When weather becomes a political climate minefield

It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field.

Why I Deny Big Climate Alarmism

Opinion by Walter Donway

What leads an objective non-scientist, examining the arguments, to reject “global warming,” a.k.a., “Big Climate alarmism”?

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I had dinner with a long-time friend of hers and her boyfriend. My wife had been friends with this woman for years, but never introduced me. Now, it seems, the woman wanted to meet me and to bring along her boyfriend. My wife warned me that they were “very Left,” “big Sanders supporters, now Hillary supporters,” and “politically correct.” I hoped that the restaurant’s cuisine would be endlessly fascinating material for conversation, but, just in case, I boned up on Jane Austen’s novels.

It is a sign of our times, however, that the one topic of conversation once reliably safe and boring—the weather—is now more treacherous than an abandoned mine field. (Let’s not get into that.) The global warming/climate change Gestapo (just kidding, will explain) sought out the ugliest epithet of modern times—Holocaust denier—and tailored it to fit their intellectual adversaries. It reflects, I suppose, their scientific temperament of openness to challenge and maintaining an atmosphere of objective discourse. About as much as if I, observing their bully boy tactics toward all opponents, referred to them as the Gestapo of global warming. But I don’t.

I don’t recall how global warming infiltrated into our dinner conversation. But consider: Global warming/climate change activists now view the threat as of the same magnitude as the rise of National Socialist (Nazi) aggression in the late 1930s—the basis for an article recently emblazoned across the pages The New Republic by William McKibben, one of the leading global warming/climate change activists in the world. Therefore, they believe that its implications are overwhelming in science, politics, economics, the 2016 election, health, education, agriculture, urban planning, discussion of any extreme weather, travel, population migration…

I knew that Jane Austen would be a winner!

No such luck, we were onto global warming. “Oh, so you’re a denier?”

“Well, there are no deniers…”

With infinite weariness, a look of oh-God-it’s-one-of-them: “Which means?

“I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. I agree that the climate is constantly changing and requires vigilance and preventive measures based upon real threats such as cold snaps, drought or flooding, hurricanes… I agree that carbon dioxide and certain trace gases in the atmosphere contribute to a greenhouse effect, trapping heat from the sun within our atmosphere. I agree that since the Industrial Revolution, around 1740, average mean Earth surface temperatures may have increased as much as .7 of a degree Celsius and this contributes to the greenhouse effect.

“Did you know that when they say 97 percent of scientists agree with global warming, they mean only that they responded ‘yes’ to those statements? So do I.”

How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century?

My wife, kicking me under the table: “Walter, give someone else a chance to speak.”

My wife’s friend, no dummy, just looking at me, waiting, thinking: What the HELL scam is this?

I say: “But I don’t see any cause for alarm. Science and its predictions are all about how much, how fast, compared withwhat? The scientific ‘consensus’ is not about that.”

The latest “weather predictions” have moved from telling us we should bring an umbrella, when we go out, to telling us we should moth-ball industrial civilization’s dominant sources of power—of all economic production, transportation, heating and cooling, and everything else—on the basis of a long-term weather prediction.

My wife’s friend says, eyes closed, “I don’t want to discuss it, anymore.”

Who would? Would you want to lend an ear to a guy who denied the Holocaust—an historical event proven in court (at Nuremberg), attested by thousands of victims, documented by literally thousands of historians, and with known and visited sites of its hideous crimes against humanity?

How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century? And in doing so, deliberately envenomed a debate over the predictions of climate science—the weather?

Read the entire thing here: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/why-i-deny-big-climate-alarmism/

Advertisements

217 thoughts on “When weather becomes a political climate minefield

  1. Global warming advocacy is a part of the green movement, a stereotypical mass movement that acts in a quasi-religious manner. Arguing with a green is like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Communist, or a vegan.

    • …Actually, Global warming advocacy is part of the U.N. “Agenda 21” protocol to reduce the Human population….not including them ( liberal elites) , of course…

      • But who will remain to do all the ‘menial’ work for these liberal elites? Will they preserve some Betas and Epsilons as part of the overall plan?

      • “””””….. “I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. …..”””””

        BUT !! NOT Monotonically.

        It went up, it went down. Based on the numbers so far it maybe has gone up more than it has gone down over those years under consideration.

        BUT ! The CO2; the root cause of it all, has NEVER gone down year to year; at least as gauged by the Mauna Loa record, since IGY.

        Ergo, global warming and CO2 are very loosely linked; if at all !

        And there is more evidence that says that Temperature is the horse, and CO2 is the cart; than there is that says verse vicea.

        And all the hellabelloo is over whether it is one deg. F warmer today than it was in 1852.

        Well that is out of the possible extreme range of Temperature on any given day that may be as much as 150 deg. C

        And I won’t even mention that the daily weather Temperature regularly varies over a greater range than has the global climate Temperature at any time in the last 600 million years.

        As they say: ” A pimple on a wrinkle on a sand fly’s A^^^ ! ”

        Whoopee !

        G

      • And all the hellabelloo is over whether it is one deg. F warmer today than it was in 1852.

        And it is quite conceivable that it is no warmer today than it was in the 1930s/1940s.

        Back in the 1970s NASA/NOAA were suggesting that the world had cooled between 1940 and mid 1970s by up to about 0.5degC. Satellite data suggests that the globe may have warmed by about 0.4degC since 1979.

        If those figures are true and representative, we are today broadly speaking at the same temperature as the late 1930s/mid 1940s. this is notwithstanding that almost all manmade CO2 has been emitted since the late 1930s!!

        This would put Climate Sensitivity to CO2 based upon observational data at around zero.

      • “And it is quite conceivable that it is no warmer today than it was in the 1930s/1940s. ”

        It was hotter in the 1930’s according to the Climate Change Gurus.

        And if you go by the weather then and now, this year’s very mild weather is nowhere near as hot as the 1930’s. It was so bad back in the 1930’s that some climate scientists were suggesting the central U.S. be evacuated. Anybody suggesting evacuating the central U.S. this year? This decade? Answer: Don’t make me laugh.

    • your rejection of the science – like that of the author of this piece – is political, not based on the science…

      I can’t help you with that, but the climate is neither red nor blue.

      • “I agree that the Earth’s mean global surface temperature was slowly increasing from about 1880 to 1998. I agree that the climate is constantly changing and requires vigilance and preventive measures based upon real threats such as cold snaps, drought or flooding, hurricanes… I agree that carbon dioxide and certain trace gases in the atmosphere contribute to a greenhouse effect, trapping heat from the sun within our atmosphere. I agree that since the Industrial Revolution, around 1740, average mean Earth surface temperatures may have increased as much as .7 of a degree Celsius and this contributes to the greenhouse effect.

        “Did you know that when they say 97 percent of scientists agree with global warming, they mean only that they responded ‘yes’ to those statements? So do I.”

        That’s one Hell of a ‘rejection,’ griffy.

      • Griff, the two are not mutually exclusive. I have political differences with the green left, based on their 40 years of wild-ass predictions of doom that just never happened, and I have investigated the science allegedly behind their claims enough to conclude to a moral certainty the best the greens do is vast overstatement of their case.

      • Tom you make a good point, but so many comments here start with ‘lefty’ ‘alarmist’ etc.

        The debate is better conducted without label, don’t you think?

      • I’ll agree that the name calling is a problem. The number of “Agenda 21s” and “lefty” here is almost as bad as “denier” elsewhere.

        I’ll just assume your coffee was wearing off, given the timestamp on your post. We’re all grouchy at 1:00 AM, and WordPress doesn’t allow correections. Thanks for sticking out, Griff. While I don’t alway (or even often) agree with you, the counterpoint is welcome to stop the echo chamber.

      • Griff,

        your rejection of the science – like that of the author of this piece – is political, not based on the science…

        Not political, just curious. what is “the” science?

      • What science was rejected,Griss? The ones filled with far into the future climate models,to year 2100 and even 3100 (yes it is in the IPCC report) Those untestable climate models you love so dearly?

      • The fact that “the science” flatly dismisses the substantial evidence that both warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels have beneficial effects is alone sufficient to reject it as politically driven pseudo-science.

    • Arguing with a green is like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness …

      Ah, that’s one of my hobbies.

      The first requisite is a good knowledge of other religions. Don’t even bother trying if you don’t have this.

      The second requisite is to treat the Jehovah’s Witnesses with respect. Act like you are genuinely interested in a dialog (which I actually am).

      The third requisite is not to accept any of their basic tenets. Whether you believe it or not, if you want to successfully argue with a Jehovah’s Witness, you can not accept that the Bible is the ultimate font of all truth. You cannot accept their version of God or even accept that God is necessary to religion. Your Jehovah’s Witness has to be in the position of having to prove everything.

      One possible line of discussion involves revelation. The experts on that are the Zen Buddhists. Their whole schtick is about achieving revelation through meditation. What they will tell you is that the vast majority of epiphanies are wrong, sometimes disasterously so. People should not trust that they have achieved satori until they check it out with their roshi. At that point you can enter a discussion about how we can test the revelations of the Bible.

      The most entertaining result is that your Jehovah’s Witness will run away screaming.

      The best result may be that the Jehovah’s Witness may realize that: “There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

      We stand little chance of converting greenies. We can, at least, convince them that skepticism is a valid position.

  2. When the discussion turned to science it was like one hand clapping. No possibility of further dialog, finding common ground, debunking falsehoods… You took away the glamour of concern projecting and did so over dinner. So boorish; shame on you!

  3. The climatists insist we prove our case. But they’re the ones who want to use the muscle of government to force their position on the rest of us. By traditional American jurisprudence they should have to carry the burden of proof. But they deflect that burden by arguing, falsely, that we’re forcing our position on them. They accuse oil companies of “going on the attack” spending money on lobbyists, lawyers, and ads, when what the oil companies are doing is trying to defend themselves from the climatists.

    • The Warmistas must prove

      1) That the current variations of “global temperature” are not natural.
      2) That said variations are dangerous
      3) That the CO2 increase is not due to those variations,

  4. I would approach it differently, just ask “Do you still drive a car? Still heat/cool your home? Use electricity? Fly?” That always shuts them down, get them to admit to being climate hypocrites, embarrass them.

      • Nice point :-)

        All life depends upon combustion and CO2 is fundamental to life on this planet.

        The Warmistas are opposed to combustion, opposed to life.

    • I point out the window – or, if outside I just point at a tree. I ask, “can you tell me the primary constituents of that plant?” That nearly inevitably engenders a blank look. “OK,” I ask, “can you tell just what the results of burning it are?” Disturbingly, well over 50% don’t know. They think that putting a tree or wheat field on a reduced-carbon “diet” will be good for the planet. It is like asking a vegan how many non-animal sources of Vitamin D are known. Don’t know, don’t care, and can’t understand why they have health problems.

  5. Prof Brian Cox is appearing on BBC’s Newsnight prog tonight, talking about how people aren’t listening to what scientists are telling them. I doubt that he’s revised his views since his Australian debacle.

      • “without doubting every single word he says.”
        Or the Guardian, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, Politifarse, Atlantic, HuffPoo,,,,,,,,,,

      • Looks like frutticake Dana Nuttiestcello has gone off the deep end again.

        Shame he didn’t ask all of the big greenhouse growers first.
        Instead Danaloon glommed onto a very poor paper that masturbates a model results into alarmist fantasy.

        From the paper’s abstract conclusion:

        “Our results suggest that future climate change will push this ecosystem away from conditions
        that maximize NPP, but with large year-to-year variability.”

        Suggest? “large year to year variability”? Where do they these wonderful ideas?

        Further into the paper:

        “Although the analytical model
        tests simultaneously for single-factor and interaction effects”

        And

        “Finally, we use the results of the continuous model to create temperature-by-precipitation response surfaces”

        And

        “We developed linear mixed-effects models (Methods and SI Text) that provide results for both the main and interactive effects as standardized coefficients (Fig. 2 and Table S1). These coefficients indicate the proportional change in NPP in response to one SD change in an environmental factor. The model fit to observations is good, with 54–68% agreement

        And

        “To check model assumptions, we performed residual diagnostics, focusing on progressive (year-dependent) effects. Progressive year effects would result in model residuals (unexplained component of observed data) ”

        Who would of thought that? It’s all based on models. Models that look to have terrible fit to observations.
        I suppose if one run out of 300+ climate models has a brief echo of similarity to observations, why fifty percent range must seem wonderful.

        Now we can expect the trolls to come through harping about CO2 allegedly being bad for plants.

        I guess that means trolls will swear off all hothouse tomatoes, peppers, salad greens, herbs, flowers, started plants for the garden, etc…

    • my problem is dealing with irrational quasi religious advocacy, what is the apropriate response? In Australia and in many countries it is the rejection of the current political structures and the installation of populist advocates who articulate the frustration we all feel.

      • My problem isn’t dealing with the irrational quasi religious advocacy, it is the blatant and menacing ignorance and absolutely closed minds regarding their religious beliefs.

  6. I confess that I am neither a climate change alarmist nor a climate change denier. Frankly, I am interested in an intellectual discussion of the science, climatology and economics of the global environmental debate. Yes, you can call me a lukewarmer , if you need a label.

    • Well Humpty Dumpty got his shell cracked by following your example.

      We really need more fence sitters.

      G

      • One of the truest of Axioms says:

        ” If you aren’t a part of the solution; then you are a part of the problem. ”

        G

      • george e. smith September 19, 2016 at 7:11 pm

        ” If you aren’t a part of the solution; then you are a part of the problem. ”
        I have detested this “Axiom” since I first heard it. It is motivational-poster dreck. Actually, in a great many cases, one may be a victim of the problem, and/or a victim of the solution, without being either a part of the problem or of the solution. In many other cases, one may be entirely outside the dynamic, with no incentive to participate.

    • which is a reasonable point of view…

      but not the one shared by many commenters here, who reject climate science simply because it is accepted by those of another political persuasion.

      If this blog is to be about discussing climate and climate science (my interests and reason for coming here) then we could do without the denunciations of any political viewpoint. The science stands or fails on data and methodology – not whether a Republican rejects it or Democrat accepts it.

      Nor does accepting the science automatically invalidate all other scientific opinion and research from a scientist. Cox is completely wrong about everything because he engaged in debate with a man who thinks it is all fake data and a UN plot? come on!

      • ‘then we could do without the denunciations of any political viewpoint. ‘ – he says, immediately after denouncing those of ‘another political persuasion.’

      • “The science stands or fails on data and methodology – not whether a Republican rejects it or Democrat accepts it.”

        I agree. Now we just have to agree on the science, or lack thereof. As for the data, well, that is a problem. It’s hard to agree on the science when you don’t trust the data being used.

      • “science” is a misleading term. Some things we know very well such as energy, mechanics etc. But other subjects are very complicated so science only means here that investigation, quantification is possible but results are uncertain. That’s why every 10 years other diets are suggested. The same with the climate: too many even unknown variables. Real science is continuous doubt and debate. Quacks sell false hope and false certaincies. We have fallen victim of false prophets.

      • Kamikazedave – come on, you know the orthodox science viewpoint on that…

        and all the evidence to the contrary on this website hasn’t yet convinced me its wrong.

        so lets not have that conversation here, eh?

      • “accepting the science…”

        Griffmeister,

        Do not accept the science. You can go to a revival and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, if you would like, but please please do not accept the science. Science is never ACCEPTED!!! It is studied, understood, debated, and endlessly changing, but never Accepted.

        Spare us. Do you understand anything about the science? Do you know that CO2 saturates within three meters of the Earth’s surface, and that the increase in CO2 is most important at the TOA, where no one can calculate anything? “Logarithmic” not really, Earth has never ever been in Energy Balance, and every major parameter varies daily. No one can even measure Earth’s albedo to more than one significant digit. Is it .30, .36, larger, smaller? No one really knows.

        What was the temperature in Bialystok in 1915? Do you know? Does anyone?

        Spare us. If you didn’t know, most “Climate Scientists” are advocates, such as yourself, who adopted this profession as an opportunity to effect political agendas.

        Goodness…

      • Come on, y’all. We can have a civil discussion. You are only proving Griff’s point. I can’t recall the number of times that I or anyone else has been attacked or insulted because the peson thought I wasn’t toing the line enough.

        It’s better here than in other locations on the internet, which is unfortunately not saying much. However, that does not mean that it cannot be improved.

        That being said, Griff. I don’t reject climate science. I reject biased interpretations of it. I know you know the difference. Don’t join them in just a series of insults, please.

      • Griff,

        Not trying to be pushy or challenging, but you keep referring to “THE science.” it’s hard to have a science discussion with out knowing what you consider “THE science” to be. below (I think, not always sure where a comment ends up), you blow it off by referring to the “orthodox science viewpoint.”

        You try to avoid any political conversation, but unfortunately almost all global warming/climate change “science” anymore is political/ideological, with one side trying to shut up and marginalize the other (I’ll let you decide which is which).

        Look at Kerry and Obama calling “climate change” the biggest threat to our national security while avoiding any discussion of the threat of terrorism. No rhetorical scare tactics there, all objective “science.” Look at HRC putting anybody who disagrees with her in a basket of deplorables. I don’t think it is too much of a leap of logic to assume that also means anyone who disagrees with her position on climate change. I think the comments of many of the world leaders (IMF, EU, etc.) stating that it’s not about the science, it’s about economics, wealth redistribution and global governance have been summarized here too many times to count.

        Most people wouldn’t really care about global warming if it WAS just a scientific/ academic discussion, but it’s having a real affect on millions of people, with higher energy bills, higher taxes, higher food costs because of insane biofuels policies, etc.

        It has NOTHING to do with “THE science” anymore, It is ALL politics.

      • Griff sees

        ‘many commenters here, who reject climate science.’
        __________________________

        So Griff is a honorable man:

        accepting climate science.

      • Anyone else notice how leftists in general, and leftwing environmentalists in particular insist on believing that there is no such thing as an honest disagreement.
        Anyone who disagrees with them does so from dishonest motives. At best.

      • “Kamikazedave – come on, you know the orthodox science viewpoint on that…and all the evidence to the contrary on this website hasn’t yet convinced me its wrong.
        so lets not have that conversation here, eh?”

        Pretty simple question if the climate is in half the crisis state you appear to think it is in. Not surprised you nor any other alarmist I converse with can’t answer it.

      • I don’t reject climate science. But there are a lot of things being floated out there in the name of science that are not. That’s what I reject. My favorite three, and also the central to the CAGW theory:
        1.) Thinking that we can currently measure the average global temperature to within a hundredth or even tenth of a degree.
        2.) Believing that we can “recreate” the pre-measurement temperature record using proxies such as tree rings within any useful error envelope.
        3.) Believing that woefully incomplete process models (written by non software professionals) can tell us what the global temperature will be 100 years, let alone 10 years, in the future.

        Not that any of those areas is unworthy of further study, but making any conclusions at this point is NOT science. And making public policy based on them is idiocy.

    • Stephen, the thing to really understand is that the alarmist is basing his position on computer modeling, while the opposition – there are no climate change deniers – base their positions on observations and data.

      If you have ever played the game Sim City or Sim Farm, then you recognize that they “simulate” what running a city or a farm is like, but they won’t give you the ability to run a city or a farm. They can simulate perhaps thousands of aspects about these simple things, but they can’t “model” running either.

      Consider the stock market- there are probably 100s of thousands of factors involved in attempting to predict the stock market, and no one has written a program that successfully models it.

      The climate has an unknown number of factors that no one really knows exactly how they will interact although they have a rough idea of how some of them can and do. You can “simulate” the climate, based on that, just as you could the stock market, but you cannot “model” what you do not know. And when the “simulations” they call models run, they cannot duplicate reality any better than Sim City does.

      The alarmist is willing to change the life potential of every person on Earth, to limit their hopes and dreams, based on the output of simulations that do not agree with reality. Those of us that oppose them feel that there is no proof that their claims hold water because it flies in the face of the reality of the data. We don’t “deny” climate changes because it always has, but we do oppose being forced to give up life and its potential “because a poor simulation” predicts that something bad will happen 200 years from now if we don’t kill off half or more of the people on the planet, That is what stopping the use of carbon based energy would do. Other than God, do you know who has the right to choose to kill that many people?

  7. Sounds like loads of fun responding to ill informed, manipulated minds and opinions. When I observe such behavior, the only thing that interests me is their information sources and how they got to where they are now. A number of years ago I heard several people talking about how Ireland’s educational system accounted for that countries economic success (before the Great Recession). I knew there was a lot more to the story than education (e.g. corporate tax system and EU entry point) but I was fascinated at how effective the misinformation line had spread a story along social interest lines like education spending. (The same story applies to Switzerland and its global tax cheating.) And when you try to give a short version of the real story to catch them up or a broader view, it comes across as hopeless as trying to tell someone the age of the earth compared to evangelical notions. None of them are really interested in anything beyond their own shaped opinions. So next time turn it into an interesting search of how people fall into intellectual ruts…..and order something easy on the menu to get out fast.

    • “I knew there was a lot more to the story than education (e.g. corporate tax system and EU entry point) but I was fascinated at how effective the misinformation line had spread a story along social interest lines like education spending.”

      It is also disturbing to see just how long some of these propaganda lies can continue to thrive, even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.

      It is true that if you repeat a lie often enough, the lie will become the “truth”, especially if those repeating the lies are those who have influence and authority in the society. The Leftwing Media fits this bill in the United States. The Left has taken over the Media and use it to spread their propaganda and lies, and it has been very effective for them.

      But things seem to be changing. The Leftwing Media’s approval ratings are the lowest they have ever been, and their obvious partisan attacks on Trump going forward, will only alienate them further from the American people. Let’s hope enough of them are alienated to put Trump into Office. If I was a betting man, I would say there are already enough.

      Have you seen Trump’s rallies? Have you seen Hillary’s? Like Day and Night. Trump can’t find a venue big enough to hold his crowds, and Hillary has to use visual tricks to hide how few people attend her rallies.

      Expect an all-out, frenetic attack on Trump from the Left from now until the election. They have run out of distortions to use, so now they are creating outright lies in their efforts to harm Trump.

      Think of the ramifications for the CAGW theory if Trump is elected! It will be a whole new ballgame then. Maybe we can get a little sanity back in our lives. 49 days.

  8. Ignorant left wingers belieive in the fairies and leprecauns with respect to economic relations. Why do you think these self proclaimed idiot-fools would listen to actual Scientists instead of left wing non-scientific fools? they would much rather agree with Castro and Chavez who took the highest per capita income Latin American societies and turned them into basket cases just like Haiti?

  9. “Global warming/climate change activists now view the threat as of the same magnitude as the rise of National Socialist (Nazi) aggression in the late 1930s”

    Talk about pot-kettle-black.’

    The fact that these fascists deride anyone whi even looks lik ethey might gainsay their ravings as ‘deniers’ is just particulaly vicious irony.

  10. I suffered almost exactly the same fate when I went for coffee with my wife’s swimming group on the Friday morning after the UK’s EU referendum. When I said that I thought that leaving the EU might free the UK from some of the crazy EU climate anxiety driven energy policies, one lady piped up “Oh, yes, you’re a climate denier!” and made it clear that the topic was not up for discussion. I wasn’t even allowed to find out what she meant by the term. Out of politeness I desisted. Maybe we’ll have them round for dinner so I can’t be told to shut up.
    I got an even more spectacular response at a meal with other friends once when the topic of renewables etc was being chewed over. I mentioned that I couldn’t see what was wrong with nuclear power for low CO2 electricty generation. The poor lady at whom the remark was directed went red and nearly choked on her food. She clearly wasn’t used to hearing opinions that she didn’t agree with.

    • Well, the reaction is because so many people with similar views also have a batch of weird reasons to go with them.

      If saying that its all a UN plot is as valid a reason for opposing the science of climate change as doubts over historic sea ice figures, then the skeptic side will lose out. Skeptics need to actively weed out – how can I say this? – the loonies if the (skeptic) science is to stand. Steve Goddard for example is not a releiable source.

      It doesn’t help that so much effort on the skeptic side goes to repeating things which plainly and objectively aren’t true – thee is not more CO2 from volcanoes than human activity.

      And when a skeptic paid for piece of research shows that no, the surface temperature record is not rigged, you would do well to accept the evidence.

      I’m not impressed either by the cherry picking either… the one arctic sea ice chart which shows the most thick ice – why always pick that one to illustrate the article?

      • Some are, Roger. Remember how Anthony had to permanently ban that group he called the “Sky Dragons” for claiming that the greenhouse effect didn’t exist? There are all sorts of fools, even on this site, and the reasonable voices often get drowned out.

        I confess that I get a twinge every time someone says “Agenda 21” because it devolves into a conspiracy theory. That sort of thing undermines everything we are trying to do.

      • roger, you have to remember how the mind of a leftist works.
        If one skeptic says something ludicrous, it immediately becomes something that all skeptics believe.
        On the other hand, anyone on their side that says something ludicrous instantly becomes a non-entity. Even if that person had been quoted in almost every journal and article up to that point.

      • You appear to be a bigot on this, Griff since many warmists sites don’t even allow skeptical comments at all,not even civil ones which is the common type.

        You whine about Steven Goddard so much, but when you have posted there,you get taken to the school on the many things you leave out. Meanwhile you are able to post there without trouble despite it. Tony has proved beyond doubt using ONLY GISS own data sets,Charts and their own postings.

        Then you say skeptics get paid to produce papers to fit a narrow view (a stupid claim long debunked years ago),meanwhile huge environmentalists sites gets hundred millions to BILLION a year, to push all kinds of scaremongering crap.

        Grow up Griff!

  11. ..In reality, the only ” Climate Change Deniers” are liberals, who some how believe that the climate has never changed until Big Bad Humans came along…I am proud to be a Climate Change believer………and a ” Deplorable ” !!

    • Marcus, what was all the flap about “deplorables”? (i haven’t found it within myself to care enough about it to look it up… ☺)

      • “what was all the flap about “deplorables”?”

        In a speech about a week ago, Hillary said that she thought about half of Trump’s supporters could be put into a “bowl of deplorables” such as racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes, etc. Basically, Hillary was calling Trump and his supporters a bunch of Nazis. This is a standard attack by the Left on the Right. They do it all the time, and will do it a whole lot over the next 49 days.

        Hillary’s “deplorables” comment caused a backlash, which caused Hillary to try to walk back her statement a little by saying she should not have said “half”. She did not say whether she really meant more or less than half.

        So some of Trump’s supporters are wearing the “Deplorables” like a badge of honor.

  12. My wife’s friend says, eyes closed, “I don’t want to discuss it, anymore.”

    That, right there, is where I always wind up. No matter how carefully you construct your side of the argument, once you get them backed into a corner from which there is no escape, they just want to change the subject. Changing their minds apparently isn’t an option.

    • Such behavior is a sign of trauma. Brains get rewired by angst and experience, so that almost literally, the traumatized person cannot entertain a contradictory thought. Doing so causes too much psychological pain.

      The only cure, typically, is some sort of shock therapy — not electrical shock, but some experiential shock that is so strong as to cause the prior traumatic wiring to come undone.

      • “The only cure, typically, is some sort of shock therapy — not electrical shock, but some experiential shock that is so strong as to cause the prior traumatic wiring to come undone.”

        Trump ought to be some good shock therapy for the Left. :) They are already in a frenzy, and he hasn’t even been elected yet.

      • In reply to David- We had that problem in California under Governor Grey Davis. After that experience, I’m surprised that not all Californians are CAGW cynics.

  13. Hey, mods, how come y’all ain’t “snipping” all the d-words? (☺)

    i think the idea is to not be antagonistic with those in the agw crowd. You’ve got to remember that very few supporters of agw know all that much about it. It only seems like they do because we are climate change junkies and most of those we engage with in the blogosphere actually do know a thing or two about it. So, one might want to be empathetic with those on the left, engaging them in a way to make them feel better about climate change. Maybe explaining “the pause” would be a good idea. Or, explaining how the pause has confirmed the “jesus cycle” of 30 year periods of natural warming/cooling that go back to the beginnings of the global temperature record (and the implications of said cycle). Or, my personal favorite, tell them how the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate has been tracking with temperature for over half a century of record keeping. (the implication here being that, at the very least, small reductions in emissions aren’t the answer anyway) If the people you’re discussing with are genuinely concerned about the environment, then they should welcome these easy to present paradigms with open arms. AND, it will help allay their concerns about climate change at the same time…

    • There you go – you assume all people accepting AGW are of the left.

      They aren’t. Its not a left/right issue.

      I’m not of the left.

      • The problem with your statement is that many on the left are SO far left they often seem to think anyone slightly to Their right is automatically Hard Right. I see that with people claiming Shrillary is a conservative!

      • A lot depends on your environment.
        I’ve seen socialists in environments dominated by full blown communists, declare, without a hint of embarrassment that they were conservative.

      • Yes, griff, but it’s generally not people on the right who get all up tight about it. (at least that’s been my experience) So discussing with a moderate or conservative agw believer is a non issue…

      • Griff-san:

        CAGW has always been a POLITICAL phenomenon and not a physical one.

        Until Leftist ideology is abandoned, political hacks will always implement various scare tactics to control, oppress and steal from its citizens.

        CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis.

        I think Leftist hacks will soon switch to promoting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global COOLING (CAGC), since they already have a gigantic government/academic bureaucracy established to extort money and power from taxpayers with climactic scare tactics…

        That’s one of the reasons Leftist hacks seldom use the word “Global Warming”, and now call it “Climate Change”….

        It’s become a joke to any thinking and rational adult..

  14. Those who Believe can not be reached intellectually. Talking or reasoning with them is pointless and just wasted breath.

    • …..and the believers don’t understand the differences between science and a cult/religion. They don’t undestand how scientific discourse is supposed to work (i.e., the scientific method).

      I’m not even a scientist, and I believe I understand them fairly well.

  15. In the Olden Days, the advice for dinner-party etiquette was: “*Never* discuss Sex, Religion & Politics!” to which ‘Weather’ should be added, lest it be conflated with ‘Climate’, and away we go!

  16. I had a discussion like that with my sister…..she’s almost exactly like that woman…….
    All she said was what you normally hear

    97% percent meme
    I trust what NASA says
    I don’t want to talk about it
    Didn’t know anything about the subject really

    • The come back with the 97% meme is easy… just say, oh, you mean like spencer, christy, curry, and lindzen (among others) who are all part of the 97%?

      • Trying to reason with cultists is of course futile but I like the approach already mentioned by asking that if they genuinely believe in something as, well catastrophic, as CAGW, why do they continue to use fossil fuels (usually more-so than the general population particularly jet fuel)?
        Another approach is to adopt the caricature used by John Kerry and others and ask why they believe that the Earth is not flat, is it because 97% of scientists say it’s an oblate spheroid?
        Or is it because of multiple strands of evidence including the dwindling cohort who have seen it with their own eyes from 384,000 km away.
        What are the corresponding lines of evidence that the CO2 concentration over 350 ppm has or will cause a catastrophic outcome that justifies the predictable catastrophic social outcomes of eliminating fossil fuels?
        The fall-back position is always the insurance (false) analogy and so-called precautionary principle.

      • Toneb — If we look at IPCC AR5 on definition of climate change, it consists of natural variability and trend. it is clear that global warming is different from human effect in trend component. More than half after 1951 is due to greenhouse effect that includes global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase and volcanic aerosols, etc. Less than half is due to non-greenhouse effect — this is highly local and regional component. That is changes in land & water use & change expressed by urban heat-island effect and rural cold island effect. If we look at historical met network, they are heavily concentrated in urban areas — most of the coastal cities are urban in nature. The density in rural areas is sparse.

        That means, trend is caused by human action but all is not global warming component.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • There you go with that lie again.
        The survey asked about significant, which to a statistician could mean as little as 5%. They said nothing about “most” or “largely”.

      • Toneb: This is the bait and switch tactic we see so frequently among the politicized alarmists that folks have been discussing with Griff and it is a truly despicable tactic in my opinion. It doesn’t at all improve the debate and is probably best classified as simple mud slinging.

        There are no scientists I know personally or who I respect professionally that are skeptical Earth’s climate has warmed during the Holocene. It’s remarkable your chart shows as high a fraction as it appears to, and that of course leads me to suspect the survey used to collect the responses was seriously flawed.

        It’s downright intentionally misleading to conflate the term “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” with anthropogenic versions of either one. Doing so doesn’t add any support at all to the science and makes you appear ignorant of the issue.

      • Toneb: Whoops.

        I see your chart is qualified with “Caused by humans”. My criticism of other such surveys not so qualified remains.

        “Largely” isn’t much of a measure, certainly subjective. “Caused by humans” is vague. Actuall attribution of cause hasn’t been verified by observation. So even though you’ve presented a survey that at least differentiates warming from anthropogenic warming, it’s still nothing more than an opinion poll.

    • Did you ask her how many scientists that 97% percent actually reflected. I have a neighbor who has become converted to “neutral” on climate because I send him real data, papers, and methodology to quarrel with. He remains “neutral” because he has other friends who really are worried about the climate. Anyone who actually makes a practice of thinking critically, asking questions of and about the information they have been offered can close their eyes, and then open them, sigh and tackle the hard part. The “meme” seeks out the impressionable, trusting, uncritical, and slow of thought.

      • “Anyone who actually makes a practice of thinking critically, asking questions of and about the information they have been offered can close their eyes, and then open them, sigh and tackle the hard part. ”

        Interesting:
        So you are essentially saying that the consensus science as published by the IPCC is not the real consensus (in which case why isn’t the real consensus drowning out the IPCC … and, no, they’re not + the IPCC is therefor acting fraudulently – which leads us straight to conspiracy).
        Or else the consensus science is done by scientists who don’t make “a practice of thinking critically”.

        As so often, down the rabbit-hole logic.

        Clue:
        a) The majority of the worlds Earth scientists (not just in climate), are incompetent.
        b) They are acting fraudulently ( fill in for reason(s) ).
        c) They know more than you.

        The answer (above ground) is blatantly obvious ….. to people who “make a practise of thinking critically”

      • ” Anyone who actually makes a practice of thinking critically, asking questions of and about the information they have been offered can close their eyes, and then open them, sigh and tackle the hard part. The “meme” seeks out the impressionable, trusting, uncritical, and slow of thought.”

        Ok, essentially you are saying with the above that:

        Either….
        a) Most Earth scientists (not just climatologists) are incompetent.
        b) Most of the above are dishonest.
        c) They know more than you.

        So you dismiss (c) as the blatantly obvious answer to your question and that “practice of thinking critically” that you use as the argument against consensus science is actually the logical flaw in your own.

        That you do not *get* the illogical hubris of your conclusion is the staggering lack of “thinking critically” of it my friend.

      • “scientists” produce papers but the media do not show their conclusions and doubts but summaries made by bureaucrats. Science is no longer independent because of state subsidies.

      • Toneb. Just because someone knows more than you doesn’t mean you cannot disagree with their conclusions. Napoleon could forget more strategy than I will even learn over breakfast. However, Even my 7-year old could see that invading Russia in fall is a bad idea. (“Daddy, isn’t it really cold up there”). I’m not a doctor, but I can see that using chiropractic massage to correct calcium deficiencies doesn’t add up. I cannot measure the distance between here and the moon, it’s weight, or certianly it’s density. However, if you told me that the moon had a density of 5 g/m^3, I would tell you that you are an idiot.

        Similarly, if you tell me that doubling CO2 will cause 4.5C of warming and at 400 ppm from 260 ppm, we have less than 1C of warming, high school level algebra can tell you that you are off by a factor of two or more. Much less try and tell me that absorption is exponential, in direct contradiction to Beer’s law, which any chemist, physicist, or engineer, should be at least marginally familiar with.

      • consensus in fact is a “religious” type of argument. Religious thesis become true by threats and endless repetition, providing that heretics are silenced. Science becomes true by observation and quantification.
        As science progressed, earthquakes become geology, plagues became biology, thunder and lightning became physics. However the climate being hardly understood may very well serve as divine speaking tube.
        Climate alarmism = religion.

      • With only a few minutes of research you can find dozens of instances in which a “consensus” in science was over turned as new evidence was examined.

      • Tommy: It’s important I think to remember there really is a correct and useful definition of scientific consensus before dismissing it completely. As I understand it, a scientific consensus is formed by advancing a hypothesis, creating an experiment that can be tested against the null hypothesis, performing that experiment and ruling out the null hypothesis (e.g. Human generated CO2 has no effect on global enthalpy), then having that experiment repeated and independently verified. I believe that’s a “scientific consensus”.

        That differs from a social consensus; an opinion poll that asks “Do you think human activity is the principal cause of Global Warming on Earth?”, which doesn’t form a scientific consensus.

        I think it’s important to make those terms clear to people involved in the conversation. It avoids a lot of needless heat and light.

  17. Here’s the plan. Initiate the carbon tax during El Nino years and then wait and raise it again during the next El Nino. They won’t know any better and using portions of the revenue to buy votes with unrelated spending allocations works too.

  18. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    The sense and rationale that underpins Walters’ essay is catastrophically frightening and his measured reasoning against imminent climate armageddon should scoffed at and banned under the RICO act.

  19. Perhaps the answer is to evoke a 12 step program to allow the alarmists back into society. They clearly subscribe to the mantra “Stop the world – I want to get off!” It could be named “Climate Change Anonymous”

  20. I always find it strange that given the ‘science is settled’, alarmists seem to produce a ‘new study’ on a regular basis that always seems to show X, Y or Z is ‘worse than previously thought’. If correct then by definition that means the previous ‘settled science’ 1. wasn’t settled and 2. was wrong!

  21. U don;t want to nitpick Walter but warming did not start in 1880 as they tell us. Cooling started in that year and lasted until 1910, well into the beginning of the twentieth century. People publishing these data are so arrogant that they take the liberty to draw a straight line through real temperature changes that go up and down. This is not the only such instance – their variations on this theme continue when their straight line ignores the warming between 1910 and 1940. From 1880 to 1940 is sixty years of global temperature data ignored by their supposed average temperature curve. If you ask them why, they tell you that such differences are only random deviations from a true warming curve. That means that first a thirty-year cooling is thrown out and next a thirty-year warming is lowered. What comes next you might want to know. What comes next is a precipitous temperature drop in 1940 that brought us the bone-chilling cold of World War II. There have been complaints about the way the temperature curve is used with the result that some big shots now admit that anthropogenic global warming first becomes observable in 1950. But what about their previous claim that global warming started at the beginning of the industrial age, in 1850? Oh, that is easy to explain away. Global warming signs are part of the temperature record even though we can’t see them because they are too weak to see. That technically still leaves their earlier claim that warming started with the beginning of the industrial age intact. Except that you and I can’t see it.. To me they simply don’t exist. But if there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming we must advance its starting point by 100 years, from 1850 to 1950, to bring it in line with observations, if any.

  22. I don’t think it is worthwhile arguing global warming with friends or acquaintances that believe in it. You can make your point on discussion boards etc. where you get to present the evidence. But with friends, you just expend too much rapport and they never change their mind anyway.

    “13,000 years ago, there was a mile of ice above us (or just north of us)” and that is usually enough to get to think about climate change more critically without giving away your position or losing that rapport.

    After all, what you really want is for them to start thinking for themselves or to simply to ask themselves, “maybe this is not true”. You are not going to get them to change their opinion on the spot.

    Maybe 6 months from now is what you should be thinking about. “I remember when you said X and I have thought about it a lot more …” would be the absolute best impact that a skeptic can have on a believer. This is the way to approach it.

    • I have come to favour the stupid questions approach. Stupid questions are questions I already know the answer to, but prompt research on the part of the other party. Sadly, the same experience, you can lead them to water but you can’t make them drink for the most part. But you don’t piss anyone off (or not as much) and you sometimes get them to an aha! moment:

      blah blah blah blah the people who put the man on the moon
      Yeah, pretty silly to argue with those guys. Hey, wasn’t there a letter from a bunch of the Apollo and ISS scientists to Holdren complaining about something that whatshisname, Hansen said?

      blah blah blah blah 97%
      Yeah, the Cook et al study right? (They don’t actually know, so they walk face first into this one with a “yes” every time) Didn’t one of the IPCC authors… Richard Tol or someone, publish something about that study?

      blah blah blah blah models
      Yeah, they’ve got some serious compute power. I’m all confused though because the IPCC decided to replace their output with expert opinion. I don’t get it, why run the models if they are just going to use someone’s opinion instead? Something about the models being too hot, I should look that up sometime, see what it is about.

      • Using a question approach is a generically goid way of arguing as its not you having to defend your statements but your friends acquaintances having to explain themselves which usually they cant
        Some good leading questions include
        1Have you heard of the IPCC
        2 Do you know how many reports they have made
        3 Do you know what temperature increaded the IPCC made in its first report compared with its most recent
        4 Do you know what their modt recent report said about frequency and severity of droughts and hurricanes under climate change
        Changing tack

        5 can you name 3 greenhouse gases?
        6 can you state what percent of the atmosphere they constitute?
        7 which is the strongest green house gas and why?

        And the $64000 clincher
        8 can you give a summary of how the theory of enhanced global warming is claimed to operate
        Pretty much none of them will be able to answer the last one while few will get many of the prior ones either

        Then suggest (politely ) that possibly they may not know or understand the very idea they profess to believe in
        One lefty I ran some of the above past said he had never read that water vapour was a greenhouse gas( so of course if he had not read it then it was of course simply not true!)

    • Ah, but when they ask you what you think should be done about climate change, what do you say? I tell them the truth; I’m not worried about. They then ask but why not? Better to have an explanation locked and loaded. Then if they send you a media link to “help” you understand, you respond with a link to a professional paper or a pdf of one that shoots the media interpretation out of the water. A particularly nice touch is to use the original paper and show your interlocutor how “the media” either completely misunderstood or lied.

      • Ah, but when they ask you what you think should be done about climate change, what do you say?

        I love that question!

        Well, I don’t really know. I just don’t think we should be denying a billion people access to clean drinking water, sewage treatment and electricity. Do you?

        Careful where you go with that line of reasoning, things can get heated fast. But there are a ton of variants on that. It is an opening that you can drive a lot of points through.

      • Duster, that doesn’t work if they start with the Lewandosky paper saying that you are an insane conspiracy theorist.

  23. Just had a similar argument on LinkedIN with an engineer.

    I got down to, with a limited bucket money you can choose, how many people die to today of preventable causes or green power. You can’t do both.

    Please tell me how many people is OK to die per year of preventable diseases. Me – none.

    SILENCE.

    • Since CAGW is now a political not scientific oddity I take a similar approach, if the UN were serious about eliminating poverty it would be building and operating power infrastructure right across the third world. Until poverty, crime/terrorism and war are eliminated and all disease conquered, and rolled out to all the peoples of earth, I am not prepared to put a single cent into reducing the temperature in 100 years by 0.1 degrees.

      Instead warmers (like yourself implied) want to reduce CO2 and therefore temperature both of which will reduce food availability – reducing CO2 levels is a crime against humanity.

      • It could be argued that “renewables” are killing millions, if one includes those choking to death on the smoke generated by burning cow dung etc on an interior fire. Not to mention all the pensioners who freeze to death in their own homes because they cannot afford the energy bills. Energy bills that went fantastically higher due to renewables.

      • No just a few thousand birds, and the people without fresh water and food because resources are wasted on fantasy energy production that could be put to good use. Oh, and the taxes on ‘carbon’, another waste.

  24. Mr. Deny asks;

    “How have the global warming/climate change alarmists convinced much of the public—and of course the mainstream media, but that’s a given—that this multi-decade, sometimes multi-century prediction of the Earth’s weather, down to a degree or two, is as irrefutable, as undeniable, as the most studied and described event of the 20th Century?”

    I believe they accomplished this because the “table was set” so to speak, in advance. And that this involved first virtually “enthroning” science in the minds of most children (myself included), through heavy duty indoctrination, over the course of many years. Suitable scientists were idolized/lionized and all technological/societal advances were framed as derivative of scientific progress, while all other contributory factors and people were downplayed and often tarnished/vilified in various ways.

    The CAGW gang didn’t take the world by storm, I don’t believe, they just stepped into a role already outlined and prepared for them to act out, so as to justify using well publicized sciency stuff as a club to beat opponents of establishment/Government monopolization of power and authority over the head with. The world had already been taken by storm, by the time “Climate Change” was selected as a vehicle for completing the transition to a “controlled society” model, without the general population realizing the “rule by consent of the governed” model had been ditched, I believe.

    The notions of “settled science” and “consensus science” were gradually normalized, and by the time the CAGW train got rolling in earnest, it was mundane to hear opposing views mocked and butchered, with TV talking head presenters rolling their eyes and chuckling when someone vastly better informed about a given matter tried to buck the established sacred “facts” of science . .

    In short; the CAGW is a byproduct, I believe, of a gradually established cult of Big Siants, not the driving force it might appear to be now . .

    [Big Siants? Big Science? or Big Saints? .mod]

  25. Odd how “global warming” is now so often coupled with the
    philosophically rancid “climate change”. Notwithstanding that
    it is doubly incorrect, at least “global warming” has some meaning,
    whereas “climate change” is just noise.

      • ..Hey Griff, maybe you should have read the ” CORRECTION” at the bottom of the page…

        *Correction (Apr. 28 at 16:45 UTC): I originally wrote that Luntz coined the term “climate change”, but the term was apparently first used in a 1975 paper by geochemist Wallace Broecker. Luntz heavily promoted the term for the reasons given above. My thanks to Ceth Eslick on Twitter for the correction”

        …D’oh !

      • ..And from “SkepticalScience”…..

        “The term ‘climate change’ has its origins further back in time. In 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a seminal study called “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”. In 1977 the journal Climatic Change made its first appearance. Within another decade, the term ‘climate change’ was in common use, and embedded in the name of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was formed in 1988.”

        Double D’oh !!

  26. You are right Its all pervasive
    Southern Australia has just had a very cold wet winter
    (Cold by Australian but not by US or Europe standards max temps some days around 10 c)
    I emailed some friends in UK and US about
    high rainfall 35 inches in 9 months cf 24 for all of 2015
    Both responded “its climate change”
    I pointed out that Australia was notorious for
    Its cycle of droughts and floods as celebrated
    in an 100 year old poem so not necessarily mmcc
    I also mentioned some of our green tinged
    advisers to state governments has opined
    ” our dams may never fill again” at the end of
    a ten year drought.
    one labor state government bought this line and heavily invested in very costly desalination
    plant with a take or pay clause favouring the French contractor
    Not hard to guess they rains started about the time the work finished and state taxpayers
    are still paying the contractor but not taking as our dams are now full with floods across much of said state
    Stony silence from afffronted climate change
    believer in the UK against this assault on her
    belief system by me by metely stating a few
    “Inconvenient facts”to quote Al Gore

    tome

  27. So at this restaurant, did they fish? beef? lamb? vegetables?
    Or did they order the “Soylent Green with frites?”

  28. I see slandering Sou (aka Miriam O’brien of Hotwhopper) managed to get a comment in Walter’s page. Typical of the inane drivel you normally hear from her she went with the well worn Climate Skeptics are insane line in an almost ironic case of self projection.

  29. “A couple weeks ago, my wife and I had dinner with a long-time friend of hers and her boyfriend…My wife warned me that they were “very Left,” “big Sanders supporters, now Hillary supporters,” and “politically correct.” I hoped that the restaurant’s cuisine would be endlessly fascinating material for conversation, but, just in case, I boned up on Jane Austen’s novels.”

    Good plan!

    Yes it is always nice if you can find something in common. I have been recently very pleasantly surprised that my very left-leaning dad, who I did not know very well and who lives on another planet in an alternate universe, had been following Brexit, and thought they had done the right thing.

    Not only that, but he was very opposed to TTP, and I hope by extension, TTIP; and further, he opposed the burning of our trees in Drax, a converted coal plant in England. He also believed that the Fed was unconstitutional and fiat money was illegal. On all of these subjects he was not only informed but had signed petitions.

    Well I’ll be Jane Austen.

    By the way, not only is Donald J Trump aware of TTIP, a secret trade/green regulation agreement being drawn up with the European Union, but he has said that he would never sign TTIP or any other bad trade deals. And he is on record discussing very favorably the bill to audit the Fed. Who knows, if we can each admit our own pride and prejudice maybe we can keep out of some very bad treaties.

    • “By the way, not only is Donald J Trump aware of TTIP, a secret trade/green regulation agreement being drawn up with the European Union, but he has said that he would never sign TTIP or any other bad trade deals. And he is on record discussing very favorably the bill to audit the Fed. Who knows, if we can each admit our own pride and prejudice maybe we can keep out of some very bad treaties.”

      Trump said he was studying the NAFTA treaty last week (he said: “I like looking at things like that”, with a little smile). He said he couldn’t believe how bad NAFTA was for the U.S. It was a one-way street for the U.S. with jobs and manufacturing leaving and nothing coming in. He said, “When is the last time you heard a news report of some factory relocating to the U.S. because of NAFTA?” I don’t recall any.

      Anyway, Trump knows how to read treaties/business agreements, and I think you can bet he is going to be looking at all these things if he gets elected. This is why the elites in Washington DC, Democrats and Republicans alike, are so opposed to Trump. Trump is going to upset their little applecart. But in the process he is going to make things better for millions of people around the world.

  30. I suppose I never really cared about the debate or lack thereof in the first place. My father was a scientist who both believed in global climate change and also believed that there’s no reason to do anything about it. Even if something bad happens, people can adapt.

    The entirety of the climate debate in this comment section seems to be focused on complaining about people, which is a crying shame. As with all politics, mudslinging and political brown nosing are ever prevalent. My close friends who are die-hard Republicans that argue for liberal demands insist that Bill Clinton was garbage because of his sexual intentions, to which I’d respond well what does that have to do with politics? Only one president is confirmed (not 100% mind you) of not cheating to begin with. And your hero, Reagan introduced divorce, I’d imagine in a similar fashion to the innovative Henry the 8th.

    Meanwhile my liberal friends argue that Clinton HAS to be the best presidency because of our economic surplus and I of course reply that the president doesn’t control the economy like you’re saying. Let’s be honest, the federal reserve does more. Now I’m not saying that the president doesn’t have any say, but government power over the economy is divided up with the presidency and Congress, and most of its policy changes experience a lag time. Furthermore when I introduced the idea that Trumps campaign has had several positive impacts upon our society, they turn their noses away in disgust before I can utter out words about how it has brought attention to American fear mongering and the influence of sensationalist media upon our decisions.

    If you’ve gotten this far, continue to hear me out. I am not a pessimist in all senses, but rather I’d like us all to admit our flaws and narrow-mindedness. When we lump entire groups of people toget her we are making it impossible not to be fallacious in our arguments.

    And yeah, it’s true that I like Republicans And Democrats. For example, while it should be clear I dislike Uncle Ted Cruz’s idea of carpet bombing the Middle East (I should mention now I’m not very pro war, especially if it has to do with PNAC), Rep. Lindsey Graham explained that neither carpet bombing nor Islamophobia is appropriate, but a war was necessary to depose the corrupt Muslims and allow true Islamic beliefs to reinstate peace over there. I find recent Republican and now Democrat policies on not allowing a bill to pass if you can’t have your way stupid, but I can commend several Democratic leaders on their initiative to institute various changes they believe are correct, some of which will be revisited in the main point.

    This is my main point. I don’t care if the Earth significantly changes the way it looks in the future because I believe in human innovation and perserverance. What I do have an issue with, however, is that island nations such as Samoa or Vanuatu are experiencing loss of land from the immediate effects of whatever the hell is going on. I don’t care if the change is cyclical or if it will be permanent, I care that people on the Internet see fit to call one another hypocrites and argue semantics than figure out solutions for entire populations of people who are sufferring or dying out.

    If California experiences a drought, the question isn’t whether or not we should concede to the drought or deny it. We should evaluate that due to present circumstances, significant changes must occur. I also do not see the downside of investing into renewable energies. If private corporations start that initiative, then go for it. If the government wants to fund projects and you have a complaint, exercise your right to vote more and write to your politicians.

    And the last point is. I don’t understand why people surrender to the notions that the climate is unstoppable when it is obviously not understood to the point where we can manipulate it (arguing from the fact there are so many disagreements). Say that the 20 year (or however long cycle) exists, potentially one day we could have theasily understanding and capabilities to warm the planet when it cools and cool it when it warms. Or conversely, say that the planet is warming due to CO2. If we understand it better and implement valid solutions, then we could combat such a trend. But as of right now, our options are limited so for better or worse we will weather the storm. I didn’t say choose here, I said we will. But even though we can’t do anything about it now, it is counterproductive to assume that no benefit will arise from treating climate -whatever it may be- as a genuine issue that we may one day handle.

    In the end we just argue semantics when, as one person has stated, there are always multiple causes and reactions to every phenomenon. As much as our opponents may cover their ears, perhaps we ourselves have to understand that there is so much more complexity to the issue, and that there will always be middle ground from which we can springboard onto mutual understanding and learning. A few centuries ago the earth was the center of the universe, and opponents believed that the sun was the center of the universe. While neither is correct, neither argument was technically wrong at the time either because of how limited knowledge and understanding was back then.

    Perhaps right now we are at the cusp of understanding a new breakthrough. Perhaps we will find that every argument has been wrong. Perhaps it will happen after our deaths. But regardless of all of that, looking down on loosely defined groups of people from either side should not be promoted in any way. Let’s stop locking up discussion and try to find progress instead.

    • At least two First Ladies were divorced before Reagan: Rachel Jackson and Betty Ford. Jackson however died after Andy’s election but before she could serve as First Lady.

      That the Clintons weren’t divorced just shows how meaningless their marriage is. It’s not a marriage but a criminal conspiracy. Chelsea’s biological dad is Webb Hubbell.

    • You miss the entire point that this is all about controlling people and their money. That’s right I said the people and THEIR money. The government has no money, it does not create money (let’s skip the printing press for now), it only takes other people’s money.
      So in order to control the people you must control their money.
      Dictatorship 101:
      1. take their money
      2. take their guns
      3. take their freedom.

      If all the do gooders worried about climate change really believed that it was such a major threat to humans they would gladly give up all their money to the cause. Fat chance on that happening.

    • Oliver writes:

      A few centuries ago the earth was the center of the universe, and opponents believed that the sun was the center of the universe.

      As it turns out, contemporary observational data from our deep space telescopes show this theory was in fact correct; we live in an isotropic universe expanding in all directions from the observers point of reference. In fact, wherever you are is the center of the universe. Odd isn’t it? Surprised me too.

  31. A young lad ( well okay mid thirties) and I got into the CC debate, I am a skeptic, he sure is a warmist. When I asked what he did for a living he enthusiastically explained he was an assistant manager for a grocery chain and working his way up the ladder of management eventually hoping to own his own store ( franchise).

    So how do the grocery stores get supplied every day I asked,?

    It is amazing , he answered, all night long we have the suppliers come with their truc……..

    end of conversation.

    ( I didn’t get into the energy the stores uses for refrigeration, lighting, cash registers etc , wasn’t needed.

  32. As a teen growing up in Northern Canada (Blind River) , my one and only dream was that when I grew up to be an adult, I would never again have to suffer through another winter of walking through six feet of snow just to get to school….My cousins children still live there..they share the same dream….Still !! ….Think about it…

  33. Climatism is merely one manifestation of Leftist ideology based on the anti-human premise that individuals are incapable and/or unwilling to run their own lives and require large, powerful and expansive governments to control every aspect of their lives.

    Leftist governments control what we: think (public schools/MSM), what we produce (rules, regulations, taxation), what we believe (moral relativism, infallibility of the ruling class), what we say (Political Correctness nonsense) and how we live our lives (welfare, taxation, rules and regulations), which Leftist government ultimately enforce by force with the barrel of a gun.

    The beauty of CAGW (from a Leftist perspective) is that it allows government to control every aspect of human existence: our life, liberty and property. It views man as a parasite whose: innovations, productivity, rational thought, discoveries, logic, technologies, life, creativity, are existential threats to earth’s and man’s survival.

    In reality, man’s astounding accomplishments have made large tyrannical governments obsolete, which is why man’s actions must be attacked and controlled so vehemently and so comprehensively. Apart from certain essential functions, such as border security, national defense, police, the implementation and adjudication of moral and ethical laws, and international diplomacy, governments serve few useful purposes. Leftists cannot allow this to happen…

    Leftists zealots are forced to either submit to the existence of CAGW or risk the collapse of their fundamental premise of Leftist ideology.

    Leftist ideology is a 100-year failed experiment that has cost the lives of 100 million citizens around the world. The failed Leftist ideologies around the world have accumulated $60 trillion in sovereign debt, of which US alone has amassed $20 trillion and increasing on a daily basis.

    Hopefully the inevitable collapse of CAGW will expose the fundamental flaws of Leftist ideology and the blowback will create much needed reform for smaller and less obtrusive governments around the world.

    Free people living in free-market economies based on merit (not mediocrity), and the moral imperative of the non-initiation of force, with limited governments constrained by performing just a few well defined constitutional tasks is the best way to secure freedom and human advancement.

    We’ll hopefully reach that realization soon, or end up destroying ourselves.

    • ..This U.S. election will decide whether we ..”hopefully reach that realization soon, or end up destroying ourselves.”

      Save North America, vote TRUMP !

  34. With ecoloons it is better to ask what they know about the basics first. If they don’t even understand the principle of feedbacks in the GCMs then there is no point in going any further.

  35. I seem to have “lost” a few friends over this issue. They still say they love me, but will not respond to any facts I present. They just think I am stupid, or nuts, or too right wing???
    They ask me questions that would require mountains of scientific evidence, which they won’t get through the first sentence…and never do. They will never look at a video(s) I post. On Face book, I rarely get a response for any article from WUWT or Jo Nova, etc.
    I might get 1 or 2 likes…that’s it…
    How do you get through this malaise? Just wondering. Some of my correspondents are PHD’s in computer science, physics, and mathematics. Still no movement. Just frustrating.

    • Perhaps you are wrong? (just sayin’!)

      Certainly people will see the evidence you are apparently presenting as suspect…

      Jo Nova, Steve Goddard, Paul Homewood do not present valid or unbiased or scientifically accurate information in the main…

      Try reading some stuff on the other side of the debate for balance. (That’s why I’m here, getting this side of the argument)

      • Certainly Paul Homewood bases the vast majority of his blog -posts on the data. If you don’t like his interpretations, then take him to task on his blog. Jo Nova is more populist and political, but has won a series of blog awards for her work. A couple of her regulars are really clued-up. However, why are you criticising other blogs on this one? Trolling the thread? Have you nothing to say about WUWT apart from a snide opening sentence? Let’s see scientifically valid evidence in your favour, demonstrating your argument. I suspect all you’ve got is a quasi-religious belief in debunked climate alarmist theory which you dare not present on this blog.

      • Also, there are some blogs where it does not feel safe to leave your details, if you are of a contrary view.
        (I’d be delighted to be assured that wasn’t one of them)

      • Just a thought here…….. after reading and watching much, I’ve come to the conclusion the possibility of Griff being connected to the cleantech site he so often links too.
        I used to read that site but opted for the ‘remove me from your list’ response quite a while ago. Ever notice how much Griff refers to that site?
        Has there been a huge decline there at cleantech in the past couple of years? I think so.

      • Griff,

        I used to visit RealClimate,Stott and other warmists sites,but gave them up after my civil comments were being deleted. They make clear that my opposing views are not welcome,despite that I was using the IPCC sources and the official data sites in my comments.

        Please drop this crap as many here know all about it.

      • This is the funny situation: climate change “deniers” complain that the IPCC exaggerates the influence of CO2 however the environmentalists complain that the IPCC greatly underestimates the role of CO2.
        Herd cattle is managed by threats. Doomsday scenario’s are the business model of Greenpeace and it’s succes has inspired many others including governments.

  36. As a scientist living in Canada, I frequently end up having to justify my scepticism. You see, most eastern Canadians are True Believers. When pestered on the subject by harassing colleagues – they always gang up – I try to steer away from justifying my position by asking questions such as :

    – have you read the the AR5 IPCC report ? What about the SRX2 report ?
    – do you know HADCRUT, GISS, RSS or UAH datasets ? What do you think of the adjustments ?
    – what do you think about the debate on CO2 sensitivity and the role of feedbacks ? About the limitations of modelling and proxies ?
    – if we held climate science to same rigour we hold the science in our own field, most climate papers would never be published. Don’t you think this is more politics than Science ?

    Often, the first question suffices because their answer is “no” and they know I could easily follow-up with : “how can scientists rely on journalists and blindly accept the Science without knowing any of it ” ?

    Some appeal to authority. I tell them that that Climate Science is not Rocket Science and that it is easily accessible and that if I familiarized myself with it, so could they.

    This approach gets them off my back. I then soften them up by saying in closing that unfortunately this CO2 question has taken us away from other more pressing environmental issues.

    • HADCRUT, GISS, RSS or UAH datasets are frequently the subject of posts on this very blog!

      and if you are debating the science, surely you have to reference the science?

      • Griff,

        ALL of the data sets damages the IPCC’s long held AGW mantra, since they are running below the MINIMUM per decade warming projections.

        Here is this one an actual PREDICTION of BUSINESS AS USUAL emission scenario,from the 1990 report page 5:

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

        http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

        Ha ha ha ha ha……,not even close.

        Cheers.

      • Griff,

        In many of your posts you reference “THE” science. What is “THE” science?

        Is it the fr@udul*nt Cook 97% study where he reviewed almost 12,000 abstracts (not papers, abstracts) and cherry-picked 4,000 of them, then found a 97% consensus in the 4,000 (only 33% of the original total)? Is it all the failed predictions made by the IPCC and Climate scientists generally? Is it John Kerry and Obama and climate scientists in general trying to shut down debate by claiming the science is settled? Is it Stephen Schneider who said,

        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”

        or

        It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as if it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.

        Is it the apocalyptic prediction from scientist and climate activist James Hansen that

        The West Side Highway (in New York will be under water.

        due to climate change?

        Climate scientists and activists have pretty much been wrong on all of their dire predictions. You would think that after a while, they might look at that as a positive development, but instead they double down.

        So please tell me, what is “THE” science?

  37. I like the “oceans are becoming more acidic ” debunk ,it’s easy to prove its crap and then I point out if they’re lying to you on this what else are you being lied to about .

    • “I like the “oceans are becoming more acidic ” debunk ,it’s easy to prove its crap and then I point out if they’re lying to you on this what else are you being lied to about.”

      Does the “debunk” involve turning the following graph on it’s head?

      • ..So, when CO2 was 8,000 PPM, I guess the oceans were 100% acid ? How did all those poor sea creatures survive ? ..

      • You failed to realize that CO2 is currently leaving the water faster than it is entering.Not only that the ocean waters already have 99.99% of free CO2 of the system in it.

      • Where were those alleged seawater readings taken?

        You are aware, are you not, that a pH of 8.05 is still alkaline, not acidic?

        In case you’re not, some elementary chemistry. The pH scale ranges from 1.0 to 14, with 7.0 considered neutral. A pH less than 7.0 is said to be acidic, while solutions with a pH greater than 7.0 are basic or alkaline.

        Thus seawater at 8.15 or 8.05 are both basic. Seawater won’t become acidic unless it gets to at least a pH 0f 6.9. Which it won’t.

      • Toneb is a hack who can’t name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of a volume of atmospheric air.

        He thinks there’s a GHE on Venus.

        He thinks there’s one on Earth.

        Yet he can’t answer how the mathematics for solving the temperature of the Earth’s whole atmosphere, giving us the standard known internationally as

        The Standard Atmosphere

        don’t contain any green house anything, yet are the regulatory equations for everything on earth related to air temperature, or pressure.

        Green Housers are the ones who thought infrared light warmed oceans, not cools them.

  38. I think the interchange of the concept of weather and climate change is important. The fact that the AGW proponents have reduced the catastrophic warming required to avoid a global Armageddon from 2degrees to 1.5 degrees is the most bizarre aspect of this debate. In a modern world where ” weather” is able to be countered by the impact of a thermostat such that with the use of air conditioning and heaters and clothes and hats and fans and the temperature varies by anywhere from 5 to 10 degrees per days makes it difficult for any normal rational human being to regognise a two degree rise as catastrophic. Yet normal seamingly sane intelligent human beings become panicked into endorsing the expenditure of trillions of dollars to possibly prevent such a circumstance. The AGW scam has perpetuated one of the worlds most severe cases of group insanity .

  39. Since the effect of every single demand made by advocates of “climate change” converge on socialism, that tells me everything I need to know about the true meaning of this topic.

  40. I am a true believer!
    I believe that Truth needs believing.
    How is truth dissimulated?
    By True scientific evaluation.
    People are cleverer than think they are.
    But most times, the reverse is true.

  41. Slightly OT but:

    I have been digging into turbine fire issues especially the unreported ones. I came across this regarding 80,000 hectares of a national park burned due to turbine (s) failure.

    http://www.plasticstoday.com/injection-molding/are-thermoset-bearings-an

    Each year there are approximately 117 wind turbine fires, a major cause of wind farm failure, according to several reports from 2014. One of the major causes, outside of lightning, is overheated bearings and gearboxes. According to an article in Engineering Design Insider ( EDI), “wind turbines often catch fire and burn much more frequently than is reported.”

    The publication cites a study from the UK and Sweden, and researchers at Imperial College London, Edinburgh University and SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, who report that “while an average of 11.7 turbine fires are reported annually, more than 117 fires actually occur worldwide. At present, there are an estimated 200,000 turbines in operation around the world.”

    The report notes that a wind turbine fire can be more significant than other types of energy fires such as gas or oil, and gives the example of an Australian wind farm containing 112 turbines. “When one of them caught fire during a heat wave, the entire farm was shut down, cutting power to 63,000 homes,” said the report. “In addition, burning debris from the turbine ignited ground fires that destroyed 80,000 hectares of a national park. The cause of the fire was found to be electrical failure in the nacelle. Lightning strikes are the most common cause of wind turbine fires.”
    ——-

    This is what I suspect was the actual fire based on 80k hectares and location.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/05/weatern-australia-fire-quadruples-to-80000-hectares-as-abbott-offers-aid

    I have no doubt that there have been others in the Western US , Canada and elsewhere where the cause was intentionally omitted for political and other reasons. This is the first time I have (finally) found information regarding a large scale fire caused by wind turbines.

  42. There is no law of personality types that says all high school and campus freshmen radical debaters grow up over time. But the key thing to remember is they relish the debate drama over the actual issues, facts, negative impacts, and outcomes. Thus, it’s personality characteristics in place of science process or error checking.

  43. 200,000 bird chopping fire hazards that firefighters can not / will not attempt to put out…

    See page 24 of John’s 3rd link above….Simply too dangerous and Air Tankers are not allowed to be used because ” They will damage the the Turbines ” …N.U.T.S……!

  44. From reading the comments, it was nice of Sou from Hot Whopper to show up as Sou from Bundanga. Hard for her to hide her comments.

  45. …William McKibben, one of the leading global warming/climate change activists in the world.”
    I strongly doubt “leading” – “hyperactive” or ADHD – like suits him better.

  46. Weather is no more a neutral talking subject because the climateers have convinced many peoble that man can controle the weather. In fact it is worse to talk about weather than politic, because politic is local, but weather is worldwide and the climateers see themself as saving the world. So if you question the doctrine you are harmfull to the world.
    It is anyway my own explanation for the heat in debates about global warming/weather.
    The climateers can’t see that their measures often are worse than the small changes you observe in weather and climate.

  47. Over the years I’ve learned it’s best to avoid the AGW discussion. If it comes up I respond with questions, starting with a request for an explanation of the enhanced greenhouse effect, which usually ends it.

    I can only hope the pendulum will swing our way and it becomes politically acceptable to question the man-made global warming alarmist narrative.

    Along with institutional science most of our governing, media and education elites seem certain of AGW catastrophe if we don’t act now; the hot-house of thermal-runaway, extreme weather, coastal flooding, population migration, economic ruin, drought, starvation and species extinction of historical extreme, if not now, soon.

    Such is the power of media…reality is the perception of what matters, in spite of the truth. We (the public) often believe what we are led to believe even if it is incapable of happening.

  48. I managed to avoid a similar “debate” with an old high school chum on Facebook recently. He posted a recent xkcd cartoon purporting to show the rise of the global warming catastrophe, including prehistoric temperatures and the inevitable roasting of the planet in the near future.

    Now I generally enjoy xkcd, but I had to reply to his post with a link to Wm. Briggs skillful dismantling of the xkcd chart. My friend curtly replied that I had missed the point. Well, obviously he didn’t read Briggs’ article, and I was about to point this out to him, but I decided I to “walk away” instead to avoid a tiresome and time consuming confrontation. Maybe I chickened-out, but I have many things with which I must deal, and an online scuffle isn’t at the top of my priorities these days.

    See the Briggs article here:
    https://stream.org/xkcds-global-warming-time-series-mistakes/

  49. Whenever you enter into a “discussion” about the climate with a true believer, simply ask them how a warming Earth would affect them. Demand that they be specific. Most will go off on a tangent about the overall picture or such, but insist they stay on topic and tell you what bad will happen to them. Most people make decisions based on emotion and personal gain or loss. Sales 101. That is why facts do not matter to them. Get them to admit that nothing is going to happen to them personally and perhaps, just perhaps, you may get them to stop worrying about it and move on to more important things in their lives.

  50. I only talk about this topic with true believers in underhanded satirical remarks, and it appears to be working. I think the satire is starting to make them realize how foolish they look when they take the alarmism serious.

  51. Looking at the methods section of the linked paper I note a couple of issues:

    1) Temperature was controlled by “warming (via heaters suspended above the plot)”
    2) Harvesting “In years 1–3 we harvested biomass once (in May), and in years 4‒17 we harvested from each subplot twice: the first one timed to peak biomass in the phenologically most advanced plots (mid-April to early May), and the second one 3 wk later at the peak of less advanced plots (early to late May).”

    a) The warmth control was radiant heat facing down. Yes, this will warm the plants and soil to some degree but what about the incoming air temperature and the speed of the wind?

    b) Farmers harvest at the most optimum time, when ever that occurs. Not sure how in this experiment replicates real world with phrases such as “second one 3 wk later at the peak of less advanced plots”

    It is a good effort but I wonder how the detailed actions contribute to the outcome in a positive way.

  52. This was all you wife’s fault (introducing you to a leftist “parrot” she knew).

    Leftists think they know everything, but refuse to debate anything.

    If you disagree with them, you are ridiculed and/or character attacked.

    I “debate” with leftists I know, when I can’t avoid them, by making one bold statement about whatever liberal belief they are blathering about ,,, and then I stop talking, to wait for their “brilliant” response!

    I try to have some basic data in my head for various popular subjects — my data vs. their feelings.

    That pause when I’m waiting for them to respond is fun — I rarely hear anything about the subject that demonstrates more than superficial knowledge.

    Most liberals are as dumb as rocks on most subjects ( I apologize to rocks, in case I just insulted them ).

    They usually have conclusions with no data — and they have no desire to know more about most subjects beyond the “proper” leftist conclusions — which must be stated with the proper liberal words.

    Repeating a few headlines they recall reading is the best they can do on climate change — few realize Earth’s climate is always changing — and they could not care less about historical climate data — all they care about is the coming climate catastrophe … that I’ve been hearing about for 40 years … that never comes!.

    Liberals have no idea how to respond when I state that our climate today is better than it has been for hundreds of years — and has barely changed in the past 150 years — that basic overview of climate history is more than they know, so they must resort to clever ridicule and changing the subject in response.

    Silence would be their best response, but liberals must get in the last word before they demand a new subject for conversation.

    • I live near a nature resort with dunes forests and beaches. (Netherlands) I tease leftists by declaring that we own this nature entirely to fossil fuels. First I refer to the fact that the Netherlands had almost no trees left in 1500 at 5% of the inhabitants and prosperity. Than I argue that windmills and solar panels will cause severe energy shortage so illegal wood cutting will soon be crime number one: no trees left within a year.

      • “I did my college thesis on ‘Global cooling’ and I personally interviewed the foremost climatologist of that era, Stephen Schneider (I think that was his name) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder. This institution has since changed its name.”

        In that case, then you of course know of the reasons behind “global cooling” … or at least catch up. Science doesn’t stand still.

        From:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010644/full

        “Changes in column transparency directly after WW-2 can be clearly followed from the Feodosiya smooth time series which indicates that in 1946, compared to 1945 transparency was lower, and an obvious, almost 40-year decreasing trend started. This trend includes some 1–3 year periods with weak improvements or leveling in transparency, which, however, did not alter the general decline. In Feodosiya the decline ends abruptly with a very low AITC, p2 = 0.667 in 1983. Evolution of column transparency in Estonia and Moscow can be followed only from the 1950s onward and, although these time series are not so smooth compared to Feodosiya, they repeat the general declining pattern. In Moscow and Tiirikoja the lowest values were reached also in 1983 and at Tõravere in 1984. General decrease in column transparency during the nearly 40 years after WW-2 is apparently not limited with the latitudinal belt 44°–60°N in Europe. It is noteworthy, that an average time series of relative direct irradiance, which for the 1940s was calculated by Pivovarova using data from 11 solar radiation stations (8 from the former USSR, including Feodosiya and 4 stations from Asia, 3 from the United States) fully confirms the decline during 1945–1983”

        Also….

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

        “Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990”

        And…

        “Over the last 50 or so years, pan evaporation has been carefully monitored. For decades, nobody took much notice of the pan evaporation measurements[citation needed]. But in the 1990s in Europe, Israel, and North America, scientists spotted something that at the time was considered very strange: the rate of evaporation was falling although they had expected it to increase due to global warming.[21] The same trend has been observed in China over a similar period. A decrease in solar irradiance is cited as the driving force. However, unlike in other areas of the world, in China the decrease in solar irradiance was not always accompanied by an increase in cloud cover and precipitation. It is believed that aerosols may play a critical role in the decrease of solar irradiance in China.[22]

  53. Entertaining article. But please do your homework.

    Global temperatures have not risen continuously over the past 130 years as you claim, even though greenhouse gas emissions have. In fact, temperatures dropped for some 30 years beginning around 1947. This was the era of ‘global cooling’.

    ‘Global cooling’ was real and it was measured. It persisted until the late 70s. It was widely reported and made P. 1 of the NY Times as well as the covers of Time and Newsweek. It was a very BIG DEAL. All scientists were on board. There was greater unanimity about the direction of climate then than there is today!

    I did my college thesis on ‘Global cooling’ and I personally interviewed the foremost climatologist of that era, Stephen Schneider (I think that was his name) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder. This institution has since changed its name.

    Incredibly, ‘global cooling’ has been scrubbed from public memory and no one talks about it since its wild inaccuracy surely undermines the credibility of today’s climate alarmists. But ‘global cooling’ was real.

    PS- ‘Holocaust deniers’ do not claim that Jews weren’t targeted during WWII or that many Jews were murdered along with tens of millions of non-Jews. That is a anther distortion.

    ‘Holocaust deniers’ (so called) dispute the numbers of Jewish dead as well all the methods used to kill Jewish prisoners.

  54. I’ma lleftwing as are all of my friends.I avoid bringing up the topic of AGW.But on occasion ,I hgave to stand my ground .I know a thousand times more about climate than the average person who knows only what PBS And NYT says.
    Confronted with acts I always get the same result.They don’t want to engage in learning facts.
    The last conversation ended with my friend actually putting his hands over his ears and grimacing .
    What do you call it when someone believes in something that they know nothing about?
    BRAINWASHED.

    • Mojo, if you don’t mind my saying: You are a left-winger with common sense. In this day and age, to many who call themselves leftist, you are Not. You Must be at least just right of center and ‘center’ is as far right as they can push it!

  55. There is a field for sorting these questions out, it’s called Atmospheric Chemistry. It is a field of science all it’s own; it has it’s own law of thermodynamics named the Ideal Gas Law, since gases and atmospheric mixes, act such that individual molecules and atoms of gas, act quite similarly, in an idealized way; even though in microscopic analysis they are readily seen to not be perfectly spherical, and all the same size.

    The Ideal Gas Law was written after hundreds of years’ tedious, exacting research; about 400 years; and there is no more accurate way to discover and record the temperature of any atmospheric gas mix.

    In fact the entire class of fraud known as ”GHE” and ”AGW” isn’t based on gas equations, it’s based on radiation equations which, not containing mathematics for establishing energy concentration based on density as gas equations are, can not calculate the temperature of any atmosphere or atmospheric mix.

    The real atmospheric equations are in fact used by NASA and others in aviation and aerospace flight, and are in fact used in every scientific field on earth or off, where prediction of fact depends on truthful mathematical solving.

    The factor in the equation that is the law of thermodynamics for solving gas and atmospheric temperatures, is ”R” and represents the average energy of a typical molecule in any atmospheric mix; and all gases, except one, get identical energy assignment.

    The sole one to get a different energy assignment is water due to it’s hydrogen atoms’ electrons’ ability to absorb rather prodigious energy before giving any off as heat; so the average water vapor molecule holds a little more energy.

    But the final problem with people trying to claim it’s possible for the atmosphere to warm, when more GHGs are added is that the GHGs block a large portion of sunlight from ever reaching earth; 400 ppm GHGs blocks about 20% of all sunlight.

    Fewer GHGs, less sunlight to the surface of earth; less sunlight to the surface, less sunlight from it.

    When you put a screen between an object warming another one, the temperature of the second one, goes down, no matter how that screen is contrived; it’s fundamental energy conservation that more light refracted out to space, is less light thermalizing on the planet.

    In fact on any chart you can clearly see that the only gases reducing surface sunlight are GHGs. No other gases block any appreciable light to the surface.

    This is why each time one goes to a site where it is believed that GHGs can warm the planet, there is no discussion of the actual laws of chemistry for solving the temperature of gases and atmospheric mixes.

    Every time any real calculation takes place using real atmospheric chemistry, the energy in the atmosphere with more CO2 remains identical; and if one (improperly) tries to claim to count the CO2 on it’s own specific energy – it holds less energy than standard atmospheric mix, and therefore lowers the temperature of the mix.

    • “When you put a screen between an object warming another one, the temperature of the second one, goes down, no matter how that screen is contrived; it’s fundamental energy conservation that more light refracted out to space, is less light thermalizing on the planet.”

      It’s not a “screen. If you like it’s a filter, letting Solar SW through and restricting the return flow of terrestrial LWIR

      “But the final problem with people trying to claim it’s possible for the atmosphere to warm, when more GHGs are added is that the GHGs block a large portion of sunlight from ever reaching earth; 400 ppm GHGs blocks about 20% of all sunlight.”

      Oh dear…
      GHG’s only “block” far IR wavelengths my friend….. those emitted by the EARTH.
      Of which the Sun radiates very little (near-IR yes).
      The clue lies in the fact that the EarTh is a tad cooler than the Sun and it is the Earth’s terrestrial IR that is back-radiated BY GHG’s.

      Notice that at peak emittance the Earth’s radiation does not overlap any of the Sun’s and is the main absorption band for “400ppm GHG’s” (you must mean CO2 at that figure).
      And no, it does not “blocks about 20% of all sunlight.” The WHOLE atmosphere does not just “GHG’s”.

  56. If your answer to the question “How’s the weather?” becomes a source of anxiety, and may make or break your career, you just might be a climatologist. (- with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

Comments are closed.