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.”

https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/29/house-science-committee-hearing/

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.

Advertisements

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

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

      • 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 .

      • 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.

        http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/epa-chief-reminisces-throwing-trash-mcdonalds-right-out-the-window-i-dont-think-it-was-just-my-family/

      • 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.

      • @teapartygeezer

        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!

      • 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.

        G

    • 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)

      • 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.

      • 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.

        G

      • Dave,
        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.

    • 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.

    • 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!

      • 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

      • Steve,
        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.

      • Steve,

        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.

      • 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.

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

    • 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.

    • 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.
      Chris

      • 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.

  1. 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?
      Statistics?
      Geology?
      Astro Physics?
      Complex modeling (math)?
      ..we could go on. You get what I mean. Those are all “sciences” required for the study of the
      climate.
      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.

      • James Schrumpf at 6:04 pm

        Instead of “average”, use “patterns”

        Example: hot dry summer and cool wet winter
        versus
        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
      https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2011_WEB.pdf

      According to this, starting next year there is nothing we can do except adapt to weather as it happens.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  2. 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.

      • 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?

    • 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.

      • @ 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

        Tom,

        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.

        Cheers
        Phil

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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’

    • 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.

      • Daviid,
        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?

      • David,

        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.

      • 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.

      • Re.

        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.

      • David,

        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.

      • 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.

      • Just Googled Sphinx Glacier

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

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

      • David,

        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?

        http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen-forest-tomb

        Or these in the Alps:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/

        Or these from South America:

        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-1186-7_4

        Evidence from all over the world, including New Zealand and the Himalayas:

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01092411

        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.

      • David,

        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?

      • 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?

      • ” But dendrochronology is accurate to the year and season, far better than 14C dating.” ….really?…I didn’t know that trees grew for over 1000 years. This is interesting. Tell me do you have a tree ring from the time that Jesus walked on the earth? How do you know which tree ring was 40 AD?

      • @ engarpia@gmail.com April 21, 2017 at 4:27 pm
        ” But dendrochronology is accurate to the year and season, far better than 14C dating.” ….really?…I didn’t know that trees grew for over 1000 years. This is interesting. Tell me do you have a tree ring from the time that Jesus walked on the earth? How do you know which tree ring was 40 AD?

        Bristlecone pines are known for attaining great ages. A specimen of Pinus longaeva located in the White Mountains of California is 5,066 years old according to measurements by Tom Harlan.[1]
        —–

        Each tree ring represents a year — pretty basic stuff — you count backwards from the outer ring..

      • Reg Nelson, radiocarbon dating can accurately go back 50,000 years. I don’t think tree rings can do that.

      • David,

        “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?

      • 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.

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589499921233

      • 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.

      • David,
        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.

      http://cahokiamounds.org/

      http://www.livescience.com/22737-cahokia.html

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150518-cahokia-ancient-America-prehistoric-floods-mystery-Mississippi/

    • 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.

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

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

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

  3. “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.

    • 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.

    • 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]

  4. 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.

  5. “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.

  6. 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!

    • 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.

    • .. ‘The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

      That was Richard FEYNMAN.

  7. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.
        Geoff

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

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

    • 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.)

      • 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.

    • Whyguy,

      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?

    • @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.

  10. 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!

  11. 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.

  12. A great day for REAL science by Canadian(Toronto) Steve McIntyre : – CRU Abandons one tree Yamal Super(hockey)stick

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/hey-ya-mal-mcintyre-was-right-cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

    “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.”

  13. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • >>
        Chimp
        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.

        Jim

      • 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.
        http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Hipparchus.htm

        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.

  14. 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”.

    • 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”.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

        Thanks.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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:

    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.


    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

  21. 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.

  22. 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?

      • 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.

      • “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?

      • Chris

        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.

      • 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.

      • Timthetoolman,

        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.

    • Brad-DXT

      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.

  23. 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.

    • 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.

      michael

      • “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?

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. “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.

  27. 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!

    Joe

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

      Exactly.

  28. 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’.

  29. 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!”

  30. 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.

    • Angela,

      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.

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

  31. 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 :
    “ABSTRACT
    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.””

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

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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?”

        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.

  35. 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…!”

  36. 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….

  37. 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.

  38. 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….

  39. 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.

      • 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.

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

  40. “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.

    • 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.

    • LA has been losing coastal land since long before CO2 took off, as the proclamation itself acknowledges. Sea level is not rising there any faster than anywhere else, but the land is sinking.

      The silt loads from the Mississippi and other rivers have also abated, despite floods, thanks to feverish silt clearance operations both upstream and closer to the LA ports.

      Totally natural phenomena keep getting conveniently blamed on man-made “climate change”. In the case of Mississippi, people are partly responsible for the disappearing coastal areas, but not because of CO2.

    • Your “example” of global warming, which no one here denies has happened, is problematic. Coast lines are affected by many things, slowly-rising oceans (again, no one here denies that sea levels are rising, as they have been since the start of the holocene) being just one. Of course you prefer sticking with NDGT, rather than doing your own research. You have a Belief system to protect after all.

    • Another comment lost in cyberspace.

      Short version. Land in coastal LA is sinking. Sea level isn’t rising there any faster than anywhere else.

      The process has been going on since long before CO2 started rising, as the proclamation acknowledges. Silt control doesn’t help.

      The loss of coastal areas has nothing to do with “man-made climate change”. Some human activities have had an effect, but not GHGs. However, it’s mostly natural.

    • The Coastal Louisiana State of Emergency has nothing to do with “climate change”. Rate of global sea level rise, as measured by satellites is modest and it is not accelerating since at least 1992, while severe storms hitting the coast directly are becoming less frequent in the last decade.

      On the other hand we have

      1. Subsidence Processes in Coastal Louisiana
      2. As a result marshes and swamps that serve as a vital barrier and a first line of defense against storm surge and flooding are disappearing.

      Go with reality.

    • Might be true Chimp! I just spent a couple of weeks over there but didn’t hear anything relevant. Sounds like you know more about the topic than me, so I’ll bow to your wisdom.

      Cheers,
      Ben

      • When I was taking my Geology degree back in the late 70s, we studied the Mississippi River Delta and its history of flooding, channel meandering, and the insanely complicated stratigraphy that arises from same. One of main points of the study was that the sediment deposited in the delta was constantly sinking, producing a gigantic lens of sediment miles deep and extending far out into the Gulf. If humans have changed the silt deposit patterns to reduce that inflow into the delta, the subsidence is going to continue with less simultaneous deposit of new sediment. Result: sinking landscape and “rising seas.”

    • Ben, very poor example. Nothing to do with climate. Louisiana is losing coastal barrier islands for two reasons. 1. Channelization of the Mississippi mouth. Look at a map. See that long narrow Mississippi neck protruding into the GoM. All that silt would have replenished the rest of the coast but for maintaining main river navigability. 2. The coast is subsiding from water, oil, and gas extraction.

    • benben, you are back, good to see you.
      As you may know, the Louisiana coast is totally dominated by the Mississippi river delta. The delta covers thousands of square miles and totally dominates the southern part of the state. River deltas have an ecology and geology all their own. The land of the delta is constantly sinking due to settling and compaction of the sediments of which it is made. In a natural setting, this loss of elevation is compensated for by the addition of more sediments from upriver. As the river spreads out over the delta, the water flow slows down, and the sediment falls out. Delta subsidence and new deposition balance out.
      What happens if the sea level rises, as opposed to the delta sinking? Same thing. The river hits brackish water from sea water intrusion a bit earlier, slows down a bit sooner, and starts depositing fresh sediments a bit sooner. The system compensates. The delta height and sea level are in a constant dynamic equilibrium.
      So what is happening to the coastline here?
      In two words, “spring flooding”.
      To control annual floods in the delta and bayou country, the entire lower portion of the river is now controlled by a system of levees, dykes, and dams. This has two consequences. First, the river does not drop sediment and build up the delta as it used to. So subsidence becomes an issue, and it has. The second consequence is that the river holds its sediments all the way to where the river channel meets the ocean, at the extreme end of the delta. It is here that the river drops all it’s sediment, rapidly extending the extreme end of the delta out to sea. This can be seen quite dramatically in navigational charts put out 20, 40, 60, 80 years ago. Another consequence of this delta building is the need for constant dredging of the channel and river mouth area to keep the shipping lanes open.
      This whole situation is by no means unique to the Mississippi. This conundrum is faced by people in major river deltas all over the world.
      Global Warming has nothing to do with it. Neither does Climate Change.

      • benben:
        I would not be so quick to declare the models OK based on that one plot (#22). The observations get out of the gutter only during the just passed El Nino year. Then there is the question of just how this graphic was put together. (Warmists have been known to play a little fast and loose with the artwork after all.)
        While you are on that site page, check out figures 14 and 15. Same system, but tells a whole different story.
        That should make even you want to take a closer look at what is behind the curtain.

        When will the models be good enough?
        Umm, when they are not wrong about everything??
        OK, flippant answer.
        A cornerstone of greenhouse warming theory is the existence of the mid-troposphere hot spot. In addition to theory, the models all predict it. It is not there. Huge, huge problem. The existence of the hot spot was finally largely ruled out about 2013 or so. The warmists stopped talking about it, and that fact, along with The Pause, was the reason Global Warming was rebranded as Climate Change. Remember that one??

        Second, the models are calibrated (tuned) against a past history which is, in fact, a fantasy.
        The current history is as follows:
        A) a shallow rise from 1900-1945
        B) no rise 1945-1975
        c) a steeper rise 1975-present
        The history used to look like this:

        Absolutely, totally different
        A) a rise 1900-1935
        B) a decline 1935-1975
        Interesting that it was not until after WWII, in the post-war economic boon that CO2 emissions really took off. But the temperatures did not go up, they went down. Temperatures did not just go down a little, they went down for 4 decades, and ended up right where they started in 1900. No relationship to CO2, whatever.
        Tune the models to that history and you are getting somewhere.
        (Everybody starts running around waving their hands in the air and shouting, Soot! Particulates! Sulfur Dioxide!)
        Here are some questions to ponder:
        Consider the long term secular warming trend of ~0.12 degree/decade in the UAH satellite data set.
        A) What if the trend continues for a few decades, as we continue warming from the Little Ice Age.
        B) What if the trend reverses and we enter a multi-decade cooling similar to 1935-1975.
        C) What if the trend continues for a century recreating the climate which existed during the Medieval Warm Period.
        If we do get a new Warm Period, I make this prediction:
        A group of hardy Vikings from Iceland will sail to Greenland and set up housekeeping. They will build resort hotels and cater to Adventure Tourists and Eco-Tourists. The government of Denmark will have no objection, remembering well what a bloody mess happened last time they got in a squabble with their kinsmen from the Northern Tribes.

        Question for your modeler friend:
        How do the models handle the greenhouse warming of water vapor vs. CO2, given that water absorbs IR much more intensely (molecule for molecule), over much wider range, and there is so much more of it.

      • Hmm not very convincing TonyL. I mean, I can see you are convinced yourself, there is no doubt about that. The main problem is that there are so many bizarre lies going around on WUWT, it kind of falsifies whatever factual things you try to through up. Like, people that seriously think the UN and iPCC are out to take over the world are crazy, period. See todays WUWT post.

        I asked my modeler friend. Water vapour is pretty well represented in the models, as it is considered to be the strongest feedback loop (warming from just CO2 doesn’t really do all that much scary by itself). A huge amount of research has gone into the role of water vapour. Feel free to read up upon it: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DON7H78

        Anyway, the point is moot. In my country at least we are moving away very fast from renewables, and it’s a great thing because we’ve been importing a lot of it from Russia. I’d rather spend a bit more on my electricity bill and make it locally than throw money at Vladimir P. Then, in around 2030 when we’ve reached ~35% renewables, we can look again and see whether it makes sense to spend the significant amount of money it costs to go beyond that level of renewables on the grid.

        Cheers TonyL!

      • What do I think of it? Not too much.
        The whole argument rests on two key points that the author sets out.

        added greenhouse gases in long-term climate model simulations, you find that the model sensitivity is greater in the latter part of the simulation.

        Let’s repeat that. “model sensitivity is greater in the latter part of the simulation”
        1) Models all the way down.
        2) Short term sensitivity is a combination of models and observations, and still is poorly constrained. How poorly? Well, if the actual value comes in at the low end, Global Warming is too small to be significant, and the CAGW train is derailed. That poorly constrained. But put this aside for a minute.
        Now they claim that a model-only based sensitivity far in the future is significantly greater than the current sensitivity. Worse, they perceive this increase with such confidence that they base the rest of their case on it.
        Oh. My. And to think Judith Curry talks about her Uncertainty Monster. No uncertainty here.

        But, how might this work?

        warming trend picks up, enhancing feedbacks in the region that boost warming.

        Again, it is worth repeating. “enhancing feedbacks that boost warming”
        The best measurement data, at this point, is that feedbacks may well be negative. Some people have even advanced the argument that if feedbacks are positive, we should have seen some evidence of them in operation by now. In all fairness, rock-hard evidence for these secondary feedbacks, positive or negative, remains elusive. But it is not looking too good for the “positive feedbacks” crowd.
        But, again and again, no uncertainty here.
        This is their whole case.
        Ars Technica is a committed warmist site, I would not look to them for unbiased information.
        Yes, they want to bolster CAGW at every turn, but this is just grasping at straws.

      • Nice analysis TonyL. So, I have a question for you (a serious question, not a rhetorical jab). When are the models good enough? Because David Middleton put up a bunch of graphs here on WUWT a while back:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/

        And if you go to figure 22, you’ll see that the actual temperature at this moment is right smack in the middle of the range predicted by the models. So I talk to my climate modeling friends (my flatmate programs these models for his PhD), and he’ll say: ‘Well Ben, these models are made to predict long term multi-decade warming trends, and while they might not always be 100% accurate in the short term (but still accurate within the 95% confidence interval), they work really well for these longer term timescales, and that is what the models are made for in the first place’.

        And then you look at figure 22 again and what I see is that my flatmate is right. The models got the average temperature right. Because that is where the current temperature is. in the middle of the graph.

        So what would you want the models to show before you start thinking, ok they might be on to something?

        Cheers,
        Ben

      • benben:
        Look just above your post at 1:10pm
        I wrote a reply, and it ended up just above, in the wrong place.

      • TonyL, yeah I read that and it’s a good comment on the article. But my follow up question still stands: the current temperature lines up really well with what the models the temperature would be around now. So what else do you want? Serious question!

    • If you believe that global warming, sorry I mean climate change is causing coasts lines to disappear selectively in Louisiana then you really should take geology course or two so that you can really understand processes other than eustatic sea level rise that cause relative sea level to fall and rise. Subsidence of this delta region is the major culprit of costal changes here and many other coastlines around the world.

    • I love the way you warmistas declare that if it’s bad, it must be caused by CO2.
      If you had spent 15 seconds checking, you would have found that the problem is the Louisiana delta is sinking because flood control measures over the last century have removed most of the silt that used to rebuild it every year.

      But go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself.

      • MarkW, you have some issues man. I made a little jab, was proven wrong, and have no problem saying I was wrong. Stop being unpleasant. I’ll say though, if you turn out to be a 15 year old with a permanent temper tantrum, the joke is on me

  41. We do understand somewhat reproducible non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems, that is, the ones where microstates belonging to the same macrostate can’t evolve into different macrostates.

    Unfortunately the terrestrial climate system is not of this kind. It is chaotic. And that means it is not reproducible. Difference between states starting from arbitrarily close to each other grows exponentially with time (see the butterfly effect), therefore it is irreproducible, no matter how macrostates are defined.

    Theoretical understanding of irreproducible non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems is lacking. So, computational models trying to emulate them are flawed.

    On the other hand, we could indeed bring such a system into the lab, we just need a member of this broad class other than climate, one that would fit into a lab setup happily.

    The experiment could be done on a tiny fraction of the cost consumed by futile computational models, but neither climate scientists nor anyone else ventured into this field of non-equilibrium thermodynamics so far. Why?

    • The idea of an experiment sounds simple, but one would need to have vertical transport of heat in the lab setup. I have no idea how you could have a 60,000 foot high test station. Then there is the issue of clouds, cosmic rays, dust, SO2, albedo, wind, ocean currents, etc.

      In other words, it can’t be done. It is a fantasy. We need two earths, with one inhabited by primeval man.

      • Nope. A semi transparent container with a fluid in it, irradiated by an intense light source, put on a thermally insulated rotating table, in a vacuum chamber whose walls are cooled by liquid nitrogen from the outside is a perfect example of an irreproducible quasi stationary closed non-equilibrium thermodynamic system. It is not Earth of course, but before we try to understand that, we should surely study behavior of other members of this its class.

        As soon as we have a reasonable computational model of the experimental setup, which predicts effect of initial parameters and statistical spread between experimental runs, we can proceed to climate.

        However, predicting the behavior of even such a simple system is impossible until we improve our understanding. And that’s my point.

        For example it is proven, that reproducible quasi stationary non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems lend themselves to the Maximum Entropy Production Principle.

        On the other hand most of the entropy production on Earth happens when incoming shortwave radiation (light) gets absorbed and thermalized, so we could increase rate of entropy production easily by decreasing albedo.

        However, Earth is not pitch black, quite the contrary. Therefore irreproducibility plays a central role.

        BTW, Mercury, which has no fluids on its surface to make it chaotic, is black indeed.

    • Rogue waves are another good example of models not reproducing reality. The best models said a rogue wave might occur once in 10,000 years. Then the EU space agency put up a satellite and found several in the first few weeks. So much for the models.

  42. Hi Donna,

    You said “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.”

    Saying such gives others the incentive to say/think you do not believe in “it” and are in complete denial … that you think there is no temp increase (“Global Warming” means different things to different people). Although later on in your essay you acknowledge that we have experienced warming over the last hundred years, others will stay attached to your initial statement and point at you as being typical of a denial mentality (“… don’t listen to her … she there is a thermometer conspiracy throughout the world”)

    Be precise in your terms and require that others do the same (“Global Warming” means different things to different people)… thanks for the article and your input.

  43. I am not a scientist and I agree scientific literacy is important, but I am going to ignore the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and try to convince everyone else to do the same.

    [Strange comment. If you think the scientific evidence is overwhelming shouldn’t you be saying so and use the evidence to make your case? Or are you just being dishonest on multiple levels in which case you should take up crochet or some such because you are of absolutely no use here. . . mod]

    • Strange indeed! Perhaps he forgot to include a sarcasm tag?

      Or perhaps he is on the side of the skeptics and his poor English composition had him agreeing “I am going to ignore the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and try to convince everyone else to do the same” meaning that the supposed scientific evidence of the alarmists is very stretched, and he is ignoring what some in the alarmist science camp say is scientific evidence and arguing for others to do the same which is to say that we should ignore the political science that is in favour of the warmists. Sort of a double negative…if anyone gets what I mean.

      If he meant literally what he said, then he is nuts because the science is on the side of the skeptics. Which then makes out the political climate scientists to be even nuttier than this guy. Care to elaborate graebg?

    • It sounds like graebg at April 21, 2017 at 12:19 pm is simply making the point that the supporters of CAGW are saying something along the lines of:

      “I am not a scientist and I agree scientific literacy is important, but I am going to ignore the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and try to convince everyone else to do the same.”

      They refuse to realize how absurd they are when they do that.

  44. If he wants to be taken seriously he should make himself available for public debate. Short of this he should be ignored.

    • And why wouldn’t they. Noone can be an expert in every area. You have to hope there are reliable people in areas you are unfamiliar with who you can depend on to lead you in the right direction.

      That works real well when honesty of thought is involved. However, dishonest scientists make things much more complicated when trying to find the truth, and unfortunately we have an abundance of dishonesty in climate science, so you have to be your own climate scientist these days in order to find the truth. That’s probably one reason WUWT does so well.

  45. I love Neil deGrasse Tyson. He has done so much to make science interesting and understandable. He is wise and humble.

    pure bull

  46. “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.”

    Can you point me to the models that said that snow would be a thing of the past in Ottawa by 2017?

  47. Humans are basically religious animals. Religious “truth” is authority and consensus, which requires that heratics are silenced. Endless repetion and environmental threats secure the dogma’s. Science is a deviation of religion: it is truth disconnected from authority and consensus which requires education in reasoning and numerical methods.
    Climate alarmism is the new state religion. So policies can be implemented without technical- and financial justification. Indeed, the church never needs to proof it’s theses. We have turned our back to the enlightenment.

    • People and states both do seem to need belief systems. When the Communist God failed, its adherents needed a new religion with which to impose their collectivist will upon the masses. The Green God arose to replace the overthrown Communist God, which had replaced the Christian God in Europe and the belief systems Confucianism and Buddhism in Asia. In parts of Asia and Africa, the Communist God, “History” or “Scientific Socialism”, made inroads against Islam, but ultimately failed there, too.

  48. Neil has been taken in by the pressure of fashion.

    I learned my climate science in the 1950s and 1960s, the politically uncorrupted days of Hubert Lamb and the basic thermodynamic knowledge that the surface temperature of planets with atmospheres was a product not only of insolation from the nearby star but also of the mass of an atmosphere engaged in the thermodynamic processes of conduction and convection.

    Then, in 1968, I decided to earn a living from the evidence based practice of Law rather than the maths based and largely theoretically based science of meteorology but nonetheless I maintained an intense interest in ongoing climate changes because I could see that such changes were obviously happening albeit (I could see from reading historical material) on a natural rather than anthropogenically induced basis.

    Around 2000 I noticed that the warming changes of the previous couple of decades (since the mid- 70s climate shift) had gone into reverse and that such reversal was the opposite of the then fashionable AGW scenario. Basically, I noticed that the poleward, zonal drift of the jet stream tracks had gone into reverse despite AGW claims that humans had induced that poleward, zonal shift.

    By 2007, having got past the distractions of career progression and childcare I renewed my interest in climatology and found utter insanity.

    All the earlier scientific progress had been abandoned and any reference to it was considered sacrilege. The proponents of AGW were themselves in denial of all earlier knowledge.

    The entire climate debate had become centred on radiative physics alone with the thermodynamics of mass working with conduction and convection utterly ignored, indeed relegated to an unwelcome irrelevance.

    So, in the face of that, I started burrowing down into the basic principles of climate, thermodynamics and radiative physics in order to completely reconstruct my climate knowledge. In the process I found that the AGW proponents were the true denialists and that the earlier, discarded knowledge provided a sound basis upon which to build.

    The outcome is a series of articles now spread across the blogosphere and collated here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/

    I know from real world observations that I have it right.

    How long before Neil, and the rest of you, catch up?

  49. I’ll just thrown in my usual comment. I will ask anyone if they would please draw a likeness of Jezebel Montague. What? You don’t know what Jezebel Montague looks like? Well, maybe I should pose this request to the “climate science modelers” instead. See that is my point, really. How can you draw a likeness of someone you don’t know? You can use generalities and come up with a picture of sorts because you have general ideas of what a woman looks like, but would it be a likeness of Jezebel Montague? The point is if you don’t know what you are drawing – be it Jezebel or the climate – you cannot model it. We do not know enough about the actual functioning of the climate to write a program that can model it. Since a program is going to function completely according to the core values and variables written into it, it can’t give you good output unless there is an accurate understanding of what is being modeled. The IPCC can commission a million models based on the wrong core values, and they never will have a “model” that will work.

    And one other thing. It isn’t “science” that has gotten the black eye from “climate pseudo science.” It is the word “scientist” that has been trashed by it. Sad, really, but the fact is people haven’t developed a distrust of “science,” any more than they always have, but they will now question anything that comes from “scientists.” Sort of like the way we are going with “doctors” and the FDA and the useless garbage that comes out of that organization.

  50. So, he now joins Stephen Hawking on the same bandwagon of famous scientists who mistakenly advocate human-caused-CO2-climate change.

    Rising CO2 levels induces stupidity in only the brightest and most popular scientists. Something must be done to find a cure !

    • Hawking has also said that hostile aliens are on their way to destroy us, unfortunately I think that brilliant mind is slipping.

    • A few years back Hawking declared that if we don’t do something about CO2 the Earth is going to end up looking like Venus.
      Only a few of the most rabid warmistas are dumb enough to make that claim.

      • When I heard that comment by Dr. Hawking, that Earth would become another Venus if we didn’t reign in carbon emissions, then I quit listening to much of what Dr. Hawking ever said after that. And now I question some of what he said prior to that about everything. Scientific academia is more about politics than is about proper science, at least for the last 20 years since the hockey stick BS and even earlier, what Hansen said in the 1980’s that embarrassed NASA. It will be interesting to see what comes of the “science march” tomorrow and how it is framed in the media. I suspect it will be even more contentious, since the MSM likes a good contentious story to sell copy.

  51. “Neil talks about how someone makes a premise or hypothesis and then others look at it, and do experiments to confirm validity.”

    The problem is that simple experiments could be carried out but, despite always referring back to simplistic experiments of Arrhenius, the claim is made that experiments cannot be done.

    Simple experiments would be:

    1. To have a mixture of N2 and O2 at say 15C then add CO2 to 400ppm to see if the CO2 as the only radiative gas starts radiating photons of infrared without any being broadcast upwards from a warm surface.

    2. With a large volume of water at 15C in a tank illuminate the water with infrared to the equivalent of 3.7watts/sqr meter and (a) see if there is any change in the temperature of the water and (b) any change in the humidity of the air above the water and (c) if any air currents are observed above the water.

    3. Repeat 2 with a steady airflow over the surface equivalent to a 5 knot wind. **

    Why have such simple experiments not been done? I would suspect that: showing that CO2 acts as a radiator without need for infrared from the surface; showing that infrared cannot warm a body of water thus more than 70% of the surface of the planet cannot be warned by ‘downwelling’ infrared; and, showing that infrared and wind cause significant cooling to a body of water (70% of the planet). Each of these would falsify the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. So why are they not carried out?

    ** put a dry hand under a blown air hand drier – it gets unbearably hot; put a wet hand under a blown are hand drier – it feels cold. QED.

    • It really is embarrassing how little science some of those on our side know.
      1) CO2 doesn’t radiate photons in the infrared region. It absorbs such photons then transfer the energy to other molecules through collisions.
      2) CO2 doesn’t warm water, the sun does. If the air is warmer then the water has to warm up in order to transfer the same amount of energy into the atmosphere.

      • I think you need to read up on the transfer of kinetic energy from a collision to thermal radiation by Carbon Dioxide. A simple discussion of this is at pp59 of Principles of Atmospheric Science indexed as process 2.5.6.

  52. Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to be defining “scientifically literate” as “to believe what the scientific experts tell you without question.” But that is not what it means to understand science. Science is a method that works for everyone and does not need an authority to tell you what is true. If you, as an individual, can find something wrong with a scientific theory or “emergent truth” through observation or experimentation, you are doing science and your skepticism is valid and legitimate.Ans no authoritarian or peer review can change that.

    Tyson is also wrong that public denial of scientific theory is something new. And many times, the public was proven right – eventually.

    Some examples:
    Caloric Theory – heat consists of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. The basis of early meteorology and climate science. https://tinyurl.com/j33xvc9
    Deadly Tomatoes – barber-surgeon John Gerard, believed tomatoes were poisonous because they contained low levels of the toxic chemical tomatine. On 28 June 1820, Colonel Robert Gibbon – not a scientific authority – famously disproved this by publicly eating a tomato. https://tinyurl.com/n345p4v
    Physiognomy – the assessment of character or personality from a person’s outer appearance, especially the face. https://tinyurl.com/lm7y2xa

    All this denial business is just an attempt to shut down discussion. To short circuit the process and jump to a quick conclusion, so that climate “findings” can be used for a political agenda. This is especially egregious because none of the climate models have successfully predicted future global temperature, as of yet. (I believe the very simple model of a straight line with a slope of +.5 Degrees Celsius per 1000 years would likely more accurate over the long term, at least until the end of the modern inter-glacial period. But that’s just eyeballed from the Vostok Ice Core Data.)

  53. Dear guest blogger,

    you ARE a scientist. Whatever anyone tells you about ‘the scientific process’, it’s really nothing more than asking questions, which is precisely what you have been, and are doing. Hypothesising, theorising, analysing,recording, reviewing etc.etc. are nothing without Kipling’s Honest Serving Men:

    I KEEP six honest serving-men
    (They taught me all I knew);
    Their names are What and Why and When
    And How and Where and Who.
    I send them over land and sea,
    I send them east and west;
    But after they have worked for me,
    I give them all a rest.

    I let them rest from nine till five,
    For I am busy then,
    As well as breakfast, lunch, and tea,
    For they are hungry men.
    But different folk have different views;
    I know a person small—
    She keeps ten million serving-men,
    Who get no rest at all!

    She sends’em abroad on her own affairs,
    From the second she opens her eyes—
    One million Hows, two million Wheres,
    And seven million Whys!

    The Elephant’s Child

    It was written almost in frustration at his daughters incessant desire for information.

    What I see from the scientific community is the desire to impose their answers on we ‘uneducated children’ without listening to our questions.

    What they universally tend to forget is that their education and wisdom is for the benefit of all humanity, not just them, and they should have the wherewithal to communicate that to we laymen, in laymen’s terms.

    That is their calling and in most cases, our right, as taxpayers invariably subsidise education. As we should.

  54. You simply have to ask the question, why do we even know this guys name. What groundbreaking contribution has he made to the sciences? Can anyone name, off the top of their heads, the guys that first isolated graphene, anyone of the team of doctors about to reverse paralysis, or anyone for that matter that is behind the coming great technological breakthroughs? The answer is simple, no one knows this guys name because of his scientific achievements, but because he is a sell out to political ideology, pure and simple.

    • This is easy:

      1) He led the fight to make Pluto not a planet (why this matters ….I dunno).
      2) He manages a planetarium.
      3) Um…uh….

      • I agree with him on Pluto, but given his involvement in the issue, might have to rethink my position.

      • Pluto only failed to meet the litmus test for a planet, because it failed to clear its orbit of smaller comets, asteroids and debris etc. Hardly a proper test, given Pluto’s smaller size and proximity to the outer solar system for which we are now only observing directly. I understand there is now a movement afoot to reinstate Pluto as a planet. I hope it succeeds.

        I thought it was a big sleight against science in that movement to throw Pluto under the bus, and it was another reason why I just quit watching anything he made for TV, which is about all he does other than managing a planetarium. And talk shows…

      • “Pluto only failed to meet the litmus test for a planet, because it failed to clear its orbit of smaller comets, asteroids and debris etc. Hardly a proper test, given Pluto’s smaller size and proximity to the outer solar system for which we are now only observing directly.”

        It’s not ever a fair test, since by that test, Earth would not be considered a planet either, since Earth has not cleared it’s orbit. There are currently asteriods accompanying Earth around the Sun.

      • TA,

        There is no comparison between the objects in Pluto’s orbit and Earth’s. The odd asteroid crossing out orbit is but a tiny fraction of the number of bodies in the dwarf planet’s path.

        All the planets have “cleared their neighborhoods” by orders of magnitude more than Pluto or any other dwarf planet of candidate for such status. Pluto’s path is littered with Kuiper Belt objects and the many bodies thrust into its way by Neptune’s gravity, ie near-in Trans-Neptunian objects.

        Pluto’s highly eccentric and slanted orbit even takes it within Neptune’s orbit, leaving a very large object in its neighborhood.

        The reclassification was a good call, IMO. Otherwise there would soon be thousands of “planets” in our solar system.

      • Chimp, I don’t really have a big problem with reclassifying Pluto, but the Earth not only has asteriods crossing its orbit occasionally, the Earth also has a few asteriods in the Earth/Sun Lagrangian areas, so the Earth does actually have asteriods in its orbit that it has not cleared.

      • >>
        TA
        April 22, 2017 at 3:41 pm

        . . . the Earth also has a few asteriods in the Earth/Sun Lagrangian areas, so the Earth does actually have asteriods in its orbit that it has not cleared.
        <<

        It’s interesting that you consider objects orbiting in the stable L4 and L5 Lagrange points to be uncleared. The Earth’s few “Trojan” asteroids is actually only one. Jupiter has the most known “Trojan” asteroids in the Solar System, and by your argument would not be considered a planet that has cleared its orbit. I don’t think anyone is trying to remove Jupiter’s planetary status (except maybe you).

        Jim

      • jim wrote: “It’s interesting that you consider objects orbiting in the stable L4 and L5 Lagrange points to be uncleared.”

        And your definition of an “uncleared” orbit with respect to whether a Sun-orbiting body is a planet or not, is?

        jim wrote: “The Earth’s few “Trojan” asteroids is actually only one.”

        So far, but one’s enough for my point. We may find more soon.

        https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/osiris-rex-begins-earth-trojan-asteroid-search

        Feb. 9, 2017
        NASA’s OSIRIS-REx Begins Earth-Trojan Asteroid Search

        jim wrote: “Jupiter has the most known “Trojan” asteroids in the Solar System, and by your argument would not be considered a planet that has cleared its orbit.”

        That was my point. Glad you got it.

        jim wrote: “I don’t think anyone is trying to remove Jupiter’s planetary status (except maybe you).”

        No, I’m not either. I’m just saying the “uncleared” criteria is a little vague.

        My question is, where did the Greeks disappear to? There used to be Trojans *and* Greeks, but now all I see mentioned is Trojans.

      • >>
        No, I’m not either. I’m just saying the “uncleared” criteria is a little vague.
        <<

        So let’s see–Jupiter clears 97% of its orbit (hat-tip to climatology), and having objects in its stable L4 and L5 constitutes an uncleared orbit.

        >>
        My question is, where did the Greeks disappear to? There used to be Trojans *and* Greeks, but now all I see mentioned is Trojans.
        <<

        I thought they were always called “Trojans.” I now see that Jupiter’s L4 asteroids are called the “Greek camp,” and Jupiter’s L5 asteroids are called the “Trojan camp.” Also names for the Geek camp asteroids are Greek and names for the Trojan camp asteroids are Trojan. I didn’t know Homer’s Iliad could provide more than a few dozen names. They must be making some up.

        Jim

      • “So let’s see–Jupiter clears 97% of its orbit (hat-tip to climatology), and having objects in its stable L4 and L5 constitutes an uncleared orbit.”

        I wonder how you and Chimp know that Pluto’s orbit has not been cleared. Are we expecting Pluto to be colliding with another body in the near future, or far future?

        I will say that reclassifying Pluto is probably the right thing to do. It definitely is in the same category as the other dwarf planets we have found, and we are probably going to find more of them.

        As to the Trojans and Greeks, yes Jupiter is where this originated. Astronomers started finding Lagrangian objects around Jupiter and they started naming the ones in the L4 position after Greek heroes of the Trojan war, and named the objects found at the L5 position after Trojan heroes. So after that, I always associated Trojans with L5 and Greeks with L4. But, noone ever mentions the Greeks anymore, so I just threw that out there as an item of historical interest.

  55. Sorry, but Dr. Tyson is one of the most dangerous things in the world: a smart sounding nitwit. I’ve frequently heard him make statements and claims that on the surface seem plausible, but once you think about them for a bit are completely unscientific claptrap. for example:

    “Somebody’s diagnosed with terminal cancer. The doctor says, “You got six months to live.” You say, “You mind if I get a second opinion.” “Of course, go ahead.” Go to a second doctor, you’ve got five months to live. Go to a third doctor, seven months to live. So basically, you’re going to be dead in six months, plus or minus, OK? What happens? You’re alive a year later. OK. You’re alive two years later. Three years later, the cancer’s in remission. Five years later, it’s gone from your body. The American Medical Association—is that what they’re called, the AMA?—has got to be the most powerful association in the world, because no one questions those diagnoses. But I can tell you this, I taught physics to pre-med students who became doctors. Not all of them were smart, I assure you. Not only that, they’re all trained in the same system, so three separate doctors that all went through the same system of medical schools—that’s not actually three different opinions. It’s the same opinion, just nuanced by what the person had for breakfast that morning…. So I’m just impressed that it’s impossible for people to think that they just had idiot doctors diagnose them, or that it was a diagnostic failure.”

    What is so very wrong with the statement? When a doctor gives you a diagnosis, he is saying, in essence that the peak of the bell curve, that is the normal distribution of time that a person has to live with this diagnosis, is 6 months. If you live 2 years, what does it mean? Just that you are in the 5% or 1% outside the 95th or 99th percentile of the normal distribution. Nothing more complicated than that. The doctor was not dumb, or wrong. He doesn’t actually know exactly how long you will live (medicine isn’t magic); he is just giving you the average time most people live, based on statistics.

    Anytime you parse out what Tyson says, and outside of his very narrow field, it ends up being smart-sounding dumbness. Which goes with the observation by Will Rogers: “Everyone is ignorant, except in different subjects.” When people who have managed, through sweat and hard work, to master a hard subject; they have a tendency to think their opinion on other subjects is more than just uninformed blather. But that is often not the case.

    • I read a survey the other day that said people who get a second doctor’s opinion, get a different diagnosis 88 percent of the time.

      • Define “different”. Define “diagnosis”. Not saying there are not dumb doctors, but medicine isn’t magic. It is not even physics. A doctor looks at the symptoms, at whatever he gets from tests, and makes a guess at what is most likely your malady. Usually a doctor is working with 55% of people with these symptoms = disease X, 25% have disease Y, 19% = disease Z, and 1% have an unknown disease. So yes, different doctors can make different diagnosis, happens all the time. Just like different car mechanics, both experts, can diagnoses different problems with your car. Doesn’t mean they are fools. They are just making well-informed guesses after all.

  56. Look at dGT’s CV sometime. He has a total of 14 published articles to which his name is attached. Actually, 13, because one is “author et al.” In another, he’s one of 43 contributors.

    He’s mostly famous because Carl Sagan took him under his wing as a teenager. I have zero respect for him as a scientist. The Earth has warmed, sure, but there’s no evidence CO2 has caused it, only models that don’t match observations​. He wouldn’t know”baloney” from his butt.

  57. Nice article Donna. What you express is the simple truth which will eventually bring down the alarmist house of cards.

    Quote: I would like him to explain to me, just who is denying science and what they are denying about science.

    I have often asked the same question. I’m happy to be called a deneyer (deliberately spelled incorrectly) just as soon as my accuser tells me exactly what it is that I deny.

    Quote: Since whole world experiments are somewhat impossible, scientists rely on models that give projections.

    Not so. Scientists do not rely on models, they work with actual observations. Scientists know that the models will produce exactly what they are programmed to do with the input they are given. As a result scientists know that the output of models is NOT data.

    It is a travesty that alarmists and data fiddlers have been held out as scientists.

    • If we are global warming deniers, what else can we call them but Global Warming Enthusiasts? It seems no matter what the argument, what the result, what the data, it always must conforms their hypothesis. That, in a nutshell, is not science. In fact is the very definition of a pseudoscience.

      What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is falsifiability. Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. A real scientific theory asserts things that have a danger of being contradicted by as yet undiscovered facts. Indeed, science is entirely based on, and advanced by, the discovery of precisely such uncomfortable facts. Really good science clearly and completely spells out exactly what experiment or fact would disprove the theory.

      A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of this embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them.

      So, is the theory of climate change science of pseudoscience? To answer that question simply ask – is there an experiment I might do, or fact I might uncover, that would change the conclusions regarding climate change? The answer is sadly, no. Climate change theory will simply incorporate each contrary fact as if that were always part of the prediction.

      I get the sense of dread that all this pseudoscience aspect is so attractive to people because they see non-falsifiability as a feature, not a bug. They like that it can’t be disproven. They see that as the power of the thing itself –“you can’t prove me wrong, ergo I must be right!”

  58. If you want to know who are the real scientists, ask them who has reproduced their work. Ask them for their methods and data results. If they hand you their methods and data for you to find out what is right/or wrong with it, you have a scientist. If they don’t give you this information so you can replicate or not, they aren’t a scientist. When any of these people are asked to testify about climate, they should be asked these questions: who has replicated the work, and have the methods and data been released to confirm or verify the results? A no to either question means their work is meaningless for the purposes of policy.

  59. Wow, what a, carefully crafted, thoughtfully worded, dodge job. You offer no sources, no links, and no actual credentials for Curry.
    What you are doing is playing the pry bar. Trying to wedge your gentle rebuke, (filled with pretend admiration, while all the time trying to cast doubt) into whichever crack you think your thinly veiled smear job will do the most damage.
    It’s sad, and you really should talk to Neil, get his side, before you make accusations.
    Just a thought…

    • ????????
      “no actual credentials for Curry”
      You act like you do not know who Judith Curry is. Not good for someone who wants to participate in the debate.
      Here is a pro tip, scroll up until you find the WUWT blog list. Under the section Lukewarmers, you will find her name. Click the link, it takes you right to her own blog. There are lots of links, and many references. Included is a catalog of all her publications.
      Enjoy!

    • … not being a publicist or a venue manager, I don’t think Neil would take the time to talk to her.

      (have you any idea of his fee range?)

  60. What public figures say about global warming has almost nothing to do with science or what they really believe. What would happen if Tyson and Bill Nye admitted global warming is not a problem? They go from being high paid rock stars to disgraced nobodys. They are entrenched in their positions economically. I don’t think Tyson believes Global warming is a problem, but his high income and lavish lifestyle depends on him staying popular, and his popularity would take a big hit if he said what he really thinks. The amount of public speaking fees Tyson would lose if he said what he really thinks is enormous and he knows it. In global warming the bad guy is Big Oil, so saying you don’t think Global warming is a problem is seen by most as defending Big Oil, and it is digging your own grave as a popular public figure.
    The whole discussion about climate models being wrong, measurements don’t support the alarmist rhetoric, they don’t care. They want the skeptics to shut up because climate skeptics are spilling the beans to the public on the baloney behind the nice cash flow they have set up.
    I think Tyson must hate himself because he knows when he looks in the mirror he sees a guy who has sold out his scientific principles to maintain his cash flow.

  61. I don’t share the the view that Tyson is a credible science popularizer, when he is wrong too many times on basic science,here is an incomplete list of errors he has made:

    Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson

    http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html

    ===================================

    He has been caught other times for his simple errors that would be easy to avoid if he did his research more carefully:

    Scientists Who Are Actually Really Stupid: #1, Neil deGrasse Tyson

    “Social justice-inspired grievance culture has flavoured much of Tyson’s output during his media career. Indeed, some observers say he’s more left-wing propagandist than rigorous thinker these days. His reboot of Cosmos, for instance, was saturated with progressive garbage designed to appeal to liberal-minded students and lefty geeks.

    The problem is, every time Tyson plays to this crowd, he has to get his facts wrong to make the argument work. Take his gushing tribute to Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake. None of the details are correct. Bruno wasn’t a scientist: he was a cult leader who dined out on wild conjecture and guesswork.

    Elsewhere in Cosmos, Tyson makes other serious errors. I say “errors” but for a man of his ostensible erudition you do have to wonder how these mistakes and bizarre claims keep creeping in. He says Venus is suffering from global warming, for instance. And I think we can live without the televisual trope of space ships making sound in space — unless Tyson is claiming no more astrophysical literacy than an episode of Star Trek.

    Because he has given up on the scientific method in favour of progressive politics, Tyson has jettisoned fairness and fact in favour of slipperiness and propaganda: he is caught again and again repeating quotes that he appears to have simply made up, or which at a bare minimum are stripped of essential context or provenance. He shows no interest in correcting the record or addressing these mistakes — we’ll be diplomatic and call them mistakes — which does rather cast doubt on his entire benevolent genius schtick, don’t you think?”

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/

    =====================================

    He doesn’t excite me as someone I should listen too as he is a pompous blowhard with an ideology to push on everyone else who isn’t a leftist.

    There are plenty more about this error prone leftist,nerdy,snobbish gasbag,to read about,here is a google link to browse through:

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Neil+Degrasse+Tyson+errors

    • Hey SST –

      Sunsettommy April 21, 2017 at 4:05 pm
      “I don’t share the the view that Tyson is a credible science popularizer,…”

      How about this?:

      “I share the view that Tyson is an incredible science polarizer…”

      /grin

      [Or, “uncredible science polarizer”? .mod]

  62. Ugh… I saw a post where he argued about the coefficient of friction cannot be greater than 1 and therefore a NASCAR could only hit a certain speed around a corner limited to 1 g force at a given radius. I explained to him that observation always trumps hypothesis or theory… and that a car tire can pull well over 1 g. I explained that tire rubber is soft on race tires especially and that they interlock with the grains of the road surface to allow such speeds. But that regardless of the reason, NASCARs are clocked to go faster than he said was possible… so he was wrong to keep arguing and “sticking to his guns”.
    He never responded to being schooled. His loss.

  63. So wonderful to read the comments of all the conservative, white, old men on this website!

    You will not find a more pathetic and hopeless group of humans anywhere on this (warming due to mankind) planet.

    Speaking of different views, I’m betting my comment doesn’t even make it (my last one didn’t ) because y’all like to live in a bubble echo chamber.

    That begins with Mr. Watts himself. He thinks science is a democratic process and having a “difference if opinion” can disprove things that none of us has the equipment to disprove.

    Is the sun 93 million miles away? I say it’s only 50,000 miles away! Scientists are lying for political reasons! They just want more funding! Someone prove me wrong!! I just happen to have a different view! And on and on it goes….

    Don’t you guys ever get tired? I’m sure at some level you know how silly you all sound, but are just too egotistical to admit it. How do I know this? Well, people who are sincere in their beliefs are usually very humble and kind – like Mr. Tyson. Based on the vile comments here, that is the opposite of what people here are. You see, the truth hurts. And people who read and believe Mr.Watts are deeply, psychologically hurt people. The type of people who NEVER admit they are wrong. The type of people who double or triple down when faced with overwhelming evidence they are wrong.

    So, I have just one question for all the “science minded” people on this site:

    Explain to me how and why the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 has changed over the past 60-100 years.

    • LOl What overwhelming evidence?

      No warming for over eighteen years, contradicting and falsifying the the CAGW CO2 driven propaganda — aka “the cause”..

      You don’t have to be old or white to understand this. And BTW Hansen, Jones. Mann, Schmidt, Trenbrith etc. are old and white LMAO.

      The fact that you have to inject race into this shows how utterly pathetic you are. And the fact you threatened Anthony with violence shows how completely deranged you truly are.

      Get mental help. Seriously.

      • PS When did Hansen, Jones. Mann, Schmidt, Trenbrith ever admit ever admit when they were wrong, when clearly they were?

        Phil Jones conspired to dodge FOIA requests because he knew was wrong and his “science” wouldn’t hold up to intelligent, intellectual scrutiny.

    • Presumably because, for some reason yet to be determined, the ratio of C13 ton C12 drops when the Earth is warming.
      My current view on the issue is that warmer surface waters contain a less energetic ocean biosphere (cool La Nina conditions show a more active ocean biosphere)so that the impact of the C12 preference in photosynthesis declines such that the impact of that preference weakens and the amount of C12 rises relative to C13 and the C13 ratio with C12 then falls, as observed.

    • Scorpion,

      1) The Carbonari are also mostly old, white men, motivated by career and ideology.

      2) Lots of commenters here are women, young men and non-white.

      3) The US elected a president and congress dominated by climate skeptics. This didn’t happen without support for climate realism by young, female and minority voters. White males over 45 constitute about a sixth of the voting-age population, but maybe a bit more of the actual electorate, given low turnout among the young.

      4) All you have is appeal to “consensus” authority, which has repeatedly failed throughout the history of science.

      5) Even if the 12C/13C ratio were indicative of a human fingerprint, it doesn’t matter. There is no evidence that human-derived CO2, whether 12 ppm or 120 ppm, has had any effect on global climate. It has however greened the earth.

    • Sad. Scorpion’s whole purpose seems to be to denigrate WUWT and those who post here. Personal attacks are not scientific discussion. You know you are winning the argument when this is all the other side can muster.

    • BWAHAHAHAHJAHAHAHAHA!!!

      your loudmouth rant has no sting in it. Zero evidence,Zero facts and ZERO science whatsoever!

      You pushed the following leftist markers,that tell me about who you really are as a person:

      Partisan
      Unprovoked insults
      Fallacies
      Racist
      Condescending
      Stupid
      Personal attacks

      Meanwhile your following statement is dumb,since no one here disputes the Suns distance:

      “Is the sun 93 million miles away? I say it’s only 50,000 miles away! Scientists are lying for political reasons! They just want more funding! Someone prove me wrong!! I just happen to have a different view! And on and on it goes….”

      Know what Strawman fallacy is?

      More of your statement:

      “Don’t you guys ever get tired? I’m sure at some level you know how silly you all sound, but are just too egotistical to admit it. How do I know this? Well, people who are sincere in their beliefs are usually very humble and kind – like Mr. Tyson. Based on the vile comments here, that is the opposite of what people here are.”

      I posted examples of his many basic errors,errors that would have been avoided quite easily if Tyson was more attentive to research. Tyson is a proven careless partisan hack,who has been caught making too many embarrassing science based errors, to be a credible source on anything.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/21/i-love-neil-degrasse-tyson-but-he-is-wrong-on-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2481973

      “You see, the truth hurts…”

      LOL

      It is YOU who is ignorant on what a pompous man he who makes waaay too many simple science errors, to take him seriously as a science presenter. Carl Sagan was so gosh darn much better at it,in the original Cosmos series.

      Scorpion finished his completely evidence free rant with an irrational flourish:

      “And people who read and believe Mr.Watts are deeply, psychologically hurt people. The type of people who NEVER admit they are wrong. The type of people who double or triple down when faced with overwhelming evidence they are wrong.”

      Really, where is the evidence fella, oh you never presented ANY evidence in your entire rant, in the first place. That is why many here think you are full of crap,since you came here with NO INTENTION of providing cogent counterpoints to anyone here or to the post. You are here because you are a lost boy wondering why millions of people stopped accepting your kind of anti science behavior,so you attack few a here to make yourself feel better,which of course is a hallmark of immaturity.

      “So, I have just one question for all the “science minded” people on this site:”

      A number who are real scientists who dares to make civil respectful comments,even when arguing over the topic,YOU didn’t even try,don’t even care what people here really think, since you make clear from the start that you are a close minded jackass,NO INTENTION to have a reasonable debate with anyone here,you made that clear from the start.

      “So wonderful to read the comments of all the conservative, white, old men on this website!

      You will not find a more pathetic and hopeless group of humans anywhere on this (warming due to mankind) planet.

      Speaking of different views, I’m betting my comment doesn’t even make it (my last one didn’t ) because y’all like to live in a bubble echo chamber.”

      You are nothing but a loudmouthed jerk.

      • “conservative, white, old men.” Yep, I’m 3 for 3 here. Although at 68 I don’t really consider myself old yet. I’d accept older. But, my experience of 40 years in experimental aerospace, together with an MS in Aero Engrg, allows me to make some judgments in scientific research. The climate models are just basically computational fluid dynamics simulations, and while I wasn’t a CFDist, but I know that garbage in is garbage out. A skilled CFDist can get pretty much the solution he wants. A few years ago, a Formula 1 team designed a car entirely via CFD with no wind tunnel testing and ran out of gas before the end of the race. The initial conditions greatly influence the result.

    • First sentence – conclusion without data (we are white and conservative).

      As for the rest, I must express bafflement. To paraphrase you, we are all too stupid to understand the science of experimental data, so we must just accept what other scientists are telling us. Well, I for one, am a scientist, and I profoundly disagree with that statement – I feel I am well qualified to judge the work of other scientists. I can and do examine the data critically, and find it less than fully persuasive. That is how science works. Blind acceptance is more akin to religion.

      I am frequently, often, wrong about all sorts of things. So? I have little in the way of ego that must be protected.

      Your last sentence – the ratio has changed because additional carbon dioxide has been added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel sources. I am not aware that there is a large contingent disputing that fact. I am also not aware that constitutes proof of anthropogenic global warming hypotheses, seeing as they rely not solely on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere (which would account for only a small percentage of the warming observed), but on an almost mystical belief in a high level of climate sensitivity, which is an entirely unrelated, unlikely, and so far, unproven theory. In fact, this is why many scientists in opposition to your pet theory describe themselves as “Luke warmers”, which means they acknowledge some warming from the additional carbon dioxide concentrations, but that such warming will be limited and relatively small.

      It is hard to take you seriously when you obviously don’t even understand the theory you so ardently believe support.

  64. Donna, this is n excellent blog post. You articulated what I’ve been thinking on this topic better than I ever could have, my thanks.

  65. I have always appreciated the way people will discuss things here at WUWT, for the most part, with civility and the desire to give constructive feedback, which is exactly why I wanted when I submitted my article. I just happened to see this video and felt a need to express my frustration at Tyson’s inappropriate comment. One thing is very clear, you guys really don’t like Tyson. That’s ok. You have given me much to ponder. Thanks again for your help.

    • Rather than “like” and “don’t like” I would prefer “agree” and “don’t agree”. I find Dr. Tyson amiable, lively, entertaining, and interesting, despite not agreeing with him on a variety of issues. I have little doubt I would like him if I met him in person. I’d happily buy him a beer.

      My objection is not to Dr. Tyson per se, but the endless elevation of him and his opinions by others.

      There really does appear to be a cult of science these days. Groups of people who claim to love science…and yet most of them understand very little actual science. They worship and elevate scientific mediocrities, as long as those mediocrities confirm their preferred world view. I think it is no coincidence that the people they love and worship most of all tend to be the lower tier of credentialed people in their area of expertise.

  66. Good that you realized that Neil deGeasso Tyson has no scientific backing for his pro-warming stand. He has science degrees from Harvard and from Columbia which ought to prepare him to understand what is and what is not true in climate science. Except that these universities like many others have also have probably been taken over by global warming activists. I find this same problem with a number of scientific societies. The list of organizations I saw was more than half a page long and included societies that I belonged to at the time.The alarmists have successfully taken over their leadership and announce policies that the membership has never been consulted about. One particular act that sticks to mind is in this subject was the co-operation of the heads of US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society when they jointly declared their support for the global warming theory. When these “leaders” of the scientific community announce their support aqbout doctrines they like,say AGW, they do not ask the opinion of the membership. They take ir upon themselves to speak for the membership whose opinions are never consulted or known. These are just illegitimate way of supporting the non-existent global warming they want to promote. They make it hard but not impossible for people like Donna Hedley to discover the truth about warming.

    • Have you considered as an alternative to all the respected scientific organizations and universities being hijacked by “alarmists”, that maybe you’ve been decieved? Maybe all these pet theories are never submitted for peer review because they don’t​ hold up under scrutiny?

      • whereismy coffee April 22 2017

        Glad you mentioned peer review, coffee. They don;t need peer review to publish – they have buddy review as Climategate makes abundantly clear. And plenty of money to run multi-million-dollar supercomputers that in 29 years of trying still have failed to produce one believable climate forecast, That all started with James Hansen when he presented three climate predictions, A, B. and C, to the senate committee in 1988. It is impossible ti check his B and C predictions because he monkeyed with the environment for them. But his prediction A was business as usual, meaning no interference to change the outcome. He calculated it out for each year from 1988 to 2019. It was easy to compare his calculated values with what actually happened and what happened was a big round zero for his predictions. His theoretical temperature currve was nowhere close to the real temperatures, starting with his year one. If you are a scientist and you see that your apparatus is malfunctioning you stop using it. That is what should have been done with climate models, but no — they kept on running the faulty machine for the next 29 years despite its failure to produce any believable climate prediction during this time. That is a total waste off public resources but useful for presenting a false picture of climate to politicians. They have money to disperse from the public purse because if they don’t do it, or so they are told, the world will burn up as the forecasts prove.

  67. He has the same problem ultimately the Carl Sagan had. Science is worshiped for the good it does, but they both don’t realize or fail to address that science itself can become the problem, it can go down the wrong path, it can be hijacked for other purposes, it sometimes makes grave errors.

    • To follow up the above, Sagan often struggled to understand why the science of the Greeks and in the ancient world declined, why he said, didn’t the ancient Greeks go on to land on the moon?

      Part of the answer is that the ancient scientists of the Grecian-Roman age began to act like an elite, exploiting the system for their own ends. They failed to continue to conduct research and decided to focus on pure thought and reason instead, actually abandoning and discrediting the use of the senses as ‘unreliable’, and to a large extent misleading. They preferred ‘models’, and these ‘models’ tended to benefit the status quo.

      They looked down on the use of the ‘hand’ for example, as it was seen to be associated with the lower slave classes, manual labour and ‘physical’ things were seen as inferior, and this included physical and sense-related research, in a very real sense. This sort of thinking was an outcome of the social inequality and the slave society in which they existed. Basic science was undermined by an elitist mindset which preferred models and ideas to physical reality, and that tended to benefit themselves. So their ‘science’ declined. There are some parallels today.

      • Sagan labored under the false impression that cuneiform writing was chiseled into ceramics rather than being pressed into wet clay, then fired.

        Aside from living in slave societies, the classical world lacked incentives for technological innovation. They had enough wood for their needs, for instance, unlike Europeans 1500 years later, who had to turn to coal. Their transport was mostly by slow oxen, lacking as they did horse collars. Their chemistry was bound to remain underdeveloped, since gunpowder hadn’t been invented yet. They similarly lacked lenses for microscopy and telescopes. Their system of arithmetic was clumsy.

        In some areas, however, they came close. They understood the power of steam, but never put it to industrial use, again possibly because of abundant slave labor. Invention of the steam engine perhaps also needs the example of the cannon and the metalworking techniques artillery requires. The Romans at least did invent concrete.

    • French taunting…

      Interesting day tomorrow (Sunday) in France. Will we see a Frexit? If so, the Euro and the EU is gone.

  68. I have been studying the output of a climate model which DOES perfectly model the world’s climate, including the myriad of climate variables, both known and unknown. I call this model The Earth. And after 30 years of output, 30 years on non-existent or tepid temperature increases, 30 years of slowing sea level rise, 30 years of ho-hum hurricane activity, 30 years of polar bear increases, and thirty years of failures by other less sophisticated models whose prediction are wrong more than by simply chance would allow, I hereby declare rising CO2 a non-issue.

  69. It is peculiar that one can be in denial of the science without a creditable alternate explaination​ for the remarkable transformation of the environment.
    Deniers are religious in there convictions relying on the unknown. The great barrier Reef , dumbies, gone in 2 or 3 human generations.
    No rocket science here kids, the exploitation of antique, ancient and prehistoric entropy is blasphomy. You may not be able to comprehend this, it’s not your fault, you’re just not sharp enough. And we have not the time to coddle the lesser intellects of the species.
    Religion and democracy have homogenized intellect to the point where the dumbasses, 2/౩ of the population, have drawn us in to a it is my playground way of thinking.
    The playground is for us to nurture not exploit.
    Do you really believe the deniers while make the the genocide cut. We need to thin the herd
    Wake up kids. Your parents have messed things up, primary because of the ease of life afforded to them by intellectual Prophets.

    • Let’s see now, we’ve got Scorpion and his buddies at MIT and Silicon Valley and elsewhere workin’ on their laser, death-ray blaster, i-phone app, that will be sure-fire guaranteed, out-of-the-box ready to zap all us good ol’ white-boy Trumpers and our Russkie allies into crispy-critter, pure-carbon oblivion (Google: “lena dunham white male extinction” for more along these lines).

      And now we also have Scobe’s possibly drug-induced, indiscreet gibberings, which suggest an access to the candid conversations of our betters, of the sort, that is, spoken behind the backs of us coolie-trash, cull-fodder herdling-nobodies.

      And sorting through Scobe’s mutant musings, we can, if we apply a filter, arrive at those core, Pavlovian-reflex convictions, that infect the remnants of Scobe’s brainwashed, front-row-kid, useful-idiot hive-brain:

      PROBLEM: “Democracy and Religion” and the “dumbasses, 2/3 of the population.” (Whew!–only 2/3 of the population, usually the kill-crazy, lefty-pukes of Scobe’s persuasion speak more ambitiously in terms of 90% of the population).

      SOLUTION: “We need to thin the herd” and “Do you really believe the deniers while [will?] survive the the [sic] genocide cut. [sic]” [sicko]

      Have we been warned? Hmm…last century brought us the “Holodomor”, “Tambov Rebellion”, “Great Leap Forward”, “Cambodian Killing Fields”, and many other such population-reduction romps. So I wonder just what the hive has planned as their little “name” for that 21st century walk on the eugenics wild-side, of theirs, that seems to be afoot, even as we speak?

      Regardless, interesting times we live in–especially for those lands that have incautiously embraced gun-control, I would say.

  70. “This is a question that even Bill Nye could not answer.”

    Is this subtle humor or does someone consider Bill Nye to be an eminent authority in something?

    • I’m absolutely sure there’s no question that Bill Nye can’t answer. Whether the answer is backed up by facts and observation is a different issue! :)

    • The former. I lost all respect for Mr. Nye a long time ago. I was referring to his interview with Tucker Carlson.

      • I must say, Bill Nye has certainly gotten impressive mileage out of a B.S in mechanical engineering from Cornell.

  71. Neil doesn’t do that much science. He hasn’t been the lead author of many papers since his 1992 doctoral dissertation. His thing is over simplified pop history and science, often wrong. See Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson.

    But I have to say I agree that politicians should take global warming more seriously. Look at all the major population centers along the coasts. If the sea level rose, it’d be a disaster of biblical proportions. I don’t know if AGW would cause this. But the stakes are so high I would want to err on the side of caution.

    Also there’s a finite supply of fossil carbon fuels. We should be making a more aggressive transition to nuclear and solar energy, insulating our homes, improving energy efficiency of our machines and devices.

  72. I have a very reliable analog solar powered disingenuous BS meter. Built it myself starting in the 60’s. NdGT pegs it.

  73. If you “love” Neil Tyson, and he is wrong about global warming, then what does that say about you?

    Are his looks, or his charisma on TV, or his enthusiasm about science, more important than him being right about global warming, or at least being neutral on the subject?

    You start out in the first paragraph (and title) making yourself sound like a silly girl teenager with a crush on Mr. Tyson … and then present an article we are supposed to take seriously?.

    If Tyson is wrong about global warming, and he is, then then he SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED ABOUT ANY SCIENCE SUBJECT — that would be a logical, unemotional, and typical male response to Mr. Tyson.

    Learn from it.

    Science is no place for emotions and “love” — science is about skepticism, data and logic.

    You try to prove other scientists wrong.

    You stop listening to them when they demonstrate they don’t know what they are talking about.

    I can only imagine what horrible ridicule Tyson would launch at this website if asked to comment about it.

    Tyson is a handsome, bad boy with charisma … and maybe you are so attracted to bad boys you can’t think straight!

    Sorry, I know I have insulted you, but you deserve it — without that first paragraph gushing over Mr. Tyson, your article would have been fine … and consistent.

  74. I agree with him when he says we need to become scientifically literate … maybe Neil should get busy doing that because as far as I can tell he is not …

  75. Whether you like it or not, the climate is experiencing high variability. Call it change or variability; the fact is something is happening and it is not like the population growth and food theory. We are seeing changes everywhere. The variables are diverse but the function of CO2 is evident whether from human sources or not. You should look at imageries across eras and travel more. Maybe vaccines are really also useless today.

  76. I stopped reading after “I am not a scientist”. Then you write “many knowledgeable people who questioned the hypotheses”. Knowledgeable but not climate scientists.

    Surely you don’t talk to your butcher about muscle pains? They are knowledgeable about meat but are not doctors.

  77. There is not one source in this article. You cannot just make claims that there are “hundreds” of studies that support your theory with no credible sources. This is the reason why scientific organizations and talking heads do not acknowledge these dissenting viewpoints. If you want to prove something to a scientist, you have got to have data. This is a constant source of frustration for me when looking at non mainstream news, there seems to be no effort made to show sources for their claims.

    • Donna,

      Thanks for an interesting “civilian’s” take on one of the (to my mind) more effective science propagandists.

      (Pay no attention to the Socially retarded dickheads ; )

  78. I used to disbelieve Anthropological Climate Change. The IPCC is certainly a political organization, not a scientific one.

    The evidence has since convinced me. Honestly, I think if you don’t believe it, you simply haven’t looked at actual facts and data recently (as opposed to the current US Gov. executive administration’s “alternative facts.”)

    With that said, there is a word in Donna’s blog that doesn’t belong there, “Catastrophic.” While there is a well over 99% consensus among scientists that this is happening, there’s NO consensus– not even a simple majority — that this is “catastrophic.” Even Bill Nye doesn’t believe it is catastrophic — on a recent AMA on Reddit, when asked what he thought the “worst case possible” would be if we did nothing about climate change, he said simply that “The quality of life for people everywhere will go down. There will be less food and less clean water available in the developed and the developing world. It’s reasonable that this will lead to conflict: more violence, more war. Here in the super-developed US, people will have to abandon homes in Miami, Galveston, Norfolk, and other coastal towns. It will lead to defaulted mortgages and people looking for jobs inland.” There’s no doom and gloom there; no dire predictions of a barren wasteland. His “worst case scenario” was some economic hardship, and some property loss along coastlines. This is hardly “catastrophic.” Also, keep in mind, many areas will be benefited by Climate Change. Canada and Siberia could double their agricultural capabilities and end up being the breadbaskets of the world. This doesn’t even take into account things like the “greening of the Sahara,” another unpublicized effect of warming temperatures.

    Climate Change is not a doom-and-gloom apocalyptic prophecy, as much as eco-crazies would have you believe. It is, primarily, an economic issue. It cannot be solved with carbon taxes and such. It will require engineering and technology, to either slow it down, or simply find ways to minimize the negative effects. And I’m not worried about it — adversity has always made us advance as a species. The technologies we create to overcome this problem will benefit us in so many other ways. Elon Musk’s push for electric cars is going to have us all with phones that last 3x as long on a single charge within the next decade. Everyone benefits.

    Neil is right – once we understand the facts, we can have political discussions about what to do. I’d be excited about this, but the orange guy in your white house appears determined to push our technology back a century. Coal power? REALLY?

    • Jackie:

      Your comment is a mixed bag.

      No sane person denies that the climate of our planet changes. Even the less than catastrophic events you buy into are unlikely, and/or unrelated to CO2. Humans can’t “stop” or slow down something we don’t even understand. Coal power is essential for the industrialization of Africa. Any attempts to deny that continent access to the same fuels by which every other nation has raised itself into the modern era are immoral. We can help ensure clean burning coal technologies are used, however.

      My feeling is that your current beliefs about the issue put you into Bjorn Lomborg’s corner. If you haven’t seen the documentary “Cool It,” or read any of his writings, I highly recommend you do. He believes in AGW, but makes an irrefutable case for spending our current climate budget much more wisely than we are, and knocking it off with the “humans are a plague upon the earth, which is about to burst into flames” nonsense.

      You should skim through this website also, and read any articles that interest you. Most of the important climate issues are covered repeatedly, even in essays ostensibly about other topics.

      • “You should skim through this website also, and read any articles that interest you. Most of the important climate issues are covered repeatedly, even in essays ostensibly about other topics.”

        Thing is, there’s no category up top there for learning the basics . . this site is geared for people who already know them, for the most part, it seems to me. As the “debate” as portrayed in the corporate mass media becomes less and less trustworthy in the eyes of an awakening general public, I think more and more people will come here wanting to get a better grasp of what is really going on within it.

        I see an empty slot up there, that could be filled with something like~ ‘Watts Light‘ . . that could be a collection of articles geared more for the newbies, to get them up to speed, so they can better understand and appreciate the (to me) incredible collection of more advanced discussions Mr; Watts has amassed here . . and so become independent evaluators, and promulgators, of more realistic understandings of this important but now much confused topic . .

  79. It is difficult for me to see how one cubic foot of CO2 spread across each 2500 cubic feet of atmosphere has any measureable effect on the air temperature. Whatever happens to the heat radiated from the surface of the Earth has to happen in the five or so feet between the Earth’s surface and the temperature measuring devices located around the World. The “essence” of CO2 presently in the atmosphere would seem to have as much effect on temperature as 1/2500th inch thickness of steel would have slowing the speed of a fired bullet. Besides, If CO2 has warmed the atmosphere then where does the CO2 go during the documented pauses in warming that have occurred since World-wide temperature recording began in 1880?

    • William,

      “If CO2 has warmed the atmosphere then where does the CO2 go during the documented pauses in warming that have occurred since World-wide temperature recording began in 1880?”

      It’s not a matter of CO2 going anywhere when warming doesn’t occur . . it’s a matter of slightly less cooling going on all the time, because some of the heat from the Sun gets delayed a bit in leaving. The amount involved in such a delay is a tiny fraction of the total heating the Sun does to the planet all the time (and the cooling that goes on all the time too). Exactly how tiny is the zillion dollar question, so to speak.

      Please bear in mind that the total heating involved is not just the few degrees range we normally experience and talk about, but the heating above absolute zero . . Even Antarctica is toasty compared to the temperature of empty space (−456 F, −270 C) so delaying the fall in temps toward that level, by a tiny amount, can result in a smidgen more warmth all the time.

      “The “essence” of CO2 presently in the atmosphere would seem to have as much effect on temperature as 1/2500th inch thickness of steel would have slowing the speed of a fired bullet.”

      Well, it would slow the bullet a tiny bit . . and that’s all we’re discussing with this “global warming” idea, a tiny bit. Like 450 degrees instead of 449.5 degrees. The CO2 is still there doing it’s itty bitty delay in cooling on a frosty morning, but it’s so small we don’t notice it. It may be so small we’ll never notice it, but it may be enough to eventually effect some things (for better or worse).

      After studying the matter for several years, I conclude that it will mostly be a tiny benefit, on average, with a much greater benefit because plants will “love” the extra CO2 ; )

  80. “It may be enough to eventually effect some things (for better or worse).” But does it? Is it enough to register on the temperature measuring devices in use? What of the apparent pattern to the recorded temperature change in the form of alternating similar or equal length periods of warming and pauses in the warming. I am aware that the CO2 doesn’t go somewhere during the pauses. I was using slight sarcasm as an argument ploy.

    • “Is it enough to register on the temperature measuring devices in use?”

      It might be, but we have no way of knowing what the exact temperature would have been at any particular place at any particular time without the extra CO2 from human emissions . . so it’s not possible to know if it is “registering” any additional heat . .

      “What of the apparent pattern to the recorded temperature change in the form of alternating similar or equal length periods of warming and pauses in the warming.”

      Same problem, we have no way of knowing what temps would have been, since temps are always changing anyway . . the planetary scale system is far too vast and complex to confidently attribute anything to our CO2 emissions . . it’s all about the climate models showing things at this point.

      (“I was using slight sarcasm as an argument ploy.”

      I thought so, but the question is useful for explaining the situation.)

  81. Would it be of value to measure the surface temperature at air temperature measuring sites to determine if changes in surface temperature paralleled changes in air temperature?

      • . . the actual surface is extremely tricky to measure and to account for heat rising from below and so on . . Some experimenting may have been done along the lines you suggest but I haven’t heard of it.

      • Except for the 71% of the earth which is ocean. In that case, “surface” means below the surface.

        GASTA is unscientific GIGO.

  82. When a grown man tells you he believes that it’s possible to suspend ever more refractory insulating media

    between a rock and the firelight that warms it

    and refracting away more and more firelight,
    such that
    less and less gets into that rock

    causing more and more firelight,
    to start leaking back out of it,

    that isn’t humility.

    That isn’t intelligence.

    That is a brainwashed zombie

    barking voodoo.

  83. If the air temperature at the end of a thirty year period is no higher than it was at the beginning of the pause yet CO2 level in the atmosphere increases isn’t that a strong indication that current CO2 levels do not significantly effect the air temperature readings?

    • Significant of course, but inconclusive because again, we can’t know the temps would not have fallen a bit without the “help” of our CO2 contributions.

      Thing is, the normal “burden of proof” involved in scientific claims rests squarely on those making the claim that our CO2 emissions will cause global catastrophe, so those who are skeptical are under no obligation to show anything conclusively (which in this case is virtually impossible) . . the alarmists are, and doubly so with the vast economic and “controlled society” implications involved in treating this as a global crisis.

  84. LoL that’s terrible grammar but the fact is,
    nobody ever
    put more insulation between a fire and sensor
    and made that sensor show more fire leaving,
    than when more fire was arriving.

  85. Perhaps its my science ignorance but the statement “significant of course’ but inconclusive, etc…..” does not make sense to me. I’m also saying its a strong indication not absolute proof.

    • Um, no . . just tricky discussing potential indicators . . in conjunction with detection/measurement/attribution uncertainties and unknowns.

      • (I’m used to alarmist arguments that involve talking points like “Warmest decade since records began”, or “Lowest arctic ice levels ever recorded”, and the like, which essentially treat the planetary system as a simple, steady state affair, such that those things are treated as if “indicators” of global warming.)

      • PS ~ I prolly ought to have said “anthropocentric global warming” or something, in this crazy linguistic Gordian’s knot realm, wherein heaps of “climate scientist’s” failed “predictions” are shrugged off, because the “climate models” the “climate scientists” base the predictions on produce “projections” . . It’s not a lack of scientific anything, just the nature of trying to discuss anything in the wacky world of . . climastrological triple-talk ; )

  86. I’m good with acting on, “‘likely”, considering the consequences of inaction.

    The downside verses upside calculations make it a sensible decision to aggressively ween ourselves from consuming fossil fuels ahead of actually exausting them. It would make sense even if there was only “a chance” of catastrophic global climate change, however it is “likely”, especially if we do nothing.

    Again, it is not the temperature itself but the rapid PACE of change which throws humans and other life on the planet into the chaotic struggle to adapt and survive.

    • “I’m good with acting on, “‘likely”, considering the consequences of inaction.”

      When the one’s demanding (and those who will oversee) this “weening”, and who prophecy those consequences you consider, claim the science is settled?? What would one expect to see if this was at heart a con, to seize power over the “free world”?

      I’d expect just what I’ve seen, rickjohn . . Hurry, hurry, hurry, we must act now . . to spare the most vulnerable . . say the people holding the umpteenth lavish international “conference” to solidify the terms of their own enthronement as our saviors . .

      When the rate of warming has been damn near zero for two decades? ???

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s