We Won Climate Battles, but Are Not Winning the Climate War: Here’s Why.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

“You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can’t get them across, your ideas won’t get you anywhere.” Lee Iacocca

In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,

Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.

He is correct. Yes, there is a slight increase in the number of skeptics as evidenced by the increased readership at WUWT, but it is a fraction of even total Internet users. Even those who read and comment on WUWT articles on the site often say they are not scientists or don’t fully understand the topic. Others demonstrate their lack of knowledge and understanding without the caveats.

Wallace continues,

But why is this? Why haven’t their voices carried? And, conversely, why was The Team so successful in getting their message out? Was it because, possibly for quite other reasons, there was already a receptive audience at hand? That there was an existing matrix of attitudes and beliefs to which the AGW belief system could adhere? And this matrix served to amplify some messages while it filtered out other, conflicting messages.

In a preface to the essay, Anthony Watts wrote,

“Given what happened today in live testimony before the House Science Committee where Dr. Mann was testifying, this review seems germane and timely.”

We can add to the timeliness the recent Washington D.C Heartland Climate Conference held (March 23-24, 2017). The conference was held with the optimism created by the election of President Trump and appointment of Scott Pruitt as head of EPA. By some accounts, it was a successful conference that spoke primarily to the science issues and some of the economic ramifications. In doing so, it overlooked, as skeptics have consistently, Iacocca’s challenge. These events will have little impact on effectively slowing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) juggernaut. It will join the list of events, which I and others expected would crash the vehicle. Just a few key examples

· The 1988 claim by James Hansen before Senator Timothy Wirth’s orchestrated piece of theatre that he was 99 percent certain that humans were causing global warming.

· The 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution asked US Senators whether they wanted to vote to ratify Kyoto Protocol. They voted 95-0 not to vote on ratification.

· The 2009 Heartland Institute Climate Conference was presenting skeptical views on a world stage.

· The 2009 leak of 1000 emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). These emails were clearly carefully selected to provide evidence of wrongdoing that the public would likely understand. It didn’t help.

· The 2010 release of 6000 more CRU emails further documented the malfeasance, which Mosher and Fuller summarized in their book Climategate: The Crutape Letters;

“The Team, led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in attempts to shape the debate and influence public policy:

 

Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of information requests, deleting emails, documents and even climate data

Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands

Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.”

The juggernaut survived these charges that would have shut down completely any other program. The CRU and the IPCC are still operating. This was the same Michael Mann who appeared before a US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method along with Judith Curry, John Christy and Roger Pielke Jr. The event received praise from skeptics and people who know and understand what has been going on. They focused on Mann’s character, manner, methods. Julie Kelly wrote a National Review article titled “Michael Mann Embarrasses Himself before Congress” that summarizes most of the skeptic’s perspective. She observes,

‘If the climate-change evangelist can’t be bothered to take a House hearing seriously, why should anyone take him seriously?”

This is incorrect. Mann took it very seriously, was well prepared and exploited it for every political opportunity – he dominated the entire proceedings. He had the advantage of not caring or having to care about the truth. His performance was designed for most of the public who have no idea about what is true. He knows this works because that assumption has driven the juggernaut from the start.

Mann also understood the political and manipulative nature of Congressional hearings. They are charades supposedly seeking the truth, but are really designed to make the politicians look good. They use the opportunity to put material on the official record that supposedly supports their position in the form of appeal to higher and wider or popular authority. Often, the politician simply read their staff-written position paper and don’t even bother with the expert.

My challenge to skeptics is to view the hearing as an uninformed citizen. From that perspective, I would argue that Mann was the most effective and persuasive. He was assertive, apparently provided hard evidence, had the backing of most scientists and scientific societies. He turned the minority status role the organizers gave him into the base for his victimization role. It wasn’t a debate, but he turned it into one and clearly believed, as would most uninformed observers, that he won.

He also believes he won because he marginalized his three opponents by calling them deniers in the pay of corporate entities. They believed they deflected this challenge with the help of the Chair, but that added to his victimization because it placed the Chair against him. The deniers said he was wrong, but because of time constraint offered no alternate explanations. They said the computer models were wrong but didn’t explain how or why. Their answers were properly vague because there are few definitive answers, but that contrasted with Mann’s confident assertiveness. Their vague answers underscored that they were a fringe group, thus justifying their denier label. They said Mann’s claim of increasing severe weather was incorrect but offered no graphs to prove it. They clearly had personal animosity to Mann but denied it when challenged. They provided no motive or even an explanation for why all these thousands of scientists would present false material and information and offered no explanation for their inferred claim that Mann was cheating.

Mann presented his latest research relating changes in the changes in the Jet Stream with severe weather. Nobody at the hearing pointed out that his claims were scientifically incorrect and the result of false computer model simulations. It is evident that Mann and his fellow authors did little historical research on the vast amount of data and literature beginning with the discovery of the Jet Stream during WWII and the work of Carl-Gustaf Rossby. The format of the hearings prevented any cross examination of Mann’s material, so it again made him more authoritative that the “deniers.” Overall, by trying to control the hearings and achieve their result the organizers played right into the hands of a person determined to disrupt the proceedings.

A major reason it appeared to the uninformed observer that Mann ‘won’ was the inability of the “deniers” to provide definitive answers. They are correct but think of the contradiction this creates for the uninformed. This small group of deniers is saying we don’t know the answers, but Mann is wrong.

The sad part is most skeptics would not have done any better. I watched another group of skeptics make a similar disastrous, unable to see the forest for the trees performance, before the Canadian parliament. They were asked questions that none of them could answer all the questions. The answers they gave were scientific jargon that few in the room understood. Worse, their answers indicated bad science by the AGW proponents. If so, was it bad because of incompetence or deliberate malfeasance? Either way, it raises several questions that if left unanswered or unexplained only give Mann credibility. If the science was wrong why and how did it pass peer review and go unchallenged? If it was deliberate malfeasance, how could so few people fool the entire world? Either way, if you make or infer the charge, you must provide an explanation and a motive. I did not hear that in the Ottawa or Washington hearings.

I did not attend the Washington Conference, partly for lack of funding, but primarily because I saw nothing to slow the political juggernaut that is global warming. I offered to make a presentation bringing everybody up to date with my legal situation, but also providing the political context for the lawsuits. Why did three prominent IPCC members, Gordon McBean, Andrew Weaver, and Michael Mann, bring, what amount to SLAPP lawsuits against me. I think there are two fundamental reasons. They could not say I wasn’t qualified, although they tried. I also had an ability to explain the complexities of climate and climate change in a way most could understand. I honed these skills by

  • Instructing basic weather knowledge and forecast skills as an operations officer in Atlantic Canada and sub-Arctic and Arctic Canada.
  • Teaching a first-year university climatology course for 25 years.
  • Teaching a required Science credit university course for Arts students for 25 years.
  • Teaching a non-credit university course for Seniors titled “The Way the Earth Works” for 25 years.
  • Giving hundreds of public presentations to professional groups in primary industry like farmers, foresters and fishermen whose economies are directly impacted by weather and climate over 40 years.
  • Writing a monthly column, Weather Talk” for Canada’s largest circulation farm magazine Country Guide. I was fired after 17 years because of action by a single Board member.
  • Writing a monthly column for The Landowner for the last seven years.
  • Giving hundreds of open forum public presentations over 40 years.
  • Publishing a first-year university textbook on climatology.

A good example of the latter is important because it illustrates the challenge and explains why groups have been so ineffective, as Wallace identifies, in “countering the AGW meme.” Recently, I gave a public presentation in Mount Vernon in Washington State. The organizer warned me that people were in attendance who planned to disrupt the proceedings. There was no disruption, and when I asked what happened, the organizer told me that they left with one person commenting, we have never heard any of this before.

The solution to breaking the AGW meme is not in the science, good or bad because the public doesn’t know the difference. It is in showing how the science was created to achieve a predetermined result, namely the demonization of CO2. Then you must provide a motive. Why would scientists pervert science as David Deming identified in his letter to Science and congressional testimony?

“With the publication of the article in Science [in 1995], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So, one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. “

I made this challenge to explain climate in a way the public can understand the main theme of my presentation at the First Heartland Climate Conference in New York in 2009. I know from many discussions during the conference that few understood. Those that did were already in the education and communication business; people like Marita Noon who is now working for the Heartland Institute. A major point in my presentation was to accept that whether you like it or not Al Gore’s movie was a remarkably effective piece of propaganda. His latest effort is not even that, but most of the public won’t know. It is ineffective because Gore’s motives and hypocrisy have been exposed, not because public understanding of the science has improved.

Wallace’s charge that Tim Ball, Fred Singer, and others have challenged the AGW meme to no avail is correct. This, despite all the scientific evidence presented over the years up to and including Heartland’s 12th Conference and the recent Congressional Hearing. Little or nothing has changed. What is the solution?

Trump won in the minds of working and middle-class people, which is where the climate war must be won for lasting victory. They only need to understand enough science to know how it was corrupted, but they must know the motive. Until that happens, all the AGW proponents need to say is that Trump is acting to line the pockets of his billionaire friends. Mann demonstrated the technique in his congressional presentation.

Advertisements

419 thoughts on “We Won Climate Battles, but Are Not Winning the Climate War: Here’s Why.

  1. Wait until the “March for Science” happens. There will be no more dignity or influence or even interest in their Climate Change Madness. It’s going to be a circus, a complete and utter zoo after all of the other “special interest groups” have their way with it. And Bill Nye is the King of the Parade. I honestly cannot wait to watch them lose all credibility.

      • Are you unfamiliar with the press on this one?
        https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/22/science-march/

        Or read some of the comments in “science” blogs like this one-
        http://quillette.com/2017/03/03/why-social-scientists-should-not-participate-in-the-march-for-science/

        The uber left, paid to march, activists for everything from women’s rights to gender to economics to racism to pro abortion to what-the-crap-ever will be joining this march. It’s going to make science look like a freak show.

        https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/march-for-science-diversity?utm_term=.smX94aBJDX#.fmVjXYlgr0

        Apparently having an “old white male” like Bill Nye leading the march, caused quite an uproar. It’s going to be popcorn and cola night at my house.

      • I believe they “lose all credibility” when they choose to hide their research (Mann & Jones). If I want to “protect” my work I put it in the public domain where other scientists can verify it and apply it. Isn’t that what real scientists do? Instead the “frauds” wish to hide their work. Why?

      • Hello Tim,

        Here is how I think this scenario will unfold:

        “There will be lawsuits and criminal prosecutions of leading warmists and their institutions, and these will be well-deserved. I believe the first Civil RICO lawsuit in the USA has been initiated, as I predicted circa 2014.”

        Best personal regards, Allan

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/29/reflections-on-mark-steyns-a-disgrace-to-the-profession-about-dr-michael-mann/comment-page-1/#comment-2466340

        I have studied the science of alleged global warming since 1985 and written papers on it since 2002.

        It has been clear to me since 1985 that global warming alarmism was a false crisis, and since about 2000 that it was deliberate fraud – now the greatest scientific fraud in the history of humankind.

        This fraud will soon become fully apparent as it is exposed under the new Trump regime.

        There is in reality NO global warming crisis – it was created by scoundrels and promoted by imbeciles, and has cost society tens of trillions of dollars in wasted subsidies, destabilized critical energy systems and cost lives.

        The world will soon be fully informed of the proven falsehoods and thuggish misconduct of the global warming alarmist gang.

        There will be lawsuits and criminal prosecutions of leading warmists and their institutions, and these will be well-deserved.

        I believe the first Civil RICO lawsuit in the USA has been initiated, as I predicted circa 2014. Bravo!

      • They will lose credibility because their constant and eternal message is that (man made) climate-Armageddon’s-a-comin’… and just like all the other (religious) Armageddon predictors… eventually they will all be proven wrong.

      • I don’t see why there is all the worry and fuss about “winning” and “losing” the debate. It’s irrelevant. Life marches on. Oil companies are spending billions of dollars on acquisitions and new investments that take many decades to yield a return. Do you think the executives of these companies are stupid? Do you see climate change alarmists giving up their air travel in favour of sailing ships and bicycles? They can talk the talk all they want. The fundamental realities of energy density and dispachability cannot be denied. Whether the world is warming or not, we”ll be using fossil fuels well into the future, the Chinese and Indians will be building coal-fired power plants, the CO2 is going up, and no amount of alarm, windmills, solar panels, biomass or scare mongering will stop it. If you believe that you can enlist humanity in the kind of enterprise that would be required to halt the rise in CO2 levels in order to bestow a carbon-free world on a generation that will live one hundred years from now, I have a question for you. How much compassion do you see from humanity for the plight of the desperate refugees who are fleeing the war-torn Middle East RIGHT NOW?

      • We’re at the end of an interglacial. The trend from here until the next interglacial is going to be colder. The success of the AGW folks is on borrowed time. When the temperature drops below what it was when they first started screaming Anthropogenic Global Warming, their fifteen minutes of fame will be over and it will be as if they never were unless, of course, they can change the name of the game to Anthropogenic Global Cooling. That, however, won’t be nearly as lucrative because it will be hard to blame man for something completely expected and predictable even if man didn’t exist.

      • “…unless, of course, they can change the name of the game to Anthropogenic Global Cooling. That, however, won’t be nearly as lucrative because it will be hard to blame man for something completely expected and predictable even if man didn’t exist.”

        Exactly what they are doing now. And I suspect that the coming Ice Age will also be blamed upon humans. The agenda is world control, and the bad guy always has to be something that can be controlled….blamed…designated as “evil or wrong”. In other words….humans.

    • Dr Ball requires us to find a motive which maintains the commitment of Michael Mann and his cohorts who always seem to be able to maintain the high ground.

      The exposure of this motive would show the public how, their admittedly competent command of rhetoric, is baseless and is harming or about to harm the people of the planet should they be able to continue their influence of governments.

      Dr Ball does not appear to be able to suggest a suitable motive.

      I think Dr Ball is correct, so does anyone here care to suggest such motive that once exposed will lay these guys open so the public can see what they are?

      Could it be that these guys are too smart to actually have a definable motive, or perhaps they all have different motives.

      This would imply that there are a number of motives around that all end up with the sme outcome.

      Personally I think a good method of laying these guys to rest could be the “retiring” of the United Nations> who has not ony the IPCC working hard on Global Warming but also has a large number of initiatives
      If any one of these initiatives are successful, this will ultimately enable the United Nations to gain enough power to be independent on funds donated by member states because have its own income and therefore would be in the position to influence every state in the world without the impediment of having to ask these states for money.

      In other words the UN would be out of control.

      The UN’s attempt to introduce world wide carbon trading is an example. Had the UN been able to instigate world wide carbon trading and thus selecting itself as the “clearing house”, (which means clipping the ticket of every transaction), the above ambition could have been realised.

      Now the UN is infiltrating our local governments by using Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and a number of apparently other independent organisations such as ICLEI the Sustainabilty 100 cities initiative etc.

      It is my belief that if the UN runs out of cash, which it may well do if Donald Trump can stop the US commitment, it will collapse like the filthy pack of cards and bureaucracy it is.

      So long as we stand guard in order to prevent another similar bureaucracy from arising, people like Michael Mann and Al Gore will simply fade away, hopefully at the same time facing the music for their gross dishonesty.

      Roger

      http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

      (This blogs shows how the UN has infiltrated my country – I suggest that everyone checks the website of their local, state and federal government and search for some of the words mentioned above).

      • The AGW clown show has been able to make very effective use of a weapon that is systemically unavailable to skeptics who are honestly skeptical: Simplism.

        Definition of simplism
        : the act or an instance of oversimplifying; especially : the reduction of a problem to a false simplicity by ignoring complicating factors.

        When anything is made sufficiently simple, the un-knowledgeable person can be able to understand the thing, thus whatever the thing is can now be considered a “truth.” Then the newly knowledgeable person can become a righteous defender of the truth.

        So why is simplism unavailable for use by the honest skeptic? It’s the ‘honest’ part that is the killer.

      • Sommet De Quebec

        Sommet De Quebec Sur Les Changements Climatiques, April 14, 2015

        Invited Experts:

        Paul Kovacs, IPCC and a founder of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (insurance industry).
        Alain Bourque, Executive Director of Ouranos, Montreal, (Innovation cluster on regional climatology).
        Mark Kenber, CEO, The Climate Group (an international organization that operates at the sub-national level).
        Christiana Figurers, UNFCCC

        Summit also included carbon taxes and cap-and-trade.

        Program at:
        http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/changementsclimatiques/sommet2015/pdf/programmeSCC_ang.pdf

      • State of California website

        ‘Subnational Global Climate Leadership Memorandum of Understanding’, May 19, 2015

        Includes:
        UN information
        Subnational signers, U.S., Canada and others.

        More at:
        https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/Under_2_MOU.pdf

        —————————————————————————————————-

        ‘Climate Summit of the Americas Retrospective, July 7-9, 2015, Toronto, Canada

        Includes:
        Attendees: U.S., Canada and others.
        Photos
        Videos

        Information at:
        https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-summit-americas-retrospective

      • CA.Gov

        Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown,Jr.

        ‘Governor Brown, International Leaders Form Historic Partnership To Fight Climate Change’, 5-19-15

        ” … – Governor Edmund G. Brown,Jr. today signed a first-of-its-kind with international leaders from 11 other states and provinces, …”

        More information at:
        https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18964

        Has link to the Under-2-MOU

      • Under 2

        Secretariat:

        The Climate Group was announced as Secretariat of Under 2 Coalition at the Climate Conference (COP 21) in 2015.

        Under 2 is an international organization that operates at the sub-national level.

        Information at:
        http://under2mou.org/secretariat

    • We have to realize that 80%+ of people are looking for an argument from authority. How often do we see even on this blog the “you can’t have an opinion you are not a climatologist”. Even science courses often emphasize the “believe it it is in the textbook approach” not training students on the experimentation and evidence that has led us to our conclusions. Even when copious evidence is made available I have had students fall back on the authority of their parents and pastors. There are many people out there who will believe what they want to believe or are told what to believe and heaping up more facts just heaps up more frustration – on us. Even the physician on the panel that lauded his own skills as a scientist fell back to a simplistic argument that melting ice meant warming, not hearing that the lukewarmers were not denying warming but questioning the effects of CO2 and whether the warming was catastrophic. Even if you go full consensus and carefully pick the bones of the IPCC report you find that many of their own graphs are getting closer and closer to lukewarming, however their interpretations still tend to the extremism that will guarantee more funding and meetings.

      • “We have to realize that 80%+ of people are looking for an argument from authority.”

        I think that is the key right there as to why the alarmists have the advantage over the skeptics. The alarmists have “the consensus” in their corner, to their advantage.

        If you are not an expert on a subject and you don’t have the time or inclination to do an indepth study of the subject, then what is your alternative to figuring out what is correct and what is not correct. Well, the easiest way is to find out the opinions of others on the subject, and then you adopt the predominant opinion as your own because you assume that if a lot of people believe in something, it has a good chance of being correct.

        The alarmists have every scientific organization on the planet pushing this CAGW narrative, and they have created some convincing lies like the “97 percent” consensus, and the MSM is fully onboard, so it’s no wonder they have an advantage in the public square.

        Even so, most Americans are not concerned about CAGW, if you go by the polls.

        I think Trump being in Office will help this situation considerably. He can change public opinion easier than anyone else, if for no other reason than his actions will stimulate the dialogue. He just has to stand his ground, and people will rally around him.

        The one thing the CAGW promoters don’t have anymore is a President of the United States pushing this narrative. Now, we have one pushing back on it. That will make a lot of difference.

    • Okay, I just looked at the links you posted. This is the most BIZARRE group of weirdos imaginable! LOL
      Talk about the “Beclowning of Science Fair”!
      Nye fits perfectly, especially in his beta male outfit.

      The “Science without Feminism intersectional racism” graphic. I needed to see no more. This is the most bigoted tripe imaginable. Where do these Moonbats come from?
      Thanks for laugh. I just can’t believe these people are as racist, screwed up and anti-science as could possibly be imagined…..

      • “beta male outfit”. Please. You grant yourself no credibility adopting that sort of language.

      • The Moonbats have adopted Virtue Signalling as the new status symbol. Personally, I liked yuppies better when they just bought a Benz. Now, it’s “my thoughts are more elevated than yours” every. single. minute. until the rest of us could puke. The way to CUT IT OFF is to NOT give them your money in the form of clicks, ticket sales, downloads, etc. CHOKE THEM OUT financially and let them know we are not amused!

    • Unfortunately they will NOT ‘lose all credibility’ where it counts in the short term at least, in the mind of the broader public or at least that portion that leans left and votes.

      The reason for that lies in the way Mann went about his mission before the committee. He treated it as a marketing exercise which is what it always has been. It is a politically motivated marketing campaign, it is not a scientific exercise.

      • And employing a less than honest simplism in conjunction with the ‘KISS’ principle has always proven to be an effective marketing tool.

      • I’m siding with Michael Crichton here. The alarmists are riding the tide of a religion that very closely identifies with judeo/christian There was a perfect world, man has fallen, man must repent, follow the prophets (profits) and heros et.al. Skeptics will always be fighting that tide. Credibility vs credibility is not going to sway that fight. Based on 20 years of alarmism being wrong about virtually everything, yet still here and viable, I think its going to take an utter exhaustion of will (or more likely funds) before people finally sit down and mutter “well that was stupid; We had reliable power that we decided to make un-reliable because the prophets told us it would be good for us”

      • You’ve got it, M. Just look at the ramp up renewables are still undergoing , even since Trump was elected. Utility companies are installing them at an ever faster pace and the Commissions are approving the expenditures. Part of this has been in reaction to the anticipated clout of the CPP. Utilities are not pulling back, in spite of the difficulties the CPP is in.

      • Tim Ball asked “what is the motive?” no one has answered. Is it really “noble cause corruption” ? or just a new religion, as predicted by Aldous Huxley. AH said that the times are ready for a new global religion. The only way to defeat a religion is with another religion. What will that be?

      • Tim Ball asked “what is the motive?” no one has answered. Is it really “noble cause corruption” ? or just a new religion, as predicted by Aldous Huxley. AH said that the times are ready for a new global religion. The only way to defeat a religion is with another religion. What will that be?

    • The “March for Science” is never going to happens in the Public School Systems in America because that would require a Congressional mandate being passed by Congress …… and that ain’t gonna happen.

      Anyway, to wit:

      Trump won in the minds of working and middle-class people, which is where the climate war must be won for lasting victory.

      NOT SO, ……. the “climate war” must be won in the Public Schools ….. because that is the per se “breeding ground” of where “the minds of working and middle-class people” were and still are being nurtured (brainwashed) into believing the “junk science” of CAGW.

      The Public Schools are per se “graduating”, each and every year, tens-of-millions of “new” believers in/of the silly science of CAGW, which is a far, far greater number than the non-believers in/of CAGW could ever possibly hope to “re-educate”.

      So, until and/or unless, the Science curriculum being forcibly taught in the Public Schools is purged of all said “junk science” garbage and “Political Correct” nonsense, …… the “climate war” within the populace will never be won by the real scientists and their supporters.

    • Everyone should go and read Scott Adams’ (of Dilbert fame) blog for comprehension. A trained hypnotist, he describes in great detail how the art of “persuasion” works, including the major upshot that persuasion based on facts and data will lose EVERY time to persuasion based on emotional hyperbole that triggers the brain stem. Why do you think the MSM uses FEAR to sell practically everything? Apocalyptic scenarios are ALWAYS believable to people because they’ve been programmed for 2,000 years with the Bible, which might be the very first “Narrative.” And you think all the “dystopian” moves and games are an ACCIDENT?

      The fact that the Republicans have gotten this far this fast with rolling back the mythical nonsense tells me we don’t have all that much to fear. Frankly, the American people are now on to exactly how much they’ve been hoodwinked by “narratives” in the media for 25 years, and bullshit is no longer selling so well in Peoria.

    • Aphan, you’ve missed the point of this article. “They”have no credibility now, with anyone who understands the science OR the politics of CAGW. That includes the readership of WUWT (excluding Griff). The other 6,999,000,000 people on the earth think they are perfectly credible. Many people don’t care about global warming because to them it’s just noise on CNN with no impact on their lives, but they still think Bill Nye is THE science guy.

  2. The most lucid post I have read on WUWT in years. Simply put, the Motive is to promote a far-reaching leftist agenda. Leftists points of view are widely popular, especially in the mainstream media, so the AGW meme is following/helping the current. As for President Trump, AFAIK, he has not said a word about climate change or global warming since he took power. Is he, even him, afraid?

    • I think few here like to admit it, but Mark Morano is probably the best real fighter we have on our side.

      • Add Steyn and Inhofe to that list. Lone warriors with a lot of guts. What is missing is a group of real scientists with the same resolve and attitude as the main group on the other side. Trump also has to step up now that he has the bully stage. Obama couldn’t give a speech without his real-manmade-happening now-dangerous line. Every time! Lurch chimed right in. Instead we have Trump (Evonka-Garret?) and Tillerson. And now Pruitt, who was eaten alive on the weekend. It is now or never. We have been beaten to a pulp in the public arena: that is where we have to fight back. Thanks Tim – you are absolutely correct.

    • Utter nonsense. I get so sick of the left bashing. It is the damn scientists’ fault not the fault of politicians right or left. Hell the right wing politicians are pushing the CO2 agenda as well.

      • Academia has always had a left-wing bias. That is why so many “scientists” are behaving as political activists and not scientists. Left has traditionally been supportive of environmental concerns and challenged uncontrolled business interests. That is why the CO2 CAGW myth has become a badge of political self-identity: if you consider yourself left-wing you are whole heartedly and unquestioningly into wailing about CO2.

      • The left-wing bias of academia may be explained: In college these students excell but in a market economy they find out that -in order to make money- other expertise is needed than their college lectures provided. Therefore, to restore their succes, they want to model society to a college which is an authorian, centrally planned structure (like the communist party)

      • David,
        That is a very astute observation. And well articulated as well. Thank you for your insight.

      • David (and Paul),

        The right and left politicians are politicians. Politicians (in general) will do what they have always done … they will act in their own self interest AND will act to please their adherents.

        The left adherents are ignorantly encouraging the left politicians to save the world. The non-elected right side of the political spectrum is not jumping on the CAGW band wagon, and are not encouraging the right politicians to do stupid things wrt environment saving.

        If you choose to align yourself with the ignorant adherents of the left side politicians then consider yourself bashed (as being ignorant, greedy, stupid, or whatever). If you stand up among your left friends and tell them that the CAGW bandwagon jumpers (left and right) are harming society in general, then congratulations and a nice pat on the back for you.

    • And most people on here think you are right, BernardP, including me. And because we don’t control the MSM and most people believe that by and large people are honest (because by and large they themselves are) and that applies especially to scientists (because when you say “scientist” they think Einstein or Galileo or Faraday or perhaps Hubble or even Sagan — or Bill Nye?!) so we come across like a bunch of paranoids who don’t have a clue what we are talking about.

      And since cAGW was never about science from the beginning we are fighting the wrong battle. Who cares a rat’s ass about global warming if none of the things they are predicting come to pass? 2016 was the “hottest year evah!”? So what? Are we having more storms? Worse storms? Is sea level rise out of control? Is drought increasing? Will anything we do have any measurable effect on temperature? On climate?

      Since the answer to all those questions is ‘no’, why are we fighting a war that doesn’t exist? Much better to blindside them on things people understand than try to explain the greenhouse effect or back radiation or whether CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. Warm is better. The deserts are greening. Even 10° of warming is irrelevanf if the “normal” temperature is -40!

      Pester the media with provable facts until they are forced to pay attention. Challenge every article and every patently ignorant (as in not understanding the science) comment with cold facts. Debunk especially the idea that “these things are happening now”. Make the people who make those claims back them up.

      And with the greatest respect to Dr Ball, less of the wordy articles that rehearse stuff we all know because we have read it a dozen times before. You’re telling us nothing new! Sorry, but there it is!

      • You miss the point. Sea level rise since the LIA isn’t accelerating, yet everyone thinks it is. Storms aren’t increasing, yet everyone thinks they are. Corals aren’t dying due to CO2 (one of my favorites) yet by God they are dying and everyone thinks it’s because of CO2. Ocean acidification isn’t a problem (at this point) but everyone thinks it is. The arctic has warmed before but everyone thinks today is unprecedented. Increasing warmth isn’t a problem in the big picture but everyone thinks it is.

        For every fact you bring up they can bring up 20 newspaper articles or science papers that say the opposite. NPR says it. PBS says it.

        We aren’t up against something that a couple of fact-checkers can sort out. We’re up against a well-organized and well-funded PR campaign, also known as a propaganda machine. They’re laughing at us. We’re just using science! That’s all we got! Too funny.

      • Don132, well stated and absolutely right you are.

        The literal fact is, …… there is only one (1) way or method to “fight” back against “a well-organized and well-funded PR campaign” …… and that is to launch demeaning and/or embarrassing personal attacks against anyone touting the fear-mongering “junk science” claims and false accusations associated with CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

        Embarrass them in front of “God and everyone” by demanding they reveal their source(s) of income, their educational expertise and their primary/personal reason for believing/supporting the CAGW meme.

        And “OUT SHOUT THEM” when they refuse to address the questions they are asked. In other words, put an abrupt “halt” to their asinine actions of verbally quoting of lengthy memorized commentary of little to no importance other than to garner favoritism from the miseducated, gullible audience.

    • He removed the climate change info from the WH website. He is dismantaling all of the EPA regs that he can. Sorry he doesn’t walk on water and could not have won WW2 in a hour, which seems to be the criteria here for success. Next time, run a diety for the position. Maybe that will work.

      • Asking the disciples is not a valid way of determining if one is a deity or not. One supposes Hillary’s disciples believed she too was a deity and evidence indicates the same of Obama.

      • I’ve posted a link to this epic poem of truth written by Rudyard Kipling in 1919 here before. Seems like it just keep applying over and over and over! If you’ve never read the full thing, please do. It deserves to be known. I’ve posted the last two stanzas because I honestly think that no matter what we do, the cycle will just continue forever.

        The Gods of the Copybook Headings-


        “As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
        There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
        That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
        And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

        And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
        When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
        As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
        The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! ”

        http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm

    • Leftist POV is widely popular in the MSM, but practically nowhere else except for the Acela blue bubble and Californication. Take a good look at the vast red in-between; Trump won something like 90% of all counties across the USA. People have HAD IT with the Left’s wacko indoctrination, esp. of their children.

    • “As for President Trump, AFAIK, he has not said a word about climate change or global warming since he took power. Is he, even him, afraid?”

      I don’t think Trump is afraid. Although Trump hasn’t said anything about CAGW specifically, his actions are reversing the actions taken by the Obama administration. As long as he does that, he doesn’t need to say much.

  3. The horrible fact has been that the Democrats have much more skill at publicity circuses.Three lukewarmers and a zealot tends to go to the zealot.

    • Yes skilled at publicity circuses, and the fact that they’ve been spoon-feeding our kids lots of propaganda for a generation now so that generation largely can’t think independently any more (yes there are exceptions). If we don’t change that, the war on pseudo-science will never be won. Government schools (K-12 and now beyond) and most of the media controlled by the same ones who want to control the behavior of the populace–the reason science is losing doesn’t seem like rocket science to me (and I am a rocket scientist, by the way).

      • Spot on. The agenda is about money. Who has it and how to get it? The AWG proponents sold their souls and have been rewarded with grant dollars to stay relevant…because who would ever believe that the people’s representatives would sell them out for…money? Every excuse is given. It’s for the greater good. It’s for the children. They use a dash of fear mongering and a sprinkle of warm images of children and wildlife at play, to permanently embed themselves into the hearts and minds of our youth. There are at least 3 generations of K – 12 students who have been indoctrinated this way who will carry this catastrophic lie far into the future.
        If you want to change the world all you have to do is pay enough money to have it taught in public schools, which are monopolized by teachers unions who’ve sold their souls for money, too. That same tactic must be used to bring out the truth. Stop focusing on the the liars and start focusing on developing story books, children’s cartoons and movies, tailored curriculum for elementary, middle school, high school, and higher-ed, put on family friendly events that include music and food…get started on this now, because the tipping point is only one generation away.

      • “and the fact that they’ve been spoon-feeding our kids lots of propaganda for a generation now”

        Now I’m not a rocket scientist, nor any other type of scientist for that matter, I’m a self confessed (frequently on WUWT) layman.

        Two thing strike me about your post, one from our propaganda fed children. The problem with indoctrinating children is that they grow up and start to question their ‘beliefs’, we have all done it.

        It only takes a single trigger to have them distrust or question their indoctrination. So we have an entire generation of people, growing up now, who are ready and willing to listen to alternatives.

        Second, I have followed WUWT and many other sceptical blogs for some years now and the common theme between them all is for well educated, knowledgeable, scientist’s to delve deep into the science of a single, minuscule subject. Charts and graphs, citations, quotations and frequently utterly confusing information which is meaningless to the man in the street. I’m used to it, but even I gloss over most of it and find more understandable information to read.

        My point is, and I have made this before on here, is that the man in the street only has so much time, only so much capacity for analysis, and will be switched off by the informations scientist’s on here take for granted.

        Delivering messages must be done in small, bite sized, digestible portions if the public are to be made aware they are being duped.

        By all means, discuss everything on WUWT but somehow deliver some short conclusions the layman can carry round in his head to question the alarmists when they encounter them. One favourite of mine is NASA’s study that found the world had greened by 14% over the last 30 years. The collective negatives, imagined or otherwise, of AGW do not even come close to the (net) 9% benefit actually measured by NASA. Even the paper is easy to read, and one of the authors himself points out their study shows two continents the size of mainland USA of greening. Factual, easy to remember and utterly astonishing.

        For all it’s benefits to the scientific community, and humanity, WUWT fails on one simple concept, It’s headlines invariably attack the alarmists.

        Political and media headlines almost always start off with ‘their’ statement “The world is Melting”, seemingly negative, but they go on to justify it, badly or otherwise. Politicians like Trump succeeded by making statements like “I’ll get the coal workers back to work”, “We’ll wipe out ISIS”, “We’ll pour money into defence” (all paraphrased). Whilst his intention was to discredit Hilary on every occasion he could, his headlines remained the same and were repeated often. Positive, single line, memorable messages.

        Whilst I’m not a scientist, I have been in Sales and Marketing for many years and if you’re going to sell your product or service to someone, the first thing you don’t do is call your competition crap.

        You make your own positive statements about your own product, whilst fully understanding the weaknesses of your competition. That’s precisely what Trump (and Nigel Farage of UKIP, the driver of Brexit) did. Then when in front of your customer you can do a demolition job on your competition, perhaps not as blatantly as Trump, but the opportunity is there.

        All the sceptic blog sites should be finding the material to support their case and making a headline of it. Then in the text, demolish the opposition by making comparisons or emphasising the strengths of their argument.

        Dr Ball is right. This is precisely what the alarmists have done, whilst sceptics maintain a naive belief in the science doing the job for them, because they understand the science better than the tactics.

        Sceptics can’t win this debate when delivering science to a population who largely don’t understand science. Get the headlines out there “Sea levels are not rising more than expected” Then go on to explain that sea levels aren’t even consistent across the planet. Or how about “Only one single hurricane recorded in the Southern Hemisphere and the seasons nearly over” which was of course true until Australia was hit by one. But it doesn’t matter, the statement was true at the time and resonates with the public. The headline is what makes them stop and think.

      • Yet even those complaining sent their kids to those schools. People WILLINGLY and OBEDIENTLY sent their children to be brainwashed. I CANNOT blame the schools.

      • Speak for yourself, Sheri: I certainly did not, despite the current climate which makes it far easier to send kids to the government indoctrination camps public schools than to private ones, especially for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

      • You’d be surprised about the kids and skeptical thinking. My nephew is in a maritime academy where everyone there is unabashedly career-minded, and most of those careers intersect with fossil fuels and the international movement of same. He tells me MOST of the students lean conservative, and it is a no-holds-barred meritocracy with NO “snowflake” behavior invited. There’s no room for emotional incontinence or mythical thinking on the bridge or in the engine room of a ship. I have to believe that many other STEM based schools lean likewise. We just hear about the trust-fund babies in liberal arts who’ll never have to worry about making a living because they won’t live long enough to spend their parents’ money.

      • Smokey: Apologies to you, sir. You are apparently one of the ones who understood the damage being done and took action to protect your own children. Congratulations.

    • Sure ,that explains why we have a Republican President, Senate, House and 33 out of 50 governors.

      • Publicity circuses are not that useful, ultimately, in winning elections. My statement is based on watching C-Span (insomnia is a bitch), and the Democrats coordinate much better with the witnesses they call than the Republicans. The circus aspect is in calling people look good on TV clips, who fit the narrative they established while setting up the hearing, not anyone who actually has anything useful to say.

      • It’s not that democrats are particularly effective but I was stunned about inept and ineffective the Rep members on this panel were.

        I would have thought that someone capable of winning political office would a fairly sharp and forceful character but they were so mild and unfocussed Mann went largely unchallenged as did the 97% falsehood.

  4. Lindzen has already identified the key to ending the Climate Hustle.

    Cut the climate studies funding – 80% or more. The climate hustle is fueled by the hustlers’ need to feed the master monster they created. The NSF and DOE climate money need sto be cut drasrically. There is no alternative.

  5. Dr. Ball,
    I have suggested to many people in the climate blog world that a “boot camp” is necessary to train us in effective methods to refute the CAGW narrative in an effective way.
    We’re out here, willing and need direction. I for one would pay my own way.
    We know a great deal from reading and discussing the issues with friends and foes alike. Many of us are passionate about the truth and science, but we are anything but trained and organized how to tackle the exact issues you elucidated so well in this article.

    I’m writing this in the hopes that you and others like you will start posting how we can get together to get the facts and the message across to the wider public. Perhaps Heartland or others can organize these types of trainings at various times and places around the US and Canada. I’m a retired medical professional, currently living in Australia and would even fly back to the US for such an event.
    Thanks for all you do!

    • you make an excellent point!
      after all the church of gore runs “training” for its gullibles
      and sadly they have had success
      it needs be countered

      • Gore is far more dedicated, as are his “gullibles” than many on the skeptic side. He put money, time and reputation into building his empire. He built a power base first. He WORKED for this. Are skeptics willing to do the same?

    • First, let’s determine if anyone really understands how this works. The message cannot be magically erased, the “enemy” is not going to crawl away in defeat any time soon, and it’s a LONG WAR. From what I read here, training is useless because seldom does anyone want to spend the time and effort in YEARS of work for what is not even a certain outcome. Until there is evidence that enough people really understand this, boot camp is a complete waste.

    • Scott
      I agree! I’ve often looked to articles on WUWT as tools to counter-indoctrinate people but the articles are generally so long, convoluted, and filled with hedges against uncertainty that the typical luke-warmist will quickly set them aside. We need quick, concise, pointed hit pieces – elevator pitches – to win the hearts of an uninformed populace.

    • @scott “I have suggested to many people in the climate blog world that a “boot camp” is necessary to train us in effective methods to refute the CAGW narrative in an effective way. “

      Refuting CAGW logically will not work; the People who can be convinced logically, mostly have been now. The People we need are the people who bought CAGW. When People buy things, they always buy based on emotion, then later they rationalize their decision. The emotion that has been most effective for the Alarmists have been Fear and Altruism, so we need to say things that make the Alarmists look selfish and manipulative and ideally do it without saying they are selfish and manipulative.

  6. The reason that there is the perception that Warming is still “winning” is that THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC FIGHT! IT NEVER HAS BEEN!!!

    The science on the warmist side is, EVEN TO THEM, nothing but the necessary “blah blah blah” which will allow them to grab hold of the political and financial power they seek. As such it can be endlessly calibrated to mesh with populist left wing talking points that will sound good to people who don’t know too much and who are indoctrinated in the cult of left with thought. All of the “Scientific” talk is just more “blah blah blah” with them – it will have no effect, it will NEVER have an effect. Nice to have it in your back pocket, but THAT IS NOT THE KIND OF FIGHT THIS IS.

    This is a POLITICAL fight, it has to be waged by POLITICAL means. Anyone who thinks it is just about science is guaranteed to lose.

    • Political wins are very fleeting. If your goal is to temporarily derail this, you may reach that goal. If it’s permanence you want, not a chance.

  7. To Dr. Balls point:
    David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center put it simply. (And I paraphrase).
    “When there is a debate and the LEFT calls you a homophobe, an anti-Semite a denier and the Right’s response is to call them a Liberal. Who do you think is going to win that argument?”

      • You missed the point. He is not characterizing insult as argument, he is stating that the very nice guy Republican being slandered is.

    • Agreed. When people use that kind of rhetoric, the answer is to stop being polite and call them out for it. Label them as promoters of fear and hate. Point out that they offer no real answers and only wish to smear their opponents. Declare that shouting down all those that disagree with you is undemocratic and the tactics of a tyrant. Then challenge the people to not let them get away with it.

  8. But here’s another fact to consider- almost no one, and I mean literally almost no one, who is an “uninformed citizen” will ever see that House Hearing. I don’t know anyone that watches House Hearings for fun or entertainment. I don’t even know a lot of people who still have traditional “TV” packages…most of our friends and neighbors use ROKU or something else and simply download the channels they want…the US Government channel isn’t popular. Outside of those of us who are interested in this issue, on either side, I really don’t think we have to worry about your average citizen tuning in and being influenced either way by Mr Mann’s performance. I would bet $1,000 that I could ask every single person I meet for the next 7 days if they know who Michael E. Mann is and not one of them would be able to tell me.

      • More accurately, he is simply spouting what they want him to say, which is why the media are his biggest cheerleaders.

        The point is for the left and its faithful acolytes to say anything and do anything which enable them to achieve financial and political control.

      • But here’s more to back up my point-no one trusts the media anymore. So if Mann has the press eating out of his hand, the American people aren’t buying a thing he says….

        “Only 6 percent of people say they have a great deal of confidence in the press, about the same level of trust Americans have in Congress, according to a new survey released on Sunday.”

        “The study mirrors past reports that found the public’s trust in mass media has reached historic lows, according to data gathered by the Media Insight Project, a partnership between The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute. The report found faith in the press was just slightly higher than the 4 percent of people who said they trusted Congress.”
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58

      • Now that’s a weird one Aphan – we don’t trust Congress because of what the main stream media reports about Congress!

      • No, we don’t trust congress because we don’t trust congress.
        We don’t trust the media, because we don’t trust the media.
        If the media is pushing “Mann”, then because we distrust the media, we distrust their message about him.
        We also don’t trust climate scientists as much as people like MANN say/think we do.

        http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

        Only “liberal dems” seem to be buying the climate change crap. Almost every other group clearly thinks scientists don’t know enough, have no answers, and doesn’t buy the “consensus” messaging.

      • It is important to be patient in all things, I have lived a long life, droughts, floods , hurricanes,droughts , floods , hurricanes. My life experience, Motorcycles I have ridden for 60 years, one tends to feel the weather on a motorcycle. The time has come the Walrus said, to speak of many things.Maybe some one will understand that . What we have in front of us is an anathema to the AGW mob, for we have cooling, as this happens the rats as always will desert a sinking ship. Old Sol in all his glory is having his usual sabbatical it would seem that he is very tired and needs at least three cycles for a holiday.This LIA will be classed as caused by man and his evil pollution of CO2, Mr Mann in all his Pomp will have a theory as to why the northern hemisphere is freezing its butt off.Me I will be too old to care or dead but laughing my head off from my place of rest.
        Engineer , inventor I was, now I look at this stuff and think this generation need a war ,a real life threatening one, one that could change the world , something to put their energies into, they are all rudderless and stupid at the moment.

      • Aphan said: “Only “liberal dems” seem to be buying the climate change crap. Almost every other group clearly thinks scientists don’t know enough, have no answers, and doesn’t buy the “consensus” messaging.”

        Which specific other groups are you referring to?

      • “science” is a misleading term. Some things we know well such as mechanics, electricity, energy but many other topics are subject to investigation and have many assumptions and uncertainties such as the climate and the human immune system. Science is what may be quantitized and researched, So, honest scientists always have to add the state of their “science” . The climate alarmistst present the most dramatic forecasts as “settled” which is fraud.

      • Then DEAL with it. STOP WHINING about it and deal with it. As my psych professor said “OUGHT TO IS MEANINGFUL ONLY IN DISCUSSIONS OF MORALITY. WHAT ‘IS’ IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH.” Now work with it.

      • WHAT ‘IS’ IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH.” Now work with it.

        Wise words. But Bill Clinton will never get it. He is still working on one “is”.

    • Aphan @ 7:35 pm
      I would bet $1,000 that I could ask every single person I meet for the next 7 days if they know who Michael E. Mann is and not one of them would be able to tell me.

      BINGO!

      But every single person knows what Global Warming/Climate Change is, and has an opinion on it. And some will have strong opinions.

  9. There are two main thought processes in the minds of many people.
    1. Anything man does has to be messing something up.
    So they ‘believe’ man made climate change. Not because of any facts. Certainly not because of any individual study they have done. Simply because the word ‘man’ is in it and someone tells them it is so.
    2. Government control provides them with absolution of any personal responsibility. By handing the problem, any and all problems, off to the government to take care of, they can experience their ‘feel good’ moment without having to break a sweat or get their hands dirty.

    This modern day replacement for religion, this combination guilt trip/guilt free big government altar they worship at is a puzzle. Their version of original sin is that there are too many people all doing the same thing. But their salvation is placed in too big a government forcing people to do all the same thing.

    It is such a swirling mass of contradiction yet they are deaf, dumb and blind to its faults.

    • And yet the American people elected Donald Trump as President…out of the blue….as a complete and utter shock to the left. Because they had no idea that the “rest” of the country is NOT like them, does not think like them, does not worship at the Government alter nor suckle at it’s teats. The American people gave the progressive liberals a big old middle finger on Voting Day. Whether Trump ends up being a hero or the worst President of all time doesn’t bother me in the least…my faith in Americans who want nothing to do with the left’s agenda has been restored.

      • The American people did not elect Trump. He won due to the vagaries of the electoral college where sometimes dirt has more voting power than people. That is just the way federalism works sometimes. Unfortunately it is happening much too often these last few electoral cycles.

      • David, the rules are the electoral college, not popular votes. Neither major candidate ran on trying for popular votes. Besides, if one wishes to get egregiously partisan, Hillary’s popular vote margin was entirely from California, where the margin might actually have some live US citizens among them.

      • David: Thank you for referring to your fellow Americans as “dirt”. I’m sure that’s a winning strategy—no, wait, that’s what the loser in the race did.

      • All Trump has to do is get this economy rolling at 4% or so growth. That happens, a lot of people go back to work, a lot of investors make money, a lot of foreigners come grovelling for a place at the table. At that point, Trump’s a hero no matter whose sacred cow he kills. He’ll have done what no Democrat can do, and that means more to REAL Americans, most of whom vote their pocketbook, than all the leftist air-castle issues combined. Keep the faith, Deplorables! ;-)

      • @davidgmillsatty: You say:

        He won due to the vagaries of the electoral college

        (My bold). Vagaries, David? I think the founding fathers had a lot more than a vague idea of how to prevent a tyranny of the popular vote controlling government. It gives the small states a voice and doesn’t see them trampled by the big states. IMHO.

      • David, (Griff?) it is not unfortunate, it is by design. A very clever design intended to ensure that the population in a few major cities did not overwhelm the rest of the country. It worked wonders in this case, wherein 90 percent of the country by counties voted for the winning candidate.

  10. There are kids graduating from High School this year who have experienced no significant global warming in there life time. However, they have all been taught that catastrophic global warming is indeed occurring. The sad fact is that their teachers sincerely believe this to be the case.

    • I am about to turn 67 and I could not tell if the planet has warmed. What I can tell is that there are far more people and far fewer animals. I might be beginning to see that there are more plants as well (hard to say for sure on that).

      • Exactly what my children were taught 35 years ago and I fight it every day. Whole generation have been brainwashed with leftist collectivist anti capitalist ideals. It will take generations for the rampaging socialism to fall out of favour. About the same time as they run out of OPM. (Other people’s money).

      • Funny, for 35 years kids have been indoctrinated with “anti-capitalism,” but we’ve sure produced a world-class crop of robber barons in that time–Gates, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Jobs, Thiel . . . any questions?
        It is NATURAL to want to get ahead. In my horse herd, anybody who can eat his lunch and 5 other guys’ too will try and do so. NEVER forget that Darwin still drives the bus–and don’t think they’re not aware of that at Yale.

  11. yeah? well ‘debating the science’ is a losing game just like a bull chasing the cape.
    here’s what wins:
    nobody has a right to take your stuff.
    simply assert ownership of your life, your mind, your body, the product of your labor and make the buck stop with YOU.
    until you argue ‘rights’ and defend them, you are negotiating submission and that’s all there is to it.

      • solution? as in ‘to a problem’?
        those who wish to submit solve their problem.
        those who are self possessed mind their own business.
        in this way, nearly 100% have exactly 0% of my stuff.
        and that’s all i need to be concerned with.

      • david: Maybe pointing out how difficult it is for some people to not inject irrelevant political ideology into every discussion? Then move back to the topic.

      • David,

        Do you think having stuff is a good thing or a bad thing?

        There are a lot of people that have less than 1% of the stuff that you have … do you think the “solution” for that should have anything to do the amount of stuff that you have?

      • @davidgmillsatty said:

        1% of the people have half the stuff and that percentage is growing not declining.

        That shouldn’t surprise anyone;

        Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, as published in his first paper, “Cours d’économie politique”. Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population Pareto principle

        if 20% own 80%, you would expect that 5% own 64 and finally 1% should own 51%! That’s just the way the world works and has been for a very long time.

        You get ahead in this world by putting your effort into the 20% of the things you do that produce the 80% of the results and pay your assistants to do the 80% that only garner 20% of the results.

  12. I would not be so gloomy about the outcome of this hearing. There were positive points scored against the AGW story as can be seen from some of the comments from the those asking the questions. Notably Rohrabacher’s withering remarks aimed at Mann for his use of the word denier, and the several different papers added into the record during the hearing. Specifically, there was a group of four different papers which explained why the 97% claim was junk science which were then added into the record. When the next hearing comes up you can bet that the 97% claim will be more fully explored.

    For the first time in any of the hearings which I have listened to it was evident that many more of the representatives asking the questions were better prepared to ask the right questions. That is something to consider as worthwhile, imo. Then there was no question that Mann got partially roasted in the last half of the hearing, which he richly deserved. I think that Mann’s sanctimonious attitude versus the honest approach of the other 3 stood out as well. Mann was the only one who brought up negative comments, while the others refused to enter that realm. Christy highlighted the negativity of Mann by refusing to even make response when asked how he had been personally attacked over the years, stating that it was not worthy of his time to respond anymore to the negativity aimed at him over the years. That was a good move..

  13. “It is in showing how the science was created to achieve a predetermined result, namely the demonization of CO2”.

    Precisely.
    Give me a good and rational reason/argument for me to change my mind about something, and I will, immediately.
    Show how I was blinded or hood-winked about something.
    Merely laying out the ‘facts’ isn’t sufficient, but show me were and why I formed my flawed opinion, is what is need.

    And, as I read the above article….agreeing all the time, I was thinking…what about a tag team of Steyn and Morano. I wonder how the proceedings at a hearing would unfold.
    As I recall, Steyn did fairly well last time.

  14. It’s great to see this sort of high-level thinking happening on WUWT.

    That said, having read this site over a few years now, I’m admittedly a little bit concerned that the WUWT approach seems rather constrained to “normal” science. Attempts to discuss more “revolutionary” questions about assumptions seem to oftentimes receive an unfriendly audience here.

    But, this in part sets up the very problem: The public’s interaction with science favors using it as a system of knowledge, whereas actual scientists are challenged with also using it as a tool for thought, within a context of questions, speculations and claims which commonly lack definitive answers, and which is much broader than the mainstream science journalists typically report.

    What if we were to simply teach the public that there are numerous challenges to textbook theory across the disciplines?

    What if we taught them about the ongoing controversies? … The patterns they share, the way in which the topic is covered by science journalists, the claims on both sides, instances in the past when consensus was plainly wrong …

    What if we simply exposed the public to the best critiques of modern science which have ever been published, by systematically going through all of this published literature?

    What if we taught the public to track scientific controversies on their own, collectively — without the scientific community?

    These are the ideas which inspire my efforts at Controversies of Science. I have a lot of respect for the work here, and I’ve learned a lot from it. That said, I think it is a mistake to leave out revolutionary science because once you start tracking controversies, it becomes apparent that many of the most important disputes in the sciences occur at the level of frameworks and assumptions.

    If the public is being asked to vote on such things, they should have to contend with the full complexity of modern science — not just consensus science.

  15. Tim,
    Your post is lucid and accurate.
    There is one point I would make to dispel some if the gloom, however.While it is true that Gore and Mann appear to have won the war, every opinion poll of public attitudes has concern about climate change at or near last. A good example is
    myworld2015.org.This is the UN survey of public issues and coming in dead last is concern about climate change.
    This tells me the public understands there is no ‘ climate crisis’ and don’t believe the alarmists.

  16. This post seems overly pessimistic. The public doesn’t care about climate change. The propaganda machine advocating that we spend a fortune for little to no benefit is losing. The current administration has instructed EPA and DOE to remove climate change from their agenda. I watched part of Dr. Mann’s testimony. He was clearly a pompous ass and not a scientist looking for the truth. Is the war over? I don’t think so. But the truth is winning and it is not on Dr. Mann’s side.

    • Dr Mann is one of the best allies the Skeptics have.
      Every time he opens his mouth, he manages to put more people off.
      I suspect the CAGW crowd wince every time he speaks.

  17. I wouldn’t call this “winning.”

    All the millions and millions of dollars the envirostalinists and eviroprofiteers have stuffed into the Global Warming — Save the Planet — Climate Change — What -EVER machine paid them back exactly this:

    Public Opinion
    Joe: So, like climate change is happening.
    Maria: But NO ONE gives a rat’s toothpick.

    Truth stands the test of time.

    You see, even with NO public education, the hoax would be unraveling.

    For, the burden of proof is and has always been on the climate hustlers.

    The public may not be highly knowledgeable about the AGW topic. They can, however, given enough time, spot a con-game.

    Time’s up.

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    Game over.

    ************************************
    And! Now that TRUMP WON :)

    the climate clowns will soon be out of a job:

    the circus tent is coming down.

    Patience.

    It is just a matter of time.

    ***************************************
    Re: Wallaces “to no avail” remark — He is overlooking what would have happened BUT FOR the fine work of the Baliuniases, Balls, Wattses, Salbys, Carters, Moncktons, LaFramboises, DeNovas, Koutsoyiannises, Hal Lewises, Tisdales, and on and on of the science realist side…

    Oh, no, Mr. Wallace. You are mistaken. MUCH has been done. Disaster has been prevented.

    Envirostalinism is on the wane.
    Enviroprofiteering is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

    All because some good people did NOT remain silent.

    Thank you, one and ALL of you — and YOU, TOO, YOU WONDERFUL WUWT SCIENCE GIANTS!!

    • No. Not when you examine the “evidence” Chad-
      http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

      The only people buying their brainwashing is liberal democrats. And even they aren’t buying it 97%!!! LOL
      42% of Democrats (as of 2015 Pew Poll) self identify as liberals. So less than one half of one half of the American voters if you exclude all Libertarians, Green Party, unaffiliated etc. LESS than 25% of all American voters self identifies as liberal. And of those-only HALF of them believe there is a scientific “consensus” on climate change.

      Dr Ball. I encourage you to look at the evidence. The statistics. The “measurements” of how the AGW/CAGW message is NOT being accepted by the vast majority of Americans. Not even CLOSE. They aren’t even close to winning any kind of WAR according to the evidence. My dad used to say “If it looks like cow sh$# and smells like cow sh$#, you don’t have to taste it to know it’s cow sh$#”. The average American can see it and smell it, and they are not falling for the agenda driven all-you-can-eat buffet.

  18. I wouldn’t call this “winning.”

    All the millions and millions of dollars the envirostalinists and eviroprofiteers have stuffed into the Global Warming — Save the Planet — Climate Change — What -EVER machine paid them back exactly this:

    Public Opinion
    Joe: So, like climate change is happening.
    Maria: But NO ONE gives a rat’s toothpick.

    Truth stands the test of time.

    You see, even with NO public education, the hoax would be unraveling.

    For, the burden of proof is and has always been on the climate hu$tlers.

    The public may not be highly knowledgeable about the AGW topic. They can, however, given enough time, spot a con-game.

    Time’s up.

    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    Game over.

    ************************************
    And! Now that TRUMP WON :)

    the climate clowns will soon be out of a job:

    the circus tent is coming down.

    Patience.

    It is just a matter of time.

    ***************************************
    Re: Wallaces “to no avail” remark — He is overlooking what would have happened BUT FOR the fine work of the Baliuniases, Balls, Wattses, Salbys, Carters, Moncktons, LaFramboises, DeNovas, Koutsoyiannises, Hal Lewises, Tisdales, and on and on of the science realist side…

    Oh, no, Mr. Wallace. You are mistaken. MUCH has been done. Disaster has been prevented.

    Envirostalinism is on the wane.
    Enviroprofiteering is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

    All because some good people did NOT remain silent.

    Thank you, one and ALL of you — and YOU, TOO, YOU WONDERFUL WUWT SCIENCE GIANTS!!

    • To answer the possible mis-reading of my asserting that even with no public education, the hoax would be unraveling WHILE I at the same time assert that the science giants listed and generally mentioned DID make a significant difference —

      The hoax was doomed — just a matter of time. Nevertheless, the science giants who boldly stood up and said, “This is JUNK!” averted disastrous consequences to the freedom, wealth, health of millions of people. That is, by getting the truth out MUCH SOONER than it would have if left to run its doomed course, disaster was averted.

      Note further: that ALL the disastrous consequences were not averted does not negate the GREAT IMPORTANCE of what was averted.

      Thus, the science realist giants for truth are HEROES for humanity!

      • i think Janice has put together the “gravitas” argument here. If skeptics keep on doing what they are doing and mother nature keeps on doing what she is doing, then eventually the truth will win out and in some ways has won out already.There’s probably (and pragmatically) no other way forward than that…

      • To Janice Moore:
        The CAGW hoax is not doomed … yet.

        It is still taught in schools as a “fact” by leftist teachers to brainwash children.

        Even if a miracle occurs, and people stop believing in CAGW, the leftists will come up with another hoax to scare people, and of course a more powerful government will be the “solution”, as usual.

        I hate to criticize anything you write, because you seem like such a nice person … but … your “Problems US Worry” chart is deceiving — people don’t worry about CAGW very much because they believe it progresses at a very slow speed — worrying about CAGW now would be like a teenager worrying about dementia when he is 16 years old.

        More important than what people worry about, is what they believe, and what they allow their government to spend their tax dollars money on — too many people still believe in CAGW, and want their government to ‘fight it.’

        Sadly, our new EPA Director Pruitt believes in AGW — just not ready to accept the “C” in CAGW, or even ridicule it.

        There was barely any change in the average temperature between the 1998 ands 2015 El Nino temperature peaks, and yet very few Americans have any idea we had that 17 year flat trend … which may still be in progress.

        When leftists develop a hoax, they keep it alive for decades — sometimes for their whole life.

        I expect decades from today leftists will still be saying “The Russians” got Trump elected !

    • I agree with Janice……”slight increase in the number of skeptics”…..and a huge increase in the numbers of don’t care

    • Not to mention, we’ve apparently entered a solar minimum. Nothing like shutdowns of whole regions and their major cities, with everyone up to their neck in snow, to change hearts and minds! :-))

  19. An argument against religion is only won when their gods are seen to desert the faithful . This raises the no win position that the war on energy can only be replaced by a more damaging cooling of the earths temperature.

  20. Wallace, Larry Kummer and others, ostensibly leaning to the sceptical side, don’t get it either. They both disappoint. It would be good if we had others of their writing skill who ‘got it’. These guys, and a lot of skeptics think it is a debate.

    They offer analyses and criticisms of the debate and better angles to attack, but are unaware that what we are really fighting is a NWO ideology of Neomarxbrothers. For the life of me, I believe most of the CAGW Team themselves and the legions of students and educators are totally unaware of the real masters they serve. What has been done on a global scale to the minds of billions is truly remarkable. The grey cardinals who pull the strings, the elites, number few. Of course it’s sold to the left easily, and that is why basically most opposed globally are Americans – fortunately more than half anyway. Much of the rest of the world is inured to surrendering their freedom and clearly, even civilization itself.

    Indeed, the UN, EU, China… and much of the world’s objective is an anti-American one. Bring America down (and have them pay for it, too). Obama was given one of the much devalued Nobel Prizes to try to buy him out and it wasn’t necessary to even try to do that. He’s anti American, too.

    The irony is, like conservationists trying to save the Nile crocodile from extinction while they try to snap their saviors’ asses off, America is indispensable to the wellbeing of the world. This is what pi$$es them all off. The laugh is that the only person who can save the world from itself is Trump!! LOL.

    Now imagine me trying to present this argument in the debate.

  21. Amen to Scott’s point above. Dr. Ball points out and clearly defines THE problems, they corrupted the science, they lied, they polished their political skills, they deep and wicked motives, etc. We got it! (Actually have had it for a long time.) But he didn’t provide the answers. What is the “little bit” of science that one can explain to show how the science was corrupted and WHAT is “their” motive (money?) AND more importantly, how does one, simply and succinctly prove it? What ARE – THE effective arguments? I’m sitting here with, “CLIMATE CHANGE, THE FACTS.” 285 pages of “FACTS” that I’ve read cover to cover. No summary. I hear there is a new one coming out. Does it have an Executive Summary? I can explain EXACTLY how a computer works, in under a minute, where a 5 year old can understand it. Can anyone here explain (and prove) the “corruption” in under a minute? How about THEIR wicked motives? All this wealth of knowledge here. And believe me, I am daily impressed with all of you that provide your expertise and knowledge here. Maybe the most valuable website on the Internet. BUT – – where’s the “Executive Summary”? (No knock on you, Anthony.) And do not ask me. I may be able to explain why a DIGITAL computer will NEVER accurately model as complex an ANALOG system as the global environment in which we exist but explain the corruption of science? Not a chance.

    • In the world of science, actual hard cold science, we don’t HAVE to prove motives. That’s for social scientists to slap each other with, like gloves at a duel. The FACTS are the science. The FACTS speak for themselves. The models don’t match reality. They fail. The “consensus” doesn’t change reality. All the screaming and shouting and pointing fingers at poor little CO2 molecules doesn’t change reality.

      What “little bit of science” matters? Just this- that NONE of the current changes in climate have been proven to be OUTSIDE of the normal range for natural variability. NONE. The average rate of warming measured by satellites since 1979 falls within the known rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. There no “science” that proves otherwise.

      Their motives don’t matter. Their lies don’t matter. Their propaganda doesn’t matter. Nature is proving them wrong over and over again. LET her. Stop getting caught up in the mind games and the insidious stupidity injected into the debate by social scientists like Cook and Lew. They are petty distractions. It doesn’t matter WHAT the motives are in science…only FACTS matter. Observable, verifiable, empirical measurements. And those prove them wrong. Period.

      • Don132
        “Wrong. Perception is reality. Propaganda molds perception.”

        Really? The philosophy of a political strategist is the best response you’ve got? What people perceive can be accurate representations of reality or not. It doesn’t change what is truly real. Propaganda molds perception, but so does truth. Fact. Evidence.

    • And it’s not a scientific debate at all. Read the comment above yours to understand why science can’t win this thing. It was Tims point too.

      • If no one stands for the science, then science will become a thing of the past. It will become irrelevent. If we abandon the FACTS to wrestle with pigs, then we’ll all end up face down in the mud. The FACTS the real science, is the only thing that makes our side different. The TRUTH. If we become agenda driven too, then WE lose the only advantage that science has ever had over every other human philosophy in history. Evidence. Empirical. Solid. Undeniable. Testable. Replicatable. Physical.

        THEY want to make this about morals. Virtue. Psychology. Myth. It’s why they AVOID the actual science, or lack of it, at all costs! Distraction! Name calling. Shaming. Sound bites. You want to fight like them? You might as well raise a white flag and drop your pants for the butt whooping!

        People ARE watching. They don’t have to understand the details of science to understand which side is using it. They don’t have to understand Russian to know what it sounds like. Dr Ball’s opinion is not FACT any more than Mickey Mann’s opinion is. The EVIDENCE shows that the majority of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE the consensus, nor do they believe that scientists believe it either!

        Now that has to be one of two things:
        Either our side is holding the fort in a historical battle and on some glorious morning in the future the sun will rise and amid the smoke the banner of science will be glimpsed still aloft, or
        Their side is firing blanks. Loud. Sparkly. Impotent blanks.

        The game ain’t over. But it’s the 4th quarter, times running out, they’re on the 4th down, and we’re up by ten.

      • @Aphan, who said: “Their side is firing blanks. Loud. Sparkly. Impotent blanks.”

        Dr. Ball’s point is that the other side is saying the same thing you are… and they have been winning for decades.
        Don’t think so? The IPCC still exists. The Montreal Accord still exists. For all the bluster of the new Administration, the Paris deal still exists. And most importantly, the average person in the United States still believes in the AGW theory as being a real thing (whether or not some poll or other indicates they may be concerned enough about it to take any particular action).

        As long as you throw scientific jargon at (what amounts to) a bull-horn wielding activist you are going to lose, if for no other reason than no one else can hear you.

      • This article is spot on. Alarmists don’t care about the facts, they care about talking points that will provide excellent media sound bites. Everyone, scientists included, need to read and internalize articles like “How to argue with an Alarmist,” (can’t remember where I read it and won’t look for it on my tablet) which lays out ways to counter the techniques used by Man et al. Improved argumentative skills are needed to accompany correct science. And using terms like “anomalies” and “mean” do not help when the public has no clue what they mean.

      • Aphan, the science still matters, but it is only one of the battles.

        Here, this is the problem with science. I can explain why co2 has as little effect over all, lower than the models. I can explain it. And I’ve been shouting as loud as I can, and in as many ways I can in this media, and few get it. And it’s actually quite simple, we all know the science, it hasn’t changed, just combined it does something that goes unnoticed.
        I mostly get ignored, and when I don’t, I get shown the same old made up trash that goes for climate science that just proves I am just a confused idiot.

        That’s what’s wrong with trying to win on the science.

      • As long as you throw scientific jargon at (what amounts to) a bull-horn wielding activist you are going to lose, if for no other reason than no one else can hear you.

    • “Executive Summary?” I’ll give it to you: The climate changes all the time. Always has, always will. Historical records beyond dispute show the world has been both MUCH warmer with MUCH higher CO2, and MUCH colder with somewhat less. All the reasons are not known. Most have to do with cycles of the sun, volcanic activity, ocean currents etc. What we DO know is all this took place long before modern man, and current miniscule changes are well within the bounds of historical norms. To the point that the reality is so mundane it’s BORING. There–how’s that?

  22. We have not “won” the war – simply because we have not had the time in which to win it. It is very difficult to prove a negative such as “More CO2 will not be a major factor in climate change”. In this case I suggest we need perhaps a thousand years of accurate, scientific observations. We have been at it for only about 20 years. Relax, Tim Ball.

  23. Fundamentally, it has never been proven that CO2 is capable of increasing global temperatures. I personally think it does just the opposite, since it constantly emits and only occasionally accepts a photon. That is, it emits because it is an emissive gas, is above absolute zero K, and has an ample supply of energy from both the inert atmosphere and from photons emitted from earth. CO2 molecules constantly emit photons. I don’t know the ratio, but I’d suspect a CO2 molecule emits thousands of photons for every photon received by radiation. They are lossy, unlike oxygen, nitrogen, argon, which only conduct energy (lose energy) through contact. Simply, CO2 cools the atmosphere.
    The very underpinning of the AGW hypothesis rests on ONE SINGLE idea – that CO2 traps energy and causes earth’s temperature to rise.
    In the 60’s, we sent men to the moon. Isn’t it worth it to actually use true science to evaluate CO2’s role INSTEAD OF accepting century-old experiments as fact? As a laser engineer, I know a lot about the behavior of gases. I also know that if it was proven that CO2 has nothing, whatsoever, to do with climate, then the ONE SINGLE IDEA behind AGW would be eliminated, thus bringing down the house of cards. It is a one-legged stool, and the AGW’ers have had a heyday keeping it balanced, because no one bothers to prove or disprove that one legged idea. It is time. And this administration, regardless of what I think of it, could fund sufficient studies to either validate or disprove the predominant hypothesis.
    I know there many that understand this – the gas laws don’t distinguish between types of gases, so NONE of the concepts of the gas laws is different for CO2 than it is for nitrogen.
    Lastly, 95% of all the CO2 released each year is natural – from the earth, and not from man’s activities. For the AGW hypothesis to be ‘true’ it would have to be proven that only 5% of the annual CO2 emission is responsible for ALL of the so-called CO2 warming that is claimed.
    Eliminate CO2 as a player. Remove the finding that CO2 is a dangerous gas. Let them come up with another concept other than CO2 as a man-made problem for earth.

    • I have to agree. Perhaps someone will correct us, but I have never seen any evidence that Carbon Dioxide actually causes warming in the real atmosphere. As you say unlike Nitrogen and Oxygen it is a radiative gas and will be radiating away any energy gained in collision with other gas molecules. So yes you will see infrared photons from Carbon Dioxide but it is a false assumption that they were all from scattered incident infrared photons.
      The other aspect that is assumed is that infrared photons returning to the surface will warm the surface. This is not true for the more than 70% of the Earth surface that is water or the surface that is vegetation. All incident infrared will be absorbed by the first water molecule a micron or so into the water surface and increase the evaporative heat loss from the surface as latent heat of evaporation is also taken. Convection then takes the heat higher into the atmosphere to release the latent heat of condensation and then freezing.

      Only rock and dry earth surfaces will be warmed by infrared and of course Stefan Boltzmann tells us that as the temperature of the dry surface increases for each degree C the radiation of heat will increase by the 4th power.

      Finally, why are ‘scientists’ using temperature as a metric for atmospheric heat content? Scientists should know that thanks to the presence of water droplets and vapour raising the enthalpy of the atmosphere the metric they should be using is kilojoules per kilogram. 100% humid air with mist droplets at 75F has more than twice the heat content of a similar volume of 0% humid air at 100F. a drop in tropospheric humidity could easily account for the fractions of a degree temperature change just by lowering the atmospheric enthalpy.

      Stop being dragged into the wrong arguments. Ask the alarmists why they are measuring atmospheric temperature, as it is the wrong metric? Ask them if they think infrared heats water..as it is 70% of the world’s surface.. Ask them if they know what a radiative gas is and what happens if you add a radiative gas to a mixture of warm non-radiative gases. Scoff at their ignorance then say that as they almost certainly knew the right answers why do they persist in misleading non-scientists?

    • I totally agree with you John. All efforts should go in that direction: explaining how CO2 can not be the factor driving temperature fluctuation.

  24. A great column here on WUWT. I agree that the issue is getting the FACTS out to the public. Problem is, the AGW crowd does not concern themselves with science. They have been indoctrinated by the media, Gore movies, and liberal educators at every level. Due to this incessant indoctrination, AGW has become a religion. Now you tell me, how do you refute religion??????????????????

  25. Don’t worry Dr. Ball. The truth always has a way of getting the last word. Now that we have had nearly 40 years of natural cyclical warming since the late 1970’s, that tide is shifting to a cooling trend as part of the next cyclical down turn in temps starting with the next dozen years and lasting through the 86 year solar cycle. When the warming doesn’t continue year after year as CO2 emissions creep higher, the jig will be up for CAGW. You can’t fool everyone all of the time, for too long.

    Humans have indeed caused some minor warming, but not to any extant that could be considered the new climatic driver. To say humans are now the driver of climate would be the height of arrogance and the public will understand that instinctively when the evidence proves otherwise and temperatures not only stop rising, but they level off and start fading to cooler annual temps as part of the natural solar cycle.

    Climate truth has been wandering in the desert the last 40 years…but that shall pass. What will seal the fate for CAGW will be the average folk over the next 15-20 years seeing that they were had by a group of deceivers in academia, politics, and media. Paying for crap and trade, or a carbon tax designed only to steal their hard earned money, it is likely they will be very mad to boot.

    Hopefully it doesn’t get too cold…

    • I don’t think Dr Ball is worried, he is simply stating a few well observed facts. And he is correct about Mann being the winner. He held court. The other three did not do a good job in curbing the untruths.

      It is what is said that is recorded, not good intentions and shoulder shrugging.

  26. I am sorry you don’t understand the dynamic. CO2 is the only theory in town. It doesn’t matter if it is a bad theory. It has no competition. As long as temps keep going up, (or can plausibly be made to appear to go up) even so slightly, people want an explanation. And they will take a bad explanation over none at all. That is why Mann wins.

    Now Svensmark’s explanation of climate change would be an opposing explanation that people might accept, but he can’t get the scientific community on board. He can’t seem to get any traction with it among the populace, scientific or otherwise. So AGW has no competition.

    The only way AGW dies is for temps to stay stagnant for another 20 years or so or for them to abruptly fall and stay down for awhile.

      • Nature will have the final say. But what was being discussed is winning a debate or the public perception. A bad explanation usually beats no explanation in the mind of the public. Try winning a legal case without an opposing explanation. It is damn hard if all you got is that the other side is wrong and you are not guilty or at fault.

      • David, as it happens I spent many a happy year winning legal cases. Public and political debates are an entirely different kettle of fish. Scientific debates are different again.

        Be patient. We’re all doing what we can.

    • David,
      This will be condescending, but I see no other way.

      1. The Left and the Climate Cultists pseudoscientists depend on the linear simplistic thinking your statement conveys/embodies (that is CO2 theory has no apparent external competition).

      2. Engineers, mathematicians, and scientists who understand (or studied) dynamical, non-linear systems also understand apparent oscillations and strange attractors behavior is common in nature. Internal variability of a complex system means there is no such thing as a static equilibrium.

      3. GlobalClimate is a non-linear, dynamical system (1st IPCC AR)

      4. Considering 1. – 3. above: CO2, nor any external forcing, is needed to explain the natural climate variability of the last 160 years, including the rise in GMST from 1980-2000. (Which is why the climate cultists wanted to get rid of the similar 1940’s GMST blip).

      • @joelobryan: This is exactly the problem Dr. Ball points out: you’re still trying to win a scientific argument using facts & figures, BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT, not ever, nor at any point.

        The “debate” (I use the term loosely) has always been a way to accrue political power over the poorly-educated. As such it is no different than the “debates” over gun rights, abortion, or pork-barrel spending. This “argument” (& those others as well) have always been and continue to be won by those willing to pander to emotion, simplistic thinking & a good TV/stage presence.

        Dr. Mann “won” with the average person simply because he (exempli gratia) “had the courage to show up, fight the good fight, and tell those clowns where to stick their denialism!” He was sincere & direct & unequivocal, while the legit scientists were being the exact opposite — or put another way, while they were being professional, credible scientists who are legitimate experts in the field of study supposedly under discussion. I’ve said this before, but Dr. Ball has said it far more eloquently than I: the “climate science debate” has never been about the science.

        As such, I’ve long since given up believing that this battle can be won with facts, or evidence; even clear, simple logic is useless as ammunition at this point, because the argument is Political, Emotional, verging on Religion for many. And just how many religious folk do you know who are persuaded to depart from their faith because of something as mundane as “scientific evidence?” Hmmm?

  27. Prime mover #1 for the anti CAGW message in the USA and by association much of the world: We no longer have a POTUS and administration championing Climate ‘Change’ every chance they get and inserting it in every department’s agenda. Instead we have an administration that is openly skeptical. That’s a HUGE difference. Remember, AGW is last on the list of concerns for US citizens so expecting a full metal jacket assault this early is presumptuous.

  28. Very good article but a little pessimistic. Unlike a physical war this is a battle between those who would use the good name of science for their own purposes and those who would see the scientific method prevail.

    Each of the events which should have derailed the alarmist gravy train have had an effect. Those who would see the scientific method prevail also got really luck when Trump was elected. That was a real circuit breaker and opportunity.

    Just remember that the Roman Empire did not collapse overnight, but there was a point where its collapse became inevitable. Keep doing what you can. You just never know how close you are to a tipping point until you pass it.

    • And when the Roman Empire faltered, the Roman Catholic Church arose. Same intentions, except the money flowed the other way, inward. Control over a large portion of the people still eminates from Rome.

  29. “Trump won in the minds of working and middle-class people, which is where the climate war must be won for lasting victory.”
    I reckon this hits the proverbial nail!

  30. To the mods…I left a comment on this post just below Myron Mesecke’s comment around an hour or two ago. Why has it been removed?

  31. One of their wars to send the human race to the stone age (except those of their religion) was lost before they even started- they had no chance whatsoever. Other wars to send money and power to their friends- very hard to fight.

  32. This is truly a fascinating debate. My entire interest in the issue is precisely this; how can such a flawed theory, with holes the size of mountains, become so widely accepted? For some reason, climate alarmists have managed to frame the issue from day one. Why has this happened? We forever hear that 2016 or 2015, or whatever, is the hottest year on record. But this is nothing but a red herring. The issue is the rate of temp increase. It’s now been 30 years since James Hansen went to congress and the global temp has risen barely a fraction of a degree. Yet we never hear this. His predictions have failed miserably. On a positive note, most people think global warming is a non issue. They just don’t care enough right now because they don’t see how it affects them. And maybe it doesn’t. Taxes go up slightly, so do power bills. Nothing really substantial. Nothing will change, however, until the Michael Mann’s of the world are successfully cast as villains.

    • Jim, “My entire interest in the issue is precisely this; how can such a flawed theory, with holes the size of mountains, become so widely accepted? For some reason, climate alarmists have managed to frame the issue from day one.”
      To me ? , Money and exposure through the MSM, These people set it up like a movie or a theatrical play; Every one involved had a role, a contract and a salary to do this. The Nobel Price scenario was the set up, they started it ( just look at Obama’s “Peace Price” after being president for what 3 months?), just about everybody is under the impression that a Nobel Price winner is some sort of “god” and from then on the skeptics were on the losing end. I know this sounds simple but think of the method. The “masses” are easily manipulated and the left has been doing it for a century. Those that control the media are way ahead of the truth.( What was it again? A lie is half way across the planet before the truth gets it’s boots on, these days with the net the truth can’t even get out of bed before the lie has circled the world a few hundred times.). I am afraid we will have a hard time to change this and unless the skeptics don’t get “hard assed” we will continue to be on the losing end. I am also afraid that this ( Dr. Ball’s) article will get smacked by the MSM.
      Sorry about the rant but was said in and with a lot of frustration and anger.

    • “This is truly a fascinating debate. My entire interest in the issue is precisely this; how can such a flawed theory, with holes the size of mountains, become so widely accepted?”

      This “humans causing the Earth’s climate to change” narrative has been decades in the making.

      From the 1940’s to the 1970’s, climate scientists were concerned with Global Cooling. As temperatures went down, they kept predicting they would continue to go down and the Earth was going to enter another ice age, and after a while they started connecting human activities to the cold as one cause.

      Then in the late 1970s, the temperatures started heating up, and Global Cooling was no longer the issue, instead it became Global Warming, and of course, humans were causing it. The Global Cooling promoters just did a 180 degree turn and became Global Warming promoters as soon as the temperatures changed.

      When the Global Warming narrative first started, there was not much information on which to base an opinion pro or con. It took a while for skeptics to start making their voices heard on the subject, as knowledge increased. By that time, the narrative had been established in the public mind, not based on facts, but on pure speculation.

      As time goes on, more and more people develop a vested interest in continuing the CAGW narrative because of the money and political power they stand to gain from it.

    • How about this retort to the CAGW promoters: Hey, you guys were wrong about Global Cooling. Why should we think you are now right about Global Warming?

  33. The Lee Iacocca quote puts the failure on communication, in this case the inability of skeptics to convince. As experience shows, this is true; the skeptics present reasoned arguments and the AGW believers are immune to them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him think. Surprisingly this applies to many scientists too.

    “If the science was wrong why and how did it pass peer review and go unchallenged?”
    Good question. An even better question is “how can we fix the science process?”.

    “If it was deliberate malfeasance, how could so few people fool the entire world? Either way, if you make or infer the charge, you must provide an explanation and a motive.”
    These two questions are not mutually exclusive. Explanations and motives have been provided, many of them.

    A few years ago, you could have tried to reason why God does not exist. It wouldn’t have worked. Now it’s the other way around for many. Something changed, and not because of any logical reasoning. AGW is almost on that level. Belief will eventually change, Until then you are a missionary, making one convert at a time.

    • I will note, this election season for about half the population, revealed a corruption that you would only find in a comic book, as other fiction novel would never be written, as to be too unbelievable that people would not read it.

      And yet, the other half thinks we’re crazy.

    • Same goes for the 40-year war on “saturated fat” as a supposed direct cause of heart disease.

  34. “Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.” Well said! The meme thrives on faulty argumentation but faulty argumentation has been forthcoming from Ball, Singer and the others. To defeat the meme, Ball, Singer, and the rest of us must expose the meme for what it is: a swindle.

  35. I think a lot of us with science backgrounds would profit from reading the history of Athens. We are so focused on science that we can’t see that the AGW campaign is really an exercise in the kind of “democracy” that brought Athens to her knees in 403 BC. Al Gore has no credentials as a scientist, but he knew how to whip up a mob. Ditto the Science Guy. Just consider Nye’s ridiculous experiment with the two cookie jars. He had no idea of what he was doing, but he wanted others to believe and honor him, and he found a huge audience that wanted to go along with his fantasy. Contrast that silly piece of theatre with any of G. I. Taylor’s videos about fluid dynamics, and you will understand the enormous gulf that separates the public face of the AGW crowd from classical western science.

    Very few of us would regard a life spent along the lines of Gore or Nye as one worth living. But they glory in the apparent adulation. So too Michael Mann and the rest of that crew. The advancement of knowledge in the realm of science is of no concern to them, or they would have apologized a long time ago. But that doesn’t concern them. They are focused on other things that they believe are of greater importance.

    Most of us are concerned about preserving some small semblance of integrity in the fields to which we have devoted so much time and effort. But that is tangential to the public policy problem as it has been framed. And we don’t seem to be aware that the ground is shifting under the very fabric of our society in similar ways in other intellectual venues. A large segment of the educational community is devoted to replacing our heritage of the rule of law, private property, and the endowment of fundamental rights in all humans with a slapdash philosophy that based mainly on greed and envy, and is packaged as “social justice”. Few of our children understand why America was formed as a federation of states, with careful delineations of federal power amongst coequal branches, and a 10th Amendment that reserved rights to individuals beyond those specifically mentioned in the preceding nine amendments. Instead, they presume a rightful world would be one that is ruled by the majority, with no rights for those not in the majority. This is the tragedy of Athens replayed once again. Worse, few in Europe, the sewer that immersed the world in global wars twice in the last century, have ever embraced ideas like those that created the United States of America. And yet these throwbacks to a age of feudal values, the idea of rule by a select elite, are regarded as the hope for the future.

  36. Perhaps there are too many government funded”climate change” jobs here at stake. Right down to the makers of nature documentaries that finish off with a plug for “man made climate change”.

  37. The problem would have evaporated long ago except the biased MSM are not the independent news reporters of long ago. Most of them are activists who support the Democrat philosophy and have thus bought into the Lysenkoism that is now an inseparable part of it.

      • Another problem is that “news” has become “entertainment” and they are becoming indistinguishable one from the other. The only mandate is getting clicks, eyeballs and ratings, Truth is irrelevant.

  38. As Eddie Izzard has said in his “Dress To Kill” special, the trick to winning the war on climate change follows a formula:

    70% how you look
    20% how you sound
    10% what you say (or in other words, the truth)

    If you really want to know why we aren’t winning the war, it’s because the population is too stupid to know right from wrong, science fact from science fiction, fabrication from research, truth from lies—and ultimately the war is about emotions, not science. It is far easier to show implied plight of starving polar bears, of melting glaciers, of cyclone devastation, and claim “If only we didn’t burn fossil fuels, all these things would no longer happen!” regardless of how big a lie that actually is. Emotions spur action, period. Few have the critical thinking skills and willingness to devote the necessary time to research the topic in order to arrive at a conclusion of their own. It is far easier (as well as human nature) to defer to others when an individual feels ignorant about a topic, or weighs the ROI cost associated with learning said topic sufficiently to be their own expert. This is why doctors take a “throw as much against the wall to see what sticks” approach to health care, why financial planners will suggest investments which do nothing but line their own pocket, and why scientists will look towards consensus herd mentality when their personal research funding is on the line.

    You want to win the war? Start making AGW skepticism about emotions. It’s not about the science, it’s about the formula.

  39. In some sense the skeptics are winning the war. Roughly half the American population views the claims of the alarmists with skepticism.

    What would it take to bring around the other half? Reality. If the global temperature refuses to rise at a fast enough rate then enough climate scientists will eventually become uncomfortable with the consensus that the dam will break. But it may take decades to play out.

    Of course, there’s also the possibility that the alarmists will be proven correct.

  40. Lots of comments here, so this will probably get lost in the haze. The motive is: Carbon dioxide is the holy grail of pollutants. Everything else. Everything. Can be mitigated or eliminated from industrial emissions. Almost everything has commercial value. SO2 from metal smelters, fly ash from coal plants, are two examples. The green movement figured out how to kill industry and they have been running with it ever since. They hate capitalism. They hate success. They hate the US. And they hate anyone and everyone who doesn’t hate these things as much as they do. The result is they believe they are on the side of the angels and they can do and say anything. The solution is to ask why they hate. Don’t argue. QUESTION. When you comment on a story in the news, don’t get angry. Don’t argue facts. Ask the person why they hate so much and what they have against the poor. If they ask for specifics, don’t give any. They will prove your point without a reply. Make them look like the angry ones because they are. Politely ask them if their friends are as cruel and hateful as they are. Don’t engage too much. Let them rant on and prove your point. Realize that people are trying to bait you. Don’t go beyond a single comment. When arguing with a friend, say “ok, ok, I surrender, jeez I didn’t know you were this crazy about things”. Don’t explain why they are crazy. Let it fester in their minds. An excellent thing to do is throw up your hands and say “can’t argue facts with a zealot”. And don’t. Don’t argue facts. Quietly and calmly and continuously point out that you can’t argue with zealots. If they say” am I a zealot”, don’t say yes or no, say “can’t argue with zealots”. Most importantly. QUESTION. Not the science. Question their morals. Their motives. Their need to be superior. Their anger. Finally, remember that in most forums there are more than you and your adversary. There are lots of others reading. Those are the people you are convincing, not the zealot arguing with you.

    • Whether your method of dealing with them is right, I’m not sure, but I think your right about the motive. It’s ‘the earth has cancer, and we are it’ idea which underlies the modern environmental movement, although many groups are too smart to come right out and say that, they don’t want to alienate less radical contributors. But deep down it’s the driving philosophy: any effect humans have on nature must be a bad one. Undoing all human influence on the planet is their lofty goal. For such believers evidence that the human contribution to climate change is small and that the majority is natural will be no reason to give up the battle.

  41. To be fair on the Christy, Pielke, Curry trio, they were not invited to comment on Mann’s latest published paper, or for any one of a number of purposes that Dr Ball suggests as desirable. They were before a committee to examine “Assumptions, Policy Implications & the Scientific Method” re Climate Science.
    I credit the trio for having the wisdom to see Mann digressing from the terms of reference and for taking the more correct path, rather than following Mann’s wrong path. Dr Ball, which path would you suggest was proper?
    Much of what you write has been observed for years. There is not so much a problem of not knowing a sceptical case, more a problem of how to have it heard. The good, positive suggestions you make are fairly self-evident, but the ways to have them heard when MSM, Learned Societies etc are strongly batting for the other team, are difficult to achieve.
    Perhaps you have not chosen the best example with this Hearing. Much of what you write seems more applicable to another example, maybe a more general one.
    Geoff

  42. Sadly, I have to agree with Tim Ball on his analysis of the situation and several others who expanded on that same theme. Anybody who looks honestly at the science would have a hard time finding anything to suggest an impending catastrophe from an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere….and plenty to suggest that it might actually be beneficial. But, as we know, most people don’t look at the science and their sources are the MSM, newspapers, the popular science press (perhaps), social media and, of course, the Hollywood glitterati. What were once objective & reasonably-balanced sources of actual news (e.g. BBC) have become rabid endorsers & promoters of CAGW and all other manner of unfounded “green” fantasies. Delivering soundbites, heartstring-tugging photos and outrageous fantasist visions of a world in the near future without hydrocarbons are the kinds of things that ensure total belief in the “new religion” and confirmation that what is being done is right. Recruiting national institutions (Various learned societies, National Geographic, high-profile TV naturalists like Sir David Attenborough, etc. etc.) trumps (sic) anything offered up by those of us who seek to derail this circus.

    As somebody else commented, one of the key issues has been the subversion of the education system. Children are taught this distorted reality from an early age all through school so anyone who challenges that “received wisdom” must clearly be wrong or have some agenda. I encountered this situation personally with my own son, recently – a 1st class Honours graduate in Chemical Engineering – and was shocked beyond belief. Apart from the education system, there are many other inputs that help sustain this nonsense. Anyone who has watched kids cartoons in recent years will quickly encounter the kinds of eco-junk preaching (as opposed to genuine & valid environmental stewardship) that insidiously continues the indoctrination of a brand new generation of believers.

    In the long game, science and Nature will ultimately prevail but that might not be anytime soon and, indeed, the risk to genuine science is acute. Eco-religious dogma is replacing critical thought. It may be time to consider new strategies to counter this dangerous and egregious movement. Removing or denying funding may be one approach but it is insufficient IMHO. The recent uptick in hysterical comments from the MSM and the deluge of alarmist verbal diarrhea is designed to keep the faithful in line and to overcome any doubts these adherents may have. We need to start using whatever means we can to get the message out including, if necessary, the same techniques used by the CAGW proponents. We need brave, vocal, succint communicators to explain the reality and get the facts across to billions of people…..or we risk losing this fight. And that’s a very dark thought indeed.

    • I look at the science.

      When I read a story in the ‘MSM’ I find mostly there is a link to the science and I go read it.

      And the science overwhelmingly says ‘it is warming, the climate is changing and the effects are not mostly beneficial’

      When I read skeptic views, they often first attack the MSM – the messenger – without referencing the linked to science.

      I am not prepared to believe that the likes of New Scientist, which I have been reading for 50 years, is for example some sort of lefty/biased/got at publication. It remains a leading reporter of science as it always was.

      • Griff,
        Pretty well all climate stories in the MSM are alarmist, and are probably based on a new scientific paper that is also alarmist. So, if you check on the scientific paper it will also be alarmist.
        The problem is that papers generally only cover alarmist stories and ignore sceptical stories. After all, it’s catastrophes that sell newspapers.

        Are you serious about the New Scientist? I bought it regularly for some decades, but a few years ago stopped buying it. I refuse to support a magazine that promotes scientific fraud.
        And it has been hopelessly wrong. Some years ago it ran an article entitled “The Continent that Ran Dry”. It was about the Australian drought that had lasted for years. Naturally, according to NS it was all the fault of climate change. Presumably they believe there have only been droughts since CO2 was invented.

        I looked up the BOM web site to find the precipitation data. It was excellent, I just had to select a region and up popped the precipitation graph from around 1900 onwards. First, it was apparent that for the entire continent there had been an increasing trend for some time. The drought was not continent-wide, which is strange if it was caused by “climate change” or global warming.

        I then looked at the regions affected by the drought. Rainfall had indeed been falling somewhat over recent years. But, looking further back, rainfall had increased significantly over previous decades, and had been above average. In reality, the falling trend simply showed that rainfall was returning to its long term average.
        According to the data the continent had not run dry and the article was pure anti-scientific propaganda. And i seem to recall that Australia has had rather a lot of rainfall since then!

        When I checked the BOM site recently I could find no trace of those useful and easy to use graphs. It’s as if they have tried to hide that inconvenient data.

        Right here at WUWT you’ll see an enormous amount of discussion of the science, and your comment about “referencing the linked to science” is completely wrong.
        Time after time sceptics show how the empirical data contradicts and refutes so much of the alarmist science.
        If you think CAGW is right, how do you explain the enormous discrepancy between the measured global temperatures and the climate models? They are out by around 100%.
        Chris

      • Whatever it is you think you are looking at, it isn’t science. It is what Dr. Feynman referred to as “Cargo Cult Science”. You have amply demonstrated your total lack of interest in actual science, in your role here as token climate troll.

      • Griff: Either you’re reading completely obscure papers and listening to a MSM that is in an alternate reality, or I suspect you suffer from the most serious case of selective attention I have ever seen.
        Your last sentence indicates a serious confirmation bias.

      • Congratulations Griff, you must be the most juvenile retiree in the world!
        Which coal mines did you grow up near again?
        Is you ‘identity’ under threat from reading these comments about your ‘religion’?

      • Come on, Griff…..you can’t be serious! If you really did read the science (or looked at the actual data), you couldn’t possibly make such a statement. A minor and unremarkable warming trend in effect during the blink of an eye in terms of our planet’s 4 billion year history doesn’t presage the end of the world. ALL the scientific evidence points to the fact that cyclical ice ages are the phenomena to fear and that warmer periods with higher atmospheric CO2 levels are beneficial for the planet AND its inhabitants.

        As for New Scientist, I’m afraid you are being misled. I gave up on it a long, long time ago. So should you!

    • Fortunately, the term “snowflake” (I personally like “dewdrop” better) is beginning to swirl. I believe this counter meme will wreck much havoc on the CAGW belief.

      Although I do agree with you and Dr. Ball, generally, all it takes from huge numbers of people to simply drop CAGW in its tracks, are some bad blackouts due to the Wind Turbine fantasy. Hopefully, the people of the UK will actually learn from the South Australians, and not need to prove it to themselves. But after a few of these unfortunate and damaging cases, I am quite optimistic that the CAGW cult will be sufficiently marginalized. Unfortunately, this actually supports Dr. Ball’s argument. People have been brainwashed and propagandized. We cannot easily undo that unfortunate fact. But it will end with experiential learning.

      Okay, Griff, baby, I teed it up for you. Now knock me out of the park with a brilliant expert opinion on how wonderful wind power will be. Don’t forget to add how productive and efficient this will be for human economies. We’ll all be swimming in “green wealth.”

      Oh, yeah I forgot to mention, ridicule will also slowly erode some of the brainwashing. Ridicule CAGW beliefs as often, and cleverly as you can. I made a motivational poster about failing grids due to wind turbines: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2gSdrnbsEEOcWVfUm1UVTAxbFU

  43. Thanks Dr Ball

    1. Congressional testimony is theatre. Cuedos to opposition for seeing battlefield.
    2. Most common mistake that the genuine make is to treat the disingenuous kindly.
    3. Thieves love to lurk in the dark. They are happy that CAGW is low interest. The BIS is counting the money while side deals are carved out with BRICs.
    4. Politics is the front stage game for backstage decision making. Please stop hoping they will ultimately fix this charade. The patient was in ICU. All DJT gave you was a temporary breather.

    Pathological behaviors dont play by the same rules you do. First there are the thieves and then there are the sycophants. The sycophants are hooked much in the same way they are hooked to any of the current CULTURE BATTLES. The common theme is they see it as an injustice and an expression of the patriarchy. Facts are last on the list of things that matter to the audience you are trying to persuade. Ahhh INDENTITY POLITICS.

    Watch someone like Jordan Peterson and how he exploded on the scene (over 20M views in 6 months) concerning the absurdity of multiple genders and C16. He taps his little monster to deal with outright monsters. He’ll sprinkle a little science here and there but as a clinical psychologist he knows what hes dealing with and lowers the boom on the absurd.

    CAGW has to be equated with ABSURDITY before the pendulum swings. Your making headway with some right side of the bell curve thought leaders among the masses. Continue to target those cool kids/adults and the rest of the masses follow.
    Once you elevate the absurdity youll elevate the cultural attention and the thieves will go onto something else. Thieves hate the spotlight.

    Methods. Team up your resources and use the cool tools of the day. Visual media is where its at. For example, virtual reality (VR) is about to begin to dominate. Beat them to it.

    You have a golden opportunity.
    You CAN beat them at their own game.

  44. I personally think that one of the reasons sceptics have such difficulty getting their message across can be seen on this page. Instead of using data or science to argue their case, they use politics or economics. The usually answer to evidence posters don’t like is to suggest such ideas are based in left wing beliefs or the claim that researchers are just appealing for cash.
    You need more than that.
    You need valid studies which support your stance. Some people do use such resources, but they are painfully absent in many responses.

    • You need valid studies which support your stance.

      No you don’t. That just gets you into a “my studies are more credible than your studies and mine are 97%” argument.

      All you need is to understand SB Law and CO2 is logarithmic. If you understand those two very basic things, the alarm is over. The challenge is that despite how basic these things are, try explaining them to an average adult and their eyes glaze over in seconds.

      But I would argue that skeptics ARE winning the war, just not on the timescale of a human life. For how long did the average person believe the earth was flat? Centuries? The prevailing theory in optics was that you could “see” because of rays shooting out of your eyes. Simply asking why you could not then, shut your eyes and see the backs of your eyeballs, ought to have doomed such a silly notion, yet it was prevailing “science” for nearly a thousand years.

      Skeptics are winning a very long slow battle. If we were losing, a few billion people would be starving to death right now, and most of the rest of us would be living in abject poverty. We’re not because governments know that the very fastest way to be thrown out of power (in a democracy) is to sewer the economy, and tyrants know that the very fastest way to foment rebellion is to sewer the economy. So they all pay lip service to the CAGW meme because it is a convenient fiction with which to increase taxes provided they are not raised to much that the economy gets sewered.

      It may take decades or even centuries, but somewhere down the line our descendants will look at CAGW in the same history chapter as tulip mania.

      • Totally agree. In 100’years, we will study this issue to determine how this insanity could possibly happen and how science was perverted for personal gain, as well as the group think that has really propelled the issue. Governments from wealthy countries right now pay lip service to the issue and throw small scraps of money at it, but they will never do anything to jeopardize the economy.

    • What ‘evidence’? There isn’t any, none at all. All you have is a slight moderation of lower temperatures at night and in the winter in the northern hemisphere, resulting in very slightly increased averages in certain locations, not globally. The reason, simply the effect of increased concentration of removal of vegetation due to larger cities/towns due to population growth and migration.
      ‘CO2’ is a mythical monster. God help the human race, it hates itself.

    • Gareth Phillips

      You are so WRONG, it may not be possible to be MORE wrong.

      Dr. Ball’s article is about the politics of CAGW — he is an expert and a victim of climate politics.

      His article is not filled with data — why would you expect the comments to contain data and numbers?

      CAGW is a left wing false boogeyman to scare people into allowing their government to seize more power over the private sector, through new regulations and new taxes on energy use.

      The climate itself, in 2017, is as good as it has ever been for humans, animals and plants, in at least 500 years.

      Nights are not as cold as they used to be, and more CO2 in the air is greening the planet.

      The climate in 2017 is wonderful — there is no problem — and the average temperature range since 1850 has been unusually small (one degree C.)… and within honest margins of error for the measurements
      (+/- 1 degree C.).

      Predicting the future climate is not science.

      If you don’t realize that, then you need a Climate Science 101 course.

      Predictions of the future climate are meaningless because specific causes of climate change are unknown, and that’s why we have 30 years of consistently wrong (97% wrong) predictions … and 3% of predictions are “right” only by chance — like a stopped watch being “right” twice a day.

      By “predictions” I mean GCM (climate model) simulations.

      There are no data for the future climate / average temperature.

      There are no studies / predictions of the future climate that can be accepted as “valid” without waiting at least a few decades to see what happens — even then a lucky guess could be mistaken for a good prediction.

      The CAGW skepticism should be based on seeing an obvious hoax (the false claim that humans can predict the future climate).

      You can’t fight speculation about the future with science — CAGW is a “catastrophe” that is always invisible (unless your body can detect very slight warming outdoors at night, while you sleep) and is always off in the future — the perfect political boogeyman.

      CAGW is 99% politics and 1% science.

      Based on your comment, you have no clue that is true.

      I provide a free climate blog for non-scientists
      as a public service, at this link:
      (You need some learning).

      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  45. Kill Climate Change and everything connected to it by killing off its money flow. Start with the UN and governments. Everything else will fall away. Thank god for Trump! It only takes one determined powerful person backed up by millions of people who believe Climate Change sucks to make it happen.

    • Trump will not do what is necessary, because his daughter and Rex T are supportive of the IPCC and its alarmism.

      Pruitt only looks to roll back regulations, not CO2 mania.

      Lets face it, Our three blew it. They even admitted to “believing” that humans caused SOME climate change. They are simply not up to the task of convincing anyone. For example, Judith correctly points out the 1910 to 1940 warming rate being the same, but prior to significant man made CO2. This is a hugely important fact. It refutes ANY claim that we can attribute ANY warming to our CO2 since 1975. Any warming effects due to agriculture are not relevant to the argument. Judith is a timid mouse up against wolves. Intelligence and credentials do not count.

      Thus Tim Ball is correct. The skeptic side was a huge failure, because our ‘representatives’ are hopelessly outmatched in the political arena. They should stay home.

      Richard Lindzen and William Happer are better at it.

  46. Dear Tim

    I personally find the whole affair becomes much more comprehensible if one adopts a point of view about global warming, which is that it is not , and never was, anything to do with science.

    I believe it was created by a powerful political and commercial cartel, for the purposes of power control and profit: Its goal was to use the Green movement to demonize and shut down primarily the coal industry.

    That was the commercial motive.

    The political motives were I believe somewhat more complex. The 20th century was the age of oil. Who owned it and controlled it owned and controlled the world. I believe it is no coincidence that Wahhabism, the ideology behind modern Jihad and Islamic extremism, is a product of Saudi Arabia, the richest oil state in the world. Rising oil prices and a world scarcity of oil feeds directly into the power and the pockets of those who own and control the resources. Taxing fossil fuels does not matter of all markets can be persuaded to tax them equally. Huge rises in government revenues result, and the price of oil can be leveraged upwards without being noticed amongst the tax hikes. High oil prices leverage existing assets of oil and gas reserves.

    What all this amounts to in socio-economic and political terms is a squeeze on the net disposable incomes of – mainly – the middle classes and a direct transfer of their wealth into corporate and government pockets. The rich get richer, ‘Liberal’ governments get more powerful, and the people pay.

    Some commenters have decried the association of this sort of political and corporate cartel with socialism: I think this is quite wrong. Green and Left (Liberal to the US reader) politics are both prime tools in the hands of this particular elite, and they have long ago bought both movements and turned them into nothing more nor less than marketing tools to sell their own style of power grab to the ignorant (but well educated) masses. In a similar vein Wahhabism is being sold to the less well educated, but just as ignorant, masses of a more Islamic persuasion.

    What drives this elite is profit and control of populations. The ideal state from their perspective is a world of willing slaves, controlled not by shackles, but by belief. They have realised that for the purpose of political and social control, at least, what matters is not the facts, but what people believe. And the group most easy to manipulate is in fact the educated middle class, who think they can think, and think they are intelligent. Because they can be ‘baffled with bullshit’ . They respect and applaud those who they believe to be secretly cleverer than they are, and they are blindsided by moral arguments: Having a high opinion of themselves, they must need to play whatever games appear to give them, moral and intellectual status.

    All this has been knows since the ‘полезные дураки’ — the ‘useful idiots’ of the intelligentsia were recognised by the Soviet state as the key to controilling huge sectors of the population. And the hounding of dissidents out of the public eye and into the gulags the key to maintaining control.

    In a democracy, you control not by force, but by the power of your narrative. Even in a totalitarian police state this is a more efficient way, too. And this I believe is the key to both understanding and to countering the particular subsection of the post truth socalisist narrative which we understand as ‘climate change’.

    Climate change, the narrative, has succeeded because quite simply huge amounts of money have been poured into the key parts of the narrative generation and dissemination process to ensure it did. As I stated from the outset, nothing to do with science at all. Science is only there to provide a veneer of intellectual respaectability. 300 years ago it would have been religion, with witchcraft on trial. Today it is science, and carbon dioxide.

    The campaign has made use of the Big Lie extensively and also projection. In fact big corporate interest sand indeed big oil and gas are behind this. The big lie is to run a campaign ostensibly against their interests, to disguise this. As is becoming completely apparent, replacement of fossil fuels by any other technology than nuclear is simply not going to happen. For all the noise made about renewables, their impact on the carbon fuel market is negligible, and they provide a handy source of government guaranteed income to power generating corporates. What is not to like? Climate change can be used to replace coal with gas, the green movement can be mobilised against nuclear and new gas (fracking), governments have a ready excuse to implement de facto, if not de jure, state control of energy, and profits can be guaranteed by legislation and cartel price fixing.

    And if the sheeple object, just cut off their supplies via the new green eco friendly ‘smart meters’!

    The oil and gas industry is the biggest global market in any commodity. Exxon’s revenue is around £250bn annually. (https://www.statista.com/topics/1783/global-oil-industry-and-market/) . Do you really think that if Exxon wanted to stop AGW it doesn’t have the resources to not only stop it, but also to stop it without its presence even being noticed? Of course Exxon knew, knew years ago, that renewable energy was a crock of manure that would never work, that anthropogenic climate change was probably not real, and that whilst it hadn’t started AGW, there was nothing to be gained by opposing it, and everything to be gained by going along with it. Yea even unto starting a fake campaign to expose itself, only to have that campaign collapse in the light of evidence. The Big Lie, that Big Oil was the enemy, not one of the perpetrators, of AGW was safe…

    AGW delivers all the chattering class intellectual moral poseurs to the ballot box with their voting cards already filled in. It justifies a communist style state takeover of the biggest market in real goods in the world, and state control of what is the lifeblood of any post industrial modern Western nation. That is the Devil’s bargain. Big Oil gets its profits, and Big State gets its political control and the ability to exercise a stranglehold on the population if and indeed when the looming economic and demographic crises finally hit. Remember those in power believe, rightly or wrongly, in Malthus. When growth slows and stops and goes into reverse, they want to be the ones in control who don’t die in the general holocaust of a global economy that has run out of the fuel to make it run, just as the population peaks. To do that, they need to be (in the limit) a communist style non democratic police state, and that is of course what they have tried to build. With a considerable degree of success.

    You may think I am paranoid, but that isn’t the quality in play here, what is in play is total lack of idealism and a world weary cynicism learnt around tables with companies like (the late) Arthur Andersen. These boys employ some of the best brains in the world, they have massive resources at their disposal, they are no way stupid, and they are cynical to a level that is simply beyond the belief of the average normal pleasant human being. And that is how they do it. No one in their wildest dreams believes the depths to which a collection of humans on multi million dollar salaries will sink to preserve them.

    In short we should, I believe, understand AGW as nothing more than a convenient lie invented by a particular elite group to further their social political and economic ambitions. Similar lies – Nazism, Communism, Wahhabism, are also in play or have been used by the same class of people, and in fact it’s the way the world has always worked. The peasants are too powerless to resist, although they don’t believe in any of it. The intellectual middle classes are susceptible to well crafted intellectual nonsense and guilt at being slightly better off than the peasants, whilst the elites sit and plan the next campaign in total contempt of everyone else…

    …Until the Internet.

    Without the Internet none of us – myself certainly – would have been aware of the monstrous deception played upon us. For a brief moment communication not controlled by the elites has taken place – its being attended to now though, and net censorship is big on everyone’s agenda, under the guise of protecting poor innocent naïve Netizens from nasty violent abusive Trolls… But the Internet coincided with this particular piece of well crafted BS, and here we are drinking in Anthony’s Internet bar, and discussing the travesty of science that exists, not because it is in fact perverted science, but because it is simply political marketing wearing a white lab coat to give it a spurious veneer of authenticity.

    How can we oppose it? Well the best thing has already happened. The voters chose Trump. There is a chance that he won’t go along with the RINO and Liberal narratives. He is a maverick. He is already rich enough to carry a high price on his soul. You might buy it for a billion, but a million? No chance.

    If large sections of the Green blob are deprived of the oxygen of dollars, then they will be unable to fund the publicity, and without the constant drip feed of steady liquid manure into the tender ears of those who consider themselves to be more intelligent than they really are, the interest will wane. It is after all, with the champagne socialists, more a matter of fashion, than anything else. Radical chic in fact is what drives that game. Big oil is neutral. Coal is pretty much dead in Europe, the Chinese never listened anyway, nor the Indians, and in any case its not such a great play in the US either. So Big Oil wont interfere with the demise of AGW in all likelihood. What is left is government, and a lesser interest in renewable energy.

    And Trump has already shown that by and large disowning ‘climate change’ is not a vote loser at least. In Europe the fashion is now the EU and political structures in general, and people are bored with climate change. And so are the ruling elites. The principle of state control of energy is now almost achieved, and the greater threat right now is that the state that imposed those controls is in danger of collapsing under its own inability to satisfy its citizens,. I don’t say electorates, because not one commissioner of the European Union has ever been elected by popular votes. Far too risky. The muppet show of elected MEPs is no more than a revising chamber – all the policy initiatives come from unelected career bureaucrats.

    So the other great Western political power centre is imploding on account of its own incompetence. And it is possible to discern in the way the two more right wing parties in the UK, as well as similar forces across Europe, are being manipulated by insiders to ensure the ‘right’ leaders are selected to carry out the wishes of….well whoever it is that has the cash and the clout to buy them, naturally.

    I am a child of the sixties. I watched a spontaneous grass roots movement in lifestyle, popular culture and music explode into something that was in very short order bought up, and resold back to the young people by cynical marketeers in the cultural and political arenas. Long haired musicians playing their hearts out in blues clubs, became multi million dollar campaigns run by tin pan alley. Expressions of rebellion and a desire for change became channelled into carefully orchestrated Marxist inspired student politics. And their adherents were sent into government and the media to spread their world-view to the nations of the West.

    In short our spontaneity and natural feelings became fodder for a generation of marketeers and political activists to feed off. I became disillusioned with that culture at just about the same time the CND who I had always despised, were morphing into the Green movement. And virtue signalling (as I now understand it) replaced LSD as the chief pastime of the new wave of ‘fashionable’ hippies of the Liberal upper middle class of urban American society.

    The greens were doomed before they even got going. Such a potent and useful fashion as virtue signalling about the environment was a low hanging fruit the marketeers picked early. Combined with the new self absorption of the idle modestly rich, enormous quantities of ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ products could be sold to an innately narcissistic nouveau riche unsure of their newly acquired affluence and with all the discrimination of a dairymaid in a West end jewellers…

    ..and into this cultural milieu, was dropped Al Gore’s genius, the convenient lie, that carbon dioxide was a pollutant, and this could be brought under EPA rulings, taxed, banned, and generally controlled and used to make money out of and to justify political interference in energy markets.

    What am I saying? AGW is a passing fad. As transient as any other fashion. It will pass, not because we won, not because we got the science right, or they got it wrong, although that will play a part. It will pass because people are getting and will get quite simply bored with it. And once it loses traction as an tool to affect hearts and minds, it no longer has any political or commercial purpose.

    That is the real reason why we are seeing an upsurge in activity right now. Because Trump won. Because Britain voted Brexit. Because Marine Le Pen is riding high in France. Because Poland and Hungary reject the EU’s impositions. Because the people didn’t buy the faux message of Liberal politics.

    Because the old lies are no longer working, there is desperation amongst the old liars. Their careers, their lives are built around a tissue of lies, and if those lies lose traction then it’s game over.

    Without Climate change, where will Michael Mann go? What will he do? He is finished scientifically, politically, and in every way. He will be destroyed. What about all the green journalists and activists? If the drum they have been beating for the last 20 years turns out to be hollow, how much else that the environmentalists have espoused is likewise a crock of organic manure? Careers built on green politics will collapse.

    The darkest hours is just before the dawn. The ‘greens’ are up for one final counter attack. But in ordinary houses and homes across the Western world people are waking up, and not thinking about climate change at all. They are more bothered about their bank balances and people with long beards blowing themselves up in their capital cities. And the size of their electricity bills.

    My point is, in the end very simple. Stop looking at AGW in terms of science if you want to stop it. It was never conceived as science and has never been about science. That was always simply a way of selling it, that’s all. Ultimately in a democracy so called, all you have is one vote. America placed it for Donald Trump., the UK placed it to leave the EU. Those two simple actions by huge numbers of people made all the difference in the world.

    Climate change will fade from simple boredom. Lies are only sustainable if they serve a purpose and can attract funding. No one is funding last years fashions. Not only climate change, but in all probability green politics is probably dead too.

    We will never eliminate those who manipulate us, not whilst there is one born every minute, but sometimes we can remind them of the limits to the power of their lies. Even if its just by yawning and not buying the product.

    Plebeian lives matter, too.

    • I liked Leo’s essay also. But I don’t share his youthful optimism about the ultimate fate of the AGW fraud. As our recent president demonstrated, nothing is of so much value to the right kind of politician as a crisis. The natural processes of the earth will continue to provide fodder for the engines of demagoguery, even if our leaders don’t engage in manufacturing opportunities out of emotionally charged videos showing policemen arresting violent criminals from identifiable favored minorities. I think it will take a counterforce to stop this movement, just as it took a Churchill to stop Hitler, but I hope I’m wrong. Perhaps boredom arising out of an over done familiarity will do the trick.

    • Leo Smith has some interesting points. Following up on that is a 2016 book called “The Devil’s Chessboard,” and a You-tube video called “A Rich Man’s Trick.” We’re losing the war because we don’t know the battlefield. I disagree with green-slamming; the problem is much bigger than that.

  47. You’ve just simply got to understand, this is a KEY World government agenda, they will NEVER, EVER, EVER back down from this, no matter what the evidence is because it’s too important as a welath transfer tool and a proto-infrastructure for world political and economic governance.
    Perhaps if the vast majority knew it was a scam it would force them to back down, but there are too many braindead libtard useful idiots brainwashed by leftism and too many intelligent liberals who are scared to hurt their careers and are desperate to fit in with the crowd as their religion is statism and collectivism.

    I’m sorry but though we have to continue fighting and trying to educate, there are simply too many stupid and gutless people.

    • Which is why Faye is correct. Cut off the UN money, not just in this area, but in most others. Only by starving the monster can it be killed.

      • Governments do like AGW because it increases their power and control. External threats gives control over the masses. Free people are much harder to manage.

  48. Have we watched the same hearing? I thought Mann was terrible and clearly dishonest and the other three very convincing and genuine.

  49. In any asymmetric conflict, you’re going to have one organized group with lots of resources fighting a resistance with fewer means for the hearts and minds of the rest of a populace that is largely agnostic but often sympathetic to one side. In these types of conflicts, the rebels have historically been able to win over their slower moving bureaucratic foes by:

    (1) Hit-and-run fighting, rapidly changing tactics before the larger force can come up with countermeasures. This is often accomplished by blending in with the general populace.

    (2) Waiting out the enemy, bleeding them of motivation, resources, and popular support. It’s classical insurgent type fighting.

    Skeptics have done an pretty good job with method two, but by and large have failed at method one, choosing instead to fight a head on battle. This is almost always a losing proposition. Think about Vietnam or the difference between the first and second Iraq wars. In Vietnam and the Gulf Wars, any time US forces encountered large organized groups of the enemy, it was always a resounding tactical victory for American forces.

    For skeptics to be successful, we will have to infiltrate the AGW bureaucracy and fight from the inside. In addition, we have to win over much of the agnostics to our side. In successful insurgencies, the general populace fall in line with the insurgents by one or a combination of the following methods:

    (1) By threat. The populace fears what the insurgents may do them more than they do the government.
    (2) By reward. The insurgency gives the populace something of value (money, food, education, etc.).
    (3) Prevention. The resistance is able to demonstrate and prevent unpopular government action or at least offer to repeal said action if given power.

    Successful counterinsurgencies generally offer the converse and are almost always political in nature. Government threats are usually counterproductive, but rewards and law and order can often help win in the court of public opinion.

    I believe the way for skeptics to be successful is to target Millennials and Gen Z. I’m a 45 year old man, so there is no way for me to hold sway over these types, but if you pay close attention you’ll see that the new counterculture is the anti-establishment in these two groups. Unlike previous generations, modern youth have fallen in line with the establishment. They trust government and institutions. Their thinking is governed by political correctness. However, there is a small, vocal, and growing group youth that reject PC and push back against it and the establishment views. They fight strange battles involving video games, cartoon characters, and celebrities. There is no better example than the amazing battles between actor Shia Labeouf and 4Chan users over a “He Will Never Divide Us” flag. Each victory for the counterculture creates new skeptics multiply virally over the Internet.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/4chan-users-capture-shia-labeoufs-flag-liverpool-england/

    These types of people must be encouraged to enter into our bureaucracy and institutions in much the same way as todays establishment was a product of institutional infiltration of the 60s counterculture. Skeptics must help plant the seeds in the youth. Influencers in among this group are YouTube celebrities and what might be called trolls on Instagram, Snapchat, and online forums. Encouraging AGW skepticism in these influencers will go a long way, especially if we can continue to hold the line against government action allowing for the failure of climate predictions to give them ample ammo to use in their fight.

  50. I think arguing the science will not win the day. That’s been done for 30 years and it just doesn’t gain traction. I’ve seen some genuine debates and the CAGW crowd has lost every one. But that only opens the minds of the people at the debate. To win over the vast majority of people who don’t really care about the issue, you have to uncover scandal and hypocrisy. Climategate really did have an impact, but it was short lived. Someone needs to uncover more stories of alarmists profiting from the scare. The stories are out there. Someone just has to make an effort to find them. If Michael Mann is as unscrupulous as we all believe, you can be damn sure he’s profiting in some way. Find that and discredit him. That’s the only way I see things changing. Of course, we can wait another 30 years and the marginal increases in global temps will slowly take the steam out of the issue and ultimately end the insanity. This will be a long slow death though.

    • The stories are there. But just look at the Susan Rice story, it was sat on at bloomberg and nyt . The MSM will not break the meme, Planebrad has it right.

  51. [countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.]
    Because CAGW is a (state) religion. Region answers questions about the “unknown” to ease people and take away their existential fears (which result from our conscienousness) The climate is unknown just as the future is. Religion need no proof (cannot proof it’s theses otherwise it’s science).
    So what can “sceptics” do? Their scientific approach cannot provide predictions about the unknown climate. They cannot eliminate the fears of the believers. We have to admit that humans are basically religious. Consensus and authority really is what makes things “true” . Science was a deviation. Romanticism took over from the enlightenment long ago.

    • Unfortunately ,(mainly) white, (mainly) males born and educated in the 20 years or so after WW2 in northern europe and english speaking countries, have had a unique experience in human history. They experienced ‘enlightened’ logical training of the mind that encouraged critical, scientific thinking.
      It was very quickly realised that giving this to the masses was a mistake. Back to ‘romanticism’ and feudalism.

  52. First world countries spend billions on this issue and have created a massive trough of vested interests that perpetuate the ugly mess. However, this is such an insignificant percentage of their budgets they don’t really care. And many actually believe it. World leaders who don’t believe the science still throw money at it. Trump will too. You can bank on it. Nothing changes until it becomes easier to say know. Science has nothing to do with it.

  53. There are some practical reasons why the sceptical side is losing the debate and making little inroad on public perception – except for being labelled by their opponents as cranks and anti-science. Tim Ball is right to point out the failure to match the success of the green lobby.
    One major reason is that the green lobby is much better placed and organised. Organisations like Greenpeace operate from what are corporate headquarters, well funded, with dedicated people working in shared offices and an international call list of activists and spokesmen/women at hand.
    They dominate the MSM debate because they have slick, highly professional, press offices ready with responses to any media opportunity or media questions. Anyone who doesn’t understand what a tremendous advantage this places the green lobby at. And please don’t whine about the MSM, reporters are always under pressure to deliver stories and will naturally be predisposed to go to people who can give them a good line, information and will accept a prepared graph, package, picture or quote if it helps meet their deadline.
    What does the skeptic side have by comparison-mostly individual academics, working in scattered locations, often under attack or pressure of their mainstream work. The skeptic side does not have an organisation to compete with this, it does not have many (any) media trained spokesmen or the ability to respond immediately to media demands. A media information centre is the bare minimum requirement in N.America or Europe (with language speakers) to even begin to compete. But the greens smear the skeptics with “dirty fossil fuel money” whic strangely doesn’t seem to actually exist.
    We lack some major political spokesmen – in Europe anyway – available to go on to broadcast media at short notice who are debate skilled. We don’t media train our people – and it shows!
    We need an organised media organisation to ask direct simple questions in the public arena – “do you know how much you are paying to subsidise useless green windmill Said?” , “Climate change is natural – get over it!” ,etc,etc. Start attacking the validity, veracity, integrity and costs of the other side.
    Don’t get me wrong, I am a great admirer of WUWT and other skeptic websites, but this debate will not be won by talking to ourselves. We need to carry the fight to a the general public. Information packs to schools “Climate Change is natural”, qualified speakers available to debate (and not just academics) , a real organised and funded centre to co-ordinate campaigns would begin to redress the balance.
    What I fear is that after President Trump it will be back to business as usual for the greens.
    Don’t let’s kid ourselves, the opponents are much more formidable and better prepared and effective than we are. And they are still controlling the terms of the debate.

    • Moderately Cross of East Anglia @1:37 am

      …this debate will not be won by talking to ourselves.

      BINGO

    • If you form an organization, you build a target for the other side to aim at. That group becomes the “enemy” and all in it are condemned. It may be easier to remain more scattered and less of a target. Some people in the opposition to wind considered forming a large group and this is exactly what happened. If you want the MSM to discover you, meet in a large group. You’ll make front page, though it won’t be a flattering article. Just something to consider.

    • Exactly! It’s about the Public Relations. We come to battle with the switchblades of science and they come with the bombers of professional PR organizations and with money to buy as much as they want. No match.

      • Believers have a huge advantage over realists or “sceptics”. Religious statements cannot be proofed (otherwise it would be science) But if the sceptic expresses his doubts, the believer simply answers: “just proof that it is not true” .

  54. The way to wind – is either to wait for the public and academia to get bored with a subject where nothing is happening. Or to create an alternative narrative.

    And no doubt when people were obsessed with global cooling – creating the CO2 warming as “alternative facts” looked a way to get the public and academia off the trajectory of obsessing about a coming ice-age …

  55. I am not a skeptic (you guessed?) though I make sure to read up on the skeptic side of the argument (e.g. here).

    Why am I not convinced by the skeptic argument?

    I am not of the left, brainwashed, paid, in some green group. Just a middle aged scientifically literate Englishman.

    top reasons are:
    Politics, not science: I don’t think climate science has anything to do with the left
    Persistent cherry picking of evidence
    Ignoring contrary evidence
    Repeating the same old stuff without checking what you posted in 2006 is still true
    Paid for scientists (Soon et al)
    Money from fossil fuel lobbies
    Supporting every theory, even when they are contradictory (can’t be both warming but no harm coming of it and an approaching ice age)

    and the strength of the observational evidence (not models)

    • Is it true that Fossil Fuel corps lobby against Climate Change rules ?
      Oil corps love stuff that puts the price up.
      So please email or tweet me EVIDENCE that skeptic funding approaches anything like the magnitudes that of the Multinational Eco-Charities.

      • Absolutely it is true that fossil fuel firms fund the opposition to climate change (many think tanks, lobbyists)

      • Griff April 4, 2017 at 4:52 am
        Absolutely it is true that fossil fuel firms fund the opposition to climate change (many think tanks, lobbyists)

        But the amount involved is about 1/8th of what greenie organizations claim. Their typical, misleading way of phrasing it is something like this: “”Big Oil donated $xx,xxx,xxx to anti-climate think tanks,” implying that the entire amount donated went toward climate-skeptical spending.

        But climate change-related activity is only about 10% of the spending of organizations like Cato, AEI,George Marshall, etc. The highest-percentage spender is Heartland, at 20%. The greenie organizations like Greenpeace who make these claims know they rather duping their readers, if only by the artful way in which they phrase their accusation..

    • Your delusion is truly astounding Griffie. You have the usual Warmist talking points, none of which are based on reality. And yes, you are brainwashed.

    • Griff, Middle-aged but have read the New Scientist for 50 years?
      Which coal mines did you grow up near?
      Is your ‘identity’ suffering from all these comments?
      I am an English physicist and your comments are never ‘scientific literate’.

      • Griff is actually being helpful; there are lessons to be learned here. Why does he persist in these opinions despite all the time he apparently spends here?

      • Griff:
        We are still waiting for you to post ONE study which MEASURES the amount of warming caused bu CO2.
        Being middle aged you have had plenty of time. We are waiting………..

    • Griff:

      You claim to be:
      “Just a middle aged scientifically literate Englishman”

      My response:

      You may be middle aged.

      You may be English.

      But “Scientifically literate” … you are not.

      Wild guess computer game predictions of the future climate are not science.

      That statement is true even without 30 years of wrong computer game climate predictions to support it.

      Not to mention the extremely wrong global cooling predictions in the mid-1970s.

      There is no evidence to cherry pick if one wants to be skeptical — that’s one reason we are skeptical, not to mention being skeptical is the primary attribute of a good scientist:

      (1) Where is any evidence that CO2 has ever been a “climate controller” in the past 4.5 billion years?

      (2) Where is any evidence that CO2 was the “climate controller” since the era of man made CO2 started in 1940?

      — 1940 to 2016 was a period that included a negative correlation (1940 to 1975), positive correlation (1975 to 1998) and no correlation (1998 to 2015), of average temperature and CO2 levels?

      The “observational evidence” is that the climate in 2017 is wonderful and has barely changed in the past 15 years.

      The primary “skeptic” argument is that humans have no ability to predict the future climate.

      If you disagree with that skeptical argument 100%, you are as dumb as a rock.

    • Absolutely nailed it Griff.

      You can add a complete lack of scientific training from the Denier community to your points.

      Most over 50, male, dubious social skills, extreme libertarian/conservative ideology, single/divorced/mail order wives.

  56. There is perhaps another way to frame this. Dr Ball is correct in terms of how well the many-layered conflicts within climate science are being broadcast to, and absorbed within, the body public. I drew similar conclusions from the congressional hearing; Mann is nothing if not cunning, and knows that he needs only to win the soundbite-debate in the public square, not the science behind the narrative. Well, rather, that is the only strategy that will win him ground in the medium term. Where I disagree with Dr Ball is that he is perhaps too close to the center of this issue, perhaps even too weary from his efforts to bring scientific balance, to see the greater game unfolding. My own conclusion is that the long-term objectives behind the data and the funding for CAGW, the hoped-for mega-trend towards de facto Global government, unitary currency issuance and taxing power, is suffering an unexpected ‘Black Swan’ attack from the now-global and accelerating rise of (nationalistic) patriotism. That politics and the assertion of geo-strategic interests would carry the ‘Climate Day’ was as unexpected as it is unstoppable. It is also not a net good, but let’s put that aside for the moment. In time – and perhaps in shorter time than many imagine – the funding mechanisms of, and appetite for, the CAGW meme will crumble and fade as the world deals with more immediately pressing issues; it gets a little hard to play a game of backgammon when you’re hanging off a cliff by your fingertips. I predict that majority public and media opinion will slowly, and perhaps even quietly, meet up with the more cogent and verifiable science somewhere out there in the dark (and in due course). I also predict that at that point the CAGW warriors will simply shuffle offstage ‘peer-reviewed’-papers-tucked-under-armpits, and delete the upcoming climate summits from their Outlook diaries. Hang in there, Dr Ball.

  57. ..it’s tribal, not logical
    1957 “Don’t talk to the gays”
    2017 “Don’t talk to the NEW gays (ie anyone they can label as rightwing, racist, denier” etc.)

    We – are truth seekers, and not a cult

    They – are often lead by PR experts … unscrupulous experts
    …. then the ones that follow act as if in a religion or cult

    As I said yesterday :
    inside the BBC many do really think THEIR Social Justice Missionary work comes ABOVE the impartiality rules.
    (They’re saving the planet don’tcha know)

    Their wok is full of dirty PR tircks* our’s isn’t
    (Balls essay is an example ..it’s you actually have to read it to understand his points
    It’s not professional PR
    Whereas the PR people would produce something that feeds you quick memes, usually tribal
    The Daily Mail bullet points that they put at the top of their articles after having written it ..are effective..I wish people would copy that style.)

    * Tricks include major entryism hijacking moneyed influential orgs from the inside : NGOs, news networks, non-profits ..I’ve just sen it done with a formerly neutral FB goup… LibMob moved in ..intimimidated people..now they’ve take moderator rights and started to delete comments, lock threads and ban some Non-LibMob commenters
    … yet LibMobbers typing hate-not-hope is allowed and encouraged
    * Also includes : Bullying by taking offence .. “ah you made 200 points, but point 63 was a little bit sexist, or a link to Breitbart, therefore we can dismiss you and your 200 points”
    * – Misrepresentation is another one so it doesn’t matter if you didn’t say anything sexist , they’ll just say you did
    That’s the “He kicked a little puppy” trick

    • stewgreen @2:34 am
      They – are often lead by PR experts … unscrupulous experts

      Methane is misrepresented by the meme that, “Pound for pound, methane as a greenhouse gas is 86 times more potent than CO2 over a time period blah blah blah” And no one on the skeptical side of this issue calls B.S. on this crap.

      Some PR genius came up with the 86 times meme because it’s rather difficult to unravel in just a few words.

  58. Before the defendant enters before the attorney he is briefed by his lawyer and staff.

    And if someone wants to compete against people like M.Mann, he must get hard briefed by his staff.

    Just can’t imagine why that simple truths still have to be outspoken.

  59. Progressives have controlled the education system during the last decades where they could brainwash the young generations with this lie.

    So most people younger than 40 think that humanity is bad for the environment and that we are too many.

    It was the Hitlerjugend that fought until the end. That is what they were told to do since the age of 4. So they didn’t know better.

  60. One good thing that came out from the UK’s MetOffice is definition of what should be meant by the term ‘climate change’.
    “Climate change is a large-scale, long-term shift in the planet’s weather patterns or average temperatures.”
    Approximately 0.17% change in the global temperature over period of the last 30 years does not qualify as ”a large-scale, long-term shift”.
    The last ‘climate change’ occurred possibly at the time of Younger Dryas and at the temporary transition from the Ice Age to the present interglacial.

    I have lived in the UK for a number of decades, where the weather is discussed daily (as a Mediterranean I found this in the early days as the local’s rather odd ritual, but eventually I got used to it, and now I’m also an experienced the ritual’s practitioner) and for all this decades I have not experienced any change in climate either for the better or worse.

  61. And I don’t understand why anyone should comment Trump should do / should just say this or that.

    What can you do to help your country.

  62. I am sorry to say that “As long as we use climate change as de-facto global warming”, there is no difference between warmists and skeptics.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Very good point simply stated — the leftist’s carefully chosen propaganda words must be resisted, and countered with our own propaganda words (or at least more accurate words):

      Here are Saul Alinsky-influenced words and phrases that I use
      at my Global Warming Scam blog for non-scientists:

      Warmunists
      Global Warming Cult
      Global Warming Nuts
      Climate Computer Games
      Wild Guess Climate Predictions
      40 Years of Wrong Climate Predictions
      Global Warming is 99% Politics and 1% Science

      The CAGW belief was never based on data and logic,
      so can never be refuted with data and logic …
      especially when the coming catastrophe is ALWAYS in the future !

    • You are correct — leftists carefully pick their propaganda words
      and then bully others to use the same words.

      I’m a libertarian — I don’t give a damn about what leftists or conservatives want.

      I prefer simple words that convey what I want to say.

      So, in my Global Warming Scam climate blog for non-scientists,
      I often use the following words and phrases:

      Global Warming

      Global Warming Cult

      Warmunists

      Climate Computer Games

      Wild Guess Climate Predictions

      CAGW is 99% politics and 1% science

      IPCC’s 95% number was pulled out of their a__

      My climate blog for non-scientists:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  63. This is an important post. I disagree with some who say that polls show Americans aren’t that concerned with climate change. I have many friends and relatives who aren’t actively “concerned” about climate change because in the big picture, it’s up to governments to act, but if you talk to them, catastrophic global warming is a certainty.

    I think we underestimate how much organized, professional PR is behind public perception. This PR can easily counter whatever Trump says or does. Undoubtedly any number of groups would be willing and able to pay good money to ensure that deniers are neutralized and the planet is “saved,” although to what purpose is up for debate.

    Do you suppose that Mann was coached by a PR firm in preparation for the hearing? Look at how he hit on the key “anti-science” message. Look at how he painted himself as the mythical truth-loving scientist, in contrast to those false agents. I think we would be naive to assume that he was not coached, and that he did not understand the message he was trying to get out for the cameras. The skeptics, by contrast, were merely talking science.

    In my opinion, if the focus were to shift toward countering PR rather than arguing science, the real problem could be seen more clearly.

    • Mann has spent a lot of time practicing the CAGW bull-shirt.

      He does that for a living.

      He is in his position because he is good at the CAGW bull-shirt.

      Roger Revelle invented the CAGW con — Al Bore and Mann are just good students of the original con man.

  64. Those that oppose Mann and the Blob need to move to effective PR and sloganizing. Call them out, for example, of the Rape of the Pocketbook. Lining the pockets of their crones. Higher fuel costs that rape the poor, the working class along with billions/trillions of wasted on shovelling money to others in their elite club.
    As for Mann, make him pay! Demand to see his tax returns, his net worth, his investments and his links to Big Climate Rapists. After all, it’s a war, not a gentlepersons boxing match.

  65. EPA’s Scott Pruitt may be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
    Delingpole:

    “I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace.

    Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one.

    Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy.

    And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right.

    Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity.

    Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/02/delingpole-epas-scott-pruitt-gets-eaten-alive-by-fox/

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/27/delingpole-scott-pruitt-is-failing-to-drain-the-swamp-at-the-epa/

    • Ask a few pertinant questions, shine a bit of light and what you see is a posse of nincompoops.
      Just hope they don’t wreck things too much before they are thrown out.

      • Whenever we do the same with you, Ol’Tony, you skedaddle like a roach. We haven’t thrown you out yet, though. You’re too entertaining.

    • Don B.:

      If Pruitt is a friend of deniers, I’d hate to have enemies.

      Chris Wallace is the most persistent questioner on Fox.

      Most Democrats know how to talk, talk, talk and not answer Wallace’s questions without looking too bad.

      He’ll only ask the same question two or three times, and then gives up if there’s no real answer.

      The 95% number is pulled out of a hat (or from lower on the body), and has no scientific meaning — Pruitt did not know that, or was too nervous to say it — either way, he did not sound very bright.

      I was half asleep during that interview, yet answered the questions (for the wife) faster and better than Pruitt. I’m no genius — I only claim common sense when saying no one knows what the future climate will be — no one is 95% sure — no one is 85% sure — or even 5% sure.

      Of course I know — The future average temperature will be warmer, unless it is colder!

    • Pruit may have been told by Trump not to contradict anything asserted in the Social Cost of Carbon document, because Trump doesn’t want to catch flack at this moment for opening that can of worms.

  66. The reason the juggernaut of CAGW (or whatever its current label) rumbles on is straightforward:

    (1) Vested interest (eg “alternative energy”, along with all the subsidies it attracts from taxpayers) and (2) Government (all the tax it imposes, “carbon tax”, emission taxes et etc) under the guise of “the fight against Global Warming”.

    The former will continue to scream, chicken little style, in order to ensure their suckling at the taxpayer teat remains secure; the latter will support (overtly or otherwise) the notion of CAGW (or whatever its current label) because it is a guaranteed excuse to raid taxpayers pockets.

    History proves it is very difficult to force a government to give up a tax once it has formulated and imposed it for whatever reason. The justification for the tax just morphs.

    The only thing that stops this nonsense is the climate itself. When (not if) the climate cools again, perfectly naturally, perfectly cyclically, then and only then will the charlatans and thieves be rumbled. I sincerely hope at that point there is a “Nuremberg Trial” for the purveyors of what is undoubtedly the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the West – with Nuremberg consequences in the perfect world.

  67. The “war” will not be won or lost in the courtroom of public opinion. the AGW meme is not about science or facts. it is a vehicle of the left to gain total control over the lives of individuals. Rahm Emmanuel said “never let a good crises go to waste”, but in order to scare the free people of the planet into giving up total control of their freedom, you have to have a really big crises! So they created Algore and the hokey stick.

    On one side, you have the totalitarians, and their willing toadies – the press. On the other side, you have – apathy! Who will win is a question that will only be answered with time, as it is not a conventional war, but a war of attrition. Can the totalitarians scare us before the next glacial age comes. The winner will not be decided by science as it is not science. It is politics.

    • On the one hand you have science and the other US Republican politics.

      Climate change is not something resulting from the UN/left conspiring.

      The real left doesn’t care about climate change…

      • Griff, we are waiting for your post of a study which measures temperature change caused by CO2.
        Waiting…………

      • Griff, you are so dim that I wonder if it is worth my time to respond to your nonsense:

        Making wrong long-term predictions about the future average temperature for the past 40 years is not science.

        Science tells us the climate varies, and can’t be predicted because we don’t understand climate change well enough to predict anything.

        Science tells us we currently have near the lowest levels of CO2 in the past 4.5 billion years, and more CO2 added to the air since 1940 is greening our planet..

        Science tells us CO2 has never been the “climate controller” in the past 4.5 billion years.

        In the past 4.5 billion years of continuous climate change, we have a mere ten year period, from the early 1990s to the early 2000s, when manmade CO2 and the average temperature both rose rapidly at the same time.

        One decade of “evidence” is not proof of anything.

        I live in Michigan USA.

        My property was under ice 20,000 years ago.

        I suppose you think the global warming that started more than 10,000 years ago was caused by coal burning power plants and gasoline burning SUVs?

        On second thought, you probably do believe that.

        If you want to dedicate your time to debating the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, that would be something worth debating …

        … but CO2 is not pollution, and more CO2 in the air — double or triple the current level — would significantly benefit green plants, and the humans and animals who eat them.

        CO2 is our friend.

        Griff, please continue posting your nonsense here — please don’t stop — this website needs its own Bozo the Climate Clown (that would be you) to make silly comments to stir up, and entertain, the “deniers”.

      • “The real left doesn’t care about climate change…”

        The real left cares about gaining power, influence, and money, and climate change is one of their vehicles for getting these things.

      • You cannot get your shoe size correct can you Griff? I will help you:

        On the one hand you have science and the other US Republican Democrat politics.

        A shame you do not know science. or you would see that. But then that is your religion.

    • Kill their blood supply, abolish the ‘(not)FEDERAL RESERVE’. Progressivism can’t survive without funding.

    • Gerald any number of professional scientists have published compelling proof of how human CO2 drives climate change and conveniently put it on the internet.

      I don’t have to spell it out for you.

      I would encourage you to look at ‘Berkeley Earth Results’ for a skeptic funded proof that it is warming and that surface temp measurements are reliable.

      I suspect you won’t look.

      • Griff thinks published papers= “compelling proof”! He thinks that “compelling arguments” or “compelling conclusions” equal empirical EVIDENCE! He literally believes that peer review= proven fact!! ” If it passes peer review, then even morons know it’s true”. Wow.

        In this one post, Griff demonstrates that even at the most basic level, he doesn’t understand what science is, how it works, how it progresses, or what it’s limits are.

    • Don’t use facelift. It is one of the digital spy machines neocons use against the people. A smart meter is another digital spy machine forced upon us.

    • co2islife, it doesn’t matter, that sort of stuff can’t be printed in certain venues. I’ve been kicked off websites, I can’t even get a relatively tame commentary on the recent Hearing published in our local on-line news– but, I can respond to the commentaries of others, and with some force. If you move off of WUWT and similar sites, you’ll have to find ways to be more subtle. Blatant and out-front truth telling will get you banned. But moving off of sites like WUWT and confronting a wider audience is exactly what must happen.

  68. it’s the Dynamics
    We were all true Believers first until we realised “hey there’s something wrong here you know what I was wrong”
    We’ve all come out the other side of the green tunnel
    Today’s true Believers are stuck behind us in the tunnel.
    in many cases they dug in deep and doubled down so they’re not likely to get out soon.
    It’s such a big thing to admit you were wrong.

    Likewise with green Solutions it’s the Dynamics that work in favour and are played by the green hedge funds.
    Who is going to vote against Sadiq’s DieselsRPaedos campaign even though the maths are rubbish ?

  69. Here are some potential rebuttals to the CO2 warming theory….my facts could be slightly off but you will get the picture.

    CO2 levels today are among the lowest in the known history of Earth. CO2 levels were as much as 16 times greater than today in 85% of the past 600 million years. Levels were 5 times greater in the dinosaur period which was anything but a burning hell. There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today, one had fifteen times more. CO2 has never been observed to be a driver of the climate in the past. Just Google geological history temperature CO2 to see for yourself.

    Global temperatures were often warmer than today in the prior 10,000 years, an interglacial period named the Holocene. Warm periods in the past have been called ‘optimums’, in that life flourished. The Egyptian, Roman, and Medieval Periods were all warm ones. It is in cold periods, such as the Dark Ages, that life faces its greatest challenge. Just Google Holocene temperatures to see for yourself.

    CO2 is only about 4% of greenhouse gases. It does have warming properties but the effect is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is the less warming it causes. Absent positive feedbacks, which have never been observed to exist in the past and when CO2 levels were much greater than today, CO2, by itself, can not cause dangerous warming.

    When the social costs of CO2 are measured the benefits are overlooked. Plants grow more quickly with rising CO2 levels, the Earth is about 8% greener than in 1980 according to NASA and rising CO2 is largely responsible. This is contributing to record crop production globally. Plants evolved in a period when there was more CO2 than today. With rising levels of CO2 plants water management improves. Plants need less water and this is contributing to the greening of the planet which is greatest in arid areas. There is thus less drought.

  70. The debate is not going to end until temperatures are not rising as predicted over an extended period of time.

    But the warmers have control of the surface temperature record. It is still going up because they are adjusting it to keep their theory going and their funding going and their cushy important jobs.

    Thank Gaia, that we have the UAH or there wouldn’t even be a skeptical movement.

    We have to take away their control on the temperature records, the funding and their cushy jobs. Then we wait another decade for temperatures to stay where they are (and then we have to wait several more decades for the believers to fade away).

    • “The debate is not going to end until temperatures are not rising as predicted over an extended period of time.”

      That’s the bottom line.

  71. Watermelons, expose them for what they are. Follow up with legal action.
    Yep, this could get messy quick. Good!

    The ordinary average guy/gal gets a speeding ticket, they have consequences.

    Consequences shouldn’t only be for the little people.

    • They may be horribly mistaken and misguided (I think they are) but are you implying they’re breaking laws? Which laws? It’s not illegal to be a communist in the United States. It’s not illegal to hold an opinion, even an outrageous opinion.
      I’m basically a libertarian and don’t care for talk about “thoughtcrimes”. Freedom is by far the most important principle of the Constitution.

      • Billions (trillions?) wasted.
        Promoting a lie to enrich one selves and associates.
        Lives ridiculed and ruined (and lost) all for the power of totalitarianism.
        Rampart corruption which goes on and on.
        If it’s not against the law maybe it should be.

      • That’s been the story of the U.S. government (and just about every other government on Earth) for my entire life. The climate change racket is just another angle of the same old game.

      • Another angle on the same old game?
        And that’s reason not to do something about it?

        Draw a line in the sand and announce “We will bear any cost to prevent this line from being crossed.
        Or just go along to get along.

        Quoting Kirk, “In every revolution there’s one man with a vision.”

  72. Back in the mid nineties, in a small school district in the middle of Kansas, the elementary schools had special week long emphasis on the environment.
    When asked what she had learned, an 8 year old girl replied “That humans were the problem”.

    I am quite sure, 20 years later, that that young girl is an ardent believer in AGW.

    My opinion, that is where we have lost the battle. C’EST LA VIE

  73. Dr. Ball’s thesis in a nutshell: don’t bring an ethicist to a knife fight. And he’s right in the case of this hearing. Drs. Curry and Pielke should have called out Dr. Mann and shown the hypocrisy in his behavior. Destroy his claim to be a victim and you destroy his credibility.

    • Drs. Curry and Pielke should have called out Dr. Mann and shown the hypocrisy in his behavior.

      There are probably congressional rules, which witnesses have signed an agreement to, prohibiting arguing with other witness, or doing anything but respond to questions.

  74. Dr. Dall is totally correct. In my personal experience, people yearn for certainty.

    When a techie responds to a question which asks for a diagnosis, or a recommended course of action with “Well, it depends…” folks are disappointed, even if it’s true.

    When scientists say “we still don’t know for certain, but available evidence means that the best working hypothesis is (or the leading competing hypotheses are) …”, that doesn’t sound like a ringing call for action that demands Manhattan Project – scale funding because the sky is falling.

    Face it, this is all about the Benjamins. If there’s no crisis, and therefore no urgent need to do something now, now, NOW, then funding for research and for demonstration projects will shrink by at least an order of magnitude, and then, what will all the AGW advocates do? They have to project certainty; their funding, and therefore their careers, depend on it.

    Unfortunately, unmasking the Wizard of Oz can be a challenge, because he puts on such a good show,

  75. Why do people continue to follow an ideology despite that ideology being proven wrong over and over again? The answers are found in religion. Our language does not have a word for ‘a philosophy that people follow like a religion but does not have a god’. Someone should invent such a word. Maybe selfrighteousizer would work. People love to think they are better than other people. The easiest way to be better than other people is to believe better. You don’t actually need to do anything, just believe. AGW is a great selfrighteousizer. You don’t need to obey any restrictive commandments, not even ‘Thou shalt not fly’ and yet you get to believe that you are saving the planet. If you want to get people on side you need to offer another selfrighteousizer. The not AGW crowd needs to offer a vision not of a Edenic put a Trekian paradise. We need to offer a future where Buffalo roam the great plains because all our food is synthesized in giant nuclear warmed vats and there is no disease because everyone has optimum genetics and so on and so forth.

      • Many people try to explain the climate alarmism, but fail to get answers. The reason may be that the questions are wrong. We regard the human race as rational but more likely we basically are religious. Religious theses become true be authority, consensus and endless repetition. The enlinghtenment was a deviation and was soon replaced by romanticism. (only total idiots want to live “in harmony with nature”)

    • Actually Jeff, English does have a word for that. CULT. As in “cult of personality” or “death cult”. The word has religious connotations, but is commonly used for non-religous groups that exhibit similar behavior.

  76. “We’re not winning the war”? Is the criteria that every warmist is staked out in the town square as a lesson to those who dare defile science? This is one of the most defeatist statements I have seen.
    The article sounds EXACTLY like a whiney warmist saying “Big Oil” did it and all would be carbon-free is it wasn’t for that group. Warmists constantly say skeptics are winning. Apparently, the attitude works for both sides and whining is the new watchword of the day.
    “It will join the list of events, which I and others expected would crash the vehicle.” Unrealistic expectations are not grounds for whining.
    This so very demeaning and degrading to skeptics. If this is who we are, we might as well pack it in and go crawl under a desk for the rest of our sad, empty, losing existence. Attitudes like this are incapable of winning a war.

  77. Viewing the latest House Hearing in bits and pieces, I too found those in opposition to the human-caused-climate-catastrophe claim UNDERWHELMING. They were TOO laid back, TOO careful, (dare I say?) TOO dignified.

    I know that the nuts-and-bolts operation of politics is no movie premiere, but, honestly, that hearing was so mind-numbingly boring that I don’t know how anybody could watch the whole thing. Mann actually had the best energy and looked the most engaged. The others seemed too sedated, and this sort of sedation does NOT sell, I’m afraid.

    Convincing an audience boils down to performance, and if you do not perform, then you do not get anything from your audience. Yes, it’s a stage. It’s theatre. It’s a show. You’ve got to exude charisma, which Mann did more than his opponents, in my judgement, and I say this with utter disagreement with anything he has ever put forth. He’s got stage presence, an “it” factor, and that’s why he has been successful. These are the traits of all good con men.

      • No, they are not……..but marketing and slick PR sell products & promote ideas. That’s what happened with CAGW and we need to recognise we are dealing with a well-funded, corporate machine whose existence absolutely DEPENDS on selling the ridiculous idea that CO2, the source of all life on our planet (along with water) is dangerous! That’s the power of marketing!!!

  78. Excellent article.
    This has been a concern of mine for many years. Although I enjoy reading the many articles on this WUWT blog, I cringe when I read about this or that alarmist “fact” being busted or something an alarmist has posted being proven false, and the cheering that new information will change things. It won’t. The alarmist movement is way too ingrained into our society for achievements such as proving the hockey stick graph is fake to have any effect. While Steyn and many others were busy doing that (and many thanks to them for doing that) – the alarmists were infecting our schools’ curriculums (and our future populations). While we were arguing with the alarmists about the Pause, others in the alarmist ranks were convincing security regulators to go all out on the “horror” of stranded assets. Just look at what is going on in the investment industry – and soon to be requirements for all publicly traded companies to report on their ESG strategy (Environmental, Social, Governance) – or “socially responsible” by any other name. We now have professions that have nothing to do with climate science, publicly endorsing climate activism due to climate alarmism – look at what the medical profession is doing. Actuaries have set up their own climate index. The dental profession is concerned about climate change. The accounting profession is concerned about climate change. With the way things are going with universities, it won’t be long before speakers that don’t toe the line with the mainstream alarmism and express the need for objective research will be banned or boycotted, with university students demanding safe spaces from such evil thoughts.
    While we need to continue to expose the errors in the alarmist arguments (and win these battles), much more needs to be done to win the war.

  79. The four basic needs of humanity: food, clothing, shelter, and stories

    Animals may live almost completely in the present, but we don’t. We experience life in terms of past, present, and future. We need a sense of where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re going. Aimlessness is as detrimental to the mind and body as not getting enough food or being constantly exposed to the elements. (I’d go so far as to [unprofessionally] claim it’s a root cause of depression.) Just as we stave off hunger with food and the elements with clothing and shelter, from the beginnings of civilization we’ve staved off aimlessness with stories.

    And one thing Leftivists do well, is tell good stories. CAGW skeptics need to start some storytelling of their own. Exposing the faults of the other side’s story (and they are many) is well and good, but without a compelling competing story, the aimless will tend to drift back to the side that’s fulfilling their needs. (You know how hard it is to think straight when starving? I’d say it’s similarly hard when aimless.) Science, writes fiction author John Dufresne, is God’s story (or Nature’s, if you prefer). It’s unfortunate that many commenters express low opinions of religion and the arts, for those are two of the best teachers for learning how to tell stories.

  80. Second all of that. AGW must be defeated as the political phenomenon that it is. Dragging the fringe politics into the sunlight is our best course. When speaking to elected officials I always stick to the motives behind the purpose made science and policy.

    I will disagree on the effectiveness of the skeptic community. We have a fighting chance now because you have fought a brave rear guard action. We lost every battle up to Midway but the turning point came. To quote an Englishman “the end of the beginning” that is Trump.

  81. Last summer a poll was taken that listed 20 issues that matter most to voters. One being the most important, and 20 being the least important. Climate Change was 19. Despite the tens if not hundreds of millions spent by Alarmists to educate the public, Climate Change remains at best a boutique issue (similar to Saving the Whales in the 1970s). The average, indifferent American doesn’t want their lives and livelihood upended solving a problem they see as very unimportant.

    • Very true. Some poll I read recently (probably here) asked people how much money they’d be willing to spend on their electric bill to combat “climate change.” Across all socioeconomic classes and political parties, the number was consistently less than ten bucks. I think that WE also need to give ourselves the reality check that climate change concerns on either side are actually shared by very few.

  82. Focusing on AGW motives is the key: Money. Many here focus on the grant money AGW proponents get. That is a factor but not that big compared with “Big Oil” money. There is also lots of money at stake for those that push renewable energy sources like Solyndra. However, the real big money is from foreign competitors within the fossil fuel industry. For example, China and India benefit greatly when US coal consumption goes down ad the lower demand lowers global prices.

  83. What we have:
    1. Truth
    2. Science
    3. Gumption
    4. Nature
    5. A highly-rated, extremely popular blog
    6. A small amount of money, but mostly volunteer effort
    7. Trump

    What they have:
    1. Lies
    2. Pseudo-science
    3. Greed, sanctimony, self-interest, and ego
    4. The MSM, the IPCC, and the political statements of once revered scientific organizations.
    5. Multi- $billions of vested-interest parties, including NGOs.
    6. Most governments of the world

    It has truly been a David vs Goliath sort of fight, with the decked stacked heavily in their favor. But we’re winning. It’s just that, in the heat of battle, it can be hard to see it. And it has been a very long battle.

    • Trump may not help us — he’s certainly not credible on scientific subjects … or economics … etc. etc.

      What the warmunists have, and I can’t believe you missed this:

      There was slight warming since 1850, and also a strong correlation of rising CO2 levels and rising average temperatures from the early 1990s to early 2000s — strong enough to scare me in the 1990s, and get me reading about “global warming” in 1997.

      It took me a few weeks to realize CAWG was bull-shirt — just wild guess computer games by smarmy climate modelers looking for attention and government grants.

      Of course all the real-time average temperature calculations we have are during one warming trend (since 1850) that is obviously half of a warming/cooling cycle (multi0hundred year cycles were repeatedly seen in ice core proxy study data) … so claims that the average temperature in 2016 was the highest on record, may be true, but means little (I’m ignoring the repeated “adjustments” and other wrongdoing by the believers).

      The data I’ve mentioned is very rough, so it is possible that the “trends” were nothing more than measurement errors.

      Extrapolating an existing trend into infinity is classic Con Man 101.

  84. The problem as I see it is that we skeptics tend to end up “fighting them in the weeds”, the weeds created by their false narrative. To properly debunk the alarmists, one has to paint the correct picture to the uninformed, not get bogged down in battles they want us to fight where they end up looking good.

    • “The problem as I see it is that we skeptics tend to end up “fighting them in the weeds”, the weeds created by their false narrative.”

      And the biggest falsehood they created was the bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts. You *should* be scared if you think the bogus surface temperature charts represent reality. The bogus chart makes things look like temperatures are climbing off the charts and getting hotter and hotter every year (which is their purpose: to scare people).

      The problem is the surface temperature chart is a Big Lie, and your average believer in CAGW does not know this. See: Climategate.

      Giving the bogus hockey stick surface temperature chart any legitimacy is just playing along with the CAGW narrative and a de facto acceptance of it. Don’t do it.

      The real surface temperature chart profile looks nothing like the bastardized hockey stick chart profile.

      Here’s a picture of the real surface temperature chart profile on the left (1999 Hansen), and the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick surface temperature chart on the right.

      As you can see they look nothing like each other. One, the 1999 Hansen chart shows the proper profile: a temperature profile that warms for a few decades and then cools for a few decades and then warms again for a few decades, while the bogus, bastardized hockey stick surface temperature chart makes it look like the temperatures have been steadily climbing for decades and are now at unprecedented heights. Why wouldn’t you be worried if you thought that was what was happening?

      Happily, the Hockey Stick chart is a lie. The real temperature profile is the one on the left that shows we are *not* in unprecedented territory when it comes to temperature. It is also worthy of note that other unmodified surface temperature charts from around the world present the same profile as the 1999 Hansen chart on the left. They do *not* resemble the bogus, bastardized hockey stick surface temperature chart profiles.

      “Hotter and Hotter” is BS (Bad Science).

  85. It’s my impression that the general public isn’t buying it. They/we all know a bamboozle spouting used car salesman when they/we hear one, especially when it comes time to open that wallet.

    My experience with groups of people, bowling leagues, solar energy groups, etc. is that 10% of the members in any group are actually engaged and participate. That includes all the feel-good sciencey clubs. They’ll fold if seriously challenged.

    We need to counter people like Nye, who became even more of a celebrity shill, Tyson, Justin Worland,
    Doyle Rice, et. al.

    Find a media outlet sympathetic, willing to act as devil’s advocate to present the skeptic’s case. Get more on FB, ala mad men of climate science.

    Skeptics need to organize, buy a full page spread in USA Today, WSJ, etc.

    Make and backup the following simple points:

    1) Mankind’s CO2 is trivial in the overall carbon balance. All the experts are just guessing where it all comes from or goes.
    2) CO2’s role in heating of the atmosphere is highly suspect and trivial in the overall heating changes caused by orbit and seasons.
    3) IPCC has serious key uncertainties, i.e. doubts and unknowns about how the climate actually works. TS.6
    4) Even IPCC doubts the value of the models TS.3
    5) CAGW predictions have been consistent failures.

    My two cents.

  86. I’m sure it’s in all these comments already, but the simple truth is humans like to frightened by a boogie man. They love to have a reason to be afraid. Common sense and truth are not frightening but scare mongering is. You don’t need to have reality on your side if you are scare mongering, as people are just titillated by being frightened. That is why so many useless “fright” movies are so successful. That is why AGW has been successful. People read it, the guys get mini-erections and the women get hardening of the nipples, and they are happy to afraid. Granted, the affects are usually more mental than physical, so it isn’t quite that obvious, but the “orgasm” is almost the same.

  87. Like it or not we are in a media war – and the alarmist side is winning because they have a plausible story to tell backed up by credible spokesmen/women; people who are better at putting over their side of the story. If we don’t get better organised just waging a guerilla campaign from the sidelines won’t fix this whatever the science shows. Many contributors above say Mann looked the more effective against three skeptics. That tells us something important.
    And what happens in four or eight years time if the democrats get back in? Hoping the world’s temperature or climate variation exposes the alarmist lies doesn’t cut it – they have even blamed bitter cold weather on warming. You have to have a sustained attack on the central core of their arguement and hammer key facts and messages that will resonate with the public.” How much money have you been robbed of this week? ” ” This week xxx number of people died because Green taxes meant they could afford to eat and heat their homes.”
    If you match them with big headlines or claims and have facts to tell the media will begin to give you space because heated debate sells newspapers and makes good broadcasts.

  88. Spot the “could” that should have been a “couldn’t ” competition.

  89. To a large extent I’d have to agree w/Tim Ball. The CAGW gravy train is running as fast as ever. Trump may be able to slow it down, but it’s hard to slow down a Juggernaut. However, it still needs to be chipped away at, as that is the only alternative.

  90. Also we need to communicate the waste, fraud, and abuse inherent in green policies justified with AGW. In the USA critics of government spending had some success demonstrating that over time to the public. I know we have some but could do better.

  91. So we should have rejoiced in the K cars at the time and congratulated the poor people who bought them and the government agencies that were forced to take them. This too shall pass.

  92. The reason sceptics haven’t won the war is simply because there’s too much money in ‘climate change’. Too many jobs, too many quangos, too many vested interests and too many reputations; all creaming the system (ie the public) for what they can while they can. The entire racket will continue for as long as the powers that be wish it to.

  93. We are not winning the climate war. In the UK, most people believe what they are told by government, the BBC, the scientific community including learned bodies like the Royal Society and of course, the press. The Guardian pumps out global warming alarmism on a daily basis.

    Apart from fairly infrequent articles in the Mail on Sunday and sometimes an article by Christopher Booker, there is nothing to persuade or inform the public about the state of the science.

    As most people who visit this site accept, global warming due to CO2 is happening, but we are fairly sure it is not a serious problem and does not justify many of the policies that are in place. Let’s face it, that is a pretty uninspiring message, even though it makes the difference of trillions of dollars.

    In my view, only two things can change this state of affairs. The first is for a large number of climate scientists to become whistleblowers and expose all the different problems with the science.

    The second is for a significant downturn in global temperature.

  94. Skeptics are out numbered by magnitudes in numbers, layers, roles, nasty aggression and rhetoric.
    At it’s base the left is far more naturally driven to be an activist. They have produced massive numbers of advocates and groups while at the same time infecting and saturating every academic & government entity.
    That beast is so immense our opposition force is miniscule in comparison.
    But we are also less aggressive, less willing to attack, less willing to wage war and crippled by a passive belief that somehow the truth will eventually prevail on it’s own. AKA weak.
    The left gets away with salvo after salvo of unchallenged attacks and assertions because there is really no countering force to call them out or sufficiently set the record straight .

    Exhibit A is Jane Lubchenco. This “distinguished” professor who has spent decades as a rabid evironmentalist engaged in some of the worst deceit perpetrated.
    Yet she has not faced a single expose by anyone anywhere. Let alone here on WUWT.
    How is that possible. Is it because it would appear cruel? What is it?
    She lied and manipulated her way to Obama’s head of NOAA while enriching her family into millionaires and got removed by Democrats outraged over her dishonesty and ineptness.
    Her long rancid track record of fabricating baseless scientific conclusions and manipulating policy makers is as nasty as the Sierra Club or any other fanatic liars.

    Oregon State University Professor Lubchenco pumped out some of the worst Ocean Acidification propaganda, invented global warming caused Oregon Ocean Dead Zones, lied about fisheries depletion everywhere, used her deceit to move the NOAA fleet to her state, conspired to get massives research grants and convinced the Oregon legislature to needlessly adopt 5 marine reserves prohibiting any harvesting.

    Despite the lousy media coverage Lubchenco was effectively fired from her NOAA position.
    She then lied about her exit. That’s what she does. Lies.
    JANE-LUBCHENCO-GROSSLY-FAILED-POLICIES

    http://fisherynation.com/archives/tag/jane-lubchenco-grossly-failed-policies
    “In her resignation email Lubchenco made the gravity-defying claim that she had made “notable progress” in “ending overfishing, rebuilding depleted stocks, and returning fishing to profitability”

    Lubcheno is rabid left wing environmental activist who has lied like all zealous environmentalist and used her positions to push a radical agenda while enriching herself.
    She lied heavily about depleted fisheries as she tried to impose catch share programs until Democrats insisted she be replaced.

    …”if she doesn’t resign, they want the Obama White House to remove her from her job.”

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/two-congressmen-both-democrats-ask-obama-dismiss-his-noaa-administrator
    Two Congressmen, Both Democrats, Ask Obama to Dismiss His NOAA Administrator

  95. This was a charade, of little importance. All the Congressmen are firm in their opinions by now. This was merely a required display to show the public that the Congressmen listen to all sides.The very fact that Mann was allowed to have his say signals a win for the skeptics.

  96. There are two structural problems for the skeptic side of the AGW debate:

    1) A lie boldly told is more effective than truth spoken as uncertainty. Witness the problem of the global panic about vaccines triggered by one apparently flawed study. It is much harder to prove the negative.

    2)The MSM has degenerated into blatant clickbait prostitution. Pimps need hookers. Bill Nye, Mann and Gore may be clowns, but they fulfill their function for the press.

    The strategists of the skeptic movement might consider some more provocative tactics like reversing the narrative. Like say, (/sarc)

    The Global Greening Foundation – dedicated to fostering the growth of plants world wide through increasing their access to CO2. How about promoting using the tech for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and placing the plants high above farms and forests to blow concentrated CO2 down to ground level for the plants. No more wacky than ships blowing clouds up from the ocean.

    The Foundation for Humanity – promoting access to cheap energy for all humanity. For the cost of a trip to the shopping mall, you can send a gallon of kerosene to a poor family in Africa so they can cook for a week and not have to walk miles to cut trees for firewood. For an extra $20 we will send a kerosene powered micro-generator so they can charge their smartphone.

    There is nothing more exciting to liberal reporters than an idea they absolutely hate. Trump understood this and played them like a violin.

    Fight fire with fire.

    • What the skeptical side needs is a scientific attack dog, preferably of celebrity standing, with something like Trump’s scorn for the rule book, Curry’s grasp of the issues, and Trey Gowdy’s instinct for the jugular.

      • Tom Anderson, well said! Can anyone think of a way to convince Gowdy to become our spokesperson?

      • We have some excellent Congressmen and Senators that are up to the task. They asked some fantastic questions and made some excellent points in hearings with Gina McCarthy. I hope those that are replacing the ones that were appointed to positions on the Trump team are as well informed. We lost a few of the better ones.

  97. Or how about, “Coal – recycling trees from their golden age to build a greener world today”

  98. The fact that Congressional dog an pony shows are used to discuss climate science is clear evidence that politics, specifically from the far left, has corrupted the field. Combine this with University researchers and a media that leans decidedly left and the truth will remain obscured until the next inevitable ice age arrives and even then these idiots will blame it on CO2.

    During the Reagan and first Bush administration Hansen was considered an alarmist fool for his sloppy research and unwarranted conclusions. When Clinton came to power, he connected with Gore and initiated a petty act of revenge. It was his sloppy research that Schlesinger ‘corrected’ which incorrectly claimed that massive positive feedback amplifies a demonstrably tiny effect into a theoretically large one and that this provided the scientific justification for IPCC’s far left agenda of redistributive economics under the guise of climate reparations.

    If the MSM was honorable enough to deliver a truth that contradicts their political perspective, this whole entire mess would disappear overnight. Unfortunately, politics is more powerful than the truth.

  99. To show how gullible people are, a company did a survey in Manitoba and came to the conclusion that most Manitobans are OK with a carbon tax.
    There are two explanations: One is a bad survey.
    The second is that we have gullible people who believe the MSM, CBC and a newspaper.
    The survey should ask questions like: How do you know we are warming, Have you seen data on measurements of CO2 causing warming, Have you seen data on changes in frequency of storms, Have you checked both sides.

  100. There seem to be many calling for realists to become activists.

    It was climate activism that created this mess. Contrary activism will only make a larger mess and will change good skeptical scientists into fund seeking counter alarmists ie bad scientists. Two evils cannot be regarded as good.

    Error can only be corrected when the public perceives the error as an error. That is what we have been trying to do for years. We must continue to shine a light onto the darkness with no assurance of victory. Degeneration of culture may defeat our efforts completely. We can only try. Society will suffer consequences and that too… seems to be a lesson we repeat over and over. GK

  101. Not winning the war…
    a) fight them with reason. convince the scientists. not working.
    b) fight them with politics. show the science and the academic/scientific complex is corrupt. not working.
    c) fight them with economics. show the public that reducing CO2 will hurt the economy. not working.
    d) fight them with propaganda. only bad people do that. we haven’t stooped that low.
    what else is there?

    Not winning the war
    a) CO2 doesn’t cause extreme warming or other climate change
    b) a bit of warming is a good thing for us and plants like it. cold is bad.
    c) the ocean rising and acidity is exaggerated
    d) polar bears are not dying out
    need I go on?

    Not winning the war
    a) climate change is not our fault
    b) if we stopped producing CO2 it wouldn’t make any difference
    c) we can’t afford to stop producing CO2
    d) we can’t stop producing CO2 anyway
    resistance is futile.

    It’s so ironic. The alarmist are winning the battle for public opinion that we should do something about climate change, BUT there is nothing anybody can do to actually change the climate! We can spend lots of money and lives trying and failing.

    Of the blogs I have seen, this one makes the best arguments, and he is not even a skeptic:
    https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/on-fighting-climate-change-and-what-it-will-mean-for-bccanadas-energy-politics/

    He is a scientist in the Vancouver area and has a number of excellent articles on his blog.

  102. Climate alarmism gets a great push from the left because it fills a big need, namely, a justification for collectivism. The original argument for Marxism was that workers were being exploited by free markets, so governments had to control economic activity. But after WWII there came to be undeniable evidence that workers’ lives were much better under free markets (West Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea) than under socialism/communism (East Germany, China, North Korea). So leftists needed a new moral justification to control the economy, and the bogeyman of CO2 emissions filled the void. The totalitarians have gone from ‘capitalism exploits the workers’ to ‘capitalism destroys the earth’ – both assertions having the same degree of evidentiary support.

  103. The scientific method states that any theory, such as dangerous man made global warming, must be supported by observation. Otherwise it remains a theory….or a guess.

    CO2 levels were significantly higher in the past. CO2 has never been observed to be a driver of the climate.
    CO2 levels were higher than today in 85% of the past 600 million years.
    Corals evolved in a period when temperatures were 10 deg C warmer and CO2 levels were ten times greater,
    There is no increase in global storms or their intensity.
    Sea level has been rising for 10,000 years, the rate of rise is not increasing.
    Polar bear populations are growing and setting record for most size.
    When you add the sea ice at both poles together there is essentially no loss of total polar sea ice.
    Antarctic sea ice has been growing for decades, broke the record for most ice in September 2014.
    Antarctic land ice has been growing since 1992 according to NASA. Since Antarctica has 90% of the Earth’s glaciers, this means the Earth’s glaciers are growing, not shrinking.
    There is no increase in record high temperatures. The warming is at night and in winter, and amounts to about 0.8 Deg C since the mid 1800s.
    The oceans are alkaline, which is the opposite of acid. The oceans can never become acid, they didnt when CO2 levels were 15 times greater than today. Saying the oceans are acidifying is like saying on a 100 deg F day that cools to 99.9 degrees, that temperatures are winterizing. They are simply becoming slightly less alkaline.
    There is no increase in disease due to man made global warming.

    and a lot more I probably forgot to add.

    • And after only a few years of record highs – entirely attributable to ice getting spread out further by changing wind patterns – Antarctic sea ice just hit a record low minimum…

      Nobody knows how most polar bear populations are doing: they are not surveyed.

      There are significant impacts on the Beaufort Sea, Svalbard and Hudson Bay populations from changes in arctic sea ice. The Hudson Bay population has declined.

      you are completely wrong about growing glaciers, I’m afraid

    • Nobody knows how most polar bear populations are doing: they are not surveyed.

      Wrong.

  104. When we talk about changing people’s minds, we are not talking about science. We are talking about marketing.

  105. Most of your battles won are political not scientific. That’s why you don’t make real progress.

    You tried to undo Mann 98 with blogs but no science so you let that stand.
    You tried to undo Marcott 13 with blogs but no science so you let that stand.
    You tried to actually do science once to undo the surface based record with BEST, opps, that affirmed the surface based record.

    So Bell suggest you go political.

    Good luck.

    • ReallySkeptical, you state that ‘you tried to undo Mann with no science’ when this entire blog and others like it use science to show how Mann and the rest deliberately abused it. The simple fact of the matter is that Mann and the others are well funded while we are not. Money makes the world go around, and most people simple are too ignorant to discuss AGW.

      With an attitude like yours, no one would make any progress. You’re only skeptical on what you personally want to be skeptical on.

    • ReallySkeptical April 4, 2017 at 7:18 pm

      You tried to undo Mann 98 with blogs but no science so you let that stand.

      The IPCC didn’t let it stand; it dropped it.

  106. Trebla, you said:

    “I have a question for you. How much compassion do you see from humanity for the plight of the desperate refugees who are fleeing the war-torn Middle East RIGHT NOW?”

    I really don’t want to take this off topic, but how much compassion do YOU have for the European women ‘diversified’ by these poor, innocent refugees that are a majority young, fighting age men? Hmm.

  107. Hello! A friendly comment from an actual environmental scientist (I just got promoted to assistant professor, jeeh!)
    This is some honest advice for if you want to start actually engaging with the rest of the world instead of just continuing to complain to each other here on the comments page. I hope you will take it in that spirit:
    1) If you want to engage with scientists, do the bare minimum necessary and read the basic textbook on atmospheric chemistry and physics. It’s painfully obvious that nobody here has done that.
    https://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Chemistry-Physics-Pollution-Climate/dp/1118947401
    2) stop the bizarre conspiracy theory stuff about the UN. It’s just a big organization that for the most part does boring bureaucratic stuff that is still very important. For example: there is a UN committee to make sure that the signs on airports are the same all over the world, so airplanes don’t crash because the pilots get confused. I understand that it’s fun to pretend the UN somehow wants to take over the wold, but it’s really off putting for everyone else.
    3) As the saying goes, the skeptic goes after the science, the troll goes after the individual. By this standard, WUWT is does way too much trolling to be taken serious. Stop the bizarre obsession with a couple of individuals (mr Mann and mr Strong come to mind). The world is a very large place and nobody cares about e.g. some senate hearing where mr Mann did or did not say some smart/dumb stuff.
    And finally, let’s not forget Occam’s razor. The most simple reason why the entire world is moving in a direction you don’t agree with is that you’re just wrong 😉
    Cheers,
    Ben

    • I have to disagree Ben. We are skeptics due to a basic understanding of the science. The academic climate field with the constant promotion of their alarmist narrative have rendered AGW political where perception trumps reality. Here in Canada, it is the same situation, our educated and political class have also bought into the scary story.
      The man-made climate change concern originates with the atmospheric portion of CO2 increasing from 0.028% (measured in ice cores at 280 parts per million) for pre-industrial times to the current 0.04% (400ppm) and the portion of the increase that is from fossil fuel combustion. A 120ppm increase is 1.2 atmospheric molecules per 10,000, so the influence is understandably questionable.
      The actual mechanism (the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect) is not in question. The 150 year instrumental record indicates an increase of 0.8 degrees C. to the mean, which coincides with the climate’s recovery from The Little Ice Age (1350-1850AD) that started with the end of the Medieval Warm Period (850-1350AD)
      We all know CO2 is a radiatively active (greenhouse gas) molecule. It is largely infrared resonant at an amplitude of 15 microns for which the corresponding temperature is over 50 degrees C. below zero. This is why the AGW play occurs well above the cloud deck (still within the troposphere) where there is no water vapour.
      Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the ERL (Effective Radiation Level) to a colder level thus disturbing the equilibrium where outgoing terrestrial longwave infrared radiation balances incoming solar shortwave IR. The accepted math yields a forcing calculation of 3.7 watts/meter squared per atmospheric doubling of CO2 (560ppm) from pre-industrial ice core calculated levels (280ppm) which translates to roughly an increase of +1 degree C to the surface mean temperature. To the extent this “increase” can actually change the climate is where the science ends and the supposition begins.
      Where the concern kicks in is the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis. The IPCC endorsed numerically modeled temperature projections to 2100 include an assumed feedback response over and above the “known” effect of CO2 (~+1C per doubling of concentration) due to increased water vapour from the Anthro CO2 warming. Water vapour is the most abundant and forceful ‘greenhouse’ gas in the atmosphere, ergo even more greenhouse warming, supposedly two or three times as much as the original increase in CO2.
      The higher estimates of climate sensitivity, the origin of the catastrophic scenarios thus the need to mitigate, are based on the the water vapor feedback/amplification “triggered” by AGW. However, there are uncertainties. More water vapor from increased evaporation (itself a profound cooling effect) means more daylight clouds in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming solar while shading the surface, thus a significant cooling effect to counter the AGW effect along with the nightly warming effect of the low level clouds.
      CO2 has risen monotonically since we began measuring it 60 years ago. During this time there have been decadal periods where the temperature mean has risen, fallen and times when it has gone in neither direction. So the instrumental record either does not support AGW theory, or the effect is statistically negligible. Either way the need to impose taxes and costly methods (think wind/solar) to reduce combustion emissions is not justified.
      Regards, M.W.Plia.

      • The accepted math yields a forcing calculation of 3.7 watts/meter squared per atmospheric doubling of CO2 (560ppm) from pre-industrial ice core calculated levels (280ppm) which translates to roughly an increase of +1 degree C to the surface mean temperature.

        Except, cooling at night is regulated by water vapor, and that 1F just gets radiated away before water vapor stops the cooling.

        This is the flaw in the consensus science. You can see this in the temp change under clear skies, you can see this by how daily min temps, follows dew point temp. This all gets hidden by using average daily temps.

      • The accepted math yields a forcing calculation of 3.7 watts/meter squared per atmospheric doubling of CO2 (560ppm) from pre-industrial ice core calculated levels (280ppm) which translates to roughly an increase of +1 degree C to the surface mean temperature.

        Except, cooling at night is regulated by water vapor, and that 1F just gets radiated away before water vapor stops the cooling.

        This is the flaw in the consensus science. You can see this in the temp change under clear skies, you can see this by how daily min temps, follows dew point temp. This all gets hidden by using average daily temps.

      • Hi MW Plia!

        So yeah, your understanding of the physics behind climate change seems to be pretty near to the fundamentals everyone agrees on, although from the specifics it’s still pretty clear you haven’t actually read the textbook (*sigh*). I should point out this makes you an outlier on this website. Regardless, If everyone was as reasoned as you it would be fine. If you don’t agree with the current understanding of water vapor feedback loops, the correct way to go about convincing someone like me is not to just say ‘it’s wrong!’, but to actually dive into the scientific literature and see what everyone else has written about it. There is quite a lot. If you ignore it, then you can reasonably be expected to be ignored yourself.

        I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you could just download the models yourself and see exactly how the code works and then complain in specifics about exactly what you don’t agree with and support that with actual calculations. Have fun!

        http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/

        Kind regards,
        Ben

    • Bonbon sez:
      “Hello! A friendly comment from an actual environmental scientist…”

      My comments:
      Your comments show you are not even close to friendly.

      You do not include any science in your comments.

      You do focus on an appeal to authority — a certain science book that I doubt that you have read, based on the lack of science knowledge in your comments.

      You tell everyone to read that science book, but it is not obvious you have ever read the book yourself, because your comments contain no numbers, facts or other data that would make you seem knowledgeable on climate change.

      You focus on ridicule and character attacks, like most Dumbocrats do — they consider that “debate”

      You seem to think that climate change is well understood, and perhaps explained in ‘the book’ — but if that is your belief, then you are a fool.

      I’ll guess that your favorite book promotes CO2 as the “climate controller”.

      Unfortunately, there is no evidence in 4.5 billion years of climate history that CO2 was ever the “climate controller”, or even an important climate change variable.

      There is evidence from ice core proxy studies that when oceans warm from natural causes, they release, with a lag, some of the dissolved CO2, just like a cold soda pop would do if placed outside on a warm day.

      There is no evidence of runaway global warming at any time in the past 4.5 billion years, even with CO2 levels higher than today most of the time — perhaps reaching 10x to 20x higher.

      The future climate is unknown, and unknowable, without specific knowledge of what causes climate change.’

      Even with specific knowledge of what causes climate change, the variables could change at random, rather than being cyclical, so the future climate still would not be predictable.

      The evidence collected so far strongly suggests CO2 is not the “climate controller”, and that’s why average temperatures and CO2 levels have not had a positive correlation most of the time since the “era of manmade CO2” began in 1940.

      And if you are really an “actual environmental scientist”, I now rank environmental scientists as two steps below politicians, and one step below used car salesmen (I’m using the the Saul Alinsky-style rhetoric that you Dumbocrats understand so well).

      No person with common sense who read your comments would guess that you were a scientist — in my opinion you are not — you are just a leftist dimwit appealing to authority by pretending to be a scientist and promoting a book that no one ever heard of.

      Most important: You have no clue what the future climate will be, the author of the book has no clue what the future climate will be, and I have no clue what the future climate will be.

      THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US IS I KNOW THE FUTURE CLIMATE IS UNKNOWN, AND YOU THINK THE FUTURE CLIMATE IS PREDICTABLE BASED SOLELY ON ESTIMATING THE FUTURE LEVEL OF CO2 IN THE AIR … and never mind that the computer game “CO2 controls the climate” predictions have been grossly inaccurate for the past 30 years!

      • Dear Richard Greene,

        Firstly, you say I’m not friendly, but really, you are the grammatically incorrect unfriendly one here (“you are just a leftist dimwit appealing to authority by pretending to be a scientist and promoting a book that no one ever heard of”). Why would you say something offensive like that? Especially considering this is a standard textbook most college students on this topic are familiar with (yes I’ve read it).

        You complain about the lack of science. So let’s get into the chemistry shall we? If you would just turn to chapter six, page 204, you will see there is plenty of detailed discussion about how chemicals other than CO2 influence the climate. Why don’t you take a look and let me know what specifically you don’t understand and we’ll take it from there. Just a little preview of what real science you will find:

        Chapter 6 Chemistry of the Troposphere

        6.1 Production of Hydroxyl Radicals in the Troposphere 205
        6.2 Basic Photochemical Cycle of NO2, NO, and O3 209
        6.3 Atmospheric Chemistry of Carbon Monoxide 211 6.3.1 Low NOx Limit 214 6.3.2 High NOx Limit 214 6.3.3 Ozone Production Efficiency 215 6.3.4 Theoretical Maximum Yield of Ozone from CO Oxidation 219
        6.4 Atmospheric Chemistry of Methane 219
        6.5 The NOx and NOy, Families 224 6.5.1 Daytime Behavior 224 6.5.2 Nighttime Behavior 225
        6.6 Ozone Budget of the Troposphere and Role of NO* 227 6.6.1 Ozone Budget of the Troposphere 227 6.6.2 Role of NOx 228
        6.7 Tropospheric Reservoir Molecules 231 6.7.1 H2O2, CH3OOH, and HONO 231 6.7.2 Peroxyacyl Nitrates (PANs) 231
        6.8 Relative Roles of VOC and NOx in Ozone Formation 235 6.8.1 Importance of the VOC/NOx Ratio 235 6.8.2 Ozone Isopleth Plot 236
        6.9 Simplified Organic/NOx Chemistry 239
        6.10 Chemistry of Nonmethane Organic Compounds in the Troposphere 6.10.1 Alkanes 242 6.10.2 Alkenes 247 6.10.3 Aromatics 254 6.10.4 Aldehydes 258 6.10.5 Ketones 259 6.10.6 α, β-Unsaturated Carbonyls 260 6.10.7 Ethers 260 6.10.8 Alcohols 261
        6.11 Atmospheric Chemistry of Biogenic Hydrocarbons 261
        6.12 Atmospheric Chemistry of Reduced Nitrogen Compounds 265 6.12.1 Amines 265 6.12.2 Nitriles 266 6.12.3 Nitrites 266 6.13 Atmospheric Chemistry (Gas Phase) of Sulfur Compounds 266 6.13.1 Sulfur Oxides 266 6.13.2 Reduced Sulfur Compounds (Dimethyl Sulfide) 267
        6.14 Tropospheric Chemistry of Halogen Compounds 270 6.14.1 Chemical Cycles of Halogen Species 270 6.14.2 Tropospheric Chemistry of CFC Replacements: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 272

      • Second note to BonBon, in response to his April 8 comment:

        One again you’ve made a long comment, and even after I challenged you, your April 8 comment still provides NO EVIDENCE you are really a teacher who is knowledgable about climate change in any way.

        Once again, you throw out your usual logical fallacy — an appeal to authority — and once again the authority is your “bible” — the ‘magic book’ that will tell everyone everything they need to know about climate change.

        This time you actually reproduced a table of contents for one of the chapters — oh, are we impressed by that — a ten year old could look up a book title and cut and paste the contents for one chapter here!

        I said in my original comment that I did not read the book, but speculated that it would tell me CO2 is the “climate controller” — I disagree with that because there is almost no evidence in 4.5 billion years of Earth’s climate history that CO2 is, or was ever, the “climate controller”.

        Now Mr. BonBon, I may have ridiculed you repeatedly in my comment, because you deserved it, but I never claimed to be friendly.

        You claimed to be friendly in your first post here, and have not been friendly at all.

        I challenge you to post one paragraph at this website that is actually about climate change — tell us your theory of what causes climate change, and the evidence that supports your theory.

        We are al willing to listen, but apparently you have nothing to say?

        I’m tired of you plugging “the book” and implying how smart you are because you allegedly read it — teach us something mr. teacher … if you really are a teacher of some sort … I can already tell you are not a good teacher because after all your posts here, the only thing you have taught is … if you have not read “the book”, I will not talk to you about climate change, because you are unworthy of a debate.

        I have a free climate change blog for non-scientists.

        You could use some training, but I’m sure your mind is closed —
        if it’s not in “the book”, it can’t be true.

        Your biggest failure, and it is a complete failure, is not recognizing that wild guess computer game predictions of the future climate ARE NOT SCIENCE — and after 30 years of wrong predictions, it is very obvious that GCM models assume CO2 is the “climate controller’, and they are WRONG.

        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

        I use my real name online.

        I say what I think, and even write it down in a blog.

        Oh, by the way, I could not care less
        about what you think about my climate blog.

        Now it’s your turn to teach us something about climate change — just one serious paragraph about climate change from you — we’re tired of hearing about the book.

        If you are knowledgeable about a subject, you should be able to teach it, using simple language, to people who are not … especially if you are a teacher.

      • Ha, I’m just trying to imagine a student angrily complain at me that I won’t teach him/her something, but simultaneously refuses to read the required reading materials. You just keep that cognitive dissonance train going Mr Greene. Good day!

    • BonBon
      You are obviously a fraud.
      You demonstrate no knowledge of climate change.
      You repeatedly plug a textbook its not obvious you have read yourself.
      You claim to be a teacher but teach nothing in your comments.
      You avoid real debate by telling others of they didn’t read THE BOOK they are not worthy of debate.
      You are a typical leftist who claims to be smart but is only “smart” in the tactics of ridiculing others and refusing to debate them on any subject.

      You claimed to be friendly in your first post and have never been friendly at all.

      Based on the content of your comments you could be a 14 year-old boy who never took a science course.

      I never claimed to be friendly.

      You are, in plain English, a climate skeptics website troll, and a loser — no knowledge, no debate, lot’s of smarmy put downs and insults under a moniker — that’s BonBon

  108. “…there is a slight increase in the number of skeptics as evidenced by the increased readership at WUWT…”
    Sad to say that an increase in readership is not necessarily an increase in skeptics. I’ve got people “following” my page on Facebook that are alarmists. :(

  109. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    IMPORTANT READ. And Dr Ball is spot on – Mann won hands down. Not through “science” but via politics, fake consensus, emotion (victimhood) and being on the ‘right’ side of the debate.

    Mann understands that simple rhetoric and climate taking points will always trump science and observations because most won’t and don’t follow the important intricacies of science and observations. Not because they are unable to follow intellectually but rather they don’t have the time nor the need or passion to dig deeper and see the real truth or the other side of the coin.

    IMHO the way to ‘unmask’ the ideologically driven “climate change” charade/scam/hoax is to keep pushing *historical* comparisons.

    AGW alarmists detest historical perspectives.

    In my ‘debate’ experience AGW alarmists will immediately deflect, smear and slime when challenged with historical comparisons.

  110. Thanks for this spot on essay.
    The dispassionate science is great for those of us willing to make the effort to understand it. But, to convince people who are busy living their lives, we need to be more direct in how we transmit the message.
    For example, Mike Mann’s Hockey Stick was a fake because
    * Mann cherry picked data that looked like a hockey stick
    * Mann chopped off the last 20 years of paleo numbers because they disproved his hockey stick
    * Mann mixed apples and oranges by tacking on 20 years of actual data to his paleo stuff
    And, ClimateGate (https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/) exposed Mann as a fraud, using terms like “Mike’s Nature Trick” and “Hide the Decline.”
    I think these few lines would convince more people than delivering dry data with little explanation.

    • No it won’t. Skeptics go after the science, trolls go after the people. You’re suggesting more trolling. Case in point: I’ve never read anything by dr. Mann, and I don’t need to because he is just one random scientist out of thousands. Singling him out is just a sign of weakness in the eyes of most people that you need to convince. See my comment above for a bit more detail.

  111. benben commented: “…A friendly comment from an actual environmental scientist…”

    Sounds like you are full of yourself BenBen. Become an expert to have an opinion? BS. 100% of the forecasts/predictions/estimates/incantations from the alarmists have been wrong. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

    • haha, hey I responded to an article lamenting the fact that climate change skeptics are failing to convince people that they’re right. And your response is a perfect example of why: skeptics not being able to have a conversation that involves two way communication. Enjoy your stay at the fringe I guess?

      • So tell Mr. “Two Way Communications” a single prediction by the alarmist crowd that has been realized and is directly related to the burning of fossil fuels? 99%+ of the people affected by policies enacted to mitigate global warming will never have (and don’t care about) the science but they do understand the failures of the science quite well and that’s all that concerns them. Just name one.

      • behold, a tome of knowledge that knows no equal!

        I know you’re not going to actually read it. It’s quite sad really. I’m just trying to make the point that in order to win a war you need to know your enemy. Reading the introductory textbook is a good start. Have fun!

      • Just as I thought. You don’t have one example so you deflect. Aren’t you embarrassed that you can’t come up with a single prediction by the warmist crowd that has come true since they first started making them 40 years ago? Every single one has failed so the answer was to move the predictions so far into the future that there would be no day of reckoning. Can’t come up with one can you? This is why we don’t all need to be experts and all we need to know is when someone is blowing smoke. The warmists are like the guy with the sandwich board on the corner saying the world is going to end.

      • fine fine. Based on the physics of our atmosphere, you would expect the effects of climate change to be uneven: faster warming around the poles and slower warming around the equator. And obviously there is evidence for this:

        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38417198

        While at the same time among others this wonderful website has pointed out that the warming around the tropics is less severe than expected based on global average warming rates.

      • A tome of knowledge that knows no equal? WOW. Is that on the back cover?

        Let’s assume that you HAVE read it and actually own a copy of it. I ask you to highlight ANY point in the book referencing scientific processes in atmospheric chemistry or physics that you believe that everyone here disagrees with. I mean, surely you know YOUR enemy right? Give it a go. Let’s talk science!

      • Aphan, that tome thing was a joke.

        The question in this post is why are skeptics so bad at communicating their concerns, rather than what are their concerns. So another little skirmish far down in the comments section has no relevance. What I’m trying to say is that IF you want to actually communicate with scientists you should put in the barest little bit of effort and read the basic textbook, so that at least everyone starts from the same basic physics. It seems that nobody here is actually interested in doing so. Which is absolutely fine, I’m not here to tell you what to do. Just: if you want to reach my colleagues, here is what I suggest you do.

        But, sure, if you want to discuss, I’d say y’all should take a good look at chapters 7, 12, and 21 – 26. It should be available in any university library.

      • benben, why don’t you debate a specific point of atmospheric chemistry and physics that you’re certain the skeptics have wrong, as already suggested? Although most of us are already familiar with what M.W.Plia said, we could use some education by the new assistant professor, who surely has more knowledge and experience than most everyone here. Please, proceed. You’ll no doubt say many things that few here have heard before, and you can thusly– using the tome of knowledge that knows no equal– lead us to the light. I do hope you’ll follow through, and not just throw out insults and proclamations and then leave us hanging.

      • Look, it’s not that outlandish to refer to a textbook for a basic understanding of physics and chemistry. If you don’t want to do that, fine, just don’t complain that the scientists are ignoring you, as mr. Ball does in the above. If you are interested, then by all means, read the chapters I mentioned above and we can talk further.

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • also, please don’t say that I throw insults at the people here. There are no insults in the above comment thread by anyone, except perhaps your attempt at mockery .

      • I was only asking you to take an example and show how misguided we are. You said we were wrong, and I apologize if I assumed that you can demonstrate this. Take water vapor feedback, for example. Or explain how it doesn’t matter that mid-tropospheric temps don’t match model predictions, using basic atmospheric physics and chemistry that you assert no one understands.

        Or are you going to imply again that we’re too dumb to understand?

      • reactions like these always make a laugh a bit. Atmospheric chemistry just isn’t something you can debate about in the comments section with a completely random person. You’d need a basic common understanding on the (not necessarily climate change related) fundamentals before you go to the juicy debatable bits. It’s just painfully obvious many people here haven’t done that. Neither have you Don132. Again, it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t want to debate anyone. My point was: if the skeptics ever want to convince scientists, they’ll just need to do the work. It’s like writing an introduction section in a paper. Nobody likes to do it but you’re not taken serious if you don’t.

        Have a good day!

      • Why are you guys feeding this troll? He doesn’t actually have any knowledge about the topic, or he’d have demonstrated it by now. All he has are veiled insults about the average commenter’s level of intellect… when they’re veiled at all.

        To be fair, the more times he comments, the closer his statements regarding said average come to being true…

      • *sigh* only on WUWT would a friendly suggestion to read a scientific textbook on the topic under discussion be considered trolling. Note that I said I would happily discuss the contents of several of the chapters, but the response to that was… crickets. So what do you want me to do? Copy paste the contents of the book? Spend 5 hours writing everything just so I pass your test of competency? If you denounce anyone who doesn’t share your opinion as a troll, no wonder nobody takes you serious (which was the topic of the article posted above I point out)

      • No one asked for an entire textbook; we asked for ONE POINT supporting your view — you’ve provided none.

        Instead, you’ve insulted everyone here by saying none of us has ever read such a textbook — an assertion self-evidently false if you’ve actually read through any other WUWT comment sections, let alone the articles themselves. In fact most of us on here are actually scientific &/or technical experts in our own particular fields (some of them, gasp, actually having to do with climate & related fields of study, shocking I know) so your assertion that we “read a textbook” is doubly insulting.

        “If you denounce anyone who doesn’t share your opinion as a troll, no wonder nobody takes you serious.”

        Here’s the pot calling the kettle black, for sure: if you, Sir, denounce everyone you’re talking to as an idiot & offer no scientific evidence to support your view, why should we listen to you?

      • Ah, you see, you hit the nail on the head there. You seem to be under the impression that because you read any engineering textbook you don’t have to read this particular one. That is like me saying that because I know my atmospheric physics, I can now design an airplane. Sure, the very basic physics are the same, but I still won’t have a clue what I’m talking about. So let me amend my statement: if you want to debate a atmospheric scientist, do the very basic work of reading an atmospheric physics textbook. If you want to debate a metallurgist, do the basics of reading an introductory metallurgy textbook, etc. etc.

        So dear , smokey, do you want to come out here and now and state publicly that you have already read seinfeld & pandis?

        Pointing out that you have not read the classic climate related textbook is just pointing out a fact, not an insult. Once again, I don’t care if you don’t want to read it. Just don’t expect scientists to listen to you if you don’t. And I can’t help but make the connection that many on the american right seem to find facts offensive in general and prefer their alternative facts ;)

      • Darling benben, you don’t get to go back after the fact to clarify your condescension as though you never intended it; you write far too well for it to have been anything else. In fact, the only reason I began conversing was to attempt to goad you (a much better ‘speaker’ than the average troll-op) into revealing whether you actually did have anything of scientific or intellectual value to add to the conversation. Sadly, that has yet to occur.

        To be frank, your textbook is just a red herring — no one needs it to understand the difference between (e.g.) diabatic & adiabatic lapse rates, nor insulation vs insolation, nor LWIR vs IR, nor black-body vs gray-body radiation, nor Raleigh waves vs Kelvin waves, et cetera, ad nauseam. Any reasonably talented computer programmer can look at the code used in the climate models and see that they barely reflect reality, let alone have any hope of prediction/projecting it (no, your textbook isn’t needed to explain the difference between those words either). Furthermore, any history student can read in the New York Times alone — to say nothing of the scientific literature — at least half a dozen times in the last 150 years where “scientists warn” that the recent climate change is alarming, unprecedented, & likely due to mankind’s activity, regardless of whether the change was toward hot or cold. The observations of those days bear out that we are in no way in any sort of “unprecedented” period (other than global quality of life, which is better than it’s ever been), any high school student can see that the outputs of those models clearly do not match observed reality, & to conclude the pronouncements of doom to date regarding the consequences of a warming climate are even less in line with observation than the models, so I’m not sure even a high school student of average ability is needed there.

        Thus, your continued insistence we all must read some textbook (preferably yours) before we can even hope to understand someone on your level is purely another dose of the poisoned pen which has permeated your posts from the beginning of this little conversation, nothing more.

        Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned that there are climate experts on this board, some of whom even sympathize with you? Is it possible that I’ve caused you to worry that whatever “science” you do present will be shot down by experts in your own field? Or have I assumed too much and you aren’t actually an expert in a field relating in any way to climate? You haven’t actually said, directly, so I suppose it’s possible your assistant professorship is in English Literature, e.g.? Not that there’s anything wrong with that; some of my best friends are fine arts majors, nor do I believe an English major can’t understand the basics of climate science — the question at hand is whether YOU do.

        I’m truly sorry, little one, but without proof your claim of expertise, special knowledge & appeals to authority are not accepted as intellectual currency. Instead, your continued refusal to engage in even the most basic of scientific exchange while simultaneously demeaning en masse & at every opportunity the readers of this board does nothing but uphold my earlier pronouncement. To put it simply, if one sounds like a troll & acts like a troll, one is likely to be a troll in fact, & you, adorable benben, show all the pertinent symptoms.

        So until you begin speaking science, I feel no pressing need to continue… which is truly a shame, as I’d so looked forward to an eloquently written pro-CAGW opinion on this board. Good day, Sir.

      • A good writer! Thank you for that compliment. You are unfortunately a moderate reader ;) My first message in this comment thread clearly states I’m an environmental scientist. Majored in chemical engineering, if that helps. Furthermore, writing things like darling benben, little one and adorable benben… well, let’s just say that it doesn’t help your claim that somehow I am the one being offensive here.

        You might think that you don’t need to know the finer points of thermodynamics to understand climate models. I think you do, and people that claim they don’t are just afraid to admit they can’t follow the math. And with me every other climate/environmental/etc. scientist. As dr. Ball pointed out in the above article, it’s not your fellow WUWT readers you have to convince. Rather it’s scientists like me. So… play ball or don’t play at all. It’s all the same to me!

        Cheers,
        Benben

      • Speaking of being a “moderate reader”…you really should not chastise others for something that you obviously have not mastered yourself.

        You state: “As dr. Ball pointed out in the above article, it’s not your fellow WUWT readers you have to convince. Rather it’s scientists like me.”

        But ironically, nowhere in the above article does Dr. Ball say anything at all about convincing “scientists like you”. He doesn’t say anything about convincing scientists at all. Even a US High School student can tell you how to write, and therefor read, a proper essay:

        Creating an Outline for an Essay
        I. Introduction. Sentence to get the attention of your readers: One-sentence thesis statement:
        II. Body. First main idea: a. Supporting evidence for the first idea: b. Supporting evidence for the first idea: …
        III. Conclusion. Restatement of your thesis: Insightful sentence to end your essay.

        Dr Ball’s conclusion is:(bold mine)

        “Trump won in the minds of working and middle-class people, which is where the climate war must be won for lasting victory. They only need to understand enough science to know how it was corrupted, but they must know the motive. Until that happens, all the AGW proponents need to say is that Trump is acting to line the pockets of his billionaire friends. Mann demonstrated the technique in his congressional presentation.”

        How exactly does someone who “majored” in “Chemical Engineering” become an assistant professor of public management ? Does that qualify as a “scientist” in the Netherlands?

      • Ben, I read some pages from your recommended book online. In the chapter on climate the authors give a brief, simplified explanation of “the scare” where the water vapor feedback/amplification “triggered” by AGW will cause unprecedented warming, possibly melting enough ice to flood the coasts. IMHO this is fear mongering, and I don’t understand the reasoning behind such an extraordinary claim, there is no evidence, and if there is I welcome your explanation.

        The problem with the CO2 control knob hypothesis is clouds, they really are the elephant in the room. As I said upthread, more water vapor from the supposed increased evaporation (itself a profound cooling effect) means more daylight clouds in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming solar while shading the surface, thus a significant cooling effect to counter the AGW effect along with the nightly warming effect of the low-level clouds.

        The burden of proof remains with the warm side. The following is from an article about Steve McIntryre, who runs the blog “Climate Audit”:

        A man who has become the arch-enemy of climate scientists for exposing serious flaws in a United Nations study on global warming believes the issue has been greatly overstated. Vilified by global warming zealots, Canadian Steve McIntyre, who was passing through Auckland this week, told NBR ONLINE the impact of global warming is likely to be “about half” of what current scientific models are showing.

        Mr. McIntyre, who is a mathematician and former mining company executive, says:

        “The onus is on the people arguing it’s a big problem to really show in an engineering quality report why it’s a big problem. There’s too much arm waving in the reports and in all the years I’ve been doing this you get scientific models which have inherent assumptions in them. The observations indicate to me that the models are probably running hot, that the impact is about half of what they are showing. I do view that as a black mark against the models.”

        Asked how much damage has been caused to the environment so far from global warming, he said:

        “That’s a good question and is the acid test between the broad group of sceptics who are not very hardline and activists. Activists will tend to say that carbon dioxide emissions in the last 50 years have caused serious negative impacts. But from my point of view I would say I don’t know what they are and certainly on balance there’s been no serious impact. I view that more as a matter of good luck than good management because we have certainly been increasing carbon dioxide levels without thinking about it. But, nonetheless, societies are clearly wealthier and are more active now than they were 50 years ago, so one way or another the impact has not been as much as all that or we’ve coped with it rather well.”

        Regards, M.W. Plia.

      • References Plia, in this case include exact pages read and page on which you found the offending paragraphs.

      • From:

        https://books.google.ca/books/about/Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Physics.html?id=YH2K9eWsZOcC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falsegoogle books.ca

        In “Chapter 1: The Atmosphere”, sub section “1.2 Climate”, first or second page.

        Apologies Ben, that’s the best I can do, books.google does not allow cut and paste and there are no page #s. In my own words I’ve described what is said. I think you should trust me. If you have a copy you should have no trouble finding the “offending paragraphs”.

        Apologies for the interruption Aphan, I did not mean to intrude. When I posted your reply wasn’t there.

      • No apology necessary M.W. Plia.

        I’ve no desire to engage with benben more than I have. His behavior in this thread is typical and does nothing more than annoy. He may have “majored” in chemical engineering or not, but he doesn’t actually speak any demonstrable “science” on his own. He’s also not an assistant professor in any of the physical/atmospheric/environmental sciences (obviously) so why he called himself an “actual environmental scientist” is beyond me. I believe he’s a social scientist, and so he thinks he has the expertise to lead and advise people.

      • Dear Plia, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but you are aware that you just read the introductory paragraphs to the introductory chapter, right? What you are looking for is chapter 7 and 12 and then 21-25. You see the problem here? All the engineering quality info is in the book. But then, sadly, even when opening the book you’re refusing to go to the index and look up the correct chapter. How bizarre is that? I’ll copy below the index of chapter 7 so you have an idea.

        I strongly believe that all information should be available to everyone so if you can’t afford the textbook, leave your e-mail address here and I’ll lend you a pdf copy of my copy of the textbook. Or alternatively, ask one of the moderators to give you my e-mail address. I don’t feel comfortable putting my info here on this board, because of all the crazies (you’re obviously not included Plia)

        Chapter 7: Chemistry of the Atmospheric Aqueous Phase

        7.1 Liquid Water in the Atmosphere 284
        7.2 Absorption Equilibria and Henry’s Law 286
        7.3 Aqueous-Phase Chemical Equilibria 291
        7.3.1 Water 291 7.3.2 Carbon Dioxide-Water Equilibrium 292 7.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide-Water Equilibrium 294 7.3.4 Ammonia-Water Equilibrium 299 7.3.5 Nitric Acid-Water Equilibrium 299 7.3.6 Equilibria of Other Important Atmospheric Gases 302
        7.4 Aqueous-Phase Reaction Rates 306
        7.5 S(IV)-S(VI) Transformation and Sulfur Chemistry 308 7.5.1 Oxidation of S(IV) by Dissolved O3 308 7.5.2 Oxidation of S(IV) by Hydrogen Peroxide 311 7.5.3 Oxidation of S(IV) by Organic Peroxides 312 7.5.4 Uncatalyzed Oxidation of S(IV) by O2 313
        7.5.5 Oxidation of S(IV) by O2 Catalyzed by Iron and Manganese 314 7.5.6 Comparison of Aqueous-Phase S(IV) Oxidation Paths 316
        7.6 Dynamic Behavior of Solutions with Aqueous-Phase Chemical Reactions 318 7.6.1 Closed System 319 7.6.2 Calculation of Concentration Changes in a Droplet with Aqueous-Phase Reactions 321
        Appendix 7.1 Thermodynamic and Kinetic Data 325
        Appendix 7.2 Additional Aqueous-Phase Sulfur Chemistry 328 7.A.1 S(IV) Oxidation by the OH Radical 328 7.A.2 Oxidation of S(IV) by Oxides of Nitrogen 334 7.A.3 Reaction of Dissolved SO2 with HCHO 334 Appendix 7.3 Aqueous-Phase Nitrite and Nitrate Chemistry 336 7.A.4 NOx Oxidation 336 7.A.5 Nitrogen Radicals 337
        Appendix 7.4 Aqueous-Phase Organic Chemistry 338 Appendix 7.5 Oxygen and Hydrogen Chemistry 339

  112. Should the statement, “They only need to understand enough science to know how it was corrupted, but they must know the motive.” instead read as “They NOT only need to understand enough science to know how it was corrupted, but they must know the motive.”?

  113. Here’s my suggestion for the motive. It may hit close to many on this site who are clearly so well educated. I recently graduated university with a BS and I noticed a distinct elitism among my instructors, all of whom held PhD’s and were conducting research. These are very smart people. They have worked very hard to master their disciplines and are rightly praised for their accomplishments. They have also spent immense amounts of time on university campuses where a break from their endeavors was very likely to include attending some left wing themed talk or event. These very smart people then look around them and who do they see sitting as mayors, city council people, school board members, even their own school administration? They see people with degrees in business, education, facilitation (whatever that is) or no degree at all, just a person good at getting into such positions. The story is the same for state and federal government law makers (look at the current US president). These far “less qualified” people are making decisions of great import about societal matters and not listening to the “smart” people. Climate alarmism is the vehicle that allows/forces the policy people to listen to their academic “betters”. It is a base, corrupt but nonetheless powerful motive common to humans condemned as jealousy by moral and religious thinkers. The president was elected in part because of his willingness to call out such elites on their unworthy selfishness. He could be very effective at countering the prevailing climate change push if he would turn that criticism toward the alarmists.

    • The AGW hysteria may be regarded as a revolt of the “elite” because the sole rationality of switching to solar and wind energy is cutting of the power from the lower- and middel classes which makes them servants or worse. But then: who are these elites. Not only the PhD ‘s in science , also the bankers. Anyhow, the cries for less (consumption) and austerity will not hurt the rich.

  114. Every major professional media person who talks about climate believed the fraud was real, so there’s never anyone who does not believe in the fraud, or who has not been stealing money in the name of the fraud,

    who has a professsional level media presence.

    Climate and physics and mathematics

    are not the same thing as scamming up a big audience.

  115. Unfortunately the only way to win is to keep up a robust defense to prevent permanent regulations to combat CO2 pollution from being enacted so as to allow enough time for everyone to see that CO2 is not the bogeyman some claim it is. Eventually people will see that temperatures have either been stable, rose insignificantly, or even cooled. What we really need is a long cold spell (low solar activity, volcanic activity induced) to put a chill on the global warming alarm. In the rules of military warfare it requires three times the forces to attack as compared to those who defend.. A robust defensive action must be rigorously maintained.

  116. The publication of a couple of forthcoming skeptical peer-reviewed papers will pack some persuasive punch:

    1. Monckton’s exposé of two computational errors in the IPCC’s / consensus’s narrative.

    2. Watts “2012” (on the far-too-high temperature record of USHCN).

    Even though warmists will attempt to minimize the significance of these, the consensus will look biased and/or incompetent not to have corrected these matters themselves for decades.

  117. Scientists need to keep plugging away but the AGW movement is really a political one rooted in hard-left (Marxist) and soft-left (guilt-based) hostility towards Western prosperity, which was at its relative peak when the movement took off. To a large extent you have to NOT be a scientist to understand what is really going on, because many of the fundamental issues involved in the cultural disaster that is climate alarmism (hostility to the West, hostility to capitalism, the corruption of science, group-think, low media standards, intolerance of alternative points of view based on the Marxist freedom of speech suppression technique of political correctness) would be the same and just a problematic even if the climate alarmists were right about the science.

    Green fundamentalism as a whole will probably fade away when the average white person is poorer than the average Asian, which will happen this century if the quality of government in Western countries doesn’t improve, especially if it is obvious by that time that the global population is levelling off.

    • I regard climate alarmism as a revolt of the “elites”
      Human behaviour is basically controlled by fear, it was the church that controlled this fear by putting the future “in God’s hands” . God being transmutated into nature projects fears on natural phenomena such as the climate. Another fear is resoure shortage which is the lack of trust in human ingenuity.
      Consider: windmills and solar panels never are able to generate enough energy for all so their application serves the purpose of creating a new class of servants. Consider: the rejection of nuclear power which may produce abundant energy, so freedom, for all. Consider: the appeals for austarity which will not hurt the rich, of course. Everybody wants to be part of this new elite which is the reason that higher educated people endorse climate alarmism unconditionally.

Comments are closed.