Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Kafkaesque is one word that encapsulates the entire Paris Conference. It is defined as:

A nightmarish situation which most people can somehow relate to, although strongly surreal. With an ethereal, “evil”, omnipotent power floating just beyond the senses.

 

There are insufficient superlatives to describe the disaster that is the UN COP21 Climate Conference in Paris. None of the superlatives are the ones used by the organizers and their lackeys. It is the largest, most political conference ever, based on completely false claims deliberately created in the greatest science deception in history. It will cost more socially in direct damage to individual lives, communities, and social structures. It will cost more in economic damage to jobs, businesses, and industry. In addition, besides destroying lives it will remove freedom and actually cost lives. It will weaken economies preventing resistance to terrorism. This far exceeds any potential damage from terrorism and is much worse because it is self-inflicted (Figure 1).

clip_image002

Figure 1

Maurice Strong died on the eve of the Paris Climate Conference. They are there because of him. They propose a global energy and environment agenda based on completely false science because of him. I do believe in talking ill of the dead if the evil they created continues after they die. Such is the case with Maurice Strong. Paris is a meeting of global leaders completely conned by the master manipulator – the person who fooled the world. Paris is an Orwellian gathering of people who want to save the planet, but who really want to rule the world in their manner. The French government underscored the Orwellian nature of the meeting with a government directive,

…citing the state of emergency powers and scrapping the human rights convention as justification.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would sympathize with this directive because his father did a similar thing.

The people of Quebec are legally identified in the Canadian constitution as a distinct nation with cultural and language differences from the rest of Canada. In addition, they have their own territory (state), so their desire to become a separate nation-state was well within any of the rules set down by the Treaty of Versailles and the United Nations Charter. Pierre Trudeau used the excuse of two deaths in the struggle by the Quebec separatists (FLQ) to invoke the War Measures Act that took away every citizen’s rights completely. He then used the Canadian military to keep them silent and submissive at gunpoint.

It is not difficult to imagine any of the leaders at Paris using any excuse to take control in a similar manner. Ironically, most don’t seem to realize that the entire objective of the conference is to subjugate and then eliminate them and the individual nation states they represent. Maurice Strong planned this when he set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), organized and chaired the 1992 Rio Conference and created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce the false scientific justification.

The most telling analysis of Maurice Strong occupies approximately 20 percent of Elaine Dewar’s book Cloak of Green.[1] The book is classic journalism because Dewar wanted to write in praise of Canadian environmentalists Maurice Strong, David Suzuki and Elizabeth May now Green Party leader and part of the Canadian Paris delegation. Dewar’s research revealed a very different story. She discovered that they were more manipulative, controlling, and with a specific political agenda than any of the people they attacked.

Strong told Dewar that it was necessary to get rid of the industrialized nations. His reason was based on the Club of Rome neo-Malthusian claim that world population was using up all resources at an unsustainable rate. He told Dewar he couldn’t do anything as a politician but at the UN

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

Dewar concluded after five days with Strong at the UN that:

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

Paris is the culmination of Strong’s time at the UN. A meeting built round the greatest deception in history, a deliberately created lie.

John Holdren was a very active part of the Club of Rome and carried Strong’s climate message into the White House as Obama’s science advisor. The message of undermining developed industrialized nations like the US and redistributing their wealth to developing nations oppressed by US imperialism suited Obama’s belief. He took up Strong’s deliberately orchestrated false story for his legacy. He will find out that you cannot create a legacy – history decides.

Vaclav Klaus was the only world leader to explain what was going on. He knew about totalitarian control and destruction. As he explained at the New York Heartland Climate Conference, we have just escaped 70 years of communism why the hell would you want to go back to that? He summarized the situation in a brief book titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, subtitled What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? (Figure 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2

Obama used his political skills to bring together a disparate group of people whose views and understandings are in absolute conflict. A well informed catholic Pope would not sit down with socialists advocating a dramatic reduction in world population by any means possible, especially abortion. The juxtaposition is exemplified in likely one of the most bizarre images ever. Surrealist Salvador Dali portrayed the crucifixion from a different perspective than anybody else (Figure 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3

At least, it was the most unique before Evo Morales, Marxist President of Bolivia gave a statue to Pope Francis recently (Figure 3).

clip_image008

Figure 4

To make sure the Pope could not just pass off the statue of a crucifixion of Jesus Christ on a hammer and sickle and move on he put the same symbol on the chain around the Pope’s neck (Figure 5).

clip_image010

Figure 5.

Kafka would understand the scenario, but he likely could not have dreamed up such a plot and cast of characters.

John Ralston Saul wrote a book called Voltaire’s Bastards. It used the same device as an earlier play by Dostoevsky. This has a person of great historical influence return only to be shocked by the interpretation and devolution of his ideas. For Dostoevsky, it was Jesus Christ returning in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition and wandering around saying this is not what I intended. Saul has Voltaire come back in today’s world to learn that the Age of Reason and Enlightenment he envisioned is equally distorted. He would have understood one thing about Paris based on his observation that,

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.


[1] Cloak of Green: The Links between Key Environmental Groups, Government and Big Business, Elaine Dewar, Lorimer Press, 1995.

Advertisements

177 thoughts on “Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong

    • But with a spark of Truth. “Obama Is Correct…Climate Change IS the BIGGEST THREAT” but not the way you may think. The threat comes not from the havoc wreaked upon society by changes in climate or as a result of inaction to resolve the perceived threat but from the havoc wreaked upon society by efforts to combat the boogieman of AGW
      AGW is the excuse for the redirection of wealth to seemingly fight a nonexistent monster
      And, as we all know, an Excuse is nothing but the skin of a lie stuffed with reason

    • I agree another excellent post Dr Ball. Perhaps your best. Thank you so much for speaking truth to lies and deceptions in such a clear manner. Have you considered writing a book to get your thoughts and reason out to a broader audience on this subject?

    • Tim Ball rejects even the earth’s natural greenhouse effect. (A Sky Dragon Slayer). Why would any rational person take anything he says seriously?

      • He does not reject the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He rejects the hypothesis that it creates a positive feedback loop that greatly magnifies its limited greenhouse effect.

      • Barry saw fish swimming down the middle of the street in Miami. And you reject what Dr. Ball says?

      • Because the difference in temperature between the tops and bottoms of atmospheres is quantitatively explained by gravity , not some iterative GHG effect . Show me the equations which disprove me if you can .

  1. Buy popcorn, the hysteria crests, the empty egos swell and the costs are coming home to roast the taxpayer.
    Usually the reaction is as entertaining as the action.
    Given the action in play, is the work of our governments, the reaction will be one hell of a time for rent seekers.
    The Emperors New Clothes has lost no relevancy since the first print.

    However Maurice did not operate in a vacuum, his conniving was enabled by a whole cadre of kleptocrats.
    CAGW created, promoted and still protected from investigation, by our “civil servants”.
    Canada’s Laurentian Elites are heavily invested in this scheme, what better way to perpetual feasting at the trough than taxing air.By claiming the authority to control every aspect of the citizens lives and to tax them for the privilege, this is the dream of kleptocrats worldwide.

  2. “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

    Great quote. Applies to so much in politics these days. Think I’ll start a list of the absurd statements made by the media, the bloggers and others promoting CAGW.

      • Frankly, I’d love to see them try to prosecute, especially if they televised it. It would be like the Scopes Monkey Trial, when they tried to prosecute someone for not following the “consensus” that there was no evolution.

      • servingfreya,

        “It would be like the Scopes Monkey Trial, when they tried to prosecute someone for not following the “consensus” that there was no evolution.”

        It might be a great show, but there was no “consensus” at the time of the Scopes trial that Evolution did not occur. In fact, the textbook teachers were required to use in class actually described and endorsed the theory of evolution. There was a local law that banned teaching evolution in public schools which was not enforced, and some thought the town could get a lot of free publicity by fostering a big show trial . .

    • Can someone give me a citation so that I can check whether Voltaire really did say that.
      (If he didn’t, he should have.)

  3. John Ralston Saul, Canada, was a close friend of Maurice Strong. Am assuming this is the same person you mentioned in your article, Dr. Ball?

    • Yes, he was also the husband of the Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. Canada is a very small country dominated by at most about 200 elites. It is why Conrad Black when asked why he isn’t in politics replied he didn’t need to be. When a combines investigation was required of amalgamation of the Power and Argus corporations who effectively control Canada between them, they could not find the necessary 22 experts who did not in on away or another work for one of the corporations.
      Incidentally, the book was called “Voltaire’s Bastards” in Canada but “Voltaire’s Children” in the US.

    • The Globe And Mail, Toronto, published May 2, 2014. Party was April 29, 2014.

      ‘Party photos of the week: Maurice Strong’s 85th birthday’

      “Ms Clarkson and her husband, John Ralston Saul, hosted an intimate 85th birthday party for Mr.Strong.”

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/fashion-and-beauty/fashion/party-photos-of-the-week-maurice-strongs-85th-birthday/article18401679

      Article has 15 photos of the party including:
      Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Lt. Governor of Ontario, former UNEP, on Board of the now closed Chicago Climate Exchange
      Toby Heaps, Corporate Knights Magazine
      Paul Martin, former PM of Canada

  4. Lomborg could come up with all the statistics of social indicators to show that the present generation is much better off than the past generations. Very few will believe on what he says especially from the social strata who are have cornered the benefits of the current civilization . Something unusual? Or is it just ennui ? The present attitudes of the Western leadership seems to fit to Schopenhauer’s ” World as Will and Idea”.

    • Anybody over 60 who grew up outside the USA knows how much better we are off. Not just in financial but also in environmental terms. I was born and raised in an English Northern Industrial city and well remember the dense yellow smog resulting from people burning coal on open hearths, the old men with the hacking coughs brought on by inhaling smoke and coal dust all their lives. They looked about 80 but few were much more than 60. This was a period when few ordinary people survived much beyond retirement.

      Then there was the local river which was a dead stinking sewer that you could smell before you could see it and if you fell in they would take you in to hospital, pump out your stomach and stuff you full of antibiotics. What ended all this was cheap gas and electricity coupled with sensible environmental reforms like the clean air act and the building of proper sewage treatment plants.

      Now the air is clean, all the public buildings have been cleaned and I realize that their dark gray colour was just accumulated filth. Fish have returned to the river which now is used for boating and the riverbank which was dominated by semi derelict industrial buildings has been transformed into a pleasant park where people stroll and walk their dogs. Then some 18 year old idiot hands me a Greenpeace flier and tells me we should go back to ‘the good old days’

      • I think he means much further back than the post war years. Middle Ages more like, but at least it was warm then thanks to the MWP rather than the cooling we face. I have already gone back by having an open fire and burning coal for the first time since the late 60s.

      • It is the same 18 year olds that tell us we missed out on all the electronics and gadgets that they now enjoy. They don’t realize we were the ones that invented them.

      • The same 18 year olds tell me we missed out on all the new gadgets and electronics that they enjoy now. I point out that it was us that invented them.

    • AS an avid fan of Schopenhauer, I have to correct you. It is generally translated as ‘Will and Representation’
      And it isn’t what it seems to be.

      Today’s eejits are far more post modern that Schopenhauer: they have taken on board the statement ‘reality is a social construct’ without understanding it, either.

      The point being that today’s post modernists think like Mediaeval magicians, that what people think creates the world of interpreted experience.

      The whole point of Schopenhauer is that yes, that’s held to be true, but it is not created out of nothing, it is created out of a Will that exists beyond human constructions that are placed upon it.

      So whilst representation – the Weltanschauung – is a human construction, it is a view of something (the Will) that does exists beyond the scope of human thought, whose nature is relatively unaffected by how humanity chooses to relate to it.

      The New Left, has leapt upon half of the metaphysic of contingent reality and used it to promote a suite of ideas that are deeply dangerous. They are like the courtiers surrounding the great Cnut, who said that a divine king should be able to command the tides to halt.

      In the Weltanschauung of the Political Left, what determines (political) reality is solely what people believe.

      AGW is not about real world climate, its about manipulating systems of belief, to create a political reality that advances certain political and commercial objectives.

      Windmills and solar panels are not there to generate significant economic electricity, they are there to demonstrate that the Left has ‘Solutions’.

      What AGW is all about is a sleight of hand, where the Left creates the problem in the minds of the political classes, and then presents various solutions to it, that don’t work, but are enough to convince most people. They don’t need to work because the problem really doesn’t exist in the first place, so any solution will do.

      Now all this works stunningly provided it does not violate what I call the Real Darwin’s Law. And Leo’s Law of inevitabilities.

      WE dispense with ‘survival of the fittest’ because patently in human terms it hasn’t worked. No, the real lesson of Darwin is not survival of the fittest, but eradication of the completely dysfunctional. The only criteria for survival is not sufficiently unfit to not be able by whatever it takes to produce offspring.

      Leo’s Law of inevitabilities simply states that reality is what inevitably happens, whether you believe in it or not.

      In this case, whether we believe in climate change or not changes ultimately nothing if the world is aloof from slight human inputs. And probably even if we are not. However the world of politics is all about belief.

      And that’s why I disagree that this is like Schopenhauer. Its not. Kant and Schopenhauer are both called ‘Idealists’ but they are not. They did not believe or hold that reality as only a human construct, both held that it was a representation of something that existed a priori of the act of perceiving it.

      IN Kant’s case he called that ‘things in themselves’ – Schopenhauer corrects that by pointing out that both things and indeed plurality are ‘in the eyes of the perceiver’ and it is more correct to talk if a unified somethingness, that lies beyond experience, and that unified somethingness, he called whatever it is that is generally translated as ‘Will’.

      If you like the difference between Schopenhauer and the post modernists, is that the latter think that things are what they seem, and that their seemingnesses is a function of your beliefs alone..

      Schopenhauer and Kant would aver that things are not just what they seem, although we have no better way of dealing with them.There is an underlying reality, which although not directly accessible, dominates the nature of how things must seem to be.

      AGW does not exist just because enough people believe in it – not in the real world outside of the political bubble.

      That is what Schopenhauer would have said. But that is not what the post modernists say.

      • King Cnut, Viking king of Denmark, England, Norway and parts of Sweden, actually wanted to show to his courtiers that his powers were limited and that he could not command the tide.
        Cnut was no fool, unlike the Warmistas, and ruled England for nineteen years very successfully.

      • Two notes: Evolution also favors organisms that evolve traits that allow them to adapt to changes in environment, or to exploit new environments, so it is positive as well as negative.

        Kant attempted to delineate the boundaries of reason, beyond which it became indeterminate and capable of leading without any obvious logical error to opposite and contradictory conclusions. In a famous example, ‘the antinomies of pure reason’, he provided ‘proofs’ side by side that space was infinite, and that space must be limited, time was infinite, time had a beginning and an end, and so on. Kant used the unfortunate term ‘dialectical’ to denote the state of reason beyond the limits of its competence.

        The idea of dialectical reason was seized on by the German romantic philosophers such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel (and his disciple, Marx) as a source of gnostic vision from beyond the limits of reason which was granted to a select few initiates driven by their passion and will. Under this narrative, Instead of rational knowledge, there was only ideology driven by a pure will to power against which no appeal to rationality or morality could be made. Maurice Strong was a mystical ideologue in this mold. The Green movement’s apparent adherence to science is entirely superficial. They use it merely as a means of appealing to authority while corrupting it from the inside. Dr. Ball outlines this process in his book The Deliberate Corruption of Science.

  5. “In 1976 Mr. Trudeau’s father, then prime minister Pierre Trudeau, made [Maurice] Strong the first head of the national oil company Petro-Canada.”

    It is all making sense now, go figure?

      • Strong started out as a penny oil stock promoter after the major oil discovery [D3 reef] at Leduc near Edmonton Alberta, Canada. He then carried on in the oil patch moving higher up into executive positions. He was a super slick con artist. His silver tongue got him into CEO positions then into the UN. He was alleged to be involved in the oil for food swindle. Back about 2005 or so there was a FOX News expose on strong and all his networks and money raising schemes.

  6. In the US, the pursuit of Climate Change is really about the pursuit of carbon taxes, as a new revenue stream to keep the supply of OPM* coming.

    Starting in 2017 according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and getting rapidly worse every year thereafter, the US Federal deficit will begin to explode due to increasing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security outflows. Without a new, huge revenue stream, Democrats will be forced by fiscal realities to accept massive scalebacks in these entitlements and discretionary outlays cuts to foodstamps, green energy subsidies, and college student aid. The hoped for new revenue is carbon taxes. Hence the climate change scam.

    The end justifies the lies for the US progressives and Democrats in general.

    * OPM Other Peoples’ Money

  7. Maurice Strong reportedly died Nov 28. Is this real or spin for the climate conference? Have his scams and Nazi affiliations become a NWO/UN liability?
    If it’s true, I pray for my enemies, but I speak the truth about the dead.

  8. The author seems resigned to the fact that the conference outcome is already a fait accompli. I call that progress.

    • Dan Hue

      Your post says

      The author seems resigned to the fact that the conference outcome is already a fait accompli. I call that progress.

      I call your post an inability at reading comprehension.

      Richard

      • When progress is defined as “shouting down” you know we are done. Unfortunately the shouting down is constantly met with calm, well reasoned questions that the shouters just can’t answer so they just get louder because that means they are correct. Ah what a fun time to be alive.
        I can’t wait to see if they cancel COP22 because of cold weather.

  9. Thank you Dr. Ball!
    Pierre Trudeau’s invoking the War Measures Act immediately came to mind when I read that Montreal is part of the Strong Cities Network. I don’t think the organization is named after Strong. People ought to be aware of it because it seems to entail the handing over of municipal policing of member cities to an international agency to deal with.’extremism’. The organization launched in September at the United Nations. So far, four American cities are also part of the network.
    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/launch-strong-cities-network-strengthen-community-resilence-against-violent-extremism
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/21816-strong-cities-network-trilateral-cfr-rothschild-connections

  10. “Ironically, most don’t seem to realize that the entire objective of the conference is to subjugate and then eliminate them and the individual nation states they represent. Maurice Strong planned this when he set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), organized and chaired the 1992 Rio Conference and created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce the false scientific justification.”

    Obama’s incessant warbling on the climate, which most of us can recite word for word (when not tuning it out) is ample evidence that he is at the subjugation phase. Elimination comes soon enough. His replacement will be another useful idiot.

    Strong’s influence as a manipulator cannot be overstated. Can it be undone?

  11. “John Ralston Saul had been chief aide to Strong when Strong was the first chairman, president and CEO of state oil company Petro-Canada, just one of many executive positions in a remarkable career. ” Peter Foster in the Nations Post today.

  12. Thanks, Dr. Ball. This is a superb article!
    Yes, it is especially macabre that humans are doing this to ourselves, to “save” a planet that is in no need of saving and there is no menace can be detected (measured).
    All with no proof of man-made global changes in the weather; with almost static global temperature, about the same numbers of tropical storms and tornadoes, and a very small rate of global sea level rise. Sea ice is growing in Antarctica while the Arctic has been recovering after reaching a minimum in 2012 (in both extent and volume).
    Earth looks very much like a planet recovering from a very deep freeze 11,500 years ago, when the climate again warmed suddenly and the Younger Dryas ended.
    Humans thrive in warm weather, like in the Roman times.

  13. “He will find out that you cannot create a legacy – history decides.”

    Indeed, there once was a fellow (with a mustache) that thought his “style” of governance would last a thousand years…

    Thankfully some brave folks from the US, England, Canada, Australia (and others) though better of that plan. My Father and Uncles had a little disagreement with that fellow in the sky over Germany and on some famous beaches in France. Luckily, We (the allies) won that one. Hopefully that happens again, but it might take some more time this go around.

    Oh yes, that funny dude with the mustache, he was on the cover of Time Magazine once as “Man of the Year”, boy I bet they could erase that.

    Dr. Ball, great essay, thank you.

    Cheers, KevinK

  14. Perfect definition of Climate Change, the total corruption of our governments.
    Being politically overrun by people who buy such nonsense as a useful tool, to further their aims, tells me all I need to know.
    There is nothing to the good of the citizen, taxpayer or productive member of society, included in the aims of these parasites.
    Kleptocracy is unstable, as soon as it runs out of people to rob.
    There are good reasons the IPCC seek “immunity from criminal prosecution”.
    Seems they will have to congregate in South Korea if the scheme blows up too soon.

    But what a drunkards dream, total control via regulation, taxation and fines, while being totally unaccountable to the citizens being fleeced.”We’re from the Govt, we are here to help you”
    “We are from the UN,we’re here to help you.”
    Free you from those pesky responsibilities that private property and individual rights impose.

    • Justin’s father Pierre Trudeau was a full blown leftist and could not get elected until he became a LINO [Lib In Name Only]. Then, after being elected as PM, he proceeded to ruin Canada. IMO.

  15. Just watched Joe Bastardi debate an Eco Loon about climate change on Fox. He had a good opportunity to speak and debate but got into an argument with very little substance instead. As a spokesman for the Skeptic side, he needs better tactics in debating. Left me wanting. An opportunity wasted.

  16. 1 Billion Earthians are unemployed, hungry! War is killing millions, even after end of 2nd WW!
    Environmental treat is by those, who have created above ‘minor’ problems! Who will address the ‘main problem’?

    • “Who will address the ‘main problem’?”

      That would be you.

      I addressed it myself. People I respect did the same. You aren’t by any chance waiting for someone else to do it for you? Because that won’t happen.

  17. It seems like United Nations continues to produce megalomaniacal bureaucrats:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
    – Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change

    I can think of a few others who had personal ideas about bringing about huge changes to our society. It didn´t always turn out well.

    Who voted for Christina Figueres by the way?
    None!

    And that is quite peculiar – as the United Nations is also concerned about human rights, which states:

    Article 21. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    United Nations is far out of line with it´s charter.

    “The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
    — Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961

    War is hell, United Nations climate theory is at best an immature theory.

  18. The Inquisition burned thousands at the stake in God`s name, to save their souls. These were not terrorist acts. They were the legally sanctioned acts of those in power. It should come as no surprise that the Founding Fathers of the United States saw government power as the greatest threat to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

  19. The separation of Church and State was the solution to the Inquisition.

    As Science has replaced the Church as the source of Truth, we need a formal separation of Science and State. Otherwise history will inevitably repeat itself. Climate Change will become the Inquisition. it is only a matter of time.

    • Regarding separation of Science and State this makes me cringe:
      “In welcoming the delegates to the United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) Headquarters … The Executive Director of UNEP, between World Metrological Organization and UNEP. The firm commitment of prof. Obasi, the Secretary-General of WMO, coupled with the determination of UNEP leadership, has resulted in a partnership which is helping to unify the scientific and policy-making communities of the world to lay the foundation for effective, realistic and equitable action on climate change.”

      Ref: Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989

      Anyone thinking that this alliance, following the process below, can produce objective science must be scientifically and logically illiterate:

      • The quote missed an essential part:
        “In welcoming the delegates to the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) Headquarters … The Executive Director of UNEP, hailed the fruitful alliance between WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP. The firm commitment of prof. Obasi, the Secretary-General of WMO, coupled with the determination of UNEP leadership, has resulted in a partnership which is helping to unify the scientific and policy-making communities of the world to lay the foundation for effective, realistic and equitable action on climate change.”

    • Why?
      You figure Hollande ain’t so bad?
      Or the other way around?
      History will render verdicts on both, assuming our societies last.
      As one who has had the privilege of picking up the tab, here in Canada, he will always be Pierre the Idiot to me.

  20. But the problem is not only the science, but also the policy response.

    Even if one were to accept that CO2 causes warming and this was dangerous and that CO2 needs to be curbed, the political response does not achieve any worthwhile reduction in manmade CO2 emissions, still less in the reduction of GHGs.

    Given that we know that renewables are not despatchable and that there is presently no viable mass storage capacity, we know that they require 100% backup by conventional fossil fuel powered generation for when the wind does not blow, or the sun does not shine. This means that renewables do not result in reducing CO2 emissions. Especially so when one adds in the concrete for their base and the new infrastructure from remote places in order to couple them up to the existing grid.

    Whilst burning gas produces considerably less CO2 than burning coal per unit of energy produced, it does not result in the reduction of GHGs since burning gas produces water vapour in approximately equal quantities and water vapour is a more potent GHG. Whilst water vapour only has a short residency time (say about 10 or so days), that does not mean that it can be ignored since burning gas is not a one off even5t, but rather a continuous 24/7 event so water vapour is constantly being replenished. So the switch from coal to gas, whilst producing less particulate matter, does not reduce manmade GHGs.

    Carbon credits, bonds, taxing the use of carbon, does not reduce CO2 emissions. It merely puts up the price of energy and forces energy intensive industry off-shore to other countries. this policy does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions on a global scale, it merely redistributes from where CO2 is being emitted.

    Every policy response is a big fail, and that is why even if all the commitments were fully adhered to it would only cap the increase in future temperature by less than 0.2degC.

    So we have dodgy science giving rise to an unnecessary scare story. And we have misguided policy response not capable of dealing with the deamon that the politicians fear. It is a doubly hammy, and unfortunately, as usual, the citizens have to pick up the tab of this fiasco, and people in undeveloped countries needlessly are forced to endure a life (a short life) of poverty and hardship.

    This matter calls out for a rational analysis of what is going on, but here the MSM are complicit and have shut off the debate and analysis that is badly required.

    You could not make this stuff up. The final irony will be if the globe cools over the next decade or so, because what we observed this past century is all part (or mainly part) of some natural cycle(s) which natural cycle(s) may begin to operate in the opposite direction bringing with it cooling.

    • All of which goes on answering the question that made me a skeptic: “If CC is such a great threat, why isn’t anyone DOING anything about it?” Short answer, it’s not so they don’t. Just an excuse for policy-wonks to try moving other people’s money around . . .

      The GOOD news is that the Earth is in fine fettle and the only trouble is the policy wonks!

  21. Nobody wants to talk about how he died but from anonymous sources I’ve been told that an inattentive housekeeper accidentally threw open the window shades too soon after the sun had risen over his Beijing penthouse. The elderly Maurice was unable to get in the shade quick enough and when the sunlight hit him he ignited.

    • Good one.
      I think that Maurice Strong was such a big talker that he was surrounded by all of his own CO2 which trapped heat like a blanket and back-radiated him to death. ;^D

  22. I could do with somebody actually setting out in tabulations and graphics the difference between all the IPCC claims in Paris and the actual measurements (even including those influenced by Karl et. al. 2015). This would help people like me who are trying to influence the debate locally. Take sea levels. NOAA gauges show around 2mm year. What is the IPCC claim and when would sea levels have to rise and by how much to arrive at the projection? The acceleration would have to be enormous.

  23. There’s been no word on how he died but an anonymous source told me that an errant housekeeper accidentally threw open the window shades too soon after the sun had risen over his Beijing penthouse. The elderly Maurice was unable to get in the shade quick enough. When the sunlight hit him he ignited.

  24. be fair. you know Obama cares:

    Youtube: 1min08secs: Obama’s Former CIA Director Mike Morell: Obama Didn’t Hit ISIS’s Oil Because Of Environmental Damage (November 24, 2015)

  25. It is interesting how alike these two sound:

    OPM…other peoples money.

    OPIUM….”a reddish-brown heavy-scented addictive drug”

    (It is a pleasure to read these little missives from Dr Ball. A gentleman from our days of a broad and comprehensive education as opposed to the semi illiterates who emerge from Uni’s these days with a PHD in pigheadedness.)

  26. As an environmental scientist and avid reader of this blog I would like to insert little reality check and comment that in my research, or in any of the climate related research I have ever seen (and I’ve obviously not read it all), this mr. Strong has never come up. I doubt I am somehow unknowingly manipulated by this master manipulator.

    I know everyone here loves to think climate change is all about stalinism and world domination, but in my work at least, all I see is maths and thermodynamics and other decidedly boring subjects. Other than that, very entertaining article mr. Ball, as usual!

    • What? The Climate Science literature is not rife with Strong? So maybe the scare is politics and not science? Whodda thunk it?

      An Extraordinary Popular Delusion, and a Madness of the Crowd.
      ==================

      • This… doesn’t really make sense. The point is that science is all about science, and politics don’t really enter until later in the process, where you start to think about what the implications are of the results of scientific research.

      • Sorry Ben Ben. Go read Eisenhower’s speeches. Politics currently dictates the science, not the other way around. Did you look at the flow chart of how the IPCC reports are done? How did the Challenger disaster occur? Why did the launch take place when the engineers told upper management that it should not be launched in cold weather? Why did the US go to war in Iraq when the Inspectors told the US there were no WMD? Who would believe the cartoon show that Colin Powell did at the UN? It’s all politics, not science. Who believes that a longer growing season or additional plant food is bad for providing for a growing population? It’s post modern science. Science hasn’t been about science for a long time. IMHO of course.

      • Hello Wayne, just a little reality check: it seems to be the case that you group all these things that you don’t agree with together, but honestly, the US going to war in Iraq had nothing to do with environmental sciences. Science is always about science by definition. You might not like the results of course.

      • Maybe, mr. Bruce Cobb. But you know, I come to this site a lot because I like to have my assumptions challenged, and I honestly ask myself every now and then whether I might be wrong. Can you say that you have ever considered climate change to be true? To actually look at the evidence itself (e.g. actually read the IPCC report, the whole thing, not just the summary for policy makers), instead of just reading a blog like this with its fairly random bits of pro-fossil fuel news?

      • I’ve read through the important parts of the reports, benben. The entire AGW claim hangs from climate models.

        I can show that climate models are unreliable, and have no predictive value. Their projections of future climate are without physical meaning.

        Absent models, the air temperature measurement record loses any explanatory significance.

        My take-away judgment following extensive encounters with climate modelers is that they are not scientists. They have no idea how to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models. All of climate modeling has become nothing more than a liberal art decorated with math.

        I’ve written an overview of the unscientific crock that climatology has become here. Peer-reviewed — note added for those who capitalize on that issue.

        The story about Maurice Strong is interesting, but he’d have gotten nowhere had it not been for the outright and unforgivable betrayal of science by the major scientific institutions; the very organizations jobbed to protect science. It’s as though the high courts themselves became conscious scofflaws.

        The American Physical Society in particular has a lot to answer for, given their willful incompetence. If they’d been as skeptical of AGW as they were of cold fusion, none of this would ever have happened.

      • Thanks Pat Frank. I read most of TAR, most of AR4 and just parts of AR5 given it was well reviewed here at WUWT. Of course as an old engineer I couldn’t evaluate the science, but as a project manager and manager, I could certainly look to see if the constituent parts added up to the conclusions in the SPM. If benben can make the connections, he is a better at reading in the hidden conecting bits than I am. I would have fired people for writing conclusions like I read in those reports. But then I was a consulting engineer, not a scientist. Or maybe old age and hits on the head has fried too many brain cells.

      • Dear Pat Frank,

        Firstly, can we agree to dispense the hyperbole for a while? Yes, I know you all think its corruption, politics, money, etc. etc. so no need to reiterate it again and again. You’ve obviously given the matter a bit more thought than most commenters on this blog. I would like to hear your views on uncertainty in climate modelling.

        But first, I assume we agree that these really complex climate models are not actually what the ‘entire AGW claim hangs from’. The basis for the climate change hypothesis is that adding CO2 molecules to a gas mixture will cause that gas mixture to absorb a bigger spectrum of energy from sunlight. This is your average high-school chemistry. The second point is that we have significantly increased the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere compared to a couple of centuries ago, and this increase is almost wholly attributable to burning of fossil fuels. This is also not under discussion in the more serious parts of the climate change denier movement right? Then we can also agree that it is actually really easy to calculate the overall amount of extra energy we will receive annually on a global level based on this increase in CO2 levels. This is really basic thermodynamics and there is no discussion about that specific part of climate modelling. Right?

        I’m just asking because before I put effort into trying to have a real discussion on uncertainty in climate modelling, I want to make sure you understand the basics of infrared radiation absorption etc. etc. I mean no disrespect by this, it’s just that the majority of the commenters on this blog don’t. (again, it’s ok that people don’t understand thermodynamics, its incredibly boring, but it also makes it more difficult to have an interesting discussion on climate change beyond “I’m right and you’re wrong so there!”).

        Cheers,
        Benben

      • Benben

        I’m just asking because before I put effort into trying to have a real discussion on uncertainty in climate modelling, I want to make sure you understand the basics of infrared radiation absorption etc. etc. I mean no disrespect by this, it’s just that the majority of the commenters on this blog don’t. (again, it’s ok that people don’t understand thermodynamics, its incredibly boring, but it also makes it more difficult to have an interesting discussion on climate change beyond “I’m right and you’re wrong so there!”).

        Taken the thermodynamics classes, taken the physics classes, developed and used the heat transfer and FEA programs, have run the reactors, built the reactors, seen the radiation, handled the radiation and the protection systems, understand and have solved the differential equations and boundary value problems, and have programmed and integrated the hourly, monthly, and annual heat transfer budgets for the different latitudes and conditions. It is NOT boring at all.

        You are wrong. Your simplified approximations are incomplete and inaccurate.

        Then we can also agree that it is actually really easy to calculate the overall amount of extra energy we will receive annually on a global level based on this increase in CO2 levels. This is really basic thermodynamics and there is no discussion about that specific part of climate modelling. Right?

        Wrong. Those topics ARE DISCUSSED daily here, hourly here, and often – every ten minutes here in the previous 1.5 million responses already published. Again. You are wrong. The “basic thermodynamics” are anything BUT basic, and the simplified theory of “more CO2 causes more warming” has been proved wrong in year-to-year measurements, and in the past 150 years of several 66 year short climate cycles.

        Just as the “basic theory” of “loss of sea ice proves global warming” and “a loss of arctic sea ice increases global warming” are inaccurate and incomplete.

      • Dear RACookPE1978, clearly you have an opinion. However, I was interested in discussing model uncertainties with Pat Frank, who wrote a piece about the topic. You are free to join the discussion of course, but please don’t prevent it from happening by inserting these kind of unrelated diatribes. I was referring to something much more basic than what you are upset about. I just want to make sure Pat recognises that the basic equations from which these models are derived from are related to energy balance, and that this energy balance on a molecular level is not in question The NEXT step, the uncertainties introduced when scaling up those basic interactions to global weather patterns, that is interesting to discuss. But the very basics of how stuff works, not so much.

        Surely someone who enjoys thermodynamics must agree :)

      • benben, there is no argument about the radiation physics, or the fact that collisional decay of vibrationally excited CO2 dumps thermal energy into the troposphere. The question central to the issue is: what happens then? Climate projections assume all that energy goes to warm up the atmosphere and the ocean surface.

        But convection is poorly modeled and the response of clouds remains mysterious. Both of those processes are fast responses and play a very large role in the dynamics of the climate. Years ago, William Gray pointed out that a couple % increase in tropical precipitation would remove all that excess energy, with no perceptible rise in air temperature. None of that can be modeled correctly.

        So, whereas your description of the radiation process, etc., is correct, your certainty ignores the poorly modeled fast response channels of the climate; response channels that are known to be crucial actors in the energy budget of the climate.

        With respect to climate models, I have another post here, showing that their climate projections are physically meaningless.

        If you read through it, you’ll see why that diagnosis includes model hindcasts. That assessment rests on propagation only of the average ±4 Wm^-2 error made by CMIP5 models in tropospheric thermal cloud response. Total climate model error in Earth energy budget runs to several 10’s of Wm^-2. There is no way they can be used to respolve the effect of GHGs, which have an average annual impact of about 0.04 Wm^-2. The idea of climate models able to resolve the effect of such a small perturbation is ludicrous by mere inspection.

        None of what I wrote is hyperbole. Any critical analysis shows the current claims concerning AGW do not survive the errors and uncertainties. The APS has seriously fallen down on the job; to the point where incompetent is the appropriate descriptor.

        I can add from long-time direct experience here, that most commentators on this blog are very thoughtful, and many of them are far more expert than I in relevant disciplines.

        Speaking as a working physical scientist, people who publish their work without any proper physical error analysis at all are either fabricating certainty or are incompetent. No middle ground. And AGW so-called science is rife with that failing.

      • Pat Frank, thanks for the response. So, as you are aware there is a huge amount of discussion on modelling uncertainty in the scientific community. One of my colleagues has worked on one of the larger integrated assessment models, and uncertainty is one of our favorite lunchtime discussion topics. It would be nice if that could be reflected in the overall tone of this blog, instead of pretending that only the rational people here on WUWT are capable of doing that.

        The overall conclusion of that discussion is of course different than your conclusion, namely that our understanding of the climate system has progressed far enough to be able to say that we should be careful about dumping these, quite frankly, staggering amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (e.g. precautionary principle). This, together with the fact that the main beneficiaries of our oil money are rather unsavory regimes such as the Saudi’s and the Russians, is enough reason to start switching away from oil towards gas and renewables.

        Now, obviously you don’t agree, because in your assessment, modelling uncertainties (but not the basic facts, good to hear!) are much greater than what is usually reported. I have a question for you, one that I have been asking myself a lot when reading this stuff on this blog: what levels of uncertainty are acceptable for society to act? What I mean is, there will always be uncertainty. You don’t need 100% certainty to do something. The doctors find a lump, and say 50% that it will kill you if you don’t operate? You don’t demand a further 20 years of research. You just operate. So with regards to climate change. Obviously increasing CO2 levels has some kind of effect, and we all agree that the theoretically possible negative effects will be very expensive. What risk are you willing to accept before you want to act? 50%? 10% 1%? 0.00001%?

        It’s a very important question, because you will always have uncertainty, so before you start discussing how big the uncertainties are you need an idea of the uncertainty you are willing to accept. Obviously, you, Pat Frank, can’t decide for society as a whole, but I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.

        Kind regards,
        Ben

      • Ben, as you saw from my posts, error has never been propagated through any climate model projection. When that is done, it is evidently clear that climate models have no predictive value at all. None. Not even one year out.

        Therefore, their predictions of increased air temperatures from GHG emissions are not at all reliable, and can provide no basis for policy decisions. None.

        One cannot just state there will be an increase in air temperature by mere assignment of outcomes, which seems to be what you’re suggesting should be done.

        Given the complete ignorance about the effects of CO2 emissions (I disagree that the amounts are “staggering” on a global comparison with terrestrial mass dynamics), on what basis should anything be done?

        That is, given total ignorance, curtailing CO2 emissions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. No one knows. But two choices out of three say do not do anything. This is the precautionary principle for you. It’s utterly useless.

        Looking at the evidence, there is no sign that anything unusual is going on with climate. Storminess, droughts, floods, etc., are all within known variation.

        The change in air temperature since 1850 has been modest, at best. I can show, by the way, that the uncertainty in air temperature is a good order of magnitude greater than is reported, because of completely neglected systematic measurement error.

        All-in-all, there is no evident reason to curtail CO2 emissions. Climate models do not model the climate. They cannot resolve the effect of CO2 emissions (if any at all). Their projections are useless. And nothing climatologically unusual is going on.

        With fracking, we can pretty much get ourselves free of idiot regimes in the middle east and Venezuela. I agree we should do that.

    • Congratulations on asking yourself if you might be wrong. If you were to do some actual research, you’d soon see that you were. Too much to ask though, I guess. You’d rather Believe.

      • I did of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t be here saying this. Did you? Like, really honestly, did you do some actual research? And actual research means actually following a couple of university level courses in thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, dynamic modelling etc. etc., and then doing the calculations yourself?

        I always suspect the people here on this blog think “research” means reading stuff on the internet written people that will affirm your beliefs. Of course these blog posts might contain lots of vague semi-scientific sounding calculations (like the stuff posted regularly here on this website). But lets for the sake of argument agree that this is not doing research yourself. You have to do your own calculations based on actually sound thermodynamic principles. So. Have you done the research or do you also rather Believe?

      • hello science or fiction. So there is this very interesting ‘fact’ going around on this blog that is not actually true, namely that the IPCC does any research of its own. It doesn’t. The IPCC does nothing else than make a summary of the state of climate research done by tens of thousands of researchers across the globe. The IPCC is irrelevant to that research, and in fact, the IPCC process is so slow that what is contained in those reports is usually some time (years) behind the state of the art research.

        So is the IPCC biased or governed by sound scientific principles? It’s an irrelevant question. It doesn’t do any research or give out any research grants. You don’t like whatever the IPCC summarizes, go dive into the actual literature itself (follow a MOOC or two) and make your own summary.

      • @benben

        At the website of IPPC, under ORGANIZATION we find the following statement:
        “The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN).”

        In the contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report section 1.2.1; we find the following quote:
        “This report presents an assessment of the current state of research results and is not a discussion of all relevant papers as would be included in a review. It thus seeks to make sure that the range of scientific views, as represented in the peer-reviewed literature, is considered and evaluated in the assessment, and that the state of the science is concisely and accurately presented.”

        Let us consider the value of peer-review for a moment:
        “Consider a study conducted by BMJ (British Medical Journal), one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in medicine. BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee and two colleagues took a paper about to be published in their journal and introduced eight deliberate errors. Then they sent the paper to 420 reviewers. The median number of errors detected by the 221 respondents was two. Nobody found more than five, and 16 percent didn’t find any errors at all. This seems to suggest that peer review doesn’t really increase the quality of published research, or does so to only a small degree.” Ref: Limitations of Peer Review

        I would say that most papers contains one or more questionable statements of some kind or another, like subjective statements or statements based on questionable methods, logical flaws or statements based on unsufficient testing, unsufficient data or even testing against an model rather. Few scientists feel inclined to use time and resources to write a rebuttal, get it peer reviewed and published. What should the incentives be? Hence few papers are retracted, even if a rebuttal is published, after some years, the rebutted paper will probably still be out there, for some time – or for ever, available for others to base their assessment on – like IPCC.

        The core problem is that without a skeptical attitude and without following robust scientific principles, IPCC is not able to consistently reveal questionable statements in the peer reviewed papers they assess. As showed in the posts I linked to above. IPCC was biased from the beginning and is also governed by unscientific principles. Even the review process is flawed: The climate change game … Monopoly: the IPCC version

        Bottom line is: IPCC is not governed by robust scientific principles and cannot be trusted in scientific matters.

      • Complaining about peer review is kind of like complaining about democracy. It sure has its flaws but a different system would likely be even worse, and on average, science moves forward. In the end, its about scientist doing the job they are trained to do, not about devising a failsafe system to catch crooks.

        And with respect to the IPCC, again, you’re being pedantic. Even if the IPCC would stop existing tomorrow and everybody working for it would vanish into thin air, absolutely nothing would change. The IPCC doesn’t actually do any of the research on which the climate change hypothesis is based, or evaluates whether the research is any good. It just gives an overview of what has been written. I honestly don’t understand why that is so controversial for you. You’re still free to think that all the research done around the world is bullshit, just lay the blame where it should be :)

      • «Complaining about peer review is kind of like complaining about democracy. It sure has its flaws but a different system would likely be even worse»
        I agree – but I don’t complain about peer-review. My point is that because peer-review is no guarantee for quality each reader of a paper must be skeptical of what he read.

        and on average, science moves forward.
        “Science isn´t something which necessarily moves forward on average”

        In the end, its about scientist doing the job they are trained to do,
        «No – in the end it´s about knowledge. And knowledge is the sum of falsifiable objective statements within an area which all are logically consistent and corroborated by having survived testing by comparing prediction with observation within a certain range of conditions.»

        not about devising a failsafe system to catch crooks.
        «Agree – there can be no failsafe system – thats why skepticism is the single most important trait within science. That´s ironic isn´t it? The most important trait within science, besides imagination, is the same trait certain proponents of United Nations climate theory tried to kill by using it for name calling. If being misled was illegal – we would all be in jail.»

        «And with respect to the IPCC, again, you’re being pedantic.»
        How can it be pedantic to show that an organization which claims to be scientific, is governed by unscientific principles. If you also take into account the unique position IPCC has been put in, and the vast amount of resources being invested on their theory, I think I am very far from being excessively concerned with minor details.

        «Even if the IPCC would stop existing tomorrow and everybody working for it would vanish into thin air, absolutely nothing would change.»
        A lot would change, you would´t have an effectively monopoly on the guiding of the worlds nations any more.

        «The IPCC doesn’t actually do any of the research on which the climate change hypothesis is based, or evaluates whether the research is any good. It just gives an overview of what has been written.»
        May I ask if you have read anything at all in e.g. the Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report of IPCC? It is huge, but it is searchable and it got summaries.
        Your statement seems to be unsubstantiated. Here is a quote from the IPCC document: «Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties»:
        «In order to develop their key findings, author teams should evaluate the associated evidence and agreement. Depending on the nature of the evidence evaluated, teams have the option to quantify the uncertainty in the finding probabilistically. In most cases, author teams will present either a quantified measure of uncertainty or an assigned level of confidence.»

        «I honestly don’t understand why that is so controversial for you.»
        IPCC is controversial to me because – if the method is flawed the result will be flawed – the result will not be the same no matter what method is used. The method can be the difference between life and death. United Nations is directing a vast amount of resources in the direction of their climate theory. It´s incredibly strange that United Nations is greatly concerned about climate, but not sufficiently concerned to enforce proper and robust principles on IPCC. As United Nations is causing a vast amount of resources to be used, I think it is reasonable to demand that United Nation endorse the use of proper and robust methods.

        «You’re still free to think that all the research done around the world is bullshit, just lay the blame where it should be :) «
        I don´t think that – I just think that most papers contains one or more questionable statements, some papers contains conclusion which are unsubstantiated.

        I blame myself every time I have been misled because I did not ask the questions I could have asked.

    • Maurice F. Strong Is First Non-U.S. Citizen To Receive
      Public Welfare Medal, Academy’s Highest Honor
      WASHINGTON — The National Academy of Sciences has selected Maurice F. Strong to receive its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal. Established in 1914, the medal is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good. The Academy chose Strong, a Canadian and the first non-U.S. citizen to receive the award, in recognition of his leadership of global conferences that became the basis for international environmental negotiations and for his tireless efforts to link science, technology, and society for common benefit.
      http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032003

      Live & Learn: Maurice Strong
      I never aspired to be in business. I went into business because I only have a high-school education, and I couldn’t get jobs that required higher qualifications. I went into business quite reluctantly, because it was the only place I could get a job.
      http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/live-learn-maurice-strong/

      Maurice Strong’s importance was as a bagman in funneling money into CAGW pseudo-science.
      The NAS obviously recognized his importance as noted above.

    • Hey Pat,

      Thanks for your response. I’m not going to disagree with you what you mentioned above (you say the weather is normal, ~ every meteorological office in the world says it isn’t, and I wanted to go snowboarding last week but I couldn’t because it was 17 degrees C on the slopes, which has never happened before. And the glacier near my grandma’s town has all but disappeared in the past decade. But obviously your facts are somehow more true than my facts, so lets just agree to disagree).

      Lets just assume we both agree for the sake of argument that you are right and we don’t actually know exactly what is going on. I would still like an answer to my question: how much certainty do we need to have before we take action? I think we can all agree that the hypothetical situation of all the icecaps etc. melting would be incredibly bad and worthwhile to prevent. So how much uncertainty are you willing to accept before you, Pat Frank, say, ok, enough is enough, we don’t know for sure this is going to happen but lets do something about it anyway because I don’t like the odds. (I don’t want to argue about what we are going to do then, or about how everything is a socialist conspiracy or whatever, I just really only want an answer to the above question on acceptable risk. I’m honestly curious).

      • Ben, what evidence is there to require we do something about CO2 emissions?

        You know very well that anecdotal descriptions of seasonal variations is not evidence of human caused global warming. You are apparently trained in meteorology, so I’m at a loss to know why you’d even take recourse to that.

        Let’s review: climate models cannot tell us anything about future climate or about what, if anything, CO2 emissions will do to climate. That means all those warming scenarios are not predictions. They are not based on anywhere near adequate physical theory. They are unfalsifiable, and so have no basis in verifiable fact. They are hardly more than conclusion by ad hoc assignment.

        Whatever changes there are in the climate due to the modest warming since the LIA cannot be assigned to GHG emissions, and need not at all be viewed with alarm.

        Even if there was some remarkable change in global patterns of weather (which there are not), there would be no way to demonstrate that they not due to natural variability. No way. None.

        Therefore, assigning such changes to human GHG emissions is strictly analogous to assigning crop failures and teratogenic births to witchcraft.

        Given the poverty of climate theory and the known intense natural variability of climate (think Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events), there literally is nothing presently in view that can, or should, give me rational cause to believe we should curtail CO2 emissions.

        And please, nothing about,’If we wait, things may go beyond recovery..’ That argument is entirely tendentious. It assumes, and then asserts, the truth of what is in dispute. Let’s be clear about what’s in dispute. It’s not CO2 has some bad effect, we just don’t know how bad it’ll be, It’s that we have no idea whatever whether CO2 will do anything at all to the climate. No matter the gazillion climate model studies since Hansen 1988, not one of them had any physical meaning and not one of them provided any basis for alarm, huge weight of official authority notwithstanding.

        The whole AGW thing is an epidemic of incompetence.

      • Hello Pat,

        so at first, you were saying that current climate models have a much higher uncertainty than they pretend to have. Now you are claiming that it is categorically impossible to understand the climate? Isn’t that a bit over the top. Yes it’s a complex system with lots of non linearities etc. etc., but it’s still a lot less complex than, say, your brain, or super conductivity. So, I’ll be honest, what I’m looking for is not a lot of statements about how you think something is wrong. I read the blog, I know people here generally think climate change is fake. I’m just really interested to hear how you think about risk.

        The general formula for risk goes something like ‘acceptable costs for preventing a disaster = costs of that disaster * chance of that disaster happening’

        For a very expensive disaster we demand very low risk. For example, in nuclear we accept the following: ‘radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour.’ (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm)

        So I want to hear your thinking on risk. And then I mean, how expensive do you think worst case climate change would be (again, please bear with me, I know you don’t believe it will happen, but give me some of your thoughts on the hypothetical what if it would happen scenario). And what are the odds we are willing to accept. (one big incident in a million years, like with nuclear power, or even less?)

        Also, while we are discussing, I am very interested in your opinion on this (unrelated to the above discussion): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/science/on-tether-to-fossil-fuels-nations-speak-with-money.html

        specificity the reasoning leading up to the final statement: “These subsidies on fossil fuels are a very good, transideological issue,” he said. “To the left, it’s a terrible act of environmental destruction. To the right, it’s crony capitalism. And both sides are true.”

      • Ben, I’ll be as clear as possible: there is no perceptible climatological risk from current human emissions of CO2, methane, N2O, or other IR absorbing gases.

        Climate physical theory cannot resolve such a small perturbation and cannot demonstrate, or even imply, that a significant climatological impact is physically possible. There are no observational correlates with an unnaturally perturbed climate.

        The behavior of the climate, thus far, is entirely compatible with the idea that tropospheric hydrology (evaporation, convection, condensation, cloud formation) is easily able to compensate for the ~2.5 Wm^-2 of increased GHG forcing.

        Terrestrial climate history, with its complete non-correlation with the very large past concentrations of tropospheric CO2, provides no support for the idea that CO2 or any other human-produced non-condensible gas, will seriously impact the climate.

        As that is true, then your postulations about nuclear risk have no climate analogy.

        We are well versed in nuclear theory and experiment, so that the risks are entirely quantifiable. That is not at all the case with climate theory and observation.

        The combination of the very large errors made by advanced climate models, and the complete absence of any evidence that CO2 impacts the climate at all, remove any basis for your risk analysis. There is no evidence of risk. Why, then, should one be alarmed?

        With respect to nuclear radiation, the risk was evident empirically even in the time of the Curies, from contemporaneous mouse experiments with radium, well before the development nuclear theory. Ditto is true with tobacco and cancer, well before biological theory could provide an adequate explanation. That sort of empirical evidence is entirely lacking with respect to CO2 and climate, despite intense efforts to find such evidence.

        As I noted before, there literally is nothing presently in view that can, or should, give me rational cause to believe we should curtail CO2 emissions.

        That all said, I did not assert, ever, that “it is categorically impossible to understand the climate.” You won’t find that statement, or anything implying that position, in any of my posts.

        With respect to the NYT article, the statement of a $490 billion subsidy for fossil fuel fails to acknowledge the global mosaic of financial supports and therefore badly misrepresents the economics.

        Some time ago, one of my brothers wrote to me about a paper Ottmar Edenhofer published in Science magazine, titled “King Coal and the queen of subsidies.” He claimed that in 2013 fossil fuels received $550 billion in subsidies. It didn’t take much research to show that claim is economically hollow. I’ll put that bit of research in a follow-up post for you.

        As you’ll see in my follow-up, in the US the actual subsidies for fossil fuels are dwarfed by the subsidies for so-called renewables. If they were capable of replacing fossil fuels, it would have already happened here and in Europe.

        The analysis will also show that the final statement you highlighted from the NYT article, that ““These subsidies on fossil fuels are a very good, transideological issue,” he said. “To the left, it’s a terrible act of environmental destruction. To the right, it’s crony capitalism. And both sides are true.”” is a misrepresentation of the international reality of fossil fuel subsidies.

        Finally, I note that your argument has gone from GHG emissions will certainly heat the climate, to fossil fuels are environmentally bad and unfairly advantaged. In your every post in our conversation, you’ve systematically shifted your ground away from the crux of the debate.

        You have not addressed a single one of my points.

        Here’s the central issue: if climate models are demonstrably and utterly unreliable, and there is neither an implicate nor a deducible nor an observable impact of GHGs (apart from worldwide ecological greening), and there is no evidence whatever of any systematic and extraordinary climate phenomena, why should we be alarmed, why should we spend trillion$ to make energy expensive, unreliable, and unavailable, and why should poverty be a desirable end?

      • Ben, to look into the claim that fossil fuel subsidies disadvantage market share and investment for renewables, I went to the International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook, 2014.

        This is the base reference for the NYT article you linked.

        Chapter 9 is about global subsidies for fossil fuels, and gives the $549 billion for 2013.

        But then we look where those subsidies are found. Table 9.3 tells us. Iran provides $84 billion in domestic subsidies. That’s 15.3% of the global total. We won’t find a fair market there for renewables, that’s for sure.

        The top 5 global subsidy-providers are: Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Russia, and Venezuela. All but India make their living exporting fossil fuels. They subsidize domestic consumption. None of them, with the exception of Russia, are likely to make any significant contribution to the technological development of renewable energy. Nor are their domestic subsidies likely to affect any global shift to price-competitive renewables.

        One can observe that domestic fossil-fuel subsidies within fossil-fuel exporting countries will increase the export price to pay for the domestic subsidies. That means fossil-fuel importing countries, such as all of Western Europe, will pay more for fossil fuels than the market should dictate.

        So, fossil fuel subsidies in exporting countries should stimulate the shift to economical renewables in the industrialized west, not restrict it.

        The next five globally largest domestic subsidizers are: Egypt, Indonesia, UAE, China, and Algeria. All but China are unlikely to affect any global shift to renewables. China exports solar panels and the neodymium magnets used in wind generators. So, China’s domestic energy subsidies support the manufacture of renewables generators, and should make them cheaper. I.e., China’s domestic subsidies should assist a global shift to renewable energy.

        Neither the US nor any industrialized European country makes the top 25 list of domestic subsidizers of fossil fuel consumption. Number 25 global fossil fuel subsidizer is Bangladesh, at about $5 billion. It appears Bangladesh is much more guilty of distorting the global renewables market than is the US or the UK, their systemically evil capitalism notwithstanding.

        Figure 9.4 is a global map of subsidizing nations, dressed out in red (big offenders — e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, UAE, Morrocco), pink (middling criminals — e.g., Russia, Nigeria, and Argentina), flesh-tone (small-timers — e.g., China, India, Malaysia), and grey (the subsidy-absolved — e.g., US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Peru, Chile, all of industrialized Europe including the Czech Republic through to Poland and the Baltic States and the Nordic countries including Finland, Turkey, and that perennially best-loved-to-hate criminal state Israel (do I need a “/sarc” here?)).

        These domestic subsides, limited as they are to fossil-fuel exporting nations and the small GDP economies, cannot negatively influence any shift to economically viable renewables in the industrially advanced nations — intense users of energy, all. Were there any economic advantage to renewable energy, they have every reason to jump on it.

        To bring home this point, here is the US Energy Information Agency website, outlining subsidies given to the various energy sectors in the US:

        Table ES2. Quantified energy-specific subsidies and support by type, FY 2010 and FY 2013 (million 2013 dollars)
        Here’s FY 2013:
        Coal, 2013: $1.085 billion
        Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids, 2013: $2.346 billion
        Solar, 2013: $5.328 billion
        Wind, 2013: $5.936 billion
        Renewables, 2013 total: $15.043 billion

        Table ES4. Fiscal year 2013 electricity production subsidies and support (million 2013 dollars, unless otherwise specified)
        Coal: 6% of subsidies
        Natural gas and petroleum Liquids: 4% of subsidies
        Renewables: 72% of subsidies.

        So, who’s stretching the truth, the NYT or the US EIA?

        From US EIA Table ES2, in 2013 the US provided $3.431 billion in total subsidies to fossil fuels. The exporters of the world provided almost all of the remaining $545.569 billion in subsidies, and all of that domestically thereby raising the domestic price for importers.

        In the US, renewables got 7x the subsidies of fossil fuels (Table ES4) and produce about 5x less power (Table ES5). So in the US, renewables get 35x more subsidy per unit energy produced, than do fossil fuels.

        If renewables are economically competitive, then why aren’t renewable energy-providers driving fossil fuel energy-providers out of business in the US? Renewable energy should be much cheaper, and both consumers and energy-intensive businesses should be flocking to them to gain market advantage.

        But of course, US consumers and businesses are not flocking to renewable energy-providers, because even with 35x the subsidy, renewable energy imposes a very large economic disadvantage.

        NYT: evidently untrustworthy in the fossil fuel debate.

      • Hey Pat,

        I appreciate the effort you put into this discussion! First I should say, you are right, I’m not really trying to address your points. This is because I’m not really interested in having an endless argument with you about who’s facts are more correct. From your tone it is very clear that you cannot be convinced, so why would I even try? I’m here to learn. I hope you don’t mind.

        So one thing I want to learn from you is what % risk you are willing to accepts of a severe climate event. You write a lot of text, but you’re not really addressing my point either ;) Again, this is not some kind of trap, and I’m not going to turn around and go ‘AHA! you see! by your own words you support climate policy!’ But you wrote a whole paper on uncertainty, so I think it is a very fair question to ask what level of uncertainty you think is still acceptable for making policy. Nuclear is relevant because in that example we have a clear standard. You are correct that the uncertainties in nuclear modelling are lower. But that doesn’t prevent you from thinking about what uncertainties are still acceptable in climate modelling? What kind of statistical power in evidence would you need to change your mind? You are still free to conclude that the current models cannot reach your desired level of certainty. You are clearly a smart man, and I am looking forward to your thoughts on this topic.

        Unfortunately I have to leave, I’ll respond to the other post later!

      • Ben, I did address your point, right in the first sentence of my post.

        To wit: “there is no perceptible climatological risk from current human emissions of CO2, methane, N2O, or other IR absorbing gases.

        If there is no perceptible risk, why should there be any policy?

        Further, we’re not having an argument about competing facts.

        I have demonstrated that climate models can not predict the climate. You don’t seem to realize that demonstration means there is no known climate hazard from CO2 emissions. Not only that, there is no low-certainty inferable hazard from CO2 emissions, either.

        Climate models are not fit to inform any policy. At all. They are not fit to assign or imply any risk whatever. Their temperature projections have no physical meaning.

        The whole climate alarm is based on nothing rational.

        In that context, what does “severe climate event” mean? A hurricane? A tornado? What?

        Severe climate event can’t mean a seriously bad CO2-induced shift in the equilibrium climate state, because there is zero reason to think CO2 can induce such a thing. The very idea is almost, but not quite, as removed from perceptible reality as supposing that human CO2 emissions will induce an influx of demons. Or space aliens.

        My thoughts on the topic of climate risk likelihood are that there is no physical basis for the topic; no meaningful reason for it. Where’s the sanity in fretting about speculative risks of imaginary disasters?

        If climate models ever get to the point where they can reliably predict anything, we can have a rational conversation about whatever risks. It seems very unlikely though, that any of whatever risks will derive from CO2 emissions.

      • Dear Pat. It seems like you misunderstood my question.

        I understand that you believe the risk from CO2 to be very low. Let me reformulate the question. You write that “If climate models ever get to the point where they can reliably predict anything, we can have a rational conversation about whatever risks.”

        So, as someone related to the work on these models, I would like to know: at what point would you consider the models to be reliable enough? You only want to talk about risks once the models are good enough. That’s fine. So when are they good enough?

        I understand that you think they will never be reliable enough, but still, it is a valid question for you, as a critic on our work, to answer. If a model predicts that X causes Y, and there is 50% chance that this prediction is actually true. Is that good enough? is 1% good enough? Must it be closer to 90% before you would start to seriously consider the implications? And by this I mean uncertainty we both agree upon (not the situation right now, where the scientists say their models are quite accurate and the sceptics say its not).

        Kind regards,
        ben

      • benben says:

        …at what point would you consider the models to be reliable enough?

        When they can reliably predict.

        That’s pretty simple, no? If models can’t make repeated, accurate predictions, then they’re worthless.

        Climate models can’t even hindcast accurately, and no models were able to forecast the most significant global temperature event of the past century: for the past 18+ years, global warming has been stopped. It is in stasis, but no models were able to predict that.

        Every level in the scientific hierarchy (Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law) has one thing in common: they are all able to make repearted, accurate predictions.

        Not all predictions indicate the existence of a scientific principle (epicycle models successfully predicted planetary positions for centuries, before Kepler discovered the real cause).

        But when a model consistently fails, it is wrong. There is no other conclusion possible.

        So when you ask when models will be reliable, the answer is simple: when they can accurately and consistently predict global T.

        benben, you accuse Pat Frank of your own fault: it is you who refuses to open your mind to the fact that the CO2=AGW conjecture has failed (personally, I think CO2 does have an effect. But that effect is so minuscule that it has never been quantified with a verifiable measurement. Thus, it is a complete non-problem).

        As we see, the AGW scare has now gone into overdrive. Even the scientifically illiterate President of the U.S. claims that ‘carbon’ is extremely dangerous.

        But as at least 97% of readers here know, that is preposterous nonsense. Despite the fact that CO2 has steadily risen since the middle of the last century, global temperaturees have stopped rising — and not for just a short time: global T has been stopped for many years now.

        If you were able to remove the emotion from your belief, you would clearly see that the ‘carbon’ scare is baseless. Furthermore, the rise in CO2 has been a net benefit to the biosphere; more CO2 is better. It is completely harmless at current and projected concentrations; CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, without ever triggering runaway global warming.

        But as skeptics see every day, emotions are very tough to refute with logic, or facts, or evidence, or measurements. The ‘climate change’ scare is entirely based on emotion, and fueled with a mountain of tax money; only rational folks are able to calmly look at the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare, and understand that it is no more than a hoax intended to pass ‘carbon’ taxes — the dream of every government throughout history: the ability to the air you breathe.

        But a carbon tax will not change global temperatures by 0.000001ºC. Add all the zeroes you like, it’s still true.

      • Ben, your discussion in terms like “50%” or “1%” betray a mind-set rooted in statistics.

        That’s the wrong way to think about it. A physically valid climate model prediction is a well-bounded expectation value (EV). The bounds should necessarily be of smaller magnitude than the EV, and be determined by physical error propagated through the model over the entire range of the prediction.

        A validly bounded centennial global temperature anomaly might be (3±1)C, where that ±1 C is the total physical uncertainty obtained by propagated error.

        Such a result would be in the context of a climate model that has already been validated by successful predictions of changes in the climate, and one that has been verified in the engineering sense of demonstrating that was is claimed to be calculated is in fact calculated.

        A result like that would be a true indication of a physically real outcome. One needn’t express the overall result in terms of percents.

        A physically accurate climate model has serious credibility only after a history of avoiding falsification through successful predictions. It it then predicts a warming trend, we pay attention.

        In that case the question would not be, ‘Is warming 50% or 90% likely?’ It would be, ‘Warming is 100% likely, and very likely to be about 3 C.’ This would give a physically real and reliable target for preparative action.

        Successful predictions are not hindcasts with offsetting model errors. They are well-bounded EVs with consonant climate outcomes, where, again, the bounds are determined by propagated physical error.

        Variation about a model ensemble mean is not propagated error. Variation about an ensemble mean is not physical error at all. It’s just model precision.

        Physical error is the difference between EVs and observations. A full uncertainty evaluation includes propagated error and the uncertainties in the parameter values entering a predictive calculation. That is the common standard of physics and it is a very demanding one. It’s why, most of the time, physics proceeds slowly.

        I do not think climate models “will never be reliable enough”. I have never posted that view.

        Following from my own work, there is very good reason to think that climate models, including the CMIP5 versions, are very far from reliable enough to evaluate the perturbation of GHG emissions.

        Present climate models are unable to demonstrate that CO2 emissions will impact any climate observable.

        They are also unable to demonstrate that CO2 emissions will not impact any climate observable.

        As a result, climate models are presently useless to demonstrate anything pertinent regarding the question of emissions.

        It is for this reason that I reference the empirical non-correlation of CO2 and temperature through seriously deep time (not just the past 7 or so ice-ages), when appraising possible cautions. I see nothing there to foster alarm.

        In my opinion, climate modelers have abandoned physical science. A serious modeler would be engaged in a reductionist research program to make a physically accurate model of some climate sub-system. When that is successful, that bit of model will be ready to play its part in a more inclusive physical model.

        The reductionist program would be hard work, paying strict attention to physical detail, going back and forth with some climate physicist who actually studies some part of the climate and tries to express how it works in terms of a deductive physical-analytic theory. The modeler would work to incorporate the painstakingly improved physical theory into the sub-system model.

        Going back-and-forth means paying attention to model errors by comparison with observations, and working to correct those errors with better physical expressions that come from studying the physically real climate.

        As knowledge and expertise progressed, all the individual climate sub-system models, which would by then be demonstrably physically accurate, would slowly be incorporated into a global climate model. That is how physics works, Knowledge is bottom-up.

        One doesn’t see much effort like that at all among climate modelers. It’s all just computer games. The pretty pictures and meaningless projections do impress the naïve, though.

      • I didn’t see your response before I posted, dbstealey. By-and-large, you took the words right out of my mouth. :-)

        Especially the part about needing successful predictions. The threat of falsification is the sine-qua-non of science.

      • Ben, you asked, “ If a model predicts that X causes Y, and there is 50% chance that this prediction is actually true. Is that good enough?

        Climate models do not predict that X causes Y. They don’t predict anything. You use “model” as though it meant ‘valid physical model..’ In your context, it doesn’t. So the 50% you add on to it is meaningless. A model that has no physical meaning cannot predict physical likelihoods.

        Example: suppose I have a Bayesian religious model that is informed with the expert opinions of theologians. That model says there is a 90% chance that you’ll burn in hell for certain behaviors. Do you change your behavior? Or do you question the model?

        The example shows there are models and there are “models.” Physically valid ones make physically real predictions. Other models only make the inferences that are coded into their assumptions.

        Unqualified, “model” is a slippery term. Your use of it improperly and implicitly impostures the meaning of physically valid model. Climate models in fact are hardly more than Bayesian constructs elaborating expert opinions; opinions biased by pre-formed ideas about CO2 and climate.

        Their so-called predictions are no more than inductive inferences. They don’t make predictions in any physically real (scientific) sense.

        In short, your entire question is misconceived.

        But to answer it taking your inductive approach: considering the non-correlation of CO2 and temperature over deep time and the invariable retardation of CO2 relative to air temperature over every single ice-age, then one is led by your logic to infer a statistical zero percent, 0%, likelihood that human CO2 emissions will cause problems for the climate.

        And we can give no credibility to, This time it’s different! Special pleading is not allowed. It’s invalid statistically and within physics is neither verifiable nor supportable.

      • Dear Pat and dbstealey,

        Thanks for your responses. I would like to reiterate that I’m not here to uselessly argue and waste all of our time, I’m just genuinely curious.

        So firstly,you write that: “In my opinion, climate modelers have abandoned physical science. A serious modeler would be engaged in a reductionist research program to make a physically accurate model of some climate sub-system. When that is successful, that bit of model will be ready to play its part in a more inclusive physical model.”

        But this is exactly what is happening, and also this is exactly why these models are never accurate enough at face value compared to the actual temperature record. Different models focus on different sub-systems, and are quite good (and becoming better every year!) at modelling that specific sub -ystem but will obviously fail to predict the overall temperature accurately. Computers are only just now becoming anywhere near fast enough to couple these sub-system models on a resolution high enough (both temporal and spatial) to make accurate predictions. This is why modern models (e.g. 2014, 2015) are much, much better than those from even 5 years ago. So when this blog keeps comparing the current temperature records to models from 1990 (see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/the-robust-pause-resists-a-robust-el-nio-still-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months/) then something must be amiss, right?

        Again, I’m not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. It’s just that when you write things that don’t reflect what I see at my work then I’ll just ask you guys what you think.

        With regards to the question of whether uncertainty is due to actually misrepresenting physics or just a logical effect from the random variations in climate, I understand your line of reasoning, but for example this paper came to the exact opposite conclusions as you: Jochem Marotzke & Piers M. Forster, Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends, Nature, 29 January 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14117

        Their arguments are quite convincing. Again, I’m not saying, ‘HAHA you are wrong!’, but I would like to hear your comments on flaws in their reasoning.

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • benben,

        What’s the point of that chart? It’s certainly not recent.

        This one is current:

        And really, what are you so concerned about? Is it this?:

      • Ben, take a look at the uncertainties in the terrestrial energy budget, e.g., here. The uncertainty in the surface energy budget alone is on the order of ±15Wm^-2. That number is typical of all recent estimates.

        No errors are propagated through the simulations in the paper you cited. No energy-flux uncertainties, such as that for the surface energy budget, qualify any of the simulations, the analysis, or the conclusions.

        Were those errors propagated, the uncertainties would immediately be far greater in magnitude than the climate variables under simulation. Therefore: none of those simulations have any physical meaning.

        Honestly, studies such as you cited are useless. They are “climate studies,” a liberal art decorated with mathematics that merely elaborates a subjective narrative. Lit-Crit theorizing. They are the sterile computer gamesmanship that has destroyed climate science over the past 25 years.

        You find them convincing. I find that sad.

      • Further, Ben, our entire conversation here has been me meeting your questions and challenges; and successfully so.

        You have never once replied substantively to a single one of the critical issues I raised. Criticisms that demonstrate the scientific poverty of “what [you] see at [your] work.”

        Neither the climate modelers of my direct experience, nor the modeling papers I have read, show any cognizance of the meaning and impact of physical error.

        It is not entered into any of their analyses, I have seen no evidence of it in their thinking, and have observed a complete absence of understanding of it in their communications.

        They haven’t a clue about critical assessment. They have indicated no understanding of how to evaluate the physical coherence of their own models. It’s no wonder those folks are so certain of their results.

      • @ dbstealey, you are correct, the graph I posted is not all that current. Sorry. Please find below two more graphs that go until 2015. The first picture shows the temperature record compared to the modelling predictions in the 95% confidence range (since we are talking about statistics). With respect to your second picture, the axis you choose are.. weird? Why in the world would you look only at 1996-2015 in fig 1, or put the Y axis -10 – 110 Fahrenheit in fig 2. The second picture I post below is a more useful X and Y axis and shows that warming is going on unabatedly. And shows what it should have been if there truly was a pause in global warming. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts (actual thoughts, not just unpleasantness please).

        http://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/8/11/1439266359421/fee9951a-ca6b-4fa9-8715-fa8c207e2bfc-620×569.png?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=63c6f259d86c7bbc2f535ec9dca574d6

        https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/12/5/1449334027332/7b0441ae-dc7a-4ca8-9003-ce265fbb3a14-620×480.jpeg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=4483a163339bebabf9919e50712f4629

        @ Pat Frank, well, to be honest, I’m not really discussing with you my actual concerns because you are so incredibly sure of yourself that there is little point to it. But if you’re interested I could name a few. To be honest, it seems as if you are debating the climate models of ten years ago instead of engaging more recent work on climate models. 15 Wm-2 uncertainty is not all that large considering that the average is going to be towards 1000 Wm-2. As you can see in the first picture above, modern climate models are doing quite OK, within the 95% confidence interval. That is why I want to discuss with you what confidence interval is still acceptable.

        Of course all this really detailed work on monte carlo simulations etc. doesn’t appear in the communication to the outside world. Who would care? People that do care are free to read the supplementary information of the papers themselves. I’m tempted to think that you have not, but clearly you are a smart person (at least, you write very well!), so perhaps you have? This comment thread is no place to go into the actual code behind the models, but if these models had no physical basis at all they wouldn’t track the temperature record at all, and they do.

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • benben says:

        From your tone it is very clear that you cannot be convinced, so why would I even try?

        benben, that is a textbook example of psychological projection. You reject everything Pat Frank has tried to teach you, because your mind is made up and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. The nonsense you’ve been taught rules your thinking; it is clear that the climate scare has colonized your mind, and you are incapable of making rational decisions. You say: “I’m here to learn.” But you certainly don’t act like it.

        You also say to Pat Frank:

        “I’m not really interested in having an endless argument with you about who’s facts are more correct.”

        That’s what most climate alarmists say when their own ‘facts’ are unsupportable nonsense. And here’s more projection from you:

        “From your tone it is very clear that you cannot be convinced, so why would I even try?”

        What, benben? There are no mirrors in your house? You are the one who cannot be convinced, no matter how many verifiable facts are posted.

        And:

        “I’m not really discussing with you my actual concerns because you are so incredibly sure of yourself that there is little point to it.”

        You’re describing your own faults. No facts can convince you because you are ruled by your emotions. You can’t think objectively. Fear is a very strong emotion. Since you cannot think straight, you fall back on your lame excuses — which apply directly to you, not to skeptics of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ hoax. Because all that skeptics are saying is: show us. Prove — or at least provide convincing evidence, that there is a serious problem brewing. But so far all the evidence points to a very benign climate.

        As for your ‘first picture’ above, there is nothing to indicate that what is being observed is anything other than natural climate variability and the recovery of the planet from the Little Ice Age. Then you assert: “modern climate models are doing quite OK.”

        Wrong. No climate model has ever been consistently accurate, and what you showed is a record, not a model. But your True Belief triggers your confirmation bias, so you cherry-pick any factoid that supports your belief, and either disregard or reject anything that doesn’t.

        Next, linking anything from the Guardian is pure desperation. Honesty is not in them. If you want to go picking newspaper charts, then anyone can do the same, and you are not the one to say which is more accurate. Here is a link from the left-of-center Washington Post:

        Next, you seem to know nothing of the climate Null Hypothesis. So let me help: the Null Hypothesis says that if an extraneous forcing such as CO2 emissions are added to the climate, but there is no measurable effect, then whether there is a tiny, unmeasurable effect or no effect, the conclusion must be that there is no effect.

        There is no observable effect from the rise in CO2. None at all. Everything being observed now has happened before, and to a much greater degree — and prior to human industrial emissions. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. No current climate parameters have exceeded past parameters. Thus, the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.

        That means the Alternate Hypothesis (claiming that a rise in CO2 causes global warming) is falsified, because the Null and the Alternate hypotheses cannot both be right. It’s one or the other.

        The real world confirms the Null Hypothesis: there has been no global warming for almost twenty years. In any other field of science, such an abject demolition of a conjecture like CO2=AGW would mean the debunking of the conjecture. Scientists would then go back and try to understand why their conjecture had been so decisively falsified for so many years by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.

        But in climate science™, things are different. That is because it is at least 97% political now, and the ‘carbon’ scare is being propped up by boatloads of tax money — more than $1 billion every year. That much money buys opinions, and those opinions scare folks like you. You’re being led by the nose and you don’t even know it.

        But rational folks know that the past century has been a true “Goldilocks” century; one that is almost unprecedented in the geologic record. We have been very fortunate to have had such a flat temperature regime. But the alarmist clique has done its best to convince emotional people like you that we’re going to hell in a handbasket. It is a testament to the abject failure of the gov’t .edu factories that lots of people are incapable of thinking clearly. Rigorous analysis is no longer taught in schools, and even here, it’s very rare to see a cost/benefit analysis appended to any proposal to switch to ‘green’ power sources. So it’s not your fault. You just haven’t had the training to think clearly.

        When the planet has gone through the best climate in the entire Holocene, only the emotional victims of the climate alarmist cult think that must be a bad thing. The reason is obvious: they are incapable of logical, rational thinking. It’s easier to just be a head-nodder when the TV newsbabe shows clips of calving icebergs, while parroting the mesmerizing words, “Climate change…”

        Finally, here are some verifiable facts: the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial. It has caused no damage or harm; thus, it is ‘harmless’. Food production is being enhanced, holding down prices. The biosphere is blooming. And if it were not for very sensitive instruments, you wouldn’t even be able to tell the difference between 300 ppm and 400 ppm. Thus the ‘climate’ scare is all in your mind…

      • Ben, ±15 Wm^-2 annual uncertainty is very large when the annual effect you’re looking to resolve is ~0.035 Wm^-2.

        Let’s see, that uncertainty in the terrestrial energy budget is about 400x larger than the perturbation you and your work partners claim an ability to resolve. Such a claim is ludicrous on its face.

        It’s quite clear that you don’t understand physical error and uncertainty either. That qualifies you to be a climate modeler.

        Your suggestion that, “I’m not really discussing with you my actual concerns because you are so incredibly sure of yourself that there is little point to it.,” is self-serving nonsense. If you had an argument that would refute my work, you’d post it. Your record here provides no evidence of any such argument.

        But prove me wrong. Go ahead and refute the finding that propagated error entirely vitiates climate model air temperature projections. Let’s see the argument. Consider that a challenge.

        On the other hand, I’m sure of myself, Ben, because I’ve done the work and I understand that work. The result is completely unequivocal: climate models are utterly unable to resolve the effect of GHGs on the terrestrial climate. I know that for a fact.

        You wrote that, “modern climate models are doing quite OK, within the 95% confidence interval,” which ignores the point that modelers use parameters with off-setting errors to match past climate observables, most notably surface air temperature.

        I dealt with exactly that point in the essay I linked in my first post to you. Except you didn’t read it, did you. It’s linked again below.

        The climate model analysis I posted here at WUWT concerned the uselessness of CMIP3 models. Those are hardly “the climate models of ten years ago. I have since extended the analysis to CMIP5 models. They are no better. And why would they be? The ±4 Wm^-2 long-wave cloud error I propagated in that post is the average annual CMIP5 model error.

        You have been unable to make a single cogent point. Everything you’ve posted has been argument from authority.

        There’s no science in your position, Ben. You’re defending a façade. Whereever it was that you got your training, they betrayed you.

      • so… firstly, it would be nice if we can agree to be, if not friendly, then at least respectful. And if not respectful then at the very least courteous. I am, so I don’t see any reason why you should address me any other way.

        I think that Pat and I can at the very least agree that posting a graph with a -10 to 110 degree Y axis is fairly bizarre in a discussion where we are talking about a range of ~3 degree F. Pat will also agree that to be able to show that a temperature spike is not statistically significantly different from previously naturally caused spikes, you need enough longitudinal data, so just showing a few decades out of context is irrelevant (and also some discussion on statistics instead of drawing a straight line). Please don’t continue in this ‘I am so much smarter than you’ tone. It’s unpleasant, and you could make your point much more succinctly without it.

        Pat, CIMP5 is from… what, beginning 2011? That is an entire PhD cycle ago, meaning several major modelling iterations. CIMP3 models are from 2005. At least we should be able to agree on the basic fact that 2005 is ten years ago ;) http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/index.html and http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php

        So basically, what you are saying is that there is at least a 2-3 orders of magnitude uncertainty in the modelling results (400x, and uncertainty goes both ways, important to keep in mind). Which is exactly why I keep coming back to my original question: if all the models show that with a 95% confidence that a trillion tons of CO2 released will cause the ice caps to melt, what parametric uncertainty are you willing to accept before you are willing to say that we should aim towards limiting CO2 to less than a trillion tons? You imply that 2 orders of magnitude is not accurate enough. So 1 order? even less? It’s not a difficult question.

        Again, I understand that you write you proved that models are much more uncertain then this 95% implies. I’m not arguing that. They can indeed be orders of magnitude off. Who knows? The question is, how many orders of magnitude do you want to have, at minimum, for a hypothetical climate model to satisfy your demands.

        With regard to my actual concerns: the most basic is this blog almost always refers to satellite measurements, which relate to energy content of the troposphere, while recent models show that most of the energy (on which we agree that it must end up somewhere, because we agree on the basic effects of CO2 increasing the energy content of the planet as a whole) will end up in the oceans.So, by all means, write an interesting post about how the oceanic energy content all over the globe (not just picking one spot) has not increased at all in the past…. lets say 50 years, and how this compares to recent (e.g. 2014, 2015) modelling results on oceanic energy content. I will applaud you for it!

      • My Dear Mr. benben,

        How are you doing today? I hope life is wonderful for you. My, what nice weather we’re having…

        …just like we’ve been having for the past century and a half! But somehow you find ways to frighten yourself. Not only that, but people like you would hobble Western civilization, reduce everyone’s lifestyle to that of the 3rd world, and raise taxes to the moon based on the “climate change” hoax.

        So excuse me if we’re not being sufficiently kissy-face for you. FYI I have gotten death threats from your side of the debate, in addition to being called some pretty vile names. We don’t call you names, but I think holding your feet to the fire is causing you to whine a bit. And the fact that you casually blow off every verifiable fact that I or others post, and the fact that you refuse to answer questions, is more than a little irritating. As I pointed out, your mind appears to be made up and closed tight. (OK, my mini-rant is done; let’s discuss science-based reality).

        You say:

        …if all the models show that with a 95% confidence that a trillion tons of CO2 released will cause the ice caps to melt …&etc.

        Does “a trillion tons” scare you? Do you understand that human CO2 emissions are only a tiny fraction of annual natural emissions, and that the natural variability from one year to the next can exceed human emissions?

        Furthermore, what makes you think the ice caps will melt? Post something beside your belief. Here is the latest global ice cover:

        Notice that the long term global trend is flat. That means that despite the very large rise in CO2 over the past century, global ice has remained the same. Over the past 7 years, global ice has dipped below current levels (which are rising) six times! Global ice has regularly been above the trend line, too. But it always reverts to the long term average. Thus, there is no evidence whatever to support your belief that rising CO2 will melt the polar ice caps. If that was happening, the data would show it.

        Since early in the last century CO2 has been steadily rising. If CO2 caused polar ice to melt, we certainly would have seen some indication of that by now. But there’s nothing. So you can put that false alarm to rest, along with Chicken Little’s acorn. It’s a bogus scare.

        Next, you were asked:

        Ben, what evidence is there to require we do something about CO2 emissions?

        You keep dodging that question. Reality has confirmed that the rise in CO2 has been completely harmless, and further, that it is very beneficial to the biosphere, which is GREENING in lock-step with the rise of CO2. As I wrote (and which you ignored as usual) you could not even tell if that tiny trace gas was 300 ppm, or 400 ppm, or 900 ppm. It requires sensitive instruments to measure the minuscule fraction of atmospheric CO2. You wouldn’t even be aware of it, if a certain self-serving faction wasn’t using it to scare you.

        But the one-third of humanity that subsists on less tha $2 a day is very fortunate for the rise in CO2. By greatly increasing agricultural productivity their food costs are held down — and that matters greatly to the world’s poor, who live on the margin. They face malnutrition and even starvation if food costs begin to escalate. Which is bound to happen if the carbon reductionists like 350.org get their way.

        The world’s poor are always ignored by the climate alarmist cult, who apparently don’t care about those brown people. How else should we look at it? There is no downside to more CO2, and plenty of benefits. And the rest of the world wants the same benefits we have. Who are you to tell them they can’t have our lifestyle?

        Next, Pat Frank (who I don’t know, and have never met or spoken with) pointed out:

        You have never once replied substantively to a single one of the critical issues I raised.

        Nor mine. If you started to make a good faith effort to have a science-based discussion, you would probably end up (if you are an honest person) jettisoning the ‘dangerous AGW’ hoax that infests the media and politics. Because the fact is, the alarmist crowd has no credible science-based arguments. Everything is based on fear, which is a powerful emotion. But if you can get past their scare, you will find that the ‘carbon’ narrative is nothing more than an attempt to get carbon taxes passed.

        If that happens the planet’s temperature will not be lowered by 0.000001ºC. What will happen is obvious: the cost of all goods and services will skyrocket, without a commensurate rise in incomes. The difference will go into the governemnt’s coffers, ballooning the bureaucracy but making everyone else much poorer.

        If you will notice, almost the entire ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare is being promoted by self-serving entities that benefit from Big Government: scientists working for universities, and NASA, and NSIDC, and NOAA, and the EPA, and dozens of other bureaucratic departments.

        Even the scientifically illiterate President is flogging the carbon scare/climate change hoax, by preposterously asserting that it is the biggest threat America faces. Forget nuclear war, ISIS, the MIddle East, the rising flood of illegal immigrants, skyrocketing utility bills, decaying infrastructure, underperforming schools, half the nation on the dole, and a hundred other things that are far more important than “climate change”. Forget the fact that the past hundred and fifty years has been the best, most benign climate in the geologic record. Forget the fact that CO2 has turned out to be entirely beneficial, with no downside. Just listen to the man behind the curtain. That’s what they want.

        Or, you can start to think for yourself. If there is a serious threat regarding “climate change”, show us. What we don’t need to hear are baseless “But what if…” comments, such as: “We have to do something about CO2 emissions!” (Because what if we don’t?) If that’s really what you believe, then you had better be able to quantify the supposed threat with verifiable, empirical, testable measurements, showing us what is happening. Not what someone told you might happen. For all you know, an asteroid might end all life on earth. But they can’t tax asteroids, so even though that is a thousand times bigger threat than “climate change”, it is disregarded.

        benben, you came here with an attitude: you were not going to let anyone tell you anything; your mind was already made up. But that attitude is one big FAIL here on the internet’s “Best Science” site. If you have credible facts and evidence, you can change minds here. You can convince skeptics — but only with solid facts, evidence, data and measurements. Anything less and you lose the argument. You will never convince the highly educated readership here that the sky is falling, without posting verifiable evidence.

        But so far, neither you nor anyone else has ever produced any measurable evidence quantifying the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare. What do you think of that? Are you still convince that the polar ice caps are going to melt, or whatever other scare has colonized your mind? Or, are you willing to accept reality based on data and observations? Because it’s either one or the other — and it’s your choice.

      • Dear dbstealey,

        I am truly sorry that you received death threats. Not nice.

        Again, I would like to re-iterate that I am not arguing with either you or Pat about the actual currently observable effects of CO2 increase. Lets just assume that you have won me over. Ice coverage is fine with current CO2 levels. The question I have is NOT on the current effects, but the future effects. Pat and I agree that CO2 serves to increase the total energy content of the global climate system, and that this can be derived from simple thermodynamics. Now, we also know that the CO2 levels will keep increasing, and thus the energy content of the climate system will increase as well. Currently there are perhaps only negligible effects, but eventually there should be some effect (maybe only in the far far future after burning +50 trillion tons if that were even possible. No problem for me). The question is very valid. Pat makes an argument that parametric uncertainty is too big. So what level of certainty (or precision, in the terminology of Pat?) does Pat want to see before we can think about adjusting policy in response to possible future harm? And again, above I framed this in terms of hypotheticals, so this is not me trying to convince you, or argue about who is right. No need to continue on that track.

      • benben says:

        …the actual currently observable effects of CO2 increase.

        I’m glad you’re not arguing about that, because there is no testable evidence that shows any observable effect from CO2. It’s like saying there’s an observable effect from the black cat under your bed. But when you actually look, there is no cat. No matter how much you believe there’s a cat, your observation settles the matter. Or does it? Because then you say:

        The question I have is NOT on the current effects, but the future effects… The question is very valid.

        Not based on your premise, it isn’t. I have several charts like the following, all based on radiative physics (what you call “simple thermodynamics”). All the charts show exactly the same thing: the effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically and predictably:

        You can see that almost all of the warming effect took place in the first few dozen ppm. But as the trace gas rises, the warming effect becomes less and less. If you look at the chart, you can see that if CO2 were to increase by 20%, or 30%, or 50%, or more, the resulting rise in temperature would still be too minuscule to measure.

        So even though CO2 will keep rising, there are not enough easily extractable fossil fuels to cause a doubling of atmospheric CO2. But even in the extremely unlikely event that CO2 did double, the warming effect between the current ≈400 ppm and 800 ppm would still be too small to measure.

        The real world is reflecting radiative physics. Despite a large rise in CO2 over the past twenty years, there has been no measurable global warming resulting.

        Next, you assert: “thus the energy content of the climate system will increase as well.” Based on the same radiative physics, we see that is incorrect. Any added energy from a rise in CO2 will be too small to measure. Unless you do not accept basic physics, your apparent concern about runaway global warming is baseless. Certainly more CO2 cannot make that happen (you should be made aware that atmospheric CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, without ever causing runaway global warming — or any warming, for that matter).

        You’ve re-framed this debate to “possible future harm” and “hypotheticals”. But there is no credible evidence to indicates that there will ever be man-made global warming (AGW) from CO2 emissions. And there is no evidence whatever that CO2 emissions will cause ‘dangerous AGW’ (DAGW). That is such a baseless “what if” argument that it is the realm of fairy tales.

        Many serious people are suggesting that modern technological society should be deconstructed in order to reduce CO2 to under 350 ppm, or even lower. There is even a group called ‘350.org’. Those people are serious. They are also seriously deluded. There is never any cost/benefit analysis done: for example, is it worth impoverishing our country and becoming a 3rd world subsistence economy, on the completely unproven pseudo-science behind the DAGW scare? If they think so, let’s put it to a vote. What are you personally willing to give up to avoid that scary (and completely baseless) scenario?

        Now that scientists have had plenty of time to weigh the effects of the rise in CO2, what are the consequences? Not “what if” scares, but actual, measurable evidence?

        The answer is that there is zero evidence of any global damage, or any harm to the planet due to the rise in CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. Thus, the rise in CO2 is “harmless”. QED

        Next question: are there any benefits from the added CO2?

        The answer is a decisive “Yes.” The biosphere is measurably ‘greening’ as a direct result of the added CO2, which is an essential natural airborne fertilizer. Agricultural productivity is rising in lock-step along with the rise in CO2 emissions. As a result, food costs are being held down and even reduced — a huge benefit to the one-third of humanity living on a subsistence diet.

        Here’s a little real world gedanken experiment: when you put a seed in a pot of soil and the seed germinates and grows into a large plant, does the plant grow by using the dirt as its building blocks?

        No. The plant builds its cellulose, starches, sugars, chlorophyl, etc., from the trace CO2 in the air. The soil level in the pot is not depleted; it remains at the same level no matter how big the plant gets. All of the building blocks that make up the plant come from CO2 (with the necessary H2O).

        When you look out a a forest, with its miles of trees clustered together, and jungles, and wheat fields, what you are seeing is atmospheric CO2 that has been converted to vegetation.

        Yet misguided people try to demonize “carbon” (by which they mean airborne CO2; an invisible trace gas). They cannot show any downside to the rise in CO2, while skeptics can prove plenty of benefits. The fact is, the biosphere evolved with much higher CO2 levels. But now it is starved of CO2:


        (click in charts to embiggen)

        With the total deconstruction of the CO2=dAGW narrative, the climate alarmist crowd has no credible science to support their position. That’s why the alarmist cult has become entirely political. In a moment of candor, the UN’s IPCC Working Group co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer admitted:

        “One must say clearly that we redistribute de-facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

        The entire climate scare has morphed into a pseudo-science hoax, intended to get a carbon tax passed. That is their motive, not honest science. In other words, they are lying for money. You will be expected to open your wallet for them, based on a thoroughly debunked false alarm. But if you can use the natural intellect you were born with, and separate emotions (‘but what if…’) from facts, evidence, measurements, and observations, you can rise above the self-serving politics supporting this giant hoax.

        But that takes rigorous thinking and an open mind. The easy way is to do like millions of dumbed-down mouth-breathers do when they watch the nightly news, with its stock footage of hurricanes, floods, calving icebergs, polar bears on ice floes, and artists’ renditions of Manhattan under water. They begin head-nodding in unison with the airhead newsbabe, and pretty soon they’re ready to accept the science-free narrative that colonizes the vacant minds of Dancing With The Stars addicts.

        The choice is yours: force out the emotion, see the propaganda for what it is, and always ask yourself: cui bono? Or you can go with the flow, and be comfortably led by that invisible ring in your nose that folks like Algore and Barack Obama have put there. That’s the easy way. Being a rational, intelligent skeptic is hard. The choice is yours.

      • Ben, sorry to say, your reply is content-free.

        Why is it not obvious to you that it is ludicrous to ask for a fractional certainty in the face orders of magnitude uncertainty? In any case, I addressed your question above, where I pointed out the critical and central difference between a statistical inference and a deduction from physical theory, here, for example, and here . You’re asking after statistics, when you should be attending to physics.

        Here it is in one sentence: Climate models are not fit to imply any danger from GHG emissions.

        Therefore: there is no science-based reason to think that GHG emissions will significantly affect global climate.

        Therefore: your question about “what parametric uncertainty are you willing to accept is physically meaningless.

        And therefore: “if all the models show that with a 95% confidence that a trillion tons of CO2 released will cause the ice caps to melt” is right up there with, ‘if all the Bayesian theological models show with 95% confidence that you’ll be going to hell.’ They are each questions without content.

        Figure it out: climate models cannot predict anything with 95% confidence. The best they can do is agree with one another to 95% confidence, which is not the same thing at all. Your “if … 95% … melt” is without any basis, Ben; nonsensical.

        That all said, dbstealy’s plot of the surface temperature between wide limits is a graphical demonstration of the recent stability of terrestrial air temperature. He’s completely justified in plotting it that way. The change since 1850, of 0.8±0.5 C, is not inferentially alarming under any circumstances.

        Notice the large uncertainty, by the way. That comes from the systematic measurement error that climate scientists have studiously ignored. My first paper on that is, here, there was also a follow-up and there will be more.

        You also wrote that, “Pat will also agree that to be able to show that a temperature spike is not statistically significantly different from previously naturally caused spikes, you need enough longitudinal data, so just showing a few decades out of context is irrelevant.

        Not quite the way I’d view it. As the known natural variation in air temperature is very large, the fact that one relatively minor spike is “statistically different from another, or even from many others, is of no physical significance with respect to an inference of human causality.

        Finally, do you realize that your attempt to rescue climate models with, “Pat, CIMP5 is from… what, beginning 2011? That is an entire PhD cycle ago,…, effectively repudiates every single air temperature projection made since at least 1988?

        You have trashed the IPCC, the WMO, NCAR, NASA GISS, and every single institution world-wide dedicated to consensus climatology, not to mention Jim Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, and every single climate modeler anywhere that has ever warned about GHG-induced global warming, by agreeing their models were completely unreliable.

        Is it, poor fellows, they just didn’t know then what you know now, Ben? Maybe you should update them with your new knowledge.

        I know about PhD cycles Ben. I work at Stanford University. Climate models today aren’t any better than they were ten years ago. The physics they encode is hardly more advanced that it was in the time of Manabe and Wetherald.

        The entire field of climate modeling lives off the improved computers deriving from Silicon Valley. Increased speed, smaller grid-size, pretty much the same level of error. That’s your climate models. The higher resolution computing mimicks an advance in science, but is not. It impresses only the naïve and the uncritical. Maybe that includes you, mores the pity.

        This conversation has gone nowhere, Ben. Chalk it up to my intransigence, if you like. But let’s note that you haven’t made a single science-based argument and have had no cogent response to my error analyses.

        The whole AGW scare is based on a shameful negligence, indistinguishable from incompetence and much of it willful. Science will suffer greatly from that widespread betrayal of integrity.

      • Dear Pat Frank,

        Stanford is a great place to work! I’ll be at Yale for the next couple of years. Send me a message if you’re in the neighborhood and I’ll buy you a beer.

        You are correct that my responses are content free. To be frank, I’m trying to find a middle ground here where there is still some actual discussion possible. Yes, we could have a hugely combative discussion and we would both come out angry and feeling that the other is an idiot. Why bother? I am *much* more interested in seeing if there is any basis from which we can have a constructive discussion. Once we find the basis, we can have a content filled discussion.

        I thought maybe uncertainty would be a good topic. If you want we can also talk about uncertainty in other contexts? For example, in Europe, when determining the maximum allowed pesticide residues they will take the lowest amount at which any effect was found, and then set the legal limit at two orders of magnitude below that to compensate for uncertainty from using animal models etc. etc. How does that sound to you? Two orders of magnitude. Too much, too little or just right? In context of food. No need to go back to climate change for now. Or perhaps you would like to offer another avenue of discussion where we can perhaps find some middle ground? The aforementioned subsidies to fossil fuels perhaps.

        I’m happy to acknowledge that climate models have very large uncertainties. I don’t understand why you need to say that I ‘have thrashed every single institution world-wide dedicated to consensus climatology’. That is inflammatory and unpleasant language. All I did was say that newer models differ from older models (and should be better), and that for a fair comparison you should compare the most recent temperature record to the most recent models. This is not a weird or unfair request, right?

        Hey, a nice little gesture from your side could be to acknowledge that dbstealey has also lost touch with physical reality when claiming that ‘based on radiative physics the effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmically’. The effect of linearly increasing CO2 levels is a linear increase in energy absorption.

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • benben says:

        I’m happy to acknowledge that climate models have very large uncertainties.

        Would you be just as happy to acknowledge that climate models are always wrong?

        And benben seems to assume that this anti-science belief is factual:

        “The effect of linearly increasing CO2 levels is a linear increase in energy absorption.”

        Flat wrong. The logarithmic effect of rising CO2 has been discussed here so often over the years that only someone with zero knowledge of basic physics would disagree. (BTW: what’s benben’s education? How about posting a CV? Because it’s clear that anyone making a statement like that isn’t educated in the hard sciences.)

        Here are some charts that were posted in articles here, and thoroughly discussed over the years:

        click1

        click2

        click3

        benben made an assertion that the effect of rising CO2 is linear. That is wrong. I challenge benben to support his belief with evidence based on radiative physics — the same physics used to construct the charts linked above.

        If benben is correct, then he will be the first one to point out that every other physicist has been wrong about the log effect of CO2. But if benben is wrong, his entire argument fails. At current levels more CO2 is simply not a problem of any kind. Thus, the “carbon” scare is shown to be a false alarm.

        OK benben, there’s your challenge. The ball is in your court. You made that assertion, now let’s see if you can credibly support it. As the old Goodyear commercial said, this is where the rubber meets the road. You’re big on ‘polite’, so either prove your assertion is correct, or politely concede that you were wrong. There’s no ‘middle ground’ here. The effect of rising CO2 is log or linear. Which?

      • Ben, let’s leave it at that. I doubt we’ll get any further.

        Good luck at Yale.

        If you’re going as an undergrad and want to major in science, take as much physics and math as you can stomach.

        And don’t forget to take a course that includes rigorous physical error analysis. Learn as much about that as you can do. It’ll keep you from making the worst sorts of mistakes.

        Just to say, though, that dbstealey is correct about the log relationship of CO2 and forcing. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is high enough so that absorption of the 15 micron band is saturated. Absorption therefore no longer follows Beer’s Law; IR absorption is no longer linear with concentration. Forcing is now linear with log[CO2]_atm.

        The ms I’ve been trying to publish for, lo, these past 3 years, shows that the transition between linear and log forcing with [CO2]_atm occurs between 1 ppm<[CO2]<2 ppm.

        See the paper by Myhre, et al, 1998 GRL 25(14), 2715-2718. You may be able to download the pdf here. That’ll give you the relationships presently used to calculate GHG radiative forcing.

      • ha, I don’t think I’d have the balls as an undergrad to have a discussion like this :) I’m a postdoc, with a degree in chemical engineering. I have to admit I was wrong on the linear thing, I indeed assumed it was not saturated, but I was wrong, it is not completely saturated, but definitely much more so than I had in mind. As you probably know there is a nice explanation on: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

        In my defence, atmospheric chemistry was years ago and those classes started at 9 in the morning ;)

        You’re probably right Pat lets leave it at this. But keep in mind that you failed to engage a chemical engineer with your line of argumentation, not some woozy liberal sciences hipster! I also note that the paper you refer to is from 1998. So I’d like to again reiterate the point that you should really look at current climate models. And not the type you run on your laptop, but on a HPC cluster. You’ll get more than just higher resolution for your efforts, I promise. You’re at Stanford, I’m sure you can somehow get access.

        dbstealey: I’d rather not put my full CV here because I’ve also gotten some pretty nasty emails from left wing eco crazies.

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • benben says:

        I’m a postdoc, with a degree in chemical engineering.

        Then with a degree in one of the hard sciences, do you agree with the 31,000+ co-signers of the OISM Petition to the U.S. Kyoto delegation? If so, then there’s no problem. We’re on the same page.

        But that would put you at odds with Michael Mann, who runs the almost deserted realclimate propaganda blog. Mann and both of his regular readers believe in dangerous AGW.

        Next, Mann’s link to the Weart/Pierrehumbert catechism has one major, insurmountable problem: Planet Earth disagrees with them. If what they claimed was true, we should have plenty of empirical observations confirming it by now. But we don’t. Despite the 40%+ rise in “carbon”, global warming remains in stasis. The real world is falsifying the climate models’ conclusions. They are still wrong, all of them.

        And re: your CV. No problem, keep it to yourself. I understand about crazies, and I understand even better about the ivory tower effect. It’s just that your line of argument seemed to be coming from an English Lit major, or Sociology, or something similar. Once you get away from the echo chamber that is most college campuses and out into the real world, I suspect your views will change. Reality has that effect on people. And just wait ’till you start paying taxes…

      • Ben, it’s not that I “failed to engage a chemical engineer with [my] line of argument,” but rather that you, a Ph.D.-level chemical engineer, failed to evidence the least understanding of physical error analysis or the impact of uncertainty and propagated error on the reliability of an expectation value.

        That is a true shock. I’d hope you bring much more acuity than that to your professional work. Safety, after all, demands it.

        The point about Myhre was to show the log[CO2] relationship. Being dismissive because of the year is gratuitous. It was good of you, though, to admit the mistake.

        Here’s a prediction: CMIP7 climate models will be no more accurate than the CMIP5 versions.

        Progress in climate physics will continue moribund until Climatology recovers from its fatuous, pestilential, and juvenile fascination with computer gaming.

  27. …Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong…

    Actually, Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’ and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Carl Sagan’s Nuclear Winter’ are much bigger threats. If we’re allowed to count people who are wrong. All these suggest that the human species will be extinct by the year 2000, and that’s a MUCH bigger threat.

    Wrong, of course. But still a bigger threat….

  28. @smamarver

    …As an environmental scientist and avid reader of this blog I would like to insert little reality check and comment that in my research, or in any of the climate related research I have ever seen (and I’ve obviously not read it all), this mr. Strong has never come up. I doubt I am somehow unknowingly manipulated by this master manipulator….

    Have you heard of Roger Bacon (1214-1292)? If you work as a scientist your every working day is influenced by him.

    Humans do most things ‘because that’s the way things are done’. Have you ever wondered who gets to specify that things are done that way? As O’Shaughnessy put it, these are: ‘…the movers and shakers…the dreamers of dreams…’. And you will rarely hear of any of them as their influence manipulates everything you do…

    • “Dodgy Geezer

      December 1, 2015 at 3:26 am

      Humans do most things ‘because that’s the way things are done.”

      Maybe. If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. I can call on two striking examples (There are many more) where I myself thought “There has to be a better way.” And sure enough there was. With a little thought, rearranging some hardware and “breaking” a program (Using a binary editor to change a program to point to diskette drive “B”. Seriously), I could do a job at IBM much much easier (This was a home “telecommuting” service my team at the time ran using a box called “Horatius” (SP?)). I had no objection to this from my superiors at the time (Late 80’s).

      Come to New Zealand and circa 2000 I simply mentioned in a new job that “There has to be a better way to do this.” (Importing software delivery targets from excel and using Computer Associates Software Delivery Option (SDO), not the best enterprise tool for the job in my experience). Sure it worked but I got hauled over hot coals for suggesting there has to be a better way to do the same job (The person “handing over” the job to me complained *SIGH*).

      See, the thing is some people simply do not like ANYONE looking at their work and saying, “I can do this better!. Jones of the UEA CRU is the kind of person that “does things the way they have been because “…someone might find something wrong with it…” It’s not about being wrong, IMO. It’s about finding ways to do things better. Some people don’t get that!

  29. The Wrecking Ball. There’s the politics. There’s the science. Then there’s the political science. This is where we are because lots of hard work by folks like the late Mr. Strong.

    It’s a jumbled mess decades in the making. Batting down the lies and misrepresentations flowing out of the watermelons must be exhausting. I am thankful for those willing to do the job.

    In public debate I like to open with an explanation of the Summary for Policy Makers and the Himalayan glaciers fiasco. Move to the dismissal for sexual harassment of the randy rail road engineer. Complete the route with Al Gore’s predictions on an ice free artic and hurricanes. Just explaining those few obvious screw ups usually destroys IPCC credibility.

    • “troe

      December 1, 2015 at 4:58 am

      Then there’s the political science.”

      Makes me laugh. Political science (PS). There was a student of PS in New Zealand (NZ) a few years back that tried to sue the NZ Govn’t for not providing “proper” seating in parliament. Turns out her “ample” frame was so large that it was not a problem for Govn’t. Court ruled against her.

  30. Dr. Ball,

    In your essay you stated “The people of Quebec are legally identified in the Canadian constitution as a distinct nation with cultural and language differences from the rest of Canada. In addition, they have their own territory (state), so their desire to become a separate nation-state was well within any of the rules set down by the Treaty of Versailles and the United Nations Charter. Pierre Trudeau used the excuse of two deaths in the struggle by the Quebec separatists (FLQ) to invoke the War Measures Act that took away every citizen’s rights completely. He then used the Canadian military to keep them silent and submissive at gunpoint.

    I am not at all pleased with having Junior Trudeau as the Canadian Prime Minister, but I do want to put his father’s actions back in the 70s into some kind of context. To do that please go to the following link.

    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-crisis/

    Aside from that I fully endorse your essay. Thank you for it

    • Like many such ‘pedias’, rhe Canadian Encyclopedia has a tendency to be quite liberal and often, unlike others, does not often offer or provide any references – should their editors play hockey they would definitely star on left wing.

  31. While it’s not being reported how he died an anonymous source informed me it happened when an errant housekeeper accidentally whipped open the blinds in his Beijing penthouse after the sun had risen. Apparently the elderly Maurice was unable to get in the shade quick enough. When the sunlight hit him he incinerated.

  32. “..the greatest science deception in history.”

    Not really, the scary thing is they are very up front about it these days. The masses are clay to be molded it seems.

  33. I’ve said since the 90’s that the biggest threat from Global Warming is what people might try to do about it. And it’s potentially more devastating than all their disaster scenarios – certainly worse than the DDT ban.
    In this sense, the ‘Godzilla’ analogy holds – as the Green Movement itself – a giant green monster from which there is no escape – AND created completely by computer models. In this sense it IS a man-made disaster.

  34. benben December 1, 2015 at 2:52 am
    As an environmental scientist and avid reader of this blog I would like to insert little reality check and comment that in my research, or in any of the climate related research I have ever seen (and I’ve obviously not read it all), this mr. Strong has never come up. I doubt I am somehow unknowingly manipulated by this master manipulator.

    I know everyone here loves to think climate change is all about stalinism and world domination, but in my work at least, all I see is maths and thermodynamics and other decidedly boring subjects. Other than that, very entertaining article mr. Ball, as usual!

    benben may well have a point, even if inadvertently. Folks who follow blogs like this will be conversant to varying degrees about the history: how the ‘global warming’ idea was picked up by globalists like Maurice Strong and used to create a ‘common enemy’ that they could rally like-minded activists in politics, academics, the international bureaucracies, the leftwing media, and the radical ‘environmental’ movement. But most people, and I’d include real scientists who keep their noses to the grindstone and don’t get caught up in the incessant political maelstrom surrounding issues like CAGW, will never have heard of Mr. Strong and the increasing stranglehold his movement has gotten over Western governments and the Earth sciences. If they do, they’ll dismiss it all as ‘conspiracy theories’.

    This is a real problem for skeptics and anyone interested in both integrity of science and in preserving the independence and freedom of the common man in the face of a growing global establishment that regards the nation-state, the capitalist system, and individual freedom as anathema. How do you stem the tide of this Leviathan? The average man wants nothing more than to hunker down and get on with his life, his family, his job—and that may well include pursuing real scientific interests that may only be touched when he has to include a phrase like “The effect of climate change on ______ (whatever the topic is),” in order to qualify for a government grant.

    I don’t know the answer. When a “popular delusion” has been appropriated by the highest authorities in every developed nation, in service to a political and ideological agenda, who is to gainsay it? It will take a counter-movement, I suppose. Where will that come from?

    /Mr Lynn

    • I think ben was being disingenuous in his pretense of caring only about “the science”. His use of the straw man “all about stalinism and world domination” was one tipoff. All he cares about is consensus science, since he obviously works within the Climatist Industry. It would not be in his best interest to delve into the ACTUAL science.

      • why, Bruce Cobb, this is a bit offensive. I’m just trying to have an honest conversation here, and I would prefer if you could do that without immediately putting me in the left wing crazy box. That comment on world domination is not a straw man argument, its a reference to the many many comments on this blog about how the UN is allegedly trying to impose its will on the rest of the world. I’m just a scientist doing my science things. I’m relatively good at getting grants, 50% of my financing comes from industry, and I never, ever have felt that I need to say something other than what I sincerely believe to be true, and I’ve never had to work on anything other than what I find interesting. This is my personal experience. Please don’t discount that just because it doesn’t gel with your preconceived notions on what ‘scientists’ are like. Be sceptical to your own assumptions ;)

        So as Mr. Lynn was saying, it is indeed a challenge for you guys. How to convince someone like me that I’m being manipulated even though I don’t experience it like that? Well.. I’m listening :)

    • Perhaps the real “activists” are people who visit this site and argue against the “mainstream” politics of the day. When the mainstream is fully vested in the “green” dogma, who then are the rebels? Old farts like me and others here who have lived through a few cycles, or the young folks under 30 who have been fed Poly Sci all their lives instead of biology, geology, mathematics, chemistry and physics? They will have to learn by their mistakes. They won’t be paying for what the older generation did. They will be paying for what they allowed to happen on their watch. The wheel keeps turning …

  35. I was going to make a schadenfreude-saturated politically incorrect comment about Maurice Strong’s demise,
    but so many good responders got here before me that I will just say, “Me too.”

  36. Maurice Strong said,

    “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”

    &

    The Club of Rome wrote,

    “The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.”

    There, for any reasonable man to see, is the Club of Rome (COR) revealed as real life modern shamans cum medicine men cum witch doctors.

    The COR and one of its members (Maurice Strong) envision themselves as spiritual guides to “religionists and scientists” who would help “each human being to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light” to a “Utopia of humanist hope” where “superior laws of Divine Nature” will be respected.

    That is the anti-enlightenment where the COR cavorts over the un-birthing of the Renaissance.

    I feel intellectually tainted.

    Note to Dr. Tim Ball – it is a very weakly based meme that Maurice Strong’s intellect was a prime mover responsible for the modern illness that is the worship of pseudo-knowledge applied to AGW climate hypotheses. We need to look, instead, at the role of modern philosophies of a certain kind that created useful idiots like both Maurice Strong and many other CORers.

    John

    • John Whitman,

      ” We need to look, instead, at the role of modern philosophies of a certain kind that created useful idiots like both Maurice Strong and many other CORers.”

      I’ve looked, and as far as I can tell it’s not really philosophies that made these creepy critters, it’s the critters who made the quasi-philosophies/religions . . to disguise what we now generally call organized crime. You know all those “secret societies” and so forth? That’s them, hiding in plain sight, I am convinced.

      The underlying “problem” is psychopathy, I believe, which is to say people who have no conscience, pretending they do.

    • I often wonder if a certain class of psycho is so repulsed by their own desires and insecurities that they go mad in fear.
      Projecting their own vile selves upon the world, they create a demon to strive against.
      Driven to defeat this illusion they demand control of all resources and other peoples energies.
      There has to be a rational explanation for those so driven to control all, who are willing to destroy all in the name of an impossible degree of control.
      Stupid evil bastards have always been with us.
      They can never succeed, yet never give up.
      My Kleptocracy(canadian) is so sure they can run my life better than I, that they even have regulated what kind of lightbulbs I may not buy.
      Delusions of adequacy comes to mind.

    • There is a certain synergy between philosophy (belief) and practice (believers). Which came first? Time for a re-reading of Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. Unhappily, that’s what we dealing with here, and let run rampant, it can be a disaster.

      /Mr Lynn

  37. Maurice Strong on “A People’s Earth Charter”

    Q: There has been a lot of concern about the role the Earth Charter will play in the UN negotiations. Is one of the ultimate goals of the project to receive an official endorsement by the UN?

    A: Well, it does not depend on that. Let me be very clear, this is a People’s Earth Charter. It will have its power, it will have its influence because it comes from people. That’s why we want to ensure that people throughout the world, the maximum number of people, are involved. That is what will give it its authenticity. That is what will give it its credibility. That is even more important than putting it on the UN Agenda. But by doing that, then that will make it inevitable that the UN will take note of it, and hopefully it will then lead to a process of producing a formalized Earth Charter.

    But, let us be very clear, the UN action is not going to be the only goal. The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and the commitments of people everywhere. And, that is where the political influence, where the long-term results of the Earth Charter will really come.
    http://tinyurl.com/yfpmdae

  38. Rebutting Rockefeller: the chairman of the Earth Charter drafting committee takes issue with this magazine’s expose, “The New World Religion.” The facts show that his objections are not sustainable. (Earth Charter).

    Steven Rockefeller was chairman of the Earth Charter International Drafting Committee. He is also a professor emeritus of religion at Middlebury College in Vermont and chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

    Rockefeller: “The Earth Charter is the product of a worldwide, cross-cultural, interfaith dialogue on common goals and shared values that has been conducted as a civil society initiative.”

    Response: The global campaign for the Charter is not a grass-roots, bottom-up effort, but a closely controlled, top-down operation masquerading as “dialogue.” The Charter was cobbled together under the leadership of Dr. Rockefeller, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev (representing Green Cross International), Earth Summit I Secretary-General Maurice Strong (representing the Earth Council), and representatives from the government of the Netherlands.
    Snip

    Maurice Strong opened Earth Summit I with a “Declaration of the Sacred Earth,” accompanied by “indigenous” animist Earth worship ceremonies — standard practice at UN convocations. The Charter says protecting Earth is our “sacred trust.”

    Dr. Rockefeller is a leading advocate of the radical “biocentrism,” under which, he says, “the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and ecosystems” against “human oppression.” Biocentrists believe that humans are no more important than other life forms or natural objects. Of course, rocks, trees, and ecosystems speak in words only understood by enlightened souls like Rockefeller and company, who have assigned themselves the noble task of defending these “rights of nature.”
    http://tinyurl.com/qhebu9d

  39. I read this article before I went out to a Christmas lunch today with some of my friends who are Catholic women. I overheard a conversation between a devout follower and another person who is a staunch worker in the Catholic community and it was about the local priest’s latest sermon and about how we should all be working to sustain god’s earth and stop global warming. Not wanting to ask too many questions about how they viewed this and also to be polite at a ladies luncheon I thought I would Google the Catholic Church and see if there were directives there. Sure enough there is at least one directive: https://www.catholic.org.au/organisation-documents/catholic-earthcare-australia-1/318-bishops-position-paper-on-climate-change-1/file
    The Pope really is green and getting his priests to spread the message!

  40. Making the moral case on climate change ahead of Paris summit

    More than 2,100 academics, and counting, from over 80 nations and a diversity of disciplines have endorsed a moral and political statement addressed to global leaders ahead of December’s UN climate conference in Paris.

    A few of the more widely recognizable signatories include philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky (MIT); cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol); climate scientist Michael E Mann (PSU); writer and environmentalist Bill McKibben (Middlebury College); historian of science Naomi Oreskes (Harvard); and moral philosopher Peter Singer (Princeton).
    http://theconversation.com/making-the-moral-case-on-climate-change-ahead-of-paris-summit-50888

    Earth Charter is based on BIO-ETHICS, so it’s no surprise to see Peter Singer join the usual climate suspects in promoting Paris negotiations

  41. I believe this only the second time I have posted on wuwt.

    I’m not a scientist just a well educated human with a lasting interest on all things science.

    Whilst I am in complete agreement with Tim Balls post, my concern is how to impart the messages of detriment to the populous . I do not know. There enough brains who understand the truth of but how do we “teach” this knowledge to arouse the ordinary folk that they and their kin are going to suffer from mentally deranged politicians who, like those throughout history, have sought to use power and greed to destroy civilisation.
    It’s a puzzle that must be resolved to bring about some balance. Traits that I have described will never go away but, for much of the Western World, democracy has achieved some balance.
    I return to to the first line. How do we scare folk into realisation of what the Worlds politicians are doing to,effectively , destroy us and them.
    I am a frustrated sideliner who wants to help reach the objectives I hope I have indicated.
    Roger Welsh UK
    ,

    I

    • Roger,

      “I am a frustrated sideliner who wants to help reach the objectives I hope I have indicated.”

      To my mind, you can stop hoping, your comment is excellent, and just making it takes you off the sideline. If you did nothing more than repeat what you said here, to others, I think it could very well help some who see things much as you do, but are afraid to speak up because no one around them is. Like the story of the Emperor’s new clothes, wherein the illusion that everyone else sees fine clothes on the man is shattered, once someone breaks the sheepish silence.

Comments are closed.