Real science must guide policy

Climate alarmists use faulty science and bald assertions to demand end to fossil fuels

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

All too many alarmist climate scientists have received millions in taxpayer grants over the years, relied on computer models that do not reflect real-world observations, attacked and refused to debate scientists who disagree with manmade climate cataclysm claims, refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers – and then used their work to make or justify demands that the world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide 80% of our energy and have lifted billions out of nasty, brutish, life-shortening poverty and disease.

A recent US House of Representatives Science Committee hearing on assumptions, policy implications and scientific principles of climate change showcased this. Testimony by climate scientists Drs. John Christy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr. contrasted sharply with that of Dr. Michael Mann.

Christy noted that Congress and the public have been getting biased analyses and conclusions that begin with and attempt to confirm the belief that human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions drive climate change. He said government should “organize and fund credible ‘Red Teams’ that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise.” He demonstrated how average global temperatures predicted by dozens of models for 2015 are now off by a full half-degree Celsius (0.9 F) from what has actually been measured.

Curry discussed how she has been repeatedly vilified as an “anti-science” climate change “denier” and “disinformer.” But she focused on the role of the scientific method, especially as related to the complex forces involved in climate change – and especially when used to advise on policy and law. Real science means positing and proving a hypothesis with convincing real world evidence. Models can help, but only if they accurately reflect the total climate system and their results conform to real world observations.

Pielke discussed his own mistreatment as a “denier” and showed that there is “little scientific basis” for claims that extreme weather events (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts) have increased in recent decades due to GHG emissions. In fact, IPCC and other studies reveal that the USA and world have had “remarkable good fortune” with extreme weather in recent years, compared to the past: 23 major hurricanes hit the US East Coast 1915-1964; but only 9 in 1965-2016 – and not one since October 2005. He also offered 18 specific recommendations for improving scientific integrity in climate science.

Mann said the other three witnesses represent a “tiny minority” who stand opposed to the 97% who agree that “climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.” He defended his “hockey stick” historic temperature graph, claimed climate models have been “tested vigorously and rigorously” and have “passed a number of impressive tests,” insisted that warming [of a couple hundredths of a degree] in recent years proves that manmade global warming “has continued unabated,” and accused those who contest these statements of being “anti-science” deniers.

The “97% consensus” is imaginary – a fabrication. One source was a survey sent to 10,256 scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. But their number was arbitrarily reduced to 77 “expert” or “active” climate researchers, of which 75 agreed with two simplistic questions that many would support. (Has Earth warmed since 1800? Did humans play a significant role?) Voila! 97% consensus. But what about the other 3,069 respondents? 75 out of 3,146 is barely 0.02 percent. Purported consensus studies by Cook, Oreskes and others were just as bogus.

Moreover, governments have been spending billions of dollars annually on climate research. The vas majority went to the alarmist camp. If $25,000 or $100,000 a year from fossil fuel interests can “buy” skeptical scientists, as we are often told, how much “consensus” can billions purchase? If many scientists who contest “dangerous manmade climate change” are harassed, or threatened with RICO prosecutions, how many will have the courage to speak out and challenge the “consensus” and “settled science”?

These are timely questions. On April 12, 1633 the Catholic Church convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy, for refusing to accept its doctrine that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

But far more important, the climate battle is not merely a debate over miasma versus germ theory of disease, AC versus DC current, or geologic mechanisms behind plate tectonics. It’s far more even than disagreements over how much humans might be affecting Earth’s climate, or how bad (or beneficial) future changes might be, on a planet where climate fluctuations have occurred throughout history.

Manmade climate catastrophe claims are being used to justify demands that the United States and world eliminate the carbon-based fuels that provide 80% of the energy that makes modern industry, civilization and living standards possible – and that continue to lift billions of people out of poverty and disease.

Climate alarmists want that radical transformation to take place right now. McKinsey & Company, the UN and assorted activists say the world must spend some $93 trillion over the next 15 years to convert completely from fossil fuels to “sustainable” energy! Or it will be too late. Our planet will be doomed.

Claims and demands like those require solid, incontrovertible proof that climate alarmists are right. Not just computer models, repeated assertions, “peer review” among like-minded researchers seeking their next government grant, or a partial-degree of warming amid multiple El Niños and cooling cycles. They require “Red Team” analyses and open, unfettered debate over every aspect of human and natural influences on Earth’s climate, the ways carbon dioxide improves plant growth, and the need for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and motor fuel for every person in every nation.

We haven’t had any of that so far. Up to now, climate chaos is just one more Club of Rome supposedly looming disaster, supposedly caused by human intervention in natural processes, supposedly requiring immediate, fundamental changes in human behavior, to avoid supposed global calamities – threats to the very survival of our wildlife, civilization and planet. It’s all assertions, devoid of persuasive evidence.

It’s true that virtually all nations have signed the Paris accords. However, only President Obama signed it for the USA; the Senate never ratified the decision. And the US reduced its CO2 emissions by 12.5% since 2007, while Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose 0.7% in one year, 2014-2015.

Britain is looking into rescinding some 2020 clean energy targets and using more coal and natural gas. EU nations are realizing that overpriced, unreliable wind and solar power is hammering families and killing their jobs and economies. Virtually all the developing nations that signed onto the Paris (non)treaty did so because they were promised trillions of dollars in climate “adaptation, mitigation and reparation” money.

That brings us to another April anniversary: the 1815 eruption of Indonesia’s Mt. Tambora. This monumental volcanic explosion blew an inconceivable 4,650 feet off the volcano; sent 36 cubic miles of ash, rock, sulfur and other gases into the atmosphere; triggered tsunamis that killed over 10,000 people; and caused serious climate changes and crop failures that killed 80,000 more over the following year.

We may be about to witness another volcanic explosion. Under the Paris insanity, developed nations are expected to de-carbonize, de-industrialize and curb their growth – while sending $100 billion per year to ruling elites in developing countries that are not required to trim fossil fuel use or GHG emissions.

It cannot and will not happen. In fact, industrialized nations are already reneging on their pledges, refusing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund, or recasting current foreign aid as Paris climate money. China, India, Brazil and poor countries are outraged. They want new money, more money – or else they will walk away from their commitments, and the Paris house of cards will collapse. It should collapse.

Billions of people are still energy-deprived, impoverished, diseased and starving. Millions are dying needlessly every year. Faulty, authoritarian climate and “sustainability” claims are being use to perpetuate these travesties. It’s time to help poor countries get the same energy, technologies and opportunities we have – so that they can take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Advertisements

209 thoughts on “Real science must guide policy

  1. In progressive societies these days, the anti-fascists are the ones who prevent free speech and bring weapons to marches. The real science deniers ignore the benefits of available energy.

    • The “anti-fascists” are in fact the true Fascists, the truth of the mater fascists are and alway have be on the left. There is only the myth of fascism is a child of the right.

      • Absolutely. This is one of the biggest con jobs of the left over the last 60 years – to re-cast fascism as being a right-wing ideology (and essentially the only justification is because two left-wing dictators were enemies during WW2). Yeh, sure, fascism is just to the right of Marxist communism, but it is far from right-of-centre.

        Being right-wing means supporting small government, individual rights and freedoms, respect for property rights, equality of opportunity – all the antithesis of left-wing ideology.

      • Most of those who are called conservative in Europe, merely want government to grow more slowly than the socialists want it to grow.

      • All the politicians in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand look like American Democrat/Socialists to me. Other than national defense, I don’t recall any politicians from any of these nations espousing American conservative ideals. They all seem to be just slightly different versions of each other, and resemble the American Democrat party. They also seem to be particularly inept and don’t seem to be able to recognize real danger.

      • So TA which members of the NZ National Party, are looking like Socialists to you ??

        G

    • Classic “Rules For Radicals” Alynski-styled attack on the opposition: Accuse your opponent of the the things you are actually guilty of!

      They claim to oppose ‘fascism’, while their actions are blatantly Fascist! The modern Progressive Brown Shirts in action….

    • Well Real Science has always guided Private Enterprise to the betterment of everybody (overall).

      I see no particular reason for governments to be involved in what Private Enterprise can do by itself, when the governments get the hell out of the way.

      G

  2. If government would stick to its sole mandate, science and policy would never need to intersect, regardless of the quality of the science.

    • Thank you.

      An objective review should include a look at government perfidy. Government empowered to control the economy will find an excuse to do it.

    • Policy makers will always use science or religion to bolster their standing in the eyes of those who vote in order to stay in power. When they can meld science and religion they will have hit the jackpot. They are 97% of the way there.

      • truer words never spoken.

        the modern “progressivism” is a virtue cult. A meld of weak science and weak religion. Examine either and it falls like a house of cards.

    • They don’t have a “…need to intersect,” Mark T. They should run in parallel, and the test of sane government, is when they do so, it will be in the same direction!

  3. I have seen blogs where they state that the price of solar has come down dramatically. My question for China is why do you need other people’s money if solar is so inexpensive? Why not get off coal without the Paris Agreement?

      • And the Chinese don’t have to deal with a shrieking, doom-obsessed media who are desperate to stay relevant by telling compelling scary stories in order to grab your attention so they can sell soap while pretending that they are “important, trusted/trustworthy sources of unbiased information” and are not at all ideological/politically biased/stupid/ignorant (willfully or otherwise) and you better believe them or else you’re crazy, dumb or evil. Anything not coming from the self-appointed “real media” is Fake News”.

      • PiperPaul April 16, 2017 at 8:11 am
        And the Chinese don’t have to deal with a shrieking, doom-obsessed media who are desperate to stay relevant by telling compelling scary stories in order to grab your attention so they can sell soap…

        Soap? Prescription drugs, watch the evening news sometime.

      • Yes, They have already run through Communism and figured out the parts (like the comrade altruism stuff) that doesn’t work, and have tweaked it (like with capitalism) so it works. They have already dropped the romantic Rousseau pure-humanity/avoid progress dreamy ideal.

    • It’s like we are living on two separate planets.

      The best demonstrated success I have seen for ‘green’ energy is ethanol in Brazil. Many Brazilian cars can burn 100% ethanol but most use less than 30%. They have been working on this for years. Sugar cane is much more efficient for ethanol production than is corn. Ethanol is economic as long as oil is more than $30/barrel. Even so they can’t produce enough ethanol to completely replace oil for transportation fuel.

      Tom Murphy has a blog, Do the Math. His is the most clear-eyed evaluation of alternate energy that I have seen. The viability of photovoltaic energy is way more complicated, and less viable, than the out-of-touch university professors would have us believe.

      • How are they getting around the overt wearing and destruction aspects of ethanol on the internal combustion engine parts? It is my understanding that engines running higher concentrations of ethanol tend to wear out faster.

      • Bob, not disagreeing with you about Brazil and sugar cane but can it be scaled to fuel all of the world’s motor cars? And if so scaled what impact would it have on the availability of arable land or food crops?

      • Forrest Gardener April 16, 2017 at 12:21 pm

        … but can it be scaled …

        Oh no it can’t. Brazil can’t even meet all its own gasoline needs with ethanol.

        I think Brazil is as good as it gets for ethanol and, IMHO, it isn’t good enough.

      • I lived in Brazil for four years. My neighbors car was fueled by ethanol. On cold days it would not start. A cold day in Rio is 70 degrees? It was a brand new Chevy. That put Brazilian ethanol in perspective for me, on a cold day ethanol does not have the energy to combust.

        Ethanol is economical when oil is $30/barrel? Ethanol is never economical, it takes fossil fuels to make Ethanol, hence the more expensive Oil becomes the less economical Ethanol is.

        Brazil is country that is weak in Energy, very weak. It is a shame that while food prices are some of the highest in the Americas they are using valuable farm land to make fuel while the poor people suffer.

        Brazil is another country that is a good example of how Green, Clean, Renewable, energy is a failure.

      • william kotcher April 16, 2017 at 2:21 pm

        … Brazil is another country that is a good example …

        Yes it is. We need that kind of example when some out-of-touch university professor tells us how the world will be better with renewable energy.

      • william, it’s not that ethanol doesn’t combust when it’s cold, it’s that ethanol doesn’t evaporate at a sufficiently fast rate when it’s cold.

      • David Dirkse April 17, 2017 at 9:56 am

        MarkW, please explain why “evaporation” matters in a fuel injected engine?

        It has to do with droplet size.

        The performance of a fuel injector is affected by the droplet size produced. The ideal droplet size is a balance between smaller droplets increasing the rate of vaporization, and larger droplets improving penetration into the cylinder head. link

        Even with injectors, vaporization is still important.

      • Nope commieBob…..case in point: Ethanol has a flash point of 16.6 degrees C. Number 2 diesel has a flash point of 52 degrees C. Lots of diesels have no problem starting in cold weather, and it should be more of an issue for them than for ethanol engines.

      • David Dirkse April 17, 2017 at 1:48 pm

        … Lots of diesels have no problem starting in cold weather …

        At TDC the temperature in the combustion chamber of diesel engines is way hotter than that of gasoline engines.

        In diesel engines, fuel is injected into the engine cylinder near the end of the compression stroke. During a phase known as ignition delay, the fuel spray atomizes into small droplets, vaporizes, and mixes with air. As the piston continues to move closer to top dead center, the mixture temperature reaches the fuel’s ignition temperature, causing ignition of some premixed quantity of fuel and air. The balance of fuel that had not participated in premixed combustion is consumed in the rate-controlled combustion phase. link

        No spark is required. The high compression ratio in a diesel engine creates temperatures at TDC that cause the fuel to ignite. If you tried that in a gasoline engine you would get preignition.

        Comparing the flash points of the two fuels misses the point.

      • The flash point is THE POINT because you said: ” increasing the rate of vaporization.” You also said: “vaporization is still important.” A liquid with a lower flash point will vaporize more and faster at a given temperature than one with a higher flash point.
        .
        Now, some engines have port injection and some have cylinder injection……..you must realize that port injection gives the fuel MORE time to vaporize as compared to cylinder injection. Now, in a warm running diesel you are correct that the heat of compression ignites the mixture, but that does not happen in a cold diesel. That is why they install glow plugs in them. That is also why the colder the temps, the longer you need to wait for the plugs to warm.

      • David Dirkse April 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm

        … at a given temperature …

        Yabut the temperatures are quite different so it’s pointless to compare flash points.

      • I’m sorry that you missed the point commieBob……maybe some day when you get your hands dirty fixing a diesel you’ll understand. Copy/pasting is no match for real world experience.

      • David Dirkse April 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm

        I’m sorry that you missed the point commieBob

        Nice ad hominem. I’ve built a few engines in my time. I’ve tuned Carters, Rochesters, SUs, and Webers. The only diesels I’ve had to contend with were some ornery Perkins gensets that we used to power remote equipment.

        This whole discussion started because you didn’t think vaporization mattered with fuel injection. You are wrong. Period. You can take it from me as an old hot-rodder. If you don’t like that, there are lots of authoritative texts.

      • The injectors will atomize the fuel adequately, vaporization doesn’t play much of a role (proof is diesel)….I suggest you go back through the thread….and take note of 1) Brazil 2) “It was a brand new Chevy” 3) “on a cold day ethanol does not have the energy to combust” and 4) “when it’s cold, it’s that ethanol doesn’t evaporate” ….. Now, brand new Chevy’s have fuel injection. The problem here isn’t the vaporization of ethanol. I’ll give you a hint at what the problem here is….it’s easily solved with dry gas. Brazil is humid, and they have a pesky problem with condensation in their fuel tanks.

      • David Dirkse April 17, 2017 at 6:13 pm

        … vaporization doesn’t play much of a role (proof is diesel) …

        The only point we disagree on is that the fuel must become a gas before it will burn. That even applies to diesel.

        This high compression heats the air to 550 °C (1,022 °F). At about the top of the compression stroke, fuel is injected directly into the compressed air in the combustion chamber. This may be into a void in the top of the piston or a pre-chamber depending upon the design of the engine.

        The fuel injector ensures that the fuel is broken down into small droplets, and that the fuel is distributed evenly. The heat of the compressed air vaporizes fuel from the surface of the droplets.

        Getting back to ethanol:

        This scales down to low-proof solutions. For instance, in cooking, if you add wine to a hot pan, it will flame up spectacularly, despite being only about 12 percent ABV (24 proof). Conversely, even 100 percent pure ethanol will not ignite if the liquid is 55 degrees F or lower. link

        The above link cautions you not to blow yourself up while you try the experiment. :-)

        Here’s another link

        Note that the liquids themselves don’t burn — the vapor they give off does.

        Here’s what looks like a very good paper.

        Atomization, vaporization, fuel vapor-air mixing, and combustion continue until all the injected fuel has combusted.

        Registration is required to see the whole paper but what is visible is interesting.

        The bottom line is that even bunker c has to become a gas before it will burn.

    • Solar isn’t unexpensive. And if it is so even when the chiComs are dumping solar panels at a loss, (so they claim), then how much not unexpensive will it be at fair market prices ??

      G

  4. ” … They want new money, more money – or else they will walk away from their commitments, and the Paris house of cards will collapse. It should collapse.”

    Yes, the Paris accord (or whatever it is) should collapse. Industrialized society releasing CO2 does not warm the planet at all. In fact, we are too low in CO2 at this time — plants could use far more in the atmosphere.

    Regardless, the Paris treaty was just another ploy to destroy western industrialized society. It is time to fight back and realize that industrialization is needed if we are to support the 7+ Billion souls on this planet.

  5. Since it is impossible to run a controlled experiment on Earth’s climate (there is no control planet), the only way to “test” the CAGW hypothesis is through models. And the models have failed miserably.

    From Hansen’s 1988 model:

    Hansen_1Hansen_5

    Right on through 2013:

    The temperature observations have consistently tracked the minimum scenarios in which the rise in atmospheric CO2 has been arrested and/or halted.

    And the models aren’t getting better. Even when they start the model run in 2008, the observed temperatures consistently track at or below the lower 5-95% confidence band (p05-p95).

    SOURCE

    P50 would be the model mean. Half the model runs would predict more warming and half less. This would be a mean from the worst case scenario RCP 8.5, often referred to as “business as usual” to varying grades of mitigation scenarios (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6.0).  The observations continuously track below RCP 4.5.

    If the model ensemble had predictive skill, the observations should track around P50. During the predictive run of the model, HadCRUT4.5 has not *tracked* anywhere near P50…

    CMIP5_2.png

    Prediction Run Approximate Distribution
    2006 P60 (60% of the models predicted a warmer temperature)
    2007 P75
    2008 P95
    2009 P80
    2010 P70
    2011-2013 >P95
    2014 P90
    2015-2016 P55

    Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño, the observations spiked above P05 (less than 5% of the models predicted this). During the 2015-16 El Niño, HadCRUT only spiked to P55.  El Niño events are not P50 conditions. Strong El Niño and La Niña events should spike toward the P05 and P95 boundaries.

    The temperature observations are clearly tracking much closer to strong mitigation scenarios rather than RCP 8.5, the bogus “business as usual” scenario.

    If I drilled 11 wells and 9 of them only resulted in P70-P95 reserve additions and only 2 came close to the P50 numbers, it would be a miserable failure.

    The red hachured trapezoid indicates that HadCRUT4.5 will continue to track between less than P100 and P50. This is also indicative of a miserable failure of the models and a pretty good clue that the models need be adjusted downward.

    In any other field of science, CAGW would be a long-discarded falsified hypothesis.

    • What you are saying is that it is impossible to run a double blind experiment on the climate of Earth. The same goes with acupuncture yet millions of people plunk down beaucoup bucks in the belief that it will cure their aliments.

      • Funny thing… One of our Pomeranians has responded very well to acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain.

        While I can’t explain why it works, unlike the climate models, it works.

      • Works for my doberman too. When in in my early 50s, after 45 years of chronic sinus infections every winter, I went through six acupuncture sessions for the same. Fifteen years later, I have never had a single sinus infection since. Seems to work.

      • The amusing thing about acupuncture is that the map of the acupuncture points and pathways mirrors the measured electrostatic potential gradients measured on the human body by scientists at Yale in the 1950s. I’m sure it’s just coincidence, but then again maybe not. For an interesting read about life fields read the book “Blueprint for Immortality, The Electric Patterns of Life” written by Harold Saxton Burr Professor Emeritus, Anatomy, Yale University School of Medicine, Neville Spearman, London 1972 SBN 83435 281 3 , LibCong 72-75971.

      • Steve, re chronic sinus infection, I, too suffered with these and their in terminal headaches. I had CAT Scans, MRI the whole shiveree. One evening, invited out for dinner at a friend’s (I gave up skipping social events for my aches).

        It was a frigid January evening. I had a couple of scotches before 1lb broiled peppercorned rare NY strip Alberta AAA beef and, having the courage of 4oz of whiskey, I had about a bottle of good red wine (Merlot IIRC), although being allergic to red wines, blue cheese, etc. The next morning, expecting a hangover Royale, I awoke with the pain on one side of my head completely gone! Over the next several days, the other side also slowly got better. Nobody’s taking my beef away from me to mitigate imaginary climate pain.

      • David Middleton on April 16, 2017 at 7:40 am
        Funny thing… One of our Pomeranians has responded very well to acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain.

        While I can’t explain why it works, unlike the climate models, it works.

        –> placebo effect.

      • With acupuncture, there’s no effort to replace all medicine with acupuncture. I suspect if there was, an outcry would occur. Also, when dealing with pain, no one really knows why things work. Even aspirin, I’m told. In the case of pain, whatever works, no matter how dopey or scientific, is fine. The goal is to relieve pain, not “cure” pain. To cure it, you find the source and correct it. To me, pain is a whole different thing in the science versus fantasy game.

        As for spending beaucoup bucks, I was hospitalized for three days trying to find one of those “scientific” painkillers that worked. I have the misfortune to be pretty much immune to narcotics and aspirin doesn’t cut it when you’ve had part of your tongue removed. If acupuncture could have relieved the pain, I’d have paid whatever it took to have it done.

      • Acupuncture by a Chinese doctor (both MD and Beijing Traditional doctor) cured my rheumatoid arthritis in a month. I couldn’t hold a glass or dress myself. She was allowed a one-year sabbatical in the US after 30 years of work in China. She chose to do her sabbatical at Harvard Medical School. The year was 1989, and Tiennamen Square happened. As she said to me, “President Bushy let me stay in United States.” I encountered her 12 or 13 years later.

        I found out about her from my feisty 73-year-old neighbour who hadn’t been able to lift her right arm beyond her waist for years. I answered the door, and there she was, swinging it around like a shotputter, crowing, “How da’ya like this!”

        There are a lot of poorly trained and incompetent acupuncturists. But find a good one? You’ve found gold.

      • Nd just so you know: the Chicago White Sox have resident acupuncturist on board. Can’t give pain killers to players before a game or it’s considered doping. (Sports Illustrated)

      • One more thing, Tom in Florida. Good Chinese acupuncturists, like those trained at the acclaimed Beijing school, do not charge “beaucoups bucks.” $50 to $75 is normal, more for the initial visit sometimes. I pay $55. And they don’t try to pressure you into buying herbs and potions you dont need. Since the way acupuncture works is that you rest in a room for 1/2 hr while the needles do their work, it means a highly professional and well-trained acupuncturist can see five to seven patients an hour.

        Do the math. Even at $50/patient, working eight hr/day, 6 days/week, and 50 weeks/year, that’s a fair chunk of change.

      • Johann Wundersamer – April 16, 2017 at 11:21 am

        “David Middleton on April 16, 2017 at 7:40 am
        Funny thing… One of our Pomeranians has responded very well to acupuncture treatments for neuropathic pain.
        While I can’t explain why it works, unlike the climate models, it works.
        –> placebo effect.”

        Maybe, if it is a Pomeranian Grenadier (with a nod to Otto von Bismarck).
        But a Pomeranian dog?
        I don’t know.
        Maybe “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in (y)our philosophy.”
        [Shakespeare, Hamlet].

        Acupressure certainly can work. Not a controlled experiment, of course, but it has helped me with hangovers.
        Acupuncture – maybe. Maybe.

        Auto – very fond of ‘maybe’ tonight, I see. Maybe!

      • “””””…..
        Gary Pearse

        April 16, 2017 at 9:12 am

        Gravity worked, too, before we discovered how. …..”””””

        So Gary; do tell, just HOW does gravity work ??

        I can sort of wrap my head around the ‘ Toss the medicine ball back and forth on ice skates ‘ idea of an exchange particle moderating the Coulomb repulsive force; but I’m damned if I can grasp the gist of something sucking everything else from a distance !

        G

      • A double blind experiment can be run with acupuncture.
        Here is how. Insert your malady of choice.

        (Necessary aside for the snigglers: As a science/Western Medicine proponent and an empirical-science proponent, I insist on this; to say “well, we failed to cure his migraine, but at least his digestion has become better” is not acceptable cause-and-effect medical model care. For me. You can disagree, and can feel free to argue that a failed acupuncture intervention must have had some benefit, elsewhere, if only we would all look harder. But I insist a specific malady be determined – migraine, for example. Although migraine leaves so many move-the-goal-post issues that maybe I am foolish to propose this, but bear with me and I will bear with you – jack me around and I will detect your poor logic and call it out).

        Determine a well-recognized migraine (again, insert your malady of choice) case. Case definition, in the spirit of science, is a meld of acupuncture believers and skeptics.

        Define a very specific intervention: acupuncture at what points, how frequently, with what needles, etc.
        [if the needles matter, then they matter; if they don’t, and acupressure is an acceptable alternative, then it is; if all needles must be placed within 2 minutes then they must be placed within 2 minutes; if they do not, then they don’t ; if the needles must be gold, then gold, if a male must do it (or a female), then let it be , if experienced practitioner, etc., etc., etc, and premeditate AS MANY AS POSSIBLE of the post-trial failure excuses as possible. This is science: eliminate biases and criticisms by design.

        —All of this is important for the experimental manipulation…

        Recruit in a typical clinical care setting and recruit regular patients in the process of seeking care (to avoid various recruitment biases).

        Recruit / vet them – including offering them the offer includes participation in a RCT, knowing that they may get “established” treatment (acupuncture) or alternative (alternate site) acupuncture.

        For the treatment, having already established a protocol, have the acupuncturists administer the needles, but a single acupuncturist only administers a few – in this way, he or she CANNOT know the condition – and a few more insert the remainder.

        In this way, the provider is blind to treatment delivery. (They know the treatment is split to an effective and ineffective group – but they do not know the condition AND are given a constellation of acupuncture points that would be legit in some cases, so they do not know whether their acu case is a control or treatment.)

        In the end, orthodox treatment – the insertion of needles to the right spots in the right time frame – is legitimately delivered.

        In the control group, a few sub-constellations of acupuncture points are determined, and are mixed up – in other words, parts of one remedy are provided to a pt and parts of other remedies are provided to others – so, if the acupuncture points matter, the remedy will be impotent. –Best to vet this assumption in advance with a group of authorities.)

        So, providers are blind.

        Clients: tell them what is up, and randomize them. Also 1. set high expectations in order to get placebo effects.

        So, clients are blind.

        Now: the triple blind: outcomes assessment. Get blinded raters to rate whatever – A1C, stress, pain, whatever

        Thus, triple blind.

        i would accept a million dollars of my tax dollars for that.

    • You do not need to run a controlled experiment on the complete planet. Some experiments on atmospheric gases on a smaller scale should show interesting results. OK, you may need a pretty big lab (size of an aircraft hanger?) and some sophisticated equipment but it should be possible to experiment with many cubic metres of air with varying concentrations of CO2 and H2O under various radiative and conductive heat transfer arrangements. At a minimum this should verify whether ANY greenhouse effect exists (as per CAGW theory) or none (as per old physics theory, -g/Cp, like Doug Cotton’s papers).

      Actual experiments on CO2 GHE are rather lacking ! About time we corrected this basic omission. Should we crowd fund it ?

      • If we’re going to crowdfund something, let’s crowdfund a thorough, impeccable poll of scientists on their AGW beliefs. Putting the lie to the 97% consensus would put the wedge in the door to open debate.

      • I also think we need an extensive campaign to orbit a satelite array to accurately measure energy emissions planet -wide across all wavelengths. Compare this energy total to TSI and we will actually have a meaningful fact to work with instead of Mann’s cherry picked, bogus, b.s. , moronic tree rings and their ilk.

      • Professor Lu of Waterloo University has created just such a chamber in which to test (and demonstrate) his hypothesis that cosmic rays are a significant contributor to the regulation of the level of ozone over Antarctica and to a lesser extent, the Arctic. Ozone is a major heat vent controller.

        Given the sensitivity of equipment these days it should not require anything as large as a hangar to show the fundamentals of radiative physics. For the convective impacts, maybe larger is better.

        A pretty big clue as to what is wrong with climate models is the admission that they so not deal with clouds very well. That caveat is all over the place.

        No doubt a placeholder mechanism could be put into the model (along with the other 150 fixed values) creating a cloud feedback mechanism roughly representing Willis’ thunderstorm and cloudiness formula based on observations. It is hard to believe that this has not been done on a speculative basis by any of the models. Perhaps the result was not to someone’s liking.

        The result of course would show what Willis showed: that there is a cooling effect of hundreds (3?) of Watts per square metre when clouds form over tropical oceans due to heating and ocean water evaporation. This is a massive auto-regulation mechanism 100 times stronger than the IPCC’s claims of about 3 Watts of heating (etc).

        I am not sure what size of stadium is required to demonstrate this, but I heard that in New Orleans they could turn up the humidity to the point that clouds formed and it would rain indoors. That means such an experiment – radiation and evaporation – could be performed in an existing, well-controlled environment with a few thermocouples hanging from the roof.

        Wouldn’t cost much.

    • “the models need be adjusted downward.”

      You know……every time I look at those plots….all I see is very expensive computer models tracking CO2 levels
      Adjusting them to match real temps is not going to make them any more real or accurate.
      Especially when they have been hindcast and tuned to temp histories that are constantly adjusted down in the past and up in the future.
      The models do match that f a k e temp very well though

      Maybe, rather than adjusting the models….it might be easier to just keep adjusting the temp

      • One of the striking characteristics of the long term ice core temp vs CO2 graphs shows the temperature variations through several ice ages as the average temp varies little. All the time the CO2 is decreasing continuously until recently, showing an alarming tendency to zero CO2 at some future time.
        First, this demonstrates temp has no correlation with CO2 levels and second unless we humans increase the rate of “dequestration” of CO2 there will be serious issues for the planet.
        For some reason, every issue and every position assumed by the NWO progressives is always the exact opposite of reality. It is as though they live in a mirror-image world where left becomes right and vice versa.

      • You know……every time I look at those plots….all I see are WAGs posing as the truth with claims that if enough WAGs are made then the average must be somewhere close to the truth.

        This is akin to the responses I used to get from my children when attempting to explain how they were innocent of some nefarious deed. One of the excuses might be believed so keep making up stories.

        How can so many ‘scientists’ believe such cr@p?

    • David, each time I see a historical temperature graph I am struck by how 1998 has sunk into insignificance. Wasn’t it once the poster child for runaway warming similar to how the last year or so is now the poster child for runaway warming and proof that the models are right?

      What happened to poor, neglected, old 1998?

      • “What happened to poor, neglected, old 1998?”

        The data manipulators saw how easy it was to erase the 1940’s heat blip, so they decided to apply their “expertise” to 1998, and 1998 has slowly been sinking into obscurity on the surface temperature charts, but NOT in the minds of those of us who know better.

        The manipulators are pretty brazen. They have made these changes right in front of all our eyes. And expect to get away with it. Of course, the satellite charts don’t agree with this at all, and NASA says satellites are more accurate than ground measurements, but they still expect to get away with it. Let’s not allow them to do so. :)

      • NASA said satellites were more accurate until the nasty things produced data that disagreed with their theory.

    • All that stuff is a distraction. Disprove the science of the greenhouse effect. Win a nobel prize get a million bucks. Forget the models and look at the facts. Global temperatures are year after year reaching record temperatures. Or do you want to deny that.

      • steve, both graphs are examples of “adjusted” temperatures and a cut-off graph fallacy. If you are the ignorant newbie you claim to be, try looking up Thomas Karl or Climategate. FYFI, it was warmer in the 1930’s before the more avid green blob advocates “adjusted” the records.

      • @ Steve D

        Ignorance of the scientific method is endemic among Gorebot morons. Thank you for reinforcing the bleeding obvious.

      • That’s due to the fact that it is a straw man fallacy.

        Another trait of Gorebot morons is a reliance on logical fallacies, particularly argumentum ad hominem, ad verecundiam, ad populum, ad ignoratum, straw men and red herrings.

        Before you babble something about “Gorebot morons” being an ad hominem fallacy, note that it is simply an insult and not an argument.

      • But they never go outside that liveable range from 12 to 22 deg. C that has prevailed for the last 650 million years at least.

        G

  6. I presume “Real science” is the antonym of “Unreal science”.

    Nobody has demonstrated the ability of a GHG to make a thermometer hotter. Is this real or unreal science?

    Anyone can claim anything they like. Claims are claims, facts are facts.

    CO2 heating thermometers? Wonderful if if true – something for nothing. Just like perpetual motion, or the Philosopher’s Stone.

    Put me at the head of the queue, if there’s a money back guarantee!

    Complete nonsense, until shown to be otherwise.

    Cheers.

    • That CO2 molecules absorb the energy of photons of certain frequencies is proven.
      That CO2 molecules then transfer this energy to other molecules in the atmosphere is also proven.
      That those other molecules can then bump into a thermometer and transfer that energy to them is also proven.

      Ergo, CO2 molecules can make a thermometer warmer.

      • Well barely; the CO2 molecules will only account for every one in 2500 collisions between the thermometer and the air molecules so most of that embiggenating of the thermometer reading is due to nitrogen and oxygen collisions.

        G

  7. Paul Driessen ==> “These are timely questions. On April 12, 1633 the Catholic Church convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy, for refusing to accept its doctrine that the Sun revolves around the Earth.”

    One needs to be careful when citing this case as being somehow “anti-science”, “anti-new discoveries” or somehow to use it in support of contrarian positions. Of course, it is entirely wrong to use it as part of an attack on religion (which I don’t believe you are doing). Your statement above is not strictly true.

    The affair was far more complicated, and the sentence far less onerous than it usually portrayed in modern times. The Wiki has a good-ish page on it at The Galileo Affair.

    • I was on the point of not bothering but, when I saw you post, guilt set in and decided that I should share my collection :) (and add your link to my list):

      1. Same title as yours, but different article: it describes the in-depth study of the celebrated case by the Roman Catholic Pontifical Academy of Sciences (it’s quite long and gives the Churches side – but it does tally with other accounts :) ):
      CatholicEducation: The Galileo Affair

      2. Another Catholic based article, but detailed (almost as long!):
      Catholic: The Galileo Controversy

      3. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Fourth section is specifically about the subject and does mention the geo-political context. The last few lines, starting ‘Unfortunately, it was not until after Galileo’s death’, show the intractible problem that existed:
      Stanford:Galileo Galilei: 4. Galileo and the Church

      4. By Thony Christie, a historian of science, living in Germany. He blogs at The Renaissance Mathematicus and edits Whewell’s Gazette:
      Galileo’s reputation is more hyperbole than truth

      5. This is not about Galileo, but about how the Roman Catholic Church avoided temptation :) and upheld the true nature of Science :
      “Lemaitre explained that NO theory in physics, however elegant or reliable, is truly final.”
      AmericanThinker: Science, Religion and the Big Bang Theory

  8. The post is on target regarding the alarmist reliance on “social proof” to keep the movement going. Another recent article delves into this:

    “The groundbreaking work of Cialdini (2007) demonstrated that humans are significantly motivated to comply according to ‘social proof’ – in other words, “if everyone agrees, that is proof enough so get on the bandwagon.” Just as social media ‘trending’ leads to more people following the story, social proofs work on the inherently gregarious nature of humans and our herd mentality. The 97% figure delivers two powerful psychological messages in one – i) ‘everyone’ agrees, and ii) you will be left out.”

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/michelle-dispels-co2-hysteria/

    • +97

      Climate change is often framed as a moral and ethical concern, thus one must question the ethics of those participating in peer-reviewed research who are psychology professionals but who employ such tactics, especially when the scientific evidence of global temperature rise does not support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. This discrepancy between the surveyed ‘beliefs’ and the physical evidence demonstrates that opinion-based ‘consensus’ surveys are scientifically worthless and are an improper and potentially dangerous basis for making climate change policy.

    • ““The groundbreaking work of Cialdini (2007) demonstrated that humans are significantly motivated to comply according to ‘social proof’ – in other words, “if everyone agrees, that is proof enough so get on the bandwagon.”

      That is what is going on today, and it is particularly dangerous because what represents “everyone” in our case, is the lying, politically partisan, Mainstream News Media. The consensus they generate is a false reality, but millions of people, smart people even, get on board because humans have an inner desire to conform to the consensus, which makes sense because it served as a survival mechanism in more primitive human times. If you followed the advice of the village elders you had a better chance of surviving, than trying to learn everything on your own in a very dangerous world. The Elders had accumulated knowledge that was valuable to the young of the tribe and kept them out of unnecessary trouble.

      The MSM is the modern equivalent of the Village Elders of yesterday, except the MSM is lying to us, and not giving us good advice and are leading us to our destruction, not to our survival.

      • Agree that MSM are driving a lot of this, having abandoned any pretense of conveying wisdom, and now mostly concerned with their business interest of gathering audiences for sale to advertisers. It is also the case that higher education no longer serves to produce people able to think critically and form individual viewpoints. A large part of the problem comes from universities engaging in liberal indoctrination and group think rather than liberating students to make their own judgments.

      • I have observed and criticized the MSM since the Vietnam war, but I have never seen them act so badly as they are doing now. In their attempts at undermining President Trump, they are underming the United States, and are not only confusing the people of the U.S. about the true situation of the world, they are also confusing the rest of the world. Confusion can cause miscalculation, which is especially important to try to prevent when dealing with dictators and tyrants.

        Let’s hope our enemies can see through the fog created by the American MSM around Trump. I can, so I assume some of them can, too. Otherwise they may make a big mistake that wouldn’t have to happen if the truth were known.

        We wouldn’t want them to get the impression that Trump doesn’t mean what he says. But that’s not the impression the MSM is putting out right now. It’s dangerous, because it is untrue, and someone who believes the MSM narrative might just decide to push their luck with Trump.

  9. It’s true that virtually all nations have signed the Paris accords…

    ex: 200 countries get paid..
    …10 countries pay

    Let’s vote on it

  10. “He defended his “hockey stick” historic temperature graph”… May be helpful to get facts straight in your own article: the ‘hockey stick’ doesn’t relate to ‘temperature’, it refers to carbon content in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million. In 400,000 years, while temperature I had gone up and down (ice ages) , the carbon in atmosphere has also gone u up and down but never exceed approx. 220ppm. Since humans found and started buying fossil fuels (coal, oil, natura’s gas) in late 19th century, the carbon content has skyrocketed to now over 400ppm (go to mass.gov and check), and looks like a hockey stick when plotted on a graph.
    This is a rally simple concept which you have clearly misunderstood; this explains why you would write an article like this.

      • PS…. You don’t have to test the whole earth to scientifically determine carbon content in the atmosphere. You still ice core samples on glaciers that are hundreds of thousands of years old. The ice in them has captured air from earlier period all the way up to today.

        Jeez, cmonnnnnnnn people. Instead of pushing politics, or the liberal media, fake news, etc., just discuss the facts.

      • “Jeez, cmonnnnnnnn people. Instead of pushing politics, or the liberal media, fake news, etc., just discuss the facts.”

        You go first, Dee. Unfortunately, your post is full of inaccuracies.

      • @Dee,

        I downloaded a composite ice core CO2 record (0-800 kyr BP) from Bereiter et al. (2014) and generated the standard CO2 Hockey Stick:

        No Smooth

        Figure 6. Composite CO2 record (0-800 kyr BP) from Bereiter et al. (2014).

        This is a composite of the following ice cores:

        -51-1800 yr BP:’ Law Dome (Rubino et al., 2013)
        1.8-2 kyr BP: Law Dome (MacFarling Meure et al., 2006)
        2-11 kyr BP: Dome C (Monnin et al., 2001 + 2004)
        11-22 kyr BP: WAIS (Marcott et al., 2014) minus 4 ppmv (see text)
        22-40 kyr BP: Siple Dome (Ahn et al., 2014)
        40-60 kyr BP: TALDICE (Bereiter et al., 2012)
        60-115 kyr BP: EDML (Bereiter et al., 2012)
        105-155 kyr BP: Dome C Sublimation (Schneider et al., 2013)
        155-393 kyr BP: Vostok (Petit et al., 1999)
        393-611 kyr BP: Dome C (Siegenthaler et al., 2005)
        612-800 kyr BP: Dome C (Bereiter et al., 2014)

        These ice cores are of vastly different resolutions.  Petit et al., 1999 indicate that the CO2 resolution for Vostok is 1,500 years. Lüthi et al., 2008 suggest a CO2 resolution of about 500 years for Dome C.  It appears that the high resolution Law Dome DE08 core was just spliced on to the lower frequency older ice cores.

        If I apply smoothing filters to the DE08 ice core in order to match the resolution of the lower resolution ice cores, I get a considerably different picture.

        Using the information in Table 1 from Ahn et al., 2012:

        Ice Core Name Mean Temp. (°C) Acc. Rate (cm we/yr) Ice-Gas Age Diff. (yr) Gas Age Distribution (yr) Reference for Gas Age Distribution
        Dronning Maud Land –44.6 6.4 835 59 ± 5 Siegenthaler et al. [2005]
        DE-08 (Law Dome) –19 110 31 10 Trudinger [2000]
        DSS (Law Dome) –22 60 58 14 Trudinger [2000]
        WDC05A (WAIS Divide) –31 22 205 ≥30? this study

        I plotted the relationship between Ice-Gas Age Difference and Gas Age Distribution and used this to calculate a gas age distribution for the Holocene portion Vostok core:

        Gas Age Dist

        Figure 7. Δice-gas age vs gas age distribution suggests a gas age distribution of 130 years for the Holocene portion of the Vostok ice core.

        The application of a 130-yr smoothing filter to the DE08 core yields a Hockey Stick with a seriously shortened blade:

        130 Smooth

        Figure 8. A 130-yr smoothing filter makes the industrial era rise in CO2 appear far less anomalous.

        If I use a 500-yr smoothing filter, the Hockey Stick loses its blade completely:

        500 Smooth

        Figure 9. A 500-yr smoothing filter totally removes the Hockey Stick’s blade.

        I didn’t even try to use the instrumental record, because it would be a single data point at the same resolution as the Vostok and EPICA Dome C ice cores.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/28/breaking-hockey-sticks-antarctic-ice-core-edition/

      • Well Dee, you are actually determining the CO2 in the ice cores (now), and we have no idea how that relates to what was in the atmosphere somewhere else at some long time ago, given that CO2 is no where near well mixed in the atmosphere, as wen now know from carbon satellites; well at least from one.

        G

    • No Dee, Mann’s hockey stick relates to temperature. For completeness the problem with it was that the proxies he used ran in the opposite direction to observed temperatures (and CO2 levels) in modern times. He then tried to hide to hide the decline.

      Hope that helps.

      • Who cares what it said at the time. The acolyte says that it doesn’t deal with temperature therefore it doesn’t.
        What are you, and acolyte denier or something?

  11. A climate study by a red team is a great idea, however, it will take years to implement and will be met with massive resistance. i.e. The cult will say there is no need to wait, the science is settled, let’s spend trillions of dollars now.

    There is an obvious first step option for the Trump team to get public support, political support, and scientific community support for a red team climate study.

    The cult of CAGW have created a fake problem and have proposed a solution that will not work.

    Regardless of costs there are engineering limits that make it not possible to reduce anthropogenic emissions of CO2 by 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90% with wind and solar without energy storage.

    What is being discussed/promised is lunacy, ridiculous, not possible, …

    Germany, for example, has installed wind and solar that is 100% of the German base power load for the peak nameplate rating of the wind and solar installation. i.e. Installing more wind and solar systems will not reduce the amount of German CO2 emissions.

    The problem is German wind and solar installation runs at less than 20% average efficiency, German wind and solar total power output varies from 100% to close to zero.

    Germany has 100% natural gas/coal back-up to supply the 80% of their power when the wind does not blow and the sun is not shining.

    Germany needs nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions further. Unfortunately, the only thing the cult of CAGW hates more than CO2 is nuclear power.

    German CO2 ‘savings’ do not include the energy input required to build, install, maintain, and replace wind and solar systems and does not include the energy loss as intermittent solar and wind power force the use of single cycle natural gas turbines that can be turned on/off/on/off/on/off as compared to 20% more efficient combined cycle (combined cycle power plants produce steam which is then used to generate electric power from the waste heat from the first pass turbines) natural gas power plants that take 20 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off multiple times per day in respond to changes in wind speed.

    Power output of a wind turbine varies as the cube of wind speed.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/

    The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

    A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

    Germany Energiewend Leading To Suicide By Cannibalism. Huge Oversupply Risks Destabilization

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-167/

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/04/germanys-energiewende-leading-to-suicide-by-cannibalism-huge-oversupply-risks-destabilization/#sthash.8tE9YRDj.PSllYaQF.dpbs

    The coming age of power cannibalism…Germany on the verge of committing energy suicide

    Capacity without control:
    The problem with the “renewable” power sources of wind and solar is their intrinsic volatility coupled with their poor capacity utilization rates of only 17.4% for wind and 8.3% for solar (average values for Germany). –

    Yet Germany has a unique peculiarity: its leaders sometimes exhibit a stunning inability to recognize when the time has come to abandon a lost cause. So far €500 billion (William: €500 billion is $550 billion US) has already been invested in the “Energiewende”, which is clearly emerging as a failure.

    Yet all political parties (William, Germany political parties) continue to throw their full weight behind the policy rather than admitting it is a failure (which would be tantamount to political suicide). Instead, the current government coalition has even decided to shift into an even higher gear on the path to achieving its objective of generating 80% of German electric power from “renewable” sources by 2050.

    If the situation is practically unmanageable now with 25% renewable

    • William Astley April 16, 2017 at 8:44 am
      A climate study by a red team is a great idea, however, it will take years to implement and will be met with massive resistance. i.e. The cult will say there is no need to wait, the science is settled, let’s spend trillions of dollars now.

      Skeptics collectively have already studied the matter. What’s needed is for Pruitt / Trump to appoint members to an official red team and challenge warmists to debate it, both in public on TV (in many segments on many sub-topics) and separately over the Internet, in more detail, using a format like the Climate Dialogue’s site, but with a science court superstructure. The red team could be rounded up within a month.

  12. The Climate Change mafia is extremely well entrenched. Mother Nature could make the bottom drop out of world temperature and the Climate Change juggernaut would continue to roll along.

  13. Too funny
    “Refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers ”

    In 10 years of asking for data and code skeptics have been the only ones to deny me..ah. Skeptics and Phil jones.
    What makes it even more funny is that John Christy is right up there with Jones and mann
    When it comes to sharing code and data…

    Heck he won’t even share the code and data that makes his signature chart about
    Model data comparisons. ..

    • Oh Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, it may come as a complete surprise to you that not everybody considers you the centre of the universe.

      So tell us exactly who have den-eye-d you data and code? You have had quite the sook about Christy. Anybody else?

      What ever happened to you?

    • Ed Hawkins says that you can easily download and reproduce his model run failure from Klimate Explorer… It appears to me that the only difference between his runs and Spencer/Christy’s runs of the CMIP ensemble is the starting point of the predictive run.

      You’re a math guy… Run the numbers.

  14. Yes, real science must guide policy. So let’s leave out the political and economic hand-wringing, benefits of fossil fuels, billions of people who are still energy-deprived, impoverished, diseased and starving.

    This has nothing to do with the science of natural climate variation.

  15. But, but, but, if we wait until we’re 100% sure of the science, by then it will be too late! Think of the children!

  16. These are timely questions. On April 12, 1633 the Catholic Church convicted astronomer Galileo Galilei of heresy, for refusing to accept its doctrine that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    This is one of my historical pet peeves. Galileo was not condemned because the church refused to accept the idea of the heliocentric model. After all, both Copernicus and Galileo were sponsored by the church. the issue was whether or not the theory was proven.

    When Copernicus developed the heliocentric model, there were a number of things unexplained. For instance, Copernicus could not explain why a ball thrown straight up in the air did not travel a great distance before it came down (because the Earth was moving.)

    Cardinal Bellarmine (the head of the Jesuits) insisted that there is proof of the heliocentric model before it is accepted as scientific fact. Galileo wrote his seminal paper (dedicated to his close friend, the Pope) about how the tides exist because of the rotation of the earth. He was wrong (of course.) Yet, he constantly insisted that most people were too ignorant to understand his proof. Cardinal Bellarmine knew this proof did not hold water. Keppler had already shown that the moon had influence on the tides.

    There were a number of questions that scientists had about Galileo’s paper. For instance, the wondered why there were two tides per day rather than just one. Galileo explained that there were two tides because water sloshed around in bays the same way water sloshes around in a bucket when pushed. (still wrong) The Pope finally gave him a list of questions to answer for his theory. Galileo placed those questions in a dialogue between himself and “Simpatico” (Simpleton in Italian.) The Pope assumed he was “Simpatico” and withdrew any support that he had for Galileo.

    It is important to remember that Galileo, the most brilliant person of his time, was wrong. Despite his errors, he taught that he had definitive proof for the heliocentric model. He was tried for heresy because he taught this as fact rather than a theory. His arrogance could not accept that his explanation was wrong.

    This is part of the reason why the arrogance of the Climatocracy bothers me. They are like Galileo, refusing to state their proof. When challenged, they insist that we are too stupid to understand their brilliance. Then they provide simple answers to complex questions.

    Even Michael Mann overstates the consensus in this testimony. If he is a “scientist”, then he should be more precise. 97% of scientists surveyed may believe in anthropogenic climate change, but when you add any caveats to that consensus (such as “{Climate Change} is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet” then the consensus fails — 97% of scientists have not agreed with that statement. If he was a scientist, then he should understand that.

    • While house arrest for an old man was probably fairly lenient at that time, it still does provide a chill for the majority consensus view as always being correct. Sort of reminds me of present day CAGW regarding any view different than the supposed 97% consensus. The only difference between Galileo’s time and ours, was that there was a vast majority consensus in the earth based centrists belief at that time, partially just based on ignorance of the facts and religious dogma was not to be questioned. At the point of prosecution.

      Now in present day, they are trying to intimidate people into believing that there is even a 97% bias towards CO2 being the main driver of modern day climate change. When they have to argue the 97%, you know already that their main argument of the CO2 driver is already floundering on the rocks. That should be evident from the howls of the alarmists that say we are facing doom by our own hand. Even though they keep pushing out the date to 2020 and beyond before we see any real climate meltdown. If anything, we have lived the last century in the most stable times of climate, and as a result we have grown the population of the planet to 7.3 billion. Hopefully it never gets cold again, and we miss a crop in the northern hemisphere.

  17. “But what about the other 3,069 respondents? 75 out of 3,146 is barely 0.02 percent.”

    Should be “barely 2%”.

    • After comparing to the 3K that answered, the 75 should have been compared to the 10K scientists to whom the survey was sent in the first place.

  18. Galileo was not persecuted for saying that the Earth went around the Sun, but for lacking enough evidence to back his claim and just making stuff up (My favorite being that it was the Earth’s motion around the Sun that caused the high and low tides to happen at noon and midnight, despite there being two low tides and two high tides, the timing of which depend on the angle between the Sun and the Moon).

    It did not help his claim that he declared his telescopes to be much better than they actually were, while his telescopes distorted the points of starlight into disks, making stellar parallax conspicuous by its absence (in this, he was hoisted by his own petard).

    What got him accused of heresy was his attempt to twist scripture in ways not in accord with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church to support his views on heliocentrism.

    It did not help that he was too quick to speak his mind to all of the idiots too stupid to agree with him. Only his death well before the first unification of Germany, let alone the rise of the Internet, kept him from constantly flaming stupid nazis lacking the wisdom to agree with, on the internet, every day.

  19. CAGW is a movement that got a great deal of government support fairly early on. A different bit of “science” was expressed in Nixon’s War on Cancer, which was the conjecture that various trace chemicals were causing the claimed cancer epidemic, the sort of theme from “Silent Spring”. That episode was mostly an obsession in the US, not Europe or Japan, and did burn out mostly after the US government stopped pushing the theme under Reagan.
    Global warming is much bigger, and more widespread, and much more expensive, but another example of “political science”. Given the performance of the global warming model, it might well have the same fate as the “War on Cancer”, an example of institutional amnesia.

    • I agree Mickeldoo as that is the case here in Ontario.

      Our whole political and educated class, when it comes to “climate change” (man-made global warming), appear to be indoctrinated with the alarmist point of view. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (yup, that’s what it’s called) together with our leader Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Ministry of Finance have implemented a carbon tax and cap/trade system. This on top of double digit $billions of debt wasted on wind and solar parks.

      So it’s official, the government of Ontario continues to lead the way in showing the world how to battle the dreaded man-made CO2 “pollution” buildup that, if we don’t stop it, is supposedly going to drown the coasts and turn the world into stormy deserts surrounded by oceans of acid.

      Eventually (hopefully?) wisdom will dictate and the people behind this glassy-eyed cult will find their place in history alongside all the other doomsday soothsayers that have come and gone.

      • And has forced many into energy poverty.

        Cap-and-Trade that was first established at the provincial/sub-national level quickly spread to the national level.

        Ontarians may have to pay for this folly for years to come.

        The U.S is the next big prize needed to make North America a cap-and-trade hub. The push for this has already begun by using sub-national action to make this happen. Some push for this has appeared at the Federal level as well.

  20. I said this years ago. The public debate would never be decided by science, but by economics. Once governments actually came face to face with the enormous damage that would be inflicted by matching actions to their rhetoric, they would retreat from their positions. So now it is starting to happen. They twist and turn to maintain the facade because it is a remarkably easy way to justify new taxes. But when faced with the ugly reality of doing something substantial, then it becomes a shell game. Yes, we’re donating money to climate that is actually other foreign aid with the logo changed, yes there’s a still a shortfall but we’ll be sending more later, or eventually, and our own internal programs will only go so far because sending our own economy down the sewer is a great way to get thrown out of power or foment revolution.

    We were never destined to win the science war. It was always harsh economic reality that was going to win it for us.

    • David-here’s the problem with your assessment. While I agree that governmen’are always eager to do whatever will get them votes, when the bill for their vote buying is presented they do not flinch. They carry on courageously with borrowed money,aided by inflation created by the central banks no matter how catastrophic the final tally. They are secure in the knowledge that hyper inflation is always in the tool chest as a last resort to clear the path for a new cycle. If, in the meantime the idiot electorate punishes the spendthrifts, we can all be assured that the same idiot electorate will forget all about it in about 6 years put the spendthrifts back in office. This is such an iron clad rule of politics that is is practised by both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. and indeed by every party in every democratic country on this planet. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, I have no doubt they are in debt and if they attempt to contact us it will no doubt be to pledge shaky assets for a long term loan at low interest.

  21. Of course there is nothing wrong with policy at all.
    #
    It has delivered the result the global corporates want to an electorate who is all to willing to believe in its own guilt, and so has voted the guilt merchants of the century – the Liberal Left- into power.

    This is all as it was supposed to be. And why else is government funding science if not to get the scientific community to endorse its politics?

    In the post truth world, who cares about truth, and why would they?

    That is the burning question.

  22. [snip . . . what is your problem? Do you find your position so weak that only insults, profanity and personal attacks can make it work for you? Here’s an idea, why not make your point succinctly and politely in English. There are many here who I am sure would be delighted to receive your insights and enter into some debate with you but your presentation and attitude make that impossible.

    Perhaps you should wait a while, till you have grown up though . . . mod]

  23. “China, India, Brazil and poor countries are outraged. They want new money, more money”

    China is a rich country
    The Telegraph: Wealth per adult has risen from $5,670 in 2000 to $22,864 in 2016 in China. China has the third largest household wealth worldwide, after the US and Japan.

  24. So… why does the WUWT crowd feel it needs to lie to itself in order to keep believing its own point of view?

    “refused to share their computer algorithms and raw data with reviewers outside their circle of fellow researchers”

    But everyone can go to the following website and download the CIMP5 models. That is a falsification right there. I read in a previous post that blogposts are better than science because errors will be quickly corrected. I have full faith that the author will now amend this blog post to state that scientists happily share their models, the skeptics just don’t want to look at them ;)

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

    Cheers,
    Ben

    • But everyone can go to the following website and download the CIMP5 models.

      Can you get Mann’s code and data? No? What about Jones? No? Shall I go on? Those scandals have driven more openness in the climate research community, which is a step in the right direction. But that doesn’t make your example ubiquitous, nor does it change the manner in which science results are routinely twisted into some mad misrepresentation of reality with nary an objection from the scientists who know full well that their science is being spun into fool’s gold.

      • And how about the GISS numbers before Hansen and Gavin “adjusted” them? The validation for the changes?
        And which version of that data was actually fed into the models?
        (I suspect it was the data set that most recently came out of their data-grinder.)

    • Er point me at a computer model can you?

      Just a general hand wave at a university website doesn’t cut the ice so to speak…

      • Look, I’m treating you guys like adults. You can click on the ‘models’ tab without me holding your hand. Browse around a bit. You might learn something.

      • I did click on the models tabs. It didn’t take me to any models, just to the model outputs.

        Nowhere did I find a formula, computer code, or even a descriptive process as to how these output sets were arrived at.

        I ask again, please provide one link to an actual model, either a formula or an alogorithm to calculate global warming.

      • http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/register/register.html

        There you go Leo. They’re just trying to make sure that anyone playing with the code has the minimum python skills to run the thing, otherwise they spend all their time on support requests. Please don’t do the obvious: fill out a belligerent request, get refused access, and then report here and complain it’s all a giant conspiracy.

    • David, you could go on. But that would just show you don’t know how the system actually works. The majority of models are collected in the community earth systems model project.

      Have fun downloading them and poking around in the code!
      Cheers, ben

      • davidmhoffer April 16, 2017 at 11:04 am
        But everyone can go to the following website and download the CIMP5 models.

        Can you get Mann’s code and data? No? What about Jones? No? Shall I go on?

        So just where can a layman like me go to download Mann’s code and data? Jones’?
        Please provide the links so we can all have fun.

        OH! And while you’re at it, how about answering my follow up comment to David:

        Gunga Din April 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm
        And how about the GISS numbers before Hansen and Gavin “adjusted” them? The validation for the changes?
        And which version of that data was actually fed into the models?
        (I suspect it was the data set that most recently came out of their data-grinder.)

        I’ll “cheer” after you provide the links and answer my questions.
        PS “Transparency” doesn’t mean no one can see what you did.

      • Also, regarding your comments about individual scientists. That is nice to complain about on WUWT, but in the real world models are made by big international teams. There is no such thing as the ‘Mann model’ or the ‘Jones model’.

        Any adjustments made to data are accompanied by papers explaining the exact methodology and reasoning. Feel free to read those if you are interested.

      • I would if they published them.

        So far I haven’t found any code.

        And you have failed to provide a link to any.

      • benben April 16, 2017 at 10:15 pm
        Also, regarding your comments about individual scientists.,,,

        Now wait a minute. Aren’t these “individual” scientist part of the “consensus”?
        Isn’t what they claimed part of “the root” (along with Hansen) of the whole “CAGW” claim?
        True. I’m just a layman but I’m still waiting for the links.
        Name someone who is not “a layman” who has access to the codes and the data?
        If you can’t, then I’m sure one of the other individuals who make up the “97%” must have them.
        Maybe one of them can provide them?
        Or maybe they don’t have the info either? They just jumped on the bandwagon?
        Or maybe the “97%” represents a very, very small number? Like maybe a number equal to those who won’t let others see what they’ve done?

        PROVE me wrong and provide the links. Many who are scientist and not “laymen” would love to see them.
        Better yet, wake up.

    • Benben, let me quote from the land ocean part of the cesm site you point to:

      Users must create scientifically appropriate data for their particular application or use one of the standard SOM forcing files from the CESM control runs. Some of these are available in the inputdata repository. The user then edits the DOCN_SOM_FILENAME variable in env_run.xml to point to the appropriate SOM forcing dataset. A tool is available to derive valid SOM forcing. More information on creating the SOM forcing is also available.

      Translating that into English, users must feed in data representing the entire earth. The model then crunches the numbers according to its own assumptions and further assumptions fed in by the user. Or maybe you think that cesm already holds data for the entire earth including land, oceans and atmosphere.

      In the immortal words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious.

      • Hello Forrest. Please note that the WUWT post literally said that scientist don’t share their models, and I showed that scientists do share their models. So that is all there is to my comment.

        Why don’t you download the models and tell us exactly what you don’t like? Not based on random internet misinformation but on the actual code itself which, as I have shown, is freely available.

        Cheers

      • Benben, what you have shown is that there is a community project to share one of many climate models. You’ll have to check whether it is THE climate model that is referred to in the article or even whether it is widely used.

        Second, the people who construct the model are not performing scientific work. They are programming computer models. You are therefore wrong to proclaim that this is an example of scientists sharing models.

        You also may or may not be aware that computer programs are an embodiment of ideas. Without the documents describing all of the ideas programmed into the model reading computer code is rarely enlightening.

        Finally, as I pointed out above, the program code is only part of the model. Ultimately it is a bit like a mince grinder in that what comes out depends very much on what goes in. Unless the person putting their data in knows how the programs work and all of the intricacies they are very likely to produce garbage output and waste expensive processing time.

        Above all else Benben, don’t get too excited. This is not the get out of jail card for poor alarmist behaviour that you appear to think it is.

      • If ‘sharing your models’ means allowing people to input their data into it and get the output without ever revealing the mechanism by which it is manipulated, then god help science.

        Eny Fule can buy Microsoft Windows and use it. That is NOT the same as allowing free access to its source code.

        What is amusing is that your attempts to refute the articles propositions have actually confirmed them: What appears superficially to be ‘sharing the model’ turns out to be anything but that.

      • Forrest, you have discovered that ‘garbage in = garbage out’. You are hereby declared the most brilliant data scientist out there. We are all so proud. Enjoy your newfound glory. There is no such thing as THE CLIMATE MODEL. There are hundreds, and the most advanced ones are mostly shared via the platform I linked to. Just go read the explanation of what CIMP and CESM actually is, rather than trusting WUWT to tell you what to think.

        Leo, the code is all on GIT, read the above reply.

    • @Benben,

      The models have utterly failed to demonstrate any predictive skill:

      christy_dec8

      Because they result in a climate sensitivity that is 2-3 times what is supported by observations:

      slide5

      From Hansen et al. 1988 through every IPCC assessment report, the observed temperatures have consistently tracked the strong mitigation scenarios in which the rise in atmospheric CO2 has been slowed and/or halted.

      Apart from the strong El Niño events of 1998 and 2015-16, GISTEMP has tracked Scenario C, in which CO2 levels stopped rising in 2000, holding at 368 ppm.

      Hansen_1The utter failure of this model is most apparent on the more climate-relevant 5-yr running mean:Hansen_5

      This is from IPCC’s First Assessment Report:

      AR1_01AR1_02

      HadCRUT4 has tracked below Scenario D.

      This is from the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report:

      TAR_01

      HadCRUT4 has tracked the strong mitigation scenarios, despite a general lack of mitigation.

      The climate models have never demonstrated any predictive skill.

      And the models aren’t getting better. Even when they start the model run in 2008, the observed temperatures consistently track at or below the lower 5-95% confidence band (p05-p95).fig-nearterm_all_update_2017-1024x509

      SOURCE

      P50 would be the model mean. Half the model runs would predict more warming and half less. This would be a mean from the worst case scenario RCP 8.5, often referred to as “business as usual” to varying grades of mitigation scenarios (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6.0).  The observations continuously track below RCP 4.5.

      If the model ensemble had predictive skill, the observations should track around P5o. During the predictive run of the model, HadCRUT4.5 has not *tracked* anywhere near P50…

      CMIP5_2.png

      Prediction Run Approximate Distribution
      2006 P60 (60% of the models predicted a warmer temperature)
      2007 P75
      2008 P95
      2009 P80
      2010 P70
      2011-2013 >P95
      2014 P90
      2015-2016 P55

      Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño, the observations spiked above P05 (less than 5% of the models predicted this). During the 2015-16 El Niño, HadCRUT only spiked to P55.  El Niño events are not P50 conditions. Strong El Niño and La Niña events should spike toward the P05 and P95 boundaries.

      The temperature observations are clearly tracking much closer to strong mitigation scenarios rather than RCP 8.5, the bogus “business as usual” scenario.

      If I drilled 11 wells and 9 of them only resulted in P70-P95 reserve additions and only 2 came close to the P50 numbers, it would be a miserable failure.

      The red hachured trapezoid indicates that HadCRUT4.5 will continue to track between less than P100 and P50. This is indicative of a miserable failure of the models and a pretty good clue that the models need be adjusted downward.

      In any other field of science CAGW would be a long-discarded falsified hypothesis.

      • David, please note that my comment was ONLY with respect to that any competent modeler can have insight into the code of climate models, while WUWT falsely states that you can’t. I’m not saying anything about whether the results are true. Why do you bombard us with graphs not relevant to my comment? Anyway. You should have spent enough time on the topic to know exactly the weakness of those graphs when using them to convince someone like me (rather than preaching to the choir, what most of WUWT seems to be about).

      • The results of the models are “true.” It’s just math. The problem is that the models have never demonstrated predictive skill.

        Bombarding people with graphs is one of my hobbies.

      • Benben, I am a computer scientist, software engineer and mathematician and I have been studying the mathematics required for climate modeling for the past several years. I do not want to contaminate my thinking by having a look at the current climate models, for at least another couple of years, until I have done my own research.
        I would recommend this book as a supplement to the books specifically targeted at the general mathematics :

        The following is one of the books I have been studying for the math :
        https://www.amazon.com/Finite-Element-Method-Basis/dp/0470395044

      • Hi Gary,

        That is an interesting approach you have there :) please report back in a couple of years I guess?

        David: ok! we all have our hobbies ;)

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • Congratulations benben, you have inspired me to study the current climate model codes. I will add one hour a day of study specifically on what exists today. I see there are some nice Fortran coded models. lucky for me that was the first language I studied at university (Simon Fraser University – Burnaby Mountain campus ) in the early 1980’s.
        I will be writing my versions of climate models in C++ or C#.
        I certainly will be reporting back within a couple of years.

  25. Nice recap.

    It would be nice to hear all this and more from a White House spokesperson. It’s going to be long hard slog under any conditions and the Green money sellout certainly possible.

    Tesla, a crony climate subside kingpin, crossed 50 billion in market cap last week. Zero fear of real climate excess reform in the market.

    They spit in skeptic faces and there is zero skeptic political cohesion in line with this article. Sad.

  26. With our new administration, maybe some changes will happen. Say, hows about a new department in, say, NOAA, tasked with objectively testing the CAGW hypotheses? That is an underpinning of good science, theories need to be tested, and attempting to falsify them will either undo them, or bolster them. Science!

    • No. Any department the would objectively test ANY govt sponsored hypothesis needs to be independent of the agency it is testing. Even then the potential for political pressure.

      • Right: every government agency etc. should have a “red team” agency set up to criticize it and hear complaints from insiders and whistleblowers.

  27. For all intents and purposes, CAGW is already a dead hypothesis.

    CAGW model projections already exceed reality by 2 standard deviations, and when both the PDO and AMO are in their respective 30-year cool cycles from 2019, a falling global temperature trend will likely occur, as happened twice before when this phenomenon occurred between 1880~1910 and 1945~1975.

    Moreover, solar cycles are collapsing, which will likely cause global cooling for the next 80~100 years as occurred in past Grand Solar Minimum events: (Wolf (1280~1350), Sporer (1450~1550), Maunder (1645~1715), and Dalton (1790~1820).

    To reach CAGW’s “consensus” ECS estimate of 3C by 2100, would require a global warming trend of 0.27C/decade starting from tomorrow, and continuing on for the next 83 straight years, which is very highly unlikely. Every year below 0.27C/decade simply necessitates ever higher future trends to confirm the CAGW hypothesis, which, again, is very highly unlikely.

    CAGW is dead, and will be laughed at in 5~7 years; right about the time Trump is winding down his presidency.

    • Good comment Samurai…I completely agree that the CAGW hypothesis is already dead in the water. But we are preaching to the converted here, so will probably take at least 5 years if not 10 for the data to trickle in year after year that temperatures are not in lockstep with rising CO2.

      At some point in the near future, hopefully sooner, the MSN and politicians will have to quit whipping this horse because as you say, when the warming fails to materialize and then has to warm even more to make up to 1.5 C or 3.0 C by certain best before dates, then the jig is up with the voting people who will know a lie when they see one. I think the news cycle will love a new story line and will pounce on the data manipulators with a vengeance. I don’t think people like Hansen or Mann will be remembered fondly in history for fabricating this lie.

      One thing you forgot to mention besides the PDO, AMO and solar cycle all working against rising temps in the short term future is the Chaos factor. Probably some vulcanism event that happens that will also force some cooling and while random, Chaos events happen all the time although hard to predict.

      For any future politicians reading this blog, take note that the voters will deal harshly with this scam, especially those that are being forced into paying any type of carbon taxes, or are one of the few nations being forced to pay into a UN Climate fund to redistribute to 200 poorer nations for climate mitigation measures. Best to unhitch the wagon from this horse, and engage in a proper scientific review of what we have learnt in the last 150 years.

      • Ron-San:

        Yes, good point. We’re certainly “due” (my old statistics professor would throw an eraser at my head for saying that) for a large volcanic event, since the last one “big one” was Pinatubo in 1991, and there has been increasing seismic activity around the world in recent years.

        When this CAGW hypothesis is officially disconfirmed, the political blowback against the Left will be astounding, considering the $trillions wasted and millions of jobs lost for no reason whatsoever.

      • Tony McLeod, I am not sure some of the melting ice in the northern hemisphere qualifies that overall warming of the entire planet will doom some of Samurai’s “prophecies” about CAGW being a failed hypothesis. We barely understand the the state of the polar regions prior to the 20th century, and prior to 1979, we didn’t even have any proper measurement of sea ice extant in the Arctic Ocean.

        With the majority of land mass concentrated in the NH, and the Arctic being at sea level, it is not surprising that the thermal heat (and pollution/dust) we humans generate that are not generally accounted for circulate into the northern regions. Not saying there is no warming from CO2, but it is not linear with additional input of CO2 to the atmosphere, as you probably already understand. So a changing Albedo is probably responsible for some of that warming in the Arctic, due to rapid changing land use in the NH this last century. And then we don’t have much understanding about the magnetic pole racing across the Arctic towards Siberia, having accelerated substantially this last century as well. It is too bad we don’t put as much emphasis on the dozens of others causes of climate change as we try to blame CO2 for all the ills of global warming, but I am sure you understand some of these issues as well.

      • “sea ice extant in the Arctic Ocean”

        Shouldn’t that be ‘sea ice, extant in the Arctic ocean (as opposed to the Indian ocean one assumes)?
        Commas are important.

      • Tony-San:

        There are numerous nautical records showing the current Artic ice melt is similar to that in the 1930’s during the previous 30-yr PDO/AMO warm cycles. There is absolutely nothing “unprecedented” about what we’re currenting observing.

        You also have to realize that with the increased area of Arctic ice-free zones, more stored ocean heat is being released out to space which used to trapped under sheets of ice.. When the AMO 30-year cool cycle begins in 2019, I expect Arctic Ice Extents and Greenland land ice to enter another 30-year cycle of expansion and thickness as seen from 1945~1975.

        As you know, NASA ICE-SAT data shows Antarctic total land-ice mass has been increasing at around 100 billion tons to per year since 1992.. oops…

        We’ll see who is right in about 5~7 years..

      • SAMURAI
        “There are numerous nautical records showing the current Artic ice melt is similar to that in the 1930’s”

        Numerous? Care to post 1.

        “increased area of Arctic ice-free zones, more stored ocean heat is being released out to space”
        So becaue it is warmer – that is making it cooler. Put down the kool-aid.
        The less ice the lower the albedo the warmer it gets.

        “in 2019, I expect Arctic Ice Extents and Greenland land ice to enter another 30-year cycle of expansion and thickness”
        Lol. Sorry Samurai-san but there is no chance.

        “increasing at around 100 billion tons to per year since 1992.. oops…”
        https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/98/

      • Ice levels have fallen since the coldest time in the last 200 years.
        And you think you have proven something?

      • Tony-san:

        You asked for ONE source showing the Arctic’s current low ice extent has occurred before…

        Here you go:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

        There is absolutely nothing unpredented about the low Arctic ice extents we’re currently experiencing…

        This same phenomenon occurred the last time the PDO and AMO were in their 30-yr warm cycles in the 1920’s and 30’s….

        whoops..

        When the PDO & AMO switched to their respective 30-yr cool cycles between 1945~1975, Arctic sea ice extents started to increase to such an extent, that many scientists in the 1970’s were predicting “A New Ice Age” was coming ….. caused by….. particulate pollution from fossil fuel emissions…

        LOL! Always manmade, regardless of warming or cooling… Oh, my… I do love it so…

  28. All science has been harmed by the climate charlatans. A pity that few scientist have been attuned to this; hopefully more are waking up to this now.

  29. Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture. So there is no consensus. Such a consensus would not mean anything anyway because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. The theories of science are not validated through a voting process.

    Climate change is real and has been going on for eons, long before Mankind started to burn fossil fuels. Based on modeling studies one can conclude that the climate change wer are experiencing tocay is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. The AGW conjecture sounds plausable at first but upon closer examination it is severely flawed. In part to generate evidence to support the AGW conjecture the IPCC supported the development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of different models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. If there were no guess work then only one model would have been supported. The plethora of models have generated a wide range of predictions for today’s global temperatures but they all have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all prediicted global warming that never happened. If they are evidence of anything it is that the AGW conjecture is flawed. The climate simulations actually beg the question because it is hard coded in that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming so that is what the simulation results show. Because they beg the question such sumulations are totally useless. If the IPCC actually learned something from the simulations they would have by now reduced the number of different models under consideration but that has not happened. Others have generated models that show that climate is correlated to solar and ocean effects and not to CO2.

    There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate. Warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere because warmer water holds less CO2 then cooler water but there is no real evidence that the additinal CO2 adds to warming. It is all just speculation.

    The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect provided by gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect..So to on Earth. As derived from first principals, the atmophere keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would other wise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect and it accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

    Kyoji Kimoto, reporting in an artiicle entitled “Basic Global Working Hypothesis is Wrong” has found that the original calculation of the Planck climate sensivity of CO2 is too great by more than a factor of 20 because original calculations forgot to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 wiill cause a small but very signiificant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a Planck Climate sensivity of 1.2 degrees C, CO2 provides a Plankc climate sensivity of less than .06 degrees C which is rather trivial.

    If CO2 really affected climate than the increase in CO2 over the last 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

    In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values as to the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has found nothing the would narrow their range of guesses one iota. The IPCC deliberately ignore’s all logic indicating that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really less than their published range for fear of losing their funding. Supporting the AGW conjecture has been a matter of politics and not science. Belief in the AGW conjecture is really anti science.

  30. Mann said the other three witnesses represent a “tiny minority” who stand opposed to the 97% who agree that “climate change is real, is human-caused, and is already having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet.”

    Again Mann lies before Congress: that is not what the 97% question was. All four of the witnesses support 97% position. It was not 3 against 1.

    • Any major media outlet which disabused the public of the 97% lie would be doing a great service to truth, justice and the American Way. Not to mention science and the health, happiness and prosperity of the world.

      To recap, that ludicrous number doesn’t come from “all scientists” (who number in millions), but from the 95% of 79 “actively publishing” so-called “climate scientists” who answered “yes” to both survey questions. Most skeptics would have replied “yes” to “has the world warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age?” Many might even respond in the affirmative to “have human activities significantly affected this warming?” (I paraphrase both queries.) No definition of “significant” was provided.

      What the poll failed to ask was whether more CO2 and warming from whatever cause were good or bad.

  31. From the article:

    “Billions of people are still energy-deprived, impoverished, diseased and starving.”

    It is fair to add ‘freezing’ to this list. A great deal of the energy used by the poor is directed to staying warm. Solid fuels such as coal are essential for keeping them warm, absent cheap fabulous solar-heated homes with retained heat walls.

    As a sort of paean to those wishing to ‘reduce CO2 emissions’ a set of studies has recently shown that we can help the poor in Central Asia to reduce their coal consumption by 40% while increasing the energy delivered to their homes also by 40%.

    This is ‘efficiency’ at its finest: a reduction in whatever it is someone wants reduced, while simultaneously increasing the service factor of the energy source utilised.

    As long as there is no objection to the poor reducing their CO2 emissions by 40%, we should get behind such initiatives ‘across the aisle’.

    The fact is a great deal of the energy we use is wasted for no practical benefit, not even entertainment like drag racing. I suggest everyone get behind the projects that transform lives, save energy, reduce all emissions, harmful or not, and leave more disposable income in the hands of those less well-off.

    There is a meeting organised by the ICCI in Warsaw 29-30 May to discuss this topic. Register now.

  32. Once again, we need a comprehensive, unbiased survey to refute this nonsense. Said survey to include a brief pre-amble stating the condensed case for and against. Limit it to 100 words for each and send out the surveys alternating which preamble goes first. Hopefully it would be possible to find people of eminence and integrity on the Warmist side to contribute. Release the results completely and with the subtle differences illustrated, not like the twisted statements that the Warmists dragged out of the previous one. Is this a crowd-fundable type thing? I would certainly contribute!

  33. It occurs to me that a real possible outcome of the failed Homocentric Universe Theory, a.k.a. Anthropogenic Climate Change, which I would say is just a failed attempt to resurrect the failed Geocentric Theory (Catholic Doctrine, “Man, the Steward of Earth, is at the center of God’s bosom and all creation”) i.e. Man IS the mover of all the elements, Earth Wind Fire Water, will be thrown to the ground yet again in a few number of days.

    But the greatest achievement, this time, just could be that the U.S. Federal Government will begin a lengthy process of divestment of “science experts” (lower case intended) for policy creation. That is, if a Congress member wants to be informed of Science or Technology, the member is free to gain information, insight and wisdom, on the member’s own dime and time and not by the money and time of the Federal Government.

    Galileo

  34. Galileo was convicted of claiming that the sun centered model had been proven, and at that time, it hadn’t been.

  35. Dave Middleton writes: the merits of the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis
    .
    .
    There is no such thing. Using the word “catastrophic” renders the argument a strawman.

    • CAGW is three assertions==>that the changes are net destructive, that the changes are anthropogenic, and the climate is warming. The claim that warming is generally bad is widespread. Do you really want clips of various claims to that point?
      Much of the literature from the IPCC consists of conflating the second two points. While it is warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, is the warming (and cooling) since 1950 that different in degree or cause from 1850-1950, in either degree or cause?

      • Tom, science never offers a value judgement on what it studies. It never says “X” is destructive or “X” is constructive. Values are the domain of philosophy not science. Please, provide us with peer reviewed science articles that demonstrate “destructiveness.”

      • I doubt your basic sincerity. The game is to ask for references, then dismiss the source. But James Hansen or Holdren do not exist, or I was mischaracterizing their predictions?

      • Tom, going back to the “C” in CAGW, the word “catastrophic” is not found in the literature (and by literature, you I’m not talking “opinion,” i’m talking reported research)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s