By Larry Kummer. Posted at the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: Trump’s election, solidifying the Republican’s dominance at all levels of the US government, has disheartened climate activists. A new article in The Atlantic attempts to build support, but only shows the weakness of their beliefs. Perhaps the skeptics have won this round of the climate wars, but only the weather will determine which side is correct.
For 29 years advocates for public policy changes to fight climate change have struggled to convince the US public to support their agenda. They have failed. Polls show it ranks near the bottom of American’s policy priorities, and the increasingly dominant Republican Party has little interest in their recommendations.
It’s taken a while, but it looks like climate activists have worked through the process of accepting their failure. Paul Rosenberg’s January 2 article at Salon and now Meehan Crist’s article at The Atlantic suggest activists are moving into the fourth stage of the Kübler-Ross process, depression — and their leading edge is moving into the final stage of acceptance — and finding new crusades to wage.
Rosenberg’s article is discussed here. Crist’s article is less interesting, mostly just the usual throwing chaff into debate. But it is revealing in its own way. The opening is a classic tactic by climate activists.
“There has been a subtle shift recently in the rhetoric of many conservative pundits and politicians around climate change. For decades, the common refrain has been flat-out denial — either that climate change is not happening, or that any change is not caused by human activity. Which is why viewers might have been surprised to see Tucker Carlson of Fox News nodding along thoughtfully on January 6 as climate scientist Judith Curry, a controversial figure in climate science, explained, ‘Yes it’s warming and yes humans contribute to it. Everybody agrees with that, and I’m in the 98% [of scientists who agree]. It’s when you get down to the details that there’s genuine disagreement.’”
The first point is an outright lie, evident from his failure to cite any examples. Only a tiny fraction of skeptics believe that “climate change is not happening,.” The climate is always changing. As for the second, there is a fringe among climate skeptics who believe that “any change is not caused by human activity.” But the debate for the past 29 years, since James Hansen warned the Senate in 1988, is and has been about how much of the past warming is anthropogenic — and about forecasts of future temperatures. That’s true not just of skeptics (both scientists and laypeople), but among mainstream climate scientists as well. Let’s review the evidence, starting with what Curry said to Tucker Carlson.
CURRY: “…what you’re seeing is this dominant theme of human caused climate change — which is where all of the research is being directed. And far too little funding and effort going to understanding natural climate variability. That’s my concern. …It’s been warming for several hundred years. The key question is how much of the recent warming, say for the last 50 years, has been caused by humans. My interpretation of the evidence is that we really can’t tell, and I don’t see a clearer signal that is caused by humans predominantly.
“…Humans are contributing something, we don’t know how much. From the evidence that I’ve seen, I don’t think that it’s the dominant cause. …It’s warming, humans contribute to it. Everyone agrees with that, I’m in the 90%. It’s when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement that is really glossed over in the media.”
The Summary of Policymakers in IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I said “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.” More relevant to attempts to control CO2 emissions, chapter 10 said “more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”
In a 2012 survey of approximately 6,550 scientists studying climate change, 66% believed that greenhouse gases caused over 50% of this warming. Only 12% believed GHGs caused less than 51% of this warming. Another 10% said “unknown”, 9% said “don’t know”, and 3% said other. More interestingly, they asked how confident these scientists were in their conclusion that over 51% of the warming resulted from increased GHG: 34% were virtually certain, 32% were extremely certain, 20% said very likely, 8% said likely, Curry clearly holds a minority opinion, but has company among other climate scientists.
But activists such as Crist have good reason to focus on past warming: there is little agreement about forecasts of future warming. That is so important to hide that there are few surveys of scientists about this key point. The dynamics of future warming are the “details” that Crist tries to conceal. Curry explains at her website.
“Our ability to predict the effect of increasing CO2 is very limited. The IPCC AR5 puts the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity between 1.5 – 4.5 C, with ‘likely’ confidence, implying significant probabilities outside this range. Referring to this as very limited ability to predict the effect of additional CO2 on climate is not only defensible, but it is in accord with the IPCC’s own conclusion on this.”
After a long discussion of past climate (ignoring the key issues), Crist gives this astonishing quote.
“But according to Maureen Raymo of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, we know why climate changes naturally, and non-human activity can’t explain the rapid changes observed in the past century. “The Ice Ages happen due to subtle changes in the sun-earth distance that unfold over thousands of years, and which can lead to sometimes rapid climate change, when thresholds are crossed.” These cycles are still happening, but “the same factors that cause these huge Ice Age swings could not possibly be invoked to explain the warming we now see.”
Crist does not tell us who says that the same factors causing the “huge Ice Age {temperature} swings” explain the present warming. To say that climate scientists understand the cause of the massive ice ages is irrelevant to explaining the relatively tiny 2% increase since the mid-19th century (CO2 levels increased steeply only after 1950). But Crist’s analysis gets even stranger.
“As Gavin Schmidt, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Principal Investigator for the GISS ModelE Earth System Model, put it, ‘In science, nothing is ever known perfectly. Is there remaining uncertainty in the exact value of gravity? Yes. But to something like the fourth decimal place. It doesn’t matter. So the question is: Is the remaining uncertainty relevant to any policy decision anyone would want to make? And the answer is: no.’ …
“According to Schmidt, ‘To say that science isn’t settled on things people are still researching is totally irrelevant. Does the earth orbit the sun? There’s no substantial ambiguity about the answer to that question, despite the fact that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists working on gravity. There are lots of interesting things about gravity, it’s just that that is not one of them. There are lots of interesting things about climate change, and adaptation, and interactions between air pollution and clouds, but they’re just not relevant to the question, which is: Is what’s going on related to humans? And the answer is: Yes, it is.’”
It is absurd to consider scientists’ understanding of gravity, with their history of remarkable predictions (e.g., the New Horizons space probe’s journey to Pluto and beyond), equivalent to their understanding of climate — with a history of false or unproven predictions. It’s the kind of exaggeration which has produced three decades of failure for climate crusaders.
There is a second level to this. Public policy decisions about climate change — and the massive efforts proposed to fight it — require forecasts of future warming with proven reliability. Equating climate science with gravity is propaganda, not evidence. That Schmidt resorts to such rhetorical tricks shows the weakness of his belief.
Crist concludes with one of the oddest statements I have seen from a climate activist.
“The recent shift in conservative rhetoric exploits legitimate scientific uncertainty that most scientists agree is irrelevant to crafting responsible climate policy. Despite overwhelming evidence, many conservatives are still willing to ignore scientific consensus and stall political action.”
Crist quotes one scientist, and from this concludes that “most scientists agree”. That’s a guess, or a lie, or perhaps “fake news”. As for his last sentence, what is this “scientific consensus” about the need for policy action? Crist does not tell us, let alone give any evidence for it. As with Schmidt’s claims, that these are strongest claims Crist can give for his beliefs show their weakness.
Crist begins by mocking a distinguished scientist, but in 1900 words she presents no rebuttal to Curry’s concerns.
Are activists grieving for their failure?
In December 2015 I wrote that Activists go thru 5 stages of grief for the climate change campaign. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. We all have heard years of denial and anger. There was a brief period of bargaining, with activists attempting to deal with skeptics. Now we are in depression, and for a few — acceptance, as they find new crusades to pursue. Several recent articles support that theory. Crist’s conclusion, citing as his authority that not-a-climate-agency, the US military, show depression and perhaps acceptance.
“In September 2016, carbon-dioxide levels in the air crossed the dreaded 400 ppm threshold, and we are not likely to dip back below that level in our lifetimes. Crossing this red line signals an irrevocable shift toward an increasingly unrecognizable planet. …According to the Pentagon’s 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, climate change will cause catastrophic changes to Earth’s ecosystems and wreak havoc on human populations, including famine, mass migration, and war. A carbon tax may be too little, too late, …”
Our dysfunctional response to climate change shows the decay of America’s ability to see and respond to our environment. We need a reality-based community. It won’t build itself. It won’t happen soon.
See Curry’s interview. Judge for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wed1xoB0fcM
For More Information
For more information about this vital issue see The keys to understanding climate change, see my posts about forecasts of the future world, and especially these posts about the campaign for public policy action to fight climate change — how it went wrong and how it can be fixed…
- Ten years after Katrina: let’s learn from those predictions of more & bigger hurricanes.
- Manufacturing climate nightmares: misusing science to create horrific predictions.
- Can the Left adapt to the Trump era? Watch their climate activists for clues.
- Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.
- The bottom line: How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
- Important: Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
‘The Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations’.
AN ESTIMATE OF THE CENTENNIAL VARIABILITY OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURES
Lloyd PJ. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3, 2015
The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27C.
==================
From this there is only a 24% chance that the 0.7C warming during the last century would not have occurred naturally.
A far cry from the IPCC “expert opinion” that more than half was due to humans. Proving yet again the fallibility of experts.
Why does climate science rely on “expert opinion” (guesses)? Why not simply calculate from the data?
Data is their enemy, not their friend. And they’ve come to realize that the general public relies more on data than their extreme unsubstantiated views.
For a great example that climate change is real, just look at what has happened in California this winter: Record precipitation. The “climate change” activists and necromancers had about convinced everybody that the drought was here to stay!
Who are climate change deniers now?
Go read Scott Adams’ blog. It’s because the human mind does not respond to “data” and rationality the way it responds to emotional alarm and hyperbole. There’s a reason the CAGW message has been crafted by journalism and sociology majors, not scientists. Parsing the numbers requires a mathematical education which is now, unfortunately, exceptional. Responding to Biblical-apocalypse predictions is unfortuantely hardwired by a couple thousand years of culture.
“Why does climate science rely on “expert opinion” (guesses)? Why not simply calculate from the data?”
Come on Ferd, who in their right mind bothers with the readings of $10 thermometers when they’ve got $10,000,000
computer gamesclimate models to play with?Here you go, straight from the horse’s mouth:
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
This month’s Physics Today is all gloom and doom, with the editorials whining that they have a right to whine if politics affects physics; well physics funding anyway.
And evidently, they are still trying to light a match under their Livermore whack-a-mole machine.
It’s officially the NIF, for National Ignition Facility, and they are still trying to light it off.
So they are talking about switching from plastic fuel, to diamond fuel. Well they call them “Holsraums” or something like that, but they are the actual fuel that you have to have made for you.
You send out a drawing of this spherical or cylindrical shaped thing that you are going to use as a bottle to put some deuterium and some tritium in so then you smash the bottle. So now you have to go and buy a new bottle to smash while they clear out the shattered pieces of the old bottle.
So they are going to buy some diamond bottels from De Beers, I presume, and see if they can smash those.
When POTUS; The Trump finds out what these chumps are doing, he may decide to save the money for ITER.
Hey Mr. President, tell ITER we don’t want to buy any concrete, just plasmatron scrunchers.
G
George
re Fusion dudes in general (Livermore just being a proper sub-set):
I’m 70 years old. For my entire life, fusion dudes have been 30-years away from “success”.
In the case of Gavin Schmidt’s uncertainty about gravity and climate, there’s a sight difference.
In the case of climate (sensitivity) not even the order of magnitude is known with any certainty.
In the case of Gravity (which sucks) we are confident we know it’s value to better than one part in a million. We know it better than that, but I’m not going to waste my time looking up the latest approved value (that’s …. G ……)
But when it comes to ( …. g …..) standard earth gravity; we do know the exact value; it is defined.
And no I’m not going to look up the value of that either; but its an exact number around 9.8 ***** ms^-2.
So Gavin is sort of whistling into the wind; Well pissing into the wind has a similar result.
G
I love it when “skeptics” pretend to know science, and are arrogant about it.
Nope. The fact that the Earth is not a sphere, but rather approximately an oblate spheroid, means that you are slightly closer to the center of the Earth at the poles than you are at the equator. This is enough to change the force of gravity by 0.02% — a small amount, but significantly more than the 0.0001% that you claim we are so certain about. Next, differences in the local geology — the composition of the Earth below a given place — can cause variations on the order of 0.01%. You may have heard of the term mascon, but probably not.
This is not to mention the difference in the apparent gravity due to the rotation of the Earth, subtracting about 0.03% of your weight at the equator compared to the poles. You probably wouldn’t have realized it, but that has nothing to do with the gravity force.
Here’s an actual scientist talking about it. I believe they aim their explanations at the 7th grade level, so you may understand some of it. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/93-does-gravity-vary-across-the-surface-of-the-earth-intermediate
bobmunck
No. Your rather irritating answer appears to be confusing the “measure” of the earth’s gravitational force (at the surface of the earth at various radii) with the actual “G” or gravitational constant used to calculate the measurement of gravity at any place in the universe: including other solid oblate spheroids like the moons and Mercury and the gas giants that have no “surface” at all and all points in between.
No, I’m clearly discussing the former. The latter value, the gravitational constant, is actually less accurately known than the force of gravity caused by the Earth. That fact is discussed elsewhere in this thread, where I posted a link to this article: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?. (I used to work at NBS, now called NIST; I’m pretty aware of this stuff.)
“(I used to work at NBS, now called NIST; I’m pretty aware of this stuff.)”
Mopping out the toilets?
Because from the level of your knowledge evinced by your posts, that’s about all you’re qualified for.
There’s not a single “sceptic” posting here who isn’t orders of magnitude more scientifically literate than you, you patronising little man.
I’ll let Mr. Cleese explain the problem you “skeptics” have.
“Are activists grieving for their failure?”
Let’s not delude ourselves. Anyone who believes that climate activists will lay down and give up is dreaming.
Ballot boxes and elections are complex things. Donald Trump’s ascendancy is a triumph for disgruntled whites and Hillary haters, but a victory for climate skepticism? – that’s a stretch of the first magnitude. Climate change as an issue was barely on the radar screen in the election.
The momentum in government and academia for climate change action is still very much alive. The election “euphoria” for conservatives and skeptics is likely an illusion that will fade quickly.
I’m not a pessimist so much as a realist. Reading despair into activist statements simply plays into their hands.
scraft1,
You are engaging in an ancient human activity known as “Whistling Past the Graveyard.” Are you reading the headlines? Trump will put a stop to all this nonsense with fiddled temperatures, jets running on soybean oil, and the senseless drivel about PM2.5. Washington DC has been nuked, and it is about time…
@Michael Moon
Trump has only 4 years certain, at best 8 years, to unmake the CAGW alarmist infrastructure built over the last 30 years. He can’t, for example, fire everyone at EPA, most positions are protected under various civil service legislation. The True Believers only have to keep their heads down until 2025 at worst.
He can fire them, but it will take time. However, he can eliminate the positions which is called being laid off. And that takes no time at all.
scraft1,
“Anyone who believes that climate activists will lay down and give up is dreaming.”
History says you are wrong. The Left (and Right) have waged long unsuccessful crusades in America that have failed, then they moved on to new ones. Change is the great constant in life, for political movements as well as individuals.
In several posts I’ve shown examples of this happening right now:
Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.
Can the Left adapt to the Trump era? Watch their climate activists for clues.
I agree in part with scraft1, in that Trump is not out of the woods, having all the leftist mainstream media against him. In addition, belief in man-made global warming has been reinforced by decades of propaganda and won’t be swept under the rug. Mr. Trump has been quiet on the subject since Inauguration, and there is a risk that he may decide to fight other battles.
Having the press against you is HOW it was supposed to work. So it is not a bad thing. If they are honest in their opposition, it will keep Trump honest. If they continue with their dishonesty, they will be no better than the slavish sycophants boot licking Obama. In the former case, no one will believe them and hence Trump can get away with anything. In the latter case – no one believes them and Obama gets away wioth anything. Obama broke more laws than Al Capone – but the media never investigated, nor did congress (to any appreciable degree).
It is only when the press acts as an honest counterweight that the people are served. And it has been too many years since the press were competent enough to do that.
Yet another incentive to use the jargon term LOL. Wouldn’t he have had to start out that way?
Yea, it was despicable when he blamed the video for Benghazi. And yea, it was criminal when he used that private server for classified email. And then lied about how many devices he was using.
Oh wait, that was Hillary. If you are going to believe the fake news, you are going to believe any lie you want.
You believe that Donald Trump is an honest person? That explains a lot of your opinions.
Silly boy! I have not stated any beliefs! I have merely destroyed yours! When you learn how to read, you will understand and be able to respond in an intelligent manner.
Next time, learn to read and read what is written so you can respond intelligently.
Expectations of Trump commanding the tide of propaganda to halt IS delusional. The liberal world is united against him and the front line has not collapsed. There are weakened gaps in the line, where realist can gain ground, but there will be no coup de grace until prolong cooling occurs. With our present temperature reporting… How would we ever know. GK
Like a lot of us here, I’ve seen many elections come and go. One of the great constants in life is that, despite raised expectations, a lot more things stay the same and real change is rare. Trump will make changes in the agencies and some of them will make a real difference. What won’t change is academia and the MSM.
I’m actually hoping that, with a few exceptions, the MSM won’t change. Despite the popular view, the MSM for the most part behaves responsibly and usually can be trusted. They’ve consumed the kool-aid on climate change and a couple of other issues, and these opinions will take forever to change if they ever do.
A lot of conservative (alt right) media like Breitbart et al are simply fanatics, and the new administration has certainly bought their act. They provide an alternative reality for Trump and his constituents. But they tell people what they want to here.
If by “government” you mean elected officials, fugedaboudit. There is no interest in climate alarmism among the majority of members of congress or most state legislators.
The odds of a CACA true believer like Obama being elected president in 2020 or 2024 are slim.
Paging Jayson Blair. Jayson Blair, please pick up the courtesy phone.
scraft: your point is
a. Climate change as an issue was barely on the radar screen in the election.
b. The momentum in government and academia for climate change action is still very much alive. The election “euphoria” for conservatives and skeptics is likely an illusion that will fade quickly.
you have a plan c. ?
He’s going to find it difficult to stop the efforts in more realistic and hard-headed countries like Germany, China, and Australia. Not to mention the 64% of the American public who Gallup says are worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about it. His biggest problem will be that it’s really happening and the effects are more obvious every day. Even he may come to believe it when he’s standing in two feet of seawater at Mar-A-Lago, trying to putt.
“Putting a stop to all this nonsense” will just be another way that Trump Makes America Third-world Again.
Why is it not surprising that many “GW Skeptics” are Trump supporters?
Well scraft1, you clearly never ever attended a TEA party rally. (That’s the “Taxed Enough Already.” party).
It’s a party of nobody’s and a party of everybody’s. It has no color and also more colors than any rainbow.
And they are hardly disgruntled. A more gruntled polyglot of individual thinking persons would be hard to find anywhere. They have no registration requirements, or even citizenship requirements; except they do take a dim view of any of the uncitizened associates actually voting.
“One America First” would be a good subtitle for them.
They don’t care whether the activists are in despair or are desperate. They have become largely irrelevant.
The American people are taking back their country.
G
The Tea Party is clearly a tool used by billionaires to increase their own wealth. Its members are dupes and stooges.
When you cannot even tell the difference between OWS and the TEA Party, no one is going to believe you know anything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Never let it be said that a Brown graduate cannot learn. At least he is not writing any longer.
“According to Schmidt, ‘To say that science isn’t settled on things people are still researching is totally irrelevant. Does the earth orbit the sun? There’s no substantial ambiguity about the answer to that question, despite the fact that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists working on gravity. There are lots of interesting things about gravity, it’s just that that is not one of them.”
___________________________________________
Yes, since some 20 years ‘experts’ claim gravity is ‘changing’ – without proof.
Cause in climate change debates we learned earth is changing – to the extent that MASS OF EARTH IS CHANGING.
Gavin Schmidt:
Yeah, but the subtle difference is in climate sensitivity it is not the fourth decimal place but the figure BEFORE the decimal point which is still uncertain : 1.5 to 4.5 ???
That does matter
Total misdirection and intentionally so.
Evidently, any portion of something below the fourth decimal does not matter for policymakers.
I tend to agree
CO2 @ 400PPM
.%.0004
CO2 should NEVER be mentioned again by policymakers
A few comments here::
1. Gavin Schmidt is right regarding the 4th significant digit of the value of G. G is known only to three significant digits. G is about 6.67 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 –
Not every statement Gavin Schmidt makes is wrong.
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-what-is-the-value-of.html
2. Nir Shaviv had an interesting post regarding that 1.5C to 4.5 C sensitivity,
http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions
“Now, have you noticed something strange? According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?……One reason for the lack of improved understanding could be incompetence of the people in the field. That is, all the billions of dollars invested in climate research were not or could not be used to answer the most important question in climate, one which will allow predicting the 21st century climate change. I doubt however that this is the real reason. Among the thousands working in climate research, surely there are at least a few who are competent, if not more.
I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.”
3. That 2012 survey included only “climate scientists”. I’m certain that a survey of astronomers , geologists, and meteorologists would have resulted in a much lower percentage of “true believers'” in manmade warming being the principal factor, and a much larger percentage of skeptics believing less than 50% of the warming is caused by humans.
The estimate range increases, and this results from an improved understanding?
They keep using that word, but I don’t believe they know what it means.
‘That 2012 survey included only “climate scientists”. I’m certain that a survey of astronomers , geologists, and meteorologists would have resulted in a much lower percentage of “true believers’”’
This is a standard trick used to discredit non-conformists – ‘they are not climatologists’ – which is like a sociologist discrediting a knowledgeable historian, who points out factual inaccuracies any given theory might depend upon, by saying ‘they’re not an expert’ Well, yes they are – usually a higher ranking expert in that particular field, as opposed to a ‘soft-discipline’ that depends upon many others.
Regardless of the field of education, some people are very smart, and understand things, while others are less smart, and do not understand as many things.
Oddly, these less smart people very often behave and speak as if they know everything.
Less smart people with a degree or a job in a particular field are often the most sure of what they think they know, and also the most wrong.
And then there are the liars…
I wonder if you realize that the entire atmosphere is 5×10^21 grams and that 400 ppm is 2×10^18 grams of carbon dioxide. That’s 2 million billion kilograms or 4,409,245,243,697,600 pounds (2.2 thousand billion tons). Still think it’s a tiny amount?
Alan McIntyre,
“Not every statement Gavin Schmidt makes is wrong.”
But g= 9.80665
https://www.google.at/search?q=Gravitation+9.80665&oq=Gravitation+9.80665&aqs=chrome.
____________________________________
nothing Gavin Schmidt ever said was true.
….. G …… = 6.67259 E-11 m^3/(kgs^2) +/- 128 ppm
It is NOT 6.6726 +/- 0.0001 E-11
G
True, 400 parts per million is .0004, so keep it there to fulfill the fourth-decimal-place-zero-policy-impact mantra, since, alas, .0004 is .04%.
Yeah, I hate it when my brilliance goes awry too. (^_^)
“how much of the past warming is anthropogenic”
and whether the anthropogenic effect is measurable and whether it is catastrophic and whether cutting emissions will change anything.
there are a lot of things about climate that climate scientists don’t know but they don’t know how to say we don’t know. the treatment of uncertainty by climate scientists is unscientific.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2873672
“how much of the past warming is anthropogenic”
The answer is “We can never know”. We can make guestimates, we can make grafts, we can use proxies that we redefine the values of over and over (though we seem to do that with actual data also), we can even make really cool computer generated graphics and produce a show for the Discovery Channel showing how idyllic the earth was before man, but we can never know. There are no direct records of temperature. Indirect records have no way to be verified as accurate. The only possible way we could come close to “knowing” is if we understood the ENTIRE climate system and every single variable and what each variable contributes to the 3rd or 4th decimal place. Then, we’d need enough computer capacity to run the variables and get over 98% accuracy in our predictions. We have a better chance of setting up shop on Mars. Until we have such data and computing capacity, everything we do is describing a scenario that is as fictional as they come. Maybe we hit right, maybe not. I am not saying we shouldn’t study the climate, but trying to attribute what % humans contribute is nothing but political. Study what percentage natural events like volcanoes contribute, forest fires (that are not caused by people), drought, dust storms, etc. Stop assuming humans are the king of the mountain and trying to pitch them off as parasites.
Reconstruction of Earth’s CO2 levels for the past 600 million years (GEOCARB III), even taking the lower edge of the uncertainty bars, is mostly well above Dr. Hansen’s tipping point. During the last ice age we came uncomfortably close to the lower edge of photosynthesis survival. Now we are regressing back to more usual levels. I’m not sure “normal” is a useful concept here, when CO2 has varied so greatly over hundreds of millions of years. We’ve had a “pause” in the warming trend while CO2 has steadily climbed. The AGW crowd has yet to admit their models are junk.
And, they persist in avoiding the obvious questions: “what is the ideal climate state we must maintain?” “Who determined the baseline from which we have changed?” “and when, if our geoengineering guesses are successful, we we declare the war over?”
The baseline was determined when it was determined human beings are the cause. The baseline seems a bit fluid, moving up or down as to the start year, depending on what is needed to prove the theory. Now, much is talk is about 1950 and after. Removes some problematic areas that way.
…meaning our so-called “climate scientists” have fallen into the pit of stupidity regarding their own science if we’ve already gone past the “tipping point”.
No wonder “climate scientists” are considered the bottom dwellers of science.
And most of those rises were AFTER the temperature rose. CO2 effect is like a flea on a pigs back, in more ways than one.
” is irrelevant to explaining the relatively tiny 2% increase since the mid-19th century” Am I missing something? 2% of what? Celsius degrees….or Kelvin? From what baseline? 0.7 degrees, or whatever it actually is, of a heat-content Kelvin temperature, is considerably less than 2%! It is why the Y-Axis is always exaggerated. Otherwise it’s flat-lined.
Mike,
Great catch! Should be degrees, not percent. Spell-grammar catchers cannot catch everything, yet.
Gavin Schmidt is an undistinguished mathematician pretending to be a scientist. He certainly uses sciency words, and apparently claims he knows the value of gravity to a few decimal points. Really? Gravity is a force, varying between the limits zero and infinity, depending on the masses involved.
I’m sure he also claims that he knows the value of pressure, or of temperature, or of magnetism to a similar value. How about the length of a piece of string?
What a Wally! He can’t even propose a mechanism whereby he could warm anything at all using CO2. The ability of CO2 to make a thermometer hotter is precisely zero.
Maybe Gavin has confused computer models with reality. Who knows?
Cheers.
Mann was talking about the G in the equation
F = GMm/(r^2). THAT G, unlike g, which is not even constant on earth’s surface, IS theoretically a constant.
I know the weight of the earth to better than they know the anthropogenic contribution to earth global Temperature.
Last time I weighed the earth, it weighed 165 pounds; I would consider that number good to about one pound.
That’s the probable error of my bathroom scale; but it always checks to a balance measurement that’s better than one pound.
But the weight of the earth tends to vary depending on what it is sitting on.
In most of my tests the earth is sitting on top of me, but there’s a plastic bucket involved which lets me read the scale.
If I can get a blue tooth bathroom scale, I can eliminate the uncertainty of the plastic bucket.
G
Gavins ludicrous bafflegab is one of the densest attempts, to conflate scientists who study gravity with the anti-scientists claiming to research weather and climate.
No wonder Gavin refuses to debate people directly. Those kinds of osmium statements would not be believed by anyone.
???? Googling “osmium statement” doesn’t turn up anything.
Osmium (Os) is the densest naturally occurring element. So “osmium statement” is presumed to mean “bafflegab” derived from the densest naturally occurring brain. A reasonable approximation, I suggest.
I think this from wiki might explain it “Osmium is the densest naturally occurring element”. A fact I didn’t know, but now will be hoping for it to come up in a quiz.
Is my fault.
I was thinking Gavin’s sentence is as clear as
mudleaduraniumtungstengoldosmium.Mud, much too simple and easy to wash off.
Lead, much too common and easy to scrape.
Uranium, before it become lead, nah too complex; which species?
Tungsten, not really dense enough. Cracks easy though.
Gold, like lead, but far too valuable.
Osmium, bingo!
PS I learned about osmium from a superman comic years ago. I had to look it up too; and then put a palm to my head as I recalled the chart of elements; doh!
As you have already realized, Gavins sentences are impenetrable and don’t get stuck in the middle.
He certainly ran scared of the great Dr Roy Spencer. Shocking
Aye!
In May of 2016, Larry berated skeptics for for losing the climate policy debate and recommending changes we should be making to our strategy unless we wanted to be swept aside by the tide of history. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/why-skeptics-could-lose-the-us-climate-policy-debate/ I’d argue that the cohesive strategy Larry recommended we follow never happened. Now he’s asking if the alarmists are “grieving” their failure.
Blow with the wind much Larry?
The alarmists may have suffered a setback with Trump’s election, but they are ahead by a politics score of 104 to 5. They will dust themselves off and double down. They’re not in the “grief” stage, there in the “what kinds of tactics work and what don’t in light of Trump’s election let’s try some new stuff ” stage. They are experimenting with new ways to control the narrative, and they are going to pick it up a notch or three. This debate won’t end with this administration, or the next. However satisfying it may be for skeptics to believe that the alarmists are down and out, the fact is they have the hearts and minds of the youth, massive amounts of revenue at stake, and they are going to fight like h*ll to expand their influence over both. Suggesting otherwise is irresponsible.
“Blow with the wind much Larry?”
Reminds be of a line from King Lear….
“Blow wind, and crack thy cheeks…….”
Bill had a funny mind. 😉
double entendre? Who would have thought?
Larry may have been assuming that the “obamacene” would continue. (but a little something happened on the way to the ballot box)…
Public opinion of “blowgal warming” was in the toilet way before Trump was elected.
Once the cash spigots are turned off, being associated with that “science” will be as popular as smoking cigarettes or buying asbestos futures.
Larry ‘2 irons in the fire’ Kummer,
ever read about
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Gaveston,_1st_Earl_of_Cornwall
David,
“Larry berated skeptics for for losing the climate policy debate”
Wow. That’s not remotely correct.
Let’s look at the title: “Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate.” Nope, doesn’t support your claim.
Let’s look at the summary. “Temporary factors have prevented their victory, but weather or politics could change the situation quickly and soon.” In the post I said that change could result from “we might get one or more major extreme weather events” or the election “put the Democrats in power”.
A change of 85 thousand votes could have put Clinton in the White House, so “politics could change” looks accurate as of March 2016. As for weather, I said then and say now that some big extreme weather might panic the American people into supporting climate activists. Such things have happened before, in the US and elsewhere. After all, whatever happens will be blamed on climate change.
I believe a fair evaluation of your clam would rate it “bizarrely false”.
Let’s look at the title: “Why skeptics could lose the US climate policy debate.” Nope, doesn’t support your claim.
Ah yes, because everything you wrote was in the title. Cherry pick much?
A change of 85 thousand votes could have put Clinton in the White House, so “politics could change” looks accurate
Except at the time you wrote the article Clinton was leading, so if your purported 85k swing had happened, it would have meant that the politics DIDN’T change. You can’t have your words mean one thing then and another now.
But good on you for responding. I recall the first time I asked you a pointed question about something you claimed, across three different threads no less, and you simply ignored me (and others). So good on you for at least engaging this time.
david, don’t you know, when Larry uses a word,it means just what he chooses it to mean—neither more nor less. 😉
Davidmhoffer. “Ah yes, because everything you wrote was in the title. Cherry pick much?” Yet he also clearly quoted the summary. Editor clearly did not use only the title, yet you chose to use this part as though it was the whole of Editor’s argument. So David, cherry pick much?
” I recall the first time I asked you a pointed question about something you claimed, across three different threads no less, and you simply ignored me (and others).”
Having been asked a “question” by you based on an absurd mis-reading of what I actually wrote I can understand not responding to you. If you ask a question of the type “when you said X” it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that the person actually said X. You failed repeatedly to respond to my request to do so. If you fail to show that a person actually said what you claim they said then ignoring you is a reasonable response.
Out of interest, can you find the thread where your question was ignored? Maybe I will find I was wrong and you were simply being ignored.
David,
“Ah yes, because everything you wrote was in the title. Cherry pick much?”
No, which is why I followed that with a quote from the summary and another the body of the text.
“Except at the time you wrote the article Clinton was leading,”
Polls in March are an unreliable guide to election outcomes in November. I suspect everybody here knows this, including you. Your objections are so frivolous that I suspect you’re just trolling us.
“and you simply ignored me”
I am a consultant. You can pay me and I’ll respond with whatever level of detail you wish. Other than that, expecting responses to your comments (esp absurd ones like yours here) is quite nuts. I respond as I have time, when and where I feel like doing so.
I am a consultant. You can pay me and I’ll respond with whatever level of detail you wish.
I see, when you are a writer, you’re a writer. When challenged on your writing, as proven in your responses above, you are capable of responding. But when pressed on a point by Mosher and me that falsifies what you wrote, you’re suddenly a consultant with no obligation to respond except if you are paid to do so. Got it.
David,
Every one of your responses has misrepresented what I said. Nor have you made any substantive rebuttals, just focusing on trivia and chaff. That’s all very troll-like,
“I see, when you are a writer, you’re a writer. But when pressed on a point by Mosher and me that falsifies what you wrote, you’re suddenly a consultant with no obligation to respond except if you are paid to do so. Got it.”
No writer — or anybody — is obligated to spend unlimited time responding to comments at WUWT. That’s too obvious to need stating, except to trolls.
“and you simply ignored me”
I’ll do so from now on. Trolls should be ignored.
I’ll do so from now on. Trolls should be ignored.
Excellent Larry. I accept that as a commitment on your part.
No writer — or anybody — is obligated to spend unlimited time responding to comments at WUWT.
Mosher and I raised a point that required little to no time to respond to. You ignored both of us because you couldn’t answer without admitting that your position was untenable. Over three threads. Now, in THIS thread, you prove yourself capable of responding in quite a bit of detail, over a rather extended conversation. But when taken to task for your past behaviour, you label me a troll and commit to never responding to me again.
I appreciate your commitment to never insulting me with an ad hominem attack again. Thank you.
Davidmhoffer – are you ignoring me? I asked a polite question, which I will ask again here. What was the question that Kummar refused to answer over three threads?
If the Republican administration just shuts down the funding, it will resume the next time the Democrat party has anything to do about it. The beast has to be actively slain. The Republicans have to fund good science. Michael Mann has to be smacked down in court. The adjustments of the temperature record have to be shown for the fraud that they are. The beast will die only when most scientists are horrified when they learn the truth of what has been going on.
The best analog to CAGW is the orthodoxy on dietary fat perpetrated and enforced by Ancel Keys and his cronies. link People who didn’t agree with the orthodoxy had their careers ruined. The truth only able to come out after Keys was out of the picture. While he was on the scene, it seems like good science didn’t stand a chance.
True, However defunding the beast is a good start. And it’s more than would have happened had Hillary won.
The ur Kilogramm is loosing weight :
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&q=urkilogramm&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijy6j2uZHSAhWFtBQKHS5nANwQ1QIITSgE&biw=360&bih=615
The difference is that there are no scientists studying the details of gravity who are demanding trillions of dollars be given by the poor people of rich countries to the rich people of poor countries. That kind of money does wonders for the people controlling it.
Gavin Schmidt: ‘ … Is there remaining uncertainty in the exact value of gravity? …’
I hope Gavin was referring to the gravitational constant not acceleration due to gravity.
It would affect the gravity of his statement.
Phaedo,
+1
The value of this statement was affected by ‘the exact value of gravity’.
But no joking, he’s a mathematician so he didn’t make a mistake.
“Crist does not tell us who says that the same factors causing the “huge Ice Age {temperature} swings” explain the present warming.”
Should be “…*cannot* explain the present warming.”
No, i think he said it correctly. nobody’s claiming that recent warming is due to “ice age swings”. (that’s just a stale, old and stupid talking point)…
Maureen Raymo’s talking point is so old and stale, that ice age swings couldn’t possibly explain recent warming. (i must have heard that one ten years ago) As Dr. Curry has said, it’s been warming for several hundred years. There is no reason why recent warming couldn’t be a part of that trend…
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/mwp/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg
graph uses basically all of the re-fabrications ala Mann. !
meaningless.
Yeah, andy, but still… using “their” data, it can be clearly seen that global warming predates anthro effects. (so there is no reason why recent warming couldn’t be part of a natural trend)…
As the Fonz noted, “their data” even demonstrate that the warming trend begins around 1600… And I don’t think all of the reconstructions are “their data.” I think MSH, 2005 is Moberg.
Actually this type of comparisons is very useful. When we use the overlap percentage version, we can see the agreement of the dozens to hundreds of proxies used.
http://i.imgur.com/Vg59Mh7.png
Right or wrong this is the consensus of evidence more than the consensus of opinion on climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. A lot more useful than a polar ice core. And it has very interesting features. Like a good agreement with solar TSI:
http://i.imgur.com/aXMnuOu.png
Or a good agreement with sunspots more recently:
http://i.imgur.com/yvrMXFy.png
What is PS2004? It does not fit the data well at all.
Awesome, Javier (just simply awesome)…
Yeah, seaice, i dunno (not a whole lot of variability in that one, is there?☺)…
Wow, are you guys serious? The only thing you focus on out of that graph is PS2004 and how it explains “recent warming”?
You are going to be very, very surprised is all I can say.
Ice age swings don’t explain the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods nor the Little Ice Age.
I don’t see the warmists rushing to proclaim that they must have been caused by CO2.
Gavin Schmidt: “The recent shift in conservative rhetoric exploits legitimate scientific uncertainty that most scientists agree is irrelevant to crafting responsible climate policy. Despite overwhelming evidence, many conservatives are still willing to ignore scientific consensus and stall political action.”
To me there has been not much of a change ( “shift”) in conservative “rhetoric” . but what really bothers me is the accusation that as a conservative I am supposed to be “willing to ignore scientific consensus and stall POLITICAL action”.
This site ( and many others) have always been open to anyone’s opinion and many of you have brought scientific proof that:
A Climate changes
B Man has some effect
C But as how much of an effect is open to debate.
Schmidt’s accusations are full of semantics and may look like it has content. To me I have a word for that content not printable on this site. He is an agitator and knows deep down the gig is up. In my eyes he is actually the one that wants to stall everything as far as policy is concerned, what worries me is how far is he willing to go to take POLITICAL action. I am sure he won’t be anywhere in sight when POLITICAL action gets on the street level ( as I don’t doubt he’d be cheering on from behind the curtain).
When ‘the ur kilogramm’ is loosing weight
then earth as a whole is winning weight – ever heard of meteors.
If you read the ‘experts’ solution to the problem they mumble about ‘not yet understood dissolving of platinum matter’.
I started reading your link and the new spheres to replace the original “ur Kilogramm”. I neeed to look at it later when I have more time. Interesting, thank you
michael
Mike, you’re welcome.
Science is in the Dark Ages. Modern Climatism has put it there with the political lies and activism that overrode skeptical inquiry and uncertainty.
That has activism has drug many a non-climate scientist along into the abyss of their dishonesty, as they naively believed any group of scientists could not lie and deceive to the extent needed for maintaining the left’s Climate Change agenda. But many being Left leaning were encouraged to support increasing climate lies to maintain their own funding, else be labeled by their colleagues as a “denier.”
Gavin Schmidt, Tom Karl, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Mikey Mann should be proud of their historical roles as key members of the Charlatans of the Climate Hustle club. History will not not be kind to them, but it will remember them, just as it remembers Charles Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, and Claudius Ptolemy.
There is an important distinction to made between Ptolemy and the others: Ptolemy was simply wrong whereas Schmidt, Mann and the rest are dishonest.
the uncertainty in the 2 x CO2 (@285 ppm) forcing (per doubling) (at 1.5 K – 4.0 K above of 288 K) is at least 3 orders of magnitude larger than the Newtonian Gravity Constant relative standard uncertainty 4.7 x 10-5.
Climate Science is not settled. It is not even close to gravity, and the lower the forcing in the uncertainty range, their are more benefits per costs that arise.
A false equivalence. It is simply an argument the Alarmists use to deflect criticism of their anti-CO2 religion.
I’m reminded of how similar climate science is to dark matter and dark energy.
Scientists believe dark matter plus dark energy make up from 90 to 95% of the universe; they call it “dark” to avoid admitting they have no idea what it is.
Looks like there’s a lot of things scientists don’t know.
(Maybe climate scientists should start calling it “dark climate” and save themselves some embarrassment.)
The big difference is that nobody is proposing massive new government programs to control dark matter and dark energy,
I can follow the discussions regarding these subjects with detached disinterest because they don’t have any impact on my day to day life.
I’m reminded how similar climate science is to string theory.
No testable predictions for over 40 years, no super symmetry discovered at CERN, yet some Stanford physicists openly stated the theory was so beautiful it didn’t need to be proved.
Sometimes smart people get tunnel vision. In the case of climate science, it happens to stupid people, too.
Gravity can be measured precisely. But Gravity is not understood and science cannot modify it as with electrical and magnetic forces. AGW cannot be precisely measured. The theoretical modifications effected by a massive reduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide reduction are minuscule. Ergo, climate science does not know whereof it speaks and its remedies are necessarily inapropos. As an EE with 3 years of undergrad physics it does seem to me that the purported massive thermal effect of one carbon dioxide molecule in 10,000 molecules of air is spurious. A rather trenchant fellow (who must not be named) asked Dr. Curry to take a course in thermo. She went to a lecture or two it seems and then gave it up because she did not know what they were talking about(this according to the unnamed source). One might suspect that increasing the volume of the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide only effects the time constant between peak surface temperature and peak atmospheric temperature; all effect erased by overnight cooling.One might suspect the basic physics of AGW is very wrong. It seems that the backradiation effect of carbon dioxide to heat the emitting surface could be easily proven experimentally if it existed.
1. Climate has actually been remarkably stable over the last 100-150 years. Hurricanes down, extreme events about normal, probably less severe than during LIA. Wobbly Jet Stream this year, like there was around 1977, and many times before.
2. A minor bump in temperatures from solar forced El Ninos in satellite record. Highly beneficial warming since LIA , COLDEST period in 10,000 years
3. Certainly human activity of one sort of another filtering through to the surface data, be it land use, airport heat, urban heat. intentional and unintentional warming “adjustments”.
4. Absolutely no CO₂ warming signal in either satellite data set, only the 1998 El Nino step and the latest 2015/16 transient.
5. No CO₂ signal in sea temperatures, sea level etc
6. No CO₂ signal in sea ice at either pole. AMO effects and drop from LIA in the Arctic, still way above levels of first 3/4 of the Holocene, normal swings in Antarctic sea ice.
7 Droughts and floods, no sign or proof of any “climate change™” effect.
All round .. pretty benign. !!
Andy,
Yes, that’s exactly my point. The weather has been activists’ big enemy. But much of this is pretty random. A few big tropical storms hitting cities — and we might — bang — see panic support for activists. Because we know what will be blamed as the cause…
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed in 1988. ‘Climate change’ was the original term. The term Global Warming became popular in the late ’90’s because it suggested that all change was in one direction (constantly getting worse).
‘Global warming’ is scarier than ‘climate change’. It implies that nothing can be done locally, only globally, so we have to stop it before we can detect it. It also makes you feel guilty, because, even if warming would benefit you, it would be a catastrophe for the poor 3’rd world people — you racist!
In 2003 Frank Luntz advised going back to earlier term. There is no evidence that Democrats and other warmists alarmists take advice from Frank Luntz.
Opps, that was meant to be a reply to Griff below.
You’re right. Weather HAS been remarkably stable over the last 150 years or so, which is probably part of the reason the human population has expanded so much during that period,
Once climate goes back to varying as much as it did in the past, and drug resistant germs proliferate, the human population may be in for a drastic collapse, as happened several times in history,
The media changed from their use of the term “global warming” to the more general term “climate change” in the summer of 2012 and it was a purposeful obfuscation to make skeptics look stupid and to provide cover for CAGW proponents. The only public person to claim some sort of primordial stasis with regard to climate and temperature was Al Gore. “Sensitivity” and “uncertainty” have always been the salient questions and therefore, those are the questions the media never asks.
As we all know, the change in terminology was coined and promoted by the US Republican party…
Are you saying that the US Republican Party was the first to recognize that the planet was no longer warming, and that the “Global Warming” (Glow BULL Warming) was no longer an accurate term?
I think you give the Republican party too much credit. I’m pretty sure lots of other people, true climate scientists, long before realized that the planet had not warmed since the 1998 El Nino.
So the climate scientists are all part of the Republican party?
News to me.
The discussion from mairon62 referred to the media, not the scientists. Scientists use the terms to mean specific things. Global warming is only about temperature, climate change is about all aspects of climate. Up to 1975 man-made effects on climate were referred to as “inadvertent climate modification” They did not know what direction any such modification would go. It became clear in the late 1970’s that the overall effect would be warming, so the term “global warming” was coined. It was adopted by the media in the 1980’s as the blanket term for man made climate change, a synechdoche (a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole). In the UK “climate change” was always more popular than in the USA, where global warming became almost universal.
It is widely reported that a republican advisor to Bush promoted the use of “climate change” instead of “global warming” because it sounded less scary
“It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation…“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”.
Source: Republican Political Consultant Frank Luntz, 2003
Thus the evidence seems to suggest that the attempts to spin the use of the terms came from the republican side.
The term “climate change” is more accurate in most cases, because it includes changes of temperature (i.e. global warming (or cooling, if there were any)) as well as other changes. The term global warming does not include other changes such as rainfall etc.
The claim is often made that “warmists” promoted the change in use as a distraction from failures of temperature to rise. This does not make much sense, and as far as I know is undocumented. Maybe someone can offer some evidence. We know that the term was promoted by “skeptics” to make it less scary. Both terms are still widely used.
It wasn’t too long ago that the alarmists were telling us that CO2 was so powerful that it would completely over powered the natural cycles, and all we would see going forward was continuous warming.
It was only when they figured out that the real world wasn’t matching their apocalyptic predictions that they decided to use climate change as their code word instead.
That way, no matter what happened, it could be blamed on CO2.
Warmer than normal, CO2.
Colder than normal, CO2.
Wetter than normal, CO2
Drier than normal, CO2
Windier than normal, CO2
Calmer than normal, CO2
and so on.
Some Republican may be one of the first to have been recorded using the term, but the alarmists picked it up and decided to use it voluntarily.
If as our trolls have been claiming, the Republicans tried to push the term because it was less scary than Global Warming, then why did you alarmists agree to use it? There was no law requiring it.
Example: “Osmium statement”
See Griff at 3:15am above
Griffy
Finally! Some excitement for this thread – we’re saved from facts & logic by Griff.
Any how, exactly how do we all know that about terminology?
Javert Chip,
“Any how, exactly how do we all know that about terminology?”
we know about it because we have copies of the “memo”
https://nigguraths.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/luntzresearch_environment.pdf
Posted for our convenience on a skeptical site Shub Niggurath Climate.
The words are exactly as I quoted.
And at the rate of about 3 per week we see that same zombie claim made on this blog. Its quite a good analogy for the global warming issue itself. A conger line of zombie myths.
Many on this website including its owner will openly agree there has been an anomalous warming in the last few decades but the zombies just raise up and stagger back into the room. Watch.
No one with any credibility claims that global warming is not real and that the recent warming in the Artic has been unprecedented since measurements began.
Tony,
Assume you mean conga, not a line of these:
There is nothing the least bit anomalous about whatever warming has occurred in recent decades. The late 20th century warming was no different from the early 20th century warming and milder than the early 18th century warming.
Another ludicrous lie. But thanks for the laugh.
Luntz advocated adopting the Democrats’ weasel words “climate change”, but the Bush admin rightly ignored his suggestion.
Thanks for demonstrating my point Glotee. Only surprise was it took so long.
Tony,
What anomaly do you imagine to exist?
The warming from 1977 to 1996 was entirely within normal bounds, despite the best efforts of criminal conspirators to cook the books. Luckily, the satellites were watching, to keep their efforts within bounds.
There has also been nothing anomalous about the lack of warming since 1997, despite two super El Ninos, ie 1997-98 and 2015-16 (a longer than usual time apart).
Please show your statistical work for supposing that late 20th century warming was anomalously outside the normal range of climate variability, then kindly explain why observations differ so wildly from model predictions.
Thanks.
How about: August 2016 is the 16th consecutive month that a new, record high global temperature average has been set. (http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/sixteenth-consecutive-month-of/60237110)
Or; the last year that was below the 20th century average was 1977. 39 consecutive above average years and with a warming trend. So, like where is the next cooler one coming from?
You don’t call that anomolous?
Not entirely. GW is about increases in the amount of thermal energy stored in the biosphere, and a large component of that does not involve changes in temperature. That is, the heat of fusion and heat of vaporization of water. A great deal of thermal energy is needed to change ice at 0ºC to water at 0ºC, yet there is obviously no change in temperature. We’re talking about gigatons of ice here, certainly a significant amount of heat, and the water produced is less likely to stay put than the ice, causing some pretty serious effects. That’s all part of global warming.
Gloteus: “Please show your statistical work for supposing that late 20th century warming was anomalously outside the normal range of climate variability,”
Statisical evidence here:
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
They say
“We statistically formulate
the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities
of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We
take into account two nonclassical statistical features – long range statistical dependencies
and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of
extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability
hypothesis at confidence levels > 99%”
Looks to me like “scientists studying climate change” have a vested interest in believing human activity has an adverse impact on the climate. If they didn’t they’d have a harder time justifying the checks from the goobernment.
How much in “grants” does Mickey Mann show on this web site?
I heard somewhere in the realm of $50 Million…… surely that can’t be correct. !!!!
Can anyone confirm with a screen grab or something.
Well, he did win/steal/claim-to-have-won a Nobel prize. Maybe it includes his share of the prize money?
ROFL gravity is not decided at all! Newton and Einstein fail at accelerations less than about 1e-10 m/s^2.
They are still working on Dark Matter, MOND, quantitized inertia, and probably some other theories to explain it.
We also still don’t understand the mechanism behind gravity.
good grief!
Peter
Gravity isn’t the crock of fraudulent shit Gavin Schmidt generated.
That’s pretty strong language! I approve!
Your comment doesn’t address, much less refute the author’s point.
He declares that there is little uncertainty in the value of gravity (gravitational constant) and you then declare that we don’t know what causes gravity.
“The recent shift in conservative rhetoric…, many conservatives are still willing to ignore scientific consensus and stall political action.”
Clearly someone who is unable to differentiate between science and politics.
And remember, conflating politics with science is only a problem if the left do it.
Do you have any evidence that the right is doing it?
Or do you just assume that everyone else must be doing it, because that’s what you would do?
The left and the right do it.
Proof through assertion.
At least you remain true to form.
The terms “left” and “right” are so nebulous that it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that climate science has gotten hopelessly entangled with politics, due to the fact that it is almost entirely funded by Government.
And Trumps gift to the oil industry.
“Donald Trump moved on Tuesday to expunge rules aimed at forcing oil companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments in order to secure lucrative mining and drilling rights. The rules, called the Cardin-Lugar regulations, were established under the Dodd-Frank Act, the wide-ranging financial regulations brought in after the last financial crisis”
I suppose he needs to work fast to lift anti-corruption legislation. It’s catching up with him fast by all accounts.
Yes.
It looks like he’s getting impeached in his first year in office.
M Courtney February 15, 2017 at 1:20 am
Hi M Courtney sis you miss a /sac? Orr did you mean the General Flynn business?
Logan act.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415397/logan-act-not-friend-liberalism-charles-c-w-cooke
The Democrats reached for this hammer before too use against the Senate. I’m mixed on this one, if they conceit that Flynn may have inadvertently violated the act, and it is valid law, then they themselves get to swing that hammer.
What was the lead of this article? Climate Nightmares..Now think of the Logan act as applied to Climate scientists and hollywood SJW. You can talk up a storm but not in an way act as a “Diplomat” . Think about all these Climate scientist being told sorry you can’t go as representing the U.S. Or acting as the spokesperson for government data.
Oh and impeached in his first year in office? Nope Republican House and Senate.
Oh and John Adams was infamous for concocting methods of suppressing free speech. The “No prior restraints” argument.
Anyway sorry for being off on a tangent.
michael
within his first year, yes… but will he make it as long as a year? I doubt it…
It’s hilarious to see the left continue believing that a Republican Congress who failed to impeach Obama or Clinton will now have the balls to impeach the most popular Republican President in decades.
But, hey, enjoy your dreams. And, remember, Trump is Mr Nice Guy. He’s the man the Tea Party elected after you and the Republicucks ignored them.
If you do manage to force him out of the White House, you really won’t like whoever comes next.
Mike the Morlock February 15, 2017 at 1:57 am
‘Logan act as applied to Climate scientists’
Yes, I wondered that. Were the various American NGOs and assorted ‘civilians’ at the COPs violating the Logan Act by pressing for US ratification of Koyoto Protocol and for huge payments by US taxpayers? This will probably run and run (geddit?).
Wishful thinking there Courtney.
They did impeach Clinton “President Bill Clinton was impeached on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.” They did not convict him in the subsequent trial in the Senate, where a 2/3 guilty vote was needed to remove him from office.
Any thought of impeachment is just as delusional as thinking climate activist will suddenly disappear. Set aside fears and hopes and embrace critical thinking. GK
Griff February 15, 2017 at 3:16 am.
It is very hard to impeach and convict a President to the point he is removed from office. As a matter of fact none has. The closest was Andrew Johnson.
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg-imp.html
michael
Oh and by the way, those silly demonstrations? I remember 1967-8 and the riots at the DNC convention for nominating HHH. You ain’t seen nothing.
MarkG claims:
“It’s hilarious to see the left continue believing that a Republican Congress who failed to impeach Obama or Clinton will now have the balls to impeach the most popular Republican President in decades.”
Really Mark ? perhaps you have read any media over the last month or so?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-lowest-approval-ratings-any-president-in-us-history-poll-cnn-a7563091.html
Fake news sites Gareth?
Funny how corruption is only a problem when the right is being accussed of it.
Obama ignored law after law, and the left cheered.
Which specific laws?
But the carbon footprint to support world-class video conferencing is high too (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/10/claim-new-green-danish-facebook-data-centre-will-increase-co2-emissions/)
Especially as video conferencing will permit even more people to participate.
Perhaps they could just stick to publishing papers and discussing the comments. Or just hold voice calls
Griff, your arse hurts bevore you sit out Trump.
Living outside the US with access to less partial news channels, well, it ain’t looking good.
“access to less partial news channels”
Grifter you silly little creature, by no stretch of imagination can the Guardian be considered a “less partial news channel”. It is probably second only to the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation for Left-wing propagandising. Even the Daily Mail is more reliable!
Have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for lying about her professional qualifications yet?
Partial news channel.
That name really does fit the BBC. Only the news that we want you to know.
Griff February 15, 2017 at 8:27 am
Living outside the US with access to less partial news channels, well, it ain’t looking good.
Ah since when do we here in the United States of America give a flying fiddler’s f##k in the rain about what foreign news channels say.
The U.S. Senate “Trumps” your dog-eared joker.
michael 🙂
Griff, be careful, only Breitbart is acknowledged as having accurate reporting on the affairs of Trump. Everything else is false news. Only Breitbart will have an opportunity to ask questions at Presidential briefings and if the 99% of other media continues to publish “False News” Trump will have no option but to close them down and round up the journalists. His old mate Putin is showing him how it should be done.
You really haven’t a clue what you’re wittering about.
You’re nearly as big a buffoon as Grifter aren’t you, Philips?
“Only a tiny fraction of skeptics believe that “climate change is not happening,.” The climate is always changing. As for the second, there is a fringe among climate skeptics who believe that “any change is not caused by human activity.” ”
Is that really the case? The majority certainly don’t believe it is warming… therefore though they claim to believe it always has been changing, they don’t think it is changing right now…
Then there are plenty who claim it is actually cooling.
There are so many contradictory ideas out there on the skeptic side and under any article on this site you will see half a dozen, which cannot all be true, posted with no one pointing out that contradiction.
If it is not warming, or only warming a bit, or cooling, then there has to be some positive, scientific, observed evidence, backed by a provable theory as to what is actually taking place.
what is actually happening? and your evidence is? and the other people who posted… how come what they say can’t be true if what you posted is?
That is to be expected. Debate is normal in science. And philosophy too. Even the arts have varied approaches towards the truth.
Orthodoxy is only to be expected when the truth is revealed, not approximated. E.g. in religion.
Of course, some scientific theories are so well established and have such proven predictive power that hardly anyone disputes them. Phlogiston, Newtonian Mechanics and most of the works of Aristotle have held that position at times.
But surely you don’t think that that archetypal chaotic system called the Climate currently fits that bill?
I like that. Succinct, accurate and to the point.
Griff, most skeptics accept that it’s been warming since the end of the little ice age. It’s you alarmists that deny the little ice age happened (having eliminated it with mike’s nature trick) and claim the past was this montonic level temperature that only shot upwards with the advent of man’s use of fossil fuels (the hockey stick).
Griff – “backed by a provable theory”
That would be nice, right? Like with the Theory of Gravity where school kids can prove the theory through experiment.
As for contradictions, what of the term: “Carbon Pollution”? What’s your definition? I see it as a contradiction. If pollution is meant as ‘harmful to life’, and all life as we know it consists of carbon based life forms, then this term must mean that ‘carbon is harmful to carbon based life forms’. Can you clarify?
I see that as usual, Griffie is trying to define his own reality.
“The majority certainly don’t believe it is warming”
Really, care to provide some evidence to support your delusion. The vast majority of skeptics that I have talked to acknowledge that over the last 150 years, the earth has warmed. The debate is about how much man is responsible, and that ranges from none to around a third.
Two different posters have different ideas regarding climate change, and in Griffies mind this proves that all skeptics are wrong.
“ observed evidence, backed by a provable theory”
So evidence isn’t evidence until you have a provable theory to explain it? Is that really the story you want to go with? Regardless, as has been pointing out many times global warming isn’t provable, since according to your guys, everything is caused by it.
Duh!
That’s how science works… hypothesis first… then…?
And I see every day some skeptic saying it ain’t warming or it is cooling to an ice age.
No Griff. It is DATA first, then hypothesis (testable). YOu do not even know that much!
Not necessarily. Some hypotheses originate from the math or from the logic of the situation. Special relativity, for example.
Not necessarily. Some hypotheses are not testable, and in some fields (astrophysics, climate science) none of them are. I have a longer comment to that effect elsewhere in this thread.
I love it when laymen pretend to understand how science works.
Yes necessarily. You want us to scientize religion. It does not work that way.
Data (observation as someone else said) first. Then Testable Hypothesis. If you do not have those 2, you have religion.
Griff,
I suspect what you are not seeing is the context of people referring to warming and cooling. Those statements mean nothing without a relevant time frame (even science journalists often don’t see this, and so write gibberish). Earth is both warming and cooling — over different time frames: billions of years, millions, thousands, centuries, and decades.
In most discussions the context is clear. That is, the people involved know if they are discussing change since the last ice age ended, or since 2000 AD,
Cretin. Observations first. Conjecture, hypothesis, etc, follow after observation. And you don’t have to replace a bad hypothesis with anything. Simply providing evidence that the facts don’t support the hypothesis is sufficient. My God, you are dense.
Griffie, Griffie, Griffie.
Data is data, regardless of whether there is a “proven” theory that explains the data.
That is how science works.
PS: I love the way Griffie actually believes that until every single skeptic says exactly the same thing, that his religion must be considered proven.
D.J., he’s not dense (or at least not just dense), just scientifically illiterate. Anyone that knows the scientific method knows (as you pointed out) that observations come first. hypothesis come after, in order to attempt to explain what was observed, then comes testing the hypothesis – and that’s where CAGW falls down, every testable claim of CAGW has thus far failed in the real world (and every untestable claim just shows how CAGW isn’t science, but rather is politics and/or religion)
Griff – whether we are warming or cooling is relative to the time span examined. No one disagrees that we are cooling from the Minoan optimum. No one denies we have warmed up from the LIA.
Are you really incapable of understanding the concept of relativity. If so, one should find a less advanced blog. Bill Nye’s site would be a better fit, me thinks. GK
I know theses painful for you Griff:
Skeptics do not need to prove CAGW is incorrect, or propose a substitute theory; they need only show CAGW does not account for actual data.
Skeptics can have millions of ideas about what’s happening to climate, and that has zero impact on the invalidity of CAGW.
Scientific method as described here: observation, conjecture, hypothesis, testing etc. The trouble with the skeptics is there is no testable hypothesis. This puts it in the realm of pseudoscience. The skeptics have no explanation for the climate, but claim they don’t need one. This is indeed true, you don’t need one per se, but you do need one if you wish to claim to be doing science.
If I am wrong, and someone here wished to lay claim to being scientific, please point me to the testable hypothesis and how well it has worked out.
Nonsense. There are a great many areas of scientific enquiry where testing — running experiments — is impossible. Areas of geology, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and of course climate science. Note that observation is actually the cornerstone of the way we validate hypotheses and theories; experiments are mostly a matter of setting up situations where we can observe things that are otherwise difficult. We built the Large Hadron Collider at a cost of $13 billion so that we could observe particle collisions that happen naturally in the upper atmosphere but are impossible to monitor in situ.
So what we have with climate science is literally hundreds of thousands or millions of observations in thousands of studies that confirm the theory that global warming is real and caused by humankind. “Skeptics” have found a tiny fraction of those that they can call into question for one reason or another, but those are trivial; the great weight of the evidence verifies the theory beyond what would be called a “reasonable doubt” in a court of law.
Wrong, seaice1. The skeptics are doing science every time they show the CAGW hypothesis lacking (it’s part of the testing phase of the scientific method). You don’t need to come up with an alternate hypothesis to show that a particular hypothesis is lacking (and there is an alternative to CAGW, it’s call the null hypothesis – something you CAGW alarmists have failed to get past). It’s like you claiming invisible unicorns exist. I don’t need to come up with an alternative hypothesis in order to point out that there is no evidence that unicorns (invisible or otherwise) exist.
Bobmunk: The hypothesis and testing does not need to be from experiment. In geology you come with a hypothesis that says something like “if this is right then next time we dig up 10 million year old rocks of this type we should observe X,Y or Z.” But I agree with your other sentiment.
John,
Null hypothesis has been rejected on statistical grounds, but that is a red herring anyway.
So we are agreed that here are no successful skeptical testable hypotheses? Your dispute is that the skeptics are still doing science even though they have no testable hypotheses?
The null hypothesis has not been rejected yet. And no climate “scientist” has made that claim. Even Trenberth has said it has not. So your statement is clearly false.
No the null hypothesis has not been rejected despite your false claims to the contrary and that’s the biggest problem for the much debunked CAGW hypothesis. And Again, I remind you, one does not need to put forth an alternative hypothesis to show that the CAGW hypothesis is crap. The onus is on the side of the CAGW proponents to come up with something to replace the debunked crap that they’ve been pushing because the real world observations just plain don’t match. and when observations and hypothesis don’t match, it’s the hypothesis that gets discarded, atleast in real science, something you clearly know nothing about.
But then again, ” skeptical testable hypotheses?” is a read herring on your part to cover the fact that science is predictive and every CAGW prediction your fellow alarmist have made has failed, and spectacularly so. Even Hansen’s three scenarios which were used to sell it greatly missed the mark (CO2 is well above his “worst case” while temps remain below his “best case”).
The null hypothesis has been rejected.
From upthread
Statisical evidence here:
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
They say
“We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features – long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels > 99%”
So it has been rejected by that particular statistician. There may be room for dispute about the validity of the methods, but it is wrong to say that the null hypothesis has not been rejected.
“Is that really the case? The majority [of skeptics] certainly don’t believe it is warming…”
Griff, you are conflating natural warming with human-caused warming.
Skeptics will say there has been warming in the past, they just don’t agree that there is any evidence that humans have contributed to the last fifty years of warming.
Since 1910, it warmed naturally to about 1940, and then it cooled from 1940 to 1975, and then it warmed again from 1975 to today, at about the same rate it warmed during the 1910 to 1940 period. No human causes required. There’s some warming going on at certain times but no proof humans are involved.
So, yes, there has been warming. It just depends on the cause and what time frame you are talking about. Nobody denies it warms. Lots of people deny that humans are the cause of any of it.
That has got to be the most stupid statement ever written in these comments.
From the most stupid – and dishonest – poster ever to sully these comments.
@catweazle666: come on, Phil isn’t that bad.
@ catweazle666 while that does describe Griff, Seaice1 is certainly trying hard for that coveted position.
I personally see no sign of climate activists getting past the first stage, denial. This process is going to take decades yet.
Nah. SJWs go where the easy money is. Once the ‘global climate warming change’ funds are cut off, they’ll find somewhere else to leech from.
There are two very separate issues – the political and the scientific. There is no sign at all of the scientific argument being conceded by the climate changers. There is no change in that front. Yet there is very real fear among those that believe in AGW that the political argument is being lost, at least in the USA. I think it is this second, political, argument that Kummer is talking about. Winning this one is not the same as winning the scientific argument.
Too bad the actual data doesn’t support your religion.
MarkW, are you just posting stuff at random? How is that a response to what I said?
It should be very worrying that prof. Curry does not know what is the warming impact of CO2. If she would know that number, anything else is related to natural causes. The original quality control in science has been that a scientist will carry out the same calculations as presented in a new theory, if he/she has any doubts. So, the question is, if Curry has carried out these kind of calculations? Has anybody else carried out? What are the results?
Or, is there any climate change science? Is it only question of opinions. It looks like that.
There is no evidence of any measurable warming impact of the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What portion of zero is attributable to mankind is ergo moot.
We can disagree about the temperature increase but there has been warming. Alarmists and IPCC say t hast it is all because of CO2.
“there has been warming”
There has been warming since the Little Ice Age. Prior to that, the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, the Minoan Warming Period, and the twin peaks of the Holocene Optimum were all warmer.
Most of the Eemian inter-glacial periods was warmer than the Holocene.
53 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was a swamp.
The planet was once a molten ball of magma.
To claim that there has been warming one must first declare the “since”.
There is no warming that can be attributed to CO2 increase. The ice core records show that warming precedes CO2, not the other way around. The so-called “warming” has been flat for 18 years, while CO2 continues to climb.
Everytime I post on the Fabius Maximus website I get banned. His arguments boil down to Experts tell me this, I don’t question experts, you aren’t a climate scientist (whatever that is), so I’m right you are wrong.
I pointed out that is a science is understood, it can be modeled.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/06/climate-science-on-trial-if-something-is-understood-it-can-be-modeled/
I pointed out all the problem with the NOAA Data.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/climate-science-behaving-badly-50-shades-of-green-the-torture-timeline/
I challenged him to refute a single challenge to the “science”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
I may not be a “climate scientist” but I have far more experience with multivariable modeling and quantum physics than those boys at the IPCC appear to have.
BTW, Fabius Maximum is the Roman General chosen by the Fabian Socialists as their role model. Basically, Fabians seek to undermine and deceive instead of facing the debate head on. Fabian Maximus was defeating Hannibal by avoiding to fight him, just like Climate alarmists avoid real debates about man-made climate change.
BTW, just watch, the Editor from Fabius Maximus will respond to this message saying everything I said was a lie. Typical, predictable and expected.
Did you try posting a comment with a quote from Judith Curry?
Sheri,
I would post a comment from CO2 citing any scientist. Certainly one citing Curry (btw, who disagrees with most of his claims in the thread discussed), who I personally know well. She’s the climate scientist I cite the most frequently..
Instead he makes big claims, When called on them, he moves on to make new and equally big (often bogus) claims.
Life is short. There are many place he can chatter to his heart’s content. The FM website isn’t one of them.
I don’t know if I actually quoted her, but I sourced her website and the comments from Bates post on her site. The guy will only accept “agree with me or you’re gone.” I am always getting “moderated” for raising legitimate questions. It is easier to censor than debate.
Sheri, this post references Judith Curry’s post. It was simply ignored and I was “moderated.”
I pointed out all the problem with the NOAA Data.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/climate-science-behaving-badly-50-shades-of-green-the-torture-timeline/
Editor of the Fabius Maximus, you claim:
“Instead he makes big claims, When called on them, he moves on to make new and equally big (often bogus) claims.”
Please provide an example where I make “big claims” and don’t back them up? Everything I state is extremely well documented and backed up. Here is the website to back everything up. As I’ve said before, refute a single claim I make.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
Facts are, any science that is valid and “settled” can demonstrate their theory through a model. The IPCC Climate Models don’t even come close to accurately modeling the climate, not even close. You are defending a settled science that can’t even hindcast, let alone forecast. That is a legitimate comment. It may be a “big and bogus” claim to you, but that is game over for any objective person seeking the truth. I would be interested in your explanation why you support a “settled science” that can’t even produce a valid model. I won’t hold my breath. As I’ve said, it is easier to run from a valid debate.
BTW Mr Watts, feel free to re-post my article that addresses the issue was are discussing and let the people decide if I’m making big and bogus claims.
Feel free to cross post any of these posting. If I am making big and bogus claims, I’d like someone to point them out to me.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
“Everytime I post on the Fabius Maximus website I get banned. His arguments boil down to Experts tell me this, I don’t question experts, you aren’t a climate scientist (whatever that is), so I’m right you are wrong.”
He laid that sh1te on me precisely once – apparently the fact that I disagree with Gavin Schmidt makes my opinion worthless, so now I just regard him as yet another waste of bandwidth with a grossly inflated idea of his own importance in the scheme of things and don’t bother with his prolix prognostications.
In any case, there is no point whatsoever attempting to discuss science with someone who is scientifically illiterate.
Yep, welcome to exile. Thanks for the comment.
The other thing he does is his false attempts at equivalency between left and right politically.
He will admit that the left has flaws, but every time he does so he has to soften the blow by pointing out that the right has similar flaws, even if he has to make up the evidence to prove it.
Yes, the comment editor a Fabius Maximus is a authority expert drone, his choice of expert of course. When he loses a point he quickly launches and ad hom attack and deletes your posts.
He’s even put up links and posts that undermine the very points he’s claiming to make. On the mirror board at the site we scuffled over the dating of the politicization point of climate science which he dates as “the 1980’s”. This is patently false, I provided numerous links to much earlier periods of carbon tax ambitions over “pollution” and the 70’s “ice age” agenda which is an ancestor of the current warming/change agenda.
It’s curious that the site does put up seemingly moderate to even skeptical content only to have a bully and thug on the moderation. You can visit the thread yourself to see the many straw man and accusatory methods involved.
One of my themes that I’ve had with Anthony here as well, the sanctity of Dr. Curry and her ingrained luke warm histography of the climate agenda and the over stating of the significance of actual hard science both now and at any point in the warming agenda history. It’s was and is mostly politics which both luke warmers and advocate warmers remain in yes……..deep “denial”.
Coincidently, and this only came in passing, he carries the major torch for New Deal Keynesianism and Paul Krugman as the perverse inheritor of the mantel for that cause as well.
So we’re back to the thematic point, aside from irrational green/left agenda we are saddled with parties who support them as resistance of the most nuanced kind with an orthodox all their own. “it’s about science” the mantra plays out. I’m sorry, the Happer/Linzen/Trump wing matters. The Fabius Maximus and WUWT Curry worship society are past peak editorially on the core of the Climate War.
co2islife February 15, 2017 at 3:38 am
You are so wrong on Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator and the so called “Fabian Socialist” Roman politics did not work that way.
First he belonged to the Patrician faction of Roman society not the Plebeians
Hannibal destroyed every army the Roman Senate sent against him. By avoiding battle Fabius Maximus bought Rome that most precious gift time. Also Roman field commanders were elected. Next the army was not Manipular legion at that time, it was still based on the Hastatii, Principes and Triarii formations. Thus the soldiers were citizens of various age and economic status within the Republic. Since they were called away for year after year to stand on a hill merely watching Hannibal, Fabius Maximus grew unpopular in favor Of the upstart Scipio.
Fabius Maximus pinned Hannibal in Italy, for ten years. During that time Scipio took Spain and prepared for the final invasion of Carthage.
No comparison between Roman political factions and our political parties/NGOs
michael
You missed the meaning of my comment. Facts are that Fabian Socialists are named after him. Their tactics are deceit, deception, and undermining by not debating. They chosen symbol is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That was my point, I wasn’t trying to give a history lesson.
Avoiding debate isn’t unique to Fabius Maximus, it is common for the left. I’ve faced it many times. Here is a recent example of Dr Willie Soon at the American Freedom Alliance. No one would debate him. I wonder why if this is settled science. It should be easy to win the argument.
https://youtu.be/TVdKuNLmcCc?t=4m23s
Climate activists’ final act, as they move into the last stage of grief
sounds like the commies at jonestown prior to the last coolaid
seriously it does , read the wiki on jonestown
The solution to the confusion over the characterization of skeptics as “deniers” would be removed if you labelled them correctly as “lukewarmists.” It is the alarmists who have claimed that “deniers” deny any human effect. That simplfies their arguments immensely.
They’ve been depressed from the very outset – primarily by their diet of sugar washed down with alcohol.
Its got all the classic signs – muddled thinking, buck-passing, unwillingness & inability to both argue a point or defend it, inability to take on new ideas and endlessly call on consensus, scientists and The Computer Says. Nobody in their right mind will pick a fight with A Computer – they know that and try to capitalise on it.
They cannot argue a point and if you try to push the point, fists will fly – just like drunks on a night out.
Not at the very least, the huge over-reaction to an imagined problem – the over active startle response characteristic of dope-heads and others on depressant substances.
Something to think about –
Maybe some of us (50% of UK womenfolk certainly) will know about anti-depressants, Prozac, Fluoxetine etc.
OK.
So how can 20 milligram daily of that stuff cure depression when doctors will say its OK to consume 20 grams per day of a known depressant such as alcohol.
Oh yes drinkers will pipe up loudly, 20 gram per day maybe doesn’t harm the body, but, what damage does it do to the mind?
To an entire population……………
this is totally off topic, but inspired by your screen name, Peta from Cumbria. Joe Bob Briggs is a very funny writer from Texas, but he also makes good points. His most recent piece was basically about how, over the last 3 centuries or so, all of Cumberland (now Cumbria) packed itself up, left England, and moved to Kentucky.
http://takimag.com/article/a_brief_history_of_the_redneck_joe_bob_briggs/print#axzz4YlHw3upe
If you haven’t been to the area, you probably wouldn’t know that the biggest river in southern Kentucky is the Cumberland. There’s a reason for that.
“They cannot argue a point and if you try to push the point, fists will fly – just like drunks on a night out.”
Well that’s the sort of reception I get from skeptics when I challenge their points with links to science papers…
Griffie, a link to a Sierra Club press release is not a link to a scientific paper.
Nor is a link to the Guardian or Wikepedia – two more of Grifter’s go-to authorities on climate “science”.
Neither are indirect references to AWEA, CanWEA and EWEA information. Remember what you posted regarding Dr. Arlene King in Ontario, Canada?
MarkW & catweazle666
GOSH DARN IT – YOU’VE PROVEN GRIFFS POINT: every time he is silly enough to make a stupid statement on WUWT, somebody hurts his feelings by pointing it out.
I vote we give Griffy a participation trophy if he agrees to go away.
I will admit that I did not read the Crist article, however from the analysis, I think Larry has mis-catagorized her stage. She seems to be in the bargaining stage – pleading to just accept any part of their narrative. I think she has a long way to go to get to acceptance. There is no acceptance in her writing.
Phil,
You might be right. These things are subjective at best, and difficult to determine from one article. We need to see the trend in her — and other activists — over the next year of so. That’s why I describe this as a theory:
Climate, what is it?
Oh you say, addressing stupid peta from Newark (the Nottinghamshire one), “Climate is the 30 year average of weather”
Alright then I say, “What’s the answer, what is today’s ’30 year average?”
Furthermore, I say BS. You/anybody hasn’t got that answer and not least, hasn’t got a frigging clue about how to work it out. Admit it. And furthermore, temperature is not climate.
Why do I say that?
Picture yourself cast into an entirely new (to you) location, somewhere & *anywhere* on this Earth.
You may wonder, will I survive here?
So, you look around, at the plants, the animals, you feel the temperature compared to the height of the sun, you examine the dirt, are you on a hillside, facing which way, are the trees bent over, are there trees, are there lakes, how fast are the rivers & streams running etc etc etc
Within a few hours of doing this, you ‘know’ what the Climate is at your new location. And the biggest clue is surely The Plants around you.
You DO NOT need to stand around measuring temperature to 1/1000 of a degree, playing with a supercomputer and drawing endless tedious straggly little graphs for 30 years to tell you about The Climate.
2nd big idea from me today – Maybe plants control the climate.
Maybe we get it all wrong when we say “Oh I know why plants don’t grow in the Sahara, its got cr4p climate.”
Its the other way round, the Sahara has a cr4p climate because there are no plants there.
For muddled, slow and depressed minds, its far too big an idea. Too much hard work. Lets just blame everybody else via their ’emissions’
“And furthermore, temperature is not climate.” This is why “climate change” is more appropriate than “global warming.”
“This is why “climate change” is more appropriate than “global warming.”
The only way “climate change” would be appropriate is if the climate never changed until now.
The Earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time, long before humans came on the scene.
“The Earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time, long before humans came on the scene.”
And has resulted in the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals. It would be nice if this particular course of it, caused by homo sapiens sapiens, did not result in the extinction of said species. It would also be nice if it did not cause widespread human suffering and death, or the loss of significant amounts of the population’s wealth and possessions.
If you’re trying to argue that GW is no big deal because it has happened before, I would question your logic.
“If you’re trying to argue that GW is no big deal because it has happened before, I would question your logic.”
No, I’m just arguing that GW is natural, because there is no evidence that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to warm or change.
If you have some evidence that shows otherwise, I would be happy to consider it.
All the points and counter points are based an the unsubstantiated conclusion that warming is bad.
Griff:
=====
Is that really the case? [that most skeptics accept climate is changing all the time] The majority certainly don’t believe it is warming… therefore though they claim to believe it always has been changing, they don’t think it is changing right now…
=====
The transition from permanent global warming drought conditions to global warming flood and rain conditions in south east Australia where I live occurred in the middle of a long period when the global averaged temperature–a mathematical abstraction–didn’t change in a statistically significant way.
The global averaged temperature, the abstraction you erroneously conflate with “climate change,” is just an index with no predictive utility. It tells you nothing at all about what’s happening in the real world at any location; it’s just the number you’re left with when you average out thermometer readings, adding post-normal adjustments to make every year then”hottest year evah” until we submit to the cult and pay our tithes.
But it tells you nothing about the world, Griff.
That’s why our permanent global warming drought came to an end (in floods, just like California), why snowfalls became no longer just a thing of the past, why global warming winters started getting colder instead of milder, why Antarctic sea ice extent continued to increase, why Arctic sea ice extent continued to fluctuate, why Alpine snow conditions in 2008 were “best in a generation,” all happening while “global averaged temperature”–that meaningless metric– remained essentially flat.
Maggie Thatcher started banging on about this garbage 30 years ago, before China started ramping up CO2 output at a fantastic rate. And here we are at a petty sub-optimal 400ppm, with more or less the same kind of weather we had back then.
Btw, Griff: belief is a religious endeavor, not a scientific one.
I don’t believe the abstraction of weather over time we call “climate” is “warming.”
A good example of how skeptics believe climate is changing all the time, as opposed to the warmists who think in only a straight-line functions, take the drought in California.
The much-repeated warmist position was that the drought was now permanent, and that climate change was the culprit, and water shortages would be the result from now on.
Skeptics never denied that there was a drought, but also believed that it was most likely due to natural cycles, which cause the climate to always change from day to day and year to year. If the warmists were correct, then permanent water shortages needed to be dealt with. If the skeptics were correct, then the drought conditions would at some point reverse and turn back to wet conditions, with no action needed by man to help it along.
So hmmm, which position ended up being the correct one?
It seems to me the basic state of California and Australia in the warming world is drought and drought with heatwaves – interrupted by extreme precipitation.
For example: We may find California may be having the same amount of rain over a ten year period, but getting no rain for 9 years then 10 years worth in a short period is not the same as the good old average rainfall we used to get, with just about ‘enough’ every year…
what do you mean “used to get”??? Look at any 100 year chart for California and the southwest, and you will find that pattern has *always* been the long term norm.
You seem to be one of those people who think that all history began in year 2000.
WWS, you have to remember being a warming alarmist, like Griff, requires one to be completely ignorant of history. It’s why the medieval warm period and the little ice age had to “disappear”, its why the past has to keep being adjusted colder, etc. because history shows that their “unprecedented” narrative has many precedents.
Drought and flood has always been normal for California.
‘the same as the good old average rainfall we used to get, with just about ‘enough’ every year…”
What total, complete and utter drivel!
Crass, even by your standards.
You really believe that there was a time when everywhere on Earth – particularly California – got just about ‘enough’ every year?
Yes, from your abysmal posting history I really do believe you really are that stupid and ill-informed!!
Griff February 15, 2017 at 8:20 am
My first trip to California was in 1979. The restaurants were not serving water unless asked, instead they were recommending their local wines because of the ahem, drought.
so whats new?
michael
Griffy
It seems to me that the geology of California is more important than the weather/climate/whatever-we’re-calling-it-this-week.
The 1940 population of CA was about 7M (2016 is 38M) and they were already running out of water. Read you history.
@ Editor of the Fabius Maximus website February 15, 2017 at 12:10 am
Your comments also show that Spell-grammar catchers cannot catch stupid pomposity, yet, either.
T-Man
T-man,
“cannot catch stupid pomposity, ”
We are all awed by your logic!
If you have an objection, why not state it? I’ll bet you can do better than schoolyard insults.
Sigh. What takes center stage is an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no visible marker in the trend that identifies unusual human-caused separate from expected natural interstadial warming, ergo invisible angels. And the amount of that warming is tiny, ergo how many angels are dancing. In addition, the catastrophic portion is also tiny, ergo the head of the pin. It is appropriate to call those who fund the research into this fantasy pinheads.
We know there is more CO2 and that the CO2 comes from humans. We know it is warming and that CO2 is the only reasonable cause of the warming.