Dr. Neil Frank on Climate and Caring for Creation: A Book of Good Intentions but Poor Science

dr-neil-frank-smallGuest essay by Neil L. Frank, Ph.D.

As an evangelical Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet. We should strive to reduce pollution to protect human health and the natural environment. We should explore new alternative energy sources, always seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms. We should prioritize providing electricity for the 1.2 billion people who don’t have it—and consequently suffer high rates of disease and premature death.

For these and many other reasons I applaud Mitch Hescox and Paul Douglas’s Caring for Creation: The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment (Bethany House, 2016). I enjoyed chapter 4 “We Are Easter People,” which encourages us to move forward not only in our Christian walk, but also in our physical world to explore new alternative energy sources. I appreciate their passion when discussing alternative energy in chapter 6. The success of the M-Kopa Solar Company in Africa with small solar units is impressive. As the authors point out, most of the 1.2 billion people in the world who have no electricity live in remote regions where it would be impossible, in the near term, to erect adequate power lines even if centralized power plants were built. There and in many other remote locations small solar units are the better answer.

It is unfortunate, however, that Hescox and Douglas chose not to present an unbiased discussion of the global warming debate, because this distracts from other excellent parts of the book.

As a veteran atmospheric scientist, I disagree with their basic premise. They believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming that we must stop by converting the world’s energy systems from fossil fuels (which now provide about 85 percent of all energy people use worldwide) to “green” energy.

How firmly do they believe this? Douglas writes,

“When people ask me why more climate scientists don’t debate professional skeptics in the media, I tell them the truth. At this point, it’s the rough equivalent of debating gravity or the Apollo moon landing” (p. 90).

As a meteorologist with a Ph.D. instead of a B.S., and over 20 years more experience, I can tell you, that attitude is irresponsible.

It’s also inconsistent with something else the authors do. They challenge readers to raise serious questions about the truth of dangerous manmade global warming. When Hescox is asked about the reality of global warming, he replies: “Don’t believe me without researching the facts for yourself. Don’t listen to twenty-second sound bites on FOX News or MSNBC or talk radio. Take the time to examine the facts for yourself.” That’s what I have been doing over the last nearly 20 years, building on my 55-year career as a meteorologist.

What is the global warming controversy? It is not about the earth warming. Earth has been warming for over 150 years as we emerge from the Little Ice Age. The controversy is over the causes, magnitude, and possible harms or benefits of the warming. Is the cause CO2, as the authors claim, or other factors related to natural cycles, or a combination—and if so, in what balance? Is the warming rapid, large, and dangerous, or gradual, small, and benign? The intent of this review is to show that, contrary to Hescox and Douglas’s assertions, meteorological data support natural cycles, the case for CO2 as primary driver is very weak, and the magnitude of our contribution is small and not dangerous.

While Hescox has no credentials in climate science, I do not denigrate Douglas’s. He has been a TV and radio meteorologist for 35 years. But I do expect him to show me equal respect granted my 55-year career in meteorology and climate science, much of it at significantly higher levels of responsibility. I served in the Air Force as a weather officer from 1953–1957, earned my Ph.D. in meteorology from Florida State University, joined the National Hurricane Center in 1961, where I served for 25 years and was Director from 1974–1987 (the longest term of any Director), then served as chief meteorologist for the CBS TV affiliate in Houston until my retirement in 2008—a retirement during which I have continued and even expanded my studies of global climate change.

I have been following the global warming debate for almost 25 years. During that time I have metamorphosed from a mild believer in the 1980s and 1990s to a very strong skeptic. My journey is typical of a number of skeptics.

I became aware that the planet was warming in the 1980s. James Hansen (NASA) held a press conference in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 1988, and announced that CO2 was causing the earth to warm. Hansen built that relationship into a numerical model that predicted disastrous warming. I had no reason to question his conclusion.

In the late 1990s, big changes occurred when, despite 1998’s global average temperature being the warmest on record until then because of an extraordinarily powerful El Niño, from early 1997 through late 2015—a period of nearly 19 years—there was no statistically significant increase in global average temperature according to our most reliable measurements. The warming trend that had alarmed Hansen and others stopped, even while CO2 levels accelerated upward. What happened? Could CO2’s role have been overstated?

About that time a meteorologist friend challenged me to go back and look at the data. After reading dozens of books and hundreds of papers, looking at reams of data and talking to numerous experts on both sides of the debate, I have concluded that CO2 is not a major factor in the earth’s temperature.

What led to that conclusion? Here are some of the basic facts.

Earth’s temperatures—local, regional, and global—rise and fall in cycles. Globally, ice ages are the longest cycle we are aware of. An Ice Age lasts about 100,000 years and is followed by a roughly 10,000-year warm (interglacial) period. We have been in the current interglacial for almost 12,000 years.

Data show a correlation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature over several ice ages, leading many to assume CO2 drives temperature. However, CO2 concentration lags temperature by several hundred years. Why? A large amount of CO2 resides in the atmosphere, but a much larger amount in the ocean. When the earth recovers from an Ice Age and warms, the ocean gives up CO2 to the atmosphere. The reverse occurs when the earth enters an Ice Age. As the water cools, it absorbs CO2.

On the time scale of ice ages, there is a direct relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature, but it is the exact opposite of what the current manmade global warming theory requires. Because CO2 follows temperature, it cannot be the cause of global warming; instead it is the effect. John Kerr’s book The Inconvenient Skeptic: The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth’s Climate summarizes the paleoclimate history in terms laymen can grasp easily.

On a shorter time scale, ice core samples from Greenland for the last 10,000 years show a very strong 1,000-year cycle. As illustrated in this graph of global temperature history since about 9000 B.C., the earth was much warmer than now during the two lengthy periods called the Holocene Climate Optimum roughly 8,000–6,000 and 5,000–4,000 years ago, and it was as warm if not warmer than today 3,000 years ago during the Minoan Warm Period, 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period, and 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period—when Scandinavians farmed in Greenland for over 300 years.



Right on schedule, we are warm today as we recover from the Little Ice Age (roughly 1600–early 1800s).

Over the last 10,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have been very stable at about 280 parts per million. Therefore, CO2 was not responsible for any of the above warm periods, or for the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Currently the earth has been warming for almost 175 years as we emerge from the Little Ice Age, yet CO2 levels did not start rising significantly until after World War I. This strongly suggests that the current warming is, like the earlier ones, the result of a natural 1,000-year cycle, and the contribution from CO2 is minor.

One fact that those who believe manmade CO2 emissions are causing dangerous warming sometimes cite is that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by about 43 percent since the Industrial Revolution. That rise sounds significant, but in context with total composition of the atmosphere it really isn’t.

Consider this illustration. The football stadium in Dallas has over 100,000 seats. If we assign a molecule of air to each seat, in today’s mix nitrogen would occupy about 80,000 seats and oxygen almost 20,000. Water vapor is quite variable but would occupy somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 seats. CO2 would occupy only 40 seats (400 parts per million).

Even after the 43 percent increase since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 is only 0.040 percent of the atmosphere. Yet, some experts would have us believe this tiny part of the atmosphere can control the earth’s temperature. Over 90 percent of the earth’s warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor, not CO2.

The cold temperatures in the Little Ice Age bottomed out in the 1600s and 1700s. That was when George Washington was in Valley Forge. The recovery from the Little Ice Age began in the mid-1800s, and the earth has been warming for almost 175 years. During this warming period another 60-year cycle in the earth’s temperature has been revealed. The earth warms for 30 years, then cools for another 30 years.

The following table and related graph show the relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature as the earth has passed through the 60-year cycles.

CO2’s Relation to Earth’s Temperature


Years Earth’s Temp. (phase) Earth’s temp.


CO2 levels and trends

(parts per million)

1850–1880 Warm Rapid warming ~280 and steady
1880–1910 Cool Steady cooling ~280 and steady
*1910–1940 Warm Rapid warming Slow increase
1940–1975 Cool Significant cooling Rapid increase
*1975–1998 Warm Rapid warming Accelerating increase
1998–2015 Cool No change Rising >400
*Indicates phases when the earth’s temperature and CO2 are both positive.


A close examination of the table shows that CO2 levels and the earth’s temperature were both rising in only two of the 30-year warming phases (1910–1940 and 1975–1998). In the remaining four phases (two-thirds of the time), they were out of phase (107 years). A statistical analysis of these two parameters during the last 160 years shows at best a very poor relationship

CO2 started rising in a 30-year warming phase from 1910–1940, culminating in the 1930s—till then the warmest decade since the Little Ice Age. Some meteorologists at the time speculated CO2 was responsible, but then the earth moved into a 35-year cooling phase, by the end of which the consensus among experts was that we were heading for another Little Ice Age—even though the CO2 levels were accelerating upward. Kenneth Richard at the German website “No Tricks Zone” cites 285 peer-reviewed papers from the 1960s through the 1980s predicting global cooling

Finally, even over shorter periods—such as from the 1950s to the present (the period during which, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were the primary cause of global warming)—the relationship between global atmospheric temperature and CO2 remains opposite what’s necessary for CO2 to drive temperature. The article “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,” published in the journal Global and Planetary Change, concluded that CO2 lags temperature by 9.5 to 12 months depending on altitude. (Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Senior Fellow Dr. David Legates, a climatologist, pointed this out in a critique of an article by Hescox in 2012, so Hescox should have known this when cooperating with Douglas on writing Caring for Creation.)

What can we conclude? The relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature is poor on all time scales from ice ages (100,000 years) to interglacial periods (10,000 years) to short periods of a few centuries or even decades.

Another way we can evaluate the impact CO2 has on the earth’s temperature is to examine the forecasts produced by climate models. All of the climate models have a built-in relation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature that was determined by the observations made in the 1980s–1990s. During that time, the earth’s temperature was rising and the CO2 levels were accelerating upward. Since the CO2 levels were correctly projected to continue upward in the future (see the table above), and since the modelers’ underlying theory was that the rise in CO2 had driven the rise in temperature, it is not surprising that the models forecast continued warming.

If the CO2/temperature relation built into the models is correct, then the models should make accurate forecasts. Numerous tests of the models have been conducted. In one test of over 100 model runs, every one failed. In every case the temperatures forecast by the models were much too warm. Dr. John Christy (who in addition to being a prominent climate scientist is, like Paul Douglas, an evangelical Christian), testified on Feb. 2, 2015, before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and technology that on average “the models overwarm by a factor of 2.5.” He offered this graph to illustrate.


In personal communication, Christy updated the data through the end of 2016—a year made much warmer by an extraordinarily strong El Niño. For 1979–2016, the 102-model average warming rate is 0.216˚C per decade (up 2 thousandths of a degree), while the weather balloon observed decadal rate is 0.107˚C per decade (up 28 thousandths of a degree) and the satellite observed rate is 0.124˚C per decade (up 33 thousandths of a degree). Even after the temporary upward surge of 2016, then, the models overstate the warming rate by 75 to 102 percent, and rapid cooling in late 2016 and early 2017, probably caused by the La Niña that typically follows an El Niño, suggests that the observed rate through the satellite measurement period will decline again soon. This strongly suggests that the CO2/temperature relation programmed into the models is wrong, at best overemphasizing the role of CO2 on the earth’s temperature.

In conclusion, we have two different “data” sources that tell us CO2 is not the major cause of global warming. If this is true, then the cause of the observed global warming must be something other than CO2, and there is no need for a moratorium on fossil fuels.

If CO2 is not a primary factor, what has caused the recent warming? One possibility is the sun. Two German scientists, Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, in The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, found excellent correlations between variations in the sun and global temperatures. Over 100 peer-reviewed papers support this conclusion.

The number of sunspots is one indicator of solar energy. Both the sunspot activity and the earth’s temperature peaked in the twentieth century. Today the sun is turning quiet. The last time it was this quiet was in the 1700s during the Little Ice Age. As a result, many solar experts in Europe believe the earth will cool, not warm, over the next couple of decades.

So much for summarizing my understanding of the relationship between CO2 and global warming. Now let’s turn back to Caring for Creation. The authors use a 4-step process to convince people of dangerous manmade global warming:

  1. Create alarming scenarios that appeal to the emotion.
  2. Appeal to the authority of “experts.”
  3. Appeal to consensus.
  4. Demonize skeptics.

In step 1, the authors cite testimonies of 13 people who have observed disturbing changes in weather during their lifetimes, including Hescox’s 90-year-old father (pages 17, 21, 22, 26, 45, 46, 57, 58, 59, 64, 76, 95, and 131). I would add my own experience. In my preteen years in northwest Kansas, it was an annual winter ritual to go ice skating on the streams and ponds. My grandfather harvested ice from the creek and placed it in a deep pit covered with hay for use all summer. People no longer ice skate in Kansas during the winter. The weather has changed during my lifetime because the earth has been warming.

One has to admit it: these testimonies appeal to the emotion. Their intent is to gain your support for CO2-based global warming. But the occurrence of warming doesn’t tell us what caused it.

What if CO2 didn’t cause it, and the warming was the result of natural cycles? Every one of the testimonies would still be true!

Talk about appealing to emotions! That surely is what Douglas’s outlook for the future does:

A major city will run out of water. Local officials will have no good options. A mega-fire will consume the suburbs of a large metropolitan area, fire fighters powerless to stop it. Only a reprieve in the weather will slow its advance. Not only Miami, but portions of Tampa, Norfolk, Annapolis, Boston, and the Bay Area will flood on sunny days, with a full moon exerting an additional tidal tug. The U.S. will see thousands of climate refugees permanently displaced from their homes. Extreme rains will flood a big city, disrupting life for hundreds of thousands of inhabitants for weeks. A large, violent EF-4 or EF-5 tornado will hit a downtown, with a loss of life rivaling Katrina in 2005. A Category-4 or -5 hurricane fueled by unusually warm water will devastate a major U.S. city with damage rising into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Drilling for fresh water will become more lucrative than fracking oil. Worldwide, more crops will fail and fresh-water shortages will increase over time. Residents of coastal Bangladesh will be forced inland by rising seas—a tidal wave of climate refugees igniting tensions with India. Wilting heat and perpetual drought around the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East will tempt millions to flee their homelands for norther Europe and Asia. Melting arctic ice will result in new shipping routes and arctic oil exploration, sparking new conflict with Russia. Government officials will wring their hands and point a finger of blame at each other, wondering why there was no warning, why contingency plans weren’t put into place sooner. Americans will hold their representatives responsible for political paralysis and habitual climate inaction, demanding solutions. [p. 97]

The disastrous specifics of this prediction are irrelevant to the debate. Though the cities and other human artifacts Douglas mentions are new, the climate and weather events are not. They have been happening throughout geologic history, not just since the beginning of the period of allegedly CO2-driven global warming. Further, the disasters Douglas predicts will only occur if there is dramatic global warming. Hescox and Douglas believe increasing CO2 will cause the warming and can be controlled. The data above suggest that CO2 is not the cause. Warming may still occur because of natural cycles, and some of the events Douglas listed may occur, but reducing our CO2 emissions will not prevent them.

The authors also claim that there is a perfect analogy between tobacco companies’ attempts to suppress scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer and fossil fuel companies’ financial support of “climate skeptics” to hide the danger of CO2 in manmade global warming. In actual fact, there is no analogy. The early evidence that smoking caused cancer was followed by numerous medical studies that found the same, and it was indeed discovered that the tobacco industry had hidden this information from the public.

But the hypothesis that CO2 generated by man is responsible for global warming dates back to the 1980s. At that time CO2 and global temperature were both rapidly increasing and the hypothesis seemed reasonable. However, unlike the case with tobacco, recent meteorological data seriously undermine the hypothesis. While according to our most reliable global temperature data (from satellites) there was no statistically significant warming from early 1997 to late 2015 (and renewed warming from late 2015 through 2016 was driven by a super-El Niño like what drove the warming of 1998—which 2016 edged out as warmest year in the satellite record by 0.02˚C, a statistical tie and well within the margin of error), CO2 levels continued to accelerate upward throughout the period. This strongly suggests that CO2 is not a dominant factor in controlling the earth’s temperature—and if this is true, the hypothesis is not valid.


In step 2 of their process, Hescox and Douglas stress the importance of seeking truth from “experts.” “We should listen to real experts” (p. 61). Who are these experts? “People who devote their entire careers to tracking subtle, long-term changes—they all agree the planet is warming” (p. 60). But all the skeptics agree the planet is warming, too! The question is, what is causing the warming?

Step 3 is their appeal to “the overwhelming consensus: 97% of climate specialists.” Even President Obama makes frequent reference to this number.

I will challenge the consensus claim later, but first I cannot resist pointing out the irony of their appealing to consensus just one paragraph before they approvingly quote John Reisman saying, “Science is not a democracy. It’s a dictatorship.” And who or what is the dictator? “Evidence does the dictating.” Evidence—not any individual scientist, not a body of scientists, not a consensus of scientists.

Consensus is not evidence. Real-world observations, whether in laboratory or in nature, are evidence. Consensus is a political value. Want to know who won an election? Count votes. Want to know how much warming comes from rising atmospheric CO2 concentration? Don’t count votes—even of “experts.” Instead, do the hard work of generating hypotheses (based on your understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer, how that functions in the atmosphere and oceans, and how thousands of geophysical feedbacks respond to it) and then rigorously, fearlessly comparing them with real-world observations. When we do that, as we saw above, the case for CO2 as primary driver of global warming collapses.

Nonetheless, Hescox and Douglas do appeal to consensus, for example, to a letter sent to President Obama in the summer of 2015, signed by 130 evangelical leaders, supporting his “Clean Power Plan” to reduce global warming by forcing the closure of many coal-fired electric generating plants (p. 159). Who signed the letter and what are their qualifications? A careful search of the Worldwide Web failed to find the letter or a list of its signers (though it is referred to, e.g., here and here), but it is very similar to a letter sent to Congress in July 2013, signed by 194 “Evangelical Scientists and Academics.” That letter urged Congress to support action against manmade global warming. Although climate change was the primary subject, so climate scientists ought to have been well represented among signers, an analysis of the signers’ fields of expertise (which were not listed with their signatures) showed that only 5 had backgrounds in atmospheric science, meteorology, or climatology, and 11 in geology and 10 in physics—the two other fields most relevant to the global warming debate. There were 117 with backgrounds in biology, 29 in chemistry, and the remaining 22 in more distantly related fields. I called a number of the signees and asked them why they believed in manmade global warming. Every one of them said it was what they were reading in the non-meteorological science literature (Nature, Science, etc.). Not one had initiated an in-depth analysis of the topic.

Consensus does not establish truth! For example, in the 1970s the consensus was that we were heading towards an ice age.

Finally, in step 4, Hescox and Douglas demonize skeptics by suggesting they embrace conspiracy theories: “Beware of conspiracy theories. When the facts and evidence aren’t on their side, some people, institutions, special interests, and politicians addicted to a steady IV-drip of campaign donations find it easier to rely on conspiracy theories and manufactured misinformation” (p. 57); “We should listen to real scientists and not look for conspiracy theories under every rock” (p. 61); “Cherry-picking data to make a point—or relying on intellectually lazy conspiracy theories—isn’t an honest way to address the problem” (p. 69).

Before moving on, let me comment on the “97% consensus” and challenge the claim that only “a shrinking few still try to deny the scientific reality of climate change.”

A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributed significantly to the warming—something almost no skeptics would deny. No study—whether a survey of published articles or a survey directly of scientists—has found anything remotely near a 97% consensus not only that the earth has warmed and that human activity has contributed significantly but also that human activity has been the primary driver, that the warming caused by it is dangerous, and that attempting to prevent future warming by reducing CO2 emissions would do more good than harm—and those are the issues debated.

In 2004 Science published the results of a study by historian Naomi Oreskes claiming that “without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth’s surface.” But an attempt at replicating the study both found that she had made serious mistakes in handling data and, after re-examining the data, reached contrary conclusions. As Benny Peiser pointed out in a letter to Science (Submission ID: 56001) that Science declined to publish but that the Cornwall Alliance summarized in 2006:

Oreskes claimed that an analysis of 928 abstracts in the ISI database containing the phrase “climate change” proved the alleged consensus. It turned out that she had searched the database using three keywords (“global climate change”) instead of the two (“climate change”) she reported—reducing the search results by an order of magnitude. Searching just on “climate change” instead found almost 12,000 articles in the same database in the relevant decade. Excluded from Oreskes’s list were “countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change; and that climate modeling is highly uncertain.” Further, even using the three key words she actually used, “global climate change,” brought up [not 928 but] 1,247 documents, of which 1,117 included abstracts. An analysis of those abstracts showed that

  • only 1 percent explicitly endorsed what Oreskes called the “consensus view”;
  • 29 percent implicitly accepted it “but mainly focus[ed] on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change”;
  • 8 percent focused on “mitigation”;
  • 6 percent focused on methodological questions;
  • 8 percent dealt “exclusively with paleo-climatological research unrelated to recent climate change”;
  • 3 percent “reject[ed] or doubt[ed] the view that human activities are the main drivers of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years’”;
  • 4 percent focused “on natural factors of global climate change”; and
  • 42 percent did “not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.”

Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman’s “Examining the Consensus on Climate Change” (EOS, January 2009), concluded, “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” However, Doran and Zimmerman counted only 79 out of the 3,146 responses to their survey in determining the alleged consensus, and the two questions asked in the survey were framed such that even the most ardent skeptics—like Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer—would have answered “Yes”:

  • “When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
  • “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Another study, “Expert credibility in climate change” (PNAS, April 9, 2010), by William Anderegg et al., reported that a survey of publication and citation data of 1,372 climate researchers found that 97 to 98 percent believed that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.” But Anderegg’s study covered only the 200 most prolific writers on climate change, excluding thousands of others, and even the conclusion that humans caused “most” of the warming doesn’t mean that those scientists consider global warming a crisis or that we should spend trillions of dollars attempting to stop it.

Probably the most widely cited study claiming to find such consensus, John Cook et al.’s “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature,” purported to find that “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” Of course, “Humans are causing global warming” is something that nearly every skeptic—including myself—could affirm. The question is not whether we’re causing global warming, but whether we’re causing most of the recent warming, whether it’s dangerous, and whether we should abandon abundant, affordable, reliable energy from fossil fuels in exchange for sparse, expensive, intermittent energy from “renewables” in an effort to stop it. Cook et al.’s paper was critiqued in another paper by David Legates et al., who reviewed the same papers Cook et al. had reviewed and concluded that the actual consensus supportable by their abstracts was only 0.3%.

Legates et al. critiqued only Cook et al.’s statistical methodology and methods of interpreting the literature, not the quality of the selection process by which Cook et al. determined which papers to include and which to exclude from their survey. But another scholar, José Duarte, did look at the selection process and found it “multiply fraudulent.” So Duarte called for Environmental Research Letters to retract Cook et al. He pointed out that although Cook et al. had claimed to have excluded papers on “social science, education, research about people’s views on climate,” they had in fact included many such. He also listed some of the many properly scientific papers that Cook et al. ignored but should have included and that would have counted against their conclusion.

Cook et al. surveyed 11,944 papers on global warming that had been published from 1991 through 2012. They did not read the papers or talk to the authors, but they did read the abstracts. The results of the abstracts were divided into 7 categories:

Category Number of papers
1. Man is causing all of the warming 64
2. Man is causing over 50% of the warming 922
3. Man is causing less than 50% of the warming 2910
4. No opinion or uncertain 7930
5. Man is causing some but far less than 50% 54
6. Man is not causing warming, with qualifications 15
7. Man is not causing any warming 9

It appears that Cook et al. decided to compare only those scientists who had strong opinions. If that is the case, the first 2 categories represent scientists who believe man is causing all or most of the warming (986), while those in categories 6 and 7 believe man is causing none or almost none (24). This ratio is about 97%. But the most important result of this study is that almost 8,000 had no opinion or were uncertain. So much for the 97%.

Why were there only 24 papers published by skeptics? We found out in 2009, when 22,000 email exchanges between senior meteorologists in the U.S. and Europe where released. Many of the emails were published by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller in Climategate: The Crutape Letters (nQuire Services, 2010). We learned the following things from this scandal:

Those promoting manmade global warming:

  1. Controlled the meteorology and climatology journals in the U.S.;
  2. Controlled non-meteorological science publication (Nature, Science, etc.);
  3. Controlled Wikipedia;
  4. Manipulated data;
  5. Demonized skeptics.

Papers by skeptics were blackballed and not published in U.S. professional journals. In contrast, Kenneth Richard has documented over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers published in Europe and Asia in 2014, 2015, and 2016 that challenge the hypothesis that CO2 has been the primary driver of recent global warming (and other aspects of the bogus “consensus”) and support solar, oceanic, and other natural cycles as the primary causes of global warming, but they are not found in the U.S. publications.

Let me introduce you to a number of credible skeptics. In 2013 Forbes Magazine surveyed over 1077 earth scientists and found 64% believed global warming was from natural causes.

In 2013, 49 retired astronauts and senior NASA scientists wrote a scathing letter to the Administrator of NASA challenging NASA’s position on global warming.

In recent years a growing number of global warming believers have become skeptics. At the top of the list is Dr. Judith Curry, who was Head of the Department of Meteorology at Georgia Tech. This is what she told the National Press Club in September 2014:

“If I were a non-tenured scientist, I would fear for my job! But I am a senior scientist with retirement in sight, so I can afford to do what I want, say what I think.”

Very troubled by Climategate, Dr. Curry, formerly a believer in dangerous manmade warming and a contributing author to several IPCC assessment reports, began corresponding with skeptics and found many of their arguments persuasive. She was also greatly influenced by the pause in the global warming. She now calls herself a “lukewarmer.”

Next is Dr. Joanne Simpson. Dr. Simpson was a senior scientist at NASA and at one time President of the American Meteorological Society. When she retired, she said,

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak frankly and as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has published Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, in which he states

“There is no definitive scientific proof, through real world observations; that CO2 is responsible for warming the globe.”

Dr. Moore is now a skeptic and has abandoned Greenpeace because he feels it lost sight of its purpose.

Dr. Alan Carlin was a senior scientist for EPA for 37 years before he retired and wrote Environmentalism Gone Mad. He believed in manmade global warming until someone challenged him with the pause in the global temperature. After months of study, he became a skeptic.

Dr. Jay Lehr was one of the original designers of the EPA under President Nixon. He is now a skeptic and leading a nation-wide effort to devolve most of EPA’s functions to regional, state, and local levels.

The Heartland Institute has sponsored 11 International Conferences on Climate Change that have been attended by thousands of scientists and other experts, and over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

I could go on with numerous other examples, but the ones I have presented should be sufficient to show that skeptics are numerous, growing in number, and most have impeccable credentials.

Let’s pause and summarize the points I have been trying to make with data:

  1. The earth has been warming for over a century and a half.
  2. CO2 is not a major factor in the global warming, and numerous credible scientists agree with this conclusion.
  3. The warming is being caused primarily by natural forces over which man has no control.
  4. If the globe continues to warm, some of the alarming predictions made by the Hescox and Douglas could occur.

But what about energy? Should we continue using the fossil fuels that provide about 85% of all energy we consume? Or should we strive to replace them as rapidly as possible with renewables—especially wind and solar?

Most skeptics I know would welcome an open discussion of energy sources. For example, in the desert regions of Africa where there is adequate sunshine, individual self-contained solar units seem to be an excellent choice. But in Europe, where there is little sunshine in the winter and wind is very irregular, nuclear would seem to be a better option. Many mountain valleys of the Alps see no sunshine for almost 5 months; there solar is out of the question.

Experience is showing that forcing the rapid move from fossil fuels to renewables has unforeseen and harmful consequences. The move to green energy in Germany has been a mild disaster. Germany had one of the finest and most reliable electric grids in the world, powered by 17 nuclear plants. After the nuclear tragedy in Fukushima, Japan, Germany decided to go green. Nine of the plants have been decommissioned and replaced with solar and wind. Electricity rates have more than doubled, and the supply has become unreliable. To supplement power when the wind doesn’t blow, Germany is now installing coal plants. Meanwhile, its citizens object to wind farms destroying the land.

Hescox and Douglas’s enthusiasm for green energy in chapter 6 has to be tempered by reality. It is exciting to learn that Tesla expects to produce 500,000 electric cars per year in another decade (p. 114), but that will hardly put a dent in the need. There are nearly 260,000,000 motor vehicles on the roads in the U.S., and over 90% of the energy they consume comes from oil. Last year 16 million new cars were sold in the U.S. They are serviced by 115,000 filling stations. Worldwide there are over 1 billion vehicles. How many decades would it take to convert from gasoline and diesel to electric engines and build a network of charging stations?

It is difficult to determine the amount the U.S. has spent on green energy, because the expenditures are spread over a number of agencies. One estimate suggests we have spent $150 billion over the past 15 years.

In their excitement over green energy, Hescox and Douglas failed to mention a number of financial disasters. Several years ago Solyndra went bankrupt, costing us half a billion dollars. Sharyl Attkisson, who used to be a reporter for CBS, wrote in her book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, that she quit CBS because it refused to run some of her stories on green energy. Her chapter on green energy passes on some of what she sought to report in those articles. In 2009 the U.S. subsidized 11 electric car companies for $2.5 billion; 6 are bankrupt, and the other 5 are floundering. The U.S. spent another $300 million on 2 companies to build car batteries, and both are bankrupt. In 2015 SunEdison, the largest green energy company in the U.S., went bankrupt, costing us another $2.5 billion. Abengoa, out of Spain, one of the biggest renewable energy companies in the world, is also threatening to go bankrupt. This will cost the U.S. another $2 billion. In 2016 President Obama sent $400 million to the U.N. as the down payment on our commitment of $3.5 billion to support developing countries convert to green energy. On January 17, 2017, just before he left office, President Obama sent another $500 million.

Hescox and Douglas claim this is a pro-life issue and if we control CO2, multitudes of lives will be saved in the far distant future. But what about today? In addition to 1.2 billion people who have no electricity, another 2-3 billion in the world lack safe water and sewage. It is estimated 2 to 4 million people die each year because of the lack of these two necessities. What about taking a small portion of money wasted on green energy projects and building wells in Africa and supporting companies, like M-Kopa, who are building individual solar units?

Without question the primary purpose of the book is to seek the support of Christians for green energy. It is unfortunate that Hescox and Douglas did not present a balanced view. Rather than acknowledge there are serious questions about the effect of CO2 on the earth’s temperature, they chose to belittle the credibility of anyone who would challenge their position on manmade global warming.

What are their qualifications? Douglas earned a B.S. in meteorology and has been a television and radio meteorologist for some 35 years. Hescox, a former pastor and now CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network, earned a Masters in Divinity and a B.S. in geosciences. These are respectable qualifications for their respective contributions to the book, but they are by no means extraordinary, and they pale into insignificance compared with eminently qualified scientists on the other side, whose character they impugn implicitly by referring to them as a body (not by name) as given to cherry-picking data, resorting to conspiracy theories and “dishonest misinformation,” and motivated by payoffs from fossil fuel corporations. Some, like them, are also dedicated Christians—like Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, who have received national and international recognition for their outstanding work developing a method of computing the temperature of the earth from satellite data, and Dr. David Legates, Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, Dr. Anthony Lupo, and more—not to mention myself. Did they consider the Ninth Commandment (“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”) or Philippians 2:3 (“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.”) when they denigrated their brethren?

This prompts one final critique of Caring for Creation. A responsible book on the subject should have interacted significantly with contrary arguments. Yet electronic searches failed to find reference to a single prominent skeptic. It’s not difficult to find out who they are. A single article in Wikipedia lists 22 who challenge the accuracy of IPCC climate projections, 27 who argue that global warming is caused primarily by natural processes, 11 who say the cause of warming is unknown, and 4 who argue that whatever its cause global warming will have few negative consequences. Among these are several Nobel Prize winners (like Ivar Giaevar) and some of the most distinguished scientists in American history (like Frederick Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and Freeman Dyson). And these are just the most prominent. There are thousands of others. Surely Hescox and Douglas could have at least acknowledged the existence of some of these outstanding scientists who totally disagree with them and the experts they mention.

Their failure to grapple with opposing arguments exposes their book as an exercise in confirmation fallacy.

Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology) is a veteran atmospheric scientist of over 50 years’ service. He was the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, the CBS affiliate in Houston, TX (1987–2007), and continues his study of climate change in his retirement. He is a Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

UPDATE: 10:40AM 2/8/17 The export of the oroiginal MS-Word document to this post for some reason only exported the first graph, the other three have now been added.-Anthony

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 8, 2017 1:14 am

Woke up groggy, no time to do due diligence, just a thought: Watch out for the idiots who will focus upon your Faith. We do unfortunately have them on this site.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
February 8, 2017 5:06 am

I’ve certainly no intention of focusing on Dr. Frank’s faith. And to be honest I’d prefer if Dr. Frank didn’t either.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 6:29 am


Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 6:44 am

Why? Separation of Church and State, as the Left has been screaming from the rooftops for 50 years.
The position is an easy one, with obvious consequences – if the left wants to use Religious Belief to support their policies on Global Warming, then fine, lets start talking about the morality of abortion and gay marriage. If the Left says it is out of bounds to use religious belief to guide our governmental policies in those areas, then fine, those beliefs will be out of bounds for ALL areas.
Choose, leftists. Then live with your choice.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 6:45 am

The author’s only reference to religion was to counter the religious claims of the book that he was refuting.
The book’s authors were trying to claim the religious moral mantle for themselves. The author was just showing that he comes from the same mindset, but was able to reach opposite conclusions.
Then he proceeded to debate the science.
You really make yourself look petty when you complain about these religious references.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 8:12 am

Why not? God set all of this up.
I would rather claim that God created everything than claim that everything came from nothing. The first is more logical.
As a Christian, it is easy for me to see how worldly people are driven to parallel and recreate what God has established, and how He works. There are many examples. One is that God did get rid of all of us in the flood, but promised that He would not do that again – compare that with the claims of horrors of global warming: plague, skin cancer from sun exposure, die-offs in the oceans, etc., etc., – all copied straight from Revelation – except there is no flooding in Revelation, and flooding is the leading card the global warming faithful are playing.
These earthly faithful strive to take advantage of us Christians in the way that most scoundrels try to take advantage of others – they appeal to our values in order to use them against us.
We don’t need to listen to these apostles from the Church of Chicken Little. We should simply be looking to the direction we are already given to know how to regard our temporary home here on planet earth:
Psalm 8 says, among other profound things,
“what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
“You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.
“You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.”
Partly, we Christians believe the Bible because it does have a consistent, coherent story throughout, although the “world” strives to claim otherwise. This stewardship theme is in the Bible from Genesis.
We are rulers over the earth. In other places, we can review, in our instruction manual, how a ruler is supposed to behave. Just because we are rulers does not mean we can exploit the earth.
For us, in our world view, approaching the environment is just part of our coherent world view, along with how to regard and address our family, business agreements, our tongue, widows and orphans, and so on.
When being faithful, we have been and continue to be major forces of justice, good government, charity, intellectual pursuits including epistemology and the natural sciences, and of conservation.
I know many of you find this crazy. If you disagree, please at least regard us seriously and realize we have a coherent world view, with plenty of empirical support, just as many of you may hold the world view of Naturalism or Scientism (both of which can be reviewed at Wikipedia, if you are interested). I see this very clearly, since I did not grow up in a Christian environment, and only became a Christian after some investigation in my 30s – after having completed my training in science and epistemology. I used to have a “worldy,” “Scientism-based world view.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 8:47 am

To TheLastDemocrat –
Well said.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 9:51 am

Mark it’s a matter of opinion really. However, for those of us who thought Steve Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria was a pretty sensible modus operandi, finding the opening line “As an evangelical Christian, I believe …” on a climate scientific opinion piece is about as welcome as a treatise on quantum mechanics prefaced with the words “Speaking as a marriage guidance counsellor …”.
If others wish to bring religion into science then my advice is to let them and at all costs resist the urge to do likewise – even in rebuttal. With all due respect to Dr. Frank and his informative, well written article and his system of personal beliefs.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 10:41 am

Thank you for admitting that it’s all about your personal biases.
Just because there are others who share the same biases doesn’t make it right.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 10:58 am

PS: The opening paragraph merely explains the author’s motivation for writing this piece. At no time did he mix science and religion. It is merely your own intolerance causing you to see what isn’t there.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 11:07 am

By saying that you have no intention of focusing on his faith, you are doing exactly that. (^_^)
He only does it to state his background, NOT to preach, as I am seeing it.

James Bradley
Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 2:26 pm

It shows a complete lack of faith in the creator you profess to believe in if you think the world, and everything in it created for humans to use, is not fool proof.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 3:21 pm

“As an evangelical Christian, I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet.”
The very first sentence in his essay. I did not need to know this and there several other mentions of Christianity in the following paragraphs. Can only Christians have a care for the planet, want to reduce pollution, conserve resources? He makes some good points, if a bit redundantly, but the entire piece would benefit from removal of all references to his personal religion. Personal religion should be just that, personal, private, and not announced in a public forum that deals with science.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 3:31 pm

Separation of church and state? If one counts CAGW as a religion, which it has many characteristics of, then the government cannot fund it.
Separation of church and state does NOT say a person cannot express their religion opinions even if they are a government employee. Probably it’s closer to the so-called Catholics that back abortion. The fact that the Left is using religion to bully people into submission doesn’t mean not mentioning religion will stop the bullying. Something else will take it’s place. Bullies are going to bully no matter what.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 5:36 pm

I’m with you — at least, in this matter.
Religion is about Faith. Science involves a profound LACK of faith — you know, empiricism, reproducibility of results, falsifiability, etc. There is (or ought to be) no common ground here.
However, there is a serious difference between what Science is supposed to be and what it actually is. Take climate science as a case in point, but why stop there? Cosmology, theoretical physics, palaeontology, geophysics and other branches of Science are dominated by gurus with whom lesser mortals disagree at their peril. Gatekeepers like Jones, Mann and Gleick are to be found everywhere, propping up the ‘good’ and ‘right’ established views, while suppressing anything heretical that may appear. Sure, they may occasionally use dubious methods, but Hey!, their cause is just.
Still, for me, screw what Science is! I’d much rather take as it ought to be, with no admixture of religion or any other form of faith.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 11:05 pm

“Religion is about Faith. Science involves a profound LACK of faith — you know, empiricism, reproducibility of results, falsifiability, etc. There is (or ought to be) no common ground here.”
Why would anyone conduct science if it did not result in faith of some sort?
They wouldn’t, and anyone who bothers to think this through will realize that science is essentially about faith, it seems almost laughably obvious to me. That’s precisely what all the “empiricism, reproducibility of results, falsifiability, etc.” is for . . so people can have faith in what is claimed by the scientist.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 11:07 pm

Since Dr. Frank is critiquing criticizing (critique is a noun, dammit) a book aimed at evangelical Christians, I think that it is probably a good idea for him to point out that he is also an evangelical Christian. That makes the ad hominem accusation “Frank’s criticism stems from the fact that he thinks evangelical Christians are loonies” impossible to promote.
I think they are all loonies, so I could try “it’s just one loony arguing with another”, except for the teeny problem that, as far as I can tell, Dr. Frank’s argument is based on science and logic.
And very well done, too. I’ll keep going back to this as a reference.

Reply to  cephus0
February 8, 2017 11:18 pm

“I would rather claim that God created everything than claim that everything came from nothing. The first is more logical.”
No it isn’t. “God always existed” is no more logical, or illogical, than “the universe always existed”. And “the universe popped into existence from nothing” is not illogical. The statement is not self contradictory, even if it clashes with our experience of things coming into existence. But that experience is based on our limited experience inside this universe. We have no experience of universes coming into existence.
Based on that same experience, we are used to the idea of things coming into existence from some pre-existing stuff. But when you say “God created” you are not talking about him using pre-existing stuff. To create from nothing is, again, outside our normal experience. The claim “God created everything” does not match our experience any more than “the universe popped into existence from nothing” does.

Reply to  cephus0
February 9, 2017 7:48 am

“Can only Christians have a care for the planet”
pameladragon, sensitive much? Stating that Christians should care for the planet does not state or even indirectly imply that nobody else does.

Reply to  cephus0
February 9, 2017 3:41 pm

“I would rather claim that God created everything than claim that everything came from nothing. The first is more logical.”
Is it? Where did God come from? Nothing?

Reply to  ClimateOtter
February 8, 2017 10:54 am

The warmists keep hitting on creationist and homeopathic skeptics because they are easy targets and discredit our scientific opposition to their climate fascism. I also oppose homeopathy and creationism and for exactly the same reasons they hold – both are anti- science. My opposition to warmista eco fascism is based on exactly the same ground. Our case is made harder when colleagues (?) bring their religious belief into it.

Reply to  Dave
February 8, 2017 12:25 pm

It’s only a problem, if YOU have a problem with religious beliefs (i.e., a problem with anybody even HAVING them). I say this as a person of no religion.

Reply to  Dave
February 8, 2017 12:28 pm

On the purely pragmatic side, if you have a person of great faith who opposes those pasrasitizing the faiths of others for CO2 alarmism, then I see that as a plus that separates the faithful enlightened from the faithful deluded.

Reply to  Dave
February 8, 2017 2:39 pm

There is a problem with creationists, therefore anyone bringing up religion is a problem.
Is that really the line you want to use?

Reply to  Dave
February 8, 2017 3:33 pm

Again, warmists are going to hit you on something. Trying to avoid all possible avenues of attack is a waste of time, plus it tells the opposition you are afraid and easily defeated.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
February 9, 2017 12:22 am

Lucid people watch closely what a person(s) placed in a position of public trust does, says. In Houston, we had the opportunity to evaluate, judge, and mentally grade Neil Frank for more than 20 years based on calls he made regarding Houston’s—and other locations’—extreme weather events, plus his daily weather reports at CBS’s Channel 11. He had the people’s trust before—and after—he retired. Our local daily rag has routinely provided open access to its pages for globalists and their “expert” town criers. Dr. Frank somehow twisted enough arms or called in enough chits to post an article in the paper following the Copenhagen Climate Conference debacle and the hacker(s) release of a government-funded global warming cabal’s emails, models, lies and deceptions that were to be the groundwork for a global carbon tax using the CO2 boogeyman; the program’s endgame being to siphon [carbon tax] monies from nations for the UN’s socialist bureaucracy; upon which the construct for a world government would be built with an unelected coven of international bankers (that own the UN) in charge. The outpouring as a result of Frank’s article following Copenhagen was unexpected and unlike anything the local paper—or its readers—had seen in relation to a climate change hoax that was just beginning to come unhinged. (Readers knew even then, and hundreds of replies to that article have either been taken down or stuffed behind a paywall.)
Thanks, WUWT, for picking up his writing then https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/dr-neil-frank-on-climategate-you-should-be-steamed/
And now.

February 8, 2017 1:23 am

“I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet.”
So do I, that is why me MUST assure that there is sufficient atmospheric CO₂ for nature to feed the expanding world population.
400ppm is NOT ENOUGH.
We must also battle REAL pollution, and stop focusing on a trace gas that is nothing but totally beneficial to the planet’s biosphere.
We must also ensure that as many people as possible have access to cheap, solid, reliable electricity.
That means coal, oil, gas, hydro, and maybe nuclear.

Reply to  AndyG55
February 8, 2017 2:24 am

AndyG55 “400ppm is NOT ENOUGH.”
Exactly right. Fossil evidence from the La Brea tar pits show just before the current inter-glacial plants were severely stressed by perilously low CO2 levels of 180ppm. For the greater part of the last 600 million years CO2 has been at levels over 2000ppm, and life flourished.
“New energy” is NOT the answer:comment image?w=590&h=319
Old energy is. We don’t want something that will lead to a stagnation of CO2 levels. We need to get it up! Getting CO2 up to 1000ppm or higher will not only sharply increase agricultural production on existing lands, but it will also lead to extensive de-desertification, and to large amounts of currently marginal land becoming productive. The benefits of this will FAR outweigh the minimal cost of a little extra warming, which will actually probably be a benefit too!
Plant productivity & CO2:

Thomas Homer
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 5:17 am

Higher levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide than we have today will also lessen fuel requirements.
As more local farms become more productive, food distribution is more localized and that means less fuel is used in food distribution. Less fuel required for food distribution means there is less fuel required for fuel distribution.
Is that a positive feedback?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 10:23 am

Is that a positive feedback?

It’s actually a negative (dampening) feedback that is “positive” in the sense that it is beneficial.

Reply to  AndyG55
February 8, 2017 2:34 am

Agreed Andy.

Reply to  johnmarshall
February 8, 2017 3:04 am

There are a lot of third world countries where nuclear should be absolutely avoided.. probably hydro as well.
WAY too many far-left anti-human, anti-progress nutters in the world.

Reply to  AndyG55
February 8, 2017 7:03 am

Well, though I wouldn’t recommend it, perhaps you’d like to put a tent over your property and up the CO2 within… 500, 600, 700 ppm? where to stop… I mean, if its that good…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:30 am

Oh Griffy, you can’t really be that stupid, can you?

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:41 am

you as usual show your ignorance, as plenty of evidence exist that humans can handle the 500-700 ppm range easily. Greenhouses have elevated levels of CO2 in them in the mid 1500 range, where people work in them without ill effects. Naval personnel go for long periods of time in Submarines, with CO2 well over 1,000 ppm level..
Plants would love having 500-700 ppm level, as they EVOLVED in much higher levels than that long ago.
Plenty of research exist on this too,that you somehow manage to miss. You need to dig deeper,think more, to shed your ignorant based opinions.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:46 am

Greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1200 to 1300ppm.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:47 am

Bruce, surely that was a rhetorical question?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:11 am

Yeo, Griff –
“Griff on February 8, 2017 at 7:03 am
Well, though I wouldn’t recommend it, perhaps you’d like to put a tent over your property and up the CO2 within… 500, 600, 700 ppm? where to stop… I mean, if its that good…”
Because CO2 is a GreenHouseGas
– show us Griff how to tent it !

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:15 am

For a Turing Machine Griff lacks on developed Algorithms.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:33 am

Many commercial greenhouses do precisely that. Best pay-off seems to be at around 1000 ppm.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:35 am

– Griff telling us 2000 ppm of the GreenHouseGas CO2 is a burnout to the Blue Planet
– politely asking for a tent over CO2 to start the catastrophe

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:57 am

I truly feel pity for Griff, he’s still fighting and he doesn’t realize the war is over. He reminds me of one of those sad, bedraggled Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle for 30 years, waiting for the Imperial Army to come back.
They ain’t coming back. War’s over.
It isn’t just Trump winning; it’s the fact that Pruitt is going to easily take over EPA (Dems picked DeVos as their Hill to Die On, which is odd but tells you a lot about their priorities) As soon as Pruitt takes over, all the grants and studies and contracts which financed the Warmist position in this country are dead. Money’s cut off, all of it. The Warmist movement will not survive those cuts, and the worldwide Warmist movement will not survive the US pulling out of the Paris accord, which we are about to do. And there’s nothing anyone on the Warmist side can do to stop this.
Like I said, War is Over. Only mopping up and reconstruction of University Science dept’s left to go.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 10:26 am

Submariners subsist for months in atmospheres in which CO2 swell above 1000 ppm.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 10:36 am

“In terms of worker safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for CO2 of 5,000 parts per million (ppm) over an 8-hour work day, which is equivalent to 0.5% by volume of air. Similarly, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) TLV (threshold limit value) is 5,000 ppm for an 8-hour workday, with a ceiling exposure limit of 30,000 ppm for a 10-minute period based on acute inhalation data (MDPH 2005; NIOSH 1976). A value of 40,000 ppm is considered immediately dangerous to life and health based on the fact that a 30-minute exposure to 50,000 ppm produces intoxication, and concentrations greater than that (7-10%) produce unconsciousness (NIOSH 1996; Tox. Review 2005). Additionally, acute toxicity data show the lethal concentration low (LCLo) for CO2 is 90,000 ppm (9%) over 5 minutes (NIOSH 1996).”
Source: Bureau of Labor Management, https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 10:44 am

Another quote, this on from Anthony Watts:
From Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, something that might finally explain Al Gore’s behavior – too much time spent indoors and in auditoriums giving pitches about the dangers of CO2. One wonders though what the Navy submarine service has to say about this new research:
We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here
This is backed up by the publication from the National Academies of Science Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants
which documents effects of CO2 at much much higher levels than the medical study, and shows regular safe exposure at these levels…
Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46
…but shows no concern at the values of 600-2500 ppm of this medical study from LBNL. I figure if the Navy thinks it is safe for men who have their finger on the nuclear weapons keys, then that is good enough for me.
Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/.
In other words, people can handle 500, 800, 1200 ppmv CO2 just fine.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 11:26 am

Griff February 8, 2017 at 7:03 am
What is the level of CO2 on a submariner Diesel then Nuke.
What is the level of CO2 on a Passenger airliner.
What is the level of CO2 in a apartment where you live then a house.
Oh and a typical Green house.
For goodness sake Think.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 11:32 am

giffiepoo baby:
In the East coast of the USA here, many of the grocery stores feature vegetables grown in greenhouses.
No a single greenhouse, but many acres of greenhouses. Nor do these places sell to visitors, especially as visitors bring in unwelcome viruses, pests and diseases.
People work all day in the greenhouses without harm and CO2ppm levels are over 1,000ppm. Exactly how high? The owners are not forthcoming about the range of CO2 they grow at, that is a trade secret.
Amateur orchid growers have learned by experiment that orchids thrive at 1000+ppm CO2.
On the East coast, many of the salad greens are Greenhouse raised; as are tomatoes, peppers, spinach. Squash can be grown down south and trucked in, so no inroads there yet.
Yes, the tomatoes are far more flavorful than the large green varieties colored red by exposure to ethylene just before shipping.
Now about that tent? I live on seven acres, with tall hardwood trees…
Nah, I’d rather drive my tractor and truck more.

Dr. T
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 11:46 am

Figured I would add these because most of the people in this forum are bound by irony. They disregard the thousands of scientific papers that show what happened to our planet when CO2 rose or fell on short timescales (or they just say it’s an agenda), but then use scientific papers to prove their point.
This is was happens to humans when inhaling air that has increasing levels of CO2. In short, we become dumber. Kind of what is happening to me now after reading all of these comments.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 11:56 am

Brad Rush ‏@OtagoGrad 18h18 hours ago
@tan123 Data from 10 nuclear submarines indicate avg CO2 of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm. https://twitter.com/OtagoGrad/status/829074103550124032

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 12:10 pm

Dr. T You report a dubious. From your link:
“However, an important limitation of these studies is their reliance on subjective outcome measures, such as surveys, that have the potential for bias because participants are aware of their status (i.e., green or control). To date, we know of no studies that have been conducted in green buildings where participants were blinded to their building condition (Allen et al. 2015).”
So we have liberal participants in a study knowing that their self-reporting will affect how the demon CO2 is seen. Talk about bias. On the other hand, astronauts on the space station have no “self-reported” ill effect to 7000ppm, and the same in submarines to as high as 11,000ppm! We are talking about raising CO2 to 1000ppm (keep in mind that’s only 1 part per 1000).

Dr. T
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 12:51 pm

Hi Eric.
Thanks for your comment. That’s the whole point. Those PREVIOUS studies were biased. That was why this research team conducted the experiments via double blind experiments. They were telling the reader why their study was important. Reading comprehension. You must read the following paragraph:
“We designed this study to objectively quantify the impact of indoor environment on higher-order cognitive function, a driver of real-world productivity in office workers.”
Your second comment about gas concentrations. If you think low concentrations of gases aren’t harmful, I dare you to inhale H2S or SO2 gas at those concentrations. It would result in quite the story.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:19 pm

Dr. T The issue isn’t H2S or SO2!
The fact that you bring up H2S and SO2 shows your bias. And your own link reports: “It is widely believed that these associations exist only because the higher indoor CO2 concentrations at lower outdoor air ventilation rates are correlated with higher levels of other indoor-generated pollutants that directly cause the adverse effects.” Correlation is not causation, and a literal ton of money has been appropriated by leftists to demonize CO2. No, the fact is that people have been existing in the space station and submarines, and buildings for generations, with up to 5000ppm or more with no ill-effects. Now all of a sudden CO2 is the killer gas? I’m afraid not.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:21 pm

Bruce Cobb
The answer to your (rhetorical) “…Oh Griffy, you can’t really be that stupid, can you?…” is HELL YES, Griffy really is that stupid.
On the plus side, he has recently experience a torrent of information about polar bears; whether he learned anything from that remains somewhat doubtful.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:52 pm

For life on earth, the ideal level of CO2 is the same as in commercial greenhouses. So if you want to know where to stop, better than 400 is 800 ppm, but 1200 or higher would be best.

Dr. T
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 2:00 pm

Oh Eric,
I pretty much am the least biased person in the world. If only we could talk in person. Don’t tell a scientist that only 1 part per 1000 is small! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all year!
Who said that CO2 was a killer gas?? Well I mean, it would be at high enough quantities. Think about it, how many people kill themselves by turning on their cars and shutting their garage doors? CO and CO2 are pretty nasty beasts. But yes, increasing pCO2 causes people to become dumber (is that not the PC way of saying it?). Do you think there will be no ill effects from displacing the relative proportion of oxygen that you inhale for extended intervals of time? The more studies the better.
Oh yeah, back to that darn paper, which you obviously failed to comprehend. Again, that is the reason they did this study!!!! Did you not read the following paragraphs???
“This stimulated our group to test effects of variation in CO2 alone, in a controlled environment, on potentially more sensitive high-level cognitive functioning. We investigated a hypothesis that higher concentrations of CO2, within the range found in buildings and without changes in ventilation rate, have detrimental effects on occupants’ decision-making performance.”

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 2:34 pm

Oh Dr. T,
You report a study done with only 22 participants, with widely varying backgrounds and levels of innate intelligence. So the conclusion that “subtle differences in proofreading ability” are caused by 2500ppm CO2 is to be believed? A joke really, and a product of leftist researchers sucking on the T of billions upon billions of dollars of federal grant money given for the express purpose of demonizing CO2. Even if the bogus study was true there’s no way CO2 levels are going anywhere near there where our proofreading ability would be subtly different. At current emission rates it would take hundreds of years to get there, and before that one of these two things will happen: a) human civilization will collapse from war and disease and CO2 emissions will go to near zero, or b) within decades we will be naturally moving away from CO2 generating sources of energy and our CO2 emissions will plummet. There’s no way we could keep current emission levels up for hundreds of years. That’s just a pipe dream of the left. 600ppm is likely to be as high as we go, unfortunately. 800ppm will be the absolute max.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 2:41 pm

Once again, Dr. T will spout any nonsense, so long as it supports his religious beliefs.
PS: That study has been refuted, multiple times. But you will keep citing it, won’t you.

Dr. T
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 3:09 pm

Eric and Mark,
You two really are cute.
And where do you think all that CO2 goes? And then what happens? Timescales, feedbacks, etc. It’s obvious you two have zero background in the Earth sciences. It’s quite telling.
Ok, I’m out of this conversation. Too tiring.

Reply to  Griff
February 9, 2017 1:54 am

Think about it, how many people kill themselves by turning on their cars and shutting their garage doors? CO and CO2 are pretty nasty beasts

So, obviously you aren’t a Medical doctor, Dr.T. Trying to equate Carbon Dioxide with Carbon Monoxide is about as silly as doing so with Hydrogen Peroxide and Water.
Needless to say, if I have to pick between NASA and Navy scientists charged with finding out safe levels of CO2 for people operating multi Billion dollar vehicles in extremely dangerous environments, or ‘Climate Communicators’ pushing their CO2 is evil meme, I think I know which I’ll trust. ~¿~

Reply to  Griff
February 9, 2017 6:40 am

You might like this:
Think about it: If you breathe at higher CO2 concentrations, then you might inhale too much CO2. If you hold your breath, then you might build up too much CO2. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I guess we’re just screwed.
The plants shall inherit the Earth.
I can’t help but suspect that those studies on cognitive function are underplaying (ignoring?) a few other mitigating factors.

Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 3:24 pm

Who said that CO2 was a killer gas??

1. The EPA. I mean Obama’s EPA, and everyone who used the term “carbon pollution“, which is a large number of Democratic Party politicians. In other words people on your side called it pollution, so tried to associate it with killer gas.
CO2 is a life giving gas.

M eward
February 8, 2017 1:34 am

Looking at the graph showing the previous warmings and coolongs it seems to me that we are just in one of the now fairly regular warming phases with a period about 1000 years, in fact at about the peak so about due to start on the next few centuries of cooling.
Latest alarmist report in Oz from the alarmist ‘Climate Council’ out today giving free content to the masturbating media. Aparently we are gonna fry and drown and shrivel up from drought amongst a whole host of deadly weather events.

February 8, 2017 1:40 am

Dr Frank – 10/10.

February 8, 2017 1:52 am

“However, CO2 concentration lags temperature by several hundred years.”
YES! That’s the critical point. And the BEST way to spread the word about that to open-minded believers (in “climate change”) is this outstanding 4 minute video that everybody on this planet should see:

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 2:46 am

Forrest Gardener “The lagging argument is surprisingly difficult for some to grasp.”
Yes. Though everyone I have shown the video has understood it, especially liberals (who must either accept the weakness of their position or try in vain to come up with an explanation for the obvious CO2 lag).
Also, note the video shows Al Gore in his 2006 movie willfully (purposely) lying about CO2.
We know Gore is lying because by 2003 the IPCC itself had already conceded that the CO2 lag means that there’s no actual evidence that CO2 affects climate temperatures. That had been the very foundation of the IPCC’s AGW theory. Now the foundation of their theory is gone, but bizarrely the theory continues to live on and on like some kind of leftist climate marching zombie that can’t be killed.
Here’s a graphic of the CO2 lag:comment image

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 2:47 am

I’ve probably missed it, but there is something about CO2 lagging temperature change that I don’t think has been seriously considered. We have evidence that this is true over long periods of time in the ice cores. It is also true over the very short term and is evident in the annual and seasonal variations in the Mauna Lao data. Is there evidence of whether or not it is true over periods of time between those two extremes, say decadal or centennial periods of time? Maybe the data is too messy over those intermediate periods to tease out just what is going on. But if so, that applies to the assertion that CO2 is driving temperature changes as well. Is AGW actually a testifiable hypothesis given the data we have to test it? It looks to me like maybe not. Something that only takes up 40 seats in the 100,000 seat football stadium should face a very serious barrier to acceptance if we are going to hypothesize that it has a major effect upon temperature. Anything less is an affront to science.

Reply to  blcjr
February 8, 2017 6:26 am

I believe there was an article on WUWT a year or so ago noting that the lag is also on a diurnal scale.

Reply to  blcjr
February 8, 2017 10:46 pm

“The football stadium in Dallas has over 100,000 seats. If we assign a molecule of air to each seat … CO2 would occupy only 40 seats”
But they would be the best seats!

Dr. T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 8:42 am

There is no CO2 lag relative to temperature. Keep up with the literature. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060/tab-pdf

Dr. T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 1:22 pm

Hi Forrest,
Which magazine/journal published the first age models for the CO2 and temperature figures that everyone is showing? Just curious 🙂

Dr. T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 1:43 pm

So now you deflect? I just didn’t remember which out-of-date papers you guys are all quoting? I was assuming Science or Nature. By the way, there is no lag.
And now the kicker. Even if CO2 did lag temperature, that just means that the glacial-interglacial transitions are a function of insolation, which makes perfect sense regarding Milankovitch theory. However, at some point, CO2 becomes the dominant control on T after such lag (not insolation). So, lots of positive feedbacks and eventual negative feedbacks in the system. This, again, is no big deal. I guess I don’t get your point.

Dr. T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 2:05 pm

Classic deflection again. There is a whole thread of you people, whoever you are, talking about this so called lag. That means that people other than you in this thread keep perpetuating some idea of a lag. The paper that I cited shows that there is no lag. Please respond to that and stop deflecting and trying to change the subject. All I care about are the data and the interpretations. Nothing else. If that is considered trolling, our world is in much more danger than I originally thought.

Dr. T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 2:26 pm

Manners? I’m slightly confused.
How about Forrest, Eric, blcjr, Gil? Is that good enough?
Trolling and attention seeking? You have provided data from old research papers. I have provided newer data which shows that the older age models were incorrect. Please respond to the article that shows that there is no lag.
If you do not account for these new data, then you are a bad scientist.

Dr. T
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 3:11 pm

That’s sad. Did I hurt the poor liberal’s feelings? Again, keep perpetuating the lies.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 11, 2017 3:42 pm

Dr. T is a troll. He comes here (only a he can be so consistently rude), winds people up. Quotes studies with 22 participants, or Science Mag and demands to be treated seriously. I figure his doctorate is social sciences. I note his apparently anonymous id. I normally post my full id. I’m only pseudo-anonymous here because I’m using my wordpress id I created about 10 years ago. So anonymous posters, who just wind people up and post rubbish ‘evidence’ annoy me. Dr. T would be kicked off Sceptical Science for this behaviour. We’re more liberal here than the liberals there.

Coeur de Lion
February 8, 2017 2:02 am

I had an exchange of letters with Lord Rees, Astronomer Royal, recently as a consequence of his letter ( with Lord Krebs) to The Times accusing the Global Warming Policy Foundation of ‘bias’ – The Times had published an article by Matt Ridley. In his letter to me, Lord Rees played the ‘tobacco industry’ comparison meme, accused ‘deniers’ of ‘rubbishing the science’ and said that the GWPF only has a couple of people qualified to discuss climate science anyway. A glance at the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council shows some 25 people of world class status of whom Freeman Dyson is but one of the stars. No further comment.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
February 8, 2017 4:31 am

You have to admit that if:
1)there was a twenty year pause in cancer rates while smoking dramatically increased
2)we discovered that smoking lags cancer
3) it was skeptics, rather than alarmists, that made their living by intentionally doing bad science and trying to silence any opposing views
the tobacco comparison would be spot on

Keith J
Reply to  Justanelectrician
February 8, 2017 8:02 am

Cancer lagged smoking.
Analogies aren’t always analogs.

Reply to  Justanelectrician
February 8, 2017 3:49 pm

Sorry Keith, I should have used a sarc tag. The point was that all of my conditions are absurd, and so is the comparison to the tobacco case.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
February 8, 2017 7:04 am

Though they are strangely shy of revealing who funds the GWPF, aren’t they?

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:31 am

Rich donors fund advocates of both climate realism and climate deni@lism, ie your anti-scientific opinion. So what?
What matters is the science, of which there is none among CACA adherents.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:46 am

Ha ha ha,
when you Griff, have no evidence to support your AGW religion, you like Lord Rees, try the worn out funding whine instead. It is boring,it is stupid and intellectually lazy!
Challenge the science….. if you can.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:48 am

Considering what you alarmists do to anyone who dares challenge your religion, is it any wonder why donors don’t want to be revealed?
Regardless, if you have to attack the funding then you are admitting up front that you can’t attack the science.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:20 am

Griff: You are trying to divert the discussion away from the point of the post. What does issue of GWPF’s funding have to do with the post?

Steve Ta
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:28 am

Of course – no smoke without fire – wink wink.
You really are a useless waste of space.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:56 am

Griff, please consider the following.
1: The bile from certain sectors that was lobbed at Heartland after its donors were publicly revealed.
2: Consider that the federal government refused to take legal action against Peter Gleick despite his public confession to several crimes,
3: On the other hand, several states have attempted to prosecute Exxon for their support of contrary viewpoints on global warming, despite having to invent a horribly tortured interpretation of the law to justify their actions. While these were almost universally thrown out by judges due to their transparent political nature, the message was loud and clear. “Contrary opinions will be punished”.
No, I don’t blame them one bit for protecting their supporters.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 9:00 am

Griff, the Global Warming Policy Foundation is a registered education charity. I don’t know how it works in the US (or the UK), but in Canada donations to registered charities are strictly between the donor, the donee and the Canada Revenue Agency (equivalent to the IRS). It’s nobody else’s business unless the DONOR decides to publicize who he/she is making donations to.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 10:34 am

IIRC, the GWPF has shown its donor list to a bunch of high-level clergy and some other presumably eminent and disinterested parties in order to demonstrate validate its claim that its donors are not associated with the fossil fuel industry. These observers have confirmed the GWPF’s claim.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 1:35 pm

Just an contemporary observation: when lefties don’t get their way (e.g. don’t like your politics, don’t like your political ideas, don’t like you pointing out their climate models don’t work) they tend to beat you up, trash & burn down the neighborhood.
When was the last time you actually saw CAGW skeptics doing something that…for any reason?

Reply to  Griff
February 11, 2017 4:01 pm

Griff: You are trying to divert the discussion away from the point of the post. What does issue of GWPF’s funding have to do with the post?

Ad hominem, and nearly all logical fallacies are attempts to win the argument by changing the topic of debate.
PS: In the USA, Greens established a foundation: Tides, just to “wash the money”. You can donate to Tides but Tides just funds other foundations, who then fund say: Greenpeace or Sierra Club, or whoever. How dishonest and cowardly is that of the Greens/CAGW alarmists?

Ian Magness
February 8, 2017 2:15 am

Quite simply, an outstanding paper.
Congratulations and respect to the author.

Reply to  Ian Magness
February 8, 2017 4:49 am

“An Ice Age lasts about 100,000 years and is followed by a roughly 10,000-year warm (interglacial) period. ”
However, the above quote is quite wrong. An Ice Age is about 10–12 million years, and within the current Ice Age, there are 90–100,000 year glacial (aka stadial) and 10–12,000 year interglacial periods (aka interstadial). We are just approaching the end of our current interglacial period and due for glaciation into the next glacial period.
I guess people get mixed up because the last cool period was nicknamed “The Little Ice Age.” Oh, well, but they should learn and get it right.

Jerry Henson
Reply to  higley7
February 8, 2017 7:30 am

H7, even lawyers are writing in a style that attempts to dress common usage
of the language.
I believe that Dr. Frank is attempting to write without using “Jargon” which
might confuse the casual reader.

Reply to  higley7
February 8, 2017 7:50 am

It’s an opinion piece written for ordinary people. As such it uses the language the way they do, not the way “experts” do.
I was always taught to keep my audience in mind when writting.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  higley7
February 8, 2017 7:59 am

There actually is little precision in use of the terms “ice age” and “ice house”.
If an ice age occurs when earth has ice sheets, then the current one has been in effect for about 34 million years. The Carboniferous-Permian ice house lasted up to 100 million years.
But if by ice age you mean since the first appearance of NH ice sheets, then the present one is only about 2.6 million years old.

Dr. T
Reply to  higley7
February 8, 2017 11:26 am

higley7, we geologists generally define an ice age as an interval of time when permanent ice sheets exist. That being said, we’ve been in an ice age for at least the past 33 million years (and no, they are not roughly 10-12 million years in duration). The ice ages that are presented here represent the glacial intervals (they are not the same as stadials). Right now, we are in an interglacial, but we are not “approaching the end of our current interglacial period.” Humans have most likely delayed the onset of the next glacial because we’re injecting vast quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. See the following paper for reference:

Dr. T
Reply to  Ian Magness
February 8, 2017 9:16 am

This “outstanding paper” is no more than an opinion piece by a very old meteorologist who obviously cannot grasp the amount of evidence that shows how humans are impacting our environments and climate. Let’s say 97 doctors tell you that you have cancer, yet 3 say you do not (there will always be detractors). What do you do?

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 9:49 am

Another troll who didn’t bother to read the piece.
It’s a complete lie that there is a 97% consensus.
But the trolls never let truth get between them and other people’s money.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 10:38 am

Let’s say 97 doctors tell you that you have cancer, yet 3 say you do not (there will always be detractors). What do you do?

Nothing, if their proposed cure is to bleed me, and if the pioneering patients whom they have already bled (e.g., Spain, Germany, UK, and Denmark) are more sickly now.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 10:39 am

PS: plus Ontario.

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 11:03 am

Hi trolls, pleasure for you to comment without actually making any sense. MarkW, actually I’d say that if a proper survey was given only to those who are experts on past abrupt climate change, then the amount would increase to 100%. I have never met one scientist who actually studies our planet’s history who would disagree with the statements that a) CO2 is a greenhouse and causes our atmosphere to warm and cool and b) human activities are causing our planet to warm. Also, this opinion article was so full of falsities that I could only skim through it. I think I was laughing by the 5th or 6th paragraph. Although this person was respected in his field at one point, he was never an expert in climate change or past climate change. Kind of similar to a geographer masquerading as a geologist (sorry if I offended anyone reading this). Roger, such a simple answer for a simple person. If you enjoy life, then you have surgery performed or receive chemotherapy (at least that’s probably a good idea). There really isn’t a debate as to what we are doing to our planet. The debate is what do we do about it. I don’t have an answer, but as an expert in past climate change, I would recommend that we stop using fossil fuels. We need more innovators like Elon Musk.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 11:59 am

Based on your existing faith, devout alarmist; of course you had difficulty reading the article.
Your skimming meant that you skipped the destruction of the alleged science behind:
A) consensus opinion
B) the alleged 97% consensus with every study claiming that or near as their results is investigated and revealed to utter trash.
Now, your alleged 97 doctors question reads to us as; “97 quacks and 3 divergent opinions”. Quacks are people who practice or perform bad science; which as recent whistleblowers happily relate, is how NASA/NOAA/GISS/NCDC are mutilating climate science.
Your style is somewhat familiar. There are several regular atrocious trolls who visit here under many assumed names. Which jerk of the internet are you, we wonder.
But then, I don’t believe you ever intended to read the above article, or even all of the comments. You are simply here to distract commenters by specious claims and false reasoning.
The Oregon petition easily beats 97 doctors with thousands. And who would you trust? A doctor who put his life on the line while proving his beliefs or one who mouths falsehoods for a big fat paycheck?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 12:19 pm

Believe the ones with the real physical evidence that can be replicated and repeated. Your strawman and your conclusion are both faulty.

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 12:26 pm

First, I have no “faith.” I read, read, read, and do my own research at my own academic institution. That means I publish a dataset and interpret the best I can. If this leads me to become an “alarmist,” which is a pretty funny way to describe someone, then so be it. I guess if we look at the geologic record and are not alarmed by what we’re doing today, then there’s probably something wrong with us.
A) There is a consensus on whether or not humans are causing our planet to warm. Answer: the scientific consensus is YES, humans are causing our planet to warm. I guess we should disregard the theory of gravity if there are a few scientists who disagree with the statement that gravity keeps us planted to the floor. I’m actually thinking about sending out a survey to those only who are considered experts in the field. I think that would actually be better. There are so many sub-disciplines within the earth sciences that the previous survey could be analogous to sending out the same survey to physicians and veterinarians (about something that only should really be answered by one group or the other).
B) I haven’t really paid attention to other surveys, so I have no comment on that.
And you can read that question however you please. Doesn’t really matter to me. Unfortunately, your group is on the wrong side of this subject matter. I wish it wasn’t the case, because I’d rather that there were no repercussions to our actions. However, as a subject matter expert in paleoclimatology/paleoceanography, I understand the feedbacks that come with a quickly warming world, even though the amount of CO2 that we’re releasing per year is (at least) an order of magnitude greater than the next closest “event” in our planet’s history (see PETM).
And yes, I did intend to read the article. I even tried again after reading your response. But alas, it’s the same old argument that can’t stand the peer review process. Also, as someone who deals in different timescales that modern climatologists, I’m not too bothered if we have a decade that’s cooler or warmer than average. The timescales of processes that I research are sub-centennial to a million years or so. We’re only just starting to feel the effects of warming climate, which isn’t the scariest thing in the world (to me). I’m more concerned about ocean acidification and hypoxia/anoxia.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 4:32 pm

Tired old argument. The correct analogy is:
If 97 out of 100 doctors tell you their model says you have cancer, would you have a leg amputated?
Dr. T: What part of “survey is not science” do you not understand. Surveys are for MARKETING, not science.
In YOUR mind there is not doubt. I know people who have no doubt about astrology being true. Your opinion is not the determining factor in scientific theories and hypothesis.
You need to expand the number of scientists you know—you’ve missed a whole treasure trove of ones who actually understand the scientific method.
Elon Musk is nothing more than a tax sponger. (Just an additional thought—China has had electric vehicles costing far less than $100,000 since 2006. Elon’s great at wasting other people’s money. Very bad at producing useful products except for the wealthy.)
Consensus is NOT science in any way. Your marketing survey will not help your lack of science.
“Unfortunately, your group is on the wrong side” Attempting to humiliate or bully people into believing what you cannot prove with science.
Peer review means your colleagues review your work. How does that come out as impartial?
All in all, virtually no science to be found anywhere in your comments.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 6:02 pm

Let’s review here:
DrT demonstrates frequent ad hominem with constant supercilious condescension, plus his constant barrage of straw men.
My guess is the death of internet Connolly of wikipedia misuse ignominy, though vvussell is a second choice for geology claims.
Ignore the useless DrT troll, he is not here to provide any value.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 11, 2017 4:17 pm

You get a biopsy. That will make it very clear whether you have cancer. Today, we can even do a genetic analysis on the suspected tumour showing it is cancerous.
A diagnosis of cancer is real technology, using real evidence, based on real, universally agreed science (more like 99.9% agreed). GAGW is a scam based on flawed climate models, and imaginary, worst case future projections. There is no comparison.

February 8, 2017 2:21 am

Nice summary of points that have been made by sceptics over the past 10 to 15 years.

February 8, 2017 2:32 am

Best paper on this subject for a long time.

February 8, 2017 2:39 am

Well done and an easy read full of facts. Thank you Dr. Frank.

Poor Richard
February 8, 2017 2:40 am

Excellent. Kudos on a job well done.

Pete W.
February 8, 2017 3:08 am

Yes, it’s an excellent paper but I would despair of getting any of my warmist friends to read and think about it all to the end.
And then, to quote whoever it was said: ‘you can’t reason a person out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into’. [A preposition being a word one should never end a sentence with’!”!!]

Dr. T
Reply to  Pete W.
February 8, 2017 11:32 am

Dear Pete W.,
Please present your new data substantiating that humans are not causing our planet to warm (which means that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which would be the ultimate burn to Arrhenius) to a respected journal. I promise that you will become very famous and wealthy.
Some geologist person

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 12:14 pm

Some false geologist person:
Please explain how four molecules of CO2 manage to heat up 9,996 other atmospheric molecules along with Earth surface molecules?
Arrhenius only demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas under laboratory conditions. He did not work out CO2’s placement amongst Earth’s atmosphere for efficacy nor how CO2 with one small fragment of IR light frequency could attain any real temperature change over H2O in the atmosphere.
Unlike OCO’s rigid absorption/emission of a very small channel of Infra Red frequency, water vapor’s much more flexible OHO arrangement absorbs and emits infra red light over a large spectrum of light frequencies.
By the way, there are a number of geologists visiting WUWT. Geologists who have noted that the record kept in rocks and demonstrated again via ice cores, that CO2 is not the fearsome monster alarmists claim.
Earth has seen and thriven through greater periods of warmth and much higher CO2 levels.
Even in modern times, man recognizes that prior warm periods are when mankind thrives and expands; which is where the term ‘optimum’ is applied. Those periods are mankind’s optimums.
Yet, you devout alarmists, submit to false pretenses and fake numbers while believing in dire dooms if the Earth continues warming from the Little Ice Age.
Invest in a cardboard sign! Get outside!

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 12:43 pm

It is not my job to explain that. It is your job to delve into the literature.
Obviously. Arrhenius’ work was the first to note that CO2 was a greenhouse gas (ever read CarlSagan’s work? Good stuff).
I’d love to meet these geologists. I posted this above, but of course nobody will speak to it: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060
Earth has never (at least we think based off the geological record) experienced RATES of change that we’re witnessing today. It’s all about the rate of change. So, those time intervals when Earth had much greater warmth and much higher CO2…Let’s use the Mesozoic for an example. How about Triassic-Jurassic boundary, Toarican OAE, OAE 2, OAE 1a, etc., etc? Those are just a few of those past instances when Earth was “thriving.” I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to be around during those time intervals. And as a matter of fact, the oceans were much greener and stinkier back then! I prefer blue water myself. Maybe I’m just a bad person. Oh, back to those other geologists. So, ALL of my friends who are geologists and work in oil and gas, guess what? They know we’re destroying the planet (and so do the companies), but they are making bank. In fact, I always enjoy reading energy company internal emails stating that we’re warming our planet, but we have to do the best we can to supply energy. Makes me laugh when your group will do anything to deny fact.
Tell me a time when mankind has thrived and we haven’t wiped out indigenous populations of humans and other macrofauna. We are the world’s greatest killers. We thrive because we eat everything else.
The Little Ice Age should probably be renamed. Maybe I’ll suggest that be a topic at a future conference.
I do enjoy the outside. Maybe I should?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:53 pm

Dr T
If you’re really looking for “evidence” that humans are or are-not causing our planet to warm, I’d suggest getting accurate temperature data to start with. We don’t have that at the moment, so nobody really knows.
Even the manipulated/homogenized/reconstructed/tree-ring-enhanced data fails to respond like the models predict.
Without credible data you got zip, nada, bupkis, zilch (AKA just hot air, so to speak).

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 2:09 pm

Hello Javert,
Tree ring data are regional/local recorders of temperature/precipitation/fire/etc. I would not expect all regions to warm because atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns will also change. Therefore, don’t be surprised if some places become slightly cooler as the planet warms. And the same is true of the planet cooling; some regions will warm.
And it’s not my job to gather temperature data for modern times. My focus is rooted in past climate change. Unfortunately, what we know does not bode well for the future of humanity and the health of our oceans.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 4:35 pm

NO, NO, NO. Arrhenius did not prove humans cause the planet to warm. He may have proven CO2 raises temperature in a black box, but nothing close to proving CO2 in a chaotic system not well understood raises the temperature of the planet. If you could actually prove that was true, you’d become famous.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 6:15 pm

“Earth has never (at least we think based off the geological record) experienced RATES of change that we’re witnessing today. It’s all about the rate of change.”
What are you referring to, CO2 atmospheric concentrations?

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 11:32 pm

“Earth has never (at least we think based off the geological record) experienced RATES of change that we’re witnessing today.”
What result do we get if we base our ideas ON the geological record. That would seem to be more sensible.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 11, 2017 5:05 pm

Dr. T: They know we’re destroying the planet (and so do the companies), but they are making bank.

Once again, the self-styled geologist/scientist reveals the real motivation for their global warming scare: to scare us into wanting less, to lower our horizons. It’s just left politics and anti-humanism. Give these people enough rope and they will hang themselves. Let them write enough and they will eventually tell you what made them “believers“.

February 8, 2017 3:09 am

1975–1998…… Warm…… Rapid warming
I would have to disagree with that.
NO warming from 1980-1997 in either satellite record.comment imagecomment image
Only the Super El Nino step around 1998-2001.

Reply to  AndyG55
February 8, 2017 3:10 am

Whoops, grabbed the wrong first graphcomment image

February 8, 2017 3:09 am

This paper makes a good point of discussing that there is no real evidence particularily in the paleorclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. At least a few more points need to be made.
The AGW conjecture is based on the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. But so far such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been obsreved, in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. Without the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect the AGW conjecture is just science fiction. From first principals, one can derive that gravity, the depth of the atmosphere, and the heat capacity of the atmosphere will act to keep the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. 33 degrees C is calculated from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. There is no additional radiant greenhouse effect.
A researcher has pointed out the original calculations of the Planck effect (disregarding feedbacks) climate sensivity of CO2 were too great by a factor of more than 20 because what was neglected is that a doubling of CO2 will cause a small but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of 1.2 degrees C the Planck effect climate sensivity of CO2 should be more like .06 degrees C, a trivial amount.
To make the warming effect of CO2 to appear significant, the AGW conjecture assumes that the H2O feedback is positive but the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less that the dry lapse rate indicates that more H2O has a cooling effect and hence ust provide a negative feedback effect. The negative feedback effect must also have had to be there for the Earth’s climate to have been as stable as it has been for life to evolve because we are here.
The AGW conjecture would have one believe that LWIR absorption band radiation where the dominant means of heat transport in the troposphere but in the pressure regime of the troposphere, conduction and convection dominate. The climate system does not work the way that the AGW conjecture assumes that it does.
After more than 20 years of effort the IPCC has been able to refine the range of their guesses as to the climate sensivity of CO2 one iota. The have not been able to measure it and a very plausable reason for that iis there is nothing there to measure.

Reply to  willhaas
February 8, 2017 4:47 am

Yes, I’ve been referring to the non radiative greenhouse effect as opposed to the alleged radiant greenhouse effect for some time but met with much opposition from other sceptics.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 8, 2017 2:15 pm

The idea that CO2 causes warming is so oversold that most people feel they must at least pay homage to it. It does sound plausable because CO2 does have LWIR absorption bands however a good absorber is also a good radiator and at tropospheric pressures heat energy transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat energy transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation. The claim is that greenhouse gases trap heat but that is realy not so because they are LWIR radiators and radiate energy to space that the non-greenhouse gases do not radiate.
But then I kept asking myself is there any truth to the AGW conjecture at all. It has always been a part of my education that higher pressures in a planetary atmosphere goes hand in hand with higher temperatures. The lapse rate is really a measure of the insulating effects of the atmosphere. The higher the lapse rate the greater the insulation effect. CO2 is not a source of energy so to cause warming it can only do so by acting as a thermal insulator. I would expect that if CO2 really caused warming that there would have been a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate over the past 30 years but apparently that has not occoured. If CO2 were really this supper insulating gas then there would exist some practical applications of it but I do not know of any. The more I looked into AGW the more I realized that it is based on only a partial understanding of science and rather than being a theory is only a very flawed conjecture.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 13, 2017 2:19 am

I put much of this discussion up on a blog because I’ve not really come across it before.
PS: By Plank effect are you referring to the absorption and re-emission of LWIR by molecules (black body radiation)?
PS 2: On average, what length of time does a molecule keep energy when it absorbs as IR before it is re-emitted? Is it hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds or nanoseconds. Where are the studies?

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 13, 2017 2:20 am

Oops. Link to my blog reposting this discussion.

Reply to  willhaas
February 8, 2017 4:59 am

To make the warming effect of CO2 to appear significant, the AGW conjecture assumes that the H2O feedback is positive …

Presumably H2O heat absorption is, like CO2 heat absorption, logarithmic. Each gram of atmospheric moisture absorbs less heat than the previous gram. On the other hand, evaporating the water from the ocean into the atmosphere takes the same energy for each and every gram. The heat is given back when the moisture condenses back to water in the upper atmosphere where the heat radiates to space. It seems reasonable to postulate that increased humidity leads to greater heat loss and is, indeed, a negative feedback.

Reply to  commieBob
February 8, 2017 1:43 pm

According to some energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporizatoin from the surface of the Earth to where clouds form then by both conduction plus convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The equivalent average altitude for the atmosphere radiating to space is 17K feet but because of low emissivity the actual radiation comes from much lower. We re talking about the level of cloud decks which are much higher emmissivity radiators then clear air. Adding H2O to the air lowers the lapse rate which allows more heat energy to rise which constitutes a cooling effect. The cooling effects of H2O outweighs any so called greenhouse gas warming effect that it could possible have. Then there is the effect of clouds which not only reflect incoming solar radiation but also radiate to space not only during the day but at night as well. Increaseing the Earth’s albedo is certainly a cooling effect.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  commieBob
February 8, 2017 5:12 pm

Sheri February 8, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Dr T is a odd troll, first post 11:46am last 3:11 pm.
Was rude insulting and condescending. But knew not to use the “D” word. And just this Post. none of the others. I believe he was “coached”. I wonder if we will hear from him again. Griff is more fun and mature.
anyway Sheri something about this Article by Dr Frank has him up in arms. I think that fact that the “pal review” can be by passed and anyone can read and make up their own minds bugs him.
michael 😀

Dr. T
Reply to  willhaas
February 8, 2017 8:51 am

“No real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate.”
That statement is categorically false. You should research Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Oceanic Anoxic Events, and some of the mass extinctions. These events show all the hallmarks of a warming climate forced by increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There are several other warming and cooling events in our planet’s history that can be unequivocally traced back to fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 9:50 am

Actually they don’t. But don’t let reality get in the way of a good grant.

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 10:51 am

Hello troll. Please present your findings to a prominent refereed journal. I’m sure you’ll become one of the most famous geologists of our time. Until then, keep on trollin.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:29 pm

No it is true. There is evidence that warmer temperatures have caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere. It is well known the warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler water so as volumes of water warm, the water releases more CO2 to the atmosphere. There are other sources of CO2 as well but no real evidence that the increase in CO2 adds to any warming. It is all conjecture. If greenhouse gases really caused warming then the real culprit would be H2O. CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase as volumes of water increase but H2O levels in the atmosphere increase as just the air and the surface of bodies of water including damp earth warm. But H2O is really a net coolant.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 4:40 pm

Dr. T: The use of “please present your findings in a prominent referred journal” screams TROLL. It’s a ploy to bully people into going along with you. You can’t prove the science, so you bully instead. That, too, screams TROLL.

Reply to  willhaas
February 8, 2017 10:10 am

Interesting! Would appreciate references for the results in paragraphs 2 and 3.

Reply to  GWalton
February 8, 2017 2:53 pm

For the results in paragraph 2 first go to an article that appeared in The Hockey Schtick on Friday, November 28,2014 entitled “The Greenhouse Equation”.
The results in patagraph 3 came from an article tht appeared in The Hockey Schtick on November 11, 2015 by Kyoji Kimoto entitled “Basic Global Warming Hypothesis Is Wrong”
I myself am not the originator of any ot this material.

Reply to  GWalton
February 8, 2017 6:56 pm

Thank you, willhaas. I found the references. It’s been a long time since I used that kind of mathematics. They give me some heavy thinking to do.

February 8, 2017 3:15 am

Romney and Other “Conservatives” Betray Us on Climate Change:
A very good argument is made by Dr. Frank in this post that the evidence for the leftist theory is VERY weak. And it’s very straightforward evidence. It shouldn’t take an Einstein to follow it. Plus, the evidence form ClimateGate was overwhelming that the scare-mongering “scientists” are actually data manipulating ideologically driven leftists, driven by THIS motivation:
“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.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
And to varying degrees they’re motivated by THIS:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -ex UNEP Director Maurice Strong
Conservatives have overwhelmingly rejected that motivation, and the leftist “science” (propaganda). But still the leftists succeed in recruiting many from our side to carry their water, as they try and try to divide and then conquer us. The most insidious examples of the leftists infecting our side are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney.
This Tom Nelson tweet tells of Romney’s betrayal yesterday:

Tom Nelson ‏@tan123 10h10 hours ago
OMG: Romney still believes in the CO2 scam: https://twitter.com/tan123/status/829128116845084672
Romney tweets: Thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives to both strengthen the economy & confront climate risks: (leftist link)

What a leftist twerp Romney is:
2015: Mitt Romney Does The Rare Triple Flip-Flop: Global Warming Is Real And A Major Problem: http://www.weaselzippers.us/211685-mitt-romney-does-the-rare-triple-flip-flop-global-warming-is-real-and-a-major-problem/

Roger Knights
Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 10:45 am

2015: Mitt Romney Does The Rare Triple Flip-Flop: Global Warming Is Real And A Major Problem

He’d have been a RINO as president. Luckily, we’ve got a RHINO instead.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
February 8, 2017 6:38 pm

“Thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives”
The “thought-provoking plan from highly respected conservatives” is supposedly a carbon tax, although I haven’t seen any specific news articles on it yet.
I would love to know which conservatives are making this proposal.
We need to start making a list, beginning with Murkowski, Collins, McCain, Graham, Rubio, and . . .
See if we can find some suitable conservative opponents for them the next time they run for office.

Reply to  TA
February 8, 2017 9:11 pm

I found out a little more about the conservatives who are promoting a carbon tax at the White House.
Prominent Republicans Pitch Carbon-Tax Plan to Top Trump Aides
A group of prominent Republicans and business leaders pitched a tax on carbon dioxide to top White House aides Wednesday, selling the plan as an economic win that could drive job growth and yield environmental dividends too.
Former Secretary of State James Baker and other members of the new “Climate Leadership Council” pressed the case in a 45-minute meeting in the Roosevelt Room that included President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser Gary Cohn, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior aide Kellyanne Conway.
“The signs were very encouraging,” Ted Halstead, who founded the council, said after the meeting. “Two weeks into this new administration, we have positioned our solution as the most promising climate solution — if they want to go there.”
Baker also met briefly with Vice President Mike Pence, as the old-guard Republicans try to persuade the Trump administration that a carbon tax imposed in exchange for abolishing a slew of environmental regulations is an insurance policy against the risks of climate change.
“We know we have an uphill slog to get Republicans interested in this,” Baker said before the White House meeting. But “a conservative, free-market approach is a very Republican way of approaching the problem.”
end excerpt
It figures that James Baker would be one of those involved. Completely out of touch with reality. As are the others who are proposig this stupidity.

February 8, 2017 3:59 am

“Earth has been warming for over 150 years as we emerge from the Little Ice Age.”
Simply not the case. For the first 80 years of the HadCRUT4 global temperature record, 1850-1930, there was zero trend: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/to:1931/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1931/mean:12

Reply to  DWR54
February 8, 2017 4:45 am

The warming came in phases when the sun was more active so you should draw it up to date to see the trend across the entire period.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2017 1:03 am

Stephen Wilde
“The warming came in phases when the sun was more active so you should draw it up to date to see the trend across the entire period.”
Here is the period since 1931 showing trends in both surface temperatures and solar output (as indicated by sunspot activity): http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1931/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1931/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1931/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1931/trend/normalise
The temperature trend has been rising while solar output has been falling.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  DWR54
February 8, 2017 4:51 am

Look at earlier versions of the Hadley Centre’s temperature series. Why do you suppose that Arrhenius and Callendar thought that man-made CO2 was warming the earth in the 1900s and 1930s, if the temperature records then didn’t show warming?
HadCRU Version 4 books have been cooked to a crisp, although maybe not as burnt as NOAA’s.
The late 19th and early 20th century warming cycles were indistinguishable from the late 20th century’s.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 9, 2017 1:13 am

Gloateus Maximus
The Berkeley Earth global data show roughly the same zero trend as HadCRUT4 from 1850 to 1930 (0.01 C/dec): http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 12, 2017 12:48 am

Arrhenius believed that CO2 had the potential to cause global warming. He did not think it was happening because CO2 emissions, back then, were low. Only a fraction of the world was industrialized. According to modern theory of warming, Arrhenius overestimated it by 4 to 5½ times. Today, warmists say CO2 climate sensitivity is 1ºC per doubling of CO2. The rest is due to increased water vapour – the so-called amplification. Arrhenius said, first 5ºC to 6ºC, then later 4ºC per doubling of CO2. Yet alarmists continue to treat him as some kind of god when he was obviously badly wrong. They suffer from argumentum ad verecundiam syndrome, poor dears.

Steve (Paris)
February 8, 2017 4:14 am

WOW, WUWT! Excellent, truly excellent synopsis.

Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 4:54 am

Same as with the Commie pope. Protestant preachers should confine themselves to sin, and leave science to those with a clue.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 5:55 am

He is not a preacher.

Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 6:15 am

You would do well to read his article, Gloateus.
(Would it be safe to say that political correctness from God-hating liberals has imbued the public with a nefarious and unwarranted bias against all believers?)

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 7:34 am

I refer not to Dr. Frank, but to those envirowhacko Evangelical preachers whose message he addresses.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 8, 2017 7:37 am

I did read and admire Dr, Frank’s excellent post.

February 8, 2017 5:04 am

Apart from anything else I am grateful to Dr Frank for his “Idiot’s Guide to the 97% Consensus”, especially Cook’s more than slightly crooked contribution to that fiasco which I have never quite managed to get my head round.
His argument that solar power makes sense in the vast wastes of Africa where there is plenty of sunshine and precious little joined-up infrastructure seems logical. However I am sorry to see him miss the point (as, to be fair, most people appear to) about electric cars. It is not simply a question of how long it would take to provide charging points for them all; where is the electricity generation capacity to come from to fuel one billion automobiles? Does he, or anyone, know how many power stations would need to be commissioned or where the “fuel” (nuclear, wind, or solar if fossil fuels are not to be used) is to come from?

Reply to  Newminster
February 8, 2017 6:38 am

Beyond that, there’s also a time of use problem with electrics.
Most electrics would be plugged in as soon as the drivers get home from work every day. Around 5pm.
This is already the time of greatest electricity usage. We would have to build lots and lots of generating plants that would be unused approximately 18 hours of every day.

Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 7:07 am

But much generating plant sits unused through the summer in the UK….
And also from 10 om to 6 am.
The grid is going to be smart enough to schedule all those EVs… they need charging between 7 pm and 7 am, but when is not important. (who gets home at 5 these days?)

Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 7:37 am

“Most electrics would be plugged in as soon as the drivers get home from work every day. Around 5pm.”
This can easily be dealt with using intelligent outlets. They can be linked into the grid, and begin charging at the time of minimal cost. One night that could be 11pm-1am, another night 3-5am. The owner would always have the override option of immediate charging if necessary.

Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 7:52 am

Griffie, Griffie, Griffie.
So it’s OK to take a bad problem and make it worse?
PS: It’s not the grid that is the problem, it’s the cycling of the power plants and hence using them inefficiently.

Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 10:56 am

Silly Griff, cars aren’t required in the winter?
And you don’t plug into ‘the grid’, you plug into your local distribution network which is designed to cope with peaks at mainly 5pm-ish. If new peaks happened at nighttime the distribution networks would require reinforcement costing more £bns ( I assume you are from UK).
You clearly know nothing about real electricity supply engineering or economics , yet you advocate silly expenditure to the detriment of your fellow citizens. You are a fool.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 2:33 pm

JW February 8, 2017 at 10:56 am
Don’t be to hard on him(Griff) he asked the question that most everyday people would ask. Most peole are not knowledgeable as to where and how they get their electricity.
There is simple to much to know and most of us do pretty well aat keeping up with our own little cut of it.
Note to Griff read more. Or better yet, go out with a friend and have good time.

Reply to  MarkW
February 9, 2017 1:25 am

“Most peole are not knowledgeable as to where and how they get their electricity.”
Utter tosh! Just about everyone knows that it comes out of the little holes in the wall.

Reply to  Newminster
February 8, 2017 11:20 am

I was also surprised by the question presented by Dr. Frank with no suggestion:
” Worldwide there are over 1 billion vehicles. How many decades would it take to convert from gasoline and diesel to electric engines and build a network of charging stations?”
While I am not opposed to electric cars, how will electricity be generated to supply them?

Reply to  Newminster
February 12, 2017 1:07 am

Solar power does not make sense. People need electricity 24 hours per day. As one’s latitude gets closer to the equator, the day / night balance gets closer to 50:50, and the difference between summer and winter is far less. So, for example, in winter, Kenya has almost the same day/night balance as it does in summer.
Where do you expect them to get electricity from at night?
If you say storage, I’ll send you to the corner of the room wearing a D hat.
Eco-mongers don’t care about this issue because, for them, any amount of electrical power is too much already. It’s a shame there’s so much anti-nuclear power sentiment among so many conservatives. Conservatives are effectively in alliance with eco-doomsters on world-wide nuclear power. The nuclear power proliferates nuclear bombs argument causes so much fear and anxiety that it dominates the debate and policy. It forces companies to use inferior nuclear power technology. We should’ve progressed to using breeder reactors such as molten salt or liquid metal cooled technology long ago. Instead we are hobbled with inferior light water technology. It’s patent dating from 1947.

February 8, 2017 5:07 am

Interesting that this is an (excellent) critique by a Christian of Christian authors. This suggests what I have long thought that climate alarmism is in the end a moral, ethical and even religious issue.
Jesus said “love your neighbour” but modern morality says “if your neighbours are off-message, paint targets on their backs, trash their reputation and if possible their careers”
Jesus said “I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” but activist morality says “love Gaia” and hate anyone you disagree with.
Jesus said “But if your brother wrongs you, reprove him between you and him alone” but modern morality recommends posting nasty cartoons on Facebook or even burning police cars if you feel wronged.
St Paul said “So then, get rid of lies. Speak the truth to each other, because we are all members of the same body.” But in modern morality, lying in a “good” cause is just fine.
St Paul (who lived in an occupied country under the rule of people like Claudius, Caligula and Nero) said “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority”. But in modern morality, it is expected that you wish your political and ideological opponents ill. Where are the Republicans who gave thanks for Obama, or the Democrats who give thanks for Trump? Any government beats no government, and no one is 100% wrong all the time.
The scientific method will not long survive the breakdown of traditional morality. If lying is OK, why trust experts? If those who speak truth to power are trashed rather than defended, why not just keep your head down? if we insult those we disagree with rather than reason with them then what chance do we have of discovering what is really happening? To borrow Churchill’s phrase) we are headed for “a new dark age, made more terrible, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science”.

Reply to  John Hardy
February 8, 2017 6:40 am

Praying for leaders does not include a desire that they be successful in everything they try.
I can pray for wisdom for our leaders, yet also oppose specific actions of Obama.

Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 10:09 am

That’s a pleasure Catcracking – do go ahead

Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2017 10:15 am

I agree MarkW

Reply to  John Hardy
February 8, 2017 8:47 am

Thanks for those thoughts, with your permission I will send them to friends.

Reply to  John Hardy
February 9, 2017 1:38 am

Lying for a cause seems to have been Paul’s speciality, as well. 1 Cor 19: 20-21. http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com.au/2005/11/paul-deceiver-sketch-of-apostles-true.html
Early Christians followed his lead. A study of EC literature reveals that they produced masses of fantasy stories which were peddled as true.

February 8, 2017 6:02 am

Side note on the religious context:
“I believe we should be good stewards of God’s planet”
I’ve noticed this attempt to re-write the bible from Christians of several denominations (including the current Pope). The bible (Genesis) talks about God giving man dominion over the plants and animals and of subduing the earth. It is pretty clear from various translations (and I checked this accurately reflects the source with an actual bible scholar and translator) that man may treat the world as his own, rather than as a steward who only manages something for someone else. (C/w the difference between dad lending daughter his car and him giving daughter a car of her own).
Note “dominion” does not mean that we have to trash the place, just that it’s our sole choice and responsibility whether we do or not.
What we are seeing is a re-definition of dominion to “stewardship” and this seems to be to promote the green agenda. Have a quick search for “Genesis Dominion” and you’ll see what I mean (e.g. “Rethinking Dominion Theology” and similar).
So when you hear or read that we are “stewards” of God’s world, look for the agenda.
Control the language, etc…

Reply to  gareth
February 8, 2017 6:42 am

A good steward is one who maximizes his masters profits from his property.

Monna Manhas
Reply to  gareth
February 8, 2017 9:18 am

Gareth, I’ve been a Christian for many years. I’ve always understood the concept of stewardship thus: It’s true that God gave man dominion over the earth. However, we don’t own this world. Everything in it (including us) was made by and still belongs to God. Therefore, anything I earn and everything I have also belongs to God. I am the steward of all the resources He has put at my disposal – not the owner.
I find that keeping that in mind is a fairly good antidote to greed and selfishness.

Reply to  gareth
February 8, 2017 10:56 am

I assume you are not a Christian, so I wouldn’t expect you to have a solid grasp of the matter. And even if you did find a “bible scholar” to confirm your bias as to the meaning of dominion, that doesn’t prove anything. You can find a “bible scholar” to say just about anything; kind of like climate science in that respect.
As Monna Manhas has already said, any biblical conception of dominion has to be understood against the biblical doctrine that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). Few know this, but the “tithe” is not a tenth of “income” but a “tenth” of the produce of the land (including livestock, which live off the land). Why? Because the earth was the Lord’s. When King David arranged a freewill offering to prepare for construction of the Temple, he prayed “But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you.” (1 Chron 29:14).
It is not, as you claim in ignorance, a “re-definition of dominion to ‘stewardship’.” The concept of stewardship is well established. So get off your high horse and think twice about speaking on something you know little about. If someone has an agenda, maybe it is the person you see in the mirror.
That said, I’m with Dr. Frank on this. Just as there is a ctrl-Left wing in politics, so also is there one in religion, and often the two get together. Ever since Gore’s awful effort to appeal to Christian religion with “Earth in the Balance” I’ve been naturally skeptical of making environmentalism a religious cause. I think we should be good stewards of God’s creation. I don’t think that means we blindly follow the ctrl-Left wing of the environmental movement.

Reply to  blcjr
February 8, 2017 7:14 pm

“The concept of stewardship is well established.”
That’s my understanding, too. Nice post, blcjr.

February 8, 2017 6:14 am

Dr. Frank, thank you very much. You are far too charitable to the authors of this terrible book. They are selling a false Gospel and committing Simony. They are seeking to manipulate people of faith into worshiping the false climate religion they have embraced.

February 8, 2017 6:25 am

Good stewards should be able to discern gross forecast error when they see it. That’s not asking too much.

Reply to  Resourceguy
February 8, 2017 7:00 am

Unless maybe you think a comparison is not possible until some distant point in the future with all preaching up until that point.

February 8, 2017 6:32 am

Fortunately, I don’t think many in the UK and other countries give a stuff what the church or its members think about climate change.
Latest polls say only 28% of Brits believe in a ‘higher power’ and 38% now describe themselves as atheists. Even amonsgt those who describe themselves as Christian, less than half believe in god – i.e they believe in Christian values, but not Christrian religious preachings.

Reply to  lawrence
February 8, 2017 7:08 am

Really? The poor old Pope got a bashing on this site recently… it seems people care when he supports climate science

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:48 am

The UK isnt a catholic country.
Apart from the usual suspects – i.e. the Grauniad – it was barely reported elsewhere in the UK

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:54 am

When the Pope makes a fool of himself by commenting outside his area of expertise, you can expect people to notice.
Why does it bother you so much whenever we point out what fools you and your fellow travelers are?

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 8:58 am

Why did none of the recent previous Popes get concerned about catastrophic CO2 increase?
Clearly our present Pope is expressing his own personal opinion.
If divine warnings were needed then the previous Pope’s would surely have let us know.

Reply to  Griff
February 8, 2017 7:19 pm

People care about the Pope making claims about the climate that are not established by the facts. Promoting a suspect climate change theory is not what the Pope should be doing.

February 8, 2017 6:37 am

“When people ask me why more climate scientists don’t debate professional skeptics in the media, I tell them the truth. At this point, it’s the rough equivalent of debating gravity or the Apollo moon landing” (p. 90).

As a meteorologist with a Ph.D. instead of a B.S., and over 20 years more experience, I can tell you, that attitude is irresponsible.

Also, gravity CAN be debated — I’ve experienced it in the midst of very brilliant debaters.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 8, 2017 7:46 am

RK; gravity can be debated yes, but indications of its existence are there to be seen, like the signs in pubs and bars:
“Do not leave the barstool when the room is rotating.”

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 8, 2017 5:09 pm

Debating models and nontangible theories is very different from debating gravity. It’s a strawman argument, pure and simple. It’s like claiming the science of weather is not debatable, in spite of the fact that you get 5 or 6 different models daily and some change throughout the day. We know there’s weather and weather prediction, but we also know it’s far from perfect. Now, debating whether the sun is shining or it’s raining, that’s a lot closer to debating gravity.

February 8, 2017 6:48 am

There is a philosophy behind every religion. There can also be philosophy without religion. Most people in the world NEED to believe in something. When they latch on to some belief, it’s difficult to let go. In the old days it was belief in a god or gods (simple version). These days there are more gods. The god of political correctness, the god of global warming , the god of global cooling, the god of LGBT, etc.. All of these gods require certain thinking or philosophy from their acolytes. Some philosophies can be benign or aggresive, or a mixture of both.
It’s just the way it is. I don’t know if humans are broken or not. Regardless, it’s not my job to ‘fix’ them.

February 8, 2017 7:22 am

Excellent article Dr Frank, thank you. Like you I was concerned about global warming caused by CO2 emissions in the nineties, especially by the “tipping point” that its proponents still keep banging on about. I read about the subject and found all the claims were wildly inaccurate and a tipping point will only be reached when the world’s temperature is so high that limestone breaks down to calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. Since a temperature of 850 Celsius is needed for that to occur makes it extremely unlikely. The problem is that most people take what is said by some self-proclaimed “expert” as being true, especially when gullible, but uninformed celebrities offer their misguided support.

Dr. T
Reply to  Andrew Harding
February 8, 2017 9:27 am

Actually, Neil Frank is neither an expert, nor an authority, in climate change. Don’t be fooled.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 9:51 am

I love the way trolls never bother to deal with the facts being presented. They just scream that their experts disagree therefore you must be wrong.

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 10:49 am

MarkW. Actually, it is the prerogative of this man to present his ideas through the peer review process. Although peer review isn’t perfect, it’s the best way for scientists to be judged on our science and interpretations. Unfortunately for this man, the published research actually proves him wrong, on all accounts. All of his biggest criticisms do to pass peer review, as he does not present any of the most recent studies that refute his opinions. This is just yesterday’s meteorologist trying to make a last stand without regard to what we have learned since his time.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 10:59 am

Neil Frank is neither an expert, nor an authority, in climate change . . .

Since climate change involves multiple disciplines, few actual climatologists are experts or authorities on the whole subject either, or even a large part of it. They tend to take what their fellow warmists in different fields say on trust.

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 11:10 am

I am quite aware of the disciplines that involve climate change. Neil is not a climatologist, he is a meteorologist. A meteorologist who actually does not know the literature of climate change or past climate change (more importantly, the newer literature). And no, I can name several tens of scientists off the top of my head who are authorities in climate change, both past and present. We trust the peer review process, yes. As science evolves, so do our interpretations. However, what we understand about greenhouse gases and its effect on our planet are well understood and more robust than ever. The more we learn, the more clear it becomes that we’re heading down a terrifying path.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 12:56 pm

Dr. T February 8, 2017 at 10:49 am
“This is just yesterday’s meteorologist trying to make a last stand without regard to what we have learned since his time.”
Ah no.
All of us are aware that there is no longer a peer review process. Pal review, with firing of any editor try’s to give an author of a contrary a forum.
“Dr T” if you are a “Dr” you are now obsolete. Information can no longer be suppressed,
Troll here to your hearts content, but know, you are now merely a creature of amusement, trying to sell snake oil that has long gone stale and exposed for the toxic concoction that it really is.
So peddle away, jester

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:19 pm

Dang! They just made me a doctor recently. Guess I should give taxpayers their money back on that one. Hmm, guess I’ve never heard of the “pal” review process. In my work, “pals” aren’t allowed to review my papers (conflict of interest). Who’s suppressing information??!?! I’d love to see it!
Man, you sure do love to talk smack. I actually do enjoy reading it. Sad thing is, mentioned in an earlier post, is that all my friends in oil and gas (and their companies) are selling the same snake oil (at least internally)! I’m quite curious what will happen in the upcoming years when these companies tell the public that they’ve known for a long time that we’re causing the planet to warm, but money. Lots and lots of money. Gotta keep lining those pockets, but I don’t blame them.

G. Karst
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:22 pm

Dr. T – why should we accept ANY of your many claims, when you offer nothing to support such?
You ask a lot considering you have withheld your name.
Which, is it, we are supposed to evaluate – your “say so” or the reputation of Dr. T? If you have no evidence and you have no identity – then you are merely farting in our general direction. GK

Joel Snider
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:28 pm

Well, Dr. Troll, citing ‘Newer literature’ after eight years of conclusion-based funding by perhaps the most partisan, propaganda-oriented president in memory suggests to me that you are rather unobservant to the obvious – which was a path set up when congress, during Obama’s first term, held a (very low profile) concerning climate change, ostensibly to ‘inform congress’, but actually to get skeptic talking points on the table for the sole purpose of discrediting them – basically, a primer to direct propaganda. Among the list of established phenomena which needed to be taken down were, of course, the lag of CO2 and warming, nearly two decades worth of Pause, the accumulation of ice in the Antarctic, and a few others – all solved by rationalization, inversion of data sets, changing the unit of measurement, or simply tossing out and replacing the old data. All to maximize the scare quotient of a fairly minor human influence on climate – a fractional contribution to a trace gas, which itself amounts to a fraction of Greenhouse gases, which allows for NO regulatory power over Climate, and NONE of which supports the Armageddon scenario. As near as I can tell, we might be looking at a bit more tropical activity, and to suggest that the human race, which emerged as the dominant species coming out of the ice age, is somehow at risk from a theoretical degree or so temperature increase is just alarmist tripe. And while you can cite all the Nature articles (or the advocacy rag of your choice) you like, it does not change the fact that your ‘terrifying path’ is at best, simply self-indulgent paranoia over something that no one alive need worry about in their lifetime – although I think it more likely you’re here to push the sort of deliberate misinformation that has become the staple of mainstream climate science.
My guess is that your sudden appearance here is directly related to the NOAA whistle-blower, and that you are an agent of damage control.
Maybe next time you can post something from Scientific American, WAPO, or the Huffington Post, because really, what’s the difference anymore?

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:36 pm

Hello G. Karst.
I think the fact that we’re reading his opinion piece on a fringe website, on not that of a respected journal, is probably merit enough to doubt his “findings.” What’s that phrase? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Something like that.
My support is in the hundreds and thousands of papers that have been published after peer review. I’m not stating anything that an average scientist would consider out of the ordinary. I don’t see why people are so up in arms about CO2 concentrations. It’s a greenhouse gas; when its levels rise, so does temperature, and when its levels decrease, temperature will too. To me, these debates are rather boring. We should be focused on what we can do to fix the upcoming environmental catastrophes and also maintain our way of life. I enjoy my life, I enjoy traveling, I enjoy being an American. I’d like my kids and grandchildren and so on to have a better life. Unfortunately, my expertise is based on what has happened in past when there were intervals of abrupt climate change. In short, it’s mostly all bad. Although I will say that these events have also led to the evolution of organisms that we consider very important to modern food webs. Regardless, bad things happened, and bad things will happen. Do I know what will survive or thrive? Nope, but I do know that I’d rather not have it happen because of us.
And I won’t disclose my personal information for obvious reasons. There are enough clues in my posts that someone who really wanted to could figure out who I am. I really don’t care if you believe or agree with me. I’m just stating what I know from what I study. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if one of my articles gets posted on this site someday. I’ll be glad to debate in a civil manner if that’s the case (and I will say that I’m the author).

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:49 pm

Dr. T February 8, 2017 at 1:19 pm
Just responding as fitting.
You don’t impress anyone here, same tired failed arguments supplemented with personal insults.
If you have never heard of the “Pal review” your probably a high school student. Go read the climate-gate E-mails. Otherwise thanks for the statement, , “guess I’ve never heard of the “pal” review process. In my work, “pals” aren’t allowed to review my papers (conflict of interest).” Tells us all about you. Thanks for fills us in.
Like I said “snake oil’

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 2:21 pm

Hi Mike,
I’d really enjoy having students like you in class that I teach. Any geology class sound fitting?
I’m not trying to impress any of you. I just love how you all cling to nonsensical explanations for the world, yet do not publish any of your ideas. Your excuses of this “pal” review process just doesn’t pass the test. Again, publish, or keep spewing this anti-science, anti-technology crap while you use all the electronic devices available to the public and visiting your doctor when you’re ill. Love me some snake oil. By the way, cigarettes are great for you, and we should start spraying DDT again! Vaccines, who needs those? Those are for 20th century diseases. People like you join a long list of those who can’t think for themselves and need these fringe website to feel good about themselves. Be a real man/woman/trans/whatever you are and submit your world-changing ideas to a peer-reviewed journal. Too bad the editor will literally laugh out loud and send your crap for the rest of us to see.
Actually, the only reason I saw this article because a bunch of scientists are laughing out loud and sending this link to everyone else. The subject of the email thread is “this guys says he has a PhD from FSU.” It’s a sad day for FSU’s EOAS.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 3:07 pm

Dr. T February 8, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Somehow I doubt you could teach anyone. go through the motions yes but teach nope.
“Your excuses of this “pal” review process just doesn’t pass the test. Again, publish, or keep spewing this anti-science, anti-technology crap while you use all the electronic devices available to the public and visiting your doctor when you’re ill.”
“People like you join a long list of those who can’t think for themselves and need these fringe website to feel good about themselves.”
You are not any good at psychology either . Stick with “do you want frys with that”

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 3:19 pm

Well, I don’t know how you people do it, but I’m out. My brain is sore after trying to keep pace you all. I guess just keep beating the same drum in your own circles, and do not publish anything because we know peer review is fixed, right? Scientists are born to defraud the system and take “billions” from the taxpayer. Scientists are nothing but a bunch of liars and cheats who are getting rich, not the oil companies. In the end, we’ll all die and not be remembered. I guess that’s some solace. No heaven, no hell, just recycled. Gotta love that carbon cycle.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 5:14 pm

Dr. T: Again, he’s not an authority to you. Does not apply to everyone else or to reality.
Is it too late to have them take back the doctorate? You could at least return the money.
Pals have reviewed papers, using fake email addresses, etc. You must have missed that detail.
Better live a long time if you’re counting on warming being proven. The goal posts are now well past 2050, many into 2100.
“Fringe website”—again, insult people. Don’t bother with science. Wow, you really should give back the money and the doctorate.
You’re doing an excellent job of following the troll handbook, though. Congrats on getting one thing right.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 9, 2017 7:07 am

Oh believe me I am not. I can recognise one fairly easily, especially when they think that consensus is the be all and end all of science methodology.

Henning Nielsen
February 8, 2017 7:39 am

Thank you Dr. Frank for this very good and clarifying article on the climate issue. This is just what many skeptics need as reference in a debate with warmists.

Dr. T
Reply to  Henning Nielsen
February 8, 2017 11:54 am

Actually, shouldn’t he submit his findings to a peer-reviewed journal first? Opinion pieces on fringe websites should not be used as primary reference material. Skeptics should be referring to actual scientific articles, and then they should submit their interpretations to be published. Then, after peer review (which is a humbling process), revision, acceptance, etc. should those ideas be used as a reference. Otherwise, you just come off as someone who actually does not know the literature, and is therefore ignorant of our modern understanding of climate.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 12:17 pm

Dr T – good of you to venture into the Lion’s den and tangle with a lot of folk who do not agree with you.
I think for many of us, post Climategate, the peer review process and the selection of articles for publication is (in this area) irredeemably corrupt. Even the raw data we have to work with is suspect, as a number of recent articles on this site have illustrated.

Dr. T
Reply to  Dr. T
February 8, 2017 1:03 pm

Hi John,
Thanks! And I will agree with you to an extent. The peer review process sucks (but it’s necessary), and I’ve been rejected from Nature several times, only to see similar articles come out much later with the same conclusions (although they came from British research groups). I haven’t joined the good ol’ boys club yet, and don’t really care if I do. It just isn’t the best feeling having your research considered “not high profile enough.” However, I do not agree with your statement that the data are suspect. I’m not a modern climatologist, nor would I want to be. I’m much more fascinated with the past, probably because I like rocks. Anyway, every single interval in the rock record related to abrupt climate change and mass/major extinctions can be linked back to atmospheric/oceanic CO2 or CH4 fluctuations (minus a select few extinctions like the non-avian dinosaurs, etc.). This is not a good outlook. And the irony is, most of our oil and gas deposits were sourced from these high CO2 worlds. That atmospheric CO2 was consumed by primary producers and then buried in marine and lacustrine sediments around the world. And now we’re releasing it all back into the atmosphere. Talk about the circle of life. Future life on this planet will change drastically from what we inherited. Not just because we’re killing everything because we have to feed the world, but because we’re destabilizing the bottom of the food chain. Scary times ahead.

Reply to  Dr. T
February 9, 2017 4:08 pm
Jim G1
February 8, 2017 7:40 am

Just a note regarding off the grid situations requiring remote electricity, small solar power installations work well for pumping water and keeping it from freezing here in WY. Granted that we have, in most years, good average numbers of days of sunshine and the alternatives for remote stock water require trucking generators and fuel into some pretty nasty places. That said, I suppose wind would also work in many of these situations though I have no experience with using wind as we have always felt maintenance would be a bigger issue with wind, but we have plenty of wind to go with our abundant sunshine. For small applications some of these alternatives are much better than other alternatives and could be beneficial for 3rd world folks with no electricity. Living out here in the toolies has some drawbacks but compared to Chicago or NYC this is paradise.

Steve Case
February 8, 2017 7:41 am

I’ve read so many arguments that CO2 really isn’t a problem that I finally just skim over them.
California just passed a law in November to regulate methane. The usual claim from the media that methane is 86, or some similar number, times more powerful than CO2 never seems to be challenged. It boggles the mind it does. Does anyone really believe that?
OK back to your regular programming.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 8, 2017 8:50 am

California may bankrupt their dairy industry. Hopefully just before they secede from the union.

February 8, 2017 7:49 am

Well written, tightly argued. Injecting climate change into religious discourse is a pet project of Al Gore.

David Ramsay Steele
February 8, 2017 8:13 am

Correction of typo. The author of The Inconvenient Skeptic is John Kehr, not John Kerr (and a very good book it is!)

Reply to  David Ramsay Steele
February 8, 2017 5:17 pm

Agreed. The resident troll will reject it because the author does not have the “proper” pedigree/family-crest/sheet-of-paper-to-hang-on-wall. Ignore said comments.

H. D. Hoese
February 8, 2017 8:47 am

As a survivor of several hurricanes (1960-??) through the tenure of Dr. Frank I have had nothing but respect for his analyses. Along with his colleagues, the learning curve has gone up greatly, even in models. Anyone interested in this should look at the papers in Monthly Weather Review, for example (Case, R. A. 1986. Atlantic hurricane season of 1985. Mon. Weath. Rev. 114:1390-1405.), to see how far we have come. This is an interesting one (Cline, I. M. 1920. Relation of changes in storm tides on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico to the center and movement of hurricanes. Month. Weather Rev. 48(3):127-146. ). There may be studies on the history of this, but even so, there should be more. Our coasts have had several settlements lost to hurricanes (Virginia and Louisiana come to mind), and eventually we will have to come to terms with real (and not all these hypothetical) events.

February 8, 2017 10:00 am

“Of course, “Humans are causing global warming” is something that nearly every skeptic—including myself—could affirm. The question is not whether we’re causing global warming ……..”
Sorry, but to my possibly inadequate sense of logic, this seems to contradict the entire argument – in what way is it thought humans are causing global warming other than the already discredited C02?

François Riverin
February 8, 2017 10:03 am

I have just one question. Dr Frank said 90 % of ghg comes from water vapor, where can we check that? Thank you. I saw number like 60 % on lower.

Roger Knights
February 8, 2017 10:09 am

Dr. John Christy (who in addition to being a prominent climate scientist is, like Paul Douglas, an evangelical Christian), testified on Feb. 2, 2015, before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and technology that on average “the models overwarm by a factor of 2.5.” He offered this graph to illustrate.

No graph is shown. Should be fixed.

Roger Knights
February 8, 2017 10:19 am

From the article above:

A single article in Wikipedia lists 22 who challenge the accuracy of IPCC climate projections, 27 who argue that global warming is caused primarily by natural processes, 11 who say the cause of warming is unknown, and 4 who argue that whatever its cause global warming will have few negative consequences. Among these are several Nobel Prize winners (like Ivar Giaevar) and some of the most distinguished scientists in American history (like Frederick Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and Freeman Dyson). And these are just the most prominent. There are thousands of others.

Wikipedia’s criterion for inclusion as a skeptical scientist eliminates many, possibly most, of them:

NB: Only individuals who have their own Wikipedia article may be included in the list.

This criterion, I assume, is not applied to the 97% consensus that Wikipedia claims offset the skeptics, making skeptics a tiny minority. Wikipedia is comparing apples and oranges.

Reply to  Roger Knights
February 8, 2017 5:18 pm

They’re so good at it though.

February 8, 2017 10:35 am

Since this blog is about educating people as much as critiquing science, I want to comment the author on a very well written piece. Every group in society has those they trust. You have spoken to your (evangelical) community in a uniquely powerful way. Thank you. The risk of “ostracism” is always there when correcting the views of ones’ community. Thank you for taking that risk. May you find people to encourage and stand with you.

Reply to  les
February 8, 2017 12:19 pm

Les – Hear Hear

G. Karst
Reply to  les
February 9, 2017 9:23 am

Ditto GK

February 8, 2017 11:09 am

Everything you ever wanted to know about why many scientists are skeptics on the role of CO2 in climate warming

He deals in a straight way whilst reviewing a book on climate which He deconstructs. He also explains why there have been comparatively less publishing by skeptics in the US.

Sent from my iPhone

Mark Burnell
February 8, 2017 11:23 am

Here’s some BASIC facts: there’s a law of thermodynamics written for solving atmospheric air mix, and other gas temperatures. It’s named the Ideal Gas Law and it bridges about four of the laws written before it was.
It specifically and formally forbids CO2 warming any volume of atmospheric air because CO2 has a lower specific energy per mole, or per molecule, than atmospheric air.
We don’t need to know about your conversations with your magic angry sky daddy, we – the people who have worked with gases for decades – all can tell you, there’s no way for addition of CO2 to warm a volume of atmospheric air.
If you can’t understand that, that’s not the problem of the THOUSANDS of SCIENTISTS who have told the world,
CO2 is given the same energy value as all the other gases in the atmosphere: Nitrogen, Argon, Oxygen, etc.
So – believe and all that be damned. It’s forbidden. Formally and specifically by the fact the law written for solving temperature assigns it identical energy with all the other gases.
Nobody cares about your religious beliefs. This is about science. We already had one bunch of religious nuts claim CO2 CAN warm a volume of atmospheric air and try to tell us all there’s no way any of us can check.
We checked anyway.
They’re wrong.
End of story.