Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (see Update at the end)
I had tweeted the following:
Various people either liked or retweeted this, including my mad mate and human lightning rod, James Delingpole. This post started because someone named Robin Whitlock tweeted the following:
Delingpole is a knuckledragger, pure and simple. It’s a wonder his brain hasn’t shrivelled by now, or perhaps it has…
To which I replied:
Ah, schoolboy insults. They make you look so sophisticated and wise.
Sadly, Mr. Whitlock declined the opportunity to actually say what was wrong with James Delingpole’s ideas, and instead said;
Okay, Mr Eschenbach, let’s see how much you actually know about it. Debate CC with me if you dare
Now, I’m always happy to debate climate change, but not in 140-character chunks. So I said:
I’m happy to debate, although I don’t see how I can do so on Twitter. My blog is available. What do you wish to debate?
Of course, nothing is that simple. Before debating the ideas, the charming man has to start with the seemingly obligatory ad hominem arguments about my education, my ancestry, and my general unfitness for human consumption, viz:
Ha, okay, just seen this. That tells me everything for a start: You’re a ‘professional’ climate change denier
A “professional climate change denier”? If so, where’s my dang paycheck? I am an amateur scientist, and proud of it. I’m one of the few amateur scientists to have anything peer-reviewed published in Nature Magazine. It was only a “Brief Communications Arising”, but it was solidly peer-reviewed. In addition, at present, I have more than sixty citations to my publications in the scientific journals … not bad for a self-taught man with absolutely no scientific education.
He followed this with:
Construction Manager and former Accounts Manager. That is, not a climate scientist.
This scientifically challenged person thinks that reading a very slanted bio written by my enemies tells him “everything” about the scientific validity of my claims … yeah, that’s the ticket. No need to debate the issues, just accuse your opponent of being unqualified … amazingly, this good fellow actually seems to think this makes the slightest difference as to whether my scientific claims are true.
He then goes on to a series of tweets, which I’ve condensed into one for easy reading:
So, let’s go on to some of the statements mentioned here. First, the “eight tenths of a degree” statement. That’s being way too optimistic. Even 2 deg C is probably too optimistic. Most climate science says we’re heading in the direction of 4 or even 6 degrees C. Furthermore, at 2 degrees C, melting permafrost releases methane into the atmosphere, which is even more dangerous than CO2.
I also see that you draw on climategate again, when the scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by several investigations. You say that greenland has only lost a small fraction of it’s total ice mass but the evidence indicates that Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating and will contribute to sea level rise in the order of metres over the next few centuries.
OK … let’s take that one at a time. First, I have no idea which “eight tenths of a degree” he’s talking about. Apparently, he’s talking about some claimed warming by 2100, but from memory, I’ve never claimed that it would be 0.8°C. I’m not sure what I’m missing here …
He then says regarding Climategate that “the scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by several investigations.” Because I was actually discussed in the Climategate emails, which revealed that the people at UEA lied to my face, I can assure you that the whitewashes that were done were pathetic imitations of a real investigation. In fact, the Brits said that the only reason that criminal charges weren’t laid because of their lies was that the statute of limitations had expired. And Acton’s “investigation” of the actions of Briffa and Jones never interviewed either one of them … investigations? Don’t make me laugh. See Steve McIntyre’s excellent blog for dozens of well-informed and researched articles on the subject. I fear Mr. Whitlock is far out of his depth on this one, as both Steve and I were involved in the actual event.
He next claims, without attribution or citation, that “most climate science” (whatever that might be) says we’ll warm by “4 or even 6 degrees C“. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find folks other than wild alarmists who make that claim, so I’d be interested in his sources.
Finally, he says that if the arctic warms by 2°C it will somehow release huge amounts of methane … again, this is not scientifically supported. Instead, it is based on … wait for it … climate models:
The new study found the rate of old carbon released during the past 60 years to be relatively small. Model projections conducted by other studies expect much higher carbon release rates—from 100 to 900 times greater—for its release during the upcoming 90 years. This suggests that current rates are still well below what may lay ahead in the future of a warmer Arctic.
This is typical of all of the claimed dangers of CO2. We have computer models, we have lots of alarmist claims, we have failed sequential doom-casting, in the above quote we have “this suggests” and the other usual weasel words, “might happen” and “could lead to” and the like … but what we don’t have is any evidence that anything out of the ordinary is happening. Yes, people say that we’ll get a ten foot sea level rise by 2100 … but there is no sign of acceleration in the rate of rise despite the warming of the last three centuries.. Similarly, people say we’ll get mega-methane from arctic warming, but actual studies show no such increase happening despite the warming of the last three centuries. The bizarre truth is that we are studying a claimed phenomenon (increased warming due to humans) when we have no actual evidence that anything out of the ordinary is occurring. No unusual warming. No increase in extreme events. No increase in rainfall. No change in sea level rise. No increase in methane. If Mr. Whitlock has any such evidence, I hope he produces it.
Finally, in general the claimed sensitivity of the earth to CO2 has been falling. It used to be 3°C per doubling, then 2°C per doubling, and now it’s about 1°C per doubling. Given the claimed future increases in CO2 (which may never come to pass), this pretty much rules out his four to six degree C warming scenario.
==============================================
But enough of what passes for a debate on Mr. Whitlock’s planet. Here’s the part that drives me nuts in discussions like this:
• Nobody knows why the globe was generally warmer in Roman times
• Nobody knows why the globe generally cooled after Roman times
• Nobody knows why the globe generally warmed up again in Medieval times
• Nobody knows why the globe greatly cooled after Medieval times, leading to the “Little Ice Age” in the 1600s/1700s.
• Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t descend into a real Ice Age.
• Nobody knows why the earth started generally warming at about 0.5°C per century since the Little Ice Age.
• Nobody knows why this warming continued through the 20th century.
• Nobody knows whether the ~ 0.5°C warming of the 21st century is 100% natural and just a continuance of the warming of previous two centuries, or whether some or all of of the warming is due to humans.
• Nobody knows why there has been a two-decade “hiatus” in the ongoing three centuries of warming.
Given our total inability to understand or explain the climate of the past, the idea that a Tinkertoy computer model of the climate can tell us what will happen in the next hundred years is … well … let me describe that claim as “extraordinarily optimistic” rather than say “stunningly foolish” …
I’ve invited Mr. Whitlock to continue the discussion here, to avoid the 140-character limit. Let’s see if he is man enough to step up to the plate.
If he does, please keep the ad hominems not just down but out. This place is, or should be, about debating the science and not debating the man or woman behind the science.
Best regards to all, including Mr. Whitlock,
w.
PS—When you comment please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING, so we can all be clear on both your subject and who you are addressing.
[UPDATE]
I assume I’m supposed to be frightened … but in fact I’m mystified. I ask why, despite his bluster, he hasn’t shown up to debate. He replies that he won’t tell me how he is “deploying his forces”.
Say what?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robin Whitlock reminds me of Davd Appell.
For that matter any of the rest. They’re all the same.
Their idea of debate is to continually make claims of immense certainty and substantiation while avoiding debate, declaring victory and maligning the opposition for having not understood the evidence it or recognizing defeat.
No, Appell is a candle in dark compared to this lump of coal. I seldom see such a multisyllabic ad hominem as mr. dicklock did. Twit.
Actually, yes. I tangled with Appell once ‘recently’ over at Judith Curry’s concerning Greenland ice mass balance. He thought was still losing when I said had recently stabilized to no net loss. Was on one of my several SLR posts there. He challenged my sources. i sent him to the annual ‘official’ NSIDC Greenland ice summaries for 2014 and 2015. For some strange reason, he never got back…
C/AGW is a religion.
Debate is futile.
Only properly vetted ‘ Climate Scientists ‘ who have proven that no data can’t be altered or twisted to conform to the orthodox view that humans are destroying the earth are allowed to speak of such things. ( you can them by their white lab coats, raised voices, and rants about others are not quite human) Those that oppose these views are heretics, committing crimes against humanity The time honored way of proving that you are right in a religion is to cite chapter and verse, replaced with cut and paste from the annals and cannon of the new prophets of doom. SCIENCE forbid there is conflicting evidence to the all powerful molecule co2. It is capable of all things evil and mysterious. All say, 97 % Consensus!
” Looking forward to your objective rebuttals. .” [ Objective, from C/AGW? You’re kidding right?] The SCIENCE is settled. What part of settled don’t you understand? (sarc)
I agree, the debate is not getting us anywhere. We need a different approach. I suggest concentrating on repeatable scientific experiments.
-Nobody knows why the globe was generally warmer in Roman times
The ;globe’ was not generally warmer, the North Atlantic was generally warmer due to Atlantic Meridional Oscillation driven by a negative PDO during that period. you are conflating Greenland ice core temperatures for ‘global’
-Nobody knows why the globe generally cooled after Roman times
see above
-Nobody knows why the globe generally warmed up again in Medieval times
same as above
-Nobody knows why the globe greatly cooled after Medieval times, leading to the “Little Ice Age” in the 1600s/1700s.
same as above (wow you really need some more deceptive talking points!)
-Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t descend into a real Ice Age.
The little ice age was cause by multiple major volcanic eruptions these sulfate layers are found in ice core samples in BOTH Greenland and Antarctica. Also, early anthropogenic agriculture is now known to be a significant factor in preventing a return to a real ice age that would have otherwise started around 2,000 B.C.
-Nobody knows why the earth started generally warming at about 0.5°C per century since the Little Ice Age
Volcanic impacts on global cooling wear off on decadal time scales Also increase population growth and westward expansion increased early pre-industrial CO2 emissions
-Nobody knows why this warming continued through the 20th century.
This warming has accelerated greatly since the advent of the industrial revolution, the production of massive volumes of sulphur dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere from coal has contributed significant cooling effects and is currently offsetting about 1/2 of the total warming potential of greenhouse gasses.
-Nobody knows whether the ~ 0.5°C warming of the 21st century is 100% natural and just a continuance of the warming of previous two centuries, or whether some or all of of the warming is due to humans.
Wrong, the models cant definitely state that early warming is caused by humans because they underestimate the impacts of GHG warming AND SO2 cooling. This has been proven recently as the pacific shifts into a strong positive +PDO (another El Nino coming this year).
-Nobody knows why there has been a two-decade “hiatus” in the ongoing three centuries of warming.
Similar cooling effects happened after WWII when the post-war industrial expansion occurred, with a resumption of warming that happened when the clean air acts were passed in both Europe and the U.S. Similarly the expansion of Chinese air pollution directly cooled the pacific leading to a strong negative PDO.
— you should really stop referring to yourself as a ‘nobody’ it just ain’t healthy
Hadn’t seen you here much in the last couple of years, now I see why.
jai mitchell
Do you believe that the climate has ever changed without human activity forcing?
Do you believe in the garden of Eden?
jai mitchell
Dead wrong. Deliberately dead wrong – You are repeating (again) the propaganda as told by those whose income and reputation are built on maintaining their government funding stream by promoting the CAGW myth.
Evidence for the Medieval Warming period is found across ALL continents, in ALL environment types, under ALL oceans and seas, and by dozens of different proxies in hundreds of different studies by hundreds of different institutions worldwide. (The only “study” that cannot find the MWP used one tree in one forest in Yamal written up by one (prejudiced) fund-seeker. )
Climate reconstructions of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ 900-1200 AD
Umm – this link takes me to Google maps (?)
Try clicking on the map in Pierre’s article.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/12/23/new-comprehensive-map-by-scientists-confirms-medieval-warm-period-was-real-and-global-climate-models-faulty/#sthash.t0I5lEnc.dpbs
Thanks a million! That’s great.
The few sites showing cooling during the MWP and warming during the LIA are instructive.
This will save me the trouble of presenting studies from each continent and ocean every time this particular lie gets bruited.
Increasing atmospheric SO2 would dampen a warming trend whatever the cause.
Compared to pre-WW2 CO2 emissions from human activity were insignificant and cannot explain the GAT trend before ~1945:
Oops, editing problem:
“Pre-WW2 CO2 emissions …”.
World population has increased over threefold since 1945, while wealth has gained even more than carbon emissions (perhaps tenfold for GDP to sixfold for carbon).
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/05/worldgdpregion_3.gif
Per capita GDP growth about threefold, times ~3.3x for population.
Jai these are old ball claims especially the really odd ball claim that paleoclimatic record is only basic on ice cores from greenland, and not ice cores in Antarctica.
OK the tally so far in Whitlock’s glorious battle:
Total posts on Willis’ blog version of the debate: 296 and counting …
Total posts on Whitlock’s blog rant: 0 and counting …
A day and a half later, he has 4 comments … one anonymous mocking him, three by Whitlock himself.
Willis = 540 comments.
Whitlock is debating himself. Nobody else is. Is it too early to call the winner of the debate?
” to have anything peer-reviewed published in Nature Magazine.”
..
Here we go again, you had a “comment” published in Nature’s Brief Communications Arising. It wasn’t original research, it was a “comment” about this: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6950/full/nature01833.html
…
Note: “Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors. If the submission only serves to identify an important error in the published paper, it is published in the form of a clarification statement (corrigendum or retraction, for example) by the Nature authors (see section 7). ” http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/commsarising.html
.
.
Your “thing” that was published was a comment. When you leave out the fact it was a “comment” that was published, you are not being honest.
David,
Willis’ comment was indeed a BCA, hence in some sense peer-reviewed, as per your own note. the link you provided indeed labels it as such.
Yes Chimp, it was a peer-reviewed comment. The reply from the authors of the original paper is noteworthy: http://www.africamuseum.be/publication_docs/O%20Reilly_et_al_2004b.pdf
David Dirkse April 29, 2017 at 2:36 pm
You nasty little man, only quoting part of my statement. What I actually said was:
I made no attempt to maximize it. To the contrary, I said it was “only” a Brief Communications Arising”. No, it’s not a “comment”. What you posted above is a comment. What I wrote was a peer-reviewed independent analysis of the data which came to a different conclusion.
What I said above is a TRUE STATEMENT, and your attempt to belittle it speaks volumes about the bleakness of your spirit. Get back to us when you publish something peer-reviewed in Nature and we’ll talk about it further. Until then, re-read Aesop’s fable about the fox and the grapes.
w.
David Dirkse:
You say
I have no objection to the release of any of the emails from me that were leaked as part of Climategate (I wonder why you think they were “stolen”).
I refer you to my submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee. In light of where we are writing, I point out that it begins
My submission to the Select Committee “interpreted” nothing: it reported what an email from me was about.
The Select Committee recorded no discussion of the submission despite the importance of the matter it reported and the 18 signatories to the submission’s Appendix B. You claim to know about the Select Committee inquiry so perhaps you are willing to tell me why that inquiry turned a blind eye to my submission? I really want to know.
Richard
David,
It was a comment which qualified as a Brief Communication Arising, so was indeed peer-reviewed, just as Willis said. He never claimed otherwise, that I have seen.
Yes Chimp, in Willis’ case it’s peer-review, all others are considered “pal-review”
It’s only pal review when you’re reviewed by a pal, as is the case with so-called “climate science”.
Tell me Chimp, is it peer review or pal review when it’s double-blind?
When it’s the Team, they don’t need to know which one of their mates drivel it is. As long as it’s on message, it passes review.
See Climategate emails for how it works.
Chimp, you can get anything published, especially in “boutique” journals. (just pay the fee) Or, if the editor of the journal leans the right way, you can get your stuff published, like in Energy & Environment.
David,
Have you ever read a skeptical paper in, say, Nature Climate Change?
Climategate emails:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html#ixzz4fgPHvlrk
“In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to “rid themselves of this troublesome editor”-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II’s knights. Michael Mann replies:
“I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
“Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in “legitimate peer-reviewed journals.” But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not “legitimate.”
“You can also see from these e-mails the scientists’ panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, “It’s one thing to lose Climate Research. We can’t afford to lose GRL.” Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” That’s exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there.”
“Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that “All of them know the sorts of things to say…without any prompting.””
David,
Reply lost in cyberspace again. Apologies if it reemerges in our neck of spacetime. Short version:
Have you ever read a skeptical paper in, say, Nature Climate Change?
Please see paragraphs on editors and journals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
Chimp, linking to a site that focuses on politics and polling is not they way you distinguish between “peer” and “pal” review. But, I will admit, that if you cherry pick certain phrases out of a batch of stolen emails, you could prove that Trump owns the Brooklyn Bridge, having bought it from George Soros. Got any reputable data on this topic?
David,
The source doesn’t matter. The author quotes the emails. My comment with them in it was not permitted.
What the emails make clear is what everyone already knew, ie that the whole CACA scheme is corrupt, antiscientific political activism and careerism, not even remotely disinterested science.
The source most certainly matters, you are quoting from stolen property. Secondly, the only thing the emails make clear is what you are INTERPRETING them to make clear. If it’s corrupt, when will the arrests for fraud start happening? I seem to remember that several investigations were brought about concerning the emails, and even the House of Parliament investigated. Tell me did the investigations find anything amiss?
David,
Unless you consider the Team’s own words as disreputable.
Which of course, they are.
David Dirkse:
You wrote
I am a member of the Editorial Board of Energy & Environment (E&E) so I can and do refute your untrue smear absolutely.
E&E provides very proper peer review and, for example, Willis Essenbach is on record as saying on WUWT that he experienced more severe review from E&E than from Nature when he published in those journals.
Richard
This appeared in the wrong place so I am copying it to here, Richard.
David Dirkse:
You say
I have no objection to the release of any of the emails from me that were leaked as part of Climategate (I wonder why you think they were “stolen”).
I refer you to my submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee. In light of where we are writing, I point out that it begins
My submission to the Select Committee “interpreted” nothing: it reported what an email from me was about.
The Select Committee recorded no discussion of the submission despite the importance of the matter it reported and the 18 signatories to the submission’s Appendix B. You claim to know about the Select Committee inquiry so perhaps you are willing to tell me why that inquiry turned a blind eye to my submission? I really want to know.
Richard
“a batch of stolen emails”
There are literally dozens of things wrong with the current theories relating to the greenhouse effect and AGW. Many have been pointed out here and in other threads. We see them over and over again but due to a lack of proper repeatable scientific experiments, particularly laboratory experiments, the arguments/debates continue. How about trying some real science and getting your lab coats a bit dirty?
Let us start from the beginning and get the understanding of how the sun warms the earth’s surface correct before we consider the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. How does the earth become a relatively warm +15C as opposed to a cold -18C ? Let’s test our theories experimentally.
When we have done some good experiments, and a few others have repeated them, then I think that is a useful time to have a debate about the results and what they mean.
And to start off (just for practice if you like) how about debating those nice experiments which R.Graeff HAS ALREADY DONE concerning Loschmidt’s theory of a gravity induced temperature gradient in the earth’s atmosphere ?
R. Whitlock has simply been trying to drive traffic to his blog. A quick look through some of his posts, including the ‘Battle of the Blogs’ post, revealed that none had any comments what so ever. Definitely an echo chamber.
No friends to drive his count up?
Sad.
My comment was either deleted or not permitted.
I’ve accepted one on there this morning. If it was the one about Russia it’s probably yours. A temporary response only from me at the moment as its the weekend and I have other stuff to do, so a fuller response on Tuesday when I am back at my desk. So no I haven’t ignored it.
Robin writes
I dont want to criticize you for “having a life” and enjoying your weekend. That’s completely normal and fully expected…but you’re going to be debating people who dont do “climate 9-5” as part of their job. They do it because they’re genuinely interested and willing to spend their own time researching for personal fulfillment, better awareness and even straight out fun.
Their motivations aren’t financial. There is no “big oil” here.
Keep that in mind.
Robin – I read your rather long diatribe. I wonder what you think a science debate actually is? All I saw from you was argument, admittedly a form of debate, but certainly not a science debate. Supporting a sensitivity claim by asking why various bodies mention it isn’t a science debate, it is argument from authority. Science is not about authority, nor is it about numbers of scientists on any given side of an issue. A guy named Einstein convinced me of same, as did Feynman. My being convinced by either of them is not a scientific argument however.
If you are going to dispute Willis’ claims, stop with the crying about credentials, you just look silly. He SAID he was an amateur, so pointing out that he has no professional credentials is just silly, he already said that. Instead, let’s see an ACTUAL debate about the actual science. He listed several issues, pick one. Sensitivity would be my pick, but that’s just me.
Point being, if you think that sensitivity is as high as you claim, then stop pointing to opinions expressed by one body or another. Point to the SCIENCE upon which those opinions supposedly are based. Which specific papers using which specific data? What does the IPCC AR5 say and why (the actual report, not the silly summary for policy makers which barely resembles the science it is purported to represent)? Is it a fair representation of the data and analysis? Does the SPM fairly represent this?
Data and analysis that can be analyzed and discussed Robin. That’s science. I’ve seen many from Willis, some of which I don’t agree with, many which I do. From you, so far, I’ve seen no science at all.
If ECS were settled science, then there wouldn’t be such a range of derivations and estimates, including even from credentialed, professional “climate scientists”, whatever they are (mostly computer gamers, but a few real, old climatologists have managed to survive, despite their dying off and not being replaced).
?w=768&h=1042
Looks like 12 with best estimate of 2.0 degrees C or below and six above, with Tan an outlier:
Two significant things come out of that. The first being that the newer the study is, the lower the ECS (as a generality). In other words, as time moves on, we have more data and higher CO2 levels, and ECS keeps falling as that process goes along. The other important point is how the IPCC AR5 range spans all the studies. They’ve had to continuously lower the low end of the estimate, grudgingly admitting in AR5 that it could be as low as 1.5 degrees, and twisting themselves in knots to make keeping the high end of the estimates in their projection range, even though there is less and less evidence to support the upper range claimed by Robin.
I hoped Robin would actually show and get into a proper science discussion, but nothing so far. The last point that needs to be made to him is that in AR5, the sensitivity range was established not by models, but by “expert opinion”. They admitted that the models run “too hot”. In other words, they don’t actually have the solid science they claim (else they would not have to toss the models aside in favour of “expert opinion”) and Robin’s appeal to authority dies right there. He can cite all the indirect references he wants, ask why it is mentioned by various organizations, but the ACTUAL science by ACTUAL scientists as documented by the United Nations in the global central repository for climate science under the IPCC, doesn’t ACTUALLY say ANY such thing.
C’mon Robin. Show us some game. You shot your mouth off, let’s see some science from you.
David,
What many don’t realize is that the supposedly “canonical” 3.0 degrees C central value for ECS is nothing but an average of two very rough estimates made in the 1970s. The higher one, 4.0 degrees C per doubling of CO2, was by Jim “Venus Express” Hansen, so should be rejected out of hand on that basis alone. The lower, of 2.0 degrees C, is on the high side, but not unreasonable given the state of knowledge then, ie practically nothing.
The error range guess of 0.5 degrees C was simply made up, by adding that amount to the high “estimate” and subtracting it from the low.
In 1979 American meteorologist Jule Gregory Charney chaired an “ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate” for the National Research Council. The resulting 22-page report, “Carbon dioxide and climate: A scientific assessment”, is one of the earliest assessments of “global warming”. Its main conclusion was: “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ± 1.5°C.”
This estimate of climate sensitivity has remained essentially unchanged for 38 years and counting, despite the squandering of untold wealth on the CACA sc@m. Clearly, the taxpayers of the world are not getting their unit of currency’s worth from the trough-feeding “climate scientist” pigs.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) said that “equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a best estimate value of about 3°C. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations is not as good for those values.” Note the totally unjustified exclusion of the 1.5 to 2.0 degrees range, which is far more likely than 4.0 to 4.5 degrees C.
Since CO2 seems to be the crux of CAGW, I agree that sensitivity should be the main event of the “debate” from Robin. Considering the vast amount of academic papers showing CO2 as having little to no effect, I don’t see this ending well for him.
Okay, call it ‘arguing from authority’ then, or whatever you want. I write drawing on the expertise of real climate scientists using links. I don’t philosophise, lie or cherrypick as most of these guys here do. I am a journalist, not a scientist, so I draw on the expertise of scientists I trust. I don’t do the science myself, because I am not a scientist. Simple concept to grasp really.
Are you a Biased journalist You seem to “trust” only a certain type of science/scientist!
robinwhitlock1966 April 30, 2017 at 12:56 am
I don’t do the science myself, because I am not a scientist.
So, by your own admission, you don’t understand the science. Your whole ability to debate science is predicated upon your ability to quote scientists you trust? Wow. You have no ability to ascertain the truth behind their claims, yet you trust them. You are worshiping on faith, and faith alone, you have no argument to present.
I understand some much of the science. When I read the IPCC reports, and more importantly, the papers upon which the reports rely, they have little to do with what I see in the press from “journalists” such as yourself. It becomes readily apparent that the journalists do not understand what they are reporting on, and now you have admitted publicly to same.
DH, yup. That was a treffer comment.
There is no “two decade hiatus” in the warming of the planet. The rate of warming was slower then projected. Once the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillation was added to the equation the models were very accurate. Deniers take the ball and run with it claiming that this “hiatus” proves the models wrong. In truth it actually validates the models and is another example of how people who still debate the validity of the science by referencing parts of the equation without considering the rest.
Yes, there is, even with a superduper El Nino just past.
Please draw linear regression lines through the satellite and balloon records since 1998, ie two decades. You will find no statistically significant warming. In fact, you can go back farther than 20 years.
The models are worse than worthless Garbage In, Garbage Out exercises in rent-seeking, trough-feeding and bias confirmation.
“Very accurate?” First of all, they’re not, even when estimates of natural climate variability are added-in as a fudge-factor.
Secondly, they fail miserably regionally/continentally. Even if they appear to be accurate on a global temperature scale, arriving at those values is based on garbage. If my model says that 6+5=15 over half of the globe and 8+2=6 on the other half, it’s obviously garbage. But add those halves together, and 6+5+8+2=21, while 15+6=21…hey, it’s “accurate!!!!!”
Beyond that, when the models are generating poor and widely-varying results when it comes to processes like evapotranspiration, cloud formation, etc, that play a major role in temperature and radiative balancing, yet still come close to the same answer on temperature…another tell-tale sign of garbage.
You stink.
John Enns April 29, 2017 at 4:16 pm
Once the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillation was added to the equation the models were very accurate.
What? The models totally missed these things?
So, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, the models are WRONG, because they uhm… MISSED SOME IMPORTANT STUFF, but when you take SOME of the stuff they missed that HAPPENS to make them right while ignoring ALL OTHER STUFF THEY MAY HAVE MISSED AND PRETENDING THERE ISN’T ANYTHING ELSE WRONG, then, THEN! the models are right. For this instant in time.
Robin you paying attention? This is your side getting crushed and you, with all your supposed knowledge, just sit on sidelines saying nothing.
The fact that the models don’t do clouds alone disqualifies them for being taken seriously.
the models don’t do clouds
And they have wildly different values for aerosols. And they have massive error bars. And at least a third of them run so hot that including them in the ensemble is just a joke and serves no other purpose than to drag the average of the ensemble higher. And, and, and…
Where are you ROBIN? Some of us are discussing science here, you can jump in any moment…. don’t let us be an echo chamber Robin. Save us! Engage! Engage!
David,
True. I but scratched the surface of the disqualifying problems with the GCMs.
CACA has not a single leg upon which to stand.
Robin probably doesn’t know that, not having done science, but clearly instinctively knows he can’t win, so shies away.
So, since there “was no hiatus”, when can we expect to see retractions of all the warmest studies that explained why it was happening? I think there were about 50 or 60 of then.
Have you actually looked at the model ensembles? They’re all over the place, high, medium, and low. You could cherry-pick a few models which seemed to perform well, but how do you know it wasn’t an accident? How do you falsify the models you picked which performed well? What about the vast majority of the models which weren’t even close? You would think that if scientists had a good handle on the actual science, a greater number of models would agree with observations. Instead, we continue seeing model ensembles project a wide spectrum of temperatures. Feynman famously said about computers,
There is a computer disease that anybody who works with computers knows about. It’s a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is that you ‘play’ with them!
Dang! Got here ‘late’. Whitlock is a no-show?
And I popped popcorn and cooled a six’er of Killians Red….
Oh well! Guess it’ll have to be a screening of “Cowboys and Aliens” instead!
That’s is a record of what actually happened. It is real, it’s in colour.
From what I see Mr Whitlock appears to be delusional. He thinks he is fighting some war (no doubt played a lot of video games). He thinks he is fighting a battle of good vs. evil and he is a hero for good vanquishing some imagined evil forces. People really shouldn’t reinforce his delusions. He really needs medical care.
When a person has nothing going for him or her in real life, then delusions of grandeur, competence and value rush into the void.
The most memorable debate on this topic in modern history: Peter Hatfield vs “Lord” Monkton, right here at WUWT! Nothing can compare with that!
Yes indeed. Lots was learned that day.
It would be fun to have a re-run now. How is “potholer” these days?
That’s kind of pathetic. Invite us to a debate and then doesn’t show up other than to make a few cracks. Not a good way to start.
Whom you’re talking to.
He’s fired already:
http://robinwhitlock1966.wixsite.com/robin-whitlock
The skeptics aren’t on Mr. Whitlock’s website, they are on the WUWT website. Whitlock was invited to debate on WUWT and he has declined because he knows he can’t win this argument on WUWT. It looks like he is promoting clickbait for his website rather than a debate on climate science.
Bold talk. Then nothing. I’m not impressed.
Willis, you have offered the opportunity to debate with Whitlock and yet he has done nothing but bloviate.
“robinwhitlock1966 April 29, 2017 at 8:53 am
No. But a battle of words and ideas is still battle. I am hardly going to show you my hand before I am ready. I have my ways of doing things.”
When people make statements like this to do “battle” you know they have absolutely nothing to “battle” with, not even words or ideas. As we say in England, he is “all mouth and trousers”!
In Texas they say, “He’s all hat and no cattle”, Patrick. 🙂
R. Whitlock has had numerous articles published over the years, including, in The Ecologist Vol. 29, No. 5, August/September 1999, titled ‘The Trouble With Transmitters.’ The article deals with the health problems associated with mobile phone masts, and the ‘… emerging evidence of long-term risks to public health caused by electro-magnetic fields.’ https://robinwhitlock1966.wordpress.com/the-trouble-with-transmitters-1999/
Sums up R. Whitlock quite succinctly.
I am accepting comments on my blog, non-insulting ones anyway. I’ve posted the first of these already, with a temporary response (It’s the weekend and so I will write a proper response presently). Furthermore, I am going to try to respond to these 400+ comments posted here, but I will do so first on my own blog, my home turf basically, before posting them here. This will take a while, but hey… As for the reasons for not taking part in a live debate here, I suspect virtually none of you are qualified climate scientists. It would be like throwing myself into a melee, which would be pretty dumb, a bit like a character from ‘The Walking Dead’ entering a warehouse full of walkers. So, this debate will be carried out on my terms with me writing from my own blog initially. Don’t like that? Tough, that’s the way it’s going to be.
Hey, Robin since you obviously want to walk away from the debate that you invited, you don’t need all those weasel words and pathetic excuses. Just say you’ve decided not to do it, you’ll look much more dignified that way.
As to “qualified climate scientists”, more of them read this blog than any climate blog on the planet, and certainly more than read your blog.
And yes, real science is indeed like throwing yourself into a melee. It’s not an echo chamber like you are used to. Don’t like it? Get another job.
As to the “debate being carried out on your terms”? Not in this lifetime. You said you wanted to debate. Now you want to set terms. Not gonna happen. Put up or shut up.
Finally, in addition to being illegible due to the background and colored print, your website has an Alexa rating of 20,496,906 … and this is a rating that starts with the most visited website at number one, so smaller is better.
Watts Up With That, on the other hand, has an Alexa rating of 41,147. This means that we reach about FIVE HUNDRED TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOUR TINY BLOG. So, of course, you want to play in your little puddle …
Let us know when you want to leave your puddle and come put your ideas on a blog with some reach. If you were a serious journalist, you’d jump at the chance to reach five hundred times what your blog reaches …
The invitation is still on … but no, we’re not playing in your puddle. We play here in the big ocean, you’re welcome to join us.
w.
I suspect you wouldn’t stand a chance against against Hansen or Mann, But hey, you’ve got your ground, I’ve got mine. That’s it.
Robin, thanks for the reply. So I take it you are indeed walking away from the debate that you asked for? Why am I not surprised?
And dear heavens, if you think Hansen or Mann are heavyweights, I am shocked by your misunderstanding of the entire field of climate. Both of them are viewed as beyond the pale by most mainstream climate scientists because they are hopelessly lost in the clutches of Noble Cause Corruption. Mann’s newbie mathematical mistake in the Hockeystick paper is a cause for laughter all around the blogosphere … but clearly you never noticed. And James “Death Train” Hansen? I have no words for how clueless he is.
Anyhow, I’m here if you decide you want to debate your ideas on the big stage. You know, here where your words will be read by FIVE HUNDRED TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS ON YOUR TINY BLOG. You are desperate to hide this debate on your blog. However, as with any debate, it should be in the open where as many people as possible will see it.
Of course, I can understand that you wouldn’t want to have lots and lots of people your words … but dang, bro’, you’re supposed to be a journalist. Don’t you want your words to be read?
Ah, well. This debate, as many before it, looks like it will end with the warmist refusing to debate.
w
“I suspect you wouldn’t stand a chance against against Hansen or Mann”
Wouldn’t we love getting Hansen and/or Mann over here for a discussion. How about suggesting that to them. They are two of the main ones we have been complaining about. We would love to have some words with them. And with you, too. Come on, give us something to chew on.
Willis, the Alexa rank metric is a RANK. Not a measure of NUMBER of people visiting.
Given a probable lognormal distribution to the visits by site, a 41K site might have a tens of thousands of times more visitors than a 20M site and a 41 ranked site may have tens of thousands more clicks than a 41K site.
Willis said: “As to “qualified climate scientists”, more of them read this blog than any climate blog on the planet, and certainly more than read your blog.”
How do you know that is the case?
Stephen Rasey April 30, 2017 at 8:29 am Edit
Too right … I took the straight line case because that is most conducive to Mr. Whitlock’s side, but in fact it is Worse Than We Thought™
Chris April 30, 2017 at 9:12 am
I say that because 1) some of the climate scientists post or comment here, 2) my posts here are often quoted on their own blogs (generally not favorably), 3) I see responses to my posts on twitter, and 4) I hear about it from other climate scientists.
Plus, if you’re interested in climate science, this is the number one climate blog on the planet. So skeptical scientists read it to find out what the news is, and alarmist scientists read it to find out what that madman Willis is up to today.
Best regards,
w.
” if you’re interested in climate science, this is the number one climate blog on the planet.”
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Michael Darby April 30, 2017 at 12:47 pm
Nope. It would indeed be an “argumentum ad populum” if I had said that something posted on WUWT is valid and correct because this is the number one climate blog on the planet. But I didn’t say that.
Instead, I said we should have the debate here because of the wide reach of the blog, which is not an “argumentum ad anything” …
All the best,
w.
You missed it Willis…..this blog isn’t about climate science, it about anti-climate science (note avoidance of the “D” word)
Tell you what, Mr. Darby. You don’t like the debate here, come over to Judith Curry’s more severely scientifically moderated blog. Because she is a genuine certified climate scientist. Glad to debate you either place, any time, on any climate or energy related subject.
Willis said: “I say that because 1) some of the climate scientists post or comment here, 2) my posts here are often quoted on their own blogs (generally not favorably), 3) I see responses to my posts on twitter, and 4) I hear about it from other climate scientists.”
That’s fine, but that does not prove the number that post or comment here is greater than on other climate related sites.
“I’ve posted the first of these already, …” A parapraxis perhaps, the author is anonymous?
“… ,I suspect virtually none of you are qualified climate scientists.” Are you? Is that why you have not entered into a debate?
As I mentioned previously Willis, once I have finished dealing with each comment on my own blog, I will provide a copy of my response to it as a reply on this one. I am playing this my way, not yours.
Whitlock says:
I am playing this my way, not yours.
Wow, what an ego. Clearly he has a bad case of noble cause corruption.
He has to publish it all here, becuase he has almost no regular readers at his nearly invisible blog.
Robin, over 3/4 of the content of your reply at your own blog seems to be about identity and personalities, not about climate change science. However these aspects are viewed by either side, for better or worse they do not affect science. As the original terms of the debate indicated ‘CC’, so climate change presumably meaning the physical domain of climate along with the science of same, if you choose to continue could you attempt to distill out the science part and arrange it as one coherent argument with a minimum of identity entanglement? Within a highly polarized domain it isn’t possible to lose this completely, but a flood of such stuff submerges even any possibility of objective science consideration. This way, the many on both sides who are into climate mechanisms would have something much more concentrated to bite on.
It’s important to ascertain who has real climate science qualifications and who doesn’t, even more important to discern those who are real scientists, in terms of qualifications, from those who aren’t. So while I do indeed intend to look at the science (and have already begun this morning – see the comments on my blog), I am not going to cut out comments on personal background entirely.
“Proper qualifications” is rather like demanding an imprimatur from the Church when discussing the authority of the Church. What qualifies as a proper argument is exactly the point that is being discussed, and “proper qualifications” is backdoor use of the Appeal to Authority fallacy,
McIntyre and MacKittrick made a devastating critique of Mann despite not being “climate scientists”.
Whitlock says:
It’s important to ascertain who has real climate science qualifications and who doesn’t
Yet Whitlock himself has none other than those he self-proclaims. He’s never published a peer reviewed paper on climate [that I know of], but both Willis and I have.
Robin,
A scientist is anyone who uses the scientific method to investigate nature and the universe. Having a PhD in a hard science discipline doesn’t make someone a scientist. He or she has to practice the scientific method to find things out, as well. More education of course can better equip a person to be a scientist, but obviously isn’t required.
Faraday had no formal scientific education but read books while apprenticed to a bookbinder, enabling him to practice the scientific method. Einstein had an undergrad degree from a technical school, but was a patent clerk while practicing the scientific method. Faraday was one of his three scientific “heroes”, with Newton and Maxwell, both of whom had Bachelor’s degrees from Cambridge. Maxwell had previously studied at Edinburgh as well, like Darwin.
Callendar, advocate of beneficial AGW in the 1930s, was a steam engineer. Due to the severity of winters in the early ’60s, he considered his hypothesis falsified.
Robin writes
Only if you cant understand the argument being made. If the argument made is flawed then there are no shortage of real scientists on this site who will happily tear it to shreds.
“This will take a while, but hey… ”
You should probably speed things up because this thread will expire in about 14 days. Of course, you can always express your opinions in any thread on WUWT and you will get a response. But really, if you have the science down so good, what is taking so long for you to make your first asserton? Let’s start with one assertion about the Earth’s climate on your part, not a dissertation.
@robinwhitlock – You might want to take another look at “The key to science”. If you haven’t studied Richard Feynman, you should:
He’s not hard to find, is he?
http://robinwhitlock1966.wixsite.com/robin-whitlock
https://www.google.com/search?q=robin+whitlock&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB547GB547&oq=robin+whitlock&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8734j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Technical cry off and win to Willis !
Your entitled to your opinion on that…
You said you were good with words…
Patrick, that can be taken two ways. 🙂
@robinwhitlock
Your blog post has 4 comments, and three of those are yours.
Have you not had any other responses?
I thought he was preparing in some MASSIVE, double secret manner, guess not!
David Cosserat April 29, 2017 at 4:34 am
David, that is most excellent news. You can’t imagine how many people have told me that the steel greenhouse definitely violates the Laws of Thermodynamics, and how little success I’ve had convincing them otherwise.
PLEASE, if you have not done so, take some photographs and write up the experiment, as I know that Anthony would be more than happy to publish it.
My best to you, and thanks for both the experiment and the report. Keep up the investigations, science is an unending and joyous puzzle.
w.
MieScatter April 29, 2017 at 1:26 pm
The editors of Nature magazine disagreed with you when they peer-reviewed and published my words. As did the editors of the other peer-reviewed journals that have published my scientific work. So did the more than one hundred scientists who have cited my work in their own peer-reviewed publications.
You really should do your homework before you uncap your electronic pen, MieScatter, you’ll look much less foolish …
w.
[snip – you are using a fake name, fake IP address, and fake email to troll here – banned- Anthony]
Good job, stay safe these guys are whack jobs.
It appears, as we suspected all along, that Robin Whitlock is all hat and no cattle. It also appears that he thinks using the irrational Appeals to Authority and to Consensus are legitimate debating tactics. No wonder he refuses to debate. He loses by default. Skeptics win. Again.
What’s really sad is this fool actually believes his own BS. He doesn’t want to talk science. He is deathly afraid of what he might learn. He will continue to deny any and all real science that conflicts with his world view.
I find this out every time I present satellite data to climate cultists. The first words from them are always 100% denial that it could be real. It shows the mindset of these folks. They have been completely brainwashed.
Well, Willis…. I doubt Mr. Whitlock will rise to the occasion of a debate with you, although I would relish the encounter.
The main reason for his reticence I believe is your humble statement: “I have more than sixty citations to my publications in the scientific journals … not bad for a self-taught man with absolutely no scientific education.”
I get a chuckle every time I see that–it would be like arguing flight with the Wright bros.
Besides, getting an “education” in their current rendition of “climate science” requires that you get a degree is post-normal poly sci, which would obviously be a waste of time and money.
Have a good day!
correction: “a degree in post-normal poly sci,”
richard verney April 30, 2017 at 4:48 am CO2 has gone up from Mauna Loa data and it being a GHG and all that in theory the earth temp should go up.If, as I specified, nothing else changes with it. Since Mauna Loa data has come on stream, it is clear that CO2 levels have increased, but it is not so clear that temperatures have risen, still less that if they have risen then this has been caused by the rise in CO2.
They appear to have risen recently and in the period 20 years ago pre 1998?
They certainly have no obvious correlation with CO2 in the observations.
One of the issues in debate is whether CO2 is a GHG. It is a radiative gas, the laboratory properties of which are well known. However, whether it is a GHG can only be answered by observational empirical evidence which presently is lacking.
This is a big call on your part. Y
Angech, misdefinition. Tyndall showed the Royal Society in 1859 that CO2 is what we now call a GHG. The climate issue lies in its supposed atmospheric feedbacks. The rather well established primary SB grey earth effect of CO2 doubling is 1.16C. Lindzen uses 1.2 C for simplicity. Even Monckton agrees with that physics based number indirectly via previous posts here.