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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 3, 2017 7:07 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 3, 2017 7:30 pm

Please explain how they will “lose all credibility”?

Reply to  Scott
April 3, 2017 7:52 pm

Are you unfamiliar with the press on this one?

Or read some of the comments in “science” blogs like this one-

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.


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.

Reply to  Scott
April 3, 2017 8:01 pm

credibility is irrelevant in a sea of credulity…

Reply to  Scott
April 3, 2017 8:04 pm

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?

Iain Russell
Reply to  Scott
April 3, 2017 8:22 pm

Gnomish has it!

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 5:44 am

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


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!

John Plummer
Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 6:47 am

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.

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 6:51 am

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?

John G
Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 8:49 am

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.

Reply to  Scott
April 5, 2017 11:45 am

“…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.

Reply to  clipe
April 4, 2017 12:21 am

I see your point, but the LEFT will likely gush all over them….LOL

Reply to  Aphan
April 3, 2017 9:23 pm

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.



(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).

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 4, 2017 5:27 am

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.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 4, 2017 7:53 pm

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:

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 4, 2017 9:42 pm

OCCIAR/Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources

Expert Panel includes:

Ian Burton, IPCC
Gord McBean, IPCC
Barry Smit, IPCC
Alain Bourque, Oranos, Montreal

And others


Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 4, 2017 9:51 pm

Should be: Alain Bourque, Ouranos, Montreal.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 4, 2017 10:22 pm

Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Toronto, Canada

Staff Profiles include:

Paul Kovacs, Executive Director
Gordon McBean, Chair. Policy


Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 5, 2017 10:16 am

Quebec Premier’s Website, Toronto, July 8, 2015

Climate Summit of the Americas 2015, Toronto, Canada

‘Quebec adheres to the Under 2 Memorandum of Understanding on Global Climate Leadership’

Communique mentions:

Mark Kenber, CEO, The Climate Group
Al Gore
U.S. governors names
Quebec Summit on Climate Change, April 2015


Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 5, 2017 6:54 pm

‘Proceedings Of The Quebec Summit On Climate Change’, April, 2015

60 pages with photos.

Includes promotion of carbon taxes.

Proceedings at:

Slow download.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 6, 2017 12:41 pm

State of California website

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

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

More at:


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

Attendees: U.S., Canada and others.

Information at:

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 6, 2017 2:00 pm


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:

Has link to the Under-2-MOU

Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 6, 2017 6:24 pm

Under 2


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:

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Aphan
April 3, 2017 11:00 pm

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.

Reply to  Malcolm Carter
April 4, 2017 3:51 pm

“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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 2:00 am

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…..

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 6:12 am

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

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 8:32 am

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!

M Seward
Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 3:01 am

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.

Reply to  M Seward
April 4, 2017 5:32 am

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

Reply to  M Seward
April 4, 2017 9:18 am

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”

Reply to  M Seward
April 4, 2017 9:47 am

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.

Richard Hill
Reply to  M Seward
April 4, 2017 9:30 pm

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?

Richard Hill
Reply to  M Seward
April 4, 2017 9:30 pm

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?

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 6:11 am

Aphan: Won’t happen.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 6:24 am

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 8:27 am

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 9:21 am

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.

April 3, 2017 7:16 pm

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?

Reply to  BernardP
April 3, 2017 7:41 pm

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

Reply to  wws
April 4, 2017 5:59 am

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.

Reply to  wws
April 4, 2017 4:06 pm

“Add Steyn and Inhofe to that list.”

Add Cruz, too.

Reply to  BernardP
April 3, 2017 8:36 pm

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.

Reply to  davidgmills
April 4, 2017 4:01 am

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.

Reply to  Greg
April 4, 2017 4:09 am

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)

Paul Penrose
Reply to  davidgmills
April 4, 2017 8:50 am

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

Reply to  davidgmills
April 4, 2017 9:59 am

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.

Reply to  davidgmills
April 4, 2017 10:03 am


sorry … I missed David’s post.

my above response is only meant for davidmills.

Reply to  BernardP
April 4, 2017 2:28 am

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!

Reply to  Newminster
April 4, 2017 2:37 pm

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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Newminster
April 5, 2017 5:27 am

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.

Reply to  BernardP
April 4, 2017 6:14 am

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.

Reply to  Sheri
April 4, 2017 9:28 am

The last guy was a diety, just ask his disciples.

Reply to  Sheri
April 4, 2017 12:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Sheri
April 5, 2017 12:45 pm

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! ”


Reply to  BernardP
April 4, 2017 8:36 am

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.

Reply to  BernardP
April 4, 2017 4:04 pm

“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.

Tom Halla
April 3, 2017 7:21 pm

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.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 3, 2017 8:03 pm

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).

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
April 3, 2017 11:31 pm

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.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
April 4, 2017 3:41 am

“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.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
April 4, 2017 6:16 am

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.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
Reply to  Sheri
April 4, 2017 6:43 am

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.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
April 4, 2017 8:42 am

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.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
April 4, 2017 12:53 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 3, 2017 11:07 pm

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

Tom Halla
Reply to  Chris
April 3, 2017 11:18 pm

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.

Reply to  Chris
April 4, 2017 4:05 am

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.

David L. Hagen
April 3, 2017 7:24 pm

Pointman has some strategic articles on how to effectively fight asymmetric political war on global warming/ climate alarmism.

Joel O’Bryan
April 3, 2017 7:29 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 7:29 pm

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!

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 4:43 am

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

Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 4, 2017 6:22 am

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?

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 6:20 am

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.

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 9:35 am

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.

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 9:54 am

@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.

Reply to  Paul Jackson
April 4, 2017 12:56 pm

An eternal game of “King of the Emotional Appeal” mountain.

April 3, 2017 7:32 pm

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.

Reply to  wws
April 4, 2017 12:58 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 7:34 pm

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?”

Reply to  Scott
April 3, 2017 7:55 pm

how idiotic of mr horowitz to characterize insult as argument.

Reply to  gnomish
April 3, 2017 11:53 pm

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

Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 6:23 am

Get a Republican with a better answer next time.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Scott
April 4, 2017 8:59 am

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.

April 3, 2017 7:35 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 3, 2017 7:39 pm

Unfortunately, the mind-shaping media accepts what Mann says without question.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2017 7:43 pm

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.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2017 7:56 pm

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.”

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2017 8:14 pm

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

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2017 8:21 pm

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.


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.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2017 8:23 pm

We don’t trust our “institutions” anymore. And that’s a very good thing at this point in time.

wayne Job
Reply to  JohnWho
April 4, 2017 3:00 am

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.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 4, 2017 5:52 am

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?

Reply to  Chris
April 4, 2017 5:57 am

“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.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 4, 2017 6:26 am

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.

Reply to  Sheri
April 6, 2017 1:05 pm


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

Steve Case
Reply to  Aphan
April 3, 2017 11:52 pm

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.


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

Myron Mesecke
April 3, 2017 7:41 pm

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.

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
April 3, 2017 8:01 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 3, 2017 8:56 pm

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.

Tom Halla
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 3, 2017 9:02 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 6:28 am

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 8:52 am

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! 😉

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 8:55 am

@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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 9:41 am

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.

Walt D.
April 3, 2017 7:46 pm

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.

Reply to  Walt D.
April 3, 2017 8:58 pm

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).

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 1:17 am

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).

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 7:09 am

Canab: another serious question is will they run out of “opium”?

Reply to  Walt D.
April 4, 2017 6:29 am

There parents sent them to those schools.

Reply to  Sheri
April 4, 2017 8:57 am

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.

April 3, 2017 7:51 pm

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.

Reply to  gnomish
April 3, 2017 9:02 pm

So what is the solution? A French revolution? 1% of the people have half the stuff and that percentage is growing not declining.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 1:59 am

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.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 6:31 am

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.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 8:44 am

They are not keeping you from getting stuff. You are.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 10:24 am


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?

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 4, 2017 11:40 am

@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.

April 3, 2017 8:00 pm

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..

Reply to  goldminor
April 4, 2017 6:31 am

Thank you for the more upbeat comment.

Reply to  goldminor
April 4, 2017 6:46 am

+1. I think Christy is a very compelling speaker — his brains and integrity shine through every time.

April 3, 2017 8:04 pm

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

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.

April 3, 2017 8:08 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 8:10 pm

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.

Andrew Burnette
April 3, 2017 8:10 pm

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.

Reply to  Andrew Burnette
April 4, 2017 2:18 am

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.

Janice Moore
April 3, 2017 8:10 pm

I wouldn’t call this “winning.”comment image

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.


Game over.

And! Now that TRUMP WON 🙂

the climate clowns will soon be out of a job:

the circus tent is coming down.


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!!

April 3, 2017 8:12 pm

Since the mass media is engaged in a major propaganda war pushing CAGW, the battle to counter their brainwashing is definitely uphill.

Reply to  Chad Jessup
April 3, 2017 8:35 pm

No. Not when you examine the “evidence” Chad-

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 6:13 am

While there may well be refinements made to the efforts to educate those who are woefully uninformed,
here’s an encouraging story out of Germany; strong evidence of how people, who are facing the shocking ramifications of mitigation efforts, are resisting in order to protect their beloved environment.

Janice Moore
April 3, 2017 8:12 pm

I wouldn’t call this “winning.”comment image

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.


Game over.

And! Now that TRUMP WON 🙂

the climate clowns will soon be out of a job:

the circus tent is coming down.


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!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 3, 2017 8:23 pm

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!

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 3, 2017 11:02 pm

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…

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 4, 2017 8:31 am

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 !

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 4, 2017 5:58 am

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

Reply to  Janice Moore
April 4, 2017 9:04 am

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! :-))

Clever Geda
April 3, 2017 8:19 pm

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.

Johann Wundersamer
April 3, 2017 8:22 pm


Anyway – who buys tickets for watching M.Mann + some lukewarmers.

Gary Pearse
April 3, 2017 8:23 pm

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 4, 2017 4:35 pm

Good post, Gary.

April 3, 2017 8:27 pm

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.

Reply to  milwaukeebob
April 3, 2017 8:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Aphan
April 4, 2017 2:47 pm

Wrong. Perception is reality. Propaganda molds perception.

Reply to  Don132
April 4, 2017 4:55 pm

“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.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  milwaukeebob
April 3, 2017 8:56 pm

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 3, 2017 10:03 pm

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.

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 4, 2017 2:55 am

@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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 4, 2017 4:49 am

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 4, 2017 6:42 am

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.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 4, 2017 8:20 am

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.


Reply to  milwaukeebob
April 4, 2017 9:11 am

“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?

April 3, 2017 8:30 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 8:33 pm

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.

Ian W
Reply to  John
April 4, 2017 4:57 am

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?

Reply to  John
April 4, 2017 6:46 am

There’s no accumulated storage from co2 in the temperature record. Water vapor regulates any increases back out by condensing less water at night, which allows more of it to cool to space.

I can show you, https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/

François Riverin
Reply to  John
April 4, 2017 7:48 am

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

Ore-gonE Left
April 3, 2017 8:36 pm

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??????????????????

Reply to  Ore-gonE Left
April 4, 2017 2:49 am

Keeeeerrect! (Elmer Gantry 1961).

Ron Williams
April 3, 2017 8:41 pm

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…

Reply to  Ron Williams
April 3, 2017 10:54 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 8:44 pm

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.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 3, 2017 9:18 pm

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 3, 2017 10:06 pm

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).

Smokey (Can't do a thing about wildfires)
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 4, 2017 2:41 am

: 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?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 4, 2017 6:50 am

Joel, this is the nonlinear cooling in affect.
See you can understand this

April 3, 2017 8:46 pm

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.

Reply to  markl
April 3, 2017 9:05 pm

Agreed, +10

April 3, 2017 8:48 pm

We are not winning the war because we haven’t started fighting yet.

April 3, 2017 8:54 pm

“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!

Reply to  davesivyer
April 3, 2017 9:23 pm

He probably would not have beaten Sanders. Because Sanders appealed to middle class people as well. And Sanders was big on climate change and renewables.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
April 3, 2017 11:00 pm

Middle class Americans are NOT big on climate change OR renewables or social democrats or democratic socialists.

April 3, 2017 8:58 pm

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?

Reply to  goldminor
April 3, 2017 9:01 pm

Never mind, I now see that it is moderation.

April 3, 2017 9:03 pm

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.

Jim Veenbaas
April 3, 2017 9:04 pm

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.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
April 3, 2017 10:22 pm

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.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
April 4, 2017 4:55 pm

“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.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
April 4, 2017 6:00 pm

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?

April 3, 2017 9:16 pm

+ 10.
Wished I had said that …or said it as clear.

April 3, 2017 9:30 pm

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.

Reply to  Toto
April 4, 2017 6:55 am

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.

Reply to  Toto
April 4, 2017 9:23 am

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

April 3, 2017 9:30 pm

“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.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
April 4, 2017 9:27 am

I have been explaining how and it was a swindle for 30 + years. Read my book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”

Robert Stewart
April 3, 2017 9:51 pm

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.

Reply to  Robert Stewart
April 4, 2017 12:12 am


Peter S
April 3, 2017 9:56 pm

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”.

April 3, 2017 9:56 pm

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.

Peter S
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 3, 2017 10:50 pm

Remember, when it comes to main stream media, bad news will always outsell good news

Reply to  Peter S
April 4, 2017 9:26 am

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.

April 3, 2017 10:13 pm

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.

Killer Marmot
April 3, 2017 10:36 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 10:49 pm

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.

D Long
Reply to  John Eggert
April 4, 2017 12:23 am

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.

April 3, 2017 10:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 4, 2017 10:19 am

I’d say a practical answer might be to get an audience with lawmakers, one at a time.

Phil Rae
April 3, 2017 10:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Phil Rae
April 4, 2017 1:59 am

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.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Griff
April 4, 2017 3:30 am

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%.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
April 4, 2017 5:36 am

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.

Reply to  Griff
April 4, 2017 6:34 am

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.

Reply to  Griff
April 4, 2017 6:48 am

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’?

Phil Rae
Reply to  Griff
April 4, 2017 10:42 am

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!

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Phil Rae
April 4, 2017 12:46 pm

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

April 3, 2017 11:01 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 11:16 pm

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.

April 3, 2017 11:41 pm

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.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
April 4, 2017 12:34 am

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.

Jim Veenbaas
Reply to  davidmhoffer
April 4, 2017 12:58 am

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.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
April 4, 2017 7:01 am

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.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
April 4, 2017 9:33 am

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).


April 3, 2017 11:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Faye
April 4, 2017 5:06 am

Good approach! I would also add clawing back some of the money that climate alarmists and other enviros have already stolen.

Reply to  Faye
April 4, 2017 7:56 am

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.

Leo Smith
April 4, 2017 12:22 am

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.


Reply to  Leo Smith
April 4, 2017 10:48 am

I vote Leo Smith for the Best! Post! EVAH! on WUWT. You simply said it ALL! Kudos!

Robert Stewart
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 5, 2017 3:31 pm

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.

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 10, 2017 3:12 am

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.

April 4, 2017 12:22 am

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.

Reply to  sabretruthtiger
April 4, 2017 7:07 am

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.

James Francisco
Reply to  sabretruthtiger
April 4, 2017 8:13 am

You nailed it in as few words possible.

Reply to  James Francisco
April 4, 2017 8:33 am

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.

Chris Schoneveld
April 4, 2017 12:32 am

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

April 4, 2017 12:34 am

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.


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.

Jim Veenbaas
April 4, 2017 12:46 am

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.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
April 4, 2017 7:12 am

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.

April 4, 2017 12:58 am

[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.

Reply to  David
April 4, 2017 7:22 am

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.

Jim Veenbaas
April 4, 2017 1:13 am

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.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
April 4, 2017 1:37 am

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.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
April 4, 2017 1:42 am

Right ! This has nothing to do with truth and everything with authority , consensus, endless repition and threats.

Steve Case
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
April 4, 2017 1:55 am

Moderately Cross of East Anglia @1:37 am

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


Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
April 4, 2017 4:53 am

Heartland? GWPF? what that think tank Ebell worked for?

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
April 4, 2017 6:41 am

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.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
April 4, 2017 7:58 am

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.