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.
The next myth to demolish is the idea that CO2 isn’t responsible for climate change: http://energyandenvironmentblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/co2-as-driver-of-climate-change.html
Moving forward a little big on Eschenbach’s blog comments to another statement by Chimp, he says:
“That is, if CO2 indeed be the predominant driver of “climate change””
More utter nonsense. That carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driver of man-made climate change is basic science. The warming potential of CO2 has been known about since 1859 when John Tyndall conducted laboratory experiments to identify gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. He identified water vapour (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) as two of the most important (http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm). The warming potential of CO2 remains true even though it is only present in the atmosphere in small quantities, i.e. a few parts in ten thousand. Tyndall’s conclusions were supported by other scientists, such as Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Högbom, and many others afterwards.
There is also this question of whether CO2 lags (i.e. fails to keep up with) temperature. However, the science confirms that 90 percent of the warming followed an increase in atmospheric CO2. Skeptical Science (https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) puts it like this:
Over the past 400,000 years CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated. However, data from Antarctic ice cores show that the initial changes in CO2 followed changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This has led to deniers to conclude that CO2 can’t be responsible for current warming.
The problem with this claim is that the initial changes in temperature were caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Orbital changes affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. However, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained by the oceans. As the temperatures of the oceans rise, they release CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn increases the warming, leading to yet more CO2 being released. Thus the CO2 increases becomes the cause and effect of more warming. This is known as a positive feedback.
Shakun et al found that:
The Earth’s orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
The New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/) explains that this proves that “rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages”, but no scientist has claimed that to be the case anyway. Rather, it was to do with the orbital changes (Milankovitch Cycles). This does not in any way negate the fact that CO2 drives warming.
And so here we go, the next of vipers that is Eschenbach’s little circus of deniers, liars, cherry-pickers, pretend scientists, dreamers, fantasists, and so forth. I am really only posting here because you lot just insisted on whining that I do so. I couldn’t give a stuff about any of you. The people I do give a stuff about are all the people who don’t know as much as I do about climate change, haven’t got as much time as I do to research the subject, and thus who are more vulnerable to being seduced by your lies than I am. That’s why I am posting on my own blog first and tweeting, to get to them first and telling the truth, before you get to them with your lies. This space is basically a lost cause. You’re all here saying to each “well what if we do this, what if we do that”, pretending to be scientists by messing around the with the research that has already been done by real scientists and which confirms man-made climate change. Pretty pathetic really. You’re so mind-f***d by your own delusions that none of you are ever going to change. But it’s a useful template to go through Willis’ blog and all these comments just to show people elsewhere what kind of utter crap deniers spew, and what the truth of the matter is. Other than that, you’re all just a waste of space, as indeed all deniers are.
Comment of the YEAR!!!! You win Robin:
Please, Mods, make this a hilight. Tremendous hubris. ROFL
Harry Passfield:
You say a comment from Robin Whitlock shows
.
Yes, and I add that Whitlock seems to be learning the hard way that Nemesis followed hubris.
Richard
Robin: You said:
Yet, upthread you said:
question: Do you think it would be good policy if WUWT was to follow your rules about commenting? Do you think that this comment of yours would have been published? (Fortunately WUWT is a tolerant blog). Do you think you should tone down your vituperation? After all, for someone who says he has studied philosophy there’s a certain ‘tell’ in your comments that leads me to suspect you fear something. Losing?
“pretending to be scientists by messing around the with the research that has already been done by real scientists and which confirms man-made climate change.”
A high percentage of posters here are perfectly capable of reading and understanding scientific papers. Most of us rely on peer reviewed research and empirical data to base our opinions. The political statements made in the media are not supported by the underlying uncertainties in the data. There is very little support for the dangerous warming meme in the scientific literature, It is obvious to anyone familiar with the scientific method and how science is conducted in other fields that much of climate science ignores standard protocols. Definitive conclusions are only justified by definitive data. Treating hypothetical climate model projections as scientific truth is pseudoscience.
I became a skeptic in 1997 after reading a paper on solar weather. The paper used empirical measurements to show that climate models at that time were underestimating the solar contribution. Computer modelers came out of the woodwork to criticize the paper. The discussion was online. The author encouraged peer review hoping flaws could be found to improve the paper. The modelers refused to acknowledge the empirical measurements insisting that their non-physical assumptions were correct. That is a pattern that continues to this day. Empirical validation is the basis of science and the entire skeptic case.
In 2002 I started commenting that climate models and studies were overestimating CO2 rise by not taking into account the increase in biomass from enhanced photosynthesis. I was labeled a science denier even back then for those comments. It wasn’t until 2012 that James Hansen wrote a paper about it blaming the measured increase I predicted for the pause in temperature that was happening. If these scientists you trust are so smart. How can a layman be 10 years ahead of them?
Science is moving on. You can become knowledgeable or stay in denial of the empirical facts. Here is a list that represents our most current understanding of climate.
http://searchprivacy.co/?q=crumbling%20consensus%20no%20tricks%20zone&a=21&chnm=sv9-21-b789b162636134ea784f8a19cbc9d089#web
Robin. Nobody who isn’t already a confirmed believer or sceptic, really cares about climate any more and most of us know more about the issues than you do. Only a newby wouldn’t know who Willis was. We’re all marking time until the data shows which side is right and anything like a return to the pause will be the end of the road for the catastrophic versions of the future. Some of the tipping points have tipped and nothing happened, others have been rejected by the relative experts and their ongoing science. Only the generalist climate scientists and those with a spot in a favourable newspaper are still campaigning. The specialists are edging into the background because they know that the signs are for a lesser CO2 effect. Governments are getting bored of virtue signaling on renewables that are expensive white elephants. China was never really interested other than as a new revenue source. The US is out for another 4 years at least. The UK and the EU has more to worry about than CO2. Who is left to care?
Organisations bigger, better and more timely have produced their best efforts to sway the people you ‘give a stuff about’. They failed or you’d not be here. Either we’re really, really good at influencing the public or your side is really, really bad… or the science just isn’t convincing. If you cared about CAGW, you’d dwell on that.
robin wrote: “And so here we go, the next of vipers that is Eschenbach’s little circus of deniers, liars, cherry-pickers, pretend scientists, dreamers, fantasists, and so forth”
Start right off with a personal attack on everyone on WUWT. That will win the argument.
Robin writes
So finally we have the inevitable result of an individual who knows nothing about the AGW hypothesis, its supporting physics and many weaknesses, coming here thinking that quoting a bunch of mainstream science without addressing (or understanding or even listening to!) the arguments made, will be well received.
I’ll carry this on tomorrow…bye for now 🙂
It would have been nice to have an answer for this post that i made earlier:
Robin the reason that this SHOULD be a debate and not a war is as follows:
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-settled-science-caused-a-massive-public-health-crisis/
Briefly this discusses the “settled science” of diet, massive publicity was given to the “consensual view” that saturated fats were the cause of obesity and that carbohydrates should take their place. The result a huge increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes causing death and misery to millions of people worldwide. Similarly another study discouraged parents from allowing their children to play in the sun without being covered from head to toe in clothing due to the risk in later life of skin cancer. The result was a resurgence of rickets and increase in the incidence of multiple sclerosis, both of which are related to vitamin D deficiency.
If AGW is grossly exaggerated (which I am sure it is and my degree in Dentistry makes me as ably qualified as yourself to debate this issue), then £trillions are going to be spent over the years to produce expensive and unreliable electricity over which people have no control. I did have control over what I and my family ate and wore in the sunshine so we are all healthy because I did not take any notice of what was poor science. There is nothing I can do about expensive, unreliable energy, I am lucky and can afford to pay for it, but many people can’t, just think what these £trillions could do for mankind over the coming decades and then remind me why this should be a war and not a debate.
All you have done so far is “carry on”…. …
we’ll see, so far your behavior has been below par, and quite insulting.
Good. I don’t mind insulting deniers at all actually….
i don’t think this is a good forum for a debate unless the comments are restricted only to you (Willis) and the antagonist – otherwise the result turns out chaotic
JEyon May 1, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I had the same thought. I wonder if a new thread could be started with just the two of them. Limit the two man debate to a day or two, agreed to by both parties, and then let them go at it. I would follow that thread.
JEyon, teapartygeezer: Willis would end up talking to himself. Robin Whitlock would not turn up – in any meaningful way – other than to abuse him.
Harry … I agree that would be the probable result. But it would have the advantage of showing Whitlock to be the unknowledgeable blowhard that he is. I have to give him credit, though, for finally showing up here … several days later, after realizing no one was going to read his blog or debate over there. Of course, he’s the one who decided to be distracted by, and responding to, other commenters, here, rather than restricting his replies to Willis.
that’s an assumption (an ad hominem) – now we’ll never know
by going one-on-one with Willis – the debate could have been as focused as the 2 debaters could (and were willing) to make it
teapartygeezer already made the point i wanted to make
nicely said
“i don’t think this is a good forum for a debate”
It’s not really a debate. Robin Whitlock is just posting links to talking points and trashing the residents of WUWT.
TA … True, but only the ones who have been following this really, really long thread are aware of that. If the two could face off, isolated from other commenters/distractions, it would highlight just how weak his arguments are … not to mention how weak his character is.
This was never actually going to be a real, or fair, debate. In a real public debate, you have so many debaters on one side, and the same amount of debaters on the other side, with a chair to ensure the discussion is balanced with each side having equal opportunity to discuss. As I explained before, this isn’t a debate, it’s an ambush, a snake pit, a forum within which to attack, harass and humiliate. This is why I’ve taken the approach I have.
[Gosh you are really suffering from a lack of self-awareness, in the previous comment to me you said:
“Good. I don’t mind insulting deniers at all actually….”
See, right there, your hypocrisy burns brightly for all to see – Anthony]
Robin writes
Most of which has been by you. You’re right its not a debate and never was going to be. You’re not equipped to debate the issues. Cut and Paste isn’t debate.
Robin wrote: “this isn’t a debate, it’s an ambush, a snake pit, a forum within which to attack, harass and humiliate.”
I wonder if Einstein would shrink from introducing his theories in a forum like WUWT? Do you think Einstein would be afraid he would be ambushed? No, Einstein would be the one doing the ambushing because he knows what he is talking about. You only get ambushed if you are uncertain of the facts.
I’m waiting for Robin Whitlock to attack the UAH chart. I imagine he will tell us it has been “adjusted”! and post a link from someone to that effect. Then we can tell Robin that NASA says UAH is the most accurate temperature gauge we have, and UAH doesn’t show the temperatures steadily climbing higher like the bastardized, bogus surface temperature charts do. The surface temperature charts being the only thing Robin and his army can hang their hats on as evidence for CAGW. The GISS flim-flam man has Robin and the other alarmists under his spell.
Without a doubt. It is only through denial of the best data from satellites that true believers like Robin can maintain their “faith”. I already quoted RSS above and Robin had no response. I complete destroyed his entire argument with one piece of empirical evidence.
It is now beyond obvious that Robin is just another religious follower not unlike the followers of Harold Camping.
[snip – don’t be rude -mod]
I’m assuming Robin’s snipped comment had nothing to do with satellite charts? 🙂
On melting glaciers (in case I mess this up and my comment doesn’t go where intended.)
Let’s say the average annual temperature at which a specific glacier begins to melts is called its melt point. Since melting requires a lot of energy this is likely to be a slow process. In a ‘hottest year evah’ it may well melt a little bit faster, in a cooler year a bit slower (and of course grow a bit more than usual in the next winter). Either way it will continue to melt as long it’s melt point is exceeded. Now if the melt point was reached soon after the end of the little ice age, over all, it will continue to melt and will continue to do so even if the average temperature where it is declines quite a lot.
So I don’t think melting glaciers prove a great deal per se. One would need to go to a lot if effort to accurately determine the actual rate of melting consistently over a reasonable period of time, and take into account other factors like the increase in altitude of the place where the melting takes place to draw a meaningful conclusion. A lot easier to read a thermometer …
I prefer to look at it this way. The tide comes in. The tide goes out. The outgoing tide continues to flow at any point below the high-water mark until the very instant it is met by the incoming tide.
Given the way the sun is behaving at present I think our focus should be on the incoming tide. If not get ready to swim!
robinwhitlock1966 May 1, 2017 at 8:42 am
And so here we go, the next of vipers that is Eschenbach’s little circus of deniers, liars, cherry-pickers, pretend scientists, dreamers, fantasists, and so forth.
Did you mean “nest” of vipers? Being a professional writer, when stooping to insults, could you at least get your grammar correct?
As for lies and such, I challenged you, and cited IPCC AR5. So, you being grammar challenged and all (despite being a professional writer), and stooping to a series of insults rather than any meaningful debate of the facts (despite being a professional writer) perhaps you could elaborate. Who are you accusing of the lie?
Me? Or the IPCC?
I was using a mobile last night, small buttons, so the odd typo is unsurprising, but it’s morning in the UK now and I am back on my desktop
Which doesn’t address the issue I raised re the IPCC. So, you’ve got excuses for typos, but no response to the actual issue? Is that correct?
We’re still waiting, Whitlock:
Where is the evidence that “human-caused climate change is incontrovertible”?
/Mr Lynn
While this has been somewhat entertaining, it appears to me that Mr. Whitlock’s arguments are primarily ad hominem and appeals to authority. He seems to be blissfully unaware that these are fallacies. In my view, as soon as one party to an argument stoops to name calling and profanity, he has lost and the debate is over. In score it Willis and the WUWT skeptics 10; Whitlock DQ’d.
It is not worth wasting more time on this one
robinwhitlock1966 May 1, 2017 at 6:09 am
Typical! Mr. Whitlock accuses me of having “clowns” … tell us, Robin, how that works? Am I paying them to be my clowns? Is there some kind of clown adoption process?
Dude, you are beclowning yourself with all of these endless nasty ad hominem attacks on people you’ve never met, while you are totally ignoring the actual science.
w.
Great googly moogly. The only thing worse than having this guy hang around his own blog talking to himself and marshaling his army while not answering the questions was coming here and not answering them in mile long comments.
Not only does he not understand the science or even the basis of science he also really stinks at using words as weapons, as he weirdly boasted upthread.
There was only one little fish in the barrel. Can’t we declare him DOA and end the pain? I’m starting to feel a little sorry for the poor jamoke.
Actually not going to bother posting my responses to comments directly on here anymore. If you want to see them, you can visit my blog. This post though concerns a comment posted directly to my blog. A clarification of a misunderstanding about Hansen’s paper of 1988: http://energyandenvironmentblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/hansen-1988.html
With the attitude you display towards people here, why would anyone bother to visit your blog? It’s all vinegar.
Fine. Don’t then.
Cowardice and bad spelling:
So far Mr. Whitlock has not impressed anyone. I doubt he could handle either Willis or I on a live stage debate, he’d somehow claim it was unfair while hurling insults.
Lol, total lack of self-awareness, with essential zero readers, zero comments, zero reach.
A response to David A’s comment regarding the Troposphere posted by him on April 29th: http://energyandenvironmentblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/tropospheric-warming.html
[This is a strange way to respond. You post a link to one of your own comments on your blog, why not just clip and paste it here? If you are just trying to drive traffic to your blog that’s a bit cheap of you but if it is for technical reasons I would be happy to clip and paste it here on your behalf. Let us know. . . mod]
Note to Mods: Not only is this strange but the comment wasn’t even ‘in stream’ with the original blog post, so it appeared entirely out of context and stood alone. Therefore, no-one reading Whitlock’s blog could easily see the direction of travel in ‘the debate’ (which was as much a debate as saying theat Mann’s HS was all proxies.)
This is going nowhere. I have the feeling that Mr Whitlock has no intention of debating whatsoever. I have asked him twice why he thinks this a war not a debate, he has not replied. The only conclusion that I can draw, especially with his lack of scientific background, is that his stance is political. I would guess politically he is very Left, a Corbynista. The irony of this is that Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, Piers (an Astrophysicist but also Left leaning), has this website: http://www.weatheraction.com which totally bunks AGW and states categorically that it is the Sun that is the main driver of climate.
‘Very Left’? Ha, thanks for the laugh. Nope. Left-of-Centre ecosocialist. Or if you want to be exact, Green Party supporter. I am not even sure Corbyn is a Marxist or a Trot or anything like that, his supporters deny it. But I am certainly not that far left. For a start, Corbyn wants to renationalise the energy market. I am certainly not in favour of that, given that most of the real advances in renewable energy are being made now by the private sector, including big corporations like Google, Apple and Amazon. And besides, maintaining a habitable planet by stopping climate change isn’t a Left versus Right issue. It’s an issue between those who realise the planet is in danger and want to protect it, and those with a bias towards the fossil fuel industry who basically don’t give a monkeys as long as things stay how they’ve always been, i.e. dominated by fossil fuels. At the moment, given that most of the world is leaning towards clean energy and action on climate change, YOU are losing. I am glad to say….
Oh well, I wasn’t a million miles away. As for losing, your assumption that I care more for my lifestyle and don’t give a monkeys about the planet is untrue. I just don’t believe that an increase in CO2 of 0.01% or even 0.02% is going to put the planet at risk. Being green becomes a better option when people are more prosperous, when sewage is treated, when factories dispose of their waste safely, when child labour is unnecessary. That cannot happen when electric power is expensive and unreliable.
Aha, you say, with onshore wind power currently the cheapest form of energy generation…besides, there are loads of costs with fossil fuels not taken into account, aside from carbon emissions….smog, urban air pollution, etc. Still, up to you. Coal is dying anyway, North Sea oil peaked in the 70’s, and oil generally is on its way to peaking globally, with gas not far behind. The momentum is moving away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy, and you’re not going to stop that.
robinwhitlock1966:
You say
and onshore wind power is the highest cost form of electricity generation except for offshore bird swatters.
Subsidies hide the very high cost of wind powered subsidy farms from the price of their electricity but we poor electricity consumers pay the total cost.
If you want to know the true nature of the bird swatters then read this.
Richard
Robin Whitlock won’t comment anymore, he’s taken his ball and run home to safety:
He writes on his blog:
robinwhitlock1966 May 2, 2017 at 7:15 am said
“And besides, maintaining a habitable planet by stopping climate change isn’t a Left versus Right issue. ”
Robin reveals his ignorance. He is going to get all sciency on us and stop the climate from changing. LOL, this poor fellow is nothing but a parrot who has little comprehension regarding the words he copies and pastes.
Robin, you say:
I think you may find, with a little bit of unbiased research that you are wrong on all three counts. Which makes me wonder: did you/have you read ‘The Limits to Growth’? It’s a Green handbook, I guess (I still have my copy). If so, do you believe the predictions that were put forward in it? And do you know how wrong they have turned out?
Gee, that’s ages old…do yourself a favour and compost it….
Robin: To be precise, that piece of toilet paper from the Club of Rome is 45 years old. I guess your comment would mean that when your similar beliefs are 45 years’ old we can compost them too. (as it happens, your beliefs and atttitudes you have displayed here have a lot in common with a compost heap)
Okay. I am done now. Pointless communicating with anyone on here at all. However, be in no doubt I will continue to ridicule you all on Twitter and elsewhere. Good riddance!
LOL! Looks like a clear case of retreat, from Whitlocks own blog:
Enjoy the safety!
LOL indeed — retreat back into your safe-space. But unfortunately we’re again left w/nobody capable of a rational debate.
He might, possibly, be a decent enough chap in civvy street but on this showing he comes over as someone who knows nothing about the climate and the debate. Having encountered people here who are nothing like his mental construction of what a denier is he has thrown in the towel and run off into the distance crying.
One day we might have a decent debate again. The only one I can remember was when the “potholer” gave it a go with Chris Moncton, apart from that nothing much. We had the Wiki guy try for a while but he failed and we have had Betts from the Met Office who was quite decent.
This chap was just rank. Poor in knowledge, poor in ability and poor in character.
Keitho: I shall always remember this fool for his quote further up thread:
Harry Passfield May 2, 2017 at 10:58 am
Ah, but does he care about all three of them, or just one or two?
w.
I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Gotta love the Python!
w.
https://youtu.be/b5R4-ryRLAY
Think of all the CO2 involved in the French taunt. On second thought, I’d rather not.
Not to mention methane.
Congratulations! You just handed Whitlock all the ammo he needs to smear skeptics everywhere, while simultaneously lowering yourself to his level of name-calling and ad hom attacks … and dragging us down with you. You’ve just embarrassed yourself … and us. What were you thinking?
Apparently this is another cultural reference that has gone right over my head. Never saw the movie. Apologies.
Geezer,
If you haven’t seen the movie, then you don’t get what Tim was about.
Robin did not realize he was stepping into the deep end, when he first decided to test his skills on WUWT. He’s a pretty quick learner though, at least on that aspect, and has pulled himself back out of the pool.
Robin doesn’t really want to debate. He doesn’t want to have to think he may be wrong about the subject, and debate will throw all that uncertanty in his face. I think that is the main reason the alarmists want to shut up the skeptics. They want to maintain the delusional world they are living in, and don’t want skeptics coming in and bursting that bubble. I understand. It is traumatic to have one’s worldview ripped out from under you.
I will have to assume that he still regards that war will overcome debate, because my question still remains unanswered. He also did not argue against my point that affordability of Green issues can only occur during prosperity. I can take the next logical step which is that when a war is waged, it is not the concepts of right or wrong that win, it is superiority of strategy, tactics and military might. The latter is not relevant here, but the former two are so I think we have the WC Fields strategy: “If you can’t blind them with science, baffle them with bullshlt”
Nope. Can’t let this rest.
I’m still struck with the quote from Whitlock that “The people I do give a stuff about are all the people who don’t know as much as I do about climate change”.
As he’s a philosophy grad he should know that this is a classic tell for a Walter Mitty syndrome. Failing that, it is the worst case of Dunning-Kruger I have ever come across:
(And as Whitlock likes citations: It’s HERE.
Robin, I sincerely hope you come to your senses before you do more damage to younger minds and before you find that a large part of your intellectual life has been wasted on a perverted crusade, a crusade designed only to make some rich men very much richer – and some poor people very much poorer.
robinwhitlock1966 May 2, 2017 at 9:16 am
Robin, you’ve put your finger on the very problem. You claimed that you wanted to debate climate change. However, all you’ve done here is to unsuccessfully try to ridicule me, Anthony, and everyone who has tried to engage with you.
So I’m quite certain that you will “continue to ridicule”, as that is all you’ve done to date, and it seems to be the only weapon in your arsenal.
Now, if you ever decide to grow up and move past ridicule, let me suggest that you investigate the strange concepts called “evidence” and “observations”. You know, facts. Because that’s what we deal in here, and that is what science deals in. As Robert Heinlein once said, and he could have been speaking directly to you,
My best wishes to you,
w.
robinwhitlock1966 said
As both richard and I have pointed out, and as you have studiously ignored, the so-called “investigations” were whitewashes. What’s more, the “scientists” involved only escaped being charged in court because the statute of limitations had expired.
Now, after that was pointed out to you, if you were honestly interested in the truth you’d have read up on your foolish claims and found that they were false. Instead, you prefer to keep your eyes closed and crow about your imaginary victory.
Sorry, amigo. You lost. You’re just too scared to read up on the truth and face that fact.
Get over it, indeed.
w.
Robin, here’s an example of how we advance learning here …
A C Osborn May 2, 2017 at 9:21 am
A C, I can’t find any data to show that there is any kind of plateau in global emissions of CO2. Do you have a link?
=======================
Now Robin, when people ask you a question like that, folks like you and Slandering Sou over at HotWhopper start foaming at the mouth and calling them all kinds of names and making stupid allegations about their credentials. And when you’re not foaming yourself, you’re re-tweeting Sou’s foaming. Pathetic.
However, we strive here at WUWT to not get involved in that ad hominem nonsense.
So at some point, A C will come up with his link, and we’ll discuss it, and we’ll all learn something.
Perhaps you should take notes so this kind of interaction becomes clearer to you. It’s called “science”. Here’s how it works. Someone makes a scientific claim. Someone else questions it. The first person provides further facts, evidence, citations, mathematics, or whatever supports the claim. If other people can’t poke holes in the claim, it is accepted as (temporarily) valid … until someone else comes along to overthrow it.
It is that adversarial nature of science that you don’t seem to grasp. You think it is a “melee”, but it’s just the give-and-take of scientific debate. Not only that, but if someone can actually poke a hole in the claim, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY ARE THE JANITOR AND NEVER WENT TO SCHOOL!!!
That’s the part you constantly seem to be missing. All that matters is the science. The people making the scientific claims, their sex, their race, their education, their personal habits, their credentials, all of that is MEANINGLESS …
… and despite being meaningless, that’s almost all you talk about.
Sadly,
w.
Willis, it is based on the BP numbers quoted here.
http://euanmearns.com/future-atmospheric-co2-scenarios/
There was also this showing earlier data
https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
Plus this
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060051707
and this
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html
Thanks, A C. I had asked:
I looked at the BP numbers. I cannot find a “plateau in global emissions”. Nor can I find any disconnect between emissions and atmospheric levels. Here are those two graphs, from the BP numbers and the Mauna Loa numbers.
I see no sign of any plateau, just the normal year to year variation. Note the reduction in emissions due to the recent global financial meltdown.
Here is a scatterplot of the two …
Again, I see no signs of any disconnection between the two.
Best regards, A C, and thanks for the links,
w.
==============
And if Robin Whitlock is still around, that’s how you participate in a scientific debate … using facts, not attacks on the character of your opponent.
w.
I think this was the source of the information. My gut instinct when I read it was that someone was lying about how much coal they were burning in their shiny new power stations.
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html
“Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years,”
The plateau was for 2014, 2015, 2016, so wouldn’t show up in data ending 2014.
Willis:
A C Osborn provided this link
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html
which begins saying
That seems to be a clear agreement with the statement of A C Osborn saying
Also, the histogram on that IEA page shows the rate of the emissions slowed to provide the “plateau”.
The Mauna Loa data is at
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
It shows there was no divergence from the near linear rise of the last three decades during “the last 3 or so years”.
Simply, A C Osborn provided ample evidence to substantiate his statements that said
However, it is possible that the IEA is wrong because it is possible that some countries provided inaccurate emissions data.
Richard
So that’s it then. All done and dusted; the debate is over. What debate? I hear you ask. You’re right, there was none, leastwise from the person who called for it. Robin Whitlock picked a battle of wits well above his capability and then proceeded to wage a proxy war (his word) on behalf of SkS, Desmog and a few others well known to us. He gave up the field and slunk away. In time to come we shall tell our children about this week and remind them to never fall for the ‘Whitlock Effect’, which is what I shall now call this cut ‘n’ paste form of debate. If nothing else, Robin Whitlock has added a new eponymous law to the lexicon of debate; it follows such great laws as Godwin. I’m sure many here can think of a few others.
Thank you Robin.
Harry, although it is hard to disagree with you, you have to give Robin credit for researching that amount of cut & paste.
Unfortunately like all warmists he only seems to research the the information that agrees with his world view.
As the world cools over the next few years (and maybe more) perhaps he will try looking at why the warmists are actually wrong.
But I doubt it.
AC: I don’t believe he researched it. Some of it was very obscure (a six-year-old blog post from Jo Nova, for example). I believe he just dumped a ton of stuff from SkS and Desmog. Also, he gave the distinct impression that he didn’t know the key players in the AGW scam/blogs/science.
It will happen again with someone else being the keyboard warrior, in the meantime Robin might pop back just before this thread is archived so he can get the last word in and then publicise it to discredit this website. Moderators please keep an eye out to draw your attention to my post (sorry) Nazi.
Also, he gave the distinct impression that he didn’t know the key players in the AGW scam/blogs/science.
Agreed. He also didn’t seem to understand what the main issues even are. Also didn’t respond to points about the IPCC reports. I don’t think he knows who they are either. There were several science articles discussed in detail in posts following this one, had he read them and even skimmed through the comments, he would have seen the actual science being discussed right down to arguments about the proper applications of various laws of physics, and the “nest of vipers” he so despises debating each other, some of them taking positions that would surprise him.
In brief, he’s lost an opportunity to find out what the actual issues are and become the educated climate journalist he claims to be. Perhaps he’s still lurking here and will see this comment, but I sort of doubt it.
Oh well, the “N” word must be off the list now!
Yes, and I don’t appreciate that.
The guy had everyone’s attention. Epic fail.