Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
An article in the Huffington Post titled Crooked science finds a friend in Trump” is an attempt to counter the exposure of the global warming deception that will occur with the new President. All it does is expose the willful ignorance of the author and by association the publisher. It also reflects similar activities in the deliberate deception about global warming. The opening statement of the article is sufficient exposure.
“From the same people who told you that cigarettes were perfectly healthy: Mercury in our food is just fine, too. Smog in the air? No problem. To top it off — we don’t need to do a thing about climate pollution, either. And let’s just get rid of NASA’s world class research on our own dear earth’s systems. Who needs it?”
It is not the same people who said tobacco was healthy. This is an apparent reference to the early attempt to link Fred Singer to the tobacco industry. Fred wrote a critical review of the terrible research in the original article claiming to link cancer to second-hand smoke. His review was later supported by others. Environmentalists used to claim Fred was paid by the tobacco companies and in favor of smoking. In fact, Fred has always actively and openly opposed smoking. The real story is that misuse of evidence or misrepresenting what was actually said is apparently acceptable in the campaign to silence global warming skeptics and latterly climate change deniers.
The mercury and smog references are similar and typical unsubstantiated references whose only purpose is to raise fears and distract from the truth. CO2 is not a pollutant but a necessary gas for the survival of plants and animals. The truth was always available, but deliberately suppressed. The author would avoid such misrepresentations with due diligence, but that was apparently overridden by a political bias. Now the complete story will be told by the Trump administration and the exploitation of climate for a political agenda will end. All the massive funding going to bureaucrats and environmental groups will cease. Their moral high ground will be gone and the ordinary people who looked right through the media and voted for Trump, will see the extent of the lying and deception. I know they had their suspicions because many told me after presentations, but now they will be confirmed. They will be very angry and my major concern is that they don’t totally reject the necessary concept of environmentalism. The lies and deceptions promulgated in the Huffington Post article and thousands like them over the last 40 years may result in self-proclaimed environmentalists destroying environmentalism.
The Huffington Post author’s attempt at sarcasm by the reference to NASA falls absolutely flat. It shows ignorance either because the author did not do proper research or chose to ignore the truth or both. NASA, the space agency, is being blamed for the actions of those who controlled the sub agency known as NASA GISS. This malfeasance and denigration of the space agency because of the political use of climate was so outrageous that 50 former NASA astronauts combined to bring the issue to public attention.
A short list of the of events explain why the astronauts took their unprecedented action. It also shows why the Huffington Post article is completely wrong to suggest NASA GISS ‘science’ is accurate, trustworthy, and adequate as the basis of draconian energy and environmental policy.
NASA GISS was set up as an agency to examine issues related to space exploration. The diversion to the political agenda of global warming began when Senator Timothy Wirth plucked James Hansen from a low level position at NASA GISS to appear before the 1988 hearing.
… I don’t remember exactly where the data came from, but we knew there was this scientist at NASA who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So we called him up and asked him if he would testify. Now, this is a tough thing for a scientist to do when you’re going to make such an outspoken statement as this and you’re part of the federal bureaucracy. Jim Hansen has always been a very brave and outspoken individual.”
James Hansen became Director of NASA GISS, probably with the political influence of Wirth and Gore. He was politically active throughout his career in contradiction to the Hatch Act that limits such activity. For example he was arrested outside the White House for protesting coal plants. He flew to England to give testimony in a trial against six Greenpeace activists who bombed a power plant, but were found not guilty partly on his testimony?
Under Hansen and his successor Gavin Schmidt temperature records were altered, but always to accentuate warming. Director Gavin Schmidt was a significant part of the leaked email scandal from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and identified by Wegman in the section of his Report to Congress titled “SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS OF AUTHORSHIPS IN TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION.”. This remarkable part of the Wegman Report took sociological research techniques to identify and explain the small coterie of people that were closely linked and isolated in producing the science to fill the political agenda of the IPCC.
NASA GISS under Hansen and Schmidt became central to the myth created by the IPCC that human CO2 was causing global warming. This occurred despite the fact their predictions were consistently wrong and they tried to make the data fit their political objective. The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC. Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts challenged this computer generated data that was presented as real data by the bureaucrats who created and promoted it. Roberts was, to my knowledge, the first politician to challenge those bureaucrats directly by demanding empirical evidence, that is real data with established and defined physical explanations.
NASA did marvelous things that inspired America and the World. They saw the auxiliary branch of NASA GISS hijacked for the global warming political agenda of Senator Wirth, Al Gore and others. Wirth knew what he was doing wasn’t science because Michael Fumento writing in Science Under Siege in 1993 quoted him saying,
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Evidence is emerging mostly through the Internet that it is the wrong science deliberately created to push the wrong thing in terms of policy and environment is emerging. It is also clear that it survived because bureaucrats and the mainstream media, such as the Huffington Post, perpetuated the lies. This article, triggered by the panic created by a few politicians obtaining positions where they can end run them, exposes the extent to which they went to ignore, misrepresent, or misunderstand the truth. As Shakespeare had Lancelot say in the Merchant of Venice, “the truth will out”. The quote and story is more than appropriate because Lancelot chose, in a cruel trick to fool his blind father by telling him that his son was dead, was eventually exposed.
This parallels the cruel deception that Senator Wirth and the mainstream media created when they promoted science as accurate when he really believed it didn’t matter as long as it achieved the political objective. The deception was as willful as that demonstrated in the Huffington Post article.
For the record, I am firmly against cigarette smoking – both of parents died from smoking related diseases – Anthony Watts
Great post – thanks Anthony.
…and Dr. Tim Ball
The NASA-directed letter was signed by only a few astronauts. Most signers were engineers, scientists, and higher-level managers, all of whom spent careers in the space program achieving what was one of the technical high-points of US endeavors.
Thanks for that correction Don. The heroic individual risks taken by astronauts is not to be belittled but they are a tiny part of the incredible achievement of landing on the moon using the technology available at the time. It is important that it was the technical experts in science and engineering that were protesting the degradation of the NASA reputation by phoney activist-scientists.
Trump Induced Panic (TIP)
We’ve reached the TIPping point. 🙂
very clever…I might use it
I have PTSD … Post Trump-election Schadenfreude Delight.
‘Fraid that one has a tautology…
‘Freude’ means ‘delight’, ‘joy’ etc.
PTSD
Post Trump Selection Disorder
Ingy,
You mean I can’t delight in my delight?
I’m sure they’d have Post Trump Science Disregard
Being realistic…
About the Left’s cynicism, not post-Trump.
GoatGuy
“‘Fraid that one has a tautology…
‘Freude’ means ‘delight’, ‘joy’ etc.”
Is that like “ATM Machine”? Redundantly redundant.
What about “hot water heater?”
I think you miss George Carlin, too.
Dear Wattsupwithtnat.com Contribtors,
Your writing, research and erudition are an inspiration to your fellow journeyers in the Enegy Wild West (aka the US). You are quoted by me often.
Steve
P.S. And I would remiss if I forgot to thank the biggest promoter of global energy sanity, Anthony Watts.
Steve,
If you are one of the many 1,000’s of Americans and Canadians who put on their work boots on every morning, morning after morning, to ensure our energy future, and bring home a decent paycheck, no matter your role…
I salute you.
Joel,
USAF retired.
Energy?
It was pretty clear when chief propagandist Schmidt succeeded Hansen that the messaging was far more important than the science supporting the message. I see it as a case of petty revenge on Hansen’s part for when the Regan and first Bush administration called him a lunatic for his alarmism. Unfortunately for science, Hansen found an ally in Gore and climate science broke as a result.
Gavin Schmidt is trained in applied mathematics. I’ve never seen him display the thinking of a scientist.
Normally I wouldnt care about “credentials” in terms of the validity of an argument made by someone. However, Gavin”s education most certainly explains some of his actions and claims. I believe logic is innate (in a sense), but proper application of the rigors of science is learned through training. Gavin seems not to have had this training.
Being good at mathematics doesn’t mean you are a good thinking scientist. It just means you are good at mathematics.
I do both, reasonably well. My mathematics helps me get the correct result. My physics helps me understand what’s going on.
I only mix them when I really need to know how much of what is going on.
G
We should start a pool for which day Gavin will resign. I’m going with January 22nd, 2017.
To pick up on what george e. smith says, mathematics deals with situations in which information required for reaching a conclusion is complete Science deals with situations in which this information is incomplete.
Nice. So the progressives want to get all science-y, and jump on the case of Big Money trying to make money off of harming us.
How about the risk of premature birth for those women who previously had an abortion?
How about birth control pills and subsequent cancer?
No, those sacred cows won’t be mentioned.
The Huffington Post science writers don’t seem to know about the “key to science” as defined by Richard Feynman. I read their articles, and they are never backed up by science.
The Puff Ho is right up there with the Grauniad for unbiased “reporting.” Everything they post reads like a rant. Would love to see their clicks decrease!
CAGW is only a part of the larger green movement, and should not be considered apart from the whole mind-set. It is just the latest exhibit in their program, which always seems to have the same remedies to whatever problem they are currently pushing–Luddite Arcadian Socialism. One must keep the peons in their proper place!/sarc
It’s pre-emptive blame avoidance. They quickly and nastily point the finger elsewhere to avoid being targeted by people just like themselves. Mental/personality/emotional disorder or something.
Is that a real thing? Those don’t sound like they belong together.
It is a part of believing five impossible things before breakfast. CO2 is bad, but any solution to the problem, like nukes, is even worse. . . .
If they’re one thing ‘progressives’ can’t stand, it’s Progress. Socialism has no place in a post-industrial society. Why do I need socialists to tell me what to do if I have a 3D printer in my basement that can make whatever I want? They’re so used to the power they have that they’re terrified of progress making them obsolete.
History is passing them by, and their only chance is to send us back to Year Zero. Fortunately. Trump has given us at least four more years to stave off their attempts to do so.
They don’t, in reality, but as an utopian dream they make sense.
“Crooked science finds a friend in Trump” –Huffington Post
From the same people who told you that Clinton had the election sewed up.
Huffington Post and due diligence in the same text? Does not compute.
Dr. Ball writes:
The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC.
Let’s call that a testable hypothesis. After spending more than $100 billion trying to verify that hypothesis, no empirical evidence has been found to support it.
The obvious question: how many more tax dollars should be spent on that wild goose chase? Another $100,000,000,000?
Cost/benefit analysis? The cost is clear. Where is the benefit?
Excellent point, but the cost is much more than 100 Billion, because of belief in the hypothesis, significantly much more $$$ has been spent in the quest for renewable energy sources by the government(s), companies, and individuals (in the form of increased electricity and transportation fuels) .
The President’s report to Congress onClimate change indicates that the government alone is spending about $20 Billion every year (over many years) based on a HYPOTHESIS! https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
This is why TERM LIMITS are desperately needed so that ideologues of any nature cannot get rooted and perpetuate dogmatic thinking forever in the Senate or House (if POTUS only gets 2 kicks at the can, then the same should be for the other legislators) – then we wouldn’t be in this fine mess…
I’m in favor of your suggestion – but I don’t think it will deal with the real problem, the bureaucrats. They are the ones that impose their agenda cloaked by immunity from the will of the people. No one elected Hansen. Elected officials aid and abet bureaucrats but they are able to endure most over turnings of administration because our two parties are, in fact, two peas in a pod. It remains to be seen if the ‘outsider elect’ is something other than one more pea in the shell game that is politics. God, how I hope he is. God help us if he isn’t.
When legislative term limits were introduced in California, there were hopes that the influence of entrenched interests, and political cronyism would be reduced. Instead, the outgoing legislators, just groomed clones of themselves to succeed them. The problem has only gotten worse, as California is now closer to one-party rule than ever.
I agree. Term limits for legislators does nothing about staffers and consultants, let alone lobbyists. To borrow a line from Andrew Greeley, the person who said patriotism was the last refuge of scoundrels never encountered reform.
We even have a Governor who as attorney general claimed he could ignore the Constitutional (CA) limit of governors to two terms, so he is now on his fourth and illegal term as our governor.
G
I don’t like term limits. If I have a good representative, I want to keep that person as long as they will serve.
The problem is not my crook, it’s the other guys crook.
How about a variation on the Articles of Confederation’s restriction that no delegate to Congress could serve more than 3 of any 6 consecutive years? In this case, simply say that you can’t serve consecutive terms in the same office (but you can come back as long as the people wish for non-consecutive terms).
I call it The Grover Cleveland Amendment. To cover the case where someone fills out an unexpired term to which someone else was elected, it simply says “No person who shall have attained the office of President, Senator, or Representative, with at least a year of the term thereof remaining, shall be eligible to serve the next-consecutive term of that same office.”
That way we can get people to “come up for air” rather than staying in the same job for decades.
I prefer raising the minimum age to something closer to the normal age of retirement.
Have a real career, then when you are ready for something different, try politics.
McGovern is reputed to have changed his mind regarding government regulations when he retired from Congress and tried to help out with his families business.
Perhaps if he’d had the business experience first, he wouldn’t have been so eager to inflict government on the rest of us.
I often think the same, but the only think scarier than a life-long politician is a politician with nothing to lose. At least when re-election is a goal, they are beholden to the will of the people.
when re-election is a goal, they are beholden to the will of the people.
==============
they are beholden to those that contributed $$ to their re-election campaign. the voters are way down the list from there.
Huffington Post, on the morning of election day, had Odds of Winning: Hillary 98.5%, Trump 1.2%. Any news site that posted odds like this for Hillary should immediately go on that “Fake News” list that somebody made up.
That was a useful list, by the way, I got some nice new websites bookmarked now that I hadn’t heard of before.
BTW, I flagged that article as an abusive presentation of alarmist rhetoric as scientific truth and that will mislead their low information readership.
Just wait for the phone call Gavin. It is coming and fairly soon!
Then you might begin to understand marginalisation.as the truth comes out.
The same false allegation of an alliance with tobacco deployed against Fred Singer was also used in the attempt to defame Fredrick Seitz, a prominent physicist and past president of the NAS, when he decried Ben Santer’s false insertions into the 1995 IPCC SAR about a “discernable human influence” on climate.
Here’s a bit of what Seitz wrote, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” More here.
Were Seitz alive today, and given the garbage called consensus climatology that has transpired since 1996, one expects that his descriptive language would be rather more tart than “disturbing corruption.”
Oh, come on people, let’s not go completely over the edge. The earth is warming. The increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at least a tenable hypothesis for the driver of some of the warming since 1950. It makes sense to take some no-regrets steps to reduce GHG emissions until we can get a better handle on climate sensitivity to AGHGs and all the rest of the climate uncertainties. Climate research should still be funded but with less of an agenda to push one interpretation of the data and suppress all meaningful discussion of alternative hypotheses. Better policies should be developed than building immature technology infrastructure at tax-payer expense. But the risks of poorly predicted warming are too great to ignore or dismiss as fraud, and can only be reduced through better understanding of the basic science.
JMA “The increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at least a tenable hypothesis for the driver of some of the warming since 1950.
No it’s not.
Tenable scientific hypotheses are testable and falsifiable. A CO2 impact on climate is not.
I said hypothesis, not scientific hypothesis. Call it a guess if you like, but it’s not a wild guess. We have a correlation between warming and GHGs, and possible causation from GHG theory. It remains to understand the system well enough to devise an effective test.
Have you figured “negative feedback” into your GHG theory, JMA?
Yes, there has to be negative feedback in the system somewhere, or the earth would have cooked when CO2 was higher for most of the last 250 my (Berner, 2002). But temperatures in that period are interpreted to have been significantly higher, probably high enough that if we returned to them we’d lose a lot of coastline to rising sea level. Seems a scenario worth avoiding to the extent possible.
Actually, we don’t have a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
If you are unscientific enough to merely take CO2 vs. temperature at one day, and CO2 vs temperature on another day then there has been a change. However if you are actually interested in learning something and plot the two variables over time, you will see that temperature goes up and down while CO2 consistently climbs.
JMA, I don’t know where you are getting your misinformation from, but over the last 250 million years, temperatures have been both higher and much lower than they are today, all while CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than today. Not the 20 or 30 percent increases that we are talking about.
@MarkW. Deep time temperatures from Scotese 2002. Pretty qualitative I think. But as I said elsewhere, there are multiple forcers that easily overwhelm the weak climate sensitivity to CO2. Doesn’t mean CO2 can’t have some effect in the right conditions.
No one credible has ever claimed that CO2 has no impact. The evidence is very, very solid that the impact is minimal. There is no evidence to support a belief in a high CO2 sensitivity.
JMA … is this the correlation you referred to?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1977/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1945/to:1977/normalise
“and can only be reduced through better understanding of the basic science.”
Yes, the science needs to be better understood, but primarily by those driving the so called consensus whose understanding has been warped by the accumulated effect from decades of agenda driven bias.
The science of radiating bodies is already well known and the Earth is unambiguously a body radiating energy as a consequence of its temperature. The laws of physics that describe this kind of system just don’t support a high sensitivity and the fear mongering is dependent on an assumed and absurdly high sensitivity. The laws of physics describe a linear and temperature independent sensitivity metric expressed as W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which measurements put at about 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of post albedo solar forcing and far below the 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC which they express as the non linear equivalent 0.8C per W/m^2 of forcing in order to obfuscate the obvious flaws. By controlling the language, they can then keep the more transparent metric of sensitivity out of the lexicon so as to maintain confusion.
The only no-regret steps that should be taken are those that stand up in the absence of a high sensitivity. Conservation and increased efficiency are both beneficial when the costs don’t offset any savings. Acting out of fear alone will only result in poor choices like Solyndra and others like them.
“The earth is warming”. Here in my part of fly-over country, the temp is predicted to get to 4 degrees F. tonite.
We are told there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. Please present the evidence for your claim.
Go back a little further, you may notice a trend made up of periodic warming and thermal plateaus. Line these up with the PDO. You’ll see a nice correlation between warming periods and a positive PFO, and plateaus and a negative PDO. The PDO went negative after the 98 El Niño…may account for the recent pause in warming.
Sorry JMA, but the AMO went positive around 1995 and is still positive. So, having a pause with one natural factor positive and one negative is actually not surprising. If anything, I would expect the AMO to be a larger influence given it’s influence on Arctic sea ice.
Let’s rephrase that more appropriately as “the poorly predicted risks of (the purported) warming.” The comparison of the risks of the “purported” warming to the economic cost of the proposed solution is at the heart of the matter. The risks of the “purported” warming are greatly exaggerated, while the economic costs of the proposed solutions to this exaggerated risk runs into the trillions of dollars.
As for fraud, the hockey stick graph is clearly a hoax and, thus, fraudulent. Prior to the hockey stick graph, the greatest hoax in science was Piltdown Man. The so-called missing link was actually the jawbone of what was probably an orangutan attached to a human skull. The hockey stick graph is actually temperature data spliced onto proxy data in order to “hide the decline” of the proxy. Were only the proxy data included on the graph (including the deleted data that showed apparently declining temperatures after 1960 or so), there would have been no alarm about “the risks of poorly predicted warming,” as the proxy data showed no warming.
Sure, there are a lot of lies and fraud associated perpetrated by the alarmists, not to mention disgusting personal and professional attacks on those who disagree with them, but that should not distract us from the awful possibility that there may be an essential truth buried beneath the BS.
Seem to be having trouble posting this comment, so it may turn up in multiples. Anyway, sure, there are a lot of lies and fraud perpetrated by the alarmists, not to mention disgusting personal and professional attacks on those who disagree with them, but that should not distract us from the awful possibility that there may be an essential truth buried beneath the BS.
Just how awful do you believe a temperature rise of a few tenths of a degree is going to be?
Why do you think the temperature rise will be only a few tenths of a degree? We’ve already increased about 1 degree since the LIA. Not bad so far. I think if temperatures continue to increase, conditions will still allow plants and animals to flourish, but if rising temperatures melt land ice and sea level keeps going up, we could eventually lose significant land area. Nice if we could avoid that.
I think it will be only a few tenths of a degree because that is what the science is indicating.
Yes, we have warmed by 1 degree since the end of the little ice age, and the vast majority of that occurred prior to the big rise in CO2, so cannot be attributed to CO2.
There is zero evidence that the rate in sea level rise has increased, despite a steadily growing level of CO2 over the last 70 years.
Yes, cheering that the rate of SLR is constant so far. It could accelerate if the warming continues though. Let’s see what happens in the aftermath of this El Niño (step up to a new thermal plateau or not?), and especially when the PDO goes positive again.
what about the risk to humanity from global stupid such as you represent- what’s the precautionary rule for that one?
wouldn’t it be the low/no regrets path to spend your money on duct tape for your face?
Why the knee jerk reaction to JMA? S/he is proposing unbiased additional research to see if anything important is on the horizon, and no regrets steps. By definition, no regrets steps cost nothing and do no harm. I’m not certain that such a thing exists, but if so, why not? As for unbiased research, what could possibly be bad about that? If skeptics are right, it will prove them right. If they’re wrong, might be good to know about it. The key is “unbiased”. You can never predict the benefits of unbiased research because by definition you don’t know what the answers are, and so cannot assign value to the results. The amount we spend versus other things is a different matter, but a knee jerk “no!” response makes little sense.
Suppressing energy generation that produces CO2 is the very opposite of a “no regrets, no cost, no harm” step. In practice, to date, it produces regrets, cost, and harm in spades. Including the “opportunity cost” of foregoing the huge agricultural growing benefits of CO2 enrichment!
Brian H December 6, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Suppressing energy generation that produces CO2 is the very opposite of a “no regrets, no cost, no harm” step.
….and is not what JMA proposed. See my first sentence about knee jerk reactions…
“….and is not what JMA proposed. See my first sentence about knee jerk reactions…”
SJWs always lie. Try to compromise with them, and they’ll take everything you have and leave you for the ice weasels, beaten and bloody.
No. The AGW scam needs to be killed stone dead.
No. The AGW scam needs to be killed stone dead.
What better way than unbiased research that proves it a scam? Do you really think that there is another way to kill it? Defund all the programs and it will just go away? Do you know what that does? It let’s the alarmists claim the government is hiding something, they double down on the rhetoric, and at some point in the future THEY win an election. You really want to spend the next 4 to 8 years doing nothing while they fill up on ammo? Do you really want to arrive at the next major change in government with NOTHING to show in terms of what the facts are?
Do the unbiased research and publish the results. Anything less isn’t science.
There are no steps that are cost free. However, there are some things that would be somewhat close to “no-regrets” steps to reduce CO2 emissions:
1. Nuclear Power – the answer is NO.
2. Hydroelectricity – the answer is NO.
3. Diesel vs. Gasoline as Diesel can get about 50% better fuel mileage (thus reducing CO2 emissions) – the answer is NO.
We are facing a totalitarian imposition of a radical agenda where no dissent is allowed. The vampire has to have a stake driven through it and smothered in garlic, so that reasonable people can go back to having a reasonable and properly scientific debate about the actual science. There is actually quite a bit of difference among the so-called skeptics about the science, but we have reached a point where actual scientific debate has been snuffed out completely. Published scientists can no longer publish. No more debate is allowed. This is intolerable.
Sure, there are a lot of lies and fraud perpetrated by the alarmists, not to mention disgusting personal and professional attacks on those who disagree with them, but that should not distract us from the awful possibility that there may be a little truth buried in the manure.
why don’t you go get a CAT scan just in case of a brain tumor?
you know- those free ones they give away with every peer reviewed climate paper. (are they charging for brain tumors now, too?)
the key is ‘not your money’ and the no-regrets scenario is ‘don’t touch it if it isn’t yours’
” By definition, no regrets steps cost nothing and do no harm.”
He clearly states a “no regrets” reduction in anthropogenic CO2. Read (or watch) http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/ to see how our CO2 saved life from inevitable self-extinction. The planet has greened up thanks to our CO2.
“t let’s the alarmists claim the government is hiding something”
If there’s no money, they’ll find something else to do. And, if Trump does his job right, the Democrats will never win another election. They’re doubling down on the same identity politics that cost them the White House this time around.
Around the world, the right pay trillions of dollars of taxes to fund the left. If you want to end the insanity, that has to stop.
david, depends on who you talk to, a lot of these “no regrets” steps involve lots of taxes and social controls.
david, depends on who you talk to, a lot of these “no regrets” steps involve lots of taxes and social controls.
1. I said I doubt any no regrets policies actually exist
2. By definition, steps involving lots of taxes and social controls are NOT “no regrets”.
“….less of an agenda…”? How’s about NO agenda of that or any similar description?
Sure, good edit.
@ JMA
And because of a “tenable hypothesis” the developed nations of the world must give 100 billion dollars per year from 2020 to the developing countries? No, this is a con scheme to squeeze out “guilt money” from those gullible enough to accept that they are “destroying the climate”.
Well I agree that falls into the regrettable category. But there are other avenues.
Sorry–you have cause and effect reversed. The temperature goes up, and then, about 800 years later, CO2 levels follow. Carbon dioxide’s effect in warming the earth has not been proved–at all.
Yes, I know about the ice core data. Temperatures goes up, oceans degas CO2. Doesn’t mean that rising CO2 would not drive up temperatures from the GHG effect.
@JMA, if rising CO2 drives up temperatures, then why is it that when CO2 levels are at their highest, temperatures begin to drop, and continue dropping for ~800y until CO2 levels fall in response? What is the thing that is so powerful that it can overcome the highest levels of CO2?
JMA
December 7, 2016 at 6:53 am: No, JMA, your stock sidesteppings of hypothesis are pure denia! of truth ie trollwork. There is a long list of empirical and experimental disproofs of your belief already. But your type will not look at these, preferring to waste our time for your own ends. Goodbye.
“It makes sense to take some no-regrets steps to reduce GHG emissions …”
No, it does not.
“Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2. To use the analogy of the Atomic Clock, if the Earth were 24 hours old we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards the End Times. If that isn’t good news I don’t know what is. You don’t get to stave off Armageddon every day.”
Read all about the facts here
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
Plenty of CO2 in the system previously, without our input.
That’s not true. CO2 levels were down to about 280ppm, plants start to suffer around 200 ppm.
That’s dangerously close.
@JMA December 7, 2016 at 6:29 am
“Plenty of CO2 in the system previously, without our input.”
You obviously didn’t read either the reference OR the quote.
280 ppm and falling is anything but “plenty”. Even today, with human emissions causing CO2 to reach 400 ppm plants are still restricted in their growth rate, which would be much higher if CO2 were at 1000-2000 ppm – 400 ppm is hardly “plenty” for a healthy biosphere.
If humans had not begun to unlock some of the carbon stored as fossil fuels, all of which had been in the atmosphere as CO2 before sequestration by plants and animals, life on Earth would have soon been starved of this essential nutrient and would begin to die. Given the present trends of glaciations and interglacial periods this would likely have occurred less than 2 million years from today. Try to actually read it before replying.
Pity the alarmists can’t get alarmed about something alarming based on fact.
As poorly understood as climate sensitivity to GHG emissions is, the science for the risks of increased warming is worse, much worse. Independent of temperature effects, I think it’s clear that increased CO2 is net beneficial. The warming that has occurred since the late 19th century appears to have been clearly net beneficial. Proved harm from the about 1C of warming we’ve had is conspicuous by its absence. To this point, the only harm from supposed CAGW has been from expensive policies aimed at a tiny amount of mitigation, a purely self-inflicted harm. (Also conspicuous by its absence is any serious attempt to show that mitigation is more economically sensible than adaption, especially given the time value of money.)
Under these circumstances, it’s entirely pointless to enact any policy for the purpose of decreasing CO2 emissions. I do support continued research into climate, and certainly think we need to pay attention to being resilient to climate change and weather events — even with no anthropogenic influence at all, climates will still change and extreme weather events will still happen. Maintaining the climate at a particularly well-liked level (i.e. NOT the climate of 1750) and preventing extreme weather events is currently far beyond our technology.
A no regrets policy would be don’t do anything until there is evidence that there actually is a problem.
Since despite 50 years of research, nobody has uncovered any evidence of a problem that needs to be addressed, I’m willing to believe that none will be found in the foreseeable future.
The earth is warming. The increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is at least a tenable hypothesis for the driver of some of the warming since 1950.
======================
nope. your logic ignores the warming prior to 1950. warming prior to 1950 is statistically identical to warming post 1950. However CO2 prior to 1950 is NOT statistically identical to CO2 post 1950.
The scientific method tells us that causation CANNOT OCCUR in the absence of correlation, thus CO2 cannot be the cause of post 1950 warming.
JMA,
“It makes sense to take some no-regrets steps…”
There’s the rub! There are no “no cost” or “no-regrets steps.” If there were, I would agree with you. But, all the pro-active proposals have significant direct costs and proabable unintended consequences. I do agree with you that we need a “better understanding of the basic science” because the science is not settled, contrary to what a well-known, self-anointed expert has said.
JMA, “I said hypothesis, not scientific hypothesis.” You wrote it in the context of a scientific argument. That makes it a scientific hypothesis by direct implication.
If you wanted to make a speculative suggestion, you should have called it speculation.
Down below, you wrote about, “the awful possibility that there may be an essential truth buried beneath the BS [about CO2 and warming]” and “Why do you think the temperature rise will be only a few tenths of a degree?”
Sure looks like you do indeed mean it to be a scientific (i.e., physically valid) hypothesis. You appear to be opening with a demurral and then arguing what was demurred. A bit of incoherence, that.
I’m unconvinced the Climate is understandable, at present there appear to be too many inter-dependent nonlinear variables contributing to both positive and negative feedbacks to be understandable. Anything more than crude short-term estimates are doomed to failure.
Correction: not just astronauts–also included NASA scientists. The linked article title is “50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on Global Warming.”
Thanks Anthony. Good work.
Hope to sit in on your session at AGU if time and “events” permit.
And The Sea Will Grant Each Man New Hope … His Sleep Brings Dreams Of Home.
🙂
That is not a poem by Christopher Columbus but the inspired BS from John McTiernan [Director] and Larry Ferguson [Screenwriter] for the film “The Hunt For The Red October” — It did not happen as in the film by the way. Semper Fidelis.
For some reason lately I have lately read more of the Huffingandpuffington post than I would have normally cared to.
‘Mercury in our food is just fine, too. Smog in the air? No problem. To top it off — we don’t need to do a thing about climate pollution, either.’
Either ?!?! The trillions we have spent cleaning up the air the last 50 years never happened? Are they telling us now that they really didn’t care? Then why should we care about climate pollution (sic), either? Whatever that means.
It boils my blood when these people act like nothing has changed in 50 years.
There is a tenable hypothesis for the existence of Cthulhu.
@JMA – “But the risks of poorly predicted warming are too great to ignore or dismiss as fraud, and can only be reduced through better understanding of the basic science.”
This is just a restatment of the Precautionary Principle, which comes down to rule by the people who tell the scariest stories. It is all about making up fake news and disseminating it in order to get people to obey.
It is NOT science. It is manipulation.
I am not sure how proposing further research to better understand the science is manipulation. Do you really think there is no risk that increasing GHGs are not warming the planet? If so I would be very glad to hear your scientific rationale.
Whoops, too many negatives. No risk that GHGs are warming the planet, I should have said.
JMA, you’re in Bifurcated land. You’re either with us or agin us. What’s it gonna be…………punk?
You’re either with us or agin us.
The notion this issue is one of “them” and “us” is simply juvenile. There is a gap between what we know and what we don’t know. Science is about closing the gap. Insisting that sides be chosen was the petty, infantile, political drama of one side that created the current mess. Insisting that the rest of us descend to that level also is both ridiculous and dangerous. Science is about finding out how the real world actually works. You can’t do that by insisting people take sides and calling them punks if they don’t.
“I would be very glad to hear your scientific rationale”
Sure… In the past 540 million years it is glaringly obvious that temperature and CO2 are in an inverse correlation at least as often as they are in any semblance of correlation. Two clear examples of reverse correlation occurred 150 million years and 50 million years ago. At the end of the Jurassic temperature fell dramatically while CO2 spiked. During the Eocene Thermal Maximum, temperature was likely higher than any time in the past 550 million years while CO2 had been on a downward track for 100 million years. This evidence alone is sufficient to warrant deep speculation of any claimed lock-step causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Read more here for further edification:
http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/
I hope Tony is joking–I think “punk” Is intended humorously. I have always admired the skeptic side of the debate for trying to stick to civilized discussion, while the alarmists resort to lying, data manipulation, and personal/ professional attacks in their noble cause corruption. Bifurcated land is inhabited by many scientists when they lack solid evidence for or against a hypothesis.
@Alan Ranger. I am not saying there are no other climate forcers than CO2. The right conditions from a stronger forcer could cause an inversion of the CO2 temperature relation. Note the ice-core data at the end of each interglacial, in which temperatures are seen to start falling though CO2 is relatively high. Apparently the change in solar radiation overrides any CO2 effect. But thanks for the link, will look it up.
I get the impression that you think there is a proposal on the table to end all climate research, everywhere in the world.
If not, then why the lie about just wanting to continue research?
Note the ice-core data at the end of each interglacial, in which temperatures are seen to start falling though CO2 is relatively high. Apparently the change in solar radiation overrides any CO2 effect.
======================
nope. what your example shows is that high CO2 causes temperatures to fall. similarly the ice cores show that temperatures start to rise when CO2 is low, directly opposite the notion that increasing CO2 causes temperatures to rise.
the change in solar radiation is too small to be the cause, which is why Milankovitch was so strongly opposed when he presented his theory.
JMA,
How about spending just as much to show there is no risk of MAN’s emissions harming the planet?
Check that. Make that “harming the people that live on the planet?”
Politics. Money. Science. Not a good mix.
(And, NO, we should not spend more of others people’s money to “research” what is obvious.)
@JMA December 7, 2016 at 7:02 am
You originally posted:
“Do you really think there is no risk that increasing GHGs are not warming the planet? If so I would be very glad to hear your scientific rationale.”
The lack of correlation I cited is the scientific rationale required to dismiss any hypothesized cause-effect relationship. Glad to have sorted that one out for you.
From the wikitubes:
“Browning graduated from Wesleyan University in 1977 with a major in Philosophy, Literature, and History…”
Shocking, I know, what with all those straw men and the made up phrase of “climate pollution” all in the first paragraph.
For the record I do not want to influence people to smoke or not smoke. It is their decision. Where they smoke is another question and if possible I would generally prefer people not to smoke near me. Segregation in some public places, the football for instance is fantastic.Not a concern about second hand smoke health hazards either, I just do not like the smell and visual problems.
Smokers always seem to enjoy life more, even if it is shorter.
Quite happy to pay taxes to look after them as well, that is what a society should be about.
Except for POT which can be used anywhere in many States.
Kind of like old people, we pay taxes to look after them. Funny thing … if smokers die younger then they wouldn’t they use less health care?
Studies have found that smokers do use less health services over their life span. Additionally Social Security would have gone broke years ago if all those smokers hadn’t died early.
We can always hope, but I don’t recommend anybody hold their breath. The corruption and brainwashing run deep and wide and there are a lot of big money players, entrenched bureaucrats and tenured hyper-green “academics” who will fight tooth and nail to keep it going. There’s an old saying that Congress and POTUS are only the temp help, it’s the bureaucrats and GS numbers that really run the country.
To paraphrase Churchill, this is not the end or even the beginning of the end, it is only the end of the beginning.
Not this time. Their time is up, and they know it. Simple via budgets and grants.
I hope you’re right, Rud. BTW, in my opinion “Blowing Smoke” should be required reading for every freshman at every English speaking university worldwide.
Simple? You have to be kidding. We have had the young, the decision makers, opinion leaders and more be relentlessly subjected to AGW propaganda and dogma for a generation. There is nothing simple about unwinding the climate consensus trap.
Ahem, this is the the “author” of the HuffStuff:
“Dominique Browning Senior Director, Moms Clean Air Force
Dominique Browning is the co-founder and Senior Director of Moms Clean Air Force, a special project of Environmental Defense Fund. She is a writer and editor — and the mother of two sons. She blogs at Slow Love Life and writes regularly for the New York Times and TIME.com. Dominique contributes to W, Wired, Whole Living, and Good Housekeeping, among other publications. She has spent most of her journalistic career in the magazine world, as an editor at Esquire, Texas Monthly, Newsweek, and House & Garden. She is the author of several books; the most recent is SLOW LOVE: How I Lost My Job, Put on My Pajamas, & Found Happiness.”
Is the bench really this thin on the warmist side?
“Moms Clean Air Force”
Reminded me of this, seen elsewhere (paraphrased):
“…as if one is dealing not at all with them as individuals, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of them…”
The Onion has more truth to it than the HuffPo.
Not as funny though.
Unfortunately, in the era of the Kardashians, satire is dead…
Tim Ball writes:
“James Hansen became Director of NASA GISS, probably with the political influence of Wirth and Gore. He was politically active throughout his career in contradiction to the Hatch Act that limits such activity.”
——————–
Such exemplary Earth Justice Warrior spirit. The law means nothing when the cause is just.
The end justifies the means!
/s <—- for the challenged
(I just added that last bit, just in case.)
The Huffington Post is all about liberal politics and they could care less about the actual science involved. To them, because someone has claimed that there is a 97% scientific consensus that the AGW conjecture is true then it must be true. As we know scientists never registered and voted on the matter and besides science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some form of legislation and theroies of science are not proven by means of an opinion survey. If consensus actaully made a theory true then we would all be forced to believe in the Ptolemaic, Earth centered, concept of the universe. I myself believe that Mankind’s burning up the Earth’s finite supply of fossil fuel is not such a good idea and I would like to use AGW as another reason to consereve on the use of fossil fuels. At first the AGW conjectrue seems to be quite plausable and to somethone who routinely just accepts what they read, the literature on the issue seems to be quite convincing. But I have earned my living being a science and technology trouble shooter. I am reading all this AGW support literature and telling myself that things do not work that way. For me the AGW conjecture has too many holes to support. My conclusion is that the climate change we are experiencing today, as it has been for eons, is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate, There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. My believe that the AGW conjecture nothing more than fiction is a matter of science. My conclusion is that there are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Rather then be waisting time and money trying to solve a problem that Mankind does not have the power to solve we should be working on those problems that can be solved.
That is one long paragraph, but you are right…
You are right I should have broken it up into several paragraphs. I wish they has an edditing function here.
+1
Exactly, conserving, not outlawing as a means to redistribute the poverty.
Yes conserving and not outlawing. It is not just a matter of economic morals but economic reality. We need to maintain a strong economy to solve our various problems. “outlawing as a means to redistribute the poverty” would be an economic desaster as it has been in the past.
Why would we want to conserve fossil fuel? We appear to have hundred(s) years of supply. If we ever do run out we can make the stuff out of coal like Hitler did to run his evil war machine. Or we can make it out of thin air by extracting carbon (CO2) and hydrogen (H2O) with a lot of energy input.
As they say – the stone age did not end because they ran out of stones.
Brilliant! At last I’ve found the definitive definition:
Socialism = Poverty Redistribution
If you think the science is so wrong, why is it every single nationally representative scientific body on the planet (that cares to have a position)accepts the notion that man made CO2 is warming the earth? Have they all got it wrong and you experts here are all right?
They are paid to.
What you are talking about is all politics and not science. It does not matter how many are for or against. Just the scientiic arguements really matter. The AGW conjecture looks good at first until one looks at the science in detail. It is really full of holes. It is based upon the concept of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by LWIR absorption by certain atmospheric gasses. In fact such a radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is pure fiction and hence the AGW conjecture cannot be supported. Organizations deciding otherwise does not change the science. And yes they have it all wrong.
“why is it every single nationally representative scientific body on the planet …”
Now tell us what evidence they relied on. IOW: what is the actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming?
Yes!! If only because we don’t claim to be experts.
Why is it that you believe that the politicians who run these organizations give a flying flip what the membership believes?
Except that is not world wide; primarily the US and European Academies. The Russians and Swedes are predicting a 2 Degree temperature drop over the next 30 years, based upon the testing of the hypothesis of the solar wind and sunspot disruption of cosmic rays affecting the formation of clouds, a hypothesis which appears to be confirmed by the recent tests at CERN. Everyone on this site is familiar with Svensmark’s work. The Chinese have translated the excellent report published by the NGIPCC.
The Chinese have “promised” pResident Obama they will cut emissions by 2030, in a non-binding agreement in return for some of the Climate Reparations Blood Money that “developing” countries are supposed to get from the developed countries. The claim that ALL science bodies are on board with the scam is false.
My understanding was that the Chinese promised to stop increasing the CO2 emissions in 2030. Any cuts after that will be voluntary.
Paul767 December 7, 2016 at 7:38 am
“Except that is not world wide; primarily the US and European Academies. The Russians and Swedes are predicting a 2 Degree temperature drop”
I call BS on that. Show me the evidence.
Well, I’ve been looking for the scientific rationale that the effect of CO2 is zero for years. Low sensitivity, fine, but zero? Any links to supporting papers?
Who said it was zero? Straw man much?
the effective height of the atmosphere is 5 km
the average lapse rate is 6.5 C/km
the “Greenhouse” effect is 33 C
lapse rate warming at surface = 5 x 6.5 C/km = 32.5 C
thus we are able to account for 32.5 C out of 33 C by the conversion of PE to KE due to convection, moderated by the condensation of water.
Given that these are approximations, the result is close enough to suggest that the warming due to radiative transfer is zero. Also, there is no difference except for speed between conduction and radiation within the atmosphere. If there is a GHG effect due to radiation, there must be a GHG effect due to conduction.
The Huffington post is all political. They have a section on climate change which I comment on sometimes. For example. there is another article entitled:
“Kids Sue The Government For Not Protecting Them From Climate Change”
My comment on that article was:
“The climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the Oceans over which Mankind, including governments, have no control. The appropriate party to sue would be that party responsible for climate change, Mother Nature. Lots of luck collecting a judgement against Mother Nature.”
If you call it an act of God, you might stand a better chance:
Ross Perot had some good discussions on TV about issues where he’d show some charts that summarized his points and talked us through them. His version of a presidential fireside chat that I think help the nation understand what the president is thinking and doing. Obama never did those kinds of chats when they were sorely needed in times of racial tension or after terrorist attacks. I’m hoping Trump has these, and gives us some good discussions of climate, similar to the data presented here on WUWT but dumbed down a little, while he tells us his stance. I’m sure most people have never seen a chart of severe weather instances versus time. Talk about sea level rise and local areas of sinking shorelines, show temperature data along with the raw adjusted values so everyone realizes the data is manipulated. Discuss how computer climate model predictions are not correlated to real data because they are not meant to be accurate they are meant to scare people.
These snowflakes simply have no science, math, statistics, economics, or any other metric “hard” disciplines in their educations. Even classes that one would think are science, such as climate, ecology, environmental subjects are simple classes for mediocre students where the grade is dependent on opinion.
When I saw an article that was headed “Crooked science finds a friend in Trump ” I thought that he must have gone to the dark side. There is only one side that has crooked science and it ain’t the sceptics.
I miss an important detail not mentioned in Dr. Ball’s splendid digression. Phil Jones, the Mother of all climate alarmists said about the 2 degree warming limit: “This figure is pulled out of thin air”. As we have seen (Paris, Marrakech), much of the present discussion is centered about this figure, or its smaller version, 1.5 degrees. It is unbelievable that year after year thousands of ignorant people burn hundreds of millions of dollars in useless climate meetings and produce agreements and promises not worth the portable hard disks or memory sticks they are saved on. A few kilometers away people die because of the smoke from burning cowshit (if they have a cow!) and from having to eat and drink rottening stuff because of the lack of electricity to cool their food – all because these heartless morons with their daydreams of green energy, sitting in air-conditioned luxury hotels in their climate meetings prevent the natives for getting cheap and reliable electrical energy. Not to resist green energy, but you should not kill millions of people waiting for someone to invent reliable renewable sources of energy!
When people convene for a meeting of molecular physics or theoretical astrophysics, say, one can be sure that the participants are active workers in the respective fields or work hard and honestly to be one, When a climate meeting is held scientists with a mind of their own are sometimes even not allowed. Those who are, are carefully screened on the basis of conviction, not on any scentific or objective criteria and in meetings like Paris or Marrakech most of the participants do not know anything abour climate science in general. To be sure, these were not scientific meetings as such, but the decisions made were such that a scientific background would have been most urgent.
I urge you all to read what Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. wrote a few days ago on this blog about how he has been treated because of this wievs on AGW. This is worse than the old Soviet Union and the East Bloc 50 years ago, because in the Western world of today it is hidden under the blanket of “democracy”.
“I miss an important detail not mentioned in Dr. Ball’s splendid digression. Phil Jones, the Mother of all climate alarmists said about the 2 degree warming limit: “This figure is pulled out of thin air”.”
A good point that is not made nearly often enough.
Dr Ball didn’t Hansen start out as an expert on Venus? Wasn’t Jack Kevorkian a pathologist who painted images of death in his spare time. These two seem ti have become obsessed with thier original interests. We were just along for the ride.
We see examples of Trump’s honesty all the time. His recommendation to cancel the new Airforce one was undoubtedly due to his secret concerns over the aircrafts emissions and not just costs. This resulted in Boeing shares taking a dive. But wise Mr.Trump sold his shares before making the announcement . So he is not only wise, but financially astute as well!
I think this Trump complaint about Boeing overbilling on the presidential jet is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump isn’t happy with Boeing because they are trying to sell airplanes to Iran, and are planning on producing aircraft in India, instead of the U.S., so Trump is putting them on notice that they are on his radar.
People demand that Boeing build everything in the US, even planes that are shipped overseas.
But then get all bent out of shape when other countries start demanding that Boeing build the planes that they buy, in country.
1. No-one cares about the left’s new-found love for ‘honesty’. We know you’re lying.
2. The left still haven’t figured out that Trump is the world’s greatest Internet troll. He only has to send out one tweet and a billion lefties run around like headless chickens. It’s hilarious.
To be honest, the idea of another 4 years of an Obama-nation under Hillary scared me to death because it meant more regulations, more fear over climate change; ramping up the rhetoric to keep the scare alive.
The shoe is on the other foot now. But they, unlike us, have nothing to fear. There is no one to be afraid of. No one is going to be fleecing them for “green” projects that won’t work. No one is going to be regulating every tiny detail of their lives to control greenhouse gas emissions. I hope all of that is over and done with. It would be nice to focus on something else for a change. Like life. 😊
Indeed 41, lets hope and pray you are correct.
Trump’s grasp of Science never ceases to astound his followers. After all, he pronounced a firm link between inoculations and autism, something that no other scientist has ever been able to demonstrate. He also spotted the fact that modern light bulbs cause cancer, again something that had not been proved by any scientific process. There’s lots more. He never ceases to amaze!
* * * * * * * * * *
DR. BEN CARSON: […] But it is true that we are probably giving way too many [vaccines] in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.
DONALD TRUMP: And that’s all I’m saying, Jake. That’s all I’m saying.
JAKE TAPPER: Dr. Paul? Dr. Paul, I’d like to bring you in.
DR. RAND PAUL
A second opinion?
[…]
So I’m all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom. I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines out a little bit at the very least.
GOP Presidential debate, September 16, 2015
* * * * * * * * * *
And Gareth, this is what Trump was referring to in his 2012 tweet on lightglobes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8462626/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals.html
I notice you didn’t quote Trump or provide a source for your claim. You should apply for a job at CNN.
@Khwarizmi
Well swatted!
Hi 4. Here is something for you to mull over.
The property developer and TV personality said he had evidence of a relationship between autism and vaccinations after seeing an employee’s child diagnosed with the disability following an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
“I’ve seen it,” he claimed, “a beautiful child, went to have the vaccine… a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.” Mr. D. Trump.
Mr Trump made the comments after presidential candidate Ben Carson, a retired paediatric neurosurgeon, said there is no link between vaccinations and autism.
“The fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations,” said Mr Carson.
The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-says-vaccinations-are-causing-an-autism-epidemic-10505087.html
Boeing financial deals, more detail if you are interested.
http://mindy-fischer-writer.com/2016/12/boeing-deal/
By the way, while you believe I am a suitable candidate for CNN ( Wrong country I’m afraid) I suppose you are a big fan of Breibart news ? You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Nah. A Clinton win would have meant WWIII. So we’d all have been dead before 2020.
I’ve a feeling this article would help understand what is going on. – http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/historical-origin-political-correctness
I suspect that the words of Mr. Paul Driessen (below) have been read by Mr. Trump.
I also suspect that there will be much more PANIC when the eco-tard gravy train smashes into the buffers.
START OF ARTICLE
No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.
So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?
The answer is simple. The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.
According to a 200-page analysis by the Climate Change Business Journal, this Climate Industrial Complex can be divided into nine segments: low carbon and renewable power; carbon capture and storage; energy storage, such as batteries; energy efficiency; green buildings; transportation; carbon trading; climate change adaptation; and consulting and research. Consulting alone is a $27-billion-per-year industry that handles “reputation management” for companies and tries to link weather events, food shortages and other problems to climate change. Research includes engineering R&D and climate studies.
The $1.5-trillion price tag appears to exclude most of the Big Green environmentalism industry, a $13.4-billion-per-year business in the USA alone. The MacArthur Foundation just gave another $50 million to global warming alarmist groups. Ex-NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club $105 million to wage war on coal (shortly before the Club began waging war on natural gas and Chesapeake Energy, in what some see as poetic justice). Warren Buffett, numerous “progressive” foundations, Vladimir Putin cronies and countless companies also give endless millions to Big Green.
Our hard-earned tax dollars are likewise only partially included in the CCBJ tally. As professor, author and columnist Larry Bell notes in his new book, Scared Witless: Prophets and profits of climate doom, the U.S. government spent over $185 billion between 2003 and 2010 on climate change items – and this wild spending spree has gotten even worse in the ensuing Obama years. We are paying for questionable to fraudulent global warming studies, climate-related technology research, loans and tax breaks for Solyndra and other companies that go bankrupt, and “climate adaptation” foreign aid to poor countries.
Also not included: the salaries and pensions of thousands of EPA, NOAA, Interior, Energy and other federal bureaucrats who devote endless hours to devising and imposing regulations for Clean Power Plans, drilling and mining bans, renewable energy installations, and countless Climate Crisis, Inc. handouts. A significant part of the $1.9 trillion per year that American businesses and families pay to comply with mountains of federal regulations is also based on climate chaos claims.
Add in the state and local equivalents of these federal programs, bureaucrats, regulations and restrictions, and we’re talking serious money. There are also consumer costs, including the far higher electricity prices families and businesses must pay, especially in states that want to prove their climate credentials.
The impacts on companies and jobs outside the Climate Crisis Industry are enormous, and growing. For every job created in the climate and renewable sectors, two to four jobs are eliminated in other parts of the economy, studies in Spain, Scotland and other countries have found. The effects on people’s health and welfare, and on overall environmental quality, are likewise huge and widespread.
But all these adverse effects are studiously ignored by Climate Crisis profiteers – and by the false prophets of planetary doom who manipulate data, exaggerate and fabricate looming catastrophes, and create the pseudo-scientific basis for regulating carbon-based energy and industries into oblivion. Meanwhile, the regulators blatantly ignore laws that might penalize their favored constituencies.
In one glaring example, a person who merely possesses a single bald eagle feather can be fined up to $100,000 and jailed for a year. But operators of the wind turbine that killed the eagle get off scot-free. Even worse, the US Fish & Wildlife Service actively helps Big Wind hide and minimize its slaughter of millions of raptors, other birds and bats every year. It has given industrial wind operators a five-year blanket exemption from the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act. The FWS even proposed giving Big Wind a 30-year exemption.
Thankfully, the US District Court in San Jose, CA recently ruled that the FWS and Interior Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws, when they issued regulations granting these companies a 30-year license to kill bald and golden eagles. But the death tolls continue to climb.
Professor Bell’s perceptive, provocative, extensively researched book reviews the attempted power grab by Big Green, Big Government and Climate Crisis, Inc. In 19 short chapters, he examines the phony scientific consensus on global warming, the secretive and speculative science and computer models used to “prove” we face a cataclysm, ongoing collusion and deceit by regulators and activists, carbon tax mania, and many of the most prominent but phony climate crises: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, disappearing species and declining biodiversity. His articles and essays do likewise.
Scared Witless also lays bare the real reasons for climate fanaticism, aside from lining pockets. As one prominent politician and UN or EPA bureaucrat after another has proudly and openly said, their “true ambition” is to institute “a new global order” … “ global governance” … “redistribution of the world’s resources” … an end to “hegemonic” capitalism … and “a profound transformation” of “attitudes and lifestyles,” energy systems and “the global economic development model.”
In other words, these unelected, unaccountable US, EU and UN bureaucrats want complete control over our industries; over everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do; and over every aspect of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties. And they intend to “ride the global warming issue” all the way to this complete control, “even if the theory of global warming is wrong” … “even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect” … “even if the science of global warming is all phony.”
If millions of people lose their jobs in the process, if millions of retirees die from hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, if millions of Africans and Asians die because they are denied access to reliable, affordable carbon-based electricity – so be it. Climate Crisis, Inc. doesn’t care.
This global warming industry survives and thrives only because of secretive, fraudulent climate science; constant collusion between regulators and pressure groups; and a steady stream of government policies, regulations, preferences, subsidies and mandates – and taxes and penalties on its competitors. CCI gives lavishly to politicians who keep the gravy train on track, while its well-funded attack dogs respond quickly, aggressively and viciously to anyone who dares to challenge its orthodoxies or funding.
Climate change has been “real” throughout Earth and human history – periodically significant, sometimes sudden, sometimes destructive, driven by the sun and other powerful, complex, interacting natural forces that we still do not fully understand … and certainly cannot control. It has little or nothing to do with the carbon dioxide that makes plants grow faster and better, and is emitted as a result of using fossil fuels that have brought countless wondrous improvements to our environment and human condition.
Climate Crisis, Inc. is a wealthy, nasty behemoth. But it is a house of cards. Become informed. Get involved. Fight back.
END OF ARTICLE
Source: CFact
Date: 22nd. August 2015
+1776
It’s the Huffington Post – I have NEVER expected or sought facts or accuracy from HuffPo. And I probably never will.
Greg wrote: The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC.
The GH phenomenon is a real and measurable thing. If there were no GH phenomenon, this planet would be about 34 Celcius degrees colder. It is also a fact that CO2 contribution in the GH phenomenon is about 10-13 %. The major contribution is caused by water – about 80 %. If you say that CO2 cannot cause warming of the Earth, then you must find scientific evidences. Can you find any scientific publication showing that there is no GH phenomenon on the Earth?
Another issue is, if CO2 concentration increases from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, how much warming it can contribute. As you know the scientific publications show results from 0 (Miskolczi) to 3.5 degrees (IPCC). That is the question. The Earth has warmed about 0.85 degrees since 1750. What are the causes? My result is that CO2 has cause only 0.24 Celsius degrees warming until today, because the absolute water amount in the atmosphere is constant. At least in my computer model, which is very simple, CO2 causes warming and the climate sensitivity is 0.6 C degrees.
“aveollila December 7, 2016 at 4:08 am
Greg wrote: The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC.
The GH phenomenon is a real and measurable thing.”
Atmospheric warming is indeed measurable, and we have been doing that for about 80 years. Any increase in warming would mean any ground based optic would have to be constantly adjusted for the warming air, constantly in response to upward warming. The simple answer is; it’s not!
To Patrick MJD. I am not sure, if I understood your reply in the right way. I understood that you suggest that the GH phenomenon could be measured by temperature measurements only. That is not true. Also the outgoing longwave (LW) radiation must measured at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). The average value of this flux is about 240 W/m2, which is the same amount as received as SW radiation from the Sun. According to Max Planck radiation formula, the temperature corresponding this flux is – 19 C degrees but the average surface temperature of the Earth is about 15 C degrees: a difference of 34 C degrees. Do you accept that this is the fact? If you do not do it, then somebody could call you a climate denier as I have been called (not only climate change denier), because then you deny an essential feature of the climate.
The next step is that what are the causes of the GH effect. If you study any text books or scientific articles, you will find that GH gases cause tisi GH effect – nothing else. And CO2 is the second strongest GH gas after water. If the concentration of 280 ppm has a role in the GH effect, why the the concentration of 400 ppm do not increase the GH effect at all? Have you any scientific evidence about that?
Skeptics do not win this battle against AGW group with unscientific approach.
I trust nothing that comes out of the Huffington Post, Washington Post, Politico or New York Times. This election has made them irrelevant, the masters of fake news.
Yes. No-one should care what the fake news media say any more.
I think worrying about any claim made by the HuffPuff is futile. I assume no veracity in what they say until I find it repeated in other media like the NYT or WallSt Journal.
Forget the NYT and be skeptical of the WSJ. Here is something I recently received regarding what’s been going on for the last 8 years.
The Obama Era is Over
By Daniel Greenfield
November 9, 2016
Obama and his supporters loved talking about history. His victory was historic. They were on the right side of history. History was an inevitable arc that bent their way.
The tidal force of demographics had made the old America irrelevant. Any progressive policy agenda was now possible because we were no longer America. We Were Obamerica. A hip, happening place full of smiling gay couples, Muslim women in hijabs and transgender actors. We were all going to live in a New York City coffee house and work at Green Jobs and live in the post-national future.
The past was gone. We were falling into the gorgeous wonderful future of dot com instant deliveries and outsourced everything. We would become more tolerant and guilty. The future was Amazon and Disney. It was hot and cold running social justice. The Bill of Rights was done. Ending the First and Second Amendments was just a clever campaign away. Narratives on news sites drove everything.
Presidents were elected by Saturday Night Live skits. John Oliver, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Samantha Bee were our journalists. Safe spaces were everywhere and you better watch your micro-aggressions, buddy. No more coal would be mined. No more anything would be made. The end of men was here. The end of the dead white men of the literary canon. The end of white people. The end of binary gender and marriage. The end of reason. The end of art. The end of 2 + 2 equaling 4. This was Common Core time. It was time to pardon an endless line of drug dealers. To kill cops and praise criminals. To be forced to buy worthless health insurance for wealth redistribution to those who voted their way to wealth.
This was Obama’s America. And there was no going back. We were rushing through endless goal posts of social transformation. The military fell. Then the police. Now it looks as quaint as anything from the 50s, the 70s or the 80s. A brief moment of foolishness that already appears odd and awkward. And then one day nostalgic. It wasn’t the future. It’s already the past. It’s history.
Scalia died. Hillary Clinton was bound to win. And she would define the Supreme Court. Downticket races would give her a friendly Senate. And then perhaps the House.
But there is no right side of history. There is only the side we choose.
The Obama era was permanent. It was history. Now it is history.
Its shocking ascendancy has been paired with an equally shocking descent. The Obama era is done. It’s gone. It’s over. It was wiped from the pages of history in one night that left Congress and the White House in Republican hands.
It would have been bad enough if Jeb Bush had succeeded Obama. That would have been inconvenient, but not a repudiation. Instead Obama’s legacy was dashed to pieces. His frantic efforts to campaign for Hillary did no good. The public did not vocally reject him. What they did was in its own way even worse. They brushed past him. They sidelined him. They gave him passable approval ratings while dismissing his biggest accomplishments. They forgot him. They made it clear that he did not matter.
And that is in its own way far more brutal and wounding. They didn’t just destroy the Obama era. Instead they dismissed it as if it never existed.
Obama didn’t make history after all. He wasn’t a teleprompter demi-god standing athwart of history. He was Carter and Ford. He was there to be forgotten. He didn’t change the world. He wasn’t the messiah. He was merely mortal. Just another politician who will sag and age. Who will, in the end, be photographed like Bill Clinton, lonely and lost in a world that has passed him by.
The Obama era ends not with a bang, but with a whimper. With a national consensus that maybe he didn’t really matter so much after all. And those to whom he mattered the most were his enemies determined to undo everything he did.
Obama once thought that he belonged to the ages. Now he belongs in the rubbish bin.
Note the pattern of how extreme claims are pushed into the public domain. ‘Timothy Wirth plucked James Hansen from a low level position at NASA GISS…’ just as the previously unheard-of Michael Mann enjoyed a similar route to the top. (Likewise multiple other ‘study’ lead authors on every new climate scare being promoted) They use unheard-of post grads as pawns. If their promoted theory gains traction the pawns are in for the ride of their life but if it fails nobody of repute (much less the lead organisation pushing the relevant scam) is damaged. It’s an effective defensive strategy that allows the next pawn to be pushed forward as required, delivering a production line of climate BS.
“Under Hansen and his successor Gavin Schmidt temperature records were altered, but always to accentuate warming.”
Of course they were Tim……
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO__w/VNoo9u5ynhI/AAAAAAAAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land%2Bocean%2Braw%2Badj.png
Link, please.
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1126/science.aaa5632
The reason why (contrary to Ball’s assertion) that the BIGGEST homogenisation the Global Land/Ocean temps has been a warming of past data to DECREASE the record of GW.
“They also added a correction for temperatures measured by floating buoys vs. ships. A number of studies have found that buoys tend to measure temperatures that are about 0.12 degrees C (0.22 F) colder than is found by ships at the same time and same location. As the number of automated buoy instruments has dramatically expanded in the past two decades, failing to account for the fact that buoys read colder temperatures ended up adding a negative bias in the resulting ocean record.”
ToneB,
“…failing to account for the fact that buoys read colder temperatures ended up adding a negative bias in the resulting ocean record.”
There is nothing Intrinsically wrong with a negative bias if it is appropriate. The problem with the ‘Karlization’ of the SST data is that there was a perfectly good reason to believe that the ship temperatures were being corrupted by the proximity to the boiler rooms. The ship temperatures should have been decreased instead of increasing the presumably accurate buoy temperatures. When something is done to experimental data that defies logic, it raises the question of what was the real reason for the change.
I wonder how ling it will be before environmentalists themselves will jump the wagon of CAGW before its wheels fall off and destroy their whole purpose for being?
Environmentalism, to a point, serves great purpose yet they have been hitched to a wonky wagon for decades and risk being thrown back even more decades if they fail to ditch the disease.
“The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC. ”
A GHE, err *gainsayer* Tim, perhaps?
Would that be in it’s entirety or just the non-condensing GHG’s part in it.
And no.
Computer models are not required to understand why extra CO2 will cause atmospheric warming.
You may care to study why Arrhenious and Tyndall figured that out 150-100 years ago…..
http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
“Arrhenius made a calculation (in 1896) for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth’s temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).”
Then apply this empirical calculation …..
ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0) (C=current ppm CO2 and CO=ppm pre-industrial)
ΔF = 5.35*ln(400/280)
5.35×0.35667
=1.9W/m^2
For doubling use:
5.35xln(560/280)
5.35xln(2)
3.7W/m^2
From the S-B formula then temp increase can be calculated.
Fuller treatment here…..
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/eqn%20derivation.pdf
Oh, and no,”trace gas” is a fallacy …
Toneb dear, I am not a climatologist; a mere physicist. I may be wrong on many accounts, please bear with me. After finding that models use a wrong value for a latent heat of water vaporization, I believe:
1. On a planet with an atmosphere of N2 and O2, adding a CO2 would cause warming.
2. On a planet with N2, O2, and H2O we can’t really tell. The effects are too complex. Let’s say CO2 causes temperature to rise.
3. Then more water evaporates, thus potentially exacerbating the warming.
4. But water in the atmosphere is not always a vapor. It condenses in clouds and generates phenomena known as rain and snow.
5. During daytime, clouds reflect incoming solar energy, cooling the planet.
6. During nighttime, clouds prevent the surface IR radiation from escaping, warming the planet.
7. Increased levels of CO2 support plant life, greening and cooling the planet.
8. This calls the premise of Point 2 in question. Does CO2 really cause the temperature to rise?
9. Right now, temperatures are rising. They have been rising for 15,000 years – do you believe in ice ages? CO2 is also rising.
10. Is a warmer world better than a cold one? Ice cores indicate that a cold planet was mostly covered with deserts (plenty of dust).
https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/
That evaporating water also creates a heat engine that very efficiently cools the surface and at the same time moves heat from the surface high into the atmosphere as well as poleward, both of which allow that heat to escape to space more efficiently.
Toneb. You should be ashamed. What on earth is the point of that insultingly fatuous, childish, video clip?
You can debate all you want about the warming effects of CO2 BTW that is not disputed, except by the fringe elements that we try and ignore, although the magnitude of the sensitivity in a complex system is by no means certain. What is disputed of course, is the role of water vapour. Others more fluent than I have made the point again and again (clouds/lack of clouds, albedo effects of clouds, heat transfer from surface to atmosphere, etc.)
But to imply that sceptics, who tend to be scientifically trained, or have a degree of scientific literacy, or are trying to achieve enough scientific literacy to follow the arguments about global warming, need a visual demonstration to comprehend what a few hundred ppm really means, shows that you have no idea of the mental capacities of those who disagree with you.
Save it for indoctrinating kindergarten children about the coming apocalypse.
Another great post.
Now that we (finally) have access to the media megaphone denied us these many year by the MSM, let’s get the facts out! Can’t wait to hear the thunder of your message, Anthony, booming through the vacuous cranial cavities of the innumerate literaties …….mind if I call you Anthony MegaWatts?
bahamamike
Toneb. The equation you refer is not empirical. It is calculated according to spectral analysis by Myhre et al. by a computer utilizing the digital atmospheric models in three climate zones. The method is okay, if the condition of the calculations are correct. There are two other publications on the same issue: Hansen et al. and Shi. They show almost the same results for climate sensitvity (CS) with different mathematical formulas: Myhre et al 3.71, Hansen et al. 3.63 and Shi 3.98 W/m2. But, but Shi reports that he carried out the calculations in the conditions of “fixed relative humidity.” Do you know what it means? It means that actually water doubled the radiative forcing of CO2. Radiative forcing is not the warming effect. You have to to use the climate sensitivity parameter (CSP), which according to IPCC is 0.5 K/(W/m2). And now you get the CS = 0.5 * 3.7 = 1.85 degrees. Another but again. CSP value 0.5 means that there is again water feedback (this in openly reported by IPCC) which doubles the warming impact of CO2. IPCC uses twice positive water feedback in order to get the CS = 1.85 C degrees.
The right formula = 0.27 * 3.12 ln (560/280) = 0.6 C. No water feedback
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274956207_The_potency_of_carbon_dioxide_CO2_as_a_greenhouse_gas
” The equation you refer is not empirical. It is calculated according to spectral analysis by Myhre et al”
“Empirical means not having been proven wrong.
Please provide evidence that is HAS been proven wrong.
Toneb. I just did it but you did not not noticed. Myhre’s formula includes the water feedback. I have used the original scientific method by carrying out the same calculations in the same way as Myhre et al. and I got the different result. If I use the water feedback, I get Myhre’s formula. Have you carried out the same calculations?
IPCC uses as almost all computer models (GCMs) positive water feedback. If you check the direct measurements of absolute humidity since 1979, you will find that it has been almost constant. There is no positive water feedback in the climate.
The CS value of about 1.0 -1.2 C degrees as reported by many researchers, is based on this fact that there is no positive water feedback. But they never checked the formula of Myhre et al. They still believe in it and as Gavin Schmidt wrote: It is is a canonical formula. That is the explanation of difference between 0.6 C and 1.2 C. It is impossible to get empirical evidence that CS is 1.2 C degrees. If you want you do it, then you have to show that it is not caused by any other possible causes like the Sun and other cosmic forces. How do you do it? Mission impossible.
Well, I know that it is almost useless to use time for this kind of debate, because there is practically nobody who has carried out these spectral calculations. Therefore the comments depend on what result you select and buy but you do not have any real basis to judge, what is right and what is wrong.
If the status of the scientific publication has the decisive role, then all these sites of skeptics are not needed. IPCC and its followers have absolutely the best record of high standard publications. Why we are discussing about this issue anyway?
Well, I have a motto: Nihil in verbis – omnia probate. Do not believe without evidence – test everything. Time is in favor of truth. One sunny day we will see.
“The right formula = 0.27 * 3.12 ln (560/280) = 0.6 C. No water feedback”
No not correct
That link is to ….
Science and Engineering Publishing Company
Not reputable peer-reviewed publishing journal.
Just a rubbish Chinese one.
Probably you will disagree – but there are standards to be adhered to in science.
THIS JOURNAL DOES NOT
Sorry
If you’d care to provide one that is – then fine.
Toneb is a reputable peer-reviewed publishing journal. How about a pal-review?
“The only place where a CO2 increase causes warming is in the computer models of the IPCC.”
This is incorrect. CO2 causes a known 1.16 C warming per doubling of CO2. Everyone agrees on this, even us CAGW skeptics.
Where we differ from the alarmists and the computer simulation is on the value of the climate sensitivities, TCS and ECS. The computer simulations predict the effect of water vapor over the effect of CO2 a factor of 3 too high compared to empirical observations. That is the true difference between skeptics (using observed reality) and alarmists (using inaccurate computer simulations).
I think it is important to make this distinction, because alarmists will point and scream that skeptics don’t believe that CO2 has a mild warming effect. We do, but that is not what the CAGW discussion is about, which is actually about the magnitude of climate sensitivity and whether or not computer simulations match observed reality (they don’t, for a variety of fundamental reasons).
So let’s be clear on what the actual point of differentiation is please, and be precise in our wording. It matters.
Someone else who see’s through Ball’s, err, “disengenuousness”.
Let us define the following variables:
F = fear factor,
$$ = funding forcing function,
S = sensationalizing potential,
Tg = global average temperament.
Thus,
$$(Tg) + S = F,
which translates to … “apply funding-forcing function to global-average temperament and amplify with sensationalizing potential to induce an upward rise in the fear factor.”
This is the overriding … (what shall I call it) … “meta-equation” … that reduces all other variables to mere creative, malleable substrates of the story teller’s artistic vision.
Curious George:
“Toneb dear, I am not a climatologist; a mere physicist. I may be wrong on many accounts, please bear with me. After finding that models use a wrong value for a latent heat of water vaporization, I believe:
1. On a planet with an atmosphere of N2 and O2, adding a CO2 would cause warming.
2. On a planet with N2, O2, and H2O we can’t really tell. The effects are too complex. Let’s say CO2 causes temperature to rise.”
Yes we can as it is NON-CONDENSING, and as such stops the H2O from precipitating out of the atmosphere – and a FB loop forming whereby the planetary temp would tend toward it’s BB temp.
3. Then more water evaporates, thus potentially exacerbating the warming.
OK
4. But water in the atmosphere is not always a vapor. It condenses in clouds and generates phenomena known as rain and snow.
Correct.
5. During daytime, clouds reflect incoming solar energy, cooling the planet.
Low clouds do, yes – but high (Cirrus) clouds warm.
6. During nighttime, clouds prevent the surface IR radiation from escaping, warming the planet.
Correct.
7. Increased levels of CO2 support plant life, greening and cooling the planet.
Yes, but the cooling part is negligible/irrelevant.
8. This calls the premise of Point 2 in question. Does CO2 really cause the temperature to rise?
It does of itself, yes, as Arrenhius discovered over 100 yrs ago – but MORE importantly it provides a base whereby there cannot be a runaway cooling as without CO2 (mostly) we have only CONDENSING GHG (H2O).
9. Right now, temperatures are rising. They have been rising for 15,000 years – do you believe in ice ages? CO2 is also rising.
Yes I do. Miankovitch Cycles explain.
No – they have not been rising for 15,000 yrs.
There has been a long cooling phase since the peak of the HCO.
It is only since the onset of industrialisation that temps have again risen.
10. Is a warmer world better than a cold one? Ice cores indicate that a cold planet was mostly covered with deserts (plenty of dust).
Irrelevant.
Mankind has advanced to the extent of there being 7bn peeps on the planet at a CO2 concentation of ~280ppm, and have settled in places of best advantage.
Eg: water availability. Temperate climate. On coasts.
All those would be challenged by AGW (in decades to come).
“Yes, but the cooling part is negligible/irrelevant.”
According to the models, correct.
According to the real world, false.
Toneb, please link to your graph under point 2. Is it a model, or a measurement?
Toneb, please link to your graph under point 9. I notice it is not a temperature, but an anomaly. The temperature has certainly not risen by 3 C in the last – difficult to tell how many, but few – years. How did a steep rise in the anomaly go unnoticed? Do you play hockey?
“we don’t need to do a thing about climate pollution, either.”
What is climate pollution? If you try to define it, you get in trouble. It says nothing, because it would mean nothing to say i want climate pollution.
Besides that Trump seems to care a lot about real pollution, but not so much about climate pollution which mostly is a good sounding frase with a very vague meaning.
One comment more about the formula of Myhre et al. I said that I carried out the calculations in the same way. I am not 100 % sure about that, because Myhre et al. have not specified the atmospheric conditions and GH gas profiles in their paper. I think that it is one of the basic requirements in any scientific paper that anybody can do the same calculations and analyses. In the famous hockey stick case this requirement was not fulfilled either. Certainly it was a high standard magazine. And carefully peer-reviewed?
If I do not need to specify the content of water vapor, you can order any results from me. The role of water is so important. Like Kiehl & Trenberth used the US Standard Atmosphere 76 in calculating the contribution of CO2 in the GH effect. They got 26 %. It is correct for this atmosphere (it is the atmosphere over USA in 1976) but not for the average global atmosphere, because the water content is 100 % greater in the global atmosphere. I checked this and I got the same result but the right percentage is between 11-13 %.
The hockey stick graph is deathless and wrong. See its re-incarnation a little above, in a comment by Toneb, December 7, 2016 at 11:55 am. He may be a Hinduist.
I doubt any HuffPo readers have a clue about how many overlapping agencies are studying climate and how big these overlapping budgets are.
Leftists believe that all money spent by government improves the economy. So it’s not likely that they would care about such duplication.
Another wonderful article Tim, thank you. Its great to have your long history and clear perspective.
You wrote above:
“The lies and deceptions promulgated in the Huffington Post article and thousands like them over the last 40 years may result in self-proclaimed environmentalists destroying environmentalism.”
Over a decade ago ago, I attended a Friends of Science lecture in Calgary and one of the men at my table was the President of the Sierra Club of Canada. We obviously did not agree on the CAGW issue – he was an ardent “warmist” and I am reportedly a “denier”. 🙂
He gave me his card, and I emailed him a note that was a similar to your above statement.
From memory, I wrote:
“When global warming is proved to be a false crisis. the risk is that real environmentalism will be discredited. When nobody believes any longer in your Sierra Club, Greenpeace or any of the other global warming alarmist organizations, who will be left to speak for the environment?”
As I recall, he did not reply.
Best wishes for the Holidays, Allan
P.S. Be safe Tim! Watch out for the tree-spikers and their ilk – they are getting desperate and nasty.
Trump may not be a scientist, but he’s no fool. I think he can see phoney when it’s put out there
Dr. Tim Ball. How come you are never interviewed or mentioned on the taxpayer funded CBC?;). Especially the Bob McDonald Quacks and…I mean Quarks and Quarks. He still thinks ice is melting and polar bears are dying off. The CBC being taxpayer funded should give both sides to any argument. They even had on Bill Nye “The phony science guy”. But like Micheal Savage said. “liberalism is a mental disorder”. A good read is Green Gospel by Sheila Zilinsky. Forward by Dr. Tim Ball. Good read. Buy more than one copy and donate to your local library.
v’
I have important information for the Trump transition team. Does anyone know how to get in touch with them?