I Love Neil deGrasse Tyson, but He is Wrong on Climate

My response to Neil deGrasse Tyson about denial of science.

Guest essay by Donna Hedley

I love Neil deGrasse Tyson. He has done so much to make science interesting and understandable. He is wise and humble. His love for science is infectious. However, I think he is wrong when he talks about the denial of science, especially when it is about climate change.

I agree with him when he says we need to become scientifically literate and that is something I have endeavoured to do over the last few years. I have come to be better understanding of what science is, and how it works. I am not a scientist, but I do have a brain and believe I have come to some intelligent conclusions. Not only that, I am open minded enough to listen to alternative ideas. I want to know the truth, even if it means that someday, someone can prove the CO2 is a problem. But as of today, I am not convinced.

I started this journey because I wanted to prove to someone that Global Warming was real. Yes, there was a time that I believed in it.

After all, the scientists were saying so, and who was I to disagree? What I found out was there are many knowledgeable people who questioned the hypotheses. I also found out that in the science world, this is what is supposed to happen. People are not supposed to be put down because they had different ideas. If their ideas were unsound, science will figure it out in the end, if given the chance to do so.

I don’t claim to know or understand everything, but what I learned was enough to make me question the status quo on the subject Anthropological Catastrophic Climate Change (ACCC). I also learned that questioning is good. If you don’t ask questions, you will not learn anything thing.

Neil talks about people denying science. I would like him to explain to me, just who is denying science and what they are denying about science. From my studies, they don’t deny that the climate is changing, that it is a bit warmer then is was 100 years ago, or that mankind has had something to do with it. They just question by how much and if it is a real problem, and what percent of it is our fault. This is a question that even Bill Nye could not answer.

What about real denial, like the denial of medieval warm period, which happened approximately between 1000 to 1250 when temperatures were higher then today, and people prospered because of longer growing seasons, and Vikings lived on Greenland (which they can’t today because it just too cold)? What about the denial of the little ice age that lasted from about 1300 to 1870, when plagues and famine were rampant, and people died by the millions? Could it be that the warming we have been experiencing over the last 100 years might have been the planet still coming out of the ice age? Science is all about considering all angles of a topic, all the possibilities.

Neil talks about how someone makes a premise or hypothesis and then others look at it, and do experiments to confirm validity. Scientists are supposed to do their utmost to disprove a theory. If it can’t be disproven, then it should be considered as possibility true. But even when that happens, new evidence can materialize that could change the picture yet again. That is why science is never settled.

How can one do real world experiments when it needs to be done on the real world — that is, the entire planet. Consider how big the planet is. How will it ever to fit in a lab? And while CO2 has been proven to cause some warming, what experiment can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that when you factor in all of the variables involved in influencing the climate, such as clouds, the sun, wind, and the ocean — to name only a few — that CO2 is the main reason for the warming? How can we be sure that we even know of all the variables that affect the climate? Can we be sure that there are no other variables involved that we are not even aware of yet? You know, the stuff that we don’t know that we don’t know. All I suggest is that there are too many variables, to many unanswered questions to say that we know enough about why the world is warming and what it really means, and therefore cannot be pinned totally on CO2 as the starting point. If it cannot be proven, then any of the additional arguments are irrelevant.

So how can we trust the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who’s sole purpose is to prove that CO2 is the only cause of ACCC and does not even consider looking at other possible causes? Why does the IPCC not even consider the 100s of papers – peer reviewed and published in excellent journals — which do not support ACCC? Is it because these papers might contradict their premise and purpose which is to prove that CO2 is the cause?

Since whole world experiments are somewhat impossible, scientists rely on models that give projections. But if they cannot fully understand all of the possible factors that effect climate, how can we rely on models. They give some ideas of what might happen, but they can’t really tell what will happen for sure. They are only guesses, possibilities, not guarantees. For example, over the past 30 years, many of the climate models predicted that snow would be a thing of the past by now. Well, here in Ottawa, we had snow this winter, and lots of it. It has been a long cold winter. This neither proves or disproves ACCC, but points to the fact that the models are not reliable.

There are many scientists that do not support the status quo on ACCC. They do research which presents alternative views. They get their papers reviewed and published. The problem is, their voices and views are just not heard, or, if we do hear about them, they are presented as villains and funded by big oil, which is usually not the case. They are accused of denying science. Yet, they are doing exactly what Neil says scientists should do. Why are their efforts any less relevant just because they don’t go along with the status quo?

Doesn’t that sound a little Orwellian, the idea that people with a different point of view are presented as somehow – evil? Take for instance the story of Dr. Judith Curry. While Neil is an intelligent and established scientist in his own right, he is not an actual climate scientist, like Dr. Curry. She has impeccable credentials, including 186 published journal articles and two books. She went along with the status quo on ACCC, believing it to be real and trusting in what she was being told about it. Until she started to really look at the details which made her change her mind.

Bam, she is now an oil funded climate denier. Funny how one minute she has no connections with big oil, and the next minute she is in their pay. I wonder how that happens? How ridiculous, and scary – and easy it is to be trashed for not going with the status quo. Here is what she had to say about why she changed her mind when she spoke at a recent senate hearing.

“Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do. That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC’s conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works. I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist. I’ve been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.”


She is a scientist with distinction and integrity. But when she looked at the evidence and decided that things were not what they seemed, she instantly became a villain. How can this behaviour be justified in the name of science?

When the models of the past 30 years don’t work, when the best they can come up with to prove CO2 causes catastrophic global warming is using terms like “likely”, when top scientist, who exemplifies distinction and integrity, is accused of being funded by big oil when they are not, when there are many scientists have peer reviewed papers that have alternative findings, you kind of have to pause and consider, maybe the “deniers” have a point.

You don’t have to agree with me – I won’t vilify you if you don’t. My purpose is not necessarily to change your mind, but to present some reasons why you might at least be willing to consider that if someone like Judith Curry could change her mind because she realized that she was not being told the whole truth, maybe you might consider it as well. And maybe, Neil deGrasse Tyson, as awesome as he is, is mistaken.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bruce Cobb

He’s a phony. His “love” of science stops dead in its tracks at the doors of the CAGW ideology.

David Ball

He is NOT wise, He is definitely NOT humble, and he is definitely no longer a scientist. He is a political advocate.


TOTALLY agree David Ball. He’s SO arrogant, and often caught saying untrue things with no shame.



Joel Snider

‘He is a political advocate.’
Of course he is. That’s how he got the NOVA job.


All I can say is that I lost all respect for the guy the moment I found out that Tyson has a history of orderin’ take-out at his local McDonald’s drive-thru and then just throwin’ all his trash out the car window, when finished with his meal, for some one or another of us coolie-trash herdling-nobodies to pick-up behind him (let me save you some time and trouble, here, dear reader–Tyson’s Wikipedia article makes no mention of his shameful, litter-bug, life-style choices, so what else is new, right?). And get this–sitting down?–Tyson thinks that you, dear reader, share his “trashy”, sordid past,*. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT!!!
*Google:”climate depot tyson throw trash out window”

Agree. Tyson has equated skeptics of climate alarmism with flat Earthers and inferred that they refuse to believe because it contradicts the Bible. That is the condescension and arrogance of a Popish intellectual chauvinist who is blind to his own ignorance and preconceptions and articles of faith. True scientists are in the tradition of Richard Feynman; they refuse to fall in love with any theory or worldview, but continue to assimilate evidence and follow the data with reason and logic wherever it goes, regardless of what is popular with peers or authorities or celebrities. Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, and Neil DeGrasse-Tyson are various degrees of caricature of true scientists. They each suffer from enlarged egos, Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias, and a fatal thirst for public approbation. Ben Shapiro captures the anti-scientific arrogance of these individuals well in this clip https://youtu.be/jkGxyJFmd4s .


You forgot …and actor, David.


Neil talks about people denying science.

Anyone who starts out with stupid phrases like that had declared their game. They are talking politics, not science. END OF.
I like the way he comes across and he is fun to listen too but I lost all respect for him as a scientist when I first heard him talking about climate.

Mike said: “All I can say is that I lost all respect for the guy the moment I found out that Tyson has a history of orderin’ take-out at his local McDonald’s drive-thru and then just throwin’ all his trash out the car window…”
My reading is that Tyson was interviewing Gina McCarthy, who said she used to throw trash out the window – not Tyson.

Mike …

Tyson has a history of orderin’ take-out at his local McDonald’s drive-thru and then just throwin’ all his trash out the car window,

That is incorrect!!!
Tyson was interviewing Gina McCarthy (head of EPA), and McCarthy is the one who talked about throwing trash out the window.


Yr: “That is incorrect!!!
I don’t think so, TPG. Yes, Tyson was interviewing Gina McCarthy in the reference I gave. And yes, Gina McCarthy was the first to acknowledge, in that interview, that she once harbored a privileged-white-litterbug sense of entitlement, that was a part of her family tradition, and that, in particular, took the form of the privileged-white-defenestrator outrages she committed against Gaia, mentioned in my earlier comment.
But here is where I think your “incorrect!!!”, TPG is…well…incorrect!!! In the relevant interview, after Gina recounts how her family used to throw their McDonald’s trash out their car window, and everything, she asks Tyson, per the transcript, “That wasn’t just, I don’t think it was just our family. I certainly hope it’s not.” To which Tyson replies, “But everybody did it, I remember.” Again, TPG, note what Tyson says, “BUT EVERYBODY DID IT, I REMEMBER.” Got it, TPG?
So to just to fully draw out the implications of Tyson’s interview comment, noted above, his use of the word “everybody” necessarily implies that he, also, used to toss his McDonald’s trash out his car window. Further, Tyson’s use of the word “everybody” implies that the practice was universal in the unsavory company which Tyson and Gina kept, and were a part.
But, of course, throwing one’s trash out the window was not a universal practice of yore. Being somewhat older than Gina, I can speak to the “good old days” with some authority. Certainly, neither my family, nor any others with whom my family associated, would have thrown their trash out the window–not to mention that my family, like “everybody” else they knew, would have avoided the “trashy” company of any family that did. And, dear reader, I suspect your family was, most likely, no different than mine. Yours too, TPG.
Regardless, I think we can both agree, TPG, that the Gaia-grifters, that our betters consistently employ as their mouth-pieces and front-men, are such awful people! Curious, isn’t it, TPG?


Oops! Before TGP shows up to tear me a “new one”, let me quickly correct the error in my last comment. Of course, I should not have used the term “defenestrator”, but rather the term “defenestratrix.” My bad!

george e. smith

Who is this guy, and howcum I never heard of him. Not that that is any criterion; I never heard of most people.
But in this day of the fake NEWS programs, you can’t be too careful about who or what you are listening to.
CNN has a flock of talking heads who were screaming bloody murder about President Trump, and “The White House” talking about “radical islam” as if that is some mystery.
Hey CNN , “radical islam” is very similar in concept to ” mostly moslem countries ” .
The difference is quite apparent.
The first one is something that President Trump DID say.
The second one, so far as I can determine, President Trump did NOT say; but CNN and all the other know-it-all talking heads said.
Evidently, there are 57 “mostly moslem countries” ; one for each State of the Union, and President Trump referred to just seven specified countries, as places where personnel records are almost non existent, so it is hard to find out just who is whom, when they apply for US immigration status.
Apparently the President want to be sure that we don’t end up with any ” radical Islamic terrorists ” getting in from those specific seven countries he named by name.
Sorry to wander off track; but since someone I live with, has the T&V locked onto CNN, I see all sorts of persons, I never heard of jabbering about stuff they clearly don’t know beans about.
I switch it to OAN, and she never even notices; that it’s a different bunch of talking heads.


There have been famous, incredibly gifted scientists that fought the evidence. But I think most of the ones like him have simply been shielded by various factors and not taken the time (they still have faith in science) to look at the data.
I’ve heard him talk. He seems quite reasonable. I’d be willing to bet that nobody has managed to properly confront him with the data…like he’s never had anyone ask him, “Have you looked at the sea level rise data?” and gone on to explain “Because I can tell you from scouring the data, there is literally NO EVIDENCE of acceleration. 100% of the acceleration is the result of entirely unverified adjustments or more often, splicing together of dissimilar datasets that would actually be expected to have different rates.”
Now Bill Nye…that man is nothing but a mouthpiece on global warming. I have never seen him consider a question. He just hears a key word and repeats some (often unrelated) monolog on that topic or just makes crap up…like when he claimed scientists can literally work back with computer models using a recent storm’s data and tell if it would or wouldn’t have existed without global warming (Yes, I saw him make that claim)

Bruce Cobb

You give NDGT too much credit. He has access to the same information we all do, but isn’t interested. He’s on the CAGW gravy train, so has a personal interest in seeing it continue (even though it is being derailed). Plus, it very likely fits with his world view.


Tyson is fine even though he is wrong about AGW I think. Nye not so much.

george e. smith

As for throwing the McDonalds trash out of the car window, at the drive through; I happen to know some of the folks who would have to clean that up when “everybody” like Neil Tyson does it (You too Gina).
Actually I get slightly more annoyed that I have to stand and wait by the cash register INSIDE the McDonalds, while the employee staff give preferential service to some schmuck who just drove up to the window, expecting instant service so (s)he could get to the trash throwing part.
No it’s not for me; but there can be a dozen of us cash paying customers, waiting to order some breakfast INSIDE the store. I get equally peeved, when I am trying to buy something in a store, and the sales person, takes time out from serving me, to answer the darn telephone, with somebody on the other end, who may NEVER come into the shop to buy anything at all.
I DO patronize those stores that pick up the phone and tell the other end to wait while they serve a customer they actually do have.
I know all of MY McD’s staff by name, and I try to avoid making a mess for them to clean up.

Dave Fair

Dammit, keep jumping to the Allstate ad! I forgot how to stop it. Suggestions?

Owen in GA

Unfortunately, WordPress allows ads to take over your browser and make the site you are visiting unreadable. Finally out of desperation at not being read the content of the comments I downloaded an ad blocker. I hated doing it because I used to click on the occasional ad to try to add some revenue to our host, but it was ad blocker or abandon the site, and I appreciate the content too much to give it up.

Roger Knights

Try reloading the page; it worked for me.

Dave Fair

Thanks, Roger.

Stephen Richards

He associates with clowns he must therefore be part of a circus and his behaviour makes him like the clowns in his circle of friends.

steve d

If Neil is wrong all you guys have to do is debunk the science that causes the greenhouse effect, the reason the planet keeps getting hotter. Oh wait …… you can’t. Not with science anyway. Please post all science that debunks the greenhouse effect.


It’s already been done. Dozens of times.
With the exception of now fading El Nino, the planet hasn’t warmed in 20 years.
As to the science that debunks AGW, try reading any of the last couple of hundred articles.


Steve, you ask the wrong question: It is not about “the greenhouse effect”. That is merely a well established mechanism. It does not say anything about the quantified effect of a variation in climate as long as you don’t know the full climate dependence on many parameters. The real claim – and I think myself an improper hypothesis because itself does not rest on any evidence – is that CO2 drives the climate and even that it makes it unstable. The burden of proof really is on the one who makes such a claim!

John F. Hultquist

steve d @ 1:34,
Co2 is added to greenhouses because it is a necessary food for plants.
It is not put there to make it warmer. Debunk that.
Earth’s near atmosphere does not have a roof over it, as does a greenhouse. Debunk that.
On a highly humid and/or cloudy night, near Earth air stays warm. If the night sky is very clear, although CO2 is there, it does not keep the air warm. Debunk that.
post all science” steve d — you need help; take your meds; call your doctor


Got any links to science that debunks the greenhouse effect. Nope …. thought so.


Again, please read my response to your remark. Then also realize that “greenhouse effect” is an unfortunate misnomer. That in turn leads to responses like John’s about real greenhouses. Understandably.
Real message: be scientific, watch and scrutinize your language and ideas behind them. And, yes, do not blindly rely on guys like Neil dGT.


There is a GHE, but going from three to four CO2 molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules has a negligible effect on air temperature. By far the most important GHG is water vapor, which varies but globally averages on the order of 100 times more than CO2.
There are also negative feedback effects which dampen any effect from CO2. The IPCC assumes strong positive feedback effects (mainly from supposing more H2O in the air) which aren’t in evidence. That’s the only way they can get scary looking temperature increase projections out of their GIGO models. But there are important negative feedbacks which the models slight or ignore completely, such as convective cooling and clouds.
On its own a doubling of CO2 increases temperature in a lab setting by just 1.2 degrees C. The IPCC imagines that the effect of a doubling in the highly complex climate system to be from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. They haven’t refined this range of guesses (which is all they are) since made in the 1970s. Actual observations show the real range to be 0.5 (net negative feedbacks) to 2.0 (net positive), with around 1.6 degrees C most likely.
But we have the evidence of actual climate. CO2 has risen since the end of WWII, according to ice cores for the interval 1945 to 1958 and actual measurement at HI since then. Yet for the first 32 years postwar, earth’s climate cooled dramatically. Then, in 1977, the PDO flipped and the planet appeared to warm for about 20 years. Since then, global average temperature has stayed flat or cooled. So there is no genuine, observed correlation between steadily increasing CO2 and warming.
That’s the real science. Tyson’s preaching is just politics.


Steve D
One item is all you need. The lack of a tropospheric hot spot. AGW theory says CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere,which warms and increases downward radiation. If the Troposphere is not warming then the whole shebang is not happening. End of story.


Please post all the science that supports the damage estimates of AGW. Oh wait . . . you can’t.

Samuel C Cogar

steve d – April 21, 2017 at 1:34 pm

If Neil is wrong all you guys have to do is debunk the science that causes the greenhouse effect,

Steve d, …… GETTA CLUE. …… the area encompassing the earth’s atmosphere is NOT a “greenhouse” …….. therefore there is NO “greenhouse effect” associated with earth’s atmosphere ……. and thus the very reason that none of the wacko “global warminist” that claim to be educated scientists that study earth’s past/present climate has ever provided any proof or evidence to support their silly claims and accusations.
The same as Neil dG Tyson, ….. the per se “climate scientists” that are avid proponents of CAGW are doing so simply because of their “funded interests”.
Literally “millions-of-dollars” worth of non-taxable, non-repayable “funded interests”.


steve writes

Got any links to science that debunks the greenhouse effect. Nope …. thought so.

Most CAGW believers dont actually know what the skeptics’ arguments are. You’re certainly one of them.

Paul Courtney

steve d: read the post. “the reason” is a “not proven” That’s science right there. Not “all the science”, but enough.

Why is everybody responding to this utter fool – obvious trollbaiter if ever there was one.

Tyson’s job depends on his pushing the CAGW position. If he shifts like Curry did, he would lose his job. I have no doubt he loves science in general, but politics only allows certain positions. We have a very corrupt system when it comes to science and in some fields, like CAGW, it is starting to resemble Stalinist style Lysenko Science – we just haven’t started executing people over it…yet.

Chris Wright

I started to watch his TV series.
But when he said that “our civilisation may be imperilled by carbon dioxide” I immediately switched channel.
If he believes that utter nonsense then he is a complete idiot, and I don’t watch idiots.

Count to 10

I tried to watch his remake of Cosmos, but really couldn’t get past the goofy glorification of the priest that preached life in other star systems. I’m atheist and generally sympathetic to that kind of thing, but it was so over the top as to make it clear that Nean had an unhealthy grudge on the matter.


Neil Degrasse Tyson’s love of science does NOT stop at whatever is meant by the “doors” of CACG.

Reasonable Skeptic

This is how science denial happens. I got this idea from Dr. Curry, then framed it in this manner.
There are two definition of climate science, the political one and the scientific one. Science deniers deny climate science (the political definition) but accept climate science the scientific one. Because our green friends like to simplify things and prefer fuzzy definitions; if you are skeptical of the climate science politically, you are a climate science denier.
They conflate the two and totally ignore the fact that you accept the scientific definition of Climate Science. This is why I am comfortable in saying I believe in climate science, but don’t believe in climate science.

science is about questions, once a “scientist” has only answers he/she is no longer a scientist, but a religious believer. And fMRI’s have shown that belief shut down the logical processing part of the brain.



Harry ,
“And fMRI’s have shown that belief shut down the logical processing part of the brain.”
And you believe that? . . ; )
There would be no point in having a logical processing anything, if it did not facilitate believing things . . don’t you at least suspect? ; )

Please first define “Climate Science”.
Is it Meteorology?
Astro Physics?
Complex modeling (math)?
..we could go on. You get what I mean. Those are all “sciences” required for the study of the
Or do you (they) mean the CONCLUSIONS some central core (the “Consensus”) has reached about the impact on earth of rising CO2?
I certainly have confidence (belief has no place in science) about the former.
I have yet to see the data (observations) that confirm the Consensus stance on the latter.

There are two definition of climate science
there are two scientific definitions of climate change. one is caused only by humans. the other is caused by humans and everything else.
nowhere in science is it acceptable for a single term to have two distinct meanings. this simple fact shows that climate science is not a science, any more than political science or christian science.

If climate is the average weather over a 30-50 year span, how can “climate change” drive the weather? “Weather change” is what causes “climate change,” not the other way around.

John F. Hultquist

James Schrumpf at 6:04 pm
Instead of “average”, use “patterns”
Example: hot dry summer and cool wet winter
hot wet summer and cool dry winter
Say, you have 2 pails of water. One with ice and the other with very hot water. Put one foot in each.
On average you will feel fine.

Point well taken. Without equivocation, there would be no basis for alarm. The irony is, even for believers, the party is over.
The IEA declared 2017 to be the tipping point for climate action. From the World Energy Outlook:
“If internationally co-ordinated action is not implemented by 2017, we project that all permissible CO2 emissions in the 450 Scenario will come from the infrastructure then existing, so that all new infrastructure from then until 2035 would need to be zero-carbon. This would theoretically be possible at very high cost, but probably not practicable in political terms.”
“If we do not change course, by 2015 over 90% of the permissible energy sector emissions to 2035 will already be locked in. By 2017, 100%.”
“We can still act in time to preserve a plausible path to a sustainable energy future; but each year the necessary measures get progressively tougher and viciously more expensive. So, let’s not wait any longer!”
Maria van der Hoeven
Executive Director
International Energy Agency.
World Energy Outlook 2011
According to this, starting next year there is nothing we can do except adapt to weather as it happens.

Bob boder

Luckily we have do that since we first built huts and learned how to use fire. We should be good

So will they finally shut up and let us die in peace? Or will they say “We didn’t mean 2017, we meant to say 2027” so they can continue to harangue us for another decade.

AGW is not Science

Unfortunately, as Gary Hoffman comments, you know the routine here. Since 2017 has arrived and (a) we haven’t “changed course,” and (b) despite (a), the predicted climate doom is not occurring, they will now move the goalposts further out and continue to harangue us for another decade, at which time the same process will again be applied.


The Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than today by all accounts. Around 2010, I spliced HadCRUT3 onto Loehle’s global temperature reconstruction and found that we are now slightly warmer than we were at the height of the MWP. The Loehle reconstruction is one used by catastrophic climate change skeptics such as Dr. Roy Spencer to show the MWP and the LIA.

I don’t agree that this type of proxy evidence is sufficient to negate significant historical data that strongly suggest it was warmer then than now. Time may well tell, but proxies are of course only proxies and not true temperature measures, and they may necessarily lack sufficient resolution and accuracy to be compared to measure of more recent temperatures by other measures.

Bryan A

Mr Klipstein,
What is the resolution (smoothing period) of Loehle’s Global Temperature Reconstruction? (20 years, 30 years??) and what would applying those same smoothing resolutions do to today’s measured, adjusted and readjusted peaks and valleys?
Would the 1998 spike even be visible?
Would the 2016 spike ever exist?
Does the spike in the 1930’s show up?


“I spliced HadCRUT3 onto Loehle’s global temperature reconstruction”

Bryan A

I’ll wager he got a Hokey Schtick


1) HadCRuT3 uses ground based stations and is highly suspect.
2) You can’t compare annual data with highly averaged proxy data.

HadCRUT3 is about 70% sea surface temperature. Its land component had a coverage bias in the direction of underreporting of warming (using a method which shows that HadCRUT4 has neutral coverage bias as of earlier versions). HadCRUT3’s land component has other biases, but I think only a fraction as great as those of GISS. I didn’t try splicing HadSST2 onto Loehle, but I think that would show us now being almost as warm as we were at the height of the MWP. And land has warmed more than the ocean, regardless of surface temperature datasets overstating that fact. HadSST2 definitely understated global warming, while HadCRUT3 seems pretty close.


And HadCruT3 is soooo 2009. HadCRuT4.5 is in vogue nowadays.

Reg Nelson

@ Donald L. Klipstein April 21, 2017 at 10:33 am
HadCRUT3 is about 70% sea surface temperature
And a large portion of the SST data is made up. Phil Jones even admitted it:
date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley
The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.


There aren’t enough entries in the sea surface record to create a global anything from. Any attempt to do so is close enough to science fiction that the difference isn’t worth discussing.
As to the claim that it has a cooling bias, that can only be discerned by comparing it to even more corrupt data records.


PS: I notice that you ignored my second point.

Stan Robertson

But where are the farmers and crops of rye these days? Aren’t you overlooking something?

Wasn’t it wheat that the Vikings farmed in Greenland? It looks like Greenland got pretty warm then, but how much warmer was the rest of the world? A few years ago a glacier in the Alps retreated to an extent last seen during the Roman Warm Period.

Donald , you’re not making a case.


The Greenland Norse grew barley.
The newly open pass in Switzerland was open during the Medieval WP as well as the Roman. Also the Minoan and Egyptian WPs and of course the Holocene Climate Optimum.
All those WPs and the cool periods in between them were global in extent.

Samuel C Cogar

The newly open pass in Switzerland was open during the Medieval WP as well as the Roman.

Is that the same “pass” that Hannibal used when he marched his multi-thousand man army and herd of elephants across the Alps to attack the Romans in 218 BC?
Betcha no one could “repeat” Hannibal’s trip across the Alps, …… here in 2017.


So if the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than now, why can’t we grow the crops they did, where they did? How did they manage to bury their dead deep in the permafrost of Greenland? You appear to be in denial.

Bob boder

Because they were more sophisticated back then.

Gary Pearse

Donald, how slightly are we talking here? Such a statement is ridiculous. Our records have been subjected to egregious pro-warming adjustments. Did you know that mid thirties to mid forties held the heat record up to Hansen’s 2007 adjustment as he sought to establish 1998as the new high? Oh they argued this was only true in the USA, but the same pattern occurred in Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia and from Paul Homewood, learned it was true also of Ecuador, Paraguay and most recently reported by South Africa.
Do you think you could grow barley and other crops on Greenland? What about wine grapes in Scotland? Even our GMO varieties would be problematic. Are you aware that ice covered farms are only now beginning to emerge? That tree growth was uncovered?
Don, sometimes the mod literature can be confidently questioned, as I have here, with higher confidence than the IPCC, shellfish proxies, tree rings (are there still scientists hanging their hats on trees? ). Please tell me you don’t attach high confidence to your ”slightly”.


“Donald, how slightly are we talking here? Such a statement is ridiculous. Our records have been subjected to egregious pro-warming adjustments. Did you know that mid thirties to mid forties held the heat record up to Hansen’s 2007 adjustment as he sought to establish 1998as the new high? Oh they argued this was only true in the USA, but the same pattern occurred in Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Siberia and from Paul Homewood, learned it was true also of Ecuador, Paraguay and most recently reported by South Africa. ”
And we have some new unaltered charts from Argentina showing that they too were hotter in the 1930’s-40’s than in subsequent years. The green line in the chart represets the unaltered data.comment image


And another chart from Argentinacomment image

Tom Halla

What do the proxies currently show about temperature? Not what the instrumental temperature, the proxies? I do recall that proxies are heavily damped, and act as a high and low pass filter. A hard frost in-season can affect the growing areas for crops.

Bryan A

The more you rely on Proxies spliced onto actuals, the more Proxy Dust you must be smoking

Ian W

The origin of ‘hide the decline’ was the attempt by ‘the team’ of Mann and Phil Jones to hide the fact that the proxies they were using were showing a drop in temperatures in modern times rather than the hockey stick climb. Hence, they hid the decline in the graphics by splicing on modern temperature recordings.
Ethics?? Not in climate ‘science’


I spliced my age onto Beatles’ album sales, and it turns out I’m more popular than Paul McCartney!

Talldave2, exactly how tall are u? And whothe h$ll is Phil Mcphartly?

Marcus Cicero

Then how is the wine crop doing in northern England and Newfoundland doing these days?

That cannot be completely true. There are Viking burials that are today in permafrost, but clearly were not at the time of burial. There are receding glaciers in both the Alps and Alaska uncoveringbthemremains of forests swallowed centuries ago. Paleoproxies are inexact. The archeological evidence is qualitatively convincing.

Radiocarbon dating of the forests being uncovered by the glaciers is pretty exact. Does serious damage to the claim that the MWP, Minoan and Roman warmth was higher than today’s.

Bryan A

Curious, how does the Carbon Dates of the forests affect the claim of warmer temps (+1-2C) difference over those periods of time??
What is the carbon dates of those forests?


Forests uncovered by retreating glaciers around the world have been dated to the Medieval, Roman and Minoan WPs.
So far, no single 50-year interval in the Current WP has equaled the warmth of a number of such periods in the reconstructed CET series for the MWP. And that’s even with the Met’s fat thumb on the scales.


Maybe the interval 2001-2051 will equal or even exceed one of the warmest half centuries in the CET, but 1951-2000 didn’t come close.

PS Chimp, you need to do better than a single geographical point (CET) as a proxy for global temps. You might try GISP2 but don’t forget to add in present day temps to the end of that graph.


I posted links to studies from all over the world showing that the MWP was warmer than the Current WP.
As for the CET:

Chimp, CET is one geographical point. The problem with ” studies from all over the world ” is that they all cannot calibrate to a common time line, nor do they all use the same time increment resolution. Still, the carbon dating from the areas uncovered by melting glaciers is proof positive that today is warmer than the MWP, Roman or Minoan. (see my links above)…..I’m still waiting for you to provide proof of your statement: “Forests uncovered by retreating glaciers around the world have been dated to the Medieval, Roman and Minoan WPs”


I notice that every time David shows up he demands that others provide the same data that they provided the last time he showed up.
It’s almost as if he deliberately stops reading articles after making his demands so that conveniently never sees the data he’s demanding.

MarkW never has anything to offer. Hey Mark, look at this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/21/i-love-neil-degrasse-tyson-but-he-is-wrong-on-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2481754

See?….I posted the data, and asked Chimp to do likewise. Maybe you could help him out and post some.

Bryan A

David Dirkse
April 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm
Bryan, here’s two examples: http://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html and https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/nature/upload/lawson_etal2007_holoceneglacierfluctuations.pdf
From the first link

Sphinx Glacier: 4,900 years old. Glacier in background.
Credit: Johannes Koch
Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.
Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.
Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh – some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.

A couple of things stand out in this statement

Sphinx Glacier: 4,900 years old. Glacier in background.
Credit: Johannes Koch
Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7000 years old where the region’s rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum, a geologist said today.
Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio found the fresh-looking, intact tree stumps beside retreating glaciers in Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of Vancouver, British Columbia.
Radiocarbon dating of the wood from the stumps revealed the wood was far from fresh – some of it dated back to within a few thousand years of the end of the last ice age.

For the latter, I am curious if SOME of it dated back to shortly after the lase Great Ice Age, how far back do others date? Is some of it far younger than 7000 years? Not discussed or disclosed in the article.
For the Former, I am curious how the tree stumps can be 7000 years old if the glacier is only 4900 years old.
If these trees grew just before the glacier did and were subsequently buried under the advancing ice, they would be only 5000 years old (certainly not large enough to be 2000 year old trees). So IF the trees are 7000 years old but only about 100 years growth, they must have survived for 2000 years after death without decaying before the 4900 year old glacier covered them
Even if they are 7000 years old, this speaks to the fact that it was still warmer than now in the geologically recent past in the area discussed as these trees certainly aren’t growing in that area now.

I read the article you posted regarding the tree stumps found in Canada. Its very intriguing to me, thank you for posting it. It does raise more questions than answers for me though. For example, glaciers are known to destroy rock as they slide along their path, carving out fjords and canyons. How is it that after 7000+ years of being covered by a glacier the tree stumps were still intact like the trees were felled yesterday? I’m not a scientist, but that one is going to bug me for a while 🙂
Again, no expertise is claimed, just some simple questions being asked. You mention that you spliced together some proxies and that we have just slightly gone over the temps for the MWP, which means that there were likely years throughout the MWP that were as hot as today when you consider how averages work. How is it that this ICE retreated and melted today at what are, according to your reconstruction, roughly the same temperatures and not back then? We know the MWP was global, Mark and others have posted ample evidence to back that assertion up. Perhaps there was something in that region that was different back then or is different today?
What about the Roman warm period? It was warmer than the MWP. And the Minoan WP was even warmer than that. Something must be off about that particular area to make the ice melt today and not then. Human changes to the land use are a possible cause in my mind.
Or, another explanation might be that something made those trees stumps appear older to the carbon dating method than they really are. Not sure if that’s possible but it would be interesting to contemplate.

Dave Fair

I find it expedient to never draw conclusions from garbled data.


David Dirkse April 21, 2017 at 1:42 pm
The CET is on region of western Europe, yes, but its ups and downs reflect those of the rest of the world.
You have been shown glacier studies repeatedly, from every continent demonstrating that they retreated during the global warm periods, like the MWP, and advanced during cool periods, like the LIA.
Why should I show you more, when I know you’ll just ignore them, as Mark W points out?

Bryan, it’s really simple. If the MWP was warmer than today, and was longer than the current warming period, then there should be tree stumps that date back 800 years. There are none. This dating problem is repeated in many different areas. Yes, the dates vary, but all show that the areas uncovered today were not uncovered during the MWP….some weren’t uncovered during the Roman or Minoan.

Chimp….” but its ups and downs reflect those of the rest of the world.” I refuse to take you seriously, if you think for one minute that a single geographical location displays global temps. Chimp, stop deflecting, you posted: “Forests uncovered by retreating glaciers around the world have been dated to the Medieval, Roman and Minoan WPs.” I’m still waiting for you to post data about said forests. Deflecting with CET doesn’t prove your prior post.

Bryan A

Just Googled Sphinx Glacier
Wyoming?? Glacier Park and Vancover BC are a few miles apart from Wymoing

Bryan A

I guess the next logical question is…
How many trees are growing in that area right now??


No deflecting. The CET is indeed a good proxy for global ups and downs.
So, you admit that you haven’t bothered to read all the sources on glaciers cited here previously. Clearly, you’re just here to waste your own and everyone else’s time. Or have you suffered organic brain damage affecting your memory?
Do you perhaps recall this links to this Alaskan glacier?
Or these in the Alps:
Or these from South America:
Evidence from all over the world, including New Zealand and the Himalayas:
If you in future demand that we yet again show you the same sources, I hope m0ds will squelch your time-wasting comments.

Chimp….link #1 … 2000 years ago…..MWP was 800 years ago
link #2 Not an authoritive source (it’s a blog)
link #3 Tree rings? You mean the same data Mann used???
link #4 Doesn’t mention which glacier it measured.

Throwing links out at random isn’t helping your case….focus….we’re talking about radiocarbon dating at real glacier sites, not tree rings.

Have you seperated out the AMO from the CET record?…You do realize that the Gulf Stream current can play havoc with your pathetic “global” temperature record in England. Too bad you only have one site …it’s variance must be through the roof.


There are very few temperature records going back to the 17th century, so we’re stuck with the CET. The fact is that it correlates well with proxy reconstructions.
You miss the whole point that the forests grow with a periodicity of about 1000 years. The MWP peak warmth was about 1000 to 700 years ago. The Roman WP was about 2000 years ago. The Minoan WP was about 3000 years ago. The Holocene CO ended around 5000 years ago. See a pattern? That’s what the uncovered forests and human artifacts show.
Tree rings are highly accurate for dating. As thermometers, they suck, since there are so many variables in their growth. But dendrochronology is accurate to the year and season, far better than 14C dating.
Clearly, you didn’t bother to read the links, so why should I bother to try to educate you, when you not only can’t handle the truth, but won’t even look for it?

Bryan A

Again I must ask,
If your argument is that it was warmer 7000 years ago when those trees grew, but 800 years ago it couldn’t have been warmer than now because there are no trees growing at that time which are that age, then to argue that current conditions are warmer must equate to trees growing there now. Again, are there trees growing there now?


“Still, the carbon dating from the areas uncovered by melting glaciers is proof positive that today is warmer than the MWP, Roman or Minoan.”
Not if other glaciers are growing . . for they would, by the same logic be “proof positive” it was warmer then, right?

Samuel C Cogar

David Dirkse – April 21, 2017 at 12:47 pm

Chimp, show me your data

Here ya go, ……David D, ….. please note that the temperature proxies for the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were a lot “warmer” than the current Late 20th Century Warm Period ………but none of those Warm Periods were even close to being as “hot” as it was during the 3,000 years of the Holocene Climate Optimum (5,000 to 8,000 BP).
Holocene Optimum and Warm Periods composite
And this peer approved study confirms the above temperature proxies, to wit:

Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia
Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P. Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however, appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.
The development of forest and expansion of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation, the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover, greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.

Sam, nice data, but your posting doesn’t support Chimp’s position: “Forests uncovered by retreating glaciers around the world have been dated to the Medieval, Roman and Minoan WPs.” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/21/i-love-neil-degrasse-tyson-but-he-is-wrong-on-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2481733 Posting irrelevant data is pointless.

Samuel C Cogar

David Dirkse – April 22, 2017 at 8:54 am

Sam, nice data, but your posting doesn’t support Chimp’s position:
Posting irrelevant data is pointless.

David D, …… data such as I posted above is always regarded as being “pointless” by persons like yourself ……. simply because they are “educationally challenged” and thus incapable of reasoning our and/or interpreting what said “data” is telling them.
But of course you just might be one of those PITAs that always responds “negatively” to most everything that is posted …….. because you get your “jollies” by doing so.

Bryan A

Thanks again for the links.
Learned that Glacier names aren’t unique
Sphinx Glacier in Wyoming and Sphinx Glacier in Garibaldi Park for example.
The Garibaldi Lake area appears to have many trees surrounding it North, South and West but thinning as you travel East toward the glacier and vanishing well before the terminus.
The approximate area of the image in the article though, indicating the tree trunks and stumps(?), doesn’t show any new tree growth though.
This would indicate not only that:
The temperatures of the area were much warmer than today back then
… but also …
It still hasn’t been warm enough today long enough for new trees to return to that area.
The fact of no stumps that were 800 years old still wouldn’t indicate today as warmer than then.
Only that neither period has been warm long enough for the trees to migrate there.


The Medieval WP and LIA are clearly evident in the archaeology of North America.
Historian Daniel Richter notes that the apex of the large Amerindian city “Cahokia”, IL, located across the Mississippi from modern St. Louis, occurred during the Medieval Warm Period. This interval appears to have fostered an agricultural revolution in upper North America, as the three-fold crops of corn (maize), beans (legumes) and gourds (squash) were adapted or bred to the temperate climates of the north from their origins in Meso-America.
Richter also notes that Cahokia’s advanced art and architecture coincided with the development to the west of the Chaco Canyon culture, which also produced large-scale works in an apparently socially stratified society. MWP climate produced at least two major floods at the site during its heyday. The Mississippi rose more than 33 feet. Flooding followed by drought made the Cahokians climate refugees.
The city’s decline coincides with the onset of the Little Ice Age, although by then the three-fold agriculture remained well-established throughout temperate North America. English settlers encountered these crops in the Eastern Woodland cultures. Jamestown colonists had the misfortune to arrive in Virginia during a prolonged drought, common during LIA conditions on the Eastern Seaboard.

Samuel C Cogar

Here is the latest re-discovered “lost city” here in America’s heartland, to wit:

Dave Fair

Uh, Mr. Klipstein, please go back in paleoclimate reconstructions and you will see increasingly warmer estimates for Roman, Minoan, and Holocene climate optimums. We are in a cooling trend over the past 4,000 to 6,000 years.
Get a grip. Recent warming is at a fine enough level it wouldn’t even show up as anything significant in the paleoclimate record.


Look on my website on the righthand bar. There you will see a list of papers that show that the MWP was world wide and shows up in a number of different ways.
There are even two papers there that study glaciers and tree rings that imply that there was a warming consistent with the MWP.

Thomas Gasloli

The MWP must have been warmer than today because the Vikings found pastures on Greenland and raised grazing animals. See any pastures there today?

Jeff Alberts

Not warmer than today where? I sure hope you’re not talking about a “global average”. It’s a meaningless number.

“This is a question that even Bill Nye could not answer.”
Even Bill Nye??? Bill Nye is among the LEAST qualified individual to answer anything about science. He’s a TV clown.

F. Ross

Gotta’ emphatically second that! (Except that it slurs some fine clowns.)

Tom O

I rather think that was intended as sarcasm since Bill Nye has an answer for everything, including things that he hasn’t a clue about.

Reid Smith

And what are his academic credentials? I have a MS in Aero Engr but would never pose myself as a climatologist.


I have a B.Sc in civil engineering and I can just about tell mud from rock.
[For those readers who are unclear about the difference, the muds will point out that most mud is wet. Most rocks are hard. .mod]

Spot on! There is something very perverse going on in science and the public discussion of science when a large majority of commentators slam real scientists doing the work of science only because they don’t like the conclusions, while they sanction the most egregious abuses of scientific endeavor if the answers provided are convenient to their world or polictical views. The supposed consensus on CAGW, or ACCC if your prefer, is not established on a foundation of sound science, and there is an immense and mounting body of evidence against it. I know this personally as I have gone through the very same process of assuming it must be true, and then, during efforts to understand the evidence and the mechanics of the process, I discovered there was only a theory and very little objective supportive evidence. In addition it became clear very quickly that the proponents had abandoned some of the most important safeguards of good scientific investigation because it was the only way they could make their case.

I should add that I have personal experience being involved in some early research on environmental problems such as acid rain, and even then, looking back I can see that the marching orders were not about finding what was true, but defining human guilt in harming the environment. Most of what was believed then about acid rain has proven vastly overblown, and the evidence now of any significant problem is hard to find in North America or much of Western Europe, defying all the most common predictions of the time.


“He has done so much to make science interesting and understandable”
Honestly, this is half the problem. If you teach kids that science is fun and exciting, then you get fun and exciting science instead of rigorous and accurate science.
Like Nye, NDGT shamelessly jumped on the AGW political bandwagon and made numerous dubious claims. Feynman would eat these kids for breakfast.


Bravo Donna Hedley. You mention the Vikings in Greenland. I was also convinced about the CO2 threat – until I saw the “Hockey Stick” (now many years ago). That really made me sit up – because here I was being told that was all a figment of imagination. Now, as it happened, I went to school in Denmark and learnt all about hundred of farms in Greenland, many villages, churches (even a bishop), sheep and cattle (they traded with Europe), I then began to investigate “the other side” of the CO2 scare. As Feynberg says, “one ugly fact can destroy a beautiful set of theories”..


We came to skepticism the same way. Dr. Mann, chief denialist of natural climate change, gets credit for turning me.
If CAGW was a real thing, they wouldn’t need fraudulent hockey sticks and ‘adjustments’ to the temperature data.

Phil Jones’ retort, “Why should I show you my data; all you’ll do is try to find something wrong with it” is what pushed me to the skeptic side. A real scientist would have said “Yes! Look at my wonderful data! See how it proves my every conclusion!!! Weep at the brilliance of my writing!”
Or words to that effect. Basically, to say Yeah, take a look, you won’t find anything cagy there, nosirree!

Weylan McAnallh

I too was a believer in AGW. Then I read Mann’s Hockey Stick paper. I was stunned by the ridiculous assertion that a few Siberian trees could be a proxy for ancient temperatures. He disappeared the MWP and the 30-40s warming. He was being heralded as some climate genius, but I immediately knew that AGW was bunk.


Feynman, perhaps?
He was a mountain of a man, scientifically speaking.


Sorry, yes of course : Feynman! Getting old – getting muddled

Alan McIntire

.. ‘The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
That was Richard FEYNMAN.


Actually, it was Thomas Huxley who said it first.

F. Ross

IMO deGrasse ranks right up there with David Suzuki.
…well maybe a shade less obnoxious.



Tyson is a pompous ahat of the first order and substitutes authoritative arrogance for science arguments. A poster child of AGW activism and a entire generational class of science of hubris. Nothing to “love” about him at all.

Ron Williams

I agree. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes science sound silly when he splices ACDC (Anthropogenic Catastrophic Doomed Climate) into much of his production opinion. I think of Neil now more as Bill Nye type of educator.
He has succumbed to the depths of science education much like some of the late night TV preachers telling people to just have faith and then has celebrities on one of shows to reaffirm his climate change BS.
As compared to say, Professor Brian Cox of the BBC series on everything science, which his several programs I consider excellent. Brian Cox doesn’t go into a lot of the climate alarmism that seems mandated for funding science education on TV, especially by such an institution such as the BBC. Which I recently saw
another usually good science show by Professor Ian Stewart where he proclaimed that early agriculture around 5000 BC produced enough CO2 to stop the ice age from re-forming after an otherwise short interglacial. That just stunned me, but other that, he does a good show on mostly geology science. I think that that was stated to just meet BBC funding for funding by making some statement on global warming.
Come on Neil, we know you are smarter than the average bear. Or average climate scientist. Use your position to do what science says we must always so, which is being sceptical. And we do have a lot to be skeptical about. Especially tomorrow when the scientists are marching. I don’t know what they are marching about though, since if they were real scientists, they would question everything. That’s what scientists are supposed to do. Just the facts please.

Geoff Sherrington

The criterion is not that a presenter can weave a story about climate science. To do that, you go to acting school. The criterion is that the best known science can be presented while allowing challenges to it to be evaluated. To do that, preferably, you spend years at the coal face, measuring and observing, while reading relevant material by other worker/investigator/science people, so that you can present an informed view. Then you ask informed others to show you are wrong. If they can.

brad tittle

I have two legos in front of me. They are 1 X 2 bricks. How many different ways can I connect them?
The two bricks are the same color? Now how many?
Depending on which reduction method you use, the number of ways to connect the two can range from 2 to that silly sideways 8.
I am not here to tell you which reduction method is the right method. Depending on the purpose of the analysis, I get different numbers.
Just because the two bricks are the same color does not mean they are the same. The one on the bottom prefers szi. The one on the top prefers xi. But this is a misdirect, because I can still get to the sideway 8 without worrying about what gender identity each of them chooses.
There is enough murkiness in “How they are connected” to cause too many interpretations to be true. All of the interpretations are likely correct.
Getting everyone in the room to be on the same page on “how they are connected” is hard enough to accomplish. Trying to get everyone on the same page on what the definition of Zero is, is much much harder. IMO, the definition used by the “consensus” is nuts. 0 C Anomaly IS not the same as 0C. Enthalpy wishes to take a 2×4 to the people who think 0 C anomaly is a good way of consolidating the worlds temperatures.


Love an arrogant twit? I think not.


But… What do you have to risk by reducing our co2 emition? It’s not a losing bet. Except for lazy profit on oil and coal i don’t understand why we’re still fighting on that.


By trying to “fight” CO2 “emmissions” we are wasting astronomical amouts of money that could be better used elsewhere.


amounts, even.


Even worse, some of that money was taken from me.


The risk is that it costs lots and lots of money to reduce co2 emissions. (Is emition even a word?)
If you spend lots of money for no return, that’s a losing bet.
You know you are dealing with a socialist when they start spouting that the only reason someone does something the socialist doesn’t like is because of profit. (Not sure what lazy profits are.)

Richard of NZ

I read it as a typo for “emotion” because of the proximity of “i” and “o” and the fact that “global warring [sic]” is all emotion.


I thought it might be a misspelling of emission by someone who’s first language is not english.


The answer to your question is literally everything. Everything that you have was provided for you by fossil fuels, I mean everything. Without them you would have absolutely nothing, no clothes, no food other than what you can forage for, no house, no sanitation, no transport other than your feet or some poor beast of burden. It is a pretty idea that the modern world can operate using clean renewable energy but, with current levels of technology it simply can’t be done. So why exactly would we want to reduce ourselves to absolute abject poverty and quickly die from exposure or starvation to solve a problem which is almost certainly imaginary?


Whyguy reminds me of the people who think that food comes from grocery stores.
Electricity comes from wall sockets and gasoline from pumps. He has no knowledge of how any of the things he uses are created so it’s easy to believe that we can just change how they are created without any problems.


Indeed Stonyground! There is a list of all the things that are made from oil or with oil products but it seems silly to make a list when nearly, maybe every single product is on that list. More is the challenge to make a list of products that can be made without oil. I guess you can still make paper by hand.

Define lazy profit.


When W@tt (!) patented his steam engine in 1781, there were about 800 million people in the world, maybe a little more. That means that almost nine in ten people will die if we give up the fossil fuels which have allowed human population to grow nearly tenfold in 236 years, and for which there is as yet no replacement. Do you volunteer to be the first to sacrifice yourself on the altar of a failed hypothesis?

John Endicott

@Whyguy it’s a losing bet for the poor folks who will die because they can no longer afford the price of energy because of your solution to an imaginary problem.


“What do you have to risk by reducing our co2 emition?”
A great deal. Food production for an increasing world population being among the most important.


Emition? What is this? Learn to spell. I’ve worked on reducing emissions for jet engines for 40 years and we’ve made great progress on oxides of nitrogen and CO and unburned hydrocarbons. CO2 is a different thing — if you’re burning hydrocarbon fuels (jet fuel) then you make CO2 and water vapor. No way around it. The only way to make less CO2 is to decrease fuel burn, which is what all the engine makers seek to do. Airplane engines aren’t going to be powered by any other fuel for some time. Hydrogen has too low an energy density in the near term to be viable. Feel free to respond to what you don’t understand.

Do you believe in God? If not, why not? What do you have to risk by believing? You might be trading a little bit of fun in the here and now for an eternity at the side of God, whereas if you are wrong it could be an eternity in Hell.
The above is a very basic statement of Pascal’s Wager, which is now called the Precautionary Principle. Did it convince you to change your ways and become a believer?


The biggest flaw in Pascal’s wager is that it is a false dichotomy. He just started from the assumption that his religion was correct and that there were only two options, his religion or unbelief. In fact there are thousands of different religions all claiming to have the exclusive on saving your eternal soul.

True. But one can make the same argument about CAGW. There are so many environmental boogymen to fear, why assume that CO2 is the true danger.
But to be honest, are there really so many religions concerned with “saving” one’s soul?
Finally, how can one KNOW it’s a false dichotomy? I think that’s part of his argument. He presumes his initial state and goes from there.


So your ok with turning over billions and more control to our ‘leaders’ for a big maybe?


Neil is one of my favorite Science Celebrities, but he is not right about everything. Greenie Weenie Brainwashed CAGW Climate Zombies keep chanting against ‘Carbon Emissions’. Well there’s CO2 and Soot. One enables Life on Earth as we know it and one is a dangerous air pollutant. If you don’t understand the difference, you’re too dumb to be an Environmentalist!

Andrew Burnette

This post is proof that one can be naive about the TV “scientists” and still get an accurate view of the big picture. Well done.

I agree that the article is a heart felt comment by an “outsider” who has obviously gone to great lengths to gather the evidence she needed to understand what is going on. Can only hope that people like deGrasse Tyson, the editors of numerous layman science publications, the scientific illiterate politicians and yes–even Bill Nye would read this article and begin to look behind the curtain for themselves.


A great day for REAL science by Canadian(Toronto) Steve McIntyre : – CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Super(hockey)stick
“McIntyre writes:
Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.”

David Middleton

Excellent summary of my thoughts. I did study science at university and my training taught me to question question question. Remember Galalio was imprisoned for life for questioning the consensus wisdom of the time and only recently was pardoned by the Catholic church.
There is so much we don’t know.


Not this nonsense again.
He was never imprisoned, he was confined to his house.
He wasn’t charged with challenging the conventional wisdom, he was charged with touting Copernicus as proven fact when it wasn’t, with an under current have having gratuitously insulted the Pope in a public fasion.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Jakarta

He insulted a Cardinal at a party.


At his second trial, Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, for holding the opinions 1) that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, 2) that the Earth is not at its center and moves, and 3) that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition, but next day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life. While not held in a prison, he was confined to his house, which is preferable to an Inquisition dungeon with other, unwashed heretics rotting away while awaiting being burnt alive, like Bruno.
His offending “Dialogue” was banned. In an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
You’re right that GG ticked off Pope Urban by putting his opinions into the mouth of the “Dialogue” character Simplicio. The pope has asked that his opinions be represented. A character named Saggio might have been more prudent.


Typo “has” for “had”
Regrettably, only part of the introduction to Finocchiaro’s “The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History” is available on line:
He translated the whole trial transcript and sentencing documents into English.

At least he didn’t use a character named Biggus Dicchus.

Gary Pearse by

Dave M. Galileo was exonerated in 1992 after 359years.


Yup. Pope John Paul II apologized for his predecessor’s mistake.
Oops! Sorry about those eight years of house arrest and the threat of torture.


At least he wasn’t burnt alive, like Bruno.
Some good came of his suffering. After it was shown that the earth does in fact move, in the 18th and 19th centuries, contrary to the Bible, the Church became more welcoming toward scientific advances.
The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination which recognizes the validity of evolution, for instance, along with Orthodox and Mainstream Protestant denominations, but unlike some Protestant sects and cults. Catholic theologians discuss at what point in human evolution we got souls. Homo habilis is out (despite making stone tools), H. erectus probably not (despite controlling fire), but H. heidelbergensis and its Eurasian descendants, Neanderthals and Denisovans, possibly. Its African descendant, Anatomically Modern Humans, of course yes, for around 200,000 years now and counting.

April 21, 2017 at 2:51 pm
After it was shown that the earth does in fact move . . . .
There’s an interesting article on pulsars in the May 2017 issue of Astronomy magazine. It’s possible to use pulsars as a GPS system. I quote from the article:

It takes a bit of computational gymnastics to settle on the right one, but [George] Hobbs and his colleague You Xiaopeng have performed those acrobatics with data from millisecond pulsars and successfully pinpointed the location of the 64-meter Parkes radio telescope in Australia to within 0.6 mile (1 kilometer). They even confirmed that Earth revolves around the Sun, just in case anyone was still on the fence about that.


Samuel C Cogar

Some good came of his suffering. After it was shown that the earth does in fact move, in the 18th and 19th centuries, contrary to the Bible,

YUP, and it was Hipparchus, that did in fact prove the earth moves or “spins” on its axis, ….. and that was like 1,700+ years before Galileo was ever born. To wit:

Hipparchus, who lived in Greece during the second century B.C., was perhaps the world’s first great astronomer. He calculated, within six and a half minutes, the length of a year. He figured out that Earth’s axis wobbles as it spins. For his star catalog, completed in 129 B.C., he devised a coordinate system to plot each star’s location and a scale to rank the brightness. Astronomers still use this magnitude scale today.

And you will have a hard time trying to convince me that the Christians didn’t have an active part in the final destruction of the Library of Alexandria …… wherein copies of Hipparchus’s papers were surely archived.


Although I have never heard of this Gentleman my own experience follows almost exactly that of Donna. I just wish I could write like that.
Possible typo? Second last paragraph, perhaps “when a top scientist”.

Timo (not that one)

Oldseadog- There is a definite typo in the ninth paragraph “…to many unanswered questions to say that we know enough…”. I’m finding so many of these to/too typos that I am starting to think the schools have decided to change the english language by eliminating the word “too” by homogenizing it with “to”. I suppose the next logical step will be to get rid of “two”.


Timo (not that one): George Orwell would agree with your last sentence, homogenization of the English Language was one of the goals of “Newspeak”.


Tyson takes the ethical low ground when he labels people with whom he disagrees as somehow inferior. Using a loathsome pejorative just lowers his position even more. Label their ideas as wrong or unfounded or illogical all you want. But then you must prove you’re opinion is correct using the methods of science. Tyson cannot or will not do that so he resorts to labeling.

If you continue to hold any type of esteem for either Tyson or Nye, your education on the glowball warming topic is not yet complete. That’s OK. Keep up with the self education. It’s rewarding. I too am on that journey.


There will probably be a lot more people questioning the science as presented by the CAGW promoters, in the future.
The one advantage this era has over previous eras, is people can access all sorts of information, so if they are serious about finding out the truth, they can.
I never had to change my mind about human-caused climate change/global warming, because I never was a believer. I grew up with these claims, but they *never* provided any concrete evidence that humans were affecting the climate. And still have not.
All they had was speculation. I can tell evidence from speculation, and that’s all that has ever been presented about human-caused climate change/global warming. In all these years since they switched over from the Global Cooling mantra in the 1970’s, they have shown no proof of anything.
I didn’t believe in human-caused global cooling because no evidence was ever presented to prove it true, and I don’t believe in human-caused global warming for the very same reason.
Human-derived CO2 could increase the heat in the Earth’s atmosphere but negative feedbacks could negate all that influence, so just because CO2 theortically can increase the Earth’s temperature, that doesn’t mean it does, and it doesn’t mean it does even a little bit. No evidence. It’s speculation.

Bill Illis

A real Science would bend over backwards to prove and/or demonstrate that CO2 has the effects that the theory says it should have.
What we get instead is propaganda and shaming and data manipulation.
Obviously, it cannot be proven and/or demonstrated and, therefore, it is just a theory that one can believe in or not.
It is a “choice”, rather than a science.


IMO it has been repeatedly shown that CO2 does not have the effects claimed by advocates on man-made global warming. The hypothesis has been falsified, indeed was born falsified.


Repeatedly shown with home made excel graphs here on the right wing blogosphere. Over in Louisiana they had to declare a state emergency over the actual real world effects of climate change. Who is being falsified?
Also, hypothesis cannot be born falsified. But you probably know that.


Please state your evidence for the blind faith belief that “climate change” is responsible for something you imagine it has affected in LA.


No Excel graphs required. Reality has repeatedly shown that humans are not primarily responsible for whatever has happened in earth’s climate since World War II, or previously.

Tom Halla

The Louisiana coast is mostly affected by water management upstream, and subsidence of the land. Blaming global warming caused sea level rise is silly, as there has been no accelerating sea level rise, and the effect is tiny compared to subsidence.


If you are referring to the 2016 flooding then please explain the 1927 flooding when atmospheric CO2 concentration was much lower


It annoys me that he tries to mimic the speaking style of the Astronomical Dr. Sagan, who also used his scientific standing to promote a political agenda, as in his mendacious “nuclear winter” campaign.

I watched very carefully the TV series “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey”. The section about the global warming was clearly written according to the IPCC science. Here is a claim in Fig. 1 in this series, which is not true:comment image
Fig, 1
In this insert, Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that all the CO2 emission dumped into the atmosphere can be found in the atmosphere. It is not true. Look at the next Fig. 2.comment image
Fig. 2
It is a well-known fact that only in average 55 % of the annual emissions stays in the atmosphere and the rest has gone to somewhere else. Of course, the ordinary people has no idea about this and they believe this lie.
Dr. Antero Ollila


If only plants and plankton could talk and rebut the claims.

Paul Westhaver

Neil deGasse Tyson is a liar. and like all liars, he does not warn you when he lies. So it is up to you to find out when he is lying. That make him unreliable. Unreliable on small matters, and unreliable an big matters.
Lying is not the same as making honest mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. When you know better, and you deliberately say a lie or refrain from telling a truth when you know that people are relying on you, that makes you a dangerous liar.
I have caught Neil deGasse Tyson in a handful of lies. He can’t be trusted. He is a fiction propagandist.

David Dibbell

I just watched the video. Smooth and impressively composed. The word “truth” is used as though it is something manufactured by experimenters. But does Tyson honestly think that peer review is an incorruptible constraint against error?


Not incorruptible, but the best system we have. What do you propose as an alternative?


Open review.
Provide your methods and data to everyone who asks and allow them to try to find problems with it.
The current system is more pal review than peer review, under which all parties agree to rubber stamp each others studies and hide everything from the masses.


Can you point me to an example of a detailed scientific paper that was thoroughly reviewed and vetted using open review?


If it hasn’t been done, it can’t be done.
Good thing you weren’t around when the Wright brothers were building their airplane.

Roger Knights

Red teams, though to vet not just one paper, but a claimed consensus of papers.


“If it hasn’t been done, it can’t be done.” No, I’m asking for an example. Certainly out of all the web sites discussing matters of science, this has been tried before.
Haha, zero evidence provided for a system MarkW says will absolutely be better than peer review. It’ll be better because everyone will provide their feedback on issues with the data, assumptions and models, and then automagically everyone will come to agreement on which is the correct answer.
Yeah, right. I’ve seen examples of open review on WUWT (at least a blog version of it). Monckton, for example, has posted articles proposing that climate change feedback systems can be modeled using electrical circuit diagrams. Even fellow climate change skeptics have said this is not a valid way to model it. Monctkon has disagreed, saying it is valid. There was no resolution, no conclusion drawn. So where’s the resolution? Who casts the deciding vote?

Peer review was never the best system, at least in the scientific arena. Peer review was and is a method in which it is deemed your contribution is adequate to be allowed into the general body of scientific knowledge. It does not confer any correctness on the work more than that. It is not a certificate of qualification or acceptance that occurs in real life applications. Repetition or superseding of your work by another is generally how an idea or result progresses. Rebuttals happen much less frequently than people think. Most people just reference someone new or do new work. Humans are lazy like that.
In engineering and other technical fields, peer review is only part of the process of qualification and acceptance. The process with strict verification is how something can be deemed “correct” in as good a sense as we can.
The idea that peer review in science somehow means something is even properly “reviewed” is laughable. Another myth for people who don’t choose to look into it.

David Dibbell

Any peer review process, whether more selective or more open, must operate with integrity if it is to be useful to expose and correct error. Openness is better. The core problem is error.


Chris writes

Haha, zero evidence provided for a system MarkW says will absolutely be better than peer review. It’ll be better because everyone will provide their feedback on issues with the data, assumptions and models, and then automagically everyone will come to agreement on which is the correct answer.

I guess you have pretty limited exposure to climate blogs. There are quite a few that are very technical.


Point me to a web site where a paper on climate change is reviewed, discussed, and appropriate changes to the author(s)’ data, analysis or conclusions are resolved.


Climate Audit.
The problem is that flaws are rarely resolved by the author as they’re not usually taking part and nobody likes to be roasted. But then again a review isn’t supposed to resolve, it’s supposed to find issue. And find bad science.


I believe the Doctor of Philosophy in Astrophysics ( http://documents.mx/documents/neil-degrasse-tyson.html ), exhibits a bit of hubris. A philosopher that is telling his flock of acolytes that he has the answers and everyone should ignore all others.
Hmm, that sounds unscientific. I can think of several more descriptive terms.

Doctor of Philosophy is the actual name of the qualification on your Ph.D. certificate. It is a nod to the old days. It doesn’t mean you are a philosopher only. I could have had the exact same qualification as my undergrad degree is in Astrophysics but I chose to do condensed matter physics instead for my doctorate.


Are you saying that he is not a Doctor of Philosophy with an undergrad degree in Astrophysics? Is he to be considered having a doctorate in Astrophysics? It has been several decades since I even considered attaining anything more than a Bachelors but I thought the first mentioned title was dependent on the doctoral thesis and philosophy was the easy way to get there.

Reid Smith

I have a MS in Aero Engrg from RPI. I worked for 40 years in the aerospace industry designing jet engines. FOr the most part we hired BS and MS candidates, but occasionally a manager would become enthralled with a diploma and would insist on a PhD. They seldom worked out because they couldn’t stay focused on the task at hand and balked at doing the grunt work of basic aerodynamics, THey soon left for perceived greener pastures. We callled their degres post hole diggers or piled higher and deeper.

NdGT = IdI0T


He’s not a complete idiot…..some bits still missing.


NdGT = Idi-t

Ryan D Jones

I don’t understand what people have to gain about denying the truth… Global warming is real. There was a time when cars and machines didn’t burn fuel. Now that there is we need to accept the consequences and be more conservative when it comes to the bio some.

So we need to head back to the pre-industrial?

Mike the Morlock

Ryan D Jones April 21, 2017 at 11:00 am
“I don’t understand what people have to gain about denying the truth… Global warming is real.”
Your first three words, the most honest intelligent three words anyone can speak. “I don’t understand”
You spoke them, you recognized the situation. You do not understand. So how can you say with any certainty the following, “Global warming is real.”
re-evaluate your assumptions and seek more information. Your viewpoints may change.

Dave Fair

It is a big leap from minor global warming to CAGW.


“It is a big leap from minor global warming to CAGW.”
And that minor global warming is all within the Earth’s climate’s natural variation. It’s been a lot warmer in the recent past, such as in the 1930’s. The 1930’s heat wasn’t caused by human-caused CO2, yet it was hotter then than now, so why should we assume that the slight warming we have had recently is in any way attributable to human-caused CO2?


I don’t love Tyson at all. He’s a typical neo-marxist/academic. And his “remake” of the original, wonderful “Cosmos” series by Sagan was horrendous and an insult to the original.


Slice him where you will, he’s just chasing the almighty dollar like everyone else. But he insists he’s an altruist bent on saving the planet.


But brians356, there’s a huge difference between those who chase the dollar by hard, honest, productive work and those who use other means


“…typical neo-marxist/academic.” +10
And huckster. Every time I see him, he reminds of a Snake Oil salesman you’d see in a Western movie and my Father’s often spoken admonishment comes instantly to mind, “Believe nothing of what you read, and only half of what you see and hear.”


beng135: I loved the original “Cosmos” series, though Dr. Sagan did wander into the political thickets at times. Mr. Tyson’s remake/update of the Cosmos series showed that dazzling CGI graphics couldn’t hide the fact that he was not nearly as good at presenting Astronomy as Dr. Sagan was.


Agreed for the most part with Ms. Hadley, excepting my feelings toward Tyson–they aren’t as kind, given his stature in media, he shouldn’t espouse or profess things that are so full of uncertaincies.
As far as the Vikings’ situation, I believe they’re firmly rooted in Minnesota now, and wouldn’t be interested in Greenland even if they could move there.


Pardon, that should read “Ms. Hedley”


Yah, and uncertainties. PEBKAC errors…


Minnesota, yah sure, and the Dakotas, Montana, N. Idaho, Washington.

Lee L

“Bam, she is now an oil funded climate denier.”
Yes indeed. This brings to mind a ‘discussion’ I had with a bona fide climatist who has a newspaper column at his command.
He was pumping the ‘IPCC scientists say’ appeal to authority. I pointed out that Richard Lindzen did not entirely agree with the alarming claims made by the IPCC.
BAM! a tobacco apologist and fossil fuel funded denier!
Well, as he was using the IPCC as his authorized version of the climate bible, I pointed out that if Lindzen were corrupt and not credible, that then so were the assessment reports that Dr. Lindzen had had a hand in creating while acting as an IPCC lead author, no less. By logical extension, then, the fact that IPCC had accepted Lindzen’s work on the assessment, means that it is an unreliable authority.
This was to no apparent effect.
What does worry me, is WHY the columnists lie about stuff. Is it just that they don’t bother to fact check their slurs, or is it that they are true believers and have decided that the ends justify any means. Or is it that they have an overriding social agenda that cynically employs climate fear as a tool to bring about those ends?


“What does worry me, is WHY the columnists lie about stuff. Is it just that they don’t bother to fact check their slurs, or is it that they are true believers and have decided that the ends justify any means. Or is it that they have an overriding social agenda that cynically employs climate fear as a tool to bring about those ends?”
Everyone wants to know the answers to those questions.
No doubt it is a combination of all those things, but I don’t know what percentage could be ascribed to each. I personally think most are True Believers whose minds just automatically reject any argument that doesn’t fit with their worldview, and they carry on as if their worldview is representative of reality. Anyone who doesn’t agree with their worldview just doesn’t get it, in their minds.
Human psychology is a fascinating subject. I think things like the controversy over whether humans are causing the climate to change, the way the MSM does its reporting, are exposing us to some valuable insights into human thinking and self-delusion.

William J Bass

His CV is pretty weak for a practicing astrophysicist. Most of it seems to be committee papers.

Joe Civis

Hi Donna,
I am not a fan of Niel since he is toeing the CAGW party line, though I appreciate your article for how you came to your skeptical position on the CAGW topic. I, like you was in the “believe the scientists” group until I get more info, and as I found more information my skepticism grew. One thing that struck me on my journey to understand CAGW, was how almost any question, no matter how logical or small, that even suggested doubt in the “fact man was the evil culprit” or that the data may not be supportive of the conclusion “it was all man’s fault” was met with derision, ridicule, name calling etc… That part pushed me to dig deeper into the CAGW topic and lead me here to WUWT!!! Those that express the truth generally welcome honest open debate/conversation, which is the opposite of what the CAGW party do.
Cheers and thanks for sharing your story!


“Those that express the truth generally welcome honest open debate/conversation, which is the opposite of what the CAGW party do.”

I’ve haven’t heard of Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson before. At first I thought it might be another boxing champion, not sort of person to publicly criticise. Then I listened to the short video, may be a preacher I thought. Google tells me that Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator.
Well, none of these: astrophysicist, author, and or science communicator qualify Mr. Tyson to proclaim absolute truth in science or anywhere else.
As far as I’m concerned ‘the science at the best is an ‘illustration’ of reality as we understand it at this moment in time’.

Tractor Gent

Unfortunately these guys who have a public profile as a science communicator – we have David Attenborough & Prof. Brian Cox over here similarly – will instantly lose their position as such if they go against the ‘consensus’. It’s a very strong motivation to stay in line. To quote (yet again) Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

Roger Knights

Right–the BBC’s main science guy of 15- or 20-some years ago lost his job when he expressed climate skepticism.


Or perhaps they fully agree with the consensus on AGW.


Meanwhile, we have reached “The End Of Snow” as predicted, where the ski resorts around Lake Tahoe must make do with a paltry 300% of average snow pack. Sad!


Snowy California set for all‑year skiing
“Squaw Valley, near Lake Tahoe, has had almost 60 feet of snow since the season began. If the weather remains favourable, the resort’s chief executive hopes to keep at least one lift running throughout the summer and autumn.
Andy Wirth told a local broadcaster on Truckee Tahoe Radio that the weather at the resort had veered from historic to biblical.”


Short memory has Andy. Only six years ago Squaw Valley had received 13 more inches of accumulated seasonal snowfall by this date, and went on to receive 100 more inches by 1 June 2011!


I began watching this with an open mind, but he lost me when he started talking about science in politics. The two should be as separate as Church and State.
Also, I have read many scientific and peer reviewed papers on climate change. None of them say it isn’t happening, as it’s been happening since the dawn of the Earth. What has NOT been proven, no matter how much politics want to subvert science and vice versa, is that humans are a main cause. That hypothesis remains unproven.


That hypothesis has repeatedly been shown false. There is no evidence supporting the conjecture that humans are primarily or even significantly responsible for “climate change”. We have local effects, maybe even regional, but they’re not a pimple on the posterior of natural variations over which as yet we have no control.


Chimp, I agree. Solar cycles and ocean oscillation are far larger drivers of an ever changing climate than man. Yes, we do pollute water and air, but that does not equate to having anything to do with “global warming”. The money grubbing alarmists can’t seem to separate the two issues, however and now they have power​ hungry politicians to help spread the false narrative. Science has gotten into bed with politics and that disastrous relationship needs to end.


Sad but true. Warmunistas have damaged science since 1980 just as eugenics did after 1880.
The area of localities in which humans have had a measurable effect on microclimates covers but a tiny portion of the surface of the planet, such as some urban spaces and irrigated valleys. The effect is within measurement error.

Dave Fair

I’m showing my ignorance here, but has anyone in climate science explained the general cooling since the Holocene optimum?

Tyson is making it the same gross error of scientific judgment as the majority of the government funded politically correct establishment scientists. His view is too short term .The climate model forecasts, on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme rests, are structured with no regard to the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities that are so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers and Tyson’s approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense. It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from, say, February to July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years beyond an inversion point. The models are generally back-tuned for less than 150 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. The IPCC future temperature projections depend in addition on the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) chosen for analysis. The RCPs depend on highly speculative scenarios, principally population and energy source and price forecasts, dreamt up by sundry sources. The cost/benefit analysis of actions taken to limit CO2 levels depends on the discount rate used and allowances made, if any, for the positive future positive economic effects of CO2 production on agriculture and of fossil fuel based energy production. The structural uncertainties inherent in this phase of the temperature projections are clearly so large, especially when added to the uncertainties of the science already discussed, that the outcomes provide no basis for action or even rational discussion by government policymakers.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

Curious George

Nothing new under the Sun. Hitler had 100 scientists – including Nobel Prize winners – denounce one inconvenient (Jewish) Einstein.


You have a very, very high opinion of this TV hack. Based on what? His research? His pathbreaking ideas? Where do you end up when you compare him with Bohr, Feynman,Dirac, Fermi…Tyson is a total back-bencher. Add to that his use of the ‘denier’ term. That isn’t simply scientifically questionable. It’s downright stupid.


Sorry, but it is professionally irresponsible to double as a political and advocacy tool at the expense of fact checkers and science itself. I draw the line there.


When is the last time Tyson has published anything academic or peer reviewed? Mostly he publishes for profit and for entertainment. He is not a climate expert and his opinions on that are about as reliable as Bill Nye’s -also not a climate expert and in Nye’s case not a scientist at all.


How many climate experts are contributors or commenters on WUWT?


“How many climate experts are contributors or commenters on WUWT?”
I don’t know, but I’ll bet just about every darn one of them can tell the difference between speculation and evidence, whether they are climate expert or not.


From 2:10 to 2:17 in the video when talking about peer review Tyson says: “An hypothesis, you test it, I get a result. A rival of mine double checks it, because they think I might be wrong. They perform an even better experiment than I did and they find out hey! This experiment matches.”
I would consider the hockey stick confirmation scientists more like pals than “rivals”. However the “rivals” probably said: “Hey! This hockey stick is B… S…!”

Yup. The next ‘experiment by Pages2k uses centered principle components and upside down Tiljander and confirms Mann. Both wrong.

Celebrity scientists like Tyson are often interviewed and asked to expound on subjects which they actually know very little. As an astrophysicist, deGrasse Tyson knows that CO2 absorbs infrafred radiation, and that the amount of warming of air inside a sunlit container due to added CO2 can be calculated by a scientist. Ergo, “the science is settled”. But, in reality,only to the extremely cursory point that he has been taught as a byproduct of his astrophysics background. Another couple of years’ study of meteorology, atmospheric thermodynamics, and atmospheric physics, and and he might be a little more enlightening about what is “settled” and what is “speculative”. Unfortunately, those details would bore the TV audience….

Bruce Cobb

I had pretty much the same experience just about 10 years ago, of looking for the proof of manmade warming, in order to be able to respond to “climate cranks”, who “had” to be wrong, and discovering they weren’t. Oh the ironing.

Walter Sobchak

I detest Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is an arrogant jerk.
He is also dead wrong about the climate and CAGW.


How could you “Love” tyson? Have you never heard his “facts” on theories? And how they are not theories but indeed facts. Which is to say that he is indeed a closed minded fool, aka, a bigot….

Ma Nature is having the last word. NDGT will eventually have to eat his. Except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, no warming this century (except by Karlization) despite it being ~35% of the CO2 increase since 1958 (Keeling curve inception). No acceleration in SLR. No tropical troposphere hotspot as modelled. Observational ECS half of CMIP5. Polar bears thriving. Greening. Renewables intermittent and unviable without continued subsidies.

“Observational ECS half of CMIP5.” ….The problem is that ESC is not an observable parameter.

Typo: The problem is that ECS is not an observable parameter.

Read Lewis and Curry 2014. They have done it using IPCC observational inputs. Moreover, they itnfor different periods to wash out as much as possible natural ocean cycles. It is calculable from observations.


While you can’t get an exact number for ECS from just observations, you can set the bounds for what the number has to be from observations.
The fact that the planet hasn’t warmed noticeably in 20 years despite a more than 30% increase in CO2 is sufficient to prove that whatever ECS is, it has to be small.

Ristvan: Estimates arrived at by calculation are not “observations”.
“……made careful use of estimates of effective radiative forcings and planetary heat uptake from the recently published IPCC 5th assessment Working Group 1 report (AR5) to derive estimates for equilibrium/effective climate sensitivity (ECS)…..”
They used “estimates” to derive other “estimates”…..
MarkW: Setting bounds is not measuring ECS.

MarkW, “climate” is typically defined as the average of a 30 year timespan, not 20: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1987/plot/rss/from:1987/trend

Dave Fair

When looking at climate drivers with cycles of 60-plus years, 30 years doesn’t seem to cut it.

“Remember Galalio was imprisoned for life for questioning the consensus wisdom of the time and only recently was pardoned by the Catholic church.”
I brought this up to my wife when watching the Cosmo special. Episode after episode about questioning dogma only to turn around at the end and basically say if you don’t believe the dogma of climate science you’re a fool. I stopped watching at that point. He’s either clueless about that being what he’s doing, or a deliberate hypocrite and I don’t have time to be preached at by either.

bingo the man either is NOT intelligent on any level or he is a LIAR.

Ron Williams

What a coincidence…it was at that same time when his statements about skeptics being fools, that I just quit watching him, period. I thought the general definition of a scientist, is that they use skepticism by following the Scientific Method. Sad, but I hope Neil can get back on track with the program, and I suspect he will when he senses the tide has turned on CAGW. Sadder, there is no hope for Bill Nye, the Ignorant Science Guy.