I didn’t see any.

TG McCoy
Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2015 7:23 am

Like the mine tailings in the river that polluted
the Navajo Nation.?
Followed by a Nuremberg type denial by the EPA..

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2015 9:15 am

I started out very skeptical that CO2 was driving global warming. Became even more skeptical when they changed it to “climate change”. And always had in mind that we are in an interglacial period, during which you expect the planet to continue warming…until it doesn’t, then back into an ice age.

Leo Morgan
Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 2:05 am

Yeah, my Greenie sister said she wasn’t prepared to discuss it with me unless I had a PhD in Climatology. She has the Faith of a Torquemada.

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 16, 2015 2:26 am

Does she have a PhD in Climatology to answer your questions?

Gerry, England
Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 16, 2015 5:45 am

Having a PhD in climatology won’t help you understand climate as you would have to toe the warmist line to get one.

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 16, 2015 6:25 am

When I said it to one of MY PhD friends, he winked and said “Lots of people know it, but they agree with the political agenda so why let science get in the way of a good story?”

Power Grab
Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 16, 2015 10:33 am

And just what is the political agenda that the friend agreed with? To concentrate riches and control in the hands of liars and leave the “unwashed masses” to rot on the ash heap of history, with nothing left to dream for and work for?

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 16, 2015 12:35 pm

It is interesting that the intellectuals who grew up with the warnings from “1984” and ‘Brave new world” are the ones embracing totalitarianism.

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 16, 2015 3:26 pm

Power Grab: They are convinced that all good things come from govt, therefore the more power they can get into govt hands, the faster utopia can be forced on the unwashed masses.

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 17, 2015 12:31 am

Climate models do not work. Ergo, PHD’s in climatology are useless.

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 17, 2015 6:30 am

Funny, I also have a greenie sister (vegan also), whom is completely sold that Al Gore is a saint and everyone not on board with the party line is an earth hater. Determined to put herself thru college in environmental sciences to reinforce the belief that we are all doomed and we have to act now….very sad as I am very much in the skeptic camp from applying common sense, critical thinking and many years of self education, much coming from the great group here that I am very grateful for.
Thank you Anthony et al., for the place of sanctuary, truth and integrity!

Reply to  Leo Morgan
October 17, 2015 12:47 pm

Tell Brian intellectuals read 1984 and Brave New World and saw opportunity not foreboding.

A Crooks
Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 2:46 am

Exactly, CodeTech. I crossed the line in 2010, and that ended a whole range of friendships.
Bart Simpson with a bucket over his head comes to mind. “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”
In the end though, what anyone believes is irrelevant. The Climate will do what the Climate does, whatever the boffins of either side say.
But even that is irrelevant.
I was just reading Freeman Dyson on Dellingpole, and I saw “It’s like a hundred years ago, before World War I, there was this insane craving for doom, … ”
My point is that the Climate change debate is only a symptom of a much bigger and deeper malaise – as it turned out in my activist life time, it wasn’t Acid Rain, it wasn’t Overpopulation, It wasn’t Ozone Holes, It wasn’t Limits To Growth, It wasn’t the Tragedy of the Commons, It wasn’t Peak Oil, … and so on, and so on, and so on. And if it wasn’t Climate Change, it would have been something else.
Mr. Siegel might be able to change the mind of his liberal friends, but when Climate Change dies in the arse, as it inevitably will, it WILL be something else all over again, until the death wish of the West is fulfilled. We are watching a culture that has run out of ideas, and is committing suicide.
( I take my text for today from Oswald Spenger – The Decline of the West)

A Crooks
Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 2:56 am

Can I make a reply to my own post?
I think the point with Paris is that there is not one economy on the face of the earth that has enough money to make the slightest difference to the climate – but they might have just enough money to destroy their economies.
Its a question of whether they have the will to do it. That remains to be seen. Will they have the committment to destroy their own country, in the vain hope that others might survive?

Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 4:37 am

Very succinct. Except – We haven’t run out of ideas. We have run to an ancient idea and embraced it. You call it suicide, but it is really murder, at least murder-suicide. Your list is a list of all the evil man has done to the earth. A young college student, a girl, an environmentalist, said to me over thirty years ago; “Sometimes I just wish all the people would die because of the violence we do to the earth” Its an old, old story – death and sacrifice for the atonement of sin.
Recycling and reducing our carbon footprint has become righteousness. Skeptics have become heretics. Belief and faith in the ‘orthodoxy’ of scientific consensus has become the definition of truth.
Nietzsche was right: “I’ll tell you where God is,” returned the madman. “God is dead! God remains dead. And we have killed him.”
God is dead, but man is still religious. Evidently, man isn’t capable of believing in ‘nothing’. So – we pick our poison. Perhaps we are making a big mistake. I liked the old juice better.

Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 6:26 am

Yeah–maybe all the “activists” will have go grow up and get real JOBS!

Tom O
Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 7:58 am

No, it’s not that we wish to commit suicide and it’s not about religion and it’s not about concern that we have violated poor Gaia, it is now and always will be about one group holding power over the others, to force others to bend to their will. It is, now and has always been, that group of people that place themselves above the totality of humanity and want to rule it. This is just another avenue attempted, and with mass media spanning the globe, it is far more successful since the attempt is to conquer the entirety at once instead of having to do it piecemeal by wars.
Agenda driven, yes, but the only concern for the outcome is that those who believe they should rule by whatever reasoning they use to assume superiority, are making a move against the entire population of the planet at once, and with the media, aka ministry of propaganda, firmly in their grasp, they are succeeding because they are working from the top down, securing the government support and will crush the useless eaters out of existence in the process. We can argue the science until hell freezes over, and it won’t make an iota of difference, because this is not about science, this is not about climate, this is not about the environment, it is about winning the war for control once and for all. The sooner the population of the planet wakes up to that simple fact, the better their chances of seeing grandchildren migrate to the stars instead of working in a sweat shop or field scraping out a living kissing the feet of those that hate them.

Power Grab
Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 10:39 am


Joe Schmoe
Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 2:41 pm

You are correct. It’s the underlying premise of State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. Ought to be required reading.

Reply to  A Crooks
October 16, 2015 8:21 pm

Hey! Great list of Western cultural death-wish fantasies. But, why leave out Y2K??

Reply to  A Crooks
October 18, 2015 10:38 am

Yes, Crooks, you have it exactly right, a craving for doom, a pervasive mental illness among intellectual elites, of which, I suppose, I am a member, being a Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. in the quasi-scientific field of social psychology. We studied a lot about what scientific method and science really was in psychology because we craved the status of science. My 2011 book, “Acceleration,” (Prometheus Books) was written to expose the many reasons why humanity is actually on the rise, thanks to science and technology, but that tightly reasoned and well-sourced book was hardly read by anybody, I think, because not only was the Malthusian doom meme not in it but was contradicted in my text at every turn. So-called “futurists” who I thought might be interested, dismissed my arguments out of hand. It is ‘obvious’ to them that we are running out of all resources, despoiling the previously apparently pristine environment, and over-populating the earth. The leaders of the professional science community have swallowed the “climate change is real” dogma because they have been inoculated with the Malthusian meme, and they dare not question. Why bother, since the fundamental truth of growth limits, (=”sustainability”) is so “obvious.” There is no other explanation why the leadership of the scientific community is so blind to the reality, so dismissive of those who would even question the validity and reliability of the data put forth, and so willing to trash the reputations of those who try to raise their voices. It is a scandal of science so massive and so unbelievable that it is no wonder that it is not believed. I don’t see a way out, certainly not by falling in line with reactionaries and religious zealots on the right.
Ronald G. Havelock, Ph.D.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 5:38 am

It’s way worse than that. You will be viewed as a conservative, in the pay of fossil fuel barons, or a troll.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 7:43 am

I second CodeTech’s experience…..

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 8:06 am

Not trusting any government entity at all (as per Orwell: Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind), especially of such as the EPA, FDA, NIH CIA, etc. etc and their cohorts, ADA, AMA, MSM etc.etc. (my untrust based on the many reversals & lies over the decades) I had little difficulty in processing data contrary to “the line” and coming to the same conclusion. However most of the public are naive of logic, forgetful of abuses, prone to authoritarianism and just plain mentally lazy, which will make any improvement a major uphill battle.

Reply to  BFL
October 17, 2015 10:59 pm

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful…” reminds mr o a George Carlin line …renamed the jungle rain forest.

Reply to  BFL
October 17, 2015 11:22 pm

“In ‘1984’ Orwell introduced us to the words doublethink and newspeak. A word he DIDN’T use – but which combines the two – is doublespeak” ( ).
“Doublespeak” is synonymous with “equivocation.” An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. Though an equivocation looks like an example of an argument having a true conclusion aka “syllogism” it isn’t one Thus while it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism is logically improper to draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 8:16 am

I run into trouble whenever I get into it with family and friends. I’m going to start the convo by saying “I’ve planted close to 2 million trees with my bare hands, any opinion I have is well within my rights, your anger going forward means nothing to me; I care about the science and the politics and that is it.”
People will try to shut down the convo by pulling out the 97% crap. To which I say” I agree with the 97%, only a fringe of that 97% beleive the doom scenario.”

Reply to  owenvsthegenius
October 16, 2015 12:31 pm

Your argument assumes the “truth” of the premise, and it should not.
You should say:
“Do you know which 97% of scientists that study refers to? It refers to 78 of 80 climate scientists at a Global Warming conference. If I asked 80 Nazis if they thought Hitler was a righteous dude, I’d get the same percentage. Duh. But ask the Poles, the French, the Fins, the Dutch, and the Brits what they thought of Hitler, and the numbers change dramatically. Were you aware that over 80,000 scientists have signed a petition questioning the Climate Change Orthodoxy?. Yeah, I thought not. Look it up. So get back to me when you want to talk about real science. The socialist media has tricked the dumb masses into believing something that guarantees more government control. Given how well they can’t even prosecute those Wall Street hedge fund managers for taking down our economy, And given how many billions they are throwing out to prove how much they ought to control all parts of our lives, you’d have to be an idiot not to be skeptical of the whole Climate Change agenda.
“Besides, when Clinton, Obama, Gore, and Pelosi start living like its a crisis requiring drastic change, I’ll start to consider it deserving. But they’ve only enriched themselves and live lavish lifestyles of profound consumption while the middle class suffers. So again:Duh! it’s not a real crisis. It’s all about their control of you.”

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 8:39 am

I had an advantage in that family background and training in geology and archaeology pretty much squished any tendency to “believe” anything. You can’t really even understand a debate or a controversy until you can argue for both sides, or all of them if there are more than two. In the ’90s I based my initial views of global warming on the simple laboratory physics – CO2 absorbs LWIR. That seemed to be clear enough. Then some time later my son, an engineer made an observation about the way water becomes cloudy for a bit when heated (it is gas being driven out of solution), AND I was looking at ice core data from Vostok and noticed a lag between temperature and CO2.
Considering the increasingly loud argument over anthropogenic climate change, I toddled off to Real Climate or some similar site and posted a query about the lag. The response was – well – ignorance driven. RC, or whoever it was, responded that the “lag” was unimportant. Effectively, I was told that once the CO2 genie was out of the bottle it drove “climate.” Effectively the character that responded made a perpetual motion argument for how CO2 acts. Trying to ask for a clarification lead to my comment being “dropped.” Up to that point I had thought AGW was at least a slightly reasonable idea.
I’ve come to the point now where I am not at all convinced that “climate” is even a useful concept. Considering that “climate” studies need decades of weather data before “climate change” can be addressed analytically, and that such “scientists” then turn around and try to argue that “climate” drives weather, I can not see any strong utility to “climate,” – well not beyond contemporary grant chasing. In geology and archaeology we talk of “climate changes” based on visible changes in sediments or pollen assemblages. Even there the results are that weather patterns changed, creating changes in erosion, deposition, vegetation and animal populations. Those changes are what we label as “climate” changes.
So, is “climate” really a useful concept scientifically? I think not at least some the the time.

Bill Partin
Reply to  Duster
October 16, 2015 11:45 am

Thank you Duster.

Reply to  Duster
October 16, 2015 3:00 pm

I’ve been analysing climate data – mostly temperatures and assorted indexes since about 1992 and so believe I have a good grasp of what the doomsayers appear to believe and propagate. |My work, all private, has convinced me that the establishment climate scientists are more interested in their publications – which dominate the fight for funding – that in real scientific truth. If you try to publish articles that demonstrate the baselessness of the establishment position your work with end in the WPB. Ergo, belong to the establishment or commit career suicide..

Gard R. Rise
Reply to  Duster
October 16, 2015 3:40 pm

Hmm…speaking as an amateur geographer, I’d say that the Köppen-Geiger climate classification system is, for instance, a pretty useful tool. (Granted that one is prepared to acknowledge that geography is science, that is; it seems to be an eternally ongoing debate. The jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none nature of geography doesn’t always work to its advantage.)
Climatic zones and changes in them are relevant for the study of cultural and natural geography alike; but maybe more so for the social science aspects of economic geography like population distribution patterns over time, changes in the cultural landscape, the trading of and production of goods etc.

4 eyes
Reply to  Duster
October 16, 2015 3:49 pm

robinedwards36, My academic professor friends say exactly the same thing, publishing papers is the name of the game when it comes to funding. And it makes sense to publish stuff that you think others will agree with.

NW sage
Reply to  Duster
October 16, 2015 5:32 pm

As you discovered, ‘Climate’ is a semi meaningless term which seems to say something but exactly what is very hard to pin down. It is thus useful to the warmist propaganda because the readers think they have an idea about what is meant. It doesn’t, and never will. ‘Global Warming’ is very similar.

Reply to  Duster
October 16, 2015 11:50 pm

Duster et al,
I am pleased to see a half dozen fellow “climate doubters” (as per AP style book).
We often see the defensive assertion “nobody denies climate” but, actually, I kinda do; much as you, above, have articulated.
Climate is a perfectly useful concept in everyday life, however.

Reply to  mebbe
October 17, 2015 9:58 am

My view of the linguistic scene follows. The “climate” is is the name of the physical system that produces a time average of each weather-related feature of the Earth and its atmosphere in a specified period of time; conventionally the length of each such a period is 30 years. That the “climate changes” means that the values of these averages change with time. Nobody doubts that the climate changes.
Ideally climatology is devoted to producing knowledge of this physical system. Thus it is an example of a physical science. In a physical science, models are built from facts and logic. A “prediction” is a kind of proposition. A model that is “scientific” makes “predictions” of this kind. If a model of the climate were to make predictions of this kind this would make it possible for governments to regulate the climate to some degree.
The field of study that I’ll call “global warming climatology” cuts its tie to logic through failure to interpret “prediction” as a kind of proposition or to make “predictions” of this kind. This field is pseudoscientific and useless for its intended purpose of supporting regulation of the climate. Replacing logic in drawing conclusions from arguments are fallacies of several kinds. Existence in the language of global warming climatology of pejoratives such as “climate denier” and “climate doubter” is indicative of application of the ad hominem fallacy in drawing conclusions from arguments. Global warming climatology is dressed up to look like a science through applications of the equivocation fallacy which, for example, fail to distinguish between “projection” and “prediction.”

Reply to  Duster
October 17, 2015 12:45 am

Koppen was first and foremost a botanist, and the climate classification scheme that bears his name divides up climatic regions according to broad measures of the type of vegetation that predominates within each of these regions…hence A climates are those that allow palms and other tropical species to thrive, etc.
But the system has some valid criticisms for being overly broad, and not granular enough. Example: Categorizing, as it does, South Central Florida in the same zone as Cape Cod, MA and central Kansas is a stretch, to say the least.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 16, 2015 2:09 pm

me too. started more with reading on socialism and free markets, but eventually got to climate scam and other liberal dogma.

Reply to  CodeTech
October 20, 2015 10:41 am

My experience is that as soon as I bring up data, and question the orthodoxy, people as not nearly as kind as just no longer listening. the evil in them comes out. Can’t have no disagreement with the “collective”. Gotta demonize, sue under RICO, prosecute or even burn down their house, sometimes just figuratively.

Stephen Wilde
October 16, 2015 12:20 am

A good piece of work.
We need to put pressure on those who mistakenly accept AGW and have significant status and persuasive ability.
Up to now the sceptics have been cautious due to self doubt and diversity of viewpoints but the Earth’s climate has shown us that it is not going to obey the models so a change in strategy to a more confident, strident approach is called for.

Doug UK
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 16, 2015 5:40 am

Yes a VERY good piece of work. I applaud the author.
My only disagreement would be that I really do not think those sceptical of the Alarmist hype are losing.
Yes there are ever more desperate mutterings about silencing sceptics and removing free speech from those who dare to challenge the dogma. But like all totalitarian ideas – they are doomed to failure – unless society degenerates into something akin to North Korea.
The very notion of restricting other peoples free speech causes disquiet at least and anger at best in those that value the freedoms our past generations and current generations fought for.
The Alarmists are so divorced from reality that they really do not understand the Streisand Effect when they try to put a lid on what they see as dissent and the rest of us see as simply questioning highly dubious “science”.
As for the “famous names” now being rolled out…………..
Anyone who saw the debacle of Charlotte Church making a total idiot of herself trying and failing to steer Question Time (a UK Current Affairs discussion programme) towards the notion that the Syrian conflict is a result of Climate Change would realise that the actions of the panel in ignoring her utterances spoke volumes. And this was the BBC!!!
Emma Thompson spoke total bollox and was applauded for her sense of “Urgency” by Dana Nutter-celli in the Guardian.
If you want a laugh over the weekend – try reading this. Best not to do so while drinking anything tho’

Reply to  Doug UK
October 16, 2015 8:53 am

“My only disagreement would be that I really do not think those sceptical of the Alarmist hype are losing.”
I think you’re right. However, when you consider the very long time it has taken for the medical community to even begin to seriously consider that guide lines for food and nutrition might have been wrong since at least the 1970s, and the enormous weight of lobbying money spent by the industrial food businesses, which currently fights against such changes, then turning the boat around for climate may take a long time. The situations are so similar that they are well worth comparing.
I disagree with the OP that vegetarianism or veganism are “better” for the environment. There is a wealth mistaken assumptions in that view. They are better than the current “industrial” production of battery chickens and feed lot meat, but not better than properly raised and treated chickens and meat animals. Properly handled herds and flocks actually can improve soil and have been very successful restoring soil in areas where mono-crop production badly degraded it.

Power Grab
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 16, 2015 11:05 am

@ Duster: I am in complete agreement with what you said.
I would add that the persistence of the prominent lying movies, journals and books makes it harder to turn the ship. Once the originators have left the scene, their highly lauded works will continue to soil the landscape, causing low-information persons who might wish to do their own research to find those lies more easily than products of valid discussion, such as this blog (in the event that the internet finally disappears).
It’s not unlike the situation with the top-down dietary recommendations that have led to today’s obesity epidemic. Even though word is slowly getting out that fat and cholesterol are not evil poisons, and the government erred when they pushed that high-carb food pyramid on everyone, reruns of TV shows or movies made in the last 30 or so years will continue to repeat the mantra that low-fat is more virtuous than other ways of eating.
One more comment about diet: People are not all the same. The world is a big place. Food varies a lot across the globe. People have a history of figuring out how to eat to stay healthy and have healthy families without the intervention of doctors and meds. And those ways of eating can be very different, depending on where you live. The last thing we need to be doing is dictating what everyone has to eat.
IMHO, if the way you eat helps you “keep on keeping on” and avoid throwing away a large amount of your hard-earned cash on doctors and meds, then you’re probably better off than simply “treating a number”.

David Smith
October 16, 2015 12:36 am

I’ll visit your site and read in detail tonight.
However, a quick thought for now:
There are many ‘believers’ who spent time looking at the evidence and became sceptics. To be honest, that’s probably the situation for most of us who visit WUWT.
However, there are very, very few sceptics who became ‘believers’. And no, Richard Muller doesn’t count.

Chris Wright
Reply to  David Smith
October 16, 2015 4:07 am

I’m not convinced that Muller was ever a sceptic. Of course, he did make a savage – and true – assessment of Mann’s hockey stick back in 1998. But, in theory at least, it should be possible for an AGW believer to still see that MBH 98 was junk and close to scientific fraud.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Chris Wright
October 16, 2015 5:56 am

Mann’s hockey stick in 1988 was the thing that made me a skeptic. Before then I was willing to entertain the argument, afterwards I knew it was a con job and dig into every report to see what real-world data the doom is based on. The problem is, whenever and wherever I look, the doom is based on computer games and the worst ones take the real collected data and run that through a model to get their result.

Reply to  Chris Wright
October 16, 2015 9:21 am

I agree that Müller was never a skeptic – just an opportunist. What gives him away is his decision to completely ignore satellite temperature data and go with the falsified ground-based data from the IPCC.
Satellite data clearly show that in addition to the current ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ there was one that stopped global warming warming for another 18 years in the eighties and nineties. IPCC has decided to disappear it and are showing a fake warming in its place. It even has a catchy name – “late twentieth century warming.”
This warming is a complete lie – it does not exist. But Müller and his BEST gang show it as part of their regular temperature curve. So much for having been or being a skeptic. He is fully in the arms of the climate change criminals. We need RICO to investigate how that hiatus got over-written with a non-existent warming.

Reply to  David Smith
October 16, 2015 6:04 am

Muller was never a skeptic.
Pure misdirection.
If you want proof just say so. I will post convincing evidence of such after work.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  David Smith
October 16, 2015 7:46 am

Agreed Muller was a fake skeptic, a Trojan Horse.

Andre S
October 16, 2015 12:43 am

I personally believe that those illiberal elite climate gangsters with influence know the facts that thoroughly refute their climate agenda but deny it in exchange for the ” greater” cause of indoctrinating their political ideologies into the masses.
Your cause is a valiant one but it won’t change the minds of those most influential in sufficient numbers to change the course of climate fraud sold to the world. In short they don’t really won’t to talk about the science. They just want to implement their political agenda.

Reply to  Andre S
October 16, 2015 6:06 am

I am more cynical.
More often than not, their “greater cause” is fat stacks of government cashola, and a chance at some personal fame.
If you can call it that.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  menicholas
October 16, 2015 7:59 am

For those who already have stacks of cashola (like that term) there is also the opportunity of buying sanctity, rather like wealthy merchants in the middle ages building a chapel.

Reply to  menicholas
October 17, 2015 2:50 pm

“More often than not, their “greater cause” is fat stacks of government cashola, and a chance at some personal fame.”
Perhaps so . . more often than not, but don’t you think there is a “they”, who are implementing their “political agenda”? And that “they” are knowingly exploiting the “more often than not” crowd’s desire for cashola and fame and such?
Metaphorically, do you think there is a man behind the curtain?

Reply to  Andre S
October 16, 2015 1:21 pm

Nonsense, the CAGW “hypothesis” is rubbish and will not endure. It will endure much longer if we keep silent.

Reply to  GTL
October 18, 2015 8:26 pm

If the atmosphere is getting warmer, then the oceans are warming also.
Can some warmist explain how the concentration of CO2 is increasing in the oceans without any significant increase in atmospheric pressure?

October 16, 2015 12:44 am

A very brave and honest expose. Add “11 Nobody has been able to clearly define the
“perfect climate” from which the present climate has changed, nor said who, once that was figured out (it hasn’t been) gets to decide for the rest of us just when that “perfect Climate” occurred, and how we propose to get back to it and prevent it from being a bad little climate and changing again. And perhaps in a different direction, like sideways….if some geoengineering fanatics ever get their way.
Thanks for your efforts, Mr. Siegel. The skeptics may not be winning in a traditional sense, but they are creating a circumstance where the believers increasingly make fools of themselves and call for draconian methods of censorship or punishment for opposing their views.
That’s not the skeptics winning, as much as the Climate Sect LOSING; like a game of billiards when the man behind the eight ball scratches his cue ball and loses the game.

October 16, 2015 12:49 am

I was a long time supporter of Greenpeace. A big anti right wing Leftie! I came out of the Climate Change closet just over two years ago. Welcome to the denier pride parade!

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
October 16, 2015 8:14 am

I like that “Denier Pride Parade”! Maybe ditch the parade, and just have a gathering…

Mark T
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
October 16, 2015 7:20 pm

Ha! That’s great! “Denier Pride!” I can image the cow the left would have with that one.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
October 16, 2015 7:42 pm

I realize you have likely lost the respect of many of your Leftie friends with your denial status, and I applaud your courage. Perhaps your observance of how governments are using this issue in an attempt to grab more power and control over our lives will give you cause to consider why many of us are on the right to begin with – to reign in and shrink governments so they can not succeed in these efforts.

richard verney
October 16, 2015 12:52 am

The real issue is whether mother nature will do the job for the sceptics.
So far, whilst tons of money have been poured into climate science (and wasted), the ordinary man (and woman) has not yet felt the financial impact on his pocket, nor yet the curtailing of a life style that he takes for granted. This will change over the course of the next 15 to 30 years.
There is a switch from the developed West to the developing East. This will continue a pace. already, China emits more CO2 than the US. But in 2030, the dynamics will be far more stark. It will be easy for the average American to see that whilst the US (and Europe) etc are cutting back on their CO2 emissions this is pitiful due to the industrialisation and electrification of developing countries. It does not matter what the developed West does, it is clear that CO2 emissions will rise for the next 20 years.
During this time, it will become more and more self evident how useless renewals (wind and solar) are. It will become patent that they cannot provide reliable and dependable energy as and when needed. Presently their penetration is small, but even so it is causing problems with the energy grid. This will exacerbate as time goes forward. Energy will get far more expensive and it will begin to become rationed, and or unreliable.
And here, mother nature may play its part. many warmists are saying that there may not be a return to warming before 2030. If over the next 20 to 30 years, there is no increase in temperatures (despite rising CO2), cAGW is going to become very difficult to sell no matter who the messager may be, no matter how much respect one may have for the messenger. To add to this, the public is losing respect with institutions and politicians. The public are becoming more cynical and the message that they have been duped by an elite will attract many, and it will then become easier to persuade them that there is nothing of substance in cAGW and it was used to as an excuse to transfer power and make the rich richer etc.
And if it begins to cool over this period, the above will become even more blindingly obvious. With ocean cycles tending towards a negative phase, and sun goes quiet and if a quiet sun (for whatever reason) is a harbringer of cooling, then I consider that mother nature will do the job for sceptics. In these circumstances, the simple argument that it is simply natural variation becomes very attractive. The ordinary man (and woman) will be able to see this being played out in front of their eyes.

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 2:08 am

It hasn’t occurred to them that they might win and win until they lose. They think all they need to do is win in Paris, etc., and they’re home free. It hasn’t occurred to them that there might be pushback after that, as the impacts of their measures start to bite, as their futility becomes more apparent, and as their predictions and promises are exposed as empty.

Another Ian
Reply to  rogerknights
October 16, 2015 2:28 am

Re the 5 trillion hope
I’d have said that a bigger chunk of a vanishing quantity is a vanishing quantity

Reply to  rogerknights
October 16, 2015 6:42 am

Winning and losing are concepts of ego and control. They have nothing to do with the pursuit of truth.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  rogerknights
October 16, 2015 8:01 am

I think the Europeans have more on their minds at the moment than global warming; something to do with an invasion.

Reply to  rogerknights
October 16, 2015 8:44 am

Another Trojan horse?
I am very inclined to agree.

Reply to  rogerknights
October 17, 2015 3:14 pm

“Winning and losing are concepts of ego and control.”
(Said the spider to the flies ; )
“They have nothing to do with the pursuit of truth.”
Perhaps not the concepts, but if real live people with real live egos seeking real live control, win . . ego and control will have a great deal to do with the pursuit of truth, I’m thinkin’.
And I caution against conflating things like the concept of ego, with ego itself. Ego is a wonderful thing, in moderation, that keeps us alive, and independent thinkers. If a supposed wise man from the east says otherwise, suspect he is an idiot or a con man, I suggest.

Reply to  rogerknights
October 19, 2015 1:14 am

Another thing they haven’t thought through: Once they are victorious, they’ll no longer be the sympathetic underdog, the scrappy Greenpeacers in their tiny boats standing up to huge factory ships. Instead, they’ll be the new Goliath, and disbelievers will be the new Da

Reply to  rogerknights
October 19, 2015 1:15 am

(Cut off)—. . . the new Davids.

Warren Latham
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 4:07 am

Dear Richard,
I agree with your post.
Just on a financial point …
Ref:- “… the ordinary man (and woman) has not yet felt the financial impact on his pocket, ”
Here in England, for electricity domestic usage, we pay 14% EXTRA (every day and night) towards the “solar and wind power subsidy farmers”: it’s an offensive tax, so it DOES HIT US IN THE POCKET.

richard verney
Reply to  Warren Latham
October 16, 2015 5:22 am

Unfortunately, you pay a lot more than that.
UK electricity bills are more than twice as high than they would have been had there been no deployment of renewables.
A couple of years back the outgoing chairmen or financial director of SSE explained that the cost of energy supply is less than 50% of the bill. Some 25% of the bill is infrastructure upgrades. This is connecting the windfarms to the grid (and possibly managing the grid with backup diesel generation). About 25% of the bill is green subsidies; the green deal (subsidising home insulation, double glazing, boiler replacement etc) and assisting those in fuel poverty (and probably also provision for bad debts which is increasing as energy gets less and less affordable).
Of the 50% that pertains to the cost of energy supply, this too is more expensive than it needs to be since included in the cost of supply is the carbon floor tax put on coal/gas, and the fact that the energy supplier has to buy wind/solar when available at the high guarantee strike price paid for such energy. If there had not been the deployment of renewables, and coal had formed the bulk base load generation, it is likely that the cost of supply would be at least 10 to 15% less than it now is.
The government are not telling you the full story as to how the energy price is made up.

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 6:26 am

Yes, and so far this month our (UK) approx 6,500 commissioned wind turbines have contributed a pathetic 5% of total consumption. We need to frack and go gas. At least this I will keep the lights on.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 8:19 am

Richard says: “If over the next 20 to 30 years, there is no increase in temperatures (despite rising CO2), cAGW is going to become very difficult to sell…”
True in theory. A rational person could have wondered that about the last 20 of a total lack of relationship between CO2 and temperature. And yet here we are watching state-employed gatekeepers like Tom Karl replacing data to fit the agenda.

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
October 16, 2015 10:07 am

They are following a simple maxim: If the truth doesn’t work – lie

Warren Latham
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 10:47 am

Many thanks indeed Richard: I am much obliged for the incisive, extra information.
Excellent stuff.

October 16, 2015 12:57 am

“Forecasts are mental constructs; they are not properties of the physical world.”
“Whatever mechanism causes sunspots could be part of the picture, but there are several different solar cycles at work. A single predictive model is still years or decades away.”
“No one knows what will really happen. We can’t see the future.”
The first and third quotes are false, and both contradict the second quote.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  ulriclyons
October 16, 2015 1:16 am

If you believe Forecasts are properties of the real world kindly show how these properties can be measured
If you believe We can see the feature please let me know which horse will win the 2.35 race at Ascot tomorrow

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Keith Willshaw
October 16, 2015 1:17 am

sorry for the typo that should be future not feature

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
October 16, 2015 5:27 am

Feature is more appropriate for horses, so good typo, look for the one holding its head higher. Planetary ordering of solar activity can provide forecasts for teleconnection variability at essentially any range at weekly scales. From extrapolations of the resultant oceanic mode responses, regional climate forecasts can be potentially generated.

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
October 16, 2015 6:13 am

Taking a guess , even an educated one, and being occasionally correct is not seeing the future, or knowing what will happen.

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 16, 2015 8:30 am

The scale of science and engineering needed to get us to the point where we can project short term trends with passing skill has been enormous. And so models used carefully can be valuable. But in long term projection they hard deviate with observation. Period. But even if model’s projected 20 to 30 years into the future with skill, we would still have to varify our volumes and values, otherwise we are baking a chocolate cake with different ingredients. And even should we master the ingredients…its still a simulated cake…although a useful one

Reply to  owenvsthegenius
October 16, 2015 11:42 am

No I’m talking about discrete solar based forecasts for NAO/AO positive and negative episodes at any range, not guesswork, not projecting trends. From forecasting the weather scale noise, the trend forecasts can be generated, given the correct understanding of sign of ocean modes versus NAO/AO phase, which some seem have backwards.

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 16, 2015 1:36 pm

“Planetary ordering of solar activity can provide forecasts for teleconnection variability at essentially any range at weekly scales. From extrapolations of the resultant oceanic mode responses, regional climate forecasts can be potentially generated.”
Is this from a script for an energy bar commercial?

Reply to  GTL
October 16, 2015 3:02 pm

I don’t answer facetious questions from the anonymous.

Reply to  GTL
October 17, 2015 7:29 am

Yet you did.

Reply to  ulriclyons
October 17, 2015 6:50 pm

Firstly, Ulric, I checked out your agwbs website, and I commend it for what I see as some fine turns of phrase. Makes for good reading. Al Gore throwing a “gimme” at POTUS, indeed.
Secondly, please explain what is the difference between your planetary-solar forecast system, and Piers Corbyn’s sunspot based system?

Reply to  Oksanna Zoschenko (@OshZosh)
October 18, 2015 2:17 am

Oksanna, agwbs is not my site. The fundamental difference is that I forecast discrete periods of solar forcing of atmospheric teleconnections based upon daily to weekly scale heliocentric planetary ordering of the solar signal, whereas Piers employs analogue years based upon theoretical solar-lunar cycles for his forecasts. He doesn’t have the means to forecast the solar signal, I do.

October 16, 2015 1:10 am

A very good initiative.
It is important to realise that it is not just a question of some black/white ; left/right political allegiance. Most of those claiming it is are probably not capable of anything more than binary choice in their political opinions.
Many left-oriented individuals are capable of finding the facts behind the BS, many right-oriented people have been sucked in and believe the AGW PR.
From the author’s page:

The Greenhouse Effect
In this section, I focus on CO2 because it’s regarded as the main greenhouse gas after water vapor.

The fact water vapour is THE most important GHG and is 4x more important then CO2 needs to be stated more clearly. Just slipping it in as “after water vapor” will probably not get noticed or seen as a confused mistake.
This is the KEY fact about climate: it is water in all it’s states and by its changing state that controls climate . NOT CO2.

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2015 1:57 am

Agreed, but you forgot the two magic words “latent heat” that the alarmists ignore.

Ian W
Reply to  johnmarshall
October 16, 2015 9:06 am

The alarmists also measure temperature not heat, even though it is heat that they claim is being ‘trapped’. The measurement of atmospheric heat content should all be in Joules per kilogram. They won’t do that of course as ‘temperature’ is easier to use to convince the voters. The spectacle of people claiming they have PhDs in science happily mixing temperature and heat and using common imprecise vernacular instead of scientific engineering terms is unedifying. It is one of the things that convinced me that they were better at dissembling than science.

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2015 7:23 am

Water vapour only 4x more important than CO2?

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2015 10:44 am

Mike October 16, 2015 at 1:10 am makes a good point about the importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. It is far more important than people realize as Ferenc Miskolczi has proved. According to MGT, his greenhouse theory, water vapor and carbon dioxide form a joint absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87.
It so happens that this optical thickness is invariant when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air changes. If you should add more carbon dioxide to air (as we do) you are going to increase that optical thickness. But since the atmosphere maintains a constant optical thickness (and has done so for the last 61 years) water vapor srarts to act immediately. Its amount in air begins to diminish and it will rain out. This lowers atmospheric absorption for CO2 and the original optical thickness is restored.
But the greenhouse theory of Arrhenius says that addition of carbon dioxide to air warms it by its greenhouse effect. That is what IPCC has been telling us. This however cannot happen because the reduction of water vapor has lowered the optical thickness and this blocks the extra absorption from added carbon dioxide that is needed to cause that greenhouse warming. This is why constant addition of carbon dioxide to air for the last 18 years has not caused any warming.
The prediction of warming for this period by the Arrhenius theory, used by the IPCC, is plain wrong and invalidates the theory. The only greenhouse theory that correctly predicts global temperature is the MGT theory. The IPCC should get rid if that Arrhenius and start using the MGT to get correct predictions of global temperature.
Likewise, model makers using the Arrhenius theory should get rid of it and start using MGT if they want their model predictions to be accurate. MGT proves first of all that no greenhouse effect is possible during a pause/hiatus, in accord with observations for the last 18 years.
There was another pause/hiatus in the eighties and nineties and together with the current one they block out the greenhouse effect starting in 1979, the beginning date of the satellite era. That makes this period greenhouse free.

Bob Lyman
October 16, 2015 1:10 am

I support the effort here, but not necessarily the logic of the note.
David Siegel begins by saying that winning the public debate is about credibility and repetition, not science and facts, and proceeds to set out a number of facts relating primarily to the science. I thought he would offer some useful insights about how to build credibility or how it is that celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio become such useful idiots serving the alarmist cause (or, even better, how they might be “turned”.)
When engaged in a debate on this subject, I try a different approach. After making some factual points about the science and IPCC’s modelling, I then switch to explain the consequences of accepting the IPCC’s policy prescriptions.
The IPCC insists that all countries must reduce their GHG emissions by 60% from 2010 levels by 2050 and that the wealthier “developed” countries must lead the way by reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. I then show how this would require most of us to stop using all coal, oil and natural gas within 35 years, thus losing access to most modern energy services that support modern lifestyles and allow us to feed ourselves.
For those who actually take the time to think about it, their conclusion is that this is unacceptable and probably impossible. Most, of course, just stay with the alarmists’ most tried and true tactic – the ad hominem attack. I am developing very thick skin.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Bob Lyman
October 16, 2015 4:55 am

That’s where the IPCC has lost and will continue to lose. They may win people’s confidence via the “pollution is bad mantra”, but the fact remains that meaningful CO2 reductions are crippling and will remain so for the foreseeable future via every method except nuclear and hydro power.
The alarmists will get lip service and scraps, but no real sacrifice from everyone. Unfortunately this plays right into the hands of the corrupt, who will get rich off the meaningless actions taken, but at least it will protect the rest of us from too much damage.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Bob Lyman
October 16, 2015 9:18 am

For those who actually take the time to think about it
Well, there’s the problem.

October 16, 2015 1:11 am

Off topic – but has anyone seen this Guardian article.
It seems some TV weatherman has written a book which questions aspects of climate change. He’s effectively been sacked – or sidelined at least

France 2 channel’s Philippe Verdier told not to return to work for foreseeable future after writing book which throws doubt on findings of leading scientists

Reply to  John Finn
October 16, 2015 2:13 am
Reply to  John Finn
October 16, 2015 2:20 am

That was covered on Watts Up With That twenty-four hours ago.

Reply to  commieBob
October 16, 2015 2:31 am

Seems the warmists are running out of fingers to plug the holes in their constructed CO2 dyke.

October 16, 2015 1:15 am

Welcome to the other side!
Great to see you really trying to change people’s mind, but people fall for the ‘precautionairy principle’. Your arguments don’t make them change that feeling imho. They may even confirm them in their believes.
The science promoted by the IPCC is seriously flawed and biased. That is what must be exposed. Anything else is futile.

Peter Miller
October 16, 2015 1:26 am

Unfortunately, in all fields of science there a few who deliberately alter data in order to prove their theories.
Where climate science differs from all other fields of science is that this practice is so blatant and widespread it has become acceptable and even praised. From Mann’s Hockey Stick to GISS’ historic temperature statistics, everywhere you look in climate science, you find data manipulation/torturing tn an attempt to prove a false theory.
As a geologist, I can tell you it is self-evident if there was the slightest bit of truth in CAGW theory it would be in the geological record and we would not be here. The truth is CAGW can only be found in computer climate models, which are either pre-programmed to find CAGW, or represent a very poor reflection of how our planet’s climate functions.
The scary thing is the ‘science’ of climate alarmists is continually being exposed for the hoax it is, but this is largely ignored by the mainstream media. I guess being outspent by a factor of more than 1,000 to 1 also does not help.

Ivor Ward
October 16, 2015 1:28 am

Very interesting. Welcome to the world of daily abuse for voicing an opinion.
I was genuinely interested in the science of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming in 2007/8 but things did not quite seem to add up so I tried to ask some questions:
Why did it warm as much in the early 20th Century as it did in the late 20th Century?
Why was there as little ice in the Arctic in the 1920’s as there is now?
Why were past century floods and storms more violent than they are now?
Why do we start from a period called “The Little Ice Age” to measure a temperature increase?
Why were there 5000 polar bears in 1950 and now there are 25000?
Why are there signs of farming under the current ice field on Greenland if it had not been warmer before now?
I went to such places as Sceptical Science to ask !! I received such a torrent of abuse that I was shocked. So I tried different sites. I very soon realised that there were gatekeepers in play. The abuse was remarkably personal and tonally similar. Not once did I get an actual answer to my genuine questions.
Having lived in the age of rampant communism I could see the pattern. It does not take many readings of Animal Farm or Fahrenheit 451 to understand what is going on. Then, having researched the existence of Maurice Strong and Agenda 21 it all becomes very clear. They don’t go away. They just change the uniform, get a new vehicle and start again. You cannot fight them with facts. You just have to wait for them to commit economic suicide. Hopefully without the deaths of 100 million people this time.
Welcome to the proletariat.

Reply to  Ivor Ward
October 16, 2015 6:46 am

Always remember the thing about socialism:
‘100 years of failure proves nothing’

Reply to  Ivor Ward
October 16, 2015 8:24 am

Go over to the Ars Technica site and try and ask science question sin one of their climate change threads which are common.
You get the same gate keepers, that will attack you ad homminum, swear, what ever it takes to make you uncomfortable and leave so their commentary can remain CAGW purre.

bit chilly
Reply to  J
October 17, 2015 2:08 pm

funny how it never happens face to face though does it ? the twenty rico clowns look like they could not punch their way out of a paper bag,as do the rest of the warmists. never a truer saying than the meek will inherit the earth. almost unbelievable that the same peoples that won battles and wars allow these people to have any influence on their lives whatsoever .
a few centuries ago they would all have been burnt at the stake long before now.

October 16, 2015 1:30 am

Congratulation Mr. Siegel for your courage and efforts. Frankly, I was disappointed by your article. As you say, we are loosing the battle and simply re-stating facts to prove our point is not working. So I was hoping you would present a new way. But you aren’t. I don’t see how you hope to win. To win, a different approach is evidently needed and I was hoping to get that from your article. I however wish you the best of luck!

Reply to  kalya22
October 16, 2015 4:04 am

Give it time..

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  kalya22
October 16, 2015 5:20 am

Your point is picked up by a number of other respondents further down.
If there is to be a “new way” then it needs to focus on a couple of issues:
1. The false economics of pursuing a Carbon Dioxide control strategy needs to be promoted to lift the understanding of the disasters that will flow if such a policy is adopted nationally or internationally. The cost to the taxpayer is huge. Electricity prices will climb. Costs of subsidizing wind and solar will climb. People will die of cold and hunger. Unemployment will grow. Industries will disappear. Living standards will fall. The undeveloped world will suffer.
2. The United Nations is controlled by powers that are not acting in the interests of the disadvantaged and the poor. The redistribution of wealth from the OECD countries through the corrupt UN agencies, especially the NGOs, to the even more corrupt and incompetent undemocratic states that are lining up to receive their share of the proposed $100 Billion per year via the UN’s Green Climate Fund is not about CO2 mitigation but about power, control and money. The socialists have subverted the noble objectives of the UN.
3. The “science” of global warming and climate change is still in its infancy. There is more unknown than known. The models are incompetent for the purposes of policy development. The IPCC is demonstrably biased and has been subverted by a clique of people who have a hidden agenda. The observational data is being corrupted through opaque adjustment and homogenisation practices. Weather is not climate.
The American Senate had it right in 1997 when it unanimously passed the Hagel/Byrd resolution that kept the USA out of the Kyoto farce. Democrats and Republican acted in unison to protect the American people from economic disadvantage. That’s how it should be. In the end it’s got to be about the politics first. While the science is clearly uncertain at the moment it will take some time yet before the science bodies such as the Royal Society and the USA equivalents accept that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified. That, in itself, will probably require the removal of the incumbents and their replacement with true scientists.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Sceptical Sam
October 16, 2015 8:29 am

Sam says: “1. The false economics of pursuing a Carbon Dioxide control strategy needs to be promoted…”
Good luck with that! We seem to live in a society that is kept illiterate about economics. When half the population votes for economic strategies that promise to improve the economy by borrowing money- you know it’s going to be hard to explain that inefficient energy is bad.

Reply to  Sceptical Sam
October 16, 2015 9:15 am

I like what you’ve written…except for “The socialists have subverted the noble objectives of the UN.”
It is banksters who created the UN, after they’d created two world wars. There was never anything noble about the objectives of the UN. To its creators and promoters, peace will come only when they are in absolute control.

Reply to  Sceptical Sam
October 16, 2015 6:59 pm

Did the UN ever even have “noble objectives” to begin with? Maybe only on paper!

Sceptical Sam
Reply to  Sceptical Sam
October 16, 2015 8:42 pm

imoira and Barbara,
I think it did initially as outlined in its Charter, although Article 1/3 is where the socialist subversion found its way in. Now the UN is a waste of space (and money).
Dave in Canmore,
I’m not saying it won’t be a difficult to promote. However, the “hip pocket nerve” is far more sensitive than the “feel good” green nerve – in my experience. The significant adverse economic impacts of the green dream need to be pushed on every occasion we write about this abomination called CAGW. Perhaps we need to get started in the financial pages of the media by making sure the finance commentators and journos get the good oil first.

Reply to  Sceptical Sam
October 17, 2015 7:25 pm

“If there is to be a “new way” then it needs to focus on a couple of issues:”
no, there is only one argument that wins and so there is only one argument thta matters.
fighting and winning are completely different propositions, yo.
so think- what is the argument that wins?
what do they use to justify the agenda? rights of the poor? rights of the unborn?
what gets your kids taught to regard fellatio as an act of courage? gay rights?
what gets a cop off the hook for murder? the right to feel safe from 12 yr olds?
what gets you to give up your rights? anybody else’s.
you have no right to stifle their speech. you have no right to interfere with their actions.
and if you fail to defend your own rights, you lose them.
when the day comes that you grasp the nature of the problem, you will be able to shut them down instantly by asserting your rights. there is no other matter and no other way.
a person has the absolute right to do as he pleases with his own property.
he has absolutely no right whatsoever to touch yours.
until you understand this, you are prey.
there is no debate.
and it’s not rape when you negotiate.

Reply to  gnomish
October 17, 2015 7:36 pm

I have a sincere question: Do you believe that your comment makes a point that is decipherable by an average reader?
Did you intend for it to do so?
I try to constantly remind myself that just because I don’t understand something doesn’t mean it can’t be understood.

October 16, 2015 1:36 am

I can give you one way which sometime works with my Democrat friends: many of them are warmist-alarmist believers, but don’t like Agenda 21. So putting the seed in their mind that the IPCC is essentially the climate arm of the Agenda 21 initiative sets them thinking… and that often helps!

Tom Roche
October 16, 2015 1:52 am

No 12. What is the optimum level of carbon dioxide.?Based on our plants it is in excess of 1200 ppm. Great synopsis.

richard verney
Reply to  Tom Roche
October 16, 2015 2:45 am

Whilst plants would like this level of CO2, today’s animals have evolved in a low CO2 atmosphere, and it is not clear to me that animals would like CO2 at that level, especially if there is little time to adapt..
I can’t see that there is any harm in a doubling of CO2 say to 800 ppm (and that will bring considerable benefits), but whether CO2 at a level of 1200ppm and above is a good thing for animals would need considerable testing. I have seen some articles regarding CO2 on submarines in which it is suggested that CO2 at about 1500ppm can cause a loss of mental ability/faculty so I guess that there is a happy balance between what is good for plants, and what is good for animals.

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 3:50 am

“CO2 at about 1500ppm can cause a loss of mental ability/faculty”
It seems unlikely given that nuclear attack subs operate at an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm . There’s a WUWT post with links to the National Academies of Science on the subject at the link below

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 4:55 am

It is all verifiable. No need to guess. Your experiments will not need statistics. You will find an atmosphere containing .008 (8,000 ppm) CO2 has no discernible negative effects on man or mammals.

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 5:32 am

I did read that post and some other articles on this, and I stand by the thrust of my comment that there is a happy balance between what may be good for plants and what may be good for animals.
In the WUWT article you cite, it stated:
“On nine scales of decision-making performance, test subjects showed significant reductions on six of the scales at CO2 levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and large reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm. The most dramatic declines in performance, in which subjects were rated as “dysfunctional,” were for taking initiative and thinking strategically. “Previous studies have looked at 10,000 ppm, 20,000 ppm; that’s the level at which scientists thought effects started,” said Berkeley Lab scientist Mark Mendell, also a co-author of the study. “That’s why these findings are so startling.”
Berkeley Lab researchers found that even moderately elevated levels of indoor carbon dioxide resulted in lower scores on six of nine scales of human decision-making performance. While the results need to be replicated in a larger study,….”
Now I am not sure what is a critical level. large scale studies have not been undertaken on man and animals.
All I am saying is that there is no doubt some happy balance, and we would need to carefully investigate matters not just for us, but also for other animals if CO2 levels become substantially elevated in a very short time frame.

Michael Palmer
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 5:38 am

Your exhaled air contains 4% – 40,000 ppm – of CO2. As long as CO2 in the inhaled air is well below that, there will be no consequences of any kind.

Michael Palmer
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 5:40 am

… “decision making scores” is not a metric I would use to test for physiological effects of CO2.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 7:34 am

@ richard verney

Berkeley Lab researchers found that even moderately elevated levels of indoor carbon dioxide resulted in lower scores on six of nine scales of human decision-making performance. While the results need to be replicated in a larger study,….”

My questions for you are, …… 1) did the test subjects know beforehand what the “test” was being conducted for …… and/or …. 2) did they know what the level/concentration of CO2 was going to be during their testing?
If the answer is “YES” to either one, ….. then said testing was bogus.
Knowing anything about the “testing” can result in a “placebo” effect in the minds of the ones being tested.

Bob Boder
Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 11:39 am

come on, what’s the level in your lungs at any given point in time north of 10,000 ppm as high as 50,000 PPM? This is just stupid and you should see right through it.

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 12:38 pm

just curious –did the “indoor studies” also consider the reduced O2 levels that would be part of a stagnant air study of increasing CO2 levels???

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 5:06 pm

In addition to all the intelligent comments replying to Richard Verney, I might add this:
If CO2 were to double from the current ≈400 ppm, no one would even be able to tell without the use of very sensitive instruments. Only plants could tell.
CO2 is still just a tiny trace gas, measured in parts per million. It is as essential to life on earth as H2O <–(that's water, for the IPCC's head-nodders).
The problem IMHO is that the government education industry has dumbed down the population to the point that a word like "carbon" is meaningless. People don't know that we are carbon-based life. We exhale CO2. We imbibe it whenever we drink a Coke, beer or champagne.
Yet government bureaucrats in the EPA have connived and colluded with federal judges to declare CO2 a "pollutant"!
The general public doesn't object, because they don't understand. I can excuse stupid. Maybe it's not their fault. But I cannot excuse mendacity — and that applies to most of the defenders of the 'climate' scare who post here. They are deliberately lying, for various reasons. But still, they are lying. Anyone who reads this site for any length of time must know better. Ignorance is no excuse.

Reply to  richard verney
October 16, 2015 7:56 pm

Comments were closed on the CO2 is bad for brains thread, so I will have to put my insight here. The study that found CO2 bad for brains tested students used to low levels of CO2 at much higher levels all on the same day.
The studies showing no harm, to submariners or others, were done on people adapted to high levels. There is something called “CO2 tolerance.” Buteyko breathing techniques increase CO2 tolerance.
As an animal physiologist, I believe life expectancy will increase as higher levels of outdoor CO2 help us become more CO2 tolerant. A paradoxical reason why is that today’s very low CO2 levels require very shallow breathing to maintain blood CO2, which is in the form of carbonate HCO3-. That shallow breathing means that we are deficient in oxygen.

Reply to  richard verney
October 18, 2015 8:49 pm

This report suggests exposure to 5000ppm CO2 for 8 hours a workday is acceptable.
NASA is happy with 5000ppm 24 hours/day for 1000 days
I suspect that NASA would not be keen on levels that affected crew performance

Village Idiot
October 16, 2015 2:10 am

“I submitted my piece to every liberal publication, from the LA Times to the Atlantic Monthly to National Geographic to Huffington Post and many more. They all turned it down.”
Seems mainstream media has had it up to here with de ‘skeptics’ and that WUWT is becoming an ever more consolidated voice for such views

Reply to  Village Idiot
October 16, 2015 9:21 am

Yes. Unfortunately, the number of alarmist idiots is being funneled here, too.

John Robertson
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 9:56 am

Yes because sceptical thought is winning.
More poor desperate true believers being thrown into the fray.
Why would they bother unless they do sense how shaky their own positions are?
Bureaucracies take 7 to 10 years to correct from glaring criminal errors, decades from smaller ones.
CAGW is a bureaucratic scheme, slow build, boring middle and fades away into the filing cabinets.. no one to blame, not my department..
I see the desperation building as Paris approaches , the Parisites lash out at every questioner, then they wonder why the general public has lost interest in being stampeded and is more amused by their shrill hysteria.
Truth is finally getting its boots on.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:35 am

Village Idiot, am I mistaken in my assessement that alarmists need me to bend to their will and just believe them, where as I just want people to understand what my research is saying about the science, and how the science needs to be seperated from politics?
Do you see the difference? Why do we not “get a seat at the table”? Just because you think we are wrong, does not mean we don’t get to speak. It is my understanding that it is you that are wrong, but I would still let you speak. Your actions betray you, IMHO.
Your theory has dissipated like our atmosphere dissipates into space. Face it.

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:38 am

David Ball says: ” like our atmosphere dissipates into space”
Well, David, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so far the atmosphere hasn’t dissipated very much.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:46 am

Steve Jones October 16, 2015 at 11:38 am says;
Well, David, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and so far the atmosphere hasn’t dissipated very much.
Steve displaying his ignorance not only in reading comprehension, but also on how the outer dimensions of the atmosphere are configured.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:48 am

As well as dodging the gist of the post. ( I am laughing so hard!)

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:49 am

David Ball is showing that he does not understand the meaning of the word “dissipated”

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 12:47 pm

David Ball is correct:
From the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, copied verbatim:
verb dis·si·pate \ˈdi-sə-ˌpāt\
: to cause (something) to spread out and disappear

That’s what the atmosphere does with rising altitude.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:54 am

Choosing to continue avoiding the gist of my post,…..
I have played these games with many other here on WUWT. You don’t get to direct the discussion.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 11:58 am

dbstealey October 16, 2015 at 9:21 am
Yes. Unfortunately, the number of alarmist idiots is being funneled here, too.

I will thank Steve Jones (loved your playing in the Sex Pistols, by the way ) for verifying dbstealey’s comment.

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 12:00 pm

[Snip. Sockpuppetry. ~mod.]

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 1:00 pm

David Ball,
“Steve Jones” cites Mirriam-Webster, but he doesn’t give the definitions. Actually, there are a number of related, but different definitions for ‘dissipate’. But the very first one (and thus the most common definition) is:
“To cause (something) to spread out and disappear.”
That is what the atmosphere does with increasing elevation. It is the altitude that causes the atmopsphere to dissipate. Eventually it goes away completely once you get far enough away from the earth.
But don’t let the “Steve Jones” sockpuppet bother you. He is fixated on my name, so any time I comment it spins him up. That’s fun for me to watch, especially when he nitpicks an irrelevant factoid like a perfectly appropriate word. In this case he’s clearly wrong, just like he is most of the time.

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 12:06 pm

[Snip. Sockpuppetry. ~mod.]

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 12:07 pm

As you leave the planet, there is no boundary layer between our atmosphere and space. This is from you own link:
b : to cause to spread thin or scatter and gradually vanish
c : to lose (as heat or electricity) irrecoverably

Now go away since you cannot deal with the body of my original post, and I have important things to do.

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 12:11 pm

In 4.5 billion years our atmosphere has not ” gradually vanished”
Nor has it been lost ” irrecoverably”

Is English your 2nd language?

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 12:52 pm

[Snip. Sockpuppetry. ~mod.]

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 1:22 pm

“Steve Jones”,
Go argue with the Mirriam-Webster folks. Their #1 definition explains exactly what the atmosphere does with increasing altitude: it dissipates, until there’s nothing left of it.
Tell them their dictionary is wrong, and that you know better. Report back. We can use the amusement. ☺

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 2:11 pm

Dr Ball did not state that our atmosphere dissipates into space all at once, indeed, he did not specify a speed or rate of dissipation at all. So your entire argument with him is either based on a ridiculous assumption of what you THINK he meant, or an issue of truly minuscule semantic import.
Kind of like me saying that since you believe that our atmosphere does not “thin out and disappear” into space, you must be claiming that our atmosphere does the OPPOSITE of dissipate….it “accumulates,collects,gathers,hoards”. You’re saying that our atmosphere today, is made up of ALL the atmospheric particles that existed the day our atmosphere developed millions upon millions of years ago AND every single atmospheric particle that developed afterwards. I could ask you questions like “What holds it all in? Do our rockets punch holes in it when they launch them into outer space? (You’d think the first one would have sent us reeling across the universe like a popped balloon!) How does the pressure of our atmosphere remain constant from the ground to your envisioned atmospheric boundary, you know, perfectly “thick” and consistent so that the whole thing doesn’t explode from all that additional atmosphere being added to it?
But those questions are stupid because the presumption that anyone would believe that is stupid. Kind of like your presumptions about Dr. Ball’s statement.

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 1:26 pm

[Snip. Sockpuppetry. ~mod.]

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 2:39 pm

Odd, that you are lecturing someone on their command of the English language. At, they have a little index rater widget and when you type in the word rarefy, it states “Few English speakers likely know this word”. Maybe because it originated during the Middle Age in Europe and never made it into the modern English vocabulary?
Kind of like how we don’t use any of the following words any more, or the word means something different in modern english:
kirtle-a long gown or dress
illuminator -artist who applied decoration including gold to a manuscript
quarrel -short square headed bolt or arrow used in a crossbow
vice-a spiral stairway
[The mods note that most people trying to quarrel about kirtles in a vice trip in the poor illuminator at the bottom of the stares. Unless their vise is very tight. .mod]

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 1:30 pm

[Note: This commenter has been repeatedly banned for using fake screen names. Any future comments will be deleted. ~mod.]

Reply to  Steve Jones
October 16, 2015 2:41 pm

“Steve Jones” has exactly the same style as these sockpuppet screen names:
David Socrates
Edward Richardson
Gordon Ford
Jacob Walters
John Kernan…
…and about a dozen or more additional fake names, most of whom have been banned here.
This is not “Steve Jones”. This is just a miserable and unhappy individual who is fixated on David Ball’s and my comments.
I’ve never once replied to any “Steve Jones” comments; I only reply when he sees a comment of mine and then posts his usual argumentative nonsense. He cannot refute the facts we post, so he deflects onto irrelevant side issues, like the definition of ‘dissipate’. And he was wrong there, as I showed using his own source.
But that has nothing to do with this article; it is only more of his incessant nitpicking, which he attacks with because he has no better argument. And it sends him ballistic when we point out facts and evidence. “Steve Jones” is just another climate alarmist who has been wrong from the get-go.
A moderator should really do some checking on this “Steve Jones” sock-puppet, because IMHO there’s no way it’s his real name. But I do get great amusement watching his impotent attempts to argue the alarmists’ narrative.
As the poster boy for the alarmist crowd’s failed conjecture, I urge “Steve Jones” to continue commenting. This site encourages all scientific points of view (which leaves out most of his comments), and that is why WUWT is so popular: people can read all sides of the scientific debates, and make up their own minds.
So “Steve Jones” is helping the skeptics’ arguments, whether he knows it or not. As the article here shows, alarmists keep coming over to the skeptics’ point of view in a steady stream — but I’ve never seen someone skeptical of the “dangerous AGW” scare become an alarmist.
Most of the undecideds eventually agree with those of us who are skeptical of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. They have read all the arguments, and just like the subject of this very article they have decided that the global warming scare is a false alarm.
People like “Steve” are still desperately trying to keep the “climate change” dyke from collapsing; They are trying to stop the public from turning on the ridiculous “man-made climate change” narrative.
But they’re failing, as the headline article shows. And once their side loses the public, the alarmist crowd will never get them back again.
“Steve Jones” is helping the cause of skeptics, for the simple reason that he’s got nothin’. Nothing, except for his hate-filled comments overflowing with bile, sockpuppetry, scare tactics, deflection, and insults — while skeptics have verifiable facts.
No contest. ☺

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 1:40 pm

Steve Jones October 16, 2015 at 1:30 pm says;
I’m sure he doesn’t need your help in discussing his misuse of English.
I wasn’t discussing this, but it seems you are unable to bring your mind to bear on anything else.
Pretty funny actually.
I believe Kent Brockman coined the apropot term “avoision”. Seems applicable.

Steve Jones
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 1:49 pm

[Snip. Sockpuppetry. ~mod.]

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 2:13 pm

I am comfortable letting the readership judge for themselves. Have a nice day.

David Ball
Reply to  dbstealey
October 16, 2015 3:13 pm

Aphan, thank you for your posts, however I must correct you. I am not a doctor.
Although growing up in Dr. Ball’s home required one to have at least a Masters level of knowledge on virtually every known subject or field of study, or remain silent during conversations.
He wasn’t a tyrant, though. Just wanted your best. Hands down the best father ever.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  dbstealey
October 17, 2015 4:06 am

Nothing much is ever accomplished if one attempts to engage in an intelligent conversation with a “one-track-mind“.
Like the “repeating” of a broken phonograph record, it can not be “de-railed” from its 1st comment on the subject in question.

October 16, 2015 2:23 am

Mr.s Siegel: Caleb Rossiter lost his position as a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies about last year for becoming an apostate and speaking out against climate alarmism. There are three WUWT thread on the event. Here’s one–it has links to the other two, I think. (If not, use the search box for Rossiter):

David Ball
Reply to  rogerknights
October 16, 2015 11:42 am

rogerknights October 16, 2015 at 2:23 am,
It seems that us long term denizens of WUWT have seen this over and over.No wonder the majority will not speak up.

Reply to  David Ball
October 17, 2015 10:09 am

David, I apologize for unintentionally bestowing a Ph.D upon you! You are welcome to keep the title in an “honorary” fashion if you like. It’s all the rage these days to adopt imaginary honors for one’s self, such as Nobel Prize Winner, and Climate Expert etc, so feel free.

David Ball
Reply to  David Ball
October 17, 2015 10:16 am

Cheers, Aphan. I have what is seen in today’s society as a character flaw; honesty. 🙂

October 16, 2015 2:27 am

The problem is, as it has always been, that the argument isn’t about fact. It’s about slogans. So if you repeat a slogan often enough, say the polar bears are endangered, everybody will treat it as fact. They will even take counter-evidence, eg a photo of a polar bear that’s just come out of the water (so it’s hair is laid flat) and claim that proves they are starving.
No amount of pointing out the real facts is ever going to change their minds. I don’t yet have a solution to offer, just the observation that more facts won’t convince people. You need to plug into their emotional circuits.

October 16, 2015 2:40 am

Fenton has been behind several scientific scams. He says it is easy to pay some poor broke scientist to step up and say nonsense, then support it with dodgy data. The trouble is that the politicians have been snowed because they lack scientific training.
A good place to start is the very basis of science in education, observation of a burning candle.
Another place is to return to logic in schools. A lot of the CAGW defies logic. It is PR nonsense coupled together with non sequiturs.

October 16, 2015 2:43 am

I followed the crowd until Climategate.
Also coupled with this was my feeling that if this was the worst crisis in human history, why were data not being released with a plea to the whole world to find something wrong with them? Instead we had FOI sagas, commercial interests being cited as reasons to keep this information from the world, and we even have defamation cases being issued and defended. Something is very wrong there.
The more I looked the more I found vested interests, politicisation of science, tribal “warfare”, “consensus as a stick to ruin careers and reputations, gatekeeping, pal review, politicians making a fortune, etc. etc.
Since Climategate I have read thousands of articles, papers, blog posts and I try and keep up. I am a confirmed skeptic. And I am grateful to all of the online resources that helped inform me, including this site.

October 16, 2015 2:43 am

You say “As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose” and then go on to present a multitude of facts. The sort of facts that WUWT and others have been trying to present for years. How is this different?

October 16, 2015 2:49 am

If you take the time to read his article at the original site, you may have noticed the really pretty picture he used for the “The Climate Consensus” – African herd animals. The picture that he should have used is a different type of herd animal – Sheep. Recently shorn.
Not intending to be critical of the author, but it would show the nature of the climate consensus animal so much better.

Paul Matthews
October 16, 2015 3:00 am

It’s a very familiar story, see
and the hundreds of comments on that thread.
“As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems.”
Yes yes yes. Been there, done that.
Sadly though, David’s call to “get the word out through social media, links, and the press, to the liberal audience I’m going after” is, I’m afraid, a bit naive. We’ve been trying to do this for years. David Siegel will continue to be ignored, as he already has been, by the left of the MSM. Of course the other side has also been trying to “get the word out”, with thousands of slick professional websites, propaganda organisations and most of the media on board, and they’ve failed too.

Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 16, 2015 10:24 am

@ David Siegel – I would recommend you take a look at the link above, provided by Paul Matthews. I just spent a couple hours looking at the thread from that post. It’s amazing how many engineers chimed in about how their BS detectors went off when digging into the real facts of AGW. There are many interesting comments, and these were from over 2 years ago…just would recommend that you take a look. Good luck to you as a convert – you will likely lose some friends over it. (but you will gain many other friends, or let’s say like minded individuals). – JPP

October 16, 2015 3:01 am

I appreciate your essay, and the work you must have put into your independent look at the issue. As you say, the real problem in getting a clear message out is more one of influence and communication rather than facts. We humans have a tendency to form and hold onto our perspectives quickly, and it can be difficult to break through conflicting noise.
I’ll post links to your essay, wherever possible, and hopefully a few of those who see it will stop by and ask themselves a few questions, too. The interesting (and tragic) thing is that I saw much the same stubbornness in many of my colleagues on this issue. They were and are intelligent, and very scientific when it comes to their own disciplines (I am a retired physicist), but somehow, once the issue became politicized, the way they thought about the issue changed.

October 16, 2015 3:07 am

Horses led to water decide when they drink.
Humans are led by their leaders and told what to drink.
Till the facts have emotion attached they are not palatable
The fact that rare birds are killed every day by wind generators
Or that solar farms cremate birds on the wing.
That Co2 is actually good for the trees and cereal crops.
Say these things to believers of A.C.C. they usually reply.” I did not Know that”.

October 16, 2015 3:19 am

It has probably already been said here and in a better way, but I’ll say it again. It’s about power, pure and simple.

Dodgy Geezer
October 16, 2015 3:23 am

…I ask you to help get the word out through social media, links, and the press, to the liberal audience I’m going after. Links really help. If you can help reach Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other influential liberals, I hope to help them understand that the science is not settled….
Do you think this hasn’t been tried? What do you think happens to the people who try to do this?
They get laughed at and ignored. They lose all their friends. They may lose their job, and certainly lose any hope of advancement.
If they are in the communications business, all access to communication links is barred. Just read about the problems Steve McIntyre had in pointing out an obviously wrong piece of science. You will have no ability to tell what you want to say, and if you create your own magazine/web site/whatever, it will be attacked 24/7 by disruptors, both paid and amateur.
If you still manage to survive, criminal activity might be directed at you, as it was by Peter Glieck against Heartland. And lying behind this will be cod academic papers purporting to prove that you are certifiably insane, and continuous lobbying from academic and pressure groups to have your views declared illegal, for you to be locked up and punished for holding them, and, in several cases, executed.
I think you are an innocent abroad in the climate change business. It is a very ugly battle of science against money and religion, and your approach would have as much hope of working as a pacifist walking out of the trenches into no-man’s-land the day before the Battle of the Somme, shouting “Can’t we just discuss this quietly like gentlemen?”

October 16, 2015 3:30 am

I was a convinced warmist until ~1998 even though my father at the time, an atmospheric physicist/meteorologist told me literally it was all c@@@, a tax grab he said. However it was only when I read Svensmark;s work (after my father deceased), on cosmic rays that I changed my mind as I recalled that that he thought the same but years ahead. He was involved with the WMO, NOAA and EU for setting up the cosmic ray counters in Chacaltaya, Bolivia in the 60’s. I do not think C02 has any effect on weather/climate, I mean literally 0 effect because it has been at 1000’s ppm during glaciations and at 0ppm there would be no life but climate/weather would probably be unchanged.

October 16, 2015 3:39 am

I think David Siegel should be a bit more skeptical regarding the Solar (Total Solar Irradiance, TSI) relationship with temperature. The graph he credits to Willie Soon does not correspond to other TSI datasets that I’ve seen. I don’t know the source of the discrepancy, but most people who have looked at the topic do not find such a clear correlation. David’s other graph, which gives BEST as a source, also comes from Soon (using BEST temps) (see

Reply to  Ruth Dixon
October 16, 2015 9:00 am

Ruth, the underlying physics are undeniable. It would be quite an ignoramus that could deny that energy input would have an impact on energy levels, for which temperature is a crude proxy. It would be like saying that changing the knob on a gas stove doesn’t affect cooking time.
Having said that, once you have causation, the lack of correlation is not really a problem, given that it’s also well understood that there are significant and extremely complex physical and thermal dynamics involved and the input variations are relatively small.
It would be shocking from a system dynamics point of view if there were a clear correlation. Correlation does not indicate causation, and the lack thereof does not contraindicate causation.

Pat Frank
Reply to  VikingExplorer
October 16, 2015 9:59 am

Your reply to Ruth forthrightly assumes that radiation physics is the whole mechanism governing air temperature, VikingExplorer; as though convection and water phase-changes did not exist on Earth.
Once those mechanisms are included in one’s thinking about the problem, one sees that the evidence supports the high likelihood that the thermal effects from the radiation physics of CO2 may not show up in air temperature at all.
That makes the stove knob analogy hopelessly over-simplistic.

Reply to  VikingExplorer
October 17, 2015 5:00 am

Pat Frank, you have completely misunderstood me. I would have thought that by now my reputation would precede me. The underlying physics are that solar input variation cannot help but have an effect on thermal dynamics.
Do you think that anyone who mentions “underlying physics” is an AGW proponent? It seems that people here have associated “science” with “pro-AGW”.
After 15 years of commentary, I would have thought that my position was clear:
I don’t believe that CO2 has ANY effect on steady state temperatures. NADA. ZILCH. NIL. Completely and totally ZERO. The effects of CO2 are transitory in nature. It merely changes the time constant by a negligible amount.
I’ve switched from a 13 mpg V10 Ford van to a Chevy Spark EV. I didn’t do it “save the environment”. I got tired of feeding the plants. By driving that behemoth around for 15 years, I’ve more than done my part for the plant kingdom. From now on, they are on their own. Find your own CO2 you silly green things.

Pat Frank
Reply to  VikingExplorer
October 17, 2015 9:26 am

You’re right, VE. It was about solar inputs, not CO2. My mistake, sorry.

October 16, 2015 3:42 am

When are these geniuses going to tell me the optimum average global temperature?
And if it varies from today, it means somewhere somebody has to get cooler and some get warmer. Now THAT will take a lot of meetings in Paris to figger out!!!

October 16, 2015 3:46 am

Excellent article. One query: I thought the hottest day of the year with the air conditioning turned off was the day of Hansen’s testimony to Congress, not the day Gore set up his committee.
My first thought was: “It won’t work” and my second: “We don’t know what will work, so let’s support every effort to get people off their backsides” (especially us liberals, or socialists, as we call ourselves in Europe). One day something will work. It might just be this.”
Good luck.

October 16, 2015 3:49 am

Things may not be at all that bad. The BBC has taken a neutral stance even criticizing me thinks the whole AGW dogma in this article
Also its pretty amazing that the guardian even reported the story (also not pro agw, but neutral)

Jeff (FL)
October 16, 2015 3:53 am

That cartoon …
Shouldn’t there be a lot of welcoming goldfish in the ‘cool’ climate skeptic bowl?
Not to mention at least a few fish floating belly up on the surface of the water in the ‘hot’ bowl. 🙂

Reply to  Jeff (FL)
October 16, 2015 10:44 am

Perhaps a few square and nerdy goldfish to welcome the jumper?

October 16, 2015 3:57 am

I knew that Global Warming was nonsense back in 2003, when a friend said: “do you know that there has been no global warming for four years.” (Now 18 years.) So I did a short investigation. I also knew that renewables were a load of tosh, so I wrote an article for WUWT outlining why, which was published in 2009.
But the clincher, if anyone ever needed a clincher to such an obviously idealistic fantasy as “governments can control the weather”, was the UK’s bedtime story advert. Yes, we all know that Grimm’s fairytales were – well – grim – but this New Labour grimmytale was in a league of its own.
And it does not take much political awareness to know that when a duplicitous regime like New Labour starts politicising and advertising science, there has to be something deeply wrong with that ‘science’. The moment that Kim Jong-un, Gaddafi, Saddam, Blair, al Gore or even Obama feel the need to make cast-iron pronouncements on science, the BS antennae should start twitching. And the twitching went off the scale with this advert — so Global Climate Warming Change Disruption could only ever be political propaganda.

Reply to  ralfellis
October 16, 2015 6:57 am

ralfellis, aka sliver ralph, aka & etc.:
Your persistent publication of disinformation on a variety of subjects is annoying.
The AGW scare was deliberately created by Margaret Thatcher (i.e. an icon of the right) long, long before New Labour existed.
People wanting to know why and how Thatcher created the scare and why her political party (i.e. the Conservative Party) were willing to go along with it can read this.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 16, 2015 12:28 pm

The AGW scare was deliberately created by Margaret Thatcher (i.e. an icon of the right) long, long before New Labour existed.
So where do I say that Blair created AGW, eh? Nowhere. So your posts, as ever, are baseless rants based upon a curious and unfathomable hero-worship of the political wreckage of Communism.
However, the truth of the matter is that Tony Blair presided over a whole decade of AGW disinformation – the very years whan the majority of AGW promotion was devised and crafted. It was Blair’s nihilistic naughties that saw AGW transformed from an environmentalist curiosity into a global scam. And it was Blair’s amoral political spin meisters who tried to scare vulnerable children, so they would pressure their parents into feeling socially guilty and therefore accepting AGW as a fact and its increased taxes to asuage their social sins.
(Remember that it was Blair’s morally bankrupt government that said 9-11 was a fantastic day – to bury some bad political news in. Yes, that was the moral cesspit that New Labour had sunk into.)
The CO2 advert highlighted here was a disgraceful display of political disinformation, to manipulate the masses while witholding the true intention of the government. Thus Blair was advertising the fact that he cared nothing for the truth and nothing for the democractic process, as long as he could achieve his hidden political agenda. It was a disgraceful and shamefull display of political amorality, and anyone condoning his nefarious scheme deserves to be tainted with the same cloak of shame as Blair himself wears.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 16, 2015 12:44 pm

ralfellis, aka sliver ralph, aka & etc.:
Why do you ask me

So where do I say that Blair created AGW, eh?

when I did not claim you did?
I correctly said
“ralfellis misled by being economical with the truth: in the UK – as in most other countries – the AGW issue is NOT an issue of ‘left vs right’, and ralfellis implied the AGW scare was a creation of New Labour. Indeed, he made no mention of the Conservative Party.”
and I explained that.

As is your usual practice, your comments only consist of baseless assertions; e,g. I don’t “hero-worship” “the political wreckage of Communism”.
I have always opposed communism in every possible way.
Please try to say something honest, truthful and not abusive. I know that is difficult for you, but I assure you that you will probably feel better if you manage to do it.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 17, 2015 4:33 am

Thanks for the link. I’m ashamed to say I’d never come across your report before. Could you contact me at my blog?

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 17, 2015 7:37 am

Thatcher has been off the political stage for over 20 years. What’s happening now is what matters.
In the here and now, it is the left that has been pushing these schemes to use CO2 as an excuse to grow government.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 17, 2015 8:05 am

You say

Thatcher has been off the political stage for over 20 years. What’s happening now is what matters.
In the here and now, it is the left that has been pushing these schemes to use CO2 as an excuse to grow government.

It is NOT only “the left that has been pushing these schemes”.
For example, Thatcher’s political party is NOW the UK government and is “pushing” the AGW scare.
The AGW scare is a bandwagon supported and opposed by people from all parts of the politicasl spectrum. I repeat,
Pretending the falsehood that the AGW scare is some kind of left-wing conspiracy is divisive of opposition to the scare.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 17, 2015 4:46 pm

“Pretending the falsehood that the AGW scare is some kind of left-wing conspiracy is divisive of opposition to the scare. ”
YES. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.
(Chances of getting that message into the brains of our fellow travelers: zero percent.)

Reply to  ralfellis
October 16, 2015 9:13 am

I think you’re correct that Thatcher’s political team came up with AGW or at least decided to capitalize on it as a way of making her science degree and the situation with coal mines into a political strength. This only proves that Thatcher was more of a politician than a dedicated scientist.
However, at least in this post, ralfellis didn’t dispute this fact. He merely said that the New Labor party was also capitalizing on a scientific fraud for political gain in a shameless manner. The ad makes this clear.
While remaining neutral on internal UK politics, I would speculate that the situation would be similar to what it is in the US, where there is no great abundance of honor or scientific integrity on either side of the political fence.

Reply to  VikingExplorer
October 16, 2015 10:00 am

I tend to agree with you when you say

While remaining neutral on internal UK politics, I would speculate that the situation would be similar to what it is in the US, where there is no great abundance of honor or scientific integrity on either side of the political fence.

But I disagree with the thrust of your post because it is not true that

However, at least in this post, ralfellis didn’t dispute this fact. He merely said that the New Labor party was also capitalizing on a scientific fraud for political gain in a shameless manner. The ad makes this clear.

ralfellis misled by being economical with the truth: in the UK – as in most other countries – the AGW issue is NOT an issue of ‘left vs right’, and ralfellis implied the AGW scare was a creation of New Labour. Indeed, he made no mention of the Conservative Party.
Pretending the falsehood that the AGW scare was a New Labour creation is divisive of opposition to the scare.
In reality, Margaret Thatcher created the AGW scare as a method to acquire personal political credibility: this was a successful tactic that was supported by her political Party (i.e. the right-wing Conservative Party).
The UK Government lost interest in global warming when Mr John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister. The flow of Government money began to stop for conduct of global warming research. UK scientists then began to speak out in denial of the global warming hypothesis. It seemed that the issue was dying a natural death. Then the ‘coal crisis’ arose in October 1992 when the public protested at the scale of pit closures. This gave the UK Government a new need to find an excuse for its policy of closing coal mines. Global warming fitted this need and so the Government committed £16,000,000 to an advertising campaign which scaremongered about global warming, and re-established the funding priorities for climate research.
Later, at the start of May 1997, the Conservative Party lost office to the New Labour Party and Mr Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister. The UK had initiated the global warming issue and a change of UK policy may have had a significant effect on the widespread imagined risk, but by then the global warming issue had become important in its own right. Many countries had a stated global warming policy, 122 of them had signed a declaration of intent to reduce CO2 emissions at the Rio Summit, and the Kyoto Summit was scheduled. The UK was one of the very few countries that had reduced its CO2 emissions since the Rio Summit because the UK had replaced coal-fired generating capacity by gas-fired generating capacity. This provided the UK with a position of authority in this international affair, and Mr Blair committed the new UK government to strict action to cut CO2 emissions.
Thus, by supporting the AGW scare, Tony Blair (and New Labour) put on the credibility that Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party had worked so hard to obtain by creating the AGW scare more than a decade earlier. The Conservative Party had worked to sustain the scare until New Labour gained office, and the Conservative Party still does work to sustain it as the UK’s existing government Party.
UKIP is the only significant UK political party that does not promote the AGW scare.

Reply to  VikingExplorer
October 17, 2015 4:48 am

>> and ralfellis implied the AGW scare was a creation of New Labour. Indeed, he made no mention of the Conservative Party.
Richard, I take your point. It was misleading.

October 16, 2015 3:57 am

Like most people, I believed in global warming because they all said it was true. I didn’t bother to do any fact checking until Bush refused to submit the Kyoto protocol to the Senate for a vote.
I decided to learn about Kyoto and climate to see if Bush was a total jerk or what. Turns out Bush was a jerk. If he had submitted the protocol to the Senate, it would have gone down to defeat, since the Senate had voted 95-0 previously in a Sense of the Senate vote that they would not approve any treaty on CO2 which did not reduce CO2 emissions from China and India. Bush incredibly took all the heat for the USA not signing onto Kyoto. Naturally, the Democrats of the Senate were silent as Bush took all the hatred from the usual suspects eg, BBC Headline “FUROR IN EUROPE.”.
The more I read, the more I realized what a climate of oppression there was in this field. Imagine astrophysicists publicly belittling the importance of the sun in the Earth climate system, being nothing compared to the decisive impact of CO2, but asking for some research funds anyway. They crawled on their bellies. Public humiliation.
Climate historians changed history. “We will never know why the Viking colony on Greenland died out.”
They changed the data.
The corruption stank to high heaven.
The arrogance of my Democratic friends astounds me even to this day. “Even if it’s not true, we should cut back on fossil fuels (ie. give me my tax break on my new car), push renewables (build windmills someplace else ), and raise taxes on corporations (but don’t tax my pension). Oh, and keep paying me my state/Federal pension with COLA and health benefits.”
The most arrogant people I know are the most ignorant on this topic. They wear their ignorance proudly. It is a sign of ideological purity. They are true believers.

Reply to  joel
October 16, 2015 5:32 am

>>The most arrogant people are the most ignorant.
>>It is a sign of ideological purity.
>>They are true believers.

October 16, 2015 4:03 am

I appreciate your efforts, Mr. Seigel. The more people that talk about studying the issue and discovering they were wrong, the better.
However, I believe your effort, by itself, will not be successful. I’m going to guess–based on the headline to this post, and your inclusion of autobiographical detail– that you are operating under a fundamental misconception. You believe that because you are “one of them,” liberal, vegan, etc., your words will have more sway. In private, and in public, the only thing that will change is your reputation. You will be the friend who “went off the rails,” (accompanied by an eyeroll). I can personally assure you of this.
It will take thousands more “conversion confessions” to change the public discourse toward truth. That, and a strict pledge by us skeptics to stop being self-righteous, moralistic, red-baiting sore winners all over those who have newly converted to skepticism.
Good luck to you!
(Note: veganism isn’t good or bad for the environment. Good and bad aren’t scientific terms. They are interpretations.)

Bubba Cow
October 16, 2015 4:11 am

Ask yourself WHY did you decide to read about climate science???
Was it a hot topic for your writing? Or could it have been something more?

Warren Latham
October 16, 2015 4:14 am

Dear Anthony,
The HEADLINE is wrong.
Respectfully I suggest that it ought to say “climate SCARE proponent”.
No-one is a climate proponent.

John B
October 16, 2015 4:19 am

Manmade Global Warming/Climate Change is a growing bubble which needs ever more pumped into it to stop it deflating away, until the point is reached where it will burst. There are enough examples of this phenomenon.
The real problem is the damage that is done in the meantime.
It should be remembered too, this is an entirely Western Government obsession really about Western hegemonic Planetary rule, until now unchallenged, but Russia is resurgent, then there is China and India too finding its feet.

October 16, 2015 4:20 am

I have always been a left-liberal-green environmentalist – and actually also a scientist and policy analyst with decades of experience in advisory work from UK local council level through national and EU institutions, all the way to the UN – mostly on pollution protection strategies, energy policy and renewable supplies and some biodiversity work – with two books out on the latter. I was Greenpeace International’s chief advocate at the UN for ten years, and then a special advisor to the International Maritime Organisation. We had many successes.
Between 2000-2003, having accepted and never bothered to check the atmospheric physics of CO2, I engaged with UK government agencies on ways of integrating renewable energy with other environmental objectives such as landscape protection, community and biodiversity. In that work I realised that ‘going green’ would create huge damage to the environment – all in the name of staving off rapid climate change. I decided to check the science and see how much time we had because decisions were being railroaded, with no impact assessment on their consequences.
I spent three years studying the science. Within the first month I was shocked at how ‘bad’ is was – many untested assumptions and models that contained no natural cycles. And crucially, data which did not support the conclusions of the IPCC regarding ‘most’ of the driving force being CO2. NASA data on the trends of short-wave radiation at the Earth’s surface clearly showed that from 1980-2000, there was a steady rise in SW radiation – and this was the dominant input in wattage to warm the surface – by about 3:1, and even then the CO2 component was not measurable, but estimated from models.
I wrote a long report in 2008 and visited some of my old Greenpeace colleagues. There was absolutely no feedback – no one wanted to engage in rational scientific discussion – with one exception – Professor Jackson Davis, (University of Santa Cruz)with whom I had worked on pollution issues. He knew my previous work and was willing to look at the data. At first, he simply said ‘Peter, you cannot possibly be right’…and then ‘These questions you have about surface flux must be answered before we can accept the models’. He endorsed by 2009 book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ – and I also then discovered he was a drafting author of the Kyoto Protocol (that went on the book cover).
The silence was then broken. I was roundly attacked in all the left-liberal-green media, with critics refusing to read the book, instead focusing on my ‘mad’ beliefs derived from decades as a teacher of meditation and yoga (parallel to my governmental work, which was never mentioned!).
Jackson Davis began to study the science and by 2010, following a high level discussions on the science where we were received at top climate labs in the USA, he realised my analysis was correct. We have been engaged since then on analysis of climate cycles.
There are still no invitations to speak to environmental groups. All of the top groups – WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, even the bird protection organisations, woodland and wildlife trusts and development lobbyists such as Oxfam, are part of the Climate Coalition, and they brook no scepticism.
The problem – as this site well understands, is that ‘campaigners’ run the show – even newspapers that were once relatively objective, have become campaigners, and the BBC joins them. Vast amounts of foundation money and even EU grants are channeled through these campaigns.
And it is certainly the case that real environmental issues are comparatively neglected – as are, still, the environmental consequences of ‘renewable’ supplies – most particularly the from the import of biofuels.
Facts will not change things. Sadly. Even could they be given a decent discussion in the media. Even the ‘pause’ has been airbrushed out. Global cooling – which is likely over the next five years, might do it – but I would not bet on that not being manageable by spin doctors.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
October 16, 2015 4:56 am

“The problem – as this site well understands, is that ‘campaigners’ run the show”
And David Siegel is a campaigner. He admits he’s a Liberal. Should he be successful with this campaign, he and his other Liberals will still be Liberals. Climate Catastrophe is a symptom of a bigger problem.
I have no interest in helping a Liberal; he is the problem.

Reply to  Gamecock
October 16, 2015 7:08 am

You write

“The problem – as this site well understands, is that ‘campaigners’ run the show”
And David Siegel is a campaigner. He admits he’s a Liberal. Should he be successful with this campaign, he and his other Liberals will still be Liberals. Climate Catastrophe is a symptom of a bigger problem.
I have no interest in helping a Liberal; he is the problem.

No, the problem is bigots who refuse to consider any view other than their own. Such bigots exist among people of every political view, and your post (that I have here quoted) says you are one of them.
All people of good will – including me – have an interest in opposing bigots: you are the problem.

Reply to  Gamecock
October 16, 2015 8:16 am

Richard, the result is that Liberalism persists. Don’t help them. They created the problem; let them fix it. By helping them fix it, Liberalism survives. We have a never ending cycle of Libtards making a royal mess, then conservatives help them fix it, then the Libs get back into power again, and make more royal messes.
Mr. Siegel has taken what he believes to be the truth to his cohorts, and they have rejected it. Instead of normal feedback – hey, there’s something wrong with those people that they don’t want the truth – he comes to us looking for help.
“Bigots” is trashy ad hominem.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! ” – Barry Goldwater

Reply to  Gamecock
October 16, 2015 9:28 am

You made an untrue accusation that David Siegel “is the problem”.
I refuted that saying “the problem is bigots who refuse to consider any view other than their own” and pointed out that your accusation demonstrates such bigotry; it does.
My refutation is factual and NOT “ad hominem” of any kind.
Importantly, bigoted belief in AGW is “the problem” under discussion, and whatever it is that you mean by “liberalism” is NOT “the problem” under discussion in this thread.

Reply to  Gamecock
October 17, 2015 7:41 am

richard, in your opinion anyone who holds the opinion that liberalism has created most of the messes we are trying to deal with is just a bigot and you refuse to debate with bigots.
Nice defensive mechanism you got there. Anyone who spouts the truth is to be ignored.

Reply to  Gamecock
October 17, 2015 8:42 am

I correctly said said

No, the problem is bigots who refuse to consider any view other than their own. Such bigots exist among people of every political view

If you think objecting to bigots is a “defensive mechanism” then remove the beam from your eye so you are not blinded to the truth.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
October 16, 2015 6:15 am

Interesting and informative. Thanks.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
October 16, 2015 7:14 am

Mr Taylor, congratulations. We need a few tens of thousands more, like you.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
October 16, 2015 7:58 am

A person is known by the company he keeps. When you send a list of facts to your colleagues and they refuse to respond, you must be honest with yourself about their personal commitment to sound science. Ask yourself: what kind of person permits ideology to control how they relate to facts? Just the fact that you pressed them on this point has already affected your relationship with them. You had better be prepared to understand the difference between liberals and non-liberals, for anyone who loves the truth more than they love liberal ideology will be regarded as an enemy.
Václav Havel: The Power of the Powerless (the social and spiritual consequences of socialism)
“The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth.” Havel warns that socialist regimes create and enforce their own truth to maintain power. As time goes on, this truth diverges from factual truth and it increasingly forces those who support and depend upon the power of the regime to corrupt themselves to sustain the artificial truth.
In the end, people not only lie to each other, but they start to lie to themselves.

Reply to  Peter Taylor
October 16, 2015 7:43 pm

Great analysis of the overall situation!
There are “paper trails” from one organization to the next. So many that it’s difficult to follow all the trails. However, there may not be all that many key players but there are plenty of foot-soldiers.

October 16, 2015 4:22 am

#1 Even I thought “What corporation is funding this ?”, cos the way the site looks very slick. However it is only 1 long page ..which he says is a one off essay.
#2 His survey has been filled in once.
#3 The hashtag has been used 2 times
Good luck the “Climate alarmist horses” have had the well of Good Skeptic info sitting right in front of them, but been refusing to drink… Alarmism is their cult/religion.

October 16, 2015 4:22 am

I always tempered my assumption that a whole field of science likely wasn’t wrong with a bit of skepticism, but I didn’t really look at it very much (because of course, I didn’t see it as the same looming crisis). But back in 2008, some friends pointed out there were some issues and I dug into the data. I was appalled. Since then I have watched as an already perverse adjustment of a dataset literally turned into an exponential curve.
It’s surreal knowing that these scientists are supposedly finding all this extra melt, extra expansion of the oceans, and yet there’s no increase in sea level rise. They ignore the fact that half of the “observed warming” since the spike in the 1940s is the result of adjustment. It was ridiculous watching a scientist get destroyed by a senator…after the scientist CLAIMED extreme weather a senator showed the actual data (which of course shows no unusual activity), forcing the scientist to back into pure faith with the assertion that the weather had become more extreme but not in a way that showed up statistically. It’s crazy how bad the supposed “science” actually is.

Reply to  poitsplace
October 16, 2015 8:30 am

“It’s surreal knowing that these scientists are supposedly finding all this extra melt, extra expansion of the oceans, and yet there’s no increase in sea level rise. ”
Probably because the amount of melt we see per year we consume in a month. And as more desalination plants spring up, we might at some point slow or maybe even hault the rise…

October 16, 2015 4:25 am

I used to teach university students in their first year. In my lectures on climate change I started by asking the question: `who believes in anthropogenic global warming ?` (responses are in approximate %s). 80% said yes, 15% said `no`, and 5% said `do not know`. At the end of the lectures, which had set out the basic facts, the %s changed. 10% said `yes`, 80% said `no`, and 10% said `do not know`. This was carried out for several years and these were really intelligent kids. Imagine what the bulk of the population are susceptible to! At the recent UK general election, canvassers for different political parties called at my door. They all believed in global warming. Mr Seigel is right: it is only by ensuring that the real unmodified facts are made widely known that reality will prevail. Anything else will be spun by the political class for their own gains.

Coach Springer
October 16, 2015 4:35 am

No car, but you’d fly thousands of miles to take pics of animals? Hey, look! You don’t have to abandon all your liberal totems to question CAGW? True, but unpersuasive. The rest they will recognize and reject.

October 16, 2015 4:41 am

Excellent post. Thank you. You listed very clearly the main points underlying my skepticism regarding the climate consensus.
And sadly you are correct. The climate loons are going to seek to outlaw cliamte skepticism and they are going to do it soon.

Paul Matthews
October 16, 2015 4:46 am

I have added David Siegel to my list of Converts.

Reply to  Paul Matthews
October 16, 2015 10:07 am

Can you add me?

October 16, 2015 5:01 am

“Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural”
Does he have solid evidence of this and can he show valid references? I’m not sure ‘it has happened before” is a completely valid rationale. As for as I am aware there is no solid evidence either way.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 16, 2015 5:34 am

Simply look at the UNADJUSTED history of Earths temps !!!!

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 16, 2015 9:08 am

Then as far as you are aware is not very far, Gareth.
Not very far at all.
There’s plenty of information available. I suggest you avail yourself of it.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 16, 2015 10:43 am

“It has happened before” is a completely valid rationale for disbelieving CAGW. In fact, it is the core of the Null Hypothesis with regard to climate change (such as it is) and human influence thereon.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 17, 2015 7:46 am

If it’s happened before, then before you can assert that CO2 is what done it, you have to prove that whatever caused it to happen before isn’t happening now. Commonly referred to as the null hypothesis.
Since we don’t know what caused it to happen before, we can’t prove that the cause of the previous warmings is not in operation now.
The warmists insist that most of the warming is caused by CO2, because their models, which were tuned to prove just that, have declared it.

October 16, 2015 5:01 am

As you correctly indicate, ultimately AGW is a PR war. PR wars are usually won by who has the best, most publicized soundbites.
Sending out a 9,000 word essay doesn’t sound like a successful PR recipe: few sources will publish such a lengthy treatise, and even fewer people will read it.
I DO believe that this is about facts (i.e. the Science) — which is consistent with your belief that citizens are swayed by credibility. The problem is that although Science is almost universally held in high regard, almost no one actually understands what “Science” actually is. Self-serving agenda promoters are well aware of this dichotomy, and have gone to great lengths to exploit it. This problem needs to be addressed.
Feel free to contact me to discuss further at “aaprjohn at northnet dot org”.
John Droz, jr. physicist

Martin A
October 16, 2015 5:09 am

CAGW belief is a mass delusion that outdoes previous popular delusions.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

Reply to  Martin A
October 16, 2015 7:24 am

Martin A:
You say

CAGW belief is a mass delusion that outdoes previous popular delusions.

I beg to differ. Each generation thinks its situation is unprecedented.
CAGW belief is the existing mass delusion and it matches previous mass delusions.
Eugenics was the greatest mass delusion a century ago, and eugenics was then more widely accepted than CAGW is today.

John Robertson
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 16, 2015 10:08 am

Actually Richard, I see many aspects of Eugenics inherent in the actions and proposed solutions put forward by the Alarmed Ones.
The poor and especially the poor coloured persons of this planet are their targets or victims.
North American Progressives all claim they are the only hope of help for they selected client/victim group.
Where they have held regional power for decades, the people they claim to help, are never better off.
CAGW is Eugenics reborn and run by bureaucracy.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 16, 2015 10:12 am

John Robertson:
I very strongly agree with you.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 17, 2015 7:48 am

Fascinating how both of your examples were embraced enthusiastically by members of the political left.

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 17, 2015 8:29 am

You say

Fascinating how both of your examples were embraced enthusiastically by members of the political left.

Yes, that is strange when they were both initiated by and were both most strongly promoted by the political right. The obvious explanation is probably the correct one; viz. both eugenics and the AGW-scare were bandwagons that people joined for a variety of reasons.
A coincidence of interests is very powerful.

Matt Schilling
Reply to  Martin A
October 16, 2015 9:03 am

CAGW is merely the nasty little sister of macro-evolution / abiogenesis. Macro-evolution / abiogenesis is the looniest science myth of all time. And, it is propagated and protected by a bigger, meaner, more illiberal mafia than CAGW.

October 16, 2015 5:25 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

Can’t at the moment, but I will read his essay soon. ( )
He says skeptics are losing. Perhaps at the moment, but not for long. Most people don’t buy it. Soon the prominent and powerful will realize that nature doesn’t work that way, and they will stop talking about it too. They will drop it as soon as they cannot make money or wield influence with it. The more honest will drop it even sooner.
Sadly, global warming alarmism will still be pushed and still cause real problems decades from now after all of the science has moved on. It is a religious dogma now, and true-believers will remain.

October 16, 2015 5:26 am

If you haven’t found out already, Mr. Siegel, you’re about to find out just how tolerant and liberal your “liberal” friends and colleagues are.

Steve Case
October 16, 2015 5:36 am

Since 2009’s “Climategate” and up until just recently the other side was complaining that their message wasn’t getting out. That seems to have changed. It is as if some sort of high command has passed the word on down to get back on message AND to viciously go after the opposition.
The recent RICO episode and the French firing of a top weather man are two examples.

October 16, 2015 5:45 am

Seems to me some serious cognitive dissonance here. Siegel says:
“As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose.”
And then wants people to read his 9,000 word essay of facts to the contrary of what they believe.

October 16, 2015 6:04 am

Money trumps the common conversation, pro or con doesn’t matter, every time. As long as there is grant money, researchers will milk it. And universities are on board with milking money. We will have to wait on Mother Nature to decide this debate. And in the meanwhile, experience pernicious human folly foisted on us. How do I know? It has happened many times, up to the recent past. Scientists, through the addiction of grant money, have been mistaken about a lot of things, but those mistakes nonetheless, enter into mainstream decisions until the money dries up. Case closed.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 17, 2015 7:50 am

The problem is that the legal systems put in place to fight the “problem” remain long after the politicians have lost interest in it.
CFCs are still banned.

October 16, 2015 6:15 am

You correctly state that climate change hyperbole is largely an emotional appeal and that citing facts is a losing proposition. Then you go on to cite facts (links).
I might also note that the same people who embrace “the settled science” claim are the same ones who’d support an Orwellian one world socialist regime. So explaining that the ‘carbon scheme’ is just part of a political power grab agenda won’t change their thinking either.
Finally, pointing out the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance of Leftwing thinking has never caused them to question their beliefs. It is more akin to a religion based on faith rather than reason.
All that said, I have no idea (sort of annihilation) how remedy the threat these people pose.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  comradewhoopie
October 16, 2015 2:26 pm

Instead of calling the public ignorant try explaining the situation to them from their own dictionary. Not the Scientific, Legal, Medical or any of the other guild dictionaries. Speak the same language, you might find comprehension.

Reply to  Mike Henderson
October 16, 2015 3:12 pm

Mike Henderson:
Use of the vernacular is supportive of applications of the equivocation fallacy as terms in the vernacular are polysemic. The literature of global warming climatology is plagued by misleading applications of this fallacy. Thus, the vernacular should not be used without disambiguation.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  Mike Henderson
October 16, 2015 5:12 pm

Terry Oldberg, I don’t know why you think I’m a troll but your smart-assed answer hasn’t done you a bit of good. The warmunists are fighting for the support of the unwashed masses and doing a better job than you ever will.
Now I’ll get the hell out of here so you aren’t inconvenienced by my trolling.

Reply to  Mike Henderson
October 16, 2015 5:42 pm

Mike Henderson:
The record refutes your claim that I called you a troll. I note that responding to my comment you failed to address the issue that was raised by it. Was stating this false claim a diversionary tactic?

Tom J
October 16, 2015 6:35 am

David Seigel,
In your post you wrote this: “… I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is).”
In all due respect (I’m serious) sir, I’d like to disagree with your statement that being a vegan is better for the environment. There is a fascinating TED presentation by Allan Savoy on ‘How To Fight Desertification And Reverse Climate Change.’ I believe it was linked to at this site by Anthony Watts in a post sometime in the past. In his presentation Allan Savoy demonstrates how the cultivation of grazing animals (cattle, sheep, and others) can actually turn desertified lands into abundant grasslands. For people in these regions animal protein is almost the only source of food they have. Such grazing animals mimic nature and can actually improve the environment. The presentation is an eye opening watch.

Reply to  Tom J
October 16, 2015 7:36 am

Tom, the name is Allan Savory, not Allan Savoy.

October 16, 2015 6:40 am

Send this post and an executive summary of your essay to every declared Presidential candidate, and as well to all candidates for Congressional seats.
Let’s see how many are willing to stand up to the Alarmists and call for and end to the ‘climate’ gravy train, to the wasted money on ‘renewable-energy’ subsidies, and to the EPA’s war on CO2 and coal (not to mention to the EPA itself).
Cutting the ‘climate’ crap out of the Federal budget will take the wind out of the Alarmists’ sails. It won’t stop them from proselytizing and complaining about the coming Apocalypse, but it will mean they’ll have to paddle mightily to stay afloat.
So far I think Senator Cruz is the only Presidential candidate to come down on the side of real science.
/Mr Lynn

October 16, 2015 6:42 am

Good for you. I could have written this exact article– because it perfectly mirrors my own process of discovery on the climate issue (and how I shifted from being a believer to a doubter.)