I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

Mae West famously said,

“I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.

As a historical climatologist, I can paraphrase that to say about climate,

“It’s been warm, and it’s been cold. Believe me, warm is better.”

I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong. They created the result they wanted, which wasn’t designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population. They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history. The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.

The major rewrite of history involved elimination of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). One of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) gang told David Deming in an email that it was necessary to get rid of the MWP. The reason, although not expressed in the email, was because they were telling people that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. It wasn’t by any measure, from the warm of the MWP to the prolonged warmer period of the Holocene Optimum. The MWP was the most immediate threat to their narrative because it was within a time period people could grasp. They could relate to the idea that Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today. There was also the graph (Figure 7c) in the first IPCC Report in 1990 that contradicted their claim – it had to go.

A measure of the threat they saw is reflected in the viciousness of the attack on the historical evidence of the existence of the MWP produced in 2003 by Soon and Baliunas in “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years.” A couple of examples illustrate the existence of the MWP but also the benefits of a warmer world.

Scottish historians identify the 12th century as the golden age. As one historian explains

During the reign of David I (1124 – 1153) many Normans came to live in Scotland. Dioceses were organised for bishops and new monasteries were founded. Government was reformed. Moreover, in the 12th century many towns or burghs were founded in Scotland and trade flourished. David I was the first Scottish king to found mints and issue his own coins.

The main reason for the growth was increased food production due to warmer weather. Warmer conditions began in the 10th century and began to cool by the 13th century. The impact of the cooling on limits to agriculture indicate what was lost. Martin Parry, who later became a central figure in the IPCC, studied the impact of cooling on different agricultural regions when that was the concern in the1970s. Figure 1 shows the probability of harvest failure in southeast Scotland (Parry 1976). Vertical change in the limits to agriculture seems small, but the horizontal gradient means large areas are lost as illustrated in Figure 2.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the extent of the land cultivated before 1300 AD and the amount lost at the onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA).

clip_image004

Figure 2

You can look around the world at societies that blossomed into civilizations during the Medieval Warm Period. As Jean Grove said in the introduction to her thorough and detailed book “The Little Ice Age.”

 

For several hundred years’ climatic conditions in Europe had been kind; there were few poor harvests and famines were infrequent.” “Grain was grown in Iceland and even in Greenland; the northern fisheries flourished and in mainland Europe vineyards were in production 500 km north of their present limits.”

An important point to remember is that Polar Bears, the animal Al Gore and his alarmist gang chose as the canary in the Arctic, survived the entire MWP.

The IPCC set out to prove human CO2 was causing global warming. They achieved this by manipulation and deception, but it meant nothing if they didn’t also ‘prove’ that warming is a potential disaster. The IPCC structure involved four stages. Working Group (WG) I, II, III and the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) were all carefully designed to blend predetermined science with the threat it posed to the planet and humanity.

WG I, the Physical Science Basis Report, provides the proof that human CO2 is causing warming. That became the unchallenged assumption for WG II, the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report. This Report became the source of the almost endless stories of the negative impacts of warming. In fact, it was a cost/benefits study without consideration of the benefits. It became the basis for WG III’s Mitigation of Climate Change Report that identified the costs and policies politicians needed to exact from the citizens. Then, ostensibly to make it easier for politicians, they produced the Summary for Policymakers. In fact, it made it more difficult because the IPCC released the SPM to the public and the media with all its exaggerations. The public pressure fuelled by the media left politicians with no option. As official IPCC reviewer, David Wojick said,

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

The IPCC also guaranteed the prediction of increasing CO2 and its negative impact using economic models deliberately constructed for a predetermined outcome, just like the climate models.

Castles and Henderson critiqued the first economic model.

About two years ago Ian Castles became interested in the statistical techniques which had been used to predict the course of CO2 emissions for the next century and he was later joined by David Henderson who was curious to find out why the IPCC’s procedures had imparted an upward bias to the projections of output and emissions of developing countries.

These two economists have shown that the calculations carried out by the IPCC concerning per capita income, economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions in different regions are fundamentally flawed, and substantially overstate the likely growth in developing countries. The results are therefore unsuitable as a starting point for the next IPCC assessment report, which is due to be published in 2007. Unfortunately, this is precisely how the IPCC now intends to use its emissions projections.

It appears the Castles and Henderson critique created a problem, so an alternative was produced called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). In 2011, Judith Curry provided a sound overview of the RCPs scheduled to be used in IPCC Assessment Report 5. Curry concludes that

Or, to boil it right down, the IPCC is telling us that the solution to climate change is economic growth and low-carbon energy generation.

I would modify that because the IPCC want to reduce the economic growth of developed nations and make them pay for the economic growth of developing nations. More importantly, this is all based on the deliberately created claim that CO2 is causing warming. The RCPs simply continue the falsifications and errors of the earlier emissions scenarios. As one commentator explained

These RCP’s are used by policymakers to decide what actions are required to sustain a safe climate for our own and future generations. The information they are using, presented by the IPCC, is nothing more than science fiction.

The IPCC determined to prove that human CO2 from industrial activity caused disastrous global warming for a controlling political agenda. To do that they convinced the world that warming promised nothing but catastrophe. The historical evidence shows exactly the opposite is the case; a warmer world offers many more benefits to more flora and fauna than a cold one. It is certainly more beneficial to the human condition. Evidence of the IPCC’s distorted thinking is in the claim that more people would die with a warmer world. The evidence shows that cold kills more people every year than heat.

40 years ago, in his 1976 book The Cooling, Lowell Ponte enunciated the threat of cooling in a similar way to the current threat of warming.

 

It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

It is no surprise that in an endorsement of Ponte’s book, Stephen Schneider, who was later eulogized by the IPCC for his work on global warming, wrote

The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte’s provocative work is a good place to start.

This is the same Schneider quoted in Discovery magazine in 1989 as follows.

On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Sorry Mr. Schneider, there is no “right balance,” there must only be honesty. The ‘group think’ mentality that developed among those promoting global warming is reflected in the IPCC eulogy; “He (Schneider) never overstated his case.” Two features of group think are

Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

 

Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Which brings us back to Mae West who also said,

“I only have ‘yes’ men around me. Who needs ’no’ men?”

 

From experience with the IPCC I can paraphrase and update that and say they achieved their goal because,

“The IPCC only has ‘yes’ people around them. They don’t want ‘no’ people.”

 

The trouble is, it isn’t science without ‘no’ people.

276 thoughts on “I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem

  1. The whole brouhaha fails on every count.

    1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content
    2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does
    3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold

    • Re your #3
      By far;
      …anyone who doesn’t think so should try a cold shower as opposed to a warm one.
      Might help them come to their senses.

      • Try taking a ‘bath’ in an Ontario lake in mid-October…. wait, I never did come to my senses…

      • Why wait ’til October? Jumping in just about any Canadian Lake in full Summer is “bracing” enough.

      • Jimmy I live in Arizona, my cold water in the summer is in the +100 F so a cold shower is out of the question, is Thailand any different?

    • I vote for Option 3.

      I think it is obvious that we are the source of nearly all the additional CO2. I think it highly likely that the additional CO2 is the primary source of the warming (though there is also BC and aerosols, etc., to consider).

      But I also think it is equally obvious that both the the amount and rate of anthropogenic warming have been seriously overestimated. It also appears obvious that net benefits of both the mild warming and additional CO2 has so far had a strong net-beneficial effect for both man and beast.

      • Evan, the problem is you can’t say “the warming”, because it hasn’t warmed everywhere, and not uniformly.

      • What warming ? you keep stating facts not in evidence to make your point … start over …

    • Bartemis wrote:

      1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content

      It’s difficult to understand this claim.

      The increase in atmospheric CO2, and the increase in dissolved CO2 in the oceans are because of the combustion of fossil fuels.

      Without that there would be no increase. With it the increase is more than explained.

      2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does

      Well, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect. That increases temperature, because that’s what the greenhouse effect does.

      3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold

      Not in terms of the effect on biodiversity. Anything that has been a species for a hundred thousand years or more, such as your good self has certainly survived colder temperatures. There is no only things that have been species for about 5 million years, which is probably nothing, have survived warmer temperatures.

      So there’s that.

      • Seth, you want it both ways, which is not allowed, so you must choose. Since warm water can hold LESS dissolved CO2 than cool water, if burning fossil fuels has increased the temperature of the oceans, which is a requirement for global warming to be true, then there must now be LESS CO2 in the oceans than previously. Got it?

      • “1) We are not the main drivers of atmospheric CO2 content”
        – 95% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural in origin. That is the main driver, not people.

        “2) If we were, there is no physical imperative that says increasing atmospheric concentration must necessarily increase surface temperatures and, indeed, there is no empirical evidence which confirms that it does”
        – Even if CO2 did increase the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, it simply causes the warmer air to rise, where any extra heat is blown to the poles. The poles really do need the extra warmth. Ever tried to grow grapes there?

        3) Even if we were and it did, warm is better than cold
        – Every occupied part of the Earth changes temperature about 25 degrees centigrade every day. How can you say that an increase of 0.1 of a degree is harmful. Even if you believe the stupid claims that the Earth will go up as much as 2 degrees (none of the claims to date have actually happened), that is a small part of the daily change.

        Most telling is the dedication with which the warmists have tried to erase any inconvenient truths, such as the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods. It is essentially impossible to call this anything but scientific raud.

      • Ray B. Please check before posting. There are two effects. The effect of increased temperature reduces solubility. The effect of higher concentration of CO2 inreases the amount of dissolved CO2 according to Henry’s law. The temperature effect is tiny compared to the Henry’s law effect. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the oceans. Got it?

      • so seth if your third point is true we have to believe the dinosaurs thrived during the “snowball earth” episode?

        sorry but every really EVERY peak of life happened during the warm episodes our planet has seen (and then we talk about more then 10 degrees C warmer then now)

        iw warmer would mean less biodiversity, then why is the biggest biodiversity found in the rainforests at the equator?

        to have a decrease in biodiversity, you need a decrease of clouds and moisture as drinkeable water is the main driver for biodiversity. Temperature is also a driver, but life (and even our civilization always thrived during the optima and crashed down during the minima.

        oh yes the emian interglacial which would have seen an ice free arctic did not eradicate the polar bears as they are still there.

        Why do these facts contradict on all levels your third claim?

        what i see is that earth’s nature is more adaptable to climate’s ever changing course then we as a so called “highly evolved civilization” can adapt to it, hence we try to mirror our own shortcomings on what surrounds us.

  2. With sun winding down some cooling is nearly certain. Despite all these spikes in NOAA’s data the CET has been on downhill slide for about a decade, while the Grand Warm up lasted barely a decade.
    From historic perspective things do not look brilliant, in another decade or so we here in the N. West Europe may revisit the early 1900s temperature.

    As it can be seen I’m not entirely convinced about either past or recent data adjustments.

    • Adjustments are necessary. Sad but true. And not all are made that are needed to be made, for that matter. I can think of two in particular.

      • “science” that relies on adjustments to almost all of its data or filled in data with in fill data from hundreds or thousands of miles away is closer to science fiction than actual science …

    • Oceanic cycles that couple with the troposphere for heat transfer are the reason you have the ? Marks. And those those cycles are not periodic (quasi-periodic) enough in extent for reliable prediction.

      The one thing we can take to the bank is reversion to mean. This year ( 2016) and last year were above normal due to ENSO heat release. 2017-2018 with a La Nina in a near minima Solar cycle won’t be so kind to mankind. Reversion to mean.

      • “Reversion to mean.”

        Yes, I would agree, only question is if that mean is, the simple arithmetic one, or perhaps one centered on the last 350 years’ upward trend. I hope is the ‘uptrend mean’ since next few decades may not be too bad.
        Some time ago I devised a ‘model’ based on the CET’s natural variability, to my surprise it fits the high latitudes volcanic index (I compiled in 2010, as shown here )
        So what we can expect in the next 100 years ?

      • “Reversion to mean.”
        ============
        that assumes climate has a mean. however climate is a fractal without a mean. rather it has bounds globally of approximately 11C and 22C, where it spends most of its time, with brief excursions away from the bounds. at 15C we are in one of those brief excursions.

        it is the belief that climate has a mean that leads to the assumption that climate is changing. however, without a mean to revert to, change becomes the normal state for climate.

      • an arithmetic mean can of course be calculated for climate, so long as you bound the time period. when you compare this mean with another time period, you will find that it has changed.

        unlike a coin toss or toss of the dice, where the mean and deviation remain constant, in a fractal the mean and deviation are non-constant. the odds of a warm period versus a cold period are always changing, as is the size of the warm versus cold period.

      • I am a bit skeptic about the ‘fractal business’, at least on the scale we have some instrumental data however uncertain they might be.

  3. Once you start thinking about natural selection, you come up with interesting and (in hindsight, really quite obvious) conclusions. For example, why humans tend to favour certain body types when choosing their mates.

    DNA analysis has demonstrated the strong probability that the human population dropped to a few thousand during the last glacial period. Obviously, rapid cooling of the climate placed a huge environmental stress on people, as on many other species. During such high-stress periods, natural selection is accelerated because the survival rate is so low that only those individuals who have mutated enough to develop an “edge” get to survive long enough to pass on their DNA to the next generation.

    In the case of ice-age humans, the “edge” was having sufficient intelligence to begin to manipulate their physical environment to survive the cold. Being able to use fire obviously was a big one, and that allowed a much wider use of caves for shelter because it gave light as well as heat. Then being smart enough to use the skins of animals as clothing. Also, the ability to devise and use weapons to kill large animals for food and fur would be a big one too – other species like wolves hunt in groups, but they have teeth and claws that were refined by evolution for killing – humans had to invent weapons for that purpose. Living in caves probably led to larger social groupings and that may have led to the development of language – certainly the need to organize and coordinate large groups would have promoted the use of language. You can go on and on with this kind of thought experiment – it gets addictive if you do it long enough – and it all comes down to this: we are humans because we survived the big freeze by evolving to be intelligent.

    So cold has had its benefits because it made us smart (unless you think, like the Club of Rome, that humans are a problem for the earth). Do we want to repeat the experiment next time? There’s little or no doubt that there will be a next glacial period. And it will pose massive problems for a multi-billion human population when the amount of land available to grow food shrinks to a fraction of what we have now. Perhaps our descendants will be clever enough to develop ways to live in a cold global climate, but if all we do is worry about global warming, we won’t be ready for it.

  4. Moderators,

    My comment disappeared apparently. Not even a message that it went into moderation. I know I did not use any forbidden words this time. (or reasonably sure I should say)

    • I had this happen last week once as well. I thought it was just my own clumsy mouseclicking but lately people here have been mentioning the same thing.

    • A ‘black hole event horizon’ has appeared in the WordPress constellation, it may explain the sudden non-appearing of comments. In my case happened 2-3 times in the last few days.

    • I’ve had that happen in the past but it usually turns up after a short interval. I’ve learned to wait so as not to double-post. Not sure what a good waiting period is though.

    • I had one too. Nothing triggering at all. It was a bit of a technical comment on measuring CO2 equilibration between the atmosphere and the oceans. Too bad because it took a fair amount of effort.
      There are spam filters, bad word traps, things like “Cotton blocks”, and no doubt, a bunch of other stuff. When running complex software systems like this, one factor is often overlooked:
      Demonic Possession

    • Well I am not going to re-type all of the lost comment, but I would like to say that Dr. Ball is one of the main reasons I started reading this blog and he remains my favorite writer here. And this essay was powerful and spot on.

      Thanks Dr. Ball.

    • Would it not help if there were, somewhere on this site, a list of ‘naughty’ words – or words to avoid using?

      Writing about such a powerful and emotive subject as ‘climate change’ along with all the people who write about it is bound to cause the use of some inflammatory language from time to time.

  5. “I’ve been rich, and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better.”

    Many people have said it. Who said it first? Apparently not Mae West, nor Sofie Tucker.

    Apparently FIRST documented by Beatrice Kaufman in 1937.

    Who Said What, Where, and When
    By Ralph Keyes
    Edition: illustrated
    New York, NY: Macmillan
    2006

    Pg. 179:

    “I’ve been RICH and I’ve been poor. Rich is better.”
    In 1937, a newspaper columnist portrayed the wife of playwright George S. Kaufman urging a theatrical figure to accept one of many movie opportunities he was being offered. “Dpn’t overlook the money part of it,” Bea Kaufman reportedly said. “I’ve been poor an I’ve been rich. Rich is better!” Sometimes misattributed to Mae West, Bessie Smith, Billie Holiday, Joey Adams, Joe Louis (Comedian Joe E. Lewis, not the boxer Joe Louis?—ed.), Frank Sinatra, Irving Wallace, John Connally, or Pearl Bailey, this thought is most often credited to singer Sophie Tucker. Nonetheless, there is no reliable record of her ever having said it. A retired editor named Henry McNulty once scoured his newspaper’s coverage of the hometown celebrity from the beginning of her career in 1922 until she died in 1966. He found no reference to this comment. Nor could McNulty find it in obituaries about Tucker written elsewhere, or in her autobiography. Some think the thought originated with comedian Joe E. Lewis, or comedienne Fanny Brice. Since Tucker and Lewis sometimes performed together, they had many an opportunity to borrow each other’s material. Tucker and Brice were contemporaries and friends. Most likely this was a show business commonplace free for the taking.
    Verdict: An old entertainer’s saw.

  6. The day will come to pass where the experts will be telling us that the temperature outside is the highest ever, despite there being two foot of snow on the ground. If Joe Public hasn’t realised by that stage that he’s been conned, then there is truly no hope for mankind.

  7. Cooling Predictions of Natural Cooling
    In 2009, the late Bob Carter summarized cooling predictions:

    In 2001, Russian geologist Sergey Kotov used the mathematics of chaos to analyse the atmospheric temperature record of the past 4000 years from a Greenland ice core. Based on the pattern he recognised in the data, Kotov extrapolated cooling from 2000 to about 2030, followed by warming to the end of the century and 300 years of cooling thereafter.

    In 2003, Russian scientists Klyashtorin and Lyubushin analysed the global surface thermometer temperature record from 1860 to 2000, and identified a recurring 60-year cycle. This probably relates to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which can be caricatured as a large scale El Nino/La Nina climatic oscillation. The late 20th century warming represents the most recent warm half-cycle of the PDO, and it projects forwards as cooling of one-tenth of a degree or more to 2030.

    In 2004, US scientist Craig Loehle used simple periodic models to analyse climate records over the past 1000 years of sea-surface temperature from a Caribbean marine core and cave air temperature from a South African stalactite. Without using data for the 20th century, six of his seven models showed a warming trend similar to that in the instrumental record over the past 150 years; and projecting forward the best fit model foreshadows cooling of between 0.7 and 1 degree Celsius during the next 20-40 years. In 2007, the 60-year climate cycle was identified again, by Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, who used a novel multi-variate analysis of the 1881-2002 temperature records for China. They showed that temperature variation in China leads parallel variation in global temperature by five-10 years, and has been falling since 2001. They conclude “we see clearly that global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years”.

    Most recently, Italian scientist Adriano Mazzarella demonstrated statistical links between solar magnetic activity, the length of the Earth day (LOD), and northern hemisphere wind and ocean temperature patterns. He too confirmed the existence of a 60-year climate cycle, and described various correlations (some negative). Based on these correlations, Mazzarella concludes that provided “the observed past correlation between LOD and sea-surface temperature continues in the future, the identified 60-year cycle provides a possible decline in sea-surface temperature starting from 2005, and the recent data seem to support such a result”.
    Thus, using several fundamentally different mathematical techniques and many different data sets, seven scientists all forecast that climatic cooling will occur during the first decades of the 21st century. Temperature records confirm that cooling is under way, the length and intensity of which remains unknown. . . .

    Geology Prof. Don Easterbrook predicted long term cooling:

    Three possible projections are shown: (1) moderate cooling (similar to the 1945-1977 cooling); (2) deeper cooling (similar to the 1880-1915 cooling); or (3) severe cooling (similar to the 1790-1830 cooling) during the Dalton Solar Minimum. A fourth possibility, very severe cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum, is also possible, but less likely. Time will tell which of these will be the case, but at the moment, the sun is behaving very similar to the Dalton Solar Minimum (Archibald, 2010), which was a very cold time. This is based on the similarity of sunspot cycle 23 to cycle 4 (which immediately preceded the Dalton Minimum).

    Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.

    In 2014 Carter warned of unpreparedness for global cooling

    Professor Abdussamatov, cited by Professor Carter in his letter, is head of the Space Research section of the Russian Academy of Science.
    In 2006, Professor Abdussamatov issued a press release, warning that the world should prepare for imminent global cooling. Abdussamatov predicted that the global cooling would start in 2012 – 2015, and would likely peak around 2055. http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

    This predicted global cooling, if it occurs, will mean that polar vortex winters and cold related crop failures, such as the recent frost catastrophe which destroyed a significant fraction of Australia’s wheat crop, in the state of New South Wales, will become a normal part of life, and will most likely become a lot worse.

    Those warming of catastrophic anthroprogenic warming bear the burden of proof to show high statistical likelihood of their predictions over the null hypothesis of such natural global temperature warming AND cooling. To date they have not done so.

    Abuse of statistics is now so bad that Valen E. Johnson published Revised standards for statistical evidence PNAS vol. 110 no. 48, 19313–19317, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1313476110

    Recent advances in Bayesian hypothesis testing have led to the development of uniformly most powerful Bayesian tests, which represent an objective, default class of Bayesian hypothesis tests that have the same rejection regions as classical significance tests. Based on the correspondence between these two classes of tests, it is possible to equate the size of classical hypothesis tests with evidence thresholds in Bayesian tests, and to equate P values with Bayes factors. An examination of these connections suggest that recent concerns over the lack of reproducibility of scientific studies can be attributed largely to the conduct of significance tests at unjustifiably high levels of significance. To correct this problem, evidence thresholds required for the declaration of a significant finding should be increased to 25–50:1, and to 100–200:1 for the declaration of a highly significant finding. In terms of classical hypothesis tests, these evidence standards mandate the conduct of tests at the 0.005 or 0.001 level of significance.

    Thus climate warming advocates must reach the standard of 100-200:1 to justify a “highly significant finding” on which to make trillion dollar public policy decisions.

  8. You have to consider both the direction AND the rate of change. Global proxies suggest that the earth was cooling slightly (0.01 degrees C/century) over the past 7,000 years. That all changed around 1900 and since then the temperature has been increasing at about 1 degree C/century. A slight cooling of a hundredth of a degree per century poses much less of a threat over the next few centuries than an increase of 1 or more degree per century. That is why the Pentagon has identified global warming as a principal driver of political instability and conflict over the next century.

    • Wait. What happened to latter part of the Holocene Climate Optimum in your 7000-year cooling? the Minoan Warm Period? The Roman Warm Period? The Medieval Warm Period?

      Are you saying those periods- each one of them warmer than we are now- were actually ‘cooling’?

      • Luke, hate to tell you this. Marcott committed academic misconduct in that paper 1. His own SI says the has no temporal resolution below ~150 years (actual resolution is about 300). The blade is invalid. He admitted this statistical ‘probably not robust’ in correspondence with McIntyre. He created it via core top redating (the misconduct), then relying on statistical drop out. Essay A High Stick Foul in ebook Blowing Smoke exposes this explicit scientific misconduct in detail. Provable by comparing his thesis (part 3 is the basis for the Science paper) to Science and its SI. Also guest posted at Judith Currys early in 2014. McIntyre did a more detailed analysis just of the alkenone proxy subset and showed the same thing that I found in all 72.
        Your graph is junk. And your demand for peer rebuttal shows how little you know about the rigged publishing system and Pal review exposed by Climategate. McNutt, dedicated warmunist chief Science editor at the time, had the incontrovertible evidence based on comparing Marcotts thesis to his paper. Her assistant acknowledged receipt of that information from me in the form of the essay with its footnotes. Did nothing. Go read my forensic analysis. It might open your mind a bit.

      • Luke, how many times do you have to be told that the Marcott Hokey Schtick graph you are obsessed with has been debunked times without number and even disowned by Marcott himself?

        Why do you insist on repeatedly insulting the intelligence and knowledge of the posters on this blog by repeatedly posting it even though it is known to be fraudulent?

        Have you considered seeking medical assistance for obsessive compulsive behaviour disorder?

      • cat,

        Luke gets a thrill every time he looks at Marcott’s bogus chart. Even though it’s a complete fabrication with no connection to reality, it feeds his confirmation bias.

      • To Luke: “Go read my forensic analysis. It might open your mind a bit.”

        I hope you were jesting because that is one of the funnest lines I have seen here at WUWT in some time. Thanks for the very big grin on my face. :-)

      • ristvan
        If you are going to use the excuse that climate scientists around the world are engaged in a vast conspiracy then, you’re right, we can’t have a rational discussion about the evidence for AGW.

      • Again Luke shows Marcott, which has very poor temporal resolution. It wouldn’t even show the last 150 years of temperature. That’s just plain dishonest.

      • Luke plays the conspiracy card;

        “If you are going to use the excuse that climate scientists around the world are engaged in a vast conspiracy then…”

        Vast conspiracy? Like 97% of scientists? . .

        Think people, please; There are numerous known conspiratorial groups far larger than would be required to pull off this (I am quite certain) climate con job. Drug trafficking for instance, a whole lot of people “conspire” every freaking day to supply illegal drugs around the world, don’t they? And human trafficking? Illegal arms sales? These “conspiracies” require far more participants than would be required to pull off a “consensus” among “climate scientists” charade like we (I am certain) have seen watching.

      • Luke, From Jeremy Shakun co-author of Marcott-

        ‘Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.’

        http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/

      • I would call BS on that graph no matter what it was measuring. Better than 10000 well behaved samples and then a blow up (at an end point). That screams check for data error and if you don’t find one, try again

      • @ scottish Sceptic and Markstoval:

        i can only second this: interesting piece and track! and good open minded piece of writing.
        it should be a good thing to understand and do attempts to search for the driver of the cold spell of the ice age cold intervals…

      • … and heat as well as the rebound from the younger dryas does throw the IPCC’s claims of “unprecedented CO2 driven warming” straight into the deepest b***s**t trash bin….

    • Luke,
      1 C degree per century.
      Well not in the Central England Temp Gauges over 350 years it is 0.26 C degree per century. The prediction of political instability and conflict due to this rate of temp change is just hogwash.

      • Temperatures from one location do not refute the trends in global temperatures. As for you second claim.

        There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.
        Here is the url for the full article. If you contest their conclusions, please provide a peer-reviewed publication supporting your assertions.
        http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4371967

      • Luke, hi again
        Most of people commenting here, have on many occasions heard the views and opinions and read many references of kind you putting forward, and rejected them over and over again as the unsound ‘science’. Wish you good luck, but you might be wasting your time, unless of course you seriously consider what is discussed here and become an AGW sceptic rather than a AGW missionary.

      • Anyone who knows any history knows that the “hockey stick” is/ was false. Just ignore all the historical records?

      • When Luke says the Syrian conflict was caused by AGW I checked out, climate scientists on the alarmist side have disowned that nonsense as it is too much of a hit on their credibility, which says something.

        How desperate do you have to be to drag out nonsense from politicians. Humans caused the Syrian conflict, not with CO2 though, but by secretly arming scumbags since 2010, funnily enough, the governments most lying about CAGW, France UK and US.

    • Luke, luke, luke. The pentagon, like all government bureaucracies are merely pushing their own agenda. They use the climate bogeyman to bootstrap their own importance.

      • There are plenty of other issues they could use to “bootstrap their own importance”. It just so happens that the data support their assertion.

      • “It just so happens that the data support their assertion.”

        Except that it doesn’t.

        Luke, you come here time and again to deliver your message – same graphs, same words – You do respond to others, yet you never look into anything that does not support the catastrophe meme. It makes me suspect you are here merely to post your message – not communicate with others, not to debate nor to learn. You are not interested in an exchange of ideas. So, I conclude from that, you must be here to refute the findings of honest investigation, nothing more.

      • Meh, the Commander in Chief is deluded, they have to follow orders. We’ll see how they act with a new C-i-C.
        ==============

    • What Luke is doing in words is an extension of Mann’s (et. al) Hockey Stick graphic reasoning.
      He is taking a long-term highly smoothed almost linear trend — “Global proxies suggest that the earth was cooling slightly (0.01 degrees C/century) over the past 7,000 years” — and splicing on the end a relatively short-term temperature trend — “all changed around 1900 and since then the temperature has been increasing at about 1 degree C/century”.
      It’s a standard alarmist tactic:

      • The Marcott graph was created via clearcut academic misconduct. It should have been withdrawn. See my reply to Luke upthread which gives two separate ways to reference the relevant forensic materials.

      • Luke, Marcott is hiding past excursions in temperature like we’ve seen recently. The argument is over causes for these excursions, which were clearly natural before recently. Attribution for change is not easy, and frankly, no one knows what is natural and what is anthropogenic. So believe those who argue that they do at your own peril.

        Don’t take this to your tutors or they’ll expel you.
        ===============

      • What sort of tactic is it to mislabel a graph “Before Present 2000 AD” when Richard Alley’s GISP2 data only went to 1855? Where is the last 160 years?
        What sort of a tactic is it to compare proxy temperature history in at the top of Greenland to 73 other proxy temperature datasets worldwide? What is the average annual temperature at the top of Greenland in the last few years?

    • ‘A slight cooling of a hundredth of a degree per century poses much less of a threat over the next few centuries than an increase of 1 or more degree per century.’

      And what threat is 1 or more degree per century? It would absolutely be beneficial.

      ‘That is why the Pentagon has identified global warming as a principal driver of political instability and conflict over the next century.’

      Nope. It’s because the Commander in Chief told them to say it. The Pentagon kills people and breaks things. They have no authority on instability and conflict.

    • Luke, timescales must be considered. And you are suggesting we should be prepared for climate change which is why the head of CSIRO has changed the direction of the organisation, regardless of the anthropogenic CO2 influence, to finding the best ways to manage a changing climate. I am in the camp that says forcing economic collapse on us is not the best way to do this.

    • Like — The Pentagon? — You use them as a source? you have lost all credibility..– Eugene WR Gallun

    • Luke —
      You have just explained the great political instability of the old “banana republics” of South and Central America. IT WAS ALL THAT EXTRA HEAT! Certainly the current problems in Venezuela and Brazil etc are perfect examples — a few extra degrees of heat compared to the north equals political instability, poverty and those wanting air conditioning are lead into corruption. There is no hope for hot house countries! YOUR A GENIUS LUKE!!

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • I wish I had known that before going to Ecuador last year. Appeared to me to be a fairly happy and progressive place. I guess I should have warmed them of their impending doom. Can you believe people hang out in the sun at the equator? Don’t they know it’s dangerously hot?

    • That is why the Pentagon has identified global warming as a principal driver of political instability and conflict over the next century.

      Nonsense! The Pentagon was directed by the Administration (which is sold on the warming nonsense) to make that statement. There is ZERO evidence to support the hypothesis that warming is a principle driver of political instability. On the contrary, cooling has historically been shown to drive political instability due to the economic disruption caused by crop failures, etc.

  9. Agreed warm is better than cold The only desert on the Equator is on the East side of Africa where the prevailing winds prevent rainfall. Try farming in Antarctica. The unfortunate thing is that it will take a cold winter over Western Europe to cause power cuts and the probable resultant civil disorder to change public opinion. An anticyclone for two weeks witht the solar farms covered in snow, the wind turbines not turning and no power coming across the interconnecters as Holland and France are unlikely to sacrifice their own citizens to supply the UK is a likely scenario in the next 2-3 years.
    I drive around the SW of Engalnd and despair at the number of solar farms being built on good agricultral land. What is the decommissioning cost of a solar farm with its metal posts, cabling and disposal of the solar panels?. I would like to be enlightened.
    On an island of coal and iron surrounded by silver seas once plentiful with fish it has taken some ability to diminish our capacity to survive. Too many Arts graduates in government and not enough engineers/scientists.

    • Being an engineer, I have 2 diesel gensets ( large & small) & 1,500 liters of fuel + inverter & big battery bank. We can be off grid ~ 50 days & also keep 4 weeks of food, no probs.
      Pity the poor sods that can’t prep.

      • 1saveenergy, i admire your planning. I dont have the finacial resources as yet to do similar. Do you have your own well/water supply.? Water and warmth is life

      • you use that generator and by week 3 some nasty lads will show up and take it from you …

    • London, thanks for the comment. The lack of scientists and engineers does seem to be major part of the problem.

    • London247, if you are young and inventive I think there is a fortune to be made in reclaiming the rare earth elements and metals from the decommissioning of large scale solar and wind, as their true practicality and environmental impacts become apparent. Anyone who can turn these future disposal problems into sellable cullet (cheaply) will win big.

  10. It is interesting how much the CAGW industry feeds the, ‘If I were king of the world” fantasizing. I was smiling at the attack in the UK on the ‘qualifications’ of people pointing out what a load of silly alarmism the AGW business entails, which is basically an appeal to authority and the Kingdom of Names (and Letters). Then the ‘authority’ upheld so proudly in another article was….Naomi Klein, she the bearer of so many Letters and Names!

    “Activist” was one of them. What are the qualifications of an “activist”? Self-appointed moral standing is one, with a pretty confident idea that others are morally lesser in stature so deserving of the herder’s whim. How can anyone sustain so much confidence in AGW in the face of so many contradicting facts?

    Like the armless knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail saga, the warmists will be claiming, “It is all caused by AG CO2!” as everything freezes right down to the bottom of Lake Ontario.

    Human science has enough tools to survive another ice age, but it hopefully will not come to that for a few more thousand years. We have the skills and tools at hand to create a global civilisation of great kindness, justice and wealth. There is no requirement to scare people into beneficial behaviour. Our biggest problems are ignorance and inequality. The biggest threats are nuclear weapons and the veto at the UN. The latter prevents resolution of serious problems, promoting resort to the former. Plus a lot of people still think a major war is winnable.

    • True, but not for 7.3 billion people, 5 billion of which live in the developing world outside China. Not enough arable land with long enough growing seasons (degree days) as Dr. Ball’s guest post points out for Scotland and just the LIA. Greenhouses don’t work for the five major calory staples (wheat, rice, corn, soy, potatoes) on the requisite scale. Even ignoring cost.

      • It’s a tough gig when mere education undermines one’s entire plan. Scaring requires that people fear something, like roasting in a living hell instead of being tortured in an eternal one. People lose their fears of everything, even death. CAGW alarmism relies on the ignorance of the listener. An educated listener will soon stop listening because they know better. Then the nonsense will fade away with a whimper, still clutching the cash.

    • Naomi Klein, The Red Queen — Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast! — Eugene WR Gallun

    • For any and all Canucks on this site, I call for a complete boycott of the CBC. David Suzuki and then Klein’s ” This changes everything “. Unbelievable lefty, anti-West, anti- fossil fuel propagandists.

  11. Suffice to say that this planet is more greatly prone to temperatures below the survival limit of most species than those temps above.
    It should be obvious to any middle-schooler that the warming planet sustains this “preponderance” of respirating organisms in larger surviving and reproducing quantities spread over more and more of the recovered frigid wastelands. The activity is mostly at the microbial and insect levels, converting CH4 and thawed organic debris into CO2 (et al) and raising the level of atmospheric GHGs in the process. Later the more complex species migrate into the former tundra.
    Warming enhances CO2 production and cooling retards it. Plain as my big nose.
    The only way we’ll see lower CO2 is when the transpiring organisms increase in the formerly uninhabitable regions enough to balance the emissions of the faster-lived life forms which precede their presence, or when the temperature of those areas is again no longer high enough to maintain the respiring life forms in sufficient quantity.

    • Paleontology shows no upper limit to the benefits to the biome from warming, and always shows the immediate detriment of cooling. A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. The greening from AnthroCO2 would seem miraculous if it weren’t so predictable, and yet, it does seem miraculous to the billion extra people now being fed by the increased CO2.

      It’s the coccolithophores, and more!

      Heh, I once wrote ‘supports more’ instead of ‘sustains more’ in the stenography above and oooh, the trouble I got into.
      ==============

  12. “… the IPCC want to reduce the economic growth of developed nations and make them pay for the economic growth of developing nations.”

    This explains the whole global warming shebang.

  13. Personally, I love (not) the claims of the warmists that this has been the warmest Spring (evah) because the El Nino was supported by anthropogenic CO2 – yet I have not found anyone of them who can explain the ratios. Or the proof thereof.

  14. That a warmer world has been successfully marketed as a catastrophic disaster is testament to the power of propaganda.

    • Makes me wonder what would have transpired if H.G. Wells had stuck to his Martian invasion story. How far might it have gone with a naive public?

  15. The name of the entity is “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.
    Which sounds to me like gushers of money, if you dare take that first sip.

  16. Persistent reference to the IPCC merely distracts. It may be helpful to recall that as UN apparachiks, the IPCC “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate-related data or parameters.” http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6444.php
    The IPCC is a UN reviewing body that provides its opinions to the Council of Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC. The UN drives the UNFCCC, the UNEP, ECOSOC and the several thousand UN NGO’s that constitute the euphemistically named ‘civil society’, a term of UN obfuscation that deliberately blurs with civilized society http://www.un.org/en/sections/resources/civil-society/index.html
    This eco-totalitarian constellation of administrations amount to little less than global government in waiting. Civilized society will stop them.

    • The de facto Pax American, de jure a variable coalition of the functioning democracies was functionally better than any proposed central government can be, and, as before, it will probably be a coalition of the functioning democracies which will hamper and ultimately halt the burgeoning authoritarian transnationalism.
      ================

  17. Mr. Ball, I am sorry, but as a fellow Canadian, I don’t give a shlt what is causing the temperatures to fluctuate, I WANT GLO.BULL Warming !… I am tired of freezing my balls off every six months !

    P.S. Love every post you make !

  18. “I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong. They created the result they wanted, which wasn’t designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population. They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history. The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.”

    Why does this person get a podium here? Embarrassing…

      • “so why do you keep coming back to read more?”

        Thank you for asking! The -in my eyes- faraway from reality interpretations on here of what is actually going on, are quite fascinating. Human information processing is my field of work. I learn a lot. Looking at this corner of the Internet is only a hobby though.

    • Wagen, you’d better hope that the recovery from the coldest depths of the Holocene was primarily natural, because if man has done the heavy lifting of warming we can’t keep it up much longer.

      The higher the climate sensitivity to CO2, the colder we would now be without man’s efforts. So take a sensitivity that frightens you, and calculate how cold we would now be without man’s additional CO2.

      There, that ought to keep you busy, and, if you’re lucky, provide you with a new perspective.
      =================

      • And we’re at half precession, and at average age for the last few interglacials.

        And the sun is doing something, probably minor, but new to our perceptions of it.

        If we are false-footed into mitigating a warming that isn’t happening, instead of adapting to a cooling that is happening, then there will be Hell to pay, and the bill will feature pale and painted horses.
        ================

      • Wagen, the argument is over attribution of temperature rise to nature vs to man. Whatever amount, and the figure is greatly in controversy, man has contributed we would now be that much colder without man.

        You do understand that warmer is a friend to life, and colder is the enemy of same?

        The alarmists have gotten things quite backwards, but it is not surprising, because the better view is less amenable to dramatic social engineering.

        It may take a spell of cooling to convince the most intransigent of the alarmists that warming is always a net benefit, cooling immediately a disaster.

        We’ll survive, whether we understand that sooner or later. You may depend upon that.
        ====================

      • Mr. Wagen, I believe that if it were not for the Tor network, your traffic would originate from the same IP address as the other sockpuppets who frequent this blog. The fact that you all arrive en masse is a giveaway. Furthermore I suspect that your “hobby” earns you a good wage.

      • Into the valley of Death rode the brigade of Gorebots. The peculiar, may I say pathognomonic, characteristic of so many of these alarmists is the striking combination of arrogance and ignorance. It’s almost as if they come emblazoned with a great green ‘G’ on their foreheads, so labelled they make themselves.
        ==================

      • “The peculiar, may I say pathognomonic, characteristic of so many of these alarmists is the striking combination of arrogance and ignorance.”

        Agnorance.

  19. Yes we are causing Global Warming so sit back and relax and bask in the lovely heat…

    “Here we provide a systematic assessment of the role of anthropogenic climate change for the range of impacts of regional climate trends reported in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. We find that almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.”

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2896.html

    • You mean impacts such as record and near-record lows in tornadoes and hurricanes over the past 4 years? Even the IPCC’s Extreme Weather report says there is ‘LOW’ confidence that much of anything can be linked to AGW.

      • Record world grain reserves, more people above the poverty line, shocking stuff. Oh for the good old days?

  20. “Vikings sailed in Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today”

    Hilarious! :D :D :D Let’s have more comedians here!

      • Well come on then and tell me, which

        “Arctic waters that are permanent pack-ice today”

        did the vikings sail? :D :D :D

      • Wagen, “did the vikings sail?”

        ‘Our imagination of a Vikings Longship undoubtedly depicts the ship with a square or rectangular sail. However, we do not have any sails from the Viking Age. The simply haven’t survived decomposition. This doesn’t mean that archaeologists are simply guessing that Viking sails were square or rectangular. There is enough historical evidence to confidently claim that this was indeed the shape and rigging method use by the Vikings.’

        http://www.danishnet.com/vikings/viking-sails/

        Seems so.

      • Wagen

        The Vikings sailed around Greenland. Today that is not possible because of pack ice.

        I presume you are aware of the archeological find on the NW shore of Greenland from 4000 BC which included enough DNA to show that the Inuit man living there (now covered in pack ice) was descended from a recent migration from NE Asia, that he was descended from people originating in E China, not Siberia, and also that he had dry ear wax. Where he lived is now uninhabitable because of the pack ice >5m thick.

        Greenland was much warmer 6000 years ago than it is now. The Arctic may have been ice-free in late summer.

    • What’s so funny?
      Wikipedia, that impeccable information source (until it’s bowdlerised by Connelly et al.), tells me “… before the Little Ice Age, Norwegian Vikings sailed as far north and west as Ellesmere Island, Skraeling Island and Ruin Island for hunting expeditions and trading with the Inuit and people of the Dorset culture [and Thule] who already inhabited the region …” areas which are under pack ice most of the year.
      I don’t know what evidence there is for that statement but given the the fact that the Arctic treeline and permafrost boundaries were at higher latitudes during the MWP it’s perfectly reasonable to infer that the seasonal ice pack was also.

    • Wagen —

      you are right. That statement can be justifiably lampooned. Hyperbole is always funny no matter who says it or on what topic. Good spot.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Nonsense.
        It’s not impossible far less ridiculous that the Norse explored and hunted along the coast of Peary Land in far north Greenland, an area that is now under permanent ice, for instance:
        “In 1949, the Danish archeologist Count Eigil Knuth found a remarkably well-preserved umiak on desert-dry Peary Land at the northern tip of Greenland, less than 500 miles from the North Pole. This umiak was thirty-one feet long, and its driftwood frame was lashed with baleen. It had been built in about a.d. 1440, and in size, design, and workmanship it was nearly identical to umiaks used 400 years later by Greenland’s people …”. Natural History, October 1992.

      • Chris, appears reasonable. We know they farmed land that is now permafrost, or has that history been adjusted as well?

      • So far the CAGW alarmists have not addressed the central theme of the post. Cold is harder on LIFE then warmth. Humm?

  21. Every one of Dr. Tim Ball’s postings is a winner. This is the best summary of the IPCC Boondoggle and Fraud that I have read to date. Global Cooling Is a much Bigger Problem than any small global warming.

  22. One should consider that mortality among desert life forms is more often cold related than heat related. survival is difficult when it is cold and dry and all the water is frozen.

  23. from NASA:
    Comet 252P/LINEAR will safely fly past Earth on March 21, 2016, at a range of about 3.3 million miles (5.2 million kilometres).
    The following day, comet P/2016 BA14 will safely fly by our planet at a distance of about 2.2 million miles (3.5 million kilometres)

    • Note the trend. 1.1 million miles closer everyday! We’ll all be dead by the evening of the 24th. Pass it on. Don’t have to worry about global warming anymore.

  24. OK, let’s get philosophical about this. I want a show of hands here, how many folks envision themselves in heaven having to wear a friggin’ coat?

  25. Hey Wigan , the sky is falling ,the sky is falling ,the sky is falling blah blah etc etc ,getting warm yet.

  26. Remember to celebrate Earth Hour, March 19th – 8:30-9:30 PM EDT (North America). Celebrate the availability of the plentiful and (relatively) inexpensive energy (mostly fossil fuels) we enjoy in the “Developed” world, something that is not available to hundreds of millions in the “Developing” world. Be sure to turn ALL your lights ON for Earth Hour! Celebrate the light, not the darkness endured by our ancestors and millions of people today. The Eco-fascists would have us all freezing in the dark, except the elites of course – you know who they are.

  27. Quote: “There was also the graph (Figure 7c) in the first IPCC Report in 1990 that contradicted their claim – it had to go.”
    Was graph 7c meant to be included in this article? If not, why not?

    • Science….

      There is something you can add to that. In dry land areas (arid regions but not total deserts) there is a new finding:

      For each 1% rise in CO2 concentration, there is a 0.62% rise in soil moisture because plants are more water-efficient when fed more CO2.

      That rise in soil moisture can feed not 0.62% more vegetation, but 1% more, because of the extra CO2 reducing their requirement for water. If CO2 manages to get up 100% there will be a 100% rise in vegetation growth in the arid regions. At that level, it is likely the thunderstorm cycle will re-start and the entire Sahara desert will bloom as the Hadley cells expand north.

  28. Let’s not forget: during the MWP, Greenland (or part of it) was settled by shepherds and farmers, and it was called Greenland for a reason. During that time wine grapes were grown in Scotland–anyone doing that now? The data are before us: The Medieval Warm Period enabled the building of the great cathedrals of Europe, just because people had an easier time getting food and keeping warm, and could pay attention to things of beauty and monuments of faith. Later on, with the LIA, we get paintings of people ice-skating on canals in the Netherlands, to say nothing of Washington crossing the Delaware through ice-filled water; so the LIA was real, too. I think the true Deniers are those to refuse to recognize the past eras that were warmer than our own, and that were mostly times of prosperity and progress.

  29. “From experience with the IPCC I can paraphrase and update that and say they achieved their goal because, “The IPCC only has ‘yes’ people around them. They don’t want ‘no’ people.” ”

    There is no doubt that IPCC was heavily biased from the very beginning:
    Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989
    https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session02/second-session-report.pdf
    “In welcoming the delegates to the United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) Headquarters … The Executive Director of UNEP, hailed the fruitful alliance 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.”

    “It should be born in mind that both the governing council of UNEP and the executive Council of WMO expected the first report of IPCC to form the basis for international negotiations on a global convention on climate change.”

    Can you imagine anyone exposing ideas and theories to close scrutiny in a such environment?
    No doubt that ´yes´ people was favored.

  30. You’re incredibly naive Luke. I’m a specialist in Middle Eastern politics due to being raised in the home of an American diplomat. My father is dead but I have been analyzing what really happens in Mid East politics since I grew up seeing how it was done first hand.

    Political decisions were made to flip Bashar by outside forces; mainly the United States, and Arab sunni warriors we basically call Al Qaeda, since Iran props up Bashar al-Assad.

    You’re simply blowing smoke out of your under-education hole.

    Hot dry weather is not what gave Al Qaeda the guns supplies and money to flip al-Assad under the guise of ”moderate free syrian fighters seeking self-determination in the face of al-Assad’s abuses and denial of basic human rights.”

    He’s an Islamic president all that stuff’s his job.

    Since you came in and said this it means you’re not old enough to have been watching TV politics the past six or eight years, more than likely.
    Or you’ve been so busy studying in college not much time for news TV which also obviously means: you’re just having your acne begin to clear.

    You’re really, really in over your head with old, professional scientists checking your amateurish wanna-believe-in-Magic-Gas made Allah irritable stories.

    Luke
    March 19, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    There is evidence that the 2007−2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.
    Here is the url for the full article. If you contest their conclusions, please provide a peer-reviewed publication supporting your assertions.

  31. Cold is a relative energy low that draws energy from where it is, to warm itself up, i.e. even cold doesn’t like being cold.

    Maximum species diversity and biomass occurs at +/- 5 degrees of the Equator.

    Minimum species diversity and biomass occurs within +/- 5 degrees of the Poles.

    Warmth this a relative energy plenty that promotes life.

    Anyone who cares about species diversity (or even humanity’s best interests) would not want it to cool off, nor would they be freaking out about the expansion of warmth toward the poles or a slow increase in CO2 that always accompanies warming in a highly beneficial way.

    Except that in the high latitude southern hemisphere, right now, warming is not occurring, it’s cooling and satellite sea-ice is testing and beating record highs.

    Not good for life on earth, if that continues.

    The UN is not supposed to be dedicated to damaging human interests or reducing species diversity and global biomass. If it is via its action promoting that agenda, then the UN must be dismembered, dis-empowered and abandoned as an organizational, philosophical and scientific failure.

    • Good post. Perhaps additive to note that the tropics are not warming. What CO2 warming we may have is mostly at night, and mainly in the cold pole-ward regions, where it is most beneficial.

  32. If we simplify things a little. The territory of a specie has a cold border and a warm border. The cold border is a hard one, the specie cannot survive with that cold. The warm border has to do with competition, the specie cannot compete with the species that are only adapted to a nice climate with lots of resources and competition.

    When the climate cools, individuals die on the cold side of the territory. When climate warms, individuals eventually face the competition from the warm side. The speed of migration is similar for all species, so few individuals die.

  33. I’ve never been much for conspiracy theories but more and more I come to believe this is a concerted action by the developing world to disempower the West. The fact that Western governments and societies help out is beyond me, and the failure and corruption of science in the face of this nonsense is deeply disappointing. Also, the process has highlighted problems with peer review brought about by the internet that should concern all of science. Changes must be made to recover credibility.

  34. It’s increasingly clear global warming is real and man has virtually nothing to do with it. Don’t deny this.

  35. Party on boys and girls … let your offspring die in agony…

    [another government wonk from Canberra, using a fake email address, and using a computer powered by electricity to lecture us about energy -mod]

    • The perspicacious among them are already regretting raising the alarum to eleventy. They will become laughingstocks.
      ============

    • We had our worst drought in history here last year. The media quoted a climate scientist who assured us that “This is a pimple compared to the future dry weather we will get”. May 2015 had the least amount of rain for a May in history. The water lawn sprinkling ban has been moved up earlier in the year by half a month and extended later into the year also by half a month.
      Odd thing is that Oct 2014 had 150% of normal precipitation. This March, the current month, had the most rain for the last 10 years at only half way through the month.
      Also, oddly a few years earlier the same media was reporting that the wet weather we were having (due to climate change of course ) would ruin the tourism industry for Vancouver.
      It was pretty dang cold here the last couple of nights, nearing freezing and the mountains are loaded full of snow and currently look like mid winter though spring is only hours away.

      Local cow pasture picture follows, taken Sept 25, 2015 before the rainy season began and after supposedly the worst drought in local history. (location is former site of notorious mass serial killer allegedly murdered 49 women at this site )

      • Can you point to a link where climate scientists said that was the worst drought in history for BC (I assume you are in BC)? I’m from Seattle, though have lived in Asia for 20 years. I don’t recall seeing anything about the drought being worst in history. And in any case, AGW does not predict that every place in the world will suffer severe drought. The ME is still having the worst drought in 800 years, and in other places, such as Thailand, they are having to drill thousands of wells to help farmers and towns survive.

      • Chris, our history is short here, and I am referring to recorded history of just over 100 years. I have lived here, near Vancouver B.C. since 1967, so have first hand experience with 50 years of that history.
        I did find a link here about the “pimple” :

        When California looks like this, will they come for our water?; Not likely. The cost of moving water in bulk is prohibitive, and that’s not counting the political and legal hurdles
        resource management. “The summer drought we’re experiencing this year is a pimple, it’s not anything like what we’ll witness in the next 20 to 30 years as the climate changes,” said O’Riordan, a Victoria-based policy adviser at Simon Fraser… (2629 words)
        Byline: Peter O’Neil, Source: Vancouver Sun, Page: A10, Edition: Final
        $4.95 – Vancouver Sun – Sat Sep 12 2015

        There was a mega flood here just over 100 years ago. We have since built extensive dikes throughout the region. While bike riding through Langley during this extreme drought I noticed that many of the pumps to pump out water from the land and into the Fraser river were operating. There were huge areas of land with nothing but corn crops from horizon to horizon.

        Sea level rise and flooding had been much in the news before the brief period of dry weather. Here is a picture of new homes built near the Pitt River (named after the youngest Prime Minister of the U.K. at that time) when stories about sea level / flooding is the topic. I know that area, I confirmed the location of the homes in the picture and I know that the land there was raised 2 or so metres above the natural land level. But the reporters seem unaware.

    • Chris, the tropics are not warming, and will not. There is no global increase in drought, period.

      Here is the long term drought index for the US as of this March. looks ok to me.

  36. The key phrase in the Schneider quote in Ball’s essay appears to be this: “And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place.”

    Better, how? Better, according to who? Better in what way? There may be a number of hidden assumptions behind the phrase “we’d like to see the world a better place.” If your idea of a better world is driven by the ideas presented in “The Population Bomb” and “Limits to Growth,” your solutions — whether the world is warming or cooling — are going to point in very similar directions.

    Beware of “objective” scientists bearing hidden agendas.

  37. Same old stuff about the Vikings in “Groenland”. They also came to Normandy during the 9th and 10th centuries and conquered it. Sure, the weather there is nicer than up North, but they did not have to change the name of those areas for marketing purposes. Nothing is ever new in advertising for gullible prospective buyers. In the poorest French “banlieues”, the streets of the worst areas are invariably named “allée des fleurs”, “impasse des lauriers”, not “boulevard du bidonville” (slum).

  38. Dr Ball writes: “What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties ….”

    181 comments later not one person has pointed that Dr Ball is incorrect. The SPM does indeed include uncertainties – both mathematical and theoretical. This shows a complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter. One really doesn’t need to know much more to make the simple assessment that he’s pretty clueless.

      • The SPMs can be read here:

        WG1 – SPM First use of uncertainties on Page 3

        WG2 – SPM The first description of the uncertainties can be found on Page 6, “Background Box SPM.3 | Communication of the Degree of Certainty in Assessment Findings”

        WG3 – SPM First use of uncertainties is on Page 6, though the footnote on Page 4 may be considered as uncertainties

        Pseudoskeptics. Many here consider themselves skeptics, but rarely do they actually display any skepticism. TDr Ball’s uncertainty claim is so easily verified and checked that I’d expect a halfway intelligent 12 year old to be able to verify the truth or falsehood of the claim. How many dozens of articles has written here with the same level of veracity?

        I won’t reply separately to Bruce Cobb below except to say one of us is clueless and it ain’t me :)

      • ClimateOtter writes: “Proof, please.”

        Just another note, are you unable to Google – Summary for Policy Makers AR5?

        Why should I – or anyone – have to do the basic research for you? Do what I did, Google it, read it, and make a decision on the original claim. The fact you either cannot or will not says plenty about your own skepticism and intellectual capacity.

        Instead what we see is unwavering acceptance of absolute crap claims from an absolute non-authority(PhD in Geography); one that has been proven wrong over and over again.

      • ClimateOtter writes: “I don’t see your coverage of the counter-evidence.”

        I don’t see your admission that Dr Ball was woefully incorrect in saying that uncertainties are missing.

        As for “positive counter-evidence” — he never states what counter evidence is missing; hence it’s impossible to verify. A skeptic would have noted this immediately. Cosmic rays? Chemtrails? Climate fairies? Garden gnomes? The iron sun? Iris theory?

        We can list a hundred disproved, illogical, and/or unscientific ‘theories’ and claim the IPCC reports didn’t deal with them. Well, they are supposed to be dealing with science, not wild claims. So which scientifically valid pieces of counter-evidence did they miss? Dr Ball doesn’t say and neither do you, but you lap it up anyways. Obviously you’ve already drunk the kool-aid.

    • And we don’t need to read any more from you to know that you are a clueless, driveby troll.
      Buh-bye!

      • Meh, they were less certain of the attribution to man, but lied that they had increased confidence in the influence by man. Spin away, ol’ Honey Badger.
        ====================

      • kim as usual gets to the heart of the matter.

        And not one scary climate prediction has ever come true. Not one.

        When one group makes lots of alarming predictions, but not a single one ever happens, the proper course of action is to throw out that conjecture or hypothesis, try to figure out why they were so wrong, and produce a new hypothesis that takes into account new information — such as the fact that every alarming prediction they ever made was flat wrong.

        But climate science isn’t science, it’s politics. So it doesn’t need to fiollow the Scientific Method.

    • You know ZERO about me or what I have read, bub. But one thing I DO know for certain in my 30 years of following this, plus my degree in geology, is that the tenets of the AGW theory are falling like ten pins. Tornadoes down to historic lows, hurricanes down to historic lows, phytoplankton operating in exact opposition to claims made with regard to AGW, the Stratosphere is warming instead of cooling, and so on, and so forth.
      So, why is ‘one ill in wisconsin’ anyway?

      • ClimateOtter – no, you’re wrong. You asked for proof. I provided proof. Anyone that had actually read the SPMs would immediately recognize Dr Ball’s assertion as nonsense. Ergo, you had not read them. The alternative is that you had read them and didn’t understand them, or had read them, knew uncertainties were in fact part of the SPM and decided to play dumb (and cast doubt on my claim).

        Now, none of these interpretations is complimentary to you. Sorry, that’s the way it goes. I’ll call a spade a spade and not a utility implement for soil movement.

        The only thing falling around here is what little reputation for critical reading and skeptical reasoning you might have left. I don’t have a degree in anything. But I can read, comprehend what I read, and cogently pass the learned information on. You may wish to ask for your tuition fees back since you can’t do any of the above.

      • ClimateOtter writes: “So, why is ‘one ill in wisconsin’ anyway?”

        Such wit! I am dumbstruck with awe. Did you learn that in college? I am suitably impressed. (/snark)

        A more literate commenter might have alluded to the opening of Dostoyevsky’s, Notes from Underground. In the past I have myself in a self-deprecating way.

        Even your ad-homs need work. Think seriously about asking for a refund on that schooling.

      • Keep trying illsy. I’ll take observational evidence over computer modeled projections based on bad input any day. You… just keep talking yourself deeper into that hole.

      • ClimateRiverSkunk writes: “I’ll take observational evidence…..”

        You mean like the observations I made that the SPMs all include uncertainties – directly contrary to the misguided assertions of Dr Ball? Yes, I’ll take direct observations too. How ’bout you? Still ain’t got the balls to flat out say Dr Ball was full of BS?

        The old adage goes, you know a man by the company he keeps. You’re in ….. company with Dr Ball.What does *that* say?

        P.S. the theory of AGW relies not one iota on computer models. The theory existed before the first computer model was written. Even someone with a Geology degree should know that.

      • oneillsinwisconsin,

        Your climate alarmist contingent has been 100.0% wrong in every prediction you ever made.

        That means your hypothesis is junk.

        Yet you still desperately try to keep it on life support. Why?

      • dbstealey – another commenter completely silent on the assertion by Dr Ball that the SPMs don’t include uncertainties. You people are funny. Throw any old red herring out there to obscure the fact the emperor has no clothes.

        Well over 200 hundred comments now and not one ‘regular’ here has the guts to point out the obvious – and if it wasn’t obvious I spoonfed you the answer – Dr Ball is full of BS when he claimed the SPMs don’t include uncertainties. I gave you chapter and verse, but it simply cannot make a dent in your notions.

      • Oneill, Have you read the NIPCC reports, and the references they make to hundreds of peer reviewed publications they make, many of which are ignored by the IPCC? Your comment to dismiss all peer reviewed publications not in the IPCC as junk science…
        ===============
        “We can list a hundred disproved, illogical, and/or unscientific ‘theories’ and claim the IPCC reports didn’t deal with them. Well, they are supposed to be dealing with science, not wild claims”
        ===============
        …is ludicrous and has no bearing on the IPCC :lip service only” to uncertainties. The NIPCC is strong in disputing the many IPCC projected harms, and very strong in noting the known benefits of CO2 poorly considered in the IPCC reports. Please read it and you will begin to understand why Dr. Ball’s post is essentially correct and the IPCC verbally noting a few uncertainties is merely lipstick on a pig
        Oneill… you state this to another poster,
        =======================
        “Why should I – or anyone – have to do the basic research for you? Do what I did, Google it, read it, and make a decision on the original claim. The fact you either cannot or will not says plenty about your own skepticism and intellectual capacity.
        =====================
        So now go read the NIPCC reports. They document in detail what the IPCC missed. Do you need a link?

    • A serious problem is that IPCC AR5 does not report uncertainties in accordance with the international standard for expression of uncertainty. The standard gives the following advices on reporting of uncertainty:

      Ref.: 7.2.3 in Guide to the expression of uncertainty …:
      Simply put, the result of an estimate should be reported by:
      – giving a full description of how the measurand Y is defined
      – stating the result of the measurement as Y = y ± U
      – give the units of y and U
      – giving the approximate level of confidence associated with the interval y ± U
      – state how the level of confidence was determined;

      Ref.: 7.1.4 in Guide to the expression of uncertainty …:
      Although in practice the amount of information necessary to document a measurement result depends on its intended use, the basic principle of what is required remains unchanged: when reporting the result of a measurement and its uncertainty, it is preferable to err on the side of providing too much information rather than too little. For example, one should

      a) describe clearly the methods used to calculate the measurement result and its uncertainty from the experimental observations and input data;
      b) list all uncertainty components and document fully how they were evaluated;
      c) present the data analysis in such a way that each of its important steps can be readily followed and the calculation of the reported result can be independently repeated if necessary;
      d) give all corrections and constants used in the analysis and their sources.

      A test of the foregoing list is to ask oneself “Have I provided enough information in a sufficiently clear manner that my result can be updated in the future if new information or data become available?”

      References and more information here:
      This is how the climate industry should have reported uncertainty!

      Uncertainty figures are not much worth if they are not properly estimated and documented.

      • Science or Fiction – what part of “Summary” don’t you understand? The full uncertainties will – of course – bein the actual scientific papers that the *Summary* is summarizing. English is an amazing language – you might consider learning it.

        P.S. Silence on Dr Ball’s assertion that the SPMs don’t include uncertainties? Imagine that. Just another kool-aid drinker.

      • First I would like state very clearly that I think you have a valid point.

        Uncertainties are included in the fifth assessment report by IPCC and the Summary for Policy Makers. The following claim by Tim Ball seem to be unsupported in his article.
        “What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory.”

      • Second, I would like to point out that your assertion that “The full uncertainties will – off course – be in the actual scientific papers that the “Summary is summarizing” is not always correct.

        If you take a closer look into the assessment report you will find that the fifth assessment report by IPCC fails to meet the international standard for expression of uncertainty.

        I have several post on this at my site. E.g.:
        Both IPCC and it´s reviewer, InterAcademy Council, messed up on “Quantified measures of uncertainty”!

        You will also find that individual papers typically fail to meet this standard. Here is an example where uncertainties are stated, but still unsupported in the paper:
        Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
        (Geophysical research letters – first published 10 May 2013 ; Balmaseda, Trenberth and Källén.)
        If you search for the information about uncertainty, which should have been in the paper in accordance with the international standard: “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement”, you will see that relevant information is missing. Hence the uncertainty stated in the paper is unsupported.

        (Full arguments, with links, in several posts about qualitative and quantitative uncertainty at my site.)

      • Sciencefiction, Dr. Ball’s claim;
        ======
        ““What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory.”
        =======
        … taken in conjunction with the NIPCC reports demonstrating that the IPCC specifically “omits” many papers and much peer reviewed literature that strongly indicate they should be far less certain of the purported harms of CO2, and far more likely to consider CO2 net beneficial, and natural change more responsible for the warming we have observed, is essentially accurate. It may have been more accurate to say it this way;
        ==============
        What is systematically omitted from the SPM, except in lip service only form, are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference and CO2 is dangerous theory”
        ==============
        …yet his statement is essentially accurate. My comment to Oneill here; https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/19/i-hope-the-ipcc-is-correct-about-warming-because-cooling-is-a-bigger-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-2170976 explains why this is true, and where oneill can go to verify the assertion.

  39. What is the quote about Napoleon and Hitman losing whole armies due to bitterly cold weather in Russia/USSR? (As opposed to hot weather in Rommel’s battles in the desert)?

    • Failed to consider the troops of Generals December and January, also misunderestimated Kutuzov and Dodge Trucks.
      ====================================

  40. I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem

    That is so true, people and society thrive in warmth, die is the cold. We should at least be equally preparing for global cooling, and taking advantage of this warm period while it lasts Once again, societies will collapse with cooling, they won’t with warming, they will in fact thrive.

      • According to your thinking, then, the region above the Arctic Circle must be packed with people.

      • dbstealey – are you dense? I wrote sarcastically ….you might note the “oh wait” at the end. Duhsville for you my friend.

        [Per Anthony’s repeated requests, always indicate sarcasm with something like “/sarc”. -mod]

      • oneill,

        I may be dense, but I’m not deceptive or credulous; your two most obvious qualities. I’m not sure which one is in charge at the moment.

        After being totally wrong in every alarmist prediction ever made, anyone who still sounds the “dangeroud AGW” false alarm is being deceptive. Unless they believe it against all the contrary evidence. Then, they’re just being credulous.

    • Incorrect. First of all, the most prosperous societies are in the colder climates – Europe was the pioneer. By your logic, Africa, the Middle East and Asia should be prosperous, and Europe poor. But that is not the case, in fact you have it completely backwards.

      • Obviously, there is more than climate to consider, such things as governance and natural resources.
        ============

      • Quit correct Kim. Alarmists can, in a jiffy, go from claiming nuance, to simplicity that is worthy of a simpleton.

        For a very long time the silk road went to India, and the culture on that land was stupendous, prosperous, and leading in areas of architecture, science, mathematics, politics, etc.

  41. John Knight says.
    “There are numerous known conspiratorial groups far larger than would be required to pull off this (I am quite certain) climate con job. Drug trafficking for instance, a whole lot of people “conspire” every freaking day to supply illegal drugs around the world, don’t they? And human trafficking? Illegal arms sales? These “conspiracies” require far more participants than would be required to pull off a “consensus” among “climate scientists” charade like we (I am certain) have seen watching.”
    Really? You truly think this is a vast conspiracy among climate scientists around the world? The problem with your argument is there is no incentive for scientists to be a part of the conspiracy. If there truly was fraud going on in the climate science circles, it would take one doctoral student, post doc, or PhD scientist to produce the data/analysis and take it all down, and they would become the most famous scientist in the field instantaneously! The reason it doesn’t happen is there is no conspiracy! Scientists are a competitive bunch and there are animosities just like any profession. If one of them saw a chance to make a name for themselves by exposing a fraudulent analysis of another scientist, they would do it. I hope the rest of you here don’t believe John’s conspiracy theory, it would only further reduce the your credibility.

    [no incentive? look at Mann’s fake Nobel prize claims, look at the amount of money he has received in grants, look at Shukla and his double dipping grant operation which has attracted a congressional investigation. money and prestige are incentives for climate scientists and there’s no way of denying that -mod]

    • Moderator- you do not address my point of incentives to expose the “fraud”. If a scientist came forward with evidence of fraud or a defensible critique of published data or analyses, they would instantly become one of the most well known scientists in their field and would reap substantial rewards in both grant money and offers of academic positions. Science is a competitive business and scientists are always closely examining the papers of their competitors. Many scientists have built their reputations on debunking other’s results and climate science is no different. If you really think that there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to cover up the truth about global warming then you don’t know how science works. Period.

      [You are using several of the “trigger words” in your latest replies, then wonder why the replies drop into the queue? Be patient.
      To the contrary, there is no hidden conspiracy to oppose the science. It is a very open, very well-funded and openly coordinated effort to prsent the propaganda. .mod]

    • No incentive, luke? If a government official turns up at your front door threatening to destroy your life / career/ finances / reputation / future, do you do what they tell you to do?
      That’s just one example and you can’t tell me it hasn’t happened, or have you forgotten what happened to a lot of skeptics around Lysenko?

    • Luke,

      “Really? You truly think this is a vast conspiracy among climate scientists around the world?”

      No, but I do think there is a conspiracy that involves a few climate scientists, and a contrived/staged “consensus” claim.

    • Readers,

      Please consider carefully what Luke presents as a “failsafe” against possible “cons-piracy” ; )

      “The problem with your argument is there is no incentive for scientists to be a part of the conspiracy. If there truly was fraud going on in the climate science circles, it would take one doctoral student, post doc, or PhD scientist to produce the data/analysis and take it all down, and they would become the most famous scientist in the field instantaneously!”

      He completely switches cons-piracy as the potential in question, to fraud many grad students could easily expose. The idea of actual people actually discussing unethical things secretly, vanishes completely . . almost as though some magical force exists, which wholly prevents people with (certain?) science degrees from ever doing anything like that.

      Inane (ostensible) level of blind faith in Siants, I say. Totally unscientific belief in magical occultish forces . .

  42. The title should summarize the article.

    It doesn’t.

    If intended to be funny ..

    … then the title you wrote is not funny.

    In the title you say: “I Hope the IPCC is Correct” …

    … but you really don’t hope that, so why say it?

    I assume you know they have been wrong for all 27 years.

    In the title you also say: “cooling is a bigger problem”

    … but you make no attempt to prove that, nor does anyone actually know that.

    In my opinion, one degree C. of cooling in the next 100 years would be just as meaningless as one degree of warming in the past 100 years.

    Without me spending much time creating about a better title, I’ll propose using one of your first sentences with a few words deleted as the title:

    “The IPCC claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong”.

    Now, you must wonder, why would I spend so much time giving you are hard time about the title of an article?

    Because the title of an article helps people decide if they want to read it.

    And your recent articles deserve a lot of attention.

    Sometimes a newspaper or website will accept an article but write their own headline — and that headline sometimes does not summarize the article. If that happened here, I blame whoever actually wrote the title.

    It is refreshing when a scientist like yourself gets it about “climate science”, and writes articles about the politics using simple easy to understand English.

    The bad science is obvious to people here, but they may not realize:
    (a) Politicians start with the assumption humans are “killing” the planet,
    (b) When they are elected, their governments buy the scientists they want to support those beliefs,
    (c) and the “scientists” do whatever is necessary to please their governments, and get their money.

    In the end, the climate modelers are a small group of people with advanced degrees who act like con men living on the government dole … helping to promote BIG GOVERNMENT socialism, which most must believe in — they obviously don’t give a damn that they are destroying the reputation of science and scientists in general.

    Free climate blog for non-scientists
    No ads. No money for me.
    A public service.
    Now includes March 2016 Climate Centerfold of the Month!
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  43. The moderator apparently will not let me reply to my post above (Luke March 20, 2016, 6:58 am) so I will try here. The moderator did not address my key point. There is substantial incentive for scientists to expose fraud or debunk misleading data and analyses in every field of science. Many scientists have built their reputations on exposing poor science or inappropriate statistical analyses in published studies. Many of those scientist have gone on to obtain coveted academic positions and grant money as a result of their critique of other’s work. Competition among scientists is keen in every field of science, papers that expose problems or issues with other analyses are often some of the most-cited publications in the discipline. If there truly were substantial problems with the high profile papers in climate science, other scientists would have detected those problems and published their results because it is in their best interest- they would become famous overnight! Anyone who thinks there is a vast conspiracy among climate scientists to promote the “global warming agenda” doesn’t know how science really works.

    [False. As mentioned, you have several times used several of the trigger words that drop anybody’s reply into the queue. .mod]

    • Luke, if almost all government funding is going to those who endorse AGW, what motive would any researcher have to rubut it? Michael Crighton made a plea for “blinded funding” on the topic, but I do not see how that could work. The Obama adminstration, as well as most European and the former Australian governments have endorsed AGW as a matter of policy. Funding to oppose the government is always dicey, with some in the US threatening RICO procecutions on “deniers”. Ultimately, the only way to effectively oppose the government is to become the government. Not there yet.

    • Luke doesn’t understand the difference between a conspiracy and a bandwagon. Richard Courtney gave a good explanation of a ‘bandwagon’ a while back. To summarize:

      A conspiracy is organized. A bandwagon is not. The bandwagon effect allows everyone with a similar interest to jump aboard, as long as the bandwagon is going in a direction that benefits them.

      The climate alarmist crowd benefits from the immense piles of easy money that fuel their bandwagon. Anyone who reads the Climategate emails can easily see what’s happening. They come down hard on anyone who rocks the boat. They know they’ve got a good thing going, and they regard anyone who threatens it as the enemy.

      If it weren’t for the money, the ‘climate’ scare would have fizzled out long ago. The scientists and universities involved know what’s happening; they know there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures. That’s a fact. But the money and the perqs are just too good to pass up, and anyone who voices skepticism about ‘runaway global warming’ is quickly set straight.

      The only ones who don’t seem to understand the scam are eco-lemmings like Luke, who bought into the climate scare long ago, based on insufficient information. Now they can’t admit that those skeptical of the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare were right all along.

      So they keep arguing out of ignorance. Certainly they have no credible facts to support them. They can’t even produce a measurement of the very thing they insist is going to cause a climate catastrophe.

      So as we see with Luke and the others, their fall-back tactic is the usual ‘Say Anything’. Without measurements quantifying the thing we’re supposed to be alarmed about, all they’ve got is ‘Say Anything’.

      We want empirical, testable, verifiable measurements that quantify the supposed threat. But they don’t have those measurements. So instead, they Say Anything.

      • “Immense piles of easy money.” Nope, not true. I’ve worked with researchers on several grants (unrelated to climate change). First, if the researcher is a professor, the grant generally does not pay him/her much as research is expected to be part of their workload, just like they don’t get paid extra for teaching classes. If they do the research during their summer break, then the stipend is quite small. Most of the money goes for equipment, travel expenses, food, lodging, and graduate student stipends.

      • Regarding Chris’s comment and immense piles of money.

        First is job security. A non tenured PHD graduate working for a University will have zero security if he bucks the CAGW meme. Secondly those piles of money, billions spent annually in the US, are real and rewarding, to both the University and alarmist scientists. Chris, do not be an “immense piles of agenda driven money” skeptic. If politicians can tax the very air you breath, they will.

      • You’re right that bandwagons can be seductive and scientists often go along for a while without noticing the inconsistencies but in the end they always are upended because a insightful scientist sees through it, produces the data and analyses that refute the idea and science moves in a new direction. It has happened many times in the recent past; viruses and some forms of cancer, H. pylori and ulcers, and species diversity and primary productivity (many now question the relationship) come to mind. If you really think the AGW science is flawed, produce the data and analyses, get it published in a respectable journal, and you will be famous!

    • YOU WROTE:
      “Many scientists have built their reputations on exposing poor science or inappropriate statistical analyses in published studies. Many of those scientist have gone on to obtain coveted academic positions and grant money as a result of their critique of other’s work.”

      MY RESPONSE:
      Predicting the climate 100 years into the future is not science at all, it is climate astrology !

      The ‘CO2 controls the climate’ physics model is wrong.

      100 year predictions can’t be proven “wrong” in anyone’s lifetime.

      The people who make the predictions also control the surface temperature data, which they “adjust” to match their prior predictions.

      Since Earth is always cooling or warming, and there has been a warming trend since 1850, it’s a pretty easy guess to predict the warming will continue — even if you are wrong it could take decades for people to notice a cooling trend had started … and with enough “adjustments” it is possible a cooling trend will never exist ‘on paper’ in our lifetime.

      Skeptical scientists have great difficulty being published, getting government grants, and getting hired to work for governments.

      Climate modelers are not scientists — they are people with science degrees doing climate astrology and creating grossly inaccurate climate models = a total waste of taxpayers’ money

  44. Take Luke’s arguments: and overlay them word for word on ”Pot is like Heroin”

    and you have the whole thing right there.

    If pot wasn’t heroin, why would the entire world’s universities and hospitals and doctors’ associations and
    research organizations
    and scientists – not uncover the deal? Obviously then – after 70 years and 60 nations and thousands of educational/treatment facilities know it’s pot – judges, putting people in prison for decades,
    people in the earlier days going to jail for life,
    people to this day, barred from ever working for various people –

    obviously then the consensus among:
    MOST and mind you since science lost it’s mind we know all the opposing ones are ”contrarians”

    universities
    law enforcement
    psychiatric
    psychological
    medical

    organizations
    and
    their leaders

    agree: pot needs to remain right there beside heroin where it belongs. It’s obviously FAR worse for you than methamphetamine, and if it werent – there again –

    why doesn’t the entire scientific community of the world simply tell the truth?

    You can’t speak sense or even chemistry to an authority worshiping drone.

    They just tell you pot’s like heroin, and the sky’s a magic heater.

    • Gee, why is it we reglaciate every time CO2 reaches a maximum in the ice core records? Angstrom’s assistant showed all the IR was already absorbed, adding CO2 did nothing.

    • CO2 concentrations and average temperatures estimated with ice cores (and various other climate proxies too) may be far from reality.

      You may think you know the future climate, but you do not.

      Nor do I.

      The real danger is to make predictions, based on unproven theories, assume they are true, and act on them in ways that will negatively affect economic growth and prosperity on our planet.

  45. It says his ”scientific” leadership hasn’t been caught and forced to admit he fabricated false data of warming for a dozen years.

    It means his ”scientific” leadership didn’t get caught suing a man who said he’s a liar, then getting caught lying in the filing for the lawsuit saying he won a Nobel Prize.

    It means his ”scientific” leadership didn’t get caught scamming tree data like Briffa.

    It means his ”scientific” leadership didn’t claim that when he retired he would be crawling out of a window at his office to get in a rowboat because the flooding would be so bad.

    It means his ”scientific” leadership didn’t tell him there’s a magic effect on Venus that makes the laws of thermodynamics obsolete.

    Like yours did.

    oneillsinwisconsin
    March 20, 2016 at 11:58 am

    ClimateRiverSkunk writes: “I’ll take observational evidence…..”

    You mean like the observations I made that the SPMs all include uncertainties – directly contrary to the misguided assertions of Dr Ball? Yes, I’ll take direct observations too. How ’bout you? Still ain’t got the balls to flat out say Dr Ball was full of BS?

    The old adage goes, you know a man by the company he keeps. You’re in ….. company with Dr Ball.What does *that* say?

    P.S. the theory of AGW relies not one iota on computer models. The theory existed before the first computer model was written. Even someone with a Geology degree should know that.

    Somebody with a geology degree ought to know somebody was going to catch him publishing data he created with a hockey stick generator too.

    So we have the people who sent you summed up pretty well.

    And then we have you.
    You think real science comes from clowns like that.

    No, and that’s why your leadership can’t predict properly which way a thermometer’s going to go, told the correct answers ahead of time.

  46. Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Fire and Ice by Robert Frost (1920)

    http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173527

Comments are closed.