Five stages of climate grief

President Trump could help – and force climate alarmists to answer questions they’ve ignored

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

climate-grief_scr

Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have presented stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zeeland or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.

Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.

The Left has long been intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Refusing to engage or debate, banning or forcibly removing books and posters, threatening and silencing contrarians, disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers, denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, even criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers” – have all become trademark tactics. Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced lib-prog ideologies and policies.

Liberals view government as their domain, their reason for being, far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements. Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.

They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump. They’re incensed that President Trump and Republicans in Congress, 33 governor’s offices and 69 of 99 state legislatures nationwide will likely review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues.

Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.

That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” 2º C (3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels, when the Little Ice Age ended (and the modern industrial era began). It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to keep fossil fuels in the ground, roll back their economies and reduce their living standards – while giving $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation.

That, in turn, is why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. They would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. And they – or at least their governing classes – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, GHG-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event.

But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech. Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development. But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference.

Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement. President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”

Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling.

1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can alarmists ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?

2) Your “manmade climate chaos” thesis – and computer models that support it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions and feedbacks they generate have replaced numerous powerful natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over?

Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?

3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms?

4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces?

5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances?

6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?

7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?

8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?

9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?

Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment.

Advertisements

221 thoughts on “Five stages of climate grief

  1. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems”

    I don’t believe the IPCC was formed for that purpose. They were formed with the assumption that human influence on the climate was an established fact and that the effect was negative, the only thing left was to determine how bad it was.

    • Bill, agreed, the science was already settled in 1988, this is from the IPCC website. They on had one scope, one mandate.

      1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding HUMAN-induced (emphasis added) climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.
      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22

    • Bear in mind the idea of killing off cheap energy and crippling in particular the US economy, was the creator of the UN Environmental Program and its offspring UNFCCC, Maurice Strong, a high school drop out and Canadian communist who was remarkably successful in business and became a billionaire. Google his quotes on his aims. Here is one:

      “Isn’t it the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

      He made no secret about this, but it would be interesting to do a poll and see how many readers here have heard of this guy. I’ll bet none of the many brainwashed “progressive” trolls know of this man. It is their special characteristic to not actually know much except fealty and uncritical obeisance to what their masters tell them to know.

      • remarkably successful in business and became a billionaire
        ===============
        say for example someone has a worthless piece of property, because of some regulation the limits its use. For example, trees you cannot cut down. Or oil that cannot be drilled. What you do is this.

        1. You take out an option to buy the land.
        2. You form an offshore company to hold the option.
        3. You place in trust, shares in the company to the benefit of the descendants of the maternal grandmother of the government minister responsible for the regulations.
        4. You very quietly let the government minister know that he/she stands to make a fortune offshore in an untraceable trust if the regulations are changed.

        If the minister bites and the regulations are changed, the offshore company exercises its options. Dividends are paid regularly into the trust from the profit of the company, and the descendant of the government minister’s grandmother that know about the trust make a fortune offshore in a fashion that cannot be traced.

        However, since the minister has only a small percentage of the shares, the lions share of the profits flow into your offshore trust, which is in the name of your maternal grandmother, for the benefit of her descendants that know about the trust, and for all intents and purposes will be untraceable and nontaxable if the trust has been created correctly.

      • Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.

        NONSENSE ! This is not “new” levels, they are still stuck in #2 .

        They are still at the dummy-spitting, rolling their back and screaming stage.

      • Thanks for the article, a great concise read and I am sharing it wherever I can.
        Every time I hear the name Maurice Strong as a Canadian I hang my head in shame. I know I should not but his legacy is worse than P.E. Trudeau (and as his son is currently) and that is saying something after the debacle of the 70’s energy program this Trudeau guy unleashed on Canadians.

      • Don’t feel too bad, as Americans have to live down Jimmy Carter and his energy and environmental policies. Some of the stupid things he did are still in place.

    • The original “UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, UN 1992”
      UNFCCC treaty on which the IPCCC is founded, politically redefined “Climate Change” to mean due to human activity:

      ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS *
      For the purposes of this Convention:
      1. “Adverse effects of climate change” means changes in the
      physical environment or biota resulting from climate
      change which have significant deleterious effects on the
      composition, resilience or productivity of natural and
      managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic
      systems or on human health and welfare.

      2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is
      attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that
      alters the
      composition of the global atmosphere and which
      is in addition to natural climate variability observed
      over comparable time periods.
      3. “Climate system” means the totality of the atmosphere,
      hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their
      interactions.
      4. “Emissions” means the release of greenhouse gases and/or
      their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified
      area and period of time.
      5. “Greenhouse gases” means those gaseous constituents of
      the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that
      absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.
      . . .

      Note the focus on atmospheric composition and anthropogenic emissions with no mention of clouds or albedo or solar or cosmic impacts.
      https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf

      • Also notice no mention of land use and urbanization. Over the past 150 years humans have gone from using 4% of the land surface to using 40%. It is inconceivable that for example, logging the Amazon and replacing the jungle with roads, farms, agriculture, livestock, cities, etc., doesn’t affect rainfall, temperature and climate over a vast area with absolutely no change in CO2 involved.

      • @ fredberple, ” Over the past 150 years humans have gone from using 4% of the land surface to using 40%,”
        Can you provide us with links proving that. Personally I find that incredibly hard to believe. Population may have gone up by that kind of percentage but actual land use?

      • +1 asybot … and +1 ferdberple !
        Of course this all depends on your definition of “land use”. for instance past Amerindians did use the land in a way, but for sure their use was quite different than ours nowadays.

    • Steve McIntyre posted some excerpts from the IPCC 1990 Summary;

      Executive Summary to chapter 7 stated (p. 200) stated:
      “We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases.”

      A summary point that makes impossible Duncan’s claimed 1988 mandate. Following Duncan’s link brings one to “Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability—is the WGII contribution to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR)”

      The third assessment TAR is a long way away from IPCC’s creation and initialization. Well down the IPCC path where the IPCC becomes an endless self serving mandate.

      Paul Driessen’s assessment for the reasons and beginning of IPCC looks and sounds correct, unlike Bill and Duncan’s.

      • The IPCC has always and remains 100% in support of the scam. The sole purpose of these occasional missives inserted in their documents is to provide a believable point of reference when confronted with facts. They mean nothing more.

      • Agreed. The two “new” stages mentioned (intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots) are actually a continuation of stage one and stage two. They’ll never get to stage five because they keep looping back and starting over.

    • They’ll get to stage 5 but it won’t be acceptance, it will be the Mythbusters’ “I reject your reality and substitute my own!” Which is their default state of being anyway.

      If you don’t believe it, it didn’t happen. Simple.

  2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences…

    uh no…read their mandate again

    Strong, another socialist, dictated it was to study and find evidence of “human induced” climate change

      • Some of the scientists thought the IPCC was actually about science, and didn’t realize their only job was to “prove” an existing conclusion that CO2 was a satanic gas.

    • The UN’s IPCC was formed to increase the political power of the UN by embellishing an existing environmental boogeyman.

      The claim of a coming catastrophe of some sort is a centuries-old strategy used by religious or political leaders to gain power and tell others how to live.

      The UN (M. Strong) came up with a reason to seize more power over individual governments of member nations.

      The reason they chose was an existing belief / conclusion among some scientists that humans were ruining the planet.

      If that conclusion was true, it could be claimed only a world government like the UN could stop the destruction.

      The IPCC was charged with adding any complex science and math they could find, or make up, to support an existing unproven conclusion about CO2.

      Get enough PhD’s involved, using complex computer models, and you can have an impressive “dog and pony show”.

      Much better for “selling” a coming climate catastrophe than a bunch of pointy-headed scientists stating their opinions by presenting papers at scientific conferences.

      In plain English, the unproven conclusion was that humans are destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels, and the unspoken conclusion was that the UN must have the power to stop it.

      This was originally all about political power for the UN.

      Unfortunately for the UN, member nation leaders latched on to the climate catastrophe fantasy to increase their own power (for their governments to exert more control the private sector).

      Predicting the future (climate) has nothing to do with science.

      It is climate astrology.

      Especially when the causes of climate change are just unproven theories.

      • Maurice Strong…self identified socialist….created the IPCC for the UN..1988

        Quote from Maurice Strong in 1990

        “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the risk to the earth comes from the actions of rich countries. In order to save the planet, this group decided isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial cilivations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about”?

        http://www.aircrap.org/2015/08/09/ipcc-brainchild-of-maurice-strong/

      • Richard….spot on

        Maurice Strong created the IPCC exactly as you described it…
        …Strong wasn’t shy about admitting it either

        Quote from Maurice Strong in 1990

        “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the risk to the earth comes from the actions of rich countries. In order to save the planet, this group decided isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial cilivations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about”?

      • “Get enough PhD’s involved, using complex computer models, and you can have an impressive “dog and pony show”.

        +1e+06

    • Here, published in 2002, is another good scientific and technical summary for Mr. Trump.

      We have known since about 1985 that global warming alarmism was scientifically wrong – a false crisis.
      We have known with greater certainty since about 2002 that it was a deliberate fraud.

      IN Summary:
      All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the global warming alarmists’ scary warming projections have materialized.

      “The test of science is its ability to predict.’
      – Richard Feynman

      Regards, Allan MacRae, P. Eng.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/28/greens-blame-donald-trump-for-crumbling-paris-climate-accord/comment-page-1/#comment-2225581

      WHAT WE KNEW AND WHEN WE WROTE IT:

      2002 DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD

      Here is our predictive track record, from an article that Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and I published in 2002 in our debate with the Pembina Institute on the now-defunct Kyoto Accord.
      http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

      Our eight-point Rebuttal includes predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then was (mostly) wise enough to ignore it.
      [Our 2002 article is in “quotation marks”, followed by current commentary.]

      1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
      NO net global warming has occurred for more than 18 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2.

      2. “Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SOx, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.”
      Note the extreme pollution of air, water and soil that still occurs in China and the Former Soviet Union.

      3. “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”
      Since the start of global warming mania, about 50 million children below the age of five have died from contaminated water, and trillions of dollars have been squandered on global warming nonsense.

      4. “Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.”
      Canada signed Kyoto but then most provinces wisely ignored it – the exception being now-depressed Ontario, where government adopted ineffective “green energy” schemes, drove up energy costs, and drove out manufacturing jobs.

      5. “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”
      Note the huge manufacturing growth and extremely polluted air in industrial regions of China.

      6. “Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the Former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.”
      Our government did not pay the FSU, but other governments did, bribing them to sign Kyoto.

      7. “Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.”
      If one believed the false climate models, one would conclude that we must cease using fossil fuels.

      8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
      Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and many of these governments are in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.

      IN SUMMARY:
      All the above predictions that we made in 2002 have proven correct in those states that fully adopted the Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the global warming alarmists’ scary warming projections have materialized.

      ***********************************************************

      • Progressives in general try to hide from the public the true costs (to liberty, to economis, to society morals) of their policy prescriptions.

        Communists have no use for such niceties and use revolution to reach the same ends.

        Bernie Sanders violated 80 years of Liberal-Progressive taboos by openly declaring his policies would require massive tax increases on the working middle class.

  3. Remember from the US presidential debates, when Trump was asked to say something nice about HR Clinton, he said she was persistent. So is herpes.(and the rest of the SJW’s)

  4. Every time I get into a discussion with “Man Made Catastrophic Climate Change” alarmists, I simply ask them, “when did the Climate STOP Changing, and when did it start changing again ?” ..The stupid look on there face is priceless….

    • Just ask them for a single scientific paper which proves CO2 causes global temperature rise. The best they can come up with is laboratory experiments which ignore every single external influence on the phenomenon.

      • But what sort of experiment would convince you? There is only one earth and only one
        atmosphere. So clearly we cann’t take two earths and pump one full of CO2 and leave one
        as it is. Hence any experiment would have to be lab based and that would also allow you to isolate seperate effects.

      • Germinio, We can take the real planet and look for global effects – not just averaged global parameters.
        If both poles are losing ice then it’s reasonable to assume that something that is common to both is global.
        But they aren’t.

        If we model the world and the model makes accurate predictions then we can guess that he model reflects the current planet. We can then change certain values and see what is significant or not.
        But the models all over-estimate the warming.

        We can use compare climate models to economic models and assess their usefulness in comparison. That would define their policy-making power.But climate models take economic changes as an input and so must be more complex than any economic model. And economic models have all failed. They are at best justified by faith.

      • “So clearly we cann’t take two earths and pump one full of CO2 and leave one as it is.”

        And yet, that is the sort of experiment we would need to do to provide definitive evidence. The many computer models are poor attempts to conduct such experiments, a la Einstein’s ‘thought experiments’. But the modelers have forgotten that computer runs aren’t actually experiments. The just output what they were programmed to output.

      • “We can take the real planet and look for global effects – not just averaged global parameters.”
        What is a global effect if not a averaged global parameter?

        “If both poles are losing ice then it’s reasonable to assume that something that is common to both is global.
        But they aren’t.”

        But currently they are. Look at
        https://www.newscientist.com/article/2113493-global-sea-ice-has-reached-a-record-low-should-we-be-worried/
        for example.

        If we model the world and the model makes accurate predictions then we can guess that he model reflects the current planet. We can then change certain values and see what is significant or not.
        But the models all over-estimate the warming.”

        While that is correct it is also the case that when the effects of CO2 are taken out of global climate models
        they significantly under-estimate the warming. And the error is worse than when CO2 is included.

      • Germinio, A global averaged parameter is meaningless. A man with his head in the oven and feet in his freezer is fine on average. That’s as silly as GASTA.

        New Scientist does report on a blog that the sea ice around Antarctica has dropped this month. A sad decline, in New Scientist . That’s weather, not climate.
        I was respectful enough to treat the long-term trend in the Arctic as meaningful. But if you only want a one year (or one month) blip as your measure then we’re lost. It’s not the same. The poles are not responding in the same way with respect to sea ice. From NASA (not New Scientist and a blog) we see that Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum in September 2014.

        Global Climate Models: Yes, I agree. The climate models are completely inaccurate with, or without, CO2 effects. Does that mean CO2 is irrelevant? Perhaps.
        But I think it means the models are irrelevant.

      • “A global averaged parameter is meaningless.”
        That is not always the case. It would depend on what is being averaged and what it means. The global
        average temperate is a measure of the total kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere. It does
        tell you something meaningful. Similarly if you know the average number of food calories per person per
        year it tells you that the famines are caused by inadequate distribution rather than a global shortage of food.

        And if you read the New Scientist article you would see that it calls the effect “weather” not climate and agrees
        with you on that fact. However the decadal average of sea ice in the arctic shows significant declines. The
        southern ocean is different and there is no obvious way to expect it to behave the same in the short term. For
        example increased temperatures could cause increased snow (remember that parts of Antarctica are actually
        desserts and get no snow or rain) and so increased ice.

        Climate models are not “completely inaccurate”. They do an excellent job of modelling the complexities of
        the earth’s climate. They are not perfect and have an associated error as is the case of any model.

      • So clearly we cann’t take two earths and pump one full of CO2 and leave one
        as it is.
        ==============
        actually we can. look at the spaghetti graph of the climate models. what this is telling us is that the idea of climate sensitivity is a nonsense. the models are telling us that if we double CO2, a whole RANGE of possibilities may happen, and many of those possibilities overlap with adding no CO2.

        The models make it plain to see. Add CO2 temperatures may rise, they may fall. Add no CO2, temperature may rise, they may fall.

        Adding CO2 may make it more likely that temperatures will rise, but it does not make it certain. And this is where Climate Science has gone off the rails. Climate science claims the future is much more certain than what their models are telling them, because they rely on the average of the climate models. But the future is not the average of what is possible.

        You may have a great day at work tomorrow, or you may get hit by a bus. But to try and suggest that tomorrow with be 1/2 great and you will get 1/2 hit by a bus is a complete farce that is called climate modelling IPCC.

      • Germinio
        November 27, 2016 at 3:19 pm

        But the models all over-estimate the warming.”

        While that is correct it is also the case that when the effects of CO2 are taken out of global climate models
        they significantly under-estimate the warming.
        ==============

        You know….a solid argument could be made that the models are 100% accurate on the effects of CO2 exactly the way they are.

        Models are dependent on temperature history data…
        Since climate scientists decided to cool the past and warm the present…for political reasons… to show a faster rate of warming

        That artificial/adjusted rate of warming is exactly what the models are showing.
        Given accurate temperature history data…the models might show accurate rates of warming

        Unfortunately that can no longer be done

      • Yes FM, they changed Global Warming to Climate Change because the globe wasn’t warming…Unfortunately for them, they didn’t really think it through…The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so, whether or not Humans are still around..IF the climate ever STOPS changing, then I will start worrying…(No climate change = dead planet)

      • Actually, Marcus.. climate has been remarkably stable for the last 200 or so years.

        A highly beneficial climb out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, but apart from that, remarkable stable.

        Climate change?.. NOT SO MUCH !!

      • “they changed Global Warming to Climate Change because the globe wasn’t warming”
        Alas, just arm myth. Google it Marcus and let us know exactly who “they” are and when they changed it.
        Convenient though, if your inclined to think in terms of us and them.

    • On Thanksgiving I asked my nephew to give me a one sentence summary of each of the IPCC Scenarios. He looked perplexed, went to his smartphone, freaked out that there really were such things, and then claimed that he wasn’t a “scientist” and we need to rely on the “scientists.” I calmly reminded him that I am a scientist. The silence for the rest of the day spoke volumes.

    • In Michigan we ask how CO2 from SUVs burning gasoline and coal power plants melted the ice that covered our state 20,000 years ago.

      Most important is to wait for a response.

      The only response is something like:”97% of scientists say”, “the science is settled”, “are you a science denier”, “do you think there’s a conspiracy?”.

      “The climate is always changing” is beyond what most climate cult members know about climate history.

    • ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS section 2, should be Catch 22!

      2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is
      attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that
      alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which
      is in addition to natural climate variability observed
      over comparable time periods.

      My understanding is, that the term “Climate Change” is only used to describe variation in the climate that is caused by humans.
      To me this is just a play on words , change and variability.
      Is the IPCC implying that change can only be in one direction whereas variability is not change

  5. Their (windmills) electricity is expensive …

    When I listen to an ‘alarmist*’ talking about windmills and then listen to a ‘denier*’, I wonder if they’re talking about the same planet.

    The alarmists will insist that wind power is free because there is no fuel cost. Using the same logic, nuclear power is nearly free.

    If we want to make the case that wind power is expensive, we need look only to the Canadian province of Ontario. Because of expensive wind power contracts, electricity in Ontario now costs four times as much as it did a few years ago. link link The ‘alarmists’ should not be able to get away with saying that wind and solar are free power.

    *Just trying to be fair and use equally pejorative names. :-)

    • Alarmists often say the fuel is free, but not that the power is free. They may say it’s “free” after the turbine goes up, though. The term “renewable” is inaccurate also. Wind and solar are more like trapping energy—like people used to trap for furs. One builds a turbine and waits for the wind. The wind always recurs, but with no predictable timing. Since unlike furs, the electricity is need 24/7, wind is an old, antiquated way of producing energy. In addition, wind and solar may be “renewable”, but the land required to make use of the fuel is not, nor are the ingredients that go into making the turbines and panels. It’s definitely a scam. It’s a marginal technology, as it always has been for decades.

      • @ Reality check: “It’s a marginal technology, as it always has been for decades.”. Centuries if not millennia. There was a time and place but even the Dutch have replaced it with way more efficient fossil fuel.

      • asybot: I can’t find evidence that electricity was generated millenia ago. Maybe over a century, but that’s still stretching it. (Originally, windmills—different from wind turbines—ground grain, powered saw mills and pumped water. In Holland, the windmills helped drain water mostly. No electricity involved.)

    • Coal is also free in most of the world. Just like the wind, it goes about its business doing nothing, just being there. It’s only when you want it to do something that it costs anything, and then wind costs more and does a lot less than coal.

  6. The Liberal/Progressives have very cleverly convinced some prominent persons, particularly
    in the scientific, entertainment and media world that they are the Borg and that ‘resistance is
    futile, they will be assimilated’ or cast on the trash heap of history.

  7. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces.

    I am afraid this is quite quite wrong.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to assess the impact of, and advise governments on policy on, human-caused cliamte change. It is not ion its remit to establish whether or not it exists.

    The Climate change movement displays – apart from all the characteristics of a grade a fraud – all the main characteristics of severe personality disorders.

    Here is a list of symptoms associated with a common personality disorder:

    Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    Exaggerating your achievements and talents
    Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
    Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
    Requiring constant admiration
    Having a sense of entitlement
    Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
    Taking advantage of others to get what you want
    Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    Being envious of others and believing others envy you
    Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

    Sound familiar?

  8. What the IPCC has done in Ontario is justify increases in expensive power through a system of industrial wind installations and solar panels festooning the countryside, and in Canada an attempt at a tax grab.

  9. Who is going to justify this travesty of science and politics to our children?

    Trillions of $/£’s squandered on an unproven phenomenon, which could have been invested in their futures.

    I would demand an inquiry to identify and lock up the perpetrators but that would be another gross waste of money. Best we just persecute these people as they have persecuted genuine scientist’s, with little more than rumour and dogma as their justification.

    • The money was literally stolen from them — nobody who caused it to be borrowed (and it was borrowed) will be around when it comes time to pay it back.

  10. Lets look at a question the skeptic side is still not addressing:

    Why are we seeing this?

    don’t get so excited over Trump that you ignore the evidence of warming in the arctic.

    Really you can’t say this is not unusual and give any other explanation other than warming…

    really you can’t ignore it being warmest year for second year in a row…

    Really you can’t ignore that even the satellite data is not showing cooling… or a pause…

    • Why are we seeing this?

      Because you posted it, Griff. That wasn’t difficult…

      you ignore the evidence of warming in the arctic..

      I see no evidence that isn’t consistent with El Niño….

      But lets say you are actually correct. A low probability, but let’s assume that.

      What evidence is there that this is in anyway down to human activity, when all over the world where ice has retreated, we find evidence of plants and people that were there before it advanced?

      Plainly whilst these may be ‘the hottest years in our (limited) record, they are not the hottest years in even the last 1000 years.

      • ” … they are not the hottest years in even the last 1000 years.”

        Exactly so. I the public had any reasoning skills and really paid attention they would never have been fooled into thinking that mankind-released CO2 was going to warm the planet. And I write this from a place in Florida that was supposed to be under water right now if I had believed the fools hollering the sky is falling.

      • Greg trots this one out about every third day or so – it apparently is his icon, to be shown to the deplorable masses, reaffirming their belief in the miracle.

        Any first year Stats student, of course (well, one with at least a B average) can demolish it. Unfortunately, math is too hard, PlayDoh and crayons are really his speed.

      • Writing Observer, Insulting people is rarely persuasive.
        It doesn’t persuade them.
        It doesn’t persuade neutrals observing.
        We learnt this in the Brexit “debate”.

    • Well, it’s not happening at the Antarctic so we can conclude that it’s a local effect – not global.
      This rules out CO2 as that’s well-mixed in the atmosphere. In fact we can pretty much rule out any radiative effect as the daylight hours are very short at this time of year up there.

      So what is this local change?

      Well, it might just be weather as we don’t have long records (geologically speaking) for Arctic sea ice extent…
      But my personal opinion is that it’s due to energy released from fossil fuels.

      That energy is being used to heat homes and businesses in the growing towns of Alaska and Siberia. All those large Urban Heat Islands drain heat into their streams and rivers. That heat flows with the water into the Arctic.
      It’s not a lot of heat but it’s a lot hotter than the Arctic was before those towns grew.

      So basically, I blame the oil industry.

      • As for me, I thank the oil industry for my comfortable life.
        I’d also add the rest of the world has my permission to join the 21st century.
        If the nannies would allow it, fossil fuel could lift billions of humans out of poverty.

      • M Courtney, blaming the oil industry for helping to make the high latitude regions more habitable seems perverse. Let’s blame the social miasma that the climate consensus kooks created on the climate kooks. Lets not blame those who are actually helping humanity.

      • hunter, I don’t blame the oil industry for helping to make the high latitude regions more habitable.
        I blame them for warming the Arctic Ocean as a genuine externality from the process of making the high latitude regions more habitable.
        Waste heat is not desired but it is very hard to avoid.
        So I do blame the Oil Industry. And Lord Kelvin.

      • The overall effect of waste heat (UHI) is very small, i.e. not measurable. It does, however, skew the temperature records upward. It is hubris to suggest that man is “warming the arctic”.

      • @ M Courtney:.@ 11. 10 pm “So basically, I blame the oil industry”. I thought you forgot to add the sarc tag until your follow up at 2:03 pm.

    • Well Griff, it’s really hard to get excited about 1 mk2…..when they tell you that it’s not enough to matter

      ice free = 1 mk2

    • And ice is good for what?

      A nice Gin and Tonic, that’s it.

      The nonsense about the sun’s radiation being reflected by ‘white’ snow/ice is ludicrous as it hits the poles at such an oblique angle as to be utterly ineffective. 99% of the sun’s radiation hits the rest of the planet far more directly.

      Melting sea ice will cause no sea level rise and melting permafrost tundra will release billions of acres of productive farmland. Of course, it will release tons of a minute trace gas, methane, into the atmosphere, but as no one understands how water vapour, which forms 95% of all ‘greenhouse’ gases functions, why would anyone be stupid enough to cite a minor gas a dominant atmospheric greenhouse gas?

      Stop referring to daft graphs, which in isolation can prove anything you want, and try thinking logically and with a bit more common sense. Like, gee, the human race has been terrorised by imminent climate catastrophe for over 40 years now and nothing has happened. Well, other than, that is, the planet greening by 14% in 30 years, 2 US continents of extra vegetation, but hat’s bad according to you. Whilst negative effects of climate change are measured in fractions of a percent, along comes global greening,which utterly destroys your mad theories of disastrous temperature rise, and you simply ignore it.

      What planet are you people actually from? Planet Meldrew?

      Now we’re told by some mad ba*t*rd professor that man will be extinct in 10 years. How much more clinical depression, guilt and misery do you people want to heap on mankind? It really is the worst excesses of the liberal left who are quite content ruling by fear and oppression, as amply demonstrated by that evil cnut Castro who left it far too long to kick the bucket. Unfortunatly, Cubans are left dealing with his brother who, as my late FIL commented to me “he is even more despicable than Fidel”. The old man knew them both from his time in the UN, he was almost ashamed that he had to make their acquaintance never mind be forced to support their murderous regime, but he did it in the forlorn hope some Cuban citizens might benefit.

      That is the fate you climate nutters consign us all to, rule by dictatorial bureaucrats.

      You, personally, are nothing more than an irritating little troll.

    • Griff November 27, 2016 at 10:52 am
      Lets look at a question the skeptic side is still not addressing:

      Wrong, wrong wrong. it has been addressed and answered. Remember the information I showed the other day on ww2 lend lease? Did you check into it. Can you refute how easily and regularly they were moving all types of shipping from the Pacific through the Arctic all the way to Murmansk.
      Ir is a natural cycle. You are like a broken record. You look at a graph and draw conclusions without comparing, to see if they are valid with real world activites. Examine rather things that human being were able to do in the recent pass and are no longer able to.

      Others have also tried to point this out to you.

      Show us something new that has not happened before. We cannot today move shipping through the Arctic to the extent the Soviets did during 1942-45. Your graph is meaningless in the face of that.

      michael

      • remember?….yes
        admit….no…it’s too inconvenient

        That was an excellent post BTW….you educated me too

      • It seems the Russians could have, it seems “move … shipping through the Arctic to Murmansk”.

        However, this is a paper examining Russian observations of Arctic sea-ice from 1933 to 2006

        http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/publications/mahoney/Mahoney_2008_JGR_20thC_RSI.pdf

        “The AARI sea ice charts provide the most detailed record of ice conditions in the Russian Arctic for the period before satellite observations became routine.”

        “Our results show that sea ice was most extensive at the start of the record and has since experienced two periods of decline, evident in the summer means. The first of these was during the 1930s–1950s (period A), and the second began in the mid-1980s and is still ongoing (period C).
        Examining seasonal sea ice extent in the different marginal seas of the Russian Arctic, we find qualitative differences that distinguish the two periods of retreat. During period A, the retreat is evident in the overall Russian Arctic but not in every individual sea. During period C, however, the retreat can be seen in all seas. The wintertime retreat in the Barents and Kara seas is only evident during period C. The surface air temperature record also reveals a difference between the two periods of retreat and suggests that the period A retreat may have been confined to the Russian Arctic, whereas satellite records show that the current period of retreat is occurring Arctic-wide.”

        So, no, the Russians in the 1940s did not experience an exact parallel to now in the Arctic..

        Current retreat is not only more extensive in the summer but, crucially during winter.
        And this says nothing of the situation on the Alaskan/Chukchi Sea side.
        Nor of the state of multi-year ice (but covered in the above study).

      • Hi Michael,
        Could you pls point me at the info re the Pacific route for WW2 Lease-Lend convoys to Murmansk as I missed it. Up to now I wan’t aware that they took this route as I was told that they were too nervous of the Japanese. I know they used the Greenland – Murmansk route where got hammered by the Germans instead.

        Thanks Harrow Sceptic

      • Toneb November 27, 2016 at 1:06 pm

        It is a historical fact the ships made the runs it is documented even to who the captains were. So it is not “could have” or was possible They did it. A lot less ice.
        year round. PQ-17 was why it became popular.
        Also think about why the published ice records for those years may not be accurate, its called маскировка -maskirovka

        michael

      • Harrowsceptic November 27, 2016 at 1:31 pm
        This is the post. the link is okay, As I said there are much better sources The US military Clleges are a good place if you want to dig a bit.

        Mike the Morlock November 25, 2016 at 4:42 pm
        Simon November 25, 2016 at 2:42 pm

        Starting in 1942 the United States and Canada were shipping Lend lease to the USSR. Soviet flagged ships would go via US west coast to Vladivostok Than through the arctic to Murmansk. Safer route no PQ-17s.
        Yes some of the cargo was of loaded and shipped by rail but the Trans-Siberian was very limited in capacity and the Russians were loathed to over load it due to lack of maintenance. (Steel going to T-34s etc)

        If you dig you will find the route was open and hundreds of ships used it on a regular basis.
        I have seen telegraph communications discussing the route between President Roosevelt and J. Stalin.

        Well could we duplicate volume and scale of shipping in the ice cover today,, without ice breakers?
        Less ice then,

        The link is something I hit on in a minute search.
        Read more history less climate stuff you will be less gullible.

        http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/

        michael

      • Mike:
        “It is a historical fact the ships made the runs it is documented even to who the captains were. So it is not “could have” or was possible They did it. A lot less ice.”

        I’m not saying they didn’t!
        Please read the paper.
        Running just along the coast is very different to the open waters that extensive loss today has created in many widener parts of the Arctic.

      • Toneb November 27, 2016 at 2:05 pm

        Okay I looked it over, nothing changed.

        “Our results show that sea ice was most
        extensive at the start of the record and has since experienced
        two periods of decline, evident in the summer means. The
        first of these was during the 1930s –1950s”

        Neat wording, “our results show”. There are times when we have to rely questionable maps. Now what do the “Ships Logs” from the shipping show. How far north did they go You said they sailed near the coast. You don’t know that.

        I am not venturing past 1945 in so far as sea ice and navigability went.

        michael

    • Are you saying that it’s going to stay that way for a number of years? If not then why are you worrying about WEATHER on a climate blog?

    • What’s the problem Griff? The IPCC says up to 1.8C warming is beneficial. Do you live on the Arctic ocean? Can’t go skating as far out as you like? Worried about the polar bears? They survived the Holocene optimum- 3 to 5C warmer than now. Just what the heck is actually worrisome to you about this? Better yet, how in the name of God does this affect you in any way whatsoever, Griff? The Sahara is greening, Griff. Is that a problem too? Does that bother you? The Antarctic is growing Griff- How do you sleep at night? Isn’t that bad old A.G.W. sea ice pushing up onto your lawn? How do you cope, Griff?

      • Willing to bet that Griff chooses to live somewhere warm , and has all the mod cons such as heating and air-conditioning.
        He is almost certainly an inner-city latte sipper, probably too dumb to be able to get a job, so lives on benefits.

      • “He is almost certainly an inner-city latte sipper, probably too dumb to be able to get a job, so lives on benefits.”

        Why oh why does Griff ALWAYS refuse to respond to that sort of statement,

        SURELY it can’t be that it is true.

        TRUTH HURTS, hey Griff.

    • El Nino mainly. This is waning now and I hope to hear from you this time next year. I can tell you that here in Ottawa, Canada its fluffy white and cold enough to freeze arctic ice and this is the 48th parallel.

      • Gary, La Nina conditions have been pushing leftover El Nino warm waters into the Indian and North and South Pacific Oceans for awhile now. Overall, though, Arctic temperature anomalies should be dropping from their El Nino tele-connection related highs.

        As noted in other places, Arctic ice bottomed out about ten years ago and it will take a few years before we can draw any conclusions. Please note that the AMO peaked about the same time.

    • The cold polar air moved down into Siberia and northern Europe. It has been 3C to 20C below normal there for the past two months.

    • Guess what Griffo..

      The warm anomaly from the remnants of the NATURAL EL Nino and NA Blob is starting to dissipate.

      Within a couple of weeks, that Arctic sea ice extent will be up there with the rest of the spaghetti.

      And it is NOT the warmest year for 2 years in a row, except in the highly manipulated and fabricated NOAA/GISS politically forced temperature series (and those using the same corrupted data)

      The ONLY event that broke the zero trend in the satellite data was a NATURAL El Nino transient which had nothing to do with anything anthropogenic. That transient has all but dropped back to where it started.

      In fact the 8 month drop since the peak of the El nino atmospheric transient has been the fastest and deepest 8 month change in the whole of the satellite data.

      • M, That is NOT the temperature.. that is the 8 month change in temperature.

        Take the RSS series data, and from each month, subtract the temp 8 months earlier… graph it.

        Basically what it is illustrating is the MASSIVE drop in the 8 months since the peak of the 2015/16 El Nino, a drop of -1.17ºC

      • Please don’t post graphs without full legend, ordinate and abscissa unit labels. Yes, even a time axis needs to be labelled as YEAR, “AD” (or “CE,” if you insist.) “RSS 8 month” is unclear without AT LEAST a Δ symbol.

      • The RSS data shows an anomaly of 0.97 in February, and 0.35 in October.

        That’s a drop of 0.62 degrees in 8 months.

        The corresponding drop in the UAH data was 0.42 degrees

      • Oh yes, I see. Never mind the 8-month drop. According to the link, over half that drop came in the last month. Can that be possible? That works out to over 70 degrees C per decade. Who was that nutty professor who said we had less than 10 years to go? Perhaps this is what he meant?

    • To Griff:
      Warming around the north pole, without warming around the south pole, is evidence the warming around the north pole is NOT caused by greenhouse gasses (which should warm BOTH poles.)

      There are many possibilities why the northern half of the northern hemisphere should have most of the warming since 1975, and the southern half of the southern hemisphere should have very little warming.

      – I suggest dark soot constantly landing on the snow and ice from burning coal and wood in the northern hemisphere has changed the albedo.

      – Another idea is the poles are unequally affected by changes of heat released from the core of the Earth.

      – There are probably other hypotheses for why there is Arctic warming, which I consider good news, with no Antarctic warming, which I also consider good news.

      – Perhaps the best reason is “we don’t know”.

      Note: the melting of the Antarctic Peninsula, only 2% of Antarctica, is caused by underseas volcanos that do not affect the rest of the continent. Greenhouse gasses would affect 100% of Antarctica, not 2%.

      The infamous hot spot six miles up over the equator also doesn’t exist — there goes the positive feedback from water vapor theory that allegedly doubles or triples the assumed warming from CO2 alone !

      Evidence that CO2 levels have ever controlled the climate, at any time in 4.5 billion years of climate history, does not exist.

      Evidence that CO2 suddenly, for no apparent reason, became the climate controller in 1975 does not exist.

      Evidence of CO2 not controlling the temperature is from the average temperature having a flat trend between the 1998 and 2005/2006 El Nino peaks … while CO2 rose every year.

      Evidence that warming oceans, from natural causes, release CO2 into the air, with a lag of 500 to 1,000 years, DOES exist in ice core studies.

      So what’s left for you warmunists to hold on to, Griff ?

      Well, there was significant warming from the early 1990s to early 2000s while manmade CO2 levels rose — and I suppose you can extrapolate that “glorious” (for the warmunists) decade 100 years into the future !

      And will you are extrapolatin’, never mind that flat average temperature trend from the early 2000s to 2015 — that didn’t happen.

      A climate catastrophe is coming — why? — because some people say so, as if they can predict the future climate?

      Climate history is full of unusual climate events we still can’t explain.

      There were radical, fast changes in temperature for no known reasons.

      But one thing we know for sure is the climate today, compared to everything we know about climate history, is wonderful.

      And warmunists ought to let us normal humans enjoy today’s wonderful climate by halting their fear mongering and bellowing about a coming climate catastrophe … that will never come.

      It takes great intelligence to say “we don’t know” (much about the climate).

      But being a member of the coming climate change catastrophe cult and “crying wolf” takes no intelligence.

      • What’s really interesting is to look at the UAH NoPol data this century, up until the start of the current El Nino

        As close to ZERO trend as you could get.

      • Note the jump in 2005, then COOLING for 5 years.

        Then a jump in 2010, then cooling for 6 years.

        There was also a jump in1995, followed by cooling for 5 years

        There seems to be some sort of irregular pattern there

      • Richard Greene:

        Good post Richard.

        The major difference that a lot of people seem to forget about is the Arctic has major river systems draining into it and (almost) completely surrounded by land with extreme wandering jet streams and polar vortices as opposed to the Antarctic which is land surrounded by a circumpolar current, no close large land masses, and relatively stable circulation. At least, that is my impression. So they should not react similarly.

        We should all enjoy the “warmth” while it lasts. And even with the relative “warmth” of the winter so far at my latitude, I am still wearing a snowsuit to cut wood and feed my animals.

    • Griff,

      “Why are we seeing this?”

      Well, since you ask, I figure you’re paid some small amount to hang around climate crisis skeptic type sites, to help keep up the appearance (for any newbies who happen by) of there being some sort of ominous sciency looking signs of a climate crisis unfolding . . and the best you’ve got right now is wiggles on the northern ice extent estimate plot/record . .

    • Giff

      Your small mind is tiresome.

      You need to grasp that it’s called “GLOBAL teaming” – there may indeed be some perturbation in Arctic Ice at the moment, but there is remarkable stability in Arctic + Antarctic ice – something you never bother to discuss.

      Stop falling into rat-holes.

    • I’m sorry? Why SHOULDN’T we see that? All I can see there is an annual oscillation with some year-to-year fluctuation, over a RIDICULOUSLY short time scale so that it is quite impossible to see if there is any long-term pattern.

      In short, on the evidence you have provided, “Griff”, I can most certainly say “you have given us no reason to believe this is in any way unusual.” Maybe it is, I’m certainly not saying it isn’t unusual. But we cannot conclude that it is unusual ON THIS EVIDENCE.

      As for it being the warmest year for second year in a row, if you mean in my personal lifetime, maybe it is, maybe not, but the instrumental record is way too short, too imprecise, and (prior to satellites) too sparse to make any long term claims.

    • Griff the polar vortex have weakened in both hemispheres and it feels like a global cooling signal. It also appears the subtropical ridge has broken down in tandem, probably similar to the 1950s and 1880s.

      A warm Arctic has nothing to do with industrial CO2.

    • The glacial ice started receding from its last maximum 26000 years ago. It has been receding ever since. It will continue to recede until Earth conditions change such that another period of glacial advance occurs.
      Then, get ready for real climate refugees…mostly from Canada.

  11. @ 4.) The climate models can not be fixed! Imagine somebody creates a new model, which fixes all bugs of the previous models, which perfectly matches the temperatures in the past and the future, and it shows a sort of decline or rise with some 1 or 2 ° K the next 100 years. They would not accept it and “correct ” it until it shows a suitable temperature rise of 4 to 6° C . If they admit they were wrong all the years gone by, they had to admit we had waisted so much time and money! Who would give them a dime for further work?

  12. One thing missing between 4) and 5).

    Scape goat.

    Griff November 27, 2016 at 10:52 am

    “Why are we seeing this?”

    A strong El Nino recently released huge amounts of energy from the Tropics towards the poles, especially the Arctic.

    • , and the large El Niño spanned 2 years. The energy making its way out of the system through record-high Ice formation in Greenland, and a polar vortex shoved over Russia this Fall. Right now, the polar temps are a bit high, but that has happened before, and the polar ice is growing, even though the heat is there. Let’s watch it through the Winter, and see what happens.

      • Lat, Climate Reanalyzer gives you a reasonable idea what’s going on.

        http://cci-reanalyzer.org/dailysummary/#T2

        The Bering Strait is finally cooling, and the Anomaly shows the slightly less cold air breaking up and half of it moving down through Canada

        The other area that is less cold than normal is lower Greenland and the seas around Iceland

        The anomaly chart shows the extreme cold blob over northern Russia/Iberia is also starting to break up a bit.

      • I love that thing!

        Look at the Sea Surface Anomaly….that’s where the Atlantic current deposited
        the warm water from the AMO….right through the NWP

        They can’t say the Atlantic current goes this way…
        …then say we have a record AMO

        and not explain where that warmer water came from

      • All that open water near the poles this time of year, when the sun barely cracks the horizon, must be radiating one heck of a lot of energy into space every day, compared to if there was ice covering the water.
        Water cooled this way sinks unless it can quickly freeze.
        How deep does it sink?
        Is it sinking deeper this year than other years?
        What will this mean when it finally freezes, which it will? It is only November, after all.

      • @ Menicholas

        Earth’s natural way of balancing incoming energy (low) with stored energy (high from a series of the highest solar cycles in some 600 years at least)

        Balance must be restored, and the best way to remove out of balance energy is through the poles.

    • It is not the weather and it is cyclical. In the early 20th century the Gulf Stream shifted west and is still delivering its heat load there. When it shifts back to the East the volume of water entering the Arctic Ocean will decrease. So what? That doesn’t ‘prove’ AG CO2 is warming the Arctic. No one is suggesting the Gulf Stream is ‘warmed’ by CO2, are they?

      As reported here and tracked for a couple of recent years, the amount of warm Pacific water entering the Arctic ocean melted considerable ice NW of Alaska. So what? That flow ceased and has now reversed.

      During WWII Murmansk was routinely supplied by ship from the Western USA. Can’t do that now without ice breakers. Why? Because it was more ice-free in the 40’s when the temperature was higher. Interesting how adjusting the temperature record doesn’t have much effect on the ships’ logs.

      Yawn…the ice area in the Arctic is ‘low’ following the changes in the calculation methods and the dropping of one data set. Is this ‘low’ a calculation artifact? Who cares? I want all the Arctic sea ice gone in summer so the North shore of Greenland can be inhabited as it was 6000 years ago. Before that sunny day, it will be circumnavigible as it was 1000 years ago. Can’t come soon enough.

      • Funny how they never get around to explaining what is so pants-pissing scary about a somewhat less fatally frigid Arctic wasteland, is it not?

  13. Food for thought: Mexico has surpassed the U.S. in terms of both obesity and overweight residents. About 32.8 percent of Mexican citizens are obese, versus 31.8 percent of Americans, while 70 percent of Mexican adults are overweight, compared to 69 percent of Americans.

    Rising obesity in Mexico has caused a steady rise in diabetes. With 400,000 new cases diagnosed each year and 70,000 yearly deaths, diabetes is also growing faster in Mexico.

    The Times correctly stated that Monterrey County “public health officials estimate that half of agricultural workers in the Salinas Valley are in the country illegally, with most working for $10 to $15 an hour.” But it was wrong to declare that farmworkers are uniquely “overweight or obese, partly because unhealthy food is less costly.

  14. To the list of important facts and probing questions I would add the following:

    10) Why do the EPA’s climate models possess no underlying statistical populations when this feature of them guarantees that these models will convey no information to the EPA about the outcomes of events?

    11) Why does the EPA persist in its attempts at regulating the climate when this is physically impossible absent information about the outcomes of events?

    12) Why not fire the incumbent U.S. president’s “science” adviser and replace him with a real scientist?

    13) Why not fire the chief climate “scientists” at NOAA, NASA, National Science Foundation and EPA and replace them with real scientists?

    14) Why not sue those research universities which have reached fraudulent or misleading findings from their governmentally funded climatological studies for recovery of the funding?

  15. Nicely framed article. Thank you. What I enjoyed the most was a recognition that CAGW/Energy policy has been dominated as a political debate.

    It’s been awhile since I actively posted on WUWT because I decided that a political solution was the only way to derail this train wreck of a policy movement. I got involved and now the train is being derailed. I’m actually shocked that it’s happening as I didn’t believe it could be so. The situation had become so utterly corrupt.

    By and large America faces economic hurdles that far out weight the relative importance of CAGW and its misguided energy policy. While our debt is 20T our unfunded mandates hover at about 120T. Any effort to right this ship is going to have to come to grips w lower expectations for promises made and a slashing and burning of ineffective government spending including CAGW research and unicorn energy.

    The leftists are NOT going to take any of this well. They will stomp and moan and launch multiple frivolous lawsuits. We ain’t even close to the point where collegiate discussion can take place.

    The beat down will continue until economic realities force children to become adults.

    • knutesea November 27, 2016 at 11:58 am

      Good to see you back

      You are correct in them not taking it well. The Republicans better be watching those recounts like hawks.
      They are not doing them to show that Mr Trump won.

      michael

      • Thanks Mike

        Getting involved gave me a new appreciation for the thin line of patriots that exist between the controllers that would throw u in jail for dissent and those that rely on free and open discourse to simply comment on this webpage. It’s truly a tenuous thing.

        The HRC team had already gauranteed an award of 250M $$$ seed money to give to NGOs to create lists and persue dissenters across multiple issues that included CAGW.
        Those lists would generate targets whose lives would be ultImatey ruined for dissenting.

        I don’t think people realize how close we came to sinking liberty.

        Cambridge Analytica is a private firm that collects sentiment data on 250M ppl. DJT used his online presence to reatime measure public sentiment towards the balloons that he floated. Imagine using that info to target key voting districts. That’s basically how he won. I have no idea if he will do what he says he will do BUT I knew the knife was at the throat with HRC.

        While WUWT obviously has some well educated scientists I think alot of effort gets wasted on the wrong fight. If DJT can actually get sworn in the effort should shift to reasserting the importance of epistemology.

        Reassert that and let the chips fall where they may.

        Good talking to you. Btw science blogs like these also get tracked by dbs like I mentioned above. Fascinating real time world we live in.

      • Knute November 27, 2016 at 3:20 pm

        The HRC team and their allies I think have caught on to the fact that many people keep their silence except will those they trust. Or are in a position wheres it is hard to hurt them.

        Here is the problem people tend to respond in kind.
        Marius and Sulla That is what frightens me

        michael

      • Knute November 27, 2016 at 3:20 pm
        Btw thank you for the term “epistemology.” had ro like it up, rare that.

        michael

      • “Btw science blogs like these also get tracked by dbs like I mentioned above. Fascinating real time world we live in.”

        That’s what totalitarians do: They target their enemies. We say, bring it on. We can still speak freely around here. And with Hillary’s defeat, we can breath a short sigh of relief in the attack on our free speech.

        And a sincere thank you Knute for getting actively involved in something that is so important to all of us: Preserving our basic freedoms by defeating those who would take them away.

  16. Not to be confused with the Ten Stages of Climate Belief

    – Alarmism
    – Conversion from alarmism to alarmism
    – Narcissism
    – Running to teacher
    – Data deletion
    – Dudgeon
    – High dugeon
    – [ ? ]
    – Profit

    Powered by Climate Psychology in proud association with Climate Math

  17. Here we are talking about the 5 stages of Climate Griff and Griff himself (s)trolls in and he still is in denial – #1

  18. 4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events.

    Have them explain why summer time high temperatures in the United States have been declining for over 80 years:

    U.S. Max Temps June-Sept 1930-2016 Trend

      • Global refers to the GAT which is what global warming is all about. It was never about local conditions. That’s part of the flaw—global which cannot produce local predictions is useless and always has been. Local weather is used incorrectly as proof of the warming, but it’s not about weather. It’s about the GAT continuing to rise. It’s about the global energy budget holding more energy than it releases—warming. (Are you seeing a pattern here? It’s all about abstract mathematical calculations that cannot predict local conditions anywhere. In other words, useless.)

  19. Aritlce: “What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances?”

    Yeah, Gavin Schmidt, what do you have to hide? We want you to come out publicly and explain why you thought it was a good idea to change the surface temperature record of Iceland (see link below).

    The people who maintain the the old Icelandic record say there was no reason for the temperature record to be changed. Gavin should be required to refute this statement.

    Gavin has no good explanation for these changes which cooled the 1930’s and warmed later years. This appears to have been done in order to allow the climate alarmists to be able to cry “hotter and hotter” all the way to the bank.

    The good news is we still have all the original Iceland temperature records and they can be compared to Gavin’s manipulations of the record. And then Gavin can tell us why he did what he did.

    It ought to be real interesting.

    realclimatescience.com/2016/11/gavin-erasing-the-1940s-warmth-in-iceland/

    • Say Nick, Simon, Griff, what do you have to say about this evidence of Gavin Schmidt data tampering in Iceland? I think the people who tampered with the data have been caught dead to rights. Iceland says there was no good reason to change their temperature record. What do you guys think?

      • TA, I can see the need to adjust data points based on station moves, instrumentation changes, etc. If you look at data points on either side of your circled point, however, you see a change in the RELATIONSHIP of the two points. Those relationship changes are all over the place in the graphed adjusted values. Any explanation by the data adjusters?

    • “Any explanation by the data adjusters?”

      Dave, I think that’s just what we need, an explanation from the data adjusters. The people in Iceland say there was no good reason to change this temperature record, so I think Gavin and his cronies need to justifiy their changes, otherwise, the only reason they changed it was to make it conform to their CAGW narrative.

      This is a clear instance of unjustified changes to the temperature record. And once this is shown, then all the other adjustments these people have made to the entire world’s temperature records will come into question, as they should.

  20. The Flat Earth Myth
    Obama and other climate alarmists are so ignorant of logic and of Science and the Scientific method (or malicious) that they descend to the rhetorical false accusation that climate skeptics are members of a fictional anti-scientific “Flat Earth society.”

    . . .Defenders of Darwinian evolution sometimes compare their critics to believers in a flat earth. . . . the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians. The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. . . .
    A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was – but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.
    The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

    See also Flat Earth Myth

    Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991

  21. “Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zeeland or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.”

    Don’t worry,

    There are far too many liberals in my country already – believe me.

    Here is one http://heightweighnetworth.com/helen-clark/
    This is a more typical picture without the air brushing.

    I like the way these liberals take and honour vows of poverty :)

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  22. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    “Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.

    Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.”

    Another Paul Driessen must-read masterpiece…

  23. This is an excellent and concise essay that should be considered in every gathering of the so called “Climate Conferences ” when they are held (seemingly monthly) and honestly be part of the debate
    The Earth’s climate has never, EVER, been static. It, frankly, is what it is. Man’s impact on the climate is infinitesimal at best. I call your attention to the book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” authored by Mark Steyn which chronicles the incessant mis-characterization of the so called facts. It is eye opening to those who have been victims of the official Media
    Thank you for the essay

  24. AndyG55:
    Now that is curious, as I find the UAH looking like this (and even from this source).

    Also here is RSS for the “North pole”.

    Delving deeper, look here…
    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
    At the bottom of the file you see trends listed.
    For NoPol it is 0.24C/Dec
    For the Globe it is 0.12.
    Just as in the recently ended slow-down in warming- you must look at the long-term trend.
    So it’s warming twice as fast.

    Of course this is UAH v6 beta5, which revised temps down.
    So if we take a look at the previous v5.6 file….

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

    We find that there the NoPol is 0.42
    And the Globe 0.15.
    So in one fell swoop Christy and Spencer nearly halve the trend, whereby it was warming nearly 3x as fast.
    Now what was it about the surface record being *altered*?
    Let me posit this heretical hypothetical.
    If any of the surface data records were to, err *alter* their trends by a factor of 2, let alone in the warming direction.
    Wot would your reaction be?
    Remember the Sat temp record is the “Gold standard” (Curry).
    Probably along the lines of “we trust them”.
    Did you also trust Mears when RSS was top, I mean the coldest in the pile?
    You can gather I know your MO.
    You may also gather I don’t spend time down the rabbit-hole with hand-waving cherry-picking …… *sceptics*.
    TaTa

    • Thank you for the link to the UAH data , but I was a bit surprised that you did not comment on the asymmetry of the trends (1981 – 2016) wrt to northern and southern hemispheres .
      Earlier version revised version
      Trends : Global : 0.15 0.12
      (land 0.19 0.17)
      (ocean: 0.13 0.11)

      North hemisphere: 0.21 0.15
      (land 0.24 0.18)
      (ocean: 0.18 0.13)

      South hemisphere : 0.10 0.10
      (land 0.10 0.14)
      (ocean: 0.10 0.09)

      N pole: 0.48 0.24
      (land 0.42 0.22)
      (ocean: 0.50 0.27)

      S Pole : -0.01 -0.01
      (land -0.00 0.06)
      (ocean: -0.02 -.04)

      Do you attribute this difference to a greater influence of the ocean in the southern hemisphere , or a lower anthropogenic effect , ie fewer centres of high population density .
      Did you pick up from previous comments that the arctic sea ice , this year , and not previously , is recovering in stages of rapid growth , separated by no or negative growth , as if it is being pulsed- what could that mechanism be ? Is there a PhD thesis here on something novel meteorologically speaking?
      I wont ask if you think that a global trend of 0.15Kelvin in 30 years justifies the hysteria with which the media greet such figures?

      • The real issue is that the whole of the satellite data just happens to coincide with the upward leg and now, flat top of the AMO.

        Linear trends are basically a pointless exercise, especially when you understand that the warming also happens in “events”, .

        But that AMO is slowly starting to turn downwards.

    • Your graphsare from aprox 1979 to 2012. Do you really think they show you anything? That record cannot trend anything because it is not long enough to have even caught one cycle of any natural variation let alone prove Co2 is doing anything. Sadly too, the degradation of data from these sources can often go unrecognized for months or years before they totally fail calling into question when did they start to fail. I also call into question your 2012 cut off.. um it is 2016 they have more current graphs. PS who decided what the perfect ice mass would be on this planet? I certainly did not get a vote.

    • “Also here is RSS for the “North pole”.”

      Straight across all the El Nino jumps, just like other monkeys do.

      ZERO attempt to see what is actually happening.

      Well done, Toneb.

      Now look at it in terms of major El Ninos events and the AMO.. see if you can figure it out yourself….

      ….. rather than having one of the climate change propaganda priests do it for you.

    • Yawn, you yet again, don’t comprehend that the UAH adjustment was because of KNOWN issues with the satellite

      Surface data changes are much greater over time, so much so that the 1940 peak that was in NCAR has now been all but squashed from existence… and those changes are based purely on a fabricated WHIM and a political agenda.

    • Poor Tonedumb… you need to look at what is happening between climate events.

      Here is UAH NoPol between 1980 and 1995.

      And here is UAH NoPol between 2000 and the start of the 2015/16 El Nino

      The trends you mention are basic mathematical trends, which RELY TOTALLY on the El Nino type steps.

      Sorry if you don’t have the basic intelligence to figure that out. I can’t help you find that.

  25. And BTW: The Antactic interior will be the very last place on Earth to warm, which would be evident with even a modicum of meteorology/climatology knowledge, and not the myopic CO2 is the only cause option blindly assumed here.

    • ‘CO2 is the only cause option’ is never assumed here. It’s the Climatology crowd who believe that CO2 is a dominant factor. This is a sceptical (e.g. science) site.

      Round here we suspect that all the trace gases with a radiative effect are a merely minor cause that is swamped by heats of evaporation and convection and the albedo alterations from land use change.

      The latter factor being a major reason why Antarctica is least affected by climate change.

      • “and not the myopic CO2 is the only cause option blindly assumed here.”

        And really tonedumb… the fact that you think most people here consider CO2 has having anything more than a zero or very minor warming effect, shows just how incredibly DUMB you really are !!

        That “myopic view” comes totally from the propaganda of the climate totalitarians.

        Are you one of those? .. or are you capable of rational thought?

  26. On question 5, no one is trying to hide any methodologies. Land, sea, and satellite data are accessible to anyone. Feel free to assimilate all data yourself.

  27. A splendidly written article (once again) from the fearless Paul Driessen: WONDERFUL STUFF !

    He correctly states “poor countries”: he does NOT use “that other” horrid expression.

    Trolls, cling-ons, eco-tards, bedwetters, greenpissers and the snowflake generation are advised to study … well … everything here at WUWT and then make suitable apologies to Mr. Watts and all his fine contributors.

    I mean, WTF has carbonated oxygen got to do with warmin’ mi’ planet ?

    WL
    (writing from planet “earth”).

  28. Please!!!

    Just get them to do science! Get them to make a hypothesis, then predict some effects from that hypothesis, then look for them. Straight Feynman stuff.

    If they can prove it following normal scientific methodology, I’ll believe it…

  29. So it’s assumed climate skeptics will now have a stage. The MSM won’t change their support. The governments that support Climate Change aren’t going to change their ideology. States will still be able to mandate climate policy. Four years is nothing for the alarmists to wait out. We couldn’t even capitalize on 20 years of no statistical AGW or natural temperature rise. The AGW supporters aren’t going to dismount that tiger easily. I hope Ebell has a good plan and we/skeptics don’t squander this gift.

  30. For Mike (con’t thread)

    You’re wise to be aware .. to be eyes wide open. They are telegraphing what they are doing. It’s the Marxist playbook. At the same time they do that 1000s more frogs jump out of the water as they see its not some nutty theory but in fact rooted in a playbook that was most recently executed during the Bolshevik revolution.

    The above observation is noted by organizations that tract content on the internet.
    The awakening is growing since DJT got elected.

    • knutesea November 27, 2016 at 4:41 pm
      The interesting question is who is in charge.
      People like to think it is Hillary but she started out as a tool.
      Certain people have dropped off the radar. So what are they doing?
      Calm before the storm.
      So are we going to have the courts involved again? I don’t think the S. Court wants to be dragged in.
      We both know this is heading that way as does everyone else. 2000 all over again.

      michael

      • http://truthfeed.com/breaking-cnn-finally-admits-that-the-recount-is-pointless-and-wont-change-election-results/38229/

        the numbers arent there
        this article does a good job of splaining

        as per the “whose in charge question” its always best to track back to the money
        anthony runs SCIENCE blog and while obviously CAGW is a money/politics scam i think
        it would be disrespectful on my part of start hammering his content with globalist themes

        there is an excellent NSA whistleblower source who went to jail for his convictions.
        Scott Bennet <~~~~~ his you tube vid is well worth a look see concerning the wider HSBC/UBS cash flows

        the left will continue to throw up drama between here and swearing in
        thinkers should also suspect that bigger drama is gonna go down in europe

        we are living thru history my friend AND we are creating momentum
        there are just TOO many of us who woke up

  31. I just live in Thailand about 20 ° C warmer than Germany. I assure you, it’s fine to live with this temperature. There are no draughts or hurricane here, only its raining sometimes. But in December there will be more moderate temperatures – about 25 to 28 °C and less rain. I don’t need a heater or so much clothing, mostly I wear only some swim trunks. BTW nobody here is worrying about climate or change. The king of Thailand died some weeks ago, They are mourning for one year! Ok, its a regional climate, but the arctic warming is a regional climate too. I wonder if it makes sense here to form an average and to calculate a super regional climate?

    • Averaging land temperature anomalies from different latitudes could lead to some problems (polar amplification) when deriving global averages. Averaging sea water temperature anomalies with land air temperature anomalies is a crock.

  32. Mr. Driessen;

    Thank you for your summary and for revealing your concise findings on the nature of AGW advocacy. I believe each of your points convincing in themselves and together form a compelling indictment.

    You efforts are sincerely appreciated.

    • Did you mean the 5 stages of climate grifters, Patrick?

      From the Urban Dictionary:

      A grifter is someone who swindles you through deception or fraud.

      Synonyms include fraudster, con artist, cheater, confidence man, scammer, hustler, swindler, etc.

      1) That grifter swindled me out of £250,000!

      2) “The first rule of grifting is, you can’t cheat an honest man.”

      -Quote from the BBC show “Hustle.”

      #fraudster #con artist #cheater #confidence man #scammer #hustler #swindler

    • ‘don’t mourn organise’ are my watchwords

      Just this last week the Economist Intelligence Unit and Standard and Poor have issued reports saying renewable energy is going to continue growing despite Trump and that he won’t be able to do anything to restart the US coal industry.

      go look them up…

      and the climate stubbornly refuses to demonstrate the world isn’t warming…

      Skeptics really can’t keep ignoring or excusing the current situation in the arctic, that it is the warmest year ever and other climate caused problems like droughts (e.g. Bolivia)

      It will be interesting to watch the counter factual Trump administration playing out against the real world…
      … even if Americans will lose out.

  33. Watermelons: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

    5 stages of climate grief vs. 8 traits of psychological climate totalism
    ——

    1) Milieu control. True believers long to create an environment “containing no more and no less” than their “truth.”

    2) Mystical manipulation. The ideology is a higher purpose in itself, and its leaders chosen by History to lead the way towards Truth. All must trust in and obey the ideology and its leaders.

    3) Demand for purity. All “taints” must be removed and “anything done to anyone” in the name of attaining purity is excusable, even moral – including the continual denouncement of the impure. The ideology creates a narrow, suffocating world of guilt and shame, in which one must perpetually strive for perfection and expect humiliation for failing to achieve it.

    4) Cult of confession. Confession is an act of self-surrender to the group; individuals must retain no intellectual/emotional/social privacy. Confession could be an opportunity for catharsis, but through repetition becomes a performance, often a “histrionic public display.” It becomes impossible to maintain a healthy balance between self-worth and humility. Furthermore, the perpetual confession becomes a means of judging others (“the more I accuse myself, the more I have the right to judge you.”)

    5) Sacred science. The ideology simultaneously “transcends ordinary concerns of logic” and claims scientific truth. (Thus any criticism becomes “unscientific,” backward as well as selfish and morally wrong.) Such a worldview can provide comfort via the excuse to avoid more rigorous kinds of knowledge-seeking.

    6) Loading the language. Thought-terminating clichés reduce large, complex issues to brief, simple, definitive-sounding phrases that are easy to remember and repeat. Totalist language is repetitious, jargony, and relentlessly judgmental. Linguistic deprivation stifles critical thought.

    7) Doctrine over person. Reality is constructed as a morality play with stock characters of good and evil experiencing abstract emotions. This myth replaces individual experience. Any individual’s unique nature/potential must be molded to fit the ideology. The past must be re-written. The ideology is what is valid and therefore true.

    8) Dispensing of existence. The ideology is clear about who has the right to exist and who does not. Outsiders are less than human. Insiders can also become less than human if “contaminated” by affiliation with outsiders. Thus, individuals must fear ideological annihilation. “I believe/obey, therefore I am.”
    ———————

    Heaven’s Climate Gate, meets Jim Klimate-Kool-Aid Jones in 5,4,3,2,…

  34. The polar bears of Churchill, Ontario would like to invite all climate alarm crybabies and President Trump-hating, move-to-Canada types to the Great White North. They want you to be happy in a new home in Canada, camped out beside Hudson Bay, where you can watch the grand annual spectacle of the sea turning to ice. The bears further state that you’re welcome to stay there, in your tents, camped beside the Bay, for the rest of your natural lives. The bears also request that, out of respect for their local traditions, and if it isn’t too much trouble, please baste yourselves with Jack Daniels brand BBQ sauce, their favorite, before or upon arrival. On a personal note, I’d like to wish a hearty ‘bon voyage’ (good in both French and English) to all you intrepid movers / campers.

  35. Far too few people understand that all this assiduously defended “settled” science and “consensus” about greenhouse warming takes place in an atmosphere (forgive me) of absolutely no supportive evidence. A colleague of mine, Peter L. Ward, recently conducted a study of over 10,000 climate-related, peer-reviewed journal articles to try to find any actual data-based experiments supportive of AGW, and he found just one, that of Knut Angstrom in 1900, in which it was concluded that there was little warming effect from an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In other words, the generally accepted theory of AGW is fundamentally unsupported.

    Alarmed by this (I was once a non-questioning “warmist,” myself), I did my own hard-data-based analysis in 2015, 115 years after Angstrom, and came to essentially the same conclusion, that there is very little effect, but that ozone depletion by anthropogenic and non-explosive volcanic chlorine probably does have a warming effect, as suggested by Ward. My results were reported on this blog at:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/interesting-climate-sensitivity-analysis-do-variations-in-co2-actually-cause-global-significant-warming/

    This underscores a disturbing trend in science, undue reliance on well-elaborated and well-accepted theory that, in this case in particular, is entirely unsupported by hard data. Could that be the fundamental reason why most climate scientists are so aggressive and dogmatic about greenhouse warming theory, an uneasy feeling that the theory that they so dogmatically espouse lacks actual proof form hard data?

  36. Good article for these reasons: Slams liberals. Funny. Slams liberals. Asks many questions the warmunists need to answer, but never will. Slams liberals.

    Mr. Driessen describes leftists in their ‘native language’ — Alinsky-style ridicule and character attacks! Trump used the same ‘language’ to win the election.

    Democrats are not used to being character attacked, especially by a political novice like Trump, who hit Hillary and her lap dogs hard.

    I believe Democrats are upset for many reasons:
    (1) Their ‘girl’ lost the election.

    (2) They got two million more votes, but still lost,

    (3) They had no clue they were going to lose until late election night, because some Trump fans had lied to, or avoided, pollsters, and

    (4) If Democrats can’t win a ‘character attack election’, as in 2016, they will have to defend leftist policies in future elections.

    Those leftist policies include raising taxes, “free” college, open borders, eliminating fossil fuels, etc.

    It’s hard to defend those leftist anti-prosperity positions!

    Much easier to focus on the usual character attacks on any Republican opponent:
    (1) racist,
    (2) sexist,
    (3) Islamophobe,
    (4) out of touch,
    (5) doesn’t pay taxes,
    (6) has no idea “transgender” means, and
    (7) can’t speak Spanish.

  37. Hopefully this is the last comment here:

    I enjoyed the article but the writing needs improvement.

    Instead of just criticism, I rewrote the entire article to make it easier to read.

    I did some editing too.

    In the original article too many points were squeezed into each paragraph.
    I sent the article link to some people who don’t know much about the climate.
    Two of three people found the climate content too complicated.
    I decided to rewrite the article and sent them an easier-to-read version, with lists replacing complex paragraphs.

    My version is below:

    Our liberal media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have been going through stages of grief since the election. The five conventional stages of grief are said to be:
    (1) Denial,
    (2) Anger,
    (3) Bargaining,
    (4) Depression, and
    (5) Acceptance.

    Liberal-progressives are wallowing in (1) Denial, (2) Anger and (4) Depression.
    (a) They can’t work, attend class, or take exams.
    (b) They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Doh, comfort critters, and counseling.
    (c) Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zealand or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would.

    Liberals’ five grief stages are unconventional — they seem to have eliminated Stage (3) Bargaining (replaced by intolerance), and Stage (5) Acceptance (replaced by defiance, or even riots).

    Sadly, it appears the two new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics.

    The Left has long been intolerant of alternative viewpoints:
    (a) Refusing to engage or debate,
    (b) Banning or forcibly removing books and posters,
    (c) Threatening and silencing contrarians,
    (d) Disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers,
    (e) Denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, and
    (f) Criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers”.

    These have all become trademark tactics.

    Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced liberal-progressive ideologies and policies.

    Liberals view government as their domain — their reason for being. Government is far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements.

    Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.

    They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump.

    They’re incensed about so many Republicans are likely to review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues:
    (a) Republican President Trump,
    (b) Republicans in Congress,
    (c) 33 Republican governor’s offices, and
    (d) 69 of 99 Republican state legislatures.

    Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra.

    It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at five-star venues in exotic locales.

    It was their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards.

    That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” +2º C (+3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels.

    1850 is when the Little Ice Age ended and the modern industrial era began.

    It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to:
    (1) Keep fossil fuels in the ground,
    (2) Roll back their economies,
    (3) Reduce their living standards, and
    (4) Give $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation.
    (That’s why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. Developing countries would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. And they – or at least their leaders – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades).

    Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, greenhouse gas-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event.

    But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech.

    Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development.

    But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference.

    Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement.

    President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate.

    He has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change.

    He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”

    Here are a few important facts and probing questions that Trump could raise, to get the ball rolling.
    (1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to prove humans control the global climate, while ignoring natural influences. The IPCC claims warming, cooling and weather are now driven only by human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
    (a) How and why did this happen?
    (b) How can you ignore powerful natural forces, focus solely on manmade CO2, and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?

    (2) Your “coming climate chaos” theory and computer models assume CO2 emissions replaced natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth’s history.
    (a) What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events, before manmade CO2 allegedly took over?
    (b) Where did all the natural forces go?
    (c) Why are they no longer functioning?
    (d) Who stole them?
    (e) When did they stop controlling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?

    (3) You claim climate and weather patterns are “unprecedented” as CO2 levels continue to climb, but:
    (a) Average global temperatures have risen barely since the 1998 peak,
    (b) Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates,
    (c) Sea level is rising no faster than in the last century,
    (d) It has been a record 11 years since a category 3 or stronger hurricane made landfall on the 48 contiguous US states — the previous record was nine years from 1860 to 1869,
    (e) The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record.
    So, where are the unprecedented climate events?

    (4) Your computer models are based on the assumption increasing levels of CO2 will cause dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events.
    If this assumption is wrong, so are the models and their predictions … which have been dramatically and consistently wrong for decades.
    (a) When will you fix your computer models?
    (b) When will you include data for solar, cosmic ray, ocean and other natural forces?

    (5) The manmade climate catastrophe ‘cult’ refuses to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with people they ridicule as “skeptics” or “deniers.”
    97% consensus = case closed, you say.
    (a) What do you fear from open, robust debate?
    (b) What manipulated data are you trying to hide?
    (c) Why are you afraid to lay out your supposed evidence – and have a real debate?
    (d) Do you really think taxpayers should give you more money under these circumstances?

    (6) The FDA requires applications for drugs and medical devices to include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your climate modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to:
    (a) Hide your data and methodologies?,
    (b) Treat them as proprietary?,
    (c) Refuse to share them with Congress or skeptical scientists?, and
    (d) Refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?

    (7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores huge benefits of using these fuels.
    (a) Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?

    (8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now the EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline.
    (a) Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and rampant fraud in the existing program, and impacts on small refiners?
    (b) If we replaced all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?

    (9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized, and exempted from most environmental rules.
    (a) They kill millions of birds and bats.
    (b) Their electricity is expensive and intermittent, requiring fossil fuel backup generators.
    (c) Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws, allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and allowed to prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?

    Mr. Trump, please keep an open mind, but exercise due diligence.
    Trust, but verify.
    And please fire anyone who lies, refuses to answer, or provides the climate science equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.

  38. Since it may yet take the PETUS some time to get to it, allow me to answer some of your questions.

    1) “Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions.”
    Preposterous. Do you think climate scientists deny that seasons (warming and cooling weather patterns) are caused by our orbit of the sun? The IPCC has concluded that the abnormal warming we’ve been seeing is being caused by human activity not that it is the only factor in climate.

    2) This is a red herring argument. The fact that other climate events have been caused by other factors in no way disproves the current state of affairs. If you want to criticise the current consensus, you have to address it directly and not try to substitute other events in place of current ones.

    3) “Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates.” Simply a complete fallacy. Can you point to any research backing this up?

    4) The models consistently show how C02 influences climate over the longterm. You would have to provide evidence to the contrary if you believe it’s untrue.

    5) Where is your proof of manipulation? If 97% of climate scientists agree, who are they supposed to debate? Non climate scientists with random opinions? Climate scientists constantly publish through peer review. Their facts, finding, and methods are there for everyone to see. Who is really hiding, and who is completely transparent?

    6) Where is your evidence that anyone is hiding data or methodology? If you are scientifically literate, you can access virtually all the data and methods.

    7) Apples and Oranges comparison. The reason we’re still using fossil fuels is because the benefits are self-evident.

    8) Where is your evidence of “rampant fraud”?

    9) A serious problem (bird and bat deaths) that requires some serious solutions. Your estimates of “millions” appear off by at least a factor of 10 however. Also, CATS kill as many as 1000 times more birds.

  39. In arguing the climate issue with the left, rather than argue if warming exists, I find it more effective to point out that after 20 years of research and approximately 36 trillion dollars, we really have nothing to show for it. We have models that don’t work and have not come up with any new solutions; and these tired old solutions will have only marginal impact (if any) on CO2 emissions (wind, solar, carbon trading, biofuel, CCS). While the one solution that will have a huge impact is not even discussed. Promoting nuclear energy will have a massive impact on CO2, and electric cars will then make a lot of sense. For these reasons, I believe the left is not serious about solving climate change, they only want to keep the political hammer in place and keep the gravy train going for university research. This is obvious by the total lack of any real solutions.

    • Let alone the fact that there are absolutely no hard-data-based studies that support the elaborate theory of greenhouse warming and two that actually show it has very little effect. For my study, Google “Interesting Climate Sensitivity Analysis.”

Comments are closed.